35 Earl Street, Kew VIC 3101

Development for shops, forty seven (47) dwellings and alter access to a Road Zone Category 1, waive the loading requirements and reduce the standard car parking requirement.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 24 days ago. It was received by them 6 days earlier.

(Source: Boroondara City Council, reference PSec20/0258)

16 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Nicole commented

    This is over development for this site. This end of Kew has limited public transport and already is congested. This development will further reduce the ability for people to move through the area. Reduce the number of dwelling to achieve a better balance and ensure satisfactory parking provisions for both residents ands visitors must be incorporated.

  2. Ian Burton commented

    Kew East
    This is over development For the location with very limited public transport (two bus routes only) nearby. There would also be more traffic congestion to the roads generally and the local Willsmere shopping strip. I would request less units or more controls On the car ownership.

  3. Manny commented

    Waiving the loading requirements and car parking will only make an already congested area worse. Forty seven dwellings will amount to very small apartments with possibly 80+ cars requiring car parking on a road which already has no car parking available and a small shopping centre that needs car parking for shoppers.

  4. Suzanne Smith commented

    This is inappropriate development for the Willsmere Village Precinct and will affect the character of the neighborhood adversely.
    The Boroondara council need a plan to keep and extend the village atmosphere at this end of Kew rather then turning it into another Kew junction.

  5. Cassandra Highfield commented

    This is inappropriate development for a residential area with limited access to public transport and parking. It will have a detrimental impact to local business.
    In the event of an emergency, will emergency vehicles be able to have access quickly to manage situations?

  6. Reneka Hart commented

    After a close look at the site/s of this proposed development I am of the opinion that 47 dwellings alone with reduced parking standards is a recipe for assorted disasters in the area. Surely the developer cannot be serious.

  7. Darryn commented

    I think developer knows how the system works.
    Submit “Plan A” with conditions and hear the noise, then “Plan B” gets submitted after council slap on their conditions. A perceived win/win.
    Potentially Council gets rates x47 times, further parking restrictions likely to be added to surrounding streets and destroying the village characteritics. Traffic conditions will increase with safety hazards.
    This development is all bulk and inappropriate.
    Go back to the drawing board and think less is more by a creative boutique design that sits within a village characteristic.

  8. Cara Markovic commented

    As a frequent visitor to the shops there, parking is already near impossible, and the amount of traffic through the Willsmere/Earl roundabout already dangerous for pedestrians, especially at peak hours, with a maternal child health and toy library nearby. Reduction in car spaces vs new units built in the development will undoubtedly make the area less accessible and safe.

  9. Amanda commented

    Council has made it clear that there are no future plans to increase public parking in the area. There is already not enough and the standard car parking requirement is reduced for this construction? If developers want to build things like this and Council approves it, there must be provision for parking. People live there, usually 2 cars, plus their guests.

  10. SML commented

    Too many apartments on this small block... cut it in half! Not enough car parking and the standard car parking requirement is reduced for this development. There should be more provision for parking, usually two cars, plus guest parking.

  11. Kirsten Temple commented

    This is an area that is already very congested from a traffic, public transport and parking perspective. I don’t see how the area can support so many dwellings without normal parking requirements and do not think this requirement should be waived. Further, the council will need to consider the flow on impacts to public transport and traffic that will arise as a result of the large number of units in the development - buses already run full at peak time from the stops in this area and the roundabout is already quite dangerous to cross. I would suggest that traffics lights would be required at a minimum, as would clear ways running into the intersection at (which will put more strain on the limited parking in the area, and this would also require a solution).

  12. Andrea H commented

    I'm incredulous that a development of this capacity would even be considered for the referenced area. Parking is already severely limited (the recent addition of the community garden hasn't helped in this respect) and traffic congestion near the Willsmere roundabout is at dangerous levels since the expansion of the Chandler Highway. I say this as someone who attempts to cross that road with primary school-aged children each morning. I echo the comments of Kirsten Temple - parking requirements should NOT be waived under any circumstances and I would urge the council to rethink approving any development with such a significant number of dwellings irrespective of the parking allowance. The already significant pressure on public transport and local amenities would be pushed to their limits.

  13. Emma G commented

    The development of the willsmere village pocket should be consistent and in keeping with the local appearance of other local low rise low density developments. 47 dwellings is excessive and size/scale does not achieve this. parking should also be a major consideration.
    A wholistic view of the village in terms of any development offering commercial, should ensure the development adds and improves the village and enhances its character, offerings as a retail /cafe precinct and provides local appeal.

  14. Jes E commented

    This site sits on a very busy roundabout that is already congested and difficult to safely cross at the best of times. There are limited available car parks as it is to support the small local businesses in the Wilsmere shops. Transport on this section is highly congested as it is in non COVID times. This is an inappropriate development for the location, size and local amenities especially without car park provisions.

  15. Jes E commented

    This site sits on a very busy roundabout that is already congested and difficult to safely cross at the best of times. There are limited available car parks as it is to support the small local businesses in the Wilsmere shops. Transport on this section is highly congested as it is in non COVID times. This is an inappropriate development for the location, size and local amenities especially without car park provisions.

  16. Debbie Kraushofer commented

    I object to the scale of this development on behalf of the 153 members of the ‘302 304 Bus Route Melbourne Support Group’ - a public Facebook group.

    The bus route along Earl Street Kew is already woefully inadequate for the existing (pre COVID-19) demand both AM and PM. Bus after bus is already full in the AM and does not stop here. In the PM the bus is full within 2 stops of the commencement of the route in the CBD and cannot be used to get to Kew until post 6.30pm. Presumably our economy will recover and given all the new appartments along this bus route, more of us than ever before will be working and studying in the CBD.

    These additional residences on top of other developments in Earl street and Princess St and further along the route to boxhill and doncaster effectively mean that you cannot honestly count on this local public transport facility as a reason to reduce on site parking obligations. It is not a reliable way to get to or from the city.

    Please note that additional AM services were granted immediately prior to COVID lockdowns in March which would improve the AM services to a ‘poor’ level.

  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