49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington, VIC

Development of a Multi Level Mixed Use Building Containing Two Shops, Use of Thirteen (13) Apartments and Basement Carpark; Subdivision; Creation of Access to a Road Zone Category 1; and Partial Reduction in Car Parking

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 2 months ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: City of Greater Geelong, reference 710/2019)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Portarlington Residents commented

    Yet again another ridiculous development proposed for Portarlington that makes no attempt to be sympathetic to its surroundings and only benefits the few. This type of development must be opposed on the North side of Newcombe street. The size and scale of this development will over shadow everything in its immediate surroundings and cause a major disruption to the town for a significant amount of time.

  2. Al commented

    I fully support the new development as it will bring Portarlington inline with other coastal towns, create employment and bring a real buzz & vibe into the Main Street. We cannot, as a modern functioning community, remain in the past where nothing ever changes. The new development will also get rid of the ugly asbestos clad building that is currently on the site. Funny how people will complain about a new development but not about an asbestos building beside a kindergarten.

  3. Peter Ellenby commented

    Should not be built on the North side of Newcombe Street - that area was initially reserved for the town folk and should remain so. Incremental creep with intense development such as this one does not make our town any better, now and into the future.

  4. Ann Nichol commented

    The multi-storied proposal for 49 Newcombe Street is a concern for many Portarlington residents. One of the most frequently heard comments from newcomers is they decided to move here to escape the city, and to enjoy the quiet "village" lifestyle which is not impacted by "Gold Coast" towers.
    A unique feature of Portarlington is the northern aspect, with the main shopping strip being enhanced by parkland and sea views. The site at 49 Newcombe Street offers the opportunity to enhance these valued features, not obliterate them with a multi-storied building.
    The small town of Portarlington does not need multi-storied complexes. Instead, appropriately designed single or double storied projects would maintain the existing lifestyle and character of the town. Such projects would also offer local employment opportunities for those seeking employment in the building and hospitality industries.

  5. Hazel Ingram commented

    The design of the building is stepped back from the street, so it looks as if it will not tower over the street itself. I see that their is plenty of parking on the site so that's a good thing.
    The current building blocks the view of the parkland behind the building, as will any new building of any size. The asbestos ridden building is an eyesore currently and so it does need to be replaced. I understand the people behind this development are locals and are wanting to bring business and accommodation to Portarlington. We do need our new buildings and development to be sympathetic to the lifestyle and we do need to understand that with the Ferry, and Stage Two of the Safe Harbour more people will want to come and live, work and stay in Portarlington. This development will help with that.

  6. Herbie commented

    I support the new development of 49 Newcombe street, Portarlington. The local cafes, restaurants and other businesses rely on continued development of the township. The Ferry service (which brings people to the town and provides an amazing service for locals) needs regular commuters to support it and developments like this will help not only to increase employment opportunities in town but also attract the visitors to the town to support these businesses.

  7. Iris Johanna Dillow commented

    I do not support this multi-storey development for this part of Portarlington, primarily because I think views to the bay from the main street should be preserved. There are other vacant sites close to the centre of town, on the south side, which could serve the objectives of bringing business and accommodation within walking distance of the ferry.
    I also think that 2 storey buildings should continue to be the preferred maximum, throughout the town, where a suitable site is available.
    I support removal of the existing building but would prefer a public use building e.g. a library.

  8. Sean Walton commented

    I do not support this development it’s next to a kinder!! The kinder has been there longer than I can remember and I went to it and I’m 35 I also agree it will ruin the Main Street views which are unique to port and the other development next to the pub is still for sale so there is no market for this development in portarlington

  9. Jayde commented

    I would actively welcome this development for a number of reasons:
    - Increased commercial offerings in the Main Street: ability to provide local business with a valuable high traffic Main Street location. This supports local business owners and provides diversified services and infrastructure to residents. This will also help attract more tourism into the area.
    - Capitalising on the metro shift to regions: more metro residents are moving to regional areas due to COVID concerns and changing work-from-home arrangements. This property will provide more sales options in a market with low turnover and available product. There is appetite for property with beach views as seen by the recent sales of the development next the the pub - the only two units not sold were at the lower back with views of a carpark. Increased population will lead to increased local economic benefits.

    I believe the views from the Main Street will not be impacted as the majority of land on the Main Street is crown land and cannot be built out. Therefore the community needs to maximise what limited property infrastructure they have in order to obtain economic and social benefits.

    I do agree that high restrictions should be in place throughout the Main Street to maintain its appeal but do not see an issue with the height of this structure.

  10. Leslie Cooper-Wares commented

    We do not support this building being built where it is planed to be situated. This would hugely distract from the village aspect which is a drawcard for both tourists and those who come to live here to escape the city and do agree that a community space/library would work better. There are a number of sites around Portarlington township that would still be close to the town without impacting the view and available parking.

  11. Joan commented

    We moved to Portarlington from a city, so we could sit down, have a meal and coffee with nice views. The town does not need high rise buildings on the North side if the main street.

  12. Judy commented

    Having seen the size of this building in the Port Report, I wish to strongly object to such a huge development being built in our village. The building bears no resemblance to anything else in Newcombe St. and set a precedence for other large developments in our town. People move to Portarlington to get away from high rise buildings, we do not want our village to become another Rosebud or Torquay. Greedy developers move into our seaside towns and turn them in to something most residents don't want, I am not opposed to development just keep it within a reasonable limits and preserve the unique character of our village.

  13. fiona gilks-dearaugo commented

    as a resident and rate payer, I would request that the council review the plans for the proposed building works.
    my concern is regarding the over development of portarlington, and one only needs to see how many town houses and apartments sit unsold.
    My preference would be to see the development reduce from three story height to two story height, hence also reducing the number of apartments.

  14. Diane Kolomeitz commented

    There is public information available to us all about future planning directions, in the form of The Portarlington Structure Plan, adapted by Council in Sept 2017. This document provides information regarding the future planning direction for the town until 2031.

    Council has identified an Increased Housing Diversity Area in the land within 400m walking distance of the town centre that is zoned Residential Growth Zone 3 (Coastal), and stated that ‘increased housing density should be encouraged around the Portarlington Town centre’. As such, there are said to be ‘opportunities for development and consolidation within the town centre, with a focus of ground floor activated units and residential and office uses on higher levels’. Further, development is encouraged to provide ‘reasonable sharing of views’ of the coast and foreshore.
    From the comments already submitted, there seem to be two main points of contention to this planning proposal: the style and size of the proposed development, and the possible obstruction of what could be considered as ‘reasonable sharing’ of coastal views.

    The Structure Plan states that direction is to ‘achieve a high standard of urban design in Portarlington and encourage development which respects the coastal landscape setting of Portarlington’. Currently, I can see no uniformity in the buildings of the shopping strip, which is a mismatch of architectural styles with no clear urban design; the building to be demolished to make way for the proposed development will certainly be no loss. I have no objection to the style of the proposed structure if it improves street appeal, and as long as planting is maintained as per the landscape plan, thus assisting in the development of a green corridor along the main street. I would like to see Council more active in the achievement of public gardens, street planting and public art to give some cohesiveness to the flow and identity of the town, from its entrance to the pier.

    While most of us probably prefer development to be contained to the other side of Newcombe Street, I do think that if it is inevitable that some will go ahead on the northern side, height levels need to be strictly adhered to, so the building does not look disproportionately to be ‘towering’ over others, however I do note the development plans have already reduced the number of units from 15 to 13. Perhaps a consideration to reduce the build by a further floor might be more widely acceptable to town residents and might eliminate the need for car stackers (not ideal) in the parking provisions. The only apparent problem to me, of the development being situated next to a kindergarten, is the matter of traffic exiting the carpark in a safe manner and I think this is a matter Council needs to look at more widely in the town. (I would hope that prospective owners are likely to be a new demographic of residents of Portarlington - commuters to Melbourne and surrounds on the wonderful ferry service that we wish to retain - and not even present during kindergarten hours.)

    Property owners (let alone people sitting in a cafe) have no automatic entitlement to a view; the law is clear on this point and has been since 1937. Like it or not, we need to take into account the concept of primary and secondary views when assessing the potential impact of multi-storey dwellings on significant view lines. Primary viewing points are those from which valued views are likely to be the main reason for being at the viewpoint - and I would suggest Portarlington is very fortunate in having an expanse of Crown land available to us for primary viewing of The You Yangs and Port Phillip Bay. Second-order viewing points are those from where valued views may be experienced, but from where viewing is not likely to be the primary reason for being at the site, such as from cafes along the main street where consumption of food and drink and social interaction are the primary reasons for being there. I would happily be corrected on this, but think we will find that it is a consideration if/when any evaluation of the proposal takes place.

  15. Lesley Gordon commented

    Totally inappropriate in a "Distinctive area and landscape" which Portarlington is under the Planning and Environment Act. Apart from the fact that the infrastructure would not be able to cope with. As to street parking there is not enough parking to handle the local requirements now most of the year. The building would overwhelm the buildings next door. The view from the north is just awful and the view from the shopping street no better. The shops along Newcombe street would not have the sea view which they have at present. I for one am against such a development on the north side of the street.

  16. Elizabeth Turner commented

    This was written after John and I objected to development adjacent to our home a few years ago. I expect both documents referred to will again be completely ignored/rejected when this offensive application is considered:

    It’s alarming to be told the Portarlington Structure Plan and the Portarlington Residential Character Study don’t count. Both these documents were prepared by the City with extensive volunteer input from the people who live in Portarlington. Many of us contributed to these visions because we believed the City valued us and our town.
    We are not Geelong and its surrounding suburbs. We are a unique seaside township.

    So, the Res Code and overlays and numerous clauses are what counts and what you will use to base your decision.
    In that case, I ask you for a moment to just think about the folk who this proposal affects. We all came to Portarlington because we love it here. Residents have come from Melbourne suburbs, farms and other rural towns. There’s something about this town – folk know each other, talk to each other and give back through volunteering.

  17. Brad Quayle commented

    I drive through coastal towns on a weekly basis and there are no main streets that have there beach views blocked.
    There is plenty of vacant land in Portarlington on the south side.
    Wake up COGG

  18. keith gunnell commented

    We moved to this lovely coastal town of Portarlington permanently 12 months ago after holidaying here for the past 15 years because it had something about it.It wasn't a Torquay,or Ocean Grove,with its multi level developments and congestion, it was just a bayside town going about its daily business.The character of the place said it all.I am not against progress and development changes this is inevitable,but to go ahead with a multi level development on the beach side of the main st will definitly change Portarlingtons character. The loss of parking spaces,which are at a premium now, and the congestion during peak holiday times,not to mention whilst under construction will no doubt affect the elderly and frail which make up a large amount of Portarlington's community.The height and mass of a 5 story construction will not only block out the view but the overshadowing during winter should also be taken into account before approving this development. I hope the COGG do more than ( quote; may consider ) my concerns over what is being proposed for the town.

  19. Portarlington Sea-Changers commented

    We do NOT support this planning application. It is not about "creating more jobs in the area etc etc"- its about developers cashing in to sell expensive waterfront apartments!
    No where on any Victorian beaches (or indeed in Australia) are there any type of apartment-block buildings on the beach side of any town.
    COGG in their wisdom should know this simply by the fact no apartment buildings are on the beautiful pristine Geelong beachside, which is enjoyed my many locals & tourists.
    And, not to mention the parking chaos it would create in an area that already lacks sufficient parking when community events are held.
    Beachside should be retained ONLY for the benefit of the community & tourists to enjoy and any NEW building should be a more appropriate (one-level) construction.

  20. Wuzz commented

    This development will create a large mass that goes completely against the “village” feel of the shopping strip. This application does not reflect the existing neighbourhood character by the size of the site.
    Residential buildings should not be built on the north side of Newcombe Street. This will impact on the vista from residents and visitors on the south side. On the north side those who arrive from the bay will be greeted by the ugly bulky building.
    Once this is allowed Portarlington will become another Torquay or Barwon Heads.
    The developer recently completed another similar building next to the Grand Hotel. This took a few years to complete and there are units yet to be sold.
    The developer has no concept design in respect to the connection of the land to the bay-brown coloured really?
    With the usual speak of creating jobs, shortage of accommodation; of course there will be jobs during construction. There will also be traffic management issues of up to four years with trucks coming and going. The shortage of accommodation is wheeled every time someone wants to make big bucks. With the Olive Grove development due to start in 2021 with 500-800 news houses being built and a new residential development proposed for 30 Newcombe Street this proposal is bloated more in line with the Gold Coast high rise that a coastal village. There is insufficient data supporting the lack of accommodation. The statistical figures are inflated and mainly focus on the Great Ocean Rd, where many of the tourists will visit.
    While there is provision for parking using the car stacker’s research shows that these can be unreliable? Should it malfunction, there could be a backup of traffic in the main street while a solution is sought. There is currently limited parking in Newcombe Street and surrounds for visitors and residents. The location next to a Kindergarten is also problematic. Young children are dropped off and picked up and feel safe using the north side pavement to attend the building.
    The waste collection concept would also create issues. Because of the gradient of the site transporting bins via a trolley to a waiting truck will create a traffic build up. It is also a risk management issue should a person lose control of the trolley.
    The building design is not suitable for the small town of Portarlington. There should be no residential buildings on the north side of Newcombe Street. This area needs protection from over development. The Council should refuse this application on the grounds it is too big, in the wrong location and totally inappropriate for Portarlington.

  21. Barbara commented

    At the risk of repeating the numerous important objections to the plan for Newcombe Street, perhaps there is a little imagination somewhere to enable this village, with its unique foreshore, to develop as one of the remaining desirable villages on the Bellarine. It should invite many visitors to a charming, relaxed environment as a respite from the "overkill" of progress and a few pecuniary interests..
    Much time and money had been spent over the years on community participation - may the character of Portarlington remain paramount in this situation.

  22. M.L. commented

    The City of Greater Geelong councillors should consider rejecting this development.
    If they do not they will be demonstrating a disregard for the value of community consultation.
    In good faith community members volunteered their time, ideas, vision
    and enthusiasm working with Council Officers to develop a plan. Part of that plan
    was to maintain the village attraction of the main street between Brown and Harding
    As one studies recent amendments it appears the council is slowly negating the intent of the original plan and statement.
    Surely if such a recent agreement with community representatives is ignored trust
    will be compromised.

  23. Robyn Hope commented

    I strongly object to a residential multi-story development, of this size on the North side of the main street, of Portarlington. We don't need another Ocean Grove or Torquay in our town.
    I'm not against development in Portarlington but, please make sensible decisions that will not impact on our unique 'Lifestyle, idyllic surroundings and village atmosphere'. It's not always about money!
    I think it's about time COGG considered the residents and visitors and not be pressured by developers.

  24. Louise commented

    While there are numerous vacant blocks in and around Portarlington there should be no approvals for multi-storey structures in the middle of the town especially on the north side of Newcombe Street whereby views across the bay and to the You Yangs would be obstructed.

  25. R. G. commented

    Portarlington is a lovely town, (notwithstanding the ugly burnt out house at the entrance) still with a village atmosphere and the best of beautiful foreshores as has been said to me by so many friends and visitors from elsewhere. The appeal of the main street with its close views over the bay is emphasized by the people I talk to.
    I trust that our Councillors whom we so recently elected or re-elected will not allow our unique town to be ruined by overbuilding with residential apartments when there is ample space near by.

  26. Sharon Russell commented

    I moved to Portarlington from Melbourne because of the unique village atmosphere it presented. Unlike other seaside towns where multi story development has been allowed to overtake these areas, Portarlington continued to offer me a Village I wanted to make my home. Unfortunately this multi story development being considered on the beach side of the main street changes the whole view of this picturesque area. I am not opposed to development , however, I am opposed to multi story developments in the Middle of our beautiful village.

  27. Heather and Peter commented

    Having read the previous comments, we agree that this development is flawed.
    Parking at that site is a definite consideration, noting that the applicant seeks council approval to waiver car parking.
    Where will the construction vehicles park?
    We already have a town that has a large proportion of holiday homes, i.e. residential houses that are left unoccupied for most of the year. Could this development be more of the same?
    We were surprised that the same developers were allowed to put in an application, after the poor offering next to the Grand hotel.
    We agree that the asbestos building should be removed, but, replaced with a facility that would benefit all residents.
    Does Portarlington have the infrastructure to cope with more storm water run-off?
    The height of the building is not appropriate for the site.
    Planning permits have already been accepted for the Olive Grove and Tower Road developments as well.
    Will commonsense prevail and consider the timing of all proposed developments?
    What is the rush to spoil a unique holiday destination?
    Portarlington Rd and Newcombe St will be a nightmare, especially during construction phases.

  28. Anne commented

    Really! This is Beautiful Portarlington, not the The Gold Coast and let’s keep it that way

  29. Rob commented

    I support the development as I believe it would add value to the street in somewhat modernising it, and it is contained to a small portion of the main street. Portarlington cannot stagnate or live in the past forever, no matter how much established residents wish it to. There is an old maxim 'if you don't go forwards you go backwards' - we all want some of the trappings of progress but it seems that many people are unwilling to accept what is needed, to do so. I do not see that many people are objecting publicly to the new style of home appearing in Portarlington, many of which do not reflect the older style character of the town that so many wish to preserve.

    Yes it's a lovely little town and attracted my family to move here. But having moved here of recent years I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what the physical character of Portarlington is - it's more about the people and the community feel as evidenced by the passion displayed on this site. At present the 'CBD' is a potpourri of styles anyway and I cannot see how this development will turn us into another 'Torquay' or 'Gold Coast'! As for no coastal towns in Australia having buildings on the beach side - has no-one ever been to Noosa or Port Macquarie to name just a couple?

    There is a lot of Crown land here for public use - but obviously this particular plot of land was sold to someone in past years ... which would seem to mean that local council did not want to acquire it. So we cannot expect a public building to go there - unless the council wants to buy it from the developer. Will you consider it, CoGG?

    I look forward to a public meeting where the merits based on fact can be openly discussed.

  30. Sally Nielsen commented

    Portarlington is known and loved as the seaside village by the bay. There will always be growth and development. But we can’t forget why so many people come here either to live or visit. It’s the beauty of the many views of the bay to Melb, Mornington and the YouYangs - available for everyone to enjoy.

    It is true, additional accommodation, retail and hospitality will be great in time but let’s get what we’ve got right before we build more and ruin the centre of town. Even the retail in the recently opened shops are only pop ups.

    With the Olive Grove now selling as Panorama, the Catholic Church hall block sold and land at the Chinese Restaurant yet to be developed there is a lot of construction coming our way.

    In addition, the tender has gone out for the next stage of the Pier development and The Grand will start renovations in March.

    There is little or no advice of what will happen with traffic management, use of public land and impact on the the kindergarten and current businesses while this build takes place.

    Community make a town. Locals supported the ferry when only a handful were crossing the bay each morning to help get it off the ground. They pick up rubbish to help keep the town clean and support each other and visitors in many other ways. Multiple Festivals and markets have been created and successfully run by town volunteers working hard to build and improve the image of the town whilst promoting its stunning natural environment. There is a strong sense of care and I hope the council can listen to people’s concerns of how this development will impact their lives and the town as a whole.

    If COVID-19 has taught us anything it is that people and communities need more than material assets.

    People love Portarlington with its broad demographic of residents and visitors.

    Everyone has the ability to enjoy the northern views from the Main Street. Let’s not hand this to the few who will be able to purchase the water facing apartments.

    Slow down the applications and get design and aesthetics right to make Portarlington a true destination with character and heart.

  31. Michael Bell commented

    Many considered views. There would be massive disruption to the Main Street for months. The previous high rise construction on the southern side of the street had rear access.
    The building has an inappropriate mass and height for the Northern side of the street and will swamp the historic post office.
    Two storey max would fit better.
    Could COGB consider a public private deal for a library, COGB services kiosk as in Drysdale?
    Parking waiver is not on as it’s already at a premium and extra parking/ traffic adjacent to the intersection would be particularly hazardous

  32. Luke Edwards commented

    Portarlington does not need another out of character multi-storey development on the main street. This development will only benefit a small handful of developers and apartment owners, yet be another nail in the coffin for the small town charm of Portarlington. This building will block the views of the You Yangs for half of the main street, over shadow the historical post office and be another running joke for the town, much like the tacky apartment block next to the pub.

    Yes, Portarlington needs development. It is a nice place and people want to live here, and they need places to live. But not at the cost of the reason people want to live here. Yes, that awful asbestos building desperately needs to go. But it does need replacing by something worse. A two storey building would be much better, even a library or something that benefits visitors and permanent residents alike, not just a small handful of developers and apartment owners.

  33. Anne Whisken commented

    I object to this proposal on the basis of the following points.
    1. Given the impact on key identifying amenities of the town: its uninterrupted northern Bay views, its readily accessible community-use open spaces which are an intrinsic part of its 'village' identity, and the historic and established communal understanding of how its northern spaces will be used, there has been insufficient time and effort been invested by CoGG to ensure all residents have a proper knowledge about the planned building and its impacts.
    2. Regarding its compliance with existing strategic planning criteria, it fails on several key points: a) height - 3 storeys on the street side and 5 on the pier side contravene the 2 storey rule, itself already higher than existing northern buildings; b) traffic and parking impacts are not properly addressed; c) while the overall plan calls for greater 'infill' of the central zone, if it is to conform with established and understood practice of north-side use, there would be no residential, and if business then nothing higher than one storey.
    I would call on our CoGG representatives councillors Asher, Sullivan and Mason to please ensure more time and opportunity is given to the people of the unique town that is Portarlington to have proper and informed discussion and input to decisions about a building which will have major impact on the look and operation of the town.

  34. John Herbert commented

    I believe this building would ruin the village feel of beautiful Portarlington. It is ridiculous to have this building on the north side of Newcombe street. Car parking is hard enough any weekend and holidays, but with this building, it will simply be worse all the time.
    Let the proposed developers buy somewhere on the southern side of Newcombe Street where it is not going to affect parking.

  35. Michelle Cooper commented

    I think this development is too tall for the streetscape and will create an unwelcome precedent for high rise building in Portarlington. The existing original post office next door will be swamped. Where are all the cars going to park for this development? I would prefer to see something less dominating proposed. I also expect any development to provide ample car parking not just for residents but also their visitors. It's already difficult enough to get a park during summer when the town is at capacity with summer visitors.

  36. Julie Brand commented

    I’ve lived in Portarlington for 10 years now and I don’t want that 5 storey development next to the old post office in my town.
    It’s too big, it reeks of ‘it’s only about money’ and it’s too ugly.
    (Yes, I know you can’t legislate regarding aesthetics and isn’t that a shame?).

    How dare that developer want to waive car parking?

    It’s tricky even getting a car park during the year (out of summertime) yet they want to waive car parking to save money!
    Make the developer supply two car parks per residence AND same for each shop on the footprint of this vile development and NOT use up the somewhat scarce car parks in the strip shopping that is Portarlington.

    The request to waive car parking is outrageous!

    This development is more appropriate to inner Melbourne than the little old seaside village of Portarlington as the City of Greater Geelong continue to promote the town.

    Scale back, scale back, scale back and make it snappy!

    We don’t want developments like this in our town.

    I also find it somewhat questionable that these submissions are to be finalised 29/12/2020 during the busiest time of the year for the very busy holiday destination that is Portarlington!
    The timing of this submission ‘doesn’t pass the pub test’ and smells of collusion between developer and council...
    I’d like the reasons for this timing clarified please so I’ll expect a reply from Planning thanks.
    Email address supplied.

  37. Lindsay Ellis commented

    The application does not meet the strategic objectives of CoGG Planning Scheme Clause 21.14.3 for Portarlington. It impacts on all residents and visitors to Portarlington. The village atmosphere of the town centre should be protected. The character of the town centre is a source of pride for residents and a draw-card for tourists.
    The Planning Scheme Clause 21.14-3 supports development in the Portarlington town centre incorporating accommodation uses above ground level retail floor space, where such development meets all parking and access requirements.
    Furthermore, the related Planning Scheme Strategies are: to ensure that development responds to the identity and character of the individual township in which it is located; and to protect rural and coastal environments from inappropriate urban encroachment. The Clause 21.14.3 also supports the integration of the Portarlington town centre and pier-foreshore area.
    The Traffic Report is also flawed as it considers East/West movements from the property. A bit difficult in a 'one-way' street. A waiver for car parking is inappropriate as the town centre has lost over 30 spaces in recent times. There is also a Planning application before council from Bellarine Community Health requesting a car parking waiver behind the shopping strip. If granted, a loss of another 5 spaces.
    The Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy, and the subsequent update of the Portarlington Structure Plan, part of the Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Area and Landscape, is not yet complete. The community’s long-term vision for the town centre, as part of the amended Structure Plan, should be considered before any further significant character changing development is approved by CoGG.

  38. Nick Norgard commented

    This development significantly changes the character of the streetscape and town centre in Portarlington.

    I do not believe this proposal responds to the identity and character of the town centre.

    Placing a large residential development directly in line between the pier and the town prevents integration of the pier-foreshore and town centre.

    I believe it is inappropriate urban encroachment.

  39. Ally commented

    This is ridiculous as we don't want Portarlington turning into another Mornington Peninsula or Phillip Island.
    I thought the planning minister had put a stop to developers taking over with new properties, housing estates etc in the 50 year plan that was passed in a bill at Parliament.
    There isn't enough parking at the moment. When the out of towners arrive, they don't respect the peninsula.
    It blocks the view from the shops across the road, locals sitting along the footpath can't see the view, this proposed building overlooks into a preschool and it's time locals take pride of where they live and say NO, NO, NO to these greedy developers.

  40. Sue commented

    Another "carbuncle on the face of humanity" that lends itself to inner Melbourne not the quite confines of our beachside haven. 5 storeys of glass & steel ugliness that in no way resembles the vast majority of the shopping precinct. As for a parking waiver - do the developers assume that those who would buy the expensive boxes will arrive on the bus or ferry & walk everywhere? Parking is already at a premium and not likely to improve with all the other development going on around town.

    Like so many residents of Portarlington, we moved here because it was a quiet haven, there was space to breath, there were "gaps between houses" where you could see splashes of blue bay or green hills. Our main street was quaint and the bandstand was the focal point of the north side of the street and one could see the bay beyond. If this development goes ahead despite all the objections to it, Portarlington will be well on the way to becoming a PortVegas with absolutely no redeeming features.

    While progress is good, sometimes common sense has to prevail. It is up to the COGG to call a halt to this madness. Perhaps they could even negotiate & buy the property and reinstate what was there many years ago - a public garden which was attached to the then post office (now the B & B on the corner). Perhaps we could look back, just once, to see where we are going.

  41. Jim commented

    I object to this development on the grounds that it will dominate the urban landscape on the northern side of Newcombe Street & is clearly visible from the beach area of Portarlington. It is not in keeping with the current buildings on the Northside of the road. Where is the line in the sand? Are 5 storey or 10 storey buildings suitable for Portarlington?

    It will restrict parking in Newcombe Street by reducing the number of spots available. No doubt residents of the units will utilise parking in front of the units for multiple car owners and guests. This will be detrimental to existing retailers in the street. The loss of the car parks during construction will also be extremely disruptive and be potentially dangerous for parents dropping and retrieving children from the kindergarten.

    The development will not benefit Portarlington at all. The new “Panorama” development will increase the population without destroying the feel and environment of the Main Street. The proposed two small retail outlets on the ground floor are unlikely to provide the boom in employment people are expecting.

  42. Eric Johnstone commented

    I am happy with the design of the building and would like to see it built as presented. Currently the building occupying the site is an eyesore.
    If the new building is as per the concept plans it will tie in with the apartments across the road.
    It will create employment while being built and then some ongoing employment with the shops.
    Portarlington can't expect to keep businesses such as the Ferry and expansion and upgrade of the hotel without people to use such businesses.
    Also we can't move here ourselves but then say no one else can come.If we do the town will stagnate and businesses will close It is a balance which Cogg should help us achieve
    Eric Johnstone

  43. Graeme Baxter commented

    No highrise blocking the view from the town to the beach, it will set a precedent we don't want, when that happens there will be highrise all the way along that side ruining the town.

  44. Joy Porter commented

    I oppose this development : the over development of the site that currently has 1 dwelling on it to be replaced by so many dwellings is far too intensive for a small regional village like Portarlington
    The application for a waiver of parking spaces is also overreach and will make it more difficult for locals and visitors to park in the Newcombe st
    It’s a pity that the bay glimpses we currently get on the north side of Newcombe st will be obstructed by this development
    Please COGG amend the application so that it is not so large and imposing in our shopping strip
    There is plenty of vacant land with bay views that could be developed in other parts of the town without such severe impact on the streetscape of Newcombe st
    Joy Porter

  45. Kath Jackson commented

    So sad to see the corner building be demolished for a Modernbuilding. It's part of our towns history. The building is an example of beautifull old architecture . Please keep this building.

  46. Ned Hoskin commented

    I completely protest against this proposed development on the following basis :
    1. It does not maintain the character of the town and is completely at odds with it.
    2. Most of the comments here reject development on the northern side of Newcombe St. It was a terrible error of judgement many decades ago to allow any development on that side of the street, including the other government buildings. This does not mean that this error should be perpetuated into the future. It should be stopped now.
    3. The argument of provision of employment is ludicrous. The proposed shops would employ a minimum of people due to the retail restrictions placed upon them.
    4. The Parking issue reflects that the proposal is oversized for the the footprint. And yes, the street already has a problematic parking shortage , which coupled with proximity to the kindergarten would be a clear issue regarding the safety & amenity of the children.
    5. Portarlington is a tourist drawcard for its relatively laid back seaside village feel. The design of this proposed development is completely at odds with that concept.

    COGG should listen to the community in this township before making further recommendations.

  47. Nola Hodgson commented

    I object to this proposal in several ways, particularly the way it will impact cause increased traffic and parking congestion. This zone is already difficult, with the Harding - Newcomb intersection confusing for many, and being on a hill it is hard to estimate the speed of oncoming traffic when turning. The proposed development will make the situation worse, with added entry and exit traffic, and increased pressure on scarce parking spaces. This already busy zone needs better management and direction rather than making the situation worse with an unsuitable development.

  48. Hayden Whisken commented

    I wish to associate myself with the comments which oppose the proposed development.
    Specifically firstly the ugly asbestos building currently occupies the space replaced a botanical garden which should be reinstated if anything is to happen there.
    Secondly the parking situation is already inadequate and this development will make it much worse and dangerous.
    Thirdly the development will canyonise the street and start turning Port into yet another ugly Melbourne Bayside suburb.
    Finally, the development per se is not progress and certainly not in this case as the proposed building will be out of scale with Northside developments. I don't see how two shops on the ground floor nor 13 residences will substantially add to local employment in such a way to justify the deleterious impact on the community's visual and accessability

  49. Ian Whitehead commented

    This proposal is ghastly, overblown, grotesque, more gold coast than even the gold coast and if approved will be a monument to greed and stupidity. Another one.

    For starters, the traffic chaos during the construction phase will make life impossible. The only way it will not be impossible is if the open area to the north is occupied by construction vehicles, with much damage being caused to the land in the process. I don't find it acceptable that a developer gets free reign to damage land to make themselves rich. Parking will be a free-for-all... apparently it is quite permissable for construction workers to park wherever and whenever they want regardless of public safety or the public right to traverse public land. COGG lacks a coherent policy on this... just try ringing them and asking for one. You will be disappointed.

    There will need to be consultation and agreement with Vicroads and maybe even Parks Victoria who administer the foreshore area... and we all know what a disaster that's been! And if COGG doesn't want a lot of angry residents complaining about the road in question, they better get some competent designers and administrators to fix the mess, development or no development. The drainage is appalling, the road is a hazard to pedestrians, the bitumen is a dangerous, lumpy mess. With yet another awful high-density development, the traffic disaster will get worse.

    I read some of the objections here with various people drawing attention to the loss of views and the impact on the streetscape. I'm afraid you are too late... at least ten years too late as this kind of crazy density of building has been going on for a while. It's all very well to say put it on the other side of the street but have you ever paused for a moment, perhaps after sipping cafe latte or your boutique wines or boutique donuts or whatever is the latest, to consider the residents elsewhere in Portarlington who will be adversely affected? Obviously not. Just go up High street or the even uglier Park street and see what they've been doing for the last decade. Try living next to a construction site. It's a living nightmare... your health suffers, and it takes years off your life. COGG even did a study of the health effects of noise and came to some serious conclusions. What a joke, try being woken up by building workers every day at 7AM. Yes, they go 7 days a week. We should be charging COGG, not paying rates, if this goes ahead.

    "Oh we never rely on precedents" say the town planners. But the developers do. They establish the mechanisms to get these things built and despite the legitimate means of protest a democracy is supposed to provide, they find ways around it. They use what has gone before to justify what they want.

    I also see some of our current and former 'notables' making grandiose statements against this proposal... well might they be vocal in condemning it. Good to see they have found voices at last. Pity they were pro-development in the past but now think it's not fair to transplant the gold coast to the Main Drag of Portarlington. Sad, really. But not surprising. It's apparently ok for gold-coast style apartments everywhere else but not on our sacred site. Have they ever considered some of the awful proposals in Fenwick Street? They're ok but 49 Newcombe Street isn't? Curious.

    We have been hoodwinked by local government too. The very people who bleat about 'the environment' and the preservation of it, using it of course as an election slogan... are the ones who celebrate high-density development! They are keen preserving the boundaries of the town, after all, we need more land for Wineries, not housing, so that even the Labor Party stooge and the Liberal Party stooge we elected... are saying essentially the same thing. Higher density in town is what they want, and to hell with the consequences for residents. After all, they will have enough money for selling up and getting out (I even had a developer say this to me) with the increased property values.

    The developers will win out eventually, but they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. They have already started strangling it. It doesn't have a lot of fight left. Developers will move on to the next coastal town and one by one they will kill off what was good and replace it with their own.

    By the way, did anyone even notice, or care, that the Ferry guy is also a property developer?

    I object strongly to this proposal. It's too bulky, too high, too dense, will lead to traffic chaos, is a disaster for pedestrians, will overwhelm the surroundings, will only be accessible to the rich, and will therefore be inequitable. CoGG if you have any sense, don't allow it.

  50. beryl stott commented

    With (supposedly) 60 units being built next to the Chinese restaurant and another 500-600 being built at Panorama, there will be more than enough new housing without going multi-storey high. Our town does not have enough infrastructure for this amount of people. You cant get a parking spot outside our one supermarket, or move once inside for the amount of people. Elderly people who cant walk far cant find a parking spot near the chemist. It takes a week to get a Dr's appointment. Nearly an hour to wait for takeaway during holidays. Its like St Kilda beach with the amount of people along in front of the caravan park. That is how it is now. How will it be with another 700 (or 1400 with partners, let alone friends) in town..

  51. Maggie Campbell commented

    I would voice my objection to this development as it is completely out of keeping with our lovely village coastal style. Further more it will be a great blank closing out the delightful view from the Main Street. The gardens at the rear will not be seen. We have one high rise in the main Street we certainly do not need another. We are not the Gold Coast. We have a simple country coastal lifestyle which is the reason for many people moving here or holidaying here. Listen to what the people are saying "we don't want this development"!

  52. Judith Haskett commented

    I have read many of the comments and I do not oppose commercial or residential growth in Portarlington. However I do think that high rise buildings of either type should remain on the south side of our beautiful street scape with Bay views. It would be a huge mistake to approve this type of development going forward.
    We must consider that if we allow one high rise development more will come. I’m concerned about the long shadows cast by such buildings. Be brave and let’s not go down this path of development.

  53. Hazel commented

    I object for this development to be in the centre of my town. I have lived here all my life and watched so many good and some not so great homes being built.
    This is a fishing village, not multi storey development area, look at the buildings in the Main Street, except for the fancy appartments next to the Grand? That was a big mistake, ugly and some haven’t been all sold yet, and the pub can’t open their windows because the appartments are built so close, wait until the top of the pub to fall on their roof, it’s already on a lean. Most shops in Newcombe street should be heritage, I remember all the old buildings before they had makeovers I don’t understand why they were allowed to defaced the front of them.
    Build the big fancy high rise at the back of the town, and keep our Main Street as it is without the ugly modern crap. The Main Street is so warming and welcoming to walk down, it’s sleepy Portarlington just how we like it, we don’t want another high rise appartments in the centre of town.
    I object the development, it’s greedy and unnecessary.

  54. Wayne Johnson commented

    Personally I think that side of the road should be reserved for the people, pull down the old buildings ugly as they are and restore it to parkland with view

  55. helen commented

    I object to the proposed development of 49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington on the grounds that it is an unnecessary development and is contrary to COG height and housing plans that have already been developed by the community.

    The supporters will argue that it will provide jobs and provide additional housing . Developments such as this are built by builders from outside of Portarlington and not by locals.
    In planning for housing , the community was considering “ affordable” housing and not just housing for the wealthy (provided for in the development of 72 - 74 Newcombe Street) .

    This site once was a garden and I would like to see this returned.

    Portarlington is a seaside town that does not want to be overdeveloped like other nearby Victorian coastal towns .

  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