Two More 3 storey appartment blocks in Glendale Ave Templestowe, Talford St, East Doncaster
The trend is catching on with developers, you need to make your views clear to the council as well!
More Details, and Contact on our battle card , or click the links below:
The “close dates” are not the last chance to object – the Council must accept your objection up to the day they vote ( Councils Monthly meeting.)
Better not to wait though have a look, and send in a form today.
2 Comments
This is our objection form. Feel free to use some of these points in submitting your own but PLEASE change the wording to make it reflect your own style and opinions.
————————
Submission /objection to grant of planning permit.
Application number PL 11 / 022394
Address of the subject land: 47 – 49 Glendale Avenue
Description of the proposal: Construction of a three storey building comprising 14 apartments and a sub-basement car park.
Name of applicant: A1 Drafting
Details of submission/objection:
We object on the following points;
Car Parking. It seems from the plans for a 14 apartment building that there has been only a small allowance for car parking. This will affect us, and all in our street (Glendale Avenue), in many ways as there is often limited parking within our street without the addition of 10 plus cars per day. 15 spaces and one or two spaces for residents of 14 apartments is simply not enough off street parking.
This will congest Glendale Avenue and prove difficult to enter, exit and travel along Glendale Avenue. We object to having such limited car parking for residents of any building and their visitors.
Additional traffic. With approximately 20-25 additional residents with cars within Glendale avenue, there will be more congestion trying to turn left at the bottom of Glendale Avenue and when any car needs to travel west on Foote Street they will travel to the West end of Glendale Avenue and exit where Hovea Street meets Foote Street. This will place a large amount of additional traffic on Glendale Avenue and especially during peak hours. This is already a concern without the additional 20-25 vehicles expected by this proposal.
We do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to the traffic issues and these must be addressed prior to council approval. We object to the additional volume of traffic that will be introduced to Glendale Avenue if this proposal is approved.
Height. The height of the proposed building is not in suit with the surrounding houses in the street(s). Residents in Glendale Avenue have a maximum of two storey dwellings.
This will place a taller, larger building that not only stands out and detracts away from everything else, but will be an eyesore at the end of our beautiful street. We object to a three storey building within Glendale Avenue. A two storey building would be more suited to not only the street, but also the area.
From council meeting notes from a meeting dated 26 October 2010, it is noted that within point 3.18 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 (DD08,) that there is a policy of three storey buildings in sub-precinct A need to be stepped down at the perimeter of sub-precinct A to present an appropriate and attractive interface to sub-precinct B (refer below).
This development does not meet this requirement and furthermore presents a three storey apartment style complex within sub-precinct B. This is the reverse of this guideline/policy and we object to the height of this proposal based on these grounds.
To ensure that the scale, height and form of three storey ‘apartment style’ developments are sufficiently stepped down at the perimeter of sub-precinct A to present an appropriate and attractive interface to sub-precinct B, or other adjoining precinct, as identified in Map 1 to this Schedule.
Also, in the draft Manningham Draft Residential Strategy document sourced from the Manningham Council Website,
http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/maccwr/_assets/main/lib90261/residential%20strategy%20insert_lr_spreads.pdf
it shows this property in a substantial property area, (colour coded purple) which notes multi-unit development up to two storeys.
Furthermore, the minimum lot size for sub-precinct A is 1800 m2. This proposal does not fall under sub-precinct A, but also at 1444.36m2 is well under this minimum. We object to the development remaining as three storeys given the proposed building does not meet the council’s own guidelines, in this area.
Set back from the Street. Approximately six years ago we extended our residence and were told that we could not build any structure past the average setback of the adjoining properties. From what we have been told (in the limited time we had to prepare this objection), we believe the proposed setback is 6 metres, whereas the adjoining property has their building approximately eight and a half metres from the street.
We are very concerned that the council’s regulations seem to have changed to suit developers. We object to the setback being any further forward than the average of the adjoining properties.
Inadequate notice to object. It seems that the developer has submitted the plans for approval at a time when most residents are on holidays and away from their homes. We only returned from holidays to find the notice/sign on the property by chance. This affects us greatly by minimising our ability to respond and object properly. The Melbourne Weekly magazine recently had an article on just this development and the council’s poor timing on the acceptance of the application.
We object to the bad timing of the application and the minimal time we have had to respond and object to this proposal.
At minimum, we believe the council should extend the deadline for objections to this proposal. We are unsure how the council would allow this to happen.
We are led to believe that a proposal was put to council by the owner to build town houses that did suit the area well. Why did council reject this proposal?
We believe this proposal will have a grave and detrimental impact on our street and the surrounding area. We believe the large scale of this complex will see increases in traffic within Glendale Avenue, traffic congestion (within peak times) at both ends on Glendale Avenue, cars parked on the street, noise in general and with this type of building it devaluates the land and property we own in Glendale Avenue.
This proposal simply does not suit our street and neighbourhood. We bought our property in this area to ensure we were in quiet street that had a lot of trees. This building will change that in many ways.
Jane and David Saunders
21 Glendale Avenue, Templestowe
Submission /objection to grant of planning permit.
Application number PL 11 / 022394
Address of the subject land: 47 – 49 Glendale Avenue
Description of the proposal: Construction of a three storey building comprising 14 apartments and a sub-basement car park.
Name of applicant: A1 Drafting
Details of submission/objection:
We object on the following points;
Car Parking. It seems from the plans for a 14 apartment building that there has been only a small allowance for car parking. This will affect us, and all in our street (Glendale Avenue), in many ways as there is often limited parking within our street without the addition of 10 plus cars per day. 15 spaces and one or two spaces for residents of 14 apartments is simply not enough off street parking.
This will congest Glendale Avenue and prove difficult to enter, exit and travel along Glendale Avenue. We object to having such limited car parking for residents of any building and their visitors.
Additional traffic. With approximately 20-25 additional residents with cars within Glendale avenue, there will be more congestion trying to turn left at the bottom of Glendale Avenue and when any car needs to travel west on Foote Street they will travel to the West end of Glendale Avenue and exit where Hovea Street meets Foote Street. This will place a large amount of additional traffic on Glendale Avenue and especially during peak hours. This is already a concern without the additional 20-25 vehicles expected by this proposal.
We do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to the traffic issues and these must be addressed prior to council approval. We object to the additional volume of traffic that will be introduced to Glendale Avenue if this proposal is approved.
Height. The height of the proposed building is not in suit with the surrounding houses in the street(s). Residents in Glendale Avenue have a maximum of two storey dwellings.
This will place a taller, larger building that not only stands out and detracts away from everything else, but will be an eyesore at the end of our beautiful street. We object to a three storey building within Glendale Avenue. A two storey building would be more suited to not only the street, but also the area.
From council meeting notes from a meeting dated 26 October 2010, it is noted that within point 3.18 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 (DD08,) that there is a policy of three storey buildings in sub-precinct A need to be stepped down at the perimeter of sub-precinct A to present an appropriate and attractive interface to sub-precinct B (refer below).
This development does not meet this requirement and furthermore presents a three storey apartment style complex within sub-precinct B. This is the reverse of this guideline/policy and we object to the height of this proposal based on these grounds.
To ensure that the scale, height and form of three storey ‘apartment style’ developments are sufficiently stepped down at the perimeter of sub-precinct A to present an appropriate and attractive interface to sub-precinct B, or other adjoining precinct, as identified in Map 1 to this Schedule.
Also, in the draft Manningham Draft Residential Strategy document sourced from the Manningham Council Website,
http://www.manningham.vic.gov.au/maccwr/_assets/main/lib90261/residential%20strategy%20insert_lr_spreads.pdf
it shows this property in a substantial property area, (colour coded purple) which notes multi-unit development up to two storeys.
Furthermore, the minimum lot size for sub-precinct A is 1800 m2. This proposal does not fall under sub-precinct A, but also at 1444.36m2 is well under this minimum. We object to the development remaining as three storeys given the proposed building does not meet the council’s own guidelines, in this area.
Set back from the Street. Approximately six years ago we extended our residence and were told that we could not build any structure past the average setback of the adjoining properties. From what we have been told (in the limited time we had to prepare this objection), we believe the proposed setback is 6 metres, whereas the adjoining property has their building approximately eight and a half metres from the street.
We are very concerned that the council’s regulations seem to have changed to suit developers. We object to the setback being any further forward than the average of the adjoining properties.
Inadequate notice to object. It seems that the developer has submitted the plans for approval at a time when most residents are on holidays and away from their homes. We only returned from holidays to find the notice/sign on the property by chance. This affects us greatly by minimising our ability to respond and object properly. The Melbourne Weekly magazine recently had an article on just this development and the council’s poor timing on the acceptance of the application.
We object to the bad timing of the application and the minimal time we have had to respond and object to this proposal.
At minimum, we believe the council should extend the deadline for objections to this proposal. We are unsure how the council would allow this to happen.
We are led to believe that a proposal was put to council by the owner to build town houses that did suit the area well. Why did council reject this proposal?
We believe this proposal will have a grave and detrimental impact on our street and the surrounding area. We believe the large scale of this complex will see increases in traffic within Glendale Avenue, traffic congestion (within peak times) at both ends on Glendale Avenue, cars parked on the street, noise in general and with this type of building it devaluates the land and property we own in Glendale Avenue.
This proposal simply does not suit our street and neighbourhood. We bought our property in this area to ensure we were in quiet street that had a lot of trees. This building will change that in many ways.
Jane and David Saunders
21 Glendale Avenue, Templestowe