41 Edgar Street Werribee VIC 3030

Construction of 16 town houses and associated visitor car parking waiver

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 1 year ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Wyndham City Council, reference WYP10483/17)

10 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Linda moloney commented

    Disgusting...modern dog boxes being touted...16 of them!!! surrounded by period homes including one of Werribee's most beautiful heritage homes...all downgraded by wyndham councils greed...and inability to say no to mass dog box and tasteless development...another rental slum in the making...great decision council...you should be ashamed...

  2. Anne Nolan commented

    16 town houses are far to many. The number should be significantly reduced and the facades be in keeping with the surrounding homes.

  3. Kellee Kennedy commented

    I agree that facades should be in keeping with the area. Modern is great in new developments, but in established areas keep the Victorian, Federation style facades

  4. Paul Rogers commented

    As a nearby resident, I am concerned about the pedestrian traffic impacts as there is a blindspot near the driveway with a large brickwall blocking visibility.

    The road this development is proposed for only has one footpath, so I am concerned about the location of the driveway for the proposed development as all pedestrian traffic walking along Edgar street walking to the bus stop and basketball stadium will use this footpath outside the proposed development.

  5. Paul Rogers commented

    The VCAT appeal of this amended development application WYP10483/17 was heard this week.

    During the hearing, the developer's representative argued that the frontage of the proposed development was consistent with Factory next door.

    I am hopeful that VCAT will reject the amended development application for 14 units the development as it is still out of character with this street.

  6. Lin jellet commented

    Cross our fingers, vcat rarely take neighbourhood character into consideration in non blue chip suburbs...the plans for these dog boxes are so tasteless like the other tasteless modern homes in the street...completely out of character...typical developers being allowed to build more rubbish in the suburb...

  7. Geoff Rogers commented

    The even scarier thing is that it is unclear to me whether the VCAT Tribunal member hearing the case is obliged or assisted to visit the precinct as part of her deliberation.

    The developer waxed lyrical about how spacious the area is with wide grassed median strip.

    He did not offer the reality that 2nd cars for the occupants, and visitors cars, will join the neighbours parking all over that same median. When it rains it turns to a bog so I can forsee a request being made by the residents and neighbours for additional paved parking areas defacing that same median strip.

    The young WCC rep at the table with the developer, only uttred one word during the 90minutes I was there. This was YES to corroborate the statement by the developer that the Council was in agreement. They have reduced the DA to 14 instead of 18 x 3 storey townhouses.

    Still 12 too many.

  8. Paul Rogers commented

    Looks like the VCAT case has published a verdict:
    In application P2194/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed
    In planning permit application WYP10483/17 no permit is granted.

    source below:
    http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/736.html?context=1;query=Wyndham%20%20;mask_path=au/cases/vic/VCAT

  9. Lin jellet commented

    This is great news, let's hope Council stop their relentless ruination of Werribee's neighbourhood character...no matter how modest it may seem... being replaced with dog boxes from greedy developers...this time Council did the right thing...developers should build something like this...it would fit in fine instead of the ugly new builds in the street.
    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiM2r_84LziAhXIEHIKHX1oBMQQjhx6BAgBEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realestate.com.au%2Fsold%2Fproperty-townhouse-qld-carina-124664922&psig=AOvVaw3n1eckzx-YnHHGFBAHoVIe&ust=1559082460039166

  10. Geoff commented

    Agree Lin

    Sometimes redevelopment is necessary when existing dwellings have fallen into disrepair or have been ruined with inappropriate, poorly-conceived additions.

    When massive overbuilds are permitted this can be exacerbated as people may seek to profit from neglect or vandalism. When replacement buildings are of similar form and density to existing stock, the developer needs to put more effort into quality and blending with existing character, to attract buyers.

    Dog boxes are typically very high density (Muktilying the number of residents by 5-6 X), of low quality, with rapidly dating design that can be quickly built and sold, Once they are built, maintenance of gardens and common areas is poorly managed as Owners Corp structures are too small to achieve economy of scale. In 20 years time they are destined to be slums, often harbouring crime and antisocial behaviour.

  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