51-55 Phipps Crescent, Diamond Creek VIC 3089

I am a resident of Diamond creek and object to this planning application for two reasons.

1. Removal of native vegetation. Our area prides itself on being the "greenwedge" and removal of native vegetation significantly impacts on this image. Secondly, Diamond Creek has a wide variety of native birds, animals and insects. Removal of vegetation impacts on our native wildlife by decreasing the availability of shelter and food. Decreasing biodiversity of wildlife is extremely detrimental to what we are trying to achieve in the Greenwedge. Native vegetation helps maintain Victoria’s biodiversity as it forms the basis of Victoria’s ecological communities.

Furthermore, by removing native vegetation we are also impacting the environment from an emissions point of view, decreased vegetation means that there is less offset to emissions, thereby driving increased pollution in the areas.

Secondly, the construction of 13 dwellings is not keeping in character with the area, and diminishes the overall feel of Diamond creek as a greenwedge area.

It will result in overdevelopment of the area. This overdevelopment will put increased pressure on existing infrastructure and roads. It would be more realistic and in keeping with the area to reduce the amount of dwellings to a maximum of 4 at the very most.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

The colours and materials of external finishes to the structures within the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal will involve an unacceptable removal of environmentally significant vegetation and fails to contemplate maintaining sufficient vegetation of the indigenous ecological vegetation class.

The scale of the proposal and lack of sufficient setbacks exclude the opportunity for meaningful landscaping that is consistent with neighbourhood character and responds positively to the surrounding context.

The scale, bulk and lack of landscaping including provision of canopy trees contribute to a lack of integration of the built form with the surrounding context.

The intensity of use of the proposal will respond negatively to the surrounding context.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding solar access modelling according to the structure orientation and spring equinox.

The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and fails to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds, especially land adjacent to the site's Southern boundary.

The scale and lack of sufficient setbacks create excessive domination and visual bulk along with unacceptable southern overshadowing impacts.

The extent of impermeable paving within the proposal will create unacceptable inundation risks of the surrounds, and increase velocity and volume of overland water flows.

The lack of articulation between ground and upper levels of the proposed structures will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The lack of proper parking provision for occupants and visitors will unacceptably impact upon the amenity of the surrounds.

The surrounds consist predominantly of detached homes on allotments exceeding 500m².

The proposal fails to respond to the objectives of the General Residential Zone 1 within Victoria Planning Provisions 32.08.

The proposal fails to respond suitably to the Bushfire Management Overlay.

The proposal does not positively and appropriately respond to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character and even if I give thought to any possible "emerging character" of the surrounding context I submit that the proposal remains an inappropriate planning outcome that should be Refused by the Responsible Authority.

Furthermore I submit that I cannot in my experience and knowledge find that the Objection ground I rely upon can be ameliorated by any Amendments or Conditions and find under the relevant planning provisions that the appropriate outcome is for the responsible authority to determine the application by way of refusal.

I am a resident of Diamond creek and object to this planning application for the following reasons.
- Diamond Creek has such a great range of native birds, animals and insects. I am concerned that the removal of vegetation will have a negative impact on our native wildlife by decreasing the availability of shelter and food. Decreasing biodiversity of local wildlife would then be detrimental to maintaining our status as the Melbourne “Greenwedge.”
I am also very concerned that decreased vegetation results in less offset to emissions, and so will increase pollution in the area. As would an increase of traffic resulting from the number of dwellings, therefore residents, therefore vehicles attached to the 13 dwellings proposed.

- The construction of 13 dwellings is out of character for this area. It would truly diminish the overall character of Diamond creek as a greenwedge area.

- Constructing 13 dwellings in this single site would result in overdevelopment and put increased pressure on existing infrastructure and roads. In particular, Phipps cr, Reynolds Rd, Hames Cook, Fraser, Patyah, Hayley & surrounding streets would suffer negatively from construction and residential vehicles trying to avoid traffic on the Main Rd shopping strip by ”shortcutting” via these roads.

- It would be more realistic and in keeping with the area to reduce the amount of dwellings to a maximum of 4 at the absolute most, preferably less.

I would like to object to this number of units being built in this location. As a local resident of Patyah st, I’m concerned regarding increased traffic congestion and also the loss of greenery. We moved to the area because we value the greenery, beautiful trees and space and this development is not in accordance with the ethos and character of the area.

Thirteen units!!! How does this fit into the character of the area. Habitat and trees will be destroyed. Traffic will be terrible. This should never have been considered. Two or three units at the most would be appropriate.

I am a resident living opposite this proposed development and I strongly oppose to the quantity of dwellings in consideration to the size of land to be used, the average size of a property would be 250-300m2, significantly less to surrounding properties and out of character for our area, along with the increase in traffic ( possibly up to 26 additional vehicles) the surrounding infrastructure is not designed and will not cope with increased congestion, I believe a property of this size would be better suited to 4-5 dwellings rather than the proposed

I would like to object to such a large number of units being built on this site. Housing density of this scale would be completely out of character with the surrounding properties and would permanently change the semi-rural nature of the street. We live in this area because it’s different from other suburbs- more space, more trees and no high density houses. Please don’t destroy it.

I am a resident living 1km from this development, and second the objections made by Nick Brown and others

"The plans are not in keeping with the current character of the area, which is semi-rural green wedge land with native vegetation, and large, single storey dwellings. The development would increase traffic to a narrow, undivided road that currently does not have a footpath; and create high density housing in one lot which would set a precedent for development on other lots. The loss of native vegetation would effectively expand the footprint of Diamond Creek into currently undeveloped land, and the proposed style of building is inconsistent with surrounding buildings. The location on Phipps Crescent is particularly sensitive as it is the beginning of countryside and within immediate proximity of agricultural land. This development would be inconsistent with the stated character of Nillumbik as semi-rural green wedge land, transforming this area into something more usually associated with urban infill. "

I oppose the application of this development. The infrastructure in this area is not capabable of
Coping with the addition of residents of 3 units let alone 13 ! This road is narrow and increased traffic and parking on the side of the road is a recipe for disaster for vehicle traffic as well
As children from the near by schools. The roads through Diamond Creek are already congested and under immense strain from the daily loads, this will then create extra strain on nearby streets with a negative impact . The removal of vegetation will displace native wildlife .
This applications needs to be rejected .

I wish to object for the following reasons…
We voted for a council who wished to preserve the area's character and environment.
We already have a completely unnecessary duplication of the rail line decimating land and areas for wildlife, at a time when nobody is using public transport.
As another resident has already said…
The plans are not in keeping with the current character of the area, which is semi-rural green wedge land with native vegetation, and large, single storey dwellings. The development would increase traffic to a narrow, undivided road that currently does not have a footpath; and create high density housing in one lot which would set a precedent for development on other lots. The loss of native vegetation would effectively expand the footprint of Diamond Creek into currently undeveloped land, and the proposed style of building is inconsistent with surrounding buildings. The location on Phipps Crescent is particularly sensitive as it is the beginning of countryside and within immediate proximity of agricultural land. This development would be inconsistent with the stated character of Nillumbik as semi-rural green wedge land, transforming this area into something more usually associated with urban infill.
Please take this and all the other objections seriously.
We do not need to increase the density of housing in this area. There is already massive development in Diamond Creek on the Broad Gully Road side of our township. Please, please do not set a precedent foe greedy developers to ruin our area for profit.
Thank you for taking the time to read my objection.

I believe that the idea of erecting 13 apartments on this land should be strongly rejected. This region of Diamond Creek is not supported with infrastructure to support a development that is totally out of character with the area. The road in Phipps crescent narrows to a single lane, that already supports more traffic than it did prior to being sealed. It is a difficult view point when driving out of James Cook Drive, and to then add significantly more vehicles after the development is completed would potentially be catastrophic. In addition prior to completion the amount of construction traffic in this region would be significant. There have been previous attempts at more dense accomodation in this area that were not supported by locals yet let go ahead to the detriment of the area after significant issues (the old mine site).
In addition the removal of natural vegetation (again same as mine site) appears to be of little concern now. I guess the idea of more dwellings for more rates is quite appealing to a council that once prided itself on our local amenities and greenery. Start the change and it can never be reverted. Once Diamond Creek becomes just another suburb, we are just the same as the others. Most of us chose to live here for a reason.
No thank you to this development.

I am a resident of Diamond Creek and live in Patyah st. I too find that 13 units is overage they even dont consider the vegetation or the wild animals not to forget the traffic it will bring. Nillumbik council have a heart and think of us and STOP this nonsense. Say NO to this development. No thank you

As a resident of a street off James Cook Drive, I strongly object to the development. I find it is already dangerous enough driving through our sometimes rather narrow streets with the amount of cars already parked on the street. Especially considering the development will be be right at the bottleneck on Phipps. The proposed development does not fit the the area at all.

I would like to object to such a large number of units being built on this site. Housing density of this scale would be completely out of character with the surrounding properties and would permanently change the semi-rural nature of the street. We live in this area because it’s different from other suburbs- more space, more trees and no high density houses. Please don’t destroy it.

I strongly object to this development. Sub divisions are causing significant traffic congestion and there is no off street parking (this site is not within walking distance of shops or train station so all residents will require at least one car and probably two). In addition, this site is too close to agricultural land, will destroy wildlife habitat and will be the thin end of the wedge for future inappropriate development in this area. I would rather pay higher rates than have any more subdivisions in Diamond Creek.

The density of this proposal is totally out of sinc with the local neighbourhood and diamond Creek in general. Already the development on the north western side of the creek along broad gully road has dramatically altered the feel of Diamond Creek with views from the southern / eastern side going from canopy tree lines to a scared landscape of roofs and hard surfaces This is not why people chose to live in diamond creek. Increased density is not in keeping with the feel of diamond Creek or the topography of the area where sloping terrain makes high density an eyesore for the outlook of others. Traffic is becoming a nightmare with so many people diverting via diamond Creek to avoid Yan yean rd and access eastern suburbs I live in Chapman st and already deal with traffic volume restricting entrance to Phipps cre and main rd so another 30 cars feeding down to a dangerous bottleneck is plain negligence. A bush fire will be a catastrophe with main rd continually gridlocked. Increase in trains will only make things worse Build a road from wattle glen kangaroo rd over the train line to broadgully rd and bypass the shopping precinct and you might have a chance to increase density on the southern eastern side of diamond Creek (in non green zone areas) otherwise this is dangerous and cultural vandalism

Having reread the planning documents I am extremely confused / concerned re parking arrangements for this plan. I understand the 2 car garage. There is capacity for 1 visitor car park for the entire site. The data used to calculate average number of cars from early this century is outdated for current usage. Young adults generally do not leave home until much later now due to a number of factors, therefore the idea there will only be 2 cars per residence is an inaccurate premise. With the majority of the residences 4 bedroom, potentially you are looking at up to 4 cars per residence. There is no facility on this space because of the density to manage this. Where do these additional cars go? I assume on to Phipps crescent. Just after a bend. One would also hope that no body within this estate decides to have visitors, or kids come after school for pickup, or a birthday. There will be no room for that.
I notice also that waste management will be provided by a private pickup. How long is this going to be required. It would seem that from a safety perspective that a council provided rubbish truck will not be able to safely get into this estate and safely turn to get out. There is an option for rubbish, however is there the same option for a CFA truck if it has to go down there. I am sure that the 50 odd residents would have an expectation that one would come in case of a fire emergency, but with the real threat of grass fire in that area, should they go into a closed area they cannot easily get out of.

I am a resident of the James Cook Drive and i object the proposed development. Reasons for are that the proposed development is not only un characteristic of the directly located area but also of the suburb. Diamond creek's infrastructure is not equipt to handle developments of this scale. The traffic getting into the diamond creek is becoming more and more ridiculous, and if developments like this are granted it will only subtract to our suburbs appeal.

