All recent comments on applications from Darebin City Council, VIC

The proposal responds appropriately to the relevant planning scheme matters and should be supported.

The proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" based on the Knox v Tulcany rule.

The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the surrounding site amenity.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 65 VPP matters.

The proposal responds appropriately to the emerging character of the surroundings.

I support this development. It will add some crucial housing stock to a vibrant and amenity rich part of Melbourne. This is an example of sensible housing in the areas people want to live and should be approved without the imposition of further setbacks or car parking requirements that would reduce the number of available dwellings.

The other comments attached to this planning alert is exactly the sort of selfish NIMBYism that has held this city back for too long.

It's about time we just get this sort of thing built.

Writing on behalf of my Grandmother (Nonna), Giovanna who has lived in Thackeray Rd for over 50 years. Giovanna has said they tried to have this beautiful house removed years ago but people fought to have it stay and she says the community are doing the same now. She says it’s important to preserve houses that are well-built, with longer-lasting and quality materials and fears that any kind of new commercial build will surely be compromised in comparison.

Please consider the voices of your council and community.

Thank you

1. This should only be 3 dwellings rather than the planned 4, for the following reasons:
- Sunlight impact to the adjacent property, directly to the west. Townhouses already suffer from short direct sunlight hours due to their height, so measures need to be taken to minimise further impacts to the limited green spaces.
- Additionally, Rathcown Road cannot cope with any further congestion due to high volumes of on street parked cars combined with it being a heavily used thoroughfare for north-south traffic during rush hour (connecting Bouldrewood Pde and Cheddar/Dalton Rds).

2. Additionally for privacy/noise, the driveway needs to run down the western side of the property, as it does with both adjacent properties.

I would like to formally object to the demolition of 64 Thackeray Road, Reservoir.

Our area is rapidly losing its neighbourhood character. There have been many homes in our street which have been recently demolished including an art deco house on the corner of High Street and Thackeray Road. The house at 64 Thackeray is a great example of a classic Californian Bungalow close to 100 years old. This architecture celebrates the history and unique character of the area and is one of the few buildings of its kind left in the neighbourhood.

This home also offers something increasingly rare: a backyard where a family can grow food, children can learn about gardening, and there is space to play. Townhouses with small or no gardens do not provide the same opportunities for outdoor living, connection to nature, or food security. Preserving this home, and its established garden, ensures future residents can experience the benefits of a real backyard—something that high-density developments fail to offer.

While understanding that there is a need for more housing at this time, destroying historically significant houses with environmentally important green space is not the answer. As a resident of Reservoir who intends to buy in the area, I hope for nothing more than to be able to buy a house like this and fear there will be none left in the area.

If we are going to give the green light to the demolition of well preserved heritage homes why even bother having heritage overlays. Council needs to do much better on this one and protect our heritage. Not only should we protecting homes like these we should be following the lead of councils like Yarra and Melbourne and offering grants to restore and preserve and include them as permit conditions on these sites.
I urge the council, respect our streetscape and heritage. The inner north is looking more like Melton by the day.

Save reservoir, stop being greedy Darebin Council you collect and waste enough of our rate money already.

Regards

Dear Darebin Council,

I would like to formally object to the demolition of 64 Thackeray Road, Reservoir.

Our area is rapidly losing its neighbourhood character. There have been many homes in our street which have been recently demolished including an art deco house on the corner of High Street and Thackeray Road. The house at 64 Thackeray is a great example of a classic Californian Bungalow close to 100 years old. This architecture celebrates the history and unique character of the area and is one of the few buildings of its kind left in the neighbourhood.

I understand there is a need to increase housing but that doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice irreplaceable architecture to achieve it.

As a last resort, the preservation of the facade would at least retain the local heritage which we so desperately need.

Please consider this request to save our neighbourhood’s unique character.

I firmly oppose the demolition of 64 Thackeray Road. This rare Californian Bungalow is one of the last of its kind in the ‘Oak Hill’ precinct, embodying the area’s rich character and history. As these homes vanish, so does the unique charm that defines the neighbourhood. Once lost, it cannot be replaced. This property deserves heritage protection to safeguard its value for future generations.

