PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. Once again a developer is playing games. From my long experience in the property profession I have seen attempted amendments to the plan where the developer right from the beginning aimed to put forward an amendment. Here we go again! The attempt to reduce visitor parking is a typical try on. Let’s not fall for it again. I live in Hoddle Street, just around the corner from this massive proposed development, a street that already suffers from street parking issues. In providing this proposed development with no, or fewer, visitor spaces will only put more pressure on parking in nearby suburban streets. It’s time for this council to uphold the original permit and not allow amendments. Please refuse this application for an amendment for the sake of the nearby residents.

2. Agree with Johns comments which are articulate and insightful. The evidence is clear and never has a developer asked to increase parking or ammenities. This is nothing more than a dollar driven decision based on a $ per usable square meter cost . Architects are beholden to get business From developer and part of that is to draw up what will satisfy the local planning authority. Once done then it is almost universally accept that the amendments will fly in. I too reside in the area and ask our elected representatives to vigorously oppose this application. The cost of getting amendments must also be set at a level to make it unattractive

3. Hidden by site administrators

4. Agree with Johns comments which are articulate and insightful. The evidence is clear and never has a developer asked to increase parking or ammenities. This is nothing more than a dollar driven decision based on a $ per usable square meter cost . Architects are beholden to get business From developer and part of that is to draw up what will satisfy the local planning authority. Once done then it is almost universally accept that the amendments will fly in. I too reside in the area and ask our elected representatives to vigorously oppose this application. The cost of getting amendments must also be set at a level to make it unattractive

5. Dear Asher the Developer. Please develop your English skills before developing more ugly apartments.

6. let's see how (jane Citizen)can speak 6 language's.
   Then we will speak about english skills
   Development is the best thing can happen to the area to bring new blood to the suburbs and value up .
   And people like me with problem with english skills pay the most taxes in this country because we build the country up
   We need more development and more apartments.keep building Australia, without migration you all will be in stone age.

   God bless you all.

7. The street scape of Glenhuntly Rd Elsternwick is slowly becoming a total disgrace, and rapidly devaluing immediate surrounding residential homes.
   I bring to attention:
   1. 5 storeys!???? Why?? Do we not see the slummy condition of streetscape that overdevelopment brings? Do we not notice that 2/3 of these "apartments" built around our area sit untenanted? Do we not realise that there are buildings alongside this site that are only 2 storeys high? Do we not see the strain that excessive development bring to existing infrastructure in an old area?? (water, sewerage, stormwater etc....) Why aren't the developers investing their money in upgrading all the services they are placing a strain on?
   2. The request of "reduction in parking" is a non-negotiable.... These regulations have been developed to protect our environment and residents in the area. And even these current standards are obsolete in that they do not cater for the increasing number of cars each household has. Each apartment needs to have at least 2 accessible spaces allocated to it.. ABS figures show how the increase of cars per household has dramatically increased... So why are we allowing developers the privilege of not providing enough car parks?
   3. Already, our street is faced with a parking problem. Numerous times we have cars blocking driveways and parking on corners. We do not need the overspill of an additional 20 cars parking "permanently" on our street. If you cannot provide the parking.. simple solution.. reduce the size of your development.
   4. More shops??? I question what form these "shops" will take?
   Retail, coffee or the ridiculous trend of trendy bars that are negatively impacting the neighbourhood's well being with their inconsiderate noise and behaviour. I certainly hope that Council is NOT going to allow more Bar/ Entertainment, with liquor licenses extending to all hours of the morning!
   5. Developments in Melbourne's established suburbs have changed the face of what makes our city unique.
   I'd like to congratulate the Councillors who will eventually end developer's greedy, self-centred behaviour. Can Glen Eira be the first council to please make a stance, set some real regulations that take Heritage and Home owners into account?
   Can Glen Eira Council be the example that will lead to better change for Melbourne's established suburbs?
   Can Glen Eira Council be the council that puts the HOME OWNER's needs above the Developer's?
   Yes.. we the HOME OWNERS, who are paying some of the most highest rates in the entire state. It's not the apartment dweller, or the shop owner, or permit fees paid by developers.. It's the Home Owner's rate- paying that keep the infrastructure of this City going.
   It's about time Council heard our voice!
   Keep developments small and sympathetic to our Heritage.

   And to the "Developer"... I say, do your research properly as to what increases the value of a residential area. What makes you think that "new blood" is good blood? Also, migration is slowing down for obvious reasons. The migrants that are coming in to "work" don't want to pay exorbitant prices for a tiny 1-2 bedroom... They're investing their money in outer suburbs in "real" homes for their families.
   And I would also kindly point out, that there are residents in this area that are paying higher taxes than you.

8. I totally agree with all of the above, with the exception of Asher. The points Ann makes are valid and relevant to the 'thinking' individuals of this borough. One wonders about council machinations and possible/probable chicanery, when taking into consideration the increases in the volume of council rates, simply by turning the footprint of a once single storey home on a relatively small block, into a multi-storey, multi rate-paying edifice. And yes indeed, EVERYONE (metaphorically) drives cars; that premise will not change for the foreseeable future, with the clearly foreseeable consequences. I for one am not a fan of hearing the neighbours' farting, as it were, and I certainly am not a fan of ghetto lifestyle.

   in feasibility of turning the footprint of one single storey (quite often period) home
   

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Glen Eira. 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