Recent comments on applications from Bayside City Council (Victoria), VIC

  1. In Cheltenham VIC on “11 - 25 New Dwellings and...” at 152-158 Weatherall Road Cheltenham VIC 3192:

    Jane Geeson commented

    There is no justification to reduce the number of car parks for this development. New developments should comply with the requirements, otherwise surrounding areas will be disrupted as they deal with the overflow of cars

  2. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Helena commented

    I walked past Service Street just recently on my way down to the Hampton Shopping strip. I was astounded by the amount of signage, around the proposed development site, which in and of itself informed me that there clearly must be a matter of concern for a vast collective of neighbours along the street.
    I had heard mention of the proposed development, however as a resident further along in Sandringham I’d assumed that the proposed site was somewhere adjacent to the Hampton strip.
    Echo my surprise, to then find that the site itself was in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood of residential properties. Freestanding residential properties, depicting the neighbourly character, and quality of architecture, in this Bayside street.
    Then I realised that residents with strong concerns had formed a well followed online group. This I found out as I pulled out my phone to look up the proposed development, and see what it was all about. I very quickly became apparent of the sheer scale of what was being proposed to be constructed here.
    Looking at the developers plans, just as rapidly, informed my understanding of why there was such strong opposition demonstrated in front yards up and down the street.
    The scale of the proposal, the height and depth of the built format deep into the block, the amount of residences proposed, the built design and view that it will offer to the street from any angle it is viewed, van only be interpreted as bulky and dominant on the landscape. It will have a detrimental impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by existing residents, and is utterly out of character with the Bayside character guidelines, and aims articulated in council policies.
    One can only look to this being a very greedy grab By a property developer, which understandably those owning the properties being acquired to enable the build would have been most duly compensated for
    Of course the council also wins thru the creation of multiple rate notices for so many additional properties.
    This should not, and does not, offset the impact that such a development would have on so many residents surrounding it and on the site itself.
    Utterly inappropriate is my view this sort of thing needs to stop,
    It’s time council moved toward protecting our neighbourhoods in a much broader and clear manner that tells developers to cease proposing such high scale builds in residential streets of our Bayside Council area.
    Listen to the voices of the residents and support them at VCAT ... we know you have before and can once again !!!!

  3. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Sarah Allen commented

    I understand Bayside Council have rejected this planning application on the grounds it is inappropriate. It appears that well funded developers only need to escalate to VCAT and their completely inappropriate plans are approved with little resistance. Why have a council application process if VCAT are consistently over ruling the Council decision. Council are there to protect residents interests, and have to deal with the wrath of unhappy residents when developers get their way through VCAT. Please VCAT, please listen to the residents in Bayside!

  4. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Vicki commented

    Agree with you all, our family homes are being destroyed by high rise !! More people more cars, more traffic, more money for the Bayside council as in our rates. Parking is already a huge problem in Hampton and Sandringham. An application is in at the moment in Sandringham for a 5 STOREY HUGE APARTMENT/ DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A RETIREMENT VILLAGE on Bay st and Trentham St plus another huge development in Harston Street (Near Railway line on a small block.. around the corner PLUS THEY WANT TO PULL DOWN A HERITAGE BUILDING .. PLANS HAVE BEEN lodged and yellow notification signs have been up, our lovely Sandringham and Hampton is being destroyed, no more of our so called Sandringham Village living for the future, or Hamptons lovely characteristics, tree lined neighbourhood we need to stop this. Bayside Council you need to listen to all of us support us at VCAT, it is getting past a joke now, please appreciate the residents concerns.

  5. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Felicia Brown commented

    It is very disappointing that a development of this size is planned for this street of family homes. Most houses in this strip are of mid century or earlier design, and unobtrusive two storey extensions. The proposed development is three storey, and designed to dominate the street scape. The impact on local amenities will be felt immediately with extra cars, people impacting the street and local infrastructure. This sort of overbearing design and increased population density in a Suburban street within 5km of Port Phillip Bay seems to be against guidelines and promises given by state and local governments, impacting our environment which is already under threat from over development.

  6. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Helena commented

    I walked past Service Street just recently on my way down to the Hampton Shopping strip. I was astounded by the amount of signage, around the proposed development site, which in and of itself informed me that there clearly must be a matter of concern for a vast collective of neighbours along the street.
    I had heard mention of the proposed development, however as a resident further along in Sandringham I’d assumed that the proposed site was somewhere adjacent to the Hampton strip.
    Echo my surprise, to then find that the site itself was in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood of residential properties. Freestanding residential properties, depicting the neighbourly character, and quality of architecture, in this Bayside street.
    Then I realised that residents with strong concerns had formed a well followed online group. This I found out as I pulled out my phone to look up the proposed development, and see what it was all about. I very quickly became apparent of the sheer scale of what was being proposed to be constructed here.
    Looking at the developers plans, just as rapidly, informed my understanding of why there was such strong opposition demonstrated in front yards up and down the street.
    The scale of the proposal, the height and depth of the built format deep into the block, the amount of residences proposed, the built design and view that it will offer to the street from any angle it is viewed, van only be interpreted as bulky and dominant on the landscape. It will have a detrimental impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by existing residents, and is utterly out of character with the Bayside character guidelines, and aims articulated in council policies.
    One can only look to this being a very greedy grab By a property developer, which understandably those owning the properties being acquired to enable the build would have been most duly compensated for
    Of course the council also wins thru the creation of multiple rate notices for so many additional properties.
    This should not, and does not, offset the impact that such a development would have on so many residents surrounding it and on the site itself.
    Utterly inappropriate is my view this sort of thing needs to stop,
    It’s time council moved toward protecting our neighbourhoods in a much broader and clear manner that tells developers to cease proposing such high scale builds in residential streets of our Bayside Council area.
    Listen to the voices of the residents and support them at VCAT ... we know you have before and can once again !!!!

  7. In Hampton VIC on “26 or More Dwellings...” at 34 Service Street Hampton VIC 3188:

    Jan Garratt commented

    This is a totally inappropriate development for Service Street
    This development would suit the Gold Coast , not a small suburb like Hampton

  8. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 8 VPO3 -...” at 34 Hardinge Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Janelle Seab commented

    Hello, I echo all the previous comments made. I am deeply saddened by the proposed plans to demolish this mid-century home and the beautiful tea trees on the block. We tried to purchase this home mid-last year at auction as our forever family home to restore and eventually extend to suit our family of four. We fell in love with the bushy coastal vegetation, in particular the large tea trees at the front and back of the block. We love Beaumaris for it's coastal vegetation and mid-century houses, and people who choose to live in Beaumaris need to respect the character and charm that it brings and try not to destroy it. Please re-consider the potential of this mid-century home to become a wonderful family home and the vegetation that is on this block that is so special. Thank you.

  9. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 8 VPO3 -...” at 34 Hardinge Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    You ‘acquired’ the property with specific intentions of removing vegetation in a Vegetation Protection Overlay 3?? Pick a more appropriate block for your rebuild please! I wholeheartedly object to this destruction. The council declared a climate emergency late last year and is part of the Urban Forest Strategy to combat this and its applications like this that contravene its exact intentions. Please rethink your aspirations and design.

  10. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 8 VPO3 -...” at 34 Hardinge Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Caroline Walsh commented

    I am really concerned you would purchase this property to build a new home when you knew it was situated in a Vegetation Protection Overlay. A law that is there to protect the Trees and vegetation on the site? This site is covered in vegetation. Are you immuned from the law? Not to mention the iconic MCM home. Why would you purchase this special site to destroy it? It contributes greatly to the Bushy Beaumaris Streetscape. Why residents choose to live here. Many others in the area looked at it, but due to the Trees protection law decided it was not appropriate site for A development. I can't imagine this blatent disrespect for the law will be approved by Council.

  11. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 8 VPO3 -...” at 34 Hardinge Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Annie Price commented

    Hello, I just wanted to let you know this house is one of very few special 'Beauy Classics' left in the area. These homes were beautifully designed and cleverly situated on the block to maximize light and outlook, and they can so easily adapted to suit modern life. We bought one 9 years ago and have renovated it to suit our family. I'd be happy to show you what we did if you wanted to take a look? I can also point you in the direction of many more Mid-Century Beaumaris homes that have been renovated to suit modern life. These homes are becoming more and more desirable and fetching high prices when on the market. Much more so than new builds. The long term benefit of renovating far outweighs demolition and rebuild. Please reconsider your plans and I would be more than happy to show you similar properties that have been restored if you were interested? Thanks for your consideration.

  12. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 8 VPO3 -...” at 34 Hardinge Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    You ‘acquired’ the property with specific intentions of removing vegetation in a Vegetation Protection Overlay 3?? Pick a more appropriate block for your rebuild please! I wholeheartedly object to this destruction. The council declared a climate emergency late last year and is part of the Urban Forest Strategy to combat this and its applications like this that contravene its exact intentions. Please rethink your aspirations and design.

  13. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 16 Morey Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Elouise Dunn commented

    This is a beautiful tree on the fence line of the property. I also live within the VPO 3 area and I also have a large tree on the fence line that caused significant damage to our fence. We have had the fence repaired to save the tree, and also added bungee cables to large limbs to ensure the large limbs will not fall on our house, family ect.

    As we live in the VPO 3 area we need to do everything we can to protect our trees. Please look at other options rather than cutting down this tree. In fact this tree should be added to the Significant tree register as it is so beautiful.

  14. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 16 Morey Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    Does this tree have a current arborist report? The hollow you speak of could very well be important habitat for current spring climate. It is within a VPO3 zone and as such needs to be protected. I’m curious why you are referring to this previous owners arborist report and yet you still bought the property and have done nothing for the trees health since?

  15. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 16 Morey Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Robert Saunders commented

    The Bayside Council planning provisions website has been unavailable for at least 2 days, so I will put a comment here. If this is the magnificent eucalypt at the front of 16 Morey Rd I can see no obvious reason to remove it. In fact, I would see it as a candidate for Bayside Council's Significant Tree Register. Trees of this size and quality are of enormous value: for habitat, shade, amenity, reducing the heat island effect of urban areas and many other reasons. I sincerely hope the VPO3 and relevant Bylaws are sufficient to protect this beautiful tree.

  16. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 16 Morey Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    Does this tree have a current arborist report? The hollow you speak of could very well be important habitat for current spring climate. It is within a VPO3 zone and as such needs to be protected. I’m curious why you are referring to this previous owners arborist report and yet you still bought the property and have done nothing for the trees health since?

  17. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 18 Clonmore Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Lisa OConnor commented

    I object this removal as it falls within the VPO3 and is PROTECTED and forms an important part of the canopy in line with the Urban Forest Strategy.

  18. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 18 Clonmore Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    I object this removal as it falls within the VPO3 and is PROTECTED and forms an important part of the canopy in line with the Urban Forest Strategy.

  19. In Beaumaris VIC on “1 Dwelling - Alts & Adds -...” at 401 Beach Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Madeleine commented

    Hi,

    Please make adjustments to plan to allow for site permeability and the replanting of native plants in keeping with the point ave precinct.

    Everything else about the house is wonderful. It’s not alucobond or townhouses or apartments so people just need to chill.

  20. In Beaumaris VIC on “2 New Dwellings...” at 40 Scott Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    So I will say this ‘ pick another block developer’!! There is absolutely NO way these trees should be removed in ANY way from the land they stand on and have done for decades. In line with the LAW these are PROTECTED under VPO3 and should be seen as part of the Urban Forest Strategy and declared Climate Emergency by BCC. I steadfastly object.

  21. In Beaumaris VIC on “2 New Dwellings...” at 40 Scott Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    So I will say this ‘ pick another block developer’!! There is absolutely NO way these trees should be removed in ANY way from the land they stand on and have done for decades. In line with the LAW these are PROTECTED under VPO3 and should be seen as part of the Urban Forest Strategy and declared Climate Emergency by BCC. I steadfastly object.

  22. In Beaumaris VIC on “2 New Dwellings...” at 25 Pacific Boulevard Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia commented

    I absolutely object to the removal of this blocks vegetation which is within the VPO and as such should and WILL be protected. It is not ok to buy a block that clearly does not fit the criteria of removing vegetation for a dual occ development. There are many other blocks that could be developed that dont entail removal of protected vegetation. BCC please consider and refuse this application on the grounds of VPO protection as well as the declared climate emergency and the urban forest strategy.

  23. In Brighton VIC on “6 - 10 New Dwellings and...” at Unit 1 6 Grandview Road Brighton VIC 3186:

    Lucienne Murray commented

    I have walked past this property and there is no yellow sign to inform those that need to know what others are planning in the neighbourhood. Is it heritage listed? It looks old.
    Also do the plans include covid type distancing - It seems like it will need to be a new requirement.

  24. In Cheltenham VIC on “Subdivision of Land (1 to 9...” at 7 Tulip Grove Cheltenham VIC 3192:

    Aygun commented

    The town planning application is done prior to subdivision application. This seems to be a subdivision application alert. You must have missed the town planning application alert for this site.

  25. In Cheltenham VIC on “Subdivision of Land (1 to 9...” at 7 Tulip Grove Cheltenham VIC 3192:

    Astrid commented

    Why is this only coming up now when six dwellings have already been built on the site?

  26. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 97 Scott Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I strongly oppose the removal of this vegetation in a protection zone VPO3. BCC I implore you to take a stand against its removal in line with your Urban Forest Strategy and declared Climate Emergency.

  27. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 VPO3 -...” at 28 Folkestone Crescent Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    Why does this vegetation require removal? If it’s within the VPO3 then I strongly oppose this removal.

  28. In Beaumaris VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 97 Scott Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I strongly oppose the removal of this vegetation in a protection zone VPO3. BCC I implore you to take a stand against its removal in line with your Urban Forest Strategy and declared Climate Emergency.

  29. In Black Rock VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 23 Ardoyne Street Black Rock VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I strongly oppose this removal of a tree in a VPO3 zone. BCC please go out the climate emergency you declared as well as the protection zone policy as well as Urban Forest Strategy.

  30. In Black Rock VIC on “VPO3 - Removal x 1 Removal...” at 23 Ardoyne Street Black Rock VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I strongly oppose this removal of a tree in a VPO3 zone. BCC please go out the climate emergency you declared as well as the protection zone policy as well as Urban Forest Strategy

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