Demolishing a structurally sound home to replace it with low-quality townhouses is incredibly wasteful. The energy and materials embedded in the original build will be lost, with demolition waste contributing to landfill. Meanwhile, new developments often use cheaper materials that deteriorate quickly, requiring further replacement and creating a cycle of unnecessary waste. The environmental cost of construction—resource extraction, transportation, and emissions—makes this type of redevelopment unsustainable.

This home also offers something increasingly rare: a backyard where a family can grow food, children can learn about gardening, and there is space to play. Townhouses with small or no gardens do not provide the same opportunities for outdoor living, connection to nature, or food security. Preserving this home, and its established garden, ensures future residents can experience the benefits of a real backyard—something that high-density developments fail to offer.

While understanding that there is a need for more housing at this time, destroying historically significant houses with environmentally important green space is not the answer. As a resident of Reservoir who intends to buy in the area, I hope for nothing more than to be able to buy a house like this and fear there will be none left in the area.

I implore the council’s consideration on this development and strongly suggest a rejection of these plans.

Thank you for your time and consideration

Dear Darebin Council,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed demolition of 64 Thackeray Road, Reservoir, and the construction of five townhouses on the site. This home, a nearly century-old Californian Bungalow, is a rare and valuable example of early 20th-century architecture, contributing to the character and appeal of the Oak Hill precinct. Once demolished, its historical and architectural value will be lost forever, diminishing the unique charm of our neighbourhood, not to mention the unnecessary waste to landfill.

The property also contains mature trees with cultural and ecological significance. These trees, planted by post-WWII migrant communities, provide vital habitat for native wildlife and should be preserved, particularly in the context of the current climate crisis.

Additionally, the proposed development will not address the need for affordable housing. Five so-called "high-end" townhouses will likely be out of reach for many residents, such as myself, looking to buy, worsening the housing affordability crisis in Reservoir.

I also urge the council to consider the practical impact of such a development. The lengthy construction process of five townhouses would cause extended disruption to the local area, with construction noise, dust, and limited access to the street for residents. Moreover, tradespeople are often stretched thin with multiple jobs and tight schedules, resulting in rushed or poorly managed sites, which only exacerbates the impact on the neighbourhood.

I strongly encourage the council to consider alternative plans that preserve the house and trees, perhaps by integrating the home’s façade into any new development. A more sensitive approach would respect the area's heritage while accommodating new housing in a way that benefits the community.

I respectfully ask that you reject this proposal and prioritise the preservation of 64 Thackeray Road for future generations to enjoy.

Thank you for your consideration.

To the planner responsible for this application,

Whilst I am generally supportive of all new developments, I am afraid the demolition of a largely intact example of a century old home that has not had any 60’s/70’s “improvements” is not something that’s should be considered.
In this particular example there is the benefit of street frontage to Centre Road.
If the original home was to be maintained and restore, with dwellings constructed to the rear with their own street frontages built, thats would be great.
A design that amalgamates the original home whilst still being sympathetic to the housing needs of a growing city could most easily be achieved on this site, especially with the multiple street frontages.
If we are going to give the green light to the demolition of well preserved heritage homes why even bother having heritage overlays. Council needs to do much better on this one and protect our heritage. Not only should we protecting homes like these we should be following the lead of councils like Yarra and Melbourne and offering grants to restore and preserve and include them as permit conditions on these sites.
I urge the council, respect our streetscape and heritage. The inner north is looking more like Greenvale by the day.
Save our streets!

Please don’t knock down the beautiful 100 year old heritage home at 64 Thackeray Rd.
It adds so much beauty and character to our street and suburb.
Knocking it down to build 5 townhouses will only cause problems. Mature trees being cut down, so many good quality materials in landfill, parking congestion, increased traffic and reduced green spaces to name a few.

Dear Darebin Council.

Regarding the proposed demolition of the house at 64 Thackeray Road Reservoir and its replacement with 5 dwellings, this application should be rejected.
1. As residents of Thackeray Rd for well over 40 years we have always considered the home at 64 Thackeray Road to be an iconic feature of our street and due to excessive development is currently one of the few remaining properties that shows the wonderful heritage of the area.
2. Excessive reduction in tree canopy due to developments such as that proposed has directly impacted the population of native animals and birds.
3. The promotion of these developments as affordable housing is false, a vast majority of those who are looking to rent or purchase a property are not in a position where they could afford either in relation to this development.
4. The additional traffic will make Thackeray Rd less safe for residents including not only for cars but cyclists, pedestrians, the elderly and the disabled.
5. Parking in Thackeray Road is already at a level that has turned it into a one-way street, even during the day one has to pull over into an available parking spot or block someone’s driveway to let oncoming traffic through. An example of the parking issues caused by multi-dwelling developments such as that being proposed is the first of three dwellings next to my property, the owners have 3 vehicles all parked in Thackeray Rd, 2 in front of the property and 1 across the road, even though they have a double garage!
6. The damage done to the roads and footpaths by the heavy vehicles and machinery necessary during the demolition and construction phase makes it dangerous for all, Thackeray Road is already a patchwork of road repairs that fail in a very short period.
7. Another adverse and concerning issue, which we experienced, is developers altering approved plans, and building/installing those changes, without prior consultation with those affected by those changes. The troubling examples include
a) The failure of the developer to install privacy screens matching those specified in the approved plans, without consulting us and/or the opportunity to object. When we raised this with Council, officers attended our property to inspect the screens, and gave the distinct impression that the modified screens did not provide appropriate privacy for our property, because we can clearly see into their rooms, and they can clearly look down on us. However, when we followed up after receiving no feedback from Council, we were advised that the developer had asked for an amendment to the plans which was approved and paid for.
b) The relocation of the large electricity meter block and letterboxes to our fence line in contradiction to the approved plans, again without consultation, which required the workmen to be on our property to construct it, without our permission.

I object to this development. Oakville Estate is a jewel in reservoir that has its reputation and value because of the historic homes that have otherwise in reservoir mostly been torn down by developers wanting to make money and councils wanting more rates. I have no issue with developments by husband is one, but not at the expense of homes like this and devaluing suburbs. It’s a short term solution and no one is thinking long term. I wonder if hawthorn or Armadale would still have their same value if developers were allowed to come in tear down those beautiful estates and build squashed in modern townhouses. Approval of this development here and not maintaining this significant Architectural history would speak volumes to the fact that council is doing nothing to preserve history, value or our suburb and sustainability they love to speak of. And if they are not protecting these interests the council is doomed

thackeray rd has been burdened by over-development for several years now - the road itself has become a set of dodgy patches and it gets worse with every development - there are still developments ongoing at the eastern end of thackeray which have been lingering on for years

we've already had the heritage values of our street impacted by shipping off two beautiful post war weatherboard homes for competitive renovating by the block crew in another suburb!

this solid californian bungalow easily 100 years old should be preserved as a part of reservoir's disappearing heritage

the demands that council makes on developers of planting a tree to grow x metres tall is an absolute joke - most of the trees planted are dead within one year and the council never even checks to see if they were planted in the first place!

if council is going to continue to allow this wholesale destruction of the large suburban backyard and our architectural heritage then council needs to at least fully re-evaluate its street tree and parks policy - environmentally useless trees suck as ornamental pears need to be replaced by wattles, small gums, hakeas etc to attract native birds and wildlife to our ever increasing concretised built up streets - you cant grow an environmentally useful tree in a townhouse court yard

centre rd next to 64 thackeray rd is a good example of rubbish street tree planning by council - the nature strip there is huge and several smaller gums or hakeas could be planted on the west side because of the power lines but on the east side we should have a row of ironbarks bringing life all year round to the area

if the council contractors dont have the imagination or ability to design more appropriate streetscapes i am happy to assist

please dont destroy our streets/suburbs heritage at 64 thackeray! and pull your fingers out on developing more appropriate australian streetscapes for a warming future

As a neighbour to this wonderful house, I am dismayed as to how this wonderful home of many decades ago will be permitted to be demolished, thus destroying the lovely streetscape.

I am objecting to the demolition of this home based on the following..

