PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

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

1. Residents will object to the covenant removal as they did for 29 Frank St a few years ago. The resulting rejection of the covenant removal by the Supreme Court cost the developer a lot of money and created an excellent precedent for residents

2. over develop. too many town houses especially sub divide into 3 lots. council should listen to the community!

3. Building three units in a block is not consistent with the housing style in this area. This neighbourhood should well be reserved, given it was a wild life sanctuary.

4. 49 Ellsa Street has a single dwelling covenant on it. The Supreme Court of Victoria decided against the recent unsuccessful attempt to remove the single dwelling covenant from 29 Frank Street. That attempt sought to subdivide the property and build more than one home on the block. The Supreme Court will enforce a single dwelling covenant provided the affected neighbours object.

   The proposal to set aside the covenant on 49 Ellsa Street and build multiple dwellings on that site is not necessarily a surprise. The large gums that had grown on 49 Ellsa Street were poisoned in late 2017. A November 2019 email to me from Boroondara City Council reads in part "... In regards to 49 Ellsa Street Balwyn North. A council arborist attended the property on the 9th October 2017. Wood samples were taken from five trees on site and all trees have been confirmed to have been poisoned with herbicide. .... In response to illegally destroyed and removed canopy trees on private property Council typically requires replacement planting of similar tree species in similar locations on the property. Where trees have been destroyed with poison and appropriate evidence is obtained, Council seeks to prosecute all offending parties at the Magistrates Court of Victoria."

   No replacement planting has occurred. There will be no possibility of replacement planting if three dwellings are built on the block.

5. I have read the comments for this proposed development with some experience of development around me in Boroondara, following the process of objection with the council and also at VCAT (with the council objecting as well). But, unfortunately we are at a time when political agendas win through (even the council lost at VCAT), as the State and Federal Governments back construction to the detriment of residents and other industries (isn't that chicken coming home to roost now! i.e. manufacturing). Further, with the cowboy nature of decisions and the construction industry itself, Courts are making stupid decisions to remove single dwelling covenants instead of varying them to a maximum number of dwellings (yes, this happened near me - what was initially proposed ended up being more as there was no cap), then developers are taking liberties with the construction plan as the checks and balances along the way are not in place, and finally the buildings fail in some way within 10 years as the quality of workmanship is substandard. The winners are the the developers, the losers are the residents, including those who end up owning these flawed dwellings (e.g. flammable cladding costs owners, and building costs here are way too high, even by world standards). It needs community organisation to break this cycle otherwise we will all end up poorer socially and financially.

6. The applicant is wasting their money & time
   Our collective message? Best you give up now and save some money.

7. A main feature of the Eastern Gardens Estate is that most properties have a Single Dwelling Covenant on them. These covenants serve to establish and protect the amenity of the area.

   When you buy into this area, you buy into the existing amentiy: this area has single dwelling covenants.
   You should act to protect it for future generations - along with your local community.

   We should not accept developers coming in, breaking-up and imposing change on our amenity for their profit?
   Buying into the area to 'break the Covenants' will be opposed by existing residents.

   Protecting the Eastern Gardens Estate from removal of the Single Dwelling Covenant is a priority of the local community.

8. We bought our house over 40 years ago.....with the understanding that the vast majority of blocks here have a single dwelling covenant .. we agree tottaly with all the previous comments. We do not want to see our precinct destroyed by over development.

9. We bought and stayed here partly because of the single dwelling covenenant. Council must support these important commitments to the character of our area.

10. The removal of canopy trees is a major concern.
    Too many developers have removed trees on their "word" that they will replace them with other canopy trees once the works are completed. Surprise! There is not enough uncovered land to replant canopy trees.
    Case in point 142 Balwyn Road. This had the tallest tree in Balwyn. I called the council when the tree chopper was removing trees from the land. Council painted 5 trees that were not to be removed.
    Four of these trees were later removed, the tallest was poisoned and slowly dies of the next few months, so this could then also be removed (it can still be seen alone in its death throes if you Google 142 Balwyn Road).
    Months later all trees were removed.
    Trees with a combined trunk circumference over a certain diameter are not meant to be removed simply for the reason of a building, but the developer won. The land was left barren.
    The trees have been replaced by another 70 sq house plus pool plus drive, paths, shed, etc.
    There is no space for 5 canopy trees to grow. So what is the council doing about it?
    It's a case of little bit by little bit, whittle away.
    When I complained to the owner about the tree removal his response was "they are not native tree so who cares?" This is the attitude of the new Balwyn residents/developers. They don't care. All they want is a huge ostentatious house with minimal garden.
    Balwyn was a pretty, green area, now it is becoming just another dry, ugly suburb.
    Surely if people want these mansions or to live in dog box sized apartments, they can build in areas that are not treed.

11. Well done to all the local residents for standing up for maintaining the liveability and tree canopy coverage of their area. I was saddened to discover recently that a house at 148 Yarrbat Ave was demolished and the garden 'moonscaped'.

    The garden consisted of a number of large trees and shrubs including a 20 meter tall Eucalyptus tree and a tall and well established hedge. I understand that an owner can do as they wish with their property but it is very concerning in this time of global warming that such large and healthy plants can be chopped down and the sight effectively ‘moonscaped’. Will these plants be replaced?

12. Also concerned about 'moonscaping' properties by developers. Number 7 Alpha Street, Balwyn North was sold to a developer who stated to the previous owners that he plans to knock it down and rebuild. 7 Alpha Street has many plants which would cost a fortune to buy at a Nursery. It is a sad indictment on our times that Developers can just bulldoze these plants to 'moonscape' the property. We wish there were Local Laws in place to protect these plants, such as digging them up, putting them in pots and donating them to Local Churches, for example.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Boroondara City Council. 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