All recent comments on applications from Casey City Council, VIC

Hi,

I am resident of the 40 guru boulevard lynbrook. My name is ankit r savaliya.

I notice that 21 guru boulevard lynbrook just sold and planing to build childcare and town house.

I want to draw your attention to our traffic issues we have and we have submitted to casey council applications regarding this. And we do not have any play ground so kids can play.

Please if you can look at this issue when they are building. It will be greatly appreciated.

On behalf of the guru boulevard resident.

I'm surprised to see this planning permit application get lodged when construction is already well underway. The construction is currently up to brick-laying. I support high-density development in this area. However from my observation of the construction site, I can't see any space for off-street parking - I can't see garages or space for driveways. It is a corner block, and has a bus stop on one side, so it wouldn't be ideal to have cars parked on the street.

I struggle to understand the logic behind this new application. The previous application was rejected by both Casey Council and VCAT. The residents of the area put up strong reasons for this refusal.

Whilst the applicant has made some modifications to their plans, these have not addressed the fundamental issues and concerns regarding safety and access to the site. The position of the site has not changed, the access to the site (both via road and pedestrian) have not changed.

In essence, the site is located on a narrow street (and a no through road), poorly lit with no pedestrian footpath available. The access to the site is only a few metres from a busy main road. The access into the street is often blocked by the adjacent busy bus service, and is extremely dangerous for inexperienced drivers. There is no available crossing over the main road (which has a speed limit of 80km), which would be incredibly dangerous for pedestrians and young children to cross.

There is a nearby childcare centre, located one street away, which have been operating for at least 15 years, and has vacancies available to new intakes. Surely, there is no demand to have a new centre located one street away.

Thanks, for giving me the access to this site for new development project.

The site is immediately adjacent to my house. I need to know more about the sewerage drainage at the back of my house that connects all the houses on my line. Additional houses at the back of my house, as per the planning showing multiples houses, need new underground pipelines for sewer clearance. Or else, it might be a serious hazard issue for us.

Therefore, I and my neighbours need to be aware of these constructions that might disrupt the existing system.

In the past, there were problems that I will be able to share with the developers, and the Council.

Would love to hear from you.

Kindly,
Masud
42 Branton Drive
Hampton Park

I'm not sure exactly what is proposed here, but it should be noted that there is not much car parking on this property. When cars are parked on the street it is difficult for buses to get through.

Commercial businesses that will add to our increasing traffic issues in Devon Meadows are not wanted or needed. 99% of residents have moved to Devon Meadows for the country feel and peaceful life. Allowing commercial businesses to populate the area will have a negative affect. There are sufficient areas around Cranbourne to establish these types of businesses. Reasons for wanting Devon Meadows to be used for these types of facilities are that the land is comparatively cheap. The reason land is cheaper is because residents do not develop commercial businesses that will bring additional traffic or disrupt the peaceful surroundings. I’ve lived here for 62 years and do not want the ambience of the area changed without council changing the areas zoning!

VCAT ruled against this development only a year ago. Due to the property being unsuitable for the development that this application is seeking once again. If you refer to the VCAT hearing all the reasons as to why it was rejected are evident there. As residents of the Hillsmeade estate we're a close knit community and we will continue to oppose further applications of this nature due to the negative impacts a commercial property would have on the safety, well-being and character of our low density residential estate. We expect Casey Council to take responsibility for the welfare of the Hillsmeade estate residents and uphold the previous rejection ruling as a precedent to reject any further applications of this nature.

I live across the road from this premises. It has only been twelve months since the last application was rejected by the VCAT. I understand Council does NOT have any control over who lodges what application. However, Council should make a firm decision on the current application and any future applications lodged for high traffic commercial activities.

I most strongly believe that this is a most unsuitable usage for this property. As Margaret Baird, Senior Member of VCAT quoted in clause 147, "The centre presents in a manner that fails to respect the character of this low density residential area. It also has some unacceptable amenity and character implications as a consequence of the proposed land use". She further quotes in clause 148, " Having considered and weighed all relevant matters, I find the permit application does not achieve a net community benefit". She concluded in clause 149, " For the above reasons, a permit is not granted".
From a personal perspective, the proposed land usage would have a profound negative effect on myself regarding personal road usage, both from a vehicle driving perspective through what would become most congested traffic conditions in the immediate area near Lot 1. As there is no footpath along Hillsmeade Drive, I am required to use the road itself when either walking our dog or simply walking on a daily basis for fitness and health reasons. The construction of a childcare centre on Lot 1 would create vehicle traffic conditions that would make my current pedestrian uses of the road unsafe to engage in. Associated roadside parking would add greatly to the dangers and difficulties faced by the local residents, both when on foot or in vehicles.
From a noise perspective, my amenity would also be clearly affected as the proposed site is but several metres from the drive access to my residence. I am 85 years of age. I would be available to speak of my objections at any relevant meeting. Bob O'Neill.

This application is absolutely unacceptable as VCAT Senior Member Margaret Baird wrote:
NET COMMUNITY BENEFIT
144. I have referred to the consideration of clause 71.02 earlier.
145. While the amended proposal may improve on the original permit application as emphasised in the Council’s submissions, I find the amended permit application does not meet the test of acceptability under the scheme.
146. I have found that the proposed child care centre has various positive and neutral outcomes. It is consistent with some aspects of policy and I have indicated that I would not refuse a permit on some contested grounds, for example, on-site car parking supply. These findings carry weight.
147. However, the proposal does not meet multiple elements in local policies. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed facility are unacceptable. Of most concern are that the proposed child care centre does make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the low density residential within which it is proposed to be located. The centre presents in a manner that fails to respect the character of this low density residential area. It also has some unacceptable amenity and character implications as a consequence of the intensity of the proposed land use.
148. Having considered and weighed all relevant matters, I find the permit application does not achieve a net community benefit.
CONCLUSION
149. For the above reasons, a permit is not granted.

And Casey Council Officer Ollie Graovac Wrote:
The VCAT decision is now the most recent VCAT decision providing guidance to Clause 22.02 and other elements of the scheme. This case is now used as a precedence for all future applications of a similar nature.

This will continue to be the case until newer VCAT decisions suggesting otherwise are issued. We have used this case to change our interpretation of policy.

As this was knocked back just last year, would appreciate it if Council could keep residents who put in objections last time, informed of any further developments. As far as we know, no one has received an email with any details. How can another permit be submitted for the same thing, when Council has already said no?

I don't understand why another application would even be put in for a childcare centre when VCAT rightly denied an application for the same development just last year and explained in great detail why it was denied, including multiple reasons that would be outside of the applicants ability to address including the fact that the application went against multiple of councils own policies.
Thus far there has been no public advertising and the residents have also not been notified.

I live in the estate and there has been no signage or public notification at all of this 'new' application. Not only did VCAT reject this same proposal last year, but it was found that the Council also initially failed to adhere to local policies.

Not sure how is this possible as VCAT had ruled against this proposal only last year.
I live in the estate and have not been notified of any new application related to this address neither there has been public notification displayed.

There is no Public Notification displayed for this application and VCAT has already denied application for child centre and or medical centre

The designs for this look fantastic. Great to see such high quality homes being built in the area as opposed to cheap units. Great for Olde Berwick and for local proeprty values! As for overshadowing concerns, if you live at the bottom of a hill then I’m not sure what you expect. No matter what gets built on the elevation, it will be visible from your yard. The designs for this home appear to be fully compliant regardless… It’s worth mentioning that based on the designs I’ve seen this is not a 3 level home and appears to be 2 storey + basement garage below street level.

This is in response to ZDP,

Your comments are very inaccurate and somewhat inflammatory.

The design has been assessed against the planning scheme and has passed all compliance requirements as is any overlooking concerns based on how overlooking is assessed. This has been reviewed by the building surveyor with compliance confirmed.

Also building heights are under the maximum building height requirements for this lovation so this is a pass and setbacks are also compliant even though you have made a comment on this also.

3rd story glass is well outside the 9m radius that overlooking is assessed.

The design has conciously addressed the building scheme. You just have to look around to see other homes in the immediate area being build that are no different. This property will have a positive result for neigbouring properties by elevating property prices.

If the initial persons very valid concerns were inaccurate, that then makes the second persons claims laughable.

As less than half of the 3+ metre "basement" level will be excavated, it makes it an incredibly tall "2 storey."
That would make it at least twice the height of the house on the left, but 3-4x the height of the unit on the right hand side. (Wow)
To then go on and claim there can be no overlooking, when the floor of the balcony/pool on the first floor will be 2 metres above the new fence height and the 3rd storey windows in clear glass are just baseless. Properties on the RHS will have absolutely no privacy. The LHS will see nothing aside from 5-9+ metres of white wall.

It cannot be fully compliant to the building scheme when it is both over height and significantly under setback from boundaries.
Let alone the Heritage or Significant Landscape overlays that apply to "protect sites from innapropriate designs/over development."

I can't believe they've let these plans get this far frankly.

A four storey residential property is ridiculous in this location. It is a quiet suburban street and the development will have a huge impact on the surrounding properties. They will lose privacy and the development will cause shadows and lack of sunshine where there are well established gardens. Furthermore, there should not be a reduction in parking requirements under any circumstances. Parking is a huge issue in the local area and will not improve with such allowances. There needs to be a two storey minimum o. Such developments- anything taller is out of character with the local area. The roads were not built for that amount of traffic and development.

To ensure accuracy the below comment that has been posted is inaccurate and not correct.

The design for this site is only 2 stories and not 3 as mentioned.

Also an overlooking assessment has also been completed by the building surveyor to assess this specific overlooking concern with no overlooking line of sight issues present with design compliance confirmed in reference to overlooking requirements.

The design is also fully compliant to the building scheme, compliant to the heritage overlay that has also been assessed and also to the SLO4 overlay that has been assessed.

Please specify that both dwellings to include a double garage as part of the conditions of approval, to avoid further street parking congestion.

Wondering what the plans are for this property as we are a neighbour that the 3 story house will be looking straight into going by the architects posting on social media .. a bit concerned

bit late now its already done.. typical.

Why do the Elm trees need to be removed? The Elm trees in Berwick need to be preserved and protected at all costs. I suspect most locals would understand the need for The Berwick Inn to renovate and improve the space but why wasn’t this planned appropriately to protect the area’s aesthetic appeal? Berwick’s streetscape, including its Elm trees, are central to the village atmosphere and the overall appeal of the township.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR MY OBJECTIONS:
*The court we live in is very small, only 8 homes in total. We feel that this court is far too small to accommodate another residential dwelling. Especially the issues of parking spaces in the court, at times, can already be limited when residents need to move cars around or are expecting visitors.
*Then the issue of vehicles which could be in the way to inhibit any emergency vehicles from entering the court, if need be, in an emergency.
*And the court will be totally blocked during the time of the actual building, due to the various trucks for deliveries of building products and tradesmen’s vans and utilities, plus all the extra noise. This could easily be more than 6-8 months.
*Also, the property, itself, has a reasonably narrow driveway, which I would think would be hard for two separate dwellings to share on one property. This could also be a safety issue, especially if any small children resided there.
*As set by strict rules from the Council, we put all the bins out on the nature strip of no. 4. It may seem like a small thing but there wouldn’t be enough space to put out more bins, as there is also a fire hydrant on that nature strip.

My husband and have lived at 3 Delta Court, Cranbourne, for 38 years. And I personally have lived in this estate longer, as l previously lived in Delray Court for the previous 10 yrs. We bought and stayed in this estate, as it was a very safe and serine place to live, especially with limiting the amount of dwelling which could be built here, due to the whole estate being made up of just courts and no through road. We feel that if this sort of permit is passed through this time, it would open the door for many more to do the same.
But now with the prospect of having another residential dwelling being built in this very small court, it is going to change the environment and safe lifestyle for all the residents in the court, many of whom are being of an older age, including myself now 70 years old.
There will be far more traffic coming in and out of our small court. Please reconsider your decision and deny this application as such. It would be so much better for the new occupant to have an extension on the current dwelling, as mentioned on the application, as it is quite small. And they could also enjoy the space in their back yard, especially if they are a family with small children.
Also we were surprised to not receive any notification of the proposal and intention of a new dwelling and there was no advertisement of any sort displayed on the property with details. I found this very surprising?
Regards, Anna Hawking 0419 521 662
– So these are my Objections to Planning Permit Application Number PA 24-0115