PlanningAlerts

25 Comments

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

1. Will strenuously object to removal of covenant. This area of Balwyn North is unique &
   should be protected. We purchased here because multiple dwellings could not be constructed on a residential block. The purchaser/developer of 49 Ellsa Street would have known about the covenant before purchasing the property and known of the previous objections to the same proposal several weeks ago.

2. Knowing multiple dwellings could not be built in our immediate vicinity was a major factor in our decision to buy our home over 25 years ago. It’s also why we contributed to objecting the removal of the covenant at 29 Frank St where we were successful in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

   Given this is the same proposal within weeks, one can only assume the owner/developer thought withdrawing the application would be enough for residents to forget and not notice a second application. However, we will strongly object to any, and all, applications of this nature in a bid to protect the characteristics of our neighbourhood.

3. After testing the local temperature, the owners applied again. Seeing there is a Covenant in place, only one objection [from residents with decision-making power over that Covenant] is needed to stop the application at local council level.
   In addition, many local residents object to the removal of the Covenant.
   Real Estate Agents inform at/before purchase that the property has a Single-Dwelling Covenant on it. We can reasonably assume that the new owners knew this property had a Single-Dwelling Covenant on it.

4. The proposed development violates the single dwelling covenant in the contract the developer entered into when acquiring the property.

   The developer's desire to damage the amenity of the neighborhood is a further instance of the vandalism inherent in the earlier poisoning of the 5 trees on the site. Below is a quote from a November 2019 email from boroondara.vic.gov.au to me:

   "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.

   Due to privacy restrictions Council cannot release the outcome of enforcement investigations, but I can assure you that Council takes a dim view of anyone who knowingly chooses to remove or destroy trees protected under the Local Law.

   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."

   I strongly urge Council to not simply pay lip service to recognizing the value and importance of trees and instead to require replacement planting of similar tree species in similar locations on the property (this has not occurred) and to prosecute all offending parties to the poisoning of the 5 trees on 49 Ellsa Street in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

   The subdivision of 49 Ellsa Street Balwyn North would be a violation of the contract entered into when the property was acquired and would amount to a reward for the destruction of Boroondara's diminishing tree cover.

5. The owner of 49 Ellsa St, Wang Corporation, knew that a single dwelling covenant existed on this property at the time of purchasing it. To now try to have this covenant removed so that three homes can be built there is an act of greed and arrogance.

   That Wang chose to apparently poison and remove large trees from the property shows their disregard to the neighbourhood and Boroondara Council should compel them to replace these trees with appropriate large canopy trees.

   Human Habitats, the applicant for this permit no PP21/0520 ( for Wang) may not be aware of the strong opposition from neighbours to a similiar proposal that went all the way to a Supreme Court trial in 2017/2018 for a much larger property nearby at 29 Frank St.
   Strong opposition from more than 60 neighbours at that time ultimately cost the owner of 29 Frank St more than $250,000 including costs awarded against the developer after his Court case failed.

   With extensive over-development in the region, many neighbours will be feeling even more strongly about preserving the character of the area and can be expected to strenuously object to the removal of this covenant to allow for multiple units on this site.

6. I strongly object to the proposal to remove the single dwelling covenant at 49 Ellsa Street.

   The single dwelling covenant was part of the appeal when we bought our home in Balwyn North over 20 years ago and we have enjoyed the amenity and character of the area it helps preserve.

   I am concerned that if this covenant is removed, not only will it will erode this appeal, it is likely to set a precedent for similar applications in the future and over time significantly impact the amenity of the area and diminish its appeal.

7. We bought our house in this area over forty years ago having come from a suburb where multi-residential development was allowed. We wanted to get away from the undesirable aspects associated with this type of development so the existence of a restrictive covenant was particularly appealing to us and a strong reason for us to move here.
   
   We supported the campaign and court case against the previous application to remove the covenant on 29 Frank Street, Balwyn North and, if necessary, are willing to support another campaign and court challenge to protect the existing covenant including that on 49 Ellsa Street.

8. We absolutely object and oppose the application made by Wang Corporation for the remove the single covenant at 49 Ellsa street.

   Many residents have bought into the area because of the single dwelling covenant.
   It was one of the main reasons for our family to make a home here.

   The wang corporation had bought the house with full knowledge of the covenant. Now they want to remove the covenant for financial gain and greed.

   We will fully support the campaign and any court challenge to protect the existing covenant at 49 Ellsa Street, Balwyn North.

9. The Single Dwelling Covenants on most properties in this area were designed to protect the heritage and future amenity of the area for present and future generations.

   We will join and support the campaign against removal of the Single Dwelling Covenant on 49 Ellsa Street at both Council level and at any future Court challenge.

10. I also strongly object to the subdivision of the single dwelling covenant property. As noted above, the owner would have been aware of the covenant and should have considered the property unsuitable for redevelopment plans.
    I am sick of developers being a law unto themselves, wantonly destroying our tree canopy and disregarding local laws and mandates in the interest of property profits.
    We chose to live in the area because of the single property covenants which preserve our lovely gardens, trees, environmental habitat for birds and animals and the overall character of our area.

11. I agree with all of the existing comments and won't repeat what they all say very eloquently. I wanted to also lend my voice and my concern to the potential precedent this application represents.

    Can I suggest that this application is a chance for council to stand strongly and show courage against development profiteering and our ever diminishing tree cover.

    Please.

12. We object in the strongest terms to the application of the Wang Corporation to remove the single dwelling covenant on 49 Ellsa Street and build three dwellings on that site. Given the known objections of the residents of the area, a second application, after the first was withdrawn, can only be due to either ignorance or arrogance (no prizes for guessing which one).

    The arguments for rejecting such an application were successfully put to the Supreme Court in 2018, in order to stop the lifting of the single dwelling covenant at 29 Frank Street, and of which Council, of course, is fully aware. Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court decision, this surely (!) is the end of the matter.

    Should this application be successful, it would represent the 'thin edge of the wedge': the process of multi-dwellings would begin, gather pace and, over time, the general environment, amenity and utility of this area would be severely compromised. Clearly, the attraction of the area, as the basis for so many of us to choose to live here, would disappear. As the character of the suburb changes, so too do the stresses on its population increase. Such strains include much greater traffic (and consequent dangers), service provision to the population, including health, welfare, leisure and educational services.

    We urge the Boroondara Council to reject this application forthwith.

13. Hidden by site administrators

14. My wife and I purchased our property over 25 years ago in the understanding that the local area was protected by a single-dwelling covenant. We have enjoyed the amenity of this area, free from the traffic volume and congestion that could have resulted from multi-dwelling development. The purchaser of 49 Ellsa St would have been aware of the covenant, and has been made aware of the determination of local residents to protect their unique area. In temporarily withdrawing their development application and then re-submitting, as well as poisoning protected trees on the block, the developers are displaying a high degree of disrespect for the local community and contempt for the rules and processes of the Boroondara Municipality. We will strenuously oppose this application.

15. We have lived in the area for 43 years and bought our home knowing that it, together with our neighbours' homes, was subject to a single dwelling covenant.
    The acceptance of that single obligation (by each homeowner) gives us the green, treed suburb that we choose to live in and gives the Eastern Gardens Estate its special character (just ask any local real estate agent).
    The current applicant bought knowing that the covenant was in place, and by now must be aware that it has been defended several times previously.
    The current planning application, then, is a deliberate assault (solely for the applicant's profit) on the amenity we all presently enjoy.
    If the applicant was to be successful, that amenity would be gone for ever. There would be no going back.
    We will object to the removal of the covenant for this property, as we did SUCCESSFULLY for 29 Frank Street in 2018 and we will join and support any campaign that fights against the removal of the covenant at 49 Ellsa Street.

16. Hidden by site administrators

17. I also strongly object to the subdivision of the single dwelling covenant property. As noted above, the owner would have been aware of the covenant and should have considered the property unsuitable for redevelopment plans.
    I am sick of developers being a law unto themselves, wantonly destroying our tree canopy and disregarding local laws and mandates in the interest of property profits.
    We chose to live in the area because of the single property covenants which preserve our lovely gardens, trees, environmental habitat for birds and animals and the overall character of our area.

18. ........and yes i am a local and yes I have development in my street and no i didn't oppose it - it adds to the vibrant nature, streetscape and liveliness of the street AND the suburb !!

19. We have been living in Dempster Ave for 8 years and the number 1 main reason we purchased here was for the single dwelling covenant in place in this area. We strongly object to removing this covenant for multi dwelling developments. The developer would have been well aware of the covenant when purchasing 49 Ellsa Street.

20. I also strongly object to the subdivision of the single dwelling covenant property.

21. Subdivision of the single dwelling covenant property should not be allowed and I also strong object.

22. We object to the application for removal of the Single Dwelling Covenant on 49 Ellsa Street, Balwyn North.
    This area, north of Greythorn Park, between Doncaster Rd, Balwyn Rd, Frank St and Greythorn Road is a zoned Residential 3 and the Single Dwelling Covenants are placed on the Title of many properties in this area.
    These Covenants were placed on the land when it was subdivided into residential lots by the City of Camberwell between 1948 and 1958 in the area. These Covenants influence future development in the area and are specifically relevant today. They have created an amenity where residents enjoy single dwellings on reasonable size properties with green gardens, good neighbours, in well laid out streets with treed naturestrips, free from smog and bustling traffic.
    Many residents, new and existing, have made a financial investment in their properties and enjoy a lifestyle due to the amenity the area north of Greythorn Park provides.
    The Single Dwelling Covenants are relevant today as they maintain this amenity we all enjoy.

23. We object the subdivision of the single dwelling covenant on 49 Elsa st Balwyn North.
    Years ago. We moved here from Greythorn area, the main reason was we don’t like the over development in the area.
    All these years, we enjoyed all the benefits single covenant bring to us. We don’t like someone want to change this just for their profits.

24. I strongly object to removing the single dwelling covenant at 49 Ellsa St. We won the case against 29 Frank St and as a community we will come together again to try out hardest to stop this incessant creep of developers into our area. The Wang Corporation would have been aware of the covenant when they purchased the property. This is nothing more than an attempt at financial gain with complete disregard for the community, the environment (poisoning of the trees) and neighbourhood amenity.

25. We would like to preserve the tranquility character of this area, so I object removing single dwelling covenant in this area.

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