429 Albert Street, Brunswick VIC 3056

Construction of two 8 storey buildings (with roof top terraces) containing dwellings and food and drink premise and 10 three storey dwellings over two basement levels and a reduction in the standard car parking requirements

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 2 months ago. It was received by them 5 months earlier.

(Source: Moreland City Council, reference MPS/2020/674)

15 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Peter commented

    8 stories plus a roof top! In a residential street of one storey houses? The apartment building half a block away is only 4 stories. This is outrageous. And also not enough car parks on a street that is already incredibly short of car parks. Council better oppose this and bring it back down to 4 stories maximum.

  2. yots commented

    seriously!!...can you people in council just stop this inane behaviour.....you are destroying what young fragmented history we limitless have

  3. Sam commented

    Why does the council have standard car parking requirements when every large development has "reduction in the standard car parking requirements"?

    Stop your money-grubbing and start saying no to developers.

    Moreland Council is pathetic.

  4. Marion Hunt commented

    Yes I agree this it far too high for the street and area and would continue to add to the ugliness, overcrowding, noise, litter, graffiti which abounds in this high density, poor planning

  5. Melissa commented

    Hi Moreland Council,
    We would like you to oppose the height and scale of this development on behalf of your ratepayers.
    Most accept that Brunswick is being developed rapidly with apartments but three huge towers, eight levels high which is double the height of the nearest apartment complex is too much, especially when this site lines Clifton Park, Gilpin Park and rows of single storey heritage Victorians as well.
    We look forward to you working with the developer to bring this down to a maximum of 4 storeys and also addressing the lack of car parking on site - the surrounding streets are already heavily used for parking, the developer needs to provide for its own residents not rely on council maintained streets.
    Thank you.

  6. Melissa commented

    Hi Moreland Council,
    We would like you to oppose the height and scale of this development on behalf of your ratepayers.
    Most accept that Brunswick is being developed rapidly with apartments but three huge towers, eight levels high which is double the height of the nearest apartment complex is too much, especially when this site lines Clifton Park, Gilpin Park and rows of single storey heritage Victorians as well.
    We look forward to you working with the developer to bring this down to a maximum of 4 storeys and also addressing the lack of car parking on site - the surrounding streets are already heavily used for parking, the developer needs to provide for its own residents not rely on council maintained streets.
    Thank you.

  7. Cathy Binnington commented

    Hi Moreland Council,

    Please oppose this build. 8 stories is too high. Brunswick had very few areas of green public amenity, and it would be a shame to have Gilpin park overshadowed (if not literally, then figuratively) by a massive tower block. Albert street has some beautiful old terraces right next to this development and I don’t believe this development will be in keeping with the style of the area.

  8. S. Ryan commented

    The existing neighborhood is mostly single storage heritage houses, open parkland and gum trees… how could council consider an 8 storey apartment (+ rooftop) to be "appropriately scaled"?!

    The neighboring apartments at 460 Victoria Street is ~150 dwellings (no rooftops) on 8,878sqm and stands out for the area. Yet the proposal for 429 Albert street has ~150 dwellings on just 4000sqm which is more than twice the density… how could council possibly consider an 8 storey apartment tower to be “appropriately scaled”?!

    In addition, the proposed 10 x townhouses have floor to ceiling bedroom windows on levels 2 & 3. All 20 of these windows directly overlook the single story properties on Pearson Street.

    Buildings such as the Grandview Hotel and the open greenspace of the Parklands make the area so special - please don't destroy this charm with the current proposal.

    I'm pro-development and would love to see a thoughtfully considered mixed-use development on the site (there's allot of great examples in Brunswick). Unfortunately this proposal is a very very long way from what the area deserves!

  9. Tina commented

    Can this application really be considered as appropriately scaled, designed well and responding appropriately to the lower scale residential/heritage interface? Not at all. Especially Western Residential interface within Heritage Precinct is not protected at all.

    As per the “Victorian Heritage Database place details”, HO Precinct is of local historical and architectural significance to the City of Moreland. But Why Moreland council does not protect this HO against this plan?

    Too high!
    It is too high and Pearson HO56 will lose the precious Heritage Character which has been kept and protected for over 100 years.
    As per the documents of Albert Street Urban Renewal Precinct, the new development in this area is to ensure development responds and contributes to its context and any relevant heritage significance (Clause 21.03 Strategic Framework, Objective 10). This is totally failed and not carried out appropriately at all.
    -SCALE DOWN please.

    Overlooking!
    a Complete Loss of privacy for Western Residential interface houses. 10x3 townhouses + 2x 8 story dwellings? really?
    They have full top-to-bottom length of glazing towards Laneway and this makes total loss of privacy of houses within heritage overlay. they will continue remaining as single-story houses and keep the unique character of the heritage area for Moreland.
    460 Victoria St. has delivering passive surveillance to the Clifton park whilst Western Residential interface has not disturbed by loss of privacy or loss of sunlight.
    -SCALE DOWN the glazing facing Western Residential area.
    -PUT PRIVACY paneling with respect.
    -REMOVE balconies towards western interface.

    Overshadowing!
    Due to inappropriate sized dwellings surrounding existing low scale cottages within the Heritage Overlay Precinct, 8-storey building effectively blocks all morning sunlight from the properties on Pearson street.
    -SCALE DOWN is essential.

  10. Fiona commented

    This building is inappropriately scaled for the area and needs to be reconsidered to take into account neighbouring properties and the general aesthetic of the heritage area, overshadowing, overlooking etc it is going to be far too high and big. Not to mention the overcrowding in the area a development of this scale and size will bring to the limited outdoor green spaces that we have.

  11. Virginia commented

    Moreland City Council cannot possibly approve this application. There are multiple problems with this proposal:
    - it is obviously far too high.
    - it is not appropriately scaled and does not respond appropriately to the lower scale residential/heritage interface.
    - the Western Residential interface within Heritage Precinct is not protected.
    - blocking out sunlight to single and double story properties nearby is unacceptable.
    - top to bottom glazing is unacceptable as it creates lack of privacy but also adds to the urban heat island effect increasing heat to surrounding properties.
    - the plans have not covered air-conditioning and the noise and exhausts created by such.
    - the eservices.moreland.vic.gov website is not working so it is impossible to see exactly what is planned.
    - reduction in the standard car parking requirements is unacceptable and parking needs to be fully catered for within the bounds of the property. The streets are already too overloaded with cars.
    - what is the developer offering beneficial to the neighbourhood? Are they going to 'give back' by planning a large part of the property with native trees? How else will they give back?
    - are they offering environmental sustainability features which is supposed to be promoted by Moreland Council commitments? Will council monitor that this actually happens?

    Pearson HO56 will lose the precious Heritage Character which has been protected for over 100 years. Residents are extremely unhappy that council have even considered this and allowed it to get to this stage.

  12. Jack H commented

    The seems way too built up and high for the neighbourhood. Eight Storeys!? The nearby ones that are four storeys seem the maximum the streetscape and neighbourhood should be built to. This is just pure profiteering from the developers, and seems incredibly overdeveloped for the immediate area and available amenities.

  13. Julia Leasor commented

    I cannot put this more concisely that one of the comments above but would second the sentiment of:

    ‘Moreland City Council cannot possibly approve this application. There are multiple problems with this proposal:
    - it is obviously far too high.
    - it is not appropriately scaled and does not respond appropriately to the lower scale residential/heritage interface.
    - the Western Residential interface within Heritage Precinct is not protected.
    - blocking out sunlight to single and double story properties nearby is unacceptable.
    - top to bottom glazing is unacceptable as it creates lack of privacy but also adds to the urban heat island effect increasing heat to surrounding properties.
    - the plans have not covered air-conditioning and the noise and exhausts created by such.
    - the eservices.moreland.vic.gov website is not working so it is impossible to see exactly what is planned.
    - reduction in the standard car parking requirements is unacceptable and parking needs to be fully catered for within the bounds of the property. The streets are already too overloaded with cars.
    - what is the developer offering beneficial to the neighbourhood? Are they going to 'give back' by planning a large part of the property with native trees? How else will they give back?
    - are they offering environmental sustainability features which is supposed to be promoted by Moreland Council commitments? Will council monitor that this actually happens?

    Pearson HO56 will lose the precious Heritage Character which has been protected for over 100 years.’

  14. Julia Leasor commented

    I cannot put this more concisely that one of the comments above but would second the sentiment of:

    ‘Moreland City Council cannot possibly approve this application. There are multiple problems with this proposal:
    - it is obviously far too high.
    - it is not appropriately scaled and does not respond appropriately to the lower scale residential/heritage interface.
    - the Western Residential interface within Heritage Precinct is not protected.
    - blocking out sunlight to single and double story properties nearby is unacceptable.
    - top to bottom glazing is unacceptable as it creates lack of privacy but also adds to the urban heat island effect increasing heat to surrounding properties.
    - the plans have not covered air-conditioning and the noise and exhausts created by such.
    - the eservices.moreland.vic.gov website is not working so it is impossible to see exactly what is planned.
    - reduction in the standard car parking requirements is unacceptable and parking needs to be fully catered for within the bounds of the property. The streets are already too overloaded with cars.
    - what is the developer offering beneficial to the neighbourhood? Are they going to 'give back' by planning a large part of the property with native trees? How else will they give back?
    - are they offering environmental sustainability features which is supposed to be promoted by Moreland Council commitments? Will council monitor that this actually happens?

    Pearson HO56 will lose the precious Heritage Character which has been protected for over 100 years.’

  15. Marion Hunt commented

    Yes I agree this it far too high for the street and area and would continue to add to the ugliness, overcrowding, noise, litter, graffiti which abounds in this high density, poor planning

  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