Page 1 of 1

Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:27 pm
by Noel Tudball

78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford - Planning Permit Application No . 154/2015/P
Located just South of Armstrongs Rd between Nepean Highway and adjoining Kananook Creek

(Click on image to view & close)
78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford.jpg
78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford.jpg (218.61 KiB) Viewed 18504 times


UPDATES below and in bottom Post:

See how your Councillors voted - reminder that the next Council election is in 2016:

VCAT Hearing:

Contact your State MP:
She has a keen interest in this matter.
Sonya Kilkenny MLA for Carrum (including Seaford):
(03) 9773 2727

An overview of the previous project planned for the site (in 2006) is here:


(Note that objections with FCC have now closed.)
Note that objections may be submitted up until the date that Councillors make their decision on the permit Application. Refer –

Closing date for submissions / objections - 10 July 2015. The objection checklist (below) adds: “Objections can be lodged with Council any time up to when it makes a decision, however objections are usually lodged during the 14-day advertising period.”

Lodging an objection:
  1. allows you to have a say in what happens in your area
  2. ensures that FCC will keep you informed of progress (e.g. when it will be discussed by FCC) as well as the outcome
  3. does not mean you have to address an FCC meeting (you can address any FCC meeting without lodging an objection)
Do you want to lodge an objection?
The more objections, the more FCC will pay attention. An objection can be very short and is easy - see -

We’ve been contacted by several residents expressing concerns about this Permit Application and have been providing advice and assistance.
They have an email address and printed banners for the site - see bottom of this page. (Unfortunately, the banners were removed after a very short time onsite.)

Apartments – 162
Car parking spaces - 248

78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford-Elevation.jpg
78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford-Elevation.jpg (93.72 KiB) Viewed 24844 times

The permit application is for 2 x 4 storey buildings, each of which includes a 2-level basement carpark comprising:
66 x 1-bedroom apartments – 66 car parking spaces (1 per)
- 58 x 1-bedroom
- 8 x 1-bedroom + study
96 x 2-bedroom apartments – 149 car parking spaces (1.5 per)
- 80 x 2-bedroom
- 16 x 2-bedroom + study
Visitors – 32 car parking spaces (1 per 5)

Permit Application - (5MB)
Supporting Information - (25MB)
Address for email submissions -

Source and objection submission details:

Objection to Planning Permit Application Form.pdf
(9.5 KiB) Downloaded 460 times

Objection to Planning Permit Application Form.doc
(46.5 KiB) Downloaded 554 times

Submission Objection Checklist.pdf
(160.47 KiB) Downloaded 486 times

Want to get involved?
Contact the residents via or contact us on

More photos-

Re: Permit: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford - Updated

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:07 pm
by Noel Tudball

It would appear that a large number of objections to this Permit Application has been received.
A residents meeting has been scheduled for:

- 23rd July
- 6 pm
- Council Chambers, Civic Centre, corner Young and Davey Streets, Frankston

RSVP - 22nd July

See attached and letter from Kananook Creek Association below.

In the Leader this week.
(Click on images to view & close)

78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford-Leader.jpg
78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford-Leader.jpg (399.42 KiB) Viewed 24689 times

Re: Permit: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford - Updated

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:10 pm
by Noel Tudball

I have received a copy of this letter sent to FCC by Kananook Creek Association (KCA).

Dear Council Executive and Councillors

It has come to the Kananook Creek Association’s attention that neither Melbourne Water’s nor EPA’s reports in relation to this application have been received by Frankston City Council and therefore are unavailable to interested members of the public for the meeting scheduled for this Thursday night, 23 July 2015. Given the importance of these reports with respect to matters such as flood plains, creek flows, soil composition and potential acid sulphate soil incursion this Association believes that it is irresponsible of Council Officers to proceed with Thursday night’s meeting in the absence of such critical information.

It is our view that some of the information supporting the application is out-dated and will not meet current requirements of at least one of these authorities.

We would therefore request that the meeting be postponed until these reports from Melbourne Water and the EPA are available. Those interested parties should then have a reasonable time to review these reports as part of the assessment process for this application. The short notice given for the meeting proposed for 23 July 2015 and the lack of complete information sends all the wrong messages to this Association and probably to members of the public with an interest in this project. The application in question is a large scale development and considerably out of the norm for the area in question. Therefore it is imperative that adequate time be given to interested residents.

