PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. Please do not approve this development. I live two doors down and Bailey street already cannot handle the traffic. There is 6 new townhouses opposite this planned development and 3 next to that. Also 9 just a couple of houses down from them. Surely it would be irresponsible to approve such a development with so many homes in such a small area. This is high density.
   Bailey street already has to deal with traffic using it to beat traffic lights at Marshalltown road and Surfcoast Hwy. Adding another 13 homes would mean we have 22 homes/driveways within about 50m.
   Please only allow this property to be subdivided into standard house blocks, this was previously proposed I believe however the lots were ridiculously overpriced so greed didn't allow it to proceed.
   This development does not fit with the street scape of Bailey street.

2. Submission in Response to City of Greater Geelong - Permit number: 973/2020
   Advertised: 04 Jan 2021
   No decision before: 02 Feb 2021
   Site: 212 Bailey Street, Grovedale, VIC
   Proposal: Construction of Thirteen (13) Dwellings and Fifteen (15) Lot Subdivision

   RESPONSE TO SMP - Sustainable Management Plan

   PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - A BENIFIT NOT A CONSTRAINT

   " Planning Report PP-973-2020 - PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS ... "
   "...2. Council has previously advised they wish for the street tree on Bailey Street to be retained where possible. ..."
   > RESPONSE: COGG identified that the street tree should be protected and retained where possible. Street trees are an asset, community owned assets that contribute to the biodiversity of the area and the amenity.
   This existing street tree provides shade and shelter for pedestrians, fauna, avifauna and other living creatures. It should not be seen as a place to park a car under and so must be adequate car parking must be provided.
   An existing advanced tree has an even higher value than newly planted trees or replacement trees.
   There is further opportunity for indigenous trees to be planted on Council Reserves in
   Bailey Street and Pickerall Avenue.

   The existing street tree/s must be protected during the full period of construction and an inspection made at the end of the construction period. The Australian Standard for protection of trees re: construction sites exists because of decades of evidence of the destruction of trees as a result of building development. COGG has come a long way in understanding it's role in protecting the natural environment and is being pro-active.

   PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - ISSUES OF PARKING
   When assessing the permit and the provision of vehicle parking, COGG must protect the Council Reserves aka Nature Strips from future from vehicles parking on what is meant to be a Green Zone.

   "Analysis of car ownership in 2016, indicates 52% of households in the City of Greater Geelong had access to two or more motor vehicles."
   Further, approx 80% of households had at least one car. Source - Australian Bureau of Statistics.
   Geelong is entrenched as a car centric population. This is evidenced by:
   1/ The number of residents who drive 2 - 5 minutes to park at Marshall VLine Station.
   2/ The vocal opposition to discussion of road design that incorporates safe routes for walk and bicycle journeys at a COGG community consultation for the Draft Marshall Structure Plan.
   3/ The practice of parking on the council reserve for quick entry and exit and due to the garage being used for work or storage.
   4/ Not wanting to park on the road to avoid car damage.
   It is more than likely that most of the households in this application will have two vehicles. This is evidenced by the surrounding streets and households.
   
   Day and night, vehicles are parked on Council Reserves throughout the recent developments in the Marshall Precinct and areas bordered by Torquay Rd, Reserve Rd, Marshalltown Rd, Barwarre Rd and Barwon Heads Rd.
   Result - Diminished the Green Zones, tree root damage, unattractive land scape.

   PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - FRUIT TREE & SOIL TYPE
   The developer proposes a fruit tree for each yard, this presents many positives.
   The soil type would need to be considered when selecting the species of fruit tree.
   Marshall Precinct is more of a riperian zone - a layer of silt over reactive clay and very little organic matter.
   The most successful plants in the area are indigenous plants or native plants from a similar region unless the soil is prepared for non-native species.

   PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - INSPECTION
   At the completion of the construction, COGG should inspect the planting and landscape works, to confirm they are completed in accordance with the approved plans.
   There is evidence that some developers neglect the final planting and landscaping -
   eg: Station Rd Marshall near Grove Rd. The landscaping was completed in accordance with the submitted plans a few years after completion, greatly improving the bio-diversity and amenity of the area.

3. I totally object to this development in Bailey Street for a few major reasons as follows.

   The excessive building footprint in the design. The footprint has been over used and very little "open space" is available. The units have no acceptable space between each other.
   There is no mix of double storey plans which would allow for better use of the available land.
   There is also no mix of colours and design in the exterior facade's. The whole complex looks like one large "compound" and will have a negative effect on surrounding properties in regard to their value.
   There are no garages at all and only one car parking space per unit which is absolutely ridiculous.
   There is no building orientation design at all, with nearly all the units having an extremely low access to northerly windows due to over development of the site.

   Overall it is a very poorly designed project that I cannot believe council could possibly consider in an area that has a majority of very good properties as this development will only devalue the area and possibly attract a low calibre of tenants.

   I have no objection to high density design and living but it must be done appropriately and relative to the surrounding properties.

4. NOTE TO Julie Ray and Christian Keepen and other interested parties.
   re: COGG Bailey St Grovedale. Objection to planning Permit Application.
   (If a member of the public is making a comment it is formally called an 'Objection'.)

   For the comments on this Planning Alerts page to be accepted as Objections to the Planning Permit Application and for them to be considered by the COGG Planning Department, the COGG requires the objection to be sent to them directly using their procedures which can be found on their website.

   This is very important if you wish your views to be taken into account.
   Planning Alerts forwards the comments on this page to the relevant council.
   Some council accept that as an Objection but COGG does not.

5. Note to I Flood......

   I have lodged my objection via Planning Alerts and also on the COGG webpage.
   Thanks very much for your advice.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 3 years ago. It lasted for about 1 month. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Greater Geelong. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment