This e mail was sent to me. It is added like all others.
Regards
Mario Galteri
I have looked at objectors to 3 applications recently in Coldstream. These applications being 18 Cheviot Ave; 586 Maroondah Hwy; 10 Witham Dve.
I decided to look at the Shire of Yarra Ranges Online mapping system and look at the aerial photographs of the area and see whether these objectors were objecting for reasons other than because the proposed developments were inappropriate for Coldstream, or whether it was simply ‘sour grapes’ due to the positioning of their respective houses or covenants. I have only included those that have objected to all 3 developments, even if their property is nowhere near where the development was proposed (in most cases).
I will let your readers and residents of Coldstream to come to their own conclusion as to why these people may have objected to these developments.
The propery owners who objected to 2 of the proposals are mostly very similar, but I’ve only highlighted those that objected to all 3. The aerial photographs are freely available on the Shire website, so readers can go do their own research if they are interested.
The following map shows the covenants in Coldstream and was published on the Coldstream blog a while ago
6 comments:
I find it iteresting to look at why the people objecting to the developments in Coldstream were actually objecting. Was it because it was going to directly impact on them or were they unable to do a dual occupancy themselves because of either lack of room on their block or because their
property was covered by the one dwelling covenant. As you can see from looking at the aerial photographs put forward, in most cases it could very well be one
or the other. I don't believe any of these property owners who objected to all 3 applications would be directly affected as in many cases they were nowhere near where the development was proposed.
I think there are a few outspoken people who have been very vocal in
opposing any developments and I would assume that their properties are included in the information put forward. The cynic in me would
suggest that they have got on their high horse because they can't do a dual occupancy and so then why should anyone else be able to.
I have lived here for nearly 15 years and have seen many changes in the township. When I first moved here there was a doctor, a fruit and veg store, a bakery and a few more who have all since gone. Even the petrol
station is now closed. Coldstream is stagnating. I can't see anyone
wanting to open up any new businesses here and being successful.
There was a plan by the Council to beautify Coldstream a few years ago, pushed I think by Di Moore. It started with the stone walls at the entrance, planting of trees in the lawn in front of the shops and changing the parking area in front of the shops, but there it seems to have stopped. From memory I remember that there was far more landscaping poposed as well as traffic lights at the entry near the stone walls.
I don't believe that there will be many dual occupancy developments in
Coldstream anyway. Firstly the property owner has to have the available space, not be covered by the single dwelling covenant, but more importantly have the financial ability to do such a development. Young couples who have recently bought into Coldstream will probably already have a large mortgage, retired people would not be able to get a loan or they would have to dip into any superannuation they have to do so. People with young
families would probably prefer to keep their backyard intact for the kids to play in.
Response to Anonymous - email sent 1 August.
I find it interesting to look at the people criticizing community members who have the strength and motivation to stand up for their community issues, and why it is that they cannot visibly stand behind their remarks and sign merely as 'anonymous'. Gives me a giggle every time I see it.
I wonder, if a comment is worth making, why a person is reluctant to put their name to their remarks.
I understand there were more than 'a few' people with the courage to speak out for their community, as opposed, in fact, to actually only a very few people who were pushing for development in our estate (mostly from one family and that family's company, I might add). As for the objectors' motives..... there is no mystery. They have made their reasons plain within each of their objections. It is a requirement to plainly state reasons for objections. If, after reviewing the lodged objections, one still requires clarification, one only needs to review the findings of the VCAT member to the application for the property in Maroondah Highway, where VCAT have set aside the Council's approval. That clearly provides all the valid reasons way dual occupancy does not belong in this Coldstream estate and, in fact, cited the example of the completed subdivision at 5 Belchester Avenue.
Yes, I agree, your cynicism shows. Lack of faith in people, too, shows when the objectors' reasons are dismissed in preference to belief of subterfuge to foil developers opportunities for financial gain.
Although I made no formal objections, I have certainly made my feelings on the subject of dual occupancy in Coldstream known, and been viciously, personally attacked and misquoted for it. Not that it bothers me particularly as I see the ignorant remarks for what they are. Entertainment.
I assure you, Anonymous, my objections to the dual occupancy applications have nothing to do with the fact that my property contains a single dwelling covenant. It is that I did not wish to see this little gem of a family oriented and country style community be destroyed.
I agree with the VCAT Member's ruling on the Maroondah Highway application. Now in my opinion, before and after reviews of 5 Belchester demonstrate the detrimental aesthetic affect on the neighbourhood. The block that housed what was once a charming 3 bedroom family home, boasting a magnificent old oak tree forming a significant part of the local tree scape, now has no garden space to speak of beyond the front garden space and, in my opinion, is quite an eye sore and that wonderful oak tree - gone. The apparent landscaping in the front yard of what is now 5A is, again, in my opinion, just awful. Did an real landscaper plan out that garden? If they did, I just can't believe it!!
Rather than wonder about community members' motives, just read the formal objections and take your neighbours at face value.
Now I have said this before and will continue to say it. It is most unfortunate that the State Government have locked Coldstream into a position where there is little opportunity for expansion. The area to the west side of Maroondah Highway is the logical area for subdivision and future growth. Was any consideration given to this when plans were being made for the green wedge zonings that are now in place? Apparently not. I am tired of hearing that now that the green wedge zoning is in place, it will stay there and nothing can be done. Please!!! The State Government are responsible and have ensured 'stagnation' of Coldstream. The State Government should be approached by this community to fix the stuff up it made.
My health issues preclude me from instigating any such lobbying however, if someone from Coldstream does start an action group for the purpose of seeking rectification of the zoning problem, I will be there supporting them just as vocally as I usually do.
Rosie Wood
Rose, always great to hear your views but I have been pushing for a long time to have the UGB "fixed" around Coldstream.
Just to let you know a group is now being formed and your input would be most appreciated.
This group, which may be called COLDSTREAM 2020 (still to be decided) is working on this issue, but our initial meeting suggests that expansion of the UGB should occur with the POST OFFICE being the new centre of Coldstream.
Have have touted this view many times on this blog.
Thanks once again for your contributions.
Oh, great news, Mario. Sure, I'll be happy to help with any support I'm capable of giving.
I'm not sure about the Post Office being the 'centre' as wouldn't that affect the zoning of the farms in Killara Road, resulting in detrimental financial issues, eg, rates, land tax etc? I'm not sure without looking into it.
I'll speak to you soon.
Cheers
Rosie
I would just like to clarify something in the response by Rosie Wood regarding 5 Belchester Avenue.
Rosie the tree you refer to that was removed was not "an old Oak Tree" but in fact a Acer negunda being a weed species. You only have to refer to the DSE site to see it listed on their weed species list. Furthermore to also clarify, there were several Eucalyptus species planted in the front yard of this development, but unfortunately someone has thought that they have the right to help themselves to these plants.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Vari
...and to Rosie... from another "Anonymous"
How interesting that someone so apparently community-minded starts every single paragraph apart from one, with the word "I" or "My".....
Post a Comment