Hello,
The previous application was rejected based on grounds including environmental impact, traffic congestion, impact on existing resident amenity. At the time of the rejection I learned that the developer will try again, but not on such a grand scale. Their plan was to apply for the whole development again but doing it in several smaller applications. The plan was to make each proposed development smaller in nature so that the residents and council objections could not be considered, as the magnitude of the development would be smaller than previous applications and consequently the impact is smaller. While i understand that this submission can only be viewed based on what is in front of you, i implore you to consider the big picture on the development. This is the developer trying it on the same long-term objective but in a different way. You must consider the consequence of this development based on the big picture for the site, passing of this proposal will lead to a torrent of smaller applications that we will have to fight, but sadly no chance of gaining objection due to precedence.
Since the development of 5 Hay Street, all the things I submitted to council and VCAT that would have impacted the area have come true. Terrible congestion at Hay St, significant traffic down Halsey and Jellicoe St, long access times to turn onto Canterbury at Kitchener due to traffic from Hay coming wanting to turn right on Canterbury. Although parking has been provided, no one parks in their garages. All these issues were rejected by the experts employed by the developer as insignificant. Our comments were flawed, and we were quickly discounted as coming from people fearful of change. Well they did not turn out to be insignificant. The developers and experts have been paid and they are gone, we are living with the inconvenient of daily life created by this bad decision. Adding these additional houses at Hay St and the other proposed 200 will exacerbate this buy a significant order of magnitude. It must not be approved in this small form as it will lead to the long form create chaos in our streets. The reality of more congestion in the surrounding streets, difficulty in getting onto Canterbury Road will be more of the same.
This 25+ house development and the ultimate end game of 250+ dwellings will create significant traffic congestion. If you look at Peppermint Grove Development of the late 90’s (40 or so dwellings) they had to realign Canterbury Road to support management of traffic. This proposed development manages traffic by shunting the cars down side streets. (As it did 5 Hay st). The experts said the roads can handle it. They were correct they can physically handle it from an engineer’s perspective, but they can’t from a traffic flow perspective. It’s an unacceptable proposal as it will lead to 10 or 20 or 30 times the traffic down small streets, all trying to get to Canterbury Road or Station Street, navigating cars all parked in the streets.
I am not opposed to the development of the site. I am very positive towards it and have always said i support it, but they must provide a solution to traffic onto Canterbury road. There has been a solution in front of the council and developers for years but they don’t seem to want to manage it. There is a vacant piece of council land West and adjacent to the Wembley Park Sports Field. If they worked with council and Vic Roads to provide access to the development direct to Canterbury Road then you would not hear a peep from me nor many other residents. Why don’t they get that moving? I believe that the developer and VCAT think it’s easier to steamroll residents than to work with Council and Vic Roads on a really simple and elegant solution.
So Why the fuss. Let’s assume the Wembley Park Access Road happened and we are all happy about 250 houses on the site. The let’s assume at some stage the council says we are closing Hay St and Kitchener street accessing Canterbury Road and we are all being funnelled on to Canterbury road via the new housing development and the new Wembley Park Access Road. My guess is that the owners of these 250+ dwelling would be up in arms, say not to the traffic, no to the cars in their streets, and I would agree and be very sympathetic. This is exactly what we are being faced with and being asked to accept. Same scenario, same situation of having a heap of cars being pushed down our streets. So I believe we must be provided the courtesy of not having our streets flooded with cars and making our lives less pleasant.
In conclusion I believe in the development, but it must provide direct access to Canterbury Road for cars. I believe that you must take the total plan for the site into consideration with submission otherwise this will begin a raft of smaller submissions for approval. Finally, I believe purely on traffic grounds, this submission must be rejected.
Thanks for your attention
Steve Pahos
