PlanningAlerts

15 Comments

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

1. I object to the demolition of this building. As it is one of the few bluestone buildings in the area I am surprised that it is not heritage listed. It is positioned at the entrance of the beautiful Warr Park and I don't think it should be destroyed. Have no problem with internal renovation but feel strongly the existing bluestone structure should remain.

2. This small cottage is linked to Pentridge and must be maintained. I have no objection to new additions to make it work commercially but the bluestone facade must be retained. It located a sensitive park setting and should be done appropriately.

   Height will also be an issue, we need to ensure adequate ventilation and sunlight isn’t blocked by the changes.

3. This heritage bluestone building has been sadly neglected for a number of years. This certainly does not mean it should be demolished, rather it should be restored. The proposal to then build two storey dwellings right in Warr park is also disturbing, both for park users and any inhabitants. I believe there will inevitably be a conflict of interest regarding noise, park usage, rubbish and shading from trees.

4. The character of Brunswick is made up of these rare bluestone beauties.

   To remove such an historical building would be doing the community unjust.

   Keep the facade and so as you need in the rear.

5. the bluestone cottage is actually being reconstructed, but only the front portion, and not the midsection, which allows two units at the rear. the structural damage is severe therefore the front part of the cottage is to be demolished and reconstructed. But is this ok? is the significance of the cottage the build itself, even if it cannot be used due to structural damage? (due to probably the trees in the park, drainage and insufficient footings). in reconstruction and reusing only the front part of the cottage, is there enough room to provide space for a cafe? the 2 units in the rear are a bit excessive, particularly as both have car park spaces, so close to Sydney Rd with access to trams and not far from Anstey station. i think one unit would be more appropriate for the site area, or if two are to be retained, then no car parking. Obviously the units will be paying for the restoration work, but with many excessively small units being built in the area, it would be nicer to keep the mid section if part of the original of the cottage, demolishing only the rear addition and building one unit there.
   Also the size and scale of the units will have excessive impact on the park, which already is surrounded by apartments at the rear, but the albion st entrance is balanced by the small scaled buildings on either side. Anything higher than two storey would be excessive to the scale of the cottage, which can be viewed from three sides, where the larger form of the proposed units will be extremely noticeable, and particularly from the park side.
   i commend the owners restoring the original cottage, which would be a great expense and perhaps instead of building two units to pay for it, one could suffice with the council providing a grant to help restore a significant piece of Brunswick’s history and architecture.

6. This iconic bluestone building is an example of Brunswicks streetscape from long ago. The changing face of Brunswick in recent times had resulted in a streetscape that is totally unrecognisable from the working class, light industrial suburb, that was the gateway to Sydney.
   This cottage needs to be retained in its original form, idealistically it would be a wonderful home for Brunswick memorabilia and and a community historical group.
   The heart and soul of Brunswick needs to be retained otherwise we lose our connection to the past, our history and the stories of our forefathers.

7. Please don’t demolish this building, it’s beautiful and there’s too much over development happening here

8. This is a beautiful building in need of restoration that adds important character to the Albion st and garden. It does not overlook or impose on the park and has heritage relating to the pentridge buildings.

9. Love this building in its cosy spot - one of the iconic buildings we noticed when we moved here. The proximity to the park meant it was a great cafe spot (like park st cafe) which could be utilised as being open to the community/park. The design and materials hold great value, and I think it reasonable that this is reflected in any restoration.

10. I think this building's core features should be restored, and no height added unless it can be shown that it won't shadow what is currently a lovely section of park used by the community. Adding another drab and dank park space, shadowed by buildings, rather than trees, is not going to improve the area at all. Despite the fact that the building hasn't been tended to properly for some time, it has capacity to flourish with a tasteful development. I think this development should be very carefully considered, and the original heritage building should not be destroyed at all.

11. This cafe was opened when we moved to this area 13 year ago. And it is one of few buildings in the area that give you the feeling of the history of Brunswick. It would be very sad to see it pulled down and being replaced with a dull and lifeless ugly square or rectangular shape building instead.

12. Given the growing number of apartments and townhouses in this area, it would be wise to maintain the local parks and any local history. This bluestone feature should be kept and developed. The common space near the park needs to be dedicated to the community. Issues already raised, relating to height, parking, noise, and waste should be considered for everyone's best interests.

13. I am writing to support this development. It is important that

14. I am writing to support this development. It is important that we enable more people to live and work in the inner-north, and that we remove extreme barriers to densification of the suburbs. More people means more support of small and local businesses, and more diverse communities.

    Redevelopment also allows modern construction practices and more environmentally friendly built environments, leading to less power and resource consumption per inhabitant.

    Development like this has so many benefits to those who live and work in the area, as well as those who would like to do so but currently cannot due to restraints of supply. Therefore it is imperative that this development, and those like it, are approved.

15. I object to this proposal to demolish this beautiful, historical bluestone building. With careful restoration, this building could be made to shine again, after years of neglect. With the properties positioning next to a public park, it is loved and admired by many, especially as a local cafe spot. But has so much potential to be many other things too. It would be a true loss to see it demolished to make way for two townhouse dwellings. We are seeing this happen far two often in the area, which is at risk of losing its charm if we allow all these proposals to move forward.

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