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

Recent comments on applications from City of Stonnington, VIC

  1. In Windsor VIC on “Full demolition of existing...” at 54 The Avenue, Windsor VIC 3181:

    John Nieuwenhuysen commented

    A great pity that such beauty in an heritage overlay should even be contemplated for demolition. Professor John Nieuwenhuysen

  2. In Windsor VIC on “Full demolition of existing...” at 54 The Avenue, Windsor VIC 3181:

    T commented

    Unbelievable that someone has the nerve to want flatten this beauty of a house. Have filed an objection and getting the neighbors to do the same.

  3. In Armadale VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1163-1165 High Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Allen Brent commented

    If there is such a thing as " standard parking ", why does Stonnington continually grant permits with less than standard parking ? This happens so frequently that the reality is that standard car parking is less than the so called " standard parking ". Traffic congestion continues to grow and car parking on the street becomes more and more difficult. Time that Stonnington at least tried to keep parked cars off the street.

  4. In Prahran VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 324 Chapel Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Sue Tresider commented

    Electronic signage should not be permitted. They are designed to attract attention and therefore distract motorists, bikers and pedestrians. They clog already clogged streets. Public phones have been superseded and are irrelevant.

  5. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 538 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  6. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 538 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  7. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 500 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  8. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotional signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 252 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  9. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 219-221 Commercial Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  10. In Prahran VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 324 Chapel Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  11. In Prahran VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 303 Chapel Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  12. In Prahran VIC on “Electronic promotional signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 255 Chapel Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  13. In Prahran VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 217 Chapel Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  14. In South Yarra VIC on “Electronic promotion signage” at Phone booth in road reserve out the front of 429 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Brian boss commented

    These should not be allowed. These are intrusive and massive advertising billboards blocking our footpaths. They are pretending to be phones. Who the hell even uses public phones?

  15. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a...” at 4-6 Harvey Street, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Leigh Lenton commented

    Harvey Street has been one of the loveliest, character filled, tree lined streets in Malvern.
    We have lost so much character in Stonnington due to developers. We know inner city living is inevitable but this is not Malvern Road.
    In this instance the development in such a small street would look totally out of character. It should be kept to an acceptable height and in keeping with the surrounding homes.
    As residents of Stonnington for many many years we object to such a development and hope council can respect the wishes of residents and retain the special and unique beauty of this street.

  16. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a...” at 4-6 Harvey Street, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Ana Chan commented

    We the residents of 6,4 and 2 Dalny Street Malvern object to the proposed development of 4-6 Harvey Street Malvern. We ask for an extension to be granted to allow us to receive a professional opinion. Our concerns are as follows
    -Height of proposed development which will be higher then any existing house/unit located in Harvey and Dalny Street Malvern. This will cause the loss of the streets character which we will never get back.
    -Overlooking into 6,4 and 2 Dalny Streets windows. Our privacy once enjoyed removed entirely by the height of the development.
    -Screening trees proposed by the developer are located so close to the corner boundary of 4 Dalny and 2 Harvey Street Malvern where a private storm water drain is located. This drain is used by 6,4 Dalny Street and 2 Harvey Street. We have already suffered root intrusion caused by the existing bay leaf tree and had to have John Gowan from stonnington council at site. Whilst we don’t object to the removal of the existing bay leaf tree we would like the developer to more it further away from the boundary line to prevent root intrusion problems in the future and don’t want the tree overhanging into our properties. I hope you take into consideration our concerns. We know developers are there to make money and the affect of the development on the neighbourhood is of little concern.

  17. In Malvern VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 11 Claremont Avenue, Malvern VIC 3144:

    LEONIE WOOD commented

    No, please, not three stories, not four, not more. Not there. Even if the tertiary storey is set back from the street-scape, it will overlook houses to the north-side, which are predominantly single- or two-storey. It will be the first of many, am sure, and add to the dreadful tunnel effect that is now being experienced in areas such as High St Armadale west of Kooyong, Burwood Rd Hawthorn, and elsewhere. The Claremont street and Station street environs are integral to the heritage boast of Malvern area. Please don't start the decline.

  18. In Malvern VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 11 Claremont Avenue, Malvern VIC 3144:

    J Allen Brent commented

    This is a very special train station village and so far has managed to remain more or less " as is ". I don't think that three stories is appropriate in this mainly two stories area. Car parking is a difficult situation throughout Stonnington and Council's policy of granting less than required needs to cease. We don't live in the immediate area but have been using the shops and cafes in the village since 1970. It's a very spewcial, quirky little area and Council needs to preserve and look after it.

  19. In Malvern VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 11 Claremont Avenue, Malvern VIC 3144:

    simon de Wolf commented

    we think that 3 stories is too high and not in keeping with the streetscape..As parking a big problem already reducing private parking a bad idea

  20. In Malvern VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 11 Claremont Avenue, Malvern VIC 3144:

    simon de Wolf commented

    we think thjat 3 stories is not in keeping with streetscape and as parking a big problem now reducing car space is not appropiate

  21. In Malvern VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 1220-1224 Malvern Road, Malvern VIC 3144:

    Allen Brent commented

    If I read this correctly, this is a request by the developer to remove two visitor car parks which were originally included in the original planning application / approval. Stonnington's policy of allowing less than required car parking has put pressure on already over crowded streets and the massive construction of medium density apartments has made living in this area stressful and driver behavior has become far more aggressive. If the permit included these two visitor car parks, they should be maintained. The special character of Spring Road has been destroyed already but don't make it worse.

  22. In Armadale VIC on “Multi-unit residential...” at 34 Armadale Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Ann Reid commented

    The Kennett Government privatised building surveyors even to the extent that a private building surveyor in a country town can (and it's happened) issue a demolition order for a house in Melbourne when he/she has never even seen the house.

    No State Government since then has made an attempt to get the industry back into Council hands.

  23. In Armadale VIC on “Multi-unit residential...” at 34 Armadale Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Laura Walsh commented

    I am asking the same questions as Shane Rumble, particularly how a private surveyor can issue a demolition permit without approval by Council!!! I know the Mayor cares deeply about retaining the historical and architectural essence of the Stonnington precinct and yet we hear that even he is helpless in this situation. This is a crazy situation., The whole of Stonnington is being adversely affected by soulless and money-grabbing overdevelopment. What can be done before we have nothing left but street after street of sameness?

  24. In Armadale VIC on “Multi-unit residential...” at 34 Armadale Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Shane Rumble commented

    How on Earth does a private surveyor get to issue a demolition permit, without any review or approval by council? What sort of governance process (or lack thereof) allows that to occur?

    The people of Stonnington elected the Council to protect the interests and heritage of Stonnington and yet, some private surveyor has the power to issue demolition permits, without any scrutiny or Council approval?

    City of Stonnington Chief Executive, Warren Roberts claims that the property does not qualify for “individual” heritage protection but a 1992 study found that the property “would make an architectural or historical contribution within a broader heritage precinct rather than being of individual significance”.

    The Council and Major do not seem to care about protecting the overall integrity, amenity or beauty of the area. Unless the house meets the narrow criteria for heritage protection, then it’s not worth protecting.

    Unless Captain Cook, or someone significant lived there, or it has some unique architectural feature, then it doesn’t qualify and doesn’t matter.

    Where is the Council’s planning strategy for protecting our broader area, Armadale or the Stonnington Municipality? Stonnington’s heritage properties (Victorian, Federation, Edwardian) are large part of what make it a beautiful and unique area.

    The absence of a planning strategy by the Council to protect the overall integrity of the municipality means that, apart from the 58 properties in the whole of Stonnington, (that meet the narrow qualification criteria for protection), then there is nothing to prevent these beautiful heritage homes being torn down one by one. Soon our residential streets will become full of apartment blocks, rather than beautiful heritage homes.

    We could potentially end up with only 58 heritage protected properties and a suburb full of ugly, rubbish buildings!!! (I know that is taking it to the extreme but that is what could and will happen to a large extent).

    I received a letter from Jane Homewood, Executive Director Statutory Planning Services, on behalf of the Minister for Planning; “Stonnington City Council is the responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for the administration of the local planning scheme”. Yet the Mayor, Steve Stefanopoulos, claims there is nothing that the Council can do.

    The Mayor and several councillors were elected based on their campaigns claiming they are concerned about our heritage. Yet they are not willing to even try and save this
    property; they just wash their hands of it and say there is nothing they can do.

    The Stonnington Council has been absent in allowing this demolition permit to be issued and are still absent in doing anything about it and fulfilling the election promises they made.

  25. In Armadale VIC on “Multi-unit residential...” at 34 Armadale Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Jennifer Williams commented

    Why are people being allowed to pull these beautiful houses down and erect ugly apartment blocks. We have that problem here in Dandenong where every lovely old house is torn down within days of being sold. That is a stunning property from the 1880's and deserves to be kept as it is without some Chinese company ripping it down. It won't be long before Melbourne starts looking like some horrible multi story ghetto

  26. In Prahran VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 66 York Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Matt Moisis commented

    A 3 storey development on this block is ludicrous. The street is narrow and congested and it would not fit in with the area. This proposal should be dramatically reduced in size.

  27. In Prahran VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 66 York Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Con Fakos commented

    I am astounded that this development is even being considered in this location. It will impact the value of neighbouring properties many of which are period style. This will also detract from the amenity, streetscape, history & feel of the area. The traffic congestion is already at breaking point and this style of development will only add to the problem.

  28. In Prahran VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 66 York Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Jono Gourlay commented

    Hi there. I am the owner of 68 York St, Prahran. This is directly next door to 66 York St and the proposed development. I strongly object to this planning permit. I encourage others in the neighbourhood to object also as this will detract from the value of the surrounding houses. Building a 3 storey multi-unit development on this size of block and in this area is inappropriate. 3 storeys is not consistent with any of the houses in this area - most of the houses in the street and surrounding streets, including Leila St, are single storey Victorian cottages. 3 storeys will impact the amenity and light for surrounding properties. This area is already very busy and crowded in terms of number of residents and traffic. Parking is already at a premium (especially due to street sweeping restrictions), so having residents and their visitors for up to 10 units come to this location will make this worse, even with an underground car park. York St is narrow and crowded, so that traffic already banks up between Clarke St and Murray St. Additional residents plus the disruption from building works will make it almost impossible to get through here. A high multi-unit 3 story development with this many units is inappropriate for this location and will impact the value of neighbouring properties. This style of development will also detract from the amenity, streetscape, feel and history of this area.

  29. In South Yarra VIC on “Removal of one Elm tree” at 119 Caroline Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Róisín Murphy commented

    Hello
    Why is this tree being removed? If it is removed will another tree planted in its place?

  30. In Armadale VIC on “Extension to ground floor...” at 17 Rose Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Jane and Allen Brent commented

    We are owners of the next door property and as of today ( 3 August ) have not received any formal notification ( letter ) about this proposal. This is a heritage property and part of as row of four. They are old and fragile. We need to see details to establish any loss of light, over looking, structural concerns.

This week