All recent comments on applications from City of Stonnington, VIC

In the middle of a housing crisis using a residential property for a business is inappropriate. People need more housing, not less!
There is so much commercial real estate for sale or for lease on Waverley Rd that would be far more appropriate. Stonnington please reject this proposal. You have done so in the past.

This has got to be stopped - it looks like the little mock Tudor building on the corner is doomed? Why are we ruining the look & feel of an area that’s been adored for so long?

What’s next for this horrible built up area ? 😕

This application is hot on the tail of the recent VCAT ruling allowing the 8 storey development on the Mercedes site/ Carters Avenue to proceed. This is against even the council’s own height guidelines.
None of the residents’ objections were given consideration- 48 I believe. Passed over and given in to the developer.

The residents of this area are already affected by living close to the freeway and train station, neon light would be just another inconvenience to deal with.
This is a high traffic area with many near misses and accidents at the rail gates , a neon sign would be another distraction to motorists in an already dangerous crossing area.
This is not the right spot for a sign of this nature, something like this needs to be placed in a much more open area.

This sign would be pointing directly towards my apartment, and, importantly, shine its light into my bedroom. It would cause significant interruption into my ability to enjoy my residence, and interrupt my sleep every night. This permit should not be granted in such a residential area - there are many residents living in this commercially zoned area who would be negatively impacted by the construction of such a large & distracting sign.

It is wild that this type of simple request needs any approval from Council.
I'm not a small gov weirdo but this should be a no brainer.

I think this is a fantastic idea - and the inclusion of off street customer / staff parking is ideal.
On street parking can be challenging in the area - particularly with clearways - and the applicants submission to increase this number is absolutely fine.

I am the tenant of 400 High Street Windsor and wish to withdraw this application immediately

Firstly, how has Stonnington City Council (SCC) allowed a secondary amendment to be accepted for the moving a boundary fence, when one, boundary fences are a civil matter and nothing to do with Planning and secondly, if they were, why then is this not processed via a S72 amendment, when surely moving an entire boundary fence requires not only the permission of the adjoining property and I do not agree, but also as this would be a significant change, and would require public notification and the opportunity for people to submit objections. On the other hand, if SCC have accepted this secondary amendment for the moving of the boundary fence and it was meant for the internal wall arrangement, then the information provided is clearly inaccurate and therefore also misleading and I am asking SCC to decline the application and ask for this to be amended with full details of the amendments required via an S72 application as the changes are not minor, they are significant, such as the floating driveway the owner wants to be built over the exiting non compliant retaining wall to cover all the bends in it, and this would entail raising the driveway levels higher than the endorsed plans, as at present, the RW is quite a lot higher than the approved driveway levels, and that’s not a minor amendment as not only would the levels be again changed, but also levels would be extended flush up against the actual existing boundary fence, and this would include installing either within the current void or on top of the extended driveway, an internal wall front to rear that from my natural ground level at that very boundary would be almost at 4 meters in height, which is my Northern boundary, so there will be no thanks for the significant loss of natural sunlight all in the name of creating a sufficient driveway that pre erecting another retaining wall to cover up underpinning of townhouse one without planning permission was 3 meters and sufficient as per endorsed plans, and yet now with the new RW, the adding of vehicle bollards and not to mention covering up the crooked existing retaining wall with a floating driveway, then if Council approve this, then your sending me a message that as a single home owner, I don’t matter, I am garbage to you, with no consideration to my basic human rights i.e. natural sunlight etc., unlike the three sets of rates at the neighboring property who are treated favorably and a driveway proposal such as this over living alongside a 4 meter wall, my right to sunlight just stolen from me and therefore my health and wellbeing would decline even further would send a clear message to all the other single story home owners, unless of course you’re a somebody.

This will look like a shopping center car park with floating driveways vehicle bollards, a 4 meter wall front to rear and a plethora of concrete retaining walls with little to nothing in green spaces, a concrete jungle, and is not only being built over a storm water easement, it will also push that burden onto my property having an obstruction on the other side of the existing boundary fence some 4 meters in height either preventing or hindering me from repairing or replacing the existing paling boundary fence now and in the future where and boundaries are supposed be sharded not one sided, whilst this will also prevent me from building alongside the boundary in the future when it's been entirely taken up at the boundary when it should have at least a gap of around 500 mm which in its present state, is thereabouts, more would be preferred.

This is being proposed at my Northern boundary and I only have one, that any further loss of natural sunlight will harm my health and wellbeing as already this has contributed to my decline in health, my depression amongst other issues, and it's a basic human right to sunlight and this is not asking of much when it’s a basic human right. It's fine for everyone involved to go home to a warm bed when my homes dynamics have detrimentally changed forever where it remains cold through the continual floodings over the past 7.5 years from this same development and the already reduced loss of natural sunlight that should be warming my home and feeding my plants and trees and or my solar panels, that this will not only be mass bulk, but also visual, and previously when it was suggested to build within the void in Council reports that I have copies off, this was rejected from Council for those very reasons, so based on that alone, to change and flop fop now would be cause for me to take this back to VCAT and is hinging on that now as proposed amendments have not been brought to light through any amendments, rather one amendment that is entirely misleading and as these are significant amendments, they should be processed via an S72 application.

For those who are unaware, You can make a secondary consent amendment if the changes are minor, and these are not. These changes are more significant and require a Section 72 amendment. A Section 72 application follows a similar to a new permit application - this means it may include public notification and the opportunity for people to submit objections. To not process under an s72 is of significance in that secondary consent applications do not require public notification and accordingly third-party appeal rights do not exist and Council is taking this away from us.

I'm supportive! Let's get this housing approved and built in a great location that's close to amenities and transport routes! No setbacks needed either!

I live locally - Please dont allow a car detailing place to work out of the back end. It is a residential area and parking is already at a premium - half the time you cannot turn right from waverley rd into Bowen st due to parked cars. Anything that increases that problem should not be considered. Has anything about chemical or water disposal been considered with respect to runoff? Surely a car detailing area should have traps and reticulation processes? Would that be a noise contributor to the area. ie: water pumps? constant vacuum noises etc? Happy to have a coffee shop but not if a commercial enterprise such as what is proposed is part of it.

Submission to City of Stonnington re:507/19, amendment of existing permit for 851-853 Dandenong Rd., cnr of Clarence Street.
1. The area around Monash already has a glut of student housing/transit accomodation in a major residential area.
2. Adding 2 more floors to make 10, making it the tallest building on the Dandenong Road road block of apartments east of Dan Murphy, will definitely impact on the liveability of the immediate mainly two-storeyed residential areas. There is already a tower west of Dan Murphy, The Sebel Melbourne, Malvern, overlooking the same area.
3.The building has no basement, so parking on the site will be reduced from 66 -13 places. Parking is already scarce and hectic in the same vicinity.
3. The rooftop is set aside for common amenities for students: open-air noise issues.
4. Increasing the number of storeys will have serious impact/precedent for other currently undeveloped sites nearby (Dan Murphy, Swimwear Galore and other sites).
5. The regulations are there to protect neighbourhoods not waive them for Developer profit.

I strongly oppose this lot being developed.The application states 10 or more apartments., so the number of apartments on this site is vague. Add this to the lot next door where an application was submitted to Stonnington council for a 4 story, 29 dwelling, 78 car parking spaces all accessed by rear laneway, is without question going to impact a large surrounding area. If any councilors or developers live near these two sites they will already be aware of the problems on the corner of Burke road and Wattletree road. These areas can't possibly handle anymore volume. It has become unsafe to access this area on foot and also for motorists. Lets not forget the 94 apartment complex just around the corner. A percentage of cars already break road rules at this site. Jumping red lights, cutting off pedestrains as they walk on a walk light.
As motorists grow frustrated and impatient the danger gets worse. If more cars access this intersection the percentage of drivers breaking the rules will grow. Just because you can fit high density on a perticular block doesn't mean to say you should always approve the application.

Once again the applicants are using an incorrect photo
First time it was the rear carparks at 5 Avoca
Now it’s a photo of 52 Caroline street .
Is it an attempt to confuse ?
Get it right !

Another high rise application.
Already so many retail premises closed and rents unaffordable along Chapel Street.
The heritage of Chapel Street should be protected and restored not overlapped with multi-storey buildings.
And a waiver on car parking provision as well!

What was finally approved

There is no precedent for units in this area No more that 2 dwellings on a block should be allowed for under 850m2 to maintain neighbourhood amenity

5-15 Willoby Avenue;

This planning application via Vic Smart is totally inappropriate as Caulfield Grammar and local residents are close to finalising a master plan which covers the same land.

The VCAT agreed master plan will be compromised if ad-hoc planning applications are allowed, this one and two other currently with Council.

After nearly 4 years of discussions on the master plan, it should be allowed to be concluded without other permit applications being allowed for the same properties.

To do otherwise is to erode the agreement that Caulfield Grammar made with residents at VCAT.

Geoff Oliver

An 8 sorry building in this precinct is going to block so much light to the majority of properties in Ross Street, Carters and Mathoura Road and completely dominate, and close in, what is “Toorak Village”.
It is a huge site and, when redeveloped should be at most, low rise and in keeping with the surrounding new developments.
This plan was flagged in the newspaper last year and should be high on the council’s agenda to manage the land grab of what is a charming neighbourhood.
It is going to completely ruin the skyline views from every perspective, increase traffic on the side streets and increase noise to the residents. This development needs serious scrutiny and limitations from all parties to ensure the existing residents’ and merchants’ are not swamped by such a huge development. There must be a vigorous objection by all parties who live and work in the vicinity.
Apropos to this, the development of high rise apartments on the corner of Mathoura Road and Toorak Road is already passed and going ahead.

Seeks to impose condition of consent that the illumination of signage be controlled by means of a timer, so that it is not illuminated between one hour after sunset and at no other times before sunrise daily as otherwise there will be unacceptable amenity impacts.

Seeks to impose consent condition that the total area of signage is to not exceed 1.0 square metre.

Seeks to impose consent condition that when the signage is erected, that no portion of it shall be in any area above, or within 300mm below, the upper height of the boundary fence.

The consent conditions are necessary to prevent adverse amenity, character and context impacts and avoid unacceptable visual clutter for road users at night, and weigh carefully the local and wider community needs.

In the event that the conditions sought are not acceptable to the applicant, the proposal should be refused.