Solution to over-development in Frankston

Issues that concern all of us
Forum rules
Play Nice ... Absolutely no swearing, abuse or unsavoury behaviour will be tolerated. Members of the public can view posts, but must register to make posts.

Solution to over-development in Frankston

Postby Noel Tudball » Fri May 20, 2016 7:59 pm


1. Inappropriate developments


Refer Permit GRANTED by FCC: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford - http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=151
- Kananook Creek Association took the matter to VCAT
- VCAT approved the application:
  • located just South of Armstrongs Rd between Nepean Highway and adjoining Kananook Creek
  • 4 storey (2 underground for parking)
  • 4 buildings
  • frontage of 100 metres
  • 157 apartments
  • upwards of 300 people
  • an estimated 980 daily vehicle trips in and out of the property
with conditions.

This type of issue will continue to arise until FCC designs and implements a sensible Residential Zoning PLAN to replace the General Residential Zone they allowed to be implemented.

The Seaford Community Committee understands that the Victorian State Government has introduced the General Residential Zone with the focus on higher density and taller buildings in an effort to stop urban sprawl.

However, the suggestion that these higher density developments should always be located around activity hubs, e.g. railway stations and shopping centres, regardless of the current residential atmosphere and Neighbourhood Character, is wrong. This is shown by the lapsing of the failed C95 - http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51&p=85#p394.

​The SCC maintains that adequate Growth Zones can be placed sensibly along SmartBus routes and major roads, as well as in the (currently too quiet) heart of Frankston City.


2. Off-street parking


State legislation requires amendment to ensure that:
  • sufficient off-street parking is mandatory so our streets do not become more dangerously cluttered with parked cars
  • garage sizes must be increased to accommodate a large 4WD, rather than a micro-sized car or the lawn mower and a few tools
One car space per bedroom may work for inner city suburbs, but it doesn’t work for outer suburbs. Who would use public transport when travelling from (say) Frankston to Berwick?

Council Officers continue the disturbing practice of recommending the waiving of even the current inadequate car parking space regulations - to further reduce them is ludicrous.

Proximity to public transport is not sufficient justification to waive regulations.
Not all Frankston residents use public transport and they will own cars, even IF they own bicycles!

A large provision for bicycles in some proposed developments is commendable but is unlikely to be of benefit other than for recreational use since the outer suburbs of Melbourne are heavily car dependent. With an area of 9,990 km2, Melbourne is not Amsterdam (2,580 km2) and never will be.

As long as major Public Transport continues to be focused on getting to and from central Melbourne and while all roads DO NOT LEAD to Melbourne, the reliance on cars will remain for people in the outer suburbs to get to their destination.

Current Planning regulations for car parking do not adequately represent the reality of outer suburban living and are turning our streets into dangerous dodgem alleys. Nepean Highway in Seaford is not the grand road it becomes closer to Melbourne. The congestion caused by excessive street parking is not sustainable.


Noel,
Chairman
SeafordCC@gmail.com

Facebook - click on the link in the top right-hand corner of this screen.

The Seaford Community Committee (SCC) aims to improve communication and create a stronger community in Seaford.

Image
SCC website



User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm







Return to Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron