46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC

Construction of Residential Village (Accommodation) and Reduction in Carparking Requirements

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website almost 4 years ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: City of Greater Geelong, reference 1105/2016)

18 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Peter O'Connor commented

    I am concerned that a residential village housing persons with a mental illness will be located across the road from a primary school, 150 metres from a child care centre and around the corner from a bottle shop. It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. While I support the need to assist those with a mental illness, I am concerned that this location will put young children at risk as well as being unsuitable for the residents

  2. Joseph Walsh and PooiLing See commented

    Very concerned that a non secured type residential housing for persons suffering with mental illness and potential dual diagnosis of chronic mental illness with drug or alcohol problems be located in a residential area with young families, close to a childcare centre, a primary school and a bottle shop. As it's not a high security type dwelling or a facility that can monitor the comings and goings of its residents, we fear for the safety of the vulnerable young children at such close quarters. We know that there just aren't enough police to patrol the area. We feel this location is totally unsuitable as a site for this.

  3. Charmaine Ferguson commented

    I support the need to provided opportunity and care for those with mental illness, but it needs to be suitable, appropriate and stable.
    To build sixteen self-contained, one bedroom unit’s apartments on a compact site where there are 2 schools, child care centre, sports facility, bottle shop and already limited car parking does not seem suitable, appropriate or stable. To develop such accommodation facility is not only a concern for the existing tenants of the compact area, but a genuine risk for the young who are educated in the area to.

  4. Megan Williamson commented

    Haven first proposed this development in mid-2014 but due to public outcry they withdrew their application. This outcry was due, in part, to the inappropriate location of such a facility - across the road from a primary school and child care centre and around the corner from a bottle shop. Potential clients for this facility were persons with severe mental illness coupled with drug and/or alcohol problems.

    Under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the minimum parking provision for this facility is calculated as 19 spaces. As per the planning report Haven have requested a reduction in this requirement (to 3 spaces - 1 would be for disabled) as "Haven residents will typically not drive". The reduction in required number of car spaces is based on a presumption and I feel this is inappropriate.

    The Haven planning report states that "Haven Geelong residents will be seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness". Further to this, in recent conversations with Ric Walsh (Haven CEO) and Allan Fels (Haven Chairman) it is unclear as to what type of clients would now be considered. Walsh 100% guaranteed the clients would be medically compliant with no substance abuse issues or criminal offending history. When questioned further her conceded that no client would be police checked and none of the clients would be on compulsory treatment orders mandating them to comply with taking their medication. Fels stated they would be police checked but wouldn't elaborate further.

    In response to my email to the Catholic Church (dated 21/9/16) they stated that the St. Mary's Parish believes that Haven are a "responsible organisation". As per the Haven brochure they list Sarah Henderson Mp (Federal Member for Corangamite) and Christine Couzens (State Member for Geelong) as being supporters of this proposal. In response to my email to Couzens (dated 20/9/16) she states that "at no time have I given permission to Haven Foundation to use my name as a supporter of their proposal". Further to this, in a phone conversation with Henderson's assistant today this is "outside of her constituency".

    Although this project has value and merit, the proposed location for such a facility is totally inappropriate and I feel that the marketing of this project to local residents has not been totally transparent. The Catholic Church have stated that "the proposed project can go ahead only if it receives wide community support" and I respectfully submit that this is not the case

  5. Anna Craig commented

    Without a doubt, this is a TOTALLY inappropriate area to have the Haven Foundation apartments housing severely mentally ill persons. 2 Primary Schools, Childcare, Kindergartens, loads of family living in the area who love the idea of their kids riding to school safely without the added worry of knowing a concentration of severely mentally ill people are housed right near their destinations. This is a highly irresponsible decision by the Catholic Church and Haven Foundation to locate these apartments here. There would be many other suitable places they can build this. You can see from the initial application that there was a MASSIVE public outcry in 2014 - it really isn't fair to the local organisations and residents to keep trying to beat the system - you know how we all feel about it already, you would have documented this from your initial meeting with the community, so please listen AND understand that nobody has changed their views since 2014. As mentioned by other residents, there is not enough parking in the street as it is with the childcare drop offs, childcare workers, primary school drop off and workers, and residents. Not only have Haven requested a reduction in parking provision, they havent considered that visitors will be parking in the street, where will they park if its already busy? Please look at other options - its simply isn't a viable location and we all want to feel safe in the streets with our kids and not have to turn into helicopter parents.

  6. Daniel Lamanna commented

    My comment is around the reduction of parking. For this development to have success, the patients must require assistance from medical professionals and family support. Where are these visitors going to park. Residential streets??? Surely this is not an acceptable solution to the application for reduced parking. This area is selling to young families renovating and a majority of the residential homes already have a lack of off street parking. Why should the local residents be forced to source parking further from their properties due to a company attempting to increase commercial return through decreased parking requirements. I would like to see council maintain their stringent parking requirements under all other residential housing developments whilst reviewing this application.

  7. Stuart Cairns commented

    I'm posting this comment in opposition to the Haven Foundation proposal to build a high density mental health facility for 16 clients "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" at 46 Lomond Terrace East Geelong, in a residential zoned area. In my opinion the Haven Foundation are manipulating the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme definition of land use.

    Although clause 74 does not provide a definition of community care units (CCUs), Haven have adopted (according to their planning report) the Department of Health and Human Services definition being "CCU's provide clinical care and rehabilitation in a home like environment. They support the recovery of people seriously affected by mental illness to develop or relearn skills in self-care, communication and social skills in a community-based residential facility". Haven are comfortable aligning with this definition until the term of "clinical care". If this facility provided "clinical care" it would not be deemed residential and therefore would not fit the criteria for residential zoning. Clinical care involves the employment of on-site specialist clinical mental health practitioners. Although Haven state that this is a supported facility for 16 people "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" there will be no on-site clinical care, instead there will be "at least one Karingal staff member per shift (this information is drawn directly from their planning report lodged with the COGG).

    By eliminating the requirement to have an on-site clinician at all times Haven are trying to manipulate the planning process in order to get a mental health facility into a residential zoned area. In my opinion it is totally inappropriate to have 16 people "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" without the necessary clinical care they require just so this facility can be built in a residential zoned area.

  8. Megan Blair. commented

    I would like to add my voice to those opposing this application. My concerns are in line with those already given by others, so I'll not repeat those. What I do want to add though, is my concern that facilities such as this attract drug dealers to the area. Having spoken to people who have worked in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, I understand that this is a very real risk and certainly not one we want to have in a residential area where families are raising their children.
    I also believe that any 16 unit apartment block, regardless of it's purpose, is entirely unsuited to an area that has heritage overlay listings (see COGG Schedule To The Heritage Overlay, pg 113, PS Map Refs HO1642 and HO1643). By their very nature, they will irrevocably deplete the character of surrounding streets that so strongly defines East Geelong and all that residents love about living here.

  9. Delaney Worrall commented

    I understand the need for such a facility, but not in this area child care, primary schools, bottle shop and local business. As previously stated the out cry in 2014, what has changed in the area to think this is now a better idea.... nothing. This will effect school enrolment at St Margarets, who knows how many people it has already turned away from the school, enrolments are down for 2016. I often walk around Thompson oval whilst waiting to pick up my children from school the amount of people of have witnessed drinking alcohol on the oval, netball courts, there was a drug over dose in the cricket nets at 3pm, that called for 3 ambulances and police.
    This is a bad bad bad idea

  10. Andrew Nurse commented

    Prior to living in Geelong, I lived in St Kilda for approximately 20 years. We all are aware of the colourful vista of St Kilda and I made allowances for that. My home was approximately 50 to 300 m away from two halfway houses and a needle exchange outlet. Back then St Kilda had a "seedy " element but was relatively safe because there was a sense of acceptance/ awareness and neighbourly connection . However in the last 10 years or so , the combination of increased availability/cost reduction and some dreadful drugs, increased homelessness and the Govt decision to house some " at risk" people within the community, a considerable increase in ugly incidents occurred. I was subjected to verbal abuse, threats of one nature or the other, witnessed multiple escalating incidents between some of the people who lived in halfway houses etc. Police interventions became commonplace, occurring almost weekly with some people, yelling, drawn guns etc etc. Amongst my neighbours was an increasing nervousness and I suppose we as adults, all took some type of altered behaviours/ habits to cope with the possibility of unacceptable interactions. Unfortunately there were multiple violent/ nasty altercations, with most recently a fatal stabbing. I am not saying this will happen here , but it many of the elements are present or potentially so.

    We as a society are measured by how we look after those less fortunate but I cannot help but think that the location proposed is completely unacceptable ( pre and primary schools within 50 to 300 m). The people that are potentially to become our neighbours require careful consideration, but we cannot ignore that we as a community have rights as well, none more important than being allowed to go about our lives peacefully and respectfully. Given that the Geelong district is vast and has access to outer areas ( quasi rural), could it not be more acceptable to consider a less risky placement where people can attempt to re-connect with mainstream life in a manner which is workable for all involved.

  11. Graham Smith commented

    I would like to add the concerns of my wife and I to the many others concerned at this proposal, the main problem being the location. The impact on the nearby community and the children, parents and staff at the primary school and pre school would be significant. Another potential problem for the area could also be the visitors to these units who may also have drug/alcohol issues and now could move into the area more regularly. I also note the application requests a reduction in parking requirements. Another impact on the nearby residents to pick up the slack in this development. Surely there is a better option to provide for the needs of these people than rehashing an already failed plan from 2 years ago. Smacks of political opportunism to me, now there is no Council.

  12. Joanne ritchie commented

    I have major concerns about this development. Not only as there is primary schools, child care centres and kindergartens, but also the congestion of extra traffic and parking.
    I agree there needs to be more housing for disadvantaged people, but a 16 unit development in a quiet residential area is absurd! The existing home is beautiful and can easily be renovated to house 2-6 people. There must be a more suitable site closer to the city and hospitals.
    Please listen to the residents, many people will be negatively affected by this proposed development.

  13. Noel Kenneally commented

    Noel Kenneally
    I would like to lodge my objection to this application to build this 3 story 16 unit complex in this situation at Lamond tce.it not only will not suit the area which has a heritage overlay but also the proposed use of such a facility as planned is inappropriate in my opinion ,the child care centre has expanded, ,and nothing else has changed since they tried to get it passed 2 years ago ,also with the matter of waiving the car parking . there will be kaos in tisdall street and loftus street as well as Lamond tce with extra vehicles especially on garbage pick up day with 36 bins placed on the footpath /road ,where are the vehicles going to park and how are the contractors going to pick up the waste .Also there has been contraditiction within the haven foundation its self about how the patients will be checked

  14. Steve Simmons and Renae Munzel commented

    As nearby residents, we strongly object to the current proposal as we believe that the intended construction is totally inappropriate for many reasons.

    Primarily, the building is completely out of character with the local area, with many buildings being heritage listed, primarily single story weatherboard residential houses. There are no pre-existing 3 storey buildings in the area to set the precedent that would allow the argument for this building to be in keeping with the current surroundings. It is our concern that if such development were permitted, this would result in many more applications for three story multi-apartment complexes, as a precedence would exist. One of the significant charms of living in this pocket of East Geelong, is the current environment of charming heritage single story weatherboard buildings - this contributes much to the enjoyment and living standards of local residents. Our residence is within 100metres of the proposed development, our current view from our residence is that of a skyline including a beautiful view of the old St Margarets Church. This view will be completely destroyed by the construction of the proposed 3 storey monstrosity and hence will severely effect our quiet enjoyment of this view due to the dominance of the skyline.

    Further to the reduction of enjoyment caused by the visual impact of the building, the current proposal for a waiver of the rules pertaining to parking requirements is ridiculous. It is quite obvious that with the intended number of residents and the current proposal of a mere 2 carparks and 1 disabled carpark, is inappropriately inadequate and flies in the face of the intentions of parking requirements in the first place. If these rules don't apply to such a construction, where and who else will these rules be disregarded in other developments no matter how large or small throughout the rest of the City of Greater Geelong. To me it is an afront to each and every Geelong resident and simply a commercial cash-grab as the development would clearly not be viable if the rules were to be followed appropriately.

    How can the Haven foundation claim that parking is not necessary for this development, when Professor Fells himself, a single residents parent, reports that he visits regularly?? As I am sure every other residents family and friends do so. As such, we do not agree with the calculation provided within the application, if anything there should be provision for GREATER parking than a normal residential development due to the enormous number of expected visitors, caregivers, clinicians, staff, residents and others.

    I note in the application, Haven's claim to wish to use existing parking on the corner of St Albans Rd and Breakwater Rd. This would require residents and visitors etc to cross a busy road where no current pedestrian crossing exists (nor do we want one to interrupt the flow of traffic) at the junction of a busy 5-way roundabout. Additionally, is this parking not already allocated and taken in to account in planning provisions for pre-existing businesses within the immediate area? These parking spaces are limited and often already utilised for local residents to access their local amenities. I also believe that the estimate of parking provisions within the proposal is grossly over-quoted - unless Haven have mistakenly (or intentionally) included use of private parking on private land exclusive to local business (e.g. Fruit Shack)?

    Further to the above, we have a major concern with the proposed building and requests for lessening of boundary setback allowances, particularly on the Northern boundary. In one part of the submitted report, there is a claim that the building will meet energy efficiency standards due to the number of north facing windows - however within the same application they have requested a reduction in setback from the northern boundary which has a pre-existing dwelling built on to the boundary. These two statements or requests do not reconcile - how can energy efficiency be gained by windows immediately facing on to a brick wall??

    As of today, 20/10/16, the planning application public notice sign required to be posted on the boundary of the proposed site has been removed. And we have no idea how long this has been the case, but are weary of this as a tactic, given the application is still active on the COGG website. This has been recorded on video footage, should this be required.

    We have been made aware that Father Dillon has written to some local residents, and / or parents of local schoolchildren indicating his withdrawal of support for the project. However, we are concerned that this has been another tactic to subvert the process of public objection by giving the impression that the development will no longer go ahead.

    Because of the above two paragraphs, we believe many people who may have objected would not have due to the belief that either their objection was too late, or that is no longer required.

    Finally, we are disappointed, disillusioned and angered by the current proposal being lodged at a time where no existing council presides over the City of Greater Geelong. We see this as an attempt to subvert public opinion and the right of every citizen to have our voices democratically represented. Our cynicism is heightened by the fact that the exact same application was withdrawn and debunked in 2014 and residents were advised that the development would not take place on this site.

  15. Tiriel Mora commented

    Further to others objections, there would seem to be a very interesting technical question as to whether or not this facility would actually be regarded as residential when the application to me sounds like they are building a healthcare facility. I live in a house and I do not have an on site health supervisor nor do I have clinicians visiting daily to provide services for my needs and nor does anyone visit me to provide activities. To me it sounds more like a nursing home than a residential complex and I'm no lawyer and it may just be the vibe felt by me, but I don't think you can just build a nursing home or hospital just anywhere you like and surely prevented by the constitution?

    The proponents claim in their application that the site is suitable as it is near convenient public transport (a few buses is not like the South Yarra facility) and is near shopping centres (A milkbar and bottleshop and cafe and fruit shop??? - Again nothing like the South Yarra facility they always quote) This is a completely different area than the area they keep quoting as being comparable. As it is not comparable in the least, it cannot be used as an example of how residents will act or engage with the community. South Yarra is a busy, diverse area where residents would be able to blend into the community and would have many things to do in the local area to keep them occupied. At the proposed site they will be isolated due to there location and lack of things to do, though at least they will be able to head to the milkbar or bottleshop which as the proponents suggest in their report are well located to meet their needs. I would have thought there are many many other suitable locations which are closer to actual shopping centres, whether that be further out in the suburbs or indeed closer to the city as opposed to here in no mans land with respect to the services suggested. (Especially given that they are specifically requesting a reduction in parking claiming residents will not drive, in an area where other than an infrequent bus service - or non existent on many days or times - the residents will be forced to drive just to do normal daily activities or alternatively remain isolated which is the exact opposite to their intentions)

    They also have plans or quote the success of their other facility in Frankston. From what I can see this does not appear to be located in a residential area and indeed appears to be located very close to central Frankston. Approval for this Frankston facility was approved in 2014 but again it is my understanding that it still has not progressed beyond approval as they do not have the funds to build it. Does this mean that we will also endure this uncertainty for many years to come, uncertainty that is having actual serious impacts on the health and well being of our lovely local community.

    Good day to you all.

  16. Tiriel Mora commented

    Further to others objections, there would seem to be a very interesting technical question as to whether or not this facility would actually be regarded as residential when the application to me sounds like they are building a healthcare facility. I live in a house and I do not have an on site health supervisor nor do I have clinicians visiting daily to provide services for my needs and nor does anyone visit me to provide activities. To me it sounds more like a nursing home than a residential complex and I'm no lawyer and it may just be the vibe felt by me, but I don't think you can just build a nursing home or hospital just anywhere you like and surely prevented by the constitution?

    The proponents claim in their application that the site is suitable as it is near convenient public transport (a few buses is not like the South Yarra facility) and is near shopping centres (A milkbar and bottleshop and cafe and fruit shop??? - Again nothing like the South Yarra facility they always quote) This is a completely different area than the area they keep quoting as being comparable. As it is not comparable in the least, it cannot be used as an example of how residents will act or engage with the community. South Yarra is a busy, diverse area where residents would be able to blend into the community and would have many things to do in the local area to keep them occupied. At the proposed site they will be isolated due to there location and lack of things to do, though at least they will be able to head to the milkbar or bottleshop which as the proponents suggest in their report are well located to meet their needs. I would have thought there are many many other suitable locations which are closer to actual shopping centres, whether that be further out in the suburbs or indeed closer to the city as opposed to here in no mans land with respect to the services suggested. (Especially given that they are specifically requesting a reduction in parking claiming residents will not drive, in an area where other than an infrequent bus service - or non existent on many days or times - the residents will be forced to drive just to do normal daily activities or alternatively remain isolated which is the exact opposite to their intentions)

    They also have plans or quote the success of their other facility in Frankston. From what I can see this does not appear to be located in a residential area and indeed appears to be located very close to central Frankston. Approval for this Frankston facility was approved in 2014 but again it is my understanding that it still has not progressed beyond approval as they do not have the funds to build it. Does this mean that we will also endure this uncertainty for many years to come, uncertainty that is having actual serious impacts on the health and well being of our lovely local community.

    Good day to you all.

  17. Sam commented

    FYI - I believe the land offered by the church has recently been retracted. A letter was sent to parents at the school indicating this.

  18. Karen commented

    I am concerned about the area of which this is being built and do not think it is a suitable location for a facility where people with mental illness', drug & alcohol problems will be.
    It is a residential area and is right next to a child care center, 2 primary schools PLUS it is right down the road from a bottle shop, which is really not a great idea for people with addiction problems.
    Children, and parents are supposed to feel safe in an area like this and if this facility is built I do not think that will feel safe at all anymore.
    I can not express enough that this should NOT be built here for the safety of the residents.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts