Recent comments on applications from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, VIC

  1. 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?

  2. 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    A lot of outdated information submitted by the developer to council - incorrect student numbers at the adjacent school for example to get the development over the line.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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

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

    Eleanor Woolley commented

    Such extensive subdivision in what is considered the Golden Mile of Mount Eliza completely goes against the peace and privacy of this area. It encourages high density living, noise and excessive activity, diminished vegetation and trees for local wildlife (this plot has already removed extensive vegetation), and increased local pollution. It is not what the area is known for or desired to be. There is no need for such high density building in this area.

  16. In Baxter VIC on “Use and development of...” at 21 Baxter-Tooradin Road Baxter VIC 3911:

    Damian willmott commented

    I would like to say I'm so happy that this land is finally being developed as a resident of baxter for over 30 years and a member of the fire brigade for over 20 years. I'm delighted some development is coming to Baxter. This will help with our local economy and our traders. Baxter always remains lost on two councils boundries and its great to see morington peninsula council working with development. I'm a big advocate for this development. Thankyou

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

    Jill McAuliffe commented

    Please do not allow this once beautiful house be demolished. It is a very important part of the history of Somerville and to lose it would be awful and once it is gone, it is gone! The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council have the chance to preserve this piece of history. Developers just see profit ahead of history and to allow this to happen breaks my heart. We do not need more and more units and townhouses in our lovely town.

  18. In Pearcedale VIC on “Development of 3 shipping...” at 1881 Dandenong-Hastings Road Pearcedale VIC 3912:

    Stuart Zurrer commented

    Hi, I recently became a tenant st this property and am using two of the containers for storage. I understand they have been there for a long time and I know they can't be seen by neighbours or from the road. I'd really appreciate if they could remain where they are.

    The previous tenant had three extra containers that are now gone. It is possible these could have been seen by a neighbour.

    Thanks, Stuart

  19. In Sorrento VIC on “The development of a...” at 808 Melbourne Road Sorrento VIC 3943:

    John Atchison commented

    This residence has been by stripping the block and building an inappropriate building not in keeping with the coastal village style.
    The large front fence further deteriorates the appearance.

    The applicant should be made to re-vegetate the street reserve in accordance with Council's policy to screen the dwelling.
    If a permit has not been issued for the front fence it should be removed.

  20. In Mornington VIC on “Use of the property for...” at 1/14 Progress Street Mornington VIC 3931:

    Paul Bell commented

    Parking is terrible in the street as it is
    Taking away parking is a burden on progress street
    Their car parks to customer ratio is already bad enough and something should be changed that doesn’t include removing parking

  21. In Blairgowrie VIC on “Develop an outbuilding and...” at 536 Melbourne Road Blairgowrie VIC 3942:

    John Atchison commented

    2.1M high steel fencing is inconsistent with the surrounding properties and with the Neighbourhood character Study P404 which states:
    High solid fences detract from the character of all areas.
    Implications
    -Greater policy guidance around front fence design that is appropriate to local character
    -guidelines discouraging development of high blank fences that limited visual permeability and engagement with the streetscape.
    -encourage other noise abatement methods i.e. double glazing

  22. In Rosebud VIC on “The development of thirteen...” at 779 Point Nepean Road Rosebud VIC 3939:

    Wendy Easton commented

    Hi,
    There are so many of these townhouses in McCrae now, it is ruining the village aspect of why we bought in McCrae. The high density development made purely for profit by greedy property developers on the peninsula has made McCrae become like any other suburb in Melbourne without the infrastructure of a Melbourne suburb like footpaths.
    We have two town houses in our street that are still incomplete after 5 years and a very dangerous corner which is terribly dangerous for any pedestrians, both showing lack of council control.
    Please do not allow 3 stories again in McCrae and have some input on design. Some of the town houses are plain ugly. You made a precedence in Dromana and Tootgarook with homes (in Latrobe St), town houses and apartments being three stories and they for most are ugly monstrosities.
    We live here permanently and in the last 7 years have seen McCrae decline in its Village appeal due to the change from house owners to high density development. Christmas time has become a nightmare due to high this high density. Alas these town houses are empty for most other times of the year so having high density development doesn’t aid the local businesses. I wonder how some of these property developers building cheap, nasty and over priced town houses get away with it.

    Wendy Easton

  23. In Mornington VIC on “Dwelling additions” at 1 Channel Street Mornington VIC 3931:

    DOUG PATTENDEN commented

    DESPITE APPEARING TO BE FOR A SINGLE DWELLING ADDITION THIS APPLICATION SMACKS OF A PLAN FOR POTENTIAL 3 DWELLINGS..
    ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS -
    A KITCHENETTE ADDED TO THE KIDS LOUNGE AND RUMPUS,
    AND SUITABLE FIRE SEPARATION WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN EACH OF THE 3 COMPARTMENTS.
    A TOWN PLANNING PERMIT FOR 3 DWELLINGS.

    iF THE KITCHENS WERE NOT ADDED AND NO FIRE SEPARATION- IT COULD
    USED AS A BED AND BREAKFAST..

    CLEVER PLANNING - YET A WEE MISLEADING TO A NEIGHBOURHOOD WITH
    WISHES FOR PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE DWELLING ENVIRONMENT

  24. In Capel Sound VIC on “3 lot subdivision - spear” at 28 Elizabeth Avenue Capel Sound VIC 3940:

    Ralph commented

    This matter went before VCAT.
    The member was very clear in his deliberations and what needs to be done to make it compliant, and the granting of the permit.
    Yet the builder had altered the internal design and changed the exteria materials e.g. frosted glass to clear glass and its height requirement.
    And also residing in the premises without a certificate of occupancy.
    How can the builder get away with this?
    He is making a mockery out of the Mornington shire and VCAT!

  25. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Matt R commented

    I agree with all the negatives listed above. We simply do not have the right area for the proposed 180 sites. MP is a big area, surly there are more suitable sites you have looked at.

    If you do build it, just wait for the copious amounts of complaints, accident reports and the $1000s of dollars of road upgrades you will have to spend. Remember Stuart Road is owned by you and not VicRoads, you are responsible for it.

    If you actually care about your community, listen to what the locals are saying and do not expand in this area!

  26. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Peter Brunner commented

    Were are looking forward to living in the proposed retirement Lifestyle Communities village in Tyabb. Now at the age of 71, downsizing from acreage to lower cost living and a more relaxed life style but with all the facilities we need in our preferred locality, it's a lifestyle we are very much seeking. We are planning to travel as well as tour in our caravan and this type of community will also provide us with better home security, and by downsizing we would access extra capital making retirement budgeting much easier. We are aware there are some residents in Tyabb who are against this particular development but being considerate, they must realise that people need to live somewhere and changes/progress is constantly happening all the time.When we built in Somerville, 34 years ago, we had idyllic rural views looking across a 9 acre horse paddock and now it is unrecognisable , completely built out with houses.
    Lifestyle Communities has an excellent record in developing this particular style of living, providing luxury that people can afford, appreciate and enjoy especially in retirement. We have inquired about vacancies in Hasting and Bittern Lifestyle Villages but both are all sold out. We chose to live in Somerville 34 years ago, and still wish to remain ion the area so happy this downsizing would not make much of a change to our current shopping preferences and service providers.We feel sure that when the village is completed, with the millions of dollars to be spent in the area, local residents will appreciate the development of all roads and footpaths making a significant difference to the locality. We assume the council/developer will upgrade all associated roads, to control traffic flows etc.We are not deterred by the close proximately to the Tyabb airfield, as we often visit the area and enjoy observing the light plane activity.Criticism about being too close to the railway line does not concern us either, as our son has a home in Somerville which is much closer to the line and we are quite familiar with current rail services and the noise of passing trains.Living in close proximity to the Tyabb shopping centre and railway station would provide mostLifestyle residents an opportunity to regularly and not need to use their cars frequently plus there will be a courtesy bus for residents convenience. We think this will be excellent development for the area and feel all local businesses will gain from the extra trade and support of the Lifestyle residents. We are currently on the waiting list and there are at least 50 others already showing keen interest in wanting to buy off the plan
    PLEASE APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT SO WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO OUR FUTURE YEARS RESIDING IN OUR FAVOURITE LOCALITY

  27. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Moira Bennett commented

    I live in a Street off Stuart Road. I object to this development as well. The road is not suitable for this amount of increased traffic. The intersection at Mornington Tyabb Road will be a complete nightmare and I could envision many accidents occurring. I walk across there a lot and there is always a lot of traffic already feeding the estate. Lots of children cross there too.
    I agree with others that there isn't a lot of infrastructure either in the town or Doctors.

  28. In Rosebud VIC on “36 lot subdivision and...” at 15 Herman Street Rosebud VIC 3939:

    T Litt commented

    The map is indicating this huge subdivision is to happen on a reserve. I thought a reserve was public space....reserved for use by the public or to provide habitat for wildlife.

    Are there any other reserves on the peninsula at risk of this type of development?

    Whether it is a reserve or not it certainly takes away from the feel of an area once it is too densely built up.

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

    Tony Laurent commented

    I live on 237 Canadian Bay Road - next door to this monstrosity in the making. I am very disappointed with the MPSC for a number of reasons.

    The process was lacking in transparency - communications were almost non existent. It will ruin the entire area.

    Anyway, I think we all now have some insight into how developers and councils operate - don't we? I would recommend reading 'The Age' every day as the John Woodman/mafia saga unfolds. Fascinating, but sadly not surprising.

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

    Katrina Whetton commented

    I don't live in Somerville but I drive past this wonderful historic home every week for work and marvel at how beautiful it is. All it needs is a bit of TLC, heck I would volunteer to paint it for free as I'm a qualified painter and decorator.
    I see visions of it being restored to it's original beauty and perhaps a community hub of sorts. If it were to be demolished for units to be built that would be absolutely heartbreaking. Save Somerville History !!!

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