PlanningAlerts

2 Comments

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

1. We have recently been informed that the proposed devlopment at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unnaceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
   Residents have gratiously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unnaceptable.
   The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
   For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enourmous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
   This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the devlopment at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
   The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unnacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concenssions.
   We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 stoereys proposed is acceptable but rather is their any limit at all. Notwithstanding councils proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enourmous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upperbound limit, and therefore therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
   The debate needs to define what the llimit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conslude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

2. We have recently been informed that the proposed development at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unacceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
   Residents have graciously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unacceptable.
   The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self-serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
   For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enormous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
   This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the development at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
   The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concessions.
   We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 storeys proposed is acceptable but rather is there any limit at all. Notwithstanding council’s proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enormous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upper bound limit, and therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
   The debate needs to define what the limit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conclude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Stonnington. 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