16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031

Please do not reduce the car parking requirements for this development. The nearby streets, including gatehouse, are full of parked cars at night. Pushing more cars on the street will exacerbate local parking issues such as cars parked across driveways and cars parked outside of designated car parks.

It is very important that parking is not reduced as the streets are already full with cars parked and it will have a big impact on the current residents.

agree with comments about parking.

My lord, 9 storey. 82 apts. thats so sad for lovely Kensington. We dont want high rise apartments. Ugly like Docklands. Parking nightmare. Rankins road is packed with cars parked down the street everyday of the week, often visitors park ilegally on permit spots. I can see how this will happen to Gatehouse drive once the Apartments built.
No one wants to buy houses near huge apartment buildings. Which means it will devalue the houses nearby.

City of Melbourne, particularly the planning department should be ashamed of themselves for continually approving apartment buildings in already highly populated inner suburbs that struggle with parking.
Quite obvious that they are not thinking of the existing residents & community, rates income appears to be their main objective as there is no other positive.
Melbourne is already over populated with apartment buildings which are not fully occupied, keep the buildings to the city not our lovely inner suburbs as they will become unpleasant places to live if this continues.
Stop approving such developments!!!!

This development is totally inappropriate for this area and will have a negetive inpact not only on the surrounding environment (as both an eye sore but also as the development will significantly affect the distribution of natural light in the surrounding area) but also to property values within the suburb.
In addition any application that seeks to introduce not only more traffic onto local streets but also more cars parked along allready congested streets is an outrage.
Please advise how I or others in the suburb can lodge formal complaint etc to record our oposition to this application.

Much too high an apartment block for this low rise leafy residential area. Parking already a struggle and this will vastly exacerbate the problem. A high density block like this is a total contrast to the rest of the area and will devalue many properties nearby as these will be 'in the shadow' of the large block. Please do not approve this building.

This proposed development is not in keeping with the Kensington Banks area and height restrictions should be addressed – this is three times (x3) the height of apartments across the road and is totally inappropriate for a suburban area, as well as privacy concerns of nearby neighbours it creates.

There is a real concern that being this large will also cast a large shadow over adjacent existing open living areas and preventing natural light and ventilation to adjacent existing properties.

As many other local residents have mentioned in above comments, parking issues in the Banks area is already a concern and this will not only cause further parking chaos but introduce extra amount of traffic in what is a residential area. These types of developments in suburban areas are shameful!

Navigating through gatehouse drive is already tight enough. As the only outlet from the Banks onto Princes Hwy, it needs to be free from parking congestion. It will act as a bottleneck. Any development of 16-22 Gatehouse Dr must have adequate parking included. I understand the need for more medium-density housing, but I also want to make sure the infrastructure supports comfortable living and commuting. Kind regards, Kathryn Daly, nearby resident and ratepayer at 74 Bayswater Rd, Kensington

I live in Kensington Banks and parking in that area is already at a premium. In addition, traffic can be a massive issue already- folks driving in/out of the IGA car park, coming in/out of smithfield road and the nearby streets. 82 apartments is a ridiculous amount of apartments to put in that area and will only serve to benefit developers, whilst leaving the local community significantly worse off.

I have solar panels on my roof. I will not be happy if this 9 storey building shadows them.

82 apartments with limited parking will cause massive issues. I live in the banks and we already have massive parking issues, often having to park well away from our house due to insufficient parking provided and overflow from developments like speakman street. Additionally, the intersection at gatehouse drive and Smithfield roads is already a bottleneck for traffic and cars getting in and out of the 1 gatehouse drive development. Another 82 apartments with insufficient infrastructure to support parking and traffic flow is unacceptable. Please do not approve!

This propsal is totally inappropriate for the medium density, award-winning area that is Kensington Banks. Any new buildings in this area should be in keeping with the surrounding buildings. Inadequate parking is particularly a problem

1. In the context of poor / non-existent management of existing parking restrictions, the addition of more housing without sufficient car parks of their own is very poor. Relevant councillors and planners should look at evidence of existing car parking problems before further considering

2. The immediate vicinity is already struggling from excessive traffic throughput (a rat run to cut through to the city in morning traffic). This high density will only make it worse.

3. The overall height is inconsistent with the immediate built environment and would materially degrade existing amenity of residents

I have rented and now I own property in Kensington and I think 82 apartments is much to big for the following reasons

1. Already there are parking issues surrounding the iga, as stated by numerous people above. Adding more apartments, especially in an area with lots of share houses (which these apartments will no doubt have) means more than one car per apartment on average and the area is already at capacity, especially at night

2. The intersection on gatehouse and Smithfield is already at capacity, and adding more local traffic will need to prompt a review of the turning restriction in the morning onto gatehouse (otherwise epsom will take a huge load of traffic, and Smithfield might become overwhelmed with illegal u-turns), and of the lanes sizes and light timing.

I believe any new development should be in approximate size to the surrounding apartments on gatehouse, and surplus parking allocated. With each apartment come multiple inhabitant and of course their visitors and guests.

Furthermore 82 apartments doesn't suit this area, and would not fit in with the atmosphere and appearance of the suburb which is partly why so many people want to live here.

Out of character for the existing area. Current high of buildings that existing should be complemented not ignored. Existing infastructure in inadequate for this area epecially in regards to traffic flow and parking.

No no no. Our roads can't handle the extra traffic or parking as it is.

As a close neighbour to this proposed development and a resident in KB since 1997 I am dismayed by this proposal. 9 storeys and 82 apartments is totally excessive to the existing character of KB. There are already issues with the traffic lights entry point at the left hand turn from Smithfield rd to the apartments opposite this planned development, truly a traffic hazard for those turning left into gatehouse drive.

The 9 storey height and density of 82 apartments planned is inappropriate and totally out of keeping with the existing KB character and design. Approval of reduced parking would significantly add pressure to the already limited street parking, and I assume utilise and clog up the existing public parking outside the IGA and commercial properties currently on that site. If any building is to be approved it should not be of a greater height that the apartment building opposite and should have parking for all apartments. The entrance to KB should have a quality development which enhances , not tacky architecture that undermines the existing kB character and style.

A development of size should never seek to reduce required car parking and in fact needs to have additional parking for visitors. This development is way oversized and must not be allowed to proceed at this location.

Parking is a huge issue around this area already. Building this apartment block without adequate parking will make the area increasingly dangerous to drive in and impossible to park in. Kensington already has enough people being crammed into it. If it has to go ahead, it's size should be limited.

Oh please no. Not another one. I would like the planning council to attempt to drive up Macaulay Rd from the city at peak hour and experience the wonderful, millimetre by millimetre drive to Kensington and beyond. And try doing that during the Spring Racing Carnival or Royal Melbourne Show when you need to wait for extra trains to pass. Pushing more and more people into this area, without improving the traffic congestion is nonsensical.

And I agree that parking in Kensington is getting worse every day. It's very common for people to have a single car garage and have two cars, so street parking is always necessary. Please don't add to the already existing problem by approving development without adequate parking provisions. I used to live in Richmond and had to park blocks away from my house because we had no garage. Kensington is going the same way and I'm really starting to question my family's ability to live here if these sorts of decisions keep getting made.

As a former resident of Cakebread Mews I understand the challenges of parking in the area. It is disappointing to see the council is considering a 9 storey apartment block as it doesn't match the surroundings. My requests are to please ensure the parking allocated is appropriate for the number of apartments and similarly please ensure the block is not above 4 levels as it will become an eyesore in Kensington.

This is a terrible idea. The congestion and traffic is already unbearable. There is insufficient parking in the area, and there are not enough public transport services to cater to the demands of current residents. Without the right and necessary infrastructures, adding a 9 storey apartment is just poor planning. The grubby, money hungry motives are clear here and, frankly, unsightly. Keep the greed out of Kensington.

Most of my objections have been clearly articulated by others, but I will repeat them just so you understand the disgust in the community at the idea of a nine story building with a car parking exemption being built in Kensington Banks.
1) the proposed area has no room for any more on-street parking which will be caused by the granting of an exemption to clause 52.06 of Melbourne Planning Scheme
2) our streets are very difficult to negotiate now because of the daily "rat running" from Smithfield Rd through to Kensington Rd, compounded by some narrow streets with parking on both sides
3) the extra safety issues it will cause for pedestrians in what is now a safe residential area
4) a nine story building is totally out of character with the rest of Kensington banks as a medium density residential area
So how about doing your job and keep this ridicules application in prospective with the surrounding community.

All the previous posts are fairly explicit, but I'll repeat the reasons why it's a very bad project for this area, because it seems that only quantity of complaints can prevail over (poor) quality of decision making/planning...
No allocated/dedicated parking space, 9 storey building in a medium density area that already suffers from excessive traffic. What a fantastic eyesore it would be for such a pretty area... I can see the logic whith apartments on top of the IGA (if the parking matter is addressed appropriately), but this is completely out of scale.
Where is the benefit for us, residents? It's a project driven by financial concerns, and fortunately life isn't always about that, so please, don't. Don't waste Kensington, and don't waste anybody's time with considering these kind of applications.

This proposed development should be rejected because:
a) parking is already a major problem in the immediate vicinity and additional high density residential development would cause serious risk to human safety
b) traffic flow to and from the vicinity is strictly limited by the design of existing roads which already creates dangerous bottlenecks and encourages illegal driving practices
c) infrastructure in the area is barely adequate for the current population and any increase will result in inordinate pressure on existing services such as public transport, schools and health facilities.
d) the area was originally developed as low density and it would be a breach of faith to allow high density development which would cause a loss of amenity for existing residents.

My concerns align with all of these comments.

We can barely support the current amount of cars in the banks, introducing more, and more at this scale will cause major issues.

Not to mention the congestion that we already experience during peak hours at the corner of Smithfield and gatehouse.

I am against this development.

I have already sent my objections to this proposed development to Cr Cathy Oke, but to date have had no response from her. Please note that Cr Oke should present the objections of many many residents of Kensington opposed to this ridiculous plan.

Already parking, careless and impatient drivers rat running from Smithfield St to Kensington Rd and narrow congested streets cause havoc on busy mornings. When major events are on at the racecourse and showgrounds we can barely exit from Gatehouse Drive into Smithfield Rd. Cars block the intersection in spite of the traffic lights. There is no way that any development should be allowed to proceed with insufficient parking allocation and 9 storeys is totally out of character with this area. It will be an eyesore!!!

Please note in my submission to Cr Oke that I have outlined many more problems of concern, which are supported by other residents. This development is an affront to the local residents and an attack on the amenity of the area.