Recent comments on applications from Manningham City Council, VIC

  1. In Doncaster VIC on “Amend Planning Permit...” at 16 Thiele Street Doncaster VIC 3108:

    John Swanson commented

    The removal of visitor parking will mean that on street parking will increase as a result in what is already a narrow street with car parked. Council has shown little regard for the development of Thiele Street and the associated side streets by way of limiting development. Traffic Management Plans would appear to have been disregarded.

    Additionally Thiele Street is used as access for pickup and collection of students from Doncaster High School making the street difficult to navigate at the best of times.

    I have lived in Doncaster since 1966 and Manningham Council has been derelict in its duties of care and responsibility - Only accesss to Doncaster is via road and increasingly the development of side streets creates a very "unliveable" environment.

  2. In Donvale VIC on “Removal of 169 trees and...” at 59 Beckett Road Donvale VIC 3111:

    ELIZABETH PENNY HULL commented

    this is vacant land next to the mullum mullum creek bridge which the walking track passes over Becket road one way Bridge. i hope it is not for a car park? that would be funny people wanting to park as close as possible to go for a walk? not to mention it would ruin the natural environment.
    regards,
    Penny

  3. In Donvale VIC on “Removal of 169 trees and...” at 59 Beckett Road Donvale VIC 3111:

    Meg Downie commented

    HI Glenda,
    I assume this clearing is for fire management. Please could you confirm?
    I think some people assume it is one property
    Regards,
    Meg

  4. In Donvale VIC on “Removal of 169 trees and...” at 59 Beckett Road Donvale VIC 3111:

    Carol Matthews commented

    Removal of 169 trees seems to be excessive and would make significant change to the area.

  5. In Templestowe VIC on “Construction of ten,...” at 348 Porter Street Templestowe VIC 3106:

    Joshua Holko commented

    What is the proposes set back please from the boundries? There is an easement and a flood channel at the back of this property - what requirement for set back? What is the total height proposed please to avoid overlook issues with west and south abutting properties? There is a requirement for a retaining wall to west side of property where excavation works have already taken place by previous developer causing the dividing fence to fall down. Has a traffic study been conducted to ascertain the impact of that many cars in porter st and sound impact on surrounding properties? Thank you

  6. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 15 Harold Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole commented

    Dwelling must be limited to two storeys (unless the first storey is basement car park) - otherwise the privacy and shadowing of adjoining properties is compromised. Please do not let our suburb be diminished due to this over development which is largely at the developers benefit, but who has no long term interest in the liveability of the suburb for the greater population.

  7. In Park Orchards VIC on “Removal of one tree” at 10-12 Feversham Avenue Park Orchards VIC 3114:

    Roxanne da Gama commented

    I'm glad to see this permit to remove this tree as it looks like it could fall or break a limb at any time. We live next door at it gets very windy in our backyards and l see this tree swaying from side to side. I'm concerned it may fall on the house or on their young children playing in their backyard.

  8. In Templestowe VIC on “Construction of ten,...” at 348 Porter Street Templestowe VIC 3106:

    Joshua Holko commented

    What is the proposes set back please from the boundries? There is an easement and a flood channel at the back of this property - what requirement for set back? What is the total height proposed please to avoid overlook issues with west and south abutting properties? There is a requirement for a retaining wall to west side of property where excavation works have already taken place by previous developer causing the dividing fence to fall down. Has a traffic study been conducted to ascertain the impact of that many cars in porter st and sound impact on surrounding properties? Thank you

  9. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Helene Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Keith Box commented

    Appropriate screening must be included in any permit granted to ensure that the privacy of all neighbours are protected from overlooking.

  10. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Helene Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Melinda Munday commented

    Roof top decks take away the privacy of all houses around this development. That is a terrible invasion of privacy for these residents and one that cannot be screened out. This should not be allowed. Revisions to the plans and house footprint should be made to allow for a courtyard instead. Planning approvals for multiple dwellings on traditional single home lots is eroding privacy and reasonable backyards and therefore functional and healthy living

  11. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Trevor. I’m entitled to my opinion and it’s repetitive as we are seeing the same sub division planning requests being put forward daily.
    Your message to me is rude and insulting. Given this is a forum for me to put my opinion to council that is what I’m doing and I don’t appreciate your response directly to me as it’s not the purpose of these alerts.
    I’m not saying stop all sub division just put more consideration around how many.
    I’ve been clear in my statements - the sub-divisions are doing nothing to improve the concrete jungle and again should be councils objective to turn their municipality around. In the interests of all residents. Mandate better landscaping for new developments as part of planning. Limit to less per lot to help with congestion - not 4 dwellings where 1 stood. Improve liveability for all. It’s all about balance.

  12. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Trevor Scott commented

    Hi Nicole,

    Please stop your whining, you made your point on the first one, now you are just bring repetitive.

    I have lived in Manningham for 35 years and many houses here are falling apart, I subdivided so I could have a modern new home. Do not tar everyone with the same brush and if you did your research you would see more that 70% of approved development in Bulleen the owner has had the property as their PRIMARY RESIDENCE for more that 5 years, many being 10-20 years, Themis is not the get rich quick developers you are claiming is doing these subdivisions!!

    Bulleen is and always has been a concrete jungle, through subdivision we are seeing a welcome change aesthetically and welcoming new families into an otherwise aging (dying) community.

  13. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Another approved sub division in the area. Planning needs to be curbed in this municipality - every day there are sub-divisions being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the livability of our suburb.
    Two dwellings on a site that previously had one home introduces more cars, impacting local roads, surrounding residents losing access to natural light and privacy as these are all double storey replacing single storey residences.
    These townhouses are becoming an eyesore and creating a very unattractive suburb with increased congestion without any further improvement to public transport. More buses is not a long term sustainable solution.
    Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions. It has to be a concern for the counsellors allowing this to happen under their watch - ruining the liveability of what was once considered a leafy suburb which is quickly changing.

  14. In Templestowe Lower VIC on “Construction of three,...” at 11 Balmoral Avenue Templestowe Lower VIC 3107:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Planning needs to be curbed in this municipality - every day there are sub-divisions being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the livability of our suburb.
    Three dwellings on a site that previously had one home is over development - more cars, impacting local roads, surrounding residents losing access to natural light and privacy.
    These townhouses are becoming an eyesore and creating a very unattractive suburb with increased congestion with the increase in vehicle traffic without any further improvement to public transport. More buses is not a long term sustainable solution.
    Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions. It has to be a concern for the counsellors allowing this to happen under their watch - ruining the liveability of what was once considered a leafy suburb which is quickly changing.

  15. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of four,...” at 1/44 Collins Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Melinda Munday commented

    4 dwellings on this site is far too many. It will increase traffic in this street both from additional residents as well as potential visitors. Increased density is placing too much strain on existing resources and despite increased revenue collection from these developments no significant infrastructure spend is being made to cope with the increase.
    The attraction of this area was the open space providing a healthy lifestyle that was safe and private. The current council is allowing overdevelopment to erode our lifestyle and privacy the very things that make the area attractive. If I wanted to live in high density I would’ve moved to the inner city.
    This development is far too large and should be reconsidered.

  16. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 38 Cuthbert Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Planning needs to be curbed in this municipality - every day there are sub-divisions being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the livability of our suburb. Three storeys is too much - surrounding residents lose access to natural light and privacy. These townhouses are becoming an eyesore and creating a very unattractive suburb with increased congestion with the increase in vehicle traffic without any further improvement to public transport. More buses is not a long term sustainable solution. Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions happening and height limitations. Perhaps a mix of single dwelling covenants will assist - or at least if a site can't fit side by side townhouses (maintaining all required setbacks), then the site is too small to be sub-divided. A better system needs to be adopted in this council.

  17. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of four,...” at 1/44 Collins Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Planning needs to be curbed in this municipality - every day there are sub-divisions being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the livability of our suburb.
    Four dwellings on a site that previously had one home is over development - more cars, impacting local roads, surrounding residents losing access to natural light and privacy.
    These townhouses are becoming an eyesore and creating a very unattractive suburb with increased congestion with the increase in vehicle traffic without any further improvement to public transport. More buses is not a long term sustainable solution.
    Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions happening and height limitations. Perhaps a mix of single dwelling covenants will assist - or at least if a site can't fit side by side townhouses (maintaining all required setbacks), then the site is too small to be sub-divided. A better system needs to be adopted in this council.

  18. In Doncaster VIC on “Construction of three,...” at 27 Highview Drive Doncaster VIC 3108:

    Lena F commented

    This is overdevelopment of land. Causing street congestion and lack of green space on property contributing to lack of green space of the neighbourhood.
    Surely 2 dwellings is sufficient and in line with design of the area.

  19. In Bulleen VIC on “3 lot subdivision” at 18 Carrathool Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Another sub division. Council please act on try is. It’s ridiculous. Planning needs to change in this area. You’re ruining the suburb with inaction.
    Privacy. Congestion. Over looking and shadowing.
    It’s time to reconsider the fact that every sub division gets approval and amend the planning in the area.

  20. In Doncaster VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 43 Finlayson Street Doncaster VIC 3108:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Manningham Council - surely you can see the sheer volume of sub-divisions going on in the suburb of Bulleen. As our elected members you need to do something to curb this level of over development. Single sites becoming 2 and 3 home sites. This increases cars per block by double or triple - the suburb doesn't have the public transport infrastructure to support this. Measures need to be introduced to curb the level of over development in this area to maintain livability. This needs to remain your priority over revenue from more rateable households.
    Council cannot simply allow every site to be sold to developers to sub-divide - this is not a sustainable model.

  21. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Nirvana Crescent Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Destroy Manningham commented

    Agree! I moved to the area 30 years ago, for the nature reserves and the country atmosphere whilst still being within relative proximity to the CBD. What is happening around Doncaster Hill & the Eastern Golf Club is disgusting. 4 properties in my street now being subdivided into townhouses or dual occupancy. Wesfield takes me longer to drive than to walk. Hate the area now. Can’t wait to get out. BUT if council is happy & lining their pockets, then that’s what’s important, hey?

  22. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Nirvana Crescent Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Chris Smyrneos commented

    Nicole and Melinda we are all wasting our time and energy. Council is disinterested of what residents have to say. I fought council over 2 years to stop a three-storey monstrosity built next to my property unfortunately it went ahead. This is in a small narrow street not on a busy major road like Manningham Rd! I even attended the tribunal which I was invited to as the key objector to this development but to no avail! Council should represent the residents of Manningham not constantly approve developers and what comes to their hands. I’m disheartened with Council and don’t trust them one bit!! All they care about is to gain money from rates from density living. They dom’ t care about street landscape or privacy or noise or security and safety!!!!

  23. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Nirvana Crescent Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Melinda Munday commented

    3 story developments are not appropriate for these suburban streets. They are towering over existing homes, blocking sunlight and removing any privacy that existed. Larger developments should be limited to major roads. The number of approvals is concerning and their appears to be no thought as to what the streetscapes will look like. Existing residents are not being considered. The desire for money and increased rates are being put ahead of existing residents concern and liveability in their homes

  24. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Nirvana Crescent Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    The number of two and three sub-divisions in the area is quite frightening, in the space of 2 days, this is the fourth sub-division which has come through. The streetscapes of Bulleen are changing from a family environment to excessive medium density living. Council needs to put some controls in place so that not every house that is sold is demolished for sub-division. Please can you take this on notice to consider how many sub-divisions have been approved in the past 12 months and reconsider planning going forward.

  25. In Bulleen VIC on “Three lot subdivision” at 2 Carrathool Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Council needs to reign in subdivisions in the area. The traffic is becoming horrendous without the support of any improvements to public transport. Perhaps limit to two lot sub divisions or single dwelling overlays to preserve privacy, congestion and over shadowing. Also assist with preserving values and make up of the area. The number of sub divisions is ruining the street scapes.

  26. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 18 Marjorie Close Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Council needs to reign in subdivisions in the area. The traffic is becoming horrendous without the support of any improvements to public transport.

  27. In Doncaster East VIC on “Construction of six,...” at 55 Franklin Road Doncaster East VIC 3109:

    Judith Florence & John Murray Wilkins commented

    Regarding Planning Application Reference: PLN20/0020
    Address: 55 Franklin Road Doncaster East 3109
    Proposal: Construction of six, two-storey dwellings

    We, the undersigned, wish to request that the council reject this application as:
    1. It is an overdevelopment of the site.
    2. It would cause more street parking which is already a problem, although COVID 19 restrictions have given some temporary relief.
    3. It would make collection of bins difficult.
    4. It would mean the destruction of two well-established trees which are two of the very few left in the area.

    The property next door, 53 Franklin Road, was the result of the council rejecting an initial application for heavy density buildings. The second application which was approved, was for four town houses which seemed more in keeping with the size of the block, including driveway access to all units.

    The parking problems experienced by us, and the other residents of 51 Franklin Road, have caused several near misses as we try to leave our property by car. Further overdevelopment will exacerbate this problem.

    We ask that council reject this proposal, taking into account the points we have made.

  28. In Donvale VIC on “Three lot subdivision” at 70 Chippewa Avenue Donvale VIC 3111:

    carol matthews commented

    My concerns regarding these applications is that this was very treed area and the photos shows no trees just mountains of buildings. Soon the street will just be buildings without any effort to keep the natural vegetation. Already a 100 year old native tree was removed a few years ago for a concrete box that overlooks five backyards, as the Council has either none or limited controls regarding the removal of trees.

  29. In Doncaster VIC on “Construction of nine,...” at 19 Bayley Grove Doncaster VIC 3108:

    Daniel Nicholson commented

    We are long term tenants of Bayley Grove and have had to live through weekly conflicts with the inconsiderate developers of the property at 24 Bayley Grove. This significantly impacted the accessibility and enjoyment of our property. Now that the property is tenanted, we are seeing a significant increase in the traffic on the street which is now at capacity for it's size, with two properties still untenanted.

    Now the property developers for 19-21 Bayley Grove are planning to massively increase the housing capacity of the street, with almost no consideration to normal traffic flow, or without consideration for the impact on the surrounding tenants.

    This giant development will also block property views for 18 and 20 Bayley Grove, as well as significantly impact the neighbours to either side of the development. From our property, the proposed development will have at least 3 homes with direct views into our living and dining rooms, making these non-private spaces and forcing us to make changes to the property to provide more privacy.

    The proposed development is beyond what should be reasonably acceptable for the size and nature of the area. That along with the significant impact on accessibility makes this proposed Development unsuitable for Bayley Grove

  30. In Doncaster VIC on “Construction of nine,...” at 19 Bayley Grove Doncaster VIC 3108:

    Elizabeth Reynolds commented

    I am a resident of Bayley Grove. I have concerns regarding the parking associated with the development proposed for the above address.
    This will be more disruptive to the local residents than the 6 unit development which took two years to complete (at 24 Bayley Grove) which saw the street regularly choked with tradesman’s vehicles, increase in rubbish on and around the street surrounding the development.
    A three story development is not in keeping with the other multi-residential developments in this secluded 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