9S Wardens Walk, Coburg VIC 3058

Construction of a mixed used development comprising a supermarket, retail tenancy and 339 dwellings within two 16-storey buildings.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 4 months ago. It was received by them 8 months earlier.

(Source: Moreland City Council, reference MPS/2018/972)

23 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Cherry Horan commented

    Wow how are we to deal with the demands on our roads and public transport with the number of residents in these two 16 storey towers? This on top of all of the other development at Pentridge. I live in O'Hea Street and have done so for the past 36 years and we feel the pressure of all increased number of vehicles travelling along O'Hea Street from developments at Pentridge as well as those in Pascoe Vale. It will be a fine balancing act for Council to manage all the demands on services and open space also.

  2. Lauris Newbury commented

    I can't believe the council has thought this through. Apart from residents being able to exit in a hurry in case of for example, a fire, this level of development is completely spoiling Coburg. The additional traffic on Sydney Rd, the infrastructure needed, the sewer, services in general and the strain on the no 19
    Tram will chock this suburb completely.
    When will the council draw a line and say , enough, we have done our bit for

  3. Harold Crennan commented

    Great news. Coburg is crying out for more development. Too many vacant and/or disused lots that are nothing but an eyesore. Pentridge has taken too long to finally get moving and hopefully the momentum will continue.

  4. Leigh Hogan commented

    How could there possibly be a need for another 339 apartments in this area? 2x 16 storey buildings - it seems excessive. The overshadowing of neighbouring properties and blocking of the view and sunlight does not afford us quiet enjoyment of our property that is next-door. And nor will the 18 months of digging and building, starting at day-break 6 days a week. There has been a lot of effort made in the plans to ensure the heritage laundry is not overshadowed by these towers, but what about the residents?
    I am also concerned by the lack of family-sized apartments in this building (only 10%), aren't we trying to build a community in Coburg?

  5. Leonora Abrahams commented

    I think this is a ridiculous amount of apartments considering the infrastructure around won't be able to support the influx of people.
    The area isn't groaning with the plight of population right now but why so many in such a small area? There is an incredible lack of thought for the existing residents in the area. You can say shops and money in the area will be good but I think checking in with the immediate residents is a good idea. You may be forcing people out of their homes on this one and considering the welcoming nature of this council that doesn't sit tight with me.
    Noise pollution from development, difficulties around transport and blocked streets clogged by workers vehicles... This development seems just too much for the area. It won't be worth the money for anyone considering how shoddy the building industry is presently. Why not try a development that fits in with what's already there?
    I hope this development settles on views that are a little less shirt sighted.

  6. Peter Locke commented

    2 x 16 stories is way too high and will look out of place with the existing heritage buildings and the mid level developments that have already happened in the neighborhood. As mentioned by others, the pressure on public transport, parking and local traffic needs to be carefully considered before approving this huge development. The upfield train line is already a nightmare and only runs every 20mins and traffic on Sydney Rd slows down tram trips to a grinding halt.

  7. Caterina Rosinsky commented

    It is already ABSOLUTE chaos on Sydney road, Gaffney street and in that general area especially during peak hour. I live off Sydney road near Pentridge, and there is simply no way that this can work efficiently at all. Absolutely ridiculous idea.

  8. Marika Wepener commented

    Unnecessary overdevelopment. Roads & public transport won't cope. Local residents won't be happy. Please rethink the design. Say no to high rise in our suburbs!

  9. Georgia Burke commented

    I support development at Pentridge but it needs to be done appropriately. 16 levels is too high and out of keeping with the existing suburb and will detract from the importance of the heritage buildings. The proposed number of dwellings can not be supported by the existing infrastructure. Murray Road, Sydney Road and surrounding streets will be severely disturbed.

  10. Serena Smith commented

    If this development goes ahead it will be dark, bleak, cold and lifeless. This is a horrific Gothameque plan right out of the darkest Batman movie. With so many high rises already planned, we need some moderation in future builds to keep the light and life in the area.

  11. Alexander Baynes commented

    I thought housing people in large tower blocks was a thing of the past as history tells us they can lead to ghettoisation, social dysfunction and poor aesthetics. Please read J.G Ballard’s book High Rise for examples of all of this. Can the council please be creative in their planning instead of just approving endless dreary residential tower blocks. Please build an environment people are proud of. Money and future strong gratifying development will follow. Two 16 storey tower blocks won’t allow for this.

  12. Beth healy commented

    I object vehemently to any 16 story or similar high rise at the pentridge site or surrounds. It is a gross overdevelopment which will ruin the area by putting way too much strain on Sydney road and average infrastructure. I am moving to coburg soon and i am horrified that council seems hellbent on creating an overcrowded undersupported area just to get more money coming in. short term thinking by the council. Very disappointed.

  13. Emeritus Professor Sasha Grishin AM commented

    This is a really bad plan and a case of developer greed and over-development. It is completely out of character for this neighbourhood, puts a severe stress on the developing infrastructure and with this concentration may prove to be dangerous to children and elderly that number highly in the local demographic. Intelligent development is good and necessary, but this is the opposite and as a long-term local I firmly oppose this development. Back to the drawing board and ask for a more sustainable and appropriate design.

  14. Tom Elkin commented

    As a local resident and home owner, I am very concerned about this pattern of greedy over development of our beautiful suburb. I support the Shayher Group's development, even though that those buildings are also excessively high, at least they are bringing some good amenities to the area and have a holistic vision of what they will create. But there has to be a limit to the number of huge apartment blocks in this small area. Where's the vision for these apartments and how they integrate into the local area, including impact on asthetics, roads, and public transport? This proposal would be a terrible outcome for Coburg and it's residents.

  15. Sharon commented

    I live in the 4 story QM building and people from this much smaller building don’t have anywhere to park. How are they going to deal with the parking for all these buildings? You can’t make it a condition that people don’t own cars.
    Also what is the purpose of building them so large? Will they be for emergency and public housing?

  16. Swagata bapat commented

    This is very poorly planned- in terms of amenity, green space and the impact on light and visual amenity fir those people already living in the apartments in Pentridge. Transport infrastructure is already unable to cope with the current population in the Coburg area. How has this been allowed?

  17. Clint Hare commented

    The visual bulk of this building is completely out of step with the prevailing neighbourhood character. The bulk should be reduced, and in particular the height should be reduced in line with a “human scale” of around 6-8 levels. Look to the positive examples of The Commons and Nightingale model.

    More open space and community amenity should be provided. An opportunity exists to augment the retail and dining “precinct” being formed by Shayher Group around the new cinema complex, yet in this instance developer is proposing yet another underwhelming and unnecessary supermarket.

    This is a clear case of inappropriate development for the area.

    Moreland recently spent large amounts of their open space budget to acquire parkland in Brunswick, and allowing more over-development of this precinct will induce open space and amenity issues for the community into perpetuity.

    Moreland, and Coburg in particular deserve better. With reference to renowned architect Jan Gehl, let’s build communities, not the ghettos of the future. Ref https://gehlpeople.com/cases/melbourne-australia/

  18. Loraine Daley commented

    Must admit, reading some of the above comments makes me cringe and reminiscent of the NIMBY attitudes I used to see while living in Perth where 10 stories is considered highrise.

    'Developer greed' is a term thrown around these days without any thought whatsoever. Of course developers are a business and there to make money (god forbid). They have also paid for the land relative to zoning.

    Coburg is an inner city suburb that needs further development to attract a younger and diverse demographic and hopefully entice more retailers and better amenities. A lot of the current infrastructure is stuck in an era from decades ago.

  19. Leigh Hogan commented

    Another thing about these plans is that they have 1 car space for each apartment, and 2 bike spaces per apartment. This is laughable. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people live in a 2-car household, and Coburg does not have safe bike riding paths to try and show-horn people down the bicycle route.

  20. Helen Deans commented

    Two 16 tower buildings housing 339 apartments averages out to 10 units on each level - twin rooming house towers - 16 levels of sardine housing.
    I have a major objection to the concentration of residential accommodation in this development and in the Pentridge area. The very low proportion of 3 and (non existent) 4 rooms on offer should not be an option for any of the developments, and 16 levels is not environmentally or socially sustainable.
    This is the tip of the iceberg for over development in Pentridge.

  21. Michael Gilhen commented

    This land is an eyesore and I welcome development. Twin 16 story towers seems completely out of step with the Pentridge area. I object to the scale of the proposal for the following reasons;
    1. Local traffic is already saturated. Local roads are dangerous due to poor driver behaviour.
    2. At peaks hours, the 19 tram is okay if you start at Coburg North but full by the time it reaches Moreland Road.
    3. Large scale residential developments should but be approved until the Upfield Line is duplicated.
    4. The heritage value of Pentridge Prison is already not taken seriously by the Vic Government. Developers know this and know their plans will be approved eventually with some minor compromise.
    5. What is being done to attract jobs to Coburg North? Give people a reason not to travel to the CDB every day.
    6. Can some housing be allocated to low income families? What is being done to address homelessness in the area?
    7. Will schools be funded to provide extra places?
    8. Will 'Green Spaces' be created?
    9. The development will not consistent with Moreland Councils climate change policies due to the heat island effects, Co2 emissions in construction and ongoing building running. The area has no safe cycling routes.
    10. Is it a viable long term project? My understanding is that their is a high vacancy rate of apartments. Will the apartments be affordable for locals or purchased by 'investors' to lease to students (more than welcome but they move on) or put on AirBnB, thus diminishing the sense of community.
    11. Are the construction regulations adequate and is their sufficient regulatory oversight? How will assurance be provided that materials e.g. cladding are safe and that the buildings won't full of defects? Will the Moreland rate payers be protected from having to bare these costs?
    Development yes, it must be within the current capabilities of local infrastructure, which is limited. Infrastructure, job opportunities and social services must be developed simultaneously.

  22. Robert Aminde commented

    All about the developer not giving a shit about the site, the environment or current residents.
    The roads can’t cope with the volumes now how the hell can Moreland Council allow such a great site to be pillaged like this.
    Infrastructure in the area will collapse.
    As long as the overseas developers don’t have to live they don’t give a rats 🐀.

  23. Michael Ewer commented

    There is too much congestion in the area already. The proposed building is about making money and not about improving the liveability of the area. Affordable family homes are needed. There are already too many 1-2 bedroom apartments being built in the city resulting in an oversupply. Why not make the area better rather than squeezing more and more people into it. Most liveable city?

  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

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts