462 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121

Section 96A application - Use and development of land for a mixed use development comprising 2 buildings (part 3-10 storey and part 3-12 storey) dwellings, a supermarket and retail, offices, a gymnasium (with swimming pool) (permit required for dwellings

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 5 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Yarra City Council, reference PLN15/0057)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Andrew commented

    Its a tired old street in need of a makeover.

  2. Hamish commented

    Agree with Andrew's comments about the street needing a re-vamp but council/ VCAT can't keep allowing developers to build ridiculously dense blocks of tiny 1 & 2 bedroom flats in Richmond which will be 'the slums of the future'. The Council (probably VCAT through appeal) has allowed so many of these already in Richmond with little consideration for practical issues. Real estate agents are saying many of these brand new flats are very hard to let and re-sell (unless at a loss to first buyer), have very poor light, bedrooms with no windows, little to no communal space, etc. Developer makes their money by squeezing as many flats in as possible (243 apartments on this site is ridiculous unless it is well over any of the current height of buildings along Swan Street, or extends well beyond the address stated), council gets some new rates and then the suburb is left with a poorly built white elephant (with no new street infrastructure to support it). This isn't a NIMBY rant we've just seen it happen so many times already and it is impossible to recover once planning agreed.

  3. Claire Heaney commented

    This would seem a gross overdevelopment of this site. I understand that because of the proximity to Burnley station, trams etc that there is an argument that people do not use or need cars.
    I would think that the experience of a number of other developments indicates contrary to that.
    We are seeing people buying apartments, with the promise that they "should be able to get on-street parking" when that is not the case.
    We decry putting people in high rise Ministry of Housing towers around Richmond, Sth Yarra and Carlton, but are these any better?
    I think not.

  4. Tiji commented

    I also agree the street needs a makeover, but I believe 243 apartments is far too many for this site. Richmond is already experiencing an oversupply of new apartments as evidence by the difficulty owners are having selling new apartments, and you only need to try to board a tram during the week or drive around on a Saturday to see the infrastructure cannot cope with continued growth at this rate. What's more, the beautiful heritage landscape of Richmond is getting swallowed by towering cement blocks which also block natural light from reaching neighbouring streets and homes. To whomever it may concern, please consider this carefully.

  5. Local resident (not a developer) commented

    This area of swan street Richmond needs improvement. There is no 'heritage value'. It largely consists of unattractive industrial and commercial buildings. The left-leaning members of our local community need to acknowledge it makes sense to increase density, close to transport. The promotion of public transport is central to much of the rhetoric we hear in the often awkward and desperate objections to logical and sensible development proposals. There is no 'over supply' of apartments in Richmond, particularly the southern area of the suburb. Appropriate development, in close proximity to main roads and transport should be supported. If you choose not to, don't complain about traffic congestion and the unsustainable house prices you are creating for your children.

  6. Ross Papous commented

    Well said local resident. Perhaps these critics of inner suburban development ought to go and live in the outer suburbs of Melbourne to see why we need residential accommodation close to town. Its not always about the house you live in, its also about walking to work or to the supermarket or access to transport, restaurants, cultural activities and many other amenities that have been hogged by the greenies and the wealthier types that can afford to pay ridiculous prices for their ridiculous cottages.
    The greenies and socialists that run the council have in fact now become the type of person they started of fighting against.

    These people don't want an inclusive society, they want it exclusively for themselves.
    Besides which... flats built in the 60's and 70's were smaller in internal size than the current 1 & 2 bedroom apartments. 30 - 35m2 metre flats were very common then, today virtually all 1 bedders start at 40m2. So I really don't understand the ramblings on about size. The council has killed Bridge Road hopefully more residents may resurrect it.

    I left Richmond in 2010 after being there for many years and it breaks my heart to see what has become of a once bustling inner city suburb....shame on you council.

    Many many mistakes.

  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