33 - 37 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123

Use of the land for 356 dwellings (Clause 34.01-1) and a café (Clause 32.08-1); Buildings and works to construct a five (5) storey building above a multi-level basement (Clauses 32.08-4, 32.08-6, 34.01-4 and 43.02-2); Construction of a canopy above the footpath of a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (Clause 36.04-2); Reduction of the car parking requirements associated with dwelling visitors and shops (Clause 52.06-3); Create and alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (Burwood Road and Camberwell Road) (Clause 52.29); and Waiver of the bicycle facilities requirements associated with shop employees and customers (Clause 52.34-2).

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Boroondara City Council, reference PP15/01316)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Steven Harper commented

    This is an enormous development which will create massive impacts on the residential communities adjoining it, particularly those living along Gillman Street and those needing to transit thru an already congested traffic chokepoint.

    The proposed height of the development seems out of keeping with recent zoning restriction to 3 storeys.

    There is the usual waiver request for on-site parking, which will burden the community with yet more cars & traffic congestion.

    The area is already reeling with addition of nearly 1,000 planned and completed apts along the Camberwell Road / Burwood road corridor in 2014-16. This rapid development has not yet been fully felt in community impacts, yet another 350+ apts are being proposed. How can this project be properly scoped for traffic, noise, congestion impacts? How can residents adequately respond to issues of residential/commercial mix, streetscape impacts, overlooking and overshadowing and daily quality of life impacts during a multi-year construction period WHEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN FELT THE IMPACTS YET OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE EITHER JUST COMPLETING OR HAVE BEEN APPROVED BUT NOT YET STARTED?

    Local residents want to see that there is an overall Council plan to accommodate this RAPID and EXPLOSIVE growth in our community... a plan that extends beyond individual project applications and assessment; a plan that shows how all community services and amenities will be adapted to ensure no further degradation of living standards.

    I say STOP ALL FURTHER DEVELOPMENT until Junction Ward can demonstrate there is adequate planning in place to accommodate what seems to be "Out of Control" development and rocketing population density.

    I urge every resident within Junction Ward and adjacent wards to get involved and pay close attention to this development. Even if this one is not immediately adjacent to your homes, it is only a matter of time before it will come to your neighborhood too. Don't let property developers fly into our community, crap all over us and then fly off - capitalizing on our living amenity to make millions, but leaving behind a mess for residents and Council to cope with and clean up afterward.

  2. Michelle Lovett commented

    The size of this development is a huge concern. We want to see adequate planning for the huge increase in population density, which includes better roads, more parking and bike paths. We object on the grounds that the development seeks a reduction in the required parking. The streets are already too congested. We also object to Gillman being used for services. It is a small residential low rise housing street. This development must be scaled back enormously. Five stories is unacceptable. Three has already been determined as the limit.

  3. Scott lovett commented

    I Object on the basis of inadequate parking

  4. Claire Ewart-Kennedy commented

    This proposed development is making a mockery of our community. We have invested, protected and enhanced our community for the past 20 years. We have made our community strong and supported those in our community who need support and help. We care strongly for each other and the strength is that community should not be taken lightly. The community that will be impacted by this development should be consulted appropriately.

    We bought our house when our eldest child (now 19) was 5 months old for the amenities, which are fast being eroded by copious multi development’s that provide no investment into our community or care for the community in the coming years. After all aren’t we simply guardians for the next generation??
    Do we want to be remembered as the generation that built for building sake?

    Yes my family and I support an increase in housing but I urge the decision makers to take a drive along the Burwood Rd, Camberwell Rd, Riversdale Rd, Glenferrie Rd precincts and our neighborhood has changed forever. How do we facilitate all these changes in a cohesive and communal manner?

    Can we please just wait to take stock of the effects these developments have on our waste management, parking, communities, schools, healthcare, kinder, parks, infrastructure, public transport??. These services are already full within very little wriggle room.

    I have no issue with appropriate development and progress but developers that buy up parcels of land because of the amenities of the area and proximity to services and then proceed to erode those same amenities affront me. How many developers actually buy one of their own units in a development for their family to live in? That would make for interesting PHD!

    This is an enormous development, which will create massive impacts on the residential communities adjoining it, particularly those living along Gillman Street and those needing to transit through already congested traffic.

    The proposed height of the development seems out of keeping with recent zoning restriction to 3 stories. We are particularly concerned with the atypical proposed parking (including entry and exit) and waste management.

    There is the usual waiver request for on-site parking, which will burden the community with yet more cars & traffic congestion. Will the council simply employ more parking officers to book residents for parking in their own streets?? If that is the case then again our community is burdened by suspicion and mistrust.. this is not what we have come to hold dear in our community

    I honestly believe a stay needs to occur on development for all stakeholders to appropriately address all the affects of a development on a case-by-case scenario. Our community infrastructure and amenities are being squeezed and tested at every point.

    This is not an argument of ”not in my backyard”, this is an impassioned plea to protect our community and do the right thing by the families and traders that the developers so desperately want their future investors to live side by side to. If that really want a cohesive and communal development then lets work on that not just putting as many units as the site can carry and the current planning guidelines will allow. Its same for common sense, decorum and care for out community for our families and those many to follow.

  5. Alistair Ewart commented

    This massive development, is far too large and will substantially affect the local infrastructure topography and lifestyle of the community.

    We already have major traffic,parking and general infrastructure issues.
    Recently a flood of apartments has been seen over a small spaced area, there is a need to take breath and asses the impact of these whilst addressing all areas they have impacted on our local community.

  6. Leila Keeble commented

    Note to others viewing planning alerts - Council has listed this address incorrectly, thereby misinforming the community. It's actually 33-57 (not 37) Camberwell Road and also has frontage to Burwood Road and Gillman St.

    Developer is getting around height rules and increasing density by having multiple below ground apartment levels and crater-style courtyards. Terrible amenity for anyone who lives there, but they're just trying to cram as many people on site as they can. And, despite all this underground activity, the developer still wants a reduction in parking requirements. There's clearly space for parking, they'd just prefer to cash in on more apartments. Very short-term thinking.

    It's a fallacy that proximity to transport means people don't drive cars. Local residents are well aware of the fact that street parking in this area is already oversubscribed, and yet we continue to see developers produce traffic reports that claim ample parking availability, so they can be granted waivers. Most people don't realise that Council doesn't add up the already granted waivers, and that they go off whatever traffic study the applicant produces.

    Not anti-development, but unimpressed to see a proposal that looks more like a sales and marketing brochure than a thoughtful design that will make a positive contribution to the community 'landscape' and provide good amenity for its future residents.

  7. anthony ross davis commented

    This development can only seriously infringe on the already over burdened road traffic of the area and continue rapidly the delays of movement to and from work and private activities.

    This in turn reacts on the cost of commerce, delay and travel costs must be passed on to all and cannot be carried by business alone. This addition of another layer of costs should cause such a huge development to be scaled back to a much smaller mangeable size.

    Pressure again will be put upon public facilities, water delivery and sewerage removal, gas and electricity delivery, with the possible result of additional breakdown of services.

    These infrastructure improvements will again result in costs of large rate increases to all.
    Amenity once lost will not be regained.

    Anthony Davis

  8. Frank Funder commented

    If this mega bee-hive is approved, then when it is completed and inhabited, along with all the others recently completed, under construction or yet to be approved, we will all have to buy Fiat 500s or Mini Coopers as there won't be room to park anything resembling a family car.
    If we must have these slums of the future in our neighbourhood, Council MUST INSIST that the full on site parking requirement be met, AT A MINIMUM, as it is already hard enough for residents to find a park, let alone have their visitors find a park.

  9. Ian Barnes commented

    Another intensive development in the area where car parking relaxations are sought. The area south and north of Camberwell Rd are experiencing intensive unit developments where individual developments are assessed by Council and developers are continually maximising their developments by reducing their required car parking provision.

    Council have no strategic planning approach to the area where the parking spillage into adjoining lower density residential areas is considered. It is purely pro-development. Until this is in place and fully considers existing residents, no relaxations should be reasonably supported. VCAT typically don't consider existing resident impacts without an appropriate local area structure plan that properly considers the wider impacts of the intensification of the area and its resident ratepayers.

  10. Mary Petroff commented

    If Council is prepared to bend the rules for foreign and local investors then what hope do we have and what a legacy we leave for generations to come. Council is there to represent & implement the local bylaws and concerns of its ratepayers/residents, not bypass them for those who choose to erode all that our heritage stands for.

  11. Bronwyn Casley commented

    We moved into this area to escape unreasonable development. This proposal highlights that our once sound reason for moving into the Boroondara area is no longer valid.

    Some obvious and immediate concerns are listed here, and further concerns and more detail can be provided later:
    Unreasonable scale
    Built form
    Loss of amenity
    Quiet enjoyment
    Insufficient parking
    Insufficient traffic management
    Loading and unloading issues
    Community safety
    Private open space
    Proximity to services
    Neighbourhood character

  12. Ian Browne commented

    PP15/01316, I would like to commend the proposal as a genuine attempt to meet the the current conditions of the Boroodara Council planning scheme. I have 2 principle objections however to this proposed development, they are:

    1. the proposal has some serious short comings which are conspicuously overlooked. Namely related to traffic flows during entry and exit for the planned parking bays within the proposed development of this scale. It is currently dangerous at times to make a right hand turn at peak periods out of Mayston Street onto Camberwell Road. This proposal will therefore exacerbate that problem and create a serious risk of accidents.

    2. The proposed parking bays are approximately 90 places short given the number of residences. The proponent claims the parking allowance reflects the number of spaces for the current use which is historically inadequate and is prepared to repeat this planning flaw according to the new design layout. If the proponent is genuinely prepared to work with the resident community this cannot be used as a reason to seek an exemption according to the planning code.

    Thank you

  13. Graham Stanley commented

    The design of the complex is far too grandoise for the limited site, even 20 hectares would be barely sufficient for the ideas contained therein. Then there is the diminution
    of parking spaces provided for the number of dwelling spaces which will inevitably put more cars into the adjacent streets. These in turn are stressed enough now, without even considering the quantity of spaces that will be required when the plethora of new apartment buildings in the immediate vicinity "come on line".
    Also, no provision for space for bicycle racks/parking in the complex is a worry.
    Considering how we have all been admonished to use alternative means of transport
    for environmental as well as health reasons, this oversight is a churlish affront to public
    thinking and requirement.
    Has any serious due thought been given to traffic control/flow in the area that the addition of the extra cars generated by this new development will have when it is developed? Particularly when it is combined with the other such buildings soon to be realised in Camberwell Road, Lilydale Grove, Albert and Montrose Streets??
    It seems as though the developer/s or the designer/s are determined to create a mini
    Versailles on land that cannot accommodate such plans. Whatever happened to the rezoning and height restrictions so recently trumpeted??

  14. Bill Bachman commented

    All other considerations noted, critical to the approved limits of this proposed development is the design and management of traffic flow and parking in and around all boundaries, especially along Gillman St.

    Gillman St is short and narrow, with parking along both sides and several sensitive entry and exit points - principally at Auburn Parade, which intersects with Gillman St in a tight T-junction, but also at semi-concealed laneways at the rear of properties on both sides of Auburn Rd, one of those being shared with rear access to properties along the length of Mayston St. The latter is well hidden and can be a particularly tricky opening to access if trucks are making deliveries to businesses at the bottom end of Mayston St.

    Many - at least ten - years ago I wrote to Boroondara Council in an effort to have traffic flow mitigated in Gillman St, then and now a notorious "rat run" linking Burwood Rd and Camberwell Rd. The response I received at the time was that a study would be made. The council subsequently decided that disruption to local amenity was minimal and that no action was necessary. I found this hard to accept at the time, and today one has only to stand for half an hour anywhere along Gillman St during morning and afternoon peaks to see that this diagnosis and response is well out of date, if it was ever accurate at all.

    The issues here include efficient traffic flow, safety and noise and general congestion affecting residents of Gillman St. Any expectation on the part of Boroondara Council that vehicle movements of many hundreds of additional neighbourhood residents will not have a significant impact on Gillman St and the laneways to which it is connected is quite fanciful.

    I summary, any proposal to permit primary ingress and egress points to the 33-37 development along any part of the Gillman St boundary should be vigorously rejected, and additionally some consideration should be given to restricting traffic flow along this corridor at certain times of the day.

    Parking of course is another matter, widely commented on by others. We simply wish to add our voices to the general outcry calling for the provision of dedicated off-street parking equivalent to the proposed occupancy of the development. To permit otherwise would also be extremely irresponsible and unfair to local residents new and old.

    Disclosure: my wife and I have lived in Mayston St for nearly 35 years and know how the neighbourhood works. Recent changes to parking in Mayston St have made more spaces available for more people on a short-term basis (2P) throughout the day and one hopes these will remain in place post-development of the various projects on the drawing board throughout the immediate area, thus protecting local residents from chronic parking "overflow".

    If in order to achieve this, however, even more pressure is placed on the minor carriageways of the neighborhood - I refer to the laneways mentioned above, which are in constant use by residents and tradesmen on a daily basis - then Council will not be presenting a solution but creating an additional problem. Great care must be taken with the design of this development with close consideration of all these points.

  15. Angela Walker commented

    It has been brought to my attention that a plan has been submitted for a large scale development on 33-57 Camberwell Road, Camberwell in an area zoned commercial. A massive development of this size and scale is too large for the land-size and it could worsen the traffic congestion problems in Hawthorn and Camberwell. It will also have a major impact on local residents who will have to cope with spill-over parking onto neighbouring streets and traffic congestion as vehicles enter and exit the complex. As it stands much of Hawthorn and Camberwell has been over-developed and this needs to be slowed-down. For decades the Camberwell junction was one of Melbourne's most popular strip shopping centres however over development has made it much harder for shoppers to access car-parking spaces which will eventually lead to a decline. As a consequence more businesses will be forced to shut-down or relocate. Riversdale Road is now almost permanently gridlocked due to the increased volume of traffic.

    The infrastructure and services are insufficient to accommodate any more high density over-development and rapid population growth.

  16. Denis and Judy Bingham commented

    Whilst we support progressive development that is appropriate and sensitive to the needs of the community, we object to this proposal on the following grounds:

    The size, density and extent of the planned development seems excessive and inappropriate for the proposed site and will result in significant adverse impacts on the local community, neighbourhood character and amenity.

    The capacity of existing infrustructure and services (water, gas, telecommunications etc etc) would be completely inadequate to accomodate the increased demand particularly in light of numerous other developments in the vicinity.

    Traffic management and inadequate parking provision ( over 90 short based on number of residences) are particular issues of concern. Already street parking is at a premium in the neighbourhood and increased traffic flows into and out of Gillman St., Burwood Rd and Camberwell Rd will add to current traffic congestion particularly at peak hours.

    The use of Gillman St. for access to the development and waste collection will signicantly impact the existing residential amenity of Gillman St / Auburn Pde residents. Also Mayston St / Auburn Pde residents who use the Railway Pde to Gillman St laneway for property access and egress will also be severly impacted.

    Hopefully Council will carefully consider Community concerns and ensure that this proposed development and all future developments are appropriate for our neighbourhood.

  17. Maria and Reg Brownell commented

    we are writing to object to the proposed development refPp15/01316 at 33 to57 Camberwell,, Road East Hawthorn. We consider this proposal is an extreme overdevelopment for this site both in its own right and in the context of its impact on traffic,marking and amenity for nearby residents. It is more concrete jungle, making a totally inadequate contribution to the greening and open space. traffic movement will become even more of a problem with both congestion, delays and traffic hazards. As to the lengthy nightmare for traffic and pedestrians during the lengthy construction phase, this does not bear thinking about.
    if this development is permitted what does this mean for the evolution of this stretch of road in a decade or two?
    yours sincerely
    Maria and Reg Brownell
    15th December, 2015

  18. Elsa Green commented

    I would like to object to the proposed development due to the following:
    1) Excessive amount of apartments for the area, already having problems with traffic congestion
    2) Inadequate parking, in an area that has had rapid expansion of apartment buildings, all with reduced parking requirements, some not yet completed so the full effect of this has not yet been felt.
    3) Nil infrastructure increase in an area that has had very rapid development with many new apartment blocks in close vicinity eg. no increase in schools, kindergartens, parks etc.
    4) Mixed pedestrian / car access on East boundary of the project, leading to possible dangerous interactions
    5) Loading / unloading bay off Gillman St adding further traffic to this street. This street is actually already busy and dangerous for the families in the street with cars cutting through from Burwood Rd to Camberwell Rd, and is quite narrow with cars parked on either side and often cars having to pull in to wait for other cars to pass.

  19. Adam & Angela Reeman commented

    We would like to object to this development on the following basis:

    a) The excessive number of large apartment developments already approved and being planned in the immediate vicinity of this area; particularly along Camberwell Road and Burwood Road. This level of apartment development is already contributing to traffic congestion on these roads and surrounding streets including our own street in Auburn Parade.
    b) Inadequate resident parking in an area that has a limited number of off-street parking options for most existing houses/dwellings (blocks in this area typically have a maximum of one off-street parking space). Many of the apartment buildings being proposed have been done so with reduced parking requirements which will put further pressure on already stretched resources. Many apartment buildings are still in construction so the full extent of this pressure on parking in the immediate area is completely unknown.
    c) No increase in green space or other public infrastructure in the local area including public transport improvements to offset/cope with the increase in population from such apartment developments.
    d) Increase in congestion along Gillman Street which is currently used by our children and other local families to and from school and the increased risk of potentially dangerous traffic situations/accidents. This street is already very narrow and presents problems with cars passing at the same time, let alone children/others crossing the road too. There are no traffic calming measures currently on this Gillman Street.
    e) The proposed development constitutes an unnecessarily high density over development of the site compared to the existing character of the surrounding residential properties.

  20. Howard Duncan commented

    While I am not anti development in this area of Boroondara I feel this proposal is simply too large for the site. The development should be limited to no more than 4
    levels in keeping with the more modest developments that have already been built in the immediate area.

    Of particular concern is the proposal to reduce parking space for cars and bicycles. The only reason for this can be to increase the number of dwellings on the site, so this is not a good outcome for existing residents in the surrounding streets and the new residents in the apartment building.

    Camberwell and Burwood roads are already gridlocked for many hours of the day. Vehicles wishing to enter these roads from the apartment building will just add to the pressure and danger. Routing vehicle access to Gilman St is not a good solution and will be a disaster for the residentsof Gilman and other surrounding streets.

    Another concern is that if we keep demolishing buildings that house services and local businesses then people will find it harder to find employment locally and be forced to travel outside of the area for work, just adding to th problem.

  21. TAT LING CHOW commented

    I strongly object this massive development which raises the concern of the impact of the infrastructure of the area. It seems there is lack of consideration of the amenities, road safety issues such as the traffic flow & car park provision,etc. This giant concrete block is really not in line with the landscape of the suburb and local surroundings.

  22. Alister McNab commented

    "Rice paddy fields and the stone terraces of Machu Pichu" - I think not. This is a massive overdevelopment of this site. I can't wait to see all the happy occupants enjoying the ambience of the " protection and containment of the interior spaces". The "public piazzas" will no doubt be tremendously inviting. Perhaps we can all do a passagiata down to the gorgeous central court yard - surrounded by a five stories of monolithic grey "stone".
    This is a massive overdevelopment of this site. Despite the hyperbole and the strange pictures accompanying the application the fact is that this is a massive building placed adjacent to established low rise housing (Gilman Street and Auburn Parade). Assuming the dwellings will be occupied, this will introduce a very large number of people and cars into a large box without any proper usable space around it ( ignore the rubbish in the application- children cannot play cricket or football or ride a bike on a rice paddy. Burwood Road is already full of parked cars and Gilman street will be swamped). Is it not possible for the developer to make use of the large area and create something of genuine architectural value and merit where people will want to live and enhances the local area. This thing is way too big for the site.

  23. Alister McNab commented

    "Rice paddy fields and the stone terraces of Machu Pichu" - I think not. This is a massive overdevelopment of this site. I can't wait to see all the happy occupants enjoying the ambience of the " protection and containment of the interior spaces". The "public piazzas" will no doubt be tremendously inviting. Perhaps we can all do a passagiata down to the gorgeous central court yard - surrounded by a five stories of monolithic grey "stone".
    This is a massive overdevelopment of this site. Despite the hyperbole and the strange pictures accompanying the application the fact is that this is a massive building placed adjacent to established low rise housing (Gilman Street and Auburn Parade). Assuming the dwellings will be occupied, this will introduce a very large number of people and cars into a large box without any proper usable space around it ( ignore the rubbish in the application- children cannot play cricket or football or ride a bike on a rice paddy. Burwood Road is already full of parked cars and Gilman street will be swamped). Is it not possible for the developer to make use of the large area and create something of genuine architectural value and merit where people will want to live and enhances the local area. This thing is way too big for the site.

  24. Elizabeth Phipps commented

    Is the address published correctly?Surely it should read 33-57 and NOT 33-37 as pronounced by the council. This massive proposed development takes up more than one third of the big block with boundaries of Burwood Rd, Camberwell Rd and Gillman Street. I strongly disagree with the developer's plans for many reasons, including traffic flow, pedestrian safety and all other issues as described by my neighbours.
    I live in Auburn Pde and use the lane way that runs from Railway Pde through to Gillman St. With tight parking in Gillman St, it is already bad enough getting out of the lane way in the mornings. To look left and right around the 4WDs parked in the street is bad enough but with other drivers using this street as a "drive through" to skirt the lights at the corner of Camberwell and Burwood Rds it is dangerous. Add to this the possibility of more cars from the proposed development and the one passed for Mayston St seems to be quite foolhardy. Mayston St has not even begun yet, and so, we don't even know the traffic hazards of this yet. I propose nothing else should be given the green light until we first see the disasters that Mayston St will bring.
    There are too many developments already underway in this small are. The Volvo dealership, Camberwell Auctions and cnr of Camberwell& Redfern Rds are all underway. These are just a few sites where big developments are taking place. Too much, too fast.
    I will not be held responsible for the death of one person (either pedestrian or driver) if this next 'big plan' just gets the go ahead without concern for the safety of others.
    I agree with all others points made by other concerned parties. Their are many young families living in this area to be considered. Parents that want there children to travel to and from school safely
    Please consider carefully !

  25. Mary Petroff commented

    1 The clear intention of the developer to bypass local bylaws and coerce the Council/community into accepting the ridiculous notion of living in this new found Nirvana below street level, rather than the intention being to squeeze another two stories into the site thereby gaining seven levels of apartments, waiving of parking spaces & other facilities to maximise their profits.

    2 Overdevelopment of the site: Development is out of scale for the local area, streets and surrounding properties. Overcrowding and saturation of units/apartments have a negative impact on liveability and the community. Potential of 700+ people crammed into small area. The potential of 400+ cars with not enough parking spaces.

    3 The over-development of past and future apartment blocks within a 1.5 km radius, in particular the Camberwell Road “corridor”.

    4 Car parking – or lack thereof: Victorian planning laws require each one or two-bed apartment to have one space allocated to it – although Councils can waive this requirement, Council should not waive that obligation to benefit the developer. Less car parking does not reduce the number of cars, it merely pushes the cars onto the street and surrounding streets which then affects traffic flows. This has been seen in numerous other big developments in this and other areas.

    5 Waiver of the bicycle facilities for the shop employees and customers. The only benefit is to the developer, not to the business owner or his/her customers who would both benefit from the facilities.

    6 Traffic disruption: The proposed development will generate a significant increase in the amount of local traffic, and the length of the development would also have a major impact on that corridor. Has the increased traffic generation been referred to Council’s Traffic Engineers to assess whether the traffic generated can be safely and conveniently accommodated by the existing street networks?

    7 The disruption of traffic for the purpose of loading and unloading commercial vehicles has an adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety and no adequate extra provisions are in place. No independent up to date traffic management plan. Gillman Street is used a short-cut/through road from Burwood Road to Camberwell Road and at peak times carries large amounts of traffic.

    8 Below level apartments: The depth of the excavation could affect the stability of nearby dwellings/buildings/roads. The threat of flooding could be a serious issue (see item 7. below). The rear of those apartments would not receive the same amount of sunlight nor airflows and apartments at that level would not have the same relief from weather changes (i.e. breeze). There would be a need to maintain privacy from the common walkway as passers-by could possibly see inside.

    9 Storm Water: The impact of development on the storm water drainage system in the area. Drainage at the site would not allow for overflows/flooding in the event of major down pours and run offs from nearby streets which are frequent occurrences in the surrounding streets. Is there a storm water detention system in place to control storm water discharge?

    10 Motorcycles/scooters & bicycles: No area set aside. Bicycles would need to be taken into the apartments using the lifts, creating an OH&S issue and impacting other residents.

    11 Adjoining & nearby sites/business/homes/apartments: Impact during the construction phase.

    12 Noise & Environment pollution: Noise from the operation of the plant, pool filter, 356 air conditioners, clothes dryers, 356+ BBQ’s, mandatory exhaust fans from the car park when CO levels reach a certain level, opening and closing of the garage door(s) and emissions from all and audible within and beyond the boundary of the development. All will impinge on the quiet enjoyment and privacy of adjoining and nearby dwellings. The privacy of neighbouring properties should not be compromised.

    13 Garbage collection: 2 x 356 = 712 bins = more garbage trucks/more pick-ups increasing pollution and noise levels. The demand will affect the amenity of the surrounding area and will cause interference with pedestrians/motorists, currently a hazardous issue, given the number of bins strewn across footpaths/roads in the wide and narrow streets surrounding this development. Is there a waste management plan & how is Council placed in terms of extra 700 bins per week from this site alone?

    14 Outlook: Buildings would impact on the outlook of neighbours and residents within .5km+ radius and dominate private open space areas. External lighting at night would impact residents.

    15 Transport: Potential of 356¬ - 700 people from this development alone using the trains from Auburn Station, where over-crowding is already an issue from the exponential increase in the number of apartment developments and influx of people into the area.

    16 Hazardous material and fire hazard: Dangerous pool chemicals on site. How and where will they be stored? Will materials used adhere to fire safety regulations and not the materials used in the recent apartment fire in the city?

    17 Lack of resources : The ability of the Council/Engineers/Officers to oversee each stage of the development and guarantee they will be inspected and cleared by the relevant authority/department at each level.

    18 Consultation: No detailed report from the Road Traffic Authority, Melbourne Water, State Electricity Commission, Fire Brigade, Metro Trains and other authorities on how this development will impact the community and their services.

  26. Raymond and Rosemary Clarke commented

    The following sets out our grounds and concerns for opposing the proposed development in its current form.
    1. The proposed building height does not reflect the surrounding building heights and is not in line with current limits for the area precincts.
    2. The setback combined with the proposed building height creates more negative issues. The proposed building setback in our view is not acceptable and will produce crowding in the adjacent streets affecting the residential interface by overlooking adjacent private properties.
    3. Traffic and pedestrian safety issues. In our view the proposed development will intensify the traffic movement in this area.
    4. The proposed development will intensify the already high traffic congestion and parking in the area.
    5. Along with increased traffic, service vehicles and pedestrian activity comes increased noise and urban disturbance.
    6. The proposed development’s visual bulk also doesn’t sit well or fit in with the surrounding environment. The bulk of the proposed building taking into consideration the increased height and setbacks can only infringe upon the privacy of the existing surrounding residential homes. In fact there will be very invasive overlooking.
    We ask that the concerns as outlined above be given fair and due consideration during the assessment process of this application.

  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