Yet again - maximising developer's profits whilst rendering future living more of a hassle for residents. Nearly every development requests reduction of parking requirements - why have regulations if they are never applied?
As development after development reduces its available internal parking, parking problems escalate throughout the nearby area. These problems then flow into adjacent areas. Not everyone can continue to just use public transport or bicycles - if later increases in age, disability, or family requirements mean people may have to use a car, do they then just have to move out of the development they bought into?
Internal car parking should be increased, along with an electric charging station in the development being necessitated.
All recent comments on applications from Moreland City Council, VIC
I support this proposal, and encourage council to support this too! It would allow more people to live in a great area, with excellent amenity, access to jobs, schools and public transport links, as well as more council revenue per service provided.
In addition to my previous comments:
I am missing the overshadowing statements as required by planning (PPN88):
"A planning permit application should include the following information:
The location of any existing domestic rooftop solar energy system on a dwelling on an adjoining lot and the extent of any existing overshadowing.
Shadow diagrams that illustrate the extent of overshadowing created by the building and works on any existing domestic rooftop solar energy system.
A written statement outlining how overshadowing of any existing domestic rooftop solar energy system is proposed to be mitigated. "
I oppose this planned development at 27 Ballarat Street, Brunswick, VIC 3056.
Reasons for my opposition:
* Lack of parking for both cars and bicycles. There are not enough parking spaces as part of the design, less than one per apartment. I addition there are not sufficient available parking spaces in the area for general requirements like deliveries, visitors and general upkeep. There are not even enough bicycle spaces for one bike per bedroom of the building.
* This design shows six stories plus a roof top terrace. This is a very high building on a small plot of land. Building with this density comes at a cost to people and the environment they live in.
* The building will overshadow the direct neighbours Solar Panels at 25 Ballarat Street and there is a very high chance that my Solar panels at 16 Boase Street will be overshadowed during some of the most valuable evening hours. Please beware of the Victoria planning note: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/guides/planning-practice-notes/planning-for-domestic-rooftop-solar-energy-systems
* This building will be visible as a very high concrete wall (22.4 meters) outside my balcony, blocking the evening sun and heavily reducing the value of my property.
* The building will further reduce green garden space and add concrete in an already dense and overheating area of Brunswick. This building will further reduce the livability in the neighbourhood.
* Proposal of only adding 5.2KW of solar generation to a building of that size is not enough to cover usage. A missed opportunity.
* Another cafe? There are a number of empty proposed cafes in buildings like Brunswick Yard and others in the vicinity. The size of the cafe will not allow for a reasonable kitchen, only allowing for yet another coffee shop.
Medium density, mixed use development in the places people want to live is exactly what this city needs more of. Approving this project would provide some much needed housing for the Australians who need it most. Opposing this, in the context of a housing and climate crisis, would be deeply immoral. I urge Moreland city council to approve this plan and many more like it.
I am under the impression, that there can only be single story buildings , to be built in this street.
I believe this application should be rejected on the basis that there were two beautiful trees criminally poisoned on this reserve. Instead, new trees should be planted in line with council commitments to improve the canopy cover in Merri-bek.
Such an overly high density development next to the creek is wrong. The visual impact shall destroy the amenity of the Merri green corridor, crucial to the community, and act as a precedent for more excessive developments in the future. The size of the development must be scaled back.
This level of over development, so close to Merri Creek is not acceptable. the environmental impact and loss of green space and mature trees is highly concerning. The buildings must not exceed 2 stories and be located further back from the pathway to reduce the impact. The Merri Creek green corridor and pathways are a vital resource of our community and environment and needs protection.
1. The embankment and creek frontage must be transferred to the council for public parkland as per the agreement on the title and to prevent the loss of agreed public amenity.
2. The proposed buildings would have an unacceptable impact on the Merri Creek bush corridor.
3. The centreline of the creek is not actually the centre of the creek as the creek appears in the plans. The creek itself may be closer to buildings than shown in the plans creating risk as the buildings would be closer than the 20 metres required by Melbourne Water.
