PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. The description should probably include something like "the complete destruction of a precious inner city green space", because that's what this development amounts to.
   The nearby apartments at 460 Victoria Street already loom over users of the park, and cast long, cold shadows in winter. At 4-5 storeys, they are large enough, and should be a benchmark for other developments.
   Even at a reduced size, the development must carry a caveat that protects current park users from noise/activity complaints, especially music and community festivals.
   This development simply must not be approved in its current form. It must be scaled back, or Moreland risks losing a well used and well loved space.

2. The height limit for this area is 8 stories and they are asking for 10 storeys plus a rooftop party space = 11 storeys. This development needs to be reduced to 5-6 at the maximum to better sit in the landscape.

   The design presents an unacceptable visual bulk to the area of 1 storey heritage-listed Victorian houses. The nearest comparable is a 4 storey building about 500m away which already overshadowing what used to be one of the largest open green spaces in Brunswick.

   The design breaks several design codes set by council including the setbacks which are not sufficient and need to be amended.

   5 retail spaces at the bottom of this development is incredibly excessive for the area which is low on foot traffic and retail trade and they will no doubt remain completely empty and become a security risk and public eyesore, just like all of the empty retail outlets at the nearby 290 Albert Street development which now are just a graffitied eyesore. The developer should be forced to install restaurant-grade extraction and other hospitality amenities in at least 1 of the retail spaces and increase the footprint of that tenancy to make it viable and then overall the total retail space needs to be reduced.

   The car parking is vastly insufficient and needs to be doubled to meet the demand from residents. It is on a local road that is already at parking capacity.

   Finally, the design is disappointingly aesthetically ugly - a real pity, this site could have had world class architecture applied to it and won awards for fitting into the landscape. Instead we get the sloppy c grade architecture of the Breese Street architects who specialise in ugly box towers that destroy suburban character. Look at the disaster of that precinct, an ugly grey wind tunnel. Would be wonderful to see a redesign as well as the above being addressed, thank you.

3. Dear Moreland Planning Dept..How has it come to this? This proposal at this location exceeds far and beyond the Moreland planning schemes recommended 'discretionary' 18mtrs or 6 levels above ground. This proposal is not within the geographical parameters set out by the State Governments proposed growth corridor, with an acceptable 25mtr height.
   Why are the public again being requested to intervene and reject this totally disrespectful proposition. It is not our job. Why have community consultations??
   I expect more from 'OUR' planning office. It's as though the developers are establishing comfortable relationships to be presenting such outlandish proposals.
   I Object to this proposal based on that it exceeds all suggested recommendations within the Moreland planning scheme.

4. Seriously Moreland Council?

   How does this type of thing even get as far as the Planning Dept?

   This should have been squashed at the first meeting.

   Shame on you.

5. Who’s greasing who’s palm?

   Some of the most expensive council rates in Victoria yet Moreland council still need more for their deep pockets. Faceless and non transparent. Be fair, be sensitive, be compassionate, be wise and above all be respectful. High rise is NOT the way.

6. I have both objections and concerns about the proposed application for development of 395-411 Albert Street (Moreland City Council application number: MPS/2020/737, received 17/11/020).
   I live within one kilometre of the proposed development and am a frequent user of the surrounding parkland. The current proposal would have a negative impact on my daily enjoyment of this neighbourhood with its imposing aspect, inappropriate aesthetics, and lack of consideration for the limited carparking space that is available.

   I object to the plan to exceed the 8-storey limit allowed. The plan for having 10 storeys must be rejected. It is simply a greedy move (by developers and council) and should be soundly quashed.

   The ‘Albert Street Urban Renewal Precinct’ Document, written in 2015 provides clear objectives for the development of this area, some which are poorly addressed by the application. The specific objectives that I feel are poorly addressed are:

   • To ensure that development fits the desired future character of increased residential density and scale of built form.
   • Respond to the scale of the existing cottages on Albert Street within the Precinct.

   The scale of the project far exceeds the scale of the surrounding residential structures, the majority of which are 1 storey, and the tallest of which is 5 storeys.
   It also does not address the character of neighbouring structures, many of which have been granted a heritage overlay (HO56: including 437-507 Albert Street, 382-462 Albert Street) in either style or scale. It is just a collection of very big brick buildings.

   Also, I object to the provision of fewer than the required number of parking spaces (requirement is 612, current plan provides 239). I do not believe that the request for reducing the number of parking spaces is offset by the provision of 10 car-share vehicles for residents, nor by the provision of more than the required number of bicycle parking spaces. The planning application tries to justify this breach with:
   “Whilst ultimately not adopted, Amendment C183 to the Moreland Planning Scheme signals the direction with which Council seek to take in order to lower the reliance on car parking and promote sustainable modes of transport."

   But even if Amendment C183 had been adopted, the required number of spaces would have been 490, more than twice as many spaces than are provided in this plan. I feel this discriminates against car owners and does not acknowledge the variety of reasons why one might need a car. The developer must be required to meet the current requirement for car parking spaces.

   A more general concern that I have relates to how Moreland and/or VTAC has been sorely misled by developers in the past, and/or lacked the necessary vigilance to monitor the construction process after permits were granted. One example is the Hoffman’s Brickworks complex. The apartments and access streets that were built are substandard. Apartment walls lack appropriate sound insulation, build quality is poor, and streets are not even wide enough to allow for emergency vehicle access. In addition, the agreement by the developer to preserve the heritage of the remainder of the site has virtually been ignored, leading to deterioration and damage, and now numerous legal proceedings. Once permits are granted the quality of construction must be monitored diligently.

   As a result of my mistrust of developers, the following statement also makes me nervous:
   “The development will provide improved housing choice and tenure through an innovative new housing arrangement which has been planned entirely for renters, to be managed by Mirvac ‘LIV’ management service with all dwellings held under a single ownership structure.”

   To what body will this management service be accountable and what consequences for mismanagement are in place?

7. Travel around Melbourne and there are numerous examples of well executed development of 1-4 stories neighboring parks and sporting fields. Why is it that Moreland council would even contemplate two x 10 storey towers next to parkland and largely single storey residential?!

   Should this development, or the neighboring 429 Albert proposal, be approved Moreland Council will have effectively destroyed a community/environmental asset forever (Gilpin & Clifton Parks). How short sighted.

   I'm not a NIMBY - please develop the sites next to the parks... But make them complement the area. Not destroy it.

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