All recent comments on applications from Wyndham City Council, VIC

We definitely need one swim school or recreational facility as there is none available in the Tarneit. Every other developing and developed suburbs have this facilities. We have to travel to different suburbs like Hoppers Crossing, Werribee to learn and enjoy those facilities.

Massive over development, out of character with the area. Would increase social dysfunction due to claustrophobia and transient ocupancy (what happened to the principle of social distancing?)

Increased hazard to pedestrians and existing road users

To all and any who care enough about their respective communities, willing to do something about it.

I am declaring my objection of the proposed ultra dense 32 double storey units at the end of Stewart drive in Werribee.

Parking accommodation
After studying the layouts provided and reading the supplied statement which states “2 car parks will be provided per unit”. There is no way, even if one car is garaged, 2 cars can occupy that space without impediment to traffic flow.

The statement also makes the claim where a 6 extra car allowance for visitors will be supplied at the front of the estate.

Example
If thirty two units have friends around on Christmas Day/ Boxing Day/ Easter weekend /Ramadan /Diwali or any other religious festivals, not forgetting the Melbourne Cup/ AFL / Rugby League/ premier league Grand finals, where Aussies of all social strata celebrate by getting and watching it together.
One could be very specific regarding crowd accumulating events but the gist is, car space provisions are seriously underestimated and under engineered and need serious attention before going forward.

Rubbish bin / Recycling bin / Green waste.
On any particular rubbish collection day the bins are queued outside every home facing outwards toward the street.
As the laneways, based on the illustrated layout are very tight so as to accommodate 32 units, ( total unit average, including shared lane, back yard, garage and living space is under 220 square metres) means a waste removal truck will not fit down said lane without compromised safety of people and property. And no allocation for a queued 64 bins have been committed at the Stewart Drive gateway.
Example
64 bins including required truck access gap equals approximately 64 metres standing along Stewart drive will be a significant impediment to local access.

As this objection is time critical and I work full time and have many other community commitments I have not been able to delve too deeply into the intricacies of this proposal.
Suffice it to say, as I have previously iterated, approx 220 Square meters averages out as Slum value and WAY too many units for the size of this block.

I trust this objection will be considered and taken into account.

Once again multiple dwellings on a site that was originally meant for a single dwelling . A site that was planned for as part of a community that could cope with that single dwelling for two cars for the roads around here , for the school entries around here snd the infra structure around here .Now we will have three houses that a minimum of 6 cars and possibly multiple children .Notice I say we will have as I’m sure you will pass this as you have all the multiple occupations on single dwellings so far
There is so much land around that is available please stop causing the over crowding of our community and our roads let alone the schools , GPs and hospitals

The infrastructure cannot support this type of high density accommodation.

My family and I strongly object the townhouse and apartment next to the school and child care. These apartments were not in original plan, the shopping center with a woolie was. We need more shops in that area to serve Allura and other near by communities. We have waited for 5+ year.

Here we go again
Although I’m feeling as is probably anyone else that voices their opinion ,what is the point ?.I have yet to see any planning applications turned down for multiple dwellings on single blocks, or increase to the original plans
Acknowledging our concerns is like saying sorry BUT
You need to fix the roads increase infrastructure to cope with what we have and what you’ve already agreed to over the last five years as all you keep doing is play catch up and applying a band aid . Prepare and stop having to be reactive to situations you have created

This clearly will mean, if every household has a least one vehicle, that will be 34 vehicles coming out of this address, in a already congested street.
Also once they approach top end of Stewart Drive to enter Shaws road, it will be very chaotic indeed,
The existing infrastructure simply cannot cope.

The issue here is that the State Government and Council have the notion that higher density leads to higher efficiency through better utilisation of existing assets.

In principle this is superficially a strong argument, but of course it ignores the fact that efficiency gains are immediatley swallowed up by ever growing bureacracy with appalling productivity, and there are many negative impacts of crowding people together. Social cohesion actually deteriorates as people retreat indoors for some privacy, rather than spend time socialising with neighbours across a clear boundary. The high density properties tend to be have higher turnover of tenants and owners as they recognise the disadvatages and cannot wait to move to another property which has privacy and space, as soon as they have the means to do so.

The government has cnaged the planning rules, to support this higher density, and Wyndham Council was not alert to the problems it creates, so did not object in a strong and forceful manner. In most applications Council officers have no option but to waive the application through, unless an organized campaign is mounted to strenuously object on grounds of safety, overshadowing etc, which are not addressed by Council's planners. Only a fraction of applications can be contested at VCAT and ones I have witnessed were lamely objected to by hapless, junior Council employee facing a developer with a well-remunerated lawyer doing the advocacy

The root cause of this is that many councillors are covertly aligned with the party that presently forms the State government and see winning a seat on Council as evidence they should be trusted to be preselected and maintain a seat in the Parliament, or for many the less impressive ones, be given a high-paid job in government in a post they are not qualified for, as a reward for their faithful service to the Party.

i.e. It is better for their future prospects if they "do not rock the boat."

If VCAT hearings (which are open to the public, like a Court hearing,) were held at location in our community, rather than in Melbourne CBD, the transparency would be improved and we would not have to travel to attend them. Councillors could also more easily attend to see first hand the problem.

By double story is that four units or two town houses ? Because the lot is two small for two single dwellings so let’s be greasy again and put two on
Back to back cramped houses lead to overcrowding of facilities , still not enough schools , GP surgeries etc etc and also health in general goes down
I’ve said it before we all have we all have enough land around us
Plan for the future surely that’s what councils role is , not to play catch up or band aid things
Stop building multiple dwellings on single lots

Hi,
We are confused as to why this application is coming through now? 10 Stringybark Close already has three double story houses well under construction on the lot and we were under the impression that the subdivision must have long since been approved.
If there have been any changes to this application recently could you please provide us with these details.

This block was slated for development into a child care centre. Now, it is being turned over to profiteering developers and instead of becoming an asset for the local residents it will decrease amenity and creating parking issues. A 5 unit proposal for a block of this size is an over development on a prominent corner site on the main road into this estate.

The above comment from Peter Savic doesnot present all the right facts about the site.

I live in Melton and works at Manor Lakes.
I travel on Ballan rd every day and its long and dangerous for motorcycles and cars.
This road will save my daily commute from 40 mins to 20 mins or less. This road will save lives from fatigue and accidents.

This is a residential area with plenty of liquor shops in Werribee CBD. Do not need another liquor store near here where there is plenty of drug dependence already.

The fence has fallen into our property.

This proposal for 16 units on a 2000m2 block is a gross over-development.
It is totally at odds with the amenity of the neighbouring properties that would have been purchased predominantly due to their low density.
There will also be significant parking issues potentially creating unsafe situations.
This proposal is not about sustainable living or better cities, it is purely and solely profit driven, with scant regard for not only existing residents but also those who will occupy the proposed units.
It should be rejected, if not it raises serious questions concerning the development policy and integrity of those making the decision.

I support the decision made by the residents of 1760 Dohertys Rd, Mount Cottrell. I hope for them this plan goes ahead.

I am happy for this to go ahead at 1760 Dohertys Rd Mount Cottrell Vic 3024z

The application was listed as educational centre but we can see a religious community also having their gatherings quite often at this place.
We never wanted to see any religious activities in our neighbourhood.
Please provide the details why the displayed notice was misleading.

Thanks

Thanks good to see this being progressed.

Cheers

Geoff

Just because a former residential block of land is large enough for being redeveloped into a "place of assembly" does not make it a suitable repurposing of that land. The typical redevelopment of these blocks into childcare, medical centres or multiple units results in manageable volumes of required parking.
A place of assembly, by its very nature, involves large numbers of people for extended periods. Given the location and lack of supporting transport infrastructure, this is going to lead to large numbers of vehicle movements and subsequent parking on what can, at times, become a very busy thoroughfare.
I firmly believe this to be an inappropriate redevelopment, with not only local amenity issues but far more importantly, significant and real safety concerns for passing traffic and those attending this facility.
On these grounds I strongly urge council to reject this proposal.

I object to this town house development.
The area is already overcrowded with townhouses.
The streets are busy and dangerous for children and cyclists with so much traffic.
Congestion to exit the estate in the morning and evening is bottlenecked.
Facilities are at their capacity and the tranquility of the area will be shattered.

The area is already over populated. There are over 100 townhouses in the estate. The new townhouses will be near several parks where children are always playing. The increase in traffic will created an unsafe environment for all. The already high traffic will increase and become unsafe specially for children. There are cars already parked all over the streets. The area cannot cope with that amount of new townhouses.

I am putting in an objection as the Saratoga Estate already has many townhouses already built within the estate, and anymore would over congest both the estate, neighbouring parks/playgrounds and the roads around the town houses due to cars parking all over the street. The estate is not as large as other estates in point cook however is overly populated with townhouses. The proposal doesn’t include any green space and parks limited already in this estate.