PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. I strongly object to this proposal.

   It is non-compliant in many ways immediately. For example: Boundary setbacks not compliant with the Moreland Planning Scheme. It's overbearingly tall/high. 8 storeys is way too high and exceeds planning scheme height limits. The wall facing Evans Street and Lygon Street, for example, exceeds the 11-14 metres maximum in the Moreland Planning Scheme. It will overshadow Lygon St and the footpath on the opposite side of the road it's so tall! It will also overshadow businesses to the south, such as Lygon St nursery for instance. Unacceptable.

   Access to already existing sites will be impeded also, as the Pitt St laneway which is currently used by local businesses will be converted to use for this proposal ONLY. No impact of that sensibly considered.

   Traffic impacts and the reduction in car parking will also be a problem in an already burdened area for car parking and rat-running. The increase of traffic to Evans Street is unacceptable, for example.

2. This is a terrible proposal for this site, way too high, no setbacks, traffic will be hazardous and ignoring the amenity and nature of what this neighbourhood is all about, small, creative and interesting over monolithic commercialism

3. The impact to parking and traffic conditions will pose further problems in this area. The increase in traffic and lack of available parking in Evans street is already hugely problematic. Furtermore, the proposal of Eight storeys is way too high.
   Enough is enough Moreland!

4. Please don't allow this 8 storey building to go ahead. We have just moved here from a suburb that started allowing buildings as tall as 12 storeys high. It was disastrous for the community, for traffic, for businesses, and for people's mental health, mine included. Having a gigantic building suddenly go up and literally put our living room in permanent shade was devastating. I can't go through that again. Please don't underestimate the impact that sunshine and skies have on the mental and physical wellbeing of a community. A limit of 5 storeys is not unreasonable. If the developers want 8 storeys, surely there are plenty of other locations that allow this?

5. I wish to object to this proposal. The proposal is for yet another non-compliant monolith that ignores council planning standards and will further erode the amenity of Lygon Street.

   Other comments have noted that the proposal is non-compliant in multiple ways: . boundary setbacks are not compliant with the Moreland Planning Scheme; 8 storeys is way too high and exceeds planning scheme height limits; the walls facing Evans Street and Lygon Street exceed the 11-14 metres maximum in the Moreland Planning Scheme.

   The proposed building would overshadow Lygon St and the footpath on the opposite side of the road as well as overshadowing businesses to the south, such as Lygon St nursery, one of the few non-hospitality businesses in the area.

   Other comments note that the access to already existing sites will be impeded: the Pitt Street laneway which is currently used by local businesses will be converted solely for use for this proposal .

   The proposal for a reduction in car parking has no rationale and will also be a problem in an already burdened area for car parking and will increase traffic to Evans Street.

   Over-tall buildings and their shadows affect people. Let's keep Brunswick at a human scale. Moreland Council could be supporting small, creative and interesting local businesses that are now using warehouses in the streets beyond Lygon Street.

   This proposal flouts the Moreland Planning Scheme and will have a negative impact on Lygon Street and nearby streets, I urge you to reject this application.

6. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. I have lived at 11 Leinster Grove directly east of the proposed construction since 2018.

   1. Height – 62% higher than it should be

   The proposed construction does not comply with the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 19. Its proposed height is 27.7 to 28.06 metres – 62% higher than DDO 19’s preferred height of 17 metres. The developer tries to justify this by saying that the building opposite and one or two others in the general area are already higher than 17m. However the building opposite does in fact comply with the DDO, which allows for a higher building on the east side of Lygon Street. (I don’t know the history of this.) I suggest that the Council should require this development to follow the DDO as, if not, every future application will also ignore it.

   Implications of excess height
   a. Increased car traffic. The reason for the excess height is to squeeze more apartments onto the same parcel of land. This in turn means there will be even more cars operating in this area, which already suffers from heavy traffic. The developer’s own Traffic Impact report presents very optimistic figures about the levels of increased vehicle movement, and points out that some or much of this will be “dispersed” into neighbouring residential streets, as if this is a welcome solution. (And more cars mean more pressure on parking – see below.)
   b. Increased shading of neighbouring houses and of footpaths. The proposed building will cast long shadows on pavements and properties along Lygon Street from early afternoon, and along Pitt Street and Evans Street until late in the morning.
   c. Impact on the visual environment. The developer’s own illustrations show this will be one more of the characterless boxes which are turning parts of Lygon Street into a drab urban canyon.

   2. Parking spaces – just 112 parking spaces instead of the statutory requirement of 168 spaces; a proposed shortfall of 33%.

   It is difficult to follow the developer’s “arguments” to justify this reduction. The developer seems to argue that the six retail operations will only need six spaces rather than the statutory requirement of 50 because staff and customers will mainly need spaces during daytime while residents will mainly need car park spaces at night and at weekends, but that in any case most customers will walk.

   The Traffic Impact report argues that the 25 one bedroom apartments should have just 12 parking spaces rather than the statutory requirement of 25, even though the figures cited in the report itself show that 72% of one bedroom households in Brunswick East have cars, not the 48% assumed here. This shortfall will encourage yet more illegal on-street parking.

   I urge the Council to follow its own Design and Development Overlay and general strategy for this part of Lygon Street and to require a design which respects the DDO’s very reasonable height preference.

7. I strongly object to this proposal. It is way too high; neither does it comply with planning regulations which exist to protect neighbourhood access to light and to ensure many aspects that help build a sense of liveability, light, airflow, street approach.

8. I strongly object to this proposal. The height and size of this construction will have a devastating impact on the tiny Evans street. The overshadowing will make a huge negative difference to properties - both commercial and residential. The traffic flow will increase immensely on a very narrow street - as well as parking difficulties in what is already a contentious and divisive space.

   I believe that Moreland city Council is committed to sustainability and good environmental planning. The current proposal is for a huge, bulky building with restricted natural light and no cross breeze for many apartments - not sustainable, not environmentally sound design. We need to think smarter and in a more forward manner if we are to make a suburb that we want to live in together for many years to come.

9. The proposal exceeds the preferred height in the DDO19 which is 17 metres.

   The proposal exceeds the preferred street wall height of 11-14 metres at the northern and eastern boundaries.

   Despite this, the proposal offers a high quality landmark building that will provide notable wayfinding benefits and significant public realm activation.

   The proposal fails to respond to the heritage values of the site at 3 Pitt Street Brunswick and indeed will create unacceptable morning overshadowing and overlooking of that site.

   The proposal fails to respond to the heritage values of the sites at 236 and 238 Lygon Street Brunswick and indeed will create unacceptable afternoon overshadowing of those sites.

   The reduction in carparking sought by the applicant is unremarkable and aligned with the emerging character of the area.

   The proposal responds positively to the following:

   Brunswick Structure Plan Reference Document 2018

   1.5 Strategic Context

   1.6 Planning Policy Context

   Structure planning for Brunswick has been informed by the State and local planning policy
   frameworks and other higher order strategic plans, as follows:
    The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) establishes that activity centres will
   be a focus for major retail, residential, commercial, administrative,
   entertainment and cultural developments, which provide a variety of land uses
   and are highly accessible to the community (Clause 11).
    Metropolitan planning strategy has established an expectation for sustainable
   urban growth and the development of activity centres to provide communities
   with convenient access to a wide range of goods and services and to facilitate
   vibrant local economies.
    Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth (2002) identified
   Brunswick as a major activity centre in the hierarchy of metropolitan
   Melbourne’s activity centres and as a focus for high-quality
   development, activity and living.
    Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050 identifies the Brunswick Activity Centre
   as a major activity centre. These centres are defined as suburban
   centres that provide access to a wide range of goods and services.
   They had different attributes and provide different functions, with
   some serving larger subregional catchments. Major activity centres
   provide opportunities for more medium and higher-density
   development in middle suburbs close to jobs and services.

   Clause 21.02-3 of the Moreland Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

   2.1 Demographic Trends

   The proposal responds positively to the surrounding context, the location on a declared road, the activity centre location, the Commercial Zoning, and the trends in household sizes and population.

   2.2 Existing conditions

   The emerging character is an eclectic one of increasing high density housing, significant population growth and a diversity of housing types and the proposal responds positively to the emerging character of the area as well as the future vision for the area broadly defined in the City of Moreland Planning Scheme.

   2.3 Key Issues

   Activation, emerging character, under-utilisation of existing lands, revitalisation and the need to avoid dereliction of the area.

   3.1 Vision for Brunswick

   This area will continue to develop as a lively urban space, sought after by new residents and small businesses, due to its good public transport connections, great local services and its place at the forefront of Melbourne’s cultural scene. Proposal responds positively to the vision.

   3.2 Principles
   7. Access, services, facilities and accommodation for all
   People of all abilities, incomes and cultures will have access to public facilities, services
   and housing within Brunswick

   4.1 THEME 1: LAND USE PATTERN AND ACTIVITY
   BRUNSWICK ACTIVITY CENTRE

   Positively responds to objectives and strategies:
   4.1.2 Encourage a mix of uses, including retail, office, commercial, entertainment and
   community, to strengthen the role of the three corridors as a major concentration of
   activity and as a community and civic focus.
   4.1.3 Support higher density residential development

   4.2 Theme 2: Housing

   Proposal responds positively to strategies and objectives.

   4.4 THEME 4: TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT

   Reduction in carparking requirements respond positively to strategies and objectives.

   The location of the site and reduction in carparking requirements respond positvely to the CIty of Moreland Climate Action Plan via a promotion by the proposal's design and chosen site, of increased active and public transport use.

   There is an emerging character of 23 metre preferred heights in the DDO on the eastern side of Lygon Street close to the subject site.

   I would say, if the height proposed did not exceed 23 metres, that the proposal may be an appropriate planning outcome and would favour a recommendation for the granting of a permit by the responsible authority.

   I would submit that the setbacks on the upper levels could be appropriately reduced for the site's northern boundary.

   Several of the sites that others may say would be overshadowed by the proposal, that is those numbered 1 to 9 Pitt Street, are marked in the DDO19 as having preferred maximum heights of 14 metres.

   This belies the true emerging character of the area as one of increasing housing densities close to declared roads in activity centres.

   Indeed the emerging character of the site and surrounds is one of high population growth, increasing housing heights and density, eclectic and ambitious design vision, and mixed use construction in activity centres.

   Noting in detail the true emerging character of the area and that "context" includes emerging character as captured by both existing recent development activity and the Moreland City Council Planning Scheme documents, I would encourage further consideration of the proposal and collaboration between the applicant and the responsible authority.

   Perhaps the expectations of the surrounding residents need to be managed, noting the emerging character and future vision of Council articulated for the area in the planning scheme.

   Given the emerging character, planning scheme and surrounding uses, overshadowing impacts of the proposal are less remarkable than previously suggested by other submitters.

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