PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. Not another one! When will this overshadowing over crowding high rise stuff stop —all concentrated in and around Black Street
   Eight stories is too high
   It doesn’t take rocket science to see all this overdevelopment is causing immense problems Re traffic, public transport, rubbish, graffiti, crime angry residents, mental health problems, road rage, and safety problems

2. Yes MJ another one. Please submit your objection directly to council as advertising closed yesterday.
   I am waiting for when council is planning to do something about upgrading the storm water, sewer and electrical supply to the area. Has this even been budgeted for?

3. I wish to lodge an objection to 22 Black St proposal - it's TOO HIGH and exceeds the 19M height control.

   Moreland Councul please be reminded:

   - You have already approved four towers in the Jewell area, which gave no regard to the physical context of the low scale, single storey Victorian terraces that have a heritage overlay. The heritage overlay means these terraces are unlikely to experience any significant redevelopment.

   - Many residents have lived in these terraces well before the commercial zoning and heritage overlay was applied, so it’s unreasonable to expect residents should’ve known Moreland would develop a strong strategic direction that would destroy their existing amenity. Your approvals are creating a canyon effect for the heritage overlay terraces.

   Is there an annual review of your incoherent strong strategic direction? It needs to properly consider equitable outcomes for existing and future residents, rather than favouring the fortune of developers, and driving inequality in Brunswick, and our society.

   Has there been any examples where you have pivoted, switched direction, learned lessons and stop approving these inequitable plans?

4. I agree with Claire
   This area is shocking and a disaster

5. I was at the meeting, one of only 4 residents - do they deliberately hold these meetings at a time when most people are unable to attend?
   The developer's Town Planner was very reasonable in all his responses to the questions, until he tried to wrap up, saying he thought he'd addressed all the questions, when he clearly had not! The biggest question of them all, by everyone present, was in regard to the huge height discrepancy between the current 19 metre allowance and their nearly 27 metre proposal. We all quickly reminded him, needless to say!
   In short, his response was that it was inevitable that all surrounding sites would be developed to this height.
   They applauded themselves for the fact that they were not planning to build shoe box sized apartments and that they were aiming for the higher end of the market.
   I'm not sure how much difference that will make to the precinct when you no longer have any sky or natural light and the southerlies whistle down the wind tunnels of this lane!

6. Dear Planning Authority,

   The two questions I would’ve asked had I been able to attend the council meeting last week:

   1) What is the process for which developers can ignore the height control?

   2) Is Moreland Council committed to the height control rule?

   Are you able to please advise?

   Regards
   Claire

7. Dear Planning Authority,

   I’m dismayed at the planning officer’s report giving the green light to the arches tower.

   Please schedule this for discussion at the planning authority committee.

   This building proposal is particularly awful and it is hard to imagine a more cynical design.

   Regards
   Claire

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