Recent comments on applications from Frankston City Council, VIC

  1. In Seaford VIC on “To construct one (1) double...” at 15 Robinsons Road, Seaford 3198, VIC:

    Anthony Besim commented

    Frankston City Council,
    I am concerned about the number of townhouses and blocks being subdivided in the Frankston district. Especially on this occasion, in Robinsons Road Seaford.
    Growing up in the area and my father living opposite this address (15 Robinsons Road) we were able to freely play, walk and drive without any hazards. But due to increase blocks being subdivided in the last 10-15 years it’s has caused massive hazards on our roads due to unsuitable parking on housing premises, therefore as a consequence more vehicles park on the road, less children being active outside and hazards for our emergency services vehicles.
    Focusing on 15 Robinsons Rd, if this permit was to be approved it would continue with issues in the street.
    -Vehicles continuously park on both sides of the Road, causing issues for residents to exit from there driveways.
    -Number 11 is already subdivided with vehicles continuously parking on the road.
    -Number 19 is already subdivided with vehicles continuously parking on the road.
    -Number 2 is already subdivided with vehicles continuously parking on the road.
    -Number 27 is already subdivided with vehicles continuously parking on the road.
    -Number 28 is already subdivided with vehicles continuously parking n the road.
    -Number 13 is a small cottage and residents suspect in the future that this will be subdivided as well due to land size current home is on. This land will fit 3-4 townhouse style homes. So if Number 15 was approved, in future there would be up to 8 townhouses next to each other which would be totally unacceptable.
    -Bin collection is already made hard due to vehicles always parked on the road.
    -With vehicles parked on both sides of road, this will cause massive issues for emergency services vehicles (especially fire trucks), if an emergency was to happen towards end of the street. This is already an issue in Robinsons Road.
    -With more houses this causes more issues with noise complaints and privacy issues.

    Townhouses and subdividing land is ruining the landscape of The City of Frankston. We have a beautiful part of Victoria which is sadly being ruined by overcrowded streets and cars parked on roads instead on properties.

    I hope council look into not just the issues I have for the residents of Robinsons Road but also look into the surrounds them self to see that the development of 15 Robinsons Road is not suitable at all. More issues with arise if this goes forward.

    Thank you for your time.

  2. In Langwarrin VIC on “Secondary Consent - To use...” at 75 Quarry Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Morag Macpherson commented

    Councillors and City of Frankston, what action/activity has been taken advising residents about the hugely significant environmental refuse facility proposed for 75 Quarrry Road Langwarrin. Who is accountable ?
    75 Quarry Rd is on the EPAs Priority Sites register. Which means Pollution of land and/or groundwater presents a potential risk to human health and the environment. Clean up notices are issed to priority sites! The management is below required EPA standards.
    This is a significant issue that every resident in the surrounding area must be alerted to.
    Pretty underhand to keep this significant matter quiet and under residential radar. Council elections!
    What guarantee is in place prevent a methane leak disaster as in Brookland Greens Cranbourne a decade back? . People became sick, poisoned by the waste station management practices.some even hospitalised. People had to vacate their homes for months. Litigation against the City of Casey cost ratepayers $23.5M
    Langwarrin is a residential area. Quarry Road vehicle traffic is heavy due to the operating quarry. A refuse facility will increase traffic, increase noise, smell and air pollutiion. The EPA opposed the building of Brooklsnds Green so close to a landfill site. Why are council and councillors considering a refuse facility in an established residential area? Wheres the environmental risk assessment?
    As mentioned in an earlier comment from a concerned resident the area is to be a future greenbelt when the quarry is closed. Families are purchasing in the area accordingly. Considering 75 Quarry Rd as a waste staion is an environmental hazard to the area. it is nonsensical and environmentally risky behaviour by council and councillors. The future generation and voters need informed intelligence and data to make informed decisions when voting. Litigation against council is an increasing risk. .

