30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178

Construction of four double storey and two single storey dwellings.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 3 years ago. It was received by them 6 days earlier.

(Source: Knox City Council, reference P/2017/6082)

8 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Warren Griffin commented

    14 June 2020 - this development is up for approval again -

    Approval for a proposed 4 x 2 Storey + 2 I Storey development (as proposed 3 years ago) is in contradiction to the Knox housing strategy which claims that the important aspects of Knox should be enhanced and retained.

    This development would ruin the character of Murray Crescent, substantially increase traffic congestion on an already crowded bend and certainly does not enhance the "crescent" and will definitely ruin it.

    This type of development is not appropriate, nor is it wanted by the residents of this area.

  2. Michael Vanin commented

    I think the proposed development is very comprehensive and provides the right level of sensitivity to the local environment given the adjoining properties are substantial 2000m2 and 4000m2 land allotments.

    I cant see where the local amenity is adversely affected. Rowville is a developing Suburb and there are many examples of properties that have been developed with greater adverse amenity.

  3. Stephen Mead commented

    Three things
    1 - Is the previous poster the same Michael Vanin of Stamford Real Estate Services Pty Ltd - and if so - does he have any connection to this development?

    2. Murray Cres is one of the last 'havens' in Rowville for decent sized family blocks - it's no where near a shopping centre or railway station or other commercial areas - like the units opposite Stud Park - it's in a quiet family street.

    3. Given that there is proposed to have 6 dwellings and the average number of cars in 2016 in Rowville was 2.2 (I suspect it's more now). What steps will be taken to ensure that the - MINIMUM number of cars of 14 will be kept off the street?

  4. Isabel commented

    Can we ensure real estate agents declare their interest before making comments. thank you Stephen for pointing this out.
    The only thing that is developing in Rowville is units developments, the roads, car parks, street parking nothing else has developed.
    So yes, Rowville its is a developing suburb Michael but only for a few people a benefiting from this. Its not adding to the amenity or the liveability of the suburb.

  5. Michael Vanin commented

    For the record I have been a resident of Rowville for over 30 years and make my comments as a resident and rate payer.

  6. Stephen Mead commented

    As a resident and ratepayer for over 40 years - I am not questioning anyone's right to also make comments as a resident and ratepayer. I simply asked if there was a relationship between Mr Vanin and/or his business in relation to this development. It's a reasonable question to ask and one which I believe is important to others when they read his comments.

    Personally I have no vested interest in this proposal other than my concerns about its destruction of the local amenity.

    I am yet to be convinced how cramming 6 large buildings on a suburban block - in a quiet street 'adds' - or at least doesn't detract - from the amenity of the local area.

  7. Vanessa commented

    Here we go again.
    This is a way over development for this street. These are meant for the buffer zone to the 1 acre blocks behind it.
    Previous developments of 4 dwellings have been knocked back so why should this be ok?
    Having this many dwellings crammed in is just going to sprawl the massive amount of cars etc on to the street. Leave these developments for closer to the shops and facilities. And I too think it inappropriate for a real estate agent/developer/or persons of interest to comment that this is ok.

  8. Michael Vanin commented

    Hi Steve, how are you, long time no speak. To be fully transparent I own a 2,000m2 block which can be subdivided and the last time I checked we live in a democracy so I hope no one is suggesting that I am not entitled to comment.

    It is true the 2,000m2 blocks surround the 4,000m2 blocks which suggests a blending of the amenity however even the planning authorities at the time recognized that circumstances change and that's why the covenant restricting subdivision of the 2,000m2 blocks expired. Furthermore there are many examples of even 600m2 blocks in Rowville being subdivided and the construction of 2 storey town houses on major roads and intersections. This development is consistent with those development plot ratios.

    As long as the proposed development addresses the local amenity and infrastructure which I think it does I support it

  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