All recent comments on applications from Nillumbik Shire Council, VIC

I agree
No more trees should be removed

As a resident who lives near this property, I am disappointed to read of the application to remove more trees in this area. Council has allowed planning permits to develop a number of blocks all next door to each other here, reducing the tree canopy to the absolute minimal level. To further remove these trees is going to affect neighbouring properties and wildlife - including possums, sugar gliders, bats etc. the development next door to this property on the corner of Cromwell Street, illegally removed trees in their development. When council had them replace native trees after fining them, they disappeared as well. I think it would be a big mistake to further remove vegetation in this area, instead of valuing the small amount that is left.

I disagree with such a large double story development in the green wedge suburb of Eltham
With each new unit development is more traffic and loss of habitat for our wildlfe

I disagree with a 5 unit subdivision in this area
Too many units have already been built in our green shire,causing congestion, loss of habitat and wildlife corridors

The site is a wedge shaped parcel that is serviced by a single width crossover in an adjacent parcel, that parcel is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

The site has frontage at its eastern boundary of 60.35 metres to Main Road, zoned Transport Road Zone 2 an arterial road and which is a State Road.

The width of the road reserve at the site’s southern boundary is approximately 1.0 metres, and 3.4 metres at the site’s northern boundary.

The site’s western boundary addresses the railway corridor and is 65 metres long.

The site’s northern boundary is 35.03 metres long.

The site’s southern boundary is significantly shorter.

There is land to the west of the railway corridor covered by Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

West of the railway corridor is a natural watercourse, Diamond Creek, which regularly floods.

The site is a sloping site, with a fall of approximately 5.0 metres from the northeastern section towards the southeastern section.

The site is zoned General Residential Zone 1 in Clause 32.08 of the Planning Scheme. The proposal responds poorly to the purpose, specifically “To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.”

The proposal responds poorly to the Clause 32.08-13 matters, which I will quote:
Non-residential use and development
■Whether the use or development is compatible with residential use.
■Whether the use generally serves local community needs.
■The scale and intensity of the use and development.
■The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.
■The proposed landscaping.
■The provision of car and bicycle parking and associated accessways.
■Any proposed loading and refuse collection facilities.
■The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.

The General Residential Zone Clause 32.08 and Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay were part of the planning scheme amendment C118nill which was gazetted in 7 July 2022.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay matters within the Planning Scheme.

The proposal responds negatively to the matters in the Schedule to Clause 42.03.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will create unacceptable visual bulk.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will alter the bushland character of the gateway of the Eltham Town Centre.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the topography of the site and the surroundings.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to:
the surrounding context;
Statement of nature and key elements of landscape (Schedule to Cl 42.03)
Landscape character objectives to be achieved (Schedule to Cl 42.03)

The proposal responds negatively to the Decision Guidelines in the Schedule to Clause 42.03, particularly below.

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 42.03, in addition to those specified in Clause 42.03 and elsewhere in the scheme which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:

■Whether the proposed development conforms with the preferred character of the area as stated in the relevant Shire of Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study brochure for the area.
■The scale, shape, bulk, design (including height and siting) and external finishes of any buildings and works and the impacts of these on the landscape qualities of the area.
■Whether the proposal retains existing high canopy trees, keeps buildings below the predominant tree canopy height and is sited below the ridge line.
■Whether the topography of the locality and the predominant tree canopy height enables higher buildings to be accommodated within the landscape and that the proposed development does not detrimentally affect long distance vistas and views, including views across river valleys.
■Whether the proposed development minimises excavation.
■The extent to which the proposal maintains the vegetation dominated streetscapes and vistas, including views across river valleys.
■The need to ensure new buildings and works, including driveways fit within the landscape and topography of the land.
■Whether front fences are commonly provided in the street and the style of fence.
■The need for additional landscaping and screen planting to maintain the existing and preferred landscape qualities identified in the Neighbourhood Character Study.
■Whether the proposed development contributes to increased housing diversity within proximity to the Eltham Major Activity Centre and transport nodes/routes.

The proposal seeks to create/alter access in a Road Zone. The proposal fails to demonstrate proper management of vehicle entry and egress.

The proposal creates unacceptable risks for pedestrian and road user conflicts, and collisions and is not an acceptable planning outome.

The proposal is subject to referral to the Head, Transport for Victoria under the law in Peninsula Blue Developments Pty Ltd v Frankston CC (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 571.

I would anticipate that Transport for Victoria will object to the proposal.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 52.29 VPP Matters.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Clause 65 VPP Matters.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Strategic Context.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the Shire of Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study, 2000.

The proposal is not an “acceptable planning outcome” when considered under the law in Knox City Council v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375

On balance, the proposal is not just an inappropriate, but indeed a highly inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority is urged to refuse the granting of a permit.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Shire of Nillumbik Planning Scheme and Council's other planning policies and should be supported.

The proposal responds positively to the emerging character of the surroundings.

The proposal responds positively to the strategic context.

The proposal will not unreasonably impact the amenity of the surroundings.

The proposal will increase the diversity of housing types on offer to meet the needs of a growing and changing local population, and provide a high quality design outcome on conveniently located site.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 65 matters within the Victorian Planning Principles.

The proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" as related by the following:
Gordon Avenue Investments Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2021] VCAT 1005
Knox CC v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375

I also disagree this development due to 5 units far from Eltham centre and units are too large for any flora to be maintained

This should be refused or amended. The proposes lot sizes of 790m2 and 820m2 are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in the direct vicinity. Blocks in this area are larger in size with a high level of flora. The three remaining lots are of a larger size simply to the fact that there is a HV easement in which buildings can not be built under.
As outlined in the associated application reports, lot sizes of less than 4000m2 will result in no protection for the existing trees and the crucial habitat they provide for the fauna of the area. The smaller lots will have little to no flora value or canopy due to the small size and the proposed building envelope dominating the lots.
Granting of this application will result in a precedent being set for these larger blocks in Eltham of which the property is 1km from the main road, it certainly is not Eltham town center.

I would like to say I'm now supporting this development as it's a Co housing project which is a sustainable community project
I didn't know this as I contacted Ecag and so I looked into this project further
Please withdraw my initial objection

This is a ridiculous amount of units on the main road of Eltham
Which is part of the Gateway to Eltham v
And pulling down office buildings is a terrible waste of office space for Eltham and of resources
Another thing is it's on a flood zone
Also will overshadow the lovely business's surrounding the address
Also trees will come down which is detrimental to wildlife corridor aligning with the creek further down
Please reject this overdevelopment
Thanks

Susan Dunne.
I think this is an excellent idea and fully support the application. I understand that educational tours will be offered which can only be a good thing as many people panic and do the wrong thing around snakes (of which there are many in Diamond Creek). I’m confident the facility will be run in a professional and safe manner and I look forward to the approval of this application

Serious Karen sorry Sharyn please review your statement. Do you understand there are snakes next to the creek next to the primary school.

You don't think this facility could be a great resource for the community to learn and develop knowledge about snakes. What do you think they are going to just let snakes run free (like they already are)?

You don't mind having alcohol shops next to primary schools but a snake research Centre outrages you.

What a stupid place to locate such a facility. This is right in the middle of a shopping strip, a primary school, cafes, etc. surely an industrial area would be more suitable. What safety measures would be enforced to ensure there is no life threatening accidents?

I believe 7 dwellings is too much for this area and for the block size
There is already too much development going in this green wedge shire decimating the environment and forcing our wildlife to disappear
Please deny this development

Whilst this application is appropriate in that it is commercial, I have reservations about an 8 car space parking waiver. Most of the businesses in this area have some parking provisions for staff, often at the rear of the business, but there has been waived often more recently. It has created issues for the residents of Hurstbridge but also for businesses who do provide parking. For example, the private car park at the rear of the health food shop, chemist etc is now being used by people frequenting the other businesses in that part of the Main Road. Fortunately the school car park is able to cope with some of this (e.g.from the Black Vice and wine bar patrons). I believe that to waive 8 parking spaces has the potential to disadvantage other businesses.

Nillumbik Shire needs to seriously consider what all this development is doing to Eltham. The reason people love Eltham (which is the natural scape of the trees and because its not over developed like every other suburb)is slowly being taken away.
Please consider the residents rather than the developers and addional rates to be collected for once.

I agree with Lucy. Totally over the top to have so many dwellings in such a small place. They should not be allowed to change the rules re car parking spaces. People will then need to park on the streets and already there are too many cars parked on the streets making driving dangerous.

This is a ridiculous overdevelopment in the green wedge Shire of Eltham
Especially with more vegetation being removed and carparking
there won't be room for other large trees to be replanted
40 dwellings will mean our beautiful town is being destroyed for the sake of developers making money
Please deny this going ahead

Hope they are going to widen Phipps Crescent. This road is already busy and I was run off the road today with some one not giving way

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.