Recent comments on applications from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, VIC

  1. In Mornington VIC on “Develop dwelling additions...” at 16-18 Bath Street Mornington VIC 3931:

    John Sier commented

    I am an adjoining neighbour and have had to endure this application for almost a 10 year period. I am aware of the first application with the submitted plans was almost 10 years ago and there have been subsequent applications for extension periods on two previous occasions. No work has been carried out on this site for at least 6-7 years. Nothing has been done other than some site works at the rear of the premises which would no longer be compliant to current building regulation standards. Clearly this dwelling has fallen into disrepair over that time and today represents a very unsightly home in a prestigious area where all other owners have taken pride in their homes and the surrounding area. There is unsightly scaffolding at the front of the premises which has been erected for at least 5 years with no safety fence to the front of the premises as a form of safety to prevent an one from entering the site and climbing thereon. Secondly there is a very large tarp ( presently badly torn and falling apart) over portion of the rear roof to the northern side which has been replaced twice previously. It keeps this household awake most nights when the wind blows and It is my belief that a proper roof should be replaced so as to prevent any further noise.
    There are fallen spoutings , broken windows and several other building defects that would almost make this residence unlivable. The roof has several broken tiles and much of the rear roof section is in danger of collapse. The gardens to the front aspect are none existant.
    The driveway made from a gravel base runs down the gutter and across the road after rain and has caused problems with neighbours to the opposite side of the road.
    There is a constant water leak from the front garden area particularly where a neighbour from the opposite side of the road has been allowed to park vehicles in same cases two at a time. There is no crossover for this purpose.
    On top of all this there is a disabled person who lives there in conditions I could not imagine and for whom could be at real risk.
    Basically unless a very large sum of money is spent quickly to do the proposed works as nominated , then this house is in real danger of becoming uninhabitable if in fact it does not fall apart in the meantime. It poses a real danger to both our property and to the other adjoining side property. . In the event of a fire there would be some very serious concerns.
    The council and the building authorities need to have a very close look before any further permit is granted.

  2. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a second...” at 15 Ashley Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Clifford M Dubery commented

    The location of a property like this should have a caveat that states it loses its right to complain about aircraft due to the location it is next to the runway where aircraft are taking off, a previous and current activity of the adjacent airfield

  3. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a second...” at 15 Ashley Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Eric Collier commented

    This proposal increases the density of development adjacent to the Tyabb Airfield flightpath, and is therefore inconsistent with existing land use. The proposal is likely to increase complaints to Council about aircraft noise.

  4. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Pete Raymond commented

    It`s so sad we have a council who only cares about themselves and $$$$.
    This house has so much history and now being 130 years old and in it`s last death throws before demolition.
    We`ll remember what council members are in currently and I`ll post their names when the next election comes up so people remember who they are.
    We voted them in and we can vote them out.

  5. In Mornington VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 102 Strachans Road Mornington VIC 3931:

    Clint commented

    After reading Sue Kavanagh's response, I tend to agree with some of her comments. Firstly, Strachan's Rd definitely needs an upgrade (widening) at the Nepean highway end. Strachan's rd is far too narrow when Buses/large vehicles come through and I myself have also had to end up with one side of car in dirt so there is enough space between on-coming vehicles. Also regarding the child care centre, if this is to proceed, I would expect there to be an intersection upgrade required on the corner of Nepean & Strachans rds. Upgrades I would recommend are for traffic flow to enter & cross Nepean Highway, but also for heavy duty metal safety barriers around the child care site to protect centre from any wayward cars running off Nepean Highway. Even though Nepean Highway at this location is only a 70km/hr speed limit, coming from Mt Martha the centre would be on a gradual arc in rd and cars frequently speed through this area. I would hope the centre is built on the site as far off the road as possible with heavy duty metal barriers installed to protect both corners of site on Strachan's & Nepean rd's.

  6. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Louise Page commented

    I oppose the land being subdivided further. We have already lost the lovely open hillside on this corner and the construction of a suburban style fence on the corner of Jones and Mornington Tyabb Road which has completely destroyed the rural aspect. This corner is already far too busy with schools, trucks and general traffic. Tyabb has been identified as one of the Morn Pen's coastal villages of Westernport and is therefore meant to retain its coastal village ambience. It cannot possibly retain this significant attribute if we continue to develop the rural land around the village. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the land has a vegetation protection overlay including a creek.

  7. In Hastings VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Plymouth Street Hastings VIC 3915:

    Kiah Goddard commented

    I do not feel that double storey dwelling is in keeping with environment. A single storey development site would be preferable. Considering neighbours privacy and shading also.

  8. In Mornington VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 102 Strachans Road Mornington VIC 3931:

    Sue Kavanagh commented

    I have grave concerns re this development purely from a traffic safety angle. As a resident of Swansea Grove, the only access to my Street is from Strachans Rd. I have spoken to many of my neighbours all of whom have had increasing concerns re the safety of navigating Strachans Rd. from all of the streets, including Mariners Retreat Estate. Over the past two years as a result of the vast increase in residential development in streets within the boundaries of Nepean Hwy. ,The Esplanade and Strachans Rd. we are constantly required to ‘hit the dirt’ when faced with oncoming traffic, including buses and more particularly trucks and trade vehicles involved in this area’s never ending residential development. This volume of new housing is also bringing an increase in the number of cars owned by those residents. The Nepean Hwy. end of Strachans Rd is far too narrow to safely accomodate the current volume of traffic let alone with these additional vehicles, plus an even larger increase due to parents and staff accessing a child care Centre. The corner is often a bottleneck as cars turn left into the Hwy, cross the Hwy to turn right towards Mt. Martha also having to give way to vehicles turning right from the Hwy and crossing into Strachans Rd and heading towards The Esplanade. There is a bus stop on the opposite corner directly opposite the driveway of the proposed Child Care Centre and the driveway itself is often blocked by a line of cars waiting to cross the Hwy. My fear is that this development could contribute to an already congested and extremely busy corner and has the potential to be the site of a tragic accident. I would ask that the Shire seriously consider the impact of allowing this to proceed, without exploring some genuine alternatives to ensure the safety not only of local residents, but consumers of this proposed Centre.

  9. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 60 Kunyung Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Louise Rawlings commented

    The water run-off will be terrible, and it will add pollution to the already changing beach. This goes against everything that Mt Eliza stands for, residents themselves cannot build 3 storys on their own properties so how can a million dollar company swing in and get these three story townhouses through? Just like that.
    Ryman sponsor the music event in mt eliza, probably a PR exercise.
    We are in a climate emergency and our koalas and other living creatures are in threat of extinction. This is not the appropriate place for this massive development. Losing hundreds of old trees is just one reason. People pay big money to live in Mt Eliza for it's bush setting.

  10. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 235 Canadian Bay Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tony Laurent commented

    The John Woodman saga has grown like a cancer. We can now read how the Cranbourne area was rezoned as residential, and land values skyrocketed overnight.

    Councillors all over the Melbourne region have clearly had their snouts in the pig's trough. Disgusting.

    There needs to be an urgent inquiry into all major planning permits o these last 10 years. A third party inquiry in which we the residents can have some confidence. And councillors need to be audited forensically and very thoroughly - change in ATM and card usage habits, luxury overseas holiday, new pools/house extensions, et etc..

  11. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 235 Canadian Bay Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Kendall commented

    Absolutely ridiculous that the council and VCAT have allowed a monster of a building to be constructed in the Woodlands. Surely there’s an old building that could be converted...
    Wonder how much back slapping and money has been passed around to get it approved.

  12. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    frank smith commented

    this land have a vegetation protection overlay - development will cause loss of amenity that should be afforded by the semi rural vegetation area. Also, there is a creek running through number 6 peach grove as it heads to the retarding basin and may cause flooding.

  13. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Tamara Stark commented

    I also object to the application to subdivide the subject land further. This rural area forms part of a buffer zone around the Tyabb Airfield. Further subdivision will increase the risk of a burden on Council to manage noise complaints. As Council has been spectacularly incapable of managing such complaints in the past without trying to shut down the Airfield, no further subdivision of land around the airport should be permitted. Thank you.

  14. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Wayne Harder commented

    I too, object to the application to subdivide the subject land further. This rural area forms part of a buffer zone around the Tyabb Airfield. Further subdivision will increase the risk of a burden on Council to manage noise complaints. As Council has been spectacularly incapable of managing such complaints in the past without trying to shut down the Airfield, no further subdivision of land around the airport should be permitted. I may not live in the area , but I certainly use this facility.
    Thank you.

  15. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Eric Collier commented

    I object to the application to subdivide the subject land further. This rural area forms part of a buffer zone around the Tyabb Airfield. Further subdivision will increase the risk of a burden on Council to manage noise complaints. As Council has been spectacularly incapable of managing such complaints in the past without trying to shut down the Airfield, no further subdivision of land around the airport should be permitted. Thank you.

  16. In Mount Eliza VIC on “14 lot subdivision - spear” at 54-64 Mount Eliza Way Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Debra Marshall commented

    This development seems to be dawdling along. There has been almost a year without any work, proving to be an eyesore to the village and probably affecting trading at that end of the shops (noted by increased car parking spots available and not just through COVID times). Locals are mourning the loss of the stepped back facade that created an intimate feel in the street through its character. What is the time line for this development and what has been the delay in construction? I note that there are many planning levels/advice still unattended to.

  17. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    CCap commented

    Can’t believe this house is going to be demolished??? I am not a local but have driven past it on numerous occasions.
    It’s should be heritage listed. Disgraceful. Can this be stopped?

  18. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 60 Kunyung Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Adrian Paul commented

    This is a terrible development for so many reasons.
    This development will affect the lives of not only the wildlife, but the staff & students at Kunyung Primary.
    It is already a highly congested road and hour either side of school drop off and pick up due to the increasing roll at the school. Children have had so many close calls just walking on the path let alone crossing the road they have to cross 2x driveways on this site when walking to school or scootering - its bad enough now let alone with large trucks and increased volume of traffic during the development - and in the future when the site is operational.
    There have been no provisions for the increase in traffic on Kunyung Rd, its side roads which don't have footpaths and therefore students are sharing the road with cars with limited vision as they are small individuals.
    The constant speeding on this road and the side roads around this development due to stressed parents under the pump to get their children to and from school is bad enough now - imagine with a development clogging it up with large trucks increased traffic flow.
    No infrastructure in place for the road. Think about it. At least a business like Bunnings puts the roading infrastructure in before opening a site. Planning for it.
    There has been no proposed additional sewerage capacity listed and will not retain the stormwater which runs out on to Moondah Beach and into the bay.
    Futhermore, there is no wetland or water remediation is proposed, only a gross pollutant trap.
    Vehicle and other pollutants including tyre micro-plastics, oil as well as pesticides and fertilizers will wash unimpeded into the bay.
    The developer proposes to use existing 450mm pipe, this threatens our beach with erosion and the declared Aboriginal Cultural Heritage zone on the beach which is very sad and is unbelievable that it can even move forward.
    A lot of outdated information submitted by the developer to council - incorrect student numbers at the adjacent school for example to get the development over the line.
    In closing, this is about the lack of infrastructure for me and will affect my grandchildren walking to and from school and people I know that work in the school community.
    Hopeful that common sense prevails and this particular development does not proceed - based on the evidence I would be dumbfounded to see this go ahead.

  19. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 60 Kunyung Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Ron Tunks commented

    I think it is a great development, Mt Eliza needs a quality retirement village. The land might impinge on the green zone but it just links up other housing already on that side of Kunyung Rd. That land has been locked up and inaccessible for the 44 years I have lived in Mt Eliza. I hope council approve it.

  20. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 60 Kunyung Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Rene Riegal commented

    THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL AFFECT ME BECAUSE:
    It violates the 'Special Use Zone' requirements including:
    ‘Amenity of the neighbourhood- A use must not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood, including through the:
    - Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
    - Appearance of any building, works or materials.
    - Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, dust, waste water, or waste products’.
    • The scale and buildform of the proposed development would result in detrimental impacts to the natural and rural landscape values and rural character of the locality, affecting me and all residents.
    • Built on land that was always intended to be part of the Green Wedge zone and part of the Urban Green Break between Mornington and Mount Eliza, outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
    • A gross overdevelopment of the site with 9 new multi-storey buildings and 4 wings added to the heritage listed mansion
    • Grossly oversized with 3 and 4 storey buildings in a village streetscape and a rural setting

    It will cause major traffic obstructions for the life of construction and its entire existence:
    • Hundreds of vehicles crossing footpath just metres from where hundreds of families and children walk into school, endangering the lives of our children. Parents will not feel safe to let children independently use the ONE functioning footpath which will concentrate further congestion around the proposed entrance and surrounding streets which have no footpaths.
    • It will cause school drop off/pick up chaos as large construction vehicles crowd onto Kunyung Rd and surrounding roads that have no footpaths and safe delineation between trucks, cars and pedestrians, threatening the safety of children and families. It’s just a matter of time before a child is hit, injured or killed.
    • There is no safe or effective space in such a narrow street to manage a mass evacuation of development residents and primary school students in a designated Bushfire Hazard Zone
    • The fire risk assessment does not take into account the likely traffic jam of panicked parents trying to reach their children in the case of a fire in a declared fire risk area. Such a traffic jam would impede the CFAs access to the site and thus endanger lives and property
    • It will cause huge increases to traffic (minimum 700 extra car trips per day) and exacerbate already overcrowded parking conditions on busy Kunyung Road and surrounding streets, developer’s traffic engineering report is outdated and inaccurate, based on 50% of the current school population (report states 400 students, there are 800).
    • Inadequate parking during construction and life of development with no consideration of current overcrowding

    It will cause environmental damage and destruction
    • The removal of 270+ trees in known and confirmed Koala habitat will endanger the viability of our local Koala population
    • This will also be removing the shelter provided by the gardens for our local Wedge Tailed Eagle Family, Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoos, and endangered White Bellied Sea Eagles that are confirmed visitors to the site
    • Millions of tons of soil disturbed and dangerous asbestos and concrete dust in the air threatening our health, and of children at the school classrooms and prep and junior playground just metres away
    • The developer has proposed NO ADDITIONAL SEWERAGE CAPACITY and will not retain stormwater, just let it keep flushing out onto Moondah Beach and into the bay - despite having to drain the huge amount of roof, road and pavement space this development would create.
    • No wetland or water remediation is proposed, only a gross pollutant trap. Vehicle and other pollutants including tyre micro-plastics, oil as well as pesticides and fertilizers will wash unimpeded into the bay. The developer proposes to use existing 450mm pipe, this threatens our beach with erosion and the declared Aboriginal Cultural Heritage zone on the beach
    • Unprecedented density that exists nowhere else on the Mornington Peninsula
    • Dangerous planning and development precedent for future high-density, high rise development all over the Peninsula

    THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT. I OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
    THE LAND SHOULD BE REZONED TO GREEN WEDGE LIKE THE SURROUNDING LAND AND BE RETURNED TO THE COMMUNITY AS REG ANSETT INTENDED.

  21. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 60 Kunyung Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Nicola Angelico commented

    I would like to object to the building of the multi-storey retirement village.
    This development will be an insult to this beautiful area, and green wedge, and will encourage other green wedge areas to be allowed to be invaded and developed.
    The natural wildlife will be lost, and the damage will be irreversible.
    The Mornington Peninsula was once a place of so much green space, and now it is covered in roof tops. What green space is left, needs to be protected.

  22. In Rosebud VIC on “Construction of front...” at 1/7 Koorong Avenue Rosebud VIC 3939:

    J commented

    Hi, is it possible to see a draft plan of this fence application?

    I have previously raised concerns with council about the owners ability to stick to the approved plans for the 5 townhouses he has built on this block. As per the original plans, the lower exterior of the homes should have been rendered which has not happened and the dwellings are now being lived in.

    I would be keen to understand what the fence will look like, to avoid the eye-sore we look directly at, getting any worse.

    If there is also a way to discuss the lack of render of these dwellings (not building to approved plans) with council, that would also be great.

    Appreciate your time.

  23. In Mornington VIC on “The development of...” at 61 Mornington-Tyabb Road Mornington VIC 3931:

    Warren Toy commented

    Reading the short description of building works i wonder how a reduction of the bicycle end-of-trip facilities is possible as there are no bike racks in the whole shopping centre.
    Bicycles have been stolen from inside Coles so the idea of having the number of racks which is now zero reduced seems to be the wrong way to go. Someone needs to install some racks whether its this developer or the council.

  24. In Dromana VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 97 Harrisons Road Dromana VIC 3936:

    Michelle Shafto commented

    It would seem Highly inappropriate to allow a helicopter pad for private use within the Green Wedge Zone when the council has deemed it appropriate to charge the residents within the area an extra Rural Living Rate for conserving the amenity of the area.
    The only helicopters I would think were appropriate are Police or CFA.

  25. In Dromana VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 97 Harrisons Road Dromana VIC 3936:

    Kevin Fahey commented

    I too find it inconceivable that consideration should ever be given to a helicopter landing pad in a
    Green Wedge zone, let alone one in close proximity to a secondary teaching facility with hundreds of students. The noise pollution will be extreme and very disruptive for students, residence from kilometres around and of course local wild life.

  26. In Dromana VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 97 Harrisons Road Dromana VIC 3936:

    John Reynolds commented

    I live in Old White Hill Road in the Green Wedge where we are under Rural Living and pay accordingly a hefty Rate to be here as we are protecting the flora and fauna of the area and now to have the peace of the area disturbed as well as the birds in the area disturbed by the noise of Helicopters coming and going to a private residence is appalling. If this planning permit goes ahead I would expect that the council would rezone the area in which we live out of the green zone and reduce our rates.

  27. In Blairgowrie VIC on “New dwelling” at 7 Kirwood Street Blairgowrie VIC 3942:

    Peter & Catherine Walker commented

    This block in a narrow, formed road has access formed by a very steep entry from the southeast. Entry to the property requires a very difficult 180 degree change of direction. Being in BAL29 zone, would it be possible to increase the safety of all concerned by changing the direction of entry to northwest? This will ensure that direct access from Melbourne Road is easily made; that easy exit from the property is able to be made, and that the safety of that property's dwellers is enhanced.

    During the construction phase, trade deliveries will be very difficult under the current arrangements. There is high probability of community asset damage from supplier deliveries (tradesmen's vehicles and trailers, concrete agitators, flat tray trucks, perhaps even mobile cranes) to sensitive roadside assets and particularly to neighbouring properties' assets if the access remains as it is. It is already, in this early pre planning permission, an issue for us which requires management.

    We would prefer that this issue is addressed before the permit is granted with the existing access in place before it develops into something unnecesssarily messy.

  28. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Jonathon Carmody commented

    Yes definately agree with Eleanors comments.
    I was wondering when this large piece of paradise was going to sell to hungry developers and knew it would likely be carved up for financial gains and extra rates for council. I presume this block is now owned by 'overseas interests' in view to build more high density the peninsula.
    I live in the area and have seen several applications in Mt Eliza for subdivisions of well under 3000 sq metre blocks. Isnt there supposed to be a limitation on the size of subdivision in this area? As Eleanor points out - high density living is not suited in this area or any part of Mt Eliza for that matter..
    The traffic impact alone would be a problem - this road is already busy particularly with Toorak College nearby it is already chaotic during school hours. This is a special area of Mt Eliza. Its exactly why we want to live here. There are already too many subdivisions with high density living shot up all over the peninsula which has been slowly destroying a special part of Victoria.

    Lets hope common sense will prevail and not dollar signs - and see only a few properties built on this lovely estate.

  29. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Kane Fraser commented

    Agree with Eleanor, completely. This area is renowned for its tranquillity and large leafy blocks, because of this it has manageable/low traffic volumes. A development of this nature would be the first of its kind and subtract from the many reasons while people pay a premium to live in this amazing area. It would also have a considerably negative effect on traffic volumes, many of the roads in the surrounding streets don't allow for much in the way of off-street parking, this development would bring more vehicles into the area and clog up the streets. The secondary traffic impact would be on the already struggling village car parking situation, which is a problem in its current state. Mount Eliza earnt much of its enviable reputation based on the streets surrounding development, this would the beginning of its un-doing I'm sure.

  30. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tim ONeill commented

    I would like to 2nd Eleanor's comments. We recently bought into the area and since then have seen numerous subdivision applications to the council, indeed 2 direct neighbours to our own property have recently applied. If we had known the character of the Daveys Bay Rd area was going to be eroded so much we would have been far less likely to have purchased.

    The historic site at 109 Old Mornington Road was quickly cleared and now there has been no activity for months. It's as if the developer wanted to prevent any intervention from the council or residents. In this current economic climate the best we can now hope for is that the site lays dormant and nature gives us some green space.

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