PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. When I find 10 bucks in an old pair of jeans I feel great, so I can only imagine how great it will feel for the developer if Moreland approves this. Is this proposal fair and equitable for existing residents? Should existing residents feel alarmed? I object to this overdevelopment.

2. Yet another application over height, oversized and continuing the plague of overdevelopment, overcrowding and all the other related problems. Legally in this area its no higher than 17 metres please stuck to the rules?

3. The proposed construction of the ‘Nightingale ghetto’ at 1 Duckett Street, Brunswick presents a serious challenge to the social and physical fabric of the neighbourhood. In short, in this relatively small area it is proposed to build 210 apartments plus 8 commercial shopfronts spread over 7 buildings, 8 storeys high. There will be absolutely no car parking provided with the recommendation that inmates, shoppers and visitors should use pushbikes or public transport. The whole proposal is full of insulting big brother preaching, for example, “Walking to and from public transport is also a great way to incorporate some extra physical activity. In addition, catching public transport may also improve your mental health as it is less stressful than driving, and the commuter can read, listen to music or unwind during their journey.” The people advancing these proposals have little conception that the public transport system is already bursting at the seams in Brunswick and that in old suburbs it is difficult to build new additional infrastructure. Such proposals discriminate against people with disabilities, people with children with special needs (or simply with children involved in after-school arts and sports activities) and people with pets, where a car is a necessity. The proposal is full condescending insults, such as the apartments will have room for only small fridges so that people will shop daily to minimise on waste, too bad for people who shop in bulk on paydays to economise or do not have time for daily shopping excursions.
   This is gross over-development and a bad example of British public housing estates and as attractive as a multi-storey warehouse.
   There may be a push for this sort of high-density over-development amongst some members on council. Ratepayers opposed to such developments must note who on council support them and, at the next elections, vote for regime change.

4. As a local resident within 200 metres of this development, with no other stake in this other than proximity. I have listened to the public briefing in its entirety and fully support.

5. Yet another prime example of gross overdevelopment within Moreland. Will these stupid applications that only serve the developer and the council ever come to an end?

   Will Moreland stop trying to promote this Green future they've envisaged. It won't work. You are ruining our suburbs when you approve applications like this.

   I wonder I feel any of our lovely councillors actually live here in Moreland and know what it feels like to have your yard overshadowed or not be able to park in you're own street because there is no parking available because of the applications you've approved with reductions

   YOU ARE RUINING OUR SUBURBS

   I strongly object to this hideous overdevelopment.

6. This is clearly an over development for this site. It will put pedestrians and bike riders at risk and disrupt the local community. I object to the reduction in parking and strongly object to the partial closure of Duckett st.
   As someone who commutes through this area every day on a bike (live in Brunswick East) the continuing relentless development is creating traffic conditions that are making it more dangerous and discouraging me from riding.

7. I like the social aspect of it such as community housing & supporting social enterprises & having a park where the street used to be. I don’t mind the size if there is some space given back…

8. Did I read somewhere of a discussion panel regarding SKYRAIL along this corridor...will be just like the scene from the 'Blues Brothers'. Another useless objection right here.

9. This development is a nightingale model which is NOT developer driven, it aims to provide sustainable and affordable housing to people who cannot afford to buy. By removing basement car parking it makes the housing more affordable. Those who sign up to ballot for an apartment do so, knowing they will not own a car. The last nightingale divided the money left over from the construction back to the owners instead of pocketing it. Nightingale is not that type of developer. These apartments will be sustainable and high quality designed by some of the best architects in Melbourne. These are the types of the developments we should be supporting - high quality and sustainable. The nightingale model gives back to communities. I highly recommend you look it up, visit one around the corner and read the reports submitted to planning before forming an opinion. Moreland has permitted many many developments that are of very poor quality and design but this is not one of them.

10. To the people above who object... Do yourself a favour and learn about the development before you judge it based on it's size. I agree there is terrible development in Brunswick, but that is the exact reason we need Nightingale. Apartments that actually give back to the local community with parks and public spaces. Residents who actively engage in making Brunswick a better place. Melbourne needs more developments like this and we need to support community driven projects like Nightingale. As a local resident, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

11. I strongly agree with the points raised in the objections above and will not reiterate at length here.

    A few additional points:

    1. The claim that this is not 'developer-driven' or 'primarily for profit' enables a nifty little sleight of hand. In fact, investor profits are merely capped at 15%, which is still a fairly healthy margin, especially when the allegedly green credentials of the building are seeing a 'waiting list' to live sustainably. Owners can also rent out their apartments, with non-enforceable 'suggestions' as to how you might play nicely when doing so.

    2. These apartments are NOT more affordable than those around them. From the Nightingale website:

    "The cheapest one bedroom at Nightingale 1 sold for $415K while the best two bedroom apartment in Nightingale 1 was sold for $655K."

    Not only are there many cheaper apartments in Brunswick, some brand new too (see https://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-vic-brunswick-127692438 for an example at $346,500), but by any objective standards, this is NOT CHEAP real estate.

    So, if anyone imagines that this is going to house the poor and vulnerable......

    3. Not everyone can reach work via public transport. Our public transport system is simply not as good as those in, say, Moscow or London. And even there, some people can only get to work by car.

    4. Some people live too far from work to cycle ... or work shift work.

    5. Cycling anywhere in the vicinity of Sydney Road is dangerous. Putting more cyclists on major roads or side streets is not going to help here. These developments need to occur AFTER we have the appropriate infrastructure (like separated and dedicated bike lanes that DON'T cross major roads every few hundred metres). Putting children out there in the rain, cold and traffic might deter those of us with a bit of imagination, too. Yes, there are a few bike paths (crossing major streets), but you have to get to and from the bike paths via other streets and often crossing Sydney Road. The Upfield bike path has several unsafe sections that are wholly on the road.

    6. Further with regard to cycling - there seems to be an assumption here that every day is sunny, mild and calm, and that every potential resident is a young and athletic adult without dependants who is actually able to make this choice. Sometimes the weather is bad; sometimes you have to go places that aren't served by public transport; sometimes you just can't arrive dripping with sweat or torrential rain with helmet hair; sometimes you have to carry stuff that won't go on the back of your bike or in the tram; sometimes you get arthritis and the doctor says you have to take it easy on your knees; sometimes you have a newborn and have to get to the hospital or appointments or your Mum's place; sometimes you have to get your pet to the vet (fast!).... and sometimes you have every good intention to live without a car but life happens and you have an accident, have a baby, get a dog, care for an ageing or disabled relative.....

    Then you get a car and compete for parking on the street.

    I am pretty green and I support the introduction of many of the sustainable practices, including double glazing, single bathrooms, and good insulation. But you can't set these places up to fail with unrealistic expectations of people being bound to shop daily (small fridge spaces) and commit to not having cars for an unpredictable long-term future (not until AFTER we have implemented a slough of other things so that the required infrastructure is in place BEFORE we build like this).

    In the meantime, I feel that the current residents in the area, who are already struggling to have their needs met, be given some degree of courteous consideration, and we don't dupe people into feeling that they are buying into a lifestyle we already know cannot be sustained as promised.

12. We live in a Nightingale apartment and as an organization they really walk the talk. They build what they say they will and it really creates a wonderful sense of community. I can’t wait for the Nightingale Village to be built.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Moreland City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment