Submission Cover Sheet 501

Organisation:

Affected property:

501

H Galvin

Loss of wildlife and climate change

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Submission Cover SheetGolf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee ‐ Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

Submission Cover Sheet

Organisation:

Affected property:

502

R Girvan

Loss of wild life and green space

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

503

Patricia Galvin

Over crowding and over population in a small village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

504

Ryan Murphy

As a new resident of Victoria (November, 2020), I was instantly attracted to the Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club. The club's facilities, which are world‐class, are unrivaled amongst the Sandbelt golf clubs of Victoria. The club's exceptional facilities have been an integral benefit of the merger. To ensure the club continues to attract new members, it is important this facility is maintained at a world‐class standard. Therefore, it is important the Dingley redevelopment is approved. In addition to maintaining a world‐class facility, which has the potential to host international golf events, the approved Dingley redevelopment will further assist the golf club in supporting the local area, which is facilitated by the PK Community Foundation.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

505

Adele Michael

I object to having such a large increase in population size and density with no supporting facilities, particularly for families with school aged children, as there are limited space in local schools and lack of supporting public transport. My parents have lived in Dingley for over 30 years with no intention on moving, they love the beautiful view of greenery, that would then turn into looking over an urban jungle, with multiple neighbours overlooking their private oasis. Not only changing the appeal of their property but also decreasing the monetary value of their property. I have lived in many places since being in Dingley, but there is truly no where that has such a lovely relaxed community feel like Dingley and once that has been changed unfortunately there will be no way to go back to what has been lost. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the proposal of the developer, as there is such a overwhelming objection from the local and wider community. Regards

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

506

Toby Jarrett

I object to the proposed Kingswood Golf Course redevelopment and find it horrific that a huge corporate entity like Australian Super, which already holds close to $200 billion in assets, thinks nothing of laying waste to the amenity of a pleasant suburban village purely for their own financial gain. Housing developments like the one proposed are executed for profit only; a fact that will be reflected in the narrow streets, tiny blocks and shoddily built dwellings that will be packed onto the site. My objections, with specific regard for the impact of the development on Dingley Village, are as follows: • The primary schools in Dingley Village are already full, with demountable classrooms encroaching onto outdoor play areas. • Parking at the shopping precinct is already at capacity at peak times and street parking around the precinct is hard to access, particularly for elderly people. • Centre Dandenong Road is a single lane road through most of Dingley, a fact that is forgotten as many people already dangerously drive two abreast. More cars will make this road more dangerous. • A huge, low‐quality eyesore development in the centre of the suburb will have a hugely negative effect on house prices in the area. Australian Super will make their profits while devaluing the homes of thousands of Dingly families. Please take the concerns of Dingley Village locals seriously. Don’t make us pay for the gamble that Australian Super made when they purchased the site. If this development goes ahead, it goes ahead against the wises of the community and only for the benefit of a massively wealthy corporate bully.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

507

Tristan Walton

https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/50532

See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Tristan Walton - Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment Submission.pdf Page 1 of 2

Tristan Walton

Dingley Village

18 July 2021

Re: Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

Having reviewed the plans it is clear the development is of no net benefit to the existing residents of

Dingley Village, and is not in line with the character of the area. As a resident I personally have

never been consulted, never had my views heard, nor been able to contribute my ideas for the

development of the golf course. Shouldn’t there be some consultation? I’m not against the

development, in fact get the development right and I will buy a block myself! Let’s start with traffic.

Have the developers tried entering Westall road from the north end of Spring road during peak

hour? What about the roundabout at the Church (from any direction)? Hopefully they’re aware of

the death trap intersection on Rowan and Westall roads. This development will make an already

bad traffic situation worse!

What about my street and my neighbours and ? These are

going to become main access routes to and from the development. And guess what, these roads are

single lane when cars are parked on both sides, explain how that works?

Have the developers tried driving past the dog park on Spring road? Clearly not, its single lane traffic

when cars are parked on both sides, and it’s a very popular dog park. Come on guys, the roads are

not wide enough for two lanes plus parking, and how many extra cars will be using them! Should we

touch on Dingley’s lack of public transport?

High density housing makes sense close to transport hubs, where households can have 1 or less cars.

However Dingley most definitely is not a transport hub with terrible public transport! But the

development considered a bus route you may say, but a bus route to where? Which means each

house needs one or more cars, and this clearly hasn’t been considered in the development plans.

Just like it wasn’t considered in the townhouse developments on the south end of Tootal road where

residents are forced to park their cars on the nature strip across the road. Looks to be a repeat of

past mistakes!

Have the developers tried enrolling their kids in the local kindies? Clearly not, otherwise they plans

would include more local kinders and child care!

Have the developers visited Dingley Primary where my kids go? The current schools are at capacity,

and there are no plans for more schools on the plans. Come on this isn’t a retirement village!

My kids are off to secondary school in a few years and the Dingley zone secondary schools are two

suburbs away in Parkdale and Cheltenham. It would be fantastic if plans considered a secondary

school!

Visited Dingley Interhealth recently? Or the Optometrist? Tried to get a blood test? These services

are at bursting point, I already travel to neighbouring suburbs to avoid the wait times. Shouldn’t the

development consider this?

Tristan Walton - Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment Submission.pdf Page 2 of 2

I wonder if the developers have visited the netball courts on a Saturday? Do you think the local

sporting facilities can handle more resident? Where are the additional sports and recreation areas

considered in the development?

What about Woolworths on a Sunday afternoon? Where’s the consideration for more retail space!

I think it goes without saying the impact to the local flora and fauna that inhabit the golf course

would be disastrous. And I was disappointed to see many of the magnificent trees will be destroyed

by the development, taking with it irreplaceable nesting and roosting space for the many local birds.

Likewise it seems the development considers the flood lakes / retarding basin as open spaces.

Having a retarding basis as an open space is not very practical unless you’re a fish, frog or a duck!

Talking of flood retarding basins have the developers seen during a storm? It

resembles more of a river than a street, and I’m glad we have the golf course to soak up all the

water. But I would hazard a guess the development hasn’t properly considered this factor given the

huge increase in site coverage. Where’s all the water going to go? I expect they won’t be upgrading

the stormwater infrastructure!

It seems to me this development is all about extra houses, with no consideration to improving the

already stretched local services and infrastructure of Dingley Village. This is a fantastic opportunity

to make this development a positive impact on Dingley Village by getting the balance of additional

housing, services, infrastructure and open and recreation spaces right. But the current plans do not

achieve this.

Changing the zoning to support this development will have an immediately positive impact on the

developers through multi-million dollar windfall profits. But the same can’t be said about the

existing residents of Dingley Village. So listen to the current residents, consult with us and hear our

ideas so we can get the plans right so it is a win win for everyone!

Tristan Walton

Organisation:

Affected property:

508

Gavin Hall


"see attached submission"

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



OFFICIAL

I strongly object to the proposed rezoning & redevelopment application for the Kingswood Golf

Course site. The proposed application is a severely over-developed, totally inappropriate plan for

the infrastructure and services in Dingley Village. It is extremely disappointing Developers have

only allowed 6-week period for objections to be submitted; unfortunately during a Covid-19 lock-

down period making it even more difficult for community groups to hold information sessions so

that residents and interested parties can make truly informed decisions.

The Developers previous application for 800 lots & 6 super lots was abolished by Kingston City

Council in October 2018 after receiving 8000+ objections. The current application does not appear

to be any better - 823 lots with an average size of 318 sqm! 587 lots or 71.% are smaller than 390

sqm and with an application to reduce parking obligations.

We already see a lack of sufficient on-site parking in new estates and townhouse developments

forcing residents and their visitors to park on the street and on nature strips (noting parking on a

nature strip in Victoria is prohibited; offenders often receive a fine if Council are notified). Adding

to this, the streets are now narrower than in the past, restricting parking to one side only, tight

cul-de-sacs, etc which cause congestion and frustration for residents, visitors, trades people and

Council rubbish trucks alike.

Peak hour traffic already causes delays at the entry/exit sites especially Spring Road/Westall

Extension and Rowan Road/Westall Extension. Tootal Road traffic heading south towards the

Centre Dandenong Road roundabout, is regularly banked up, almost as far back to McClure Road

at night. Centre Dandenong Road is also regularly congested. Adding approx 20% population and

related vehicle traffic is only adding to an already frustrating and often dangerous problem.

Dingley Village is not an activity centre; it is not near train or tram services; it does not have

sufficient infrastructure to cope with approx 20% increase of population and estimated 6800

vehicle traffic movements per day (680 vehicle movements per peak hour).

The Kingswood Golf Course has long been a significant open space in Dingley Village and is an

important habitat to thousands of birds and wildlife and established trees. It is a unique parcel of

land in the middle of our ‘village’.

The City Of Kingston’s Green Wedge Plan 2012 stated: “the golf courses were expected to be long

term occupiers of the Green Wedge and were considered to be an entrenched and desirable use

of land. Community feedback overwhelmingly supported the use of Green Wedge for open space,

environmental wetlands, reserves and recreational purposes i.e., Chain of Parks plan and the

importance of retaining a green, semi rural image.”

The City of Kingston’s 2015 Golf Course Policy states: “golf courses are protected through specific

provisions under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. This was the highest level of protection that

could be provided and the purpose of the zone.”

These policies were put in place to PROTECT open spaces and PROHIBIT residential developments

such as this inappropriate application.

OFFICIAL

At the time the State Planning Minister Hon. Richard Wynne said about the Dingley Village Golf

Course "The Minister has always encouraged Councils to make decisions in line with the

expectations of their local communities." Kingston City Council listened to what its rate payers

were telling them and in October 2018 unanimously rejected the previous application. It was

extremely disappointing the State Government then introduced a Golf Planning and Advisory

Committee which takes the decision making away from Council and places it in the hands of a new

panel. Have they viewed the 8000+ objections from 2018? Do they understand why Dingley

Villagers are fighting the fight? Do they even know the sale of land was illegal in the first place?

The Golf Planning and Advisory Committee should REJECT the application as being totally

inappropriate for the area and situation.

Organisation:

Affected property:

509

Greg Theocharous

I wish to make a strong objection to the proposed development of Kingswood Golf Course. Dingley Village has all of the hallmarks of a “COUNTRY TOWN” embedded in suburbia Melbourne. It is this feature that makes living here appealing to most if not all residence. It has limited amenities and infrastructure, and therefore cannot support a housing development. I have lived opposite the Golf course since 1987, and have experienced a dramatic increase in traffic especially during peak hours. This has been a result of development in neighbouring suburbs. Making a right hand turn into Centre‐Dandenong Road has been at times a hazardous experience. The proposed development will only add to this growing problem. The presence of the Golf course plays an essential role in maintaining the openness of the area, nature preservation, maintaining significant greenery in the area etc. In essence it is the lungs of Dingley Village. If the proposal proceeds, then Dingley Village will lose its uniqueness, and will become just another over developed suburb. I would like to add that you need to live in Dingley Village to properly understand this issue and the community passion in fighting big business to preserve our lifestyle. Finally, there is no net Local benefit that will result from this development. thank you

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

510

Yi Qin

Save our home,I would like my daughter can grow up and play in front of the house on the grass,not worry so many cars rush past!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

511

Timothy Latham

I am a relatively new member of Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club. I had the opportunity to play the Kingswood Golf Course only once before it was closed. I write to say that I have been a member of 3 golf clubs in my time and joining PKCGC is the only time that I have not have a single second of regret or doubt. The merger between the 2 clubs and the subsequent sale of the Kingswood land have enabled the creation of a wonderful facility for anyone who wishes to join the club. The qualities of the new club are, in my opinion, second to none and are on a world's best standard. I am proud to take guests to this club and several have been so impressed that they have joined the club. Others remind me to invite them again and again. The membership and administration of PKCGC also has its responsibilities and opportunities in place in a most responsible way. This is exhibited in the initiatives like the PK Community Foundation which has raised needed funds for local facilities in need. The funds made available from the sale of the land have also enabled a golf course design on Skye Road which consists of 36 holes with no impingement on bordering private properties and thus maintaining their privacy. Many other suburban clubs fail because the neighbouring private properties abut the course closely and submit the private homes to privacy and noise issues and remember that golfers start very early in the morning. The PKCGC has no such issues. The rezoning of the Kingswood Golf Course is, in my opinion, a "no brainer" in today's world. It would provide opportunity for young families to purchase homes in suburbia and free up homes for 1st home buyers who are finding stock scarce. The Rezoning would create a most desirable place to live with new environmentally friendly and sustainable housing along with green and water areas and wild life, whilst being in relatively close contact with even the CBD. And, of course, this new open space could be enjoyed by the whole community of Dingley. It doesn't take much to be able to imagine the delight of the community which will develop and the benefits of living in such a community which is also sure to spread amongst neighbouring areas.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

512

Peerasut Laovanich

im a first home buyer who looking for a house in 30km from cbd as this is the area in waiting for.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

513

Jozef Brownlee

I Jozef Brownlee would like support the redevelopment of the Dingley Land as I’m looking to purchase a family home and haven’t been successful within 30Klms of the CBD.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

514

Pathum Perera

would like to be heard at the hearing.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

515

Allan Logan

1. Proposal is not in the Village Character, with density, small blocks and multistory buildings. 2. Failure to provide for additional community facilities. 3. No plan for required increased infrastructure, roads, schools, health ,transport, childcare. 4. Increase traffic roads unable to cope, increased traffic time, pollution, parking.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

516

Stephen Paul Chopping

I object to the proposed development of Kingswood Golf Club for the following reasons: 1 The scale and scope of the individual lots is totally out of character and unsuitable for our Village; 2 The addition of so many new homes cannot be absorbed into our community without massive, and concurrent, investment by Council and other entities. 3 Traffic on our local roads will become even more congested and not just during rush hour times. The already announced/approved Hawthorn FC development on Tootal Road will put a strain on local roads. The magnitude of this Kingswood GC proposal on top of that will be disastrous for the local community. 4 Our local schools are already overwhelmed, with more portables introduced despite the recent significant upgrades. 5 There does not seem to be adequate provision for residential parking in the development proposal. Given the proposed lot sizes, it is hard to imagine that new homes would have off‐street parking and is there sufficient room for street parking? 6 The purchaser of the Kingswood GC site bought it knowing full well that it was not zoned for such a massive development and now seeks to disrupt our way of life during the construction phase (probably for many years) and impose changes to our quiet village environment forever. There is no net benefit for village residents from this overstated and obtrusive development, quite the opposite in fact. Australian Super should be sent a clear message that it is NOT a formality to have such land rezoned and that local communities are entitled to be reasonably protected from inappropriate development propoals.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

517

Michael Probert

I am against this development because, This plan with many small lots is not in keeping with the character of Dingley Village and was not shown to residents at meetings before release so feed back was not obtained.I consider this plan to be Cluster Living with 3 storey housing apartments and I have no doubt that Terrace Housing will emanate from these small lots,all of which is detrimental to the welfare of the people. The loss of trees and vegetation is a devastating loss to the village which has very few trees except for this site. There are an abundant amount of wildlife living in this area so clearing will have a negative effect on the village. The lack of open space and trees to absorb rain water will lead to more flooding which often occurs in Spring rd. The infrastructure in Dingley cannot handle any more people as now doctors cannot take on more people, schools are full,shops are not adequate for current levels, and parking is a problem most times and this will be exacerbated by the arrival of more now business in area I.e. Hawthorne football club and the aqua park. Public transport is not good in Dingley and train stations are not convenient so a car is is a necessity this Bringing more vehicles to Dingley and more parking problems.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

518

Sandra Joy Banton

I live in a street that is directly affected by the development and have never been consulted in a manner that resulted in our ideas being properly adopted. They have never engaged with this resident. With the increased housing we will have up to one hour of travel time through the Dingley Village. There will be thousands of Birds and wildlife destroyed by the development

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

519

Kevin Dale

I wish to support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club. The Club needed substantial renovations and their own research concluded they would not be viable in the near future. It was the decision of Kingswood club members to merge with Peninsula Golf Club and the money from the Kingswood sale has been used to to redevelop the Peninsula site. It has been a great success for members of both Clubs who now enjoy a golf resort to an international standard. Already there has been an influx of new members and now a waiting list. The redevelopment plan at Kingswood is a significant benefit to suburban living. The plans feature 14 hectares of of open public space, open tree lined streets and includes 6 km of linear reserves with over 3500 new trees. At the same time significant trees have been protected. The re purposing of the Golf Club land will be a very desirable place to live and will invigorate the local Dingley area.. I support and commend this redevelopment.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

520

Denise D'Rozario

Dingley is a small, community minded village. We have been growing over the past 14 years that I have lived here and the population is increasing, however, our amenities haven’t. I have two teenage children and there is no local high school for them to attend. There is only one small strip of shops, a small library and community Centre. There is already so much traffic in Dingley, hardly any decent parks for children. This proposal looks to put hundreds and hundreds of homes into an already bursting neighborhood with no new amenities and barely any parkland. How is this small village meant to cope with the increased population and traffic this proposal will bring?! There is so much more that could be done with this land rather than hundreds and hundreds of properties. They could put in half the amount of normal sized homes while adding in amenities, parkland etc Or they could put in a high school!!! This would be a massive asset to the community; not copious amounts of tiny houses that won’t support the increased population who will bring multiple cars onto our roads. I definitely object to this current proposal as a resident of Dingley Village and do not want to see it go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

521

Rathmony Houth

I don’t haven’t any questions

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

522

Elaine Lynette Oak

Flooding..Lack of facilities to cater for increase residents (schools,sports clubs,kindergartens and rail line to relieve tragic congestion) …

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

523

Anita Probert

I wish to lodge my objection to the development of kingswood golf course. There will not be enough vacancies in local primary schools, and certainly no where for high school students. There will be a great shortage of parking at shop,community areas,such as netball,tennis and football. The increase of traffic trying to access the dingley bypass will be horrendous as it is already difficult to gain entry now. This development will destroy Dingley for ever

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

524

Carol Vida Drinkwater

There is a large number of aged citizens in Dingley who would find the increased number of traffics definite hazard. The wild life and green zone would be obliterated. What we really need in the area if this is to proceed is a secondary school. Australian super made a mistake and without thought about the existing residents. We moved here to have a village atmosphere which will definitely disappear. What right do they have to do this to us. We have to pick times now to do shopping here with more residents will be a lot harder.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

525

Faried Hartley

I strongly object to the proposed rezoning of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village for residential purposes. A twenty percent increase in population is not desirable as it will lead to gross overcrowding, without the appropriate level of supporting infrastructure, schools, child care, shopping/food facilities, green space, health care facilities, and sports facilities. The proposed development will reduce the green space and liveability of the village and significantly add to the already heavy load of traffic on the roads around the golf course area. It is already very difficult to exit from the village during peak hour at Spring Rd/Westall, Roman Rd/Westall, McClure Rd/Total Rd and Centre Dandenong Rd/Tootal Rd. This will be further exacerbated by the Hawthorn FC and Aqua Park developments, as well as the additional traffic rolling off the Mordialloc freeway at Centre Dandenong and the Dingley bypass.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

526

Simone Mohr

I strongly object to the rezoning of the golf course, and further, to the development of three storey buildings with small block sizes. Dingley Village is a small community with a limited number of primary schools (which are filled to capacity), no local high schools, limited bus routes, no trains, small roads, and has a small and modest shopping strip. Our area simply cannot take more housing or a larger population. We moved to this area over 10 years ago, because of the small community that it is. Rezoning this land would make Dingley Village overpopulated, and our roads and infrastructure cannot sustain this growth. This land should not be rezoned. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

527

Jill Hartley


Attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

528

Kayla Mohr

I greatly object to the rezoning of the golf course. Not to mention that the development of three‐storey buildings with small block sizes. Dingley Village is a small community with a limited number of primary schools which are already very full. No to mention, a limited amount of kindergartens, no local high schools, unreliable and limited bus routes that run late and hardly come (Already filled to the brim with students going to school), no trains, small roads, and has a small shopping strip. Our area simply cannot take more housing or a larger population. Because as stated, the issues before. I'm a high school student and I sometimes do not even get to school because of an unreliable transport. When it does come, it is packed to the brim with students because there is no local high school. We are all travelling out of Dingley to get to school and while my school is nowhere close by, by the time we reach there, we are still packed to the brim. We moved to this area over 10 years ago, because of the small community that it is. Rezoning this land would make Dingley Village overpopulated, and our roads and infrastructure cannot sustain this growth of population due to lack of transport, shops, schools, and roads. This land should not be rezoned. I strongly object to this.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

529

Andrew Golshan

Objection to the development at Kingswood golf course. Centre Dandenong rd cannot cope with traffic now at peak times let alone with extra housing. There aren't enough shopping facilities, only have one Woolworth in neighbourhood. No capacity in local schools for kids High density living can cause higher crime rate and vandelisation insufficient public transport for extra population in Dingley What happens to the flora and fauna.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

530

Paul Laband

I object to the proposed development at Dingley Village, as there is no net benefit, for the following reasons; 1 The Dingley bypass was put in to reduce materially the traffic flow through the village. This development, which envisages 823 lots, is likely to increase the village population by 20%. This will result in 680 vehicle movements at peak hour time on a single lane road, let alone a significant increase in traffic, and hence congestion, through out the day. Such an outcome is completely contrary to the reason for building the bypass. 2 The development dramatically increases the risk of serious neighbourhood flooding by covering the acquirer , which currently provides a highly material safety net in the event of serious rainfall. The probability of the latter has risen significantly as a result of climate change.As featured prominently on its website, Australian Super states that ESG management is is an integral part of its Active Ownership Program, with widespread commentary on its climate change risk management credentials. Specifically, in its Socially Aware Option, it does not invest in companies where there are ‘environmental controversies’. This development is inconsistent with this principle. 3 The local infrastructure is already struggling to meet the needs of the current village population. Schools are full, and the village shopping centre car park is already at capacity, to give but two illustrations. 4 Dingley village is close to Moorabbin airport and experiences a high volume of aircraft movements over its housing. An important feature of any airport is to identify and ensure there are clear areas in the nearby surroundings to minimise the risk to residents of an aircraft malfunction., where the risk is greatest on takeoff and landing. The proposed development would remove a key safety feature in this regard.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

531

Ravishanker Padbidri

1. Dingley is already overcrowded. 2.The proposed plan shows 56 blocks around 108 to 150sqm at the corner of McClure and Spring Roads and would feed onto the Westall Road which is a nightmare and an Accident spot takes between 5 to 10 mins for even 3 to 4 cars to get onto Westall Road at peak times. 3. Roads will never be able to cope with over 4000 to 5000 extra cars in the area especially during peak hours. 4.All the flora and fauna existing in the Golf course will be destroyed, we have beautiful kookaburras, Yellowtail Black cockatoos ,Magpies etc. just to name a few which flock the beautiful trees will be gone forever. 5.No Secondary school in the area and the existing Primary schools are full and cannot cope with any extra students. 6.Dust and noise pollution. 7.No Train stations nearby Public transport is negligible. 8.McClure Road could get flooded and value of homes will decrease significantly. 9.No sporting facility for Children existing one will not be able to cope. 10.The developers have never had any meetings with the locals and are trying to push through this huge development without proper and due consultation.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

532

Jean Cassidy

Objection to proposed development. 1. Traffic congestion due to increase of population. Impossible to leave my street during peak hours except by dangerous driving. Shopping Centre traffic already dangerous and could not cope with the expected overcrowding. 2. Climate change concerns caused by numerous tightly packed grey roofs and grey roads radiating heat as well as air conditioners spewing hot air in overcrowded housing areas during summer. 3.The proposal to plant dozens of trees is flawed as they will not grow due in land covered by housing and roads and who will water them. Not the council. 4. Very concerned about waiting times for doctors which is usually 3 weeks now and then sitting up to 1 hour in the waiting rooms. 5. Where can the expected children go to school? Schools in the area already full. 6. An increase of over 2000 residents which Dingley cannot cope with due to the above comments. 7. I fear the 3 stories will look like the housing taking place opposite Bunnings in Cheltenham Road which is yet to be completed and will also be an enormous increase to traffic, shopping etc. Is this social housing also. 8. The proposed traffic lights are only less than 200metres from the Howard road lights. In peak hour traffic is banked up over those lights heading to the south. 9. The video being shown at various localities bears no resemblance to the expected buildings and facilities such as the lakes and huge play ground areas shown. Only Dingley residents know who ridiculous it is. 10. Wild Life‐ The rare black cockatoo feeds on the large pine nuts when they are formed and fall to the ground. A rare sight to see. Ducks use the small lake to shelter when Victorian duck hunting season commences. There is little open space for many members of wild life and this development will not help. 11. We do not want a unique part of Melbourne to become like a Cranbourne, Pakenham, Dandenong or western Melbourne, where over development of housing has created massive social issues. 12. I know people have to live somewhere but there must be a better outcome for the Kingswood site than what is planned.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

533

Michael Noel Gainger


See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Submission re Kingswood Golf Course development

It is very concerning to hear that the Victorian State Government Golf Course Redevelopment

Advisory Committee is to consider the rezoning and redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course.

My concerns are many:

1. Dingley Village is severely lacking in infrastructure and will not cope with a significant

increase in its population.

• No secondary school

• No hospital

• No police station

• No fire station

• No ambulance station

• No public swimming pool

• Minimal public transport (only buses)

• Single lane roads

• One medical centre

• Small shopping strip

2. Dingley Village is zoned 2 storey. If the redevelopment is approved, our house will be

overshadowed on three sides by 3 storey housing. This is not the privacy I expected when I

purchased the property.

3. I have had 2 boys at Parkdale Secondary College over the last 7 years and have seen the

school numbers grow substantially. The distance by road is 5.5 kilometres each way. The

other alternative was Keysborough Secondary College which is 5.6 kilometres each way. In

terms of Government secondary schools, there is nothing closer. A great solution would be

for the Victorian Government to purchase part of the Kingswood Golf Course land to build a

new secondary school instead of further burdening 2 schools already struggling to meet

demand. This would be a “win win” for the locals with a local secondary school and reduced

housing in the proposed development.

4. The local roads in Dingley Village are single lane each way. I already find it difficult at times

to exit Golfwood Close (I live in ) onto Centre Dandenong Road, particularly

when turning right. Buses and trucks are a common occurrence in addition to the cars. The

Bunnings Plant Life distribution centre (Plant Access Pty Ltd) in Madden Road, Heatherton

and the DinSan wholesale nursery in Old Dandenong Road Dingley Village have a large

number of nursery industry trucks using Centre Dandenong Road every week day. There are

also 3 bus routes that operate along Centre Dandenong Road (811, 812 and 828) as well as

numerous school buses in the morning and afternoon. I expect that the proposed

development will add at least 1000 cars to Dingley Village. Given that the main road through

the development runs between Centre Dandenong Road and Spring Road, the situation will

be a nightmare for anyone exiting Golfwood Close. Given the traffic that currently uses

Westall Road between Springvale Road and Heatherton Road, there will be very few cars

using the Spring Road exit. They will use Centre Dandenong Road predominantly.

5. Dingley Village shopping strip has limited shops to cater for a significant increase in its

population. There are coffee shops, restaurants, takeaway food shops and a Woolworths

supermarket, but not much else. The Woolworths is small in size compared to other

supermarkets at Parkmore Shopping Centre and Keysborough South. At times on the

weekends, Woolworths is so busy that I walk out and come back later, particularly given

covid concerns. There is no local butcher or fruit and vegetable shop, no clothing shops, a

small post office, a pharmacy and various other small shops.

Written by Michael Gainger OAM on 19 July 2021

Organisation:

Affected property:

534

Rohit Mahajan

I OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT DUE TO LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES. WE NEED THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPED LIKE TRAIN STATION ROADS TO BE WIDENED. BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE COULD BE DONE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

535

Victoria Edwards

The planned development is far too densely designed and out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. Such a large increase in population will only exacerbate pressure on all Kingston Council services in the Village. Road congestion will be massively increased by a minimum of 800 cars (one per new household) and possibly double that number of cars, entering and leaving Dingley Village. The roundabout by Tootal Road already backs up with traffic and there are long delays at the traffic lights where Centre Dandenong Road joins Lower Dandenong Road. The road infrastructure cannot cope with such an increase in traffic. Schools are at full occupancy already. Doctors' surgeries are stretched to the limit. An appalling loss of wildlife. It will result in the loss of hundreds of trees that help counteract climate change and keep the area cooler in summer. There will be an increased potential for flooding in the area. The proposed development is totally detrimental and unsuited to the area and offers no benefits to Dingley Village whatsoever.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

536

Katica Alilovic

I object to the proposal.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

537

Patricia Mokryj

This land was donated for the leisure of Dingley residents. Dingley is already overcrowded shortages of schools, sporting facilities and infrastructure This overdevelopment adds nothing to the community and reduces our tree coverage and has a negative effect on our wildlife I strongly object to this overdevelopment

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

538

Stephen Gent

No Train station No Schools. Land is zoned Golf course. Land is Prone to Flooding. Lost wildlife. Dingley does not need to have public housing. The Proposed block of land sizes do not replicate Dingley suburb. No allowance for parking. No Extra Child Care. Developer not giving any thing to Dingley.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

539

Marcus hanlon

Fantastic design , balancing the need for housing with environment and public space. Absolutely should proceed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

540

Danny Dobell


My property backs onto Kingswood Golf Course & is effectively my backyard and oasis. Should this development go ahead without significant amendments, my way of life will be diminished immensely and will effect my mental health as I'll lose all trees, bird life and general serenity. From a beautiful vista, my backyard will essentially be overlooking four 300m2 blocks with three story homes overlooking my house. My premises are 3 metres from the fence line. See attached photo I purchased my home approximately 5 years ago and not informed of the pending golf course sale or development. It was not in the Section 32 nor picked up by my conveyancer. Had I known, I would not have purchased as this development will cause my property value to plummet, as I'll lose my vista. Such will be the impost of this development. It's an over‐development for the suburb of Dingley Village, will cause significant traffic problems, cause significant flooding, kill and destroy many trees which are currently home to thousands of birds and other wildlife. My main concern is the less than transparent process for the rezoning. The golf course was purchased for a significant amount of money but not zoned for housing, yet it appears the developers seemed confident they'd successfully re‐zone and the decision preordained. The developer has been less than open about their planning. I just hope the minister will not be swayed by these lobbyist. The development needs to be extensively amended with at the very least, a three to five metre buffer zone of nature strips for all existing properties that are on the perimeter of the golf course.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

541

Praewa Saleesung

This golf course should not be turned into a residential estate because so many members come to play and enjoy golf everyday plus it’s very good for the environment.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

542

Jarred madsen

The proposal for the kings wood redevelopment is absolutely disgusting. It is clearly designed to generate a maximum profit from property sales, and takes no account for the surrounding infrastructure. It is clear that the surrounding roads, schools, and green spaces are not sufficient to take on such a rapid population increase, and the result on the surrounding properties and residents in Dingley will suffer. As a Dingley resident I am highly opposed to the proposed redevelopment plan as it has far too many properties, and nearly no community facilities (green space, schools, community centers etc.)

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

543

Simon Hill

This development is totally against the character of the area. It will cause over crowding on local roads , causing danger to our kids when riding bikes. I’ve owned and lived in Dingley for 18 years, my children are growing up here, we are very concerned this development will destroy our lifestyle.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

544

Srdjan Savic

I object to the proposal for the following reasons: 1. Loss of thousands of Birds and wildlife. Many of them will be killed anr have their homes destroyed by this development. The developers will be required to re‐locate wildlife. They absolutely will not do this as required and it is a terrible imposition for the wildlife currently living in peace. 2. Increased traffic ‐ the developers data suggests up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per peak hour, on a single lane road, with Hawthorn Football Club and Aqua park traffic also expected soon. 3. It already takes up to one hour to travel through Dingley Village in peak traffic (morning/school pick up/drop off) and this travel time will only increase as the traffic increases. 4. Shopping will be more difficult ‐ the Woolworths carpark is already regularly full, often twice a day . More parking congestion will cause residents to shop out of town. 5. The Community Centre is already overloaded and needs extra space, not provided by the current re‐modelling. 6. Increasing the population by 20% of a Village that is already up to an hour away in peak traffic from Cheltenham railway station and the genuine Activity Centre.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

545

Vesna Savic

I object to the proposal because a 20% increase in population in our Village is hard to even imagine considering the number of fascilities we already have/don't have. Dingley would be suffocating with an additional 20% of new residents and an even bigger percentage of their cars. I cannot see any benefit for Dingley and its residents, only the opposite.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

546

Edward ArthurOak

3 story high buildings ,flooding hazard, traffic congestion, lack of schools and kindergardens to cope with influcts of more pupils..

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

547

Garry Denton

I am writing to object to the proposed redevelopment of Kingswood Golf Club. My reasons are as follows: 1. The number of proposed houses will increase our population by around 20% with no meaningful infrastructure to cater for the increase. I know there is the freeway but you have to get to it first. 2. Three storey houses on 300 sq m is not in keeping with the feel of Dingley Village which have one and two storey homes 3. Why can't some sporting or arts facilities be included such as a basketball court or theatre. It's not just about houses and increased rates. 4. Parking will be a nightmare 5. The number of trees to be destroyed is criminal. This must be limited 6. Our schools will not be able to cope with the increased residents 7. The residents have already voted against this development along with the council. It seems this newly established committee is there to simply override what the public wants. 8. Real consultation has not existed despite what the developers say 9. If we have to have some houses, there should be meaningful sporting/cultural additions as well Thank you

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

548

Hock Kee Lee

I object to the development of Kingswood Golf Club into a large housing estate for the following reasons: 1. I bought my current property on because it faces the Kingswood Golf Club, providing my family with a fantastic view of the Golf Club and the green vegetations. The Developer's proposal to build a row of apartment style housing along McClure Road will meant that we will be looking into somebody else back yard. Local estate agents have also indicated that homes along McClure road could loss between 10 ‐ 15% of their values because of the development to Kingswood Golf Club. 2. I moved to Dingley because of the quiet and green surrounds the area provides. Converting the Kingswood Golf Club to a residential estate will turn Dingley from a village to an urban suburb, removing its 'green' status. 3. Traffic along McClure Road is already quite heavy without the added traffic that will occur from the new additional 800 dwellings residents from this development. Since we moved into this area, the council have had to add speed humps in McClure Road to reduce speed of traffic using McClure Road. Additional residents meant additional traffic and therefore additional risks. 4. As already happening on Totals Road, additional residents meant more cars and therefore car parking space will be required. Most development allows for 1 or 2 cars parking spot per dwelling. In most cases the number of cars per dwelling exceeds their allocation forcing the residents to park in the streets and nature strips. 5. Dingley's 2 primary schools are already full and there is currently no secondary schools in the area. Additional number of residents will only add more pressures on existing venues. I thank the committee for considering our objections to this development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

549

Brad Edwards


“see attached submission”

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



20th July, 2021.

