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

Save the trees.

Whatever you do - for a myriad of reasons DO NOT REMOVE THE TREE! Design the pool around it - Learn to live with it.

So this property lies within not only the Vegetation Protection Overlay but also the SLO. Can the laws please be upheld???

When you say "1 to 9 lots"... are you saying there could be 9 units on that regular sized house block?!!! Surely this application is a joke? I live very near this lovely home and am shocked it may be demolished!!! Further shocked by the ridiculous notion that up to 9 units may be proposed. It of course, would be an appalling overdevelopment of a regular house block and create overcrowding in the street. Please tell my it's not true!

Hi, I am concerned how this development may impact our solar panels and access to daylight in our main living area. I would like to see the plans and understand the overshadowing implications on our property,

Regards
Marni Punt

Bennie; please enlighten me as to when you could see the water from Fourth Street.

Anything wrong with being able to see the water from Beach Road? I’m not talking about trees; rather bushes. No doubt you support developers clearing whole thousand square metre lots for 4 townhouses at the expense of beautiful fig trees and other trees that have been around for hundreds of years and given your comment I dare say you do support Bayside City Council and their every move.

Typical comment from a Beach road resident. Such entitlement and no care for our environment.

It would want to have a basement! To accommodate six cars at a minimum.
Parking McNaught st is now ridiculous!! due to Clonmore st parking restrictions.

Sounds like double standards by Bayside City Council to remove vegetation for a mobile food vendor, yet, trimming of bushes on Beach Road so that residents, walkers, commuters can see a bit of water attracts massive fines; what a joke.

Completely oppose, but what good is that anyway, Bayside City Council does what it wants, when it wants and no price is too much for any developer wanting to do anything in its electorate including the removal of trees that have been in the area for hundreds of years. Excuse the sarcasm.

I do not disagree with the development itself as I think it will be more visually appealing than the residence that is currently there. I do however question the logic of diverting all cars entering and exiting the underground car park via one small, single-car-width back laneway. This laneway opens out onto Durrant Street exactly where three points of traffic meet (dual lanes of Durrant St and the merging exit of Carpenter St). Having 15 cars coming and going through one single-lane laneway that opens up onto a thoroughfare is a recipe for disaster. Why wouldn't you offer tenants the ability to enter and exit the underground car park into Carpenter Street? This is a quiet street, with less traffic than Durrant Street, that already has driveways for all residential properties exiting into it.

Further to my initial comments, and after an additional review of the development plans, I do support the development. I now note the following:

The Developer’s traffic report recommends that traffic entering the laneway from Durrant St have right of way over those exiting. This is an essential safety requirement and should be clearly marked in the laneway.
A traffic light system has been proposed by the developer on the north-western corner of the site, which I understand the developer will implement. I request that the council consider adding to the safe operation of the laneway by considering a traffic light system at the entry point to the laneway on Durrant Street.
Rubbish is to be collected via a private removal company.
Upon reviewing the plans in more detail, I am satisfied the development provides sufficient screening to address any privacy concerns I had.

The major issue with this proposal is the use of the laneway (entry via Durrant Street) for 14 additional cars. The laneway is already accessed by 113 and 113A Carpenter Street plus anyone accessing houses on Williams Street.
I have complained at least half a dozen times about the state of disrepair of the laneway. The issue is currently being investigated by Bayside Council and I have been contacted by City Wide who have advised that they cannot commence with the repair work until the fence and trees are repaired and cut back at 115 Carpenter Street.
Upwards of 20 cars using that laneway is a recipe for disaster. Without a traffic light system, you will have cars forced to reverse in to Durrant Street at the intersection with Carpenter. This is an extremely busy road with a 60km/p/h speed limit. It would take no time at all before there is a serious accident. Children also likely to be in the cars involved.
Further to this, where exactly are the bins of these 7 new dwellings going to go on garbage collection day? There’s no room for 14 bins on either Carpenter or Durrant Street.
This is before we even address the privacy issue of the dwelling overlooking 113 Carpenter Street.

This is supposed to be a low density area not apartment blocks. The block is flanked by single dwellings. Let them build a duplex not apartments just slowly running the amenity of the area. The council doesn't seem to understand that apartments are not what people actually want to live in 20kms from the city they want to live in town houses, let them build 2-3 packs of town houses which is what people actually want to live in not apartments.

We DON'T need Dan Murphy's in this lovely bayside village. It's bad enough that Woolworths was allowed in. There are already several little bottle shops. What BR needs is a decent deli.

This kind of development will ruin Beaumaris.

This kind of development will ruin Beaumaris.

Amazing that 1.5 kilometers away a bloke can’t build a single dwelling on 2 blocks, but this application is for an apartment building.

Amazing that 1.5 kilometers away a bloke can’t build a single dwelling on 2 blocks, but this application is for an apartment building.

Yet again, the Bayside Planning Register fails to allow access to documentation regarding this application. All one can see is that in 2007, presumably when the previous house was demolished and the new one built, that 5 VPO protected trees were approved for removal. There is just one significantly sized canopy tree remaining on this block, so presumably this is the one being applied for removal - what appears to be a mature and healthy Eucalypt.

Was there no landscaping plan in 2007 to replant canopy trees? Or has the owner(s) failed to replant as per their landscaping plan?

Removal of the last remaining canopy tree on this site would be another significant loss to local amenity and habitat. As per Council's commitments to it's Urban Forest Strategy and Climate Emergency policies, this tree should be retained.

If it need a prune for safety reasons, then the owner should engage a reputable arborist.

This resident lives in a Vegetation PROTECTION overlay. As such I object to its removal.

3 packaged liquor shops already in small village. Impact of 4 th !( Dan Murphy's) will adversely affect the parking, foot fall and overall mix of shops that currently make up a small seaside village ambiance. Overwhelming public rejection for this proposal. BRock is already well served. This outlet will add unecessary extra alcohol provision in a small area. Not welcome in any way.The current bottle shops give a good service to BRock and an additional big business provider will eventually force them out of business by their cost cutting ability, leaving them with a monopoly.This appears to be Endeavours long game plan. A boutique village's ambiance will be irreversibly changed. The residents of this village are content with its current ambiance and shopping provision. No more please!

Really? - I thought the community had made it clear they do NOT want another Dan Murphy locally or in this shopping strip. There is already one in bay road and we have 3 shops locally that already sell alcohol and service the local community needs. Enough is enough - we need more diversity in the types of shops available locally.

I categorically object to the removal of tree 13 as it sits within the VPO3 and should be adhered to with the strictest measures.

I categorically object to tree 12 being removed as it sits within the VPO3 zone and this should be enough to protect it.

Removal of multiple tree in a Vegetation Overlay Protection Zone at that. It doesn’t matter if its for a single dwelling or a dual occ. The local laws still apply and should apply. Design the home AROUND the trees and you’ll make something interesting and respectful please.