PlanningAlerts

22 Comments

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

1. With parking already an issue on Selwyn st and park area, reduction of visitor parking will cause further parking given there are 9 residences.

2. Given the existing parking and traffic congestion around Selwyn Park and adjacent streets, visitor parking requirements should not be reduced. This will only add to existing congestion.

3. This will be a danger to pedestrians and drivers along Selwyn Street. The reduced parking with the high number of dwellings will definitely result in street parking along Selwyn Street. The street is narrow and all along the oval is curved. Therefore, it's essentially a whole long blind corner along the street. If a car is parked on one side, the street can't fit two cars in opposite directions to pass each other safely. This will be a nightmare for drivers having to reverse along a curve to make way for oncoming traffic. This is a possibility to cause, danger, angst and conflict among drivers. Good planning will not allow this to happen!

   Also, lots of family walk to the park and cross Selwyn Street to get there. With cars parked all along it, the danger to kids crossing the street and oncoming cars not able to see them until it is too late is unacceptable. This is just too dangerous!

4. As an adjoining neighbour, at least 6 of these residences will overlook our property. All of our bedrooms, bathrooms and back yard face the proposed properties so privacy will be a major issue, not to mention the noise of 9 households versus the existing 3 that are currently there. Street parking in Selwyn St will be a driver and pedestrian safety hazard, and in addition to this, surplus vehicles will park in neighbouring streets such as ours, where street parking is already at capacity.

5. What we need to understand and be clear on this application is that each building will have minimum two cars. The construction of nine (9) dwellings will result in an 18 extra cars in Selwyn St. This is not what HV Mackay envisioned when he developed the area back in the 1930s. It’s time Brimbank Council looked pass the (9) dwellings x annual rate notices to fill the council coffers and reduce the number of dwellings on this application. Community consultation??

6. Parking and traffic congestion at this narrow section of Selwyn St is concerning, particularly because families with small children access the park at this point. Neighbourhood character is diminished by the heft and visual weight of this development on a prominent corner block.

7. There are absolutely no parking places for residents now . Imagine with 9 new cars or 18 with people having a car each . Its unsafe. They need to include a car park

8. This area is already congested and narrow therefore further multiple dwellings will add to the danger for pedestrians - most of whom are young families accessing the park and associated facilities. It is already dangerous manoeuvring 2 cars in opposite directions in this area as it is a narrow and on a bend. I strongly oppose this development.

9. Loading this place up with units is going to make it a ghetto.
   Look at any of the areas with groups of 6+ units. In 5 to 10 years they’ll become run down and no-one will want to live near them. Seriously, opposite the oval where kids play - think about the longer term impacts not just the hear and now.

10. As a resident and mother of 3 young children from a neighbouring street, and as a Sunshine Cricket Club member and regular patrons of Selwyn Park, the winding narrow street is already congested with resident cars and heavy foot traffic. Adding 9 more dwellings where 3 currently exist would not only add to an already congested street, but cause more traffic hazards for existing residents and locals. There are many young families, and a duty of care on a narrow street for their safety should be prioritised.

11. Realistically it could be 18 cars at MINIMUM parked on these streets- now add the visitors' cars...say +9?where will 27 cars park?

    Not to mention the increase in vehicular traffic and risk to each and every child using Selwyn Park and crossing the surrounding streets to do so.

    The sun glare alone trying to navigate around the park to exit the area in the mornings is extremely challenging- then add a few parked cars as there are now with the existing dwellings, and its very dangerous. Serious accident of this nature occurred right there 9 months ago. Now lets consider all these extra cars ...it'd be near impossible to fit through and i feel like it would be a daily battle just to survive getting out past it all!!

    The sheer increase in vehicle numbers just puts our children and families using this area at such risk and it completely goes against the intentions of how this area is meant to be used and enjoyed. No point having such a brilliant park with all it's brilliant facilities (which you as a council have achieved) if you can't get to and from it safely! Don't undermine what you have achieved by approving this proposal.

    I've been here 14 years and I understand the need for increased housing, and appreciate quality developments (such as what exists on the opposite side and all around the park), being small to moderate sized developments that have contributed to the character of Albion- but 9 in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I strongly object to this proposal.

12. Realistically it could be 18 cars at MINIMUM parked on these streets- now add the visitors' cars...say +9?where will 27 cars park?

    Not to mention the increase in vehicular traffic and risk to each and every child using Selwyn Park and crossing the surrounding streets to do so.

    The sun glare alone trying to navigate around the park to exit the area in the mornings is extremely challenging- then add a few parked cars as there are now with the existing dwellings, and its very dangerous. Serious accident of this nature occurred right there 9 months ago. Now lets consider all these extra cars ...it'd be near impossible to fit through and i feel like it would be a daily battle just to survive getting out past it all!!

