Recent comments on applications from Moreland City Council, VIC

  1. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of land for two...” at 215 Albert Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Anjelica Angwin commented

    Hello,

    I live at 213 Albert Street, Brunswick – neighbouring the developing property.
    My concern is that my bedroom window faces the property currently under construction. I want to enquire, and ultimately ensure, that the proposed dwelling (on all three levels) does not look into the privacy of my already existing bedroom.

    What kind of windows are envisaged on the easterly facing side of the property?

    I am looking forward to your response.

    Regards,

    Anjelica Angwin

  2. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of land for two...” at 215 Albert Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Anjelica Angwin commented

    Hello,

    I live at 213 Albert Street, Brunswick – neighbouring the developing property.
    My concern is that my bedroom window faces the property currently under construction. I want to enquire, and ultimately ensure, that the proposed dwelling (on all three levels) does not look into the privacy of my already existing bedroom.

    What kind of windows are envisaged on the easterly facing side of the property?

    I am looking forward to your response.

    Regards,

    Anjelica Angwin

  3. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 9 Somerset Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Jeanette Williamson commented

    I am concerned about current traffic congestion in this street when news multi dwelling developments have inadequate parking on site.Parking exemptions should not be allowed for new develpments.This is a narrow court that has cars parked accessing the Pascoe Vale station, a development of 6 town houses at 3 Somerset st with parking exemptions has demonstrated the problem to date. Residents cars from units in 3 Somerset are too large to fit in narrow cark park spaces and so are parked on the street making entrance and exit from adjoining properties difficult.Residents have multiple vehicles-not bikes. My elderly mother required two ambulances at 7 am in the morning (no station cars) in a medical emergency.The ambulance struggled to access my property at 6 Somerset due to cars parked on either side of the street. Entry to Somerset from Gaffney is already tight and dangerous development must consider adequate onsite parking arrangements for safety and traffic management

  4. In Coburg VIC on “Use of the land for a Hotel...” at Lot S6 Champ Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Martin Barnes commented

    Which part exactly is Lot S6? Is this within the pentridge walls across the road? If so I have no objection.

  5. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 234 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    JOHN SULLIVAN commented

    Hi,

    I am a resident of the Moreland city council and I object to a six storey dwelling in a residential zoning.

    Please reconsider the size of this building.

    Please consider 1 car space for each 1 bedroom apartment and 1.5 car spaces for each two bedroom and 2 car spaces for each 3 bedroom apartment. Visitor car spaces of 20% to total dwellings should also be considered if the building is to go ahead, (35 apartments = 7 visitor spaces)

    On the immediate street front should have 2 designated car share (eg. goget) car parks with adequate parking signage.

    Appeasing the aforementioned is the only way I would provide my support as a Moreland citizen.

    Regards,

  6. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 234 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    shelia Burgess commented

    Disgusting now 35 plus cars parked on the road, along with cars parked from the railway station. Noticed people from new developments on Waterloo rd mostly park on the road, as garage assess is very poor, due to poor design of driveway.

  7. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 234 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Zoe Anderson commented

    Seriously Moreland Council. 35 dwellings on this size block? Your planners must have the worst nights sleep destroying our local municipality like this. Shame, shame, shame!

  8. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Suzi commented

    The development Moreland approves is disgusting compared to other councils. Our streets have become hazards and our comfort, privacy and safety has been compromised. It is purely in the favour of builders at all times for their own purpose of Making money! Write to your local members which is what I have been doing to make it known that enough is enough

  9. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Sarah commented

    Austin crescent has become an overpopulated and overcrowded street.
    There are too many cars already parking in the street. When people visit us, they can never get a carpark out the front of our house anymore. A lot of the townhouse residents park on the street now, as there is not enough parking in their own developments. It is dangerous to even reverse out of your driveway with the amount of cars and traffic in the street already.
    Our neighbours had a fire truck called out last year for an incident, and they even had issues getting down the street with so many cars parked along it and in the way.
    Town planning and the councillors need to really consider allowing any more dense developments being built in Austin crescent.
    10 more double storey dwellings in such a small, confined space puts extra strain on our already overcrowded street.
    That equals another 30 bins put out on the street on some Wednesdays (taking up 30+ metres of street space) and potentially at least another 10+ cars parked on the street each day and night.
    Please reconsider the number of dwellings allowed to be built.

  10. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of the land by...” at 21 Northumberland Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Sharmina Aktery commented

    Hi to all,

    I think it's great that a project of this scale is occurring in this area. The large number of proposed dwellings (73) is likely to have a positive impact on Gaffney Village and contribute to more foot traffic there which will definitely contribute to increased business activity and local job creation. It would also contribute to increased community interactions and a greater sense of community in the area.

    At the moment, Gaffney village is quite lacking in amenities and lacks variety in terms of the number of business (food venues, retail, etc.) available for residents to access. Higher-density developments would certainly make a positive impact in supporting existing business in incentivising new business to prop up in the area.
    Moreover, this hilly side of Pascoe Vale is in an excellent location for large higher density developments due to its proximity to the train station, Gaffney village, City Link, good schooling zones, shopping centre access (DFO Essendon), large number of parks and due to other large nearby developments already in place. It is starting to bring a city vibe with a suburban lifestyle - which is great as residents can enjoy the best of both worlds.

    I totally support this project and from experience can say that this project would make an overall positive impact on the overwhelming majority of residents in the area and provide extra support to local business to expand or for new businesses to open in the area. It would increase the turnout to the plethora of parks and reserves in the area which at the moment are quite deserted and lacks community activity. Increasing population in the area through this development would certainly make a positive impact in increasing turnout to parks and increase the sense of community and social interaction at parks. It would make parks less scary as they will be deserted less often. The increasing population would also incentivise the council to invest more in the area through amenities and facilities to cater for the population, which would otherwise not be possible.

    It would be utterly selfish towards everyone else in the area to reject this project which would bring so much benefit to the area just because one does not like big buildings, or would like to live in a past era where people built just one building on a block. Times have changed, the population has changed, demographic has changed, its time for those peoples' mindset to change as well!!

    Kind Regards

  11. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Daniela R. commented

    Issues related to parking are increasing in so many streets in PV and projects like this do not help. It is time the council wakes up to issues like ambulances not being able to access houses anymore. Our neighbours are elderly and when the husband needed an ambulance a little while ago it could not get to their house because of too many cars parked on both sides of the street, leaving only a narrow line to drive through. And this is now true for so many streets in the area. I understand the demand for more townhouse dwellings but related parking approvals and the overall impact on a street need to be examined more carefully. Perhaps it is time to limit off street parking to one side of the road in the most congested streets.

  12. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Sam commented

    Dear Councillors,
    I strongly object to the development of 10 double story dwellings on 66 Austin crescent. My family and I have been residents of the street for over 25 years and are disheartened by the destruction of the neighborhood over the years.
    -Recent developments have put pressure on our roads, infrastructure and public transport
    -Pascoe Vale has already become overpopulated, making it extremely difficult for residents who commute and have to struggle with over crowded trains
    -An addition of 10 dwellings will increase overpopulation, pollution, noise and further destroy our beautiful streetscape and limit our on street parking
    Please reconsider the number of dwellings constructed in our already over crowded street.
    Kind regards,
    Sam

  13. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Mike Citizen commented

    I have lived in this Street for almost 27 years. It was once so peaceful and tranquil. Over the decades I have watched this, once quiet street become so congested to the point I struggle to even put my bins out. Several dozen cars parked on each side of the nature strip which makes even reversing out of your driveway an arduous task. To think that another 10 townhouses will be built on two blocks of land is beyond ridiculous on an already overpopulated Street. I hope MCC empathizes with the residents. Hopefully our voices, long time residents will be heard.

  14. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Fatma Zeydan commented

    The development of 10 double story dwellings in such a narrow, quiet street is absolutely absurd. Street parking is already proving to be tight with recent developments of 4-5 townhouses being erected.. but 10? Surely this cannot be allowed to go ahead. Noise pollution, over population and overcrowding will be an issue along with a lack of on street parking.

    Rather than overburdening Melbourne's suburbs with an unreasonably dense population, I would like to see a push for the development of Melbourne regional and outer suburbs with appropriate infrastructure and facilities.

    I am not opposed to development of a reasonable number of dwellings.. 10 however is far from reasonable and I hope the council can stand alongside it's residents with this one.

  15. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Marisa Pintado commented

    This development is very inappropriate for this street and will create issues for the on-street parking and traffic for residents. The neighbourhood is far better-suited to residential living.

  16. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Rick commented

    This development is far too dense for this street. It has no additional access and will create issues for the on-street parking and traffic for residents. Kindly reconsider this plan.

  17. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Danny Parks commented

    This land should be rezoned residential In my opinion. It is a lovely neighbourhood and better suited to residential living

  18. In Coburg VIC on “Internally illuminated high...” at 1 Champ Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Annely Aeuckens commented

    While I understand that a certain level of signage is necessary, I am concerned about the overall impact on the site (ie heritage buildings), the environment and surrounding residential properties. A few of the proposed signs are close to 13 square metres in size, which is quite large. I would like to have the matter of these signs re-examined as to whether they are suitable as applied for by the developer.

