701 Park Street, Brunswick VIC 3056

Demolition of a heritage building and construction of a development comprising 255 dwellings, use of the land for retail premises and a child care centre, a reduction of the standard car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Moreland City Council, reference MPS/2016/985)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Dorothy Williams wrote to local councillor Lambros Tapinos

    This proposed development is outrageous. It is way too big for the site, and is totally out of character for the area.

    Delivered to local councillor Lambros Tapinos. They are yet to respond.

  2. Andre Peterson commented

    It will also cause too much strain on the surrounding infrastructure - public transport, parking etc

  3. danny m commented

    Brunswick needs more of these types of devlopments. When are people going to realise that we are an inner city suburb and as such we are going to provide some heavy lifting for the higher density city, that Melbourne is heading towards.

    A perfect location for such a development.

    Character is this area on Park street has already disappeared, so not an issue.

    I would suggest however, to make sure they incorporate a bike space per appartment.

    Hopefully this has been considered.

  4. Rhonda Bavington commented

    Demolition of a heritage building.
    That says it all.
    Aside from the congestion, parking issues, the fact that it is out of step with the area. You are destroying a heritage listed building.

  5. Jackie commented

    Demolition of a heritage building is unacceptable.

  6. Jen commented

    Will there be more trams/trains running? Seems fine to build dense if the infrastructure is keeping up.

    I agree about the bike spots. As an ex-NYC resident I know that high density means giving up cars. As long as the 255 units don't expect to all have cars, it should be workable.

    Make sure there are car shares spaces incorporated as well.

  7. George commented

    As Melbourne's population continues to boom, the number of families wanting to live in Moreland will grow too. It's disappointing to see that this new development (like most in Melbourne) barely caters for that need. Out of 255 units, only 29 of them are 3 bedrooms! Compare that to 126 that are 1 bedders! I'd like to see a much higher ratio of 3 bedroom apartments in this proposed development.

  8. Robbi M commented

    When is this type of development going to stop. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH for Brunswick, East Brunswick and surrounding areas. It's a JOKE that every heritage building is getting knocked down for nothing but money making in the hands of the developers. The area looks awful with nothing but high rises. Another one is going up soon on the corner of Lygon and Edward streets after they knock down another heritage building - once an original bank in the area. Have a look at Nicholson st around Brunswick East. It's congested and more places are getting ripped down to make way for these ridiculous apartment buildings. The area has now become overpopulated - heavily graffitied and the traffic is appalling. So well done to Moreland council !!! who don't even reply to our concerns here in this comment page. What's the point in even commenting when they most likely don't even read these comments for care. Once again .. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  9. Marianne Joy commented

    Yes agree totally
    This whole area is going out of control with disastrous consequences
    How can Councils and State Govt be blinded to reality of what they are doing
    Overcrowding, traffic, parking, destroying community, filth, rubbish,pollution,slum , graffiti, overshadowing etc etc
    It’s so sad and feeding greed not people

  10. Claire Louise Plummer wrote to local councillor Sue Bolton

    Moreland Council Planners don’t get it. I live in a heritage overlay single storey property on Barkly St and developers are proposing to build towers all around us. Council keep approving the towers without giving amenity, and heritage overlay any proper or serious consideration. Moreland council I ask you again, ‘how would you feel if you lived in an adjacent single storey heritage overlay property where your access to sunlight will be reduced to less than 2hrs a day on 22nd September?’ Where is the planning rule that says collateral damage to existing residents amenity is fine, as we need to make way for Hong Kong style towers.
    Refer p.11 of the Moreland Planner’s Report for 1-7 Wilson St, Brunswick - your overshadowing justification are weasel words. Dark days are ahead.

    Delivered to local councillor Sue Bolton. They are yet to respond.

  11. Marion Hunt wrote to local councillor Helen Davidson

    I am in same situation - already hemmed in on both sides and three storey flats behind which look into my living area and one bedroom
    Now there is a plague of high rises planned allclose by I,ll barely see daylight!
    699-701 Park St Chinese monster is worst and Sara Sands highrise and huge booze barn a close second
    Overcrowding overshadowing pollution traffic parking heritage infrastructure community fraying public transport- can’t Council and Govt see the insanity !!!!

    Delivered to local councillor Helen Davidson. They are yet to respond.

  12. Catherine Holland commented

    Reading through residents’ responses, the same problems are occurring everywhere.......... congestion, parking, lack of infrastructure, overshadowing.
    When are we going to get a reasoned response, or is high rise development the only priority?

  13. Rosa Reyes commented

    I agree with medium rise developments but against the heritage buildings being demolished. Paris is Paris because of the strict laws on preserving their heritage. Moreland has a great potential to be a fantastic suburb but with lack of amenities and developments everywhere will become a soulless place like Docklands. Even neighbouring Carlton North has been able to preserve their heritage buildings. Councillors do the right thing and protect the history of your suburb for future generations

  14. Jane Morgan commented

    Objection to demolish a heritage building and its replacement, a stack of shoeboxes. The council is destroying the neighbourhood. They recently approved 6 x 4 storey, poorly designed "townhouses" with 4 heritage overlays next to it. The council is just plain ignoring heritage listings. There needs to be a review of the council's processes, the way they make decisions (fair decisions), and the level of transparency. For an applicant, they are sooooo helpful. For an objector, we are treated like we don't live in this planet. We are given limited information. Information that is vague, unhelpful, and at times, misleading to deter further questions. The council drags their feet to get onto a call, to attend meetings and even responding to emails, then all the sudden the application is granted and the only way we can fight to is to go to VCAT. They rest their hopes on maybe we would go away. It's bias and unfair.

  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