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

I am a resident of Dudley St.
I reside at number 12.
I was of the understanding that the North side of Dudley St was restricted from building multi dwelling development.
I am objecting to a multi unit development.
Regards
Adrian

It's a National Trust. What's the point in having National Trust houses, going through significance assessments and giving it an heritage overlay when all of that can be thrown out the window. If there is any case to be made for objecting to this development, simply refer to it's heritage listing and supposed protection. We don't need more of Melbourne's heritage and beauty lost to ugly developments. If the person who bought the house wanted to develop it, they should have bought another house.

I would like access to view this application online please.

I reiterate the points that others have made, with the exception of Simon Ross. Black Rock Village already has 3 bottle-shops and a large Dan Murphy's already exists only 4.1kms from this new proposed site. You can not tell me that Dan Murphy's customers or anyone living in Black Rock or even Beaumaris is refusing to drive up to Dan Murphy's in Bay Road or the Woolworths owned BWS in Mentone because it is too far and requires a Dan Murphy's in Black Rock.

Quaint suburbs such as Black Rock should be immune from Big Box stores, particularly ones that promotes the consumption of alcohol and causes numerous social and economic issues in our society. To anyone saying a fourth bottle shop in Black Rock is really that necessary or that they won't attend the Dan Murphy's only 4.1km from this proposed site is being nothing short but contrite.

Long term BR resident. Great to see the big supermarkets getting involved in the village! This is fantastic! Some competition for the local inflated prices!! Well done WW. 100% supportive!

Another Alcohol outlet in our tiny village is complete overkill. It also hinders the local bottle shops already there. 3 is more than enough, we definitely do not need a 4th. I will continue to support my established locals.
This must not be allowed to proceed.

After discussions with a builder/developer today Thursday 25th, the “Activity Centres” in our Brighton area were created by the BCC.
It is therefore logical and possible to alter or remove these areas from 3 storey development.
We have to contact our elected local representatives and have the Activity Centres amended and altered otherwise almost EVERY property in our areas will be subject to these developments which are totally inappropriate to our respected and needed neighbour hood character.
It is within the authority of our elected representatives to do so.

As a long term resident of Black Street, Brighton, I find it extremely sad that the amenity of this formerly peaceful and harmonious neighbourhood is being so rapidly destroyed by the gross over development of every inch of land that developers are able to get their hands on. Shame

Totally agree.
We , the residents in Carpenter St are going through an absolute upheaval with the planned 3 story development at the corner of Boxshall and Carpenter St facing a historically listed site, ie, the old Town Hall.
Initially rejected by BCC but now on the verge of a VCAT hearing.
Almost every house within certain areas in Brighton are in jeopardy of a 3 story development being constructed adjacent to their family home.

The rapid rebuild and increased density living in Brighton has certainly strained the infrastructure and changed the community feel. My impression is council lacks meaningful community engagement; personal experience

It is unacceptable to me that council is allowing so many new developments in Black Street, Brighton. I am a resident off Black Street and every day I am being stopped by lollipop people as trucks reverse in to the building sites. It is a nightmare. We have had this for the past 2 years and with another 5 developments in planning, we are being forced out of our home as we just can't do it anymore. Reverse beeping, traffic constraints and noise from building sites everywhere you turn is not conducive to what was once a peaceful and quiet enclave. Disgraceful that council has allowed so many to go ahead at the one time.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the planning application because the property is under heritage overlay HO24. What is the purpose of having an overlay and going through the process of classifying a building as heritage if it is to be overridden?

As a result of Kerami’s ties to the early establishment of the area the property has historic and cultural significance. Its interesting architectural features also give it aesthetic significance. The demolition of this property would therefore detrimentally impact the municipality’s neighbourhood character, local history and liveability particularly in the face of surrounding subdivision and 'development'. Most importantly it provides a sense of identity and continuity in a fast changing world for current and future generations.

Walking along Bamfield street never fails to give me pleasure because of the character of the buildings and the interest and beauty of Kerami. I am proud to show off the street particularly Kerami to visitors. As the area has few buildings of such historical significance and interest, it would be madness to demolish Kerami.

Additionally, conservation of Kerami contributes to environmental and economic sustainability. A sensitive renovation of this house markedly reduces the waste, embodied energy and associated greenhouse gases which result from a demolition and a new build.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Yours faithfully,
Jill Callaghan.

What vegetation is being removed and why? The Bayside council planning website information about this application cannot be accessed, so it is impossible to know what is proposed here. The site is a public park. What approvals have been given by Council for new buildings and the removal of trees?

There is already a Dan Murphy business in Bay Rd, and another so close to a couple of small private bottle shops in black Rock, could lead to them being unprofitable and unable to compete , accordingly handing over a virtual monopoly of this area.
We believe Black Rock area is already well and truly looked after by the existing operators and the application should be rejected on this occasion.
There also appears to be minimal parking available to suit such a venture.

Bringing an additional liquor store to the Black Rock shops is completely unnecessary as there are two others that are independantly owned. A large chain bottle shop will only undercut the prices of the existing traders which sadly will result in forced closures.
Please consider rejecting the application to maintain the integrity of the Village we are part of.

There are currently 3 bottle shops in the Black Rock Village another is not needed. Support small business. Parking is already limited as it is. This makes no sense.

We do not need another bottle shop. We have plenty. Furthermore, it will grid lock the street, there is insufficient parking, and will diminish the character of black rock village.

The next Dan murphies is in the next suburb?! Why would we need a Dan murphies in every suburb? Is it purely to compete with the family owned boutique bottle shops in black rock? This business strategy is deplorable and unaustralian.

I write re the proposal for 28-34 Service St. after the November 2020 VCAT hearing has closed, and as a resident within a km. of the site. I’ve lived some 25 of my 80+ years in Hampton. So I’m ‘standing back’, as it were.
I’ve perused most comments I could find from objectors, and found only one challenging several of the themes in them. Some opposing arguments clearly have merit: especially, I think, re privacy, scale and environmental impact.
But here I seek mainly to give qualified support to Anthony Edwards’ words questioning much of the attack on the proposal. Behind what he writes about selfishness, wealth and government agendas lies an important bigger picture which really ought to temper this debate.
Settler Australians have always used land without much thought. This is a proposal for re-development, which began with C19 settlement, by Ebden in Black Rock, Dendy in Brighton and many on the landscape in between, who developed grazing runs and market gardens on Aboriginal lands. Townships, then urbanisation followed, and here we are, still re-developing in 2020. Densification is not new then. It’s always a response to priorities at the time. Our macro-need, now urgent, is to slow then stop our urban sprawl: the gobbling up of greenfields acreage beyond our metro fringe proceeds apace, pushed by developers and abetted by government – all in the face of planning wisdom in a time of climate crisis. Why should Bayside’s leafy streets and low density housing be exempt from ameliorating this profligate, especially Australian environmental legacy? The model they set in part explains it. (I allow that we Australians will still seek to express our economic success materially; we just need to do that differently). As Anthony Edwards asks more bluntly: why should good public transport and schools, and exemption from affordable and more compact housing be reserved for privileged suburbs?
Of course we could get into population policy, and the whole immigration tangle – but I’ll just stick with the changing climate: it will drive residential re-development here just as surely as the rising sea will alter the amenity and economics of Bayside’s iconic bathing box strip. It’s just a question of how and when.
I personally think there’s a case for compensation for adjacent property owners if this proposal gets up, but there’s no tradition of such action. In any case, objectors (and indeed government) ought to be arguing for the proposal’s sophisticated, extensive re-design rather than for the retention of every house with historical character.

I wholeheartedly agree with Titia regarding preserving this precious tree - which is a valuable resource in itself.
We believe the only reason its future is threatened is because its situation is in the way of a proposed development.
As mentioned, it is a TREE in BEAUMARIS. We have lost too many of our precious trees to development!
One day people are going to wake up and realise the treed environment - for which they moved to the area - has been denuded. We feel deeply about this application because we live in the area and are witnessing the loss of our treed environment.
This tree forms an extremely important part of the Urban Forest Strategy.
Please save ALL trees - but especially this one. We sincerely hope that common sense prevails and ALL PROTECTED trees under the VPO3 are actually protected as the law suggests.
We respectfully request this vital and much valued tree not be destroyed!

While this development may seem unfair to the many wealthy Bayside residents, the State Government (Richard Wynne, DELWP) has a clear and important agenda to increase housing supply to increase housing affordability in Victoria for those not yet in the market.

The entitlement of the 'baby boomers' never fails to amaze me. You need your multi-million dollar views protected at the cost of allowing others to live in established suburbs with transport linkages and good public education.

As to heritage, if you wish to maintain these sites, then buy one yourself and keep it in good repair. I wonder how many 'complainers' live in a relatively new, plain vanilla house that seems to be the common preference in Bayside these days.

Or is it that you just don't want the lower-middle class living near you? Either way, get over yourself.

I watched this property illegal remove this grandfather tree some 8 years ago, much to the communities outrage with many people stopping their cars to try to save it. This partner of the tree MUST NOT suffer the same fate! This tree holds significant habitat value and should NOT be considered for removal ever. The council must ensure that ALL PROTECTED trees under the VPO3 are actually protected as the law suggests. It forms an extremely important part of the Urban Forest Strategy and stores carbon and cools heat banks which were integral parts of the Climate Emergency declared by BCC late 2019. This tree is non negotiable.

I object to this tree removal in a VPO3 zone. It forms an important part of the urban forest strategy as well as habitat and cooling capacity in line with the climate declaration by bcc in 2019. This particular street holds significant fauna and flora and this is part of its character. Please DO NOT remove this tree.

I have looked at the plans ,we live at 3/2 Bayview Crescent Black Rock, right behind 245 and 246 Beach Road Black Rock .
The architects have drawn up the plan and a plan of our property, showing our property details plans from 5 years ago.
The architects did not check with council,that we rebuilt our property 3 years ago with a private courtyard in the backyard and a huge covered veranda section.
Our new property will suffer a huge amount of overlooking and overshadowing in our back yard area, with this plan .
I request that the architects involved come over and draw our property correctly and check the potential of the overshadowing and overlooking with our new property,not with plans of 5 years ago before we rebuilt

I strongly object this tree is protected by the VPO 3. This is magnificent tree not only offers habitat to nature the canopy is important to help reduce climate change.

The Bayside City council unanimously voted for a climate change emergency, as part of this emergency we need to protect as much tree canopy as possible, as a tree replacement will take years to have the same effect.

Please consider the VPO3 and Climate Change Emergency before removing this tree!