37 Dering Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089

This gives precedence to clear so many trees off this hill on Dering St. Which is such a beautiful part of diamond creek. It will:
- Dramatically change the look of diamond creek
-reduce residents for for native fauna
- there is insufficient infrastructure to deal with 10 more residence on this street.
- already crossing the train line at peak hour is terrible.
- let's keep the integrity / beauty of diamond creek town ship with so many trees and feeling of being rural. - with more of these big developments we are losing the integrity of diamond creek and why people love coming here.
- Eltham is no longer a nice township to be around let's not do the same to diamond creek.

I have blatantly copied Thomas’s comments because it sums up the situation perfectly.
Please, please, please stop allowing people to ruin Diamond Creek.

This gives precedence to clear so many trees off this hill on Dering St. Which is such a beautiful part of diamond creek. It will:
- Dramatically change the look of diamond creek
-reduce residents for for native fauna
- there is insufficient infrastructure to deal with 10 more residence on this street.
- already crossing the train line at peak hour is terrible.
- let's keep the integrity / beauty of diamond creek town ship with so many trees and feeling of being rural. - with more of these big developments we are losing the integrity of diamond creek and why people love coming here.
Thank you

Dering Street (and Diamond Creek in general) has so many unit developments, subdivisions and additional houses jammed on one block. The traffic in Dering Street and adjoining Fyffe Street is currently at its maximum capacity (in my opinion). It is hard now to enter in road from any of these minor arterial roads. The road way is narrow and can already be dangerous to walk, cycle or drive on.
Has a report been done on the effect of an added 10+ vehicles using the road.
The fire services authority has already warned that they could not attend (in the event of a fire) several properties in Dering Street so to add 10 more properties to the street would be irresponsible. Have FRV been approached for comment.
Knowing the property well, I do not understand how 10x dwellings could be sited on is allotment without major removal of the vegetation (including protected trees).
Looing forward to a submission from the developer.

Very dissapointed with this application. The enviromental impact must be reviewed without profitibility analysis for the proprty developers. I am surprised that this application is being taken seriously. How can 10 lots with road be acheivable? Consider the erosion, toxic run off, distruction of habitat, the road traffic, the native flora and fauna lost. Why 10 lots, why not less than 5 lots? Diamond Creek is part of the green wedge.

Dering Street springs to mind as one of the more rustic and scenic streets in that part of Diamond Creek. Adding ten units to that property would cause a lot of additional congestion to a tiny single lane road. The property borders the rural zone and needs to reflect that. It isn’t a central village property. Between this and the Fraser Street issues it really makes one wonder where developers will go if allowed to get their way. Council please do not allow this over-development.

Dering Street springs to mind as one of the more rustic and scenic streets in that part of Diamond Creek. Adding ten units to that property would cause a lot of additional congestion to a tiny single lane road. The property borders the rural zone and needs to reflect that. It isn’t a central village property. Between this and the Fraser Street issues it really makes one wonder where developers will go if allowed to get their way. Council please do not allow this over-development.

This proposal is overdevelopment of the site. Most properties in the local area are larger than average and a density of 1:696m2 (approx.) as with this proposal does not respect or contribute to the character of the local neighborhood. The property is also on the border of the rural conservation zone and a medium density subdivision/development does not reflect what one would expect in this area. Proximity the services such as public transport, public open space and services is not consistent with the strategies of Clause 16.01-1L of the Nillumbik Planning Scheme. Dering St is a narrow no thru road and would struggle to cope with the additional traffic generated by a development of this nature. On top of these issues the removal of native vegetation, drainage issues and the issues with the Fraser St site are detrimental to the local neighborhood. People are attracted to Diamond Creek for its natural beauty and semi-rural feel and outlook, not multi-property developments like this. These developments only benefit the developers with huge profits and do not belong in Diamond Creek. They build, sell and move on and leave the lasting impacts of these developments for the current residents to endure. Surely council cannot approve this planning permit application.

As stated by others, Dering st is a narrow single thoroughfare road that leads to a dead end. It is barely sufficient for current traffic particularly when it returns to to main Rd. An additional 20 cars (current census average 2 per dwelling) will further increase this volume. In addition, cfa at town meetings are extremely limited in what they are prepared to send down that Rd in emergency situations as they have no way out in serious situations. With this site backing on to the old mine, another poorly thought through and commenced and ceased overdevelopment, it is about time we thought of what we are trying to provide in this area. Continual over capitalisation on land in this type of area removes what people came here for. Once gone it is gone for good (see moonscape view of old mine from James cook drive). Please do not allow this.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

Regarding the Purpose of the VC148 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.
- proposal responds negatively;

To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.
- proposal responds negatively as the site lacks access to services and transport;

The colours and materials of external finishes to the structures within the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal will involve an unacceptable removal of environmentally significant vegetation and fails to contemplate maintaining sufficient vegetation of the indigenous ecological vegetation class.

Insufficient geotechnical reports and investigation of the soil and existing structures or articles upon the site have been conducted in order to exclude any hazardous materials.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding the history of any fill being deposited upon the site and its sources.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding the management of overland water flows which historically have caused considerable erosion of the subject and surrounding sites.

Due to the Bushfire zone, the MFB and CFA should be engaged as referral authorities before the responsible authority proceeds further.

The scale of the proposal and lack of sufficient setbacks exclude the opportunity for meaningful landscaping that is consistent with neighbourhood character and responds positively to the surrounding context.

The scale, bulk and lack of landscaping including provision of indigenous and native broad (exceeding 16sq.m upon maturity) canopy trees contribute to a lack of integration of the built form with the surrounding context.

The intensity of use of the proposal will respond negatively to the surrounding context.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding solar access modelling according to the structure orientation and spring equinox.

The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and fails to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds, especially land adjacent to the site's Southern boundary.

The scale and lack of sufficient setbacks create excessive domination and visual bulk along with unacceptable southern overshadowing impacts.

The extent of impermeable paving within the proposal will create unacceptable inundation risks of the surrounds, and increase velocity and volume of overland water flows.

The lack of articulation between ground and upper levels of the proposed structures will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The lack of proper parking provision for occupants and visitors will unacceptably impact upon the amenity of the surrounds.

The surrounds consist predominantly of detached homes on allotments exceeding 500m².

The proposal fails to respond to the objectives of the General Residential Zone 1 within Victoria Planning Provisions 32.08.

The proposal fails to respond suitably to the Bushfire Management Overlay.

Several sites adjacent to the subject site are subject to Environmental Audit Overlay and have a history of contamination.

The lack of permeability within the proposal and height, scale, massing and intensity of the structures proposed fails to respond positively to the topography of the site.

The proposal fails to respond positively to contamination risks noting the topography of the site and surrounding area.

The proposal does not positively and appropriately respond to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.

The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character and even if I give thought to any possible "emerging character" of the surrounding context I submit that the proposal remains an inappropriate planning outcome that should be Refused by the Responsible Authority.

Furthermore I submit that I cannot in my experience and knowledge find that the Objection ground I rely upon can be ameliorated by any Amendments or Conditions and find under the relevant planning provisions that the appropriate outcome is for the responsible authority to determine the application by way of refusal.