Preservation of Local Heritage
This home is one of the last few original Californian Bungalows in Reservoir that remains largely intact.
It reflects the early suburban growth of Melbourne and the craftsmanship of nearly 100 years ago.
Reservoir is already losing its character due to unchecked development-if this home is demolished, what's next?
Other Melbourne suburbs have successfulty protected their heritage homes through council intervention and resident action. If we stand together, we can ensure the council prioritises local history over developer profits.
2. Developers Will Change Reservoir Forever
If we allow 64 Thackeray Road to be knocked down, we are sending a clear message to developers that our community will accept rapid overdevelopment.
• Developers are flooding Reservoir because of its large blocks and older homes, tearing them down for high-density townhouses.
• We have already seen parking congestion, increased traffic, and reduced green spaces due to poor planning and rushed approvals.
• Once a historic home like this is gone, it is gone forever. It cannot be rebuilt, and our suburb will continue to lose its unique identity.
Other Melbourne suburbs-Northcote, Brunswick, and Coburg-have been overtaken by townhouse developments, drastically changing their neighbourhood charm and community feel. Do we want Reservoir to follow the same path?
3. Impact on Housing Affordability & Community
• Developers promise "affordable housing" but deliver overpriced townhouses.

New high density developments do not help first-home buyors or ronters- they drive up ances.
and push out long-term residents.
•
Farties looking for homes with gardens and space are forced out, replaced by investora buying up naw developments for profit.
Reservoir's demographic is shifting rapidly, with fewer famity-friendly homes and an influx ot high-density buildings with limited parking, creating unsate and overcrowded streets.
4. Environmental Concerns & Green Spaces
The trees and greenery on this property are vital to our local ecosystem.
Previous objectors have highlighted the significance of the mature trees on the site these treus could be re-homed instead of simply being cut down.
Reservoir is already experiencing a decline in tree coverage and green space due to
overdevelopment.
With climate change and heat waves becoming more frequent, the removal of sstablished trees will only make our neighbourhood hotter and less livaable.
What Can You Do?
We need to act fast. Here's how you can help:
1. Lodge an officiat objection with the council - Visit the (Councit's Planning Portal] or contact them directly to voice your concerns.
2. Sign and share petitions - If you know of any local petitions against this development, sign them and encourage others to do the sarne.
3. Spread the word - Talk to your neighbours, friends, and family about the impuct of this development.
4. Attend council meetings - A strong resident presence will show the council we care about our community.
5. Contact your local councillors - Let them know that this type of development is not in the best interests of Reservoir.
A Compromise - Retaining the Facade
IF the worst-case scenario is that development must proceed, the council should at least require the preservation of the home's facade. This approach has been successfully implemented in many other Melbourne suburbs and would help maintain the heritage streetscape while allowing for modern use of the land behind it.
Final Thought - Our Neighbourhood, Our Responsibility
If we do nothing, developers will continue to push into Reservoir, tearing down historic homes and replacing them with cheap, high-density, poorly planned townhouses. We are already seeing the negative effects across our suburb-we cannot allow this trend to continue unchecked.
We have a chance to protect our community's history and character. Let's come together and make our voices heard.
Sincerely,

Lisa Neven.
Concerned Resident of Darebin.

There are significant trees on this site. Please preserve them. Once 4 houses are built on this site I doubt there will be any room for trees, just shrubs like the other townhouses on the street. Furthermore this property provides greenery that helps cool our streets. The way townhouses are built now there is far too much concrete that is heating up our streets!

Please please consider the trees and all they provide to the suburb, people and wildlife.

I would like to object to the demolition of this well built, solid, historical house as well as the proposed 5 townhouses.

I am totally shocked at the amount of well built houses being demolished and ending up in landfill in the city of Darebin.

The house standing on 64 Thackeray is almost one hundred years old and still standing strong. It has unique architecture that once gone from our streets we will never get back.

Whilst I understand the need for more housing it needs to be done in a sensible manner. Replacing 1 house with 5 houses is not sensible. It makes street parking a real issue as well as further congestion on our roads. Perhaps a sensible sub division could be considered instead of demolition of this significant house.

Furthermore from what I can see of knock downs and rebuilds in Reservoir is that the property loses all trees it once had and are not replaced because there is no room for a garden or a significant tree when townhouses are crammed onto the site. Our suburb is becoming hotter because of this!

I hope you take my objection seriously and think seriously about the future of our suburb.

We absolutely oppose the development of units on this site and this dwelling needs to be preserved!!!
As a long time resident of Thackeray Rd (1992) we chose to purchase a Californian bungalow for its imposing road side presence and architecture, a true work of art built to last by quality builders. Testament to their build quality is that these buildings after almost 100years are as strong as the day they were built and still standing, something that I feel cannot be said for the new builds of today.
We need to take a look at how other major cities around the world have embraced their architectural heritage and preserved, maintained it and are proud of it. Knocking these beautiful buildings down to build as many boxes on a site a possible is criminal, the suburb loses its identity and congests the streets for which consideration has been paid to the road condition and its maintenance (potholes and tarmac patches top to bottom)
As a rate payer what benefit do other residents get from the potential 5 rates being paid to council from the multi rate paying sites??? A reduction in their rates??? I dont think so!!! Once again a short sighted cash grab for no benefit other than the councils

I would like to object to the development proposal lodged for 64 Thackeray st. These original 1920s homes are becoming rarer in the area and once lost, the historical character of a neighbourhood can never be regained. This home displays many unique architectural features of the era and is a valuable example of the kinds of homes that make the Oak Hill neighbourhood of reservoir a desirable place to live.

This property houses many established trees, harking back to the post war migrant communities, and these trees provide food and homes to the native wildlife in the area. In a time of climate crisis, we need to protect as many established trees as possible.

Developments of this nature rarely result in affordable housing, with developers only seeking to maximise their profits. In addition, the increased traffic and parking required to accommodate 5 townhouses would create a congested and unsafe conditions for residents.

I strongly urge you to reject this planning proposal and make strides to preserve this significant home.

Dear Darebin Council,

I am writing to express my firm and urgent objection to the proposal for the demolition of the property located at 64 Thackeray Road, Reservoir. This home, built in the late 1920s, is an original Californian Bungalow and a rare and valuable example of the architectural heritage that has shaped our community. The historical and cultural significance of this home cannot be overstated, and I strongly believe it must be protected from demolition, in accordance with the principles of heritage conservation and community heritage values.

Heritage Protection and Legal Precedents

The home at 64 Thackeray Road is part of a unique and dwindling architectural legacy that has contributed to the character and identity of Reservoir. As outlined in the Heritage Act 2017 (Victoria), places of local heritage significance are eligible for protection through inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register or local planning controls. The Californian Bungalow style is a defining feature of early 20th-century suburban Melbourne, and this property exemplifies the craftsmanship and design aesthetic that is integral to our local history. It is crucial that the council recognises the importance of preserving this structure, especially when considering the long-term cultural and social value it holds for both current and future generations.

In the case of properties like 64 Thackeray Road, local councils have a responsibility under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider the historical significance of buildings when making decisions on redevelopment proposals. This includes the need to balance the desire for new development with the protection of properties that contribute to the area’s unique character.

As a matter of urgency, I request that this property be assessed for potential heritage listing, either at the state or local level, to ensure it is formally protected from demolition.

Environmental Considerations

In addition to its historical and architectural importance, the site contains mature trees that are of local significance. As noted in the previous objection, these trees—planted by post-WWII immigrants and an integral part of the landscape—should not be removed without serious consideration. These trees are vital not only for their ecological role in supporting native wildlife, but also as living reminders of the community’s cultural heritage.

In alignment with Victoria’s Planning and Environment Act and in keeping with local planning guidelines, it is imperative that these trees are either preserved or, at the very least, carefully re-homed if removal is unavoidable. The destruction of mature trees during the current climate crisis undermines broader sustainability efforts, which is why their conservation or relocation must be a priority in any redevelopment plans. I fully support the call to protect and preserve these trees, and I urge the council to ensure they are given due consideration in the planning process.

Development Impact and Housing Affordability

While the proposal includes plans for new townhouses to be developed behind the existing structure, the potential negative impact on the local housing market must be addressed. The construction of five high-end townhouses will likely result in properties that are out of reach for many residents, further exacerbating the housing affordability crisis that Melbourne, and in particular Reservoir, is grappling with.

Developments of this nature rarely contribute positively to housing security, especially in areas where a significant number of residents are struggling to find affordable housing. Instead, they displace long-standing community members, further marginalising those who already face barriers to home ownership or rental opportunities. The limited supply of well-maintained detached homes like the one at 64 Thackeray Road is a key part of what makes the area desirable to a wide range of people. The demolition of this property would significantly reduce the availability of this important housing stock.

Moreover, townhouse developments in the area have already caused parking and traffic congestion issues. The proposed development will likely exacerbate these problems, especially on Thackeray Road and Centre Street, where already limited on-street parking is creating dangerous conditions for residents and road users alike. The loss of an original home for a new, less sustainable, and higher-density development is ultimately not in the best interest of the community.

Recommendation for Preservation and Fair Development

Given the historical, environmental, and community significance of 64 Thackeray Road, I strongly recommend that the council explore avenues for preserving the house in some form, even if that means incorporating the front facade or key architectural features into any proposed new development. The community would support a thoughtful, sensitive redevelopment that preserves the legacy of this home while allowing for new, respectful development behind it. Retaining at least the front façade of the home would honour the past while accommodating necessary modern growth.

At the very least, I implore the council to prioritise the protection of this home’s facade or elements that reflect its original character, ensuring that this near-century-old example of Californian Bungalow architecture continues to contribute to the unique character of our neighbourhood.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the council to reject the proposal to demolish 64 Thackeray Road and to prioritise its preservation through heritage protection or adaptive reuse. If demolition is unavoidable, it is crucial that the facade and historical features are retained in any redevelopment plan, ensuring that this near-century-old example of Californian Bungalow architecture continues to contribute to the unique character of our neighbourhood.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I would object to this tree removal, on two primary grounds. Firstly is the loss of local habitat for indigenous species. The local area has already lost much of its large tree coverage and species such as owls, frogmouths and flying foxes are losing ecosystems.

Secondly the loss of local tree cover and shade is increasing the ambient temperature during summer. During the hottest days large trees provide passive cooling to ambient temperature for sometimes 100m around. This cooling can be up to 8c on the hottest days and even one degree lower can lower the chance of heat stroke or worse for some local residents.

If 76 people were notified why was this so, does this property have a single dwelling covenant. If it does, why weren't all the beificiaries notified. Could you please clarify if the property has a single dwelling covenant.

Hi, I'd like to object to this proposal, this house is one of a few Californian Bungalow's left in Reservoir that is preserved almost in its original condition. It is an example of a quality of construction and design that is rapidly disappearing from the area, which is a detriment to many of us who aspire to rent or buy good quality homes. This house is an example of why the 'Oak Hill’ precinct is beloved, these period homes lift our neighbourhood up, lending a quality to the area that cannot easily be replicated once we've lost them. The house and those that are left like it, should be preserved with a heritage protection applied. The impact on the amenity of the street and on the environment caused by knocking it down will be severely negative.

In the garden on this property are a selection of old significant trees (adhering to the local planning laws of significance being 8m tall) including fruit and food trees that are a legacy of immigration into the area post WWII of greek and italian migrants. They include: several varieties of citrus such as lemon, almond, cherry, fig and loquat. In addition there are old magnolia trees and a host of plants that are vital habitat and food source for the pollinators and native wildlife such as possums and birds that are barely clinging onto life in our suburbs. It’s hard to countenance the removal of such a tree canopy in a time of climate crisis, food scarcity and environmental degradation.

There is no way that my friends in the area who are locked out of the housing market will be able to afford to rent or buy the dwellings proposed: 5 brand new townhouses will be expensive to rent or to buy. They will do nothing to improve housing security. Instead what is scarce, older detached dwellings, will become more scarce, pushing those homes further out of reach for renters and buyers who dream of living in them. Furthermore, townhouse builds on Thackeray Road are already resulting in an on-street parking issue, with both sides of the road taken up by surplus cars that can’t fit into the one-car garages these developers supply with the dense builds they undertake. It’s making the street dangerous to drive down and in this case will result in reduced visibility and access on two roads, both Thackeray Road and Centre Street.

I would like 64 Thackeray Road to be preserved, I would like the developer to work with us in the street so we can keep as many trees as possible and move those that can’t be kept to other backyards (I have three people on the street lined up who would love to rehome them in the area). Then it would be reasonable for the developer to build 1 or 2 houses on the back of this old home if they won’t agree to preserve the whole garden and garages.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Can I please be sent all relevant documents for this application?

Can I please be sent all relevant documents in relation to this development?