  19. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Eve Eaton commented

    This is overdevelopment in a very small, no through street that is predominantly residential. Please reconsider this planning permit.

  20. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 133A Hope Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Angela McGrath commented

    This will really spoil the entrance to the park that is used by so many. This needs community consultation absolutely. Very happy to support sporting clubs (as part of the broader community), understand they need storage, however not in an inconvenient location like this that detracts from this great community green space. Perhaps consider where buildings already exist near the carpark.

  21. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 133A Hope Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Fiona Riley commented

    I agree that this storage shed should be removed from tender until a proper community consultation has taken place. The planning application is misleading by excluding this building. The proposed building is being inconsiderately placed in an area that not only would obscure views of the grandstand but also take up valuable green space in the area. I agree with grandstand renovations but an alternative proposal for this large structure should be considered.

  22. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 133A Hope Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Fiona Riley commented

    I agree that this storage shed should be removed from tender until a proper community consultation has taken place. The planning application is misleading by excluding this building. The proposed building is being inconsiderately placed in an area that not only would obscure views of the grandstand but also take up valuable green space in the area. I agree with grandstand renovations but an alternative proposal for this large structure should be considered.

  23. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 133A Hope Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Chris Lyons commented

    The planning appliction also includes a 5m high tin storage shed and scoreboard located at the park entrance (near the cricket nets). The tin shed will obscure large parts of the view of the heritage grandstand from the street, neighbouring residents and park users. I have been advised that the Council doesn't require a heritage permit for the construction of a 5m high shed (despite the heritage overlay) and the council's heritage advisor did not consider a heritage assessment was necessary. This appearas to be a huge double standard to how council requires assessments for any other works in a heritage area. No community consultation has occured (i live directly across the street, my view of the grandstand will be directly effected. I support the club room redevelopment, but the storage shed should be removed from the tender until a proper options assessment and community consultation has been completed.

  24. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition in a...” at 836-838 Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Nadine commented

    Completely unjustified development in an already congested and over-developed part of Sydney Road. This heritage building must be preserved to maintain character and history in the street.

    It's completely outrageous that we are claiming heritage overlay restrictions on domestic builds in our streets and yet, these buildings at the forefront of our main streets, can be knocked down and developed into monstrosities. Where's the logic?

  25. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of an eight...” at 6-8 Wilson Avenue, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    CAROL commented

    Seriously all this reduced parking request. Our streets are already full as it is, do we need any more multi development units for the council to make money on and residents in the building and surrounding struggle to get cars on the road.
    There are many people who need a car for kids, work etc and can't use only public transport.

  26. In Brunswick East VIC on “Building and works to...” at 5-9 Brunswick Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    darren commented

    I second this REJECT THIS! Yet another oversized and over dense developer profit-centre. Brunswick Road is turning into a windswept canyon. There will do nothing to bring down house prices and is like most of these buildings, a near-future sky slum.

  27. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition in a...” at 836-838 Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Emeritus Professor Alexander Grishin AM commented

    This building proposal for the construction of a six-storey building with 34 units + 3 Offices + 3 retail outlets including a café should be rejected on three grounds.
    1) It involves the destruction of a classic, more than century old Art Nouveau structure, rendered in the Romanesque manner. This is a very important part of our heritage and I was hoping that the time for the destruction of our cultural heritage, the age of barbarism, was over and we would try to retain the little that is left.
    2) The proposed structure is a case of gross and ugly over-development in what is already a most congested part of Sydney Road. It is out of character for the neighbourhood and surely we do not want to move into this direction in the planning for our city.
    3) The over-development is so extreme that even the bare minimum car parking regulations have been ignored and the proposed plans fall short by at least 30 car spaces of the mandated minimum requirements. If this development is approved serious questions need to be asked of council and its building codes. This over-development and the restriction of parking will have a negative impact on the cultural and environmental life in the area, one greatly frequented by children and the elderly, endangering their health and safety.

  28. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Joanne commented

    The plans weren't accessible on the MCC website to view but I am wondering how 10 units are being squeezed onto a block size that at the most fits 5 units (4 is more comfortable)?

  29. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Anthony commented

    10 with Two car parks which will be taken up with residents anyway. Excellent keep squeezing Austin crescent to non- assessable status.
    I’ve got nothing against developments but common sense needs to prevail.
    Serious MCC wake up... or maybe it’s time for administrators too to clean up the council.

  30. In Brunswick East VIC on “Building and works to...” at 5-9 Brunswick Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Robert Follis commented

    REJECT THIS! Yet another oversized and over dense developer profit-centre. Brunswick Road is turning into a windswept canyon. There will do nothing to bring down house prices and is like most of these buildings, a near-future sky slum.

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