2 Roche Street, Hawthorn VIC 3122

(EOT) Use of the land for dwellings (Clause 34.01-1) and development of the land for a seven (7) storey building above basement level car parking (Clauses 34.01-4 and 43.02-2) containing 33 dwellings and a reduction in the standard car parking requirements associated with residential visitors

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 27 days ago. It was received by them 11 days earlier.

(Source: Boroondara City Council, reference PEOT21/0013)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Joan Kikos commented

    This application has already been rejected by VCAT.
    It is too high for an area adjacent to residential homes .

  2. Joan Cunningham commented

    VCAT has clearly ruled (not very long ago) that such a height is NOT appropriate for this site. Please refer to the relevant decision, and reject this proposal.

  3. Kristan Gilbert commented

    This is really disappointing considering VCAT have recently ruled on this and was rejected due to the significant impact it would have to the properties surrounding. The height of a seven story complex affects the amenity of our back yard space and is not an appropriate development.

  4. Neil Jenkins commented

    I supported Council's rejection of earlier proposals for the subject site but accepted the negotiated four storey compromise last agreed for this site.

    I reject the proposal of a seven storey building on this site and hold that agreement was reached for the four storey building. This proposal should stand now.

  5. Marjorie Glasson commented

    In recent years the Boroondara Council rejected a similar proposal on this site, because it did not comply with the requirements of the Boroondara Planning scheme.
    I absolutely support the stand taken by the Council, and reject this attempt to undermine
    the scheme and the strong position adopted by the Council and the many residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the site.
    A 7 story building is completely out of context in a Heritage Zone.

  6. Emma Walsh commented

    A proposal of this height and bulk had already been rejected by council and VCAT and a compromise reached. I can not understand the audacity of this new proposal and will object as strongly as previous. Nothing had changed since the previous rejection of similar plans.

  7. Olivia Glasson commented

    The scale of the proposed development is completely inappropriate given that it abuts a residential area with a heritage overlay. Any west facing apartments will overlook houses on the east side of Morang Rd. The extreme height of the proposed building will cause the houses on the east side of Morang Rd to be deprived of sunlight. The narrow laneway that runs between Roche St and Gibney St is not adequate to carry the traffic that this proposal will create. This proposal will create a traffic hazard for Morang Rd residents backing out of their garages given the increased traffic in the laneway from the proposed apartment block.

  8. Pauline Mrkusich commented

    The proposed seven storey development completely contradicts the agreement VCAT reached with residents and the Applicant approximately 2-3 years ago. The height proposed for this new development is excessive and I strongly object on the grounds of:
    1. significant overshadowing to properties
    2. loss of privacy to neighbours
    3. Inappropriate height and mass which destroys the heritage and character of the area
    4. Traffic direction, volume, speed, flow and pedestrian safety are serious concerns and should be investigated by council. The number of cars brought into the area by occupants of this proposed 7x storey residence raises serious risks and problems given complex traffic direction.
    5. Nonsense that Council would consider plans for more residential accommodation given there is so much available residential space available already in Morang Road and Evansdale Road. Occupancy levels presently are at their lowest so there is no justification for additional accommodation.
    I completely reject and oppose this development.

  9. Marilyn Stapleton commented

    These developers just keep pushing the boundary and keep coming back time and time again until they eventually get VCAT to cave in or they make sure that they get a VCAT member who is sympathetic to their cause. VCAT is a joke..

  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