Objection to Application No. 591/2021/03P – Thirteen dwellings and removal of vegetation (51-55 Phipps Crescent, Diamond Creek)

The residential area surrounding the subject site is typified by single storey detached dwellings in garden settings with generous set-backs from the street.
The proposed thirteen units on the available one acre of land at 51-55 Phipps Crescent represents more than a three-fold increase in dwelling density compared to the existing development pattern in the street.
The site is well outside the Diamond Creek Activity Centre Zone. Its General Residential 1 zoning suggests the development of this site should be in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character.
At its closest point the property is only approx. 50 metres inside the township boundary which is also the Urban Growth Boundary separating urban from bushfire-prone rural land in the municipality. We question whether from a public interest viewpoint it makes good sense to significantly increase the dwelling density on land in this location.
This proposal is out of character with the prevailing development pattern in Phipps Crescent Diamond Creek.

What a ridiculous development, totally not in keeping with the area. 13 units - 26 cars? It will be a nightmare traffic wise, let alone if there is a need to evacuate due to fire, etc. The removal of trees is criminal, and the whole thing just reeks of pure greed. What happened to the green wedge?? Come on Nillumbik Council, support your residents instead of the developers.

We would like to make you aware of our objection against the proposed subdivision of 51-55 Phipps Crescent, Diamond Creek. I have set my points of objection out below:
Increase in Traffic – The sub division will create an increase in traffic and this on a street(Phipps Crescent) that already handles more traffic East of James Cook Drive, than the little Country Lane was intended to handle, bitumenised or not. We have already seen damage to Royston Street just left without any repairs from Council, years on from the original construction of 22 and 31 Royston Street.
Narrow Section of Phipps Crescent- The proposed sub-division would result in the narrow dangerous part of Phipps Crescent becoming even more dangerous and where drivers don’t know when to yield or not. The cars entering and exiting that property will be turning the already dangerous intersection of Phipps and James Cook into something that will almost need a roundabout to avoid constant vehicular accidents.
Car Parking – The upper part of Phipps Crescent already has very limited off-street parking and unless the subdivision provides sufficient parking with each unit, there will be further traffic congestion on the road due to an increased number of cars parking in the road. I have noticed in the plans that there is application to override that. This spells disaster for all locals and anyone using the Reynolds Road shortcut from Research/Wattle Glen
Character of the neighbourhood- Our property and a few neighbouring ones are classified as a Rural Conservation zone and many of the surrounding properties are on larger allotments which have extensive open spaces, the new development will not be in keeping with this. Council seems to want to allow as many property developments as possible and almost bent on turning Diamond Creek into the next Northcote. We have already seen Council does not keep track of vegetation removal as proved on 22 Royston Street. Trees were damaged and removed without Council doing anything. If neighbours didn’t keep track all trees would’ve been removed by now.
Lack of amenities- The part of Phipps Crescent adjacent to this proposed development, like nearby Royston Street has no pavements, minimal street lights and insufficient street drainage. It would seem foolhardy of the Council to approve this without investing in these amenities which are commonplace for more developed streets.
Size of proposed blocks – In Royston Street around the corner Council has approved two developments (22&31) in the last few years on very similar sized blocks. Most of them are still between 900-1000sqm in size. That is far more reflective of this part of Diamond Creek. By allowing more than 4 units on that block Council would be encouraging unscrupulous developers to turn Diamond Creek into a Townhouse settlement.

I am a resident of James Cook Drive Diamond Creek and very frequent pedestrian and driver on Phipps Crescent. I object to the planning application at 51-55 Phipps Crescent involving buildings and works to construct thirteen (13) dwellings and removal of native vegetation.

My objection to the application is based on the following concerns:

1. Council has a responsibility to ensure that planning decisions are properly informed by the planning scheme. A relevant consideration is Nillumbik’s draft 2022-2032 Climate Action Plan, building on Council’s previous climate plans.

