All recent comments on applications from Bayside City Council (Victoria), VIC

Good morning,

Please note that we have thisabandoned building site at the back of our house: 107 Pallet st. I have videos showing how the magpies are damaging it, people dumping their garbage there, and the general unpleasant view. This will be our third Christmas and summer with that monstrosity in the backyard.

Do your permit still have validity? This situation has been ongoing for almost 5 years now. What does the council do in situations like this?

Please let us know.

Best regards,
Paola Murphy

Fantastic opportunity for council to create another green space for the community and wildlife to enjoy for generations to come.
Can’t wait to see the master plans!

OK with proposal in general, except there must not be alcohol service to the tables on the footpath. Indoors only!

I am totally against the loss of even more trees from our beautiful green area.
The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect.
Loss of habitat for our native birds is also a huge factor here. We need more trees!
I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO.

Where are the 11 native trees to be removed?
It seems they have already been removed.

This landscaping is not in keeping with Beaumaris’s unique neighbourhood character and sets a sad standard for further decimation of our leafy suburb.

There is no reason why a living native tree should be removed. This is BEAUMARIS, known for it's native flora. KEEP THE TREE!

So Gary I take it Fern Tree Gully has no pedestrian paths or plumbing and sewerage flow to residential properties then !!!!
My point being I am unclear on the merit of your response to Sandra's concerns which are around safety and council / developer accountability, communication and trust.

Some large trees need to be taken down because of the damage they cause to foot paths and under ground pipes their are to many old trees around if you love trees that much live in fern tree gully

I would like to understand how the developers have bulldozed the huge tree that was in the front yard, which when we had talks with Steven from Bayside he said it was staying. Why are the developers not getting fined. I'd also like to understand why the developer has taken the side fence down between 6 and 8 Cooke st and I'm now left with a temporary fence that makes my pool now non-compliant and the developer did not tell me when this is happening nor when a proper timber fence is being constructed. I have little kids and if a child climbs that temporary fence into our yard and drowns in our pool we are held responsible. Where do we go from here as the developer is not telling me anything. My mobile is 0409 338 971.

I object:
We can already buy bottled liquor from three locations within 150 km in this shopping village. Dan Murphy's liquor store is only 4.1 km away, so we don't need another in Black Rock. We need diversification of retail outlets to meet residents' needs and keep the shopping village vibrant.

I concur with the vast majority of comments made above - we simply do not need additional alcohol suppliers in our village, we are well serviced already.
I fail to see why this issue has resurfaced as council made the correct decision two years ago. There are no valid arguments - at least I've not heard any - of a reason to grant this permit. Please council do the right thing and reject this application.

Dear planning department,
I have been sick with covid for a few weeks. hence my tardiness.
THERE SHOULD BE NO DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES WITH REDUCTION IN CAR SPACES . The bedrooms reflect the occupancy by couples who share the rent burden or mortgage . There is at least one car per bedroom this is a reality of our metropolitain life.
In brighton where apartment dwellers cant get street parking permits. It is problematic. You would have to change the rules to allow permanent parking permits for each dwelling.
regards
Casila Gilchrist.
1b Thistle Grove
Highett

Dear Bayside council , I am unsure of the scope is it 1 or 9 lots.? This address contains aboriginal conservation land and wetlands for migratory birds . Where can we find the proposed sudivision as when i put in the reference it gave no details?
I am concerned that overdevelopment will affect my access to Thistle Grove and add to the traffic problems when trying to turn right or left into Highett Road, often I cannot turn right onto Graham Rd due to traffic banking back from Highett Rd Railway crossing.
This wetland should be improved to facilitate bird migration ,that I have observed here, as has been done at the golf course in Gardenvale.
Graham rd will already be overshadowed and traffic increased by the multistory retirement village currently being constructed at 32 Graham Rd.
This lot subdivision is a gross overdevelopment probably changing the ambience of a GRZ1 area of single and double storey residences.
Yours a concerned bayside residen t of 40 years ie Parkdale, BlackRock, Brighton, Highett
regards
Casila Gilchrist

The hysteria evident in the comment "the loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect", is the problem. The statement is factually incorrect. Not all trees are "canopy trees". Further, the suggestion that the removal of most trees contributes to the "urban heat island effect" is simple propaganda and completely irrelevant to the limited nature of the tree removal being discussed in the application. Bayside Council recently released a video of the need for more dual occupancy developments in Bayside. It appropriately highlights the need for increased density living. We must be able to calmly consider the detail of such applications rather than ignore the detail and maintain a "No" position. One example. Despite Bayside Council's website stating "palm trees are not considered trees and do not require a permit for removal", (with which I and I suspect most Bayside residents would agree), I was advised that the palm in my backyard could not be relocated or removed because, "its indigenous". In response to my question, I was advised that the palm is indigenous to QLD and northern NSW. The Bangalow Palm is not native to Victoria and it certainly does not belong in Bayside, but because it's "indigenous" it cannot be relocated or removed.

Comments of the type of Lee Saunder-Wood are confusing. A resident removing three trees shouldn’t be an issue for a property owner.

The issue is that whenever a developer clears, yes clears, entire sites of every single tree on an entire property is literally never met with objection from Bayside City Council or people such as yourself, but conversely, objection is met to a property owner removing three trees.

More needs to be done and questions asked why developers are held to a different standard by Bayside City Council who can decimate whole sites without issue, yet poor rate payers have to jump through all sorts of hoops, go to great expense whenever they need to remove the odd tree. The answer is pretty obvious and questions asked but hey, let’s jump all over this home owner who is probably doing a basic extension / home improvements compared to developers that are the real criminals who don’t care one bit about our environment to construct another uninspiring concrete multi dwelling building that does nothing for the environment or community.

The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect. Loss of habitat for our native wildlife is also a huge factor here. This house was built/purchased with the knowledge and acceptance of the trees and the VPO, I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO.

Black Rock don’t need another bottle shop since there is already 3 stores that can provide alcohol.
Like many has mentioned it will increase traffic and rubbish around the area.
I agree to say that something more useful can be added to this space.

There should NOT be a reduction in car parking spaces required under clause 52.06.
Bayside Council needs to support Highett resident this time.
Where are all of these new residents going to park??
Is this in addition to the 1080 apartments already allocated to this site?

Bruh.

I am the director of a 3D Visualisation company with ties to the school having 2 children who attend Sandringham East Primary. I have to say in 20 years of producing planning 3d renders and marketing renders i have never seen a more over bearing community insensitive project such as this.

The most alarming item in the extremely detailed reply from Soraya Khan is that the developer has mis-represented the height, form and shadowing of the building to the school and the community . . . i am astounded that they have portrayed 5 storeys when in fact the design clearly shows 8 storeys. The thought of so many apartment towering over the school is extremely alarming, especially if a person or persons of low character were to own an apartment and view my children playing on the oval !

I also know that the school with limited government funds struggle to maintain the grass on the oval year around, so the thought of this building casting long shadows over it will make an even bigger dust bowl than it is.

The developer should have engaged the school and the community to develop a built form that all are in approval of.

This project should not be approved

Agree with others...
Black Rock does not need a large chain bottle shop. It is well served by the existing small businesses and this chain would both impact on the existing small businesses, serve bulk liquor and detract from the amenity of the area.

I object to the removal of 4 native trees. The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect. Loss of habitat for our native wildlife is also a significant factor here. I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO3.

The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect. Loss of habitat for our native wildlife is also a huge factor here. The owner built this house with the knowledge and acceptance of the trees, I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO.

The loss of each and every tree contributes to the erosion of the tree canopy cover in our suburb and increases exposure to urban heat island effect. Loss of habitat for our native wildlife is also a huge factor here. The owner built this house with the knowledge and acceptance of the trees, I believe Council should stay their commitment to reducing tree loss by upholding the VPO.

Oh My Goodness. This person built a house on a beautiful treed block and is now complaining about the trees! Not just complaining but wanting them eradicated!!
Don't you realise the many benefits of those precious trees? One of which - on Reserve road you should be grateful for - trees take in carbon dioxide, process it and emit fresh clean oxygen. Plus, shade from the west, sound-proofing, screening, provide a habitat for native birds and beautify your property (to name but a few of the mega benefits).
Surely it's a no-brainer to retain these marvellous natural wonders?!