To Whom It May Concern,

Due to actions taken by Frankston’s Peninsula Country Golf Club and

Dingley Village’s 106-year-old Kingswood Golf Club – we stand to lose millions of dollars

in collective property values and I personally expect losses between $50,000 and $100,000

off the value of our home.

In late 2005, my soon to be wife, Nicole and I, decided that Dingley

Village was the place for us to start out family. We fell in love with this small slice of heaven

that most people in Melbourne haven’t even heard of. The pace of life here in this community

is somewhat slower, the neighbours are friendlier and when you go to the local shops they

greet you with a smile and often know your name. Fresh air and the local parks, golf course

and wildlife make for a spectacular environment to raise a family. We now have three boys,

twins Ryan and Liam who are now 14 years old and Brandon who is ten. In short, Dingley

Village is a rarity, a family haven – quiet, safe and clean!

There is hardly a day that goes by where we don’t feel blessed with our

surroundings. The sounds of birds in the morning and throughout the day, the ducks that visit

us in our back yard, the rosella’s visiting our apple tree, the pelican’s flying overhead, the

ibises in the park across our road and my kids even saw an echidna the other day. Can you

imagine the sense of wonder and amazement this brings to our lives - all due to the fact that

we live so close to Kingswood Golf Course. The area’s history is all about nurseries,

vegetables, flowers and seedlings – from Melbourne’s earliest settlement, growers were

drawn by the sandy soil. If the area was not previously zoned Special Use – Golf Course, it

most certainly would have been zoned green. And how much wildlife and amenity will be

wiped out if this isn’t rectified?

The fallout of Kingswood’s sale and redevelopment for housing would

be catastrophic for our community. What will Dingley Village look and feel like if the plans

for over 800 new houses actual goes ahead? There will be an immediate loss of the peaceful

Village environment that we cherish. The habitat and breeding ground for thousands of Flora

and Fauna will be hugely affected, all but wiping out most bird families and threaten

identified rare flora. Residents will suffer noise, distress, intense dust, and dangerous

commercial trucks and other traffic - 6 days a week for up to 5 years. Air pollution will

worsen as the “Kingswood Course” is the lungs for our Village to offset more than its fair

share of fumes from existing and past tips and concrete crushers. Existing drainage already

cannot cope with downpours now! If nearly 800 homes are added, Dingley Village’s sewage

and storm-water will actually exceed capacity. Our suburb is uniquely dependent on just a

few secondary roads for access and cannot cope with more traffic. The schools and other

Social facilities, plus Sporting Clubs are running at capacity. So we can basically envisage a

future of increased air pollution, flooding, noise pollution, heavy road congestion, stress,

reduced quality of life and the total destruction of local wildlife and fauna. Irreversibly

changing Dingley for the worse, forever! There is No community benefit from rezoning. The

frustrating thing is that the demolition is not even necessary as the Kingswood Club was

not in dire financial straits and still has assets worth millions. How do two Golf Clubs get

to decide the future and direction of an entire community? The planned development is in

my view an unconscionable act.

And how do I discuss this matter with my kids? We live in a

democracy where the will of the majority is supposed to mean something. Yet in Dingley

Village a minority, focused on greed, can over-develop the heart of our community without

regard to the loss of open space and amenity. Why would anyone bulldoze an existing

beautiful golf course/park with decades of nurturing? Where have all the beautiful birds gone,

daddy?

Please don’t stand by and allow the gutting and ruining of our unique community where

people live in harmony with nature. Therefore I request that you look at these circumstances

and do whatever is in your power to assist Dingley Village residents and do the right thing for

our community.

The actions of both Frankston’s Peninsula and Kingswood’s Golf Club have caused my

family serious stress, on-going worry and upset about our future here in the Village. I do

hope the issue can be rectified in a way that benefits the community and not the greedy

minority. I believe, that either Kingswood Golf Course should (with minor business

adjustments) continue as a viable enterprise or for the land to be rezoned as green! So our

family can get on with our lives without this potential nightmare situation hanging over us.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Brad Edwards.

Organisation:

Affected property:

550

Dexter Prack

The merger of the two golf clubs have been absolutely fantastic and the economic impact for both clubs have been substantial. PKGC has already been ranked as one of the best golf clubs in Australia if not the world, and its status continues to grow. The facilities at the golf club is world class and the condition of the course is second to none, which is why the growth in membership and waiting lists continues, which helps the sustainability of the club. PKGC also supports its community via the PK Community Foundation. The development proposal I certainly believe is critical for the area and with over $1.7bn in economic benefit to Victoria and over 800+ jobs alone is a major factor on why this should go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

551

Donald Francis Beaurepaire

I support the proposed development in Dingley because it meets the planning guidelines for development in Victoria. It provides net community and economic benefits through the supply of medium priced housing,open spaces,community facilities and parks. Nearby infrastructure and access to employment are also important provisions and will provide a multiplier effect for the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

552

Peter M Truman

I object to the proposed medium to high density development of the Kingswood Golf ourse on the following grounds; 1) I have lived and been a house owner in Dingley Village over 40 years and don't consider the proposed development to be in the character of the VILLAGE environment of the area, which currently consist of a lot size greater than 550sqm lots, whereas the proposal is for mega redevelopment of around half that size at 300sqm. 2) The proposal will increase the VILLAGE population by more than 20%, above the current limited redevelopment of 2 lot sub‐divisions on existing lots, the new proposal will have detrimental impacts on traffic, services, schooling, and ammenities, non of which the developer has addressed. Dingley residents have previously repeatedly voted against dedicated bus lanes and increased bus traffic thro Dingley Village, where in peak times road travel progress thro Dingley is very slow. 3) The golf course provides a natural habitat of mature trees, open spaces, for wild animals, birdlife etc the proposed high density development will destroy and displace this natural environment including protected species. 4) like all developers the Aust super trust or developer will NOT consider the current residents of Dingley Village or their future loss of ammenities, services or environment just their own bottom line, and will leave the village with NO value added to the Village lifestyle! 5) Obviously the proposed development will have NO value added to Dingley Village & it's residents the village will loose it's natural culture, and the lower cost higher density mass housing will reduce the value of the properties in this highly respected isolated area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

553

Mark Beadle

We do not wish for this development to go ahead. It needs to be turned into low density housing or additional schools to match the current surroundings of the village as well as additional park land for current residents to enjoy. Adding new developments will not only over crowd the current peaceful village it will conject our roads and streets and also increase the crime rate not to mention dropping current house prices in the area. As it is dingley has no public transport system adding more residents will only increase the strain on an already under performing transport system we moved to this village because of the village atmosphere and adding additional developments will ruin that not to mention a large exitous of current residents escaping the over crowded village!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

554

Jasper Canty

I do not want this building development to go ahead as I love my suburb the way it is. I am 10 years old have lived in Dingley Village for my whole life and I love where I live. I do not want see 800+ houses being built on beautiful land where so much nature currently lives and would be lost. Look at how busy our roads are already and now imagine another 2,000 cars on our busy roads and how unsafe it would be for kids to just play on the footpath or go for a bike ride. Half of my school I go to is already portable classrooms and we already have 700 students at our school. When I was three years old I could not get in to kindergarten because it was full and I also have friends who couldn't play on our football team this year because there were too many kids. This is already a big problem and would be worse with hundreds of more kids in to the area. If you do build on our amazing land the thousands of people that will move in will create bigger problems for kindergartens, schools and sport teams because there are not even enough room for the people that live here already. We want to keep the place we live safe and beautiful and it is unfair that the developers are trying to take that from us again. Please don't let this development go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

555

Janet Scott

This development proposal should be rejected. The current character of Dingley Village with it's open spaces will be destroyed. The local roads will not handle the increase in traffic with such a development. The three local primary schools are already at capacity and there are no local secondary schools. There is one medical clinic only. The car park at the local shopping centre is already over‐crowded in peak times. And so the list of undesirable outcomes which would result from this development goes on.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

556

Ray Alfred Nicholls

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village. I am of the opinion that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the area, especially if three‐storey houses are built. The over‐saturation of people and vehicles are not supported by the local infrastructure. There are insufficient schools in the area to cope with the expected children and the local roads also could not manage with the expected traffic increase. The local sporting facilities, shops and healthcare would also not cope. In my opinion the proposed number of dwellings would be out of character with the village and the development would have a detrimental effect on surrounding property values and therefore my property. On this basis I object strongly to the proposed over‐development of the golf course.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

557

Sandra Irene Nicholls

I wish to lodge an objection to the development of the Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village. I think that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the area, especially if three‐storey houses are built. The number of people and cars that would be introduced into our are would not be supported by the local infrastructure. There are insufficient schools in the area to cope with the expected children and the local roads also could not manage with the traffic increase. The local sporting facilities, local shops and healthcare facilities would also not cope, nor would the local public transport, which is limited to buses. The proposed number of dwellings would be out of character with the village and the development would have a detrimental effect on surrounding property values and therefore our property. I therefore object strongly to the proposed over‐development of the golf course.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

558

Fergus James Donaldson

I wish to make a submission in support of the proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment. As a golf enthusiast with a young family I have long been a supporter of building the great game of golf through mergers. When golf clubs merge, it combines the best of both clubs by freeing up important capital to conduct the necessary course enhancements and improvements at the property that is kept, and also freeing up valuable tracts of land that could be used to enhance and improve the life of families and the community in the area of the property that is sold. It really is a win‐win situation. As a Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club member, my family and I have benefited greatly from the capital injection the club received with the sale of the Dingley property. Our Frankston courses are now amongst the best in the country, the facilities are exceptional and we have really created a world‐class experience with a truly family‐friendly vibe that has attracted golf‐tourists from all over the world. With the new course and facilities, we have also seen an influx on new, younger members from all walks of life who live all over Melbourne, all keen to be a part of a club that is doing something truly special. The new vibrancy our club enjoys is one of the reasons I believe it is important for more clubs to be able to benefit from mergers. But in order for this to happen, we are all relying heavily on the ability of the old clubs to be redeveloped. If this vital redevelopment stage isn't allowed to occur, then other clubs will be reluctant to undertake the vital, mutually‐beneficial steps to merge with other clubs. If redevelopments are blocked, every golf club that needs to merge will put it off and if this happens every body loses out. The merger of Peninsula and Kingswood clubs has not only improved the Frankston site, it has opened a massive window in Dingley to create a magnificent community area, with trees, wetlands and more, giving the community the chance to enjoy the benefits that the members of the club have already enjoyed ‐ the chance to be a part of a truly invigorated community with new life, new people and new opportunities. For those reasons I support the redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

559

John Digby Chapman

My concern/objection to the proposal is entirely infrastructure related and as a disclosure cum information, a daughter lives quite near the proposed development and has had a so called 1 in 100 years flooding of her dwelling. With climate change and the additional proposed areas of hard surface, drainage is a huge concern. Some of the existing surrounding streets are prone to flooding with heavy rain. Currently the sandy substrate of the golf course acts as a water sink. The proposal with such small allotments will add a large water collection to the area and I do not see the developers provide any provision to improve the existing drainage. The increased water run‐off can not be accomodated with the existing storm water in my opinion. Has any modelling been done to determine the run‐off from the proposed new area of roofs and how the storm water will cope? The second issue is traffic flow. It is difficult to enter and exit Dingley Village in peak times. With no close train lines, there will be a heavier dependance on cars to either get to work or to the rail station. Associated with this, is the parking at close railway stations. As senior citizens who travel after peak, we find it difficult get reasonably close parking now. Addional cars will make this even harder. A third infrastucture issue, is primary and high schools plus kindergardens. Primary schools are at capacity now as are the designated high schools. I see no land set aside to alleviate any additional pressure on the school system. To be a benefit to the Dingley Village community, I believe that the developers ought to gift land to the Council/State Government to allow for building of new social infrastructure. I see no benefit in allowing the proposal to proceed as all the gain appears to be for the developers and all of the pain is to be borne by existing residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

560

Gaye L Smolcic


see attached

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



OBJECTIONS TO the RE-DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2: -

DECLINE IN HOUSE VALUE: we sought to live next to the Golf Course in Dingley Village, purchased

our home 23 years ago in . Have put value into our home comfort and now in fear

that an unsightly development on the golf course will have a declining effect on the value of our

home and all the homes in Dingley Village.

NO CONSULTATION ON DEVELOPMENT: 5 years ago the golf course was sold for intended housing

development without having been zoned for residential and without any consultation to the DV

residents and even more so for those DV residents living on the boundary of the golf course, our

concerns started for all the beautiful trees and especially all the birdlife, which are now under threat

and had been our very reason for moving to live in DV adjacent to the Kingswood golf course.

OVERDEVELOPMENT AND DECLINED QUALITY OF LIFE: Concerns are for our quality of life, including

the birdlife (we have some families of birds) possums, frogs and the other wildlife, the tranquil

lifestyle would be no longer, with development causing huge increase in noise, local population,

local traffic with many more cars, buses, disruptions and chaos with power, affecting internet

outages and dirty water from being turned on/off over many years of development without any

benefit to the people who live in DV.

NO BENEFIT TO LOCAL TRAFFIC: The DV main road, Centre Dandenong Road, traffic blocks at the

best of times, DV has very few entry and exits, additional local traffic would only add to this leaving

permanent peak traffic issues. NO BENEFIT TO LOCAL PARKING: Then there is the added stress

with parking (or lack of) in the shopping and health services areas within DV, potentially 20% more

people in DV requiring to park for shopping and services.

DEVASTATING FLOOD CONCERNS: The golf course absorbs a lot of water from heavy rains, plus

water from other parts of Melbourne that come into overflow basin and water collection on the golf

course. We had already experienced flooding (approx 9 years ago) when a partially blocked

(breather type) pipe directly behind our fence line in my rear neighbour yard had blocked from the

broken lid falling inside, the land on the golf course should remain as is needed to absorb heavy

rains, the land and green space, being much in a flood zone, also taking on more storm water from

other parts of Melbourne. Building on the land will only exacerbate any flooding, this is a huge

concern as we and all my 3 neighbours having already been through flooding due to just one

breather pipe which was only partly blocked, so with the development of a whole lot of concrete,

roads and buildings on the KGC green space land, how much more flooding could we expect and

endure?

DINGLEY VILLAGE can only BENEFIT: from the golf course REMAINING AS A GOLF COURSE (or

similar) as absorbing flooding rain water into the ground and catchments, keeping bird and wildlife,

enhancing fauna and flora. Anything else on the KGC green space needs proper and full

consideration, being fully conscious and not just for the financial gains for some as there is good

reason why the KGC is zoned for golf course and green spaces, any changes to that, is on a large

scale, going against nature and will be of no benefit to Dingley Village.

Organisation:

Affected property:

561

Lynette Gayle Daniell


See attached submission ‐ 3 files

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/50683

Attachment 3: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/50684



Organisation:

Affected property:

562

Bryan Daniels

As a past resident of Dingley and regular golfer at Kingswood Golf Club I support the proposed redevelopment. Whilst it is sad that the golf club could not continue I believe the redevelopment will prove to be an asset for the residents providing an injection of business activity and new, younger residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

563

Dominic Roger Waltzer

I live opposite the golf course and one of the reasons why I bought here over 20 years ago. The village is already short of schools and when my kids went to high school there is not one local and they had to go there by bus. The traffic trying to get out of Dingley via the roundabout during the week is already difficult and this will also add to it. We also have no direct access to train stations which will also make the need for people to drive increasing traffic. There are a lot of reasons why this is bad and the developer has no interest in the impact. The audacity of a company to buy the land with the expectation that it will be re‐zoned is gobsmacking. I know the market gardeners would love to have that option. Finally I have no issue with Moorabbin Airport as it was here well before us and we bought knowing that. I do have issues with this as I bought knowing there was a golf course zoned that way with no thought that it would be shutdown and be re‐zoned. This will kill Dingley Village it has no net benefit unlike the Kennedy Centre will have. Don't let Australian Super win from making a bad business decision that will impact thousands of people

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

564

Steven Burns

I have live in Dingley Village since 1996 My concerns with this proposed development are as follows. The developers have no concern for increased traffic in the area with the addition of 823 new houses, Dingley has single lane roads in and out which will cause traffic kaos for the residents every single day. Over crowding for parking in the area. All schools are currently booked out, so no where for all the new kids to be educated. Not enough child care facilities in the area. Not enough medical services for the area as it is, without the 20 % increase in population. No rail facilities in Dingley. Electrical system overload with this many new house, we already suffer power outages regularly. Destroying so many natural habitats for the native animals in the area. The new development will only add to the constant flooding in the area once that area is covered with roads. Not enough parking for all these new houses due to the ridiculously small houses that are being proposed. The developers have no consideration for the existing residents of this beautiful family orientated village, they are going to absolutely destroy the area with cheap box like houses and overcrowding the area. Privacy issues for the residents on the boundary of this proposed development as the developers want to build three storey house virtually in their back yards, they should not be allowed to do this. The resident have already showed their disapproval of this development by submitting an 8000 strong objection to the proposed plans in any form. This is very unfair as the developers don't care about destroying the area or the current residents lives as they are now. This is proposal is purely driven by greed, the residents don't want it.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

565

Lisa Dale

I wholly object to this proposed Kingswood Golf course redevelopment for a number of important reasons. Firstly, we live 2 streets away from the proposal and already it's difficult in the mornings and early evening to get in and out of our street because of the constanr traffic flow along Centre Dandenong Road. Some days can take up to 5 minutes. If this development is approved it will only take longer. Secondly, there is no High School in Dingley Village to take in any more potential students, the surrounding High schools are already at capacity. Thirdly, the small block sizes and density of the proposed area is going to make for too large a population in Dingley for the surrounding shops/sporting grounds/childcare/doctors etc to cope with the demand. Overall, the developers are just in this for profit and are not considering our concerns to destroy the Village that we have.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

566

Susan Dawson

I support this submission of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179‐217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingle Village, to be developed into much needed residential living and open green space within an established community. The concept also notably includes recognition of our indigenous history and community. The local employment generated by Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club, Frankston, together with their charitable contributions and support of the Frankston community through the PK Foundation continues to grow. The club’s desire to have the courses at their best enable apprentices who undertake their training at the club to excel in the industry. Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club is a world class facility which attracts national and worldwide attention.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

567

Carol Reid

I would like to support the submission for the redevelopment of the Peninsula Kingswood Golf course. Primarily as this will allow for more housing in an already established residential area where it is required, it will also allow for a planned use of open space for playgrounds, and the local housing. Walking and cycling paths are also an advantage in the planning for use of all the community not just the residents. The council must surely find this a win win for the local area, I cannot believe it has taken this long to reach a decision. It must be seen as a huge advantage to the local residents to be able to have this area as a specifically designated area for housing and recreation.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

568

Desmond S. Williams


see attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



I strongly object to the application by Australian Super to the re-zone the Kingswood Golf Course “Recreational Zone” to a “Residential Zone”. A grossly over-developed housing development is being proposed, consisting of a ugly, high-density, minuscule three-storey units which are totally

out of neighbourhood character for Dingley Village. I am not against development, our State must grow, however the gross over-development proposed in Planning Scheme Amendment C199king is totally unacceptable.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne encouraged the Kingston City Council (KCC) to listen to

residents and be guided by the wishes of the community. 8000 Dingley Village residents objected to the initial rezoning proposal in C155 and the KCC voted unanimously AGAINST the rezoning. Since then, the rules for the new proposal (C199king) have been so modified as to exclude the

Kingston City Council from making the determination and for classifying all resident’s petitions, form letters and the KCC decision as a single objection! The objection process is now unfair and UNJUST and has favoured the developer and disadvantaged the residents of Dingley Village, who will be the most adversely affected group by this out of neighbourhood character over-development proposal.

I ask the Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee (GCRSAC) to also take into account the opinions and views of both our local State and Federal Members of Parliament as they form an important measure of community feeling. A decision on such a controversial over-development should be left to individual Councils to decide upon, particularly in the light of the

Minister being on record as saying “the best planning results occur when local Councils listen to the views of their residents.”

Dingley Village residents are concerned that the State Government’s “moving of the goal-posts” to weaken both KCC and community objections on the final development decision is unjust. Any new process should not be used to over-ride a Council decision, especially such as in the case of

Kingswood golf club, where Council unanimously rejected an inappropriate proposal to rezone golf course land.

I protest strongly about this planned massive over-development of the site for the following

reasons:

a) The developer claims to be providing “net community benefit” aligning with “neighbourhood

character”. Whilst in fact, this development is NOT in Dingley Village neighbourhood

character. 30% of the new over-development of 820 homes will be sited on land footprints

of 162sqM and less, with 115 lots on a tiny 108sqM footprint (4.5M wide!) and three-

storey. The current average Dingley Village home land sites are around 500sqM and only

two-storey.

b) There is NO “net community benefit” in a 20% increase in Dingley Village population, as

there are no plans for extra maternal health facilities, child care or kindergartens in an

area where schools are already at full capacity. The Dingley Village Primary School has

had to install eight (8) portable classrooms, which now crowd the playground. Kingswood

Primary School turned away 75 student applications.

c) At Australian Super’s Webinar consultation evening (15th July) they advised that they

calculate the new development will produce a maximum of 80 high school and 100

primary students, who will need to find schooling in the area. This is an absurd under-

estimate for an 820-home complex. The nearest high school is at Parkdale (the developer’s

option) and is already at capacity and can take no more portable classrooms on site!

d) The developer’s expected 680 extra car movements per peak-hour (6800 per day) on the

unsuitable single-laned Dingley Village streets, will only create peak-hour traffic paralysis.

There is no on-ramp facility to the Mornington Peninsula freeway extension, at Centre

Dandenong Rod, which is currently under construction.

e) Gross under provision for parking in the anticipated narrow streets in front of units no

wider than 4.5M and where many homes will need two cars, due to no decent public

transport uplift in the area, it is not in a transport hub. The nearest rail station is 6kms

away!

f) Loss of the only treed open-space in Dingley Village as it is expected 1000’s of trees will be

removed and wildlife lost along with the cooling effect of treed open space, which will have

long term detrimental effects on our urban liveability.

g) Extra over pressure on the existing sewerage, water and electricity infrastructure.

h) Most gaulling of all for Dingley Village residents has been the almost zero meaningful

consultation with the local Dingley Village community. For the final proposal, the

developers provided a one-hour Webinar information session (15th July 2021) on their

plans. Approx. 15 mins of that time was devoted to question-time and many questions

answered were clearly to “Dorothy dix” type questions provided by the developer. Had the

developer consulted meaningfully with community years ago, there is no doubt a suitable

and amicable agreement could have been reached on a lower density development which

would compliment the local area rather than destroy the local amenity of Dingley Village.

Organisation:

Affected property:

569

Harry Brian Russell

Hi i need this to go ahead because buying a property is very important

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

570

Deepesh makadia

There are so many reasons why Kingswood golf course should remain as non residential. 1. The works involved and finished outcome will reduce existing home prices and will become part of 'old dingley'. That's how the realtors would see it. 2. The traffic on the roads would be unbearable. It is already excessively busy because of the freeway being built. The infrastructure is not sufficient to accomodate the traffic. 3.loss of environment. Losing greenery in the area 4. increasing noise pollution. 5.Losing natural habitat for wildlife Instead,make this a good botanical garden like in the city or like Cranbourne or Berwick. It brings in revenue, jobs, and maintains habitat for wildlife and maintains house prices.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

571

Gary Millar

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed redevelopment of Kingswood Golf Club, because: ‐ The first proposal was for 750 homes which was OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by Dingley residents, Kingston Council and opposed by State and Federal politicians. Now the developers have the audacity to increase the density by an extra 10% to 823 homes ‐ but NOT providing any additional services to the Dingley community to accomodate the increase in residents Dingley's population would increase by about 30% or 3,000 people. A “typical Australian family” of say 2 adults and 2 kids would lead to significant pressures on: ‐ local kindergartens and schools which are currently full Kingswood Primary rejected 75 applications because they couldn't accomodate them There is no secondary school and the nearby ones are very full ‐ community and health services such as doctors, dentists, optometrists, the child care centre Waiting times at the doctors can sometimes be 2 weeks with the existing resident numbers ‐ sporting facilities which are currently in short supply ‐ existing shops and the associated parking congestion ‐traffic volumes, which are forecast to increase by 6,800 movements per day ‐ on roads that are already packed at peak times The Developer’s proposal says “This plan shows what is being proposed and the shared community facilities that will benefit all who call Dingley Village home”. BUT it doesn’t show any “shared community facilities” other than some parkland with some play equipment ‐ Comparing the first and second development proposals indicates a far higher number of 3 storey dwellings ‐ estimated to be about 85% (700) of the total dwelling numbers proposed. There are NO 3 storey dwellings in or close to Dingley now. This sets an unacceptable precedent and is not in keeping with Dingley’s amenity Dingley lot sizes currently average about 550‐600m2. 50% of the proposed lots are LESS THAN 240m2 ‐ less than half the current Dingley average size. This clearly is NOT in keeping with Dingley’s existing amenity There are 37 lots with a frontage of only 4.5 metres and 209 with a frontage of only 6 metres. 30% of lots less than 6 metres wide. This is totally unacceptable and not in keeping with Dingley architecture, layout or amenity The Developer’s plans, conveniently, do NOT show where the 8 metre wide “laneways” will be. But combined with the narrow blocks causes concern for traffic flow, look and amenity In the first proposal there was significant water catchment/lake and green area in the south east corner of the property, designed based upon hydrological and drainage advice re flood mitigation. Despite adding additional dwellings this lake has reduced significantly in size and moved far closer toward to the Centre Dandenong Road border The Developer’s PR video says “this is what the development COULD look like”. That is of great concern There are

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



no details about what will happen to the existing Clubhouse


Organisation:

Affected property:

572

JulieMillar

I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed redevelopment of Kingswood Golf Club, because: ‐ Comparing the first and second development proposals indicates a far higher number of 3 storey dwellings ‐ estimated to be about 85% (700) of the total dwellings proposed. There are NO 3 storey dwellings in or close to Dingley now. This sets an unacceptable precedent and is not in keeping with Dingley’s amenity Dingley lot sizes currently average about 550‐600m2. 50% of the proposed lots are LESS THAN 240m2 ‐ less than half the current Dingley average size. This clearly is NOT in keeping with Dingley’s existing amenity There are 37 lots with a frontage of only 4.5 metres and 209 with a frontage of only 6 metres. 30% of lots less than 6 metres wide. This is totally unacceptable and not in keeping with Dingley architecture, layout or amenity The Developer’s plans, conveniently, do NOT show where the 8 metre wide “laneways” will be. But combined with the narrow blocks causes concern for traffic flow, look and amenity In the first proposal there was significant water catchment/lake and green area in the south east corner of the property, designed based upon hydrological and drainage advice re flood mitigation. Despite adding additional dwellings this lake has reduced significantly in size and moved far closer toward to the Centre Dandenong Road border The Developer’s PR video says “this is what the development COULD look like”. That is of great concern There is no clarity as to what will happen to the existing Clubhouse ‐ The first proposal was for 750 homes which was OVERWHELMINGLY rejected by Dingley residents, Kingston Council and opposed by State and Federal politicians. Now the developers have the audacity to increase the density by an extra 10% to 823 homes ‐ but NOT providing any additional services to the Dingley community to accomodate the increase in residents Dingley's population would increase by about 30% or 3,000 people. A “typical Australian family” of say 2 adults and 2 kids would lead to significant pressures on: ‐ local kindergartens and schools which are currently full Kingswood Primary rejected 75 applications because they couldn't accomodate them There is no secondary school and the nearby ones are very full ‐ community and health services such as doctors, dentists, optometrists, the child care centre Waiting times at the doctors can sometimes be 2 weeks with the existing resident numbers ‐ sporting facilities which are currently in short supply ‐ existing shops and the associated parking congestion ‐ traffic volumes, which are forecast to increase by 6,800 movements per day ‐ on roads that are already packed at peak times The Developer’s proposal says “This plan shows what is being proposed and the shared community facilities that will benefit all who call Dingley Village home”. BUT it doesn’t show any “shared community facilities” other

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



than some parkland with some play equipment


Organisation:

Affected property:

573

Suzanne Pask

I am objecting to the proposed development on the following grounds: * lack of infrastructure to support the increase in population * traffic congestion will dramatically increase * 'liveability' of Dingley Village will be compromised * environmental impact ‐ bird and wildlife will loose habitat and many trees will be lost * loss of neighborhood character * congestion of housing * no new schools/sporting/health facilities to support increase population * concerned that internet will slow even further * low lying water areas will be impacted more than currently during extended rain periods

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

574

Paul Pask

I object to the development on Kingswood Golf course because: * it will destroy the local environment * overpopulation of the area will destroy the feel of the whole Dingley Village * it will turn the area into a 'super suburb' * traffic congestion due to parking on roads will increase as the properties are too small to house all vehicles at the property * increase in local population without increase in schools, health facilities and supports * out of character with current housing * high congestion of housing with little regard for green space

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

575

Rebekah Pask

I object to the development of the Kingswood golf course because: * overpopulation will create extra waste and require more services than currently are present in the area * the image of Dingley Village and its community feel will be compromised due to mass development in the area * currently already congestion on public transport (my route to school is already a double bus that is overfull each day), increase in population will impact this further * wildlife will loose habitat * privacy will be invaded due to size and proposed development

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

576

Megan Pask

I object to the Kingswood golf club development because: * I don't want my privacy to be compromised * The disruption due to noise will be detrimental to my education * infrastructure in the suburb has not been considered and how it will need to be updated to cope with the increase in population * traffic congestion will dramatically increase * this will be an extended period of time of disruption to the community * nature will loose habitat and not enough green corridors are being proposed * traffic congestion * over population of schools ‐ currently they are full, with no plan to create more spaces * no future planning for infrastructure upgrades * what is the plan for once the development is completed ‐ they leave and then what? * design is not in keeping with the Dingley Village character

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

577

Tony Sephton

The infrastructure to support this application is non existent from the documentation presented to so far. This amount of development with no additional school consideration or public facilities is unmanageable for the area. This application needs to be stopped until due consideration to the community needs is provided within the plans. This application needs to provide a reasonable solution to the population growth that will occur with this many houses being built. The current schooling provision could not handle the extra numbers of children without a major impact to the eduction bring provided. This has to be the major reason to why the application falls short of proper consideration and impact to an established community. This is without focusing on the changing landscape of a beautiful region of Melbourne, no additional sporting facilities and community facilities.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

578

Haifeng Mi

There are up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per peak hour, on a single lane road, plus soon the Hawthorn Football Club trafficand and the Aqua Park traffic. Up to one hour to travel through Dingley Village when traffic increases. The Kinders and Primary Schools already full. NO Secondary Schools. Health services overloaded now. Shopping more difficult. Overloading a Village that is up to an hour away in peak traffic from Cheltenham railway station and the genuine Activity Centre. Years of Chaos, noise and Dust. Electricity huge demands will put stress on power, with potentially lower voltage and longer power outages. No Net benefit for Dingley Village. Unimaginable thousands of Birds and wildlife lost. No consideration of Amenity. Not in Village Character. Loss of an aircraft safety and noise buffer. The developer had the incredible audacity to show the flood lakes (retarding basins) plus overflow areas in their open space! Shopping more difficult. NBN and other services clogged.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

579

Zihong Qin

No Net benefit for Dingley Village. To much traffic. Not enough Maternal Health places. Thousands of Birds and wildlife lost. Not one of the resident’s comments have been adopted in a satisfactory manner. The DVCA and Save Kingswood have not heard from the Developer for years. No consideration of Amenity. No Community facilities like sporting ovals. The developer wants 823 lots, with many less than 300 sq metres. A twenty percent increase in our Village population. Kinders and Primary Schools already full. NO Secondary Schools. Loss of an aircraft safety and noise buffer. Health services overloaded now.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

580

Malwina Peacock

I support the proposal because of the extensive green space and natural setting planned.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

581

Therese Davidson

I think it would be a travesty to allow the golf course to be turned into a residential development. Schools and kindergartens are overcrowded now. Supermarket car park packed at pickup drop off time Golf course is a flood zone!! Where will the water go if it’s developed!! Our drainage in Dingley is shocking. Where do all the animals go?? It’s a bubble they will migrate into peoples homes and backyards !! At least 2000 more cars in our little suburb. We will be gridlocked!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

582

Kane Davidson

My parents have been in Dingley for 45 years I have been here for 28 years. I had to go to Cheltenham for schooling, Dingley offers no high schools. I had to catch the bus to school or parents had to drive me. With these extra homes I calculate at least 2500 more cars, for those having to drive to work allow another 1hour at least to get past the Dingley roundabout!! It’s near impossible to get onto the westall bypass at peak hour now, imagine 2000 plus more cars! I love my village please don’t destroy it.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

583

Carl Perkins

Under the previous Victorian Planning legislative regime 8000+ objections were raised by voters, rate payers and community members who were suitably aggrieved as to the proposed previous iterations of this development. This was a comprehensive rejection by the immediate community who felt there was no net community benefit to the submitted proposals. Subsequently, a new Victorian Planning legislative regime has been implemented, which comprehensively dismisses and ignores the previous 8000+ objections by the immediate community, who felt the previous proposals provided no net community benefit. On page three, at dot point three of Ministerial response to the Standing Advisory Committee’s Report June 2020, when discussing the evaluation of ‘net community benefit’, the Minister has written “The government wishes to ensure the beneficial outcomes required by the Guidelines accrue to the immediate community of any golf course proposed for redevelopment.” This statement makes it very clear the intent of the Guideline is to ensure there is ‘net community benefit’ to ’the immediate community of any golf course proposed for redevelopment’. That is, under the new Victorian Planning legislative regime, the Minister has implemented, the Minister intends the immediate community of proposed golf course redevelopments should be the beneficiary of ‘net community benefit’. As it stands, the proposed development; • provides no net community benefit to the immediate community of the proposed golf course redevelopment, Dingley Village; • proposes structures which are not in keeping with the current character of Dingley Village; • provides no additional vehicle infrastructure to support the proposed increased population; • provides no additional education infrastructure to supplement the existing, overcrowded Kindergartens and Schools; • removes the safety buffer for aircraft in distress, utilising the existing flight path over Dingley Village, to land should they be unable to make Moorabbin Airport; • provides no where suitable for storm water run off from the proposed construction in an already existing flood plain; • fails to adequately address any possible off‐site impacts form the former landfill site, located on Spring Road, adjacent to the proposed development; and • provides no replacement for the loss of trees, native vegetation and wildlife and associated with a green space such as a golf course. The World is now a very different place to the one which existed pre 2020. As is widely reported, they way people work has changed. The way people commute has changed. Where people want to live has changed. Communities have changed. Any proposed development needs contemporaneous research and community engagement to accurately capture and consider the modern communities aspirations. Contemporary community

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



engagement needs to occur to account the unforeseen, yet globally significant impacts of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and 2021.


Organisation:

Affected property:

584

Brandon Edwards

To Whom It May Concern, In 2019 I changed schools from Kingswood Primary to Dingley Primary School. The main reason was that all Grade 4 classes in 2020 were over 30 in size with the biggest class having 33 students. My parents told me that Kingswood Primary had to turn away over 75 student applications and that the school was full. Things are better at Dingley Primary, but like they did at Kingswood, they are installing portables over our play area. I don't understand the logic of more students equals less playgrounds and areas in which to play. That doesn't make any sense to me! My Dad tells me that he has to book in a Doctor's appointment at least 2‐3 weeks in advance at InterHealth Medical Centre because they are too busy and full like the schools. My brothers have to go to school in Bentleigh because there are No Secondary Schools in Dingley Village. I stopped playing AusKick because it was sooo busy and overcrowded with Dingley having a lack of sporting facilities. Now I play baseball and have to go to Chelsea to play. My Dad says if the over‐development goes ahead it will increase the Dingley Village population by 20%. Can someone please explain to me if our schools, sports grounds and Doctors are already full and we have no Secondary School ‐ How is this going to work? Now I'm only 10 years old, and I don't understand what a Planning Minister is supposed to do? But it seems to me that he is failing to plan and do his job? Shouldn't you plan properly FIRST making sure we have enough schools, sports grounds and doctors before planning to build more houses. Seems a little silly to even think about doing it the other way around. I definitely object to the Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment! Thanks for hearing what I have to say, Brandon

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

585

Marcus Fraser

To Whom It May Concern, As a previous Kingswood member now PK member for nearly 25 years , I fully support the rezoning of the current land (formally Kingswood GC) to residential. I have been a professional golfer for close to 20 years and have been fortunate enough to travel the world playing close to 500 tournaments mainly in Europe, The USA and Asia, experiencing some the worlds best golf clubs I was also a member of Australia Olympic team in Rio 2016 The Merge between Kingswood & Peninsula CGC should be used as a blueprint for all clubs across the country to create sustainable golf clubs for the future, both Kingswood and Peninsula CGC required this merge as both would have had struggled to stay afloat given the over supply of golf courses in Melbourne especially. The merge between Kingswood GC and Peninsula Kingswood has created a state of the art facility/golf club superior to any in the world in my opinion and is a model that will be used for future projects. I was sad to see the Dingley site close but 100 % fully support the Merge with Peninsula CGC to now form Peninsula Kingswood CGC. As far as the Kingswood site is concerned, creating extra housing within 40 mins to the CBD is what Melbourne is crying out for, the affordability of house and land would allow first home buyers a great opportunity to get into the market, something that is extremely difficult or nearly impossible for them to achieve in the current market. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding the above. Kind Regards Marcus Fraser.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

586

Barbara McCarten

We will lose too many trees and native animals who will have nowhere to live. There are far too many lots ‐ 823 lots is just outrageous. The size of most of the lots is too small. It would be preferable to have bigger lots with single houses. The roads are not wide enough. There will be such much more traffic. Already Centre Dandenong Road is often blocked at Howard Road so it will be so much worse with so many more cars on our roads. There is no high school in Dingley Village and I would prefer to have a high school built there rather than squeezing in as many tiny dwellings as possible. We have a lovely community in Dingley Village and it would be ruined by this overdevelopment of the land. There is absolutely no benefit to the community. There are many apartment developments in Mentone, Cheltenham and Moorabbin and we do not need this kind of development in Dingley Village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

587

Ryan Edwards

To Whom It May Concern, I object to the Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment for the following reasons: • A twenty percent increase in our Village population is too great an increase. With our schools, sports grounds and Doctors centre already full and we have no Secondary School ‐ How does this make any sense? How about the Planning Minister plans the infrastructure first before even contemplating any suggestions for future development! • I cannot describe to you how amazing it is to experience ducks in our backyard, rosella’s in our trees and kookaburras sitting on our fence. To live in a suburb of Melbourne and still be so close to nature is simply amazing. This should be preserved, not destroyed! It is unimaginable that thousands of Birds and wildlife will be lost to this irresponsible over‐development of Dingley Village. How many will be killed or have their homes demolished by developers? The developers will be required to re‐locate wildlife. They absolutely will not do that properly and is a hideous imposition for the wildlife currently living in comparative peace. How many thousands will they miss? Will there be any fines for any wildlife and birds that are killed or not re‐located properly? • I have to travel all the way to Bentleigh because there are NO Secondary Schools in Dingley Village ‐ those in other suburbs are full, Excessive numbers of portables are being installed in most local schools and Parkdale Secondary has stated recently “enough! we cannot have more portables”. Now this sort of poor planning is at least short‐sighted and at worst totally irresponsible. Shouldn't you plan properly FIRST making sure we have enough schools, sports grounds and doctors before planning to build more houses and dramatically increasing Dingley’s population. • No Community facilities like sporting ovals are a part of the Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment. Seems that the developer wants to take from the Dingley community without giving anything back? How about making room for a sporting oval or a Secondary School in the proposal? I think that the developer needs to behave in a more community minded, ethical and environmentally responsible way. If they refuse, then the Advisory Committee and the Planning Minister should reject their proposal. • How is it possible that there will be no preservation of the thousands of trees, estimated at 20,000 native Dingley Village trees, planted at the Kingswood Golf Course site. These trees are the “lungs” cooling, filter and oxygen production for Dingley Village.With our planet warming up, isn’t this exactly what needs to be protected if we are to save the planet ‐ by not only the council but State and Federal government.. Kind Regards, Ryan

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

588

Reginald Wilson Williams


"see attached submission"

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



1:No community resource provision elementary or especially secondary schools

2:Overcrowding within a small precint with limited spaces to accommodate a huge number of

dwellings

3:Too many lots too close on tiny footprints to squeeze many medium to high density 3storey ugly

units joined together and out of charachter for this well preserved suburb

4:Loosing many trees , open spaces ,abundant wildlife is irreplaceable .A valid reason we purchased

on the golf course perimeter. Green wedge was important.

5:I'm a boundary resident making up our village's character to be destroyed with out of character 3

storey attached units nowhere else in our suburb. Ugly developments in nearby suburbs are no

reason to allow in this unique village with its special demographic

6:Infrastructure already at breaking point and with the addition of a future football club facility

nearby , adjacent raods will become main pathways for vehicle traffic.

7: Adjacent to the Board of Works retarding basin is the 8th fairway that floods regularly as per the

100yr flood plans .The developer is planning to destroy this natural floodway that will impact

downstream.

8:Bulding on an aquifer is paramount to causing overflow on the site during heavy rainfalls not even

flood events .

9:Providing "social housing " is an ultruistic sentiment by the developer but social housing residents

are likely to need jobs , hence public transport . We have no trains , only buses , that clog the

already overcrowded roads many are minor roads .

10:Buses are the only method many secondary school chidren can use and these are full already ,

given no secondary schools in the Village.

11:The developer has made no offer to premium high value boundary residents of compensation for

what will be significant drop innet improved value .

12: Our current quieter and less dense lifestyle will be destroyed with overcrowding with medium to

high density adjoing units and townhouses, with no planning provision for more than 2 cars /

dwelling, hence spilling onto narrower roads with no opprotunity on small nature strips, within the

planned "hemmed in planned new build of over 820 dwellings " too many on under 300 sq m size

and so out of character for the village. It will become a "jungle" of townhouses hemmed into a

precint. Social issues will eventaully occur .

13:Loosing the essential exisiting trees and grassy areas and replacing these significant resources

with the developer's dwelling construction of bricks and render etc will not equate to the same noise

buffer for nearby aircraft traffic.

14:A minor road (Spring Rd) will become a main thoroughfare with a roundabout inserted at

McClure Rd (another minor Rd for local traffic) to keep the higher speed of vehicles including the

many trucks flowing onto the Westall / Dingley bypass , that currently has too much traffic

currently using Tootals Rd .

15: No sporting , shopping , or recreation facilities planned for the village with a 20% increase in

population

16: Who will take the liability risk ( B of W or Kingston Council or residents via the annual rates ) for

young children drowning in the retarding basin once fences are removed, and walkways are

inserted per the artists impressions .Given the depth is approximately 6-8 m deep it is not a wading

pool but a death trap if not supervisied , hence all boundary residents have rear fences that have

locked gates , etc by order of the Board Of Works

Organisation:

Affected property:

589

Elizabeth Sattler

The merger of Peninsula and Kingswood Golf Clubs and the sale of the Dingley site have been a game changer for Golf Tourism in Victoria. The sale, merger and resulting investment in the development of the new site have resulted in the establishment of a new super club at the Frankston site. Not only a benefit to members, this super club includes accommodation facilities that are far above and beyond the standard offered by any other club, or indeed hotel in the area. The Club works hard to fit this accommodation with travelling golfers from interstate and pre‐Covid, international guests. The ability for tourists to access accommodation in the Frankston area not only benefits Peninsula Kingswood, but the many suppliers, transport companies and tourism partners (for example wineries that offer day trips from PK to their estate) who experience the Halo effect of increasing tourism and spending in the region. Above the benefit to the local economy, through increase in demand for products and services, the increase in tourism activities have created numerous jobs and growth, training and development opportunities for locals that were previously non‐existent. The reputation that Peninsula Kingswood has garnered nationally and on an international scale has, from a golf Tourism perspective, reinvigorated the Frankston area as a golf destination and as a midpoint destination between Melbourne CBD and the Mornington Peninsula. Aside from the tourism benefits, the health benefits of golf, mental and physical, have never been more evident than in this time of COVID. Peninsula Kingswood’s programs to engage new members and in particular, provide opportunities and development for growing female membership place it as the forefront of golf club operations and community engagement in Australia. For all checks and purposes, Victoria and indeed Australia is lucky to have a club like Peninsula Kingswood within its golf Tourism Portfolio. Bravo PK.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

590

William Schinzel

I strongly object to this Horrendous Development on the Kingswood Golf Course Noting my following objections. This development does not represent the Character of the Dingley Village Environment. This Development with aprox. 823 homes is totally overdeveloped and unsightly in our community. Local Traffic will be brought to a standstill with local roads all ready at full capacity. Proposed roads exiting development will cause massive traffic jams onto Spring Rd, Center Dandenong Rd. and McClure Rd. Developers have virtually made no representation with the local community to voice our concerns. Having lived on the golf course boundary for nearly 20 years, we have experienced major flooding in our community on several occasions, this has not been adequately addressed by developer. With this mass influx of population the developer has given no consideration for the need of additional recreational facilities, sport etc. Local schools are at their full capacity with no support for additional educational facilities in their development plans. Local shop facilities are inadequate to cope with this influx of population with little room for growth. Dingley Village will not be able to cope with this mass influx of population, the infrastructure being Essential Services‐ Electricity / Gas / Sewerage etc. not being able to cope. This Golf Course is not just some open PADDOCK on the OUTSKIRTS of Melbourne, but a PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT THAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED and ENJOYED by ALL. The Developers have no Consideration to the effects of GLOBAL WARMING and the effects it will have on the Environment with the removal of Hundreds of Native Trees effecting local Wildlife. There are many areas around Dingley and Heatherton zoned Green Wedge more suitable for this type of Development Please DON'T DESTROY OR GOLF COURSE in THE HEART OF DINGLEY. If this Development should go ahead the impact on Locals with the movement of Trucks on Local Roads / Unacceptable Construction Noise and massive general inconvenience to our community. This Development will in years to come will be a Blight on our Village probably no longer a VILLAGE. After the Development they will just walk away and leave us with a MESS taking no further responsibility. House Prices in Dingley Village will DECLINE by Thousands of Dollars with the overcrowding of our Community. This Development does Nothing for the Future Lifestyle of the Dingley Village Community As we live on the Golf Course Boundary with views of the Golf Course proper Developers plans show nearly 3 DOUBLE Story Homes behind our fence line which will be a great intrusion on OUR PRIVACY

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

591

John Wright


Objection points 1. This proposed development is purely driven by a greedy grab for profit without consideration of the negative effect on the local community the land is not zoned for residential development and should not go ahead 2. There is no benefit to the local community 3. The primary schools are full and unable to accept any more students 4. We have no high school in our area 5. The local shopping centre is at capacity and difficult to get parking as many parents are forced to use it as a collection point for the primary school 6. The local roads are already at capacity with nothing in this proposal to address the predicted additional 6,800 extra vehicle movements a day and with other developments coming like the Hawthorn Football club on Tootals rd and the marine centre on Boundary rd an even bigger demand on roads will happen. With the completion of the Dingley Bypass of the it has caused big delays trying to enter from Spring rd and with the construction of the Mordialloc Freeway connection soon to open it will further burden local roads 7. There has not been the proper community consultation 8. Dingley Village does not have access to public transport services that could possibly handle the volume of additional residents with the nearest rail station over 6 km away and a bus service along the already crowded Centre Dandenong rd 9. With the proposed 850 additional residences proposed some 3 storey (which is totally out of character for the area) all on very narrow streets without proper consideration to parking. As most families have multiple cars and with the children in the near future needing cars, and only one space per residence, this would cause a parking nightmare and emergency services access very difficult if not impossible 10. Dingley Village Community does not want to have such an inappropriate development it has been rejected twice previously and has come back in an even more inappropriate form, it seems Australian Super does not want to abide by the decision and keeps attempting to get an inappropriate development approved totally driven by profit without consideration to the existing or future community

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Objection points

1. This proposed development is purely driven by a greedy grab for profit without

consideration of the negative effect on the local community the land is not zoned

for residential development and should not go ahead

2. There is no benefit to the local community

3. The primary schools are full and unable to accept any more students

4. We have no high school in our area

5. The local shopping centre is at capacity and difficult to get parking as many parents

are forced to use it as a collection point for the primary school

6. The local roads are already at capacity with nothing in this proposal to address the

predicted additional 6,800 extra vehicle movements a day and with other

developments coming like the Hawthorn Football club on Tootals rd and the marine

centre on Boundary rd an even bigger demand on roads will happen. With the

completion of the Dingley Bypass of the it has caused big delays trying to enter from

Spring rd and with the construction of the Mordialloc Freeway connection soon to

open it will further burden local roads

7. There has not been the proper community consultation

8. Dingley Village does not have access to public transport services that could possibly

handle the volume of additional residents with the nearest rail station over 6 km

away and a bus service along the already crowded Centre Dandenong rd

9. With the proposed 850 additional residences proposed some 3 storey (which is

totally out of character for the area) all on very narrow streets without proper

consideration to parking. As most families have multiple cars and with the children

in the near future needing cars, and only one space per residence, this would cause

a parking nightmare and emergency services access very difficult if not impossible

10. Dingley Village Community does not want to have such an inappropriate

development it has been rejected twice previously and has come back in an even

more inappropriate form, it seems Australian Super does not want to abide by the

decision and keeps attempting to get an inappropriate development approved

totally driven by profit without consideration to the existing or future community

Organisation:

Affected property:

592

Sian Harrison

I object to the kingswood golf redevelopment for many reasons. Firstly I don’t see any long term benefits for the community. The average block size doesnt fit in with the current average block size of 550sqm. The traffic is a massive concern, having 3 roads put on to spring road. From there they go onto westall bypass which is already a very high accident area. Marcus road, more traffic past a school and tootal road which is already backed up and can’t cope. On a more personal note, opening Greenwoods close reserve up to the development will have a massive impact on the safety of the park and the neighborhood. Currently it’s a safe street park / neighborhood to have it opened up to the development (800+ houses) isn’t making it safe with access to more roads and houses / people. How are the current schools going to cope? Where is the single level houses for the downsizers / elderly. They can’t cope in the triple story houses. Where is the high school? Where is in infrastructure to support all these extra people? Please consider my objections, dingley is such an amazing place to live and community and we don’t want it spoilt.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

593

Dean Harrison

I strongly object to the Kingswood Golf Course redevelopment for a number of reasons. Firstly I don’t see any long term benefits for the community. The average block size doesnt fit in with the current average block size of 550sqm. The traffic is a massive concern, having 3 roads put on to spring road. From there they go onto westall bypass which is already a very high accident area. Marcus road, more traffic past a school and tootal road which is already backed up and can’t cope. On a more personal note, opening Greenwoods close reserve up to the development will have a massive impact on the safety of the park and the neighborhood. Currently it’s a safe street park / neighborhood to have it opened up to the development (800+ houses) isn’t making it safe with access to more roads. How are the current schools going to cope? Where is the single level houses for the downsizers / elderly. They can’t cope in the triple story houses. Where is the high school? Where is in infrastructure to support all these extra people?

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

594

Cheryl Tapp

It would be ideal if the proposal went through, as we are planning to down size and would like to move closer to our family that live in the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

595

Gregory Michael Edwards

As a resident of Dingley Village I can see no benefit in this proposed development. The addition of over 800 houses will mean an huge increase in traffic and combined with the Hawthorn Football Club traffic will make it even more difficult to get out of Dingley. We moved to Dingley because of the village feel about the suburb with amount of trees and wildlife and would hate to see it turn into just another overcrowded housing development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

596

Liam Edwards

To Whom It May Concern, I object to the Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment for the following reasons: • Unbelievably, one of their plans showed only a single tree preserved. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what we should be doing as a community with our planet warming up? Shouldn’t we be protecting every last tree if we are to save the planet. Local council, State and Federal government have a responsibility to protect our environment one tree at a time, one open space at a time, one suburb at a time. And should be held accountable if they fail to manage our green resources appropriately. The potential loss of the only significant treed open space in Dingley Village is totally unacceptable! • I am also very concerned with Increased traffic and increased pollution. Their own data suggests up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per peak hour, on a single lane road, plus soon (a) the Hawthorn Football Club traffic and (b) the Aqua Park traffic as well. It doesn’t seem like a well thought out plan when you increase pollution levels while, at the same time, decreasing tree numbers so the environment cannot cope and clean the air that we need to breathe. Surely, breathing fresh, clean air is a very basic human right! • Up to one hour to travel through Dingley Village when traffic increases ‐ proven, as it’s already happened multiple times! Dingley Village has very limited ways of getting in and out of our beautiful suburb. Increasing our population by 20%, if this over‐development is approved, will simply be a disaster! • Our Primary Schools are full ‐ portables installed on Dingley Primary preps front lawn playing area. In a recent year, Kingswood Primary turned away 75 applications. I don't understand the logic of more students equals less playgrounds and areas in which to play. That doesn't make any sense to me! We have No Secondary School in Dingley Village – when is local council and the Planning Minister going to address these problems? Shouldn't you plan properly FIRST making sure we have enough schools and sports grounds before planning to build more houses. Seems short‐sighted to even think about doing it the other way around. • Shopping will again be more difficult ‐ the carpark is already regularly full, often twice a day ‐ will residents again shop out of town to avoid the chaos? Therefore causing more traffic and pollution! Yours Sincerely, Liam

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

597

Keith Barrett

I submit that the decision of PKCGC to sell the Dingley land for residential development is a very wise long term solution; the redevelopment of the Frankston site into a world class facility for members of Kingswood and Peninsula, along with many new members seeking a first class golfing complex and club facilities, has ensured long term viability, as opposed to the slow decline, of the unviable individual clubs, and the development of the Dingley site will provide for much needed residential accommodation in an ideal location.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

598

Steve Poulter

I am in full support the Dingley Land Development Proposal for a few reasons. It will create many new jobs in an environment where employment is important as ever during a pandemic. The small business shopping areas in Dingley are in dire need of new patrons, and this will revitalize these small businesses. The plan includes affordable housing and will cater for families and first home buyers alike and give them a chance to enter the market. The submission has allowed plenty of open space and given good consideration to trees (either retained from existing or planted as additional), as well as space for wildlife to flourish. Thank you Steve Poulter

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

599

Janice Schinzel

I TOTALLY OBJECT to this type of Development on Kingston Golf Course as it is not in the Village Character. The whole concept has not been thought thru with no consideration given to residents living on the Golf Course Boundary, we have multiple Double Story Homes at close proximity overlooking our backyards. The increase in Traffic in and around our local streets will cripple traffic flow. There has been little or no Consultation for proper use of Golf Course with Residents .Local Schools are at their Capacity and have been advised that more Portable Class Rooms WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. Local Residents will be subjected ANNOYING CONSTRUCTION WORKS Being NOISE‐ DUST and ROAD WORKS over a long period of time. Local Traffic is already struggling and with the additional volume will become unbearable. Traffic at Hot Spots with Cars exiting and entering proposed Development will be Erratic. Local Shopping is Inadequate to support this increase in Population. We live on the Golf Course Boundary where the Developer has given NO Consideration to overshadowing from NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES AND Backyard Privacy.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

600

Peter Crean

Having seen the proposal for the development of the kingswood golf club. I think it will be wonderful for dingley and give residents some great community areas

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Documents

Submission Cover Sheet 501