Due process should not only be followed, it should also be seen to be followed. We therefore repeat our request to postpone this meeting until some future date which enables all parties to participate in a balanced and equally informed discussion.

Thank you and regards.

Paul Davies
Kananook Creek Association

Re: Permit: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:48 pm
by Noel Tudball

Notes from Residents Meeting with Councillors and Council Officers – 23rd July, 2015

Note that objections may still be submitted up until the date that Councillors make their decision on the permit Application. Refer –

I have offered the Owner / Developer the opportunity to respond to clarify any comments not addressed at the meeting. The comments made on the night can be grouped under these headings:

Traffic & Parking

  • An estimated 980 daily vehicle trips in and out of the property. Update - May 2016 - following the VCAT March 2016 Conference of Parties, the number of apartments has been reduced to 138 (down from the amended 157, which is down from the original 162). The estimated daily vehicle trips in and out of the property has therefore reduced to an estimated 834.
  • This means there would be far more traffic in and out of this property than nearby road (Armstrongs Rd)
  • Since a report from VicRoads has not yet been tabled, we look forward to viewing it
  • It is doubtful that residents and visitors would obey signs telling them they to only exit / enter by turning left
  • Vehicles will need to accelerate to climb the ramp from the underground carpark – and one would expect they will keep going – onto Nepean Highway, creating a serious traffic safety problem
  • Roads should not be used as a car-park, cluttering streets and creating visibility hazards - that's what car-parks are for
  • Nepean Highway has far fewer vacant spaces than stated by the developer’s Permit Application and there are no vacant spaces during Summer
  • There is already a need to reduce the allowed parking spaces in Nepean Highway to allow safe reverse exit from properties already in Nepean Highway
  • It is stated that there is sufficient parking spaces allowed. It is expected that a 2-bedroom unit would need more than 2 parking spaces, making the total number of parking spaces massively deficient
  • Public transport:
    - Buses – only 1 per hour and only until 9 pm
    - There is currently no available parking at either Seaford or Carrum railway stations


  • An underground carpark is inappropriate considering issues surrounding ground water, the water table and saline water in Kananook Creek
  • Diverting of the Kananook Creek floodplain should not occur
  • Although there are guidelines set out for a 1 in a 100 year flood, the area has flooded 3 times during the last 15 years
  • There is no direct access to the beach near the property. It is expected that at least some residents and visitors would make their own paths through the protected ti-trees and other vegetation
  • The ​​setback from Kananook Creek:
    - is required to be 10 metres. This setback enables adjoining properties to retain a vista along the creek rather than just onto creek
    - DDO6 also regulates "where a site adjoins Kananook Creek, the second and third storey component of any building must be set back from the creek elevation a distance of at least the height of the storey below’ thus creating a V-shaped line of sight vista along the creek. Sharing the view for all is the idea

Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils (CASS)

  • If all responsible authorities advise developers / builders to “not disturb acid sulphate soils”, how is alright to dig it out and removing it?
  • Soil tests were not deep enough:
    - the carpark is 3.9m
    - soil tests should be 5.9m
    - the soil tests were conducted in 2005, making them irrelevant and insufficient
  • What are the plans for maintaining the safety and stability of the remaining soil?


  • The Permit does not meet Neighbourhood Character Guidelines
  • This is far too large a development for the area
  • There are far too many units in the one development
  • General Residential Zone does not allow “high density”. The maximum should be 21-80 dwellings per nett residential hectare
  • The unit number density is 5 times that of a similar development in Nepean Highway, 300m to the South
  • Concerns about future similar density developments if the precedent is set / continued. (Some developments have occurred along Nepean Highway in the past)
  • This Permit is a 4-storey development in disguise – there are 2 storeys of carpark underground


  • Approximately 55 of the units are 46 square metres - 5 metres by 10 metres - which is very small - and the others aren’t much bigger - someone mentioned the phrase "ghetto of the future" (?)

