PlanningAlerts

15 Comments

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

1. This development is ridiculous, attempting to build along said a Laneway, let's say that again laneway! This Laneway is meant to be for bikes and feet, not cars and/or motorbikes! The laneway is far too narrow to be a driveway. These laneways are meant to be safeways for people and cyclists to use and not have to worry about cars.
   To approve this would be ludicrous.

2. This is a totally inappropriate development for this block (and further over-development of the Oak Park area). Furthermore, converting the pedestrian laneway between Sylvester Street and the rear reserve into a shared pedestrian laneway and driveway for 3 double garages would be dangerous as well as a misuse of public land. This lane is used constantly by pedestrians (including children) and push bikes to access the public reserve and playing fields. The proposal will be dangerous in the extreme. I am not anti-development by any means, but this one should be rejected on many grounds, most notably for its proposal to use public pedestrian access land for private driveway access.

3. Build more town houses will add to increasing traffic congestion to get in and out of Oak park, Will parking for two cars be put in for these town houses because the streets are full of parked cars.
   What will council do to address traffic congestion in the area with the on going approval of town houses?
   There is only two ways to enter this side of Oak park which is off busy Pascoe.

4. This laneway is way too narrow to be used as a driveway. It is used by plenty of locals to access the oval and lots of children and dogs. This is not an appropriate development at all. Shame on you moreland continually approving overdeveloped areas. Leave the laneway to the community. This is not a driveway!

5. The laneway in this application is an important thoroughfare for pedestrians and cyclists and should not be shared with cars. This would be unsafe for the community who use it regularly.

6. Building four units on this site is a gross over development and the application should be rejected. The builder should restrict his plans including a driveway into the footprint of the block of land without encroaching on public space. This laneway connects the informal path that traverses the Moreland side of the Moonee Ponds Creek allowing it to bypass a length of steep embankment that has no pedestrian access. It connects the path that ends with steps at John St to John Pascoe Fawkner Reserve and beyond. A permit to allow vehicle access to 3 double garages from this narrow busy pathway should be completely rejected.

7. This laneways provides a safe link for pedestrians and cyclists including many children and teenagers from the creek trail at the ovals to link back to it at John St. We regularly walk this area and see many people and dogs using this lane. As public land, it should not be used for a developer to use as a driveway at the expense and safety risk to the public.

8. This laneway is a safe entry point for young families with toddlers to access the play area, in particular when football matches are on. It will be extremely disappointing to allow cars on this laneway. I really think this is not a great idea for the betterment of local community.

9. The proposal of this laneway is utter madness and should be rejected. This laneway is used by pedestrians to access the parkland and has been so for a very long time. Leave it alone. The overdevelopment of once beautiful Oak Park is out of control and in my opinion oak park is being bastardises by greedy developers. This application must be rejected wholeheartedly.

10. A public laneway combined with a private residential site? How can the two safely be combined? Who will be liable for maintenance of the share lane? Who will be liable if injured by a vehicle? Will TAC pay damages on this shared space when it is not technically a road? Who will monitor and fine parked vehicles in the lane when it is part privately owned? Will children be abused by unit owners for "playing" in the laneway. These are all ridiculous circumstances that make me cringe just thinking about this absurd planning application.

    This lane is the most used of all the lanes amongst these Oak Park Streets. As you walk along the Moonee Ponds Creek, you approach a dead end and have no choice but to walk down this Sylvester St Lane to reach the creek again. More often than not, when I walk this lane, I pass a person walking in the opposite direction. It is busy, it is safe and it is madness to even think the laneway could be shared with cars and trucks.

    We have already seen similar development between Gregory and John Street, and it creeps me out walking so close to people's front doorways. How can this be even safe for people, particularly children.

    I really hope Councillors and Officers take the time to view the site to clearly understand that to share the laneway with motorised vehicles is just a crazy planning idea which should never get off the ground.

    I would like to request that the laneway remains as is with the already installed bollard to stop all vehicle use.

    Thanking you.

    Nina Franceschi
    Open Space Defenders Group and Member of Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek

11. I’m worried about my small kids, we use this and other lane ways to access the park and they often run with excitement along the lane way. There wouldn’t be room for a footpath and vehicle access. If cars are reversing and driving in an out it becomes really dangerous. These laneways around the suburb connect roads and parks and kindergarten to school foot traffic. They really shouldn’t be allowed to be used as driveways. Please reject this application. If the developer wants vehicle access to the rear they need to allow for it in their private land not on our pedestrian access lanes.

12. I often walk with my 2 year old in the area and down sylvester street la, it is terrifying to think what risks vehicle traffic will introduce. We moved to oak park just under 3 years ago longing for a pocket relatively untouched by developers. As of late, the number of houses gone up has really impacted the parking and in our experience, access to daycare and kinder for working families.

    There is a perfectly functioning driveway on this property and no need to use of a laneway which is enjoyed by the community, family’s and young children. Don’t wait for something terrible to happen to then relalise it was a bad idea to implement it.

13. This is an entirely inappropriate development for this block (and further over-development of the Oak Park area). Converting the pedestrian laneway between Sylvester Street and the rear reserve into a shared pedestrian laneway and driveway for 3 double garages would be dangerous as well as a misuse of public land. This lane is used constantly by pedestrians (including children) and push bikes to access the public reserve and playing fields. A similar conversion must have occurred at some point in the past along the John Street laneway and it is very dangerous and a misuse of public land. This development should be rejected on multiple grounds, most notably for its proposal to use public pedestrian access land for private driveway access, but also as contributing to your further overdevelopment of Oak Park.

14. Is this a joke? You buy a block, you develope within your block. How do you take over a laneway to increase your block size?! You want a drive way for multiple properties, incorporate that into your block space. If this gets through the flood gates will open for even more insane developments.

15. This development proposal is an outrageous overreach of planning schemes and intended outcomes which entirely profits the developer at the expense of the entire Moreland Community!
    How is this an equitable outcome for the community when a land owner takes public shared footpath as his own "driveway" to increase the footprint of the property without having to "buy" the adjacent land.
    If the Moreland Council planning department is serious in entertaining these types of ridiculous proposals (which is staggering to think this was passed to be "gazetted for public opinion) in the 1st place, how about the Council opens up the lane way land for public sale - thereby opening up a democratic conversation on public/shared pathways.
    It is entirely inappropriate for a land owner to effectively be offered shared laneway access for their development "private use" to profiteer for free! There are a further 9 other laneways adjacent to private land in Oak Park - is this going to be open slather for every greedy developer to manipulate the system in this way?? A similar outcome happened at 10 John St with the laneway proposal despite the Moreland Council together with locals taking the developer to VCAT.

    Converting the pedestrian lane way between Sylvester Street and the rear reserve into a shared pedestrian lane way and driveway for 3 double garages would be dangerous as well as a misuse of public land. This lane is used constantly by hundreds of pedestrians (including children) , dog walkers, families & cyclists to access the public reserve, bike paths and playing fields on a weekly basis.

    This development proposal needs to be rejected entirely on the grounds of;
    1) Not in keeping with the neighbourhood surrounds and streetscape
    2) Use of a public laneway / pathway for private residential use
    3) Proposal is an over-development & overshadows the laneway and surrounds

    Suggestions for alteration is to use it's own land for a driveway servicing units and reduce the size and number of units to 3 which is more appropriate for Neighbourhood Residential Zoning (NRZ).

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Moreland 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