Can you help keep PlanningAlerts running? — Your donation is tax deductible.

430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163

The proposed development comprises of 8 storeys with a basement for car parking ground level retail space and 8 upper levels reserved for student housing A reduction and car parking waiver also forms part of the application

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website almost 2 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: City of Glen Eira, reference GE/DP-32980/2019)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. FIONA MCNABB commented

    I live in Melbourne Street which consists of single and 2 storey residential dwellings. An 8 storey development is excessive and not in keeping with neighbourhood. Also, restricted car parking is totally inappropriate. Residents already experience parking issues in Melbourne Street. I consistently have people parking over my drive way due to limited spaces in Neerim Road.

  2. Mike Quinn commented

    I agree with the last comment. An 8 storey development is totally inappropriate!!
    How on earth could you possibly consider reduced car parking . Parking is already a real problem . Eight storeys is purely a greed factor and should not be approved under any circumstances!!

  3. Keith Hinson commented

    I agree wholeheartedly with the previous comments. An 8-storey development specifically aimed at delivering student accommodation with reduced carparking is completely unsatisfactory for the precinct and should not be even contemplated for development approval.

  4. Katharine Seyler commented

    Eight storeys is far above the current height of other residential developments in this area and will be extremely out of place. It will cause traffic issues on an already difficult intersection and is an unsuitable development for this street or area.

  5. S. A. commented

    8 stories is far too high - it will dominate the neighborhood and be totally out of character - a very unexpected and unwanted development in our community. On the car parking though - i’m not sure that’ll be a huge issue - how many students will have cars? what’s the plan for the ground level retail - i’d heard a Leo’s Supermarket was planned - is that right?

  6. D. G. commented

    Categorically agree with the above comments. 8 storey is too high and not in character for the area. I think maximum 4 storeys for that site. There are already too many high rise apartments in Carnegie and we don't need more.
    What we really need is a decent supermarket. We have 2 Woolworths and an Aldi on Koornang Road - super convenient when getting off at Carnegie station. Yet, not even a milk bar now in Murrumbeena. A well priced supermarket (nudge nudge Coles) will increase foot traffic and lead to more small businesses opening shop in the pretty dismal Murrumbeena precinct.

  7. D.L commented

    8 storeys is inappropriate for the site, negatively impacting the area, whose services are already streched by the demands from all the other constructed apartments in the area. Completely agree that the area needs an appropriate Supermarket to service the population in the existing surrounding high density apartments. Parking should not be reduced from the srandard planning requirements. Height should be limited to 4 storeys max.

  8. Kevin commented

    8 storeys is too high for this area, should be 4 maximum. Also the car parking should not be waived when parking can be difficult to find at times anyway, it could cause more pressure for local businesses.

  9. Bill Best commented

    It depends on the actual building permit too as to whether this is proposed as a quality building or a cheap building thats going to be a future slum.
    The shading of neighbours behind as well as overlooking of private open space by the proposed developmemt is important because the local authority seems to disregard these planning & building rules.
    Its nuts to think that overlooking rules only apply to proximity of a few metres and anything above that height is exempt. The sunlight is valuable now or dont the planners believe the cccrap?

  10. Jenny Krasnowski commented

    Just because the skyrail has gone through Carnegie, Murrumbeena and beyond does not justify developers pushing for multi-level, unacceptable and inappropriate developments in an area that already suffers major congestion and parking problems and knowing that the council will approve these developments.
    All pending and future developments in GE need to have more than enough car parking on the site for all the residents and visitor parking. Just because you live close to public transport does not automatically mean a resident does not own one, two or more vehicles.
    Reduction in car parking should no longer be allowed or supported by the council, unless the developers can show they can improve street and road access and parking.
    Overshadowing, overlooking and lack of privacy and also the added demand on our diminishing open spaces is the area, it appears parks are also crowded places in the warmer months.
    And why is this development only reserved for student? Does this not discriminate against, singles, couples, downsizers and families that might choose to live in GE. The area around the development will become a slum, and that is a concern for all.
    Developments should be no taller than the closest nature strip tree.

  11. belinda poole commented

    Student housing to me says “shoe box style” appartments. We have now supplied enough of this accommodation in this area. Please think of the families and homes that reside around this development. It’s so unfair!! 8 stories is to high. No more inappropriate development! We don’t need it. Listen to the community

  12. Jeff Nestor commented

    An 8 story student accomodation building on the corner of the Murrumbeena shopping strip and opposite the sky rail station will be an absolute blot on the whole local landscape......and an open invitation to wall in Melbourne St. as the shopping strip will just play for the same absurd height.
    Carnegie is already copping these absurd heights that can be seen from a kilometre away as you approach the local shopping precinct. It’s noted that these developments are just walling in neighbourhoods all through Glen Eira and parking is becoming a joke with all the parking facility it Carnegie, Elsternwick or Bentleigh.

    People bought into these neighbourhoods for the amenity and local community life.

    The last thing this corner needs is an 8 story student accomodation project that will be a slum in 10 years time.........look at the corner of Arrawatta and Koornang Rd. behind Carnegie Aldi. A visual blot that looks ready for demolition after less than 7 years. And now with 12(?) stories next to it. Again right opposite the station. All that public space under the sky rail will never see the light of day.....ever.

    Listen to the local community!

  13. Paul Henry commented

    I welcome this development and believe a large influx of students will breath much needed life into the local shops.

    Students getting apartments next to railway lines tend to not drive so I am not worried about the parking. Small apartments are perfect for students.

    This is great.

  14. Anna Le Merle commented

    8 storeys is way too high and student housing is not necessary given we have no university (or high school) in the vicinity. 2 to 3 storeys max with boutique residences and retail or only retail is in keeping with the area. High density living brings poor quality builds as well as increased crime. I oppose this development.

  15. Monika L. Crescini commented

    Don't have anything against student accomodation and retail area but definitely against 8 storey building. The height shall match buildings in the area - and there is nothing above 3-4 storeys here. It would completely kill the vibe of Murrumbeena Village. The new building needs to match the height and character of heritage buildings on the street - especially as it would be on such an exposed location.
    It would be like an observation tower and people in the nearby houses will lose their privacy!
    I don't worry about the cars - even though already now very often we cannot get a parking spot at Murrumbeena Rd but I do worry about very big building full of micro cheap apartments and additional hundreds of people on the overcrowded trains in rush hours and not convinced that the new high capacity trains would help.
    Allowing an 8 storey building would set a precedence and in no time Murrumbeena will lose its heritage and green character.

  16. Jo Impey commented

    Murrumbeena needs housing for couples, older people, families and social housing for people on low incomes, not just student accommodation. Surely a building eight stories high can provide housing options for more than just students.

  17. Jelo Drake commented

    Development is much need in this area. Removal of on-street parking is needed to declutter the streets in Glen Eira.It makes transit safer for kids cycling to school. Murrumbeena Rd is a death-trap for cyclists currently so would be great to see parking removed or reconfigured along there – also helps to encourage use of bikes lessening traffic, which is much needed.

    Students will likely use the train to get to Caulfield and will bring much needed revenue and activity to this area. 8 storeys is high but in-keeping with the rezoning along most train lines.

  18. Joanna De Jesus commented

    Village: 2 story max, not 8 story. Definition of village needs to be considered.
    I am concerned about the local area, in particular the Murrumbeena primary school and the chaos the construction site will cause during school terms. Once built the rotating door of students not familiar to the area will make me concerned about my personal safety and security when I walk through the village and adjoining streets. History has proven a development like this takes months. The safety of getting kids to and from school will be a factor.
    There is already a lack of car spaces at the Murrumbeena train station and surrounding local streets capped at 2 hours. This screams more revenue raising by the council, again!
    It’s bad enough having the Carnegie high rises and most apartments are left empty with lack of tenants with too many apartments in the area. The train network cannot cope with more passengers. The state has not allowed for more traffic and congestion in our suburbs. Disappointing to hear about this but we need to be strong and voice our concerns.

  19. Emma Winward commented

    This would be a complete travesty for Murrumbeena. It is a grotesque money grab and would open the floodgates for yet more inappropriate overdevelopment. When will it be enough? Limiting parking also just damages the vendors. Stop punishing the local community.

    We do however need a local supermarket, minimart or convenience store. What ever happened to greengrocers, butchers and milkbars?

  20. Susannah Farfor commented

    Please note that the introduction to this planning permit appears to be incorrect. It appears to the proposed development actually comprises be 10-storeys rather than the 8 storeys stated. The 9 storeys above ground would include the 8-storeys of student accommodation above a ground floor retail space and basement parking. Please clarify this so that the community can respond appropriately.

  21. Marco commented

    If this building goes ahead with a 8 story development It will look out of line and character with what Murrumbeeena has bought to the community! With such disturbances these shop have indued with the railway, it going to cop a building that stands out like dog balls! It’s time for the council and residents to stand up and say “ HANG ON THIS AN’T RIGHT!” We can do better and it’s time for us all to stand united.

  22. Monique commented

    This development is totally out of character with the spirit of the existing neighbourhood. As a new resident of the area, we bought into Murrumbeena because it has a lovely village feeling with a strong family and community focus. Families build communities. They contribute to the infrastructure of the suburb and help them to flourish in a way that the single more transient student population cannot. If there has to be a development, it needs to be structured in a way that will invite families to the area. Low rise, medium density developments are much more in keeping with what currently exists. I am not opposed to development per se, provided they service the community in a long term sustainable proposition that has been carefully considered by the town planners.

  23. Jane Blandy commented

    I am really concerned about the proposal for an 8 storey high rise apartment building on the corner of Neerim Rd and Murrumbeena Rd, on the old Foodworks site. This is completely out of character for the area, and a concern for an already vehicle congested shopping strip. My understanding is this area is considered a family friendly village, and the council would be making all attempts to facilitate a sense of community around this area. I was hoping for a Coles Express, with maybe lower storey luxury apartments above.

  24. Malcolm Page commented

    As already previously stated, 8 storeys is not in character of neighbourhood/village. It’s not even close. This proposal clearly should be rejected.
    Since we have moved into area 4 years ago we have already had the sky rail project and mitigation stormwater works thrust upon us, decreasing the quality of living, loss of park access and reduced village feel.
    Glen Eira Council, please consider the impact of the local families in your approval process, we have endured enough in recent times.

  25. Mark W commented

    I moved to Murrumbeena recently and live on Melbourne street, the street behind this purposed development.

    Murrumbeena at the moment is an idyllic suburb: close enough to the shops (Chadstone and Carnegie) but without the congestion. 5 train shops to the city in the morning on an express. Surrounded by parks and beautiful period houses.

    An 8 level student focused development is completely out of character for Murrumbeena. Carnegie is a bustling hub with shops and restaurants, and student accommodation for that suburb is appropriate. It is not appropriate for Murrumbeena. Parking is already tricky with the street of apartments and Thursday night auctions.

    Please consider the residents in that area, not the temporary students who will come and leave. Consider the parking implications, consider how this will impact sunlight and the traffic this would create.

  26. Elizabeth Blutman commented

    I live in Melbourne St, so this development will extend into my street. The development of a ground retail space is a good thing if it is to house a local supermarket or draw card space however with 8 storeys on top of this (making 9 in total) it is far too tall for this residential space and is not in keeping with the area. There are 2-3 level dwellings max around these streets and this planned submission will stick out inappropriately as well as create parking issues. Already in Melbourne St we compete with parking problems from the station. I welcome a development to improve the look but no higher that 3 levels with appropriate parking would be perfect. I oppose this plan as it stands.

  27. Steve D commented

    Definitely too tall for the location and out of character for the neighbourhood. A 4 level development would be more appropriate, with the retail space below being retained.

    Student accommodation sounds like they want to squeeze in as many tiny cheap apartments as possible. It will look awful in Murrumbeena. Surely a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom accommodation would be more appropriate for the demands of the area. Couples, families and older residents want to purchase and live in the area.

    Parking and traffic is already an issue for the immediate area. Sky rail has helped traffic but this development has the potential to undo all the gains made from the level crossing being removed.

  28. Peta Denham Harvey commented

    I oppose the proposed development in its current form:

    The development is clearly significantly above the acceptable height to ensure maintenance of the character of this lovely neighbourhood, and as it will overlook surrounding properties, the amenity of the neighbourhood.

    Reductions of parking requirements is farcical in an already congested parking area.

    An 100% target of student housing is inappropriate - a broader social mix of tenancies is known to support more balanced and vibrant community, not dominated by transitory residents with little or no connection to the local community.

    Public transport infrastructure at Murrumbeena station is already under stress with peak period trains already full to capacity.

    I do support the prospect of an application that includes a supermarket for the local area.

  29. Deborah Morrison commented

    Support and encouragement to embattled residents and those directly or indirectly affected by this proposed development, and who are fighting to protect a reasonable and sustainable amenity. Your objections and proposals are not 'anti-development'. They are fair and balanced, in the face rapacious and rampant development.
    Hopefully your voices will be heard by Glen Eira council. You are up against powerful vested interests. Strength to you.

  30. Olivia T commented

    There are several reasons why the proposed development is not appropriate for the area:

    1. As many have mentioned, the height is out of step with the rest of the area. Eight stories is unnecessary and will be a blight on the landscape. It will also reduce the natural sunlight that makes the area a comfortable place to live.

    2. The traffic at the station is already cumbersome. A years-long construction period followed by the influx of hundreds of residents will make a bad situation worse.

    3. We do not have the infrastructure to support this type of development. As mentioned by some other submissions, a business development would be much more appropriate for the area and could be achieved in a much shorter period of time.

    4. Living directly opposite the proposed development in a front-facing building, I am concerned about the quality of life for those in my vicinity for the years it will take to build, particularly air quality.

    5. There are already two developments underway on Murrumbeena Road (one close to Dandenong Road, the other further down towards Kangaroo Road). Have both of these developments sold out? If not, this might give some indication that the proposed development will be stuck in limbo for some time to come.

  31. Lisa Beach commented

    I have the following concerns about the proposed development:
    1). An 8 storey development is not in keeping with this neighborhood/family suburb. No other developments in the area exceed 4 storeys.
    2). A reduction in the provision of parking is not appropriate. There is already inadequate parking for people accessing local businesses and parking overflow from this proposed development would likely affect people accessing local businesses as well as impacting on station car parking
    3). Student housing is not required in this area, there are more suitable locations closer to university campuses. In addition it would likely mean these are very small/cheap dwellings.
    4). This would unfairly impact existing residents in neighboring streets due to overlooking, overshadowing and traffic flow/parking impacts.

  32. Graeme Callen commented

    Please note the way I read it, it is a 9 storey development. (Retail ground floor, 8 levels of student housing above)
    Height aside, student housing is very wrong for the location.
    There should not be any relaxation of parking requirements (note student housing usually requires little or no mandatory parking)
    You want quality apartments more focused on owner occupation or higher level rental.
    This would then help the traders of Murrumbeena.

  33. AW commented

    I completely agree with all the comments opposing this development.
    Look what all the high rise student developments have done to Carnegie, it’s horrendous. Murrumbeena is a beautiful family suburb, not a place for transient student accommodation!
    I really hope the council can see this development is inappropriate and not inline with the current neighbourhood.

  34. Lucy Allan commented

    Hello! I live on Murrumbeena Rd just a few metres up from the site. I absolutely welcome this high-density mixed use development to my neighbourhood! I hope the increased height restriction, has been a source of revenue for government, not just a free gift for the owner!

    I'm not worried about the height, Murrumbeena needs to change like many other urban ring suburbs to cater appropriately for population growth and access to the CBD.

    I do share the concern about "student" aka doxbox housing. Mixed residential and commercial with quality and affordable housing would be most appropriate.

    Hey, why not trade the height restriction lift for the requirement that a certain number of apartments be social or affordable housing? 😎👌

  35. Hannah D commented

    I agree that Murrumbeena needs a mix of housing to encourage growth, however student only accommodation is not encouraging a mix of tenants. It should at least be a mix of 1 and 2 bed apartments. Each apartment needs its own carpark for the parking issues already mentioned. If this block only fits 8 carparks it should only have 8 apartments. Finally I completely agree that 9 stories is way too high. If the development height on Murrumbeena road is limited to 2-3 stories, this should also be the same to keep the village and residential feel, same as the other apartments and built on Neerim rd. village. Please don't let Murrumbeena turn into a mini apartment city like Carnegie :-(

  36. Kristy commented

    An 8 storey apartment block would completely change the beautiful feeling of Murrumbeena. Pls enough of this type of development in our areas.

  37. Vivienne T commented

    A building of 9 storeys in Murrumbeena is excessive. It will tower above the new Murrumbeena station. It will be visible from quite a distance. Such a height will encourage infill with neighbournig properties. Four to five storeys is a height that is in keeping with the station height and the more recent developments close to the site.

    Student housing implies a high concentration of residents with small spaces and limitations on amenities. While this may not matter as much for short term residents, how can there be any certainty that will be only students housed there?
    Lack of parking in the proposed development is going to compound the parking difficulties in the shopping precinct. Residents of the recent developments in the shopping precinct already use the station parking for private use. This is very obvious late in the evening and even late Sunday evenings. It is not at all unusual to see twenty or so cars parked to the areas closer to the shops. It would be unlikely to think they are all people who may have a bit to drink and have stayed in town for the night. While many students may not be able to afford cars, it seems the size of the proposed development will guarantee that if only half of the possible student residents have cars, there will be greatly increased pressures on parking in the surrounding streets.

  38. Sam commented

    I frequently visit this spot on weekends already have trouble parking.
    I live in Malvern East with student accommodation very close. First hand experience of impact to area is negative.
    Firstly, the assumption that students don’t drive is completely false. We have students leaving cars parked for weeks on end. (to the point recent roadworks were effected because cars do not move & bike lane still not fully painted months later)
    They will park in front of your driveway with little regard or care.
    Secondly, the area has become like a slum, with the students not collecting mail, therefore rubbish litters the street. They empty their rubbish from their cars constantly.
    Their old computers & furniture is constantly dumped in front of our house.

    Surely there is enough “cheap” apartments catering to students and new arrivals?ie.Carnegie, Caulfield, Glen Huntley and parts of Malvern East. Our lovely shopping has been destroyed. “Massage parlours” & Chinese stores selling vitamins dominating.

    Murrumbeena should be protected. It’s has just about recovered from sky rail..
    It will completely loose all charm if this tower of student accommodation is allowed.

  39. belinda poole commented

    I agree with everything Sam has mentioned above. This is so true.

  40. Elissa Blackman commented

    Please listen to the community. I concur with the repeating concerns mentioned to date...

    8+ storeys: NO THANK YOU. This in not in line with the area and we certainly don't want it to become the new norm like Carnegie.

    Reduced parking: NO THANK YOU. Students have cars too. Parking is already at a premium. Why should the developers get away with that?

    Student housing: NO THANK YOU. Please have at least a mix of apartment sizes. Let us keep the family appeal of Murrumbeena.