Re: the development at 170 The Avenue Coburg. Housing is needed in our city it is clear, but this should not come at the expense of the environment, particularly so close to the banks of our precious Merri Creek. Having lived in Coburg for decades and been an avid walker in this vicinity for many years, I find it most distressing that this development should be granted private access to the riverbank. It has taken a joint effort of residents, environmental groups, the state government, and council, over 50 years to improve and protect this much loved creek. It has become such a drawcard for recreation, exercise, relaxation, and relief for so many, and the protection of the riverbank areas, and public access and transit is critical; both for people and fauna. The embankment and creek frontage must be transferred to Council as public parkland . To allow such private privilege to our valued and loved public open space would set a seriously dangerous precedent. Thank you
Get Outlook for Android
Blocking any part of the Merri Creek from the public for private consumption is not, I believe, in the spirit of the Merri-bek council who champion green spaces for all.
To make thousands of pedestrians who use Merri Creek for a number of reasons detour around this section will inevitably devalue the land, not increase its potential wealth.
Furthermore, this is an inaccessible option and again, not in the spirit of Council.
Please block the motion to support this development. Or at the very least, keep the Merri path open to the public.
Many thanks for your time and consideration.
This is a large area of land and must be used for housing. It’s close to a huge park, a train and tram stop, and a major bike path. There are a million servos in the area already.
A petrol station does not serve the community, area or state in any meaningful way. It does not help with the housing or homelessness crisis, which is particularly acute in this area.
The Proposal responds appropriately to the relevant policies and matters in the Merri-bek Planning Scheme and should be supported.
The Proposal responds positively to the Clause 65 VPP matters.
The Proposal provides an essential community service to local residents, visitors, last mile road transport operators, taxi and rideshare operators, businesses that need to attend the region by motor vehicle, and cross-regional travellers whose journey routes proceed through this suburb.
The Proposal provides a high quality, contemporary design outcome that is appropriately responsive to the local post-industrial urban context.
The Proposal faces organised community opposition due to an element of local opinion about environmental issues beyond this local government area, and ideology of resident groups.
The Proposal responds positively to the Strategic Context.
The Proposal responds positively to the activity centres policies of Council and State Government.
The Proposal is located in a major activity centre and responds positively to the purpose and objectives of activity centres and the Council policies regarding the hierarchy of activity centres.
The Proposal is located in a significant change area.
The Proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" and Knox v Tulcany confirms that "acceptable" is the standard that needs to be met by planning applications. So planning proposals do not need to be ideal or perfect, but equally they cannot be sub-standard.
Knox CC v Tulcany [2004] VSC 375 18 VPR 229
Rozen & Anor v Macedon Ranges Shire Council & Anor [2010] VSC 583 (14 December 2010)
Cysur Developments Pty Ltd v Merri-bek CC [2023] VCAT 1104
I think this is a suitable use of the land, but I have safety concerns due to how dangerous the Carr Street/Sydney Rd intersection is.
Parking is limited on Carr St and parents may have to park on the opposite side of Sydney Rd for pickup/drop off. There is no way to cross this road safely except using the bridge up the road which is not accessible, nor suitable for people with young children.
Traffic lights should be added at the intersection before or on the proviso that this application is approved.
While a childcare centre might be a suitable use of this site, residents of Carr St have concerns about the impact on traffic and parking in the area and the safety of families. It is likely parents would park in Carr St (where parking is currently unlimited) to drop off children then leave cars parked so they can catch public transport to work elsewhere. Then when older children are dropped off or collected from Mercy College, the result will be traffic chaos.
Council has a duty of care to local residents and the children and families who would use the childcare service. Residents have consistently raised safety concerns with Merri-bek City Council, state and federal representatives about the Coburg Motor Inn. Violent interactions directed at people walking past the accommodation have been reported to Crime Stoppers and police. There have been car fires and drug use repeatedly linked to the premises. With the path of access to the childcare centre past and adjacent to the motor inn from trams, trains and bike paths parents and children will be at risk.
Being residents of Glynda Street in Fawkner, the only issue that we foresee is the traffic that will be created due to the reduction of parking allotments within the site.
We have no objection to the construction of the building itself.
It may be useful to consider only allowing parking on one side of Lowson Street, as it becomes very dangerous navigating through when cars are parked on both sides during events at the centre.
We have in the past had driveways partially blocked, which is a great inconvenience,
there needs to be stricter enforcement, that this doesn't occur, and council needs to be more hands on, in making that happen, rather than turning a blind eye.
There also need to be sufficient bins in the area, as most of the time, food containers are disposed of in people properties and nature strips at the end of the night.
We are home owners of 30 years in the immediate vicinity of this application, and the construction of these dwellings would severely negatively affect our daily life in many ways.
Firstly, these proposed dwellings have driveways on Grandview Avenue, and this would impact an already congested intersection with cars turning in and out of the street plus extra parked cars due to the popularity of Emil's cafe.
Secondly, Grandview Avenue is renowned for it's beautiful character and post-war history. The homes in the area are superb examples of mid century Australia, and 344 Reynard St was (in the hands of the previous owner) the most well preserved example of this elegant era both inside and out. The proposed dwellings would look ridiculous and detract from the overall character and charm of the area.
Thirdly, the construction would have enormous impact on our access to natural light, and our privacy. The lot is already on a rise, so it would completely block light on one side of our house. The occupants of the proposed dwellings would be able to look directly into our dining room, and could stare down into our kitchen as we stand at the sink to look out the window (at a brick wall!)
We are registering our strong objection to this application and would appreciate a response from the council.
Thank you for your time.
We don't need another service station for all the reasons above, and:
There are about 20 service stations within a few minutes drive of this location. The community doesn't need another Servo. More of them doesn't make them competitive.
There are already a couple of old service stations that are currently vacant blocks or temporary businesses on this stretch of Sydney rd. Contaminating another valuable parcel of land with this short-sighted development is not what the community wants.
This site has such great potential to at last enliven this popular pedestrian thoroughfare - please don’t waste it with another petrol station.
The corner is already an extremely ugly and dangerous section of Sydney road for the many cars, cyclists and pedestrians who have to use it. Adding driveways for a petrol station will further complicate this confusing mess.
Also, the area is already well served for petrol stations so this would add nothing. Please put housing there to take advantage of the public transport and drag some life up into this dead zone of Sydney Road.
Please reject this application as it is not needed. A MEGA sized new Liberty petrol and service station is about to open up at less 300 meters away at 539 Sydney road Coburg. The new liberty petrol station is extra large, with EV charging stations and 20 bowers available. There are also FREE EV charging stations very close by at Council civic centre and Pentridge development. Please consider this land for activities that support and promote community health and well being, not environmental destruction & multinational profit.
I strongly oppose the use of this land for a petrol station. Situated between Batman Station and the Coburg Lake Reserve, this is a high traffic area for cyclists and pedestrians. If anything, we should be considering ways to improve the area for families and pedestrians.
Currently, the stretch of pavement between Batman Station and the Lake Reserve is classified as a shared footpath. A petrol station would further disrupt an already uncomfortable commute for thousands.
I travel through this busy intersection many times a week. It is frequently congested with car traffic and also used by many pedestrians and cyclists including school children. A petrol station in this location would further increase the complexity of the intersection and negatively impact both pedestrian safety and traffic flow. As others have noted there are already many service stations in the area so there is no case to add another, especially as we move away from petrol vehicles. I urge the decisionmakers not to permit yet another site to be contaminated and instead support it to be developed to meet essential community needs.
People are either new to the area or don’t remember this site being a service station. If it is to be a service station, have EV chargers, which will be a point of difference to the other facilities nearby.
The objectors are failing to recognise that a multi-storey residential building will increase the traffic and local facilities pressure. I would imagine that it would be a high density building with multiple vehicles and residents. Especially once the building across Sydney Rd is built. I am more concerned that these high density sites will become the ghettos of the future.
I understand the need for housing, but those decisions need to made with forward thinking and planning. Will the roads cope? Is there enough room within the school systems? Will the poorly serviced Upfield train line be able to support a large influx?
I agree with previous comments around housing being the best use of this well-located space from a community perspective.
I use this intersection daily as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian. Having drivers trying to turn off into, or exit from a petrol station in the proposed location is likely to result in increased accidents and road rage incidents. There is already quite a lot of unsafe driving behaviour at this intersection with drivers trying to dodge traffic waiting to turn, or beat turning arrows to avoid lengthy waits.
Drivers using the area are already well served by existing petrol stations. I hope Merri-bek rejects this plan and instead approves something that will benefit the community into the future.