PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

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

1. As time goes on, ongoing reductions in parking requirements continues to ever-more adversely affect local communities, as more and more successive developments are granted reductions. NO REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD OCCUR.

2. I wholeheartedly agree wuth Lou Baxter's comments. There are already two medical centres in Tecoma and one in Belgrave. We do not need any more. Also impact of less car spaces. The traffic would be too busy close to school also,

3. Surely the hills population does not need another medical centre or is there a hidden agenda with the councill

4. OBJECTION to YR-2022/145 as it presents at 4/03/2022
   Following limited review of the Application plans and personal prior activity in Objection and VCAT Appeal relating to similar applications pertaining to this site, note below.
   Additional grounds of objection will no doubt arise, and I reserve the right to submit further accordingly.

   1. The application documentation does not refer to any prior VCAT determinations relevant to this and abutting sites.

   2. The proposal presents as exhaustive use of the site.

   3. The proposed structure does not meet the requirements of DDO14 - It does not blend well with the existing neighbourhood character.

   4. The proposed structure presents as 3 levels, not 2, from certain viewpoints.

   5. Any prior Traffic Studies undertaken for prior Applications are flawed due to limited scope and unrealistic levels of neighbourhood activity.
   Note other Objectors: The Applicant will use such limited studies to justify reduction in parking provision, in essence, being reliant on public street parking and parking provided by other Land Holders in Tecoma.
   Further,
   a) the proposal is deficient in providing Disabled Parking bays.
   b) any reduction in parking provision is NOT supported.

   6. The proposal in attempting to provided limited parking on-site adversely affects traffic flow along existing easement. This is a busy laneway due to traffic generated by commercial activity of abutting and near field sites. Parking bays as shown on the attached plan extend into said easement.

   7. The proposal provides insufficient area for secure storage of waste generated by the proposed mixed use.

   8. The proposal provides ZERO landscape works.

   9. The proposed structure presents as a plain slab sided building from all view points and adversely affects the amenity of other abutting Land Users and landscaping works/plantings on those sites.
   On a positive note, it looks better than previous proposals that looked like "shipping containers plonked atop a shop".

   10. The proposal clashes with existing abutting structures due to zero setback from the Burwood Hwy boundary. Multiple contradictions present.

   Note to Councillors:
   Bother to visit the site prior to any determination of this Application. Do not rely only on Council assessment reports or Applicant submissions, both written and verbal.
   Bother to seek out the opinions of residents in relation to this matter.
   Fully understand the reasoning for DDO14.
   Note that prior determinations and information provided by Applicants has been flawed.

   Note to other objectors:
   Get organised and personally active.
   This matter will be determined by Council Staff under a Delegate Authority unless a sufficient objections are lodged by the public and adjoining Land Holders.
   This means individual submissions, so don't rely on the few who have understanding of the Planning process and are active to meet the number of objections (10) that trigger Councillor determination on this matter.
   You do not need to 'live next door' to have a relevant say in this matter.
   Hold your Councillor to live up to their election material rhetoric relating to community and environmental values, that extend far beyond short term commercial or Real Estate interests.

5. I support the construction of this building, that doesn't mean I like the design and I don't believe it fits the character of Tecoma, as it's just another bland modernist structure designed by another tasteless design studio. I doubt we'll ever get anything tasteful and reflective of the area so I've given up trying. My only issue is that this building will obviously utilise more than 9 car parking spaces. There's 21 consulting suites in this plan, two/three reception areas and a pharmacy. Where are all the building's users' to park? McDonalds?

6. I would like to object to the proposed over development of this site(1533 Burwood Hwy Tecoma).(Disclaimer. I'm very naive and this is my First objection to a proposed development) 1/ Tecoma already has 2 medical practices. 2/ Re, Parking Impact Assessment Report, In section 1.2.5? Interviews were conducted with staff and patients at 1532 Burwood Hwy. On the south side of the proposed development. Furthermore this survey in my humble opinion was conducted when I think was when Melbourne Metro was in COVID lockdown. As far as I have asked, no one on the North side were asked. 3/ Public Car Parking spaces, See figure 2.6 of "B Traffic" report shows public parking in McNicol road opposite Tecoma Railway Station. As most long time locals know, It is just a small piece of muddy dirt, used by those earlier enough to get there and commute by train. The other Car park appears to be off Walter Street, which I think is a private car park for customers and staff of those businesses.I believe the survey did not take into consideration the impact of having a Primary school and Kintergarden during drop off and pick up times.It overwhelms the private car parks of existing businesses, denying them of customers.Lastly, 2.2 of the network report: Says that Burwood highway "contains an undivided cross section with two traffic lanes in each direction". Even when it was known as Monbulk Road, it was always one lane each way.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Yarra Ranges Shire 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