31 Winifred Street, Oak Park VIC 3046

Massive over development for the area, lacking any consideration for car parking and garden space, also requires the removal of several pre existing trees. Driveway requires further consideration. No issue with houses being demolished for town houses but this fails on basic design principles and has major impact on busy Winifred street and existing houses. Please consider reducing the number of townhouses on the block, the garden space of each townhouse and providing one car space per townhouse.

Excessive Development and Excessive Greed from the Council, Winifred has too many Townhouse developments already, cars parked on either side of the street as they don't have sufficient parking.

Driving down Winifred, having to stop to give way to oncoming traffic as there is only enough room for one car, with cars parked on both sides of the street is more and more frequent, this will only add to the traffic.

There are several developments on Winifred Street - All new townhouses, keep it down to 3 per block and ensure enough they have sufficient parking.

That is proper town planning.

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

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

The surrounding sites consist of a number of rundown older postwar homes, and several sites that have been developed with townhouses exist nearby.

The proposal responds positively to the strategic context.

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

The proposal responds positively to the Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone within the Merri-bek Planning Scheme.

The Schedule to Clause 32.09 notes:
No minimum subdivision area specified.

Regarding the Clause 54 & 55 matters the Schedule notes:
No minimum street setback specified.
No site coverage specification.
No permeability specification.
No side and rear setbacks specified.
No specifications regarding walls on boundaries.
No specifications for private open space.
No front fence height specified.

The schedule specifies no maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building.

The landscaping requirement does not apply to an application to construct or extend
an apartment development, or to construct or extend a dwelling in or
forming part of an apartment development.

No trees of aboricultural or environmental significance are present upon the subject site.

The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the surrounding sites nor public realm.

Overlooking and overshadowing impacts of the proposal are unremarkable for the context and emerging character.

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

Please recall my previous submission and replace with the following:

The proposal responds appropriately to the City of Merri-bek Planning Scheme and Council's other planning policies and should be supported.

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

The surrounding sites consist of a number of rundown older postwar homes, and several sites that have been developed with townhouses exist nearby.

The proposal responds positively to the strategic context.

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

The proposal responds positively to the Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone within the Merri-bek Planning Scheme.

The Schedule to Clause 32.09 notes:
No minimum subdivision area specified.

Regarding the Clause 54 & 55 matters the Schedule notes:
No minimum street setback specified.
No site coverage specification.
No permeability specification.
No side and rear setbacks specified.
No specifications regarding walls on boundaries.
No specifications for private open space.
No front fence height specified.

The schedule specifies no maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building.

The landscaping requirement does not apply to an application to construct or extend
an apartment development, or to construct or extend a dwelling in or
forming part of an apartment development.

No trees of aboricultural or environmental significance are present upon the subject site.

The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the surrounding sites nor public realm.

Overlooking and overshadowing impacts of the proposal are unremarkable for the context and emerging character.

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