Recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC

  1. 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”??????

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of 2 dwellings...” at 55 Wandsworth Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Bridget Larkin commented

    I hope you build something tasteful, Surrey Hills street character has been ruined by the massive overbuild on every block: big cement boxes without gardens are soulless.

  15. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Rob, I too feel very strongly about the claims and changes to planning requirements. There seems to be an assumption that we should all be walking and cycling everywhere we go!!!! Amazing given the number of baby boomers living in our area.

  16. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Rob Beavis commented

    Thank you Kerrie, I assumed this was a standard proforma ambit claim by developers. In the circumstances you described I withdraw my objection.

  17. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    I would normally agree re parking especially in a small village situation with very limited parking spaces. To my knowledge this is a rebuild after a fire and these shops are precious to us all and the sooner they are rebuilt the better. You cannot create parking when there is none to be had. The issue was when the apartments were built behind the shops robbing the shopping precinct of prized parking spaces.

  18. In Hawthorn East VIC on “(Amendment) Construct...” at 500 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Rob Beavis commented

    As a local resident subject to increasing population pressures in the area and the associated problem with finding car parking places I believe that the standard car parking requirements should be applied to this application.

  19. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    I object this development based on following comments,

    As the proposal mentioned 4~5 building levels and 29 dwellings, it means about 6 units to 8 units each floor. For a such small size of land, I am wondering how the each dwelling accesses daylight penetration, fresh air and external view to achieve the well-beings of residents?

    The development is on the main street, Glenferrie Road, surrounding by heavy traffic and restaurants. I got questions about how the development is going to prevent its residents from the traffic noise, restaurant noise and restaurant smoke pollution.

    About the rubbish bins, how can the council or a private company collects dwellings waste from the site?

    About increase local traffic by the development, the local traffic is already over crowded, a huge amount of local people, especial school kids walking passing in front of the site, it will be a safety concern about when up to 29 residents cars drive-in and drive-out traffic frequently on Glenferrie Rd.

  20. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Ditto Nicole Ward. Well said and thought through. As residents we know, understand and accept development but pure greed at the expense of common sense NO. This amendment must be refused at every level. Here's hoping it does not end up at VCAT! I have faith in our councillors and planning department to defend residents and our precious surrounds.

  21. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Ditto Nicole Ward. Well said and thought through. As residents we know, understand and accept development but pure greed at the expense of common sense NO. This amendment must be refused at every level. Here's hoping it does not end up at VCAT! I have faith in our councillors and planning department to defend residents and our precious surrounds.

  22. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Obviously there is a push for medium/high density development in areas that can support public transport linkages. Glenferrie Road obviously does this - but it shouldn't be done at the expense of all other factors. People will still own cars, even if they don't drive them to work, and if the purpose is to encourage people to visit the area, visitor / patron parking is essential. The car park ratio cannot be reduced purely so the development margin can increase - we all know basement parking is expensive and the developer clearly doesn't want to have to excavate further or lose an above ground level for parking. Council needs to put the needs of residents, traders and patrons, above the developers profit margin.

    Secondly, if the loading dock is going to be scrapped, where do supplies, deliveries, etc come from? Glenferrie Road itself, or the closest side street? Where do the numerous bins get stored and collected from? This is a ridiculous request and should not even be a consideration.

  23. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Rob Beavis wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    Existing regulations are there to protect the amenity for current and future users. Please do not accept or negotiate these proposals which has the appearance of an ambit claim.

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Janet Hicks commented

    No reduction to anything and no waivers of anything. In the long term, both the residents, retail tenants and community at large will be grateful that short-term savings/profit maximisation were sacrificed for the current needs if not the longer term needs.

  25. In Camberwell VIC on “Post Request(Amended...” at 1 Quinton Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Lyn commented

    That’s another Aged Care facility - located so close to the one already operating on Riversdale Rd. 500mt east of it. I hope that parking facilities for visitors have been recognised as essential and not ‘watered down’ in numbers for the developers benefit.

  26. In Hawthorn VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 7 Lennox Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Pietro Meriggi commented

    The description of the scope is incorrect as the dwelling is NOT in an Heritage Overlay.
    Please update your Planning Alert as soon as possible to reflect the correct terminology as per Council's advertising notice.
    Thank you

  27. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of ten (10)...” at 14 Clapham Street Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Erin Carrington wrote to local councillor Cynthia Watson

    Not only will ten residences not fit on this block, there are an enormous number of properties in the Balwyn area that remain uninhabited because they have been bought for development, and no one wants to live in the frankly revolting new houses being built to replace the charming houses that are a signature of this area. There are a ridiculous number of vacant blocks scattered through the surrounding streets where the developers ran out of money and were not able to complete their builds. What's to stop that from happening here?
    Many of the blocks that now contain numerous dwellings are either totally uninhabited, or the people that do end up renting them do not stay for very long at all. This knock-down and others like it are destroying the area beyond repair.
    Not only do I wish to protest this proposed build, but I would very much like to protest the tearing down of this beautiful residence to begin with. It's a stunning home much beloved by its current renters and by the old owners, and if it were put up for sale again (not to developers) it would become a cherished family home once more. I would much rather see families moving into the area than have it turned into an empty area with no inhabitants and no soul.
    Is there any way to prevent it being torn down? Tearing it down is not sound environmentally, will be incredibly disruptive to the neighbours and the quality of the street, and will be replaced by poorly designed tear-downs in their own right.

    Delivered to local councillor Cynthia Watson. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Hawthorn VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Spencer Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    I agree with Miriam, we have had many happy times in Spencer Street park. The old trees and gentle sloping lawns and even the old fencing all respect the heritage area. Equipment does not have to be the latest and greatest to please children. Surely there are areas that are in greater need for such significant expenditure?

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Hawthorn VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Spencer Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Miriam Faine wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    What is the matter with the old playground? We love this park and it’s play equipment

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  30. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 427 - 429 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy Rea commented

    Are these booths on Bialik property or are they on Government land/ nature strip/ outside of Bialik boundaries

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