Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments on applications from City of Stonnington, VIC

  1. 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?

  2. 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???

  3. 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 ‼️

  4. 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.

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

    Tilly commented

    I live in one of the properties on Davison Place.
    Currently we have additional noise pollution and traffic using the area with the Metro Tunnel Project but this is a mid term pain for long term gain.
    There is nothing to gain with lots of pain in relation to the proposed planning application.
    Additional car parking and traffic, not to mention further potential blockages to an already chaotic one-way Street (that isn’t enforced!). This is in addition to the blocking of light from current residential buildings.
    Separate to this is the additional dirt, noise and traffic that would block the already congested area during construction works.
    The proposed purpose of this accommodation in short term dwellings also increases the risk of security and safety issues in the areas.
    I trust that my comments will be taken seriously and added to the picture that I am sure has been created by many others as to why this planning permission should not be granted.

  6. In Malvern East VIC on “Construct a fence and gate...” at 72, 74 & 76 Serrell Street, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    John Atchison commented

    The gate and fence are built in the floodway and have the potential to block floodwaters. The original civil designers should be consulted as to whether the fence, gate and other structures should remain in the floodway.

  7. In South Yarra VIC on “Use of land for a function...” at 241-257 Toorak Road & 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    With the reduction of car parking requirements, just where are they , the patrons for the function centre expected to park .
    On the already crowded Toorak rd or equally crowded chapel ?. Or do once again the residents in nearby streets suffer from no parking and late night noise associated with little or no extra provided parking . ?? And don’t say we should move or get used to it !
    And NO not every one travels by public transport like the owners of there venues would like you to believe . !

  8. In South Yarra VIC on “Amend the use of the land...” at 670 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Frances Sutherland commented

    The concern with this application is
    Clause 3.0 where the wording or reference to ‘residential’ would be removed. This area is high density residential despite the title of Activity Zone. Residents should be acknowledged and rights respected in this precinct.

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

    Kelly Butcher commented

    This proposed building is far too high. It will overwhelm the smaller homes that are in close proximity. More cars will be added to an already over congested suburb. One of the reasons Armadale has dropped from 4th to 27th as Melbourne’s most liveable suburb.

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

    John Tabbagh commented

    I would like to object to the height of the proposed building. At 5 stories it will be much higher than the existing 2 story buildings in close proximity. It will detract from the character of this strip. We need to prevent tall buildings like this to preserve the charm, style and character of this precinct otherwise it will become like Toorak Rd in the Forrest Hill area of South Yarra.

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

    Mary Conway commented

    Five storeys is far too high for this area, which consists mostly of single/double storey buildings. Demolishing these lovely old houses for such a huge development is disgraceful.

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

    John Nieuwenhuysen commented

    This is a heavy overbuilding of the site, with far too many stories

  13. In Prahran VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 3A-3B Murray Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Ant commented

    Quite agree with Roula
    No mention of the keeping facade or car parking . A blight on both streets ‼️
    Yet another one hits the dust . 👇🏻

  14. In Prahran VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 3A-3B Murray Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Roula Vlassis commented

    If this is a heritage street - surely the construction of a 3 storey would be out of place. And are they keeping the facade of the historial milkbar at the very least?

  15. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 527-529 Orrong Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Colin Gorman commented

    Is our council going to continue granting permits to destroy the hereditary properties in Stonnington for these insidious eyesore 2-8 monstrosity apartment/town houses.
    I and many I know won’t be voting to elect the current councillors at the next election

  16. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of Three Two...” at 45 Webster Street, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Renate Johnson commented

    What has happened to this application has it been approved.

  17. In Malvern East VIC on “Condition 5 - Public Open...” at 507 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    M tynan commented

    Its great to see the council receiving $72000 for public open space. Since alot of public open space is being removed from percy treveyaud park I hope the money will be invested within the local ward.

  18. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 356-360 Punt Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Mark Stenson commented

    Fabulous asset in the area. Long may they continue trading

  19. In Malvern East VIC on “Development of nine (9)...” at 1975-1977 Malvern Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Fenty Cesal commented

    Hello there, good afternoon and i hope you are well.
    Just wondering if I could have more info regarding 1975 - 1977 Malvern Rd Malvern East Planning permit reference 0307/18?
    I have tried to access the council website in the past 2 weeks or so but there seem to be system issue.
    Link: https://eplanning.stonnington.vic.gov.au/EPlanning/Public/Error.aspx?ec=20
    Error message: "We are currently experiencing issues connecting to the Planning System.Please try again later."

  20. In Malvern VIC on “Condition 3 - Public Open...” at 67 Elizabeth Street, Malvern VIC 3144:

    John Moran commented

    I second this comment, how does one get more information on what has happened here?

  21. In Malvern VIC on “Condition 3 - Public Open...” at 67 Elizabeth Street, Malvern VIC 3144:

    John Nieuwenhuysen commented

    What does this mean? Is current public space to be removed in exchange for a donation?

  22. In Prahran VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 44 Grandview Grove, Prahran VIC 3181:

    ian archer commented

    What MOST people don't consider, is that Stonnington City Council, or local ratepayers, do not own or pay for these properties.
    In many cases the Heritage listing is placed on the property many years after they have been purchased, and effectively tying the owners hands as to what they can do with what THEY paid for. If Stonnington and ratepayers wish to Heritage list properties, they should first purchase the property, then list it.
    Ian

  23. In Prahran VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 44 Grandview Grove, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Michele Layet commented

    I thought Grandview Grove was Heritage Listed? And if not it should be. There are beautiful homes in the street.
    What is the required process fro Heritage listing?
    Thank you
    Michele

  24. In Prahran VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 20 Williams Road, Prahran VIC 3181:

    TERESA SIMMERMACHER commented

    If this is in a heritage overlay, it should be off limits.

  25. In Toorak VIC on “Per Planning Permit No....” at 260 Williams Road, Toorak VIC 3142:

    Ron Binding commented

    Can you advise if a building permit is still in place for this site

  26. In South Yarra VIC on “Condition 1 - Plans...” at 11-13 Wilson Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Susi Inglis commented

    This areas is so overdeveloped. Along with these massive high-rise comes cars - you cannot stop them. How does an area that was once meant to be a suburb of Melbourne not a suburb of high-rise developments - becoming a satellite greedy city of development. Please Stonnington stop and look at the long term development in this area. Susi Inglis

  27. In South Yarra VIC on “2 Lot subdivision - PS...” at 62 Surrey Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Darren Waite commented

    I am the neighbour at 64 Surrey Road and would like to receive and understand more about this application please. I was aware a few years ago of planned developments and would like to know how these may have changed.
    Many thanks in advance for your assistance
    Darren Waite

  28. In Windsor VIC on “Use of the land to sell...” at 75 Chapel Street, Windsor VIC 3181:

    Scott commented

    I am an owner/occupier of a residence at James st, Windsor that backs onto the James St Reserve Park, I am already at the short end of the stick when it comes to public consumption of alcohol in the park and the litter and public urination (typically between the large tree and my balcony wall). A packaged liquor retailer will only make it worse. This will only create more issues for residents, council staff (who have to clean the park and surrounding streets) and more reporting to the council about these issues.
    I cannot reiterate more eloquently than the other objectors that express the same views. This will only increase the existing problems that are widespread.
    The Windsor end of chapel street is already a well serviced area for packaged liquor and is considered the nicer end without having the drunk and disorderly people causing violence, abuse, littering, and incidence of drunken people walking the streets. What is the need for the BWS? 90% of the restaurants within a 1km radius are not BYO, so there is not benefit. No more competition is required from the corporate liquor wholesalers.
    There is no on quantity or where people consume the alcohol. Windsor and Prahran already have a lenient liquor laws for the nightclubs in the area and the area does not require more
    Windsor is an area that attracts people from all over the city and state and it is not their playground. Where they play up and litter and urinate publicly is in the side streets where rate payers live. We are defenseless and it may seem like people are drawing a long bow to make the connection. The BWS is not even 100m from the James St reserve park where they drink on the swing and play sets. I'm powerless to deter them as I have to confront the drunks and people drinking in public from my back patio. Its a public nuisance and the police will do nothing to respond.

  29. In South Yarra VIC on “Works in a Heritage Overlay” at South Yarra Station, 167 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    TERESA SIMMERMACHER commented

    Where are the supporting materials for this application? Decisions cannot be made without them.

  30. In South Yarra VIC on “Works in a Heritage Overlay” at South Yarra Station, 167 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    More information is needed for all regarding this application.
    South yarra station is an icon of Toorak rd and any alterations should not be taken lightly and considerable thought must be applied

This week