PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. Five triple storey dwellings on this block? A much larger block at 164 Nicholson Street only has three on it and it seems crowded. In fact all of the recent developments in this area are only three squished onto the block. How is five deemed a reasonable use of this land? How are we to deal with the increased traffic flow that will come from five associated car parks, especially when the road here has recently been decimated by the new tram stop? I can't see how any planner would consider this a reasonable proposal. That of course is outside of the fact that this is yet another example of our local heritage being wiped out in this part of East Brunswick; or that this perfectly usable and recently renovated home that would suit a young family is being bulldozed to build some overpriced dog boxes that suit only developers pockets.

2. No-one cares mate - I live opposite high rise apartments, with another lot behind me. No corner of my house or yard is private any longer (apparently not even from a apartment dweller with binoculars) - political donations rule the day and councils only care about increased rates not communities.
   Fixed building regulations were replaced by guidelines, VCAT, and Queen's Counsel - you tell me how the' ambience of the area' means a high rise can be built opposite a row of Californian bungalows! Heritage overlays simply mean big developers can make their fortunes whilst single families pay more to fit in with regulations that are designed to keep the inner suburbs just liveable in whilst those big profits are made.
   Some apartment buildings have flats smaller that those allowed in Singapore and Hong Kong and sub-standard building abounds. Councillors pretend that cars aren't necessary yet many of them run one themselves.
   Welcome to the land of greed, moral corruption and entrepreneurialism.

3. I know the feeling. I'm watching the construction right now of a new set of dwellings with a balcony staring straight into the rear of my house. But don't worry because it's protected by a 1.7m high, 70% blocking screen! Yeah, because I don't know anyone over 1.7m tall... and anyway, who wants privacy these days? Of course I can't object against that because it's over 3 metres away - according to council planning nobody can see further than 3 metres either.

4. The overlay displaying the subject site on P004 of the plans incorrectly includes 134 Nicholson St. The title for 132 does not extend anywhere as far north. It seems the plans misrepresent the size of the block by around 50%. The house is perfect for a young family, but 5 townhouses on what must less than 400sqm seems ridiculous. How excavation and development of this site can occur without significant impact on access for the surrounding houses now the new tram stop is in is beyond me. You're right no one cares. Development speculation in this area is out of control.

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