This plan notes at ‘Focus Area 3: Having a climate-resilient natural environment’ that ‘Nillumbik’s green wedge and its vegetated urban environment both present opportunities for deliberate action to act as a carbon-sink to help sequester emissions (absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) and help to limit climate change – whilst at the same time helping to reduce urban heat-island impacts, provide habitat, and provide climate resilient food systems.’

A dense development of this nature set in the position planned – 50 metres from the border of rural land zoning – runs counter to the objective of this scheme, which is to maintain a climate-resilient natural environment.

2. As Shauna-Marie Wilson and Melissa Collins state, the proposal would involve an unacceptable removal of environmentally significant vegetation and fails to contemplate maintaining sufficient indigenous vegetation. Diamond Creek is home to a large variety of native wildlife and birdlife and promoting native vegetation helps to retain Victoria’s biodiversity as it forms the basis of Victoria’s ecological communities.

3. As noted by Leonie Zortea, at its closest point, the proposed development would be only approximately 50 metres inside the township boundary which is also the Urban Growth Boundary separating urban from bushfire-prone rural land. Creating high density units of this kind would set a precedent for development of much denser housing in on other similar sized lots – tight developments of this kind are unsuited to this fire prone environment.

4. As noted by many other objectors, the scale and density of the proposal would dominate the surrounds and is unsuited to the character of the local area.

5. The lack of proper parking provision for occupants and visitors would unacceptably impact upon the amenity of the surrounds. As Michael Finn states, the estimate that there would only be two cars per residence is an inaccurate premise. With most of the residences planned to contain four bedrooms, there could be up to four cars per residence. This local area cannot support such large numbers of vehicles.

6. The development would therefore create substantial traffic congestion on inadequate road infrastructure. As noted by Nick Brown, this development would form a big bottle neck at the start of a very narrow undivided road without a footpath. It is also located near an intersection which carries relatively heavy local traffic as well as the 580 Bus line. This could pose a significant hazard in any peak period or in a time of emergency.

7. The plan contains a particularly tight driveway allowing inadequate access for emergency vehicles.

As a local resident in Reynolds rd using Phipps crescent daily I wish to object to the planned units at 51-55 Phipps crescent. We were drawn to our residence by the beauty of the natural surroundings that diamond creek offers. Further significant loss of vegetation to make way for the laying down of concrete jungles that allow jamming in multiple units on this site will not be fitting with this culture and does not belong in the “green wedge”.
Shortly after we moved to Reynolds rd, the dirt road in front of our house was sealed leading to a massive increase of traffic flowing past our house. Motorists drive dangerously fast while weaving through narrow roads that we not intended for high flow traffic sealed or not. Adding dense living to this will only profoundly make matters worse. Furthermore, to consider building high density units at the mouth of a one way street creates many issues and surely will lead to accidents, frustrations and injuries. This is not fitting with the relaxed, family friendly, city escape feeling of Diamond Creek.
Please don’t approve the application of this mass unit development in our leafy suburban town.

The property is located within a few properties of open fields and all surrounding properties are single storey. As part of the green wedge this property is almost as close as it is possible to get. Subdividing into 4 properties would still represent a significant change to the area but would allow each new house adequate outside space and allow green space without significantly impacting the local area from a biodiversity perspective.
The waste management plan clearly shows the scale of over development since the council provided solutions cannot be used due to lack of space on the footpath/verge for 13 properties.
The change of the block with significantly increased paving will increase water flows directly impacting adjacent land/properties
Houses are increasingly multi generational which will mean multiple cars per house which will require parking on the streets , in a single lane road at this point, and near James Cook Drive blocking access.
Diamond Creek is located in the green wedge and whilst it has public transport options there are less than adequate outside of peak times. The train station is relatively close, depending on fitness, however there is a single track line to Eltham with off peak trains departing once a hour and this will not change in the next 20 years as noted in the recent line upgrades.