101 St David St Fitzroy VIC 3065

I have walked pass this building a few time as living in the neighbourhood, I think the shutters look great , colour matched with the red bricks and protected, no significant changed to the heritage overlay, why not let them stay

These shutters blend well with the red bricks and don't impact the heritage facade of the building.

The occupants of this building would also require privacy from the Hodgson St development which overlooks into several properties on St David St.

I have no objection to this application.

I strenuously object to this application for the following reasons (in order of importance):

1) Public safety - Fortifying the building in this manner poses a material risk to not only the owner, but also the other residents in the same in the building. If there were a fire in these premises and the shutters were all down, it would be all but impossible for the fire brigade to gain access to the building in any sort of sensible timeframe. This is not supposition - we know this to be a fact because it has been well publicised that the police have been unable to gain forced access in different circumstances. My suggestion to the other owners in the building is that they lodge a copy of any objection with their solicitors and insurance company so that Yarra Council cannot claim no knowledge of this measurable fire and safety risk in the event of any damage (or worse) occuring in an adjoining property.
2) Enforcement of planning processes - I believe council has a fundamental responsibility not to reward any party that ignores the planning process by authorising unpermitted works post-facto. Why on earth would anyone bother permitting any works in their property if the worst outcome they face is needing to have the works permitted after the event? The owner of this property should be obliged to remove the shutters, and then apply using the proper processes if they wish to reinstate them. This is a fundamental point that should be a foundation of the planning process. Yarra Council is derlict in their duty to all residents and rate payers if they don't do the most basic thing - enforce their own planning processes.
3) Heritage Overlay - How on earth can shutters like this possibly fit within that? Aside from the aesthtic viewpoint (in my opinion they are ugly) - shutters like this didn't even exist in any shape or form at the time this building was constructed and hence they cannot by any reasonable measure be seen to fit within a heritage overlay. It's totally nonsensical to even try to argue that these modern, black shutters somehow fit within the overlay.
4) Potential impact to other ratepayers - I believe these shutters devalue all other owners in the buildings properties. This is a subjective judgement of course (as opposed to my non-subjective points above which are all a matter of fact) but I think it is reasonable to assume that given the ugliness of these shutters and their intended purpose sees all other owners in the building are potentially financially impacted. I can easily imagine a situation where any prospective purchaser of another property in the same building has a "oh but what about that ugly property on the corner of this beautiful building?" moment. Subjective, yes. Entirely possible - also yes. So even if only partially true - their existance represents a possible financial loss to other owners on the sale of my property.

So taking all of the above into account - in order of importance - I cannot imagine why Yarra Council would even be conidering an approval for these shutters. It is the wrong thing to do on so many levels. Public safety, enforcement of your own planning processes, making a mockery of the heritage overaly and potential financial harm to other rate payers. I can't see how Yarra Council can argue that approval of these shutters is in anyones best interest other than the owner of the property who has shown flagrant disregard for the planning process.

To be honest - given all of the above, I'm shocked Yarra Council is even considering this application let alone putting it out for public comment.

...but on reflection, and given the other lazy behaviour I have seen from this Council, perhaps I'm not shocked after all...

Blend well and don’t impact the heritage facade…!…. interesting. I live in the neighbourhood and as the comment above states - anyone who fortifies thier property, regardless of who that person is, against heritage rules and regulations, and shows total and utter distegard for the correct process, both within the boundaries of YCC and outside for that matter, why give a minute of anyone’s time to this agenda when it has already been up and voted down. Down come the blinds and I’m sure you’re walk bys won’t be affected with the removal of what is an absolute unnecessary eyesore. Protection and privacy from the development on Gore street, I’m pretty sure the rules of overlooking don’t extend to 55 meters - got to be one of the silliest comments I’ve read but I’m sure many more ‘people who apparently live locally’ will comment as well, unless someone runs out of friends. I strongly object to this application on the grounds of simple common sense. Hopefully YCC do what all would expect and say no to this application again, this type of action costs money remember.

This building was converted from a warehouse to residential 20 years ago, and nothing has occurred in that time that necessitates roller shutters or the roller door that blocks all access for emergency services etc. It’s a sad reflection on the mindset of the current owners that they feel that this is appropriate.

I can smell jealousy from these negative comments here, Lahlee, Marc back off! Maybe because the owner want to stop all these nosy neighbours with theirs beady eyes and ready to gossip mouths
The owner just wanted to protected theirs own privacy what's so wrong with it?? What's sad refection? Don't judge them based on your ignorance
The News also said these neighbours can see through inside this house so where is privacy here? You can build your own over looking balcony to their house but get angry when they tried to live their own life??? Who's approved that ? You people are just want to gang up on them because of what happened on the news I believe, so give them a break!!!!

I can smell jealousy from these negative comments here, Lahlee, Marc back off! Maybe because the owner want to stop all these nosy neighbours with theirs beady eyes and ready to gossip mouths
The owner just wanted to protected theirs own privacy what's so wrong with it?? What's sad refection? Don't judge them based on your ignorance

The News also said these neighbours can see through inside this house so where is privacy here? You can build your own over looking balcony to their house but get angry when they tried to live their own life??? Who's approved that ? You people are just want to gang up on them because of what happened on the news I believe, so give them a break!!!!

This property also been targeted by vandalism, thieves and malicious attacked, someone tried to drove into their rollers I heard on the news at the time so the council should consider this application as clearly the owner of this property just wanted to protected themselves and the house!!

This property & it's occupants are surrounded by controversy, and their high profile doesn't give them licence to go above council regulations.

Play by the rules or take them down, they're ugly.