PlanningAlerts

13 Comments

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

1. I think this is great, development of land to create affordable dwellings for elderly/first home buyers. I wish there was more developments like this

2. Question for Lindsay Gray. Hi Lindsay. I went onto the Geelong Council website and looked at all of the documents about the development (application plans, floodmap, planning report and zoning map) and I could not find anything on those documents about this being affordable housing for either the elderly or first home buyers. It is simply two semi detached double storey houses on a standard block of land. I assume they will simply be sold on the open market like other properties in Ocean Grove, and I was wondering where you found information about it being affordable housing for either the elderly or first home buyers. If these are sold at market value, they will certainly go for more than single storey detached properties on somewhere like the Oakdene estate (I'm mentioning the Oakdene estate as it has the cheapest housing in the town at present). Could you please let me know where you came across the information about it being developed to create affordable dwellngs.

3. This is just greed by developers. Ocean Grove Collendina is a coastal town. These developers are just being greedy. 2 properties jammed on land that size.
   Someone needs to protect the character of Ocean Grove.

4. Hi everyone, I am the part owner of the block in question. I am 58 years old and will be living in my new home until I retire and beyond that. I moved from Castlemaine to Ocean Grove last year to be closer to my family - grandchildren etc. Prior to this I had traveled back and forth between Castlemaine and Ocean Grove for 18 months, spending one week in each place, before deciding I would like to move to Ocean Grove and be a part of my baby granddaughters', lives and this community. I am currently renting in Collendina. I can assure you that I am not a greedy developer. I have raised five children (all adults now) and I consider myself to be a good neighbour who always aims to get along with everyone and live in peace. I could not have afforded to buy into this area without the help of my daughter and son-in-law, who will own the other dwelling. I am a well-known children's author and I also have a 'day job' but a greedy developer is not who I am and neither are my family. I am happy to meet with anyone in the street who would like to acquaint themselves with me. Feel free to get in touch me via this site.

5. It's about time we increased housing density to reduce our land grab on farms. Doesn't seem greedy when only 2 houses instead of 3-4. Converting farming land into 600m2 blocks is not good use of agricultural land. Let's increase density and provide more affordable houses for everyone. (Yes the denser the houses the cheaper, common sense) time to move with the times old fogies

6. Hello Louise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that but reducing the land size you reduce the cost. The times of having useless backyards wasting land are over. If it were a greed development more dwellings would be applied for this seems restrained in my view. Reading the blurb above it seems a semi - retiree is moving in there so what other evidence do you require? Additionally original forms were lodged with the Supreme Court of Victoria in an affidavit. Good to see some capital coming to the area improving the area for all.

7. Nothing stopping any of you guys buying the block then you are free to do what you like on YOUR LAND

8. Welcome to your new town! We are a community of newcomers. When we built 32 years ago Collendina was lonely place. It still can be but with more people living in each street instead of empty blocks we grow into a more vibrant place. The affordability of housing is such an issue that high density living is fact of life. I would much prefer to have occupied units than absent landlords or million dollar holiday mansions blocking views.

9. Lindsay, thank you for responding.

   I made my original comment before one of the owners responded. Secondly I disagree that this leads to cheaper housing. In general older houses on larger blocks in Ocean Grove are selling for less, or at the very least a similar amount, to brand new houses on half blocks.

   I have nothing negative to say about Lee Fox, I'm sure she'll be a great addition to the area, but the fact that she is about to retire still doesn't mean this land is being developed specifically to create affordable housing for the elderly or first home buyers.

   I just asked you to respond because your original comment seemed to suggest that you knew that it was specifically being developed as cheap housing for people who can't afford market value in the area.That doesn't appear to be the case. It is simply two owners building for themselves to live in.

   You also made your original comment before Lee responded and said she was a semi retiree, so I'm still curious why you thought it was being developed specifically for the elderly or first home buyers?

10. 'It's about time we increased housing destiny ....'
    'time to move with the times old fogies....'

    and 'times of having useless backyards are over ....'

    Wow. Just wow.
    Wrong on all points.
    This is Australia, this is a coastal area.
    There are plenty of new developments opening up north of Ocean Grove.
    These comments sound silly, aggressive, and like someone is getting angry that others are disagreeing with what they wish to do.
    Arguments do not end and are not won by using 'bullish' language and behaviour.

11. Thank you for your responses, welcomes and opinions. It's good to hear everyone's thoughts and this is a great forum for allowing people to have their say. Again, if anyone would like to speak to me in person about this, I am more than happy to do so. Feel free to contact me via this site.

12. My partner and I looked at a property across the road from this one two years ago. We found there was a covenant on the title that restricted what could be done with the property, specifically that only one 'dwelling' could be built on the land, effectively meaning it could not be subdivided. Is there a similar covenant on this property and is the application including a request to remove it if there is?

13. Thanks to the Statutory Planning Officer who directed me to the application details on the City of Greater Geelong website (I should have looked harder to find this). I see from the planning application and the attached title document that there was indeed an application made to the Supreme Court last year to have the wording of the covenant changed to allow two dwellings to be constructed on this property. This answers my previous question.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 8 years ago. It lasted for 18 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Greater Geelong. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment