All recent comments on applications from Banyule City Council, VIC

2nd March 2022
No new application displayed on the site
Looks like Council have approved this application with out notifying the residents??
4-6-8 units???
Entry via Lower Plenty road or Grantham road???
Can Council please notify the public if a donation by the developer has been given???
You should need to disclose this
——————-
Seems to being a lot of work going on at the site, residents have not been notified of a permit being granted for approval of the units??
I’ve spoken to a few people who objected and no body has been told that approval given??

Yet another attack on protected vegetation and neighbourhood character. Ivanhoe is more in need of family homes on garden allotments than oversized, unattractive developments such as this. I hope the Council will reject this application.

We are residents of the neighborhood using Riverina Road to access our street, as well as the Riverina Road Nature Strip for daily walks and exercises.
After reviewing the plans and documents available on the Banyule council website, we would like to express strong concern about the proposed development at the above address with the proposed entry from Riverina Road.

Please refer below for the summary of our concerns:
The new development negatively impact the Neighbourhood Character:
1. Scale of the Development in incremental Zone–
o The house is advertised as a four-bedroom home; however, the first-floor retreat is the size of a typical or large bedroom and can be easily converted into a fifth bedroom).
o This development size on a 350m2 small block is characteristic for inner city suburbs, but not for the GRZ3 planning zone with typically 700m2 blocks and a recommended minimum of 500m2.
o The development is for 2 storey at the rear when there is predominantly open garden and single stories adjacent.
o It is difficult to access the plans as the North points on the plans including over shadowing diagrams are different to the title information.

2. Removal of existing Native & Substantial Canopy trees
o Design Response does not provide any photos information of Riverina Road which the bulk of the development occurs
o The removal of 3 large canopy trees will result in substantial detriment to the streetscape. views from Reichelt Avenue & Riverina Road creating an undesirable vista to traffic on Bolton Street and the Main Road.
o The opening will increase street noise to residential streets.
o The proposed land size of 350m2 and design response does not allow for the planting of replacement native trees with adequate tree protection zones to reach maturity. This is against council policy and arborist report.

3. The street setback objective –
o The proposed dwelling does not comply with the street setback objective.
o Currently there are no dwellings addressing the Northern side Riverina Rd rather an uninterrupted vegetated reserve.
o Riverina Rd is the only access point to approximately 35 dwellings along Reichelt Avenue with typical 6m setbacks. The proposed development front set back is 3m.

4. New crossing
o The reserve is a community asset that cannot be reinstated ever again.
o Non-typical length of driveway negatively affects street reserve by restricting future planting possibilities.
o There no provision for guest onsite parking. There is no street parking on Riverina drive at the moment. Parked guest or resident’s cars on nature strip will have detrimental effect on both street appearance as well as being hazardous for pedestrians.
o creates risk for public and traffic safety, there is no provision on site for front car entry & exit therefore cars will be reversing on unusually long driveway.
o The proposed driveway would have to be extra wide to address emergency and delivery vehicles this will again negatively impact the neighbourhood character
o There is inadequate information provided on the plans and design response to assess the necessary civil works alterations required to build the long crossover through the steep road reserve

I hope that our concerns will be considered in council’s response to this application.
Please let us know if you would have any further questions.

Referring to the "Architects statement" in the Planning Application Permit

"The proposal represents a modest medium-density re-development of an existing property"

Developing this site to include 4 double storey houses can hardly be called modest medium density. From physical inspection of other developments of this style in Montmorency, they present as double storey weatherboard houses jammed onto a single allotment, imposing on adjoining properties and not in keeping with the environmental or landscape character values that distinguish this neighbourhood – It is not in keeping with the character of Montmorency.
Montmorency has been a sought-after suburb to live in because of the space provided by the larger allotments giving Montmorency a country feel. It is not a surprise that it is one of the most sought-after suburbs to live in.
Good examples of re-developments can be seen on adjacent properties at #10, #8 & #6 Wattle Avenue, where there are two dwellings on similar size allotments.

"People are spending significant time away from the home and therefore do not require large dwellings, gardens and yards and the associated attendant time and labour burdens"

The impacts of Covid-19 have changed they we live and work forever. People are choosing to spend more time at home including working from home rather than “spending significant time away from home” as noted above.
This is further supported by relocation of many people currently living in “Modest medium density living” in suburbia to regional areas where they can find dwellings with the space, privacy and garden that has become an important factor for their quality of life.

"Families and couplings are smaller than ever before. There are fewer requirements for a large detached four-bedroom home with a large ‘four bedroom’ garden"

In today’s climate a growing family with 2 children at school and parents potentially working from home would ideally desire a “Large four-bedroom home” with a large “four bedroom garden”.

There are now many re-developments in Wattle Ave. There are also many young families with children. The traffic in Wattle Ave has increased and will increase further with developments of the type being proposed. This will result in a congested street with more traffic and parked cars similar to Graeme Avenue. The Garages being proposed for the re-development at 12 Wattle Ave are tight, with the development not allowing for realistic turning circles adjacent to the Garages. As a result cars will most likely end up parked on the street.

We request that Banyule Planning department review this planning application with the view that it is revised for a lower density re-development similar to the adjacent properties at #10, #8 & #6 Wattle Avenue.

Design is bulky and lacks sufficient space for garden areas. The spiral staircase at the front would be inaccessible for many people and demonstrates how cramped the design is on the land. Visually not appealing from the street.

One of the most inappropriate and vigorously fought planning applications- trying to place 6 units crammed into this block was always going to fail. Too tall, too ugly and the lack of green space and car parking were just some of the reasons it was denied. Even more cars on our busy street would be yet another problem. A huge sigh of relief from all in the neighbourhood.

One of the most inappropriate and vigorously fought planning applications- trying to place 6 units crammed into this block was always going to fail. Too tall, too ugly and the lack of green space and car parking were just some of the reasons it was denied. Even more cars on our busy street would be yet another problem. A huge sigh of relief from all in the neighbourhood.

I object to this planning application in it's current form.

This dwelling is not in keeping with the character of the rest of the street.

This is double story at the front, where all other dwellings on the same side of the street are single story at the front. The front of the dwelling will also be in excess of 8m high which is significantly out of proportion to any neighbouring homes on the same side of the street. The upper story will also overlook neighbouring properties & compromise the private enjoyment of their gardens & homes.

The plans describe removal of a moderate amount of vegetation - from the appearance of the plans it actually appears all significant vegetation & trees are being removed, and not replaced. The trees are key to the character of Montmorency, and having a development with no visible trees is very out of character with the streetscape.

The front of the house sits quite a bit further forward on the block than the neighbouring homes, and the facade is in stark contrast to others in the street.

I hope these issues are taken into consideration when a decision is made whether or not to approve this new development in its current form.

To the Banyule Council,

We strongly object to the position, size, and character of the proposed dwelling and the extent of vegetation removal (P323/2021). The development is not appropriate to the site or neighbourhood.

The imposing design and position on the block are not in keeping with the character of the street. It is not positioned in keeping with the predominant set back of all nearby dwellings. The proposed design is set significantly forward of the two neighbouring properties (and others on the same/south side of the street), aligned with an open/detached carport rather than the house itself to the east, for example. It would be the most imposing house on the south side of the street both in terms of position, contemporary character and roofline height (up to ~9m) towering over neighbouring dwellings. The house to the east is single story and set further down the slope. The house to the west is single story at the front, and also set further back/downslope.
We object to the height (almost 9m) of the proposed house given its inadequate setback. The design therefore does not respond appropriately to the topography of the site with a tall 2 story house only set back ~8m from the street. At that height, the building may also penetrate existing canopies and will dominate neighbouring properties.

There are no other rendered contemporary homes of this kind in the street with such an imposing street presence.

We disagree that the dwelling only requires removal of a modest amount of vegetation when it requires the removal of the three most established and substantial trees on the block (as well as others). Trees 2 and 11 (both E. polyanthemos) and tree 13 (E. melliodora) are not centrally positioned on the block and could therefore all or in majority be retained with more considered design. The design therefore does not preserve key elements of the landscape and vegetation attributes of the site and surrounding area.

Moreover, plans indicate that construction will encroach significantly on the root zone of a established trees on the neighbour’s property (tree 4, and 3) which could significantly undermine tree health and stability into the future. There is inadequate attempt to replace the established native trees and the design does not respond to the vegetated nature of the area nor make a positive contribution to the character of the street. There is insufficient space along the side boundaries for any meaningful replacement or substantial vegetation. There is insufficient detail in plans to show whether once built there is enough space for replacement native trees of similar stature to those removed. There would clearly be a net loss to biodiversity with the proposed removal of vegetation, in particular significant and mature trees.

We suggest better use of the site topography and retention of significant native trees with a single story construction at the front, and 2 story at the rear, and a building set back to the same extent as neighbouring houses (not carports). This would be less imposing, more in keeping with the character of the street and would not dominate neighbouring properties. There is room to move the house further down the block and to minimise the imposing height.

To Whom it may concern
I am writing to express my objection to the planning permit of 224 & 230 Bell Street, Heidelberg Heights, Victoria, 3081. I understand that the development will be undertaken by Gemela Pty Ltd who are planning to build an operate a childcare centre at this location
The objection is focused on the economic and structural challenges the childcare sector is currently facing. The demand for childcare places might exist however due to COVID 19 there has been a drastic reduction in skilled educators. The drop is due to several reasons the most important of which are listed below:
1) Limited to no immigration
2) Lack of trained resources
3) Educators have upskilled and changed sectors and industries
To date there is already a shortage of over 12 000 qualified teachers and long day care centres are finding it increasingly challenging to find qualified team members. This added complexity has put strain on the centres ability to provide quality care and therefore is impacting the social development needs of the community which in turn has an economic impact. A lack of quality care can also lead to safety issues for children if centres are running with inadequately qualified team members as a result the shortage.
We urge that you consider all mitigating circumstances and consider all factors that influence the provision of quality care in this sector and limit to number of applications that are approved.

Bell street is already a high traffic area, and with more than 15 new childcare centres currently being built in and around the vicinity this will no doubt increase traffic and noise to the surrounding areas. Additionally, there are more than enough childcare centres in the area as is; in fact, the closest one to this newly proposed childcare centre is less than 500 meters away. Furthermore, the proposed location is right next to the popular fast food chain McDonald’s. We believe that this location is likely to negatively influence the food choices of the young children attending the centre, whereas instead we should be promoting healthy eating as much as possible.

I agree re vegetation. A clear directive from scientists is that one significant thing individuals can do to help climate change is plant more and look after soil. A side effect of the significant removal of vegetation near me is that hungry possums deprived of their usual food sources are devastating foliage that the rest of us are trying to grow, to the point of complete defoliation of fruit and other trees in some cases. I have also lost a lot of precious northern winter sun on my house windows due to the very close 3 unit build next door, all for want of smarter design. So many things seem to be disregarded to favour poorly considered, cut and paste developments ( in the case of Heidelberg Heights) with tick and flick green planning requirements. Protected vegetation must stay protected.

I live very nearby in Eaglemont and have just seen this application. This property, like many around the area, has a vegetation protection overlay on it. According to Banyule Council’s own declaration in its Banyule Planning Scheme Scehdule 3 to clause 42.02 vegetation protection overlay, Section 2, ‘there is importance to retain and enhance vegetation and ensure that all alternatives to removal have been given due consideration’. As we have seen throughout the Banyule area, this is often disregarded with many blocks clear felled to make way for multistory buildings. Therefore, Banyule Council seems to be disregarding its own planning schemes. With the climate heating surely the retention of as many trees as we are able has to be given more credence than the building of stock standard buildings that give no creative solutions to the retention of trees. Therefore I am against the removal of the protected vegetation.

If vegetation is protected, it should be protected. In my opinion this is yet another development ruining the character of a charming suburb.

I live in the Eaglemont area and live within a heritage overlay area for vegetation. Heritage Victoria are very active and stringent in doing any sort of works within these areas. How on earth are all these multi dwelling townhouses being built in Eaglemont? I have seen the massive impact it has had in areas of Ivanhoe and especially Heidelberg re: devaluation of a suburb. Council need to balance development with retaining the character of a suburb like Eaglemont and it’s future value.

If vegetation is protected, it should be protected. In my opinion this is yet another development ruining the character of a charming suburb.

The proposed development at 271-273 Bolton Street Eltham if approved, would be an intrusion of commercial structures and medium density housing into the NRZ3 of Grand Boulevard. This would create a precedent for other Commercial properties in a residential area, and the neighbourhood character would be lost. I object to this proposed development as the traffic on this corner is already particularly busy with access to Montmorency South PS and Panorama Heights Preschool and there are always multiple cars parked along Grand Boulevard for access to the Ridge Medical centre which has very limited parking on site. Further traffic entering/exiting this site will be dangerous for pedestrians, as well as being a hazard for drivers entering from Bolton Street. There is also inadequate parking for the planned development and the neighbouring properties and Grand Boulevard would become 'blocked' as cars park on either side of the road which then blocks one lane of traffic accessing the Grand Boulevard/Bolton Street intersection. This proposed application has not given any thought or regard to the neighbourhood or the residents it will affect.

I object to this development for various reasons.
It is a commercial development on a side of Bolton St that is residential. It would therefore not be in keeping with other neighbouring properties.
The traffic impact at peak times of the day would make Bolton St & Grand Boulevard both much busier than they already are. With another nearby childcare centre, plus the Kinder & School up the road, there is already high traffic volumes at peak times - adding a childcare centre would make congestion worse.
Inadequate parking - the neighbouring properties would end up with people parking on their front grass in order to access the centre as there is insufficient parking allocated.
Loss of protected vegetation. Why do they cut down all the trees then install shade sails? Our green, leafy suburb will not be green much longer if every new development includes "removal of vegetation". It never actually gets replaced with something of equal size & character. This proposed development appears to contravene many of councils own planning requirements.
There are already multiple childcare centres within a short drive of this address that are not at capacity. Is another really required??

Hello,

I am writing to you regarding the planning proposal of 3 Sackville St, Heidelberg Heights.

I would like to detail the following.

1. The site coverage exceeds the allowable percentage and is not compliant.

2. Due to excessive site coverage no trees will be planted.

3. There is no recessed building on the back of the house, this is not in line with the character of the neighborhood.

Additionally, I also want to describe the problematic parking situation at the top end of Sackville Street intersecting with St Helier St, and how this bottleneck will be exacerbated by more residents at the top end of the street.

After multiple instances of garbage removal obstruction, the local council sent an email to Sackville St residents to ensure appropriate parking rules are followed on our narrow street.

Unfortunately a bottle neck is still being experienced, particularly at the end of the day when people come home from their day jobs, and parents pick up their children from the day care at 8 Sackville St. I can only see this proposal making things worse.

I object to the proposed development due to the current and ongoing abominable traffic conditions in this area and surrounding streets. A little consideration for local residents, a much more acceptable location away from high traffic makes much more sense for all.
We all know the current road situation cannot possibly support further high traffic.

I object to this proposed development. Traffic on this corner is already particularly busy with access to Monty South primary and Panorama Heights Preschool and there are always multiple cars parked along Grand Blvd for access to the Ridge. Further traffic entering/exiting this site will be dangerous for pedestrians, especially school and kinder aged children, as well as being a hazard for drivers entering from Bolton St.

I support the 65 Castle Street development. The proposal for 4 homes with much of the vegetation retained is a good outcome. The 35 Mount Street proposal was overbearing and grotesque. I personally organised 1,000 yellow pamphlets into residents letterboxes which resulted in more than 650 objections, a record for Banyule Council. I live close to the Castle Street development and am happy for us the share this wonderful suburb with 4 more families.

I support the 65 Castle Street development. The proposal for 4 homes with much of the vegetation retained is a good outcome. The 35 Mount Street proposal was overbearing and grotesque. I personally organised 1,000 yellow pamphlets into residents letterboxes which resulted in more than 650 objections, a record for Banyule Council. I live close to the Castle Street development and am happy for us the share this wonderful suburb with 4 more families.

I object to the use of the site for a child care centre, the traffic is already difficult for access to the kindergarten and school located on the same street. There are multiple child care centres not at capacity in the local area and although Bolton st is mixed residential and commercial as a resident of the street I think keeping residential on one side helps to maintain a sense of community and a safe space for children and adults to walk around the suburb.