All recent comments on applications from Ballarat City Council, VIC

Seriously..... the proposal to establish such a facility in the vicinity of the Ballarat Gold Mine, a potential source of carsogenic dust from tailing dam operations, is ludicrous. My understanding of the mandate of the Ballarat City Council is public safety. This proposal is FAR from safe. I must therefore strongly OBJECT to this proposal.

Hello, as this shop is only one of an original trio of shops built together, how will any kind of partial demolition impact on the overall look of the period shop fronts?

In a historically significant town/reginal city which Ballarat is, even the period shops are important and need to be preserved.

Ballarat has already lost too much of its history due to BCC incompetence in allowing significant buildings to be demolished or altered so individual councillors feel like they've left "their mark" during their tenure.

I would like to know in detail what this application for partial demonstration will entail?

If it was to alter the overall look of the original structure of the trio of shops built together then I would not like it to proceed.

Retaining history is too important.

Thank you.

This is a historical area for architecture so how will the demolition works and new addition to an existing old building change the look and feel of this property?
How will the new look impact on the surrounding properties and how the neighbourhood feels?

Council needs to be careful when permitting historical buildings to be altered or demolished.

Don't underestimate how much of an impact these historical architectural buildings have on the beauty and feel of not just the street or neighbourhood but on the whole of Ballarat and how these buildings encourage visitors and people to relocate to Ballarat.

Once these historical buildings are gone, they and their history are gone forever since you cannot replicate history.

The continued fashion of attaching black (monument) metal boxes onto a historical building as an extension has to stop as it's not sympathetic to the architecture or Ballarat and brings zero architectural beauty to the area.

We don't need another bottle shop or smoke shop. We need more variety. We have cars blindly reversing into traffic on that road, a bottle shop would significantly increase that especially in afternoon peak. Also, cars just stopping in the road whilst someone nips in (witnessed at other liquor outlets), increases risk of injury to pedestrians as cars manoeuvre around. It will also add to traffic issues at the bottom end of Coltman car park exit, when trying to enter Coltman (Rd) . I'm against it for those reasons.

There is already a bottle shop located in Lucas, and I believe that there are numerous other essential services that could be prioritized for development in the area before considering the addition of another bottle shop. Given that the area is known for being family-friendly, it would be more beneficial to have shops that cater to this demographic. Prioritizing the needs of families and enhancing the community vibe should be a focus over adding another bottle shop. I strongly oppose the establishment of a second outlet. Please reconsider permitting this proposal to proceed.

So what kind of architectural abomination is council going to allow here?

We currently have a perfect example of beautiful period architecture at its finest and what helps bring people to visit and relocate to Ballarat but now the owners want to ruin this?

It's alarming how council is allowing Ballarats period buildings to be permanently disfigured or demolished in the name of "progress".
Just because it's modern doesn't mean it's better in the big picture than what is already established.

I seriously hope council doesn't permit the owners to build one of those modern monument coloured soulless square box extensions that scar the attractive street scape.

Also, how will the "partial demolition" materials end up?
Will they be as usual disposed of in landfill or will it be stipulated that the timber, windows, doors and any other materials that can be reused or repurposed, recycled be removed in a sensitive way and passed onto a reclamation yard to minimise the waste to landfill and be more environmentally sustainable?
Councils across Australia must be more long term thinkers regarding sustainable building and the disposal of building materials.

Why demolish a perfectly solidly built house?
Just because they don't like the look or layout?
We are now starting to loose the architectural designed homes of the 1950s to the 1970s which is disappointing.
Ballarat has always been a place that showcased many period building styles over the years but this is quickly being destroyed by this council as you seem to be too quick in allowing buildings to be demolished.
The style of this premises may not be overly architecturally attractive compared to the beautiful Victorian style homes however, even these vintage houses have a place in our architectural landscape.

Also, people, especially council need to understand that when a dwelling is demolished nearly 100% of the materials end up in landfill.
I hope that BCC would become more environmentally responsible and educate home owners towards responsible renovations rather than knock down and rebuild.
Councils should be making it mandatory that at least 60% of the building demolished materials need to be sympatheticly demolished so they can be sent to a reclamation yard so they can be reused instead of bulldozed so nothing is salvageable and it all ends up in landfill.

I personally would prefer if the facade of the dwelling was retained and only the rear was demolished for an extension.

I can only guess as to what the new build would look like but I'm confident in thinking it would be some currently modern style which means it's basically a monument coloured square box lacking style or charm or beauty and would stick out like a sore thumb within a lovely street full of beautiful period homes with a hand full of 1960 built brick home which have now become a pleasant addition to the architectural landscape.

I'm also very concerned with the health and safety of the established trees growing in the front yard and verge as they should be retained to keep the existing street scape intact and attractive.

Lastly, Johnson Street isn't a wide street so the idea of large machinery and trucks needing to access such a difficult tree lined street to demolish a dwelling is concerning especially for the other residents.

Is there a plan for allowing neighbours to come and go from the street and how about emergency services if they're needed?

I see no reason to object to this submission. We have lived at this address for over 20 years and during this time the bread factory was running at full capacity 6 days a week.
There was noise during this time but a low level noise that was part of the neighborhood
noisescape and we soon became accustomed to it.
There is adequate parking for employees of this large building and I couldn't for see any reason that there would be a greater need for parking that would spill out into Larter Steet.
The proposed retail purpose of this building does not lend itself to enormous amounts of patronage at any one time therefore parking is adequate.
If this building is occupied then no doubt there will be the usual requirements to keep the building clean and presentable. It is currently occupied by homeless and is being slowly desecrated both inside and out. Therefore I see passing this permit a positive move on every count.

The exterior looks poor and reduces the aesthetics of the area and has the potential to reduce residential values . Inadequate parking space will cause vehicles to park in front of residential houses compounding the volume of cars already overflowing from Sovereign Hill

What’s happening with 134 Spencer st Sebastopol, are they still building units, it seems to be a long time happening. We hope they build there soon

We wish to object to the proposed application to subdivide the corner block at 30 Ryan Street, Brown Hill. We feel the amenity and character of this part of Ryan Street needs to be preserved as much as possible, notably retention of larger residential blocks.
Whilst not opposed to development, our expectation is that developers are respectful of the neighbourhood character and design developments with that in mind.
The City of Ballarat Planning Scheme, updated on 14/9/2021, supports our opinion in noting that under its Neighbourhood Character objective to recognise, support and protect neighbourhood character, cultural identity, and sense of place.
Thank you in considering our objection.

My objections to this development proposal are as follows:
1. The proposed extension to the back of this cottage is out of scale for this small building.
2. The extension will visually dominate the original cottage and its heritage characteristics.
3. The design of the extension is not sympathetic to the original cottage.
4. The design of the extension is not in keeping with the architecture of nearby houses.
I have not made any donations or gifts to any Councillors or Council staff

6 two storey houses too much, 7 including the other dwelling at the front. Parking is inadequate for 2 storey houses with several driving occupants. Where will they all park? What will be the effect on Peady's Street Reserve and other tree’s and bushes? Will they really be protected? Less smaller houses with more parking and in keeping with the surrounding environment would be preferable.

I am concerned at the proximity of this, not only to my private residence where two children live, but that it is next to and across from 2 primary schools. The electromagnetic energy omitted could impact the health of vulnerable children. Research that there is no health risk is funded by the telecommunication industry, so most likely biased and unreliable. This structure should be built in an industrial area, away from residents. I object to this application.

Once again, this proposal is quite wrong for Ballarat. Its extreme and unnecessary height means:
(1) it will certainly overshadow and undermine the beauty of existing heritage buildings, both in attractive Lydiard Street and the railway station area
(2) it is ridiculously incompatible in style with the surrounding area.

We must also examine the actual need for such a hotel at all. It is being touted as 'timed for the 2026 Commonwealth Games', which only run for 10 days. If the proposal went ahead as currently designed, this city would be left with an unused monstrosity for years to come.

The Gov Hub already shows what can happen when an outsized building goes up, then lies half-empty. Business does not prosper, and an ugly eyesore remains.

Yes, it would be nice to see the quite neglected area south of the station used for something, but this is definitely not it.

Not good increase in students from 18 to60 three times the amount cars coming and going plus longer hours 7 days not good no peace and quite say no please reply thank you

This planned medical centre will ruin the peace of this part of the street. This block is a residential block with mostly old people and young families. We don't need a random business plopped into the middle of our street with no real justification to add a business in a residential area. I already get random people parking in front of my house, I don't need more people parking there because they will be too lazy to park in the proposed parking in the back. Please don't approve this plan. It should be in a street with mixed business / residential use already.

Hello regarding planning application PLP/2022/818.
I whole heartedly support having this planning application go ahead. This whole area needs revitalising (as is currently the focus of the council). I feel that there will be community backlash but feel it's worth pointing out that there are supporters of initiatives like this in that same community. We can have old and new. Apartments can be an eyesore but we need to realise that housing is an issue in Australia. In addition not everyone wants to live on a large block with a 4bedroom house. Ballarat still offers a balance of country and city well into the future even after many of these developments have completed.

I think it’s a great idea, illegal sex work takes place here and would be the best way to tackle that issue, it also gives sex workers a safe place to work, in a regulated environment, I would urge councillors to put their own personal values aside, and see this as an opportunity to regulate the sex industry in Ballarat. If a woman decides to engage in sex work, and a person decides to hire a sex worker, I dont see that as anyone else’s business, so let’s give them a safe environment to do so.

The satellite overhead is showing Number 1 white swan Road Invermay not Lot 1 white swan road, Invermay.as stated on the overhead satellite image.

As a resident of Ada Rose Heights I am concerned at the condition of Boundary Road and the impact the inevitable increased traffic both during construction of dwellings and once these dwellings become occupied. The road itself is not safely ‘two way’ and the current potholes on the road make it almost unusable at this point. Given there has been other subdivision approved further down Boundary Rd I’m interested to know if there is a long term plan to seal it?
I am also interested to know what the plan is for the families of ducks that live on the dam; there are at least two sets of ducklings currently in the area. This may seem trivial but we have become accustomed to them living in the area and hope they may be relocated appropriately.

Interested to know just how emergency vehicles will exit the property when on call. Seeing the service road is one-way direction (north) will all oncall emergency vehicles head north to Laidlaw Drive then Sutton Street or shall a new crossover be built on the Sutton St verge allowing direct entry / exit from the Fire Station. Being so close to the Sutton /Rubicon Sts roundabout I can foresee traffic problems moreso with todays volume of vehicles using all these Streets.

Extremely bad idea to turn 1 dwelling into 3 dwellings there will not be enough car spaces roads will be full of cars, there will be excessive noise excessive rubbish too many problems to count we need single dwelling properties and nothing more in Wendouree.
stop bringing your problems to Wendouree!!!

Following demolition of the previous house, including removal of all trees and vegetation, it is unacceptable that an 'off the shelf' house design is planned on this block in a heritage precinct such as Soldiers Hill. Clyde Street heritage landscape is stealthily being eroded.
There are inconsistencies with the Application Plans. The 'off the shelf' design fails to adhere to the Design & Development Overlay Schedule 4, particularly with regard to the setback of the garage.
Guidelines for a new build in a heritage overlay have largely been ignored.
Suggest Council advises applicants building in heritage overlays and ensures there is compliance with heritage requirements.

This is clearly an estate home plonked on a piece of land with absolutely no regard for the Clyde Street streetscape and heritage context and character of Soldiers Hill. If this design is allowed, it will set precedence for future cheap cookie cutter estate new build developments which will destroy the heritage of Soldiers Hill.

Firstly, the planning application has made no effort to justify how their design meets requirements of the heritage overlay and design and development overlay. As per Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4, the development must ‘complement existing development forms and siting on the street block’. A major criteria which this development does not meet is that ‘front setbacks are to be consistent with the dominant front setback in the street block’. The set back of the garage at 218 Clyde Street (9.12m) is not in keeping with surrounding properties. The adjoining property of 220 Clyde Street’s garage is set back 12.56m (their original plans in their permit of an 8m setback was amended by Council to 12.56m to address heritage concerns).

Secondly, the application has many inconsistencies which need to be rectified. The application’s plans are misleading as they have completely omitted the adjoining property 220 Clyde Street’s garage (and subsequent setback) from the plans and incorrectly displayed 220 Clyde Street’s northern boundary as abutting Howard Street. The report outlines that a specimen tree ‘Crepe Mrytle’ will be planted in the front garden. There is no reference to this in the official plans. The plans also fail to represent the development at the rear of 220 Clyde Street, which includes a ‘studio’ and ‘garage’ which abuts the southern boundary of 218 Clyde Street. The plans fail to represent the 15.5m long brick boundary wall with an average height of 3m which will run the entirety of 218 Clyde Street’s backyard and alfresco area. The report and plans fail to consider integral guidelines for new buildings in an area with a heritage overlay. The plans fail to assess ‘the visibility of the development with the Heritage Place, and from viewing points 1.7m above natural ground level on the opposite footpath, from directly in front and from a position aligned with the boundary two allotments away on either side’.