PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

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

1. This proposed building will exceed recommended height levels and be totally out of place within a large community precinct. Another inappropriate development.

2. Reducing car parking provisions is crazy, particularly where the Brunswick Baths and other community spaces exists this will become a nightmare for Brunswick residents.

3. I have a number of concerns about this development and application.

   1) It is clearly too high. It's higher than all of the surrounding buildings, and will cast a shadow across the area that will significantly reduce the amenity of the heavily used public spaces between Brunswick Baths, Brunswick Library, and the Town Hall. The shadowing diagrams in the application show the extent of the shadow reaching the far footpath at equinox, so for half of the year - the worst half, the shadow will be worse than that. That alone is unacceptable. The height needs to be lowered at least two levels, so that light is not obstructed right through to the winter equinox.

   2) The entry/exit point crosses a footpath which is heavily used by children, on their way to school, or to swimming lessons, and elderly/infirm people attending fitness classes at the baths. The very low volume of traffic generated by the current car park is already obstructive at times. The substantial increase that could be expected with this development will clearly increase conflict, and create an unacceptable hazard for vulnerable users of the public space. The entry/exit to the building should be moved to Saxon Street.

   3) There are a large number of units with windows and balconies that overlook the Brunswick Baths. Users of the baths implicitly consent to being seen by other users of the baths. They do not consent to being viewed by anyone outside the baths. Children attending swimming lessons and the like cannot consent to it, and I think it unlikely that parents of those children would either. There are clear bans on taking photographs or video of pool patrons from within the baths complex. There can be no such control placed on owners of overlooking apartments. Therefore, it's clear that the design must be altered to preserve the privacy of users of the baths. Balconies and windows must not overlook the outdoor bathing areas.

   4) The proposed building will cast a significant shadow over the Brunswick Baths building, reducing the council's capacity to generate solar electricity, and reduce emissions. The proposed building's paltry solar array should be increased to a realistic size, and an agreement reached that compensates council for the loss of solar generation, whether in kind, or financially.

   5) The Acoustic Memo fails to mention the existing nightclub, Howler. The whole area around Howler is currently dominated by Cultural use, Recreation, and Retail. Residential areas are well distant, on the other side of Sydney Road. By-laws must be put in place that provide substantial protection for established venues like Siteworks and Howler from noise complaints of new residents in this development.

   6) Should the development go ahead. Provision must be made to keep the footpath and road spaces on Dawson Street fully functional throughout construction. This is a very busy pedestrian thoroughfare, used by children and elderly. The levels of disruption that have been associated with developments along the Upfield Bike Path would be completely unacceptable in this situation. Covered scaffolding and protected thoroughfare such as is common on developments in the CBD must be used, and the entry point for the building site must be via Saxon Street.

   7) The bicycle parking provisions are good, but architectural renderings don't show the existing hoops on the footpath in front of the building. These must not be compromised, or removed.

   8) Car parking is an area of concern, though I do believe it's acceptable to reduce our reliance on cars, and the statistics support it, there must be by-laws to reinforce that. Council needs to address the inevitable overflow of such developments. It may be that by-laws need to be enacted that preclude residents of units that do not have spaces in such developments from being included in parking provisions provided by council in the future. This may mean that the owners of units would be ineligible for parking permits.

   Overall, the amenity of the valuable public spaces along Dawson street must prevail over the developer's desire to wring as much revenue as possible out of their site. People matter.

4. 1) ^ solstice! I meant winter solstice!

5. I fully support Andrew Harris review of the planning proposal. Overlooking the baths, cars crossing the footpath, cold dark shaded pathways and living spaces in the depth of winter are already overlooked issues on a great many of Moreland's approved high rise buildings. Let us learn from those errors.

6. As with Larry Gardner, I also support Andrew Harris review of the planning proposal. (As listed) Overlooking the baths, cars crossing the footpath, cold dark shaded pathways and living spaces in the depth of winter are already overlooked issues on a great many of Moreland's approved high rise buildings. Let us learn from those errors.

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