Professional Media Inquiries ONLY:

0424 104 274 – Ian Wood, SOS President

NOTE:   Please DO NOT call this private mobile number unless you are a working journalist.  If I am not available, please leave a brief SMS message

All other inquiries:

Due to the voluntary nature of our organisation and the volume of requests for help we receive, please refer to our Residents’ Guide to Objecting and our Frequently Asked Questions Page (FAQ) for town planning advice first before contacting us.

If our advice pages are not sufficient and you still require further assistance, please CONTACT US DIRECTLY AT:

You can also leave a voice message on (03) 9513 9674. 
NB: this is an answering service only so it may take some days for your message to be accessed and answered.


Law Institute of Victoria Free Legal Service

5 thoughts on “Contact

  1. Alan Frederick

    An overseas investor has just acquired a rear double storey unit on a former house block . There is a planning request in to double the upstair area creating a large store , .study and retreat in addition to three upstairs bedrooms. If the plan showed 4 or more bedrooms it would be rejected on parking grounds .
    We understand the new owner does not intend this to be used as a family home.

    We need to lodge a draft objection in a couple of days with the council . We have numerous issues iro bulk, overdevelopment, cheap construction , hard paving % ,overlooking etc


    Any suggestions as to how we protect ourselves from a possible 4 -6 bedroom unit without our objection being perceived racist?


  2. Roy Lloyd

    In the new Garden Residential Zone the Govt policy is for “moderate increase in density”.
    Are there any criteria , objective or subjective . to define what is a “moderate increase in density”.

    Also have have there been any guidlines as to what weight should be given to the level of existing devopment in asssessing a proposal

  3. Rita O'Donnell

    I just wanted to alert SOS to the SAVE SURREY HILLS Community page on Facebook.
    It was created in response to a decision by Boroondara Council last month to grant a planning permit for a large bottle shop (140 – 148 Union Road, Surrey Hills). It aims to increase community awareness about 2 development proposals currently threatening to ruin the amenity of the area. The second one is a proposal for a COLES supermarket.
    Thanks for your interest.
    Rita O’Donnell on behalf of the SAVE SURREY HILLS Team

  4. Michael Kitson PhD

    Res codes and Standards Screens & transparency

    For the attention of Ian Wood, RESIDENTS’ VOICE
    Dear Ian,
    I read your articles very early this morning (Issue 31, September 2014) with very great interest indeed. There are two reasons for this. I live in Ardrie Rd a Heritage Zone (NRZ2 and my back garden borders a GRZ7. This what Stonnington Council describe as a ‘Sensitive Residential Interface’.
    Therefore the Overshadowing, overlooking and heritage concerns are mine.
    The second reason for my interest was that I worked between 1967 and 1969 in London as a Research Fellow responsible for some psycho-physical research and testing, with the object of quantifying information on the (then) new computer high accuracy maps we were developing for the Ordnance Survey – among others. We also developed a stereo map. But stereopsis was encountered in measuring information density trials and I learnt enough to recognize the complex behaviour associated with binocular vision.
    Immediately I read the Res Codes I realized that to use 25% obscurity as a measure was absurd and to apply the same standard to glass (of an unspecified type and nature) smacked of a total innocent/ignorance bordering on lunacy.
    So, unknowingly, I trod much the same ground you have. Found instances of PMS in use, and which had been named by the Council as of 25% obscurity, but through which one could see the horizon. I found similar examples which also showed massive see-through with the light behind them. Also, of course, coating frosted glass with water aids transparency.
    So – I would like to keep in touch with ‘Residents Voice’ and if you agree would like to discuss with someone a number of matters about Standards. As far as I can see (as their provenance –perhaps the original objective in your terms) this seems completely unacknowledged and unknown) that all those pertaining to overlooking (including the 9 metre Restricted Viewing Zone) require a thorough overhaul. Another oddity is the choice of Equinox for shadow diagrams (when they are minimal), the winter Solstice would be more useful for North facing gardens like mine. But, in fact, a set of seasonal dates linked to growing periods would suit Australia better.
    What could one do to promote this idea of review and put it into effect?
    I am doubtful if diffraction is the main cause of the PMS transparency. I had the amusing pleasure of asked a board-room-sized council table full of Crs and Applicant architects and front men, to hold up one hand in front of their face, count the eight fingers and watch them go transparent – not that many were game enough to try it.
    So my money is on the interaction of two eyes and an organizing brain. I can write/research more on this if it helps.
    I have tried to find my old friends from the research days, but they will have retired. Though I think there is some similar research going on at Melbourne Uni.
    My sincere kind regards, please keep in touch Michael KItson

Leave a Reply