52 - 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC

Construction of ten (10) double storey dwellings and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor spaces)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Brimbank City Council, reference P516/2023)


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

  1. David V commented

    Hi BCC planners, didn't this application come up before?
    A reduction in the standard car parking requirement (visitor spaces) ??

    Not sure if planners have ever visited this area as Selwyn Street is very narrow and there should be an INCREASE in standard car parking requirement (visitor spaces) as where will ppl park?

    Just a thought to consider before approving. Thank you. Regards, David.

  2. Laura T commented

    This street is very narrow, this amount of housing will drastically reduce street parking and create further congestion and dangerous blind spots. This poses danger to local kids going to the park.
    Also consider rubbish collections with this number of housing in a narrow stretch.
    It simply won't work. The number of housing needs to be significantly reduced and all need to have their own parking on site plus visitor parking to reduce the inevitable impact to locals.

  3. Luke W commented

    Brimbank City Council,

    The number of town houses proposed with the reduction of parking for this street is concerning. This is already a high traffic area with sports and other community activities.
    The reduction of public parking combined with the increase of high-density housing will have a detrimental impact on both the local community's enjoyment of Selwyn Park and traffic navigating an already narrow street.

  4. Joan Seymour commented

    1. Very concerned by reduced parking, which will inevitably reduce access to the Selwyn Park sporting amenities.
    2. The lack of individual parking for each unit means that families with cars and with children need not apply. Even families with environmentally friendly electric cars need parking space. Families with children need cars, despite the assumptions of certain politicians.
    3. The Selwyn Park area is currently a very pleasant and human place to live in Brimbank. When it’s overcrowded, with overflowing rubbish bins defiling the narrow streets, we’ll have lost not only dignified housing, but one of most beautiful and breathing green spaces. Please don’t do this.
    4. What is the developer’s target market? Not families, not the elderly, but…?

  5. Naomi Cooper commented

    Hello Brimbank CC Planners
    Please please visit this site at multiple times of the day (especially after school hours when the park is populated with children and families) and spend time there absorbing the traffic and people. Children are frequenting the wonderful oval, playground, Kororoit Ck Neighbourhood House and surrounds, and crossing the road constantly... and should be able to do safely.
    Some years back (15 or so??) the road (bitumen) was re-done and it slopes significantly. More often than not, speeding cars come around that bend on the wrong side of the road - adding MORE cars will only increase the risk of more accidents, as more parked cars will push people over more than they already veer. Its awful- and there is no white line painted down the middle of the road either- which doesn't help. I have witnessed multiple accidents along this stretch.
    I object to the number of units being proposed with reduced car parking. Car parking should be increased in this section not reduced.
    How does the previously proposed 9 get rejected and now its proposed for 10?? Please do better for our area and reject this proposal.

  6. Wayne Murphy commented

    The streets in Albion are becoming progressively harder to negotiate due to continued development of townhouses without adequate parking.
    Developing the land at a greater density is fine. Development without provision of services - in this case adequate parking for each new dwelling - is not.
    The reduction in parking requirements puts the burden for a new development into the community and neighbours, rather than on the developer and new resident. Increased profit for a developer (by making a dwelling with more rooms and fewer car spaces) does not improve the local area, and reduces road space for existing residents.
    Please reject this development unless adequate parking requirements are reinstated.

  7. Lan Tran commented

    This area is a high traffic area for both cars and pedestrians. It is frequented by many kids of all ages riding bikes and scooters (or learning to)
    This is not suitable for such a build that will only increase issues to such a congested area.
    Please do not proceed.

  8. Bridey Lokhorst-Blight commented

    Like others here I have concerns about the reduction in visitor parking for this development
    From the permit application document Section 05.5 Access and Car Parking, in particular "c) the car parking reduction relates to visitor parking only, with the
    overflow of 2 visitor spaces is only expected during the evenings and on
    weekends, with reduced demands during weekday daytime,"
    I would like to make the point that these expected visitor times are in fact when the park and surrounding on-street parking are likely to be already under pressure.
    Families, young children, kids and commuters on bikes as well as sporting clubs use these facilities and the Selwyn Street "during the evenings and on weekends".

    The provision of only 2 visitor carparks for 10 dwellings is a very minimal base requirement. I think it is quite clear that this development is already going to put pressure on on-street parking. It is likely the 2-bedroom houses will still have two resident vehicles where only one space is mandated. Given its location opposite a park, on a very narrow and winding street, and at a corner where parking is reduced, a further reduction in parking is contra-indicated.

    Any parking on narrow Selwyn Street is already a danger, requiring drivers to cross the midline close to a bend in the road as well as near to street corners. This takes drivers' attention away from additional hazards there, including pedestrians crossing between parked vehicles to access the park, and cyclists.

    I implore BCC to make an in-person visit to understand the impact of increased parking pressure on this site before making a decision.

  9. Georgia Traill commented

    I find it concerning that 10 units with no visitors parking would even be considered. The streets are too narrow for on street parking, every household has 2 cars these days (or more!).
    It is clear that the only thing these developers care about is cramming residences on to the land to make the most profit.
    We need to maintain the liveability of our suburb and that includes being able to drive on the road without it being clogged with parked cars.

  10. Si C commented

    BCC and planners,

    I would like to add my voice to disagree with these proposed plans.

    I to think that these plans do not tally with the roads, on street parking and layout of the surrounding area regarding safety when walking and driving. Blind corners, sightlines and narrow streets will make this a compounded problem very quickly. I feel like not enough care has been taken when considering the downstream impacts of the proposed plans.

    I also feel that these plans don't meet BCC commitments to retaining and growing green spaces in residential areas. Gardens trees and canopy cover are being replaced with a volumous building footprint.

    With the delapidation of unfinished new builds on neighbouring plots, I fear this might be another ambitious project with little care for the surrounding community, doomed to create a slab of unwanted housing unfit for purpose.

    Thank you for taking the time to scrutinise the reality of these awkward plans.

  11. Mel Ash commented

    This proposal has multiple concerns and is inappropriate for the area.
    It’s an over-development and given it’s location needs additional parking within the properties boundaries as residents will be car dependent.
    It lacks housing diversity as all dwellings are 2 storey, which discriminates against those with physical limitations.
    Also it ignores the neighbourhood character of single storey dwellings.
    Additionally has planning noticed that the applicant has tried to conceal that unit 1 is 4 bedroom and only a single carport? Look closely, they have called it a study, but clearly once the frame is up an internal door will be added to become a 4th bedroom.
    Lastly how can unit 2 and 3 turn their vehicles around to exit? Unit 4 can drive-in to their garage and reverse a vehicle westwards before driving forward to to the east to exit. If unit 2 and 3 were to try and exit the same way they would reverse through the fence into the backyard of unit 1.
    To address the housing crisis we need diverse well planned functional developments that integrate with the area.
    This proposal has multiple flaws and requires a re-think.

  12. Phoebe Martin commented

    Like others, I am very concerned about the reduction in car parking spaces. Albion is a very family friendly neighbourhood and green spaces are few and far between in Brimbank compared to other parts of Melbourne. Reducing accessibility to an area very important for social and health outcomes whilst posing a safety risk to young children crossing the road makes Mr very concerned about this proposal.

  13. Luke Martin commented

    This should not go ahead. It reduces access to the park, and we have very few parks as it is in the west. Building townhouses blocks the open aspect of selwyn Park, closing off a chunk of it to the community. People should be able to walk freely around the whole park and see each other and talk to each other, not feel as though townhouses are looming over them. I'm surprised such a change is even being considered. If anything, the car parks should be converted to a West side picnic area much like eastern side picnic area.

  14. David P commented

    Hi BCC Planners,
    The biggest issue with his development is that T/H garages are used as "Storage" rooms as there is no storage room inside the T/H.
    Look further along the street (heading north) and you will see multiple cars parked on the road (not in the garage) and this is not uncommon for these types of developments.
    The developer/architect needs to either:
    1) redesign the plans to incorporate double garages for each unit to allow for both 1 x car and storage space or;
    2) reduce the overall number of units on the plan to incorporate a double garage

    Revenue from rates/development policies cannot be a factor in the decision to grant a BP based on the current plans.

  15. Patrick commented

    I would like to add, if you look at streets in the area, take Dubbo street, where a 10 town house development was approved and went through, there is now no street parking available. Each one of those town houses parks in the street which became so dangerous the council had to put no parking signs on one side of the road (which has solved absolutely nothing). This is a very real close by example of allowing this large scale development

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Brimbank 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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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