Recent comments on applications from City of Stonnington, VIC

  1. In Prahran VIC on “Refurbishment & extension...” at Prahran Town Hall, 170-180 Greville Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Matt commented

    As a possible new tenant at 201 Greville Street I am interested in finding out more about possible road closures, noise levels and pedestrian access/restrictions.

    Please let me know of any information you may have.

  2. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 116-126 Glenferrie Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    A Murray commented

    The all day car parking at the rear of this site is already a de-facto staff car park for Cabrini. Reducing the available car spaces, will force more parking into the surrounding side streets - further reducing spaces for shoppers and impacting the amenity and accessibility of residents. Please support local traders, by providing more parking In commercial areas, not less.

  3. In Prahran VIC on “Development of the rear of...” at 70-72 Commercial Road, 19 Nottingham Street & 80 Perth Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Matisse commented

    We do not want this to go forward. It will cause traffic to Nottingham street, be very loud especially when we already live next to a main road. Our street is very peaceful and a nice place for us, the constructions will be loud, long and look bad. We do not want more traffic on our street as it’s already hard enough to find a car park for residents being next to a main road.

  4. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 116-126 Glenferrie Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Elizabeth Fraser commented

    To reduce the car parking spaces would have a huge
    impact on an area that is already overwhelmed by cars competing for too few parking spaces. In this time of business struggling, we need to encourage shoppers.

  5. In Malvern East VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 11 Belson Street, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Damien Goode commented

    The problem with this is that the Plane tree that is in front of the yard will be adversely affected if the driveway is widened towards it. There is not much room between the current driveway and the tree, so to widen the driveway may kill the tree.
    If this can be done without damaging the tree, we are happy for it to go ahead.

  6. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 79 & 81-83 Wattletree Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Kelly Butcher commented

    The impact of excess traffic along Wattletree Road caused by the overdevelopment of apartment blocks along Malvern Road and Wattletree Road will only be exacerbated if the development of high density blocks of flats is allowed to continue. During peak driving times, it is nearly impossible to get out of my driveway as traffic is backed up from Dandenong Road. The pollution is appalling. Green space is now more important than ever. Developers and others in power wrongly believe that a roof garden is “green space”. Agree with you Wendy John. South Yarra has been totally destroyed by overdevelopment. Please don’t let it happen here.

    on a roof is considered

  7. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 79 & 81-83 Wattletree Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Wendy John commented

    I wish to strongly object to the height and density of this development , lack of appropriate green space and ineffective car parking allowance.
    This proposal is for excessive high density and will set a precedent for others in height, poor energy consumption, and overcrowding .

    The area is already congested. It will become more so and heighten the risk for pedestrians, cycling and car accidents.

    The effect on neighbouring streets will be overshadowing, overlooking and more, ugly, out of character, views.

    We have seen South Yarra become so over developed. It has sacrificed many trees, any effective green space and hence all character. This has already started in Malvern/Armadale and needs strict review and change from council and state government.

  8. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 116-126 Glenferrie Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Elizabeth Fraser commented

    To reduce the car parking spaces would have a huge
    impact on an area that is already overwhelmed by cars competing for too few parking spaces. In this time of business struggling, we need to encourage shoppers.

  9. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 79 & 81-83 Wattletree Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Alex Yusupov commented

    This is a very high development for the area. It will cause congestion and overwhelm the surrounding dwellings.

  10. In Windsor VIC on “Demolition and construction...” at 24-26 & 28 Chapel Street, Windsor VIC 3181:

    Anton Nicholson commented

    Don’t ruin Windsor - Chapel street precinct ... it’s alive and buzzing because it works the way it is!

  11. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 116-126 Glenferrie Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Tam Ol commented

    Worried about height of building and not enough Car spaces.

  12. In Malvern East VIC on “Buildings and works to an...” at St Marys School, 87-91 Manning Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Michael Harms commented

    Good morning,
    It has been bought to my attention by other concered neighbours about the proposed planning application that has been lodged by St Marys School, 87-91 Manning Road, Malvern East VIC 3145 - application A120710L

    I am in receipt of the the planning application for the above works and ask that further details are provided to us in order to make any objections.

    Our property backs onto the Parish Hall and current tennis courts.

    -No provision for drainage from having hard surfaces built other than "run-off"
    - currently courts flood in the North West corner through the lack of maintance and size of drain.
    - sound management from the use of proposed playground and sports courts outside of normal school hours i.e use for Netball and basketball using backboards after hours and on weekends.
    - shed relocation to our back fence where the current parish has not maintained their area including blocked drains and downpipes causing flooding into our property.
    - the use of climbers as sound management.

    We understand that the school is also currently commenced building works on the hall which we would like to understand as we have seen a large increase in the use of the hall after hours for events outside of school use.

    Appreciate if you could provide further information to us and our ajoining neighbours who are home all day and will be serverly impacted by many of these changes to our boundries on the north ( Grant St side).

  13. In South Yarra VIC on “Condition 3 - Public Open...” at 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Teresa Simmermacher commented

    Hi Stonnington, Is this application to meet, reduce or exceed the Open Space contribution needed? If it is to Reduce the contribution, I am not in favour and support the need for this development to add to The open space that this monstrosity has taken from the area.

  14. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Mary Daley commented

    The application to vary the conditions of the permit should be dismissed. It has been very wearying for residents who have been seeking to protect and maintain the village amenities. The developers should be required to adhere to all conditions of the permit.

  15. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    E Quigley commented

    Totally agree with Ed Neff - this small stretch of road has lost a lot of character - the council really needs to do more to ensure some sympathetic developments are enforced - it would not cost any extra to replicate the original facade and would retain so much value in the street.

  16. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Ed Neff commented

    This property has been the subject of much anguish and comment since 2010 following some negligence in building leading to a forced demolition.
    The understanding was always that the historic facade would be rebuilt to match the original.
    Any application to use alternative materials in the facade should be rejected.
    The delay of 10 years for this rebuild remains a constant eyesore to our neighbourhood.

  17. In Malvern East VIC on “Use of land for the sale or...” at 1945 Malvern Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Michele S. commented

    I vehemently object to this application.
    The owner of the next door bottle shop -at 1947 Malvern Rd Malvern East - "Malvern Road Wine & Beer House" - ANTONY STEVEN BRISTOW - has made this application to extend his business into a Wine Bar - with proposed opening hours -
    The sale and consumption of liquor will occur (seven days per week): 10am-11pm Sunday; 12noon-11pm
    Good Friday and ANZAC Day; and 9am-11pm on any other day.
    There will be a maximum of 50 patrons on the site at any one time.
    This is not a commercial area.
    This part of Malvern Rd East has very few commercial sites and is predominantly a community shopping centre for families living in the area.
    This proposal is contrary to the "Stonnington Planning Scheme "
    a. The operation of licensed premises should have no unreasonable impact on the amenity and safety of surrounding uses, in relation to noise, hours of operation and car parking demand
    There has been no mention in the proposal of car parking demand and more importantly the safety of surrounding amenities in relation to noise , coming and going from the premises, and the impact of families in the area, not to mention the drunken drivers leaving said premises
    There would be "an adverse cumulative effect on the area "
    Currently the Malvern Road Wine And Beer House contributes to major problems in parking and traffic / bottleneck around this area.
    This "Application" is driven by greed by the current owner - Antony Steven Bristow of the Malvern Road Wine & Beer House -
    and I believe another place to drink is not necessary.
    Please also consider :
    Licensed premises should not be concentrated to the extent that there is an adverse cumulative effect on the area.
    Day-time uses and active frontages are encouraged within activity centres.
    Licensed premises should be located so as to discourage patrons parking in a residential zone.
    Licensed premises should operate in a manner that provides for the safety of patrons,
    the general public and nearby owners and occupiers of land.
    Residential, Activity Centre, Mixed Use and Industrial 3 Zones
    New licensed premises and the expansion of the licensed area or extension of the trading hours of existing licensed premises
    in a residential, Activity Centre, Mixed Use or Industrial 3 Zone are discouraged unless the responsible authority is satisfied that
    the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area.
    The potential effect of the use on the amenity of the surrounding area.
    The proximity of the proposed licensed premise to residential uses and accommodation
    The impact of the proposed licensed premise on the mix of uses located within the activity centre and the vitality and viability of the
    activity centre during the day and at night.
    The impact of the proposed licensed premise on the activity centre.
    The adequacy of management of the licensed premise including security.
    The adequacy of measures proposed in the Noise and Amenity Action Plan.
    The availability and location of sufficient car parking for the use.
    The impact of the proposed licensed premise on the local traffic network and car parking
    availability in the area.
    The views of the Victoria Police.
    Any other relevant matter.
    The conditions of the existing liquor licence or planning permit controlling noise, security,
    patron numbers and hours of operation
    Reference Documents
    City of Stonnington Municipal Public Health Plan 2009-2013.
    Design Guidelines for Licensed Venues, Department of Justice, 2009.
    Late night liquor licence trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: measuring the saturation levels
    Research Paper, April 2010.

  18. In Malvern East VIC on “Use of the site as a...” at 1834 Malvern Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Michele S. commented

    How many people will be at the studio during any given opening hours?

    It seems to me that two designated parking spaces will be insufficient, as there is existing parking problems.
    I live a few doors down and I have cars constantly parked across my driveway.
    There needs to be greater allocation for parking spaces in this area

  19. In Armadale VIC on “Development of two (2)...” at 383 Dandenong Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Prue de Hennin commented

    Why has the yellow planning sign not gone up on front fence of this property? I thought it was part of the planning process. Would not have known about this except that I was speaking to a neighbour who told me. Disappointing that the correct process is not being followed.

  20. In South Yarra VIC on “No change of use, but...” at 426-428 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Lewis Webb commented

    Could you pls let us residents nearby know what is the purpose of the building removal and construction at 426-428 punt road SY?

  21. In South Yarra VIC on “No change of use, but...” at 426-428 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Oskar commented

    Dear
    Could you pls let me know
    what's the purpose of the re-construction of 426-428 punt road SY?
    Any estimated completion date?
    Thanks

  22. In Malvern East VIC on “Permit Conditions 24, 25...” at Stage 4 - Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East Victoria 3145:

    Deb commented

    Renate, residents are up against the wealthy, powerful vested interests of those who own Chadstone and it will just keep expanding regardless of the amenity of surrounding residents.

  23. In Malvern East VIC on “Permit Conditions 24, 25...” at Stage 4 - Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East Victoria 3145:

    Renate Johnson commented

    Why haven't nearby residents been informed of this latest development. No one in Webster Street has been informed.

  24. In South Yarra VIC on “No change of use, but...” at 426-428 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Karen commented

    What's the purpose of the re-construction of 426-428 punt road SY? Any estimated completion date?

  25. In Malvern VIC on “Demolition and construction...” at 127-133 Wattletree Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    John Nieuwenhuysen commented

    Why so many alternatives? This asks for permission to do anything! Please be specific

  26. In Armadale VIC on “Development of two (2)...” at 383 Dandenong Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Kelly Butcher commented

    Need a clearer explanation of “creation/alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1”. Does this mean a driveway will be created on Wattletree Road to access the property? I live on Wattletree Road and would object to creating any access via Wattletree Road as it is already extremely difficult getting out of my driveway during morning peak when cars are bumper to bumper waiting to turn into Dandenong Road, often extending over my driveway.

  27. In South Yarra VIC on “No change of use, but...” at 426-428 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Peter Tsirikis commented

    I note that on permit 595/19 the exisiting double story brick dwelling will be removed.

    What is proposed for this site? Apartment block?

  28. In Malvern East VIC on “Renovations to existing...” at 324 Wattletree Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Georgina commented

    It sounds like this house is doing everything correctly.
    In the interest of keeping costs low to home owners, surely Council could make a judgement on this type of thing, under a building permit, rather than having to obtain costly planning permission???

  29. In South Yarra VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 62 Arthur Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    Yep ‼️
    Another high rise unsuitable Block
    Let’s Rip the old out and replace .
    Fill up South Yarra with high rise appartments and block the sun .
    “Cram ‘em” in .
    Then reduce the off street parking .
    Who owns a car ⁉️
    Get real Stonnington .
    Save what we have before it’s too late ‼️

  30. In South Yarra VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 62 Arthur Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Susi Inglis commented

    We are residents in Fawkner Street, South Yarra. Fawkner Street is a heritage listed street. This small pocket of residential buildings is quite unique in its character. At this very moment the word 'residential' is extremely important. South Yarra is loosing its identity as a suburb to cheap high rise developments. There are many reasons to protect this residential pocket of South Yarra. It is already under pressure with cars using Fawkner Street as a bypass to Toorak Road. A high rise building with short stay accomodation such as the development proposed in Arthur Street goes against everything this small pocket of residential houses stands for. Arthur Street is small and oneway. As mentioned, Fawkner Street is unique enough to be heritage listed. The propensity of cars requiring parking, the noise and lack of care from non residents coming and going in short stay accommodation, the question of security all these things have already been proven to be a problem in many areas. Please protect our very important pocket of residential houses.

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