All recent comments on applications from City of Glen Eira, VIC

Electronic street signs are intrusive and distracting to drivers. They takeaway from neighborhood by creating an overstimulated experience.
The open space, rather than providing an opportunity to unwind through gentle exercise, an area to avoid.

Please consider reducing electronic screens. We know how difficult it is for people to avoid screen time

If the trees have been “accidentally” removed, I assume there is a plan to replace them.

Keen to see which native species have been selected in their place.

Wrong address used. Flat 1 is an apartment in the complex on the north western corner ie G01 on the Plan of Subdivision.
I object as this business already has multiple signs & stickers + a sandwich board sign on the exterior of the building which is against our Owners Corporation rules & no permission has been sought. Council Local Laws prohibit unauthorised signage & yet this business has lots of it already. Their original light box sign is dangling precariously so they don’t maintain what they originally put up, let alone what they’ve added. Our building is not their business billboard. We already have 2 permitted light box signs + their multiple interior window signs which is enough. Please do not allow this business to pollute our complex’s aesthetic any more than it already has. We approved the council permitted signage but nothing over that allowance.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning amendment for the
property located at 5 Caleb Street, Bentleigh East. The original planning approval
was granted for single-story dwellings. I oppose the amendment to a double story structure for the following reasons:
1. Privacy Concerns
The original plans stated that there would be no impact on the
courtyard for 2/7 Caleb Street. However, this assurance has not
been upheld in the amendment. The addition of a second-level rear
window facing north directly overlooks my courtyard and kitchen
window, significantly reducing my privacy.
2. Demolition of the East Fence
The amended plans include the full demolition of the east fence
(designated as D1). This fence is an integral component of my
courtyard’s aesthetics. I strongly oppose the removal of the section
extending from the rear of my garage to the rear laneway fence. Its
removal will adversely affect my property’s value and necessitate
costly modifications to restore privacy and security.
3. Shadow Analysis
o The shadow analysis provided in the amended plans is inadequate.
It only displays the impact of shadows during the early afternoon. A
double-story structure will undoubtedly cast significant shadows
on my property during mid to late afternoon throughout the year.
This critical aspect has not been properly addressed.
4. Impact on Neighborhood Character
The north side of Caleb Street is predominantly characterized by
single-story dwellings. Introducing a double-story structure in the
midst of these homes would create an eyesore and disrupt the
cohesive streetscape. Such a development will negatively affect the
aesthetic appeal and overall property values of the surrounding
area, including my own.
5. Adverse Effect on Property Value
I firmly believe that this development will not enhance the value of
my property. Instead, it will have a detrimental impact on its value
due to the privacy, aesthetic, and overshadowing issues outlined
above.
In conclusion, I request that the proposed amendment for 5 Caleb Street be
reconsidered to ensure the preservation of neighborhood character, property
values, and the privacy of neighboring residents.

I object to this on privacy grounds.
I am not certain of the law around placing a camera on a front fence but I would be very concerned if
this placement is permitted or not.

To support sustainability policies, the presentation of permeable paving within a planning application is to be encouraged. The move to support moisture in the soil and decrease storm water runoff needs to be constantly supported - and the proposal to include permeable paving is a good example.

Why should an extension of time be allowed if the building company are unable to complete what needs to be organised in time allocated.
Too many extensions of time handed out by Glen Eira City Council and requested by building corps.
Rate payers don’t want these developments!!!!

If a building company is unable to plan and be organised for a specific project in a timely manner, how are they going to manage this project and finish as projected.
Glen Eria Council need to more in control!

No parking, so the occupants will park 24 hrs a day in the station car parks

Eyesore of a building site that needs to be demolished, if they haven't built it in how ever many years its been boarded up then why give them an extension?

Why should there be an extension of time??
If they are unable to organise this in the time passed, how are they ever going to finish in a time allowed
Also as there is already hardly any parking around the shopping precinct development should have aloud for more parking inside instead of a reduction in parking. What are you allowing City Of Glen Eria!!! Just like the failed building cnr of Centre Rd and East Boundary Rd!!!
This building will have to be demolished!! We don’t need amateur developers in our area!!
Listen to the rate payers more!!

This area does not have sufficient parking. It is not a suitable location for a place of assembly. It will be a problem with noise and congestion. I live close by and my quality of life will be impinged.
This is already a busy area where parking is a problem. Will there be restrictions of the venue’s operating times?
Hope the venue will not have operating times which affects the residents livability.

Traffic is already bad enough on Murrumbeena road and Blackwood street. We don’t need more high rise development in the area

Are the people in unit 2/41 Moonya unbelievably distressed

Dear Planning Officer: Luke Watts

Planning approval should not be granted until the overshadowing on the south side of Centre Road is re-calculated. The initial planning approval would have measured the overshadowing on the south side of Centre Road, without the louvre verandah roof - which may/will bock more sun from the southern side of Centre Road.

And, now to increase the shading as an "after thought" - outside of the initial planning permit. Such extensions (albeit "small") and coverage bring forward the "structure" shadowing the south side. Without remodeling the compliance to retain as much sun as agreed in the original application, the permit should not be approved.

I object to the removal of trees. The trees have been listed as protected. Also, we should not cut down trees because of climate change. We need trees! Not to remove them.

The new dwelling should be meeting the Neighbourhood character overlay and by the looks of the design it doesn’t seem to do that. It looks like a huge house that doesn’t match the existing streetscape. Built right up against the neighbouring boundaries is also a failure in design and aesthetics. The proposed tall brick fence will also add to the ugliness of the new build.

There is a significant eucalyptus tree on this site. This tree supports an entire community of native animals, and cannot be destroyed! The destruction of this tree will also add to the gradual erosion of native vegetation from the neighbourhood. As a community, we all enjoy the native birds and wild life that these trees attract and support, it’s destruction will drive these animals away.

Removal of all trees from this site will have a significant impact on the adjoinining Boyd Park. Consideration should also be given to how the site will be accessed without causing any damage to Boyd Park or the existing streetscape.

The trees on the site should also be retained wherever possible - Glen Eira is losing more and more tree cover. Water flow from this site with reduced tree cover should also be considered.

Parking in and around the Poath Road shopping strip is already at a premium, with some of the rail parking seemingly permanently occupied.

Unless the applicant can prove that they will attract tenants that will formally agree not to have a car, the local residents would hate to see further spillage into the surrounding area.

The applicant asked for 42 car parks and had that approved. They should be held to account.

Why is there a need to lower the parking ratio in the basement? They went to council with an application that said 42 parks and now they want to drop it to 36. They should be caused to maintain the applied for ratio of 42. Parking in the area is at a premium so any additional carparking is a necessary part of any application

Please consider the parking, traffic implications of this additional service to the existing business. Melbourne St is already impacted by the car wash business with washed cars being parked in the street (often in no standing areas), making it difficult for existing residents and their visitors to find parking.

As the comment above- cannot search by either reference or address to see the actual application

Once again having trouble trying to view details of this development on Councils e pathway enquiry app.
Type in application number and nothing comes up??
Could Council please send details of this development??

Can someone from the elected council members please stand up for the residents who voted for you.please listen to the residents and their justifiable concerns with the over development of this site
There is so much congestion on our neighbourhood streets that the over development is causing traffic congestion and damage to cars parked on the streets also the safety for the residents trying to negotiate getting in and out their driveway or driving through their streets ENOUGH IS ENOUGH time to say NO to the Developers

It's not ideal. So hard to drive around the corner due to shopping area. Another townhouses will make it worse than it's already is.