Owner / Developer response

  • The consultants have estimated that there will be 980 car travels per day (see note above)
  • Sufficient car parking in the area is not up to us – it is a far wider issue
  • Signs will be erected instructing residents and visitors to only exit / enter by turning left. (i.e. Exit: turn left to the South; Entry: turn left from the North)
  • Regarding consultant reports on critical issues, such as traffic, water and acid Sulphate soils: their consultants have a duty of care
  • The number of units has been reduced from 162 to 157 (but was unsure of the exact new numbers of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units) Update - May 2016 - following the VCAT March 2016 Conference of Parties, the number of apartments has been reduced to 138 (down from the amended 157, which is down from the original 162)
  • Population will increase – they need to live somewhere
  • There is an 11m setback from both Nepean Highway and Kananook Creek
  • Planting on those setbacks will be designed to mirror the vegetation currently existing on both Nepean Highway and Kananook Creek
  • Water level stipulations have been set by the developer’s land surveyors in accordance with required guidelines
  • The Kananook Creek Floodplain is the responsibility of Melbourne Water, not FCC and guidelines set out for a 1 in a 100 year flood are being followed
  • Has followed Frankston City Council (FCC) guidelines
  • Has consulted with VicRoads and Melbourne Water
  • A Body Corporate will be set in place, together with an onsite Manager
  • Detailed budgets are yet to be developed, but it is expected that units will cost $250,000 - $300,000 to build


  • If the developer is unsure of the exact new numbers of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units, what else is he unsure of?
  • The number of objections received by FCC was 29 (?)
  • EPA, VicRoads and Melbourne Water reports are yet to be received by FCC
  • The meeting was attended by:
    - an estimated 40-50 (?) residents
    - the 3 North-West Ward Councillors and Cr Colin Hampton from North-East Ward

Re: Permit: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford - Residents Meeting

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:14 pm
by Noel Tudball

This planning permit application is on the agenda for next Monday's Council meeting - Monday, 16th November, 2015, starting at 7 pm.

If you would like to address address Council about the Permit, see -

Please attend if you can – as you know (or would expect), the more people who attend in support of an issue, the better.

See map below.
(Click on image to view & close)

Acacia room.jpg
Acacia room.jpg (198.29 KiB) Viewed 23771 times

Re: Permit: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford: FCC Meeting - 16th

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:40 pm
by Noel Tudball

Unfortunately, this Permit was granted at the FCC meeting on 16th Nov 2015 in a 4 to 3 vote.

See how your Councillors voted below. The next Council election is October, 2016.

  • Cr Michael O'Reilly was worried about what we might get if Council rejected it and the developer went to VCAT
  • Cr Suzette Tayler stated that Frankston needs affordable housing - despite the fact that this is NOT affordable housing – the developer stated that he expects that units will cost $250,000 - $300,000 to build
  • Cr Hampton asked if this would be the highest density development in Frankston. The Council Officer did not know “off the top of his head”
  • Cr Hampton stated that whilst the Permit may meet State Govt requirements, it was against FCC Neighbourhood Character requirements – this was refuted by a Council Officer
  • Cr Aitken asked what would be the result if this had been proposed in South Frankston
  • Residents raised the issues of traffic, over-development, proximity to the Kananook Creek and Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils. See -
SCC believes the decision:
  • Sets an extremely disturbing precedent
  • Sends the wrong message for future development
  • Should have required a full attendance of all Councillors before a vote was taken on such an important permit (vote 4 to 3 with 2 absentees)

See how your Councillors voted below. The next Council election is Nov, 2016.

North-West Ward (Seaford, Frankston, Frankston North and Karingal)
Cr James Dooley -
Cr Glenn Aitken - AGAINST
Cr Rebekah Spelman - FOR

North-East Ward (Carrum Downs, Langwarrin, Skye and Sandhurst)
Cr Colin Hampton -
Cr Michael O'Reilly - FOR
Cr Sandra Mayer - FOR

South Ward (Frankston South, Frankston, Frankston City Centre and Langwarrin South)
Cr Suzette Tayler - FOR
Cr Brian Cunial - ABSENT
Cr Darrel Taylor - ABSENT

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:18 pm
by Noel Tudball

Lucky number ‘157’ for developer

A PLAN to build an apartment complex housing 157 apartments in Seaford was given the go-ahead by Frankston councillors at this month’s public council meeting.

Councillors narrowly voted four-three to approve the planning application by developer Planning Horizon Australia for a 12-metre high four-storey building at 78-83 Nepean Hwy after an at times feisty debate about the project’s merits.

There were 32 objections from community members about the development with many feeling the apartment complex was an inappropriate overdevelopment in the area.

A council officers’ report had recommended the planning permit be granted subject to conditions including the management of acid sulphate soils at the site to avoid pollution of Kananook Creek.

Cr Glenn Aitken praised the architectural design of the planned building but said the number of apartments was too high.

“The stumbling block is the … amount of individual living places on a parcel of land,” he said.

“I would have found it more supportable had the density had been less intense.”

Cr Colin Hampton was pleased the developer “has gone out of his way to provide adequate car parks … but when you look at the number of apartments on the site and the size of the site and also the neighbourhood character within that area – this is a dramatic overdevelopment of that site”.

The apartment complex will have 248 car parking spaces, more than the minimum 188 requirement for such a development’s size.

Councillors who backed the planning application believed the apartment complex would not become “a slum” as feared by several objectors.

“The design is attractive. It’s not boxy, it’s not overwhelming,” Cr Rebekah Spelman said.

“The area is an upcoming area and luxury living is in demand by people with disposable incomes. On such a large site we really have to expect plans for vast developments.”

Cr Michael O’Reilly said there are not enough one and two-bedroom apartments in Frankston.

“It is 157 apartments but it is an extremely large block. In modern society more and more people are living on their own.”

He said Census figures showed 26.1 per cent of people in the Frankston area lived on their own and 32.9 per cent lived in a couple but only 3.2 per cent of dwellings in the area are single-bedroom apartments.

“The property values along the Nepean Highway are increasing dramatically,” Cr O’Reilly said.

“This will not be in any way, in my opinion, a slum. It’s a nice looking development.”

Crs Sandra Mayer, O’Reilly, Spelman and Suzette Tayler voted to approve the development. Crs Aitken, Cr Hampton and mayor Cr James Dooley opposed the planning application.

Crs Brian Cunial and Darrel Taylor were absent from the meeting.

Objectors can now appeal to VCAT about the decision.


Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:22 pm
by Noel Tudball

A local resident has decided to “Take it to VCAT” (by lodging an “Application for Review” with VCAT, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal).

Please contact us if you have relevant experience to share or want to join their challenge. We will put you in contact with each other.
Perhaps you have already registered your Review with VCAT and want to join forces.

Some points that may have relevance:
  • 157 units
  • 2 storeys underground plus 2 storeys above ground
  • This is a Residential Zone
  • Traffic considerations
  • The Permit does not meet Neighbourhood Character Guidelines
  • The Permit is at odds with the Seaford Local Area Plan –
  • Environment considerations
  • Risks entailed in the disturbance of Acid Sulphate Soils -
  • VicRoads and Melbourne Water reports had been received and both "had no objections"
  • Close proximity to the Kananook Creek
  • Not all 9 FCC Councillors were present to vote – the vote was 4 to 3 in favour of granting the Permit
  • Some Councillor arguments were questionable
  • They are not affordable housing, as 1 Councillor claimed during the debate
  • There are more points here: "How to lodge an Objection to a Permit Application" -
VCAT Links:
Taking it to VCAT -

We have just located the previous project planned for the site.

78-83 Nepean Hwy project - 2006.jpg
78-83 Nepean Hwy project - 2006.jpg (105.34 KiB) Viewed 23337 times

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:48 pm
by Noel Tudball

A recent News article:

"Creekside complex ‘too dense’"

(Click on image to view & close)

By 24 May 2016: VCAT Hearing - 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 6:52 pm
by Noel Tudball

VCAT Reference No: P2576/2015
By 24 May 2016: VCAT Hearing - 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

SCC's Submission is at the bottom of this post ........

May 2016 - following the VCAT March 2016 Conference of Parties, the number of apartments has been reduced to 138 (down from the amended 157, which is down from the original 162). 138 is still too many for this site.

