64 Glyndon Road, Camberwell VIC 3124

Construction of nineteen (19) dwellings with a basement car park over two (2) lots

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 5 months ago. It was received by them 11 days earlier.

(Source: Boroondara City Council, reference PP21/1186)

18 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Anita Chow commented

    This would really be out of character for the neighbourhood and too many apartments on one black of land. It should not be approved

  2. Don McLean commented

    Surely Boroondara Council will not let this application proceed. This is over development to the extreme in a beautiful Camberwell street .

  3. Meredith Masterman commented

    OMG 19 apartments in glyndon road is overstretching our services. Basement car parking is good as long as sufficient off street car parking is made available. This will go ahead but let’s hope with sympathy to the area. Make the apartments;-
    1. Large 3 bedroom apartments(family friendly)
    2. Each with 3 car spaces each
    3. Low rise ( being on the high side of the road this will be a ‘tower’ hoping to get city glimpses.

    The strain on our services will be enormous, water, sewer, garbage collection, increased road traffic,

    STOP OVER DEVELOPING CAMBERWELL

  4. Karen Saunders commented

    "Tell them they're dreaming". Stop it!

  5. Helen Chisholm commented

    On the Council website, this application is for 64 & 66 Glyndon Rd. Both are very fine homes which contribute to the neighbourhood character and they should not be demolished.
    The development would add another 19 households to the street with increased demands on services such as rubbish collection, water, sewerage and potentially another 38 cars to the street (if 2 cars/houshold) plus a requirement for on street visitor parking. Such a development would compromise the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposal is out of character with the street and a gross over development of the site.
    Submitting the planning application on 21st December suggests that the developer was hoping the application would go under the radar over the holiday period.

  6. Richard Winnall commented

    I agree with the other comments that this would be way out of character for these streets in Camberwell. This feels extreme and I really hope this does not get approved. If it does, it is a signal to many of us of what is to come and our need to better engage this council on the future of our suburb.

  7. Louise Marett commented

    I agree that the proposed development is far too many apartments for the two blocks and such overdevelopment should be prevented.

  8. Craig Chester commented

    All points raised by others here all fair - bulk, size, completely out of character. Councillors must stand against the developer and state government to support the overwhelming contention of their ratepayers and residents, as seen through the number of comments opposing this development. Simply once again blaming VCAT or Wynn is getting tired and predictable. Councillors must work harder. Your residents have had enough.

  9. Meredith Masterman commented

    The Council follows the guidelines set by Richard Wynne. Occasionally the Vouncil can find a loophole to delay building but then developers take it to VCAT and it gets approved. Richard Wynne must go (he has approved demolition of many Camberwell homes). If I wanted to live with a high density area I’d move to Richmond. But I don’t I chose to live in a family friendly Camberwell
    Write ir phone 03) 9415 8901
    Email: richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au
    This development places an enormous strain on our services. Has the council checked how much extra waste this will create? Extra road traffic? Parking in the street? Privacy for neighbours? Creating street Shadows?

  10. Simone commented

    Agree with all comments regarding this inappropriate over development. Please take the time to email Council separately with your concerns quoting PP21/1186 before the end of January 2022 as I’ve been told Council don’t always read comments on this forum? Write to Lisa Hollingsworth - your Councillor for Lynden Ward & copy in all other Councillors. There is also a petition section on Councils website if locals want to take the time to collect signatures. As residents we need to speak up about the ongoing over development of our suburb.

  11. Alfred Macey commented

    A very significant development of this size and scale is not in keeping with the current environment. There is no precedent for this scale of development on Glyndon Road, save for the smaller low rise and low impact units close to Riversdale Road. This application is entirely unsuitable and must be rejected. Developments of this scale are only suited to central/commercial locations not in residential streets.

  12. Meredith Masterman commented

    1. Loss of light or overshadowing.
    2. Overlooking/loss of privacy.
    3. Visual amenity (but not loss of private view)
    3. Adequacy of parking/loading/turning.
    4. Road safety.
    5. Traffic generation.
    6. Noise and disturbance resulting from use.
    7. Hazardous materials.
    8. Increased Garbage Waste
    9. Impact on limited Refuse Tip Depot.

  13. Mary Gibney commented

    I totally agree with the other comments on this site. 19 apartments on Glendon Rd would be a development on steroids and totally out of character for the area. So many beautiful homes in this part of Camberwell are being demolished or renovated inappropriately but building 19 apartments on these two blocks is a new low. Boroondara councillors should reject this out of hand.

  14. Selwyn Newnham commented

    I object to the proposed over development of 62/64 Glyndon Road Camberwell.
    - The proposed development is out of character with the existing houses and units.
    - The Councils own policy dictates its aim is to preserve the old historical heritage of this street. The proposed development will result in the loss of character to the street and the surrounding area.
    - The storm water system and other utilities along the street are currently not coping resulting in overflows and road lifting. Adding this many units would cause even more flooding and damage.
    - It would increase road traffic and roadside parking on Glyndon Road which would make what is already a busy street untenable.
    - There is no provision for ‘green’ space.
    - It would completely change the ambiance of Glyndon Road.
    - The number of units being built within the block is excessive (and makes them little more than dog boxes).

  15. Selwyn Newnham commented

    I object to the proposed over development of 64 (*typo above corrected) Glyndon Road Camberwell.
    - The proposed development is out of character with the existing houses and units.
    - The Councils own policy dictates its aim is to preserve the old historical heritage of this street. The proposed development will result in the loss of character to the street and the surrounding area.
    - The storm water system and other utilities along the street are currently not coping resulting in overflows and road lifting. Adding this many units would cause even more flooding and damage.
    - It would increase road traffic and roadside parking on Glyndon Road which would make what is already a busy street untenable.
    - There is no provision for ‘green’ space.
    - It would completely change the ambiance of Glyndon Road.
    - The number of units being built within the block is excessive (and makes them little more than dog boxes).

  16. Scott Feehan commented

    Desperately inappropriate and houses that are part of the areas character can’t just keep be destroyed for low quality and frankly hideous looking developments.

  17. Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The colours and materials of external finishes to the structures within the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal will involve an unacceptable removal of environmentally significant vegetation and fails to contemplate maintaining sufficient vegetation of the indigenous ecological vegetation class.

    The scale of the proposal and lack of sufficient setbacks exclude the opportunity for meaningful landscaping that is consistent with neighbourhood character and responds positively to the surrounding context.

    The scale, bulk and lack of landscaping including provision of deep soil landscaped areas and canopy trees contribute to a lack of integration of the built form with the surrounding context.

    Insufficient information has been provided regarding the extent of landscaping, deep soil landscaped areas, numbers and locations of canopy trees to be provided and the botanical names of all of the vegetation to be planted upon the site.

    The intensity of use of the proposal will respond negatively to the surrounding context.

    Insufficient information has been provided regarding solar access modelling according to the structure orientation and spring equinox.

    The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and fails to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds, especially land adjacent to the site's Southern and Eastern boundaries and also land south east of the subject site.

    The scale and lack of sufficient setbacks create excessive domination and visual bulk along with unacceptable southern, south-eastern and eastern overshadowing impacts.

    The extent of impermeable paving within the proposal will create unacceptable inundation risks of the surrounds, and increase velocity and volume of overland water flows.

    The lack of articulation between ground and upper levels of the proposed structures will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The lack of proper parking provision for occupants and visitors will unacceptably impact upon the amenity of the surrounds.

    The surrounds consist predominantly of detached homes on allotments exceeding 500m² with extensive neighbourhood canopy tree cover.

    The proposal fails to respond to the objectives of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone NRZ1 and relevant schedule within the City of Boroondara Planning Scheme.

    The proposal does not positively and appropriately respond to the City of Boroondara Planning Scheme.

    The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character and even if I give thought to any possible "emerging character" of the surrounding context I submit that the proposal remains an inappropriate planning outcome that should be Refused by the Responsible Authority.

    The spirit of a Neighbourhood Residential Zone is that generally development should be subservient to and in keeping with the streetscape and the proposal would unacceptably dominate the streetscape.

    Furthermore I submit that I cannot in my experience and knowledge find that the Objection ground I rely upon can be ameliorated by any Amendments or Conditions and find under the relevant planning provisions that the appropriate outcome is for the responsible authority to determine the application by way of refusal.

  18. Liz Llewellyn commented

    It is actually hard to comprehend why a council would allow 19 units to be developed in a street that is already busy, at times congested and completely out of character in an area already brimming with units that are being developed ie. Nevis Street. It will put unnecessary strain on all of the services in the area too, our infrastructures arent designed for all of the resources required to service 19 units. Why is this being allowed? You can guarantee that the owner/occupiers will not all park in their basement carparks but on the street creating more congestion. I can only imagine the terrible conditions that will be forced upon the immediate neighbors, surely their privacy and personal over shadowing of their properties need to be considered. What has happened to this once tree filled, family friendly area? Now we have units rammed onto blocks changing the very essence of what brought us to the area. It's appalling.

  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