PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

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

1. This is the iconic Don Kyatt building on the corners of Hawke, Adderley and Roden st.
   Currently at a height of 4 storeys and situated on a hill it has long been the precedent height for developments in West Melbourne.
   The new development for this site, with a proposed tower at a height of 8 storeys would exceed the built form outcomes as stipulated in the schedule 29 design and development overlay by 100%.
   It would set a new height precedent for the area.
   The 8 story tower would cast a shadow over Hawke street property's in the morning, then Adderly street and Roden street in the afternoon.
   Car parking is already at maximum capacity in area 6 West Melb, in particular whenever there is an event at either Etihad stadium or at Festival Hall.
   A reduction in car parking requirements for this proposal would add to the lack of on street parking available.

2. West Melbourne is fast losing its unique charm and individual characteristics.
   I have 4 major objections to this development.

   1, The height of the building exceeds the Design Objectives and the Built Form Outcomes as stipulated in Schedule 29 – Design and Development Overlay produced by the City of Melbourne.

   2, The proposed build does not give consideration to the scale of existing building as outlined in Schedule 29 – Design and Development Overlay produced by the City of Melbourne.

   3, The bulk and height of the building does not fit in with the low rise village feel of West Melbourne. It is an over development which will be a detrimental addition to an otherwise low rise pocket of Melbourne.

   4, The request for a reduction of the parking for the number of tenancies proposed is not reasonable and will increase the existing difficulty of parking in the area for residents. All street parking is utilised during Monday to Friday by local residents and those that commute to work. If an evening and weekend the parking is utilised by local residents and those attending events at Festival Hall and Etihad Stadium. The approval of a development that does not need to accommodate the parking requirements of its residents and their visitors is not manageable and is irresponsible planning.

3. Have to agree with the comments made so far.
   This is an iconic building that is seen far and wide, showing fine art deco style. It is a large enough building to be converted to apartments, it does not need to be removed and replaced with 8 stories.
   If this development goes ahead, Ireland street will be bookend with tall structures, and the community feeling that has been here for 20 years (that I have lived in the street) will be gone with highrises, and people driving around trying to find a parking spot.
   If this was another part of Melbourne, I am sure more care would be taken with retaining community, and being one of the villages of Melbourne, I feel as though West Melbourne is now just for ripping up. We even have the indignity of having North Melbourne flag poles in West Melbourne!
   As much as I don't wont more generic apartments in the area, we really need developments that are more sympathic to the environment and not just meet the developers profit line.

4. The site at 172 Roden Street is a prime example of all that's wrong with the application of the planning process in West Melbourne. I sincerely hope this site does not prove to be yet another example of the poor approach of the City of Melbourne to encourage and support clever and creative development opportunities that enhance and revive communities without destroying what makes them unique.

   Here we have an opportunity to redevelop an exemplary art deco warehouse building into a character filled residential development through creative opportunities for adaptive re-use and refurbishment of existing structures.

   Instead there are plans for partial demolition of this iconic West Melbourne structure to be replaced by an 8 story version of what I suspect will be the same bland poorly planned apartment complexes that are beginning to litter this unique part of Melbourne. Even before viewing the plans I object to this development for;

   1 - doubling the 4 story overlay
   2 - demolition of the existing structure
   3 - reduction in parking requirements

   I hope to be wrong, but I suspect once the plans and blueprints become available for public viewing I will object to the development for;

   1 - poorly planned sub standard apartment layouts
   2 - destruction of residential character

   West Melbourne has an interesting past that should be respected and used as an opportunity to create an attractive residential hub on the doorstep of the city. Knocking down iconic herritage structures that make communities and suburbs unique IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD. The Melbourne City Council have a responsibility to the residents of this suburb and the greater city area to balance the need for housing and redevelopment with a desire to protect, encourage and maintain what makes these unique inner city villages special. These objectives are not mutually exclusive, as has been proven time and time and time again by clever planning and considered architectural integration as viewed through countless case studies across the globe and even Australia.

   We can do so much better, and I will be campaigning very strongly for a much higher standard of design and redevelopment outcome throughout this unique residential stretch of West Melbourne.

5. Following a recent Council decision to reject a similar application to construct an 8 storey apartment building on the corner of Stanley and Adderley St, I'm more confident of a positive Council response with regard to denying the current developers their application for 172 Roden St.

   My memory of the reasons offered by Council in support of their rejection of the Stanley/Adderley application is the incompatibility between the proposal and other existing dwellings, in that the proposed construction would dwarf nearby buildings, including housing. Parking issues were also mentioned. I believe that wind tunnelling and the creation of shade were also referred to in the Council response.

   With regard to the Don Kyatt building, these same issues are not only replicated, but worsened due to the size of the site. What is already an imposing structure would become monstrous and quite out of touch with the heritage village atmosphere of the area. I would add the nearby presence of North Melbourne Rail Station to the proximity of Etihad and Festival Hall as further evidence of the stress currently on street parking. Adding to it via any development that did not provide adequate parking would only detract from the liveability of West Melbourne and be lambasted by residents for decades to come. I'm confident Council will have the foresight and common sense to reject the application.

6. Ten years ago when I moved to Melbourne I purchased a beautiful two-storey terrace property in Adderley Street because of the stunning 'old Melbourne' feel of this cutest pocket of land named West Melbourne. It is steeped in history, yet over the past few years the introduction of a vast amount of incompatable 'eyesores' of apartment blocks have been allowed to replace beautiful old historical dwellings.
   This particular property at 172 Roden Street is one of my all-time favourites, such that I have always longed for it to be developed into some exquisite 'warehouse conversions'. Its character speaks loudly as it takes pride of place on the magnificent corner of Roden and Adderley Streets. Please do not demolish part of our history and this property to remain for future generations!
   Parking for ratepayers is already nigh on impossible and with other proposed multi-storey apartment blocks planned closer to Dudley Street, we the ratepayers will bear the brunt of even further inconvenience as we compete with AFL, Rugby, concerts at Festival Hall, and the overflow of apartment dwellers' vehicles who are not allocated sufficient parking in their new eyesores!
   I am not against development per se if it meets the stipulated height regulations, but please allow this property to retain its unique industrial feel: it is a true gem.

7. When the Council rejected the proposal for 137-157 Adderley Streeet on May 16 2016, one would have thought these reasons for refusal would have been a deterrent to the suggested development of the Kyatt complex.

   8 storeys and, if I am to believe The Age newspaper, over 300 apartments with much reduced parking, is a blatant overdevelopment.

   A development of this size will fail to address the West Melbourne Heritage Overlay and severely impact on the character and current residential amenity of this inner city suburb. Parking is already at a premium especially on days when Etihad and Festival Hall hold events, and during the week when city workers fill the shared parking spaces of residents..

   The city is already encroaching on this small pocket of inner Melbourne with developments along Dudley and Roslyn Streets and I believe that unless the Council make a conscious decision to say no to such large proposals the historical intimacy of this area will be lost for ever.

   If Council allows this development to proceed it is seriously out of touch with the concerns and welfare of the West Melbourne community

8. This proposal will have a detrimental impact on the park diagonally opposite, on Hawke St.

   This park will be made a less open space, by the looming presence of this appalling development. The park is being re-built by the council, because there's not enough open space in the city, as it is. If the ridiculous proposal for 172 Roden St goes ahead, it will impact the park's primary function - of being open space.

9. The decision to grant a permit for this development by "caretakers " is an outrage.
   We have had public consultation forum after forum, asking what locals want for West Melbourne by the Melbourne City Council, ideas were collected and the planning guidelines for the area set out as the West Melbourne Structure Plan...and then completely ignored. What was the point?
   This section of West Melbourne is, according to the Structure Plan, supposed to be 4 storey lower scale. How can a development of 8 storeys at twice the height of Councils guidelines even be considered let alone be approved.
   Who are these Caretakers?
   Have they even read the Structure Plan?
   How can such an iconic buildings fate be decided by Caretakers!
   Is everyone at the council asleep!
   We are advised to ask for a review of this decision, does this mean take the developers to VCAT? Where we will also be taking on the Council as they have approved it!
   I urge Council to please delay this decision until the newly elected Council is able to reconsider this developments suitably.
   West Melbourne's character depends on it.

10. Melbourne has too many high-rises... the fabric of the city is getting lost.
    There will be a glut of small units in Melbourne that no-body wants to buy. Put a stop to these taller buildings now. Many buildings in the CBD don't even have any owners in them just short term tenants who don't really care about the ambience of the building as they are just 'sleeping pods' to them.

11. Every indicator for the proposed development is negative: it is exceeds planning restrictions in height, will place a burden on parking and other community resources, imposes adverse consequences on current residences, and irrevocably alters the human and built landscape of West Melbourne.

    Development for development's sake in the form of crammed multi-apartment precincts does nothing for the community. The only apparent benefit is to bottom line of developers. Any student of the current and projected realestate market should be aware of the predicted over-supply of so-called cookie-cutter low standard developments. I believe Melbourne will have a surplus of close to 15,000 unoccupied apartment dwellings in the next decade, if not earlier. This scale of over-development is insane.

    For non-elected Council staff to usurp the powers of Councillors and approve such a development as 'caretakers' is extraordinary and reprehensible. No decisions of this scale and precedent setting should be taken under these circumstances. I would seriously questioning n its legality.

    This decision should be struck out and rescinded until such time as full community consultation has taken place and Councillors are made aware of the preferences of the real owners of the City of Melbourne, the residents, not developers or un-elected employees of the Council. Council does not exist solely for the purpose of maximising rate income or facilitating profiteering by developers.

    If this is what is seen as acceptable we might as well do away with Councillors entirely. Maybe that's not such a bad idea if the current situation represents the Council's level of involvement or concern on the part of residents. At least we would know without any question who the enemy is.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Melbourne 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