104B McBryde Street, Fawkner VIC 3060

Removal of the reserve status from the land also the subdivision of land into a lot and a reserve

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 5 years ago. It was received by them about 2 months earlier.

(Source: Moreland City Council, reference SP/2017/96)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jess Barry commented

    The building proposal is too dense, it will adversely impact wildlife and parklands and it is too close to the creek bed.

  2. Susan Elizabeth Bryant commented

    I believe there is supposed to be 50 meters between creek and fence. This development is 35 meters. And there really needs to be extremely strict regulation of run off and reduced hard surfaces. Though I don't live in Moreland, I do live near the creek and what happens up stream affects the creek and banks and water quality down stream.

  3. Sally Beattie commented

    I object to the proposal to leave only 35m open space by the creek instead of 50m as required by Council. I'm also concerned about zoning 104b McBryde St as an area for 25 residential homes beside the site of the former Nufarm chemical site (100 and 102) which has a clay cap in place to protect locals from dioxin poisoning. The same two chemicals that make up Agent Orange were produced on the Nufarm site and open drains to the creek carried toxic runoff. Neighbouring residents have been calling for thorough testing of these sites before any development occurs. Our health could be seriously at risk as a cancer cluster did occur in nearby streets in previous decades. Yet planning permits have been lodged in the financial interests of many who live outside Fawkner. EPA tests of groundwater etc. to this date have not adequately investigated toxicity in the water table or at the depth required for foundations. Please consider the potential environmental and human impacts.

  4. John Englart commented

    I have objections to the development at 104B McBryde street on 3 grounds:
    1. My concern for developing this site as a residential area when there are already deep concerns over contamination and adequate remediation of the toxic site at 100 and 102 McBryde Street and surrounding areas down to Merri Creek. Until a full and comprehensive environmental audit of the area is done to assess the public health dangers and how to manage this site into the future, including by fumes if the existing clay cap is pierced, then no residential subdivision or development should be undertaken in the area under prudent risk management and the precautionary principle.

    2. I note the following overlays: 44.01 Erosion Management; 42.01 Environmental
    Significance; and 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation, are currently applied to this land. I think it essential that if the area is deemed safe to be subdivided for development given it's proximity to toxic contaminated sites (see (1) above), then the area to be redeveloped needs to ensure it does not have an adverse impact on erosion, local environment, drainage and innundation. The addition of 25 dwellings or more seems excessive and would likely increase excess runoff from torrential rain events increasing flash flooding.

    3. Any subdivision and development should also fully comply with Moreland's Open Space strategy and not encroach within a minimum of 50 metres of Merri Creek, to allow reasonable parkland and open space buffer for the enjoyment of all Moreland residents. Merri Creek is a biodiversity hotspot and an important wildlife corridor and we should ensure enough space is provided to maintain this function well into the future for all future generations.

  5. Bee Lancaster commented

    I'm very concerned about the potential of residual toxins left over from the production of chemicals used in the creation of Agent Orange at Nufarm. I understand there is a clay cap on the land to prevent migration of toxins. However I am concerned that the process of building will uncover the contaminated soil and workers residents and the creek will be exposed. There needs to be comprehensive remediation of the land before any building takes place. I don't think anybody should be living on that land until then.

  6. Rebecca Dominguez commented

    The proposed development is too close to Merri Creek, not 50m as in the Moreland Council's Open Space Strategy. Also, the Nufarm site next door has not been thoroughly cleaned, an environmental audit has not been recently completed, and there is a real risk that this development will be impacted by dioxin exposure if the clay cap is ever pierced.

  7. Simon D'Alfonso commented

    Unnecessary development that inappropriately encroaches upon the required boundary between creek and building

  8. Faye Scanlan commented

    I object to this application on two grounds. First, I see no justification for imposing beyond Council's required 50m open space policy of distance from the creek. Second, I believe there is significant risk to the safety of residents and any workers on the site related to dioxin poisoning from the neighboring prior Nufarm site. As minuted at a recent council meeting, there are serious concerns in the community that the clay cap over the Nufarm site did not cover the entire contaminated area, moreover the initial cleanup appears to have been inadequate. No development should be allowed on this site in the absence of a thorough environmental audit of the site. I recently attended a council meeting at which an environmental auditor who has recently inspected a neighboring site explained how dioxin exposure risks are calculated. He explained that any potential exposure risks would be higher under residential than current zoning as it would affect residents 24/7 making lower exposure doses potentially much more harmful to their health. As such,i have strong concerns about rezoning of the site in the absence of testing to demonstrate it is not toxic.

  9. Lewis Tuck commented

    I object to this proposal.
    To conduct a considerable event such as building up to 25 dwellings in an area that is in the vicinity of the old (and toxic) Nufarm chemical manufacturing site without statuatory environmental testing, is wreckless. The community has already presented it's concerns about another development proposal at 102 McBryde St at a recent Ordinary Council Meeting.
    Putting the safety and lives of local community (and voters) is the priority.

  10. Tash Wark commented

    I echo the concerns raised above as a nearby resident and regular user of the creek area for recreation. The core concerns being proximity to Merri Creek; absence of evidence that the clay clap at ex-Nufarm site meets today's standards; ambiguity about the clay cap covers enough of the contaminated area; concerns about previous dumping of contaminated soil in the area behind the ex-Nufarm site and the lack of testing of soil from areas surrounding the Nufarm site. These community concerns about toxicity need to be allayed for this development and the impact that the ex-Nufarm site has had more broadly. These concerns will not go away until residents see some credible evidence that the ground is safe.

  11. Amelia Aslanides commented

    The site is located on, and also neighbours, the former NuFarm dioxin manufacturing site.
    The level of contamination of the site and also the surrounding sites, where development is proposed, has not been established.
    The risk to the safety of residents on the land and on nearby properties, as well as any workers on the site, has not been established.
    Community concerns that the clay cap over the Nufarm site did not cover the entire contaminated area, and that the initial cleanup appears to have been inadequate, should be addressed by Council, who should determine that the land be assessed by environmental scientists, the results made public, and any remedial action needed to protect residents and the environment should then be implemented.
    No development should be allowed on this site before a thorough environmental audit is completed and the results made public.

  12. Valentina Sangov commented

    I am apposed to the proposal to develop 25 dwellings in the parkland adjacent the creek and adding a road leading from McBryde Street exiting Hood Crescent. I am also opposed to the development of a further 8 two-story dwellings at 21-23 Hood Crescent. The loss of parkland, loss of open space, congestion in a quite street will have detrimental impact on the existing neighborhood. Traffic congestion means we spend more time on roads and less time with our families. Destroying nature and wildlife has long term impact on our health. Dioxin poisoning from it previously being a Nufarm site, again detrimental to human health. I'm confused as to how the development has been approved with the major concerns raised by the community.

  13. Selina Page commented

    For many years I have been a regular user of the creek reserve area in Fawkner located directly behind the former Nufarm site. I always wondered why it was so barren. The past existence of the Nufarm factory and its toxic legacy is something I discovered purely by chance, from a casual conversation with another dog-walker and long-term local resident. This contaminated site and its broader health and environmental impact has been a well-kept official secret for a long time. There are very strong grounds for the concerns of local residents about any potential residential development in this vicinity and it is long past time for these concerns to be taken seriously. Planning approval for rezoning of 104b McBryde St Fawkner should be withheld pending a fully independent and properly scoped environmental audit of 100 and 102 McBryde St.

  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