Submission Cover Sheet 401

Organisation:

Affected property:

401

Rizwan Sheikh Nasir

It is beyond belief why this eco & economic disaster is being discussed. The proposal does not cater to the environmental devastation and plight of the local residents. To even consider a proposal that has been very strongly resented by the DV, simply based on a wrong investment decision is preposterous. To go over the head of the local council is a bad political move ‐that will have adverse political repercussions for those who now continue on this path. Please stop this spin on how good it will be when the necessary infrastructure to support this development has not been placed. That should be a priority so we can make progress.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

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

Submission Cover Sheet

Organisation:

Affected property:

402

Barry Lowe

This development proposal should be rejected because: roads and other infrastructure around the proposed development site are critically inadequate to cope with the increased population this proposal will generate; the proposal, with its inclusion of medium‐density housing, will significantly impact the amenity and character of Dingley, a suburb with a heritage and identity closely tied to its leafy, low‐density housing and gardens; the proposal will permanently deprive Melbourne of a valuable natural, open‐space asset; other options for this site should be fully investigated ‐ including those that generate a clear community benefit ‐ before the easy option of handing it over to property developers is considered.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

403

Bryan James Waters

https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/50307

see attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/50308

Attachment 3:



Dingley Redevelopment 15th July 2021

Peninsula Kingswood Country Club – Member No 01160

Submission in Support of application for redevelopment of former Kingswood Site

I was a member of Kingswood Golf Club for five years prior to transferring to Peninsula in 2001.

I am firmly in support of the proposed redevelopment for the following reasons :-

The redevelopment of two golf courses at Skye Rd , Frankston has been a huge benefit to both

members of former Kingswood Golf Club and Peninsula Golf Club , making possible to take

advantage of world class facilities . The former Kingswood members have been able to chose to

continue their membership at new facilities close by in Skye Rd , Frankston or join nearby private

golf clubs in the City of Kingston , without having to join waiting lists .

The proposed housing development on the former golf club site will have enormous economic

advantages to the residents of Dingley . The new development will attract many new businesses ,

shops , new and modern infrastructure and transport facilities .

The new development will create many new recreational areas for all residents of the Dingley

community, not previously available when the course was restricted to approximately 700 private

members.

Thank you for the opportunity to support this great new development

Bryan J Waters

Malvern

Vic 3144

Organisation:

Affected property:

404

Phillip Mark Whalen

I should disclose that I am a member of Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club and following the merger of the 2 clubs, I have often played on the Kingswood Golf course. Having walked the entire area and experienced and enjoyed the canal aspect and the many mature trees and vegetation and having reviewed the proposed redevelopment documents, I consider the proposed development is sensitive to the existing features and will provide much needed additional housing focussed on sustainable and environmentally friendly practices. Furthermore, the additional drainage facilities will provide much needed retardation to reduce current flooding impacts experienced in the region. The proposed development will enhance the existing Dingley Village infrastructure and provides mitigation of potential traffic impacts in the region. Importantly the proposed range of housing styles and the density profiles will provide a strong urban consolidation response in an outer middle ring suburb, providing some affordable housing product and availing future occupants the opportunity to enjoy the benefits currently found within the community. I consider redevelopments of this nature, sensitively undertaken provide both local economic and social benefits and, importantly, help to slow the spread of development at the urban fringe. I strongly support this redevelopment

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

405

Jennifer Hof

Having lived in Dingley Village for 27years and backing onto the former Kingswood Golf Course, I STRONGLY OBJECT to the plans submitted for redevelopment. ‐ Wildlife within the site, LOST ‐ Decimation of flora and fauna, years old, LOST ‐ Flooding of existing boundary housing. ‐ Part of the Kingston Council green wedge will be Lost forever Dingley Village Infrastructure ‐ CANNOT support the increase in population or traffic. Travel in and out of Dingley for secondary schooling and work during peak times, even with the completion of the freeway links, Spring Road/Centre Dandenong Road and Howard Road will be used as “shortcuts” during peak times. ‐ CANNOT support the enormous increase to the existing shopping strip which currently, not only services the local residents, but the surrounding industrial area. With the increase, locals will tend to shop at the larger retail complexes ie: Thrift Park, Parkmore and Westfield. ‐ Public Transport CANNOT AND WILL NOT COPE with the exponential population increase. The only public transport in and out of Dingley Village are buses. During peak times children travelling to and from school are being left at bus stops due to buses being full. ‐Primary Education facilities within Dingley CANNOT support the population increase. Families moving into the proposed development will be looking to local education. Dingley currently has 2 state and 1 private primary local schooling facilities. It is inevitable primary aged children will have to be schooled outside of the Dingley, again adding to traffic congestion. ‐ Public Secondary Education facilities, THERE ARE NONE. Please note, I have not provided an argument on this point, it is a statement. Again, THERE ARE NONE. Houses and land abutting the former Kingswood site will drop. These homes were purchased at premium prices because of their outlook (through cyclone fencing) to the previously manicured fairways, greens, flora and fauna. Wildlife was also a major bonus. In conclusion, my husband and I lived in Dingley for 27years. Our 2 children attended Marcus Rd Kindergarten and St Marks Primary School. Our children would have attended Secondary school within Dingley Village had one been available. I worked in a Cafe in the shopping strip. At the time, local mums would drop their children at school and walk to meet up for a coffee to chat adding to the Dingley Village atmosphere. Dingley is a Village ‐ residents voted to change the name from Dingley to Dingley Village years ago and it must remain a Village. The proposed development will create dangerous traffic, dust and noise during construction. It is my opinion the Developers have not considered the needs of the community that currently reside in Dingley Village or those that would move into the proposed development. I ADAMANTLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

406

Suellen Evans

I support this submission because the development of this land for housing would be beneficial to the community. As the mother of young adults that are trying to enter the housing market there a few opportunities in this area for them. They work in Dandenong and Moorabbin and Dingley would be a perfect place for them. This development has a variety of housing types with shared outdoor spaces in an area with already well established public transport, close to major roads and freeways, excellent schools and shops. It gives residents and the general public the opportunity to utilise an area that was only available to golf club members. I also believe that the land will become an eyesore and derelict if left un developed which may de value the homes already in the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

407

Brett McEwing

I am a longtime member of the Peninsula Kingswood country Country club and really appreciate the massive changes the merger between Kingswood and Peninsula have been able to make to the formation of 2 old and historic institutions,the product producing one of Australia’s top golf courses up there on world standards,membership has surged to the point where we now have a long waiting list ,whilst most golf clubs have dwindling membership as did ours in both cases prior to merger,the Dingley land redevelopment will be a huge win/win for both the community and the world of golf.thank you for giving the opportunity to me for comment,Brett McEwing.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

408

Brandon Bloos


Submission is uploaded below

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



15/07/2021

Objection to Proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment

Dear Golf Course Redevelopment Standing Advisory Committee

I would like to object to the to the proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment for a number of

reasons. I spent the best part of 25 years living in Dingley, and still reside here. With this in mind I

have a great understanding of why this development should not go ahead.

Firstly, I strongly object based upon the destruction of the environment. The cutting down of

hundreds of mature tress, some as old as 100 years, and replacing them with 6 month old saplings is

a travesty. The cutting down of these trees will not only be our lose, but the local animals that use

these trees for homes and a food source. The poorly thought-out and implemented landscaping will

not give a place for these animals, we will also loose the shade and the wonder of 100 year old trees.

Secondly, the lack of parking provided in this new development, along with the skinny roads through

the development will leave people no option but to park on the nature strip. This is not only ugly but

illegal. If someone does want to make use of the small and lacking parklands, where do they park?

How far will a family need to push a pram to visit a park? This shows a clear lack of interest in

adding to the community or thinking of the families they want to buy and move into these units.

Thirdly, I oppose the development based upon the lacking infrastructure currently in place to

support the 800 additional houses and expected 20% increase in population. I currently live in

, I have felt the effects of both Mordialloc freeway and Howard Road works. Peak hour

mornings it can take me 15 minutes to get through the roundabout and cross Boundary road. I worry

that road works for this development will continue these problems for years, and once the

development is finished it will become the new normal. This along with no additional sporting

facilities, schools or kindergartens is

concerning with those in our community already pushed to their limits.

Thank you for considering my objections.

Brandon Blood

Organisation:

Affected property:

409

Francis J Lynch

I am in favour of the Proposal. The redevelopment of the former Kingswood Golf Course for residential purposes will benefit our Community by providing additional housing in a quality environment at a time when there is a shortage of housing stock (which is adding to the unaffordability of housing in general). I agree with 1. The draft planning scheme amendment (c199King) which seeks to amend the Kingston Planning Scheme by rezoning the land to General Residential Zone Schedule 2 to enable residential development and to manage development in accordance with the draft ‘Former Kingswood Golf Course Development Plan’; and 2. The draft planning permit application for the staged subdivision of land (823 lots), construction of dwellings on each lot less than 300 square metres, removal of native vegetation, removal of vegetation, etc. I am impressed with the Proposal and I have inspected the draft combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application, and the draft Development Plan. This is an outstanding proposal which will provide great Community benefit and I applaud the proponents for their endeavour.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

410

John Webb

I support the proposal to develop the old Kingswood Golf Club site. I am in my early 80s and currently live in a 2 story townhouse. I foresee I will be required to move in the next few years because of the stairs. I will then be looking for suitable modern accommodation close to my current address and family who live in Hampton. I see the proposed new village at Dingley being ideal.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

411

Joy Maree Webb

I see the Proposed Dingley site as a perfect place for me to retire to as I get older and my needs are greater , closer to my daughter and it would provide all the necessary facilities for my advancing years

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

412

David John Fox

It is my opinion that a development as proposed would be warmly welcomed by the residents in the Dingley area and beyond . In the past I have had experience with some of the other areas of open parklands within the Kingston municipality area which are maintained regularly for the benefit of residents. Until this time this space has only been available for a privileged few people most of whom do not reside locally. In addition the extra housing may provide more opportunities for new services to open within the small Dingley shopping strip

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

413

Giuseppe Biviano

Giuseppe and Giulia Biviano and Family

We strongly object to subdivide the Kingswood Golf Course into approximately 823 lots for the construction of high density housing (3 storey high). We are told that some of the lots are only 150msq. This is not housing, this is a ghetto for a better word. We are told that the population of Dingley Village will increase by 20% if this project will be approved. We, the residents have no evidence that there will be an increase in infrastructure such as Schools, sports facilities, play grounds, open space and other essential services. The increase in population will increase traffic congestion in and out of Dingley Village. We understand that the project has reduced parking provisions. As the average is over two cars per family there will be 2000 more cars to be parked in the area projected. Dingley Village is a unique suburb and the construction of high density dwellings (homes) in the heart of the town, will destroy it's unique character and streetscape.. The owners/developers have decided not to consult with the residence since they bought the golf Course in‐spite many approaches made by DVCA (Dingley Village Community Association Inc) and the Save Kingswood Group Inc. We have not seen in writing what trees will be loped and how many will be preserved. If this project will be approved there will be an enormous increase of hard surface which will not absorb rain water. Have plans been made to prevent flooding? We find many unanswered questions and an uncooperative developer who we feel that cannot be trusted. Their aim seems to be "Build, Take the Money and Bolt". WE STRONGLY OBJECT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGSWOOD GOLF COURSE

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

414

George Pappas AO

I am in support of the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley. I am a member of the Peninsula Kingswood Golf Club so I have a vested interest in the proposed development going ahead. However, my support is also based on my experience as a past board member and past Chairman of the Committee for Melbourne. In that role I was concerned that future developments in Melbourne’s suburbs allow for both our increasing population and the maintenance and enhancement of Melbourne’s liveability. This redevelopment does just that. It has an appropriate balance of housing, green spaces and public amenity. It is exactly the kind of development that makes Melbourne more livable. The contrast between this development and the vast tracts of treeless housing estates being built in Melbourne’s southeast corridor is stark indeed. This redevelopment of the Kingswood golf course should become a model for future housing expansions in our suburbs. And of course a model for other golf courses that may close in the future. I am making this submission in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any organisation. George Pappas, AO.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

415

Walter Woods

My objections include no net benefit for Dingley Village. .The Kingswood Board nor the developer have ever consulted residents in a manner that resulted in our ideas being properly adopted. Increased traffic. Thousands of birds and wildlife lost. Not enough Maternal Health places Kinders already full primary schools full, no secondary schools. Health services overloaded. Loss of an air craft safety and noise buffer. lack of sporting facilities now!before we have 2200+extra residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

416

William Beckwith

Community growth is usually most positive with quality development planning as presented. Positive progress for the people should be the main goal….. This plan clearly can kick multiple goals

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

417

Stephen Mammone

Dingley Village does not currently have the infrastructure to support current residents let alone this development. The development proposal would be very detrimental to the Village and no consideration has been made for this.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

418

Stewart Jinkins

I object to the development for a number of reasons. Firstly my property at court is subject to constant flooding caused by the storm water system

bordering the golf course can not handle the volume of water. If the development goes ahead, the continual flooding of my property will be increased. There are no plans to improve the situation and storm water will have to be handled within the confines of the development. My property in will be subject to a major increase in traffic and making the area more dangerous for the current residence, as the streets are not designed for the increase in the volume of traffic . Also the increase in population, will cause a change to the feel of the suburb and over load all the current facilities. This development provides no benefit to the current residence of Dingle, but will subject all of them to the negative effects of the increase in population. The loss of the green space will reduce the village nature of Dingley and deprive the local wild life of a place to live and breed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

419

John Giuliano

NOT IN VILLAGE CHARACTER Having such high density development would have a direct affect to those who live their lives in Dingley Village. The only benefit goes to the developer. The developer just wants to take the money and run leaving those with the aftermath to deal with. The representatives from Australian Super didn't give all the answers to the questions put to them. The so called experts on the panel weren't with the knowledge to answer many questions forwarded to them. This shows that they were there to give a perception of being helpful but just fulfilling their obligations. Australian Super gave me no confidence that the needs of Dingley Village would be taken into account. THIS PROJECT IS OF NO POSSITIVE BENIFIT TO DINGLEY VILLAGE. Dingley Village is a very close community that enjoys the peace of the area, a high density estate obstructs this. I have owned and lived in Dingley Village for 26 years and at the of 56, intend to live in my suburb for another 30 years. Having my beautiful suburb mutilated by high density housing is unfair and I will be one of ones left to deal with the aftermath after Australian Super takes it's cash and runs. Most residents object to this proposal and not all are able to voice their opinions.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

420

Diana russo

As a resident of the city of Kingston I support the proposed development. It has sensitively addressed the retention of trees and the creation of open space and lakes. This proposal is a landmark development for the city of Kingston and will bring benefits to the whole community.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

421

Victoria Hornidge

My Grandparents owned and subdivided the court I live in. One of the largest and best courts in Dingley. Part of their wishes was that facades were to remain maintained and land was not to be sub‐divided. My dad grew up in a small weatherboard on Centre Dandenong road (recently demolished) and attended Dingley Primary school. They then moved to the family home in when it was market garden, subdivided it to the court it is today and eventually he purchased the house from his parents and raised me and my siblings through the 90s. We attended Dingley Primary school also and I grew up to have children of my own ‐ loving the area so much, I purchased the house next door and raised my children also in and they too attended Dingley Primary school and have since recently graduated from local high schools Parkdale and Mentone Girls. Three generations through the local primary school, deep seeded roots, long loving memories and a feeling of home, safety, community and family is the very definition on Dingley to me. There are many opportunities that the golf course land can provide, but a development even close to what is proposed will absolutely destroy everything that makes Dingley the place it is today. We don’t have the roads, schools, parking, shops, space or services to cope with such an influx of cars and people. Not to mention, it will literally ruin our community ‘village’ where you are almost guaranteed to bump into someone you know even when just ducking out to Bakers for a loaf of bread and have a chat. Dingley is home to so so many with similar stories to me, many of my friends all went to schools together and our kids have all gone to schools together. To have a local suburban area so close, small and safe, most of us don’t want to leave and the generations that remain are testament to this. The thought of this development makes me feel so scared and helpless, we have just invested loads into expanding our home to suit our growing family and I have no idea what we will do if it goes ahead. I don’t want to sit in traffic for ages just to get to work at Clayton, I don’t want to worry about getting car parks to go my groceries or netball‐ it’s bad enough as it is. Local footy training time is tough on the ground now‐ where will we put extra ovals‐ it’s taken years to get Chadwick up to maintain the status quo, do we need to spread out again to a third ground? I hate the thought of all the extra rubbish, traffic, crime, late night drag races and everything that comes with more people in small spaces where we don’t have public transportation or entertainment complexes to keep people occupied. This development will be the absolute death of what has been an amazing village for generations, I beg you to please not let it go ahead. It could have a high school, a country club, some houses that are Normal size blocks, but what is proposed is just

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



not right for anyone past, present or the community at large. Sincerely, Vicki


Organisation:

Affected property:

422

Chris Latimer

I am writing this letter in support of the proposed use of kingswood golf course at dingley. I was a member of Kingswood golf club before the merger with peninsula country golf club. This merger has created a world class golfing facility that I can head been a great addition to the Frankston area with the course now being ranked in the top five in Australia. It is a sought after club with a strong membership base and a long waiting list that will only increase with time. This merger has also created the ability for the previous land in dingley to be repurposed to help the dingley and surrounding region and enable more housing sorely needed closer in to the city. Additionally, the addition of parkland for families I believe will be a great asset for the region that should also have the added benefit of increasing land /house values in the region in the long term. I anticipate many new jobs will be created in order to develop the region and I understand the proposed wetland area will aid in flood prevention. I hope that the proposed plan for development of the old kingswood golf course is approved as I believe it will be a great development for the region.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

423

Stuart Webb

I fully support the proposed redevelopment of the old Kingswood Golf Club site. The vast majority of Dingley residents had no access to the course for recreation activities and walking as most Dingley residents would not pay for a golf or social membership at the private Kingswood golf course. The new development provides access to land that most Dingley residents had no access to and it provides:‐ ‐ More than 14 hectares of new public open space ‐ More than 6km of linear reserves ‐When complete, over 3500 trees will be in place on site, 10% more than are currently, with protection for hundreds of significant trees. ‐ Large new lakes and wetlands will provide improved flood retardation, solving a problem that affects the entire Dingley community. I would make use of the recreational areas for walks, as it is not far from my home.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

424

Sarah Cochrane

I object to the proposal to built apartments on the kingswood golf course. 100sqm what a joke. The amount of people your intending to house there is crazy all for money. Dingley has no train station, not big enough primary schools, no high schools, no shopping centres and definitely no roads to cope with the amount of traffic. All for a dollar you should be ashamed with yourselves. Put houses 500ms block houses or something for the community but not tiny apartments to make the biggest dollar. Think of the community rather than your pockets please

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

425

Danielle Georganakis

Against current proposal Too many houses per block Congested roads Destroy wildlife birds in dingley Not enough infrastructure to support growth Roads in and out can’t cope with traffic influx Development dose not suit our village lifestyle and age group Not enough public transport to accommodate movement of people We need a school to accomodate children in area high school More parks and garden to support local lifestyle

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

426

Gareth Phillips

I am writing in support of the application. The basis for my support is the positive outcomes that have been created at Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club as a result of the merger. The club has experience a growth in members following the great new world class facilities. There is now long‐term financial sustainability of the club.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

427

Pat Galvin

I object to the proposed development. My reasons for this objection, as a current Dingley Village resident of over 40 years include that such a proposed change is not in the character of the village and will effect community lifestyle. The developers have not consulted residents for concerns, and are requesting a change to planning that directly affect those who live here. All for there own profit at the expense of residents. The proposal offers no gains to the existing local community culture, serious effects to wildlife, minimal (if any) shared community infrastructure and amenities, and the reduction of existing zoning structures that residents appreciate and expect to remain.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

428

Bandula Kendaragama

The proposed development will not compatible with the quiet lifestyle in dingley Village. It is understood that there will be 823 lots. Therefore, on average, over 1600 vehicles will be added to the road system. Main roads in Dingley Village is over crowded. For example, Tootal Road is very busy. With the planned Sporting Fields (off Tootal road) and Water Sports Complx at the corner of Old Dandenong Road and Boundary Road, the Dingley Village roads system will be over crowded. Therefore, I object for the proposed development site.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

429

Peter Lewis

I support this submission for numerous reasons.I have been a Member of the Kingswood Golf Club in Dingley (now merged to be the Peninsula Kingswood Country Golf Club) for some 43 years and it broke my heart to understand that our unique club was in unavoidable danger of failing due to falling membership.The Club has been run well financially for over 100 years but like many clubs has tried to maintain positive membership growth but because of rising costs and economies of scale the decision to merge was made by a substantial majority of Members.The benefits of the sale to existing and potential members of PKCGC are substantial.The creation of the Peninsula Kingswood Community Foundation will benefit the disadvantaged people in the area.The "new" golf courses have and will attract thousands of interstate and overseas golfing visitors to the new world class PKCGC. Dingley residents will have access to some 14 hectares of open space including picnic and recreational areas.These spaces were unavailable to them with Kingswood being a Members only golf Club.This adds to the existing substantial areas of wetlands and open spaces (eg Braeside Park,Spring Park Golf course and areas previously waste disposal areas ‐tips‐ now converted to acres of grasslands) The sale of the Dingley site has meant the survival of two significant and historic Australian Golf Clubs. This merger should be the template for many other Australia wide, and in particular Victoria wide, golf clubs.New affordable, well planned housing developments within a space starved and infrastructure stressed metropolis must be the way forward. This development proposal must be given the green light and the benefits both now and into the future for the sustainability of both the PKCGC and the Dingley area are obvious.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

430

Ron Polistena

I object to this application as it is completely out of character for a small suburb such as Dingley Village. I am in Dingley Village all the time visiting friends. It is not on a major multi lane highway with train stations, trams, but a little village with one main road, small shops and local people only. It is hard for pedestrians to cross the roads now. If the buses are increased they will even more clog up the roads that are very busy morning and night and introduce more traffic lights close to an existing set not where they are needed for safety. The roundabout at one end is very dangerous. There is no new infrastructure offered and I see no benefit for the people that live there now. I am against this over development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

431

Lea Anne Cochrane

My current residential address no longer resides in Dingley Village but I have a long standing family history and only in recent years moved from the area. My parents and sister's family still reside in Dingley, my children's father lives in Dingley and my children attend the local schools and sporting facilities. It has been really difficult to see the strain on the community to accommodate for the increasing demand on general supplies, education facilities and social outlets for the growing numbers of local residences. My son attends Dingley Primary School and daughter Parkdale Secondary College, where land continues to be reduced to accommodate for the children. Dingley Village has no capacity to take on the population increase from this development. It includes NO BENEFIT to Dingley Village. How can such a development include NO FACILITIES, carelessly demolishing substantial trees and ignoring environmental needs. Its narrowminded development screams financial benefit only with no display for humanity or consideration for the damage this will create to the culture of the 'village'.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

432

Maxine Polistena

I see this proposed development as very bad for Dingley Village. Climate matters are talked about all the time by governments and the sad loss of many of our trees to generate oxygen. This horrible proposal cuts down over 20,000 indigenous mature trees plus many others. Trees cool the area, filters the air and generates oxygen. Flooding in this area is reduced by trees. Thousands of birdlife and wildlife will be killed and their homes demolished. The developers may have a plan but many birds and animals live and move in a bigger area and will not be included and protected. I see the overall village character changing with no benefit for the existing residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

433

Gareth Shergold

To many dwellings in one place. We don't need 3 storey houses. Where will the wildlife live that are there at the moment. There is no plan to help roads coup with traffic. No infrastructure I.e upgrading roads new schools community based facilities. Just no no no. Way to many dewlings in one area with no Infrastructure like schools better roads to coop with the high demand. And the wildlife will have move. And where do they go

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

434

Joseph Darmenia

Property values will drop.....not sufficient infrastructure to support an addional 20 % influx of residents......risk of flooding.......lack of health, sporting and schools for the increase of residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

435

Gillian Emond

This is a beautiful piece of land. I spent many many hours playing golf on the this course. I was a member there for many years. The proposal allows large amounts of land to be used for public access. In the current situation nobody benefits. The development will provide lots of jobs and good options for family housing. Many of the trees will be saved and the should be enjoyed and appreciated by the community ‐ this submission would allow that to occur. I support this submission whole heartedly.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

436

Sally Eastoe

Peninsula Kingswood

1. Housing opportunites located 40 minutes drive from Melbourne CBD 2. Creation of new jobs 3. Access to public transport 4. Shopping centres close by 5. Urban wetlands and amenitites which would enhance the locality 6. Walking and cycling paths for all members of the community 7. New plantings of trees and vegetation to enhance the development 8. Established schools and kindergartens nearby 9. Affordable housing 10. Vast open spaces and community gardens

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

437

Neil Hurrey


See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



There is no benefit in a twenty percent increase in our Village population. The infrastructure is not

adequate for this increase, and will mean a reduction in services for the current residents, for

example:

• Sporting ovals

• Roads

• Maternal & Child Health

• Health services

• Childcare

• Pre-school

• Primary schools

• No existing secondary school

• Shopping

• No train station

The size of the proposed allotments, many less than 300 sq metres, is not in keeping with the

character of Dingley Village (a large amount currently being 550 – 650 sq metres). Additionally, the

proposed parking for this number of residences is grossly inadequate – 823 allotments, each with

likely at least 2 cars (quite possibly more) per household, will require parking for more than 1600

cars. There exists a $120 fine for parking on nature strips in Dingley, so where will these cars be

parked, given the proposed narrow streets in the development.

The current plan indicates loss of the only significant treed open space in Dingley Village. Given the

facts on climate change and the global environmental concerns with clearing land area, this is an

extremely poor proposal.

Meaningful community consultation and input into the development plan has been grossly

inadequate. Dingley already has other proposals in place (Hawthorn Football Club and Aqua Park) –

the existing community are entitled to a say on how all of this will integrate into the locality that we

bought into.

As mentioned above, schooling in Dingley Village is already inadequate, and there is no current

proposal for this to change. You cannot add another 823 households, when there is no secondary

school in the suburb. Secondary schools in the surrounding areas do not have enough spare spaces

for the amount of children who would require it. So where would they be schooled, and how would

they travel there?

The Golf course presently has an aquifer as a flood safety net, which the developers want to remove

and replace with paved roads and housing, which reduces the areas ability to deal with flood events.

Given that Dingley has no train station within walking distance, the proposal will require the 20%

increase in residents to be either using the inadequate existing roads (all of which are single lane to

get in and out of Dingley), or use the bus network, which would need to increase its services. This

would add a further burden to the roads. Centre Dandenong Road, which will be the main

thoroughfare, already banks up at peak hour times, and these traffic delays would be hugely

magnified by the amount of extra cars that would be travelling in and out of Dingley each day.

The development gives no benefit to the residents of Dingley Village, who purchased homes in an

area with a small community feel. The developers have shown no interest in consulting with the

residents, nor to allay their fears, probably because the issues are too large to deal with. The easy

part is to redevelop a huge green site into 823 housing boxes, but the social, environmental and

health aspects that make this a home for all have not been addressed. A smaller, more exclusive

development of, say, 300 allotments would be more beneficial. This could be made up of a small

percentage of small lots to satisfy the affordable housing requirement, and the rest would be in

keeping with the style of Dingley Village, and prevent the over-population on the roads and other

infrastructure.

Neil Hurrey

Organisation:

Affected property:

438

Helen Evans‐Lemmo

Ego Pharmaceuticals


I would like to register my objection to this submission ‐ see attached letter to the Minister.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



State Planning Services,

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Date: 16th July 2021

Proposed Kingwood Golf Course Redevelopment OBJECTION Dear Minister, Please note the following objections for this massive, speculative golf course redevelopment within the established community of Dingley Village and which site development has already been rejected by the residents of Dingley and its surroundings and the city of Kingston and Victoria. 1. Massing/Impact on Neighbourhood

The physical size and height of this proposed development is neither sympathetic nor in keeping with its surroundings and will have a detrimental impact on the area. The overbearing development is not sympathetic to neighboring properties and resemble a developments found in an inner city rather than those of a village.

2. Noise Pollution:

a. The massive increase in residential properties to the existing area will affect

the right of enjoyment to "peace and quiet" of those residents nearby. There

is limited road access to this development through Dingley Village and the a

development this size will significantly increase the noise and traffic pollution

from the number of residents this development will attract.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says "a person has a right to enjoyment of

all their possessions which includes their home and other land".

b. Large numbers of residents returning late at night/early morning often create

noise which is amplified at night time. Currently Dingley Village has a quiet

peaceful atmosphere, mostly because of its large green spaces such as

Kingswood golf course. The destruction of these open spaces is unacceptable

and will affect physical and physiological wellbeing of current residents.

3. Light Pollution:

With any development of this size, light pollution will be a common negative factor.

To facilitate the requirements of the number of dwellings, lights will be a

predominant feature will which will detrimentally affect the inhabitants of

surrounding properties. It has been shown in other high density developments

communal areas are often lit 24 hours a day. With the proposed number of dwellings

potentially all with lights on during certain periods, this will create intolerable light

pollution and will have both a physical and physiological impact on those exposed

to it and who will have no control over limiting its effectcs.

4. Imbalance of Population

There is already an influx of high density development in surrounding areas, which has escalated in growth over recent years. This type of high density development is targeted often at young families, schools, both primary and secondary in the area are at full capacity with no plans in place for additional schools within the area. Students have to travel to school via public or private transport, which is already overcrowded. Dingley Village was not planned to hold a residential complex of this size, the land was never allocated to be used for housing and the surrounding infrastructure reflects and supports this fact.

5. Highways/Parking and Vehicle Displacement

This development will provide little to no car parking. The naive belief that bicycles, public transport and a green policy will replace residents bringing multiple cars is, at best laughable and at worst questions the common sense of those who believe this. This is not a large community where transport is continually available for commuters to travel long distances. A car is required if you wish to go anywhere. It is conceivable that 90% of dwellings will bring multiple cars, as shown in developments in neighboring communities such as Keysbourough where dwellings with single car allocations regularly house 3 or more cars. There are already major road and parking issues around this area and one can only foresee that parking will become a "free for all" causing hostility between car owners.

6. Destruction of Green Space

All through Victoria there is rampant destruction of green habitat. The planned public spaces and ‘green space’ allocated by this proposed development is laughable. Much of the allocation is unusable lake, not the promised open spaces and community park space. The loss of native trees, the destruction of habitat and the impact to established wetland bird breeding sites is a shameful reflection of how the State of Victoria is allowing corporate greed to destroy our Environment and negatively impact the future of our children.

Yours sincerely

Organisation:

Affected property:

439

Tim Straford

I would like to formally support the proposal of the development of the old Kingswood Golf Club land The merger of the two clubs Kingswood and Peninsula has been a massive positive for both members with world class facilities and internationally rated courses .This has enhanced Victoria/Mornington Peninsula 's standing as an international golfing destination. The Kingswood land proposal I believe is a environmentally responsible development which will contribute to a long term benefit for the community both in investment in parkland and jobs created. It is a win/win for both parties .

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

440

Geoffrey Joseph Baker


I am a enthusiastic supporter of the spacious redevelopment of Kingswood Golf land ‐‐it will provide a great improvement for the area and those who dwell there and the whole community Yours Sincerely Geoffrey Baker

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

441

Lucas Papacostas

The development is totally inappropriate for Dingley. Significant increases to housing density and traffic volumes would be a disaster when considering Dingley's existing infrastructure and capacity. Environmental damage will not be able to be reversed and this development is out of sync with previous green wedge improvements. Dingley has no high school and existing primary schools will not cope with additional children. The new plan offers nothing in terms of tangible difference to the plan that was rejected by the Dingley community and Kingston Council. As such it should be rejected.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

442

Robert William Janiszewski

I wish to support the application of the rezoning of the former Kingswood Golf Course. As Melbourne's population moves towards the forecast 8 million people we as a community must make every effort to provide housing that stops growth in green corridors. The housing types should reflect the changing nature of households, that is smaller households. The proposal offers an excellent example of how to redevelop an underutilised asset for broader community benefit.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

443

Ian Moran

1. The proposal will destroy a large area of currently vegetated land that serves the community by providing refuge for wildlife (both flora and fauna). Any proposal should retain large vegetated areas, for local wildlife and provide an oasis for migrating wildlife. 2. The proposal provides for very concentrated dwelling distribution, that is totally out of character with the current surrounding, established village. Any proposal should be restricted to a subdivision which matches the surrounding area, that is an average of 600 square metres per house block. 3. Establishment of five adjacent 105 square metre dwellings on the area of one existing house division, is akin to putting a five room motel on an existing single house block and should be disallowed in this village setting. Any proposal should be restricted to a subdivision which matches the surrounding area, that is an average of 600 square metres per house block. 4. Establishment of two adjacent 300 square metre dwellings on the area of one existing house division, is similar to providing for 'granny flat' dwelling at the rear of an existing single house block and in most suburban areas, this is restricted to a much lower number than is evident in the current proposal. Any proposal should be restricted to a subdivision which matches the surrounding area, that is an average of 600 square metres per house block. 5. The proposal will increase population by a very significant number, imposing movement clashes and contention for use of existing shared resources. Peak hour traffic on the existing roads are already in excess of an acceptable level. Shops and schools and car parks and health services, are already approaching maximum utility. Any proposal should provide for additional services infrastructure, to ensure availability for current and future residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

444

Arjan Richard Visser


I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course because it is inappropriate for Dingley. Dingley still has a "village" feel there is already a shortage of certain amenities (eg High school and train line). Adding 20% of the population would increase the shortage of amenities further as there are no plans for additional amenities (shops, schools, etc). We don't have a high school and if the developers were smarter they would have factored that and a full size large supermarket with assorted shops into the plans. The developer is not interested in supporting or working with the community. The type of dwellings (some of them 3 stories) simply do not fit in with the properties around Kingswood Golf Course. It is my belief that 3 stories in Melbourne were only allowed in high development/commercial type zones near train stations. 3 storey properties have more bedrooms, as such more people can live in this high density zone. The problem being that these people then need cars and there is no where to park them in the proposed development. Worsened because the high density is not near a bus route or train line. It will be an emergency services nightmare to get through amongst cars parked everywhere. The parkland shown on plans does not include walk / ride tracks that flow to get the people or cyclists off the very narrow roads. There does not appear to be a lot of useable green space for the number of people. With the number of residents traffic will be high. With the dams already in situ being included in the allotted park zones, this is not useable by residents. The residents have not been consulted with the plans with the proposed re‐development; instead it appears that the plans are purely made for commercial reasons, not considering the beautiful lifestyle we have now. (spacious, lot of trees, not too crowded, etc). Many of the trees that are standing in the golf course now will disappear and the wildlife (numerous amount of birds and ring tail and brush tail possums with them). Waking up with the sound of birds is one of the simple things in life many of us enjoy. I have attached a photo of what the view from our backyard looks like, which is very special and something the whole family enjoys. Please do not allow for our beautiful village to be destroyed by a developer who is just here for commercial reasons, while many of the people living here will do so for the rest of their lives.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

445

Robert Samuel Hugh Richardson

I support the proposed redevelopment of the former Kingswood golf club site. A planned housing development seems a very appropriate use for the site. It has good transport connections and new residents would provide support for local businesses. The merger between Peninsula and Kingswood and the sale of the land has allowed the golf club to develop high quality courses and facilities at Frankston which are enhance Victoria’s reputation as a golf destination and provide employment opportunities for the local community.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

446

Penelope and John Hallam

We object to this submission because it is not suitable for our Area. It is too cramped, has grossly insufficient parking, garaging, and road provision. Insufficient green space or community facilities. eg. Kindergarten, or communal rooms. Has too many units for our community facilities. Traffic is already at maximum for the roads. Schools are at capacity. If rezoning is approved, then it should be for a much smaller, acceptable facility. EG retirement village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

447

Shirley DeWever

This overdevelopment will affect many people in our Village. Traffic will be impacted with 823 blocks most having cars, Centre Dandenong Road is already busy. The developer says there will be traffic lights at their entrance which means they will be just one block from the Howard Road lights! Parking will be a major problem with at least 1600 cars on site, the developer says "every house will have a garage" but some houses will have more than two cars where will they park? Many trees will be removed and wildlife habitat will be lost. There is no Net benefit for Dingley Village, a 20% increase in our population. Our kinders are full , primary schools are full , portables are installed on Dingley primary preps front lawn and we have no secondary schools .We do not want 3 storey houses/apartments here, this would totally spoil our village atmosphere. Flooding in the area has always been a problem and this development can only make it worse. This proposal was rejected in 2018 so what has changed ??Years of dirt and dust will follow if this is allowed to go ahead, we do not want this !

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

448

Carol Widmann

I object 100%. This development is a farce and should never have been thought of, let alone planned. The land is a golf course not residential. It is part of our community and should stay that way. The developers are greedy and don't care about our village, or its character. We have no 3 storey homes here in Dingley at the moment and neither do we have tiny blocks of land. Please consider us, we live here and strongly object to this proposal.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

449

Eunice Welch

Traffic would be a big problem if this development was accepted. Centre Dandenong Road is already busy but with all cars , at least 1600, it would be a nightmare. The developer says there will be traffic lights at their entrance which is only one block from the Howard Road lights. Narrow streets and insufficient parking for all those cars will be a problem. Dingley Village is currently one or two storey homes with most lots being 550‐650‐square metres, the developer wants 823 lots with many less than 300 Square metres. We do not want any three storey houses/apartments in our Village ! Many trees would be destroyed, some have already gone, wildlife will be affected by loss of habitat. An increase of twenty percent to our population would put strain on our schools and other facilities, shopping centre is already busy .

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

450

Dawn Woods

This is ghetto style planning at it's worst. Richard Wynne is quoted in the press saying 'planning is about people, where they live, where their education is, how they recreate, what sort of space we create for people, and fairness'. But here we have the Hon. Richard, rubberstamping this union grab of special zone land. Because make no mistake Australian Super is corrupt unionism at it's most blatant. Let's look at the points Richard W. holds so dear: Where they live? A subdivision with many lots the size of a cupboard, and 3 storied as well. Next to larger more spacious homes. Rather odd to mix demographics like that. Where our education is ‐ not a single piece of educational infrastructure included. Not primary nor secondary. How we recreate ‐ no allowance for more sporting fields, nor parkland Fairness ‐ these aren't streets, they are narrow lanes, parking is inadequate, and the layout is going to create ratruns to get out of the logjam that will be created. This area is low lying, I've lived here for 40+ years and the water table is already high, and you want to play fast and loose with the existing flood plain? You are deliberately destroying the quality of life of the existing village in the name of greed. Residents built here with the belief that the golf course was Zoned Special Use Golf Course, but this government believes that laws don't apply to them. This is not an activity centre, we have no railway station, inadequate schools, limited sporting facilities. This type of plan is best suited to a heavily built up area, serviced by railway, not a village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

451

Deborah Hudson

I object to this development Dingley is a small suburb with limited facilities and cannot accommodative a large development We have no station, no high school, are surrounded by already busy roads and by passes This will contribute to pollution, remove trees, add to congestion and reduce the standard of living for all Dingley residents

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

452

Christopher Maurice Doyle

I have recently joined the Peninsula Kingswood Country Club (PK). I can travel to PK conveniently. I can engage in a number of healthy activities with a variety of people. I feel safe in a visually stunning location. It is a place where friends meet. This was made possible by the sale of the Dingley site. I hope people are attracted to the Dingley Redevelopment for the same reasons I joined PK.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

453

Fiona Scott

We have lived in Dingley Village since 1984 and love it for it’s sense of community, something that is lacking in may suburbs today. However it is not perfect. There are waiting lists for the local Kindergartens, Primary Schools are to capacity and Secondary schools are even worse. The contractor wants to build 823 properties to fill with families. They will make their money and then walk away, but how will the schools cope. We have one medical clinic in Dingley which is already overloaded, appointments can be hard to get, but they will be impossible with an additional 823 properties. Traffic for these properties will flow onto Centre Dandenong Road, which means a minimum of 823 additional cars will clog the Howard Road intersection where the road drops down to a single lane queuing to get round the local roundabout every day. We back onto the current golf course and risk having the privacy of our backyard invaded by three storey houses (simply so the contractor can make more money). The large trees providing privacy and habitat for the local wildlife will be destroyed. We have also had issues with the streets and properties around us flooding during heavy rain. 823 additional properties and roads covering the current Aquifer will put even more pressure on our storm water drains and flooding will worsen. Who will then pay for the damage, not the contractor who will make his money and walk away. There are also issues with power supplies, NBN (which Dingley already has a notoriously bad reputation for) and sewerage. None of which the contractor has addressed (as it this not their concern). The contractor has lodged multiple proposals all of which were rejected by the council, based on the concerns of the residents. In fact more than 8,000 objections were lodged by the residents Now at the first opportunity they have lodge plans to squeeze as many properties into this space as possible including three storey properties, once again ignoring the concerns of the residents of Dingley. They overpaid for the land and now they want the community to pay for their mistake. This is wrong.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

454

Trevor Alex


As a resident of Dingley Village and being amongst the beautiful wild life, the heritage trees and local residents, I am strongly against this high density development. I do not understand why so many homes would be allowed to be built on small lots, creating several issues for Dingley residents, my family and myself. My reasons against the development is in the attached submission.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



As a resident of Dingley Village and being amongst the beautiful wild life, the heritage trees and local

residents, I am strongly against this high density development. I do not understand why so many

homes would be allowed to be built on small lots, creating several issues for Dingley residents, my

family and myself. My reasons against the development:

1. Lack of infrastructure such as roads and public transport to support the increase of 823 homes.

This would heavily increase traffic during peak hours and weekends. Dingley is already struggling.

2. There are not enough schools and sporting facilities to support an increase of 823 homes. I am on

the advisory board for a local school which is already at capacity for 2021 prep in-take.

3. There will be NO net gain or benefit for my family home. The value of home will decrease given

the developer is wanting to build 823 homes on small lots. The developer is blatantly lying “saying it

will increase the value of homes.”

4. Given that this is such a large development, there has been NO consultation as to how the

developer will control the flooding, noise, dust and debris that will be generated during the years of

development. If development is approved, the builders/developers would not care about the impact

they would have on existing residence whilst building. I have lived and seen this occur in

Keysborough.

5. Australian Super have admitted that due to lack of irrigation, the roads will become flooded. I

have not seen any updates or plans as to how they would improve the irrigation and current flooding

problems. I personally DO NOT want the homes being built behind me with poor irrigation as that

would result my home flooding, during heavy rain. If the current irrigation in the golf course is

disturbed, that may result in my home and many others being flooded.

5. I do not understand why the developer has allowed for small lots of 300sq metres or less when

Dingley is all about family living. Existing homes are big enough, allowing for backyards and the

option to build a swimming pool for the family. This is the draw card of Dingley Village.

6. I do not understand how the government is allowing beautiful heritage trees to be

demolished/uprooted. They have been around for many, many years and home to so much wildlife/

birds. It is a wonderful open space. WHY ARE THEY NOT PRESERVING THE NATIVE TREES? There

plans are showing very, very few trees, being preserved.

7. We do not have any high schools nearby, therefore the busses (Public transport) would overflow

creating further problems for families and children.

8. Our local shopping centre is currently unable to manage with the number of families in the area

and visiting families that shop at Dingley Village. It is busy after school and during peak times. SO

how would it cater for 823 new families/residents, following the large development in this small

community.

I would like to see the current golf course maintained. It is very disappointing that Australian Super

has the nerve and audacity to cause unnecessary worry/stress for the residents of Dingley village. I

would support (if a golf course cannot be supported) a heavily reduced number of homes with

bigger land lots and many of the very old trees and wildlife left alone.

Thank you

Organisation:

Affected property:

455

Erin Jordanna Roth

As a new home owner in Dingley Village, I am appalled at this proposed development to take place at Kingswood Golf Course. Part of the charm of Dingley and one of the main reasons we worked very hard to persevere in buying our first home here, is that it has a "small country" feel, great schools and is zoned to Parkdale Secondary. We live on a main road, which is surprisingly quiet, but know this will change if the population increases by 20%. How will our schools and roads cope with the increased demands? What about the preservation of the wildlife and birds that will be lost if this development goes ahead? There is not enough infrastructure to handle the increased population that this development is proposing. As a young couple, who hope to raise a family in Dingley Village, we are very concerned about the accessibility of kindergarten, childcare, education and sporting facilities if this plan goes ahead. Dingley Village is already going to have to adjust to the new proposed water park and football training zone. Is it so unreasonable for residents to ask that Dingley Village retains it's charm that it has preserved for many years past? We implore you to consider our opposition to the Kingswood Development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

456

Alex Widmann

I object to the development proposed by the developers. Our village will not cope with so many new residents and the infrastructure is not there. We don’t have enough schools in the area to handle such a large increase in population. It will be a disaster and the greedy developers will take their money and leave us to figure out how to cope. Please stop this nonsense and convert the area to green wedge.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

457

carolyn elcoat

The planned development will change the ‘village’ environment where we have chosen to live. It will impact on every aspect of our daily living including overuse of roads, schools, shops and with such a massive influx of people and large area of high density housing will have a separate and not inclusive and even potentially slum like feel to our village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

458

Kylie Chapman

I object to the proposed development as it is not in keeping with the character of Dingley Village. Three story developments are inappropriate for Dingley which has limited public transport, the smallest plot sizes are far too small with limited parking and the traffic increase associated with so many houses would make Centre Dandenong road hazardous and far too congested. Simply put it would be an over development of the site. The proposed development doesn't provide any community facilities, removes most of the existing trees and there is no net benefit to Dingley. I am extremely worried about flooding which has occurred previously when runoff from the golf course inundated my property. The number of hard surfaces is only going to increase water run off and increase the frequency and likelihood of flooding. Open space is known to contribute to the cooling of summer temperatures and this benefit would be lost if the proposed number of houses were to be built on the site. My wish would be for the area to become community parkland but I understand that eventually the property will probably be developed. If this must happen then it needs to be done in a way that complements the existing suburb, retains the mature trees with much more open space, provides a net benefit to Dingley and fundamentally doesn't overdevelop the site. The developers have not listened to the community concerns which were made loud and clear after the previous proposal and I'm sure will be made loud and clear for this proposal also.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

459

Lawrence Welch

This overdevelopment shows 823 lots some are 300 square metres or less, the average for our village is 550 to 650 square meters. Some very small houses are planned which means narrow streets where some cars will need to park ,it is estimated about 1600 cars and that is only allowing for 2 cars per lot there will probably be more. Traffic will be a major problem as Centre Dandenong Road is already busy and the developer says there will be traffic lights at the entrance, that is just one block from the Howard Road lights, No 3 storey houses/apartments for Dingley Village this is not in the Dingley Village character. 20 percent increase in population is not good, our schools are already overcrowded and there is no secondary school. Many trees have already been removed and thousands more will have to go, wildlife will be affected when they lose their habitat, where will they go ? into some of the 140 neighbours who surround the site. Flooding in the area will be increased, it has flooded in the past and will get worse, the existing retarding basin already overflows and mainly soaks into the golf course which currently has an aquifer developers want to remove that safety net by covering it all over with buildings, roads, paving etc and claim that a new retarding basin will hold back the waters from up stream Springvale and remain on site. Do not let this happen!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

460

Belinda Wheeler

I don’t agree with the proposal as I believe it does not fit in with Dingley Village, our schools will be over populated, our roads will be busier, the car parks to the shops will be busier, and the life we wanted here for a quiet life in a village will be ruined. The wildlife will be affected, and it will absolutely destroy Dingley Village as we know it. We moved in over 10 years ago and absolutely love it here, if this goes ahead it loses all its appeal and value, and the reasons we love it here will be lost.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

461

Lucinda Thomson

Objection to the proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment This development provides no benefit to Dingley Village. It does not include facilities that would be needed to address the increased population associated with the proposed 823 lots (a 20% increase in population) such as: • Maternal Health • Additional Child Care facilities • Kindergartens • Primary Schools • Secondary Schools • Additional Commercial premises • Additional sporting facilities The proposed development is not in character with the residential blocks that exist in the village today. Dingley Village currently is overwhelmingly one or two storey individual homes, an estimated 80% of large family lots being 550 ‐ 650sq metres. The developer proposes 823 lots, with many less than 300 sq metres. Additionally, there is no commitment to preserve thousands of trees, estimated at 20,000 natives. One of their plans showed 19 trees preserved, another showed a single tree. This will create a significant loss of treed open space in Dingley Village. These trees are the “lungs” of this community by providing oxygen production. The tree loss will also contribute to a significant loss of birds and wildlife lost. The developers’ data suggests that there will be additional 6,800 vehicle movements per day in the Village which can barely deal with the resident traffic today. The existing shopping facilities are already very limited and barely accommodate the existing populations requirements. The development does not propose any additional commercial amenities in the development. I would expect that there would be additional buses required to take new residents to either Westall and Cheltenham Train stations this would lead to the introduction of bus lanes in Centre Dandenong Road. This was previously proposed and the 96% of Dingley Village residents voted against the introduction of these previously through two polls, including a Council poll. Bus lanes would create some of the narrowest road lanes in Melbourne, as Centre Dandenong Road is a single lane. Equally I object to main access being between Spring Road and Centre Dandenong roads. There is also no consideration for the 140 neighbours on the boundary. We were advised when purchasing the land and paying a premium to do so that that we would have “views” forever. Instead, we will be subjected to years of dust, noise, loss of privacy and decreased property value.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

462

Lilach Lustig

I’m objecting to this project because it’s not good for the residents. They are not thinking about what the residents need. We need high school, train station, sports facilities and more. It will make more problems with traffic and there isn’t any solution to that.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

463

Rachael Harrison

Dingley village does not need this.! We need support and protection and im sure as hell this company DOESNT need more money.! This suburb is so beautiful and peaceful.! Lets leave it that way.! There are so many places to build, so why destroy the lungs of dingley.! This is avoidable now but wont be once its too late.! We dont need this and never will.! Look at the property on the corner of spring rd and marcus street, one block turned into 3 units.! People living on top of one another, its an invasion of privacy and should not go forward.! You will destroy this suburb if you allow this.! Please stop it from happening.!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

464

Leigh Thomson

This proposed development was voted upon several years ago. It was voted NO by the Kingston Council unanimously. It was spoken against by our state member & it was spoken against by our federal member. This development is not in keeping with the wishes of the local community. The open area (ex gold course) is a valued are for amenity in the area, local wildlife. Development for high density housing is not in keeping with the area & will severely stress already overloaded services. The ex golf course is subject at times to flooding around the water retardation basin & is not a good plan What I see is a commercial gamble that has been taken place by the proposed developer, knowing fully that this land was not zoned for development but they expected by the weight of money that they could push this development thru against local community wishes. I don't believe they have any regard for the local community in this proposed development but it is based purely upon balance sheet & executive bonus considerations. This is not a good reason to do this. Dingley Village does have the infrastructure for this development. We have limited access to public transport. The village does not have a secondary school & the primary schools are to my knowledge quite full. The village has limited local shops & the roads structure are already loaded This issue has already been decided in favor of the community with a resounding NO Development & that decision should stand. If the executives/directors of the developers then have to face the anger of their members so be it. The decision I want to see is that this land be zoned green wedge & then stop this conversation from occurring yet again. The worry & angst that this causes amongst the local people, many of whom have lived here for many years is decidedly unfair. I can only speak for myself on this but I chose to live in Dingley because of its amenity & lifestyle. If I wanted to live in a more ''inner city'' overloaded neighborhood I could have done that, but I chose not to. I love my lifestyle in Dingley. I don't believe that should be changed by a corporation trying to promote a development that is purely for its own economic benefit. SAVE DINGLEY!!!!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

465

Anne Benton

No suitable infrastructure to support so many dwellings. Green space is being lost in this project. The current schools are not going to be able to absorb the inevitable increase in students. Their is not the road infrastructure to cope with the increased traffic that would be inevitable

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

466

Neil James Rispin

I have looked at proposed development and believe it is a good one for Dingley. The property is ideal to help satisfy the growing demand for residential sites in Melbourne.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

467

Karen Mackay

We have lived in for 14 years. We were attracted to the area due to the “village feel” and quiet, restful atmosphere‐ something that visitors routinely notice on visiting our home. The bird life, plant life and open space is something that we appreciate. The proposed development is a gross overdevelopment which our infrastructure cannot sustain. The explosion of population by 20% is not supported by our lack of public transport, schools, congestion on our roads or neighbourhood character. Keep Dingley (and ) green!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

468

Paul J Mackay

I am objecting to this proposal as the infrastructure in Dingley is struggling to support current population. The influx of residents, cars, traffic will be crippling. The charm and peace of Dingley will be lost in a maze of single, double and triple story dwellings. The glorious array of birdlife would be obliterated. All this at a time when the world is focussing on global warming and the damage that man has done to the earth.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

469

Athena Bangara


SEE ATTACHED SUBMISSION

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF KINGWOOD GOLFCOURSE

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development of the Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village for the following reasons:

1. The proposed plans of 823 townhouses/houses are not in keeping with the suburb.The average lot size in Dingley is about 550 sqm. The proposed development has lotsizes as small as 300 sqm.

2. There is not a single three storey house/townhouse in Dingley. The proposeddevelopment of primarily 3 storey townhouses would back on to existing houses andmine in particular. We would have townhouses directly looking into our backyarderoding our privacy.

3. The loss of native flora and fauna in the area is a significant concern.4. The proposed plans do not include any additional infrastructure to support the

impending density. Local schools, road networks, shopping facilities, car parking andsporting facilities are already at capacity.

5. There are already limited childcare and kindergarten facilities in Dingley with anumber of residents having to enrol their children in facilities outside the suburb.The addition of 823 new townhouses will add increasing pressure to nearby suburbs.

6. There is no existing high school in Dingley, and the proposed addition of 823 NEWhouses will create additional demands on the high school system in neighbouringsuburbs.

7. Dingley Village does not have an existing public transport hub and the proposeddevelopment would create additional demand on already clogged roads. The impactof having an additional 1646 cars in the suburb erodes the liveability of the suburb(average of 2 cars per household) and access via Tootal Road is already clogged atpeak hour.

Regards, Athena Bangara

, Dingley Village VIC 3172

Organisation:

Affected property:

470

Lynn Marjorie Duguid

The proposed development is inappropriate for the area. There will be a huge increase in population which Dingley Village cannot absorb. The primary schools are full now, there is no secondary school, it takes weeks to see your doctor, the sporting facilities are at capacity. There is no train station so there will be a huge increase in traffic in/out of Dingley, particularly with parents driving children to schools in other areas (as they won’t be able to get in to local schools). The plans available at the library show the majority of housing is 3 storeys, but photos of proposed houses did not show these, only showed single and double storey buildings. Developments like these never have sufficient parking. Where will the residents park? The narrow roads will be made even narrower by cars parked outside houses. Inappropriate development with no benefit to Dingley Village.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

471

Carol Duggan


see attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Dingley Village

Victoria 3172

17th July 2021

To whom it may concern,

I write to express my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course site.

As a long time resident of Dingley Village, I strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds:

• I purchased my property which is adjacent to the Kingswood Golf Course on the basis the

golf course would not be used for any other purpose. The choice to purchase a property in

this location was for the health and wellbeing aspect of having a view of the golf course

inclusive of the flora and fauna. Properties adjacent to the golf-course were purchased at a

premium price.

• The planning permit is outrageous in terms of the housing density proposed. The housing proposal is not in line with the surrounds. There should not be multi-storey and crowded

housing in this environment. There is no precedent for this in this suburb. People choose to

purchase in this suburb based on it being a safe environment for families, many of whom

have a multi-generational history of purchasing and re-purchasing in this suburb. This is also

evidenced by the strong community involvement in sports and recreational activities in the

area. Local facilities have been designed to service the current population needs only.

• Infrastructure would not support the increase in population brough about by this proposal.

Drainage, energy provision, transport safety and resident wellbeing have not been

accounted for in the proposal. Car parking provisions within the proposal are poorly thought

out and will increase the risk of traffic accidents, poor visibility, and low safety for residents.

• Privacy of residents has not been appropriately considered. High density housing will impact this.

• The current owners have left the property poorly managed; trees have been removed due to

neglect and rubbish has been allowed to build up. There is no evidence any care would be

taken with any form of re-development. Trust within the community is low.

• The proposal would result in an increased population which would impact the local

educational facilities (kindergartens and primary schools), all of which are overcrowded as it

is; there has not been any consideration for how this would be managed. There is no

secondary school in the area, nor is there any recognition for the need of increased public

transport options. Additionally, there is an increased safety risk at the local shops, already

over-crowded with car parking during peak times as it is.

• There has not been sufficient consideration for the risk of flooding with the proposal. It feels

that the developers will “build and run” leaving the community to sort the highly likely

flooding issues that will occur. Homes have already experienced flooding in the past

adjacent to the golf course. There is no evidence this has been accounted for in the

proposal.

• The development would see far too many houses (all types) being constructed on the site.

The noise, construction and dust created in a high-density development will impact the

health and wellbeing (and property structures) of the neighbouring community. There is no

compensation for this considered in the proposal.

Suggestions:

• Establish a 9-hole golf course and recreation facilities for the community to enjoy.

• If housing must go on this site, it should be large blocks for families, no townhouses or high-

density development. The housing could be promoted as a premium lifestyle environment

within a 9-hole golf course (e.g., like Sandhurst). Developers would profit from this

arrangement.

The previous planning permit received an unprecedented response from the community, the likes of

which have not been seen anywhere in Australia. The residents provided suggestions for

improvement which have not been respected or considered in the most recent proposal. This shows

a lack of consideration for health and wellbeing and for the rights of the current residents.

Yours sincerely,

Carol Duggan

Resident of

Dingley Village.

Organisation:

Affected property:

472

Terry Hogan

The former Kingswood site at Dingley is a magnificent parcel of land – the plans for the redevelopment of the estate are superior to any housing estate in the area. The development will be a jewel in the Dingley crown. Kingswood was a great golf club but over the years it became a tired venue. New Membership was difficult to achieve and, in the end, not viable. The benefits of the merger have installed renewed enthusiasm for the members and the Waiting List shows how eager people are to join Peninsula Kingswood. The new Clubrooms are magnificent as is the redeveloped course. Dining facilities are wonderful at this uplifting venue. And to know the Club is in a positive financial position for years to come is certainly also a positive. A wondrous outcome for us all. Of course there are still some Dingley residents who would prefer to have this glorious parcel of land underdeveloped. There are many large open spaces in the area for local residents . Progress happens. Dingley has a booming airport, retail and industrial hub in Melbourne’s south east wants the multi‐billion dollar Suburban Rail Loop to connect to it. This modelling will open up the area to wider transport benefits for all users. Moorabbin Airport has a draft Masterplan for a booming airport with the Rail Loop connected to it. The plan sets the direction of the area for the next two decades. A massive opportunity for growth in jobs, schools and accommodation. It would open up Dingley, Heathert and Cheltenham East as well as link the DiDFO and Southland. This would be massive. The proposed development of the Kingswood site will include more than 800 new homes. There will be screening and enhancement measures and new public open spaces and linear reserves. 3,500 trees will be in place on site and large new lakes and wetlands will improve flood retardation. In addition, 825 new jobs will be created which with the current environment is very much needed .

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

473

Clint Nguyen

I strongly object to the development of the Kingswood golf course. The lack of transport infrastructure in place will cause a significant decrease in the quality of life if this plan goes ahead. Environmental and habitat damages to the local fauna and flora will occur resulting to the inherent destruction of the neighbourhood character.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

474

William Nguyen

No to redevelopment. An influx of people with lack of adequate amenities will create chaos and reduce our quality of life. Public transport, preschool, primary and secondary schools will be negatively impacted. The proposed development does not fit the design of our suburb. Surrounding borders of the development face increased risks of flooding and environmental damages.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

475

Roslyn Crisswell

I object to the latest submission for the overdevelopment of Kingswood Golf Course. We moved our family from East Bentleigh where two houses are being put on one block frequently and the streets are crowded with too many cars parking outside houses ‐ making them too narrow to drive through. I believe this new proposed development will do the same thing and clog up the already busy exit / entry point at the roundabout at Centre Dandenong and Tootals rd. There is still no public high school in Dingley and the addition of this largw number of dwellings, presumably with families in them will add to the pressure the local primary schools already have on numbers ‐ and with no Hugh school to feed the children to. Please consider the change this will make to our lovely local community and the traffic and chaos it will create.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

476

Stephen Duggan


see attached

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



17th July 2021

Dear Advisory Committee,

As a resident of the Dingley Community for over 30 years it disappoints me greatly that we (the

community must once again put forward our objections to the destruction of our community and

amenities by the owners of the Kingswood Golf Course, if their plans are approved.

I write to express my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Kingswood Golf Course site in

its current format as presented by the current owners of the golf course. There has never been any

true consultation with the Dingley Community.

1. I purchased my property which is adjacent to the Kingswood Golf Course on the basis the

golf course would not be used for any other purpose. The choice to purchase a property in

this location was for the health and wellbeing aspect of having a view of the golf course

inclusive of the flora and fauna. Properties adjacent to the golf-course were purchased at a

premium price.

2. The proposed plan is utterly disgusting in terms of the housing density proposed. The housing

proposal IS NOT in line with the surrounds of the Dingley Community. There should not be

housing construction of 3 level (multi-storey) properties which will result in a crowded housing

complex on tiny blocks with no room for car parking. There is no precedent for this in this

suburb. People choose to purchase in this suburb based on it being a safe environment for

families, many of whom have a multi-generational history of purchasing and re-purchasing in

this suburb. This is also evidenced by the strong community involvement in sports and

recreational activities in the area. Local facilities have been designed to service the current

population needs only.

3. Infrastructure would not support the increase in population brought about by this proposal.

Drainage, energy provision, transport safety and resident wellbeing have not been

accounted for in the proposal. Car parking provisions within the proposal are poorly thought

out and will increase the risk of traffic accidents, poor visibility, and safety for residents.

4. Privacy of residents has not been appropriately considered. High density housing will impact

this.

5. The current owners have left the property poorly managed; trees have been removed due to

neglect and rubbish has been allowed to build up. There is no evidence any care would be

taken with any form of re-development. This is nothing more than a powerful union run

superannuation group, that DOES NOT CARE about the community, environment, birdlife,

aquatic, amphibians and native fauna. This has already been demonstrated by their original

approaches to the Dingley Community which was nothing more than lip service.

6. The proposal would result in an increased population which would impact the local

educational facilities (kindergartens and primary schools), all of which are overcrowded as it

is; there has not been any consideration for how this would be managed. There is no

secondary school in the area, nor is there any recognition for the need of increased public

transport options. Additionally, there is an increased safety risk at the local shops, already

over-crowded with car parking during peak times as it is.

7. There has not been sufficient consideration for the risk of flooding with the proposal. It feels

that the developers will “build and run” leaving the community to sort the highly likely

flooding issues that will occur. Homes have already experienced flooding in the past adjacent

to the golf course. There is no evidence this has been accounted for in the proposal. I have

photos of the last time the water catchment area burst its banks and spilled onto the golf

course and beyond.

8. The development would see far too many houses (all types) being constructed on the site. The

noise, construction and dust created in a high-density development will impact the health and

wellbeing (and property structures) of the neighbouring community. There is no

compensation for this considered in the proposal. Again, their proposed plans demonstrate

once again that THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DAMAGE THEY WILL BRING TO THIS

COMMUNITY.

Suggestions:

Move away from 300 sq m blocks to 600 sq m. The price of a block around this size in Dingley is now

well over the $1million dollar mark, given the recent sales in the Dingley area. Cut the number of

houses by half, provide more space dedicated to parks and walking tracks and end up with a similar

return that satisfies the GREEDY AUSTRALIAN SUPER COMPANY and allows for the look and feel of

this unique suburban community to be retained.

The entire Dingley Community is against this.

The previous planning permit received an unprecedented response from the DINGLEY COMMUNITY,

the likes of which have not been seen anywhere in Australia. The residents provided suggestions for

improvement which HAVE NOT BEEN respected or considered in the most recent proposal. THIS

DEMONSTRATES THE LITTLE RESPECT THEY HAVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND SHOWS THEY ARE

ONLY INTERESTED IN MAKING AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN WITHOUT TURNING THIER MINDS

TO THE DAMAGE THEY WILL DO THIS THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY AND SHOWS A LACK OF

CONSIDERATION FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING AND FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CURRENT RESIDENTS.

As an independent advisory committee l request that you take the time to visit Dingley Village, speak

to the community and see for yourselves what a beautiful place we have. It’s filled with people who

care about each other, our community and environment. When you walk the streets, people say hi

to each other! This is a special place, please don't let it be destroyed by a Greedy Superannuation

Fund, and greedy developers who can’t wait to get their hands on this parcel of land - make their

money and leave!

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Duggan

Organisation:

Affected property:

477

Jennifer Pinto

I am against the cutting of trees and removal of wildlife. I do not want my village to be overcrowded, filled with traffic congestion and a unpeaceful suburb. I oppose any construction of townhouse esp three storeys that involve removal of trees and wildlife. Let Dingley be the peaceful warm village it is

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

478

Eils Tickell

The Dingley site will provide fantastic and affordable family housing. The site will for the first time in its history be open to all members of the community to enjoy. Not just private members playing golf. The new parklands and bike tracks and natural wetlands will be a beautiful area for all to enjoy. The housing development will be so much new life to the surrounding community and businesses.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

479

James Perry

The plan submitted raises concerns over the impact to local wildlife as well as its keeping within local character, but also about the capacity for Dingleys infrastructure to support such a high density proposal . Dingley is primarily accessed through Centre Dandenong road, via a single roundabout at one end and a single turning lane at the other. With a lack of suitable public transport, the current proposal would present a significant increase in traffic bottlenecked at both ends. With a lack of suitable public transport, the current proposal represents significant increase in traffic bottle necking at both ends and noise pollution. Dingley is also lacking in shopping facilities and highs schools to support such a significant increase in population density.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

480

Sok Leng Cam

I had worked in Dingley for 7 years at the local pharmacy before eventually purchasing my property to start my family. What drew me to the suburb was its unique location being fairly close to now 3 major directions of travel (M1, Nepean & Eastlink), the sense of community where people know you by name (not just your neighbors) and the fact that the area has not being over‐developed like surrounding suburbs where privacy and security feels intruded upon. Suburbs I am referring to include Springvale (the large complex starting on Westall and Osborne Rd), Keysborough where multiple small townhouse complexes are increasing every year, Highett (again townhouses and apartment blocks), Noble Park, Bentleigh and the list continues. It seems sights are set now on doing the same to Dingley which I am very actively against. I value the idyllic style of my suburb, coming home from work to be able to relax in my neighborhood, the ability to drive around without clogged up traffic and not have to worry about parking or crowding of cars on my surrounding street/court, be able to access services in a timely manner, and most of all, being able to offer my young child a safe, clean, harmonious environment to live in. I want the schools to be able to maintain their reputation for learning due to the correct ratios to assist children in the area to foster their growth, something of which will not be available with high density living arrangements like the proposal. Will the people intent on destroying the lifestyle afforded by my suburb be responsible for more schools? More businesses? More resources ? More services? The obvious answer is no as it will fall to council and government to provide these. My reasons may seem weak to those intent on business and making a profit, however, what is stronger than the emotions felt by a person? And collectively of those who live in the area? Is it for nought? We fought this once and won. There was due thoughtfulness in the reasons and responses for objection (not just emotions), but it seems our views are either not clear enough or they are being blatantly ignored, the latter seems to be true, otherwise why do we have to do this again?

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

481

Carolyn Ruddick

Hugely increased traffic in already crowded streets and shopping centre Impossible burden on schools, already full. No secondary schooling available in the area Totally inadequate public transport through Dingley, and no train line. Disgraceful destruction of trees and vegetation, and death of wildlife. Already inadequate community facilities and sporting areas. Already stretched maternal health and chilcare facilities Already overburdened medical facilities. Increasing episodes of flooding in my back garden. I live on the boundary. Endless years of noise, dust and loss of privacy. As an elderly person, this loss is traumatic and will reduce the enjoyment I have had living here. Finally , and very importantly , the reduction in my property value

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

482

Darren Hornidge

Hello, This proposal has no net benefit for Dingley Village whatsoever. It will increase the population by over 20% whilst the services remain the same. The development itself is completely out of character, the land is not suitable top be built on. The proposal offers very little in the way of parking and we don't not have a public transport system to manage the influx. This land should be purchased back by council for the purpose of building a secondary college to service the 3 existing primary schools

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

483

Julie May Boss

1. Much more traffic congestion getting out of our street into Centre Dandenong Rd 2. Not enough public transport 3. Kinders and schools are already overcrowded

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

484

Margie Beaurepaire

I believe the Redevelopment plan meets Vic Gov Planning Guidelines in that:‐ there will be a net economic benefit to the region and state flowing from the proximity of Dingly/Kingswood to commercial areas like the Moorabbin airport, Dandenong, Frankston and Moorabbin. It will provide medium priced efficient land use housing to people wanting to live & work in the area. It will provide community facilities, open space, parks and employment adding to a quality life that will flow on to surrounding regions. All within proximity to Melbourne.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

485

D Mullins

I have been here for over 40 years and seen the community grow and improve in structure and facilities BUT it has grown to a point it is still viable as a great family community but any more huge growth in housing and no more ammenities to improve it will be a disaster to anyone near the area to leave their side street, as it is hard now. The are has a lot of children and no high school facilities. And also there will be the Hawthorn Football club will be inserted into this area so include more traffic let alone the visitors, football fans , during the winter. Having 3 storey units will also be a complete money grabbing form developers who care little about the area …in build then out…!! So what happens to the peaceful area that people over the years gave up the amenities for many years to move out of the suburbs to an area that lacked a lot for many years So that now the developers see $$$ signs want to change this small area. There is plenty of areas that can be developed further out with lots of room and ready for all the hype that is promised Dingley really cannot grow out further with an airport , industrial area And schools But it can not afford to go up Stop trying to destroy something that has taken many many years to BE!!!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

486

Adam Palmer

I am a resident of Dingley Village which backs onto the Kingswood Golf course site. We currently look onto beautiful trees, grass, birds and animals etc. If this proposal goes ahead we would be looking out to horrible 3 story townhouses. The years of building will be terrible to endure, throwing dirt, dust and noise straight over our back fence. The traffic in Dingley now has steadily gotten busier but this proposal would be a nightmare. Around 2,000 cars will be using my local streets that simply do not have the capacity to take them. I feel I would not be able to get out of

, then the traffic getting from McClure rd onto Tootal Road would be horrendous and I'm certain would back up hundreds of meters every day. These are quiet local streets with family's and children continually using them. The increased traffic would certainly be a huge risk to public safety. Residents mental health has already been impacted with Covid and this would push many over the edge, destroying our beautiful Village atmosphere forever. My house also backs onto water and this new proposal has me extremely afraid of future flooding issues. I am a lover of birds and wildlife, one of the main reasons we moved to Dingley 5 years ago, and I am certain this development will have a devastating impact on the beautiful birds, flora and fauna on this magnificent site. I objected to the former proposal a couple of years ago which was for over 700 dwellings. Now this proposal is even worse with over 800 dwellings which is a complete slap in the face for residents and proves the developers have not listened to residents at all. What we do need here is a secondary school as all other schools in the area are far away and overflowing. I am not opposed to all developments however this one is quite disgusting and completely out of character for the area. If the proposal was for a new school, some community infrastructure and a couple of hundred dwellings I would be in favour of it. With this proposal my house value will be slashed, thousands of water birds and wildlife will be killed as the trees are destroyed and Dingley will be ruined forever. I therefore object most strongly to this proposal, I hope that sanity will prevail and these greedy developers will be sent packing.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

487

Shirley Dyce

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment. This is a completely inappropriate over‐development. 3‐4 storey dwellings packed in like sardines are NOT within Dingley Village neighbourhood character and will DESTROY the community atmosphere and spirit of Dingley “VILLAGE”. There are far too many house lots and they are far too small in size. This takes away people’s privacy and the feeling of ‘their castle is their home’. There are plenty of other developments to accommodate people who prefer this type of environment and that are located near ACTIVITY CENTRES (which Dingley Village is not) so why force this on Dingley VILLAGE. The increased population will place more burden on child‐care facilities, kindergartens and primary schools; health‐care and community services; sporting facilities, etc. Over the years I have seen my grand‐sons primary school become over‐crowded with student numbers and portable class‐rooms taking up valuable playground space. I have seen my grand‐sons footy team struggling to find extra grounds to accommodate member numbers. This is also for other sports Netball, Cricket etc. Then later, at College, my grandson has told me the number of times students are left stranded at the bus stops in the mornings; the bus not stopping as they already full and over‐crowded. Completely unacceptable! The huge increase in traffic will cause further disruption and congestion along Centre Dandenong Road, add to the already dangerous/fatal intersection of Rowan Road/Westall extension and increase the unsafe conditions at Spring Road/Westall extension intersection. Not to mention the quiet safe local streets that will have to cope with significant increase in traffic and noise. The golf course is a beautiful open space with significant flora and fauna. What an absolute shame to destroy it. Once it is gone, it is gone forever! It should be protected from inappropriate developments and made available to the community for recreational purposes, a community garden, etc. Perhaps even some of the land could be set aside for an Aged Care/Retirement Village. The elderly population such as myself very much enjoy a quiet and peaceful environment and being close to nature so an appropriately sized Retirement Village ‐ with a 9 hole golf course ‐ would be wonderful! Thank you.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

488

Louise Daly‐Palmer

I sincerely and vehemently object to this proposal. I am a resident of in Dingley Village and this development will have a very negative effect on the community. With an increase of 20% in population the increase to the traffic and clogging of our already congested roads will be significant. The proposed development does not fit with the aesthetics of Dingley Village which is a wonderful village type community. Incredibly there has been no valid, meaningful and authentic consultation with the community. The impacts to wildlife in the area will be devastating. We have a large wildlife population whose habitat and homes will be destroyed. This is a travesty! There is no proposal to include sporting fields or other community facilities that will help grow and develop the young people of Dingley. There is no infrastructure to support the increased density of the population including schools, particularly a high school., a train station and sufficient bus services. Consideration has not been given to parking for residents and the streets will be congested with parked cars. With an increase by 20% of the population there won't be enough services for the community. Health services will be impacted and with COVID these are already under a huge strain. The supermarket, cafes and shops will all be congested and may prompt people to shop outside of the community. I am very concerned with the lack of tree preservation as there will be a significant loss of oxygen production. There are not many other treed open spaces in the area. The development will cause a huge amount of disruption with the noise and dust levels unimaginable. I am allergic to dust and am an asthmatic and living directly opposite the works will cause significant health problems for me. There will be huge stress on electricity and power supplies in the area and with temperatures increasing the summer months could prove difficult with power cutting out. The development is too large and reeks of a money grab!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

489

Deborah Barbarich

Three storey buildings are completely out of character with every other dwelling in Dingley.The amount of dwellings proposed will cause too much traffic,be a ghetto type eyesore as is now opposite Bunnings in Cheltenham Rd!We have no high school in Dingley, and with tip smells we need all the plants,vegetation to help purify the air!Not extra vehicle emmissions to add more pollution.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

490

Sarah Sloan

Dingley schools are already over crowded and we want to keep it as park land. It will also place to much congestion on the village and Dingley doesn’t have the structure to cope with it. We also need to think about all the wildlife that lives on the golf course. Where will those animals relocate to?

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

491

Gail Yates

I wish to object to this submission as I feel that Dingley does not have the structure to deal with a housing development. The schools I believe are full to capacity the roads and facilities in Dingley couldn’t cope with the extra load this would put on it. But also what would happen to all the wild life that live on the Golf Course. Where would all the birds go for example. I have seen Black Cockatoos, Lorikeets and a number of other bird life on the Golf Course. I feel that to have that many homes built on the Golf Course and for the people of Dingley to loose the peaceful life that those of us who live in Dingley enjoy would be a terrible shame.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

492

Christopher David Chalmers

I have severe concerns over the proposed development of the Kingswood site due mainly to the strain the introduction of new medium‐high density housing will add to our already struggling infrastructure. Whilst I agree there will be a benefit to local business, the negative impacts on already overcrowded schools, busy and congested roads, and local amenities will be dire. Dingley already lacks many of the required public services to facilitate the existing population, such as no high school, no rail services, and not enough sporting facilities.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

493

Eliza Wood

There any many reasons to object to the Kingswood Golf Course Redevelopment. Residents of Dingley Village never bought in this area to be bombarded with overcrowded townhouses, a lack of green spaces and chaotic dangerous roads that are backed up for hours. This is not what Dingley Village is, nor is it what the residents deserve. The mental health of Dingley residents living around, near and on the outskirts of the golf course will be extremely impacted by destroying this natural habitat that is home to thousands of birds and wildlife and Indigenous Flora. It is these landscapes that we should be protecting not happily destroying. This redevelopment will also impact resident’s mental health as the value of their houses will immediately decline, shops will be difficult to access and all other retail, recreational and medical services will the stretched beyond their limit. This is NOT how residents should be made to live. There is NO train station in Dingley, NO secondary schools, only a couple of primary schools, that are already at their limit. By agreeing to build HUNDREDS more houses, you are accepting the fact that Dingley will breed residents who will struggle to access essential human services and resources, struggle to get the education they deserve, struggle to access essential childcare services, struggle to exercise and recharge in open spaces and struggle to get to and from workplaces. Therefore, you are agreeing to allow Dingley Village's Socio‐economic status to drop significantly as well as the health and wellbeing of current residents. Research confirms that when young people and teenagers have minimal access to recreational facilities, shops, cinemas, sporting grounds, open spaces, parks and gyms it increases an individual’s feeling of community isolation and alienation and as a result increased drug use and crime prevails. Is this the future, YOU want to create for Dingley village? What a disgrace.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

494

Judith Sise


see TTchedsubmission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



"Australian Super read feedback from locals over the past five years and designed an inclusive,

attractive, high-quality development to enhance the area for everyone who calls Dingley Village

home. The plans include 823 housing lots, 14 hectares of open space, including a large new park,

green linear reserves along many of the site boundaries and the retention, expansion and creation of

new wetlands to support local biodiversity. Around 850 trees on the site would be retained and

some 2,685 new trees planted, meaning there would be 10 per cent more trees.”

NO Australian Super did not read the "Feedback" from the 8000 Dingley Village residents who clearly

said NO to their project. Dingley Village WILL NOT BE a VILLAGE with the addition of 2000 or more

residents and their cars whose " inclusive, attractive and high-quality" two - three storey houses

crowded into the old golf course excluding biodiversity and present residents . And then there is the

two or three storey houses to be constructed. There are a scattering of 2 storey homes in Dingley

Village but not in the density proposed. Dingley Village's character will merge with the featureless,

treeless Springvale south - just another safe Labor outer suburb populated by new migrants.

850 trees! Where will the birds, possums, bats etc who call the trees home go when they are

chopped down! The 2 685 new trees won't be of much use as habitat or canopy cover for at least 20

years. Currawongs and black cockatoos have moved into Dingley Village as a consequence of the

Eastern Victorian bushfires. Birds that escaped the fires waiting till the Gippsland forest grow back

and as the weather patterns swings into ElNino and the land dries more green open spaces will be

needed.

Meantime, Dingley Village experiences increasing deadly prolonged heat periods as Climate Change

bites. Melbourne Councils are battling tree canopy losses which store carbon and lower

temperatures.

Once upon a time there was a small village surrounded by vegetable farms, nurseries, orchards and

a racing track where Phar Lap trained. Then the destruction began - a sewerage farm, sand quarries,

tips, suburban subdivisions, a factory morphs into Business Parks, road development begin with two-

lane major roads, emerge as by-passes and 6 lane freeway, railway train yards, rezoning for high

density housing development couched in seductive wokey language of "inclusive, high-quality,

attractive" residencies.

"GREEN WEDGE" PROMISE: a chain of parks after the sand quarries, concrete crushers, sewerage,

tips but political boundaries redrawn so Dingley Village residents' votes are irrelevant leaving Dingley

Villagers feeling angry and marginated!

An alternative ending: a storm-drain wetlands and indigenous park linked to Braeside ad Karkarook

Parks compensation for the Mordialloc Freeway and Railway Yard Loop built on Green Wedge

funded by AustralianSuper and State Government, managed by Kingston Council and the Friends of

Dingley Village.

Organisation:

Affected property:

495

Peter Yates

Dingley Village is a desirable suburb to reside in part, because of the open space and the wildlife, especially the birds, that are attracted because of this open space. Replacing the open space of the golf course will reduce the birds and therefore the attractiveness of the suburb. Dingley Village is able to have the village atmosphere because of the current number of residents are able to shop with comfort in the local shops and in using the other amenities provided. Dingley Village families are able to have their children educated in primary schools in their own suburb, increasing the number of families will lead to gross overcrowding of these 3 school. Dingley Village currently has roads that can manage the volume of traffic within its suburb. Adding 800 plus new residences with probably an average of 2 cars each will greatly overload the current roads. There is no room to expand or widen the 2 or 3 major roads that run through our suburb. Dingley Village has families that are well aware that change is inevitable, but please understand the need for restraint when looking at the development of this golf course land. Over 800 residences is over the top. Please consider a lesser number and other community facilities if redevelopment is to proceed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

496

Wendy Chapman

Flooding ‐ already a problem and the loss of open land and trees to soak up the water plus many more roofs, driveways and roads which will accentuate the issue. Any overflow from the lake would be serious ‐ extra heavy downpours are occurring more often. Increased traffic making it more difficult for workers to exit in the morning and arrive home at night. Shopping centre car parking will be more difficult to get ‐ especially a problem for the elderly. The existing kindergartens and schools are full so how do they accommodate any new children? The loss of the bushland/parkland will be lamented as it is the home of so many native animals and birds, and also helps to cleanse the air. Not enough car parking spaces for a family with young adult drivers or for visitors. Such narrow roads are difficult to use. Residents need to have cars due to distance to railway stations and poor bus services, and the development appears to be discouraging ownership of cars. The density of the development is too great with not enough land allocated to open space and children's play areas.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

497

Adam Richard Marshall

I object to the proposed redevelopment of the former Kingswood golf course as Dingley Village does not have the infrastructure to support such a massive increase in housing. The development will also result in the loss of hundreds of trees that currently support a vast number of native wildlife. I can see no benefit to Dingley Village or the people who currently live in Dingley if this development was to proceed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

498

Sandy Chalmers

To Whom It May Concern I strongly object to the planned development on the old Kingswood Golf Course land. There are my reasons for my objection but these include: 1. The loss of trees and wildlife. Only a handful of the thousands of trees (some plans say just ONE TREE) will remain. These tress provide oxygen for Dingley Village and surrounding suburbs, make Dingley a nice and green place to live, and provide homes for many native birds and animals. ONCE THESE TREES ARE CUT DOWN AND THE LAND DEVELOPED, WE CAN'T GO BACK! THIS IS A FOREVER DECISION!!!! 2. Overdevelopment ‐ The plan by the developers is awful! There is hardly any green, usable space and the size of the 823 blocks are tiny, with lots of three‐storey dwellings planned. It will make it like an OVERCROWDED GHETTO! If the plans included keeping some bushland, having plenty of usable parks, basketball courts and had big blocks of land for about 200 houses, then Dingley Village would probably support the development. 3. Flooding ‐ Clearing land often causes flooding and already one of my neighbour's houses which backs on to the golf course land is subject to serious flooding. This will only get worse with the development as instead of the water overflowing into the golf course, it will be in people's backyards and houses! 4. Huge population increase without the infrastructure to handle it ‐ With 823 families potentially added to our population, the Village will increase in population by about 20%. However, the primary schools are already at capacity, there is no secondary school and the traffic on the roads will be unbearable. 5. Will it make Dingley Village about a better place to live? NO, NO and NO!! We will definitely sell and move out of Dingley if this development is approved. Dingley Village will NO LONGER FEEL LIKE A VILLAGE! It will feel overcrowded and not have the "small town in a big city" feel that Dingley currently has. 6. Just because the Super Fund bought the land to develop it, does not mean they should be allowed to! Businesses make bad decisions all the time and just because ISPT bought the golf course and have applied to develop it, does not mean they should be allowed to. The environment and what is best for our suburb is far more important than a business making money! There are so many ways this land could be used than developed into 823 lots. Thanks for taking the time to read my objection. I hope you take into account my views and the views of other Dingley residents. Thanks Sandy Chalmers

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Organisation:

Affected property:

499

Michael Benjamin


"see attached submission"

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Object to the proposed subdivision and rezoning of the Kingswood golf course redevelopment.

I lived in Dingley Village for 38 years and enjoyed it's concentrated “family style” local

community village atmosphere. The village is predominantly family type 3 4 & 5 bedroom

homes taking up approx. 80% of total residential area as family size suburban homes. The 20%

remainder of Dingley Village is smaller unit types in clusters of four to six perhaps even more

but are still quiet a good sized block of about 350 metres.

The proposed subdivision seems to be the complete reverse of this mix of homes family homes

and units the smaller lots are incredibly small at just 180 square metres and I believe there will

be many issues with parking visitors attending and emergency vehicles and overall the amenity

will looked extremely congested for an outer suburban suburb.

The total amount of the lots of being around 800 is excessive by comparison to the rest of the

lots per acre in the rest of Dingley Village and so it is my view that the proposed development is

totally inconsistent with the neighbourhood character. It would be more consistent with an inner

suburban or urban area very close to a train station oh large bus interchange or large shopping

centre.

Having lived in Dingley Village and being involved in the local community as well as having

my business in the local community I believe I'm in a good position to observe that most of the

community infrastructure like kindergartens preschool centres primary schools and surrounding

secondary schools I already overloaded and cannot cope with what will be a extensive and

excessive increase in the population possibly in the vicinity of 20 to 25% increase.

This has flow on effects two other community infrastructure like the netball courts football court

football grounds and cricket grounds and other associated sporting groups who are already

oversubscribed with members and are unable to get sufficient grounds for practise and

competition.

Such a large development with high density properties with a reported 7000 vehicle movements

per day will be of no benefit to Dingley Village and therefore no net benefit by the approval of

this subdivision.

The traffic movements alone will put horrendous delays and congestion in what is already I very

busy road network with only two roads in and out of Dingley Village in basic terms.

In summary my view is that the proposed rezoning and subdivision provides no net benefit to

Dingley Village it will change completely the neighbourhood character of what is a small

unique compact village type residential and limited commercial area.

Organisation:

Affected property:

500

Sonja Marshall

I object to the proposed development of Kingswood Golf Site as Dingley Village does not have the capacity to accommodate the type and number of housing proposed by the developers. We do not have the infrastructure shops, schools, roads for this type of development. Trees are already being removed at the expense of our wildlife. We need more open space not buildings. Children and families need more sporting facilities and parkland.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:



Submission Cover Sheet 401

Documents