15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101

Hi
Can management please review this proposal of having 10 apartments and reject the proposal. Park lane is a very SMALL NARROW LANE opposite a children playground . It can not afford extra traffics. It will be chaos for local residents and increase saftey risks to children playing at the park.

Three story apartments will disturb neighbour privacy and overshadowing issue.

Basically, it is impossible to have extra traffic as currently only one car can drive down the lane the time.

Please do not put apartments ahead of the livelihood of the local residents and children saftey .

Your sincerely,
Katryna Dunn

The existing house on this site is quite large, and could probably cope with an additional dwelling built on the site of the double carport, but to add 10 dwellings to the site would be ludicrous. Park Lane is a narrow one-way lane, adjoining Kellett Reserve and its playground, so there is no way it could cope with the additional traffic generated by 10 apartments, in an area already crowded with school and residential traffic.

With the demise of large dwellings in favour of high density accommodation throughout Boroondara, it could be expected that the site in question would seek a form of re-development.

However for this particular site, the notion of a 3 storey building with 10 dwellings must surely have been submitted as a gambit claim for a less offensive development.

This site fronts a single-lane, bluestone thoroughfare (Park Lane) of which even the garbage trucks cannot access. This tiny laneway cannot possibly support a 10 apartment building.

Increased traffic flow in an already constricted area, a massive building and loss of neighbourhood character should all be of concern to the planning committee as it is to local residents.

Thank you.

I'am baffled why developers think it make sense to develop a high density dwellings in such a small narrow lane, overlooking into the children playground and other residents privacy. The development does not suit the surrounding environment and take away the neighbourhood character.

My family go to the park a lot and I know I won't be comfortable having chances of people watching my kids play in the park over a 3-storey of apartments.

I also think such a big project will cause a lot of safety issues, I may stop bringing my kids to the park, at least, during the construction period.

Inappropriate housing developments need to be stopped. Big blocks of units should be built on main roads near public transport, not quite little bluestone lane ways opposite a beautiful community park land. We should be trying to maintain our leafy suburbs blocks not dividing them up into Lego like size shoe boxes....

When I saw this application I was disgusted. How could this proposed 10 apartment dwelling even be considered to be part of this great neighbourhood.
There is no reason to approve such an application and I would be extremely disappointed if this was to go ahead.
I go to this park most days with my 2 young children and enjoy the peace and quite and openness.
Don't ruin kew and our street!

Yes we need to send a strong message to Council that if they do not stand by residents a lot more than they are doing now instead of allowing developers to impact so greatly on residents then we will vote them out. It's time for a complete overhaul of Council as we seem to have the same ineffectual lot presenting themselves to the rate payer for re-election over and over again.

I have lived in the area for over 20 years and have enjoyed watching my 3 children use the park on a daily basis. They are all young adults now and still love and use our beautiful park. How could council permit such an atrocity to occur. 10 townhouses, 3 storeys, 33 car parks???? Overlooking the park, blocking sunlight, polluting our local roads and laneways with a ridiculous increase in traffic.You have got to be kidding. This is an appalling application and it should be stopped before these idiots even get the chance to try to persuade those making final decisions. Save our local area before it is too late.

A three storey, 10 apartment development in Park Lane, Kew will have a significant negative environmental and social impact on the area.

The scale of the development does not respond to the predominantly single or double storey dwellings in the area, and is incompatible with the area's character and amenity. Park Lane is too small to support the potential number of residents living at the development: the Lane is only one-vehicle wide and must be shared with pedestrians, and is adjacent to the publicly enjoyed Kellet Reserve. The current waste management system of wheeling bins out to Fitzwilliam Street currently overcrowds the footpath and litters Kellet Reserve and the footpath every Friday morning. An increase of potentially 20 bins lined along Fitzwilliam Street is unsustainable and unsightly.

The increased vehicular traffic will also compromise sustainable modes of transportation, increase noise and air pollution, and most importantly, pose huge safety risks: children walk, cycle, and scoot to school along Park Lane and the surrounding streets, children play near and in (the unfenced) Kellet Reserve.

It is obvious that such a huge development would be completely inappropriate for this area and contrary to Boroondara's Residential Design Policy.

I commute my young children to the Kew school closest to Kellet Reserve (KR) from the other side of the CBD- we are already surrounded by concrete apartment jungles. You absolutely don't need them in Kew. KR is a friendly, local community park, and I also have enjoyed it when I went to school there three decades years ago, when the houses surround KR were period-timeless beautiful homes.

Today, there are too many cars during school times, residential roads are too narrow (it is what it is), and not enough parking spaces (for visitors or Kew residents)!

You are waiting for many accidents to happen with increasing apartment dwellings, cars and building construction traffic. Please don't let them be fatal ones - as it will be on your conscious for letting this get out of control.

Key points:
Park Lane does not need a 10-apartment building there, allow it on a main road instead.
There is already no more room for extra traffic, don't need any construction traffic at Park Lane, or 33 extra cars, or garbage bins - these already block the footpath.
Young children (and dogs ) enjoy this park - they have a right to be safe in a council-local park without worrying about being hit by vehicles in the busy laneway and surround streets, or watched by residents with high view overlooking park and city view.

Please strongly consider common sense instead of dollars for this small laneway (not even a street).

This is a terrible idea for a development of 10 apartments on a site that has restricted access. How will traffic be managed day to day? How will existing occupiers who access OSP from Park Lane be affected? Noise levels will increase. For a site with such restricted access and in such a quiet, single lane street - a three level development seems completely out of character with the surrounding homes and parkland. The development should be restricted to two levels only, to be more in keeping with the surrounding built environment and be limited to perhaps 4 or 5 boutique apartments or alternatively 2 or 3 townhouses.

It is simple, its inappropriate over-development that has the potential to endanger the lives of children in the park. Although there are many other issues this surely is the most relevant one that should determine the outcome?

Developer has timed it well to advertised during school holiday.

Developer want 3 story high massive building with 33 cars. This will cause significant increase in traffic along a narrow quiet laneway where children play and ride their bike and scooter.
This is an over development and clearly posed significant risk to the children at the park and on the lane.

Please help and submit your objection and forward this on all your friends and community who will be interested to know. Thanks

There is, by the way, a kindergarten in Malin Street. The pre-prep children have been using Kellett Reserve for inquiry-based excursions on a nearly weekly basis in the last couple of years, obviously crossing Park Lane to get to the playground.
Can we please, for once, put the developers' greed aside and think of our children's future? Three storeys are OK in other quarters, not KEW overlooking a park.
Paola Moritz

We would like to object to the proposed development “PP16/00521” at 15 Park Lane, Kew.

We live in Park Lane and feel the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon our lifestyle, our family, our visitors, our neighbours, the park users, the local community, the neighbourhood, and us.

Our objections to the proposed development include - but are not limited to – the following areas of concern.

ACCESS
SAFETY
PARKING
WASTE MANAGEMENT
VISUAL BULK
LOSS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER
OVER-DEVELOPMENT
CONTRARY TO COUNCIL AND OTHER GUIDELINES
POOR APPLICATION PLUS MISLEADING/INACCURATE INFORMATION

Park Lane is a single width (3.048 metres, narrowing to 2.7 metres in places) laneway which gives primary street access to 13 properties plus 2 corner properties and the properties at 311 Barkers Road also have vehicle access.

There is no signed speed restriction in Park Lane, even though it is a shared carriageway. There is no street lighting, other than that currently provided by the owners of numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane.

Large vehicles cannot negotiate the bend at the South East corner of Park Lane. Large vehicles, and some cars, reverse back into either Malin Street or Fitzwilliam Street. Council has conceded some of the parkland to assist access into and out of the junction of Park Lane with Fitzwilliam Street. The boundary fence has also been set back into the park outside the subject property for a distance in excess of 15 metres for a depth of over 3 metres. This has left the old Red River Gum exposed to traffic damage. Public parkland should not be given over for private use. Properties should be required to fully accommodate their access within their own property boundary. The public parkland boundary should be re-instated.

There is no footpath in Park Lane. Pedestrians, bikes, and motor vehicles share Park Lane.

A number of Park Lane residents are elderly and use mobility aids. They are not able to move out of the way of traffic easily, or quickly.

Park Lane borders Kellett Reserve, which has a children’s playground. Young children often ride their bikes and scooters around Park Lane and on the path within Kellett Reserve.

The park is well used by local residents, families, dog-walkers, the local child-care centre, kindergartens, schools, etc. Being in a busy school area, the park is especially busy at school pick up times.

On a number of occasions we have witnessed dangerous situations between vehicles and children, thankfully we have not seen anyone hurt.

15 properties are situated on Park Lane and 13 have their main, or sole, entrance on Park Lane, these are numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 & 19 Park Lane.

Numbers 1-10 Park Lane have double garages at the rear of their properties accessed by a private rear driveway which 5.74 metres wide. This allows for 2-way traffic, heavy vehicles and loading. There are 9 spaces at the front of their properties, accessed via Park Lane, which can be used by their visitors, with another visitor space at the rear. Number 13 Park Lane has provision for 3 cars on site and both number 17 and 19 have a single garage each, with a pull in. Vehicle use of Park Lane could increase from the current 6 resident’s vehicles (2@No.13, 2@No.15, 1@No.17 & 1@No.19) to 24 resident’s vehicles. Excluding visitor cars, this is a massive 400% increase in traffic by one property out of the 13 properties in Park Lane.

Parking in Fitzwilliam and Malin Streets is becoming progressively more difficult for local residents, their visitors and park users. Fitzwilliam Street can be difficult to navigate, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times. Properties in Barkers Road, with insufficient parking, use Malin Street as Barkers Road has restrictions. Students also use Malin Street, as there are no permit or time restrictions.

Rubbish bin congestion is a problem at both ends of Park Lane, as the collection vehicles cannot negotiate the width, or bend, of Park Lane. The 4 properties on the Fitzwilliam side of Park Lane currently put their rubbish bins (up to 12 of them) at their junction with Fitzwilliam Street. The proposed development allows for 20 bins, with extra bins to be purchased if necessary. The report does not show any allowance for green waste bins. Fitzwilliam Street does not have a nature strip, so bins are placed on the footpath. When these bins fall over (which does happen) mothers with prams, pedestrians and children have to negotiate around them. The 10 properties on the other side of Park Lane put their bins (up to 30 of them) at their junction with Malin Street.

The visual bulk of the proposed development would dominate the streetscape. It is unsympathetic to the character of the neighbourhood.
The proposal is an over-development of an existing single dwelling in a pleasant residential area. The subject property was previously sub-divided off a property in Wrixon Street in 1977.

The proposed 32-bedroom complex has little outdoor space for physical activity. If fully occupied, 64 additional users may access the park on a regular basis. The park could struggle to accommodate this number of additional users without an upgrade and increase in equipment.

Park Lane could struggle to cope with the number of proposed additional vehicles. There could be frequent occasions where one vehicle has to reverse the length of the park to allow another vehicle to enter/exit. This would put cyclists and pedestrians, especially the young and the elderly, at grave risk.

The ambience of the area is due, in part, by this old lane with its bluestone central strip. Such an increase in traffic (especially during construction) could also cause stress and damage to the trees at the edge of the park. Due to the trees proximity to Park Lane, vehicles have physically impacted some of them. Large vehicles and construction vehicles will impose a greater risk of this occurring. There are a number of possums and a variety of birds that live in and visit the park. Nocturnal birds such as Tawny Frogmouths and owls are also frequent visitors and nest in the area.

There are other properties in Wrixon Street that have rear tennis courts bordering Park Lane. A development of this density could create a precedent for these properties to also be sub-divided and more apartments developed, exacerbating the problems, and further increasing the traffic using Park Lane.

The subject property is in a GRZ1 Zone, which is suitable for “one to two storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy and multi-unit villa/townhouse developments.” The proposal is for a three storey (plus underground car park) apartment building, which is acceptable in GRZ2/3 Zones.

The subject property is in Precinct 16. The ‘Preferred Character Statement’ says, “To maintain and enhance the single storey historic character of the precinct.” Under ‘Building Height and Form” it says, “To ensure buildings do not dominate the streetscape or disrupt the existing streetscape rhythm.” The proposal does not meet these objectives.

Advertising of this proposal was by way of a sign on the front fence and letters to the adjoining properties. Other properties in Park Lane were not notified, even though they will be impacted and suffer from increased traffic density.

There are a number of areas of concern, failure to meet guidelines, inaccuracies, and misleading information, included in the Advertising application:

REPORT - Sustainable Management Plan

6.2 Design Principles – ‘Public Transport’ states “2.00km to Gardiner Train Station” – this station is 5.3 km away.

12.0 Appendix A – ‘Disclaimer’ references Moreland City Council.

Energy - There is no provision for clothes drying.

REPORT - Traffic Report

3.2 Road Network.
“Park Lane has a carriageway width of approximately 3m in the vicinity of the site and approximately 4.2m in the vicinity of Malin Street acting as a shared lane for traffic flow in both directions.” This is incorrect. Park Lane is approximately 3m for its entire length. Whilst measuring Park Lane for this report the writer was informed, and shown the boundary between Park Lane and the property owned by numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane. They chose to ignore this information and included the area of private property as being part of Park Lane. There is no ability for traffic to flow in both directions in any area of Park Lane.
“Photographs depicting Claire Street are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 12” This is incorrect – The Streets shown are Park Lane, Fitzwilliam Street and Malin Street. Where is Claire Street?
3.3 Traffic Conditions
The periods counted were 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm. Situated on Kellett Reserve in a busy school area the peak traffic use for this area is 3pm-5pm on school days with frequent use at weekends.
3.4 Car Parking Conditions
The 4th April was during the school holidays. The times of 8am, 10am, 12 noon & 1pm avoid the busy school pick-up times and weekend family park trips.
4.3 Parking Layout and Access Arrangement
Clause 52.06-8 Design Standard 3 – Gradients. The proposal does not meet the guidelines. The report argues that as access is via a laneway/ROW that does not include a footpath, and has low pedestrian volume they consider it satisfactory with no adverse safety impact. Park Lane is the primary street frontage for 13 properties. The park attracts a large number of children, many of whom ride their bikes and scooters around Park Lane. A number of people use Park Lane for walking, including those with mobility impairment.
4.4 Waste Collection & Loading Requirements

Waste collection has not been adequately addressed. The proposal offers ‘Waste collection arrangements can be formalised by a Waste Management Plan and could be included as a condition of granting a permit.’ A waste management plan has been included in the application.

The proposal states that ‘Any loading activities associated with the apartments will be accommodated on-street in the nearby area.’ The developer acknowledges in 3.2 that Fitzwilliam Street is only 8m wide, has parking on both sides, and only allows for a shared lane for two-way traffic. Impositions of large vehicles using this area for loading would be disruptive, cause congestion, and be dangerous to the many children who access the neighbouring schools in this area.

4.5.1 Traffic Generation Rates

The proposal suggests that the development will generate 60 vehicle trips per day, a massive increase in the current usage. Consideration has not been given to the fact that this is not a typical ROW. It is the primary street for 14 of properties. It surrounds a popular local park. Children and the elderly, walkers and runners, bike and scooter riders and also occasional cars commonly use Park Lane. The safety of children is a real concern that must not be overlooked.

REPORT - Planning Report

The proposed maximum building height is 10 metres with services and lift overrun located on the roof. We could see no height recorded for the service and lift overrun. The report argues that the 9 metre maximum may be exceeded due to the slope of the land. The visual impact is not diminished by this argument.

Existing Character
Referencing other properties in Park Lane the report states, “All are two storeys in height”. This is incorrect. Numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are single storey. Numbers 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 & 19 are two storey.

The report also states “Front setbacks are narrow (in the order of 3.5 metres).” This is incorrect. Numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane all have a setback in excess of 7 metres.

With reference to the proposal for 3 storeys the report argues that due to the sites location on a park it is ‘somewhat secluded’ from other properties. To the contrary, as it is situated on a park it is more visible to more people and therefore the bulk is more obtrusive.

55.03-3 Site Coverage
This does not comply, the building site coverage is in excess of 60%

55.03-9 Access
Vehicle access covers 66% of the site frontage, exceeding the 33% allowed. The report states, “within Park Lane it is not uncommon for vehicular access ways to take up approx. 60% of the site frontage”. This is incorrect – the maximum access for numbers 1 to 10 Park Lane covers 34.9% of their individual frontages, and even less in total.

Vehicle and bicycle access is via ramps that exceed the recommended gradient. This gradient, with a maximum of 1:4 or 25% would be extremely difficult, and potentially dangerous, to negotiate on foot and especially so with a bicycle.

55.04-8 Noise impacts
The report states no significant noise impact. An increase from 1 dwelling to 10 generates extra general people noise, extra vehicle movements, garage doors will open/close an estimated 60 times a day, the hum of multiple air-conditioners (12 compressors are shown on the roof), especially overnight, will add to the noise impact.

55.05-2 Dwelling Entry
“Assessment: the building has been designed to front Park Lane with a secure entry lobby via Fredrick Street presenting a clear and proud sense of address.” This is incorrect. Where is Fredrick Street?

55.05-5 Solar access to open space
The proposal does not comply

55.05-6 Storage
The proposal does not comply

We do not agree with the planning report conclusion:
“The proposal has been appropriately designed to respect the emerging character of the area; to minimise impacts on the amenity of the area and to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for future occupants.”

REPORT - Waste Management Plan

The proposal states that once a week all bins (20 +) will be taken from the bin store via the ramp to ‘the footpath in Park Lane’ for collection by Council’s waste collection. This is incorrect. There is NO footpath in Park Lane. Council does NOT collect from Park Lane, as it is too narrow. The ramp exceeds the recommended gradient and at its maximum is 1:4 or 25%. This gradient would be extremely difficult to negotiate on foot. It is potentially extremely dangerous to require an individual to also push a rubbish bin either up or down a ramp this steep.

REPORT - Daylight Analysis

Model parameters
All external apartment glazing was assumed to be “clear single glazing”
Sustainable Management 2.4 Window & Glazing states “a combination of single and double glazing”. How will these figures be impacted if the windows are double-glazed?
The parameters also assume all paint and floor covering are predominately white or medium coloured. Will this be a condition of ownership?

REPORT - Application Form and Title

Page 2 of the title of the property marked LEGEND, item number 2 states, “the lower boundary of each of these units is four metres below that part of the site.

It would appear from the plans that this 4 metre limit may have been exceeded. Would this mean that part of this development is proposed to be built on land that it does not own?

REPORT - Arborist Report

3.8 This report acknowledges that the TPZ’s of three large trees in Kellett reserve will be impacted by encroachments of approx. 11.9%, 18.7% and 13% by the proposed basement ramps. This report suggests that a non-destructive root investigation could confirm the potential impact if Council deemed it necessary. We believe this should be done, for the safety and protection of these trees. Other trees at the edge of Kellett reserve have not been acknowledged. Heavy construction vehicles could impact these trees and we believe that all trees within a 5 metre distance Park Lane should be protected during the construction period.

REPORT - Plans and photomontages

Notations on the first photograph of the area are incorrect. 1-10 Park Lane is shown as a double storey townhouse development. This is incorrect - 4 of the properties are double storey, but 6 properties are single storey.

Where is David Street? Davis Street Kindergarten is approx. 400 metres away. (This has been incorrectly repeated as David Street on another page)

In conclusion we submit that this property is unsuitable for the proposed construction of a three (3) storey building comprising 10 dwellings above a basement car park du

RE: 15 Park Lane, Kew​​
VCAT Ref: P2270/2016

The council refused the above application for planning permit.

The developer has applied to VCAT for a review of the refusal.

You have the right to have your opinion considered by VCAT even if you did not previously object to Council. It is important that you act swiftly as all documents need to be lodged with VCAT, Council and Ratio Consultants by 28th November 2016. Considering mail now takes up to a week, we will be hand delivering our documents on the 28th November. To assist, we are happy to hand deliver other objectors documents at the same time. Please contact us to arrange collection.

Residents are encouraged to submit a Statement of Grounds at this crucial stage. The more objections that are received by VCAT, the greater weight that the local community concerns will carry. Attending and speaking at the hearing will further strengthen the case.

If you have any expertise in this area, or are willing to help us fight this inappropriate development, please contact us as soon as possible.

We also intend to have a meeting before the VCAT hearing to discuss strategies. If you are interested in attending, please provide us your contact details.

Your immediate options are:

1. Lodge a statement of grounds and elect not to attend the hearing. NO CHARGE
You may submit an objection or resubmit your previous objections. If you do not have a copy we can assist you to obtain one from council.

2. Lodge a statement of grounds and attend the hearing, but elect not to speak at the hearing. NO CHARGE
You will be able to attend and listen to all arguments at the hearing. Although you are not able to speak, you can discuss your concerns with other objectors who have elected to speak.

3. PREFERRED OPTION
Lodge a statement of grounds and request to speak at the hearing.
FEE $19.50
You will be able to present your case and question the developer and their representatives.

Important dates:
Deadline for Lodgement of Statement of Grounds
28th November 2016

Final VCAT Hearing Date
26th April to 28th April 2017

If you have any further questions, or need help accessing and/or filling out forms, please make contact via the email below

Email: oppose15parklane@gmail.com

The statement of Grounds form can be found at the below link:

https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/statement-of-grounds-planning-and-environment-list

I felt very upset about the updates on this development from the first VCAT Compulsory Hearing meeting on 7th March. It seems the money (of the developer) speaks much louder and more powerful than the local community .