Even if you have taken no formal action on this issue before now, you can still have your opinion heard (​via email and free of charge - confirmed with VCAT)
  • This matter will be heard by VCAT over 2 days, starting on 2 June, 2016
  • You have the opportunity to make a ​Submission to VCAT, either in person or in writing – see below for the required Form
  • The Kananook Creek Association and residents who are making formal, detailed objections would appreciate your support by:
    • your making a short independent Submission via email - see Form B below
    • attending the Hearing
  • The more people who show their support in either way, the higher the chance of success in having this inappropriate Permit overturned
  • You must base your objection on planning issues - emotion has no place at VCAT - suggested grounds for objection can be found here -
  • Your submission will have the most effect if you show that whilst you may support The Kananook Creek Association's viewpoint, you are not a member and your submission is entirely independent, or simply don't mention The Kananook Creek Association in your submission at all
  • You must ensure your Submission is submitted before next Tuesday 24 May 2016
  • If you don't make a Submission by that date, you can still attend the Hearing in person and request to be added to the list of speakers (also confirmed with VCAT)
  • The Hearing will take place over 2 days, starting at 10 am, 55 King St, Melbourne, unless advised otherwise
  • You will not find any details of this Application on the VCAT website. It seems that VCAT's normal process is to not post Hearing details until the day before it starts :!: :?: :roll:
  • For "in person" submissions, note that VCAT:
    • is run along the lines of a judicial Court Hearing
    • requires that observers must behave in an orderly fashion
    • may have subsequent questions at any time after you make an "in person" Submission, so the presenter should be in attendance for the entire 2 days
    • will not allow time to be wasted by repetition of the same arguments - if you attend and someone else says what you planned to say, amend your verbal submission or reserve your right to speak
    • it would be helpful (if not essential) to be aware of the various reports VCAT has received, including those from the developer's representative

NOTE that the attached Form B must be completed and sent to:

Further info (this relates specifically to objections to FCC, but contains useful information).

Email me - - I will get you answers.

Also see - Over-development in Seaford

Info -
78-83 - BestHooper letter.pdf
(378.57 KiB) Downloaded 290 times

Info -
78-83 - BestHooper letterP2.pdf
(379.08 KiB) Downloaded 299 times

*** MS Word format - Required Form for Submission - (In this context, "Applicant" means BestHooper
(118.5 KiB) Downloaded 428 times

PDF format - Required Form for Submission - (In this context, "Applicant" means BestHooper
78-83 - BestHooper - Form B.pdf
(589.74 KiB) Downloaded 282 times

Info -
78-83 - BestHooper - Form B P2 - info only.pdf
(472.5 KiB) Downloaded 338 times

Whilst it is true that VCAT decisions follow current legislation (of allocating 1 car space per bedroom) - and can't change legislation - we must raise this issue at some point. If we don't, we're just giving up and this type of development will continue to destroy our neighbourhoods, undermining the reason for where we chose to live.

SCC's Submission:
  • Original proposal 162 apartments, reduced to 157, then 138
  • Off street parking allowance = 248 car spaces (original - may be less now)
  • Off street parking required = 276 PLUS an indeterminate number of visitors' cars
  • Parking shortfall = 28 PLUS an indeterminate number of visitors' cars
  • 980 car trips = approximately 4 trips per day per parking space
On the assumption that all, or nearly all 138 are now 2 or 3 bedroom (i.e. 2 bedroom plus study) apartments, realistically this means that parking is required for 2 cars per apartment (i.e. 1 per bedroom), leaving a shortfall of something like 28 (276-248) cars requiring street parking PLUS an indeterminate number of visitors' cars.

The large provision for bicycles 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 and a massive increase in vehicle exits and entries to this already busy road is not sustainable.

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:52 pm
by Noel Tudball

The VCAT 2-day Hearing was last week.
A decision will be announced in approximately 4 weeks.

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:40 pm
by Noel Tudball

VCAT approved the 4 storey / 4 building / 140 unit application, with conditions, on 4 July 2016 - more details soon.

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2016 2:59 pm
by Noel Tudball

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.

See attached summary.
Also see Kananook Creek Assoc'n Autumn 2016 Newsletter -

78-83 Nepean Highway.VCAT Hearing summary.KCA.pdf
(32.91 KiB) Downloaded 265 times

KananookCreek.jpg (91.53 KiB) Viewed 18560 times

Re: Permit GRANTED: 78-83 Nepean Highway Seaford

PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:14 pm
by Noel Tudball

  • Number of apartments: (revised down to) 140:
    * 33 one-bedroom
    * 100 two-bedroom
    * two three-bedroom
    * five four-bedroom
  • Internal sizes (square metres): One-bedroom 50-60; two-bedroom 64-204 (three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartments sold)
  • External areas (square metres): 8-47
  • Prices: One-bedroom $379,000; two-bedroom $440,000 (three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartments sold)
  • Car parking: 54 two car spaces, remainder have one
  • Completion: June 2019

Latest news/advertisement: