All recent comments on applications from Frankston City Council, VIC

A golden opportunity for Frankston to make a fresh and progressive statement on its otherwise dreadful planning history. Influx of young families moving here for a healthy lifestyle and it’s totally offset by the influx of yet another junk food restaurant that has outlets on a direct line from both intersecting roads less than a few minutes drive away. It would be an appalling decision.

Removing this eavesment means it will block beach access for those living on nepean hwy. It will remove 634a nepean hwy beach access as this block will become landlocked with no beach or road access (unless via whitecliff). Also means 634 nepean hwy and 636 nepean hwy will no longer be able to access the beach.
Also would like to know about how this impacts erosion in the area.

So Frankston city council what is the update on this ?
No news must be good news

The DDO2 has 2 plants listed as weed species which are not weed species in this site area they are indigenous any they Coast Tea tree and Coast Wattle .
Do the plans met the new vc216 amendment re drainage,WSUD, ESD, protecting and enhancing biodiversity etc
Has a geotech report been done?
Landslips have happened near by.
Has a drainage report been done as drains are at capacity across other parts of the clifftops . Considering the erosion on the beach down there is it wise to put more houses in as this just adds more hard surfaces causing more stormwater run off .
How much cut and fill is being done?Since it is close to a registered cultural heritage site should a cultural heritage management plan be done if cut and fill is substantial even if the DDO 2 says it is only necessary if 3 residences were being built on a subdivision.

These have already been built?! Where are the plans up now?!

Garth, I agree. Four is to many. . No room for gardens with trees. Density of developement is why our neighbourhoods are heating up. To many hard surfaces , not enough vegetation. Which means increase in power needs as people restore to puting on air conditioners. Our neighbourhoods are losing their amenity.

This is ridiculous, 4 units is too many for this size block of land. It used to be 2, greedy developers are destroying this low density neighborhood. The council needs to throw this application in the bin.

Hmm! And this means ? ? ?

If you have concerns regarding the development or removal prior to approval, you should contact council directly as I'm not sure they read these or take action.

Has work already commenced on this build? I've passed the site in this last week and much of it looks to be cleared already. Of equal concern, there was heavy machinery operating amongst the trees and destroying roots ahead of any permit approval. Is Frankston City Council aware of this? Clearly the builders have no regard for vegetation or council regulations.

This side of the peninsula link freeway is already recognised as a pollution hotspot in the environmental impact assessment completed prior to the freeway construction 10 years ago

I am concerned what this means to storm water drainage in the area and how that effects erosion on the foreshore and what mitigation measures have been or will be taken to circumvent further erosion. Has both Mt Eliza and Frankston Foreshore Advisory Groups consulted.

Please don't allow the overdevelopment of Seaford. These developments benefit a single developer and not the community of 16,000+ people that call Seaford home.

This will create traffic chaos at an already dangerous intersection! I am certain there will not be enough off street parking and the extra parking will flow onto the Highway and Armstrongs Rd, where it is already a nightmare for existing residents and visitors to find a park!

12 triple storey dwelling is simply judicious. Where are all the vehicles going to park? Stop the over housing in Seaford.

Can you please make sure the indigenous vegetation along the creek line is kept and enhanced with more indigenous vegetation. And weed species are removed.

Please don’t allow the over development of Seaford. These developments serve to benefit a developer and not the community

To the planning department at Frankston City Council regarding application 10/2022/P, 11 – 12 Merrigal Court Frankston South. I wish to lodge an objection based on the following concerns;

- The proposed dwelling is a modern box, standing at approximately 9.6m high off the ground, which does not match the design characteristics of the street or Frankston South and will create unsightly visual obstructions to the neighboring residents. This property does nothing to enhance the characteristics of the local community, creating visual dominance on a prominent site along Sweetwater Creek and does not comply with the overlay requirements of DD01.

- The non-natural materials in the application include rendered masonry and concrete panels which are not tones that occur in the court at present.
- Despite the permit claiming that the proposal has regard for the environmental characteristics of Merrigal Court, the plan proposes removal of no less than eight significant trees from the site (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17). Of most significance in the proposal, Tree 17 is a beautiful 20+ year old 14m high Gippsland Manna Gum with high retention value and Tree 11 is a mature native at 19m in height. Of the eight tree’s proposed to remove, many are inhibited by local wildlife and doing so will also destroy a local habitat.

Whilst out walking by the creek, I have seen the ‘Swell Building Group’ utility vehicles speed past me and suspect this is another cash grab after they built and sold 2 Merrigal Court and 77A Humphries Road twelve months later. In addition, a temp fence has been erected and site works in the form of excavation look to have already commenced without the required council approvals.

I have resided in the area for over thirty years due to the beautiful environmental setting by the creek and would hate to see this destroyed by greedy developers. I encourage all residents who care about the local community to join me in lodging their objections.

Looks that way Len they have done the same to at least 2 outher applications that I no about just not accountable in planning department

Depends how many palms are greased to get apps through.

Please don’t allow overdevelopment of Seaford. This development offers no benefit to the community.

I agree entirely with Joanne Hibbard, the traffic congestion this will create for current residents will be ridiculous, as currently the wait time to get out of Scott's Lane is unacceptable. In regards to this being the natural habitat for all the wild life Joanne has named are we going to destroy this and replace with a concrete jungle to put money in the pocket of a developer who doesn't give a fig $$$.

I believe this is too many lots for this space. It is in the middle of a green wedge area, and runs to a waterway and billabong that supports a large colony of ibis, cormorants, ducks and other waterfowl, black shouldered kites, kookaburras, lorikeets, rosellas and numerous species of frogs and reptiles. It is an environmentally sensitive and important area.
Stotts lane is a minor road, and to have potentially hundreds more people per day using it will create traffic congestion, road degradation and loss of amenity for current residents.
The land directly below it, and Colbert Court are part of a bushfire and flooding overlay.
I strongly oppose this application on the above grounds, and request it be amended to fewer, larger lots and that all measures to protect habitat, fauna, flora and resident amenity be taken.

This property should be heritage listed the property is in complete original condition and the bungalow in the back yard also features many original things it was built before the house so likely during the war

This is a crazy position for a child care centre! Please have a look at the increased traffic on Union Road from the Child care centre. A small suburban street cannot handle this increase is traffic!