    The sheer increase in vehicle numbers just puts our children and families using this area at such risk and it completely goes against the intentions of how this area is meant to be used and enjoyed. No point having such a brilliant park with all it's brilliant facilities (which you as a council have achieved) if you can't get to and from it safely! Don't undermine what you have achieved by approving this proposal.

    I've been here 14 years and I understand the need for increased housing, and appreciate quality developments (such as what exists on the opposite side and all around the park), being small to moderate sized developments that have contributed to the character of Albion- but 9 in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I strongly object to this proposal.

13. I object to the lack of parking spaces allocated for the development. There is very little parking around Selwyn Park as it is, with visitors to the park having to use the tennis club car park. With 18 more car spaces taken from the neighbouring streets, people will be unable to find parking to utilise our tennis courts and wonderful park.

    My children also cross the road in this area and having more cars parked on the narrow road obstructing the view of the road is hazardous to say the least.

14. In addition to my comment regarding the dangers of a massive increase of on-street parking along Selwyn Street and surrounding streets, the construction of 9 units on a block where there was only three is not in line with the current neighborhood character.

    I acknowledge that development is required, but it should not be at the detriment of the local neighborhood character and safety of local residents. Agree with Naomi Harper that small to moderate sized developments opposite and around the park with designs that retain the local neighborhood character are appreciated. However, 9 units in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I too strongly object to this proposal.

15. The Selwyn Park area is already a busy place with car and foot traffic, the impact of multiple dwellings on the proposed site will further impact this space and be a detriment to the local residents and those who use the community spaces and sporting clubs opposite. The additional vehicle traffic alone will affect the usage of the park for local residents, congest the street and most likely spill into community parking located in the park's grounds, ultimately impacting the usability of the facilities by residents.

    The original design of the neighbourhood did not intend for such developments to be placed within the community. If a design featuring a smaller number of dwellings, more in line with the character of the area were proposed, it would undoubtedly be better received by current residents.

    I urge the Council to examine the historical evidence both from Australia and overseas regarding issues that multiple dwelling developments have had on communities. This includes the research into the ongoing livability of neighbourhoods, as well as the long term impacts on the environment, before making a decision on this development. In the City of Brimbank, we have examples of multiple dwellings being built in the (approx.) 1970s that have diminished the character of the neighbourhood and impacted the local community in various ways.
    Council have an obligation to provide safe, livable neighbourhoods for residents now and in the future. I urge you to reject this proposal and prioritise the wellbeing of our residents, the local environment and our city.

16. Selwyn St does not have the capacity for 18 extra car traffic, the road isn't wide enough, it's a high traffic area with the community house, tennis courts, children's playground, the oval. This is a highly popular area with the community and safe access to outdoor recreation is most important for the physical and mental health of this community.

17. I believe this proposed development to be unreasonable for the area for multiple reasons, Please see the following dot points for explanation,
    - Neighbourhood character - with most dwellings found west of Selwyn Park single family homes, many of them weatherboards I find the extreme number of dwellings proposed and the very modern facade of this development to clash with the visual character of the homes found in this pocket of Albion.
    - Removal of large existing trees - The ARBORICULTURAL REPORT for the site is dated May 2018, I believe a more current report should be supplied for the following reason. There are at least two large existing trees found at the back of sites 52 and 56 Selwyn Street. Neither of these are local indigenous species, however at least one (at 52) is a Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) (which is listed in the Arboricultural report as having low arboricultural value, despite being listed as a developing tree in good health and structure, and only semi-mature at 9m leading me to believe a new report should be undertaken). This species is an Australian native which attracts many native birds providing habitat for these local species. I believe the removal of this tree would be detrimental to local bird and possum species. It is stated in 5.4 of the arboricultural report that' Tree 1, a semi-mature Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) has good structure, but was assessed as having low arboricultural value due to its size'. If we always allow trees to be cut down before they get to their full size then we will never have trees of high value within the municipality, this I believe is a failed logic.
    Also in 5.4 assumptions are being made about 'Tree 6, Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua) was dormant when assessed so foliage growth and health could not be assessed, however multiple pruning wounds were observed in the lower trunk with evidence of insect activity. The extent or impact of the insect activity is not known, however given the location low on the trunk, and the presence of epicormic growth at the base of the tree it is possible that the insect activity or decay associated with it is impacting on the health of the tree, and indicates a reduced estimated ULE'. Rather than make assumptions, a new assessment should be undertaken.
    - .use of glyphosate- Page 135. Establishment and maintenance notes. I would like it to be considered to use another form of weed removal other than a glyphosate based product. 'All weed species on site shall be eradicated. -Use glyphosate based herbicide.'
    - Additional crossover on Delmont Street - The intersection where Delmont Street meets Selwyn Street is on a bend on Selwyn Street, making it a blind corner. The current crossover where it stands is already very close to the intersection, and the plans are to put an additional crossover between the current one and the intersection. I believe this is a dangerous proposal for vehicles that would need to reverse out of this driveway into the middle of the intersection, and the residents, many young families.
    - Overlooking of private space at 1 Delmont Street. These are old plans that show the dwelling and shed at 1 Delmont Street, but fails to show the family pool that is located in the backyard at this premise, which would be overlooked by the proposed properties to be built at 52 and 54 Selwyn Street. All second story windows facing East should be fixed obscure glazed windows at a minimum for privacy of the neighboring property.
    - Lack of adequate sustainability features. I feel for a development of this size it should at least give back as much as it takes from the community, and would like to see the addition of solar electricity (not just solar hot water, especially when providing a socket to charge an electric car), solar shading on the west side in addition to that proposed for the North side. External blinds are mentioned, but not specified as to which windows they will be present on. I find this proposal in 2020 is grossly inadequate and will lead to long term environmental and financial disadvantage for the end buyer of the property to retrofit features that in 2020 should come with every new build.
    The BESS report states that the floorplans with detailed locations and supporting documents and evidence is incomplete, this report should be redone with all required documentation to guarantee compliance.
    I am extremely concerned that the water tanks for Townhouses 8 and 9 are missing from the plans,
    - Delmont Street set back - The setback for the townhouses that face Delmont Street are currently at a minimum of 3m, and are not set back to the required depth to meet current house setbacks along Delmont Street, with the shallowest setback being at 5 Delmont Street. Page 55 of their planning document shows that the townhouses proposed facing Delmont Street is considerably closer to the road than that at 5 Delmont Street.
    - Heat and Run off - with many of the private open spaces completely surrounded on all sides by walls, they can hardly be called 'open spaces'. I am concerned about the heat that will be created and the increased run off due to lack of actual open green space in this development. In 4.0 stormwater management of the SDA I am concerned that the STORM rating report only received a score of 100 which is the exact minimum requirement needed to meet compliance, and makes no effort to go beyond what is required of the development. In 5.0 Building materials it is stated that "Where possible in accordance with town-planning requirements, the development will attempt to use light coloured materials for all external wall cladding, roof colours and paving to minimise urban heat island effect." however looking at the colours listed on the plans this does not seem to be the case.
    - cultural area sensitivity. This development falls completely within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (https://achris.vic.gov.au/#/onlinemap), and as such i believe should be developed to a higher environmental and social standard, rather than the highest possible profits of the developers (for example, the development on the opposite corner of Selwyn St and Dalworth Street would be a good place to start)
    - Density - as stated on page 52 of their planning document "The general residential density in Albion is generally considered to be a medium to low density in a garden precinct area... the site would be considered suitable for the the density
    of townhouses over the three combined lots as per this proposal'. When having just stated that the density in Albion is currently between low to medium density, i don't believe this high density fits with the current design of the neighbourhood.
    - use of timber wall cladding - although this seems to be the popular thing to do these days, they may look good at build, but with many lacking the maintenance schedule required to keep these looking good, start to wear and look terrible within just a few years. I believe this is a wasteful and unsustainable exterior for the long term.
    - Parking - a waiver has been sought for visitor parking for this development. I believe that the density that is already being proposed is to too high in regards to parking, let alone waiving any additional visitor parking. Selwyn Street is a narrow curved street which bends around the park in a hexagonal shape. The park side is already no standing, however illegal parking already often happens. The amenity and safety of the Albion community who use the park including many families with young children, are being greatly put at risk but this development and especially a waiver for visitor carparking. Any weekend or evening day when sport is on at the park is already a cause for concern in the area let along tripling the density of occupation at sites 52-56 Selwyn Street.

18. astetically the townhouse look really good. I am just concerned at the lack of parking.
    Unless it can be proven that a second car can be parked on the driveway and one car in the garage, I too have concerns around parking.
    If this can be resolved then I believe it's a good outcome for the neighbourhood.

19. I have been watching this application with interest and the last comment, assuming its from the builder, takes the biscuit. What part of nine town houses with no parking will be asthectically good for the community. A minimum of 18 cars will be terrible for the local neighbourhood and I feel for them and I hope some sort of common sense will prevail for safety's sake.

20. I think it makes sense to have higher density housing within walking distance to train station and believe a higher population in area brings more services. My only concern is new residents not maintaining gardens and parking thier vehicles on nature strips that damage trees.

21. We have parking issues already in Albion. We are a small area and without the ability to cater for the triple the road useage.
    Albion needs triple the infrastructure if we are going down this path, including the train station, shops and car parks.

22. As more and more units are added in this area parking will get worse, most couples have at least 2 cars and some of these units only have one car space, also as those units that have 2 spaces have it as one car in front , one behind, that means that one car might be parked in street to avoid have to move cars from tandum garage when the front car wants to get out, i know that i would rather park in street to be able to just get in my car and go when i want rather than needing to move the car behind me to get out. So the garages should not be tandum but rather alow for side by side parking

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Brimbank 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