Submission Cover Sheets

Organisation:

Affected property:

1401

Ryan Farley

Object to proposed plan due to the following: 1.) The village feel will be compromised as this is a relatively small community with mostly single storey individual lots. The suburb as it stands is very peaceful and quiet due to the fact that it is not over-populated 2.) Increase in traffic and cause congestion. It's hard enough to get on to Centre Dandenong road in the current state 3.) Increase in population will make it busier and create shortage in parking. For eg, the local Woolworths parking lot 4.) Existing amenities like library, neighbourhood centre etc will be over-crowded

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

NoRequest to be heard?:

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

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1402

Blaine Paris

https://engage.vic

see attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

No - but please email me a copy of the Timetable and any Directions

Request to be heard?:


Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Objections to the Proposed Kingwood Golf Course Redevelopment As a resident of Dingley Village, I strongly object to this project based on the following grounds

1. Disproportionate Build to Area Ratio when compared to current Build to Area Ratio

2. Current road Infrastructure will not support the influx of 6800 additional vehicles. This is guaranteed to cause major traffic bottlenecks and associated congestion issues (Refer: https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/built-environment/topic/2016/increased-traffic) including from a local standpoint:

a. Additional burning of fossil fuel – catastrophic to the environment and dangerous exposure to pollutants to human life (caused by additional traffic per travel zone)

b. Seeking of alternate routes within the existing single lane roads will be detrimental to the existing wildlife and serenity – including for example, Caruana Woodland Reserve

c. Disruption of peace of mind and current established quality of life that Dingley residents enjoy

d. During netball season, the single lane road (Rowan’s Road) is further throttled exacerbating traffic congestion and associated issues

e. Dingley has limited Child Care centers, schools, worship places, shopping centers, restaurants – this will mean that there will be additional traffic flow accessing various alternate locations (originating from within Dingley) for these purposes

f. Lack of optional alternate travel – bus (limited), train (no local station) increase the dependency on using cars as primary mode of transport

g. Increase in requirement of parking – increases disruption/infringement of parking available to current residents and guests

h. Investment in the Quality of Life for current/future residents within current Construction is lost

i. More risk and exposure to crime, security issues

3. High Rise buildings increase the population (120%) and exacerbate issues associated with Density living – including (from a local standpoint):

a. Utilities, Sewerage Overloading b. Insufficient resources available to accommodate the additional influx of

population needs including but not limited to Schools, Hospitals, Worship Places, Parks and Recreational facilities, Shopping Centers,

c. Risk of airborne/waterborne/high population-area diseases increased d. Risk of psychological, stress and social issues due to density living

4. New Construction Issues over the Lifetime of the Construction and associated issues

https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/built-environment/topic/2016/increased-traffic

https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/built-environment/topic/2016/increased-traffic

a. Increase in Smog, Dust, Pollutants, Noise-Levels, traffic congestion, Increased Heavy-Machinery and other construction traffic issues detrimental to human and wildlife

b. Post Construction recovery – Mental and Physical Health 5. The focus of the builder is to maximize profit with complete and callous disregard to

well-being and societal impact. There is no need to focus on density living when advancements in duration and means of travel, work habits (remote working) etc. should encourage spreading out rather than congesting and collapsing-in of population.

6. Is the Developer presently residing or intending to reside in Dingley or just Build and Run?

The above items are just some of the reasons for objecting to the proposed Kingwood Golf Course Redevelopment.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1403

Anthony stratikopoulos

No community facilitys being built Increased population with no roads, shops, facilitys Wildlife will affected in a negative way No benefit to the Dingley village community

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1404

Lisa Hultin and Damon Wallace-Mitchell

https://engage.vic

See attached submission.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

20 August 2021

Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee (Appointed under Part 7 section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987)

AustralianSuper Residential Property No. 1 Ltd (the Proponent/ developer) Draft combined planning scheme amendment (c199King) and planning permit application to facilitate a redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village for residential purposes

The current proposal before the Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Commission has to be compliant with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) and be consistent with and satisfy the Planning Guidelines for the conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes, which as it stands, in our opinion it does not. The proposed changes to the planning controls are not appropriate and not in compliance with the guidelines. We are grateful for the opportunity to outline our concerns with the proposal.

As residents of Dingley Village for more than 10 years, having moved here from Elwood in 2010, we are worried about the over-development of this land. We want to ensure that these significant land holdings are appropriately developed to guarantee positive social, economic and environmental outcomes for the current and future residents of Dingley.

1. The golf course land contains a number of environmental and biodiversityvalues. The current proposal is not compliant with the goal to protect andconserve Victoria’s biodiversity by ensuring that planning takes into accountthe impacts of land use and development on habitat fragmentation and thespread of pest plants and animals and pathogens into the natural ecosystem.The birds and other wildlife such as echidnas and bats that are currentlyinhabiting the golf course land will be threatened firstly by the developmentand secondly by the residency in the area. The developers have alreadypoisoned and removed grass and trees in certain areas. All Victorian nativewildlife is protected under the Wildlife Act 1975. We, together with our twochildren, are concerned the golf course land development does not addresshow the birds and other wildlife would be adequately protected and preservedin the remaining planned open spaces (clause 12.01).

2. The golf course land are open areas of space in a built up urbanenvironment. The proposal is not aligned with an ambition to protect andenhance significant landscapes and open spaces that contribute to character,identity and sustainable practices. The land course land has approximately20,000 native trees on it and is the only significant green area with trees inDingley Village. The area must be protected for its cooling and filteringproperties and to mitigate climate change (clause 13.01). The planneddevelopment detracts from the natural qualities of significant, large landscapeareas (clause 12.05).

3. The golf course land contributes to stormwater management. DingleyVillage is subject to substantial floods after periods of rain. The developer’splans are based on inadequate and flawed input and old maps. TheKingswood flood plain already affects Dingley more than indicated on theplans relied on. An existing retarding basin regularly overflows and mainlysoaks into the golf course land. The golf course land presently has an aquifer,established with State Government assistance through a $100,000 grant.Should developers be allowed to remove this body of rock that holdsgroundwater or cover it with paving, roads and buildings, the village’s ability tomitigate ground-water floods will also be drastically reduced. Any proposedretarding basin must compensate for removal of the aquifer. Kingston Counciland the Victorian Government are on notice of the flood problem and couldtherefore be subject to law suits if development proceeded on land notsuitable for the stated purpose. (Clause 13.03).

4. The development proposal does not respond appropriately to DingleyVillage’s built environment and heritage, its surrounding landscape andexisting neighbourhood character, how its residents value the built form andcultural context, in order to deliver a liveable and sustainable neighbourhood.At present, 80% of Dingley’s residences are on lots of between 550-650 m2and none are more than two storeys tall. The over-development on the golfcourse land in the form of small lots, multi-storey residences and microhousing around very narrow streets without room for parking will contribute toless desirable housing for families and residents who prioritise safety,liveability and sustainably built housing (clause 15).

5. Our small village is already struggling with the current level of amenities tosupport its residents; community sporting clubs are full, the supermarket carpark is regularly at capacity, there is no long day child care in the village, theprimary schools are at capacity, health centres have long waiting lines.Internet connections are already slow and intermittent. Whilst there is nosecondary school in Dingley Village this forms part of its appeal to manyresidents. The residents of Dingley have carefully chosen a lifestyle of aneighbourhood with an urban design that is quieter in this regard and we aregenerally accepting of the fact that living in Dingley means travelling toadjoining suburbs’ secondary schools by public transport (clause 15.01).

6. Whilst there is no train station in Dingley Village this forms part of its appeal.The residents of Dingley have carefully chosen a lifestyle of a low-rise villageprofile that is quieter and greener, less densely populated than many of thesurrounding suburbs. The residents are accepting of the fact that living inDingley means you are driving to adjoining suburbs’ train stations for thecommute to central Melbourne or catch public transport (bus only) and hadnever anticipated that the traffic on the main roads would be so dense so thatas to limit our access to social and economic activities. The golf course land isalso reducing noise levels from the Moorabbin airport traffic. Allowing for anadditional 823 residences on the golf course land would drastically increase

vehicle movement in the area and restrict all Dingley residents’ reliable movement of people and goods (clause 18).

The Dingley Residents’ submissions in objection to the residential over-development has the support of the Federal Member for Hotham Clare O’Neil, Federal Member for Isaacs Mark Dreyfus and State Member for Keysborough Martin Pakula.

We would be pleased to see the developer accept the Kingston Council’s proposal to lease the land to the Council for establishing an 18-hole public golf course. We would also support alternative proposals that return the golf course land to a blend of parkland and open green areas for the health and wellbeing of residents of Dingley Village of all ages.

Yours sincerely

LH and DWM

Organisation:

Affected property:

1405

Nicole Groves

As a resident of Dingley for over 40 years I strongly object to the over development of the golf course. I have observed many changes over the years and there has always been an emphasis on maintaining the village feel of our suburb, no suddenly this has been over ridden to allow this type of development. I am for progress and I know that there are many people who would love the dream of the quarter acre block , not high density housing and soulless boxes. I know there is a need for this type of housing but generally this needs to incorporate being close to public transport, shops and public services. One bus down centre dandenong road does not suffice. (I know this as a teenager trying to leave the village so as a working adult I could not see this as a viable option) Dingley is known for wide open spaces which is why many children like myself stay as adults to raise our own children. Amenities such as sporting grounds have always been scarce and after repeated submissions to council this has never been addressed. However the sale and redevelopment of our greatest green space was conducted at a great speed. To increase the population of the area in its present state is only asking for problems within the community due to lack of options for sporting grounds, space and activity. Schools and kindergartens are also at capacity and you can see from Dingley primary there is no land to continue to grow with the population. I hope you read all submissions and realise that the plans put forward to you are not realistic, if development is to take place make it something that symbolises the uniqueness of our suburb, which for years has had people asking me if I live in the country. I lived with the development of Kingston rise at my back door and I remember people being proud that these beautiful homes were being built. I can not imagine the same thing will be said about the proposed high density boxes. Thanks for you time reading my objection. Nicole Groves.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1406

Lucy Boorn

Dingley Village will not be able to sustain this type of high density housing. We have limited public transport, we don’t have a secondary college. We only have a couple of primary schools. The main road through our Village is not equipped to cope with the volume of the potentially huge amount of traffic this development will create. We have very limited access to medical services.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1407

Sylvia Giordani

I disagree with the proposed over development at Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village. There is not enough infrastructure, like public transportation, childcare centres, public primary and high schools for the proposed community. The proposed lots are tiny with little allowance for parking and narrow streets. This will become problematic in the future, as the only way to get to work, schools, shopping etc is to drive as there is only one bus in the area. There also needs to be green spaces like parks, sports oval for so many extra people who will make this village their own home. This project would be more acceptable if each lot was larger, with some land around each dwelling. This would mean instead of the 800 plus dwellings, (with 3 to 4 people) reducing the number to around 450. I'm not against progress, if it's appropriate, however, in this case, Dingley Village will be overpopulated and will become a slum, with problem kids who have nothing to do and nowhere to go. On another note, the local shopping hub is already overcrowded, as are all the medical consultants, kindergartens and schools.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1408

Katherine Terauds

Dingley Village

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Katherine A Terauds

Dingley Village, Vic 3172

Dear Planning Panels Victoria,

Re: Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband. He purchased our home in the late 90’s believing that the area would remain a green belt and that Dingley would retain its golf course and have a park once the rubbish tips were closed.

We have lived in different locations but have returned to Dingley as we call this our home and love the close-knit community and feel of the area.

We have 3 major issues with the Proposal.

1. The current aging infrastructure eg drainage in the street cannot cope. No infrastructure is currently in place to support increased housing, Council needs to fix not band aid current issues.

2.The access in our cul-de-sac will at least triple; causing traffic hazards and it change the sense of community that has been established and which we all love.

3. Dingley’s reputation as a green belt will be destroyed because of the volume of housing effecting flora and fauna.

4. The current housing will be devalued. The quantity of small homes increase the population by at least 25%, devaluing existing homes.

5. This new estate will change the whole aesthetics of Dingley as a Village. It will make it look like Keysborough/Mentone and Springvale. Leave Dingley as a Village with open spaces and decent size houses.

6. Australian Super - the developer with the motto that –“An industry super fund made to profit members” is not supporting the Australian residents or the environment instead maximizing profit in this land at the detriment of residents and the environment..

If Australian Super wants to maintain the nature of Dingley Village they should keep their property sizes large and allow for more green areas and not destroy the smaller cul-de-sacs that provide Dingley with the valued sense of community.

1. Re current infrastructure issues in the street which will be compounded

There was a huge down pour of rain in the Summer of .. and my Husband literally fell through a hole in our backyard where the Storm water drains and where pits have been severally neglected. Staff from Kingston Council come and provided a band-aid solution; however, the next down pour revealed more issues in our backyard and adjoining properties that have not been addressed. Our backyard has already dropped a foot lower than the fence line in more that 3 areas and the water is causing damage by flooding into neighbour’s home. 1. We have been waiting for over 18

months for Council to either replace the pipes that need to be replace or fix with an internal membrane.

2. . But adding new homes in the area, the infrastructure in place for our homes will not cope with the added roof catchments from the new homes

2. The issues that just effect the cul-de-sac of

a. The road is not wide enough

to accommodate increase traffic.

b. Children will not be able to play in the street.

c. Noise levels will increase

3. GENERALLY Dingley a. We will lose our green belt b. Native animals removed

habitat with removal of trees and bushes on the golf course

c. Our main roads are already congested at peak times of the day.

d. Flooding will increase e. There is already not enough,

parking in the area. f. Marcus road will become even

more congested and a safety issue

g. Infrastructure like electricity, phones and NBN have not been considered. There are already times of day when one cannot make a phone call due to congestion.

In Conclusion, the area should not be affected by this major up grade of high density living. As it can’t cope with the infrastructure in place, and it will lose the appeal of the area. We are already enclosed because of the Dingley bypass and Frankston fwy extension. Why stress an environment for profit?

Keep Dingley the Village that it is.

Yours Sincerely

Kath Terauds

Organisation:

Affected property:

1409

the Estate of Anthony Monaghan

Dingley Village

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

The Estate of Anthony Monaghan

Dingley Village, Vic 3172

Dear Planning Panels Victoria,

Re: Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband. He purchased our home in the late 90’s believing that the area would remain a green belt and that Dingley would retain its golf course and have a park once the rubbish tips were closed.

We have lived in different locations but have returned to Dingley as we call this our home and love the close-knit community and feel of the area.

We have 3 major issues with the Proposal.

1. The current aging infrastructure eg drainage in the street cannot cope. No infrastructure is currently in place to support increased housing, Council needs to fix not band aid current issues.

2.The access in our cul-de-sac will at least triple; causing traffic hazards and it change the sense of community that has been established and which we all love.

3. Dingley’s reputation as a green belt will be destroyed because of the volume of housing effecting flora and fauna.

4. The current housing will be devalued. The quantity of small homes increases the population by at least 25%, devaluing existing homes.

5. This new estate will change the whole aesthetics of Dingley as a Village. It will make it look like Keysborough/Mentone and Springvale. Leave Dingley as a Village with open spaces and decent size houses.

6. Australian Super - the developer with the motto that –“An industry super fund made to profit members” is not supporting the Australian residents or the environment instead maximizing profit in this land at the detriment of residents and the environment..

If Australian Super wants to maintain the nature of Dingley Village they should keep their property sizes large and allow for more green areas and not destroy the smaller cul-de-sacs that provide Dingley with the valued sense of community.

1. Re current infrastructure issues in the street which will be compounded

There was a huge down pour of rain in the Summer of .. and my Husband literally fell through a hole in our backyard where the Storm water drains and where pits have been severally neglected. Staff from Kingston Council come and provided a band-aid solution; however, the next down pour revealed more issues in our backyard and adjoining properties that have not been addressed. Our backyard has already dropped a foot lower than the fence line in more that 3 areas and the water is causing damage by flooding into neighbour’s home. 1. We have been waiting for over 18

months for Council to either replace the pipes that need to be replace or fix with an internal membrane.

2. . But adding new homes in the area, the infrastructure in place for our homes will not cope with the added roof catchments from the new homes

2. The issues that just effect the cul-de-sac of

a. The road is not wide enough

to accommodate increase traffic.

b. Children will not be able to play in the street.

c. Noise levels will increase

3. GENERALLY Dingley a. We will lose our green belt b. Native animals removed

habitat with removal of trees and bushes on the golf course

c. Our main roads are already congested at peak times of the day.

d. Flooding will increase e. There is already not enough,

parking in the area. f. Marcus road will become even

more congested and a safety issue

g. Infrastructure like electricity, phones and NBN have not been considered. There are already times of day when one cannot make a phone call due to congestion.

In Conclusion, the area should not be affected by this major upgrade of high density living. As it can’t cope with the infrastructure in place, and it will lose the appeal of the area. We are already enclosed because of the Dingley bypass and Frankston fwy extension. Why stress an environment for profit?

Keep Dingley the Village that it is.

Yours Sincerely

The Estate of Anthony Monaghan

Organisation:

Affected property:

1410

Lloyd Elwin Siebel

My wife and I moved to Dingley Village with our 2 children in 1992, when the children had only recently started school. They have both finished school and are now working , so we have 3, sometimes 4 cars to accommodate outside our normal sized house. there are a lot of similar family situations to ours in the area. Even in younger surrounding families - both mum & dad work and have a car each. I have worked in Building maintenance for the past 24 years, and have done a lot of local work as well as in lots of surrounding areas and I have seen first hand how difficult it is with parking when you go to higher density areas with heaps of cars parked in the streets which are sometimes narrower and there is less on & off street parking available. It makes it difficult for tradespeople working in those areas, as well as for the locals to park their cars and move about in their area. Car parking around our shops and schools is already stretched at peak times, especially at school pick up time. 800 or more new residences on Kingswood Golf club site will mean possibly 1600 or more cars in the area. Parking at shops will be hopeless ! I don't think schools will cope with a huge increase in our local population. Peak hour local traffic will be terrible. Because the roads entering and leaving Dingley are narrow, it takes ages getting into & out of this area as it is. This will only get worse ! One of the great things about Dingley has been having 2 golf course in the area, as well as Braeside park .The trees and open space they provide has been great for all the local fauna & birdlife as well as being the lungs, cooling filter and providing oxygen for Dingley village. Its terrible that so much habitat for birds and wildlife will be lost in this new development. We also have great fears about flooding , which happens in Dingley periodically , which will be exacerbated if they develop KIngswood GC and cover over the Aquifer there. All told , this new development is just too much for all our local facilities and infrastructure - roads, traffic noise, shops, Doctors, infant health facilities, schools, kinders, sporting facilities, etc. My wife and I will definitely be considering selling up and moving to a quieter residential area in a rural location to escape the rat race which Melbourne is becoming, if this development goes ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1411

John Minto Buncle

Kingswood Golf Course 171 Centre Dandenong Road Dingley Village 3172

I am not a resident of Dingley Village but my Long Term Partner is and I have spent a considerable amount of time in Dingley Village over the past 10 years. I find it incredible that a development of this magnitude is even being considered for an area that has for many years provided a haven for an exceptional variety of wildlife as well as being "the lungs" of Dingley, a village which is already surrounded by crowded roads and has infrastructure barely able to cope with the present population. The golf course is in part a flood zone and I believe contaminated water still leaks into it from the former tip site. This has the potential to become a health hazard for residents in the proposed homes if the land is developed and the water is unable to subside. PUBLIC TRANSPORT IS MINIMAL. There is a basic bus service, no railway station (the nearest being Cheltenham, Clayton and Springvale where parking is at a premium already) THE SHOPPING CENTRE IS INADEQUATE. Residents often need to travel to Keysborough, Noble Park, Parkdale or Mentone generally by car adding to the already congested roads. LACK OF SCHOOLS IS ALREADY A MAJOR PROBLEM There is no High School. Parkdale Secondary College, the nearest public high school, is full as are others in the surrounding area. There are two Primary Schools with long waiting lists. Dingley Primary School turned away 75 families in 2020. The foregoing are current problems facing Dingley Village. The proposed development, if approved as is, does nothing to address these issues but in fact multiplies the problems many, many times over. I believe the Sunshine Golf Course was closed and the land developed as a large housing estate a few years ago. The area in now an undesirable place for families to live as streets are used for burnouts by local teenagers and other unwanted activities. WE DO NOT WANT THAT FOR DINGLEY VILLAGE. WE URGE THE PLANNING PANEL TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE IMPACT SUCH A DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY. THE LIVEABILITY OF OUR VILLAGE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE COMPROMISED BY AN ARROGANT DECISION MADE BY A LARGE CORPORATION TO BUY LAND THAT WAS NOT REZONED AND THEREFORE FIT FOR THEIR PURPOSE. John M Buncle

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1412

Peter Allan

The reasons as to why I am objecting to re zoning of Kingswood Golf Course are: The lack of infrastructure in Dingley Village. We have a limited bus service, no train station, our primary schools are all at capacity even with portables and don't have a secondary school our children have to travel to Parkdale HS which has advised it is at capacity even with portables or try Cheltenham HS if you can get in on appeal, I feel that an extra 823 houses or 20% population growth would place a huge strain on our village. Many of our sporting clubs and community groups are at the limit they can take. Our local shopping centre is not very big and the car park would not be able to take the extra amount of cars this development would bring. Our Kindergartens have wait lists so do a lot of childcare centres, we only have 1 doctors clinic which is very hard already to get an appointment. The golf course is an emergency landing strip for Moorabbin airport as well as a much needed flood plain add to this the amount of wildlife that call the airport home and all the well established trees which provides so much fresh clean air, the developers have advised they will replace all the trees with new ones but these will be saplings and it will be generations before they are able to provide shade, homes for wildlife or the clean air currently provided. I feel developments like this need to be near commuter links like trains, trams and buses, I'm not opposed to development as such, but I am to having the planned 823 houses in such a small area with narrow streets and many of them 3 storey and side by side on extremely small lots. The developers have said they are only planning on a few 3 storey houses but have applied to have almost the entire site zoned for 3 storey why would they want so much of the area zoned for 3 storey if they have no intention of building a large quantity of 3 storey homes. The plans also have very limited car parking so as most homes now have 2 cars where would the extra cars park. They are proposing to have 88 lots on what would be an average block size for 15 lots. These developers have not asked for community consultation at any stage and if you try to contact them with a complaint they don't contact you but count that as being part of community consultation. They have even put out 2 flyers pretending to be from Dingley Village how unscrupulous can they get what else have they done. We have support from members of both parties, state and national who all along with Kingston Council and 8000 residents feel that this proposal should be rejected, as this is not in the best interests of the people who live in Dingley Village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1413

Dr. Lawrie Dowling

I joined Kingswood Golf Club in 1976 and have remained a Member since then. Over those 45 years I have witnessed the slow decline and ageing infrastructure of Dingley Village, and feel it is desperately in need of an injection of vitality, and believe that this can be provided by the proposed redevelopment of the golf course site. The site is no longer viable as a golf course, as evidenced by the declining number of members arising from the lack of support by the local residents, and boundary issues in 2013, leading to the merger creating Peninsula-Kingswood CGC at Frankston, fortunately now an outstanding success. The new development will enable new restaurants, shops, schools, improved roads, and will also create substantial rate revenue to fund these and other community resources, including playing fields in the abundant green space from restored landfill sites that border Dingley Village. The creation of a non-enclosed estate with walking & bike paths, landscaping with water features, and shared public facilities like playgrounds and BBQ areas will make this estate a very attractive place to build in, and raise a family. If I choose to move house in the future, or buy an investment property for my family, I would very seriously consider this new development, and therefore give my strong recommendation that a planning permit be granted to allow it to proceed as soon as possible.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1414

Trisha Brice

Environment Protection Authority Victoria

132 Bastings Street

https://engage.vic

Refer attached.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

YesRequest to be heard?:


Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

20 August 2021

Executive Director, Statutory Planning Services Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 8 Nicholson Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Attention: , Senior Planner

Our Ref: 5006494, 5006491, 5008636, 5011753

Dear ,

REFERRAL 1 - FORMER KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in respect of the above proposal. This letter follows on from earlier advice regarding the appropriateness of the Buffer Area Overlay (BAO), considered at the time as a translation of previously drafted Environmental Significance Overlays.

Our Understanding of the Proposal

EPA understands that the Minister for Planning (The Minister) has received a request from Australian Super Residential Property No.1 Ltd to consider a draft combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179 - 217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village, VIC 3172 for residential purposes.

The draft planning scheme amendment seeks to amend the Kingston Planning Scheme by rezoning the land to enable residential development and applying several overlays to manage development in accordance with the draft ‘Former Kingswood Golf Course Development Plan.’ This includes:

• Application of the Buffer Area Overlay – Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 (BAO1 and BAO2).i • Application of the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to part of the site.

The draft planning permit application is for the staged subdivision of land, construction of dwellings on each lot less than 300 square metres, alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (RCZ1), removal of native vegetation, removal of vegetation, use of the land and buildings and works for a display home centre, reduction in car parking, construction and display of signs and use of the land to sell or consume liquor.

i EPA notes that the accompanying Planning Report prepared by Tract appears to be outdated and refers only to one Schedule to the BAO. We have therefore relied on other documentation which speaks to two Schedules.

Page 2

Proposed Buffer Area Overlay

The Planning Scheme Amendment proposes to, amongst other things: • Control use of groundwater though the application of Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 1 (BAO1) to

part of the land that is potentially affected by groundwater contamination from a nearby former landfill. In the area affected by the BAO1, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works associated with the drilling of bores for the abstraction of ground water from the upper Brighton Group aquifer.

• Apply restrictions to manage risk of landfill gas through the application of Buffer Area Overlay Schedule 2 (BAO2) to part of the land that is potentially affected by land gas migration from a nearby former landfill. In the area affected by the BAO2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works associated with the creation of a below ground enclosed space capable of occupation (such as a basement), or piling.

Extent of BAO as Proposed

Regarding BAO1, the proposed statement of risk states that:

“Groundwater beneath the northern portion of the former Kingswood Golf Course has been and may continue to be impacted by the migration of indicators of landfill leachate from the Former Landfill.”

That said, it appears that the proposed extent of BAO1 is to the whole development site, aligning with the current property boundaries.

Regarding BAO2, the proposed statement of risk states that:

“There is potential for those areas of the former Kingswood Golf Course located within 50 metres of Spring Road to be affected by landfill gas migration from the Former Landfill.”

The proposed extent of the BAO2 aligns with the statement of risk in that it only applies to the first 50m of Spring Road.

It is EPA’s understanding that, consistent with Planning Practice Note 92 - Managing Buffers for Land Use Compatibility (March 2021) (PPN92), the application of the BAO should align with the entire area of assessed risk in the form of a ‘buffer’ from an identified source. Further, the BAO should only be applied where the actual risk exists and there should be rigour in this assessment process to inform this.

It is on this basis, that EPA considers that there may be a misalignment between the intent of the BAO and its application as part of this proposed Amendment.

For both BAO 1 and BAO 2, the extent of the overlay is limited to the land subject to this Amendment and not the extent of the risk from a ‘known source’. However, EPA understands that when an amendment is proponent led, it may be difficult to achieve this broader purpose.

• For BAO 1. the statement of risk appears to limit the risk of groundwater contamination to the northern portion of the site; however, the Overlay is shown to apply to the entire site.

• Regarding BAO2, the overlay is applied to designated parcels. It is EPA’s view that this type of application of the BAO is inconsistent with PPN92. The application of the overlay at a parcel level, does not reflect the actual risk of landfill gas from the source.

Page 3

• Referring to the Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment prepared by Senversa in January 2015, this

report suggests that the proponent may wish to consider: ▪ “a nominal buffer relating to underground structures along the eastern boundary of the Site

adjacent to the former Spring Road Landfill. The requirement for a buffer is likely to be able to be confirmed following review of council information on the potential landfill gas risk posed by that site, together with further confirmatory landfill gas monitoring rounds.” It is not clear whether the first 50m is anything more than a nominal buffer.

• Further, the environmental assessments provided to EPA (to inform the extent of the LFG buffer) are considered inadequate to base the BAO on (see Assessment of Risk below).

EPA makes these observations with the view to ensuring that the BAO is applied correctly given the use of this planning tool is in its infancy and its application as part of this Amendment may be seen as setting precedent.

Assessment of Risk

Following on from our initial advice to DELWP dated 10 June 2021, EPA has now undertaken a detailed review of the technical assessments provided in support of the proposed application of the BAO. The technical assessments reviewed by EPA include:

• Preliminary Site Investigation, Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club, Kingswood Golf Club, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated May 2014, Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd;

• Targeted Soil Contamination Assessment Peninsula Kingswood Country Club, Kingswood Site, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated July 2014, Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd

• Preliminary Landfill Gas Assessment Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated January 2015, Senversa

• Further Environmental Site Assessment, Kingswood Environmental Site Assessment ,179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated January 2015, Senversa;

• Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment, Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated January 2015, Senversa;

• Environmental Site Assessment – Final Site Condition Kingswood Golf Course, 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village dated February 2016, Senversa; as well as

• The 2020 Annual Report and the 2017 Audit Report for the adjacent closed Spring Road Landfill. The review, undertaken by technical experts at EPA concludes that, as groundwater and landfill gas sampling has not been undertaken at the golf course since 2015 and there are queries regarding the suitability of the landfill gas data, further groundwater and landfill gas assessment is required.

• With specific reference to groundwater, it is noted that the investigations carried out as ‘Further Environmental Site Assessment’ concludes that leachate impacted groundwater from the closed Spring Road landfill is likely to be migrating onto (the development) site as elevated concentrations of benzene, sulphate, nitrate, ammonia, mercury, and nickel have been detected in groundwater bores close to the landfill.

• Regarding landfill gas, the sub-surface infrastructure monitoring does not appear to have been

undertaken with a low-concentration methane detector as methane results are reported in %v/v rather than ppm. Furthermore, it is not clear from the data collected to date that the ‘credible worst-case scenario’ for landfill gas migration has been investigated.

Page 4

It is the recommendation of EPA’s technical experts that:

• Additional groundwater monitoring is needed to determine whether groundwater contamination is deteriorating over time, and if it may cause harm to the proposed development in the future.

• Further methane monitoring should be undertaken in sub-surface infrastructure located between the development site and the closed Spring Road landfill to confirm that methane will not migrate via the substrate surrounding this infrastructure towards the proposed development.

• Further monitoring of the landfill gas bores is also required. o Monitoring should attempt to capture the worst-case meteorological scenario, which is

calculated from the fifth-percentile three-hour pressure decrease rate for the site, based on a two-year data set from the nearest Bureau of Meteorology site which measures atmospheric pressure. Further information about this is available in the 2020 NSW EPA Assessment and Management of Hazardous Ground Gases Guidelines.

Drafting of BAO

EPA wishes to highlight at this point that the results of further work may do one of two things. It may indicate that the BAO should extend further and that the level of risk is in fact greater than currently assessed. Conversely, the risk may be lower, and the area may be smaller.

It is therefore essential that further work is done to confirm that the proposed extent of the BAO and the related controls to development, are appropriate to the level of risk.

Any consequential changes to the extent of the BAO or planning controls should be reflected in the drafting of the BAO and associated schedules.

On the assumption that the extent of groundwater contamination or landfill gas extends beyond the subject site, then Council should consider how to address the broader risk, as part of this amendment or subsequent to this amendment. This may include a decision regarding the application of the BAO to land outside the Amendment area.

Potentially Contaminated Land

The amendment seeks to address potentially contaminated land, including the application of the EAO and requirements within the draft planning permit. EPA are cognisant of the recent changes made by DELWP to the planning framework to accommodate the Environment Protection Act 2017 (the EP Act 2017). It is noted that many of the technical assessments to inform the suitability of the land and appropriate planning controls reference the now outdated framework for potentially contaminated land, including the now superseded Planning Practice Note 30 – Potentially Contaminated Land (dated 2005) (PPN30 2005). As such, DELWP should ensure the proposal accords with the updated framework for the management of potentially contaminated land introduced under Amendment VC 203. Of note, Planning Practice Note 30 – Potentially Contaminated Land (DELWP, 2021) (PPN30 2021) recommends a Preliminary Risk Screen Assessment (PRSA) in accordance with the EP Act 2017 where land is identified as having a medium potential for contamination (such storage of fuels and chemicals or the application of pesticides) and the zoning of the land allows sensitive uses.

Page 5

Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)

The Tract Planning Report states: • “The Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) currently exists within the Kingston Planning Scheme and

is proposed to be applied to a small portion of the Site in its south-eastern corner." • In response to the identification of asbestos containing material, “the application of an

Environmental Audit Overlay [is proposed] over an approximate 3ha portion of the south-east corner of Site is proposed”.

Despite this justification, it does not appear that the application documents justify the application of the EAO in line with the relevant guidance and policy, including Ministerial Direction No. 1 (MD. 1) and the PPN30. MD. 1 establishes two tests that must be met to apply the EAO- that the land is potentially contaminated (as per the definition in MD.1) and that the zoning of the land allows sensitive uses. PPN30 provides the appropriate guidance to apply the EAO in other circumstances.

The EAO should be applied where land has been determined as potentially contaminated, but where it is difficult or inappropriate to meet environmental audit system requirements at the amendment stage. Only under these circumstances is it justifiable to defer obligations regarding the assessment of contaminated land.

It is also expected that where the EAO is the appropriate control, it would be applied to the entire site, and not part of the site, without appropriate justification. This is because there is an increased level of rigour required to delineate the extent of contamination where this does not align with property boundaries.

Draft Planning Permit and associated Conditions

We note that the draft planning permit includes conditions which relate to the provision of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit. (We note that these would have been drafted prior to the recent updates to the planning framework for potentially contaminated land). Specifically, the draft planning permit states:

Prior to commencement of any works associated with development of a sensitive use within the area of the land to which an Environmental Audit Overlay applies (excluding works required to comply with this condition), either:

• A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

• An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

EPA recommends this draft condition be redrafted in considering relevant extracts from Planning Practice Note 30 – Potentially Contaminated Land (DELWP, 2021) (PPN30) as below:

• “Where an EAO applies to the site, it is not necessary to duplicate the requirement to obtain an environmental audit statement in a planning permit condition. However, where a planning permit is triggered, a responsible authority should consider including a planning permit condition to compel compliance with applicable environmental audit recommendations.”

• “To ensure that the site is made suitable for the proposal, applicable recommendations of the environmental audit must be translated into requirements of a planning approval.”

• “Where a planning scheme amendment applies, provision needs to be made for applicable recommendations to be given effect, or where possible used to inform the drafting of planning provisions. Where a planning permit applies, any environmental audit recommendations that apply to the construction or the design of the development must be included as requirements in that approval”.

Page 6

(Emphasis added)

Given the above and as this is a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application, in accordance with Section 93A of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, the following requirement from PPN30 should be included in the requirements of the planning provisions or planning permit condition:

• All the recommendations of the environmental audit statement must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, prior to commencement of use of the site. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental consultant or other suitable person acceptable to the responsible authority. Compliance sign-off must be in accordance with any requirements in the environmental audit statement recommendations regarding verification of works.

• The applicant must enter into a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The s 173 Agreement must be executed on the title of the relevant land prior to the commencement of the use and prior to the issue of a statement of compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the responsible authority.

Further, PPN30 advises the below planning permit note might also be included:

• A suitably qualified environmental consultant acceptable to the responsible authority may include an environmental auditor appointed under the EP Act 2017 or an environmental professional with qualifications and competence consistent with Schedule B9 of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination Measure, 1999) (as amended 2013).

Management Strategies

The Tract Planning Report states:

• Senversa recommended “to manage this potential a number of recommendations were made” EPA notes that whilst the Tract Planning Report recommends strategies to manage contamination, the draft planning controls do not appear to include requirements to comply with their recommendations. Further, given that these strategies were recommended by a form of assessment that is not prescribed by the EP Act 2017, the planning authority should satisfy themselves that the strategies will be effective in managing any identified or unidentified contamination.

Summary of Advice

For both BAO 1 and BAO 2, the extent of the overlay is limited to the land subject to this Amendment and not the extent of the risk from a ‘known source’. For this reason, EPA is concerned that the approach does not fully align with the application of the BAO as anticipated by PPN92. However, EPA understands that when an amendment is proponent led, it may be difficult to achieve this broader purpose.

EPA has now reviewed the site-specific environmental assessments undertaken; and considers that further work is needed to ensure that the potential risks of harm are fully understood and accurately captured within the proposed Schedules.

It should be noted that EPA does not consider this to be an onerous requirement that would necessarily impact on the overall planning scheme amendment timeframes (i.e., hearing commencing in October 2021). Rather, this will support the proponent to have a better understanding of risk given the data gap that exists.

With respect to contaminated land, we also consider that updates should be made to the amendment documentation to ensure:

Page 7

• That it is appropriate to apply the EAO in line with relevant policy and guidance; • That it is appropriate to defer the assessment of contaminated land via the EAO. • That it is appropriate to apply the EAO to part of the land; and • Updates to the planning framework as it applies to contaminated land in line with the updated

PPN30 and the updated EAO.

It is recommended that the Amendment documentation is updated to accord with the changes made to the Victorian Planning Provisions via VC203 which includes necessary changes to give effect to the EP Act 2017.

If our assessment is not aligned with your view of the environmental risk, or if the proposal is subsequently amended, please contact Planning Team Lead – Strategic on

Yours sincerely,

Team Leader – Landuse Planning Delivery Major Projects & Planning Unit EPA Victoria

CC: Australian Super Residential Property No.1 Ltd.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1415

Tim Delaney

I have been a resident of Dingley Village for 35 years. Dingley Village is a truly unique suburb of a greater Melbourne location with a rural type feel, we a village community. The proposed over development of the (underhandedly sold) Kingswood site will not only bring with it underserviced overcrowding but the errossion of something worth truly saving and that is the unique environment of Dingley Village. To propose and inflict such density of dwellings on such a community in the outer suburbs of one of the least densely populated countries in the world is bordering on immoral. I implore those who will ultimately decide the fate of our community to make the right decision not the money decision. If this land has to be developed the the allotments should be no less than 600m2 in size which is in line with current block sizes plus 20% open space (habitat for wildlife and recreation).

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1416

Emma Godfrey

I strongly object to the development proposed for Dingley Village. The proposed development will increase the traffic on what is already congested roads in and out of the village. The development will increase the population of which there are not adequate amounts of kindergartens and schools in the area to accommodate such demands. Dingley has an abundance of beautiful wildlife that frequent the village, if this development goes ahead many species will be lost.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1417

Patricia Taylor

3172

This proposal of houses which are nothing bigger than Rabbit Hutches is a complete over fill on prime nature woodland and wildlife. Dingley Village does NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE for this development. All Primary and Secondary School are all ready over subscribed with Portable Class Rooms all over. We do not have the Road and Rail links required for approx 2500-3000 more residents which will result in horrendous congestion and even FATALITIES. Any housing will devastate the local wild life and cause untold problems for the existing Villagers never mind the NOISE AND POLLUTION OVER MANY YEARS IF IT WERE TO GO AHEAD. IT WOULD CAUSE UNTOLD MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS and we have only one Medical Centre to cope with this over the top development. THIS COMPANY MADE A HUGE MISTAKE IN BUYING THIS PROPERTY AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO APPEASE THEIR SHAREHOLDERS. Patricia Taylor

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1418

Viruthiamparambath Rajakumar

As a homeowner adjacent to Kingswood Golf course, I strongly object to the proposal to rezone and redevelop the site into a medium to high density housing estate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is a death warrant for the only treed open space in Dingley which has thousands of magnificent trees, thousands of birds, wildlife including lizards and echidnas, and is an excellent example of rich biodiversity. 2. The proposal ignores and does not take responsibility for the serious social and environmental issues created by the dramatic increase of Dingley’s population by about 20%. The severe loss of biodiversity at the site and Dingley Village more broadly is unacceptable. 3. Inadequate precautions against serious flooding in the golf course and neighbouring areas caused by the developer’s proposal to cover the existing aquifer. 4. The erection of medium to high density houses and apartments, several with three storeys, in over 800 housing lots destroys the historic character of Dingley Village. 5. Dingley’s already over-stretched primary schools, medical care, and childcare facilities will be unable to cope with the demands by the major population growth created by the proposal. There is no public secondary schooling or hospital nearby. 6. No community facilities like swimming pools, ovals or other amenities are included. 7. The proposed lay-out has a large number of cramped housing lots adjacent to existing homes including mine. This is discriminatory and unacceptable. 8. A new round-about at the Spring Road/McClure Road intersection with Spring Road becoming a traffic highway for the residents of the estate will create congestion and unacceptable safety hazards. 9. The developer's data suggests up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per hour during peak times on a single lane road. Adequate transport and parking facilities are lacking in the proposal. These problems are also expected to increase with the move of Hawthorn football club to Tootal Road. The Kingswood Golf course site should be maintained as parkland, preserving the heritage of Dingley Village. The rezoning and development proposal lacks attention to the serious negative environmental, social and community impacts it creates for Dingley Village and its residents. The proposal in effect unfairly transfers the onerous burden and huge costs of alleviating these negative impacts to Kingston City Council and Dingley Village residents. The proposal must be rejected. Note: Please note there was an error in my previous submission made earlier today, 20 August, 2021. I had erroneously mentioned Kingston Golf course instead of Kingswood Golf course. Please ignore that submission and use this one instead. Thank you.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

Viruthiamparambath Rajakumar

As a homeowner adjacent to Kingswood Golf course, I strongly object to the proposal to rezone and redevelop the site into a medium to high density housing estate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning is a death warrant for the only treed open space in Dingley which has thousands of magnificent trees, thousands of birds, wildlife including lizards and echidnas, and is an excellent example of rich biodiversity. 2. The proposal ignores and does not take responsibility for the serious social and environmental issues created by the dramatic increase of Dingley’s population by about 20%. The severe loss of biodiversity at the site and Dingley Village more broadly is unacceptable. 3. Inadequate precautions against serious flooding in the golf course and neighbouring areas caused by the developer’s proposal to cover the existing aquifer. 4. The erection of medium to high density houses and apartments, several with three storeys, in over 800 housing lots destroys the historic character of Dingley Village. 5. Dingley’s already over-stretched primary schools, medical care, and childcare facilities will be unable to cope with the demands by the major population growth created by the proposal. There is no public secondary schooling or hospital nearby. 6. No community facilities like swimming pools, ovals or other amenities areincluded. 7. The proposed lay-out has a large number of cramped housing lotsadjacent to existing homes including mine. This is discriminatory and unacceptable.8. A new round-about at the Spring Road/McClure Road intersection with SpringRoad becoming a traffic highway for the residents of the estate will createcongestion and unacceptable safety hazards. 9. The developer's data suggests up to6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per hour during peaktimes on a single lane road. Adequate transport and parking facilities are lacking inthe proposal. These problems are also expected to increase with the move ofHawthorn football club to Tootal Road. The Kingston Golf course site should bemaintained as parkland, preserving the heritage of Dingley Village. The rezoning anddevelopment proposal lacks attention to the serious negative environmental, socialand community impacts it creates for Dingley Village and its residents. The proposalin effect unfairly transfers the onerous burden and huge costs of alleviating thesenegative impacts to Kingston City Council and Dingley Village residents. The proposalmust be rejected.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1419

Andrew Lewis

This proposal has already been opposed by 96% of the residents of Dingley Village which was one of the largest petitions lodged. This area was a beautiful golf course with native trees and fauna that is slowing being destroyed by a greedy superannuation fund that did not do its homework and is now looking to its mates in the State Government to overturn a decision already made by the City of Kingston. Dingley Village can not cater for these additional 800 homes with the Primary schools already at bursting point, the kindergartens on wait list and no Secondary College to cater for the additional heads. In addition the roads surrounding the proposed development are also currently choked and the addition of the new freeway will not alleviate the traffic only add to it. The Golf course area is home to many native trees and wildlife and to destroy this for 200m2 blocks to be used for high density living would be environmental vandalism in what was green wedge. If the Labor State Government approves this they will be joined with Australian Super as environmental terrorists who do not care about the people and the environment only lining their own pockets.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1420

Anne Joy Jones

I wish to protest of overdeveopment of the proposed Kingswood Golf Course Development. I have lived in Dingley VIllage 33 years. It is a quiet, friendly suburb. I would like to keep the village atmosphere without overdevelopment of 3 storey zoning and increasing the population by more than 20%. The traffic is very congested on Centre Dandenong Road especially peak hour and around Tootal Rd area. Also at the roundabout can be very congested and the traffic lights at Boundary Rd and Centre Dandenong Rd can be long waits. The proposed removal of hundreds of trees, I think is unnecessary and will impact on the birds and wildlife who live there. We want clean fresh air as much as possible and room for us all to move freely without congestion.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1421

LesaTharle

yes

I agree and I was thinking to buy a house.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1422

Stella Merie Abryaratne

I support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land. The rezoning of the former Kingswood Golf Club land is good for the local community. In the proposed redevelopment there are over 14 hectares of open spaces. This is a modest, low-density development that will be good for the local community and attract young families to the area. The addition of more residential land is desperately needed in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne. The economic benefit to the area is estimated to add over seven hundred jobs and over a billion dollars to the local economy.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1423

Damien Kerr

Kingswood Golf Club/Centre Dandenong Rd

Support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land. The rezoning of the former Kingswood Golf Club land is good for the local community. In the proposed redevelopment there are over 14 hectares of open spaces. This is a modest, low-density development that will be good for the local community and attract young families to the area. Inclusion of additional waterways will help better water management in the Dingley area that will assist with reducing localised flooding. Numerous other local golf clubs such as Keysborough, Southern, Spring Valley and Woodlands just to name a few will benefit from the increase in population and the inevitable economic benefits. The addition of more residential land is desperately needed in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne. The economic benefit to the area is estimated to add over seven hundred jobs and over a billion dollars to the local economy. This will help many local and surrounding businesses and the golf industry. Our industry and the Victorian economy will benefit from more world class golfing facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club. Two previously prosperous golf clubs in Kingswood Golf Club and Peninsula Country Golf Club were finding it hard to flourish in the last decade due to the decline in golf participation. Since these two clubs merged to create a world class facility at PKCGC in Frankston it’s attracting a lot of attention not just in Australia but around the world. Both courses, since redesign have rated in the top 20 courses in Australia with the North course making it to the top ten. This is a great debut for two such young facilities that are yet to reach their potential. PKCGC is hoping that both courses make the world top 100 courses in the next couple of years. This is not just good for golf in Victoria but Australia. Victoria is arguably the jewel in the crown of golf in Australia with the sand belt golf clubs highly regarded around the world. Outside a small number of premium golf clubs in Melbourne many of the other clubs in Melbourne and around Victorian have been forced to survive with a compromised offer. Golf tourism around Australia needs more facilities like PKCGC. More premium facilities of this type in Victoria and Australia will increase our reputation as a golf destiny like Scotland and Ireland. We need struggling clubs all around Victoria to have the option to come together and create merged clubs that can provide premium facilities. We have the climate to provide year-long tourism. Our golf clubs need the financial security that mergers and rezoning of golf course land can provide.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1424

Stephen Edward & Jayne Michele Haywood

My wife and I would like to strongly object. We have lived in Dingley Village for over 20 years and reside approximately 200 metres from the golf course. We were, and still are, attracted to the Village life style. This life style will be destroyed for the following reasons: • Be as proud as we are for the unique character of our village. It is our village as well, but if this amendment is passed, it will no longer be a village that we can all call our own. It will belong to property developers who cash it in and trash it in. Your assessment should be about your 10,000 current residents whom you represent. Please consider this carefully. • This development will mean more traffic congestion and more parking problems. Just pop down to the primary school any school day afternoon or take a leisurely squeeze between parked vehicles on Rowan’s Rd on a Saturday morning netball day. There will be more strain on community services such as schools and kindergartens, greater dust and noise levels for years to come (construction and ongoing use), as if we villagers have not already had enough of the increased noise levels associated with significantly increased traffic from the nearby Moorabbin Airport. • Dingley Village currently has a low housing density (2 story maximum) residential infrastructure. This development will facilitate the building of compressed dwellings as we have already seen in Tootal Rd. Once again, go and take a look and imagine this right in the middle of our village, as far as the eye can see. There are no train or tram services to support local commuting and restricted road structure in and out of the village. We ask you not to waste the spending on the Dingley Village by-pass and allow the clogging of our roads once again. • Whilst you are on Tootal Rd, take a look at the pelican post near the end of my street Maybe you will be lucky to see some pelican’s flying directly above, what a sight to see! The golf course acts as a radar for these majestic birds, but I am afraid that this will be lost to us all if the amendment and application is supported. As will be the thousand’s of trees, open spaces, wildlife, waterways, and least of all the community spirit that a golf club supports. Please support all of Dingley’s 10,000 residents, all of the fauna, and all of the flora, and not the developer. Yours faithfully, Stephen Haywood Jayne Haywood

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1425

Tim Shearwood

I support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land. Additional world class golfing facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (PK) is good for the golf industry and the successful redevelopment of the Kingswood land will further enhance this. The addition of more residential land will benefit the southeast of Melbourne and bring broader employment opportunity to the community.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1426

Paul Rowe

I support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land. More world class facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (PKCGC) is good for the golf industry. Two previously prosperous golf clubs in Kingswood Golf Club and Peninsula Country Golf Club were finding it hard to flourish in the last decade due to the decline in golf participation. Since these two clubs merged to create a world class facility at PKCGC in Frankston it’s attracting a lot of attention not just in Australia but around the world. Both courses, since redesign have rated in the top 20 courses in Australia with the North course making it to the top ten. This is a great debut for two such young facilities that are yet to reach their potential. PKCGC is hoping that both courses make the world top 100 courses in the next couple of years. This is not just good for golf in Victoria but Australia. Victoria is arguably the jewel in the crown of golf in Australia with the sand belt golf clubs highly regarded around the world. Outside a small number of premium golf clubs in Melbourne many of the other clubs in Melbourne and around Victorian have been forced to survive with a compromised offer. Golf tourism around Australia needs more facilities like PKCGC. More premium facilities of this type in Victoria and Australia will increase our reputation as a golf destiny like Scotland and Ireland. We need struggling clubs all around Victoria to have the option to come together and create merged clubs that can provide premium facilities. We have the climate to provide year-long tourism. Our golf clubs need the financial security that mergers and rezoning of golf course land can provide. The rezoning of the former Kingswood Golf Club land is good for the local community. In the proposed redevelopment there are over 14 hectares of open spaces. This is a modest, low-density development that will be good for the local community and attract young families to the area. Inclusion of additional waterways will help better water management in the Dingley area that will assist with reducing localised flooding. Numerous other local golf clubs such as Keysborough, Southern, Spring Valley and Woodlands just to name a few will benefit from the increase in population and the inevitable economic benefits. The addition of more residential land is desperately needed in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne. The economic benefit to the area is estimated to add over seven hundred jobs and over a billion dollars to the local economy. This will help many local and surrounding businesses and the golf industry. Our industry and the Victorian economy will benefit from more world class golfing facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1427

Gregory James Kent

Why the golf industry should support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land: Support the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Club land. More world class facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (PKCGC) is good for the golf industry. Two previously prosperous golf clubs in Kingswood Golf Club and Peninsula Country Golf Club were finding it hard to flourish in the last decade due to the decline in golf participation. Since these two clubs merged to create a world class facility at PKCGC in Frankston it’s attracting a lot of attention not just in Australia but around the world. Both courses, since redesign have rated in the top 20 courses in Australia with the North course making it to the top ten. This is a great debut for two such young facilities that are yet to reach their potential. PKCGC is hoping that both courses make the world top 100 courses in the next couple of years. This is not just good for golf in Victoria but Australia. Victoria is arguably the jewel in the crown of golf in Australia with the sand belt golf clubs highly regarded around the world. Outside a small number of premium golf clubs in Melbourne many of the other clubs in Melbourne and around Victorian have been forced to survive with a compromised offer. Golf tourism around Australia needs more facilities like PKCGC. More premium facilities of this type in Victoria and Australia will increase our reputation as a golf destiny like Scotland and Ireland. We need struggling clubs all around Victoria to have the option to come together and create merged clubs that can provide premium facilities. We have the climate to provide year-long tourism. Our golf clubs need the financial security that mergers and rezoning of golf course land can provide. The rezoning of the former Kingswood Golf Club land is good for the local community. In the proposed redevelopment there are over 14 hectares of open spaces. This is a modest, low-density development that will be good for the local community and attract young families to the area. Inclusion of additional waterways will help better water management in the Dingley area that will assist with reducing localised flooding. Numerous other local golf clubs such as Keysborough, Southern, Spring Valley and Woodlands just to name a few will benefit from the increase in population and the inevitable economic benefits. The addition of more residential land is desperately needed in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne. The economic benefit to the area is estimated to add over seven hundred jobs and over a billion dollars to the local economy. This will help many local and surrounding businesses and the golf industry. Our industry and the Victorian economy will benefit from more world class golfing facilities such as Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1428

Mark Skinner

I am writing to object as Dingley simply does not have to road infrastructure, the roads will be completely blocked in peak hour and there will be trouble parking at all times. It is very difficult to actually get out of Dingley by car in peak hour as it is now, let alone with all the extra cars on the road. The roundabout at the junction of McClure Road and Spring Road would be a disaster, the noise from traffic going over the speed humps is bad enough as it is with trucks going over them without breaking and creating lots of noise. Increase the traffic 10 fold and it would be unbearable. The amount of disruption to our quality of life throughout the building process will be detrimental to the people of Dingley. If Kingswood couldn’t make the course profitable they should have made the land open to the public, which will benefit all members of the community. The applicationn does not even take into account all of the wildlife that will be lost, I suspect all of the trees will be chopped down too, it will become more like a concrete jungle than the Dingley we know. Quite simply, Dingley simply doesn’t have the infrastructure for all of the extra dwellings and the application should be rejected, so all current residents do not lose their quality of life, which will no doubt lessen if this were to go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1429

Maria Badaracco

My reason for objection. We purchased into Dingley because of the greenery and quiet community Village. This Village will be spoilt by this development. Very disappointing.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1430

Walter Badaracco

Reason for objection. Too crowded in a small village to build excessive homes in this area. The environment will be spoilt not to mention overrun the village with excessive traffic and disruption to our environment.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1431

Kellie Skinner

I am writing to object as Dingley simply does not have to road infrastructure, the roads will be completely blocked in peak hour and there will be trouble parking at all times. It is very difficult to actually get out of Dingley by car in peak hour as it is now, let alone with all the extra cars on the road. The roundabout at the junction of McClure Road and Spring Road would be a disaster, the noise from traffic going over the speed humps is bad enough as it is with trucks going over them without breaking and creating lots of noise. Increase the traffic 10 fold and it would be unbearable. The amount of disruption to our quality of life throughout the building process will be detrimental to the people of Dingley. If Kingswood couldn’t make the course profitable they should have made the land open to the public, which will benefit all members of the community. The applicationn does not even take into account all of the wildlife that will be lost, I suspect all of the trees will be chopped down too, it will become more like a concrete jungle than the Dingley we know. Quite simply, Dingley simply doesn’t have the infrastructure for all of the extra dwellings and the application should be rejected, so all current residents do not lose their quality of life, which will no doubt lessen if this were to go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1432

Sodi Adikaram

I strongly object for the propose kingwood Golf course re development, submitted by Australian Super. I do not believe the new development plan has paid sufficient attention to the issues that Village will face due to the new development. My main concerns are increase traffic condition, lack of infrastructure, population density and environmental impact which could cause due to this. As a resident of at the moment in a morning peak hour traffic I have to wait at least 10 minutes to take a right turn to Tootal Road from Windara Crescent. Could you imagine this traffic condition with an increase population due to the new development? The new development will put a massive tension on local traffic. Density growth in the Village will put pressure on local services. Such as child care, kindergarten, parks, mental health, library etc. At the moment the facilities in two public schools in the area just adequate for local community. If the development is approved, the demand for the local schools will increase as well. Also there is no secondary School in Dingley. Increased population will place pressure on neighbouring suburb secondary schools, which is at the moment running at full capacity. Proposed development has 823 dwelling. Parking for residents going to be a nightmare specially coupled with anticipated narrow streets. The developer have even applied to reduce their parking obligations. So each tiny apartment will have up to four cars in tiny streets and nature-strips. The green nature of Dingley will completely destroy by the proposed plan. The golf course plays a great role in the biodiversity of the suburb. It is home to many endangered wild life and native trees. The proposed open space could not mimic the current vegetation of the site. It will remove majority of the trees and will destroy the biodiversity. In conclusion I strongly object to the Kingswood Golf Course re development. It will have no benefit to the suburb, will have only a negative impact on the Dingley Village Community.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1433

Krupa Makadia

I strongly feel the redevelopment of the the golf course site should not go ahead. The current plans to make it a residential development will affect too many things in this area. The traffic would be greater, the noise pollution would be much worse, the safety of the area would be heavily reduced due to the moving vehicles, the increase in smaller cheaper housing would attract an increase in crime rate, the population size increase of Dingley could not accomodate the schooling requirement. We are desperate in Dingley to have a secondary school and this site would be ideal for such a thing. The Kingston botanical garden is a joke and we need a better botanical garden like in Berwick or Cranbourne. There would be a large increase in supply of property which would decrease the price of our property in Dingley. Secondary School or botanical garden is best

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1434

Ruth Kumaresan

As a Resident of Dingley, I am saddened by the proposed housing estate to be built on the Dingley golf course. I am flabbergasted that Australian Super had not done a proper due diligence prior to the purchase of this golf course. My primary concern is the overcrowding of Dingley by residents, cars and other modes of transport. Centre Dandenong Road is already busy and this will only get worse. Over many years, Commuters from outside Dingley are in the habit of taking this road to reach outside areas, in spite of new routes that have been built since. The number buildings and size of lots ring alarm bells. The streets within the estate are bound to be narrow and restrictive. If empty nesters want to downsize, one level homes are the preferred option not two and three level buildings Covid has shown us that plenty of open spaces and fresh air is vital to our health. Living in close proximity to each other is not is not conducive to ones health. If this proposal is given the go ahead, it will place unwanted stress on the village’s infrastructure, namely schools and medical facilities. There are environmental issues too; more pollution, loss or reduction in bird life, stress on the grid to name a few. We have been subject to many other poor living conditions, through landfill operations and the ongoing building of Mordialloc by pass. The noise and dust have been very challenging. My hope is that a few members of the Planning Committee will spend sometime in the village, especially during peak hours to observe the already busy traffic conditions and also talk to the locals outside the confines of the public hearing. Please do not change the character of our village. Yours sincerely

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1435

Howard Carne

I object to the redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course land into Housing for the following reasons : 1) Dingley Village is essentially a 'green-wedge' area, which is the primary reason people choose to live in the suburb, not crammed with high density housing but rather with open green spaces. The Golf course land is central to the suburbs character 2) The many trees on the golf course produce oxygen and act as a 'lungs' cooling filter producing fresh air for the surrounding area 3) The proposed development is not consistent with the 'Village' Character of 1 & 2 story family homes. - 80% of lots are on 550 - 650 sqm 4) Est. 20% increase in Village population without provision of adequate or additional amenities, such as medical services, maternal health, child care, kindergartens, primary schools and no secondary school ! 5) The 'so called' consultation with residents by the Developers has not adopted the many community facilities proposed/requested, such as: community meeting pavilion, art gallery, cafes, playgrounds, sporting ovals and facilities 6) Totally inadequate allowance within the development plans for residents parking, coupled with narrow streets, will result in vehicle and road congestion 7) The main road arteries in and out of Dingley are already clogged at peak hour. A substantial increase in traffic will be intolerable with an extra 6,800 vehicle movements per day and 680 per peak hour. Travel times will blow out. Dingley has inadequate public transport to help absorb the inevitable increase in people movement in & out of the suburb 8) Increased bus services and bus lanes on already congested roads will only contribute to worsening the traffic problems and travel times 9) Destruction of 20,000 native (indigenous) trees is irresponsible 10) Demolition of wildlife habitat and displacement/killing of many birds and animals is unconscionable. This is the heart of the Dingley Village 11) Flooding is currently a problem in Dingley. The existing Retarding Basin already overflows and mainly soaks into the golf course which has an aquifer established by the Govt. Developers want to cover over the Golf Course and Aquifer which will remove this immense flood saving-net, which will substantially increase exposure to more regular major flooding 12) Shopping strip and adjacent carpark as well as the Community Centre will be overloaded with a 20% increase in Village population 13) Utilities services will all be stretched and services degraded as usage increases and capacity/supply strained. - ie; NBN clogged, Electricity demands at peak times causing lower voltage/power outages, Water pressure reduced, Sewer overloaded 14) Years of chaos, noise and dust contributing to asthma and other lung and hearing complaints 15) THERE IS NO NET BENEFIT TO DINGLEY VILLAGE FROM THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1436

Mary sharmini fernando

dingley village, 3172

I see this redevelopment as destruction to the beauty of dingley village, the home of wildlife and birds, and the feeling of trees for no good reason. Shame on the developers who are trying to put money ahead of beauty and life.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1437

Philip Henderson

Dingley Village is a unique Village surrounded by industry or open space. It's a Village. Dingley Village. The proposed "redevelopment", ignores the current amenity, devalues existing properties, and in no way blends into the existing Dingley Village community. Dingley Village is unique in the fact that its geographically isolated on 4 sides, we are a community a village. The current commercial infrastructure has no capacity to cater for the proposed, out of character proposal. The propose development, with respect to density has no consideration to the current amenity or vibe of the Dingley Community. I offer this with the knowledge of other with same belief

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1438

Mark Dreyfus MP Member for Isaacs

Former Kingswood Golf Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village

https://engage.vic

“see attached submission”

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

1

Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee [email protected]

20 August 2021

SUBMISSION REGARDING DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C199KING AND DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION – KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT

I write to provide a submission about the draft planning scheme amendment C199King and draft planning permit application submitted by AustralianSuper Residential Property No. 1 Ltd, to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179‐217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village for residential purposes.

I am opposed to planning scheme amendment C199King and planning permit application.

The City of Kingston has not identified the site as a strategic infill residential development opportunity. The opposite is true. The site is afforded protections under the City of Kingston’s 2015 Golf Course Policy to be retained for present and future generations based on its considerable green and open space values.

The suburbs of Melbourne are socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally diverse and require different land use and development responses. Dingley Village is an excellent example of this context. The Dingley Village community is not just housing and people. The area embodies a unique urban culture or way of life developed over decades through political and social engagement, fostering community connections, civic duty, and a commitment to supporting liveability, health, and well‐being. These elements contribute to the distinctive neighbourhood character and strong social and community orientation of the area.

Since its establishment in 1937, the Kingswood Golf Course has played a significant role in the history of Dingley Village. Beyond its long‐held recreational use, Kingswood is also an integral part of the Dingley Village urban character, particularly its high‐value open space and amenity qualities.

I accept the idea that Victoria needs new housing stock to meet population growth. But I object to this proposal because it seeks to remove municipal planning protections safeguarding the site's high‐quality open space and amenity values to facilitate densified residential development. Under the City of Kingston's 2015 Golf Course Policy, the site holds a 'special significance' status that should be retained for present and future generations based on its considerable green and open space values. As noted in the City of Kingston's 2015 Golf Course Policy, "golf courses are protected through specific provisions under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. This is the highest level of protection that can be provided and the purpose of the zone."

Other municipalities might not take the same approach, preferencing golf course sites for infill residential development, but this is not the policy position of the City of Kingston. As the responsible authority, the Council has in‐depth knowledge about the needs of its diverse neighbourhoods and communities. As a result, the Council produces extensive and detailed planning activities, policies, and strategic visions to benefit the community now and into the

2

future. The 2015 Golf Course Policy reflects this activity and intent. It is a determined open space conservation policy and effort by Council to retain municipal golf courses for their community, ecological, landscape, and open space values where possible. They are key community assets to be retained to benefit the present and future communities in Dingley Village and the municipality.

Consistent with my position in 2018, I am deeply concerned about any opportunistic proposal that asserts the appropriateness of residential development that is inconsistent with local planning policies, just because it falls in an established residential area or because it might cease functioning according to its original purpose.

The Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee established under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 removed the City of Kingston as the statutory planning authority for making decisions about the site's future. This legislative mechanism has provided an opportunity for AustralianSuper to put forward a substantially similar plan as its previously rejected proposal, other than proposing even greater density.

In this case, no amendment to the planning scheme should occur that removes planning and environmental protections solely for the benefit of a developer and at the community's expense. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 was not intended to create such an outcome.

I see no justification for altering existing safeguards to permit dense infill residential development and urban expansion over the site. The proposed amendment contemplates dramatic changes at odds with the City of Kingston's carefully nurtured Planning Scheme. The clear intent of the proposed amendment and planning application is to erase the current planning protections designed to prohibit the very kind of residential development proposed.

If the amendment is adopted, it will result in significant and harmful planning implications and the unacceptable permanent loss of high‐value open space for Dingley Village and the broader community to inappropriate development.

I call for the abandonment of amendment C199King and the draft planning permit application to ensure retention of the Kingswood Golf Course as open space for Dingley Village residents and the wider community. The City of Kingston needs more, not fewer open spaces and community parklands.

3

GENERAL ANALYSIS

It is widely agreed that the City of Kingston has a shortage of open space. Furthermore, as noted in the 2017 Public Open Space Contributions Review by SGS Economics and Planning, the City of Kingston has undertaken a significant amount of planning to understand its open space needs against population growth and urban expansion. One crucial policy response is the City of Kingston's 2015 Golf Course Policy, which delivers a thorough strategic planning position for golf courses based on their interpretation under the planning scheme as one of Kingston's most "highly valued resources".

For example, the policy describes the collection of golf courses across Kingston as assets of "specialness" because of their contribution to community open space and high environmental and amenity value. The policy also justifiably recognises this uniqueness with a range of planning scheme protections under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. These same protections also rightly establish and embed a strategic statement of benefit where the community should continue to enjoy the open space opportunities that golf courses hold. The policy states:

In the Kingston Planning Scheme golf courses are protected through specific provisions under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. This is the highest level of protection that can be provided and the purpose of the zone is explicit in stating that it seeks to provide for the use and development of land as a golf course and associated uses.

and

…Where clubs are genuinely unable to be economically viable and should the land owner wish to cease golf operations on the site, the Council is keen that the land is used for public or private open space purposes that allow the land to retain its green and open vistas.

Correspondingly, the Municipal Planning Association of Victoria's 2017 Planning for Golf in Victoria report and the Victorian State Government's 2017 Planning for golf in Victoria Discussion Paper (discussion paper) underlines the same open space shortage and urban expansion relationship. The report emphasises that policymakers should view golf courses as a strategic planning opportunity to address this shortage. Equally, the discussion paper repeatedly highlights golf courses' vital contribution to community open space networks and their high environmental and amenity value. Because of this, the proposed dense infill residential development of the site is and will continue to be an unacceptable land use and development proposal. The proposed amendment should be abandoned because it will not provide a net benefit to the community.

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND OPEN SPACE.

It is difficult to determine how this proposal will contribute to and make optimum use of existing community infrastructure, facilities, and services. For example, AustralianSuper’s 2018 planning report described local schools, kindergartens, childcare facilities, and mental health and health services as being close to capacity. The report also highlighted advanced discussion with the Department of Education about identifying a location for a new secondary school, and further, that local sporting grounds and facilities were unsatisfactory. The 2018 proposal also recommended a range of solutions and cash contributions to mitigate these concerns with the

4

Council. However, this planning report decidedly excludes these pressing issues. The Community Infrastructure Assessment Report prepared by ASR Research on behalf of the proponent explains this inconsistent position. The ASR report recommends that no response measures are needed to develop or contribute to sporting facilities and grounds on or off‐site based on the City of Kingston’s plan to transform the Delta landfill site at 91‐185 Kingston Road Heatherton into a new regional sports field. However, this is no longer the case. The Suburban Rail Loop Authority identified the Delta site as its preferred location to develop a train stabling facility as part of the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop project. An Environmental Effects Statement for the train stabling facility is well advanced by the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. The ASR report also asserts that developing site‐specific active recreational open spaces does not meet the proponent’s ambition to maximise residential development. The ASR report also references the site's irregular shape to justify this assertion, together with the broader assertion that doing so would adversely impact the amenity for ‘existing nearby residents and the new future community because of car parking, traffic noise and lighting’. These are general observations not supported by appropriate analyses. This approach can be correctly characterised as opportunism by the proponent to maximise profits at the expense of the community. The guidelines for the conversion of golf courses do not intend to benefit investors and developers to the detriment of local communities. On the contrary, the guidelines are clear: ‘ensure a net community benefit and deliver quality outcomes.’ For these reasons alone, the proposal should be rejected.

Further, on the matter of open space provisions, the proposal seeks to reduce garden area requirements in a residential zone because dwelling proximity to reserves will provide a visual sense of open space. The proposal also suggests that ‘the sense of space’ and ‘separation between built form’ are appropriate responses to offset reduced garden areas because it achieves an open garden character design response. In this regard, using adjacent vistas and spaces between dwellings as a core strategy to remove open space contributions and opportunities does not achieve a net community benefit. It is also inconsistent with current metropolitan‐wide attempts to reduce heat island effects in urban development. However, this approach is consistent with the proponent’s strategy to maximise the residential development footprint over the site rather than delivering a net increase in public open spaces and a net community benefit. It is worthwhile highlighting what can be accomplished. For instance, the Kingston Links Golf Course redevelopment (amendment C142knox) rezoned ‘the site for residential uses (approximately 800 new dwellings), new parks and public open spaces, new wetlands and other flood mitigation works, new multi‐purpose community facilities, rehabilitation of ecological corridors and the potential for small‐scale commercial uses as part of a mixed‐use neighbourhood centre.’ Further, ‘The Knox Council secured from the developer a range of financial contributions and ‘works in kind related to physical and community infrastructure that will support both the proposed development and address a range of existing Council priorities in the area, including social housing, public open space, sports field and pavilion…’. Of course, the site contexts are different, but the Kingston Links Golf Course redevelopment and this proposal are similar to the extent they are infill residential developments of former golf course land.

5

SITE CONTEXT AND DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

For Dingley Village residents, large‐scale, dense development is not part of their way of life, and it is not a feature of the local urban footprint or neighbourhood character. However, despite the City of Kingston rejecting the earlier proposal in 2018, this application forces residents to contemplate an even higher housing density. For example, the planning application proposes extensive coverage of the approximately 53.35‐hectare site dominated by three‐story 11‐metre residential development. Comparing the 2018 proposal to this application illustrates that the proponent intends to increase density over the site from 800 to 823 lots.

If approved, the development will produce an expansive and bulky compacted grid of dense development to a height, scale and massing inconsistent with the surrounding properties, broader residential area, and neighbourhood character. In addition, the planning report offers a limited scope of housing opportunities beyond two and three‐story design choices sited on small average lot sizes of approximately 318 sqm. Therefore, I do not support the site being changed to a General Residential Zone that would permit this level of height, scale, and massing to occur. Also missing in the report is a commitment to supply affordable housing, including design and siting detail. The absence of a comprehensive housing diversity strategy and commitments in the planning and amendment reports is a concern because, in practice, it allows the proponent to make further, potentially impactful changes after approval is granted. This should never be the case.

INCREASED TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION

The traffic generated by this proposal will increase congestion in Dingley and the surrounding area. The traffic impact assessment report prepared by OneMileGrid Pty Ltd submits at a minimum, 5,774 additional vehicle movements per day or 577 vehicle movements per peak hour. Also, the traffic modelling data is four years old, yet the report assumes no change over this period. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to recommend that OneMileGrid updates the report to resolve this assumption based on the proposal's modelled increase in traffic volumes and congestion. In addition, traffic surveys and modelling should be updated to consider any impacts from the Hawthorn Football Club development on Tootal Road, the advanced proposal to develop the ‘biggest waterpark in the Southern Hemisphere’ in Dingley, and the increasing commercialisation and strategic plans under development for Moorabbin Airport.

I also note that PlanMelbourne 2017‐2050 identifies Moorabbin Airport as a strategic logistics transport gateway to the west of Dingley and the economic importance of the Southern Industrial Precinct in the Dandenong area to the southeast of Dingley. In this case, understanding increasing logistics and freight activities and their impacts on local road networks, including major intersections around Dingley, should be investigated. For example, the Springvale and Lower Dandenong Road intersection, the Springvale Road and Dandenong Bypass intersection, and the Boundary Road and Lower Dandenong Road intersection. Lastly, it is reasonable to assume that traffic data in the report will age by another two years if, for example, the project is approved and by the time work starts. Therefore, relying on traffic surveys and modelling six years or older would not be satisfactory and should not be contemplated.

6

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

The proposal will not 'deliver improved environmental values', as the planning guidelines require. Under the Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes June 2020, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 12 of Victoria’s Planning Provisions which 'seeks to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas from development that would diminish their environmental conservation. In the proponent’s Tree Retention and Removal Summary Report, the removal of seventy‐three per cent of all trees within the site boundary is proposed.

The proponent's Ecological Assessment also envisages the need to remove almost five hectares of native vegetation and 1,544 native plants. Residents were also mailed a flyer suggesting the planting of 2,685 trees across the site would equate to a ten per cent increase from when the site was a golf course. It must be said that the planning guidelines require the proponent to rely on technical studies to support their claims about the open space values of the site and, in particular, the provision of tree coverage. I understand that the proponent has not submitted such detailed evidence.

Likewise, the planning guidelines state that the proposal must 'deliver an appropriate amount of tree canopy cover to mitigate urban heat effects that is at least equivalent to, or greater than the surrounding area'. The developer does not appear to consider this response to increase the resilience of the development to the effects of climate change. An urban heat and tree mapping analysis could not be found in the package of submitted documents by the proponent that considers this, the Council’s Urban Cooling Strategy or the Planning Guidelines concerning the effects of urban heat. Again, the planning application appears to be incomplete when it should not be.

CONCLUSION

I accept that Victoria needs new housing stock to meet population growth demands. But I am opposed to this planning scheme amendment C199King and the draft planning permit application.

In 2018 the proposal was rejected, and that should have concluded the matter. However, this amendment and draft planning application seeks an even more dense residential development yet reduced contributions and commitments to community infrastructure, services, and recreational open space. Furthermore, the planning application appears to be incomplete in some areas and does not submit the level of detailed analyses needed to substantiate claims made by the proponent or the proposal’s full impact.

Consistent with my position in 2018, I am deeply concerned about any opportunistic proposal that asserts the appropriateness of residential development that is inconsistent with local planning policies, just because it falls in an established residential area or because it might cease functioning according to its original purpose.

I see no justification for altering municipal planning protections safeguarding the site's high‐quality open space and amenity values to permit dense infill residential development, consolidation, and urban expansion over the site. The clear intent of the proposed amendment and planning application is to erase these current planning protections designed to prohibit the very kind of residential development proposed.

7

Allowing land development practices that threaten protected high‐value open space sites, such as Kingswood Golf Course, should be seen as unacceptable planning and social and community policy outcomes.

Any proposed amendment to the planning scheme should have high regard for achieving the existing policy objectives of preserving municipal golf courses as high‐value sites of current and potential community open space. The developers' objectives and land acquisition decisions should not lead to destructive planning scheme changes with no net community benefit.

Also, if the amendment is adopted, it will establish a working model that supports developers seeking to abolish planning scheme protections over high‐value community open space sites. This would be entirely inconsistent with attempts to address the open space shortages across the municipality.

I call for the abandonment of amendment C199King and the draft planning permit application to ensure retention of the Kingswood Golf Course as a public open space for Dingley Village residents and the wider community. The City of Kingston needs more, not fewer open spaces and community parklands.

Yours sincerely,

MARK DREYFUS QC MP Federal Member for Isaacs

Organisation:

Affected property:

1439

Steve kemper

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

In addition to the loss of a green open area of Dingley village and the irreparable loss of the numerous mature trees and fauna, this development offers no additional benefit to the community in long term jobs or infrastructure benefits.

The developer has stated the site has an option for a child care operator to open a centre for the community. This in reality will never eventuate as the developer has not allocated a suitable place in the plans for a centre that has both sufficient parking places for the suggested 17 staff, the required open-air areas as required under the childcare planning protocols or the safe off-street access and egress required for a child care centre.

By not allocating a suitable site a potential centre owner would be required to purchase multiple residential blocks for the child care centre building and open-air area, plus additional for parent pick up drop off area and child care worker parking. This expense would be prohibitive for any child care operator.

Due to its location and amenities, Dingley Villages current public transport options are not suitable or practical for residents to remain one vehicle households. My wife and I have lived in Dingley village for 14 years and for 7 years (5 prior to children and for 2 years once my daughters were born) were a one car family. For this period, we accessed the bus network and bicycle path network, however once our children were born this became impossible or too time consuming to achieve. An example of the poor infrastructure was our experience with childcare and kindergarten. Due to the high demand for kindergarten and childcare, a large number of local parents miss out on the places in the Dingley Village Kindergartens, for my family the nearest kindergarten in the Kingston region was in Cheltenham. To be able to attend a morning session involved a 40 min round trip by car or more than 80 minutes (drop off and pick up) for a 3.5-hour session. We originally attempted to achieve this by public transport, and this required more than 2 hours total of travel and connections to attend

one kinder session. Thus, not long after commencing kindergarten we were forced to purchase a second car.

As indicated in the developer’s plan, this development is a medium density development however due to the restrictions forced by the flood prevention measures the housing density increases dramatically. This then results in both multiple narrow streets and laneways or carriageways and also very limited parking.

As indicated in the development plans, there are many three-story townhouses units which will have only one car space. A survey of 400 residential properties (statistics and details available on request) including houses, townhouses and units in the streets surrounding the proposed development. Has shown that the average Dingley Village house requires space for 2.6 vehicles, with the units and town houses requiring suitable parking for 1.8 vehicles.

On the plans provided by the developer this is grossly insufficient for the volume of house and town houses proposed.

An example of the impact of this density model and why it is insufficient for Dingley Village, is the recent medium build of a 14-town house and stand-alone units at 69-71 centre Dandenong Rd Dingley Village. The demographic of this address is both families and single people. Due to the minimum requirement of one car park per premises it has resulted in excess cars parking on the grassy verge and car park of the entrance to the Dingley Scout Hall. On any given night there are a minimum of 10 car (photos and statistics available on request).

This directly impacts the community to the extent that the users of the scout hall are unable to drop off or pick up children due to these residents using most of the of the hall’s community carpark. On nights when the nearby football facilities are being utilised, this is then further compounded. This is an example of the direct impact to the community of only 14 medium density units. This impact would be

compounded exponentially by a development with over 800 properties in this suburb.

In my profession I am a truck driver whom is required to access residential streets and addresses in the city of Kingston on a daily basis both during and outside regular work hours.

The trucks that I drive are dual axle and vary in length from 8.6 metre and 17.5 tonne to 10.3 ton and 23.6 tonne. Recent testing of the 8.6 metre vehicle has shown that a sharp 90-degree turn requires minimum of 7.6 metres in depth to navigate the corner.

In the current proposal the developer states that the town houses have an 8-metre access clearance.

In theory this would be sufficient for an 8.6 metre truck to access all premises however in practice with any residential parking this would mean that most of the proposed town houses would not be able to be accessed. The 8-metre minimum carriageway minimum width the developer has indicated on the plans is intended for straight laneways not those with corners or as in this development’s case U lanes and dead-end laneways.

The 8 metre laneways in theory are sufficient for a fire rescue pumper tanker which is also 8.6 metres in length and is stationed at the nearby Mentone Fire station. However, as the town houses are planned for 3 storeys, this means that in the case of a fire, an arial appliance such as a ladder platform would be required, in those instances as the Ladder Platform is much longer all of the laneways would not be accessible and the risk to life and property is then extreme.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1440

Vonda Ngakuru

For obvious reasons which has already been repeated many times by all the other objectors. I strongly wish to object.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1441

David Connolly

We would like to register our objection against the proposed housing development on the former Kingswood Golf site. Previous attempts to get council approval for this development were met with over 8000 objections from local residents, reflecting an enormously strong feeling against this development near the centre of our village. Dingley is a small community that does not have enough infrastructure or resources to support the injection of another couple of thousand people into the centre of the suburb. The traffic, parking problems this will create, will be enormous and the impact on wildlife will be something that will never be recoverable. Please, please do not allow this development driven by greed to proceed. David and Raewyn Connolly

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1442

Julia Trigg

I object to the development of Kingswood Golf Course for the following reasons: we came to live in Dingley Village in 1999. We liked it because it was surrounded by golf courses and had a primary school around the corner. We had friends who had moved here. We knew it had disadvantages such as no secondary school and no train station. It still lacks those amenities today, therefore it is not a suitable suburb for such a development. Many younger families have moved into Dingley Village as older generations have moved on. They will be needing childcare centres, kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. With a sudden increase in the population there will simply not be adequate education facilities and traffic will increase even more with families having to drive their children out of Dingley Village to alternative childcare and educational facilities. This will disrupt the community feel of Dingley Village with so many children being cared for and educated elsewhere. We are going to be personally affected if the development goes ahead, as the entrance to Kingswood Golf Course is at the bottom of our street. Initially there would be the noise, dust and detours caused by construction vehicles and machinery. There would be many times we wouldn't even be able to access Centre Dandenong Road, which is the only road through Dingley Village. It's been hard enough with construction of the Mordialloc Freeway to have so many detours and noisy works going on. Dingley Village is basically a small shopping strip and several shops are always empty as the rent is so high. The shopping centre and its car park are too small to cater to a huge development such as this. In addition, the few local health services are already under pressure and the situation would be far worse with a sudden increase in population. We are now nearing retirement age and plan to stay in Dingley Village for as long as possible. Our home is our financial security for our retirement and old age. This development, we believe, would lower the currently rising house prices in Dingley Village. Kingswood Golf Course is a beautiful treed open space with abundant wildlife. It was a bad decision to ever allow the developers to get to this point.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1443

Kathleen Grace Grice

https://engage.vic

See attachment

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

1. The proposed redevelopment is not in the suburb’s character: Dingley Village currently is vastly two-storey individual homes with an estimated 80% of large family lots being between 550 and 650 sqaure metres. The developer wants 823 lots with many less than 300 square metres.

2. The board of the golfcourse nor the developer ever consulted in a manner that

resulted in our ideas being properly adopted.

3. The development has a gross under-provision of parking for residents. This is coupled with anticipated narrow streets.

4. Narrow streets present access issues for emergency vehicles quickly arriving at

the emergency situation.

5. Displays, invitations for residents to comment and surveys by the developer have always been this is what’s happening - like it or not”. The developer has not contacted the two community groups vitally involved in the suburb (Save Kingswood and DVCA) for a long, long time.

6. There will be loss of the only significant treed open space in Dingley

Village.

7. The “lungs” cooling, filter and oxygen production for Dingley Village will be severely impacted. This feature is advocated by all councils.

8. The developer has multiple responses on their website, belittling the value

of wildlife and the park in general.

9. There is no preservation of the thousands of trees, estimated at 20,000 native Dingley Village trees; that is the number of indigenous trees planted.

10. One of their plans showed a single tree preserved 10. If this proposed development were to proceed there would be the loss of

the only significant treed open space in Dingley Village.

11. There will be an unimaginable thousands of Birds and wildlife lost. How many will be killed or have their homes demolished by developers.

12. The result of implementation of this development is that there will be a 20% increase in the village’s population, put further strain on the already overtaxed infrastructure and facilities.

13. There is no provision for improved community facilities like sports

ovals.

14. Presently the maternal welfare service is overloaded with a number on their waiting lists. This development will only lead to as greater overload and longer waiting lists.

15. Childcare centres are already full with waiting lists.

16. Kindergartens are already full.

17. Primary schools are full. Dingley Primary school’s yards are

overpopulated with temporary buildings. Recently, Kingswood Primary school had had to decline applications.

18. There is no provision for a secondary school in Dingley Village.

Secondary schools in other suburbs are full. Parkdale Secondary College’s grounds have a huge number of portables now and their council has said they cant take any more.

19. Already NBN services are clogged, so everyone endures a much slower

connection than in other areas.

20. There will be increased traffic. The developers own data suggests up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per peak hour, on a single lane road There are already plans for the Hawthorn Football Club traffic and for the Aqua Park traffic. These developments will add to traffic volume in the suburb and on in and out flow from the suburb.

21. Health services are already overloaded. Regularly wait time of up to 2-3

weeks for the Doctor of your choice already occur 22. There will be a loss of an aircraft safety and noise buffer for thousands of

circuits, take-offs, and landings, including passenger jets and helicopters. Moorabbin Airport, one of Australia’s busiest airports, is just seconds flight time away and is also on the flight path.

23. Currently there is a lack of sorting facilities in the suburb and there is no

provision by developers to improve this considering there will be another

around two thousand additional people in the suburb if this development were to proceed.

24. There is no consideration for the 140 neighbours on the boundary. They

were told when purchasing in a premium area that they had “views forever”. Instead they will have years of dust, plus overshadowing, loss of privacy and noise forever.

25. Over the construction period there will years of noise and dust. Not only will

it directly affect the health of residents but also put- a strain on medical facilities for asthma and other lung complaints.

26. Shopping will be more difficult. The carpark is already regularly full, often twice a day. This will cause residents again to shop out of town to avoid the chaos.

27. The developer had the incredible audacity to show the flood lakes

(retarding basins) plus overflow areas in their open space! Those flood areas will not be owned by them.

28. Now they admit that the roads will become rivers when needed.

29. Dingley Village already floods, before they cover over the Golf Course and Aquifer. Melbourne Water has almost no idea of flood incidents, that still occur after they tried to clear 1.4 kilometres of the main drain for a month! Their plans are based on Melbourne Water’s inadequate and flawed input. One map was from 1966 ! The Save Kingswood Group has photographic proof that the Kingswood flood plain affects the entire Village hugely more than indicated on Melbourne Water's plans. The existing Retarding Basin already overflows and mainly soaks into the Golf Course. The Golf course presently has an aquifer, established with State Government assistance, a $100,000 grant. Developers want to remove that immense flood safety-net by covering it all over. We will have flood events of huge magnitude. They want to cover the site with paving, roads and buildings and fantasise that a new retarding basin will hold back the waters from upstream Springvale and remain on the site.

30. A homeowner close to the golf course park has been flooded for years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage has resulted. The resident has

lobbied Melbourne Water for many years for a remedy, with no result. It’s even possible the house will be condemned.

31. I object to the massive roundabout at the intersection of Spring road/McClure roads, plus a second road into Spring road (near where it floods), and roads into Wolbers road and Toorak roads. Both the latter quiet back roads that will become severely overloaded.

There will be no net benefit for Dingley Village. Submitted by Malcolm Grice Dingley Village 3172

Organisation:

Affected property:

1444

Philip Schmidt

I want to object to the proposed development of Kingswood Golf Course. The entrance to Kingswood Golf Course is at the end of our street and will make access to Centre Dandenong Road difficult. Building the development and having extra people in the area will increase traffic. There will be loss of green space which is good for the environment in our area as there is not a lot of green space in our village. All the traffic will feed into Centre Dandenong road or out the back to Spring Road. There aren't enough roads going through to cope with the traffic. Pedestrian safety will be even more of a concern with so much traffic going past the shops. There is an aged care community at the entrance to the village so a lot of elderly people are walking to the shops. There are also a lot of young families in the village so there are children on bikes etc which will make the area even more dangerous. I don't think the development of Kingswood Golf Course will do Dingley Village any favours, in fact I think it will be the downfall of a beautiful suburb!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1445

Gaylene O'Connor

https://engage.vic

See attached document

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

I have been a resident of Dingley Village for the past 11 years. Our family chose to live in Dingley due to its amazing community and small Village feel. Dingley Village gave us family size blocks of land, our children have a back yard. We have beautiful green spaces and often see wildlife in the area. Sure there is no train station, but again, 11 years ago, this was something that appealed to us. Dingley has already grown over the past 11 years. Childcare, kinders and schools are overflowing. Our children have had less play space at school as more and more room has been taken up with portables for more students. This is already the case without another 800 more families moving into the area. Families that like us should deserve local facilities and amenities to meet their family’s needs. Not to mention secondary schools. We already send our students to surrounding areas to already bulging secondary schools. How do our children fare with this new influx? Not only the schools but getting them there. My son often calls to say he has not gotten the bus home from school as both buses were already so crowded that he couldn’t get on. In this current day of Covid – that’s healthy, not. And all these extra families, where do they go to play and relax? With block sizes so small, it won’t be in their back yard! But this proposal does not look to provide adequate usable outdoor space for families. Where do they go? There is no space provided for sporting facilities or extra activities to support families or the communities. Many families in Dingley already struggle with mobile, NBN, data services. This is only going to get substantially worse when an extra 800 homes are added to the area. We live in one of the main affected streets. Who is going to provide safety to my children when the traffic load on this current dead-end street increases to that of a main throughfare? Opening up such a wide area of development, yet having minimal access points, only makes me worry more about the safety of our children in the area. Traffic in these streets will be increased drastically. With little parking in the development available, excess parking will spill out into adjoining streets making it more difficult for existing families to park at and access their properties. Noise and pollution in the area will increase. Wildlife! Dingley is home to a beautiful array of wildlife. Much of which currently calls the golf course home? 100’s if not 1000’s of trees will be taken down with not much planted in return. Where do these poor creatures go? Their habitat will be destroyed with no alternatives given. Frightened and scared, they will try and move. Many will be killed in the road trying to make it to safety. Extra shock and distress to our lovely local families too. Development is inevitable. But development needs to not only benefit the developers, but also the local community, its people and yes even its wildlife. I am sure there is a solution that would be in the best interests of all parties. Unfortunately, this isn’t it.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1446

Nick Clements, Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

AS Residential Property No 1. Pty Ltd

https://engage.vic

See attached.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

1 / 3

Dear Mr Townsend

Submission – Redevelopment of the Former Kingswood Golf Course

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd acts on behalf of AS Residential Property No 1. Pty Ltd (ASRP1) in this matter.

ASRP1 is the owner of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village (the Site) and requested that the Minister prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C199 (the Amendment). It is also the applicant and proponent in respect of the draft Development Plan and Planning Permit Application that have been exhibited with the Amendment.

ASRP1 is of the view that the redevelopment of the Site is the most appropriate outcome for the Site, the residents of Dingley Village, the residents of the City of Kingston, and the residents of broader Metropolitan Melbourne. Accordingly, ASRP1 provides its support in relation to the progression and resolution of the Amendment.

The redevelopment of the Site will unequivocally achieve net community benefits.

1 Proposal

The Amendment proposes to rezone the Site to facilitate its redevelopment for residential purposes.

Concurrently, the proposed planning permit seeks approval for the subdivision of the Site in stages, the construction of dwellings on lots less than 300sqm, the removal of native vegetation, and other ancillary permit triggers. A draft ‘Former Kingswood Golf Course Development Plan’ has also been prepared in accordance with the proposed DPO8 and forms part of the Amendment.

The Amendment is required to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course for residential purposes with a range of dwelling densities and housing typologies.

The Amendment seeks to provide for the protection of vegetation where appropriate and to manage development having regard to the adjoining former Spring Road Landfill which is owned by the City of Kingston.

The Amendment seeks to guide future development to ensure the fair, orderly, sustainable and economic development and use of the Site.

The Amendment directly responds to the ‘Planning for golf in Victoria’ discussion paper (June 2017), the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and its ‘Implementation Plan’, and the ‘Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes’ (June 2020).

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd ACN: 055 213 842

ATF Tract Consultants Unit Trust ABN: 75 423 048 489

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001: Licence No. 2095

Level 6, 6 Riverside Quay, Southbank, VIC 3006

(03) 9429 6133 www.tract.com.au

Mr Lester Townsend Chair, Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 via email: [email protected] & www.engage.vic.gov.au

23 August 2021

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.engage.vic.gov.au/

Tract

Submission – Redevelopment of the Former Kingswood Golf Course

2 / 3

The Amendment responds to the ‘Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes’ (June 2020) by providing, amongst other things:

• more than 20 per cent of the developable land area as publicly accessible useable open space that contributes to an integrated open space network;

• enhanced and protected state, regional and locally significant environmental assets and biodiversity corridors, where appropriate;

• landscaping that delivers substantial tree canopy coverage that mitigates urban heat effects; and • active transport links throughout the Site and into the surrounding area.

2 Background & History

The Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (the Club) was established in 2013 following the merger of the Kingswood Golf Club and the Peninsula Country Golf Club.

The struggle to continue the playing of golf on the Site has been well documented by the Club in the past and has been communicated to Council on numerous occasions.

Having tried every available option to remain at the Site, in 2013 the former Kingswood Golf Club was left with only one viable action to ensure its survival – relocation and merger with the Peninsula Country Golf Club, to form the Club.

The merger of the two clubs and the subsequent sale of the Site was a challenging process, but a necessary one to ensure that golfing operations continued for the newly created Club. Repurposing the Site is the inevitable final step in acknowledging its lack of suitability for golfing purposes and its inability to support a sustainable business model for the former Kingswood Golf Club.

The benefits of the creation of the Club and sale of the Site to ASRP1 has directly achieved the overarching principles and objectives of the ‘Planning for golf in Victoria’ discussion paper (June 2017) and the ‘Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes’ (June 2020).

3 The Guidelines

The Victorian Government has developed the ‘Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes’ (June 2020).

The Guidelines provide a pathway for the redevelopment of former golf courses, including the requirement for proponents to demonstrate that proposals provide for new public parks, protect biodiversity and the environment, and contribute to other social and community outcomes.

The Guidelines set out clear expectations for all stakeholders, including the community, about how former golf course land is to be considered, and if appropriate, how to redevelop it.

The Guidelines were prepared with the benefit of independent planning advice provided by the Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee. ASRP1 was pleased to be involved in Part 1 of the Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee process and contribute to the finalisation of the Guidelines.

Whilst the proposal is also consistent with the Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and its ‘Implementation Plan’, most importantly the proposal is consistent with the principles and objectives of the Guidelines as briefly set out above.

Tract Submission – Redevelopment of the Former Kingswood Golf Course 3 / 3

4 Voluntary Changes

ASRP1 wishes to advise that it proposes to advocate at the hearing for the following change to be made to the draft Planning Permit. There may be other changes to the Amendment that arise in response to submissions made during the exhibition period, or expert evidence that is called by ASRP1 or other parties.

1. Draft Planning Permit

Due to the proximity of the Site to the nearby Moorabbin Airport, the proposed Development Plan and Design Guidelines require that all:

• buildings be constructed to conform to AS2021:2015 “Aircraft noise intrusion”.• future residents are to be provided with information confirming the proximity of the Moorabbin Airport

and the fact that overhead flights occur.

In order to ensure that all purchasers in perpetuity are made aware of the proximity of the Moorabbin Airport and the fact that overhead flights occur, ASRP1 considers that a new permit condition should be included.

The new permit condition should require that an agreement be entered into with the Responsible Authority under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement should be registered on the certificate of title for each residential allotment informing owners of the above.

5 Conclusion

ASRP1 is confident that the redevelopment of the Site will result in substantial net community benefits and a positive outcome for not only its future residents, but the existing residents of Dingley Village and broader Metropolitan Melbourne.

The redevelopment of the Site will deliver upon the principles and objectives of ‘Planning for golf in Victoria’ discussion paper (June 2017), the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 and its ‘Implementation Plan’, and the ‘Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes’ (June 2020).

ASRP1 looks forward to assisting your Committee in the upcoming hearing which will consider the future of the Site.

Yours sincerely

Nevan Wadeson Director of Town Planning Tract Consultants

Organisation:

Affected property:

1447

Annabelle Fidelia

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of kings wood golf club. The main reason for my strong objection is due no infrastructure to support this development. I work in the city and with this new proposed redevelopment I will have to leave my place by at least 5am to get through the traffics that will occur if this redevelopment goes ahead. I am a single mum and moved to Dingley Village for the small community and village living. I love the wildlife, tress and the feeling of living in the country and a small community. This development will ruin our little village. The proposed redevelopment is to big for our little community. We already have wait lists for kindergarten and primary schools. How will our community accomodate more family’s needed these amenities? Council needs to stop thinking of money and consider the people, the community. This will be a disgrace if council allows this redevelopment

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1448

Edwin guruy

I object the redeveloped

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1449

Jacqueline Day

As a resident of Dingley that will directly be affected by this development, I absolutely disagree with this proceeding. The fact that this will severely affect my property value is just one reason. This is not what Dingley Village is about. I left Patterson Lakes area as they started to put up apartments of various levels and the over crowded shopping area couldn't cope. We came to live here because it was a lovely area not overcrowded and the fact it had no train station was a good thing to me. The traffic will be horrendous. I also know that as I back onto the golf course that flooding does occur. I have submitted proof of this to Kevin Poulter. The fact that they will cut all but one of the existing very mature trees leaves so much wildlife without homes. Also the lack of trees for obvious filtering. I absolutely do not want this development to proceed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1450

Stephen Day

My wife and I paid a premium price to be part of a Village so as to avoid cluster housing and overpopulation. The infrastructure in the area sometimes fails to cope with the residents that are already here. There are no High Schools and the primary schools are already at full capacity having to add portables just to accommodate the existing families. The traffic in the streets is already at peak capacity. I strongly disagree with removing of any trees as they will affect wildlife in particular.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1451

Niall martin

I strongly object to this proposal to redevelop the old Kingswood Golf Course into housing. This area is green wedge and should remain as such. The area acts as a catchment area and there are many trees and turf that contributes positively to the environment. Many animals would be displaced during the development and and to replace the area with 800+ houses will be an incredibly negative environmental statement. There are no plans for schools to be built, the current supermarket in centre-Dandenong Road forever runs out of products, the roads around school times are already a nightmare, Kingston has a shortage of playing fields for sporting clubs with local teams at full capacity and the community feeling would be lost if the developers proceed. The area should be developed as natural parks not housing. The developers have no interest in this community, or listening to Dingley residents and this is very apparent over the last 3 years. This would be a disaster for our community and must not be allowed to progress.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1452

Dale Fitzgerald

As a younger member of the local community I believe the rezoning should be approved because it allows a struggling golf club the ability to combine with another facility to build a world class golfing complex. This complex will promote tourism throughout the Victorian golfing industry due to having elite world class courses and accommodation. I personally have bought land on a rezoned golf course which is in the process of being developed in Cranbourne. These developments are proving to be a perfect option for first home buyers that don't want to be stuck in a unit or apartment, with the local parks and grassy areas I feel like it will promote younger families and a wonderful environment.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1453

Gillian Johnston

I object to the development of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village. I have lived in Dingley for the past 16 years and have loved the village environment and the atmosphere. These are the reason for my objections: - where I live will be directly impacted and I have not even been consulted on the proposals. - I work as a teacher at one of the local Dingley primary schools. The three primary schools in Dingley could not cater for any more students. There is no room for more students. - There is no local Secondary school and the schools in the neighbouring areas are full. - The Kindergartens are stretched to capacity as it is. There is no room for any more students. - We have one supermarket that caters for the population that currently exists. The carpark is not big enough for an increase in residents and I don't feel I should have to travel out of my own suburb to do my shopping elsewhere considering I live and work in Dingley. - I love listening to the bird life from my home and when I go for walks with my dog. This proposed development will destroy the local bird life and the wildlife. - The increase in road traffic will create chaos on the local roads. I will have great difficulty getting out of the road I live in onto Centre Dandenong Road. - The local Medical centre would definitely not be able to manage more residents in the area. - Dingley Village has a lovely local atmosphere where we are not overcrowded and I want it to stay this way. - Dingley Village and its current residents will not benefit at all from any attempts to develop the Kingswood Golf course. - due to the increase in traffic, lack of additional educational and medical faciliities, I believe Dingley Village will lose its genuine village appeal. - The internet becomes slow at times, but with a significant increase in the number of houses and people using the internet, I hate to think how much slower it will become. - as a resident of Dingley Village we have waited years for the closure of local tips and now if this development goes ahead we will again have to put up with dirt and dust flying around the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1454

Kamlesh Rathod

same as above

As being resident of Dingley Village Community we have concerns about the new developments happening.This redevelopment will increase traffic and reduce open spaces. it will be good for Community if they built secondary high in this area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1455

Philip Prescott

I am a Dingley Village resident of 20 years and I wish to lodge my objection to the development of Kingswood Golf Course. My reasons for objecting are as follows: -The traffic that currently passes through Dinlgey Village has definitely increased over the past years and the roads have become more conjested throughout the day. The local roads would not be able to manage with an increase of possibly 6,800 cars. - I am a local business owner carrying out essential work in and around the local area. It is vital for me to travel around the area without being stuck in endless traffic jams. This would impact significantly on my ability to provide essential services to the community. I would have to leave extra early in the morning to avoid the heavy traffic or not start work until later in the morning. Either way would impact negatively on my business and clients. - The roads in Dingley were only designed as single lanes with no provision for anything else, e.g. Marcus Road, Spring Rowans Road, Tootal Road, Howard Road all single lanes. - Dingley Village will become totaly grid locked. - We have no trains, only buses that also won' be able to cater for the increase in residents. - When looking at the developer's plans, it is very obvious that they have not provided enough car parking for the number of residents they are planning to build. - If there is not enough parking for residents, they will be forced to park in the streets which will narrow the already narrow streets even more. - The local shopping centre would not be able to deal with an increase of residents and cars in the carpark. - It currently takes days to see a local doctor. With an increase of residents it will make it almost impossible to see a local doctor. - I strongly object to a massive roundabout at the end of my street at Spring and McClure Roads. -there is definitely not enough infastructure to deal with an increase in population -not enough schools, maternal health centre, Kindergartens - the sporting facilities in the area also would not be able to cater for the increase in participants. DO NOT REZONE OR SUBDIVIDE KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1456

Kim Burggraaff

I oppose the proposed redevelopment plans. The infrastructure in Dingley is already pushed to it limits. Our primary schools are at capacity. We do not have high schools here which means more students zoned to Parkdale which is already overflowing. Public transport and shopping would also be problematic. Traffic congestion is also a concern. The proposed blocks of land are too small.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1457

Michael Fiddes

I wish to oppose the redevelopment of the Kingswood golf club. I base this on a number of things- 1. The current planned development will see over 800 sites offered for sale and most which are tiny allotments not in tune with the current community theme. Roads will be narrow with little parking and poor access for emergency services. So this is naturally driven by greed to maximize shareholder returns at the expense of Dingley Village residents. Once Australian Super have made their sale they will move on with no impact to them but the Dingley community gets left with a cluster housing development, excess traffic and no way for the schools and infrastructure to cope with the extra people. If there is an emergency in the future where there is a death due to fire trucks or ambulance struggling to get to the house due to the narrow streets and carparking on the streets, who does that responsibility sit with? Developers or Council? 2. I also believe the golf course was sold based on an illegal vote from a loaded committee which doesn’t sit well with me and the law never stepped in to correct this. However Australian Super purchased the land knowing the zoning so why should it be changed?? Why should the laws, policy and land protections be changed to suit them at the impact of the Dingley Village community? 3. The fact that this is being entertained again shows that they will utilise anything they can to protect and maximize their investment unless it is permanently ruled against them. Based on the zoning I see it that Australian Super have bought themselves a golf course or parkland and if this is changed it will be a another case of the dollar overruling the will of the people. Please do not let this development happen.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1458

Anne Lister

There has been no consideration taken into account with the influx of possible kindergarten through to high school aged children in this proposal. The current educational facilities in Dingley Village are already busting at the seams, with high school aged children having to travel substantial distance to school outside of our suburb. We do not have the public transport facilities to accommodate additional children travelling to school. Dingley Village would be better served with a secondary school and additional green space, rather that over populating our suburb.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1459

Renee Hansen

If this proposal were to be accepted as it currently stands it would completely change the suburb of Dingley Village in many negative ways. The last thing this suburb needs is hundreds of small lots. Plenty of eyesore, tiny, cheap housing has been build nearby Keysborough and the residents of Dingley Village have been very clear that this is unwelcome here. Traffic congestion is already a large issue during peak times for residents, there have been no amenities included in this proposal that would benefit the community in any way. Schools and kinders are near or at capacity, an oversupply of cheap housing will only drag down the existing values and lifestyle for residents properties. What Dingley does not have is enough larger blocks with large nice homes. If it were to be redeveloped block sizes of 700m2 minimum with nice, large homes plus amenities may actually contribute positively to the community. If not - keep it as a Golf Course as everyone is asking for. We have a very unique, supportive community here in Dingley Village. In the last 5 years my family and I have lived in South Yarra, Toorak and Bronte (Sydney) before choosing Dingley to raise our children. We chose this place because we love the community. This proposal threatens everything that makes Dingley what it is.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1460

Donna Ross

I have been a resident of Dingley Village for 23 years and am very concerned the impact the proposed redevelopment of Kingswood Golf Course will have for many reasons: -The possibility of 1000+ vehicles that would be using the local roads daily that are already too congested and the frustration that would occur with the extra traffic. -Facilities are already at full capacity such as schools, kindergartens, health services, maternal health, sporting grounds which is already a frustration to locals without adding another 800 households into the mix. -A massive concern is the removal of so many trees and the natural flow on to the wildlife that will be affected as well. -There does not appear to be adequate parking provided for residents in the plan -Concerned about the effect on utilities such as power, gas & water with 800+ extra households tapping in. Water pressure is already quite low already. In summer can the electricity stand up to the high demands of an extra 800+ households using air conditioning? These are just a few of the main concerns but there are so many more. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF KINGSWOOD GOLF CLUB.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1461

Melinda Hawkins

Dingley Village

I REJECT the current proposal for Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village 100%. Not only are proposing more housing, which is completely ridiculous, our community couldn’t possibly cope with the extra traffic. Big company with big ideas need to take them elsewhere!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1462

Glenn Robinson

Dingley Village

I am Rejecting the current proposal for the Kingswood Golf Club in Dingley Village. There are too many appartments 825, our road structures could not handle all the extra traffic. Money hungry big companies need to be shut down.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1463

Rosemary Curtis

I am opposed to the redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course as it stands in the current redevelopment proposal. The house blocks proposed are too small, there is not nearly enough provision for educational facilities for primary and high schooling, and the character of the suburb is at risk if three storey developments are approved. I urge the Advisory Committee to reject the current proposal in favour of one more in keeping with the existing suburb, accompanied by better evidence of supporting community amenities.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1464

Simon Lees

https://engage.vic

See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

25 August 2021

Dear Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee and Minister for Planning,

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission regarding the proposed re-development of the Kingswood Gold Course site in Dingley Village Victoria 3172.

As a resident of Dingley Village for 16 years, I strongly opposed the proposed re-development of this site into a residential precinct.

Overall

I am extremely concerned by population increase that the proposed redevelopment would mean to Dingley Village (approx. 20% increase). This is a small suburb with infrastructure and services that struggles to meet the needs of its current residents let alone a significant increase. From what I have seen there is not significant plans from the developer to address the infrastructure needs.

The suburb of Dingley Village currently is predominately one or two storey individual homes with an estimated 80% of large family lots being 550 - 650sq metres. The developer wants 823 lots, with many less than 300 sq metres, meaning that the type of development is out of alignment with the rest of the Village; and the reasons why the existing residents have chosen Dingley Village as their home.

Schools

As a former School Council President at one of the local primary schools I know all too well about the current pressures that the current schools are under with the existing population. Our primary schools are full and heavily reliant on portables to accommodate student demand – these portables can often be installed in available open space; taking away valuable play areas.

There is no secondary school in Dingley and its feeder high schools (eg Parkdale SC) are also at full capacity.

Traffic

The added number of residences from the redevelopment will increase greatly the amount of traffic movements. Dingley already has periods of heavy traffic congestion on the main roads from the local community and road users who use Dingley roads as a thoroughfare.

Bundled with the impacts of the upcoming Hawthorn Football Club sporting precinct and the planned Aqua Park (which is proposed to be a key tourist attraction), the road infrastructure is simply not adequate enough to cope with a growing population of this magnitude.

Shopping

Shopping will become more difficult – the existing shopping precinct is only small to cater for a small Village and is already often congested and difficult to get a car park. The proposed development will only add to this congestion.

Sporting Facilities

The local area has a lack of sporting facilities now, and has only just seen the much needed redevelopment of Chadwick Reserve to cope with existing population levels – we need more open space not less.

Health Services

We have a small Interhealth Medical Clinic that is overloaded and difficult to get into your doctor of choice – this redevelopment will only exacerbate this issue.

Environment

The Save Kingswood Group has photographic proof that the Kingswood flood plain affects the entire Village hugely more than indicated on Melbourne Water's plans. The existing Retarding Basin already overflows and mainly soaks into the Golf Course. The Golf course presently has an aquifer, established with State Government assistance, a $100,000 grant. Developers want to remove that immense flood safety-net by covering it all over. I am concerned that we will have flood events of biblical magnitude. They want to cover the site with paving, roads and buildings and fantasise that a new retarding basin will hold back the tsunami of waters from upstream Springvale and remain on the site.

Thank you for considering my submission and major concerns for a redevelopment of this nature. Please reject the application to allow residential development of this magnitude.

Regards,

Simon Lees

Dingley Village

Organisation:

Affected property:

1465

Nikita Rodrigues

Currently Dingley Village does not have the road or facility infrastructure to accomodate the proposed residential redevelopment - particularly the large number of residences that is currently being proposed. The proposed redevelopment will significantly overwhelm our small suburb and reduce the quality of living for current residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1466

Ashlee Robinson

Dingley Village

I object to the to the new proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood gold course in Dingley Village. I have lived in Dingley Village for 19 years and our little village does not need thousands of more people swarming and taking over! This is the most unnecessary proposed development idea as that’s the last thing that should be done with that beautiful space. I think it should be kept as a golf course but turned into a public golf course! The traffic alone would be shocking, the overcrowding at all local primary schools and local shops that thrive of our little community would be over run with people and not be able to serve the whole Village. I hope that this proposal is banished and the idea is never brought up again!!!!!!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1467

Robert McLaren

I strongly object to the proposed development of the Kingswood golf course on a number of reasons. The proposal is not conducive to the village atmosphere that has been developed over the years. The loss of trees that breathe air back into our community can never be replaced. With the proposed 800 odd dwellings will bring at least1400 vehicles into the aerea. In a time of climate change to remove the trees is nothing short of vandalisim. We donot have the infrastructure to handle the influx of new residants. Schools are already crowded as is kindergartens and sporting clubs. The developer will build their development, take their money and move on. it will be the residents who will pick up the pieces.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1468

Steve Allan

Being a long term resident of Dingley Village, I have seen many areas of land disappear and become residential properties, which is simply progress. The Golf Course Development however, has seemed to be underhanded and sneaky, from day one. In my opinion, right or wrong, the whole process has seemed like just a financial grab, without any concern for the Local area, population, or the atmosphere. The whole "Village Atmosphere" will vanish if this ridiculous plan goes ahead. There is a distinct lack of Schools, Play Areas, Public Transport and Ease of Traffic Flow currently. The huge rise in Building Multi Level Dwellings, which will ruin the Landscape, may possibly, adversely affect the Flooding situation, as I have read many times. Traffic at the minute, during main travel times is absurdly busy already, with access onto Centre Dandenong Rd, from intersecting Roads and Streets almost impossible during peak times. What happened to the "Green Wedge" idea, that has been spoken of over the decades, allowing places for people to roam. play, interact and also to allow natural habitat places for native animals and birds to thrive? Another case of a Huge Corporation, Super Fund or otherwise, deciding to make a quick buck, without any prior Consultation, or Community Input, or Planning permission approved, at the expense of the people. I may be Tilting at Windmills, but you now have my opinion on the whole matter.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1469

Nimali Subasinghe

Dingley area does not have enough public transport, shopping, entertainment/ sporting facilities. Bringing 20% more population to the area will push the available facilities to the end and will destroy the quality of life of the long living locals. Previous planners given better value to the nature, now these people started building on the golf courses, next will be reserve lands, and sporting grounds. Current people better value for the money they are getting, not thinking anything else

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1470

Michael Pappas

We purchased in Dingley come 25 years ago and despite there being 3 tips here at the time we could see value in the community here the tips have gone and this proposed redevelopment threatens everything good about the community. Infrastructure with waste pipe size is too small for the increase in population the traffic, noise, congestion, lack of schools in the area, shopping facilities, limited public transport (other than bus) the increase of traffic that will come from the proposed water park and Hawthorne Football ground is increasing the loss of desire for this area. Property values will decrease. The people purchased the golf course knowing it was not zoned residential, how can they push this agenda through. I am aware the Kingston area has been directed to provide some 16,000 homes in the near future but these things should not be done at the expense of people already living in the area. Had this been a proposition when we were buying we would have gone elsewhere.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1471

Fiona Campio

I write in favor of the proposed rezoning and redevelopment of the former Kingswood golf course. Having land parcels of this scale become available for re-purposing to residential is a rare opportunity for our growing city. How else are we supposed to cater for the growth that is projected for Melbourne? Taking advantage of this situation is exactly the sort of opportunity contemplated by Plan Melbourne. The State Government's decision to release the Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes provides a framework within which this can be managed to ensure it provides benefits for all stakeholders - not just the few who occupy the land immediately adjacent. This proposal offers an opportunity for Dingley to have a more diverse offering of housing. While a lovely well established suburb, Dingley does not have a large diversity of housing types. By offering a range of housing, the development proposal will enable more family types to make this part of Melbourne their home. First home buyers who grew up in Dingley, single parents, those wanting to downsize and age in place somewhere that is still close to their local shops and friends through to new growing families who want to make the area their home. These types of families will only be given a chance to do this if there is some housing types that are more affordable. This sort of range of housing wouldn't be possible without allowing for a range of sizes of lots which include smaller footprints. This sort of housing has been done well in many other developments and with the right guidelines in place around how these are designed can be achieved here too. Finally, the development plan considers well how the site can be connected into its surrounding community. The bike paths, walking trails and joining up of open spaces like the pocket paths connect the new into the existing. It offers fantastic public open space the community can access including new playgrounds, BBQs and facilities like basketball courts while not burdening the surrounding area with high traffic loads typically associated with sporting fields. I think it would be a great place to live and urge the SAC to support it.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1472

Luke Scantleton

Its wonderful to see the merger and the redevelopment of the Dingley course and area, which left on the previous path was not going to be beneficial to the community. The re-development will be of great benefit bringing many jobs and new residence along with progress utilizing the space.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1473

Jennifer Berizzi

I moved into Dingley Village 3 years ago, one of the reasons is it’s small community feel and open spaces. I am extremely concerned about the traffic and congestion along with the change to this environment that the new estate will have on us. I believe the development is highly inappropriate and I believe the residents concerns should be a priority!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1474

David Zalstein

As a resident of Dingley Village who will be directly affected by the proposed redevelopment of the existing Kingswood Golf Course, I must object on the following grounds: 1) The proposed population increase to an already busy and at-capacity suburb such as Dingley Village, particularly without adequate consideration for the many, varied, and widespread impacts of such an increase, would be vastly detrimental to many residents' lifestyles, way of life, close-knit sense of community, and overall enjoyment of living in Dingley Village. 2) Dingley Village - and specifically the existing golf course - is brimming with wildlife, flora and fauna, and particularly birdlife. They love the area, and the residents love having such a diverse ecosystem on their doorstep. The negative environmental impacts of the proposed redevelopment of the existing Kingswood Golf Course are simply unconscionable, and it would damage not just the community but the broader environment too, not to mention the physical and mental health of Dingley Village residents. 3) Severe and common flood events across Dingley Village are already a huge problem and have been for some time. Yet, despite claims the proposed redevelopment will make some issues better, Melbourne Water's own modelling is factually wrong and inaccurate, and a project this large will not only result in continued and more extreme issues for existing residents, but additionally create new problems for many new residents in future. 4) This is simply not the time or place for such a redevelopment. People across Dingley Village - like many across Victoria and Australia - have been struggling to deal with the costs of the COVID-19 pandemic. Be it financial losses, strain on businesses, difficulties and challenges with family violence, home schooling, mental health, or even the loss of loved ones, times have been tough. And as if the threat of a proposed large-scale redevelopment wasn't enough to put on residents, the idea of years of on-going stress, anxiety, and trauma for residents who boundary the golf course - not to mention the sustained noise and air pollution, run-off, and potential structural damage - as a result of the redevelopment going ahead, is too much to bear and cannot be allowed to occur. 5) And finally, given the scale of past submissions and unanimous community feedback, clearly both the Kingston Council and Dingley Village residents are against this illogical, unwelcome, and unwanted redevelopment of the existing Kingswood Golf Course, and people won't be silenced and people won't be ignored. We are passionate, we are adamant, and we will not stop fighting this. Thank you.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1475

Rosemary West

Green Wedges Coalition (incorporated as Green Wedges Guardians Alliance Inc.Vic

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Submission – Green Wedges Coalition -Rosemary West close1

1

Green Wedges Coalition – a vision for Melbourne

Rosemary West

dithvale 3196 11 March, 2021

Objection by Rosemary West OAM on behalf of the Green Wedges Coalition to Planning Scheme Draft Amendment C199king and the planning permit application for the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village for residential purposes.

1. Background 1.1 The 1968-71 metropolitan planning process officially established nine Green Wedges as non-urban zones between Melbourne's main urban development corridors. It outlined acceptable non-urban uses, including recreation, landscape protection, resource utilization, farming, flora and fauna and conservation. 1.2 These non-urban zones play a vital role in protecting areas which are critical for Melbourne's future as a liveable city. They have been further protected by legislative and planning provisions introduced as part of the Melbourne 2030 metropolitan strategy, which added a further three green wedges, and by Plan Melbourne. 1.3 The Green Wedges were to be Melbourne's breathing spaces, to separate the urban development designed to be confined to the transport corridors. But while development spread out along the transport corridors, there was increasing pressure on municipal councils to permit the development of the Green Wedges for residential and industrial uses. Hence in May 2002, representatives of the main environment or Green Wedge defender groups in each of Melbourne's nine green wedges formed the Green Wedges Coalition to make representations to State Government for effective green wedge protection. 1.4 The map below shows the extent of the Green Wedges and also illustrates the nature of the Green Wedges as a green belt that is a central theme of strategic planning for many great cities around the world including London’s green belt. 1.5 We began in 2002 with 161 environmental and community group members, including resident, ratepayer and progress associations and strong community support, coordinated by the peak environment coalition or green wedge protection or defender group in each of Melbourne’s 12 green wedges. (Please see attached our membership contact list.) These groups came together out of concern at the number of development and rezoning applications exhibited or approved in Melbourne's non-urban zones in the years and months leading up to and after the release of the Melbourne 2030 Strategy.


2 1.6 We are of course all non-profit organisations with no vested interest in supporting or opposing this or any other green wedge development. 1.7 The principal purpose of the State Government’s green wedge policies enunciated before the 2002 election and now supported by legislative and planning provisions endorsed to greater and lesser extents by subsequent Governments is to protect Melbourne’s green wedges from inappropriate uses and in particular, from residential developments encroaching into the Green Wedges, such as this application. Our charter (attached) spells this out.

1.8 Kingswood Golf Course abutts the Urban Growth Boundary and the South East Green Wedge and such development would adversely impact the amenity of the Green Wedge and the Springs Road parkland. This course should have been included in the Green Wedge in the same way that other golf courses abutting the Urban Growth Boundary in Kingston are such as Capital, Kingston Heath, Southern and Spring Valley. The Defenders of the South East Green Wedge strongly advocated for this in 2003 at the time of the introduction of the Urban Growth Boundary.

1.9 The principal purposes of the Green Wedges include the protection of recreational open space and the natural environment. But we can see that golf courses, like Green Wedges, have intrinsic environmental, social and net community benefits for their local communities, and ought to be protected whether in Green Wedge or urban areas.

1.10 We do not believe affordable housing or any of the other inducements listed in the Golf Course Redevelopment Guidelines justify the destruction of golf courses. Particularly not public open space: in our view golf courses already provide public open space, and in areas short of public open space, arrangements should be made for some private golf clubs – particularly those that purport to be struggling financially – to provide more public access.

1.11 One of the important lessons we should have learnt from the Covid-19 pandemic is the fundamental importance of open space to the wellbeing of communities. Some golf courses have been opened up to residents for passive recreation during the Covid

Source:DELWP 2019


3 lockdowns, but unfortunately not Kingswood. We remember when trade unions imposed Green Bans to protect community amenity and the environment. It is disappointing to see them now, through their super funds, behaving like the most predatory developers.

1.12 AustralianSuper made a serious blunder by buying land that was not zoned for residential development for almost twice its estimated value without at least making the purchase subject to Council approval. On one occasion, Councillors were invited to walk over the course to consider one of ASRP's applications to remove trees from the golf course (along with two members of the Dingley village community) This involved listening to ISPT representatives pitch their case. When I asked how many residential developments they had undertaken, they said this was the first. Instead of making the Dingley Village community suffer the consequences of their mistake, perhaps as a result of their inexperience, AustralianSuper should now write off their loss and lease Kingswood to Kingston Council to once again be run as a golf course. This could replace the Moorabbin Public Golf Course, which was lost to the community after the Commonwealth Government handed the Moorabbin Airport to the Goodman Group on a 99-year lease (effectively a sale) and allowed it to pack as much development as it can fit on the airport land, to the possible detriment of aviation safety. We sincerely hope this committee is not influenced by wishing to protect the financial interests of AustralianSuper or their members. It is a sound and long-established principle of the planning scheme that planning decisions should not be motivated in any way by the wish to solve the financial problems of developers. In any case, we believe AustralianSuper is big enough to be able to write of this loss without any noticeable impact on the fortunes of individual members.

2. Submission summary

2.1. On behalf of the Green Wedges Coalition, and as a former Councillor who has considered this matter in detail for some years, I would like to strongly oppose the proposed application by AustralianSuper Residential Property No. 1 Ltd and Industry Super Property Trust for a high-density residential development on low density Dingley Village in Kingston. 2.2 This application is:

• Treating the planning scheme with contempt; • over-ruling Kingston Council's carefully considered unanimous refusal of the 2018

development application; • disrespectfully working against the wishes and best interests of the community by

ignoring the 8000 objections received by Council – almost all from Dingley Village (pop 10,000) - to this application, and

• Contradicting government policies to promote Biodiversity, Urban Cooling and Public Open Space and Urban Forestry. There is an urban forest in Dingley Village and this development will destroy it.

3. Submission details

3.1 This application fails to comply with the Special Use Zone which restricts the uses of this land to golf and associated uses and which prohibits residential development. As Kingston's Golf


4 Course policy says: : In the Kingston Planning Scheme golf courses are protected through specific provisions under Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. This is the highest level of protection that can be provided and the purpose of the zone is explicit in stating that it seeks to provide for the use and development of land as a golf course and associated uses. In her final report on the New Format Planning Scheme in 1999, the Chief Panel Member of Planning Panels Victoria Helen Gibson noted that: "The MSS recognises the special significance of the Golf Courses of Kingston and acknowledges them as a key asset. Because there are so many courses within Kingston, they could be seen as part of the contributing character and “specialness” of the municipality and as such be recognised within the Special Use zone. "The Panel supports the inclusion of the golf courses in a Special Use zone, however this could be further strengthened through additional recognition in the MSS." 3.2 This application fails to respect the neighbourhood character of Dingley Village, which consists of mostly single storey houses, of designs contemporary to the time of its foundation, with substantial gardens. As a Councillor I was surprised to find that the application proposed to rezone the site to General Residential Zone 2, for medium density development of up to 11m in height, in contrast to the GRZ3 zone that prevails in the rest of Dingley Village which permits only single and two storey development. I am even more surprised to find that the present application also fails in this regard. The 2018 application also proposed to apply a Development Plan Overlay, which would have constrained the rights of residents to protect the neighbourhood character of their village by having a say in the more detailed subsequent planning permit applications for individual houses and apartment blocks on the so-called super lots. I have not had time to establish whether this is still the case with the new application. A look at the map shows how Dingley Village has been designed around this golf course, which provides habitat for the many native birds that bring joy to so many Dingley Village gardens and backyards. For this reason the golf course has been known as the Green Heart of Dingley Village. 3.3 This application proposes to apply an Environmental Significance Overlay to address constraints posed by landfill gas migration and to protect some significant trees and a Vegetation Protection Overlay to protect other trees with high retention value(one map shows 19 trees to be protected, another only one) , but would then approve the removal of the vast majority of the beautiful trees and the course and with them the habitat for a vast number and array of bird species. Which I am glad to say are valued by this community. 3.4 This application is at odds with Kingston Council's Golf Course Policy, which reaffirmed existing planning scheme policies to protect Kingston's 11 sand-belt golf courses, notably the Special Use Zone 1 for golf and associated purposes and Clauses 21.02 and 21.11. The SUZ1 permits a number of associated leisure and recreation purposes, even a function centre and a residential hotel, but apart from that and a caretaker’s cottage, not residential accommodation. The Golf Course Policy states: Council recognises that, although the land is privately owned, the current use provides considerable community amenity. Golf courses provide recreation opportunities, landscape values and can provide environmental benefits. The Council wants existing golf clubs to remain economically viable. Where clubs are genuinely unable to be economically viable and should the land owner wish to cease golf operations on the site, the Council is keen that the land is used for public or private open space purposes that allow the land to retain its green and open vistas.


5 3.5 Net community benefit: It is our contention that this proposal would result in a net community disbenefit to present and future citizens because:

• It threatens to deprive the residents of Dingley Village of their democratic rights by overturning the democratic decision based on the democratic process that was followed by Kingston Council in advertising and carefully considering the application, engaging in a very thorough and detailed planning process, consulting the community, considering the 8000 objections received and ultimately rejecting the 2018 application by resolving unanimously to abandon Planning Scheme Amendment C151. It is contrary to the wishes and best interests of the community as outlined in submissions received from a vast majority of the Dingley Village population. It thereby flouts the democratic rights of the citizens of Dingley Village to determine what is in their best interests and to expect that their overwhelming expression of concern about and opposition to this application would be respected by the responsible authority as it was. The original proposal to apply a Development Plan Overlay would have been a further infringement of the democratic rights of residents to object to the more detailed subsequent planning permit applications for individual houses and apartment blocks on the so-called super-lots . Their submissions left Council in no doubt about what the community thought of the 2018 proposal. The Dingley Village community has battled to save their golf course like nothing I have seen in my 18 years on Kingston Council and I congratulate them for their staunchness and clear-headedness.

It’s worth noting that Council did take pains to ensure that no developer would be buying into this land on the mistaken assumption that an application to rezone this land for residential development would be straightforward. At the Council Meeting on 22 September 2014 I moved and Cr Staikos seconded a motion “That Council write to the Peninsula Kingswood Golf Club Board to request that they inform the successful tenderer for the sale of Kingswood Golf Course of the relevant provisions in the Kingston Planning Scheme.

So there were no surprises there.

• It will adversely affect the social wellbeing and the environmental and social amenity

of the Dingley village community. Many community members presenting to this Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee have made it clear that they consider the protection of this golf course and its recreational, environmental, flood mitigation and open space values provide far greater community benefit than the proposed medium density residential development. As far as I can recall, I attended every information session conducted by the developers in 2018 and I was surprised to find that the application proposed to rezone the site to General Residential Zone 2, (now GRZ) for medium density development of up to 11m in height, in contrast to the GRZ3 zone that prevails in the rest of Dingley Village which permits only single and two storey development.

As a Councillor in 2018, I gave serious consideration to the 8000 plus submissions, nearly all of which made the following points: - There would be no net benefit to the people of Dingley Village, whose amenity

would be adversely impacted, - There is inadequate infrastructure to support such an application;


6 - Their neighbourhood character would be trashed, and - The loss of a major bird & wildlife habitat and significant green open space,

would destroy a unique feature of Dingley Village.

I note that the present round of submissions seems to be making the same points, and that statements by Dingley Village community groups indicate that the current application is similar, and possibly more adverse than the 2018 submission, as some of the lots are even smaller, down to 108m2.

In particular I want to note the excellent 2018 submission from Mark Dreyfus, QC, MHR: noting that” if Amendment C151 is adopted it will result in significant and harmful planning implications and the unacceptable permanent loss of high value open space for the Dingley Village and wider community to inappropriate development.”

Mr Dreyfus has again submitted along similar lines. His submissions to both of these applications demonstrate how extremely fortunate we are as a community to have a planning QC as our local Member.

The local Member and Victorian Attorney General, Martin Pakula, has also objected, noting that he shares the concerns of residents, feels that insufficient regard has been paid to the views of the local community and opposes the development.

In 2018 Mr Pakula consistently emphasised that he wanted Council to deal with this application, and was then supported by Planning Minister Wynne, who said that the application (then) "remain(ed) a matter for Kingston Council” and that he “always encourages councils to make decisions in line with the expectations of their local communities.” And that “planning outcomes are always better when the voice of the community is heard.”

We can only wonder why Minister Wynne, by appointing this Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee with powers to recommend that he overturn the Council's democratic decision, seems to have changed his mind.

• Hazards for new residents. The residents moving into this development were it to be

approved would share in the community disbenefit caused to current Dingley Village residents by the noise of planes making thousands of circuits, take-offs and landings, including passenger jets and helicopters. Moorabbin Airport is just seconds flight time away and is one of Australia’s busiest Airports. The Golf Course is directly under the training circuit flight path and health plus noise issues are of concern. While this disbenefit is shared by existing Dingley Village residents, we consider it is serious enough to warrant refusal of this application, so that new residents are not similarly impacted. Residents moving into a housing estate on Kingswood Golf Course might also suffer from the health impacts resulting from the proximity of the putrescible landfill across Springs road and perhaps other neighbouring landfills. In October 2014, consultant firm Meinhardt was engaged to undertake an investigation into land generally located south of Kingston and Heatherton Roads, outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The scope of the consultant work was guided by previous resolutions of Council which generally sought to facilitate the rezoning of the study area for a range of rural residential and residential outcomes. However


7 the Technical Feasibility Report prepared by Meinhardt and presented to Council in July 2015 recommended against rezoning this land for residential development because much of it was covered by buffer zones around the former landfills. While Kingswood was not included in the Meinhardt Report, my recollection is that maps provided with the report showed that much or all of the Kingswood land is also covered by the same buffer zones. These risks are no doubt shared by some existing residents of Dingley Village, whose development was approved in a time of less awareness of the risks posed by a putrescible landfill next door. The ESO over the site might protect Council from legal action should such risks eventuate, but might not protect the residents who have moved in. I recall hearing from residents that when the Springs Road tip was closed some years ago, there were problems with leachate flowing over the road and into residential gardens and onto the golf course. One of the present submitters recalls a pool of leachate on the golf course behind his back fence. He says that Council fixed this by installing grates which presumably conveyed the leachate into the Council drains. I suggest it would be wise for the Committee to seek advice from one of the more experience Council officers about where this leachate went and/or is still going. And whether Melbourne Water permit leachate to flow into their drains. Likewise the landfill gas problem was dealt with by extraction equipment that conveyed it to a power plant in Dandenong, but now that the Dandenong plant is closed, it might be worth asking what is happening to any residual gas from the Springs Road landfill. We all remember the Brooklands Green residents who were impacted in 2011 by methane gas leaking from a landfill next door that was designed lie the Springs Road landfill, in an unlined quarry. Those residents received $23.5m compensation after launching a class action, but it was a complex case and there are no guarantees. Particularly with Council hurrying to relocate a mulch dump from the Springs Road land, on the basis of a report that raised questions about whether a landfill was an appropriate site for a mulch storage facility. While I cannot lay hands on the Meinhardt report and map, I will continue to search my files for it. If I cannot find it, I suggest it would be prudent for the Committee to ask Kingston Council to provide relevant sections of the Meinhardt report including the map that covers Dingley Village. New residents would also share the other disbenefits relating to the lack of public transport, the traffic congestion and the overcrowded schools, recreational and other facilities that will be caused by the proposed 20% increase in the population of Dingley Village. 3.6 The application does not seem to comply with the Golf Course Redevelopment Guidelines. We have not had time to undertake a detailed assessment, but it seems few if any of these guidelines – apart from perhaps step 3 - have been considered before ASRP1 and ISPT embarked on this development application as a consequence of unwisely purchasing the land.

• Step 1: They seem to have given no consideration to whether the land should be redeveloped. Clearly Council and the community believed in 2018 it should not have been redeveloped. Had the developers read Council's Golf Course Policy they would have understood this.

• Step 2: Nor do they seem to have identified a strategic direction for the site that would justify their development plans. Again, the Golf Course Policy and the SUZ1 would have shown their development plans could not be justified.


8 • Step 4: nor do they seem to have considered the site constraints, not even the inappropriate

zoning that prohibits residential development. • Step 5: According to the community, they have never been engaged or properly consulted by the

developers on any of these matters especially not for the second iteration. Even when they have been worn down and exhausted by the long drawn out battle and are pleading for a meeting to discuss a compromise proposal.

• Step 6: As explained above, we do not think they have provided a land use concept that delivers net community value. Nor does the Dingley Village community.

• Step 7: They have not delivered a quality outcome and the community would prefer the golf course was reopened and leased by Council to be run as a public golf course.

Conclusion

We respectfully ask this Committee to recommend refusal of this application. because:

• It is contrary to all of the state and local relevant planning policies; • It involves the unreasonable overturning of a valid democratic decision made by

Council on sound grounds in the best interests of the community; • It would threaten the health, welfare and habitat of local native and indigenous flora

and fauna; • It would provide a vast community dis-benefit and would adversely impact the

amenity of present and future residential and school communities nearby.

Rosemary West, coordinator, Green Wedges Coalition, (incorporated as Green Wedges Guardians Alliance Inc.Vic Reg No. A0046546X) Attachments:

1. Green Wedges Coalition constituent membership list 2. Green Wedges Coalition Charter

CV: I have a BA(Hons) and an MA from the University of Melbourne. My profession is journalism. I was employed as a cadet reporter at the Melbourne Herald and at the Age for 15 years full-time and as a freelance, mostly for The Age, in between. I taught journalism at Monash University for two years. I have coordinated the Green Wedges Coalition since its formation in 2002 and I have served as a municipal councillor at the City of Kingston for 18 years until 2020. I represented my council on the Environment and Planning Advisory committees of the Municipal Association of Victoria. RW.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1476

Lillian Bobik

Our family chose to live in Dingley Village because of its friendly village atmosphere, its quiet streets, its proximity to quality educational facilities, its provision of basic food essentials in an easy in and out environment, its proximity to nature parks and its overall safe and secure village feel which suited all our family's needs. This new proposed development will cancel all the above advantages to life in Dingley Village creating a busy and stressful place filled with many new residents and traffic that will crowd our streets and strangle the small infrastructure that currently services our community.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1477

James Bochel

I object to the development. The golf course was sold and bought to develop housing for profit while it was not able to do so under rules for development. Objection to the initial sale took to long to be judged on and while agreed irregularities had taken place, time limits dismissed claim. Then plans submitted changing as Daryl Kerrigan would say the ‘vibe’ of Dingley. The community rallied and planning rejected, and still more manoeuvring to get round this. There has to be faith in fair system and not underhand back door deals by high rollers. Australia is dropping down in transparency listing. Regarding the actual development, large numbers of high storey buildings on small blocks will overload the community regarding shops, schools, recreation areas, parking, and public transport. Services will also be overstretched - library services, health services and social services. It will also have detrimental effect on flood control for the community. The change to the open park land will have a negative effect on wildlife and plant life. If this development proceeds further other areas will be targets of development-rules and opinions will be meaningless. I am not against change, but it should be done in correct way, getting permission and discussion before commitment to buy. The way it was done by developers was a gamble that should not be rewarded.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1478

Tara Rajakumar

Kingswood Golf Course - Submission to Golf Course Advisory Council – Tara Rajakumar 27/8/2021 As a homeowner, my property backs on to Kingswood Golf course. I strongly object to the proposal to rezone and redevelop the golf course site into a medium- to high-density housing estate for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning will destroy the only treed open space in Dingley which has thousands of magnificent trees, thousands of birds and wildlife and is an excellent example of Dingley Village’s rich biodiversity and heritage. 2. The proposal ignores and does not take responsibility for the serious social and environmental issues created by the dramatic increase of Dingley’s population by about 20% or more. 3. Inadequate precautions against serious flooding in the golf course and neighbouring areas including existing properties caused by the developer’s proposal to cover the existing aquifer. 4. The erection of medium- to high-density houses and apartments, several with three storeys, in over 800 housing lots will destroy the historic character of Dingley Village. 5. Dingley’s already over-stretched primary schools, medical care, and childcare facilities will be unable to cope with the demands by the major population growth created by the proposal. There is no public secondary schooling or hospital nearby. 6. The proposed lay-out has a large number of cramped housing lots adjacent to existing homes including mine. I object to the unfair discrimination and disadvantage caused to neighbouring residents including myself. 7. No community facilities like swimming pools, ovals or other amenities are included. 8. A new round-about at the Spring Road/McClure Road intersection with Spring Road becoming a traffic highway for the residents of the estate will create congestion and unacceptable safety hazards. 9. Adequate transport and parking facilities are lacking in the proposal. These problems are also expected to increase with the move of Hawthorn football club to Tootal Road. The developer's data suggests up to 6800 vehicle movements per day and 680 vehicle movements per hour during peak times on a single lane road as a result of the proposed housing estate. 10. The Kingswood Golf course site should be maintained as parkland, preserving the heritage and biodiversity of Dingley Village. The unreasonable rezoning and development proposal ignores the serious negative environmental, social and community impacts it creates for Dingley Village and its residents. 11. The unnecessary and untenable proposal in effect unfairly transfers to Kingston City Council and Dingley Village residents the onerous burden and huge costs of alleviating the negative impacts with no net benefits. 12. The rezoning and development proposal put forward by a profit-driven, wealthy superannuation fund and its partners must be rejected to protect and ensure the long- term survival of Dingley Village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1479

Beryl Permewan

Dingley Land Redevelopment Proposal

I support this submission. I believe the clear benefits include: • The community gets a well-planned housing development within an established area already serviced by transport, schools, retail and health facilities. • The direct benefits to the Kingston community will include an increased population within the existing area, $1.3 billion injected during construction, 3,800 jobs created during construction and continuing millions injected into the local Kingston economy by the new residents of the new development. • The amenity of Kingston will be increased by 14 hectares of new public space to be used by the whole community as gardens, parks and lakes. There is an additional benefit in the inherent flood retardation included during a time of climate change. In summary, I believe that the benefits to the community of Kingston as a whole outweigh any perceived disadvantages. Melbourne needs new housing within the existing boundaries which utilise the existing infrastructure so as to benefit our future citizens.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1480

Brianna Robinson

I strongly recommend that the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course for residential purposes to be REJECTED! The big reason for my NO is Dingley Village doesn't have the infrastructure to cater for the increased number of people and cars that this redevelopment will bring. This redevelopment will bring a minimum of 823 more people. Houses that are being built are for couple or families. Realistically this number will be more like 2000 more people to this area. Where will all these people shop for groceries? There is 1 supermarket in Dingley. Where will the extra children go to childcare, primary school and secondary school? We have 2 cafe's that are already overflowing on the weekend when not in lockdown. Sporting clubs are already overflowing. Look at Dingley Dingo's, they have just built a new footy oval to cater for the demand (Howard Road). There is already a lack of Public Transport in Dingley. During peak times those buses are already overflowing. There is only one gym, that is already packed. So I go somewhere else. 1 local swimming pool that is only for swimming lessons. To cater for this redevelopment you will be taking away native vegetation. What about the wild life that already lives in Dingley, they don't even get a say because they have no voice. I moved to Dingley because it was not like other suburbs around here. It is quieter, compared to Mentone. People don't live on top of each other. There is space. There is a reason this suburb is called Dingley VILLAGE. If this redevelopment goes ahead we are no longer a village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1481

Clint Patrick

Firstly, I'm not against redevelopment in all forms, however the Kingswood redevelopment proposal is simply inappropriate for the area. It has been designed to maximise sellable lots without consideration of the existing standard lot sizes in the neighbouring streets and area in general. All I see in this proposal are smaller sized lots combined with higher density tri-level housing. Within the proposed estate, the streets will be riddled with cars jostling for a parking space. This proposal doesn’t really add any infrastructure value to the area, just more people to be absorbed by the existing amenities. The local roads are at risk of becoming rat runs with increased traffic noise diminishing the liveability of the area, not to mention the increase in traffic wait times getting onto an already super busy Westall Rd, Centre Dandenong/Lower Dandenong intersection, Centre Dandenong Rd through the Mordialloc Bypass on and off ramp intersections and then the struggling Boundary Rd intersection. Packing more people in and planting a few new trees isn't good enough. The developer should be listening to what the community needs and come up with something that adds value to the community and not simply negatively impact the area in the long term after they’ve cut and run.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1482

Annette and Ian McPherson


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

1

Golf Course Redevelopment SAC (DELWP)

From: Ian & Annette McPherson Sent: Sunday, 29 August 2021 4:45 PMTo: Golf Course Redevelopment SAC (DELWP)Subject: Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment - Draft Planning Scheme Amendment

C199 KING and Draft Planning Permit Application

EXTERNAL SENDER: Links and attachments may be unsafe. From: Ian & Annette McPherson Sent: Sunday, 29 August 2021 To: https://engage.vic.gov.au/GolfSAC-Kingswood Subject: Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment – Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C199

KING and Draft Planning Permit Application Dear Sir/Madam, Almost three years ago to the day, my wife and I together with many others, submitted to the City of Kingston, an objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course. I also attended a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee of the City of Kingston Council, along with an overflowing gallery of concerned local residents, to witness the Committee recommend unanimously, its refusal to grant an amendment to its Planning Scheme. We are now deeply saddened and indeed annoyed, that AustralianSuper Residential Property No.1 Ltd., has submitted another application to redevelop the former Kingswood Golf Course in Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village with an even higher density of residential housing from 800 to 823 lots. This to our minds is a complete affront to the residents of Dingley Village who in huge numbers demonstrated their opposition to the proposed redevelopment some three years ago. It is difficult to not draw the conclusion, that the developers are “thumbing their noses” at our local community, especially now that the fate of the application will be considered by an advisory committee of the Victorian Government rather than the local council as was the previous case. My wife and I have been residents in Kingston Drive Dingley Village for almost 31 years and have really enjoyed living in the area with its distinct village atmosphere, the open spaces, the amenities, and the sense of community. Removing this beautiful Golf Course with its open space, habitat for birds and wildlife, and the lungs it provides with so many wonderful trees, would be an environmental disaster as far as we are concerned. Then to replace this with high density housing with the potential for around 2,000 more residents, would impact negatively on the Village and its present residents. The proposed development would also have a detrimental impact on the existing community facilities, roads and traffic and the uniqueness of our suburb. While we appreciate the need for additional housing in the future to cater for the growth in Melbourne’s and Victoria’s population, we do not believe that the development as planned by AustralianSuper in Dingley Village is either appropriate or necessary. We therefore again, object most strongly to Planning Scheme Amendment & Planning Permit Application and trust that the proposed development is halted now and for evermore. Yours faithfully, Annette & Ian McPherson

2

Dingley Village. Email:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1483

Suzanne Hengstberger

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee

Page 1 of 30

Introduction Amendment c199King, the Planning Permit Application and Draft Former Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment Plan, submitted by Australian Super Residential Property No.1 Ltd to rezone and develop Kingswood Golf Course is totally inappropriate for Dingley Village. This rezoning and residential development proposal for Kingswood Golf Course would result in;

significantly reduced local amenity for all Dingley Village residents

loss of scarce active recreational open space in Dingley Village and the City of Kingston

loss of a prime established golf course - and the opportunity to provide City of Kingston with a ready-made 18 hole public golf course

loss of this important treed open space in the centre of Dingley Village

removal of thousands of established trees and native vegetation, with the golf course bird and wild life at risk of death from their habitat destruction

the destruction Dingley Village's neighbourhood character

traffic, access, infrastructure and environmental problems for Dingley Village, for which the developer, Australian Super, undertakes no responsibility

Kingston Golf Course should not be rezoned residential. Whilst there are innumerable reasons against this rezoning and redevelopment proposal, I have limited my objections to issues identified for consideration in the Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purpose, as listed on the next page.


Page 2 of 30

Part 1 Consider whether the land should be redeveloped

1.1 Is Kingswood Golf Course Surplus to Golfing?

1.2 Should the Land Remain Open Space ?

Part 2 Strategic Direction for Kingswood Golf Course

2.1 Level of Access to Transport and Activity Centres

2.2 Local Open Space Network and Wildlife Network

2.3 Is the Proposal consistent with Relevant Planning Policies and Strategies

2.3.1 Plan Melbourne 2017 - 2050 Strategy

2.3.2 Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Planning Practice Note 91

2.3.3 Metropolitan Planning Strategy - Kingston Planning Scheme -Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

2.3.4 Housing and Neighbourhood Character Study July 2020

Part 3 Does the Proposal deliver Net Community Benefit

Conclusion

Appendix 1 Key Relevant Policies and Strategies -Proposal Non-Compliance

Appendix 2 City of Kingston Strategic Land Use Framework Plan

Appendix 3 Kingswood Golf Course Site Context Map

Appendix 4 Housing and Neighbourhood Character Study July 2020 - Map of Garden Suburban Area


Page 3 of 30

Part 1: Consider whether the land should be redeveloped

1.1 Is Kingswood Golf Course Surplus to Golfing? NO

Kingswood Golf Course is zoned Special Use Zone (Golf Course) and as stated in the City of Kingston's Golf Course Planning Policy (2015), this allows the land to be used and developed as a golf course. The municipality's golf courses being considered of great importance to the City of Kingston;

"The Municipal Strategic Statement recognises the special significance of the Golf Courses of Kingston and acknowledges them as a key asset. ..... they could be seen as part of the contributing character and "specialness" of the municipality and as such be recognised within the Special Use zone."

City of Kingston's Golf Course Planning Policy (2015)

Kingswood Golf Course is located in Melbourne's premier sand belt golf course zone and has been described as;

" Located in Melbourne's famous Sandbelt, Kingswood has consistently rated as one of Australia's top golf courses. This championship course is gently undulating but an exceptional test of golf.

Kingswood is not as well known as some of its more famous Sandbelt neighbours, but it loses little in comparison as a championship standard golf course. Wonderful couch fairways, fast true greens, superb bunkering, and lakes coming into play on six holes provide not only a great golfing challenge, but also a delightful playing environment featuring an abundance of birdlife."

www.golfselect.com.au

"A significant proportion of privately owned open space also contributes to the landscape character and open space qualities of the municipality, provided through a range of private golf courses, agricultural holdings and green wedge land. Kingston enjoys a significant reputation for its world class golf courses, with continuing community demand likely to consolidate golf as a prominent recreational activity within Kingston."

Kingston Planning Scheme 21.02-4 Open Space

For over 80 years, since 1937 until closure in 2018, Kingswood Golf Course has provided an active recreational open space of 53.35 hectares in the centre of Dingley Village. Residential redevelopment would mean the permanent loss of this important open space, which is of sufficient size for active sport facility provision, in the heart of our community. As such, Kingswood Golf course should not be rezoned residential.

Why was Kingswood Golf Course Sold ?

Kingswood Golf Course, zoned Special Use Zone (Golf Course), was sold by PKCGC in 2014 to Australian Super for $100 million, which was twice the amount of the golf course's 2013 valuation (approximately $52 million).

Re Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club [2014] VSC 437 (3 September 2014)


Page 4 of 30

In addition, in the event of a successful rezoning and development application approval by September 2022, PKCGC will be paid a further $25 million by Australian Super.

Kingswood Golf Club merged with Peninsula Golf Club in 2013, to become the Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (PKCGC). The highly-contested merger, between the indebted Peninsula Golf Club and a debt-free Kingswood Golf Club was of great benefit to Peninsula Golf Club, with the subsequent sale of the Kingswood Golf Course site releasing funds to repay Peninsula Golf Club's pre-merger debt and fund redevelopment of Peninsula's Frankston golf course.

Does the City of Kingston have a Full Size 18 Hole Public Golf Course ? NO

Whilst Kingston is characterised by its world class sand-belt golf courses, it does not have a 18 hole public golf course. The closest public 18 hole golf courses to Kingswood Golf Course are;

Sandringham Golf Course (City of Bayside) - 9 km

Brighton Public Golf Course (City of Bayside) - 12.6 km

Centenary Park Golf Course (City of Frankston) - 21.7 km

Kingswood Golf Course, being an established golf course, could provide a ready-made 18 hole public golf course within Kingston, accessible to everyone. Golf has experienced a boom in membership, participation and demand for golf courses. With the experience of the past two years, highlighting how vital adequate access to local open space and sporting facilities in Melbourne are for the community's physical and mental well being. Golf is one of the few sports where people of all ages are able to participate fully and it important that sufficient recreational open space for golf is available for all the community, now and in the future.

1.2 Should The Land Remain as Open Space ? YES

Dingley Village's strong community has worked together, long and hard and with great commitment over many years, to protect Kingswood Golf Course and keep this important open space in our community. In September 2018, after a record breaking number (8000+) of objections had been submitted against the first Australian Super development proposal, Kingston Council voted unanimously to abandon the rezoning of Kingswood Golf Course. Now once again Kingswood Golf Course is being placed under threat.

Kingswood Golf Course is an important open space and recreational facility and is highly valued by the community. In accordance with Kingston's Golf Course Policy, Kingswood Golf Course should not be rezoned Residential GRZ2.

"where clubs are genuinely unable to be economically viable and should the land owner wish to cease golf operations on the site, the Council is keen that the land is used for public or private open space purposes that allow the land to retain its green and open vistas."

City of Kingston's Golf Course Planning Policy (2015)


Page 5 of 30

"Melbourne’s golf courses are an incredible source of land wealth, making them susceptible to closure and redevelopment. Without the proper planning framework in place, the potential loss of local amenity, open space and opportunity for long-term public benefit is very real. .... There are squillions of dollars to be made in developing such land, and golf clubs would reap huge wealth by selling to developers. ..... We want to see Melbourne’s renowned liveability retained, and ensuring major green open space for future generations remains intact is one such way to retain our global standing – it can be a legacy for future generations."

Pressure Mounts To Assess The Future of Golf Course Land, 19 Nov 2018, Clinton Baxter https://www.savills.com.au

In a "Bigger Melbourne", with increased urban densities and disappearing backyards, recreational open space land must be protected from competitive urban growth pressures for Melbourne's future liveability. Rezoning Kingswood means the permanent loss to the community of this important recreational open space asset.


Page 6 of 30

Part 2: Strategic Direction for Kingswood Golf Course

2.1 Level of Access to Transport and Activity Centres

Encouragement of alternate means of transport, such as public transport, cycling and walking are referred to throughout the submitted development plans and reports. Whilst this makes for good reading, most adult residents in the proposed development can only use a private motor vehicle for work and other trips.

2.1.1 Limited Public Transport

In the proposed development plans, statements about public transport provision read well:

"The Site is well-serviced by proximate public transport links"

Tract Planning report 3.4 p.16

"The Site is conveniently located within walking or cycling distance of both bus and rail networks "

Tract Planning report 7.1.2 p.70 & Green Plan p.6

but they ignore the facts for Dingley Village, which does not have high quality public transport service provision and is not located near train stations.

The public transport reality for Dingley Village and Kingswood Golf Course is that:

there is a limited bus service, 828 and 811, with no dedicated bus lanes in Dingley Village, and

rail stations are located 4km + away ( distance as the crow flies)

Closest rail stations are listed below:

Railway Stations Shortest Travel Distance from Kingswood Golf Course ( Centre Dandenong Road entrance)

Cheltenham 6.4 km

Mentone 6.9 km

Parkdale 6.0 km

Mordialloc 6.1 km

Westall 5.8 km

Springvale 5.8 km

Sandown 7.1 km

Noble Park 6.6 km

Dandenong 8.6 km


Page 7 of 30

Are Cycling, Public Transport (Bus) and travelling by Car reasonable methods to access the Railway Stations from the Proposed Development ? NO

The proposed development's Transport Impact Assessment Report p.21, states "cycling, public transport (bus) and travelling by car are all reasonable methods to access the nearby railway stations".

Testing this claim, using a trip from Kingswood Golf Course to Cheltenham Station, shows that;

a) driving to a station - requires station car parking - not always available

b) catching a bus - 828 to Cheltenham station or 811 to Mentone station - depending on the travel time, can take up to an hour to reach the station from Dingley Village, due to the time spent walking to the bus stop and the bus service frequency, particularly out of weekday peak times.

c) cycling - can take between 35 to 45 minutes depending on the route taken along roads and footpaths. Centre Dandenong Road provides the safest route is to Cheltenham station, with the Moorabbin airport bike path along Centre Dandenong Road able to be used for part of the trip.

Travel times in the report for cycling to stations are understated for this travel trip. The actual time to cycle from Dingley Village to Cheltenham station takes me, an average cyclist cycling quickly, 35 to 45 minutes and not 21 minutes as reported, which is a straight & paste from Google Maps. It brings into question every other time quoted, as One Mile Grid , who compiled this report, obviously DID NOT actually time this run.

As stated in this Report p.21 "Some railway stations are accessed in a shorter travel time by taking a bus to a different railway station and then catching a train to it rather than taking a bus only."

Suggesting this convoluted multimodal trip, with additional interchange waiting times, would be the fastest way to access some "nearby" railway stations, highlights the fact that Dingley Village is not near any railway station.

2.1.2 Lack of Cycle Paths

In the proposed development plans and reports, statements about the 'cycling experience' in Dingley Village, sound terrific;

"Beyond the site, a range of off-road bike trails, on-road dedicated bike lanes and informal bike routes surrounding the development will provide convenient and safe routes for cycling." Planning Report Tract Consultants June 2021, p.73

but they ignore the facts for Dingley Village, which;

does not have segregated and off road cycle paths in the village, and

has limited bike path connectivity outside of Dingley Village

Cyclists must use either roads or foot paths to cycle on, with the accompanying traffic safety concerns discouraging cycling throughout the village. It would be great if school children could cycle to their primary schools, but unfortunately "convenient and safe routes for cycling" are few and far between in Dingley Village.


Page 8 of 30

"The subject site is well connected with regard to bicycle facilities, with Centre Dandenong Road designated as an informal route along the frontage of the subject site, improving to provide an off-road shared path to the west of Tootal Road."

Former Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village Transport Impact Assessment November 2020 p.22

This "informal route" along Centre Dandenong Road providing a cyclist with a choice of either;

tangling with the traffic on an unlaned road with buses, trucks and cars, or

riding on footpaths with residential vehicle crossings

and within the proposed Kingswood development, the on-road bicycle lanes will be intersecting with access streets and numerous vehicle crossings, again discouraging cycling due to traffic safety issues.

2.1.3 Not a 20 Minute Neighbourhood

Statements about the proposed development's "20 minute neighbourhood" principles read well:

" the proposal responds to 20-minute neighbourhood principles and will give future residents the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a short walk, cycle or local public transport trip from their home." Planning Report Tract Consultants June 2021, p.64

Is the Proposed Development a 20 Minute Neighbourhood ? NO

Actual walking distance to the Dingley Village shops and community facilities from the proposed development on Kingswood Golf Course is on average between 500 to 1000 metres (see Appendix 3: Site Context Map), making a return trip in excess of 1km and taking much longer than 20 minutes.

As stated in the Victorian Government Planning Strategy Plan Melbourne 2017-2050, the 20-minute neighbourhood is;

"The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living locally’—giving people the ability to meet most of their daily needs within a 20-minute return walk from home, with access to safe cycling and local transport options.

Research shows that 20-minutes is the maximum time people are willing to walk to meet their daily needs locally.

These daily needs may include accessing local health facilities and services, schools and shopping centres. This 20-minute journey represents an 800m walk from home to a destination and back again. Or a 10 minute walk to your destination and 10 minutes back home."

20 Minute Neighbourhoods Creating a More Liveable Melbourne, Victoria State Government

As most of the proposed Kingswood Golf Course development is located well outside the 10-minute walkable catchment distance (20 minute neighbourhood principle) to the Dingley Village shops and community facilities, new residents will not be able to easily walk or cycle to the local shops and services. e.g. schools, bank, supermarket.


Page 9 of 30

2.1.4 Dingley Village Residential Closed Court Street Design

Access and Road Capacity Limitations

Dingley Village is characterised throughout by a closed garden court street design layout, providing attractive streets with limited through traffic in residential areas. However this also results in Dingley Village having very few access roads into and out of the village.

What Are The Impacts On Local Transport And Traffic Networks ?

With limited public transport, most residential properties in Dingley Village have upwards of two vehicles per household, and private motor vehicles are used for most work, school and other trips.

Traffic impact from the proposed development is described in the developer's Transport Report as;

"the traffic generated by the proposed development will be readily accommodated by the proposed and existing road network with traffic volumes well within the identified capacities. It is noted that some increases in traffic in relative terms may appear to be significant however across a period of 24 hours, the increases will be distributed across the day which will therefore limit the impact of the additional traffic and on the whole will not represent a significant impact on the amenity and operation of the road." Former Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village Transport Impact Assessment p76

"the intersection of Centre Dandenong Road and Tootal Road will continue to operate under ‘good’ conditions with reasonable queues and delays being experienced by motorists during the morning and afternoon peak hours". Former Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village Transport Impact Assessment p72

Great reading, however existing residents living in Dingley Village who regularly experience traffic congestion on Centre Dandenong Road at peak times, particularly in the morning, would seriously question the rosy picture being painted here.

It is no surprise that additional traffic signals are proposed to be installed at the development's main external road connection to Centre Dandenong Road opposite Kubis Crescent, only a short distance away from the existing traffic signals at Howard Road. Residents of the proposed Kingswood development would certainly need these if they wished to exit onto Centre Dandenong Road, without significant difficulty and delay.

The potential for an additional 1600+ vehicles (average 2 + vehicles per household) from the proposed 823 dwellings in the heart of Dingley Village will place enormous pressure on the limited access roads into and out of Dingley Village, resulting in both traffic congestion and safety issues for these roads.

The morning peak hour traffic queue along Centre Dandenong Road (heading west to the roundabout), normally backs up to Howard Road corner and takes several minutes to clear. With extra cars from the proposed Kingswood development, this traffic jam may extend well past the proposed new traffic lights on this critical Dingley Village access road.


Page 10 of 30

Increased peak hour traffic congestion will also cause a deterioration to the key bus service on Centre Dandenong Road , increasing journey times and discouraging bus usage.

2.1.5 Not a Major Activity Centre

The Kingston Planning Scheme, Clause 21.02-3, designates six major activity centres in the City of Kingston as follows;

Cheltenham -Southland

Moorabbin

Cheltenham

Mentone

Mordialloc

Chelsea

What does this mean for Dingley Village ?

In accordance with Kingston's planning scheme, increased housing density should be

focussed around the major activity centres, reflecting their higher level of access to

services.

"Create a broader range of cultural, social, commercial and higher density housing opportunities around the core of principal and major activity centres." Kingston Planning Scheme Clause 21.02-3 Activity Centres, Objective 1, Strategy 1.2

"The capacity of local areas to accommodate increased urban growth varies across the municipality, according to environmental constraints and access to services." Kingston Planning Scheme Clause 21.02-1 Urban Settlement, Key Issues Objective 1, Strategy 1.2

Dingley Village is located well away from these major activity centres and is surrounded by green wedge activity. It is designated a Neighbourhood Activity Centre(NAC), with a walkable catchment of only 200 metres.

"Below is a list of NACs where a 200-metre walkable catchment is more appropriate due to these centres having a reduced level of service provision, including:

Aspendale Gardens

Bonbeach

Clarinda

Dingley Village

Thrift Park"

Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020, 3.1 Activity Centre Hierarchy p.26

Locating large-scale medium density housing developments in Dingley Village, would

therefore not be in accordance with Kingston's planning scheme and totally

inappropriate for the village.


Page 11 of 30

2.2 Local Open Space Network and Wildlife Network

Will There Be Significant Flora and Fauna Habitat Loss ? YES

Losing this important open space in the heart of Dingley Village would have a massive environmental impact on our village. Kingswood Golf Course has been the green centre of Dingley Village since 1937, providing habitat for large numbers of birds and fauna, such as flying foxes, possums, bats and other animals, as acknowledged in the developer's ecological site assessment of the golf course;

"Native trees throughout the study area act as important foraging habitat for many bird species including cockatoos, parrots, lorikeets and honeyeaters, especially when in flower, as they provide an important nectar resource."

" Trees within these areas provide foraging and nesting resources for a variety of bird species including parrots, honeyeaters and wattlebirds. During the current assessment large numbers of Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus were observed foraging in these areas. Grey-headed Flying-fox and Swift Parrot may occasionally forage on flowering eucalypts within these areas.

The high abundance of hollow-bearing Southern Mahogany provide important habitat for local hollow dependent birds and mammals including parrots, possums and microbats. Hollow-bearing trees in this vegetation showed signs of extensive use by fauna, with scratches and other marks evident on the trunks and around the hollows. Microbats are likely to forage within and around this vegetation."

Ecological Assessment for a proposed residential development : Former Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village, Victoria Plan p.26 & p27.

Kingswood Golf Course's habitat connectivity function is also acknowledged; "While the study area is not connected to larger areas of intact vegetation, it is considered to provide a 'stepping stone' for mobile fauna moving throughout the landscape between areas of higher habitat(e.g. Braeside Park and Heatherton Park)."

Ecological Assessment for a proposed residential development : Former Kingswood Golf Course, Dingley Village, Victoria Plan p.26 & p27.

The proposed development plans to remove of 5.596 hectares of native vegetation and clear fell 2,402 established trees. This large-scale habitat destruction will render the birds and animals homeless and at risk of death due to the proposed removal of thousands of established trees and bushes, which are their home and habitat.

2.3 Is the Proposal consistent with Relevant Planning Policies & Strategies ?

The Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes

require;

"Proposals seeking to rezone golf course land should be consistent with state and

local policy objectives for particular locations. ....... The process outlined in these

guidelines does not supersede state and local policy objectives."

Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other Purposes, page 5

In reviewing the proposal documents submitted by Australian Super and applying the relevant planning policies and planning scheme legislation, it is evident this


Page 12 of 30

rezoning and development proposal is not consistent with state and local policy objectives for the Kingswood Golf Course site in Dingley Village.

Planning policy and planning scheme legislation which the proposal fails to uphold is

listed in Appendix 1., with each compliance failure reason detailed as follows;



2.3.3 Kingston Planning Scheme

2.3.4 Housing and Neighbourhood Character Study July 2020


1. Direction 2.2

Kingswood Golf Course does not have good access to jobs, services and public

transport .


1. Planning Practice Note 91 Using the Residential Zones

Proposed development is not in an area where housing development of 3 storeys

exists and does not have good access to services and transport - GRZ2 not applicable

The surrounding established residential areas in Dingley Village are zoned General Residential Zone Schedule 3 (GRZ3) / Neighbourhood Residential Zone ( NRZ), with a 9 metre height limit, prohibiting three story dwellings.

This proposed rezoning of Kingswood Golf Course from part Special Use Zone schedule 1 (SUZ1) and part General Residential Zone Schedule 3 (GRZ3) to General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) is totally inappropriate for Dingley Village

2.3.3 Kingston Planning Scheme - Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

1. 15.01-5S Neighbourhood character

Proposed development does not respect Dingley Village's neighbourhood character

2. 16.01-1S Housing supply

Proposed development is not well located in relation to jobs, services and public

transport

3. Clause 18 18.02-2S – Public Transport

Kingswood Golf Course is not near high-quality public transport routes

4. 18.02-1S Sustainable personal transport

Proposed development does not separate cyclists from other road users


Page 13 of 30

5. Clause 21.02-1 Urban Settlement

Kingswood Golf Course is not near a major activity centre as shown in the Kingston

strategic framework plan - Appendix 2 Strategic Land Use Framework Plan

6. 21.02-3 Activity Centres

Dingley Village is designated a Neighbourhood Activity Centre - shown in Appendix 2

Strategic Land Use Framework Plan

7. 21.02-4 Open Space

Proposed rezoning does not support the significant regional tourism/recreational

role of golf courses in Kingston

8. 21.06 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE 21.06-2 Neighbourhood character

Proposed new residential development does respect the amenity and character of

existing Dingley Village residential areas surrounding the golf course

9. 21.07 HOUSING 21.07-1 Residential development Objective 1

Proposed development does not respond to existing neighbourhood character

Proposed development does not recognise and support the preferred housing

outcome for Dingley Village, an Incremental Housing Change area , shown in

Appendix 2 Residential Land Use Framework Plan


Proposed development is not in close proximity to public transport facilities,

particularly train stations


The developer does not take responsibility or offer resources to address the resultant pressure to be placed on Dingley Village's infrastructure and community services from the proposed development.

12. 22.01-322.01-3 SANDBELT OPEN SPACE PROJECT

Proposed development removes;

high quality private open space for active recreation, and

habitats of flora and fauna and a wild life corridor within the Sandbelt Open Space project

13. 32.08 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (GRZ)

Kingswood Golf Course does not have good access to services and transport - GRZ

not applicable

14. 32.09 NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (NRZ)

Proposed development does not respect surrounding Dingley Village neighbourhood

character of single and double storey residential development zoned GRZ- 3 / NRZ.


Page 14 of 30

15. 54.02-1 Neighbourhood character objective

Proposed development does not respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood

character

16. 54.03-2 Building height objective

Proposed residential development 3-storey building height does not respect the

existing neighbourhood character

17. 54.03-3 Site coverage objective

Proposed development townhouse lots site coverage does not respect the existing

neighbourhood character

18. 55.02-2 Residential policy objectives

Proposed large-scale development of medium density townhouses not located in an

area where the development can take advantage of public transport and community

infrastructure and services.

19. 56.04 Lot Design Standard C7

Most of the 414 townhouse lots in the proposed development , which range in size

from 108 to 225 square metres, will not be located within 400 metres street walking

distance from the Dingley Village neighbourhood activity centre (shops and services)

- as shown in Appendix 3 Site Context Map

20. 52.17 NATIVE VEGETATION Proposed development removes 5.596 hectares of native vegetation

2.3.4 Housing and Neighbourhood Character Study 2020

Kingston Planning Scheme clause 21.01-4 zones Dingley Village an Incremental Change Area (shown in Appendix 3: Strategic Land Use Framework Plan).

The City of Kingston's Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July

2020 designates Dingley Village as Garden Suburban (shown in Appendix 4: Map of Garden Suburban Areas).

This residential zoning and character designation for Dingley Village acknowledges the village's residential neighbourhoods which have:

average lot sizes of 600sqm with space for gardens and trees

single and double story housing

residential areas zoned General Residential Zone Schedule 3 (GRZ3), with a 9 metre height limit, prohibiting three story dwellings.

"Streets within Incremental Change areas will retain the open and spacious characteristics of the Garden Suburban precinct. Modest change will be experienced throughout these areas with heights retained up to 2 storeys (9 metres)."

Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020, 4.3 p.60


Page 15 of 30

Objectives for designated Incremental Change Areas include;

"Allow for modest housing growth and diversification in the form of townhouses and apartments.

Ensure new development contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character of the precinct.

Encourage retention of existing housing types and characteristics that positively contribute to the preferred neighbourhood character of the precinct. "

Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020, p.35

Kingston's Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study was developed over several years following extensive research and community consultation.

The Study's Vision Statement includes;

"Medium and high density housing will be located in walkable catchments around public transport networks and activity centres. Lower scale housing will be retained and protected in the City’s suburbs adjacent to the coast and green wedge."

Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020, p.20

As stated in the Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 Strategy, on managing residential development, the residential zones have been reviewed and updated to provide great consistency about growth in the suburbs, so that they;

" will provide greater certainty to communities about the level of development that can occur and enable Melbourne to develop in a way that is sustainable and does not detract from the character of the suburbs."

Plan Melbourne 2017- 2050, Strategy, Outcome 2, p49

That's just it ..... good planning requires consistent application of planning zones in accordance with planning scheme policy, in order to support strong communities and protect neighbourhood character.

Does the Development Respect the Neighbourhood Character of the Area ? NO

The proposed rezoning and development seeks to:

rezone Kingswood Golf Course to General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2), allowing 3 storey dwellings

subdivide Kingswood Golf Course into a total of 823 residential lots

build medium density "front and rear loading townhouses", on 414 lots, which range in size from 108 to 225 square metres. 246 of these townhouse lots will have frontages between 4.5 and 6 metres in width.

Dingley Village is a pretty special place, having;

housing with space for gardens and trees

attractive and safe streets to live in

a strong sense of community in a small village environment

a country feel, with the surrounding market gardens, birds, wildlife and the natural environment of our parks and golf courses


Page 16 of 30

This rezoning and development proposal for Kingswood demonstrates Australian Super's failure to understand and respect Dingley Village's neighbourhood character.

The inclusion in the development of the large-scale construction of medium density "front and rear loading townhouses" up to 3 storeys high on 414 lots, an example of Australian Super's determination to maximise returns from their investment project at the expense of our community's neighbourhood character.


Page 17 of 30

Part 3 Does the Proposal Deliver Net Community Benefit ?

Australian Super's purchase of the golf course without planning zoning and approval for residential housing development and their subsequent relentless pursuit to rezone the golf course for residential development, demonstrates their requirement to make money for the benefit of their members.

However, this has nothing to do with any benefit to the residents of Dingley Village and simply places our village under threat.

As stated in the Planning Guidelines for the Conversion of Golf Course Land to Other

Purposes, there should be " a net community benefit for the community surrounding

any redeveloped course".

Is it of benefit to our community ?

to lose our golf course

to lose our open space, birds and wildlife habitat

to have 2,402 established trees chopped down

to lose our neighbourhood character with hundreds of wall to wall 3- storey

townhouse units built right in the centre of our village

to get stuck in traffic jams on Centre Dandenong Road due to 1600+ more cars

on our limited access roads in and out of the village

to not be able to participate in sports, due to inadequate and overcrowded local

sports facilities

to try and get our children into overcrowded government schools

the answer is NO

Does The Development Contribute to Achieving State or Local Government Policy Objectives and Strategies ? NO

As discussed in Part 2 of my objections, the proposed rezoning and development does not comply with many planning objectives and strategies applicable to Kingswood Golf Course and Dingley Village.

Does The Development Deliver Social Or Community Infrastructure Such As

Libraries, Medical, Education or Sporting Facilities ? NO

The developer does not acknowledge existing infrastructure constraints in Dingley Village, such as;

Kindergartens at capacity

Primary schools at capacity

Nearby secondary government schools at capacity

Existing sporting facilities at capacity


Page 18 of 30

In 2014, when Kingswood Golf Course was purchased by Australian Super, Dingley Village's infrastructure and service constraints were well documented in the City of Kingston Draft Residential Strategy Update;

"Planning Area 5 (Dingley Village) has one of the lowest proportions of medium density housing in Kingston and has few opportunities to increase this proportion due the isolation of the area constraining accessibility to services and facilities.

Draft Kingston Residential Strategy Update 2014, p.77

There are very limited opportunities to encourage medium density development in the area due to its isolation and lack of supporting services."

Draft Kingston Residential Strategy Update 2014, p.79

Not much has changed, with the Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study Housing Framework Plan, July 2020, acknowledging Dingley Village's infrastructure and community service constraints, Dingley Village having;

"very limited accessibility to services due to its location surrounded by the Green Wedge, minimal public transport access, and its remoteness from higher order Activity Centres."

Housing Strategy and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020 p.38

The proposed subdivision of the golf course into 823 residential lots, with a resultant 20% population increase of an estimated 2000+ residents, does not provide any additional sports facilities, medical, education or other community infrastructure to Dingley Village.

Australian Super does not take responsibility or offer resources to address the resultant pressure which would be placed on Dingley Village's infrastructure and community services.

It is extremely disappointing to see Australian Super, one of our largest superannuation funds, exhibiting such classic developer "build and bolt" behaviour, and leaving the community/ratepayers to bear the burden of these problems.

Does The Development Deliver Improved Golf Facilities ?

Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club (PKCGC) is located in the City of Frankston, 23 km south of Kingswood Golf Course. A substantial amount of the $100 million sale proceeds received by PKCGC for Kingswood Golf Course have been used to:

repay Peninsula Golf Club's pre-merger debt.

construct a new clubhouse - $33 million

rebuild Peninsula Golf Club's North and South courses - $14.4 million

provide infrastructure - $4.4 million

construct maintenance facility - $3.3 million

construct self-contained accommodation- $2.9 million

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATING SYSTEM REVIEW

Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club SUBMISSION OCTOBER 2019

The improved club facilities at the PKCGC Frankston golf course have however substantially increased ongoing operational costs for the club and make the '$25


Page 19 of 30

million bonus payment now extremely important for the club's future financial security and ongoing viability.

Therefore, it should be noted that submissions received from Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club members, employees and associates, have been made by persons who may receive an indirect benefit in the event of a rezoning and development application approval being granted by September 2022.

Are the improved PKCGC Golf Facilities accessible to the Public ? NO

PKCGC is a private members club and the golf course is not accessible to the public.

Residential development of Kingswood Golf Course, means the permanent loss of this prime sand-belt golf course and does not provide any improved golf facilities to Dingley Village and the City of Kingston.

Does the Development Protect and Enhance the wider Open Space Network and Ecological Connectivity ? NO

The importance of Kingswood Golf Course's habitat and connectivity function is discussed in Part 2.2.

The proposed residential development of Kingswood Golf Course removes the habitat for significant mobile fauna connectivity between Braeside Park and Karkarook Park, along the Kingston Chain of Parks.

Does the Proposal Deliver Net Community Benefit ? DEFINITELY NO

The proposed residential development of Kingswood Golf Course would not deliver a net community benefit to the community surrounding Kingswood Golf Course.

KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE SHOULD NOT BE REZONED RESIDENTIAL.


Page 20 of 30

Conclusion

I am opposed to Amendment c199King, the Planning Permit Application and Draft Former Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment Plan submitted by Australian Super to rezone and develop Kingswood Golf Course.

This is not a good planning outcome for Dingley Village and certainly has not demonstrated a planning process that is respectful of community values and genuine.

As a resident of Dingley Village for 22 years, I know what a unique place our village is. It has a great community and provides an attractive and safe environment to live in. Sure there are trade-offs living here, such as the lack of public transport and limited local services, but our beautiful village environment, with the golf course's abundant birdlife and trees right in its centre, makes this just such a special place to be. Our community has worked hard and continuously over the years to maintain and protect all of this.

In the recent Kingston Liveability Study, conducted between June & December 2020, Dingley Village received the highest liveability score in the City of Kingston.

Dingley Village has a lot to be proud of and it cannot be understated what this proposed inappropriate rezoning / development and the loss of our golf course will mean for our village.

Kingswood Golf Course is an important open space, recreational facility and a key asset within Dingley Village and the City of Kingston and SHOULD NOT BE REZONED RESIDENTIAL.


Page 21 of 30

APPENDIX 1:

The following table contains Key Relevant Policies And Strategies where the Kingswood Golf Course Proposal is NON-COMPLIANT

2.3.1 Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 Strategy

1

Direction 2.2 Deliver more housing closer to jobs and public transport Locating medium- and higher-density development near services, jobs and public transport supports the objectives of consolidation and housing choice.

2.3.2 Metropolitan Planning Strategy

1

Planning Practice Note 91 Using the Residential Zones

Table 1: The role and application of the residential zones GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (GRZ) Applied to areas where housing development of three storeys exists or is planned for in locations offering good access to services and transport NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (NRZ) Applied to areas where there is no anticipated change to the predominantly single and double storey character.

2.3.3 Metropolitan Planning Provisions - Kingston Planning Scheme

1

15.01-5S Neighbourhood character

Objective To recognise, support and protect neighbourhood character, cultural identity, and sense of place.

Strategies Support development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Ensure the preferred neighbourhood character is consistent with medium and higher density housing outcomes in areas identified for increased housing. Ensure development responds to its context and reinforces a sense of place and the valued features and characteristics of the local environment and place by respecting the:

Pattern of local urban structure and subdivision.

Underlying natural landscape character and significant vegetation.


Page 22 of 30

Neighbourhood character values and built form that reflect community identity.

2

16.01-1S Housing supply

Objective To facilitate well-located, integrated and diverse housing that meets community needs.

Strategies Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to jobs, services and public transport.

3

Clause 18 18.02-2S – Public Transport

seeks to facilitate greater use of public transport and promote increased development close to high-quality public transport routes.

4

18.02-1S Sustainable personal transport

Objective To promote the use of sustainable personal transport

Strategies Ensure cycling infrastructure (on-road bicycle lanes and off-road bicycle paths) is planned to provide the most direct route practical and to separate cyclists from other road users, particularly motor vehicles.

5

Clause 21.02-1 Urban Settlement

Objective 1 To direct the location of new urban growth and development to deliver sustainable form

Strategies 1.1 focus urban intensification around activity centres as identified in the strategic framework plan

6

Clause 21.02-3 Activity Centres

Objective 1 To protect and strengthen the hierarchy of activity centres within Kingston.

Strategies 1.2 Create a broader range of cultural, social, commercial and higher density housing opportunities around the core of principal and major activity centres. KINGSTON ACTIVITY CENTRE HIERARCHY Major activity centres being;

Cheltenham -Southland

Moorabbin

Cheltenham

Mentone

Mordialloc

Chelsea

Neighbourhood activity centres being;

Aspendale

Aspendale Gardens

Carrum

Clarinda

Dingley


Page 23 of 30

Village

Edithvale Highett

Parkdale

Patterson Lakes

Thrift Park

Westall

7

21.02-4 Open Space

Kingston enjoys a significant reputation for its world class golf courses, with continuing community demand likely to consolidate golf as a prominent recreational activity within Kingston.

Objective 3 To respond to the leisure needs of the municipality’s current and future populations. Strategies 3.5 Support the significant regional tourism/recreational role of golf courses in Kingston.

8

21.06 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE 21.06-2 Neighbourhood character

Objective 1 To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive.

Key issues The Kingston Neighbourhood Character Study is particularly relevant when considering new residential development in established residential areas where respecting the amenity and character of existing suburban areas is an important community objective. Decision guidelines When deciding on applications for development consider, as appropriate:

Adopted structure plans for activity centres;

The Kingston Neighbourhood Character Study;

Clause 22 Neighbourhood Character Policy;

9

21.07 HOUSING 21.07-1 Residential development

Overview and key issues Key factors in continuing to manage the introduction of new housing will be:

The achievement of high levels of amenity in new development.

Ensuring new

Objective 1- Strategies 1.6 Recognise the differential potential of residential areas to accommodate housing change by supporting differential residential densities according to the following preferred housing outcomes for different areas identified in Table 1 below and identified in the Residential Land Use Framework Plan. Table 1 -Incremental Housing Change Areas Preferred Housing Outcome The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or


Page 24 of 30

residential development responds to neighbourhood character.

the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained.

10


Objective 5 To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development.

Strategies 5.1 Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

11


Objective 7 To ensure all residential neighbourhoods in Kingston are provided with supporting social infrastructure adequate to the population’s needs.

Strategies 7.2 Ensure the development of large residential opportunity sites contributes to identified social infrastructure needs.

12

22.01-3 SANDBELT OPEN SPACE PROJECT

Policy High quality public and private open space areas be provided which cater for a range of active and passive recreational pursuits, including golf, outdoor adventure/education activities, playing fields, recreational trails, equestrian activities, environmental and cultural experiences. Areas of local and regional environmental significance be protected and restored, including habitats of flora and fauna, wetlands, wild life corridors and areas of heritage significance.

13

32.08 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (GRZ)

Purpose To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. To encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth particularly in locations offering good access to services and transport.

14

32.09 NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE (NRZ)

Purpose To recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development. To manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.


Page 25 of 30

15

54.02 NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER ZONE

54.02-1 Neighbourhood character objective To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. To ensure that the design responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area. Standard A1 The design response must be appropriate to the neighbourhood and the site. The proposed design must respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site. Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must

consider:

Any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme.

The neighbourhood and site description.

The design response.

16

54.03-2 Building height objective

To ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character Standard A4 The maximum building height should not exceed the maximum height specified in the zone, schedule to the zone or an overlay that applies to the land. If no maximum height is specified in the zone, schedule to the zone or an overlay, the maximum building height should not exceed 9 metres, unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the maximum building height should not exceed 10 metres. Changes of building height between existing buildings and new buildings should be graduated. Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:


Any maximum building height specified in the zone, a schedule to the zone or an overlay applying to the land.


The effect of the slope of the site on the height of the building.

The relationship between the proposed building height and the height of existing adjacent buildings.

The visual impact of the building when viewed from the street and from adjoining properties.


Page 26 of 30

17

54.03-3 Site coverage objective

To ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. Standard A5 The site area covered by buildings should not exceed:

The maximum site coverage specified in a schedule to the zone, or

If no maximum site coverage is specified in a schedule to the zone, 60 per cent.

Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application, the responsible authority must consider:



The existing site coverage and any constraints imposed by existing development or the features of the site.

The site coverage of adjacent properties.

The effect of the visual bulk of the building and whether this is acceptable in the neighbourhood.

18

55.02-2 Residential policy objectives

To ensure that residential development is provided in accordance with any policy for housing in the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. To support medium densities in areas where development can take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.

19

56.04 LOT DESIGN

Lot diversity and distribution objectives Lots of 300 square metres or less in area, lots suitable for the development of two dwellings or more, lots suitable for higher density housing and lots suitable for Residential buildings and Retirement villages should be located in and within 400 metres street walking distance of an activity centre.

Standard C7 A subdivision should implement any relevant housing strategy, plan or policy for the area set out in this scheme. .... Lots of 300 square metres or less in area, lots suitable for the development of two dwellings or more, lots suitable for higher density housing and lots suitable for Residential buildings and Retirement villages should be located in and within 400 metres street walking distance of an activity centre.


Page 27 of 30

20

52.17 NATIVE VEGETATION

Purpose To ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity as a result of the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation

This is achieved by applying the following three step approach in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017) (the Guidelines): 1. Avoid the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. 2. Minimise impacts from the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation that cannot be avoided. 3. Provide an offset to compensate for the biodiversity impact if a permit is granted to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation. To manage the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation to minimise land and water degradation.


Page 28 of 30

APPENDIX 2: City of Kingston Strategic Land Use Framework Plan/ Residential Land Use Framework Plan Clause 21.01-4 Strategic framework plan


Page 29 of 30

APPENDIX 3: Kingswood Golf Course Site Context Map Planning Report Tract Consultants June 2021, p.82


Page 30 of 30

APPENDIX 4: Kingston Housing and Neighbourhood Character Study, July 2020 Map of Garden Suburban Areas

Organisation:

Affected property:

1484

Brad Hardwick

I writing to submit my objection to the Kingswood Golf Course development in Dingley Village. As a parent and resident of Dingley for over 15 years I have feel I have a good overview of how the current community will suffer with with an expansion of this size. I understand that there are many families trying to get into the Dingley area and would welcome the construction if it stayed within the boundaries of how Dingley is already developed. The current planned constructions * Average land size way smaller than that of blocks already in Dingley. 300sqm vs 600+sqm * 3 storey properties in residential side streets, something that Dingley currently doesn't allow. * Too many addtional houses without adding any addtional capacity in primary schools or a high schools. The primary schools are already overflowing and the high school buses are overflowing. * Congestion in and out of Dingley during peak times at Tootal Road Round about. I work under 5km away and at certain times I have found it quicker to walk than get in there by car. * Mass construction will stir up dust and soil contaminates at the site. With a large construction the level of dust and contaminants in the air will increase in Dingley reducing air quality. This type of construction will have a real detriment on the existing comummunity with bringing any addtional benefits. I strongly oppose the large number and type of dwellings being proposed. Regards Brad Hardwick.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1485

Shelley Guo

Kingswood golf course has been a home for thousands of Australian native birds, animals and trees. The living balance of the nature and human will be totally destroyed once the big machines are allowed to go in and wipe the golf course. -snakes, rabbits and other animals and insects will be chased to existing houses and cause countless injuries and fear in the community; - years of construction work with dust will cause countless respiratory illness; - loud machine noise will cause countless mental health stress and other human tolerance related illnesses; - sudden increase of population will put more strain on the existing facilities, including childcare, clinic, schools, spots facilities, etc. - increase of population will worsen the traffic congestion and increase accidents rate; - increase of population will lower the water pressure, put more stress in the power supply. I would like to submit my strong objections towards the Kingswood redevelopment proposal. It has no benefit to our villagers and community but years of disturbed life and endless trouble to deal with.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1486

Ashleigh Jinkins

I've been a resident of Dingley Village since 2006 and, like many others in the area, value, love, and treasure the unique and close-knit community it is. This is why I must wholeheartedly object to the proposed redevelopment of the existing Kingswood Golf Course. First of all, the environmental impact of such a redevelopment will be catastrophic. Catastrophic for local residents, catastrophic for residents neighbouring the boundary of the current golf course, and, arguably most importantly of all, catastrophic for all of the incredible trees, birds, and other wildlife that call the green oasis home. Secondly, I've had on-going flooding issues with stormwater at my property over the last 10 years due to a multitude of problems related to Melbourne Water, and I know I'm not the only one. Dingley Village is already a high flood-risk area, and the details of the proposed redevelopment of the existing Kingswood Golf Course in no way fill me with any confidence that these problems would be remedied or even improved. In fact, the reality is, if the redevelopment were allowed to go ahead, not only are we likely to see more regular and more extreme flood events, but many new residents would have to deal with the same anxiety and trauma - and likely property damage - as I have been forced to experience, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. This cannot go ahead. Thanks

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1487

Philip Troy

Dingley Village

https://engage.vic

"see attached submission"

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Submission in respect of the proposal by Australian Super Residential Property No.1 Ltd for the Minister for Planning to consider a draft combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village VIC 3172, for residential purposes. I strongly object to the current proposal made by Australian Residential Property No.1 Ltd as it provides no benefit to the Dingley Village Community. I request the Minister reject the current proposal by Australian Super in its entirety as it provides no benefit to the Dingley Village Community and will impose nothing more than a drastic alteration of the current community lifestyle to a overpopulated development project. In fact, the proposal in its current form, appears to be aimed at completely destroying the fabric of the community as it stands, and replacing it with high density housing with no consideration as to how the substantial increase in population will affect the already overloaded amenities that are available at present. The proposal by Australian Super does not include any community facilities despite a proposed 20% increase in population. I am appalled by, and strenuously object to the following:

• The developer proposes to reduce the current average block size from between 500 – 650 sq meters to a ridiculous 300 sq meters.

• A severe reduction in their current parking obligations resulting in families,

many with up to four cars, being forced into the nearby local streets.

• No preservation of the thousands of trees (currently estimated at 20,000 native trees). The Developer has, in one plan, proposed retaining one single tree.

• The destruction of a verdant landscape housing a substantial flora and fauna habitat including several protected species.

• No community amenities proposed whatsoever. The current community services are already swamped:

Kindergartens:- Full Primary School:- Full – Portable rooms already in use Child Care:- Extensive waiting lists No Secondary School currently available in Dingley Village

• No infrastructure plans to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic

throughout the Dingley Village area. The developer estimates that there will be up to 6800 additional vehicle movements every day, which they simply plan to re-direct through the local streets.

It is plainly obvious that Australian Super (the developer) have given NO CONSIDERATION whatsoever to the Dingley Village Community and only wish to place as much housing as possible into the golf course area. The developer has also directed its employees to forward proposals to Government applauding the proposed development. Employees who are not residents of Dingley Village. I urge the Minister to fully evaluate these proposals as nothing more than a plot by Australian Super to force through the development by nefarious means in purporting that their own employees, acting under direction, as genuine interested parties. Mornington Peninsula Golf Club, the beneficiary of the initial sale of the land has also urged its members to forward proposals approving the developments of the site. The Mornington Peninsula Golf Club stands to receive a further $25 million dollar payment when the development is approved. Not only would this be considered a conflict of interest, but the majority of the club members do not reside in Dingley Village and therefore the development would have no impact on their lives at all.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1488

Wendy Pawsey

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

1

Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee.

SUBMISSION REGARDING DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C199KING AND DRAFT

PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION – KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE REDEVELOPMENT.

I hereby provide a submission for the draft planning scheme amendment C199King and draft

planning permit application submitted by AustralianSuper for the redevelopment of Kingswood Golf

Course at 179-217 Centre Dandenong Road, Dingley Village for residential purposes.

Firstly, please note that I am a Dingley Village resident of 30 years and have been a rate payer for the

same, I therefore feel that I am entitled to put forward my vigorous objection to the Rezoning and

Development proposal put forward by AustralianSuper. I also note here that I do not and will not

invest with this company and the reason being rather obvious in that I REJECT the investment

proposal they are currently embarking on again.

This development proposal that AustralianSuper has launched has already been REJECTED once,

with over 8000 Dingley Village residents and The Kingston Council petitioning for the zoning to

remain intact and remaining firm on an emphatic NO to the rezoning of the Kingswood Golf Course.

This proposal was REJECTED in 2018 and very little has changed since then as far as I can tell.

I feel like as NO means NO, then REJECT is to REJECT, REFUSE OR DISCARD. And therefore, it seems

incredulous to me that this Rezoning and Development proposal that was REJECTED, REFUSED and

DISCARDED out right, 3 years ago has now been allowed to proceed again with minimal changes or

alterations wasting precious time, money and resources.

According to the latest information the Household number for this current development proposal

put forward by AustralianSuper has increased from 800 in 2018 to 823, the lot size is smaller and the

height of the dwellings 3 storey’s high. One can only guess at how many more residents this would

add to Dingley Village and how many more vehicles would be added to our roads. Dingley Village

does not have the necessary infrastructure to cater for such a population explosion. Our Primary

schools are having to use portables to cater for the enrolment numbers. Kindergartens have limited

placements available. Dingley Village does not have a Secondary School or College and students

would be forced to find placement in nearby Secondary Schools and/or Colleges which in turn would

force them onto public transport or into cars, thereby increasing substantially the traffic impact on

roads not made for this mass increase.

Then of course there is the public transport or lack thereof in Dingley Village. We do not have a

railway station or train line for residents to commute to and from work or school. The current bus

service although improved still leaves a lot to be desired especially, the frequency of the service.

Another obvious issue is the lack of green areas, open spaces, community parks, gardens and

sporting facilities which will only be highlighted should this rezoning proposal be granted and

developed, thereby increasing the utilization and overcrowding of them. Over the past 18 months

whilst living with numerous snap lockdowns due to COVID-19 we have all become very aware of the

importance of these open spaces, parklands, gardens and sporting facilities and how vital they are to

both our mental, physical health and wellbeing.

2

In summary, as a resident of Dingley Village I have very briefly touched on my reasons for objections

here in this submission. I have read the detailed submission put forward by our Federal Member for

Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus QC MP, and agree with his submission and therefore request that you treat this

submission in the same manner albeit that it does lack the detail, which you will already have

anyway. However, one thing I would like to highlight is:

In the Kingston Planning Scheme golf coursed are protected through specific provisions under

Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone. This is the highest level of protection that can be

provided, and the purpose of the zone is explicit in stating that is seeks to provide for the use

and development of land as a golf course and associated uses.

Where clubs are genuinely unable to be economically viable and should the land owner wish

to cease golf operations on the site, the Council is keen that the land is used for public or

private open space purposes that allow the land to retain is green and open vistas.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that I strongly and vehemently object to the Rezoning of the

Kingswood Golf Course for the purpose of the Developer, AustralianSuper to go ahead with the same

or very similar inappropriate development proposal that was soundly REJECTED by the Dingley

Village Community and Kingston Council in 2018 and is again unanimously REJECTED now 2021.

Yours faithfully

Wendy Pawsey.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1489

Mark Sikand

Hello, I live in Dingley Village and have a young child, and I am afraid that this development brings a huge increase in the population without any benefit to our currently struggling infrastructure. Our local childcare centres are overbooked. My partner had to return to work after 12 months of parental leave and we had to put our childcare application in when our child was only 7 weeks old. Despite that we still did not get the placement and had to wait longer to only get two days a week out of required three. We have huge traffic jams during peak hours. It is almost impossible to move through the suburb during school drop off and pick up time. I am worried about our schools. Our local primary schools adding portables and turning applications down. We do not have a secondary school in Dingley and the our closest secondary school (Parkdale) has been installing a lot of portables. Council has been turning down the idea of building a secondary school in Dingley Village despite schools struggles. Adding to the population without providing relief to the current issues is suicidal to our suburb. Especially with a gross under-provision of parking for residential properties in the proposal. Have electricity and communication demand increase been considered? I am asking the developer to return to the drawing board, and ensure they work with locals. And I am pleading for council to provide solutions to roads, childcare and schools rather than constantly “patching” the issues. A former golf course land is a great opportunity for this.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1490

Marianne Berman

Dingley Village is a unique community. The proposed plans for the Kingswood Golf Club are not suitable for the community. The community infrastructure struggles with the current facilities for residents. Our kindergartens are dated and there is not adequate spaces for local children. Primary Schools in the area are already over populated. There is not a local high school kids have to travel to neighbouring suburbs to attend over populated secondary schools in unsafe public transport where they are crammed in like sardines. An ongoing issue since I attended Parkdale SC finishing VCE in 1994. Teenage kids have very limited sporting facilities. No full court basketball courts, overpopulated football facilities. Our roads in and out of the village will not be adequate with the added housing. Not adequate parking at Woolworths. Difficult to get to see a local doctor. With additional housing I would recommend that Dingley would require their own police station increasing crime..

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

Marianne Berman

In addition to my previous objection. If Kingswood Golf Club is rezoned Residential what will stop other golf clubs from being sold off. Example: Rossdale GC in Chelsea. Taking the green wedge zoned areas away from the surburbs. I feel the State government should be adding facilities to the area to enrich the surburb not making us another overpopulated area with a lack of facilities. Dingley has always been the forgotten surburb in the Kingston council.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1491

Tracey Campbell

I Object to the Kingswood Development for several reasons:- Traffic congestion - we already dont have enough ways to move traffic, this cannot work when adding multiple new residences 3 Storey development. - we do not want 3 storey dwellings in Dingley. Lack of schools - we do not have a high school and our primary schools are at capacity and will not cope with a population influx. Lack of Community consultation. 20% increase in population in a suburb with no capacity to increase road size and access points. Environmental issues due to the decrease in green space.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1492

Glenn Fernandez

I fully support the redevelopment of KGC proposal. KGC had been sited at the Dingley Village for +80 of its 110+ year history. In recent years, the decline of private golf club membership had been significant with a concerning annual -10% of membership numbers. The maturity of the sector and the oversupply of private golf clubs in the local area was not sustainable. We were fortunate to have the opportunity to merge with and relocate to the Peninsula CGC, Frankston. The investment in its transformation to become a world class golf facility to rival the best in Australia continues the legacy of the respective clubs long history and thrive as part of the Melbourne and Victorian golfing landscape. This significant merger has created an opportunity for the proposed development to address, - the supply of (affordable) housing within an established precinct to maximise the investment in road and transport infrastructure vs expanding the urban fringe - provide significant economic boost to local businesses and golf clubs (increase participation) in the area - give access to residents to more park lands and green space which it previously did not actually have access to - resolve local storm drainage and flooding issues; hence improving land value for local residents - create much needed employment for local construction trades - provide significant (stamp duty and other) income to the state government and rates income to local government to improve and expand local services and amenities - benefiting other communities outside of Kingston. This will enable the PKCGC to establish and grow it's community foundation to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable in the Frankston community This proposal is a significant opportunity to not only benefit the residents and businesses of Dingley Village and the Kingston LGA. This has implications city and state wide, economically, environmentally and socially. As we exit this dreaded 100 year pandemic, these are the kinds of project that enables the local community to come together to grow and enjoy its local surrounds and support its local businesses. To this end, I fully support the proposal to redevelop the KGC land.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1493

Ciaran Bolton

The development proposed is not in keeping with the neighborhood character. Three storey dense residential does not align with the rest of the area. The local schools, childcare and healthcare services are already at capacity The area does not have the capacity to deal with the additional parking requirements and traffic. This development should not be considered - it does not align to what the area needs or what the residents want.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1494

Adrian Janai

To whom it may concern i am against this proposal as i think that it is not of benefit to Dingley Village we don't have the roads to handle the extra traffic the housing will create as Centre Dandenong Road is to small towards the rounabout. There needs to be more parkland allocated It will turn our little suburb on its head

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1495

Margaret Konko

I do not agree with your proposal to build a new estate. Dingley is a small family suburb and it should stay like that.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1496

Glenn Pawsey

I write to provide a submission regarding draft planning scheme amendment CK199King and Draft Planning Permit Application - Kingswood Golf Club Redevelopment. First and foremost having held a family residence in the area for almost 30 years it is extremely disappointing that after the previous application was rejected in 2018 that the developer has subsequently found an alternate avenue to reapply for development of the Kingswood Golf Club site. With respect to the proposed plans adding over 800 new lots to a community that already does not have sufficient infrastructure support would be to our detriment and solely benefit the developer. Traffic congestion from all entrances to Dingley Village is already a problem, which is only expected to increase with the development of Hawthorn Football Club, Proposed Swimming Park and Moorabbin Airport expansion in the future. Residents of the area do not want their lives adversely affected by the introduction of such a large scale housing project in terms of increase in traffic, noise, overpopulation or the significant impacts on the environment by reducing such an open space. Furthermore my understanding of the plans is that the developer intends to maximize residential lots on the site with no provisions to improve the community by way of contributing infrastructure, parklands, playground, amenities, facilities etc. Notwithstanding this if this application was to be granted it would set a dangerous precedent whereby developers could have an avenue to develop open green spaces and bypass the provisions that have been in place to protect such important aspects of the state. On this basis I raise objection to the proposed plans and hope that the current community and environment impacts are considered when factoring a decision. Many thanks.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1497

Sally Nicholls

Kingswood Golf Course Dingley Village

https://engage.vic

See attached

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Objections of Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

As a resident residing on Spring Road Dingley Village for over 20 years, I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of Kingswood Golf Course into 823lots submitted by Australian Super. I also objected to the redevelopment in 2018 when the proposed submission by the Super Fund was for only 800 lots. My main objections for the redevelopment back in 2018 & now in 2021 are as follows:

◦ There will be a major increase of traffic on Spring Road & in generally within Dingley Village itself. With an increase of traffic there willbe an increase of road congestion, pollution, noise, and the safety of human and animal life on local roads. ◦ What wildlife and birds currently living within the golf coursewill be endangered by the redevelopment. Possibility of major loss of wildlifewith construction work, tree removal and wildlife probably having to relocate to surrounding residential homes where they are likely to be attacked by domestic pets or wildlife attack pets due to loss of habitat. A lot of the wildlife are protected species. ◦ The increase of property development at Kingswood Golf Course would likely devalue my own property. ◦ Dingley Village would become over populated. An increase of population would increase longer waiting time at supermarkets, pharmacy, etc. Availability of appointments for doctors, dentist, etc will decrease as would parking within the community. Primary schools, Kindergarten & child care already have limited spaces with waiting lists. There is already no secondary school within Dingley Village. There doesn’t appear to be any additional community facilities such as parks/sporting ovals. ◦ With increase of population there is a possibly of sewer overload, decrease in water pressure, slower NBN/internet due increase of usageand stress on power grid causing longer and more outages within Dingley Village.It would appear the the developer has not addressed any of these concerns to benefit the community.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1498

Gal Hamamy

Kingston Golf Course Redevelopment

Generally I would not oppose any new development that can allow people to join a certain community, however this Golf Course redevelopment is nothing but a greedy project that will be disastrous for both the existing residents and the new ones coming in. How can anyone believe that hundreds of cramped units with no support of proper infrastructure like roads, kindergartens and schools can be anything but a burden to the local community. It is enough that we do not have any secondary school and the existing primary is full with portable classrooms. There is really no way this could be reasonable by any means. Looking at the new development around the corner in Keysborough next to Aldi and Bunnings to understand how bad can these developments look and not fair to the new residents paying top dollars for a bunch of crumble cheap houses. If you must approve similar projects, please at least cut the houses in half and support it with the right infrastructure.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Organisation:

Affected property:

1499

Karen Elizabeth Brown

https://engage.vic


Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:




Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Dear Advisory Committee:

I am not opposed to reasonable development. It’s always the right time to think about the future. It’s always the right time to think about leaving a legacy, and a lifestyle, that is sustainable, desirable, and community-oriented. It is never the time to consider development for the gain of a single company and the singular focus of a return on invest. Developers aren’t interested in the existing neighbourhood and the quality of life Dingley Village offers, they want to make money. Increasing the existing Dingley population by 20% in the Kingswood golf course space is shocking, but I know with a refusal of this proposal that represents an overdevelopment of the site and an inappropriate planning outcome, we can then truly work toward a reasonable development proposal.

I write to object to the draft planning scheme amendment (c199King) and planning permit application (the Proposal) submitted by AustralianSuper Residential Property No.1 Ltd (the Proponent) which seeks to amend the Kingston Planning Scheme to enable the redevelopment of the Kingswood Gold Course (Kingswood) for residential purposes.

In order to maximise profit, AustralianSuper has done and will do the absolute least they have to legally without regard for the quality of the current environment, the quality of the community, and the quality of the homes being built. A perfect example of the mindset of this developer for Kingswood golf course is highlighted by the fact that they have applied to reduce their parking obligation. Wanting to reduce an obligation that would directly benefit the community says everything about what will happen should this proposal go forward. Additionally, the very small lot sizes are not in character of Dingley Village, but are more suitable for existing dense communities typically found near or alongside non-residential zones (retail shops) and rail stations. Dingley is already meeting the State Government’s burden of over-population and providing enough housing, so this is only about maximising profit.

I am not opposed to reasonable development. If the land is no longer to be fit for purpose as a golf course, then my first thought is “Absolutely let’s develop the land! We really need a government secondary school to service the local community!” As a mother of two young sons, not yet in primary school, this is the perfect time to plan and create a secondary school in a prime location. At present, there is a dearth around this area, and Dingley Village is the answer for a modern, enviable secondary school in a great location. The existing quality of this suburb with the single or 1-story homes, large yards, footpaths and quiet streets makes it a haven for families who want space to live and grow. Our three primary schools are highly sought after, and an accompanying secondary school will strategically complete the needs of the area, and bodes well for the sustainable future of Dingley Village. With regards to the

closest secondary schools, both are more than 5KM away and driving from my home to either Parkdale Secondary or Keysborough Secondary Schools takes over 25+ minutes in typical rush hour traffic. That’s before parking and drop off. Please see screenshot for existing secondary school locations:

https://www.findmyschool.vic.gov.au/#

In addition to the secondary school, I would love to see a development proposal that has real liveability and keeps with the character of Dingley – 500+ sq metres average lot sizes, yards for kids and pets, general wellbeing, and space to live and work (particular since we are forever changed and challenged by global health and the fact that working from home is a real mode of life now). Since this won’t make as much money for the developers who own the land, some sort of middle ground must be met because we are the ones who live here. Developers should not get to do what they want without consideration of the community they are building into.

A concern on mine with the c199King proposal is the noise, the mess, and the length of the proposed build. I need more information on how a single company gets to develop land for 10 years with the noise, the vehicles, the issues with plumbing, electricity and internet that already exist and are exacerbated from the Mordialloc Bypass works. The stress and anxiety from the constant noise, no relief from it, the traffic congestion and the pollution is never considered with development, but it can be if this proposal is rejected and real consideration for the community is incorporated.

The proposal does not include meaningful landscape design, meaningful home-building design and sustainability, and consideration for neighbours who cannot build and do not have homes higher than 6-7 metres height, while AustralianSuper gets to magically build up to 11 metres! The proposal of 3-stories is misleading in that that does not include the ground floor, so it looks like 4-storey houses are allowed if you have enough money. This proposal gives no consideration for the natural surrounds such as the canopy of the trees and the extensive vegetation, not to mentions to fauna.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding the contemplation of water sensitive urban design and the impact of the direction, volume and velocity of overland water flows. It does feel like, not matter how much knowledge we have in sustainable development there are endless stories in the news about developers cutting corners, cutting costs, and having no oversight particularly with things you can’t see, such as proper drainage.

I have just a few questions that have not been addressed in the proposal:

1. What or who will be the oversight to ensure the developers meet all of their obligations?

2. Will Emergency Service vehicles, such as fire trucks, be able to easily and safely manage their way around the new development and the small streets? There will certainly be an increase if fire risk with so many people – a 20% increase on the current Dingle Village population.

2. Do the owners of the land have to manage any ongoing or flooding issues caused by development during and after development?

3. If my home, which is one house away from the golf course, is affected by development, i.e. noise disturbances, water run-off, water damage, flood water runoff, parking issues, traffic issues, etc should I call them to fix/address it or the council?

4. When in two, three, four, five, six years into the build, is there going to be any recourse for the stress and anxiety that us homeowners who live right next to the gold course will experience?

Please rest assured that the development proposal submitted by Australian Super for the development of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village is proposed as is to ensure maximum profits for themselves, not to create a sustainable future for the community of Dingley Village. The developers will come and go, but the Dingley Village community will be here for generations to come.

The rhetoric from AustralianSuper is just lip service, as the proposal fails the community they are building into. To submit a proposal that has more housing and less trees that the first proposal is a tactic to try and “compromise” by reverting to their original plan. We will have none of it, and will continue to fight for the quality of our community. We have a chance to really develop this space for the next generation. As a mother to two young boys, I want to fight to get this development right for the future that we want, and one that we need and actually like, not the ones that will make the most money for a single company and damage the future of the community forever.

Thank you,

Karen E Brown

Organisation:

Affected property:

1500

Jason K-Jean

Objection to Development of Kingswood Golf Course Hi there, I am a resident of Dingley Village and I am registering my objection to the inappropriate development of the Kingswood Golf Course due to the below reasons. The merger that previously took place between Kingswood and Peninsula Golf Clubs allegedly did not comply with the Kingswood Golf Course Constitution. The only reason the High Court did not set aside the merger was due to the Statute of limitations. Kingswood members who opposed the merger were allegedly subject to intimidation and harassment. If the development goes ahead this behaviour will be rewarded. It is not a necessity that the golf course be developed for housing. The former Olinda Golf Course provides a template of what can be achieved when a golf course is no longer functioning as a golf course. It has a well-designed children’s playground and open space for the community. This can also be achieved at Kingswood. We need to need to be developing more open spaces not reducing them. The developers have not provided any additional community facilities. The proposed development will place extraordinary stress on the medical centre. It will be difficult for Dingley residents to obtain an appointment due to the population explosion. There is only 1 supermarket/chemist in Dingley, and it will be difficult to obtain a car park and access if the development goes ahead. The 2 Government Primary schools will be oversubscribed, and they are already at capacity. There is no high school in the area. Dingley is a public transport black spot. There is no easy access to a train and/or tram. This will lead to the local roads being chocked with traffic. It is no secret that we are currently in a climate change emergency. The inappropriate development with masses of concrete and steel with little protection by vegetation will contribute to an urban heat island effect. The urban heat island exacerbates heat stress, particularly for vulnerable people such as the elderly, the very young, and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Dingley has a large co-hort of residents in the afore mentioned categories. Melbourne City Council has an Urban Forest program in a bid to counter climate change, save water and improve the city’s biodiversity using trees. We should be following this program and not destroying the existing open space. The Developers purchased the land in the full knowledge that it was not zoned residential. Should they be rewarded for this? On the proposed development website, the Developers state, ‘Imagine a green oasis in the heart of Dingley Village’ We don’t need to imagine it is already existing in the form of the former Kingswood Golf Course. This is Dingley Village Central Park This is an opportunity to develop Kingswood into Dingley’s Central Park. Thanks Jason

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Documents

Submission Cover Sheets