PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. How is reducing the car parking requirements benefitting anyone but the developer?

2. Yet again ......nine storeys is too high
   Many areas of Moreland continue to become a high rise slums
   Repeat of the continual issues of overcrowding, overshadowing, loss of car parks, public transport (future) not cope etc

3. This is another case of over development at the expense of the local community, safety and quality of life. The 9-storey proposal is grossly too high and out of character with the neighbourhood and the reduction to the already bare minimum parking spaces is a case of poor planning. Now that many are switching to non-polluting electrical vehicles, cars are environmentally friendly and the restrictions on parking spaces is a case of discrimination against people of disabilities, the aged, families with children and people with pets. The proposal should be rejected.

4. Moreland City Council needs to reassess its planning overlays. Full on development at the expense of community amenity/liveability. As a matter of interest does Moreland City Council have carparks for its cars and/or employees? Some consistency in the application of rules is needed eg parking allocation for residents
   Correct me if I am wrong but I believe developers have to contribute financially to public open space. How is this followed up, and is the community given the details of what is done with this money? The community needs to know how this money is being spent. In other words is it actually being spent on creating open public space or merely finding its way into Council revenue. How is this information made publicly available to the community?

5. This is great. Brunswick/Coburg needs more development and gentrification. There are too many disused and run down buildings that must be 'updated'. It's also good for neighboring businesses which appear to be struggling judging from the 'for lease' signs. Construction is the engine room of our economy and Moreland should be encouraging more of this, as well as spending on public spaces and amenities. On a sidenote - Tagging on Sydney road is horrendous! Council should invest more resources to clean it up and compel businesses to do the same.

6. Extending beyond the council recommended heights in the neighbourhood will create further future problems with surrounding buildings and open space. These types of developments are discouraging business from entering the area due to the exorbitant rents and limited small spaces. Businesses require large areas to be able to perform and employ. We can only require X amount of cafe's surely.
   As a result I am opposing this proposal

7. Before everyone makes a judgment on this building purely based on height and car spaces, understand the actual development intention of this site. It is a Nightingale Housing development, which means it is Affordable (Prices are cost of build + a small profit), Socially Supportive (no renting allowed, all owner-occupied), Carbon Neutrally built (and equipped with solar panels, no gas and shared laundries).
   Understand the concept, and why it's important that social and ecological development should be supported. If this was a purely for-profit development, it would be inappropriate.

8. I live within 50 meters of the site and am in favour of the proposed development.

   The existing Nightingale building and the Commons nearby have been great neighbours and along with the other Nightingale buildings elsewhere have proven their design principles to work. I look forward to welcoming future Nightingale Albion residents along with the residents of the Nightingale Village buildings currently under construction.

   The height and general appearance is appropriate given Nightingale Anstey opposite it and the other buildings in the Anstey Village area. The visual ties with the building opposite is refreshing to see.

   It is great to see more buildings that are specifically intended for those who don't own cars given the amount of motor vehicle traffic already in the area. The existing Nightingale buildings have shown this works very well in practice.

   The inclusion of two floors of commercial space is good to see and I hope if Amendment C193 is passed it includes a similar commercial space requirement to this site.

9. This 50m section of Albion Street has been flogged in the last 12 months. 9 stories is way to high! How do you go about objecting such a development?

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