  3. In Langwarrin VIC on “Secondary Consent - To use...” at 75 Quarry Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Simon Douglas commented

    As a nearby property owner what measures are being taken to ensure that their is not a repeat of the methane leak disaster that occurred in Cranbourne that saw people removed from their homes and their house values plummet?
    This is a residential area with a high population of children. The area is already subject to large vehicle traffic due to the operating quarry and any such increase will further increase noise, smell and air pollution.
    Furthermore Frankston has the area earmarked to be a future greenbelt once the quarry has been closed which is the reason people are purchasing in the area so to consider this area as a refuse facility is a clear divergence and an environmental hazard to the local community.
    This is a significant issue that every resident in the surrounding area must be alerted to, not stumbled across when searching for the specific subject on the internet.
    What action or activity has been undertaken to advise the community of such a significant environmental decision being made about their immediate surround?

  4. In Frankston VIC on “Condition 1 plans - To...” at 56 Orwil Street, Frankston 3199, VIC:

    Bill Rollins commented

    Frankston already has 74 registered boarding houses. In 2015 Frankston had 32 boarding houses. Basically doubling in numbers every five years. We have two in Finlay St and there is not enough parking for either of these premises. Enogh is enough Frankston Council. Casey council and Kingston Council act on these issues and stop their suburbs being treated as dumpimg grounds for cheap housing.

  5. In Frankston VIC on “Condition 1 plans - To...” at 56 Orwil Street, Frankston 3199, VIC:

    Carly Williams-boucher commented

    The owners of this boarding house have not allowed for the parking needed for more tenants and a new house.

  6. In on “To construct one (1) double...” at 4 Scenic Close, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Kenneth Cassidy commented

    Hi can I please be sent information regarding this building as I have just purchased 59 Alicudi Ave, Frankston South and would like to see the building drawings and to see if our current view will be obstructed.

  7. In Langwarrin VIC on “Secondary Consent - To use...” at 75 Quarry Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Chris Deliyiannis commented

    Can someone please tell me, as a concerned nearby resident, just what is going on with this site. why have we heard NOTHING about this and rely on scouring the internet for information. Is this going to become Landfill? If so, what type and how long will it last? What are the proposed hours of operation? This is way too close to residential areas.

  8. In Frankston VIC on “Condition 1 plans - To...” at 56 Orwil Street, Frankston 3199, VIC:

    Mark commented

    The noise that this would create, as well as the health and safety hazard of having the building materials and dust etc so close to our eating areas, bedrooms etc would impact me due to my lung health.
    There is no room for extra traffic flow in this street either and not enough room on the property for them to have more cars parked as well as a house it makes it dangerous for us to leave our driveway due to cars being parked out front already because of their illegal boarding house they run. They have had upto 15 tenants since they bought the house at the end of last year and continued to run illegal inspections during stage 4 restrictions their tenants have told us it’s a boarding house

  9. In Langwarrin VIC on “To construct and use two...” at 70 Potts Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Margaret Orr commented

    Margaret Orr
    commented about 24 hours ago
    I/we totally agree, not only with the comments, but we all need to think that it is also only 600metres from woodlands primary school and we have already had a young child killed in recent times. What about the safety of children and the
    Sorry, I need to state that It was a 2 year old child was MURDED September 2019
    Isn’t that enough justification to object against this permit

  10. In Langwarrin VIC on “To construct and use two...” at 70 Potts Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Margaret Orr commented

    Sorry, I need to state that a 2 year old child was MURDED September 2019
    Isn’t that enough justification to object against this permit

  11. In Langwarrin VIC on “To construct and use two...” at 70 Potts Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Margaret Orr commented

    I/we totally agree, not only with the comments, but we all need to think that it is also only 600metres from woodlands primary school and we have already had a young child killed in recent times. What about the safety of children and the aged

  12. In Seaford VIC on “Condition 1 plans - To...” at 7 Luxton Terrace, Seaford 3198, VIC:

    Joy Gleeson commented

    Must have sufficient off street parking to avoid having more cars parkee on the st.

    Frosted windows on the second level if the windows have a view into a neighbouring property

  13. In Carrum Downs VIC on “To subdivide the land into...” at 20 Brunnings Road, Carrum Downs 3201, VIC:

    Kathy Mizzi commented

    Wanting to ensure there is enough parking space within the boundary of this development and no windows will be able to directly look into the backyard of 9 Hillview Drive Carrum Downs. Wanting privacy in backyard to be maintained.

  14. In Langwarrin VIC on “To construct and use two...” at 70 Potts Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Louise Broadby commented

    I would like to object. I feel there shouldn't be a rooming house right near an aged care facility. Also volunteering two days a week in Rosebud, and dealing with residents of rooming houses, I don't feel it's an ideal location for them as they require access to many services and organisations that aren't close to here. It is a 15 to 20 minute drive to Frankston in the car let alone by bus. A lot of residence of rooming houses don't like travelling on public transport due to how long it takes, paranoia of people following or staring at them plus high anxiety in public. We have no community support centres, job providers, salvocare, mental health services to name a few. From my experience in Rosebud, they usually walk or ride a bicycle to where they need to go. I also volunteer with a program called splash, providing meals, shower and laundry service, plus food parcels. There are many services in Frankston that provide meals and food too. I feel that until we in Langwarrin get more services that can provide for those residence, Langwarrin is not an area to have rooming houses.

  15. In Frankston South VIC on “Section 72 - To construct...” at 18 Bembridge Avenue, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Mary J Scott commented

    A single dwelling would be far more appropriate than the proposed two story monstrosity. There are plans to subdivide even though this is not stated on the planning permit. The building to land size % is very concerning especially given it’s already been subdivided in 2014.

  16. In Frankston South VIC on “Section 72 - To construct...” at 18 Bembridge Avenue, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    David J. McClure commented

    Re: 18 Bembridge Ave

    This proposed double storey 'block' a concern given it will overlook both 16 and 20 Bembridge Ave back garden/living areas giving very little privacy to both occupants.

    The overall development is in a tight space on an already previously subdivided block.
    If anything a single storey dwelling should be considered.

  17. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - The...” at 50 Aqueduct Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Yvonne Court Resident commented

    The construction of nine dwellings is still problematic for neighbours and users of Aquaduct Rd. This is due to the additional residents vehicle either being kept on the premises, or on the street, plus any visitors to the new dwellings. Aquaduct Road is a narrrow road already, so much so it doesn't require centre line markings. Additional levels of traffic in this small, quiet street will impact existing residents, and possibly prove to be a traffic hazard, with increased risk of accidents.
    Please reconsider this application.

  18. In Frankston South VIC on “To construct one (1) single...” at 174 Overport Road, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Kerry Rainer commented

    To the planning authority Frankston City Council.

    I have viewed the plans and planning documents and strongly object to the proposed two( 2) dwellings on a lot and ultimate subdivision of 174 & 176 Overport Road, Frankston South.
    Application Number 162/2020/P

    The subject site is located in Frankston South Precinct Eight ( FSO8) A low density residential area of large houses on extensive grounds in an environmentally sensitive rural bush setting. It is a minimal change area in Frankston's Housing Strategy.

    The proposal seeks to build a second dwelling on a lot less than 2500 sq m ( Lot 2) which is at odds with the minimal allotment size in DDO1 and for the FS08 area.

    The proposal is sited within a significant landscape overlay SLO3 and designated a minimal change area in the Frankston Housing Strategy 2018 . Minimal change areas were created to further protect the significant and established environmental, neighbourhood character and heritage values of designated residential areas.

    The proposal seeks to retain just two (2) trees, with all remaining trees and vegetation to create Lot 2 to be removed. The proposal fails to avoid or minimize vegetation and canopy tree loss and therefore also fails to contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of the low density treed character of Frankston South. Disturbingly it appears ( when viewing the background in the pictures of tree 17, tree 19 and tree 13 in the arborist report) that mature trees have been felled prior to submitting the application.

    The combined site coverage of the proposed Building, Carport, Driveway, Swimming Pool, Entertainment area and Paths in Lot 2 do not enable enough space for substantial planting of vegetation and the inclusion of canopy trees - both of which define the character of Frankston South and support and protect Frankston South’s environmental and biodiversity attributes. This lack of space may explain why a landscape plan for Lot 2 did not form part of this application.

    The proposal also seeks the removal of numerous dead trees ( stags) Of particular concern is the proposed removal of the stag on the western boundary ( Tree 1) to facilitate the proposed easement. 5 years ago this was a living tree (Eucalyptus sp.) albeit in a declined state. It was felled in a sensitive way as to retain it’s hollows. The proposals arboricultural report failed to note/observe the hollows present in that stag ( Tree 1). It is therefore safe to assume that hollows, nesting sites and the presence of Fauna were also not noted/observed by the arborist throughout the subject site. How will wildlife be protected? Hollows can take up to 100 years to form and they provide shelter and nesting sites for so many of our native animals. Natural habitat for our native animals, including tree hollows are being destroyed at an alarming rate, resulting in diminished numbers and/or unsustainable remaining populations. The presence of native animals and the provision of habitat is also a significant element of the character of Frankston South.

    The proposal’s use of clause 52.12-2 to seek exemption for a permit to remove vegetation and trees to facilitate the proposed driveway of Lot 2 is flawed. Clause 52.12-2 in relation to clearing vegetation along a boundary fence directs that a maximum combined width of four metres of vegetation can be removed along an existing property boundary fence. The maximum width of four metres can be divided in any manner that the two landowners agree to. For example, two metres either side of the fence, or one metre on one side and three metres on the other side. As the driveway of 176 Overport road runs parallel to the proposed driveway of Lot 2 and currently provides a large vegetation free width of ‘defendable space’ along the full length of western boundary the requirements of clause 52.12-2 are already met.

    The proposal is situated in a Bushfire Prone area and therefore Clause 13.02-1S must be considered when assessing the application, particularly ‘Use and development control in a Bushfire Prone Area’ and ‘Areas of biodiversity conservation value’

    The proposed driveway width ( 3 meters) of Lot 2 appears not adequate to allow the safe access for fire trucks. Provision for an adequate turning circle for emergency services including fire trucks should also be required.

    The proposed areas set aside for ‘landscaping’ either side of Lot 2’s proposed driveway ( 750mm either side) do not allow enough space for meaningful planting or the inclusion for planting canopy trees. Furthermore, the proposed driveway of Lot 2 runs parallel to the existing driveway of 176 Overport road- and if allowed to proceed would result in a vast, wide, non vegetated expanse which would negatively impact the streetscape thus character of the area.

    The proposed easement to facilitate egress from Lot 2 is not compliant with accessway objectives or reflects the pattern of development in this locale. Furthermore, the junction of the proposed easement with the driveway of 176 Overport Road poses a risk for collisions and denies the opportunity for planting vegetation or trees on the corner boundary splay.

    I chose to live in Frankston South because of the single houses on large treed ‘leafy’ blocks and the rural ‘bush like’ setting which supports our native animals. If given approval the proposal will affect me for all the aforementioned reasons as it will have a negative impact on the character and biodiversity of my neighbourhood.

    I thank Council for considering my objection and urge Council not to let this inappropriate proposal proceed.

  19. In Frankston South VIC on “Condition 1 - To construct...” at 85 McComb Boulevard, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Penelope Kalkman commented

    We are concerned re overdevelopment in this area. This whole area of South Frankston is becoming overcrowded due to higher density housing, spoiling the ambiance, amenity and possibly impacting the natural environment of the Sweetwater Reserve. Access roads to McCombe Boulevard have become more congested causing dangerous conditions for vehicle and pedestrian traffic due to speed and reduced visibility past parked cars.

  20. In Frankston South VIC on “Extension of time - To use...” at 52 Norman Avenue, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Penelope Kalkman commented

    We are concerned re the loss of parking at the shops which Already overflows at busy times especially now that there are 2 cafes and a restaurant. The intersection of Norman Avenue and Fleetwood Crescent becomes very crowded and dangerous when cars are parked near the intersection in Fleetwood Crescent blocking one direction of traffic flow.

    We are also concerned about increased traffic in the whole of Fleetwood Crescent which is where we live due to cars going to and from the shops.

    This whole area of South Frankston is becoming overcrowded due to higher density housing, spoiling the ambiance, amenity and possibly impacting the natural environment. Of the Sweetwater Reserve. Traffic and on-street parking has also increased causing dangerous road conditions due to speed and reduced visibility past parked cars.

  21. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Kevin Airey commented

    Maybe to ease traffic congestion at Cranbourne rd they could put an on and off ramp at Sky rd and even Robinson’s rd this would help heaps

  22. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Neal hill commented

    I agree that that is a bloody bad spot to put an ambulence station right on top of such a busy intersection and then what will happen when an ambulance is trying to enter the road with lights and sirens on and the traffic has to suddrnly brake hard im concerned this will cause a lot of nose to tail accidents

  23. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Janine Ellis commented

    What a terrible place to put an ambulance station. I agree the others regarding the traffic. It is a bad spot day or night.
    Do the people at the council actually go out to the site to have a look, or do they just read a map. Please reconsider this spot.
    It’s a great idea to have an ambulance station, just not in that place.

  24. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Trish Anderson commented

    I’m concerned about the the impact it will have on traffic especially since the traffic conditions are already quite heavy at this particular intersection ... I’m also and even more concerned about the wildlife corridor which runs along this proposed site... I’d like to see council actively trying to preserve these areas of bush land and the wildlife that inhibit it rather than tearing it down... (far too much has been happening).

  25. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Rachael commented

    I agree with Chris such a bad intersection to be putting an ambulance station at

  26. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Aileen Henderson commented

    I second chris warne.

  27. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - To...” at McClelland Link 350M Cranbourne Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Chris Warne commented

    Hi
    This intersection is already an absolute nightmare! The traffic congestion around morning and afternoon peak times is absolutely horrendous - even out of peak times it can be a challenge to drive from Peninsula Link onto McLelland Rd..
    By putting an Ambulance Station on that corner, traffic would be increased considerably and it would have a massive negative effect on the flow of traffic. This corner can not take any further pressures on traffic.

  28. In Frankston VIC on “Secondary Consent - To...” at 37 Williams Street, Frankston 3199, VIC:

    Glenyss and Michael Bourne commented

    Please do not approve this application unless enough car parks are provided, the area is already inundated with parked cars from new subdivisions, and parking for the station and hospital. With many more subdivisions planned in this the area it is only going to get worse. We own a house nearby and it is very dangerous getting out of the driveway especially during the day due to parked cars. Driving around the area which has quite narrow streets with cars parked on both sides of the road is also hazardous.

  29. In Frankston South VIC on “Extension of Time - To...” at 8 Idon Avenue, Frankston South 3199, VIC:

    Julie Jackson commented

    Sounds fine to me. We need to use land more efficiently.

  30. In Langwarrin VIC on “Condition 1 - To construct...” at 33 Leisureland Drive, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Judy Corcoran commented

    It is regrettable that a substantial tree has to be removed, as well as native vegetation. It should be part of the approval process that at least three trees that will grow to a large size, be placed in appropriate positions to replace the one tree removed, as well as native vegetation suitable to the area.

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