2-8 St Elmo Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156

Building and works to construct a two storey residential aged care facility and removal of vegetation

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 4 months ago. It was received by them 5 months earlier.

(Source: Knox City Council, reference P/2020/6237)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Barry Leonard Magee commented

    This is NOT an Aged Care Facility or Part of the Glengollan Village which is across St.Elmo Avenue, it is an Aged Care 108 Bed Nursing Home,(Closer to THREE storey than TWO STOREY) the type of which has claimed too many aged persons in this Covid 19 CRISIS. We do not want to increase the risk of future Virus problems with more buildings of this type.
    Developers have had 6-9 months or more going to Knox Council and altering their plans, so as Council is more likely to pass the permit, but we as Rate Payers are given
    THREE WEEKS to object ,which is not an even playing field as we are not allowed to talk about things like this in numbers, or a large fine will occur.
    Objections close Monday 26th. October 2020.
    ACT NOW , before it is to late

  2. Neville Sanders commented

    Barry Magee, You are completely wrong. I can assure you: that Glengollan Village is the owner of the land at 2-8 St Elmo Avenue; that the proposed building is a two storey Aged Care Facility; and that Knox City Council is fully aware of the ownership and purpose.
    While you live a street away, would you rather live near a quiet Aged Care Facility or a mammoth Develoment of 2 storey townhouses with noisy occupiers and lots of cars?

  3. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    Compared to what is currently on the site this is a massive change, most of the site will be taken up with the two storey building. The planning application says there are two and single storey buildings in the street - there are a total of five double storey homes out of the whole street, at less than 10% this would definitely be the minority of housing style.
    And unfortunately if this goes ahead the two storey nature of the building will be used as justification for further developments in the area.
    The limited tree cover will be mostly to the rear of the site - cynically this area because it cannot be used otherwise - and less to the front - it will not hide the bulk of this building. This block has been gradually cleared over the last couple of years leaving a yawning cavity looking back to really substantial trees and back onto Buchanan tree tops.
    Parking and access to the street is already a major issue - only yesterday there was an issue reported to the Police of people being parked from Underwood Road down and across the front of 2-8 - parked too close to Underwood and then opposite each other and with vehicles trying to leave St Elmo - that I could not get into the street.
    The street already has inadequate parking for the units from 10 -12, is used for that overflow parking, regularly has small trucks parked on the street which cannot be accommodated in the unit parking at 10-12, and is used for people going on the bike track.
    34 car parks will not cover all the spaces needed especially with 108 residents.
    Parking in this area creates a tunnel effect towards the slope uphill on St Elmo from which there is limited visibility already and additional parking on the street on a regular basis will further add to the complexity and danger of this area.
    Is this aged care as in nursing home or apartments ?
    I have no problem with an aged care facility but also wondered why Glengollan was not listed as the applicant? And is this to replace the existing facilities at Lording Street / Underwood /Road and if so what will go there - we need to know the complete long term picture.
    And no I do not want a mammoth two storey development of townhouses but mentioning this almost sounds like a "lesser of two evils" situation - hardly a conciliatry approach.
    Perhaps some community consultation prior to this would have been good, especially as we all are dealing with so much else going on at present.

  4. Jordan commented

    Good afternoon, I'm a resident of Underwood road in Ferntree Gully. In regards to the development of St Elmo, residents surrounding this development will be joining forces together to discuss taking action against the proposed development. All residents along Underwood rd have made contact and expressed that a 12-meter high building along our boundaries with windows and balconies overlooking our properties is entirely unacceptable. We will be making contact with the adjoining residents to gauge their thoughts and willingness to join possible further action.

    To answer the above statement, no developer would be able to develop as our Zoning would not allow block sizes under 1000sqm.

    Our list of concerns are as follows:

    Overshadowing private spaces and solar systems

    Loss of value to all properties surrounding development.

    Visual bulk of the building proposed

    Loss of vegetation

    Overlooking and loss of privacy

    The proposal doesn't reflect the character of the existing neighbourhood and is entirely out of place

    Traffic congestion


    Doesn't comply with NRZ1 zoning (one dwelling and exceeds 8 meters) Our legal team tell us that there is a clause allowing nursing homes to exceed this height which we believe is questionable itself.

    Loss of views to the mountains and vegetation.

    From the residents of Ferntree Gully.

  5. Victor King commented

    I also live on Underwood road. I viewed the plans of the proposed aged care home and was taken aback by the size of the building especially the height. One of the main reasons I live in Ferntree Gully is because I thought the overlay here was protected from this type of building. I'm concerned about the lack of privacy with windows and balconies looking into backyards, the loss of trees. The traffic will also cause a lot of congestion. I believe that the building needs to blend into the area and not dominate it, which this building will. I hope that the planner's take into consideration the concerns of the people in the area who this impacts on.

  6. Michelle Loebert commented

    Being a newer resident to the avenue,
    I have raised my concerns with the council prior.
    My concern is the access in and out,
    Things have slightly improved after the council letter was sent out,
    Was this due to the letter or Covid stay at home restrictions.
    We live with a large threat of fire danger with 15 acres of Native bush land at the end of St Elmo.
    We now have the street extremely blocked off with massive boulders at the East end that mysteriously turned up out of Nowhere.
    There is the potential that we "cant get in" and "we cant get out. !"
    Emergency services then "cant get in" either end and "cant get out.. !" either end.
    This is a large concern to me so any extra traffic congestion from such a large facility would raise anxiety especially after last years fire season.

  7. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    It sounds as if local residents need to ensure objections are submitted to this proposal ASAP and in line with the relevant options for objecting. We have to keep to facts not emotions. Covid means we cannot meet face to face but maybe someone more tech savvy than me neds to set up a Zoom type meeting to discuss, to organise, maybe a letterbox drop needs to happen. Who is our local Councillor, has anyone contacted that person re this issue?

  8. Jess commented

    I moved to our area six years ago for the view of mountains and green overlay. Our location is protected from unit and townhouse development, including commercial development such as the proposed (so we thought). I have four young boys (under five years old) that play privately in our backyard. A commercial development that is the height of a four-story residential building (three meters per floor) three meters from my boundary will not only tower over the proposed 1.8-meter metal fence but will tower over every house on underwood road. The skyline will be dominated not by trees and mountain views but by this commercial building for the thousands that use the bike track between Ferntree Gully and Boronia.

    The neighbourhood would be forever changed and not for the good of the area. If approved, all the houses bordering this monstrosity sized building will lose their privacy, potentially hundreds of individuals looking into our private spaces, watching our kids play, a complete invasion of privacy. It makes me sick just thinking about it. How would you like strangers looking over your fence at you and your kids and being powerless to stop them.

    The last thing St Elmo Av or Underwood Rd needs is more cars.

    The timing of this proposal is questionable, no doubt this was calculated to minimise objections. We all need to object, contact counsel to speak to the planner and make sure our councillor listens to our concerns and gets behind us.

    Dont forget the first step is to object. You never know, this development maybe forced to remove the top story so we can at least keep some privacy.

  9. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    The whole Street should have been letter box dropped well before things got to this level. Apparently a public meeting was held in April - how we're people notified? There now is no local paper to use as a forum to raise these issues. Where is our local councillor? Why are people being told the usual regulations don't apply as it is a nursing home? This by itself is intimidatory.
    How in covid times can we as a group of residents get together and work out a plan?
    Surely this is unprecedented times and leeway should be given?
    Glengollan will leave a very bad impression short term for its handling of the application and long term for the poor outcome for the neighbourhood.

  10. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    Those commenting on this application should please declare their situation. Are you involved with Glengollan, are you in real estate, are you a developer - so we know where you are coming from.

  11. Neville Sanders commented

    Bronwyn, I am the President of Glengollan Village. My original reply was to Barry Magee and he knows me so I did not state my role. The abutting properties were all letter box dropped with the invite to the information session early in the year. All the plans were on display and professional advisers present to answer questions. Quite a number of residents attended. Glengollan Village is a community based not for profit charitable entity that provides Independent Living Units in the Retirement Village, plus nursing care in the Aged Care Facility. We have been operating since1956 on the current site and provide a much valued service to aged persons in the local area. We are proposing to utilize the site at 2-8 St Elmo Avenue to replace our current 90 bed ACF which is nearing the end of its useful life. We are investigating another information session that would need to be via video conference. If that does proceed, we will again letterbox drop the abutting properties. By its very nature, an ACF for 108 residents is a large building and the new site is quite large and will allow Glengollan to continue to serve our local aged community. The car parking requirements are set by planning regulations and naturally our ACF residents do not drive. From the nature of the other comments, I expect they are from local residents. I am the only spokesperson from Glengollan Village. Regards Neville

  12. Jordan commented

    Good even all,

    Thank you to the many affected residents that reached out over the last few days. Today's height demonstration was undoubtedly eye-opening for many who witnessed their privacy invaded and the significant impact a commercial building of this size would inflict on our homes. Many that passed by today, the majority locals voiced their disapproval and recommended a petition, and with today's response, hundreds of signatures would be easily achieved. We'll be creating a public group so we can discuss our concerns in realtime and include our elected officials local, state and federal members. Our voice must be heard via traditional and social media. For anyone that missed the demonstration, we are considering leaving the lift in place until the 26th of October. We will make today's video and photos available to all.

    Neville - you really should be ashamed of yourself. Your website states "aged care facility in Ferntree Gully with views of the Dandenong ranges" by stealing the views from local residents that have enjoyed them for years. In my opinion that is Hypocritical. You and your business will destroy the character of the neighbourhood, cause traffic and parking problems for locals, invade our right to privacy in our own homes and destroy the habit of many birds and animals that live in the big trees that your planning to cut down. Not one person I've spoken to is objecting to a nursing home, it's the unrealistic height and invasion of privacy.

  13. Henry Wasserman commented

    Hi All, my wife and I 100% object to the proposed development. This building is not in the character of the local area. Our right to privacy on our property is our right. Imagine strangers looking into your home, peering through your windows at will. I don't live in this area to view the side of a building. Traffic and parking is already a problem. Our area is zoned Bush Suburban for a reason, this development completely ignoring most if not all set regulations. This development must not be approved in it current form.

    Recently we have seen native bird's return to the area, enjoy them now because once construction starts the area will be forever changed.

    It's a dark day for all locals so please involve me in any further action.

    I'll be submitting my objection on Monday.

  14. Sarah Marrinan long term resident commented

    The proposed development violates many of Knox City Council guidelines for housing design and planning for the "Bush Suburban" zone that includes Underwood Rd and St Elmo Ave.

    Height - totally against "low scale houses sitting under tree canopy"
    Design - "second storeys should be set back from ground floor"
    Protection of "green and leafy" character of significant environmental area.
    Protection of local Environment
    Keeping infrastructure and services away from areas of significant environmental value (including Bush Suburban zone)
    The impact on quality of life via privacy, open space, animal and bird life, property values on neighbouring residents is grossly unfair.

    This plan needs to be reconsidered at a lower, more appropriate height, more consideration and consultation with neighbours, and less dense buildings that consider environmental impact.

    Also future impact on this area. loss of green space, increased traffic, reduced vegetation and animal and birdlife cannot be undone.

  15. Izaac M. commented

    I had been a resident of Underwood Rd for 15+ years. Underwood road has undergone many alterations in that time all to benefit the Ferntree Gully community (speed restrictions, speed bumps, road islands) but a two storey building that invades on peoples privacy and home businesses whilst blatantly ignoring the Knox City council guidelines is beneficial to no one. The decision to have it built whilst people are unable to gather in large groups appears opportunistic and unfair. This decision will affect the entire communities property value, increase in traffic disruptions and result in a communal rift for a very long time.

