PlanningAlerts

15 Comments

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

1. How can you allow 92 dwellings and reduce the standard car parking? Most people in Melbourne own a car, even when they are live near public transport, the statistic prove it. Other people drive to stations to park and ride.So where will all the extra vehicles park, is council going to build a public car park to house them at rate payers expense?

   If you can't provide adequate parking for the number of dwellings on a development reduce the number of dwellings to be built on the site, it is that simple.

   It is time that developers costed in the infrastructure needed for their development and not expect the surrounding rate payers to pick up the cost. They make the big profits and walk away and leave the rest of us to deal with the long term effects. If we are going to have development let it be sustainable and built with some long term vision.

2. There are car parking requirements for a reason. There are too many cars parking on the streets. So many of these planning permits I see are to reduce parking spaces. All new buildings should have sufficient parking on site - that is why we have the rules in place.

3. There should be no restriction in the number of car parking spaces permitted.

   This area is already congested with weekday commuter parking already, and to allow a reduced number of spaces for this development would be a grave mistake. Just have a look at the parking problems in European cities...we can avoid that if we want to.

   This application is simply developer greed

4. If the Council do value residents and the community they should not allow a development of this size to go ahead.

   The council has already approved the development of 38 dwellings on this site even after a number of local residents expressed their concerns regarding traffic congestion, limited parking and the safety impact on local residents and train commuters.

   A development of this size (now 3 times the number of dwellings of the original application) with a reduction of car parking is just developer greed.

5. Council should not waive parking requirements at this proposed development site. The area is already over parked during the day. There is insufficient car parking for rail commuters and a count last year by the Hartwell Association of Residents and Traders was that there were over 50 commuters parking in the street around the station. Also workers in the Hartwell shops park in these streets due to inadequate parking in Hartwell.
   There can be no expectation that the station car park can be used as that is not its purpose.
   Council should not allow any waiver of car parks without due consideration of local amenity and traffic conditions. It is the policy of HART to oppose local waivers unless a good case is made. It has not been made in this case. HART dies not support a waiver at this site. Bob Stensholt, Secretary HART

6. I think it's great that so many of you have written your thoughts on the issues surrounding this kind of over development.
   Your next step is to download objection forms from the Council website, make copies for all the neighbours, write a letter asking them to complete the objection form & explain the objection process and what might happen if there aren't enough objections (remember our Labour Govt has ensured that VCAT now has to take into account the number of objections lodged), if they (neighbours) would have trouble getting the form into Council offer to pick up the completed form from them or suggest they drop it in your letter box.
   We halved a proposed development in this way.
   Takes organisation and persistence but it is the only way to Make A Difference.

7. 92 units is ridiculous. The original planning was for 30 units, then revised to 38 units, which was excessive. With 92 units and reduced car parking, traffic in Trent Street will become unbearable to residents in Trent Street and the flow on effect to surrounding streets. Car parking for Burwood Railway station is already at capacity, with spill over already impacting on neighbouring streets, so adding parking for residents of this site, AND their visitor parking is untenable.

   Adding another 92 units will add stress to an already aging infrastructure. Who will be expected to pay for upgrades... its residents! US!

   Regular waste removal from 92 units ie. 92 x regular waste and 92 x recycle waste, will cause unreasonable disturbance to nearby residents, blocking traffic on Trent Street and more noise for the street.

   I am of the understanding that this site is zoned as Commercial Zone 1. If, as is required in this type of Zoning, retail is also to be included, this will also add to the parking, noise and traffic difficulties we already experience in this street.

8. Make a difference, voice your concern and formalise your objection. Booroondara objections link is attached:

   http://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your_council/building-planning/stat-planning/resources/objections

9. Thanks for adding the link to Council Mark.
   Don't assume your neighbours are reading these posts.
   The approach has to be a personal door knock with paper work in hand if you really don't want this project to go ahead.

10. The proposal for 92 units in this location is completely against all the discussion in recent years for increased housing density close to railway stations, but having DUE CONSIDERATION to the local character and amenity of the surrounding suburb.

    As has been stated already, cars are parked in surrounding streets at pretty much capacity now, and the added traffic would be impossible to absorb without major disruption.

    For a good example of the sort of development that ENHANCES the area, look at the very attractive units in Glen Iris Road opposite Ferndale Park. I don't know how many dwellings there are there, but they are modern yet fit in with the housing in the suburb.

    Another example of extra housing density that is sensible and attractive is in Laurel St. opposite the Alamein Station, where a former Housing Commission house has been replaced by TWO dwellings with a common wall. This is the sort of housing common in Britain and Europe. It is still suburban homes with space for gardens and trees, but housing twice as many people without having high buildings a la Hong Kong or the Gold Coast.

    The proposal for 92 units is totally inappropriate and I strongly object to it.

11. If you would like to send an objection to council about the development of the 92 units at 25 Trent Street, Glen Iris, please send an email to say.no.high.density.trent.st@gmail.com.

    I'm happy to send you some information about the development, how traffic congestion, parking issues (particularly streets surrounding Burwood train station), safety to residents and train commuters and the impact on the character and landscape of the surrounding streets are just some of the issues that Council will need to address, and a pre-written letter you can forward directly to Council, or send back to me and we will deliver it to Council on your behalf.

12. Only just seen this, after hearing the impending decision to allow this 92 apartment development to go ahead. Absolutely correct do not expect the local community to know about what is posted on websites.

    I am now looking to join the objection as it appears that there is no reasonable change to the proposal.

    1. This proposal is creating a new landmark. It will be visible all the way back up High Street. It will block the beautiful church view as you walk or ride down Prosper Parade. As I noticed walking down from Montana Street. Properties on Wattle Valley Road, Highfield Road please be aware of the massive building being proposed. It is not at te bottom of te valley.

    There has been no mention of the impact other than to the immediate properties.

    2. It is substantially higher than the surrounding properties. This is a residential, family area.

    3. The community is going to suffer a loss of amenity.
    - The trains will become more congested. They cannot fit any more trains on the Alamein line at peak times, until the Melbourne Metro is complete in 2026. Only then will more capacity be released in the City Loop - and we can have more trains through Camberwell.

    - The bike paths will remain as is.

    - Trams will be picking up more people. This will add to the congestion. It will also make tram travel even longer to get to Camberwell, and beyond.

    - Traffic. I have just had a look at the previous planing application for 30 units. Council was concerned with those numbers. Forecast peak 2112, capacity 2000, max 2500.

    Has the impact of the recent reductions in speed limits been included. I have noticed in particular Summerhill road is much more congested.

    - infrastructure - we already have electrical brown outs. The Interflow people are constantly in the street doing Yarra Water work. Really adding an equivalent of an additional 3-5 streets of more capacity.

    4. This sets a precedent to develop the area in similar to Glenferrie, Auburn. Which i strongly object to. When the Alamein line was saved, it was not saved to put the amenity of the whole area into developers pockets. There is a huge potential loss of amenity to t b e residents of the surroundjbg community.

13. I opposed the development in Trent Street, Glen Iris on the basis of its high density relative to the size of the land, failure to conform to the neighbourhood character and the very small size of many of the apartments. Melbourne has experienced a boom in apartment building resulting in an oversupply of very small one-bedroom units and not enough two and three bedroom units. It has also been predicted that there could be a price correction of 20% when the boom ends. This type of development does not address the housing supply problems and according to a local estate agent, very small apartments are difficult to rent because the living space is inadequate and most people do not want to live in very tiny apartments.

    Many of the one-bedroom units in the Trent Street development are less than 50 square metres in size and the two bedroom apartments are little over 50 square metres in size. it should be noted that in NSW the planning laws will not allow for the construction of one bedroom apartments that are less than 50 square metres in size and there is an urgent need for similar tough guidelines to be introduced in Victoria. The reduction in car-parking spaces means that there will be more spill-over parking onto neighbouring streets and the appearance of the building is not in keeping with neighbourhood character.

    I also have concerns that decisions made by council and the objections raised by local residents were ignored. It is time power over planning decisions was transferred back to council and the community and I strongly support the notion of a democratically elected community jury to replace VCAT with the power to veto or modify any development application if there is a belief on reasonable grounds that it would have an adverse impact on the neighbours and adversely affect the ambience and amenity of the suburb. This type of arrangement would result in better planning decisions and help to preserve and protect our beautiful suburb. When the next election falls due, planning will be a major issue and people want tougher laws, more protection and community empowerment.

14. I also objected to this development based on the application for 'reduced car parking'. This is placing an enormous strain on our streets. Developers should be made to dig-deep for u serge oh d parking. Yes there is upic transport close, it is important that we attract a diverse mixture of people to the area - not just single individuals cramed into 50sqm expecting them all to ride bikes. Where are the 3bdrm, with 3 car parking spaces. Try getting kids to sporting events on a bicycle. You need cars! We need diversity, singles, couples, families and aged to make a community. The council is not Taking into consideration the stress in our infrastructure by allowing 92 apartments in Trent Street. This is my second objection.

15. Isn't it great that developers think that this number of people want to share our neighborhood? What isn't great is cramming this many dwellings on such a small parcel of land and reducing the number of carspaces. There is no consideration to the health of the new residents by providing such small accommodation.
    Please Booroondara reject this or have the state government step in.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Boroondara 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