20 Leinster Grove, Brunswick East VIC 3057

Construction of 51 dwellings 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 2 months ago. It was received by them 8 months earlier.

(Source: Moreland City Council, reference MPS/2021/676)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. KJ Debbarma commented

    Why would council agree to a bunch of new townhouses opening their front doors right into the Park?? And the townhouses up the other end sit well back from the Park behind a fence that blends in pretty well. They built a path that people coming in from the street use - if we have to have more townhouses they should line up with the existing ones and extend the path so everyone can use it??

  2. Steve Johnson commented

    Too many townhouses crammed into a small area. And Leinster street is one-way most of the time because its blocked by parked cars – how’s that gonna work with 50 residents all coming and going at different times?? It’s good they’re building townhouses rather than another ugly tower but there should be less of them.

  3. Glenda Lasslett commented

    The application is to cram in the construction of 51 3-4 storey dwellings with a reduction in the standard car parking requirements, overturn of a council easement, and removal of the standard requirements for Standard B13 Landscaping and Standard B17 Side and rear setbacks. There is no green space and the apartments are right up against the park border.
    The application would result in overshadowing of the park and the solar toilet block, much more traffic around the park and pressure on already limited parking spaces in Leinster Grove and Jarvie Street.
    This is not good design or planning.

  4. Gene commented

    This is not a good idea!

  5. Barry Robison commented

    The developers own traffic report states that car parking occupancy on Leinster Grove is high and is restricted to one-way traffic at a time. Additionally with the gated access at the end, there would be no where for delivery trucks etc to turn around.

    They're requesting a car parking reduction of *43 spaces* as each of the 3-bedroom homes only has a single parking space.

    This is just an absurd traffic and parking plan for the already congested neighborhood.

    Not to mention the shading of public parkland, poor pedestrian access and lack of setback from the park.

    Kind regards,

  6. Terence McCaughan commented

    Terence McCaughan

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. I have two main concerns about the proposed development.


    The small, wooded, green space of Methven Park is intensively used by very large numbers of people from around this densely populated inner suburb. It is much loved.
    The proposed development will harmfully impact the appearance of the north boundary of the Park. It will replace a view half of clear sky and half of a plain two story brick wall behind trees with a three storey glass and brick frontage, plus a fourth storey roof structure. Even if the existing trees at the north side of the Park survive construction work so close to their roots, the proposed building will loom above them. .

    This visual intrusion is exacerbated by the sheer proximity of the proposed building to the Park boundary. At ground level it is at just 1.572m from the boundary, much closer than the neighbouring modern development next door at French Avenue. And unlike the French Avenue development, the proposed building in 20 Leinster Grove actually gets closer to the Park as it rises, coming to just within just 1.069m of the Park. As a result, the developer does not propose to plant trees along the front of the property – there is simply no room for any planting.


    Road access to 20 Leinster Grove is entirely via Jarvie Street (from east or west) then northwards along Leinster Grove itself. The developers’ “Traffic Report” is wholly inadequate in its consideration of the impact of a huge increase in traffic levels on these streets and on Methven Park.

    The “Traffic Report” makes no effort to assess current traffic levels in Leinster Grove and Jarvie Street; and then compounds this laziness by blandly asserting that “The subject site was previously used for storage and car parking and as such would have generated a number of vehicle movements on Leinster Grove. The anticipated traffic generation of the proposed development is relatively low and is not expected to have an adverse effect on Leinster Grove or the surrounding road network.”

    1. 20 Leinster Grove has never had large numbers of vehicle movements, even when it was a much busier industrial area. The north end of Leinster Grove, near the entrance to the proposed development, has 10-20 vehicle movements per day.
    2. Even by the developer’s own figures, this level of traffic will leap to an additional 255 vehicle movements a day, with 26 per hour at peak hours in the mornings and evenings. The developer gives no basis for this low estimate. In addition, it is not clear if these low estimates include movements of delivery vehicles or the vehicles of tradies working for householders.
    3. Given that 43 of the proposed 51 homes are aimed at families, vehicle usage is likely to be much higher than the developer’s estimates. The developer seems to imagine most vehicles will leave in the morning and return at night. In fact, family car use is much higher, thanks to school runs and other child ferrying.
    4. This greatly increased traffic along Leinster Grove will negatively impact residents, of course, but more importantly will reduce enjoyment of Methven Park by users from throughout the neighborhood, due to increased traffic noise, pollution, increased difficulty of crossing to the Park at the Jarvie Street end and increased risks to children and dogs near the Leinster Grove edge of the Park.
    5. This additional traffic will not flow smoothly, as the many parked cars along the west side of Leinster Grove mean it is effectively a single lane road. There will be a continuous visual and aural nuisance of vehicles having to back up for each other.

  7. Jordan Brown commented

    This proposal is another example of overzealous developers trying to cram as much quick-money making rubbish as possible into a tiny plot, right near a beautiful local park. Their plans show how their proposed buildings will be smack bang right to the boundary of Methven Park, which would mean all those trees near the boundary will likely be "in contention" during building since they "encroach" the development site (according to the developers own flawed arboricultural report that also deems the healthy insect populations living in these trees are "infestations"), and will lose sun. The developers own documents also show that the buildings are so tightly crammed together that it would be difficult to park and reverse out a normal sized car in the many dozens of additional cars that would be introduced to a quiet area---that's how tight the space is. The mass of buildings will also look ugly too according to the plans---the cheap black metal cladding all over the place will rust after a few years; the fake bricks, "pavers" and facades made of concrete aggregates everywhere will crack and scale/discolour in no time, etc---it's all just concrete, cheap and nasty. The negative visual and amenity impacts to a beloved public park will be significant and undesirable. Increased car traffic. Overshadowing onto already existing neighbouring homes, loss of valuable light and (likely) trees. Developing the site would also put the park and surrounding areas at health risk during construction because, as the developer states, the "moderate risk" of "dispersion of airborne particulates/contaminants of potential concern" such as "heavy metals, PCB, PAH, TRH, BTEX, CHC, and 'Volatile Organic Compounds' due to wind disturbance of soil." (Page 5, 5.1 PSI). Not only would that mean going to the park would be off for as many months or even years as this takes to build, it'll also be a downer for ever after. This should be a no-brainer NO.

  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