This planned development is one storey too high and NOT in line with all other developments in Wattletree Rd and Burke Rds.
It should be no taller than two storeys. If this is approved it will change the vista and ultimately allow for this to become the norm. There is enough overshadowing already without adding an additional level to such a large footprint.
Access via rear laneway is already heavily used and the planned 84 car parking spaces is completely inappropriate and unreasonable for such a small space and for current residents.
Finally, the existing apartment buildings in Wattletree and Burke Rds are of a high quality build and quite frankly an estimated building cost of $15m suggests a very cheap build for so many apartments.
I hope every aspect of this development is thoroughly scrutinised and examined for all the impacts this will have on direct neighbours both existing apartments and single occupancy dwellings, as well as the traffic congestion in the laneway/side streets and ultimately Wattletree Rd which is so close to an intersection.
All recent comments on applications from City of Stonnington, VIC
Malvern is becoming a suburb of apartment buildings. Stonnington council is selling off our beautiful suburb to developers. It’s a disgrace Stonnington!
Another beautiful old house to be demolished....what a disgrace.
The purchaser/developer knew the site restrictions before purchasing.
Inappropriate development in the zone, particularly given the Heritage overlay
The planning application to remove and demolish the tree has been removed / withdrawn.
Great objections done by Brian, Shauna-Marie, Frances, Gail, Ant and Ilona.
What were the developers thinking!?
REALLY. .. this closure is because of the corner development?? It’s been closed for a long length of time and no works going on. How long will this inconvenience be .. 1-2 years. Please advise?? The traffic build up and delays on Grange Road and the inconvenience of Bruce Ave closure is going yo be very lengthy isn’t it.
REALLY. .. this closure is because of the corner development?? It’s been closed for a long length of time and no works going on. How long will this inconvenience be .. 1-2 years. Please advise?? The traffic build up and delays on Grange Road and the inconvenience of Bruce Ave closure is going yo be very lengthy isn’t it.
If there's a street tree ( public asset on public land ) on the Rockley side of the property ...
a neighbour ir other resident has no authority to give permission to remove it.
What were they thinking?
To everyone that has written here in Planning Alerts,
All your comments and objections need to be sent directly to the Stonnington Planning Dept.
A number of councils say they don't accept comments from PA.
It's great to see a few people getting involved. The Australian Standard for tree mng't at construction sites has been around for years.
I agree with the comment above
Against permit application 0406/22
removal of tree on Alexander Ave.
This proposed removal of a mature tree in a stand of trees of similar age and size should not be removed. How can this be even be considered by Stonnington Council. A large tree of this size cannot be replaced by a new tree where it would stand out as a gap in the continuous row off trees.
I wish to make a further submission regarding the tree removal and development activity at this address. I seek these conditions for both the land under the Applicant's control and trees in the public realm adjacent to the private land:
Prior to the endorsement of plans, that is plans for any current or proposed construction activity, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) must be submitted
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Should those plans be already endorsed if the responsible authority decides to grant a permit for the proposed tree removal, I urge it to do so only if the Applicant agrees to immediately amend any endorsed construction and development plans for the subject site, to add a TMP in the manner proposed by me.
The TMP must be prepared by a suitably qualified Arborist, whose place of business is within the Greater Melbourne Area, and reviewed by an Arborist employed, engaged or appointed by, the responsible authority, and make specific recommendations in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4970: 2009 - Protection of Trees on Development Sites to ensure that the tree subject of this development application (as per an arboricultural assessment by an arborist to be appointed by the responsible authority) and the trees located within 3 metres of the site remain healthy and viable during construction. The TMP must include the following to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority:
a) A tree protection plan to scale that shows:
i. All Tree Protection Zones and Structural Root Zones
ii. All Tree Protection Fencing
iii. Areas where ground protection systems will be used
iv. The type of footings within any Tree Protection Zone
v. The location of services within any Tree Protection Zone
b) The location and design of Tree Protection Fencing.
c) Details of appropriate footings within the Tree Protection Zone.
d) The method of installing any services through the Tree Protection Zone
e) Details of how the root zone within the Tree Protection Zone will be managed
throughout the project.
f) A timetable outlining works requiring supervision by the Project Arborist.
g) The results of any exploratory trenching where there is encroachment
(construction or excavation) greater than 10 per cent into the Tree Protection
Zone (in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970:2009 - Protection of
Trees on Development Sites) of any tree to be retained. This must include
photographic evidence of any trenching/ excavation undertaken.
h) All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on the tree during
the development of the site. The pruning comments must reference Australian
Standards 4373:2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees and a detailed photographic
diagram specifying what pruning will occur.
When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the
TMP will be endorsed to form part of this permit, and the permit for any construction activity proposed or being undertaken on the privately held land at this address. The recommendations of the endorsed TMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Crossovers and road access proposed are to be relocated to the satisfaction of the responsbible authority if they are in the TMP.
Permeability within the site may need to be increased to produce an environmentally sustainable whole site outcome and also ensure suitable conditions are maintained in the TMP.
TMP areas of the site are to be maintained as permeable.
No fill is to be deposited upon the TMP areas except with the consent of the responsible authority.
No motor vehicles or trailers are to be parked upon the TMP areas at any time. No shared driveway or crossover is to be routed over any TMP area.
All canopy trees planted within the site are to be at a minimum height of 1.8 metres and minimum potted size of 400mm.
Overall I still urge the Responsible Authority to refuse the tree removal permit, and in the alternate only approve the tree removal with the conditions above becoming attached to any development proposal and construction activity at the address.
I was not aware that planning permit had been requested or issued for the building in Howitt Street. I have not seen anything advertised on the building.
My apartment address 203/4 Cromwell Road overlooks this building. My concern is the parking. The entrance to our car park is located at the end of Howitt Street. Parking is already at a premium in Howitt Street probably from Victoria House visitors and other business's in the street. At night parking in the street can be full as people from other properties around the area park there.
Worst of all though is the access to our underground car park. Cars constantly block our entrance whether we are departing or arriving. When they can't find a park in the street they turn around in front of our car park which can be very frustrating blocking our exit or entry. I am fed up with it.
I would have thought that with all the planning applications and photos required/street shots etc, it would have been quite clear long ago which tree everyone is talking about.
Hopefully, whoever is responsible for its removal, knows which one to remove but this needs to be clarified with council and residents, in writing, by Hacer.
I would have thought that with all the planning applications and photos required/street shots etc, it would have been quite clear long ago which tree everyone is talking about.
Hopefully, whoever is responsible for its removal, knows which one to remove but this needs to be clarified with council and residents, in writing, by Hacer.
There appears to be some confusion regarding this application as tree shown is not tree to be removed. Hacer representative said today tree in application is on Rockley road side of development, and removal has been agreed with neighbour.
I was intrigued by the flippant remarks by the developer “removal of one tree “ , so intrigued that I googled the sight and was horrified to see the size and importance on the “one tree”,
The developers Architects would have to be aware of its existence in the planning process .
And now lodged permit to remove it ?
The tree must be retained at all costs .
It too much too late and the developers made to accommodate its presence
I get tired of hearing “ but it’s just one tree”
Let’s trust that common sense will
prevail and the tree stays ‼️
I agree with the submissions of Brian Hunter and Ilona Miklosvary made today.
The heritage value of the tree to the public realm and surrounding residents is undoubtedly huge.
The proposal to remove the tree responds negatively to the heritage value of the tree.
As an alternative to the tree removal, other suitable works may be undertaken.
It is unclear that the only appropriate outcome is removal of the tree.
The tree removal should be reviewed by an arborist appointed by the responsible authority in addition to reviewing any material submitted by the applicant as it's far too easy to shop around and pay someone to say what you want to hear if you have significant financial resources.
I urge the responsible authority to refuse this proposal.
This is a significant established tree within the stand of trees lining Alexander Ave and thus should be preserved. This development were clearly aware that it was in its current location and its current size and did not seek to remove it under the VCAT application. Thus making application now could be termed “permit creep” whereby actions not allowed originally are then applied for in increments of much smaller actions. Thus this otherwise healthy and mature tree should not be removed simply because it is inconvenient.
As part of the planning process for this development the protection of street trees fronting Alexandra Avenue was paramount. The planning scheme for this locality was considered by VCAT as important because buildings were screened from the river by the predominate street trees, of which this is one.
This tree is in good health and is an inconvenience to the development because it inter fears with the exit path. This was pointed out to the developers during the planning process, but they said there would be no need to remove it.
As part of the planning process for this development the protection of street trees fronting Alexandra Avenue was paramount. The planning scheme for this locality was considered by VCAT as important because buildings were screened from the river by the predominate street trees, of which this is one.
This tree is in good health and is an inconvenience to the development because it inter fears with the exit path. This was pointed out to the developers during the planning process, but they said there would be no need to remove it.
Seems to me to be an overuse of the land - 10 or more units would mean 10 plus car spaces so perhaps a basement carpark and 2 or 3 stories high? How will the height impact the neighbor? Please ensure access is via Dandenong Rd and not Bruce St.
This site was originally 148 apartments correct? Now 96? Have apartments been combined? 148 apartments is crazy number for a suburban area. This stretch of high st already suffers traffic congestion due to train crossing, freeway and parking outside strip shops.
The council should restrict mega-apartment blocks. Especially modern style eyesores like this which devalue the heritage reputation of the area. Can council influence a traditional style more in-keeping with the existing look of the area which has made it so desirable. Big new apartment blocks in the area are looking more like medical centre’s.
Where are all the cars going to park for another 96 unit development - and don't say "car stackers", or seeking an exception from the minimum parking requirements. There is already a huge 148 apartment development immediately next door.
Beware building "off the plan" at present, with so many builders expected to go into receivership or declare bankruptcy...
Can you please explain why your ‘Read more information’ link contains no information?