93 Poath Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163

An 8 storey building on this site is an overdevelopment of the land and, whilst not student housing, it is similar visual bulk to the applications recently knocked back by Glen Eira Council for the corner of Neerim and Murrumbeena rd.
The application is not in keeping with the area, which is primarily mixed use commercial (small retail) and low rise residential with a general height of two storey to a maximum of not more than 4 storeys along Poath Rd retail area and then reduces in height to normal single storey and 2 storey residential in the surrounding residential community.
Whilst the railway station is in close proximity any reduction in car parking within the building would increase traffic congestion in the area as people drive to the railway station and park - additional vehicles from an 8 storey development would contribute to a lack of parking for commuters and locals alike.

To use the Council's own words:
The height, bulk, scale and form of the proposed development is excessive and will
appear overly dominant from the immediate surrounding street and will not adequately
respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

I agree that this proposal is not in keeping with the buildings in the near vicinity and will cause further connection and lack of parking spaces nearby especially at the station which already is full by 7.30am. it will be an eyesore and I am sure won't attract business as Chadstone is close by.

If a petition to residents requesting their opinions on this proposal went door to door, I truly believe the opinions of the three previous comments by Martin Tynan, Joe Mammolito, and Gianna Dinatale would be strongly supported by ratepayers. They have expressed my opinion far more eloquently than I could.

I second that view and opinion expressed by Martin Tynan, Joe Mammolito and Gianna Dinatale.

Agree with all of the above. This is a very busy intersection right in that corner and under the train lines. Poath Rd is already busy. This would cause mayhem with residents trying to get in and out of their property and everyone use using Poath Road. Nothing else in the area is this high. It is not in keeping with the area and immediate surrounds. Please do not let this monstrosity go ahead.

I also agree with all of the above..

8 levels?!?!? I mean, why do they think this is a good idea? It would absolutely not be in keeping with the area and risks becoming like the horrible tower blocks close to Carnegie station. The developers need to listen to the locals and resubmit an alternative plan.

This is an over development of a small site that does not fit the heritage character of the streetscape on this side of the railway line. Its location on a busy narrow corner also assures disruption for the residents of Railway Parade during and after construction.

There is little street parking in the area so parking requirements should not be reduced.

I am unable to view the documents relating to this proposal

I object to the proposed development at 93 Poath Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163 based on the following;

• Out of character
The height of the proposed development is excessive and will appear overly dominant from the immediate surrounding street and will not adequately respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

• Overshadowing
At 8 stories this will block valuable sunshine and will cast a shadow over residential & retail buildings.

• Lack of car parking
Complete lack of car parking, overflow will take up valuable street parking and use up commuter parking at Hughesdale station.

I respectfully urge Council to reject this application.

. Ground water issues
My comment is that two levels of underground parking may be untenable, given this region's water table level and the flatness of the terrain. Developers should be required to provide data to ensure that in times of high rainfall, flood mitigation measures will be incorporated, and that water will not impinge on adjacent property foundations and roadways. Can GE Council/ South East Water assist with data concerning underground swamps and water flow, for example?
. Car parking
The lack of car parking for future residents of the construction is lamentable, for reasons noted by other objectors.
. Light and sun-access
In sum, 8 storeys is too high for this neighbourhood. Three or four storeys would be a more sustainable outcome, to allow for liveable accomodation for future residents.
The loss of heritage shopfronts and the information that is given to us by such buildings (not just their facades) is why progressive European cities are able to provide social housing, heritage neighbourhoods and modern convenience.
Respectfully, GE Councillors, please let's learn from how its done well elsewhere.

I object 100%.

The problem is the suburb "city of Glen Eira" and" "developers" don't care,
they only care about money...

Maximum: floor level [for shops] and 2 levels above for people to live in,
furthermore a parking basement, with entrance/exit at side streets not Poath rd.
[anything above affect privacy of residents, by train passengers looking in their rooms]

The approving [I hope rejecting] authorities and VCAT should come of their lazy chairs,
and visit the area for themselves, and see its a small community area.

That proposed development, complete madness.

Andreas

I agree with everything already said. 8 storeys is incredible excessive for the area. It is completely out of character for the area. It will be another cheaply made box of apartments, that will look on to a horrible and cheaply made railway line. The area does not need more empty apartments.

An inappropriate development not in character with the suburb. We certainly do not want another Boxhill in the area.

This building will be much higher than all of those around it for a great distance. It's size and height does not match the buildings around it and it will detract greatly from the character of the area.
Also, the existing shops and restaurants that it would be knocked down are cherished local businesses, and their loss would immeasurable. The Indian grocery, especially, is unique and a fantastic local source for fresh fruit, and rarer ingredients.
There is no reason to believe that these would be replaced by anything near as iconic. The ground level shops of the apartment building down the road have remained empty for the past two years. This is a lively street supported with fantastic local businesses and this new building can only reduce that.

I agree with all the above. It’s a precedent that should not be permitted. It is out of line with nearby streetscape and inappropriate for the area. The residents do not want this but feel helpless against Council- how do we really have a voice against a developer? How do we protect the local area from overdevelopment in residential areas. People are furious, frustrated and angry. If we saw Council rates based only on the land footprint and not on the number of developments then it would be less profitable and advantageous for Council to approve plans such as these. Whilst Council stands to benefit financially from these developments there will never be real change. Perhaps the root of the problem is Council’s gain- something to think about.

In my experiences with Council i really don't believe Council will listen to all the comments above and will do as they want.
With over a Massive $70,000.000 that rate payers pay for staff at the Council one would think that Rate Payers would have a much bigger say to what goes on in our Municipality.
Instead they let these developers make such huge profits and wash their hands when there a problem down the track.
I believe City Of Glen Eira Planning dep't are way out of touch with our City by approving these out of character ugly flats as that's all they are .
We live in a great green belt with beautiful reserves and grounds and the Planning department want to kill it with over development.
Talk about climate change we need Change in Planning now!
When it comes election time i would love to see a Councilor take on these issues that rate payers strongly support and change the way the Planning approves these developments.