  16. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    Firstly in answer to Neville's comments about being President of Glengollan when you responded to that comment from Barry you were responding in an open forum, I think no one else would have known your position at Glengollan and it certainly is relevant - otherwise you could be another resident.
    By the way how many Board members at Glengollan actually live nearby, within the affected area, will be affected in their own homes by this proposal?
    As a resident of the area since 1981 (and hoping to spend my retirement years in my current home) I was always aware of Glengollan in the area, a large sprawling village spread over three streets, all LOW LEVEL buildings (except the section between the old hostel and nursing home, not visible at all from the street) with a large garden and mature treed component to the village.
    The village residents are our neighbours, we chat with them regularly, we see them deal with changes, keep an eye on them if they get into difficulty, my children and now grandchild had many wonderful interactions with the residents over the years.
    To say of course by its nature the new building will be large is disingenious - just because it is does not mean it should be built.
    We do not want that large building, we do not want two storeys destroying people's back yards, people's privacy, people do not want to sit in their backyard and be overlooked, they currently see the Dandenongs - they now will see a wall. Or a balcony with someone overlooking them.
    Car spaces may be adequate for the guidelines but we live with daily parking and traffic hassles in this street - the proximity of the hill sloping up from 10 - 12 and curving so traffic moving in either direction has a blind spot, the overflow parking already on the street due to inadequate parking at 1-0-12, the parking for the bike track, the parking for Underwood Road houses - all make a mockery of your "as set by planning regulations" therefore it is adequate statement.
    Ask your unit residents in 1-9 St Elmo about the small truck which parks there most nights as he obviously cannot get into his on site parking at 10-12, about the large SUV with huge vehicle carrying trailer who until recently parked there even though he was from our end of the street due to inadequate parking at his unit.
    Ask me about last week when I could not safely get into the street due to a vehicle parked a bare car length in from the intersection with Underwood, with vehicles parked in front of 1- 9 and vehicles trying to leave the street lined up, no space to enter the street safely - my car and another had to sit out in Underwood until the vehicles leaving St Elmo had gone and squeeze through the space available.
    Ask me about an aged care facility in Croydon of 104 beds with over 25 cars a day parked on the street despite on site parking.
    Eight people attended the meeting - who did you letterbox drop - the Glengollan residents facing 2-8?
    This is a small and connected neighbourhood - not one of us who lives in St Elmo, Vaughan or Carmel will be able to ignore the effect it will have on us.
    Culturally the residents of Glengollan have mostly come from the area, from low level, larger blocks and moved to Glengollan as it reciprocates that feel - now in their last years you are going to elevate them up in the air, where they cannot walk directly out into the garden, with views over private backyards and roofs?
    And please do not use Aged Care as an excuse - good large aged care can be done without going up, without filling a block almost edge to edge, without removing large - never to be replaced effectively - trees, without imposing visually and bulkily into everyone's faces.
    Other villages have had to work within their confines - look at Walmsley Village and its rebuilding of its aged care facility.
    The fact Glengollan is not for profit is not relevant - we always knew that.
    It is a bit late to write letters to us as "neighbours" - you have not treated us as neighbours - if you truly regarded us as neighbours you would have involved us all from the start.

  17. Mark Spiekman commented

    I have enjoyed living on Underwood road for the past 13 years.
    I object to this Development in this location.
    1 Cars parking next to my boundry
    2 Balcony over looking my backyard
    3 Removing of native trees
    4 Obstructing my lovely views of the Dandenong hills
    5 Car parking and traffic problems
    6 The visual height from my backyard

  18. Pete commented

    We’re residents of St Elmo Avenue and are very concerned about the volume of traffic the development would bring to the area. Already is there an issue with the number of cars parked on St Elmo Avenue, mostly due to the number of units in the area with inadequate parking, no parking on Underwood road and Glengollan visitors and residents. Living at the far end of the street we face the battle of dodging these cars which are parked on both sides of the street. The fire brigade has already flagged this hazard to all residents and given notice to report all illegal parking in the street. Adding that many residents, plus staff and visitors to this would cause great traffic and parking issues. I don’t believe the street can handle this growth.

    There’s also an issue with footpath access There’s only footpaths on one side of the road which are not flat enough already for the elderly to use. So they often opt to use the road instead. Clearly unsafe

    Has there been an environmental impact statement issued on this development? How many native trees are in the property that are to come down to build the dwelling. We have been unable to remove one native tree which hangs dangerously over our house and neighbouring property, yet they will likely remove many many trees?

    We hope this gets resolved

  19. Peter Neal commented

    As a resident of St Elmo Avenue since 2006, the proposed development is inappropriate and out of character for the area.

    Our objection is founded on:-
    1) A building height reaching 12m from natural ground level which does not reflect the character of the existing neighbourhood
    2) Removal and loss of remnant native vegetation
    3) Loss of privacy, vista, natural light, and property value for adjacent residents
    4) Increased traffic movement and congestion within St Elmo Ave and Underwood Road
    5) Inadequate consultation with the surrounding community (this extends beyond the immediate adjacent residents)

  20. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    The slope of the block at 2-8 is from the front down then gradually up as it moves towards the rear, creating an even higher imposition on neighbouring properties.
    The properties on Underwood Road slope down towards 2-8 again increasing the effect of dominance of their backyard areas by this proposed development.

  21. Barney Zwartz commented

    I have lived on St Elmo Avenue since 1995, and have seen it become much busier and more developed. Glengollan has been a good neighbour, and I know we need more aged care facilities. Even so, I object strenuously to this proposal for the same reason as other commenters above.
    It is much too high and would be utterly out of place in a street where no other building comes close.
    It includes commercial activities in a protected zone.
    St Elmo already suffers access difficulties. Most of the time there are cars parked on opposite sides of the road, necessitating weaving in and out, and with room for only one car at a time. This development could only exacerbate this situation, and maybe also on the much busier Underwood Road.
    I suggest Glengollan submit new plans for a single-storey development, which would meet much more acceptance in the wider community.

  22. Heather Croker commented

    Have read the many excellent comments objecting to this most unsuitable proposed development .As one of the few residents who were permitted to attend the meeting on June 2nd due to COVID restrictions,two meetings one at 5pm and one at 7pm,were planned and only one person from each household was invited to attend.Due to insufficient numbers the 5pm meeting was cancelled.Both my husband and l were permitted to attend the 7pm meeting along with other couples.My impression was that only the residents who shared the fence line with the property..2/8 St Elmo Ave were invited or informed of the meeting resulting in the small attendance.The information that we left the meeting with was completely different from what is now proposed.We are very disappointed and dismayed at what is happening now.We have lived in this area for over 50 yrs,we have lived in St Elmo Ave for 23yrs.I am a retired nurse who worked at Glengollan nursing home for over 20 years,I retired about 10 yrs ago.My husband was an Ambulance Officer at Ferntree Gully station for over 20yrs.We both know the need for quality aged care but do not think that this development is appropriate for this street or this area.

  23. Barry Magee commented

    Resident of Carmel Avenue 20 years
    Just to inform residents of a few reasons why we have been put in this predicament,
    re-2-8 St. Elmo Avenue Ferntree Gully.
    1. 3-4 years ago owner and Glengollan got together re deal to sell, checked with authorities re removing trees and under growth, height of building etc. and Glengollan found their requirements by law could not be achieved.
    Purchase fell through.

    2. 2 years ago 7/06/2018 Knox Council sent us for comment application for a planning permit P208/6135, for development of a single story dwelling, for purposes of the owner, we did not object but were always wary of the next stage.

    3. Permit given but did not carry on.

    4. Late 2019 early 2020 I was aware that a deal might be on again .

    5. A query was put to Knox council planning department and was told that Federal Government had changed the rules for Aged Care Facilities and Aged Care Nursing Homes. They no longer had to abide by any rules pertaining to removal of most trees and undergrowth and as long as building was under 15 meters and covered max. 80 %
    of available land a permit could be applied for.

    6. Management changed 3-4 years ago.

    7. The rest is history.

    Glengollan management have stated that I was not aware that they owned the property and that they were the applicant for the permit.

    I was aware only to well that Glengollan were behind the permit application and owned the property but worded my comment exactly as they did their application to Council .
    No word of Glengollan was ever on the permit application , what were they trying to hide.
    New management appear to have been trying to achieve the respect that the previous management had with the neighbours (Gerrard) but this may have ended over the current application.

    It is great to see the way in which neighbours are getting together electronically over these trying times to state their case in saying we want a fair go.

  24. Glenys Brown commented

    I have lived in this area for nearly all my life and I have gradually seen trees knocked down and buildings put in areas that are inappropriate. Such is the case in 2-8 St Elmo. While I understand the need for more Aged Care facilities I do not think placing a 2 storey building in a small residential street is a smart move. What consultation has there been with the residents in the surrounding street???

  25. Brenda Hughes commented

    I was lucky to grow up in Ferntree Gully and am a regular visitor to family who live in the underwood road/st Elmo avenue area. Over the years, it has been wonderful to see these areas preserved with the low level housing and treed blocks and streets, This will be lost if inappropriate development pushes into these residential streets and creates precedents for planning approvals of developments of this nature. People live in and visit the hills to embrace and enjoy the natural environment and a bit of a quieter pace of life. Developing high level, intrusive structures removes this ability from the people who live in and visit the area. It is absolutely inappropriate and unfair. Not to mention the traffic and parking issues that arise. You only need to take a drive through the inner suburbs like Richmond, Moonee Ponds and Brunswick to view the impact that these types of developments have had on the residential streets. As a frequent visitor to the area, I strongly object to this development and implore the council to take action to prevent it’s progression.

  26. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    As this area is covered by the Foothills Policy, is zoned Bush Suburban and has a Vegetation Overlay how can this be done?
    Other residents in the street looking to rebuild have been told they cannot exceed the existing footprint of their building due to these guidelines - this massively exceeds the existing footprint!

  27. Riana commented

    I lived in St Elmo Avenue for almost 30 years and I am shocked at the proposed building of a property of this size in this street. From my understanding there are conditions in place to protect such developments in the street.
    St Elmo Avenue has been and should remain a location within the area that should be left untouched by such developments which I believe will have a negative impact on the residents who live in the street ( Carmel and Vaughan included). The impact this will have on parking, access, safe exit in the event of a fire ( given the roads dead ends), privacy and potentially opening the floodgates to developers to destroy the existing character of the area is not good enough. A building of this size will have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties ( St Elmo and Underwood Road) and strip the residents of their views of the Dandenong Ranges.
    Whilst I understand the need for more aged care services for vulnerable older people, I believe this is not the place.
    I have family who have lived in this quiet street for almost 40 years along with many other long term resident's and I stronger object to this development.

  28. Peter and Sonia Henshaw commented

    We have lived in Buchanan Street, Boronia since 1977 and have seen many changes
    in our local area, most of them eroding the amenity of the area due to inappropriate developments being approved. These developments have taken away the habitat of much of the wildlife (some endangered - Powerful Owl) that lived in the area.

    We object in the strongest terms to developers being able to circumvent the overlays and restrictions that are in place for residents of this area.

    These are in place because this is what the community has voted for on numerous occasions and are meant to keep the area a green, vegetated area, with low density housing, to bring some amenity to the people and wildlife who live in the area.

  29. Bronwyn Stephen commented

    Of 90+ houses in the immediate area 5 are two storey. How is this development in keeping with the character of the area?

  30. Rhonda Rendall commented

    As a resident of Ferntree Gully for over 45 years and a regular walker in this area l have always appreciated the lovely trees and the single level homes that complement this beautiful tranquil area. I am very, very concerned about the impact on the environment by removing the large trees to build a 2 level dwelling. There are also parking and traffic issues not to mention the logistics of entering and exiting the vicinity of 2-8 St Elmo Avenue from Underwood Road (surely a safety issue). I am very concerned about the precedent being set here.

  31. Joanne Lahiff commented

    We support a SINGLE STOREY ACF in St Elmo Avenue and believe the proposed plan to be totally out of character for the area. We support the surrounding residents objection and all the concerns raised.

  32. Steve commented

    I believe the proposed plan is way too high to be totally out of character for the area. I support the surrounding residents objection and all the concerns raised.

  33. Sally Sealey commented

    I am a resident of Ferntree Gully. I would like to state clearly that I am not opposed to the aged care facility in general, it is a needed part of our community, instead I object to this planning permit for the following reasons, in no particular order:

    1: the design of the building is uncharacteristic to the area. I chose this part of Ferntree Gully for the protective overlays for the area, particularly the vegetation overlay. This planning permit seeks to remove a significant number of mature trees, with no indication as to how many will be replaced and what steps will be taken to rehome the wildlife that live in this vegetation.

    2: the fire risk of the area in close proximity to Koolunga Reserve. If there is a significant fire event at Koolunga, the added vehicles required to evacuate this facility will add to the congestion and significantly increase the risk to the other residents of St Elmo and the surrounding streets

    3: overdevelopment and the potential to use this site as a precedent for other development in the area.

    4: street access. St Elmo is a narrow street. With the extra vehicles required for this facility, parking for existing residents and their visitors will be compromised and access for vehicles such as fire and garbage trucks will be restricted.

    5: loss of privacy and views, leading to decrease in property values.

    6: loss of amenity due to noise from HVAC and other noises associated with such a large facility, close proximity to existing homes, height of external balconies and the other impacts on existing private property.

  34. Joanne Lahiff commented

    We support a SINGLE STOREY ACF in St Elmo Avenue and believe the proposed plan to be totally out of character for the area. We support the surrounding residents objection and all the concerns raised.

  35. Kate commented

    I, too, support the surrounding residents’ objections and strongly agree with their concerns regarding the building of a 2 storey aged care facility.

  36. Gérard McWilliams commented

    This proposed development is on total contrast to the structure and vibe of the FerntreeGully community.
    We hope that council will hear the voices of locals and stop this development

  37. Ash Morgan commented

    I also have added my objection.
    Knox Council charges $190 to look at plans after they are removed from Advertising, so consider saving a copy of the plans to your computer in case this goes to VCAT.
    Thank you also for the Tree Canopy Cover 2018 Graph showing that Knox now has less tree canopy than Whitehorse, and is not following State Government Policy for a 'Treed City' that canopy trees cannot be replaced, which also decimates native birds, and our 'Gateway to the Dandenong Ranges'.

  38. Margaret Roedecker commented

    We both support the many objections to this unsightly plan & appreciate all the information which has provided. The graphic illustrating the proposal was particularly informative. The building would be a monstrosity! Knox City Council, we hope you're listening.
    Let's keep this a leafy suburb as originally intended.

  39. Alison walters and neighbours commented

    Totally we're all in support of this
    essential development in our suburb.

    Stop being selfish right away.

    These services are and will be more needed
    in future with age too.

    Indeed, all the heartbreaking oldies need
    to wake up too. Whatever you say is wrong.

    Change is inevitable.

  40. Barry L Magee commented

    Barry L Magee,
    An administrative error by Knox Council, not abiding fully by Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, has resulted in objections being still open until
    16th. Nov.2020.
    Please if you are that way inclined, have your objection in to Knox Council by this date.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts