Comments made here were sent to Casey City Council. Add your own comment.
Nope don’t need it here in beautiful neighbourhood setting.
To much traffic, noise and it is a neighbour hood for houses not some where to worship.
Build it some where else, it will devalue Neighbourhood.
What sort of place of worship is it? And I agree with the other commenter. If it's going to cause traffic and noise congestion then I am against it. The influx of all those townhouses on Kennington Park Drive
is an example of congestion and that road used to be nice but not anymore. So let's keep the area leafy and free of unnecessary congestion.
Strongly object to this application on the basis of the following:
- unacceptable/ unavoidable increase in traffic through a quiet residential neighbourhood (lack of public transport in the area)
- unacceptable/ unavoidable increase in traffic endangering abundant wildlife in the area, nearby national park
- Purpose of building is not aligned with residential area
- Proposed development does not 'fit in' with neighbourhood
- Residential noise: unacceptable anticipated noise disruption to a quiet residential area, particularly late night/ early morning services and through the use of facilities for ancillary purposes
- loss of privacy for nearby local residents
- scale of proposed place of worship (visual bulk of building) likely to be out of character with residential area including necessary parking amenities. This will impact on the outlook from neighbouring properties.
Nope don’t need it here in beautiful neighbourhood setting.
To much traffic, noise and it is a neighbour hood for houses not some where to worship.
Build it some where else, it will devalue Neighbourhood.
I am sure there is one around of these as it is that people can go too than building another one.
We strongly object to this application for a “place of assembly” particularly in this precinct. We had to comply to strict building regulations for a residential building which included to a minimum size regulation “ to keep in place with a prestigious out look for future gains “ to which we understood & agreed to . With in 8 km there are 5 “ places of assembly all different denominations “ to this locality. Traffic is already being measured along this stretch of road because of increasing congestion. Along with 2 major golf courses within a stones throw & no public transport traffic along this stretch of road will become a council , local community & safety nightmare . Serious traffic traumas & deaths have already occurred along this road not to mention increased threat to local wild life .
Here is a residential area, not suitable for a worship place , agree with all other comments who are disagree with it.
It's a narrow road we already struggling passing the rd to take the kids to school in the morning.
It will be overcrowded and annoyance.
It won't be residential area any more, what is next?!
The worshipper would definitely need a coffee shop and restaurant after that ?!
We strongly disagree with it.
I disagree with the following plan because:
- it will increase in traffic through a quiet residential neighbourhood (lack of public transport in the area)
- it will cause Residential noise
- the style of the building will look odd in the area
we strongly object to this application on the basis that it will not only devalue the neighbourhood but extremely increase traffic and noise and potentially harm wildlife with more congestion with the nearby national park, we own the property next door that we bought to be in a quiet residential area, we like someone else has mentioned had to comply with strict building regulations, how does a place of worship fit in with those regulations and/or neighbourhood, all the locals would lose privacy with the anticipated noise especially late at night/early in the morning, the building does not fit in the neighbourhood and there are plenty other places of worship nearby.
We recently moved from Rowville to lysterfield south to get away from the overcrowded streets that inappropriate development is causing. We chose lysterfield south due to the common sense approach of the estate - larger blocks with no subdivision and appropriate car parking on each property and the lack of street parking. This proposal is inappropriate for the lovely area and will turn a prestige area of beauty in to just another congested over crowed estate. There will be overflow of vehicles that will impact Churchill Park Drive which in turn will cause all sorts of unnecessary issues for the local residents, not to mention the wildlife. We strongly object to this proposal.
We object to any place of gathering in our community for all reasons raised. This is a place of natural environment which should be kept that way. The interference of traffic in the area is bad already and impacts greatly on the wildlife as it is. Human life has also been taken. It is not a drive through area but a National park area in a nook. This should be preserved.
Places of gatherings should be placed in a higher density area where little impact to wildlife, natural reserve and way of life, would be so heavily impacted.
Strongly object to this application.
The residents purchase in this area due to the low density overlay.
This is a residential block backing onto a National Park and is not fit for purpose other than residential use.
Zoned low density residential (LDRZ &1)
This is a quit estate and allowing a Place of Assembly will increase the traffic flow and parking to an unacceptable level as seen with the 5 others Places of Assembly near by. The level of parking congestion have made living and visiting these area very difficult and require the council to police it.
This is also an area where the local wildlife cross and having it filled with building and parking will push the wildlife to cross in another area which could increase traffic accidents.
This is also a bushfire prone area. The estate has been blocked/locked in before, with only Church Park Drv as the entry and exit point this increase the risk exponential to local residence if there was a bushfire. As the local residents are aware of the risk and know what to do in the event of a bushfire, having another couple hundred cars with no bushfire knowledge endanger everyone.
Strongly against this plan and support all the reasons mentioned in the comments above. It will definitely affect the serenity of the place.
Sorry I Object to close to a National and State park prefer to build close to Herberton rd
I back on to this street and feel that a building like this should not be built here. There are plenty of places of worship near by so you don't have to travel that far. I can look out and see the national park. I don't want to lose my view to a tall building. Also agree with the previous comments.
-already multiple assembly areas within the area
-development was intended for lifestyle block to reduce visual and economically impact on the surrounding area (national Parks, golf courses, police paddocks, large lifestyle blocks on street all allow for wildlife and native plants. The carparking alone will destroy this let alone the oversized building that will be required.
- when development was initially planned smaller blocks where not aloud due to supposed increase in population within area causing issues with road network, this will undoubtedly overload the road network by 10x more than a few houses would have.
- considering all building in the area fall under a high BEL rating, and original development had to adhere to certain access for fire services a large congregation of people on an already strained road network would cause major risk during summer period to all visitors and locals to the assembly area and surrounding area.
This was already proven in 2009 when the local golf course was destroyed and major road was shut due to bushfire that reached the boarder of this property.
-Other blocks on this street that are similar size have been zoned completely different in order to prevent this very scenario
- as everyone else has stated noise and commotion in a otherwise secluded street in wich residents had to adhere to strict ruling to maintain the look of the street.
I strongly object to this, we are local residents and do not want an influx of cars, large crowds through a national park, already I see so many cars driving down, so many dead roos,. roadkill. This area is quiet and peaceful and residents do not want an influx of cars and crowds.
I disagree with the above plan because:
- it will increase in traffic through a quiet residential neighbourhood (lack of public transport in the area)
- it will cause Residential noise
- it would be dangerous to the already endangered Kangaroos in the area .
I agree with Karens points
Strongly object to this application on the basis of the following:
- risk for fire safety
- unacceptable/ unavoidable increase in traffic through a quiet residential neighbourhood (lack of public transport in the area)
- unacceptable/ unavoidable increase in traffic endangering abundant wildlife in the area, nearby national park
- Purpose of building is not aligned with residential area
- Proposed development does not 'fit in' with neighbourhood
- Residential noise: unacceptable anticipated noise disruption to a quiet residential area, particularly late night/ early morning services and through the use of facilities for ancillary purposes
- loss of privacy for nearby local residents
- scale of proposed place of worship (visual bulk of building) likely to be out of character with residential area including necessary parking amenities. This will impact on the outlook from neighbouring properties.
Strongly object to this application.
The residents purchase in this area due to the low density overlay.
This is a residential block backing onto a National Park and is not fit for purpose other than residential. A Place of Assembly will increase the traffic flow and parking to an unacceptable level.
This is also an area where the local wildlife cross and having it filled with building and parking will push the wildlife to cross in another area which could increase traffic accidents.
This is also a bushfire prone area. The estate has been blocked/locked in before, with only Church Park Drv as the entry and exit point this increase the risk exponential to local residence if there was a bushfire
Strongly object to this application.
residents purchase in this area due to the low density overlay.
This is a residential block backing onto a National Park and is not fit for purpose other than residential. A Place of Assembly will increase the traffic flow and parking to an unacceptable level.
The planning permit refers to up to 150 people attending. There is no public transport to this location. Where will they all park? Up and down Churchill Park Drive where there are no designated parking areas? This is a very dangerous road which is already significantly overused. There was a head on car crash fatality not 300 meters from this site with regular car crashes in the same area due to speed, bad weather and kangaroos crossing the road. This road was not designed for the amount of traffic it already has daily and is currently the topic of speed reductions to reduce accidents and the amount of traffic on it.
This is also an area where the local wildlife from the National Park including kangaroos cross and having it filled with building and parking will push the wildlife to cross in another area which could increase traffic accidents.
This site is also next to a very high bushfire prone area. The estate has been blocked/locked in before, with only Church Park Drv as the entry and exit point. This increase the risk exponentially to local residents if there was a bushfire by adding a further 100 plus cars to a traffic jam and could be catastrophic in a major bush fire.
I strongly object to this development application. Residents purchase in this area due to the low density overlay.
This is a residential block backing onto a National Park and is not fit for purpose other than residential. A Place of Assembly will increase the traffic flow and parking to an unacceptable level.
The planning permit refers to up to 150 people attending. There is no public transport to this location. Where will they all park? Up and down Churchill Park Drive where there are no designated parking areas? This is a very dangerous road which is already significantly overused. There was a head on car crash fatality not 300 meters from this site with regular car crashes in the same area due to speed, bad weather and kangaroos crossing the road.
This road was not designed for the amount of traffic it already has daily and is currently the topic of speed reductions to reduce accidents and the amount of traffic on it.
This is also an area where the local wildlife from the National Park including kangaroos cross and having it filled with building and parking will push the wildlife to cross in another area which could increase traffic accidents.
This site is also next to a very high bushfire prone area. The estate has been blocked/locked in before, with only Church Park Drv as the entry and exit point. This will increase the risk exponentially to local residents if there was a bushfire by adding a further 100 plus cars to a traffic jam and could be catastrophic in a major bush fire.
I strongly object to any place of assembly in this highly residential and low density area that backs onto a National Park with an abundance of wildlife. The impact that such a development would have on the natural habitat as well as the peaceful neighbourhood that attracted most of the property owners here, is unacceptable.
The increased traffic flow, higher animal casualties and traffic accidents would only be over shadowed by the higher risk to human life if faced with a bush fire threat with only one road in and out of this area. Hundreds of additional cars and people gathering would endanger everyone exponentially.
With quite a number of places of assembly near by, it is beyond comprehension why the serene lifestyle promised to us is proposed to be disrupted by a development that very clearly doesn't belong and is highly inappropriate in these surroundings.
Lysterfield South is a very small unique suburb. We have no public transport, no schools, no shops, no post box etc. Just homes and wildlife. It is very peaceful and we back onto two National Parks. A place of worship will not fit in here. The extra traffic, on a small dead end road exiting onto Churchill Park Drive will be a danger to local drivers and the wildlife. And the poor residents that actually live on Battersby, that will have to put up with the cars and people coming and going from the place of worship. This area is residential, so please find a better location in an area and on roads can support it.
I strongly object to any place of assembly in this highly residential and low density area that backs onto a National Park with an abundance of wildlife. The impact that such a development would have on the natural habitat as well as the peaceful neighbourhood that attracted most of the property owners here, is unacceptable.
The increased traffic flow, higher animal casualties and traffic accidents would only be over shadowed by the higher risk to human life if faced with a bush fire threat with only one road in and out of this area. Hundreds of additional cars and people gathering would endanger everyone exponentially.
With quite a number of places of assembly near by, it is beyond comprehension why the serene lifestyle promised to us is proposed to be disrupted by a development that very clearly doesn't belong and is highly inappropriate in these surroundings.
I strongly object to any place of assembly in this highly residential and low density area that backs onto a National Park with an abundance of wildlife. The impact that such a development would have on the natural habitat as well as the peaceful neighbourhood that attracted most of the property owners here, is unacceptable.
The increased traffic flow, higher animal casualties and traffic accidents would only be over shadowed by the higher risk to human life if faced with a bush fire threat with only one road in and out of this area. Hundreds of additional cars and people gathering would endanger everyone exponentially.
With quite a number of places of assembly near by, it is beyond comprehension why the serene lifestyle promised to us is proposed to be disrupted by a development that very clearly doesn't belong and is highly inappropriate in these surroundings.
