Wayne Molloy
There are so many new large child care centres popping up around Langwarrin why do we need another one, especially in a narrow residential street where it is already difficult to pass parked cars. On top of that there are a heap of new units currently being built, with inadequate parking in the narrow street for people visiting the units as it is opposite a T intersection, right next door to the proposed child care centre, which itself will be right opposite another T intersection, with only four houses between the two T intersections. Someone really hasn't thought this one out or has given no consideration for us locals who will have to navigate the new hazards on a daily basis. How many fender benders or accidents involving cars and pedestrians will there be once all of this is completed. In the 11 years I have lived in Yvonne Court there has been no accidents at the T intersection of our court, who should we hold accountable when they begin to happen, which they will, it's only a matter of time. Who ever signs off on this project should be held accountable for civil action and negligence when someone is injured, or worse, killed.
So in a 6-12 month period the traffic in a narrow residential street is going to increase ten fold or more, someone really hasn't thought about this, or they have no common sense. The funny thing about common sense is, it isn't that common!
There should only be one or the other, not both. I challenge the council to do an actual trial using real cars and people. Set it up with all of the cars parked in the street as if they are visiting the units and dropping kids off and picking them up from the child care, and coming and going as if both places actually existed, then add in us locals trying to get in and out of our streets and houses with our cars, 4wds, motorcycles, work vehicles, trailers, boats, caravans and trucks, it would be a nightmare. I bet no one has the guts to actually do the exercise before giving it the rubber stamp of approval.
All recent comments on applications from Frankston City Council, VIC
How can the works begin and then get a permit when the work is finished . Why would anyone get a permit first before begins. Council should stop all works until a permit is granted. As a builder council would have me in court as quick as they could and the V.B.A as well . Ps council I have a job in Frankston an extension looks like I can start the job before I get the permit is this correct?
The idea of a child care centre in a small residential street is absurd. Not only are there multiple units being built next door to this proposed site which is already increasing local traffic and parking issues, a child care centre will have devastating consequences on traffic flow and parking in the area. A more suitable site must be found instead of a small street such as this. The neighbours are NOT HAPPY!!!
How can the works begin and then get a permit when the work is finished . Why would anyone get a permit first before begins. Council should stop all works until a permit is granted. As a builder council would have me in court as quick as they could and the V.B.A as well . Ps council I have a job in Frankston an extension looks like I can start the job before I get the permit is this correct?
The owners at 20 Seaview insist during planning of permit Ref 129/2021/P to construct an oversized extension (and during a vcat hearing for same) that NO trees will be removed.
A tree was already removed by the owners at 20 Seaview on the south side of 20 Seaview ( near Burnett crescent) without a permit and has not been replaced).
The environment, including trees needs to be maintained especially in protecting currently green area, streetscape and privacy.
If a tree must be removed, appropriate re planting plans are expected with same height. Council normally insist on two trees for every removal.
Nope don't want it on my street there is enought eyesores here already
The proposal appears to be merely taking advantage of Seaford's position on the Nepean Highway for a major corporation to unnecessarily inflate their profits, rather than being of any benefit to the community.
The negative effects to the environment, health and the economic impact to local businesses.
There is no business benefit for Seaford businesses; as such service stations and fast food restaurants do not increase business in the local towns where they are located. They instead are designed to promote easy and fast access on and off the highway and therefore do not bring commuters into town.
There is no need for an additional service station in the region, there is a service station approximately 150 meters away on the same side of the Nepean Highway.
As a local resident, I am concerned about traffic congestion and the property prices being negatively affected by this.
Fast food outlets are proven to be a very unhealthy diet option, selling highly processed and high sugar food. This will be an unnecessary addition and has the potential to negatively impact the health of Seaford youth.
The Convenience Restaurant, would be located approximately 1.3km from the closest primary school.
Seaford has a vibrant growing community and this is in a great part due to the small town feel that will be severely damaged both by a fast food outlet such as proposed in this application.
Victoria has seen many country towns damaged by over development and a move away from what makes them attractive places to live and visit. Seaford already has a service station and a McDonalds is located approximately 2.8km from 176-178 Nepean Highway, Seaford.
Small cafes and restaurants which are already experiencing hardship due to COVID19 would face incredible headwinds if a large ‘convenience restaurant’ was to be permitted, impacting the community further.
The development is not befitting the character of the township and locality.
The size, height and brightness of the signage.
24 hour trading is excessive for the area. Anti-social behaviour, litter and noise will result.
This proposal would pave the way for other corporations, altering the rural landscape to one akin to the commercial suburbs of Melbourne (an example of this is Kilmore).
Excess litter on the roads, beach and Kananook Creek.
There is already traffic congestion at 176-178 Nepean Highway, Seaford, more so on a sunny day when crowds flock to the beach and parking becomes almost impossible and the traffic banks up along Seaford Road.
The increased road traffic and noise in a coastal town stops Seaford being an attractive town to live in (I live in Seaford and chose Seaford because of the lack of McDonalds etc).
If it is a proposal to mainly service the highway traffic surely somewhere out of town would be better suited.
Our businesses and community rallied so well during the pandemic lock down to support each other. This Council has an obligation to defend and preserve the integrity of Seaford as a thriving coastal town.
If Council is truly invested in the future of Seaford as a thriving town, there is absolutely no benefit to the local community for this planning application to proceed and Council should decline.
How big is this block of land?
Do we really want high density style living in our suburb?
I strongly object to another petrol station or fast food restaurant being built on this block.
There are already a number of petrol stations in the area (one being literally across the road), and we don't need any more fast food chains coming into the area - Frankston has plenty.
Seaford is a unique and beautiful town. I've just moved to the area after years living in the city, and I feel so lucky that I live so close to this stunning beach and wonderful community. When you're in Seaford, you're close enough to the convenient facilities and shops of Frankston, but you can still enjoy the peace and quiet that the town offers.
There is so much opportunity to enhance this wonderful town with a thoughtful development, like a green community space, or an opportunity for a small business, like a cafe or restaurant - something that the local community will enjoy and benefit from, and that will also enhance its appeal to tourists and those passing through (a much-needed boost for local businesses after struggling through a pandemic).
Chucking another petrol station or Maccas will not do anything for this town, it will only hinder it. This is a prime position for a development more meaningful.
Regards
Christie Byrne
There would need to be significant structural changes to the Hall Rd, McCormicks Rd intersection in order to make this development viable.
In addition given the fact there are existing residential dwellings on two boundaries, generous compensation should be offered to those residents for the inconvenience that will come having a 7/11 in such close proximity.
The congestion at that intersection most days is heavy. This would be expected to increase with the opening of a 7/11.
What noise protections will be installed to protect residents from the increased noise due to traffic?
What remedies are planned to cope with the fumes and vehicle exhaust for the nearby residential properties?
Personally, I don’t think this application has thought through. There are 3 service stations within 3kms of this location, another two service stations within 8km on Westernport Hwy, another two service stations within 5kms on Frankston Dandenong Rd and Seaford Road. I do not believe the area needs another service station.
This application should be rejected as it offers little add-value to the local community of Carrum Downs.
Does not suite the current infrastructure and there is more than enough stations and car washes in the area there is not a beneficial need. What is the underlying reason for this plan.
The street is already busy and with limited street parking available. To add 4 more units will make this beautiful street crowded and busy. The surrounding streets (Muir and Williams street) are already built up with units and you can see how choked the streets are with parking. Don't ruin Cliff's appeal by adding units.
We live next door and I would have expected to have been informed of this application but was only alerted to it by someone else. We have dual entry to our property- one of which is in Bell St next door to 2 Bell St.
We would be opposed to this development as it will impede our view from our deck and internal living area. We spent a lot of money on this deck and getting it engineered to enjoy this view and this could now be compromised with this potential development.
I would expect to be informed of any further action of this property as we are directly next door.
Seven dwellings is over the top especiallt with reduction of visitor parking or extra parking for residents.
Four dwellings with plenty of parking space and vegetation area is far move condusive to the area.
There has been no reason given as to why it is necessary to remove this tree at minimum a planning application should say why works are necessary.
At last check shockingly Frankston city only had 15% tree coverage which is lower than some inner city council areas like Bayside and Whitehorse, Banyule , Boroondara and our council are suppose to be working towards getting more trees as part of the our commitment to our local and the state Urban Forest Action Plans and Biodiversity Action Plan.
The pin point for this planning application is in Escarpment Drive Reserve not a house block. This is a conservation reserve not a park so not need for play equipment.
On the grounds that you haven't even supplied a proper address nor an explanation of what's planned I object.
Its absolutely appalling that you put this in at christmas without public consultation or further explanation of why its necessary to remove vegetation or what is planned.
If the pinpoint is suppose to be on the otherside of the road which is a roadside reserve with significant vegetation Overlay and signage I still want to know what reason you have wanting to remove vegetation.
If the pin point is suppose to be 86-88 Stott's Lane then put it there so we know uts part of the subdivision plans
If the pin is suppose to be in the property across the road with the dam then this is greenwedge land and Inobject as their is not reason given as to why this is necessary.
I was under the impression that this protection zone was precisely for the purpose of ensuring that the native vegetation was protected!?
Please try to keep the trees if possible.
Please consider retaining the pine trees. These have provided an abundance of shelter for many species of birds including ibis, kookaburras, yellow tailed black cockatoos & tawny frogmouths to name just a handful. They add to the amenity of Tahnee Lodge and also provide a barrier to and protection from storm force winds across Port Phillip.
I would like to see this new estate segregated from Tahnee Lodge & become it's own entity.
Please keep most of the pine trees and make it affordable for Tahnee Estate residents children to purchase.
As a neighbouring property that has never been overlooked, I have concerns regarding our privacy and outlook. I am not necessarily against the proposal, but would like to ensure that the trees that divide the 2 properties remain (or are at least replaced with others that would also provide significant privacy and an outlook consistent with what is already in place). I would also like to ensure that privacy windows are used, as I would not feel comfortable with people overlooking our back garden or into our kitchen and living room windows as this has never been the case before.
No more ugly monstrossaties on this street
Hi, we’re an immediate neighbour to this property and we never received any notification of works happening next door, nor did any sign go up.
We were just wondering what is happening next door and whether it will affect us? My two kids are severely asthmatic so if there’s large amounts of dust headed our way I’d prefer to have them out of the house. The planning alerts website only makes mention of “something” happening that falls under the special building overlay. I’m assuming a shed or a granny flat? If somebody could confirm this with us ASAP that would be great as works commenced yesterday.
Only the Karens and Nimbys of Seaford are against this. Seaford is a suburb that exists on the busy Nepean highway. A plethora of cafes, fast food, available. Get over it. Pathetic, welcome to 2021
Really can’t believe you’re entertaining this planning proposal again!
The traffic is already dangerous and banks up at the Seaford Rd/Nepean Hwy intersection due to the access to Safeway plus lots of pedestrians/cars accessing the beach using both roads.
This traffic is getting worse due to the fact so many units/townhouses have been built with no road infrastructure to improve traffic. The extra driveways with drivers distracted sifting through their fast food as they exit the premises. Someone's likely to pull out on a car travelling at 70kmh causing a fatality or run over a pedestrian.
Litter is already a major problem along the Seaford beach. The council does little to nothing to manage this. It's become resident’s responsibility to clean up the rubbish throughout the year, 10x worse on warm days with takeaway packaging left on the beach and nature strips!
With significant ecological flora, it’s managed to remain almost untouched in the last 100 years after the initial development of Seaford, unlike any other suburb along the bay. Does it need extra rubbish in both waterways from a major franchise and another service station with the potential of leaking tanks polluting the ground water?
If you look along Nepean Hwy/Beach Road there aren't any major fast food franchises directly opposite the beach in any other council with fast food drive throughs. Why does Seaford need this compared to the flourishing cafe/food strip and heathy eating culture growing within our suburb and every other council electorate? It's not what you want to see driving along our pristine coastline. This strip of coastline in Seaford is unique. With the walking trails along the beach and Kananook Creek dating back over 100 years also the beautiful wetlands. Why spoil it?
Statics show after hours violence exponentially grows at major fast food franchises/service stations with drunk/drug effected people hanging around.
I know I'd feel less safe walking to the only large supermarket in the suburb of Seaford if the intersection was full drunk/ drug effected teens/adults since it'll be a congregation point along with distracted drivers leaving the premise.
Therefore I’d like to submit my objection to the re-zoning of the land and also the currently proposed development