Stop inappropriate development in St Kilda!
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
This petition is in opposition to the proposed EIGHT story development plus roof top at 276-290 St Kilda Road, St Kilda.
Port Phillip Council have rejected the plans for several reasons outlines below. Saluki Investments are challenging this through VCAT.
VCAT reference # P441/2018. Tribunal hearing date begins 30th July 2018.In joining this petition, we ask the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to support the Port Phillip Council and its Planning Guidelines and reject this application for the following reasons:
- It completely ignores Port Phillip Council’s planning guidelines, of a maximum of 6 stories in a tiered construction. It is not within council planning scheme and minimum setbacks, excessive bulk scale.
- This proposed development is an over development of this site, including 67 apartments including 3 townhouses. A Total of 98 Bedrooms.
35 one-bedroom dwellings. • 27 x two-bedroom • 5 x three-bedroom dwellings.
- Safety and traffic concerns for the proposed 52 carpark access via one-way, no through 3m wide, cobblestone laneways Post office place.
- Safety, access and traffic concerns for 11 carpark and waste management access via narrow one way no through, private laneway off farmer stree
- Invasion of privacy. The sheer size and bulk of apartment windows, balconies and rooftop peering into bedrooms, outdoor areas of boarding homes and beyond.
- Overshadowing, impacting natural light and growth of vegetation.
-The subject site is an inappropriate location for the proposed development and use.
-The intensity and scale of the proposed development is inappropriate to a lower order street adjoining the subject site.
-The proposed development is not respectful of neighbourhood character, particularly by reason of its height, bulk, scale and setbacks to its immediate residential neighbours and the public realm to the west.
-The proposed development will result in the loss of vegetation and fails to provide an appropriate opportunity for new vegetation to compensate for this loss and for new landscaping, including canopy trees to respond to the policy outcomes for the subject site and the immediate area.
-The proposed use and development will generate an inappropriate level of traffic, having regard to the function of Farmer St and Bath Street as lower order residential streets.
-The design and location of car parking is not of a high standard and does not enable easy and efficient use.
-The proposed development will result in unsatisfactory shading for its immediate residential neighbours and the public realm to all directions due to its height, bulk, scale and lack of setbacks.
-The proposed development will present unreasonable visual bulk.
-The proposed development provides inadequate setbacks along all boundaries to provide meaningful opportunities for landscaping to filter views towards the building.
-The rooftop garden and terrace of the development will overlook the private enjoyment of adjoining neighbours.
-The car parking through either 'Post Office place to the south via Inkerman Street or a small laneway/row located off Farmer Street' will result in a conflict with other vehicles.
- The proposed development is opposed by clause 58 of the planning scheme with easement rights and the ultimate impact the proposed development would have on the easement;
- Failure to respond to clause 21.03-2 of planning scheme.
-Failure to respond or appropriately consider Urban design response and clause 22.06;
- Failure to consider solar access and private and public open space objectives;
- Poor internal amenity of the occupants of the proposed development;
- Noise amenity considerations;
- Failure to comply with the waste and recycling objectives;
- Failure to comply with the common property objectives, sustainable design and storage objectives;
-The proposed development is not in keeping with the StKilda Road South Precinct amendment C122 and development of the South Precinct of St Kilda Road and design and development overlay 27;
- The proposed development has not considered the heritage overlay of adjoining properties;
Complete your signature
0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!