Recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC

  1. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Rob, I too feel very strongly about the claims and changes to planning requirements. There seems to be an assumption that we should all be walking and cycling everywhere we go!!!! Amazing given the number of baby boomers living in our area.

  2. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Rob Beavis commented

    Thank you Kerrie, I assumed this was a standard proforma ambit claim by developers. In the circumstances you described I withdraw my objection.

  3. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    I would normally agree re parking especially in a small village situation with very limited parking spaces. To my knowledge this is a rebuild after a fire and these shops are precious to us all and the sooner they are rebuilt the better. You cannot create parking when there is none to be had. The issue was when the apartments were built behind the shops robbing the shopping precinct of prized parking spaces.

  4. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Rob Beavis commented

    As a local resident subject to increasing population pressures in the area and the associated problem with finding car parking places I believe that the standard car parking requirements should be applied to this application.

  5. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    I object this development based on following comments,

    As the proposal mentioned 4~5 building levels and 29 dwellings, it means about 6 units to 8 units each floor. For a such small size of land, I am wondering how the each dwelling accesses daylight penetration, fresh air and external view to achieve the well-beings of residents?

    The development is on the main street, Glenferrie Road, surrounding by heavy traffic and restaurants. I got questions about how the development is going to prevent its residents from the traffic noise, restaurant noise and restaurant smoke pollution.

    About the rubbish bins, how can the council or a private company collects dwellings waste from the site?

    About increase local traffic by the development, the local traffic is already over crowded, a huge amount of local people, especial school kids walking passing in front of the site, it will be a safety concern about when up to 29 residents cars drive-in and drive-out traffic frequently on Glenferrie Rd.

  6. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Ditto Nicole Ward. Well said and thought through. As residents we know, understand and accept development but pure greed at the expense of common sense NO. This amendment must be refused at every level. Here's hoping it does not end up at VCAT! I have faith in our councillors and planning department to defend residents and our precious surrounds.

  7. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Ditto Nicole Ward. Well said and thought through. As residents we know, understand and accept development but pure greed at the expense of common sense NO. This amendment must be refused at every level. Here's hoping it does not end up at VCAT! I have faith in our councillors and planning department to defend residents and our precious surrounds.

  8. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Obviously there is a push for medium/high density development in areas that can support public transport linkages. Glenferrie Road obviously does this - but it shouldn't be done at the expense of all other factors. People will still own cars, even if they don't drive them to work, and if the purpose is to encourage people to visit the area, visitor / patron parking is essential. The car park ratio cannot be reduced purely so the development margin can increase - we all know basement parking is expensive and the developer clearly doesn't want to have to excavate further or lose an above ground level for parking. Council needs to put the needs of residents, traders and patrons, above the developers profit margin.

    Secondly, if the loading dock is going to be scrapped, where do supplies, deliveries, etc come from? Glenferrie Road itself, or the closest side street? Where do the numerous bins get stored and collected from? This is a ridiculous request and should not even be a consideration.

  9. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Rob Beavis wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    Existing regulations are there to protect the amenity for current and future users. Please do not accept or negotiate these proposals which has the appearance of an ambit claim.

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Janet Hicks commented

    No reduction to anything and no waivers of anything. In the long term, both the residents, retail tenants and community at large will be grateful that short-term savings/profit maximisation were sacrificed for the current needs if not the longer term needs.

  11. In Camberwell VIC on “Post Request(Amended...” at 1 Quinton Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Lyn commented

    That’s another Aged Care facility - located so close to the one already operating on Riversdale Rd. 500mt east of it. I hope that parking facilities for visitors have been recognised as essential and not ‘watered down’ in numbers for the developers benefit.

  12. In Hawthorn VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 7 Lennox Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Pietro Meriggi commented

    The description of the scope is incorrect as the dwelling is NOT in an Heritage Overlay.
    Please update your Planning Alert as soon as possible to reflect the correct terminology as per Council's advertising notice.
    Thank you

  13. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of ten (10)...” at 14 Clapham Street Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Erin Carrington wrote to local councillor Cynthia Watson

    Not only will ten residences not fit on this block, there are an enormous number of properties in the Balwyn area that remain uninhabited because they have been bought for development, and no one wants to live in the frankly revolting new houses being built to replace the charming houses that are a signature of this area. There are a ridiculous number of vacant blocks scattered through the surrounding streets where the developers ran out of money and were not able to complete their builds. What's to stop that from happening here?
    Many of the blocks that now contain numerous dwellings are either totally uninhabited, or the people that do end up renting them do not stay for very long at all. This knock-down and others like it are destroying the area beyond repair.
    Not only do I wish to protest this proposed build, but I would very much like to protest the tearing down of this beautiful residence to begin with. It's a stunning home much beloved by its current renters and by the old owners, and if it were put up for sale again (not to developers) it would become a cherished family home once more. I would much rather see families moving into the area than have it turned into an empty area with no inhabitants and no soul.
    Is there any way to prevent it being torn down? Tearing it down is not sound environmentally, will be incredibly disruptive to the neighbours and the quality of the street, and will be replaced by poorly designed tear-downs in their own right.

    Delivered to local councillor Cynthia Watson. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Hawthorn VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Spencer Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    I agree with Miriam, we have had many happy times in Spencer Street park. The old trees and gentle sloping lawns and even the old fencing all respect the heritage area. Equipment does not have to be the latest and greatest to please children. Surely there are areas that are in greater need for such significant expenditure?

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Hawthorn VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Spencer Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Miriam Faine wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    What is the matter with the old playground? We love this park and it’s play equipment

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 427 - 429 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy Rea commented

    Are these booths on Bialik property or are they on Government land/ nature strip/ outside of Bialik boundaries

  17. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerrie Knott wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    Hi Terry, I totally agree. But has anyone seen sight or heard from our esteemed new local member on ANYTHING? I will make an appointment with John Ormond Kennedy this week. I went to his office to discuss these matters. Met with his manager, gave her all planning alerts details and have never heard a word since. This was a fortnight after the election. John Pesutto was supportive and attended council planning meetings regularly. In fact he was part of our team that won a heritage overlay battle in our neighborhood. I grew up in Kew and have lived in this area for 73 years. The total desecration of our one "leafy area" is beyond sad and the complete lack of consideration for the surrounding groaning and inadequate infrastructure is gob smacking!

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Rosemary Merralls commented

    Well said. We fought against inappropriate developments in Mont Albert - all without success. Those of us who maintain gardens and pay for their upkeep make nice neighbourhoods for developers to pillage. Sadly the developments don’t include any garden space or somewhere to hang washing let alone play backyard cricket.
    The Supreme Court have a lot to answer for. It’s one thing to tear down a quality home but look at the sentences the judges hand out for murder! They have cloth ears and no consideration for people’s lives.

  19. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Terry Dear wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    Kerry, Mae, Bob etc
    The Boroondara Council does it's best to protect heritage buildings and try to maintain its heritage strategy but this has been taken out of its hands by VCAT. A few years back a landmark decision was taken at VCAT to demolish a house on the corner of Burke and Canterbury Rd even though it was the subject of a heritage overlay.
    VCAT is 110% pro-development, making it clear that every building is on a potential development site. Overlay or listing is no protection. The council fought tenaciously, taking the matter to the Supreme Court twice - but the matter was referred back to VCAT who immediately found in the developers favour.
    VCAT is the problem here and if you want to make a change talk to your local state govt member.
    The State Govt isn't interested in changing VCAT as it supports its growth strategy and acts at an arms length from govt - conveniently!
    So it's a very unsatisfactory system and one that is destroying our inner suburbs at a rapid pace.

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Hawthorn VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 13 Power Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kiersten commented

    Is this a retrospective application, as works commenced months ago?

  21. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Tony wrote to local councillor Felicity Sinfield

    Kerri and Mae, are you aware that Camberwell activist and resident Mary Drost and her friends at BRAG (Boroondara Residents Action Group) have been campaigning Council and the State Government ministers for well over 10 years. Had the Liberals had won the election last year Mary had direct communications to David Davis. The current minister for planning pretty much does what he wants and may have a negative view of those living in the leafy council of Boroondara. A few years ago I think it was Cr Jim Parke wrote a letter to all Boroondara households explaining that council had very little say in stopping developments and demolishing building and houses due to State laws. That letter may still be online and worth reading

    Delivered to local councillor Felicity Sinfield. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Mae, my point is demolition in a heritage overlay should be prohibited. There are so many options. Boroondara is well on the way to losing it's much loved character and historic buildings.
    High density is already the hallmark in Boroondara just look around it's horrific.
    We do not have the infrastructure to cope with the increased population. Gridlock on main roads and side streets. I just don't think planning can cope with the influx. I agree the cost of the "paperless" office was exorbitant and came as a huge shock to ratepayers.

  23. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Mae Kitwork commented

    Rules are in the planning scheme.

    Demolition is not prohibited nor is the construction of 2 dwellings but they do require a permit to be issued.

    Unless you enjoy your rates increasing year on year then I suggest increased density is the answer because cost cutting is clearly not on Councils agenda given the fees paid to update their website.

  24. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Bob Appleyard wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    Good point. How about someone gets Boroondara to clearly clarify the rules for the benefit of concerned residents?

    Delivered to local councillor Phillip Healey. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    My understanding of a heritage overlay is that this protects the particular heritage aspects of the area and this will be respected. So why are we seeing the destruction of homes and fences within a designated heritage overlay zone over and over again?

    In Pauline Hanson's words "please explain"

  26. In Canterbury VIC on “Demolition and construction...” at 12 Marlowe Street Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Claire Bielski commented

    There is no point in having a Heritage Overlay if people appeal and pull down the older homes. The new,usually characterless,houses take up the whole block of land and have no trees but do have industrial sized air con units instead.

  27. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Penelope Pollitt commented

    I agree with all of the above. If it is a clearlye a commercial property (as opposed to a doctor’s surgery) it could be the thin end of the wedge with more and more commercial businesses springing up and changing the character of Auburn Road completely.

  28. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    James Allan commented

    We need more information than just "signage"... what sort of signage? How big? Where? Simple signage for a doctors practice, or a big advertisement?

  29. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    I agree. This is a beautiful residential gracious part of Hawthorn and should be protected at all costs. The heritage and the history of the city of Boroondara should be cherished.

  30. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy Rea commented

    I am concerned that a commercial property is seeking permission to establish a business within a residential zone. I do not endorse this application.

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