Recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC

  1. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 139 Bulleen Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Ben Dawson commented

    The application includes a request to avoid putting in standard parking spots. There is already not enough parking in this area. A block of flats in this place without adequate additional parking would make it worse.

  2. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 139 Bulleen Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Bret Hester commented

    Agree with Keith, parking in this area is already in short supply. It’s time for a permit area for local residents. Side streets are full with commuters for the near by bus stop.

  3. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 139 Bulleen Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Keith Box commented

    The Application is an over development of the site unless car parking is provided as car parking in the area is very limited

  4. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 35 Queens Avenue, Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy Rea commented

    At no time should a reduction in standard car parking be accepted by Council. It is a new development and the choice is to reduce the number of units approved or provide car parking underground to cater for proposed units. Furthermore, Council should be diligent in their application of approval because of the impact on local residents, overflow of parking in the street, the overarching aesthetic of the neighborhood, and the lack of precedent in the height of the buildings in this plan.

  5. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 35 Queens Avenue, Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    I am quite disappointed with the proposed development and the reasons for my objection to this development as follows,

    1. Bad to Traffic safety: The local area is already very packed, especially the traffic and parking facilities. I walk to the Auburn Station on daily base and walk my dog on the Auburn Road a few times a week. I am very concerned my own safety as well as other local people and students, if more cars go in and out to Auburn Road from Queens Ave.
    2. Bad to Daylight Penetration: A 6 level development is kind of high-rise building for the neighborhood area and It will block sunshine and daylight not just to surrounding buildings but also the street footpath.
    3. Bad to local view: A 6 level building will block quit view to locals and not suitable to local street style.
    4. Bad for the waste management: A new 6 level building will increase local waste producing significantly, as well as the waste collection frequency and time.

  6. In Balwyn VIC on “(Condition 1 plans,...” at 14 Clapham Street, Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Lynette Joy commented

    Surely a 3 storey building in a residential area is incompatible with the amenity of the surrounding housing stock? How are these exceptions able to get approval? Let one in and then that becomes the rule of thumb for further applications.

  7. In Balwyn North VIC on “(Secondary Consent)...” at 30 Abbott Street, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Christine Burley commented

    I oppose this application. There is a single dwelling covenant on Abbott Street North Balwyn and I believe strongly that it should be maintained. While the property East of #30 is a unit development from ?1980s, this is a corner block with frontage to Winfield Road. There is more than enough dreadful development which has been allowed to ruin this once delightful 1950s suburb, with significant loss of open garden space within its residential properties. I am disturbed by the loss of soft surface environment to absorb rainfall and loss of habitat for birds and other wildlife. The subsequent increase in hard surfaces such as fully paved front and rear yards leads to excess stormwater run-off and resultant environmental degradation.

  8. In Balwyn North VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 8 Kyora Parade Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Margaret commented

    This property was built in 1939 not 1945. I was born there!
    My parents built it and they married in April ‘39 and it was ready for them to move into it. It was classified as outer suburbs then.

  9. In Canterbury VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 14 Balwyn Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Belinda Smith commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am appalled at the amount of destruction of heritage properties in Boroondara. With the associated loss of significant trees, the whole face of the council area is changing bit by bit to one of an urban landscape. There are plenty of areas like that in Melbourne - can’t we just keep SOME of our valuable (if short) history in tact? Victoria is tagged as “the garden state”, in great part because of these older houses and the large gardens that surround them. If every piece of garden is covered in dwellings there will be no gardens left ... and none of the charm that brought many, like us, to the area.
    Faithfully yours,
    Belinda Smith

  10. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of an...” at 51 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Anna Rosin commented

    I can't believe the current rules. It's a disgrace.

  11. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of an...” at 51 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Terry dear commented

    A heritage overlay or listing is no protection against demolition or redevelopment. This was fought at VCAT a few years ago in the development in the corner of Rathmines and Burke Rd Hawthorn East.
    Every site is now a potential development site irrespective of the perceived heritage value of the building.
    The argument is there is a greater public benefit for more people to be able to live on that piece of land.
    If you feel unhappy about this then contact your local state govt member as currently VCAT is responsible for the destruction of our heritage suburbs.

  12. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of an...” at 51 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    R.Bailey commented

    I do have a property listed with a heritage overlay ,which I encouraged .Out of interest how many people who have made comment on this property have a heritage overlay over there own property? or how would they feel if there own property was recommended for a heritage overlay by how would you react ?

  13. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of an...” at 51 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Ellen Scott commented

    As a resident of a heritage area within the Boroondara Municipality,namely the Tara Estate,I strongly object to ALL the inappropriate development that is happening in our area.
    If we let this continue as it has for the past decades,what of our heritage will be left for future generations.

  14. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of an...” at 51 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Janet Hicks commented

    7th Feb 2020: This property is in the process of being demolished as I type. Apparently some items were removed from the house before demolition eg. Floorboards, the dishwasher.... but according to the demolition crew most heritage items like fire-surrounds, Cast-iron inserts, cast iron lacework, the four-panel doors, the front door with stained-glass/lead light panels, etc have no value so off to the tip they will go...with the blood sweat and tears of the master craftsmen who made them, and a little bit more of the neighbourhood character VCAT is selling out on and the developers are cashing in on! So much for “Marvellous Melbourne” won’t be long til it’s “Melbourne..? Meh!”

  15. In Kew VIC on “Construction of a new...” at 59 Brougham Street, Kew VIC 3101:

    Robert Savage commented

    I am the owner-occupier of a flat in the neighbouring property, 57 Brougham St. I am concerned that the view from our first-story living room and possibly bedroom windows will be obstructed by the new dwelling. The view has already been significantly impaired by the construction of a new dwelling at 61 Brougham St a couple of years ago. I also have serious privacy concerns, given the potential for neighbours in the new dwelling to see into our living room and bedroom.

  16. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construct two (2) dwellings...” at 14 Lloyd Street Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Ivan coffin commented

    Small block and a tight small street and you overdeveloped

  17. In Balwyn North VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 1086 Burke Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Gerald commented

    Today's tree felling event at 1086 Burke Road Balwyn North is very distressing. The Council arborist assured me last year (September) that the significant canopy tree, Cedrus Deodara (Deodar Cedar), was protected and would be there for many more years. Yes, the removal of the branches last year compromised the appearance of the tree, but I noticed this morning that more upper branches had been removed, and by this afternoon the whole tree has been bulldozed. I also feel gutted! Another magnificent canopy tree has been removed from the area - and on the day when Premier Andrews announced logging of old growth forest has been banned immediately. Pity Boroondara Council can't do same for our old growth canopy trees in our local gardens. Developers win again!

  18. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 13 Pleasant Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Mary Martin commented

    There is an answer. The developers need to dig an underground car parking however this adds additional costs to the build and it’s all about making money $$$.
    HOWEVER, we built a 3bdr apartment in Boroondara for our family of 4, with a Five car garage underneath. It can be done so why isn’t this being enforced and why are permits given “with a reduction in car parking”??????

  19. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 13 Pleasant Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Mary, it is simple this lot simply is not large enough for the proposed dwellings. I agree at the minimum two car parks per dwelling plus one visitor car park per dwelling. That is 6 car parks for this development at a minimum as there is no street car parking now, let alone with new dwellings. At this time it is a proposal so those affected must scrutinize this application and object if there are any elements that encroach unfairly on the life style we all pay for and expect in Boroondara. Do not forget residents to have rights too!!!

  20. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 13 Pleasant Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Mary Martin commented

    Here we go again, “construct two dwellings” but will they allow sufficient car parking? Define sufficient, well that would be one vehicle per occupant because that’s the way it works. So 3 bdrms, 3 car parking spaces PLUS visitor
    If there’s not enough land it’s simple, dig underground. Car parking is a joke in Boroondara. The Council should hang their head in shame.

  21. In Glen Iris VIC on “(VicSmart) Subdivision of...” at 5 Hillside Parade, Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Mary Martin commented

    And don’t forget the all important “reduction in car parking”.
    I despair.

  22. In Balwyn North VIC on “(S 72 Amendment)...” at 1110 Burke Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Ben Dawson commented

    I object to this plan. This part of Burke Rd is already far too congested and has become a bottleneck. There is a chronic parking problem around Kew HS and this will make it worse.

  23. In Surrey Hills VIC on “(S.72 - change to hours and...” at 1 / 215 Mont Albert Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lynette Giddings commented

    Wondering what the Red Brick Cafe’s new change of operating hours are?

  24. In Kew East VIC on “(Plans for Endorsement...” at 2 - 8 Leason Street, Kew East VIC 3102:

    Debbie McColl-Davis commented

    Being aware of the amount of car parking needed in the Hays Paddock area is frequently insufficient, particularly on fine days at a weekend it is wrong to reduce parking requirements in this area.
    Details of "vegetation removal"? Much thought has been put into the Hays vegetation planning.

  25. In Camberwell VIC on “(S.72) Construction of a...” at 5 / 52 Seymour Grove, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    TParainai commented

    There is no reduction in car parking here. Nothing changes in this current property apart from 2 apartments being combined to decrease the total number of apartments in the block. There are 18 car spaces in the basement As well as 3 visitor bays in the basement so nothing changes. The planning permit has been raised to advise that there is a change in the wording of the permit for dwelling numbers.

  26. In Kew VIC on “Subdivision into Eighteen...” at 369 Cotham Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Li Chen commented

    I object this development as follows,

    The existing house is beautiful and it will a huge loss for the local street characters with a replacement of another concrete Mac-Mansion block.

    The traffic along the Cotham Rd has been nightmares for locals already, especially peak-time with a lot of school drop-offs and pick-ups and the situation will be worse if up to 16 cars from the development need to drive-in and out along Cotham St. It be a big safety concern for the local students and peoples walking passing the site.

    I also concern about the recycling and waste collection on the site and I don't think the site front has enough space for up to 16 bins standing along Cotham Rd.

    Based on the site area, the development with 8 apartments could be up to at least 3 levels above ground and then it causes concerns about privacy of neighbourhood.

  27. In Camberwell VIC on “(S.72) Construction of a...” at 5 / 52 Seymour Grove, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Dallas Gebert commented

    Enough with the car parking restrictions. There is no where to park now for residents in the area.

  28. In Camberwell VIC on “(S.72) Construction of a...” at 5 / 52 Seymour Grove, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Nita K commented

    I object to any reduction in car parking requirements. Finding parking in the vicinity of Seymour Grove (being just one lane behind the public library) is bad enough now and so any further allowances will only serve to exacerbate the problem. If the permit is to combine 2 apartments at the back then why reduce the number of parking spots?

  29. In Camberwell VIC on “(S.72) Construction of a...” at 5 / 52 Seymour Grove, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    T Pariani commented

    This block was built in 2016. The permit is actually to combine two apartments at the back and reduce the number of dwellings and cars.
    It’s a positive change. No external changes - just internal.

  30. In Camberwell VIC on “(S.72) Construction of a...” at 5 / 52 Seymour Grove, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Mary Martin commented

    Just think, 18 apartments means approx 36 cars and nowhere for visitors to park except in the already conjested streets of Camberwell.
    If you truly care about our suburb please write/email your local member.

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