    Please keep Murrumbeena's charm.

  41. HM commented

    As local Neerim Rd residents we do not support this type of development. We need to protect Murrumbeena and village from this high rise development. Please be realistic and do not allow buildings such as this proposal in a place that will not cope with out adequate parking. It will more than likely be a low quality build that becomes an overshadowing eyesore. We are full to the brim with cars in the area and students do drive. I agree with the East Malvern resident comments on the state these buildings end up in with the rubbish that seems to surround student accomodation. We constantly see furniture dumped in the area and this would likely increase.
    Murrumbeena needs a quality supermarket that we would all support and this is the perfect location. Not an 8 story mediocre building that will disrupt the area while being built. The Carnegie towers are enough. We who live here chose it for it's small village feel.

  42. Ben Nelson commented

    I have the following concerns about the proposed development:
    1). An 8 storey development is not in keeping with this neighborhood/family suburb. No other developments in the area exceed 4 storeys.
    2). A reduction in the provision of parking is not appropriate. I frequent these shops all week and in the weekends and there is already inadequate parking for people accessing local businesses and parking overflow from this proposed development would likely affect people accessing local businesses as well as impacting on station car parking
    3). Student housing is not required in this area, there are more suitable locations closer to university campuses. In addition it would likely mean these are very small/cheap dwellings.
    4). This would unfairly impact existing residents in neighboring streets due to overlooking, overshadowing and traffic flow/parking impacts.

    5). The overall property prices would be affected and decline in the area due to precedence of over developed multi level complex dwellings and it being student accommodation and lack of parking.

    please let’s keep murrumbeena precinct in character and not become overdeveloped like some areas of carnegie now.

  43. Louise Young commented

    For a formal response, I was advised that you need to email Glen Eira Council directly on
    Height: An 8 storey development is not in keeping with this neighborhood character. No other developments in the area exceed 4 storeys and there is no precedent set for a building of this height
    Parking: A reduction in the provision of parking is not appropriate. There is already inadequate parking for people accessing local businesses and parking overflow from this proposed development would likely affect people accessing local businesses as well as impacting on station car parking.
    Safety: location and increased traffic
    Neighbourhood Character: this is out of keeping with neighbourhood character and will negatively impact quality of living

  44. D.G. commented

    As mentioned above by Louise, all submissions against this plan should be made by emailing or via submissions link by 18th December 2019

    Adding to my previous comment, the reduction in car parking is concerning. Assuming students won't have cars is ridiculous. They will end up parking at the station, using spaces needed by residents with no choice but to drive to the station.

  45. Vanessa Crew commented

    As long term business owners (18 years) next door to this property we object to this development.
    The height of the building is totally inappropriate for the ‘village’ of Murrumbeena and will spoil the charm of our village atmosphere.

    We also have grave concerns with interruption to our business due to construction as loss of the limited parking we have will be greatly impacted.

    More parking is needed in the area. The words ‘student accomodation’ are being used to allow the developers not to provide on site parking which is costly.

  46. George Vlamakis commented

    135 student apartments and only 11 car spots! Are you kidding? Please don't make the mistake of assuming that university students (including international students) do not have cars. This has not been my experience at all, living locally in the hub of a high international student area. I'd also urge the Council to consider the mental health impact of architecture, where people live alone in little shoe boxes. Why can't students apartment share, in 3 bedroom units. I dare say, most would prefer this arrangement, than living alone in a shoe box. I urge Glen Eira Council, to give thought to a. adequate car parking provision, and b. the mental health impact of solo living in tiny spaces.

  47. Keith commented

    Please note that Glen Eira City Council has released details associated with the Application for Planning Permit for the proposed developments of the 430-434 Neerim Road site - ref: GD/DP-32980/2019

    Visit: to lodge a formal objection
    Or: PO Box 42, Caulfield South 3162

    An objection should include;
    - reasons for the objection together with;
    - a statement detailing how the objector would be impacted

  48. Con Zois commented

    A building of this height is totally not in character with Murrumbeena. This is 'greed' dictating the terms of construction. Where is the balance shown here between the interests of developers and the residents who live in Murrumbeena and have enjoyed the neighborhood for its unique character and liveability? Can someone in planning please listen to the all the concerned residents who live in Murrumbeena and have replied back with concerns?

  49. Beverley Budds commented

    I have lived here 20 years.
    1. This is not a building that fits with the character of Murrumbeena village. It certainly the ugliest building i've seen. Which does not fit in with the COUNCIL's proposed heritage listing overlay.
    2. The traffic is returning to pre-newly install station, with up to three changes of the lights to get through intersection. Road rage is increasing again.
    3. More people equals more rubbish, since the building of Neerim road (407 -401) rubbish spews forth onto the streets. Everyday! Extra bins to over flow and block passage of wheel chairs from Scope and Elderly Homes such as Spurway Community. This new building will impact much the same way.
    4. Parking, less parking outside of shops, forcing people to park cars in side street impacting local residents.This is already a mess. If we are forced to endure these large building, they should supply public parking as well!
    5. Finally on a personal note, sick to death looking at rubbish and peoples washing on clothes horses on balconies, when once we had glorious massive gumtrees!!!! How many more of these high rise slums must we tolerate all for the $$$ for developers. Murrumbeena deserves better than this.

  50. Clem Hindson commented

    We understand formal submissions have closed, and we are sorry to have missed the deadline. We must say here:

    As residents of Murrumbeena for over 10 years, my husband and I are strongly opposed to this application. The construction of a nine story building along the murrumbeena shopping strip will not only completely ruin the charm of our little village, but will increase traffic and population by an astronomical amount, for which the roads are not built for. Don’t assume students don’t have cars - ridiculous!!

    Carnegie has been completely ruined by the development of multi story residential buildings, particularly around the station precinct. It is simply awful. And over the years we have noticed how busy Carnegie has become - we struggle to find a park when we go to the shops. And the entire area looks awful - like a mini city with numerous high rise dwellings. 

    We have always been thankful that this was not happening to murrumbeena. Murrumbeena has to date been maintained as a family suburb, and the quaint shopping strip is something we really enjoy. It is a village! A 9 story building will look totally out of place - and the colorful design is hideous by the way.

    In addition to the negative impact this development would have on traffic, parking and the charm of murrumbeena, developments like this are permitted, we are also concerned of the impact it will have on property prices - murrumbeena will lose the draw card of being a family suburb, driving prices down.

    We strongly oppose this plan, and implore the council to preserve murrumbeena as it currently stands - no high rise developments!!!  

  51. Paul Clarey commented

    The height is not so much an issue as parking. 1 bedroom = 1 car park, 2 or more bedrooms = min. 2 car parks. Anything less than this will cause parking chaos for nearby residents. If this parking criteria cannot be met refuse permit! Also wealthy overseas students (which we should encourage) often drive better cars than we do, so just because they are students don't assume that they will not have cars. Also isn't there a minimum standard now for apartments such that shoe boxes are no longer legal? Such a development could be good for village if done appropriately, i.e. sufficient onsite parking!!

  52. Joe Mammolito commented

    The developer is appealing the planning permit rejection - VCAT referene P125/2020.

  53. D. Morrison commented

    Yes, such an appeal is to be expected and developers view it as just part of the process. This is when the real battle begins. Hopefully residents who so staunchly opposed this development, still have the fire in their bellies to pursue it through VCAT. Hopefully council will join them.

  54. Warrick Alldridge commented

    Does anyone know people from the community group opposed to the multi-storey Coles development in Elsternwick near the Holocaust Centre ?
    I assume they're well ahead of this proposal timeline-wise & would have VCAT/legal knowledge to share.

  55. Louise Young commented

    Here is a link to page where money is trying to be raised for legal representation

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week