PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. This proposed sub division is still under review at Heritage Victoria. It is inappropriate that any planing takes place at this time. The property also has a single dwelling covenant that should prevent this type of overdevelopment. All government departments and any potent investors should be very cautious given the above.

2. This is over development in an area that is of single dwelling covenants. It is also not in keeping with the area around it. The council should be looking at what a valuable resource this property is to the City of Moonee Valley. Especially with the MV2040 Action Plan - Beautiful. It is an important Heritage listed property to this area.
   The community do not want it subdivided and would like it to become a green space for everyone to use.
   The loss of 97 trees is significant. It is hard to activate, green and beautify our city if we are losing this amount of trees. The loss of trees, bird and wildlife (which are plentiful) that inhabit these grounds will be detrimental to the environment and against what the council is trying to achieve in its Action Plan - Beautiful.
   25 townhouses of 3 levels surrounding a Heritage listed property of importance and prominence should not be a consideration.
   This should not be being considered during these uncertain times.

3. The area is a dead zone and should be used to develop housing for families around the area. There is already a massive park across the read. We need more houses, not more parks, who is going to use them if the only people around are the older generation that own the houses around there are the only ones there, and are most likely the objectors above in this case.

   People are lucky it's 25 townhouses and not a 10 story apartment block.

   Wake up people, if you don't like developments near you, how about selling those houses you've been holding onto for 40 years and downsizing so new younger families contributing to the economy get a place to live? Otherwise stop complaining when there are opportunities to offer decent size housing to young families.

   Not everyone can afford $5 millioin on Park St or $3 million on Woodland St.

4. I would like to disagree and reply to Alan's comment that people should "wake up" and let it go ahead and that people have "held on to their houses for 40 years."

   Firstly I do not live in this particular zone

   Have a good think about what hard work these older people did to make the area it is today and the sacrifices they made. !!

   Just because they are an older generation you think that they should just be shoved aside for the newer generation who are mostly "bone lazy."

   You are certainly entitled Alan to your opinion so we will agree to disagree and believe me I am being extremely polite in my answer as Council have requested !!.

5. Thank you Maureen. For days I toyed with responding to the comments made by Alan but wondered whether I was alone in my thinking. You have stated exactly what I was thinking. How ignorant and offensive are the comments he made, laden with value judgements about other (older) people and how they choose to live their lives. You, Alan CANNOT know or presume to know, what leads people to make decisions about how they live their lives. You certainly ARE entitled to express a view about a development but I feel that you are spoilt and ENTITLED in your expectation of other people. You casually dismiss those people who have worked hard for their home over the last forty years and expect them to get out of your way so you can have what you want.

   There are rules about these developments and Councils try to balance everyone's needs to achieve acceptable outcomes (many of which I don't agree with). The development will be granted a permit or not, based on this rule of law! Grow up and consider that there are other viewpoints beside your own and remember we still live in a democracy. As an older person I am NOT ready to be assigned to the garbage bin with NO rights as you seem to imply.

6. For the information of Alan & in support of Maureen & Mario: this development application was struck out as non compliant with Herritage requirements. It was a demonstration that the heart & soul of a community (by the organisation & number of Victorians) has both strength and legal standing when it comes to protecting Herritage for future generations & protecting the environment. Well done to the community. I don’t understand why Alan is commenting on an old and what is a closed application?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Moonee Valley. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment