Recent comments

  1. In Malvern VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 152 - 154 Wattletree Road, Malvern, VIC:

    Ann Reid commented

    The proposal to tear down two heritage buildings and replace them with a 4 storey building is typical of Cabrini's total disregard for the area in which it resides.

    Council should be protecting its heritage buildings in this area as it does in other areas of Stonnington.

    The entire application should be refused on this basis alone.

  2. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Melissa Kewin commented

    To Sutherland Shire Council,

    This particular GP also has a practice 480m away at 2 Davidson Rd. Why does he need another one so close? There is no extra convenience for residents to have another practice located here.

    In the submitted Statement of Environmental Effect 4.4.11 mentions that one car place has to reverse out. The other 2 car places may reverse exit as well as the GP cannot enforce exiting front on and would be assumption to believe otherwise. If as stated there is 30 customers a day. That is approx 12-15 cars reversing a day on a blind narrow corner next to a school. This is not 'similar to that occurring at the majority of the residential properties in this area' as stated on page 24 of the SOEE. This also does not count cars from the staff, residents, pathology, deliveries and sales representatives. Extra risk for locals and children from the school walking home.

    Considering this is not a convenient location for neighbours, it is unsafe and the GP already has another local practice just 480m away there is no real driver or reason for this to go ahead.

    Please locate his new practice in a commercial premises only.

    I oppose.

  3. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented


    There are 5 medical practices within walking distances.

    2 Medical practices are 480m away. 1 is 780m away, another 1 is 1km and another at 1.2km away. Not to mention Bangor and Illawong medical centres which are also very close.

    Main point I am making is that there is already ample Medical Centres in the area and commercial areas for this type of business. There is no need or demand for this practice right here in a small no through road. The Medical Practitioner is just trying to get a cheaper way of running a business in a residential street.

    Having a doctor in your street is not a convenience here, not needed and people in the street may not even be customers of this particular medical practitioner.

    In the Statement of Environmental Effect and the Neighbour Notification Letter contradicts each other regarding the hours of business as well. This needs to be clarified. Will this be a mandatory thing that can be governed?

    Also a main point is that the proposed driveway is right on a small tight blind corner on a no through road.

    I oppose strongly.

  4. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    This should not go ahead. There are 4 medical centers already within walking distance of this location. This is a commercial practice in a residential area and small street. There is a commercial area for this 650-700m away and another 1km. Commercial entities are quite welcome there, not in this small no through road area.
    The practice would not generate extra jobs for the area as one GP can only practice in such a small space as proposed.
    There is limited parking entry in this block. The entry is proposed single lane right on the outer of the sharp corner, this could cause people to cut the corner which is quite blind to the incoming traffic. The corner is very narrow and tight, right where customers would also park.
    All roads from this corner are to cul de sac's, this would mean increased traffic in these streets as well. The street is narrow and so many of these cars will do illegal u-turns at McCabe and Miller or just go up the end and have to turn around and drive through again. People already do this with the increased traffic from the school. Many children walk home along this street and i have seen some near misses.
    A commercial premises with handling money and drugs may increase crime that otherwise would not be a target.
    The application is asking for part use, this could turn into a large practice in the future because the ground floor is too small to accommodate growth.
    I strongly oppose this application.

  5. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House –...” at 159 Raglan Street, Mosman, NSW:

    ????Keyth Pisani commented

    ??OBJECTION to the proposed development at 159 Raglan Street Mosman
    Application Number 8.2012.196.1 (Mr David Cowling)
    ????•“MORE LOVE” Bachelor Party Pad In Respectable Family Neighbourhood????•

    ??Considerations for Council

    1. Non-Compliance

    The allowable FSR for dwellings in this location under councils planning laws is 0.5. The
    existing FSR for the property at 159 Raglan Street is 0.73 which is already a substantial over-development. The proposed new development will see the FSR rise to 0.77. Again this is an even more significant over-development than Council allows for. The non-compliant FSR will greatly impact the local amenity, impose on neighbouring houses and create a greater building cluster closer to the existing boundary fences.
    The proposed Cabana size greatly exceeds Council’s requirements. The Council requirement for a structure of this nature is 20 m2. The proposal is to develop a Cabana of 28 m2... 40% in excess of the Council’s allowance.
    The back wall height exceeds the existing back boundary fence height by more than 20 cm. There will be a substantial loss of garden under this proposal. The already existing small garden area will be further reduced with the removal of existing mature trees.
    Council’s regulations also indicate that the pool area must have a 2 m setback from all boundaries.

    2. Overlook

    The applicant makes a range of allegations that his property is “overlooked” by neighbouring properties and seeks to further screen-off existing boundaries in order to increase concealment. Quite frankly, any privacy issues are exaggerated. The applicant’s property is nestled amongst four other properties in a respectable family neighbourhood block and this over-sensitivity to absolute privacy is unrealistic.

    3. Drainage

    The proposed flat roof of the Cabana does not appear to have appropriate drainage and may cause substantial water pooling. Currently, this area is not affected by any water pooling or poor drainage of storm water, due to Council’s tight oversight of the development of neighbouring properties.
    ?4. Pollution

    There is a very substantial risk of party noise directly affecting my property as well as other properties that surround the proposed development. The Cabana will have audio and lighting facilities and the location of proposed development will direct noise towards our living room downstairs and bedrooms upstairs.

    The proposed “MORE LOVE” fountain and signage is offensive in its party/poolside context and suggests lewd behaviour and debauchery; totally out of place in a respectable family neighbourhood.

    5. Proposed Cabana – Habitable Dwelling

    The proposed Cabana is clearly a space that can be habitable with cooking and sleeping facilities and appears to be the construction of a habitable room and living quarters. There is a suggestion of a possible fireplace and chimney with no details of its location and construction and possible effects of smoke drifting into neighbouring properties by prevailing winds. This is especially concerning considering the relative roof height of the building at fence height.
    The proposal is a relocation and duplication of existing facilities to adjoin a rear boundary fence unnecessarily causing loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The proposed structure exceeds what is allowable under existing Council regulations in every aspect of the development.

    Finally, the applicant has not seen fit to consult any neighbours to discuss his proposed development or its potential impact on their property. It is unfortunate that he has chosen this path rather than adopt a more harmonious and openhanded approach. This is the second time he has submitted the proposal without our prior knowledge. The first application was submitted just before Christmas on 16 December 2011 and rejected by council due to insufficient documentation. This second application has been timed to coincide with the election of a new council, school holidays and the sale of two adjoining and directly affected properties one of which is empty awaiting the new owners and the other also as yet not inhabited by its new owners.

  6. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    ANYONE who wishes to comment has until 5.00PM MONDAY 15 OCTOBER 2012. That includes GAY STREET, KARIOLA STREET, ROSLYN STREET and MOWBRAY ROAD residents.

  7. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    The period of comment has just been extended to end Friday 12th October 2012

  8. In Kew VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 58 Walpole Street Kew VIC 3101:

    R Chee commented

    I am against further medium/high density development on Walpole Street. Walpole Street is already congested and prone to traffic issues (especially during school start/end times) as well as during the morning peak when people use it as a alternate North-South route to by pass the Junction. Unless the development provides 2 car spaces per dwelling with at least 2 available guest parking spaces for the entire development, I am afraid it will only lead to more traffic problems.

  9. In Capalaba QLD on “Deomolition - Swimming Pool” at 36 Daveson Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Jan Garabedian commented

    We installed the swimming pool in approx. 1990. Buccaneer Pools was the company we used. Buccaneer Pools damaged the main sewerage pipes in the bottom left hand side of the garden, we took them to Court in Brisbane and they were found guilty, but never paid for the sewage repairs, even though they were instructed by the Court to do do.

  10. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Heather hands commented

    As a resident of Helsal Drive and a direct next door neighbour of the proposed units we are very upset as we have had no notification of these plans and have only known of this from reading this website.
    We are in favour of everything that has been written by fellow neighbours and surrounding streets of Helsal Drive we would also like to mention that the 2 storey buildings will block out all of the afternoon sun to our property and also the problem with privacey looking into our backyard along with the increase of traffic and parking and the develuation of our property.
    We do hope that our comments along with other residents comments are taken seriously.

    Joy, Kevin and Heather Hands

  11. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Lisa Hsiao commented

    At this area, there ar already too many " no through road". to have 6 two story units will make this area become highly density. The traffic is extremely terrible at night. The council should really seriously consider about the big influence at this area.

    our next door negibhour is going to buil up another unit in the back, i can't image how many construtions are going at this area. this should be stopped and get the neighbour notice as well as we didn't know anything until the neighbour's notice to our mail box.

  12. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Rebecca and Rodney Morrissey commented

    We would also like to object to the above proposed development. We agree wholeheartedly with the previous objections. One of the main reasons we bought in this immediate area was the LOW density zoning, which at the time also translated to low traffic.

  13. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Mr and Mrs Wetherill commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    We are residents in Roslyn Street and only became aware of this application yesterday after the close of business. We received no notification despite the fact it will affect the nature of the street as a whole.

    We ask you to consider our comments in relation to the traffic component of the application:-

    Taking the Traffic Report figures of 1 space per 4 children (Page 18), you would reasonably conclude that for 40 children you require 10 parking spaces. I am unclear from the reports how this number of parking spaces is achieved given this is a corner site and therefore immediate street parking is not as readily available as might be deduced from the reports propositions.

    These are residential streets, with many families (I am told [not verified] there are in the order of 26 children living on Roslyn Street) who travel to and from their own schools and pre-schools/day-care at the same time as the drop-off to 6 Gay Street. This does not appear to be recognised in the reports findings.

    Our primary concern is for safety, a number of the Childcare Centres existing parents travel at inappropriate speeds along Roslyn Street (having dropped off their children). When you have many families who live here getting children in and out of their cars to get them to school it is hazardous - If this application is approved we believe conditions should be applied to ensure the safety of the residents and ensure the increased number of parents dropping off at 6 Gay street does not increase the incidence of those parents driving too fast along Roslyn Street indeed the conditions might regulate the current situation!

    Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

    Yours sincerely,

  14. In Tamborine QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 20 - 30 Sundown Court, Tamborine, QLD:

    Eron and Maureen POIDEVIN commented

    Our comments are based on some 32 years living on Sundown Court.

    We have noted in that time that visitors to Sundown Court most frequently travel the full length of the road even if their visit is primarily to a location short of the road end.

    1. The establishment of a commercial enterprise, relying upon on site customers for its operation, is clearly unsuited to the ambiance of both the residents of the Sundown Court or to those of the Ryemore Estate.

    2. Why was there NO contact by the developer of the proposal with the residents of Sundown Court prior to the submission to Council?

    3. The area in which the proposal is sited has a large resident wild life population which will be adversely affected by the increased traffic flow.

    4. It should be noted that Sundown Court was originally a dirt track extension of a gravelled Munstervale Road. It was developed into a narrow, underserviced "road" by layering a bitumen surface over the track by the developer of the large (four hectare plus) rural residential blocks. Money left over for the maintenance of Sundown Court by the developer was used by the Beaudesrt Council to eventually bitumen Munstervale Road from Sundown Court to the Beenleigh - Beaudesrt Rd. (Sundown Court is in a much poorer state than Munstervale Rd in the width, edges and surface quality.)

    5. (a) The area is very much a family area, even though it is classsified as rural/ residential and the roads are frequented by children and adults horse riding, cycling and walking/running along the roads.
    (b) In some parts it is quite difficult for pedestrians or riders to get safely of the road surface. Customers of the proposed brewery would not be familiar with the roads and particularly on Sundown Court which is quite narrower and with blind corners/hills all users could be at risk. Even now road users, not familiar with Sundown Court, tend to exceed the speed limit and drive down the middle of the road, and resent having to move off the bitumen surface to permit other cars to pass. As frequent road users we have had many close calls.

    6. Motor cyclists, both residental or visitors, tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends, already pose a considerable danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

    7. The operation of the brewery will generate a considerable amount of effluent which will require disposal, most likely in the general area of the plant's operation. There will also be the need to meet health and safety needs for workers and visitors. The effect of this effluent, gaseous, solid and liquid, in an area with NO industrial disposal system, would need to be articulated/quantified to the satisfaction of local residents.

    8. Some moor cyclists, residential and visitors tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends and public holidays already pose a significant danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

  15. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Rosaleen Helen Alban commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed double story 6 unit apartment block to be erected at number 17 Helsal Drive Wantirna South (reference P/2012/6605). This construction will irreversibly change the landscape of this area while creating increased traffic in an already pressured environment.

    A structure of this magnitude will generate a great deal of noise and inconvenience to the residents during construction and for this reason alone the wider neighbourhood should have been informed of the proposed development. If this project continues it will create visual pollution, block the winter sun to the adjoining properties and reduce the privacy for the residents of Helsal Drive and Apollo Court affecting the enjoyment of our properties.

    This area is not suitable for a high density housing estate as there is limited access to major roads and the side streets are already crowded. In this area some household now sport 3, 4 and sometimes 5 vehicles creating an obstacle course for traffic in the side streets. Increased traffic creates a higher risk of accidents and therefore should be avoided.

  16. In Surry Hills NSW on “Footway application in...” at 412-416 Crown Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Tim commented

    The bouncers at the dolphin hotel think they already own the street was walking past one night not even attending the hotel and stopped to answer a call only to be pushed onto the road as i was in the way of some ten metre rule.
    The hotel already occupies enough of the foot path with it customers pouring out onto the streets.
    It is difficult enough to walk down the street as it is without having to dodge tables and chairs
    I think this proposal should not go ahead

  17. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and OWS...” at 1 Cohoe Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    James and Judith Clanchy commented

    JL & JM Clanchy
    PO Box 3097
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    2nd October 2012

    Assessment Manager
    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    To Whom It May Concern

    Re: MCUI/2012/3127 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign
    OWS/2012/3134 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign

    We would like to make a submission in respect of the abovementioned development application.

    This application does not appear to be at all consistent with the intent of the area. The proposed use does not comply with the identified outcomes required of the code and the residential zoning in place.

    The nature of the proposed development will have a major impact on many aspects of the amenity and environs of this residential area.

    The intersection where the proposed development will be sited is already a congested traffic zone at different times throughout the day, particularly, during the working week. It is the designated route taken by Greyhound buses and other coach services, many daily commuters and the likes of tradespeople and freight couriers. Further development, subsequently encouraging a much higher volume of traffic, would exacerbate this situation to the extreme and back up traffic to the west along Herries Street further. It would impede appreciably upon the through traffic on Herries Street moving to enter Cohoe Street. This would increase noise and pollution and diminish safety for the general travelling public. It would also encumber residents who walk this section and increase risks when traversing this area.

    This would significantly impact the roadways, intersections and private driveways from the Warrego Highway entry to Cohoe and Margaret Streets, right along the Cohoe to James Street section and westerly back through the roundabout at Herries/Curzon Street. This top section and major entry and exit point to our city is often under excessive pressure whenever there is a traffic mishap on the range or somewhere in the near proximity because of the nature of it being a major artery in and out.

    The area around St. Vincent’s Hospital and the Scott Street Medical Precinct is heavily saturated with vehicles looking for parking now. Consequently, this means that there is haphazard vehicle movement and congestion already present in these adjoining environs. All of this impacts upon the residential dwellings and residents within the area.

    We also feel that the existing businesses within this vicinity would also be impacted at a time when retail and hospitality are already under pressure. We would not like to see small local businesses suffer further and possibly lost due to larger national chains being imposed on our neighbourhood.
    Such businesses as the independent service station at the top of the range, the coffee shops at Medici Medical and the Range Shopping Centre and other eating establishments at the Range could be severely impacted. This would decrease the amenity and character of our neighbourhood and community.

    The fact that homes of character and our tree lined streetscape could be replaced by concrete carparks and commercial buildings operating extended trading hours would detract significantly from the local character of the area and one of the more pleasant aspects of welcoming visitors to our city.

    It is our belief that the residents of our area are not apt to value or support this proposed development. Canvassing which has been done in the neighbourhood would seem to further support this. People fear the many risks to lifestyle, community and harmonious living which may come about as a result of such a development in this particular location. I believe Council will also be in receipt of a petition to this end.

    Yours faithfully

    Jim and Judy Clanchy

    18 Fletcher Street
    East Toowoomba. 4350

  18. In Caringbah NSW on “Child Care Centre...” at 105 Cawarra Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Oliver commented

    Based on current traffic condition, would it be even worse if the Child Care Centre approved? Need a traffic study for this road.

    We have 3-4 chid care centres already in the local area, why we create another big childcare centre ?

  19. In Northbridge WA on “Shop Fitout - Maya Masala...” at 283-291 William Street:

    John Smith commented

    Application should not be approved.

    Maya Masala's owner is not an ethical business man.

    He has taken money from international students with the hope that he will provide them permanent residency. This money is now being used to develop this store.

    He does not pay his staff correctly and many staff still have unpaid superannuation and taxes.

    Bob in the past and currently is in legal battles with ATO and former business partners and Landlords from doing the wrong thing.

    It is disgusting how a man like this is still able to operate. Maya Masala is a detriment to 'upcoming' Northbridge.


  20. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Elizabeth & Robert Briant commented

    We were very alarmed to hear about the proposed re-development to 17 Helsal Drive Wantirna South, as residents we also do not want an increase to heavy traffic such as trucks etc that would be required . The value of our property would also be lowered if these six two story MacMansions are allowed to be erected, you only have to look on the corner of Helsal Drive to see the type of ugly huge house on a tiny block
    that was built recently and how that house often has four cars parked on the street, close to corner and causing a traffic hazard

  21. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Joanne Marchese commented

    I am objecting to this development also at 9 Maling Road, as it consumes the entire block and dominates the houses either side and be visually imposing from the front street view. The reason as to why people move to these areas is for the historic housing, variety and greening of the streets - not the suburban banality that this type of design provides.

  22. In East Maitland NSW on “ALDI Greenhills - Change...” at 18-20 Garnett Rd, East Maitland 2323:

    john may commented

    I am totally opposed to Aldi allowing the sale of alcohol. They already employ young staff that will be intimidated by other teenagers when buying alcohol. They will then take it across the road to the Park (200m away) near the Council Library and drink themselves into a stupour. This places more pressure on neighbours, police and ratepayers to repair the damage that they do. The park equipment was burnt to the ground 6 months ago and alcohol will only make more youth visit the park at night.

    A a Social and economic report been undertaken adequately ? and I mean have they inetrviewed the residents nearby and do they have police and council records of destruction to property in that area, and can we compare that to other areas such as Rutherford shopping centre that has been the centre of youth crime since 2 alcohol shops opened up there ?

    If Aldi is given approval they should be paying an annual bond that can be used for removal of grafitti and contribute to public proeprty damage. A bond of $5000 a year should be imposed.

    Police should also be attending Aldi stores undercover and buy alcohol to see if they are asked for identity.

    The argument that the alcohol is not cold doesnt deter them as kids will mix it with coke that they buy elsewhere that is cold. Packaged alcohol also may reduce some buying but pooling of funds will take place and kids will be forced to buy in bulk.

    The Assessing Officer should be held responsible for any approval.

  23. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Sophie Williams commented

    I am objecting to this development because:

    The visual bulk and height is not in keeping with the Maling Rd Precinct and will impact the amenity of the area.

    The second story is not set back in keeping with other 2 storey houses in the area.

  24. In Invermay TAS on “(varying building envelope,...” at 34 Holbrook Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Christopher Jones commented

    Chris Jones c/- C & B Super Fund owner of 30-32 Holbrook Street Invermay.

    I am writing concerning the proposed garage by Mr B Kurth at 34 Holbrook Street.

    I have no problem with the building, but I am concerned with the shadow the 9 metre x 5.5mt

    high boundary wall will cast during winter months. The 1.8mt high fence we have at the moment

    casts a shadow almost one third of the block mid winter, so I would think the 5.5 metre wall

    would almost cover the entire width of the block for 9 metres and the carport at 2.7metre high

    would shadow around half the block for another 8 metres? I would like the council to have a

    look at this and advise me of their thoughts. I know it's only a car park for 30 Holbrook Street at

    the moment, but that may change in the future, it may not always be so. A back yard with so

    much shade?

    I await your reply,


    Chris Jones for C & B Super Fund.

  25. In West Launceston TAS on “Subdivision - subdivide...” at 17 Alfred Street West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Pam Dobson commented

    I dont think this application should be approved unless parking bays are made in Alfred Street similar to those in Wilhelmina Avenue. The nature strip is quite wide enough to facilitate
    several parking bays.

    With approval of this subdivison and the increase in traffic it will create, an already
    congested and very narrow street will become even worse.

    Parking bays should be part of the developement.

  26. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Trevor & Marita Cooke commented

    Re: 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South - P/2012/6605
    We refer to the abovementioned proposal and are very disappointed that the residents in Helsal, Matilda, Maripossa & Apollo Court have not been advised of the proposed development. How can you gauge the local reaction when no one has been told. It is only by chance that we heard about it on the "grapevine".

    Helsal Drive runs off Matilda Avenue, and in adding six two storey units to the end of Helsal will certainly impact the amount of traffic that will be using our street. It is most probable that each unit houses two cars and hence there will be twelve more cars together with visitors cars that will be using our road. This is a lot of extra traffic in a quiet side street.

    Let us point out to you that when The Knox School purchased the land from Whitten's Nursery, it was made very clear that there was to be no access by road or by foot via a gate from Matilda Avenue so as not to increase the amount of traffic in our quiet street.

    There is already a problem with traffic in Matilda Avenue with cars parked on either side of the road, at the bend - which has a continuous line. There have been many near misses there already and this problem will naturally increase if this development occurs.

    At peak times, Renou Road is a nightmare already, now that the speed humps have been put in together with roadside parking. This means that the traffic has to line up in single file and it can take three total light rotations to get through. This would naturally get worse as well.

    We understand that there is a requirement for more housing, but it doesn't make sense to overcrowd small side streets. If these developments occur in main roads - which we have noticed are being built in Knox - then it is more likely that the disruption of an increase in traffic is absorbed.

    Please be fair and let all the neighbourhood know what you are planning to do to our streets.

  27. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Amanda & Adrian Purnell commented

    We would like to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road and strongly urge that this development is not approved without significant amendment.

    Our objection focuses on the following issues:

    1. Negative impact on the character of the area and surrounding streetscape:
    The proposed development is completely out of character with the existing neighbourhood, which predominantly consists of one and two storey family houses. People who choose to live in the streets of Kingston, Irymple and surrounds make a conscious choice to live in a suburban, leafy, quiet and peaceful family environment. We ourselves left the hustle and bustle of South Yarra and deliberately chose Irymple Ave as a blue chip, desirable location in which to raise our young family. We would not have done so had there been a large three level development on our doorstep, and view that it is unreasonable to expect such a development be approved in its present form.

    2. Setting of an inappropriate precedent:
    There are no three storey dwellings in the nearby area, and approving the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road would set an inappropriate precedent. We object specifically to the height and also to the large number of dwellings and would like to see both of these reduced.

    3. Traffic congestion exceeding safe capacity limits:
    The proposed development will have a significant, unpalatable impact on traffic congestion on the streets of Kingston and Irymple Avenue. These streets are already struggling to cope with the existing traffic load (which far exceeds normal residential traffic loads, due to close proximity to Central Park, the Central Park shopping precinct, the tram terminus and the Commonwealth Bank).

    The corners of Irymple and Kingston are tight and narrow, and it is often very difficult to safely navigate them as there are multiple cars parked on the street. Our streets cannot cope with any further increase in traffic levels.

    Likewise, exiting Irymple or Kingston onto Wattletree Road is also fraught with danger, due to the significant congestion created by parked cars and existing traffic.

    The lane way which runs parallel to Wattletree and has been proposed as a carpark entrance to the new proposed dwelling is also very tight and congested. It is a single width lane and simply cannot cope with the traffic which 12 new dwellings would generate. Having 19 additional vehicles entering and exiting the laneway is particularly dangerous as the laneway is "T" shaped and single lane.

    It is therefore imperative that the proposed multi dwelling development utilise Wattletree Road rather than the laneway for its carpark ingress and egress.

    4. Unsustainable impact on street parking:
    The rising cost of home ownership has resulted in many existing nearby residents having older children living at home into their twenties, resulting in many residents parking cars on the street as they have more cars than their driveways can fill. The demographic profile of existing residents suggests this problem will only worsen over time. The area cannot cope with a further reduction in parking spaces which will ensue from having 12 additional dwellings, which will require additional street parking for both residents and visitors.

    In addition, the area's proximity to Central Park, the Central Park shopping precinct, the tram terminus and the Commonwealth Bank all result in non residents parking in nearby residential streets, further exacerbating the difficulty residents find in locating a parking space in their street. We have previously (successfully) lobbied to have parking restricted in Irymple Ave for non residents (ie non permit holders) as I was frustrated with the lack of street parking. At the time we lobbied for 2 hour parking, we took a petition to members of Irymple and Kingston and almost every resident I spoke to agreed traffic congestion was a huge issue which needed to be addressed. We have also successfully requested that Council create a "no standing" zone on the dangerous corner of Irymple (opposite #21) because of the frequency of tradesmen and other visitors parking on the corner, creating a dangerous blind spot. Despite the above, we are frequently ringing council to report people illegally parking, negatively impacting visibility and safety for other road users.

    We appreciate you taking our concerns into account and trust that the proposed redevelopment at 379 Wattletree Road is not approved without significant amendment to its (a) height, (b) size and (c) location of carpark ingress and egress.

    Thank you,

    Amanda & Adrian Purnell

  28. In Perth WA on “Serviced Apartments 18 levels” at 176 Adelaide Terrace:

    C Mertz commented

    Dear Sirs,

    We bought a unit at I-spire a year ago off the plan. It was sold to us as an apartment complex. We are very disturbed by the fact that the application is now for a service apartment complex.
    We do not agree with this.

  29. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    ian m white commented

    City of Stonnington
    Planning Unit

    I am pleased to have the opportunity to lodge an objection to application 0503/12, 379 Wattletree Road Malvern East 3145#, multi dwelling development , Caron (Carson?~) Property. The grounds for my objection and a suggested basis of plan variations are as follows:

    The local community in the near surround (including the Gascoigne Estate) does not have any 3 storey developments and few multi dwellings. By contrast, the proposal cites 2 blocks of 3 storey flats further away and which are amid an area which has several blocks of flats. The precedent brings with it higher density, greater height and challenging visual and bulk impacts.

    Over development
    The proposal will, in my view, adversely impact on the character of the neighbourhood and the amenity of surrounding properties including the adjoining Gascoigne Estate.

    Residential Area
    The area is characterised as a single dwelling and family oriented community. Whilst over shadowing appears minimal, overlooking concerns remain in 3 directions.

    All consuming
    The entire block and the air surrounding is all consumed by building. The overlooking issue, particularly given the height, raises much concern about likely invasion of neighbourhood space and privacy.

    Heritage consideration
    Whilst there does not appear to be an overlay, the proposal does not appear to be consistent with essential heritage characteristics of the near communities. Further, the proposal in a sense dictates a new heritage direction and amplifies concerns in the precedent discussion above.

    Freedom and safety of movement
    Currently pedestrians (including many elderly, children and mobility impaired people) and drivers of all categories have to contend with difficult and restrictive traffic conditions. The prospect of up to 19 residential vehicles plus assorted visiting vehicles is particularly unacceptable. The foreseeable traffic management consequences would also seem out of step with several of the Council promoted sustainable design principles which are about good for the wider community. This area given its proximity to the multi purpose Central Park and the associated heavy traffic flows, tram terminus and related parking along with clearway and local parking restrictions will have a severe compounding impact on existing complex traffic management problems.

    Yours sincerely
    Ian M White

    # Where is the boundary of Malvern East 3145 and Glen Iris 3146?

    ~ Carson Property Group
    1 / 9 Cubitt Street
    Cremorne VIC 3121
    9421 2646

  30. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Judith and Keith Heale commented

    We are very concerned at the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road. We object to its impact on our locality, the Kingston Street North / Irymple Avenue precinct. In particular:

    1. the opening of the carpark into the lane behind the property. This will spill all its traffic into the minor and very narrow streets of Irymple Avenue and Erica Avenue, which cannot cope with any more traffic. The traffic is usually one way at a time now, because of the density of parking, and an increase in traffic would be extremely challenging to traffic movement. The new carpark should open onto Wattletree Road, as the nearby flats already do.

    2. The application for reduced onsite parking. The parking in Irymple Avenue has already been recently restricted to 2 hour during the day on one side, because of parking congestion. To put in more dwellings which will require on-street parking is unreasonable and unrealistic. It will make even more difficult the parking of local residents and their visitors. At least the tenants of the proposed development should be able to park onsite! The parking of their visitors and tradesmen will be another problem.

    3. The application for a third storey. The highest buildings in our area are two storeys, and this proposal would change the nature of our residential area, and diminish the quality and desirability of the area. It would decrease local property values.

    Please do not pass this development without considerable amendment.

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