All recent comments on applications from Yarra City Council, VIC

The application is consistent with the relevant policies and objectives of the Yarra Planning Scheme and should be supported.

The proposal responds positively to the Purpose of the General Residential Zone Clause 32.08 in the Yarra Planning Scheme.  There are no Neighbourhood Character Objectives specified in the Schedule to this Zone.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 54 and 55 matters in the Yarra Planning Scheme.  Indeed the Schedule states no particular requirements to be met for the Clause 54 and 55 matters, except the tabled standards.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay in the Yarra Planning Scheme.  Indeed the Schedule states:  2.0Buildings and works 21/07/2022 C263yara "A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works".

I shall quote relevantly from Clause 43.02:
Buildings and works
Permit requirement
A permit is required to:
Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply:
■If a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required.

The proposal is an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and will not have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal are an appropriate response to the context and will not have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties.

The proposal presents a positive response to the emerging character of the surrounds.

The proposal responds positively to the City of Yarra Spatial, Economic and Employment
Strategy.

The proposal responds positively to the Strategic Context.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 65 matters within the Victorian Planning Principles.

The proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" as related by the following:
Gordon Avenue Investments Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2021] VCAT 1005
Knox CC v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375

The proposal responds appropriately to the City of Yarra Planning Scheme and Council's other planning policies and should be supported.

Proposal responds positively to the Clause 43.02 matters and also the Objectives stated in the Schedule.

The proposal responds positively to the emerging demographic trends of the locality.

Due to the car parking lot located west of the subject site, and mid rise commercial uses located south, and east, of the subject site, any overshadowing impacts contemplated are trifling and unremarkable.

The proposal will not have any unreasonable amenity impacts upon any surrounding sites or the public realm.

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

The proposal responds positively to the strategic context.

The proposal responds appropriately to the Clause 65 matters within the Victorian Planning Principles.

The proposal is an "acceptable planning outcome" as related by the following:
Gordon Avenue Investments Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2021] VCAT 1005
Knox CC v Tulcany Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 375

Concerned about potential impact of light access & also views from apartments on lower levels of 183 Bridge Road as well as lower levels of building to be placed at 2-6 Hull Street.
Objection to this aspect being overlooked & the residents quality of life impacted by limited daytime sunlight, close proximity of shadow, noise & aesthetics.
More so for buildings to the south of the new development of course due to nature of sun & shade on south side.

Understand that housing supply issues are being focused upon but longer term- the risk of creating dark , ghettos will further contribute to alienation of the human community members many of whom have had a harrowing ordeal of pandemic isolation during lockdowns. Aside from economic pressures.

Also concerned about how this building development supports YCC stated vision of Social Safety- mental & physical wellbeing if limited sunlight access is further diminished by buildings designed for maximum output but limited consideration for the inhabitants that the housing, retail commercial spaces need to service.
What green areas are being considered for this local population in both existing & new buildings that support a longer term stated vision of Environmental Sustainability.

Aside from these broader community issues- economically unwise designs drive value down for all apartments concerned- investment or resident- the costs are already felt post-covid- there is not a huge amount of wiggle room left & not every owner has deep pockets to shoulder the losses resulting from diminishing additions to a very tight corner of Richmond.

I have made no donations.

My concern is with height restrictions and reduction in car parking requirements. Any development must be limited to the 3-4 storeys committed to by council in keeping with the current area plan. There is ongoing pressure on the area with reduced car parking being granted with each new application. Although public transport is nearby it does not reduce car use from new buildings and their guests. Any new development must support itself with regards to parking

I do not support the scope or size of this application. I live in a two story property on the west side of George Street between Moore and St David streets. I am very concerned about the noise that will travel from the upstairs entertainment facilities in the proposal. It will directly affect the amenity of the back of my property, including my garden, back deck and pariticularly my upstairs bedroom. A significant amount of noise already comes in from the Napier and this is only at ground level.
I am also very concerned at the lack of parking - this seems like a very poor planning decision given the already crowded parking in surrounding streets (including in George Street)
Please do not go ahead with the upstairs restaurant/bar and please ensure parking is included.

The application is consistent with the relevant policies and objectives of the Yarra Planning Scheme and should be supported.

A proposal adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject site, faced some organised community opposition and a refusal by Council, in anticipation of this I submit the 40-44 Smith Street proposal is an appropriate planning outcome citing case of 46-52 Smith Street titled Three Towers Group Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2022] VCAT 593

All sites east of the sites to be consolidated in the proposal are Mixed Use Zone MUZ.

The subject site is within 3km of the Melbourne CBD and within walking distance of several tram and bus transport routes with frequent daily scheduled services.

The proposal responds positively to Clause 43.02 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

The proposal responds positively to Clause 34.01 of the Yarra Planning Scheme.

The Purpose of Clause 34.01 ibid is:
To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

******To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.****** [emphasis added]

The proposal responds positively to Clause 65 of the VPP.

The proposal responds positively to the Knox v Tulcany rule.

The carparking reduction aspect of proposal responds positively to Council's policies that discuss public transport and response to climate change, declining use of private vehicles for commuting purposes to Collingwood workplaces according to census data, and the emerging character is indeed also one of reducing use of motor cars and increased public and active transport use as well as reductions in household car ownership.

The proposal is an appropriate response to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and will not have an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties.

Due to the surrounding overlays and uses permitted including heights, any overshadowing at equinox generated by the proposal will be unremarkable and not generate any unreasonable amenity impacts upon surrounding sites and the public realm.

The proposal presents a high quality activation and revitalisation opportunity befitting the local emerging character.

The proposal presents an positive response to the emerging character of the surrounds.

The proposal responds positively to the Strategic Context.

An unremarkable proposal overall except for the aspect that seems to pave the parking area.

Responds positively to the streetscape.

Fence proposed is context responsive and avoids any risks of dominance in the streetscape.

If fence height is below 1200mm, the regular proposed use may be excessively dominant in the streetscape - positive response to context requires subservience to the streetscape.

Will slightly reduce on street parking but given emerging character, and the current local parking controls, the impacts would be unremarkable.

While I anticipate some people may be disappointed with the loss of one on street parking spot for their households or visitors use, no right or entitlement attaches to that spot for the benefit of anybody -- indeed any gradual cumulative reduction in on street parking bays would reduce vehicle congestion in the street.

I have concerns about the proposal reducing site permeability and that a large paved area may:

Increase inundation of adjacent sites during heavy rain,
Alter the direction, velocity and volume of overland water flows,
Increase light reflectivity which will adversely impact surrounding amenity at night.

Would like to see more serious contemplation of maintaining same, or some, continuing permeability in the on site parking area.

Would like to see materials and colours that avoid excessive light reflectivity.

Overall I have no objection to the proposed use, just requesting conditions added for environment and amenity.

The proposed height is much higher than an 8-story residential building. If unchanged, it will even overshadow the tallest buildings in the area while being located on a very narrow street.
The referenced buildings regarding height approval, face either the river or Victoria street on their tall side; which are both much wider than Duke street.
All referenced buildings have major height reductions on the inner side of the development area.
The proposal rightly suggests that this area is transforming into a residential area, therefore there need to be strict height limitations and setbacks so it does not lead to building live-in boxes.
The proposed height considering the very narrow streets on each side overshadows the existing and future developments in the area and will affect the well-being of the residents.
Transport assessment document item 8.2.3 quotes: "In relation to customers, short term parking is available in the vicinity to accommodate any potential customer / visitor demands."
There are no accessible parking spots within at least 500m of this site during the day unless they intend to use the Vic Gardens shopping centre which is 800 meters away. There is a handful of 1P spots in the area that are never empty.
Our building has a Facebook group and 50% of the posts in the last couple of years are regarding parking issues and lack of parking availability in the area.
The unavailability of accessible parking spots in this area is a major concern for all the residents.
Also, a building with many offices and shops needs at least a loading area and a few visitor parking spots so the moving and delivery trucks don't block the road.
Duke Street is already congested even without this massive office building (look at Google maps if you don't want to do an onsite visit).
The sidewalk on Duke street is not wide enough for an office building this size and the council needs to consider pedestrians and a dedicated bike lane for further approvals in the area.
Most new developments in the area are bought by investors and then rented out to young people or new immigrants that don't know they can have a voice. It is the council's duty to advocate for the residents of this area.

I can’t see much on the City of Yarra site other than this is a $95,000 electronic sign. Questions: how big and what type of advertising? How does the sign fit with current and future development particularly apartments on corner of Stawell Street? Does it fit with the balance of new development versus the character of old? Thanks

What size buildings would be developed? Development of large buildings:

---significantly adds to urban heat in our area

---disrupts our area's heritage character including the site's neighbouring buildings and the grand established avenue, Victoria Parade

---blocks sunlight to the trees on Victoria Parade, which are a key factor in reducing urban heat and a critical source of natural beauty for this area

---casts shade and overall darkens the surrounding area

---introduces too many more people (residents, service providers, customers etc.) and too much more traffic to an already congested area.

If substantial development is proposed, please reject this planning application.

I object to this venue receiving licensing at the rear of the property. As a neighbour in the apartment building next door, many residents bedrooms are parallel with 171 Smith streets external area. To have this as a public, outdoor and licensed venue until 1am most evenings would cause significant noise pollution and would be absolutely detrimental to our health and well-being. Please consider making licensed areas indoors only, and or courtyard licensing until latest 10pm given the impact to local residents.

This property & it's occupants are surrounded by controversy, and their high profile doesn't give them licence to go above council regulations.

Play by the rules or take them down, they're ugly.

I have serious concerns over this development, as a resident and owner and 17 Paterson Street this is going to seriously affect my property. First there is the access to my off street parking which will be much harder to access adding to the already overcrowded streets. More concerning is the distance and height of the new building which will completely block any light in the afternoons but much worse, the proposal has balconies and windows overlooking my yard taking away my privacy. Currently the area immediately adjacent to the rear laneway is the carpark area but the new building will be right on the boundary changing the entire aspect of the area. Then there is the proposed reduction in visitor parking further stressing the crowded streets for locals.

I support the application for approval.

Ask to add consent conditions that roof space be reserved so that any units not participating have an opportunity to access a portion of the roof, including for each, a portion of the north facing roof area, at any time in future should those units owners or residents decide later to have their own solar panels installed.

The plans be amended to reflect these conditions and then form part of the final endorsed plans and any subsequent work not be undertaken contrary to those plans except with approval of the responsible authority.

It is too late the Yarra Council bends over backwards for developers. Richmond is ruined. It is all about $$$$ for developers and council rates nobody cares about residents.

I too strongly object the size and scale of this development. Bridge rd is turning into New York, full of concrete and overshadowing that plunges the street filled with cafes into cold darkness, starved of any sunlight. Look at what Richmond Traders building as done to Citizens park, there’s no sun on it in the afternoon now. Who is actually driving all this obscene size of developments, because if you ask the locals and residents it’s not what we want. Plus we are the ones that end up having to pay for all the sewerage and infrastructure upgrades. I agree with previous objections, stop ripping the soul out of Richmond!!

Richmond is experiencing a significant period of construction and housing expansion particularly on Bridge road and the skyline is rapidly changing (Richmond traders being a perfect example). In doing so Richmond is losing much of its soul and character and becoming a cold place full of glass entry doors where exciting shop fronts and local businesses once stood.

As a Richmond local, I would strongly like to object to this development and insist that its height and scale is ridiculous for the surrounding area.

I believe that Richmond is home to a wonderful historic Neighbourhood which the community has established to support small businesses. A 6 story hotel will not only remove the valuable history of our wonderful suburb but also allow our small community to be threatened

This is a big, blank, significant site in the middle of Cremorne, currently used as a car park. Is there any more information about the nature of the proposal?

Hi there,

A number of tenants live above this premises and would like to voice concern that there will be a negative impact on our living environment. Multiple bedroom windows of this property are directly above 793 Rathdowne street. This means that we would be kept awake at night by the sound of people drinking and talking directly beneath us. We would be directly affected by the implementation of a late night liquor license at this venue.

Hope you can help with a solution for us :)

Thank you.

I have been on City of Yarra planning department but could not find this development. Can you confirm what is being proposed? Many thanks

Objection to this, is this heritage overlay? Shouldn't even consider this application, council please do your job properly

Can you please specify what the proposed change of use will be?

Sounds like a lot for the space it us to occupy. Also sounds like a few things that have been removed that benefit the community. Can't see any plans to see how cumbersome the apartments will be

The proposal for change of use is in line with the emerging character of the area.

The proposal responds positively to the emerging character and future vision for the area as articulated in the City of Yarra Planning Scheme Amendment C269, as it provides a diversity of housing types for a changing growing community, a high quality environmentally sustainable design outcome:

18.02-1L Sustainable transport
18.02-4L Car parking
15.02-1L Environmentally sustainable development
Schedule 2 to Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone

Proximity to frequent public transport services.

On balance the proposal is an appropriate planning outcome and I anticipate Council's officers will provide a recommendation to grant a permit.