I would like to object. I feel there shouldn't be a rooming house right near an aged care facility. Also volunteering two days a week in Rosebud, and dealing with residents of rooming houses, I don't feel it's an ideal location for them as they require access to many services and organisations that aren't close to here. It is a 15 to 20 minute drive to Frankston in the car let alone by bus. A lot of residence of rooming houses don't like travelling on public transport due to how long it takes, paranoia of people following or staring at them plus high anxiety in public. We have no community support centres, job providers, salvocare, mental health services to name a few. From my experience in Rosebud, they usually walk or ride a bicycle to where they need to go. I also volunteer with a program called splash, providing meals, shower and laundry service, plus food parcels. There are many services in Frankston that provide meals and food too. I feel that until we in Langwarrin get more services that can provide for those residence, Langwarrin is not an area to have rooming houses.
All recent comments on applications from Frankston City Council, VIC
A single dwelling would be far more appropriate than the proposed two story monstrosity. There are plans to subdivide even though this is not stated on the planning permit. The building to land size % is very concerning especially given it’s already been subdivided in 2014.
Re: 18 Bembridge Ave
This proposed double storey 'block' a concern given it will overlook both 16 and 20 Bembridge Ave back garden/living areas giving very little privacy to both occupants.
The overall development is in a tight space on an already previously subdivided block.
If anything a single storey dwelling should be considered.
The construction of nine dwellings is still problematic for neighbours and users of Aquaduct Rd. This is due to the additional residents vehicle either being kept on the premises, or on the street, plus any visitors to the new dwellings. Aquaduct Road is a narrrow road already, so much so it doesn't require centre line markings. Additional levels of traffic in this small, quiet street will impact existing residents, and possibly prove to be a traffic hazard, with increased risk of accidents.
Please reconsider this application.
To the planning authority Frankston City Council.
I have viewed the plans and planning documents and strongly object to the proposed two( 2) dwellings on a lot and ultimate subdivision of 174 & 176 Overport Road, Frankston South.
Application Number 162/2020/P
The subject site is located in Frankston South Precinct Eight ( FSO8) A low density residential area of large houses on extensive grounds in an environmentally sensitive rural bush setting. It is a minimal change area in Frankston's Housing Strategy.
The proposal seeks to build a second dwelling on a lot less than 2500 sq m ( Lot 2) which is at odds with the minimal allotment size in DDO1 and for the FS08 area.
The proposal is sited within a significant landscape overlay SLO3 and designated a minimal change area in the Frankston Housing Strategy 2018 . Minimal change areas were created to further protect the significant and established environmental, neighbourhood character and heritage values of designated residential areas.
The proposal seeks to retain just two (2) trees, with all remaining trees and vegetation to create Lot 2 to be removed. The proposal fails to avoid or minimize vegetation and canopy tree loss and therefore also fails to contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of the low density treed character of Frankston South. Disturbingly it appears ( when viewing the background in the pictures of tree 17, tree 19 and tree 13 in the arborist report) that mature trees have been felled prior to submitting the application.
The combined site coverage of the proposed Building, Carport, Driveway, Swimming Pool, Entertainment area and Paths in Lot 2 do not enable enough space for substantial planting of vegetation and the inclusion of canopy trees - both of which define the character of Frankston South and support and protect Frankston South’s environmental and biodiversity attributes. This lack of space may explain why a landscape plan for Lot 2 did not form part of this application.
The proposal also seeks the removal of numerous dead trees ( stags) Of particular concern is the proposed removal of the stag on the western boundary ( Tree 1) to facilitate the proposed easement. 5 years ago this was a living tree (Eucalyptus sp.) albeit in a declined state. It was felled in a sensitive way as to retain it’s hollows. The proposals arboricultural report failed to note/observe the hollows present in that stag ( Tree 1). It is therefore safe to assume that hollows, nesting sites and the presence of Fauna were also not noted/observed by the arborist throughout the subject site. How will wildlife be protected? Hollows can take up to 100 years to form and they provide shelter and nesting sites for so many of our native animals. Natural habitat for our native animals, including tree hollows are being destroyed at an alarming rate, resulting in diminished numbers and/or unsustainable remaining populations. The presence of native animals and the provision of habitat is also a significant element of the character of Frankston South.
The proposal’s use of clause 52.12-2 to seek exemption for a permit to remove vegetation and trees to facilitate the proposed driveway of Lot 2 is flawed. Clause 52.12-2 in relation to clearing vegetation along a boundary fence directs that a maximum combined width of four metres of vegetation can be removed along an existing property boundary fence. The maximum width of four metres can be divided in any manner that the two landowners agree to. For example, two metres either side of the fence, or one metre on one side and three metres on the other side. As the driveway of 176 Overport road runs parallel to the proposed driveway of Lot 2 and currently provides a large vegetation free width of ‘defendable space’ along the full length of western boundary the requirements of clause 52.12-2 are already met.
The proposal is situated in a Bushfire Prone area and therefore Clause 13.02-1S must be considered when assessing the application, particularly ‘Use and development control in a Bushfire Prone Area’ and ‘Areas of biodiversity conservation value’
The proposed driveway width ( 3 meters) of Lot 2 appears not adequate to allow the safe access for fire trucks. Provision for an adequate turning circle for emergency services including fire trucks should also be required.
The proposed areas set aside for ‘landscaping’ either side of Lot 2’s proposed driveway ( 750mm either side) do not allow enough space for meaningful planting or the inclusion for planting canopy trees. Furthermore, the proposed driveway of Lot 2 runs parallel to the existing driveway of 176 Overport road- and if allowed to proceed would result in a vast, wide, non vegetated expanse which would negatively impact the streetscape thus character of the area.
The proposed easement to facilitate egress from Lot 2 is not compliant with accessway objectives or reflects the pattern of development in this locale. Furthermore, the junction of the proposed easement with the driveway of 176 Overport Road poses a risk for collisions and denies the opportunity for planting vegetation or trees on the corner boundary splay.
I chose to live in Frankston South because of the single houses on large treed ‘leafy’ blocks and the rural ‘bush like’ setting which supports our native animals. If given approval the proposal will affect me for all the aforementioned reasons as it will have a negative impact on the character and biodiversity of my neighbourhood.
I thank Council for considering my objection and urge Council not to let this inappropriate proposal proceed.
We are concerned re overdevelopment in this area. This whole area of South Frankston is becoming overcrowded due to higher density housing, spoiling the ambiance, amenity and possibly impacting the natural environment of the Sweetwater Reserve. Access roads to McCombe Boulevard have become more congested causing dangerous conditions for vehicle and pedestrian traffic due to speed and reduced visibility past parked cars.
We are concerned re the loss of parking at the shops which Already overflows at busy times especially now that there are 2 cafes and a restaurant. The intersection of Norman Avenue and Fleetwood Crescent becomes very crowded and dangerous when cars are parked near the intersection in Fleetwood Crescent blocking one direction of traffic flow.
We are also concerned about increased traffic in the whole of Fleetwood Crescent which is where we live due to cars going to and from the shops.
This whole area of South Frankston is becoming overcrowded due to higher density housing, spoiling the ambiance, amenity and possibly impacting the natural environment. Of the Sweetwater Reserve. Traffic and on-street parking has also increased causing dangerous road conditions due to speed and reduced visibility past parked cars.
Maybe to ease traffic congestion at Cranbourne rd they could put an on and off ramp at Sky rd and even Robinson’s rd this would help heaps
I agree that that is a bloody bad spot to put an ambulence station right on top of such a busy intersection and then what will happen when an ambulance is trying to enter the road with lights and sirens on and the traffic has to suddrnly brake hard im concerned this will cause a lot of nose to tail accidents
What a terrible place to put an ambulance station. I agree the others regarding the traffic. It is a bad spot day or night.
Do the people at the council actually go out to the site to have a look, or do they just read a map. Please reconsider this spot.
It’s a great idea to have an ambulance station, just not in that place.
I’m concerned about the the impact it will have on traffic especially since the traffic conditions are already quite heavy at this particular intersection ... I’m also and even more concerned about the wildlife corridor which runs along this proposed site... I’d like to see council actively trying to preserve these areas of bush land and the wildlife that inhibit it rather than tearing it down... (far too much has been happening).
I agree with Chris such a bad intersection to be putting an ambulance station at
I second chris warne.
Hi
This intersection is already an absolute nightmare! The traffic congestion around morning and afternoon peak times is absolutely horrendous - even out of peak times it can be a challenge to drive from Peninsula Link onto McLelland Rd..
By putting an Ambulance Station on that corner, traffic would be increased considerably and it would have a massive negative effect on the flow of traffic. This corner can not take any further pressures on traffic.
Please do not approve this application unless enough car parks are provided, the area is already inundated with parked cars from new subdivisions, and parking for the station and hospital. With many more subdivisions planned in this the area it is only going to get worse. We own a house nearby and it is very dangerous getting out of the driveway especially during the day due to parked cars. Driving around the area which has quite narrow streets with cars parked on both sides of the road is also hazardous.
Sounds fine to me. We need to use land more efficiently.
It is regrettable that a substantial tree has to be removed, as well as native vegetation. It should be part of the approval process that at least three trees that will grow to a large size, be placed in appropriate positions to replace the one tree removed, as well as native vegetation suitable to the area.
Has this permit been approved for 19 dwellings ? Do you not think that 19 additional houses will create a nightmare in the local area ?
As long as additional vegitation is repaced and maintained ,i see no problem with the submission
My house backs on to this future service station site. Why was I not advised of this town planning application? I deserve the right to have been notified. I would like an explanation as to why I was not notified please.
Council needs to be stricter on these developments. This has been in planning since 2011 and the site has been vacant since then. The developers started demolishing the existing buildings before they even had finance to complete. Now the developers can't get finance, they can't sell the site, the market for apartments has collapsed, their permit has expired, and there is a massive unusable piece of prime real estate that is being wasted
The houses which the developers were obliged to protect are slowly decaying as the backs have been demolished leaving only the facades.
Council shouldn't have approved demolition until they had a financial guarantee they could build.
At this point the developers have no intention or capacity to construct, they have no finance and their only hope is to get the permit extended so they can sell it.
Even if the permit is extended there is no way they will find a buyer that will build this thing.
This project is dead and council should have known better than to think it could ever be a success
Height of proposed building is too high for beachside development. Lower buildings with shops no car park entrances along creek or facing the beach.
Move high rise buildings to the back of shops scaling the size lower at they reach the creek and or beach
Here is an objection - 14 storeys is WAY too high for his area. The South East Water building and Box Hill eyesores are an example. . This is beachside town not city side suburb. 8 storeys max. Allowing this eyesore to go through will ofcourse set a precedence to the area for more alike. An example will be the Caltex station now for sale which will be another high rise allowed here. ..just the beginning of the end. Wake up FCC you should know better - forget those extra rates and care for your special town.
What another set of boxes with carpet going up? Guess those extra rates to rake in are more important than the environment.
I have examined the plans and strongly object to the proposed development of three double story dwellings on 26 Seaview Road, Frankston South- application 271/2019/P.
Seaview Road is located in Frankston South precinct Eight ( FS08) A low density residential area of large houses on extensive grounds, in an environmentally sensitive rural bush setting. It is a Minimal Change Area in Frankston's housing strategy.
The proposed development is inappropriate for the site/location as it does not comply with nor reflect the character of the area. There are no examples of similar developments in Seaview Road, nor to my knowledge in the FS08 precinct.
The proposal is not appropriate for a minimal change area. It is however aligned with the designated substantial change areas.
The combined site coverage of the proposals buildings and driveways do not enable enough space for substantial plantings and the inclusion of canopy trees. Which is why , I presume, a landscape plan did not form part of the proposals application.
I chose to live in Frankston South because of the single house on large leafy blocks and if given approval the proposal with have a negative impact on the character of my neighbourhood and may well set a precedence for similar developments in my locale.
I thank council for considering my objection and urge council not to let this inappropriate proposal proceed.
Sincerely,
Kerry Rainer