On street parking is already at crisis level on the Camberwell business area.
It would be absolutely unconscionable to allow a multistory building to be erected in cookson St with reduced onsite parking.
A 10% increase in onsite parking over current regulations would be in order
All recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC
This is appalling and consistent with their previous application for 10 dwellings, which was rejected down to 9 by Council. It should be rejected again on the same grounds as before.
Solar panels are a disgusting visual blight on homes in general, but especially hrritagebuildings.
Allowing visible PV panels on heritage homes would be a precedent to many other inappropriate downgrades of our heritage
Six is a rediculous request for this site. I know there is a housing crisis but it will not be solved by sacrificing neighberhood ammenity. Our council should fight this all the way and limit to two dewllings on this block.
I would like details of what Construction of buildings and works will be happening on this site please.
I am concerned re the number of parking bays per apartment.
3 bedrooms 2 parks.
Many apartments here are rentals - 3BR 3 cars.
No visitor’s parking bays.
The street is already crowded during the day. 16 extra units!
Another big block going up for sale.
Another large number of units for sure in the same street block.
If so many units are being built I feel they need more parking bays.
1. There is no parking within the complex for the lot that the business intends to operate the business out of. This will mean that either customers and staff attempt to park in residential visitor parking that is not meant for them, or they will park on Burwood Road and Drill Street where parking and traffic are already extremely busy. In fact, during peak hours, Drill Street is a No Standing zone, as is Burwood Road in the morning. Therefore, it is likely that customers of the business will park illegally to drop off and/or pick up their pets on the way to and from work. This will significantly impact residents who are trying to make their way out for the day or home in the afternoon.
2. The business has an entrance that is very close to the entrance to our residents' pool and gym. This is going to be an issue for anyone who is allergic to or fears dogs. Dozens of dogs going in and out of the primary corner of our building will deter residents from walking there, utilising their pool and gym, etc. This business harms the amenity of our building, community, and local area for anyone with an allergy or fear of dogs.
3. We have already had issues with pets being allowed to relieve themselves on our nature strip and not being cleaned up, on the footpath, and on the building itself. This business will only exacerbate this.
4. If staff and customers of this business - who are not entitled to utilise the building car park - do sneak into our car park, they can only get out by using the residential lift and exiting through our residential floor, foyer, and mail room. This is a blatant security risk. Also, having animals and additional people who should not be there increasing traffic in our lifts is not reasonable.
5. The applicant states as per the Notice Information dated 4 July 2024 that two car parking spaces are allocated to staff. This is simply untrue. All car parks within Sierra Hawthorn are either privately owned by residential lots, or commonly owned by the Owners Corporation and exist exclusively for the Residents' Visitors.
6. It is not reasonable for residents within earshot to have a business operating at 7:30 am most days that welcomes dogs who are likely to cause noise on the way in and out of the business premises.
7. The builder has failed to construct a compliant hydraulic service for the building and we have experienced several flooding events in the building. The proposed business has significant drainage and waste requirements that are only going to exacerbate the problems.
The demolition of 76 Wattle Road and commencement of the townhouses build is a great result for the neighborhood and regular people. It is absolute madness to reserve a 1700sq meter block for the use of one family while it can be put to much better use by multiple families who can send their kids to Glenferrie primary across the road. And let's be frank - the heritage argument for preserving the building only applies if you happen to hail from 18th century Tuscany. The number of people whose "heritage" looks like an Italianate villa are few and far between and does not reflect the actual multi-ethnic make-up of Hawthorn. The visual amenity argument is frankly a matter of opinion - I personally like the look of a contemporary townhouse more than that of a shabbily rendered and unmaintained pile of bricks. The street parking argument is moot as well as the townhouses will have parking on site.
Concerned over any waiver of car parking as this will spill cars onto the street which is the busy Camberwell Road with a tram route. The Hartwell Association of Residents and Traders generally does not support a waiver of car parking especially for such a large development. Perhaps the horse has bolted as the development is nearly finished. Need stronger review of plans and the course of their building to avoid this.
Within 1 kilometer of 383 Belmore Rd, Balwyn North there are five childcare centers and within 4 kilometers there are approximately 10 childcare centers.
Does the area really need another childcare center?
As a visitor to this area for work purposes, I've seen how wonderful it is and why it's so desirable an area to live. To this effect, I support this development to allow greater density and enable more people to enjoy the beautiful Boroondara LGA.
39 dwellings is a lot especially given Tregarron Avenue is a small non- through road. During school hours a lot of traffic coming in and out and on Sundays lots of church traffic as well.
How do we find the details of what they are trying to vary
Within 150 meters of 10 -12 Hedderwick St there are two childcare centers and within 4 kilometers there are approximately 15 childcare centers?
Does the area really need another childcare center?
Why was the original period home on this heritage overlay site allowed to be demolished? Thought that this wasn't allowed. Would like some clarity as it affects future plans and the value of my own property.
So disappointed to hear that firstly the building was deteriorating rapidly with no effort by the owner to preserve. Then horrified to hear that it had burnt down. Sounds like Council needs to make an order to rebuild as happened with the Corkman hotel to discourage the deliberate neglect of local heritage buildings.
Its sad to hear that a fire occured at this heritage house, I hope its not beyond repair. Good luck to the Police and the local CCTV footage in catching those responsible.
I was shocked to see this beautiful house burnt out when I passed by late in December 2023. I have many happy memories of the house when it belonged to the family of a friend. How can a supposedly heritage listed building be allowed to degrade within a few years to the point where it can succumb to a house fire?
Matthew
Redfern Street is a very busy, narrow street ottering little public parking.
To build a 4 level residential and commercial building in Redfern St. with reduced onsite parking would be insane.
I suggest that the intelligent position would be to require the proposed development to provide 20% more on-site car parking than currently regulated.
The loss of this period home and garden is wrong on so many levels - historical, aesthetic, streetscape, neighbourhood character, and environmental. Something needs to change with our planning system, so that just because something doesn't have individual heritage value, it shouldn't be demolished. We are losing perfectly good, solidly built homes and gardens every day. Why are we not valuing these more?
OMG! Here we go all over again! New people moving in, or even worse, developers, wanting to either partially or fully demolish the house, which MOST UNFORTUNATELY always includes the removal of all of the trees on the block. First the Council knock it back, and then the owners take it to VCAT instead, who ALWAYS end up approving the permit. I have lived in Riverside Avenue in the "Riverside Estate" for over 20 years now, and it was supposedly meant to be protected by a heritage overlay, however, apparently it all means nothing, and the detrimental effects that it has on us and the area are NEVER taken into consideration. For the last 10 years, it has been just like living in the middle of a construction zone, with non-stop, building works happening, and often seven days a week. Over this period, and just in my immediate area, it has been absolutely heartbreaking to see most/all of the trees disappearing, as they have now been removed from numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 17 (totally demolished recently) and now sadly it looks like I will have to add number 1 to this list, and it just keeps on going, and going at a frenetic pace. It is absolutely devastating to watch as this once lovely green tree covered street complete with all of the beautiful historic houses is being completely decimated, and it is fast becoming absolutely nothing like the beautiful place that we have dearly cherished, treasured and lived in for all these years. It truly is a crime!!
OMG! Here we go all over again! New people moving in, or even worse, developers, wanting to either partially or fully demolish the house, which MOST UNFORTUNATELY always includes the removal of all of the trees on the block. First the Council knock it back, and then the owners take it to VCAT instead, who ALWAYS end up approving the permit. I have lived in Riverside Avenue in the "Riverside Estate" for over 20 years now, and it was supposedly meant to be protected by a heritage overlay, however, apparently it all means nothing, and the detrimental effects that it has on us and the area are NEVER taken into consideration. For the last 10 years, it has been just like living in the middle of a construction zone, with non-stop, building works happening, and often seven days a week. Over this period, and just in my immediate area, it has been absolutely heartbreaking to see most/all of the trees disappearing, as they have now been removed from numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 17 (totally demolished recently) and now sadly it looks like I will have to add number 1 to this list, and it just keeps on going, and going at a frenetic pace. It is absolutely devastating to watch as this once lovely green tree covered street complete with all of the beautiful historic houses is being completely decimated, and it is fast becoming absolutely nothing like the beautiful place that we have dearly cherished, treasured and lived in for all these years. It truly is a crime!!
Below is an excerpt from a survey and assessment report that was prepared for Boroondara Council by David Wixted and Michele Summerton in 2021 in regards to the Kaydon Flats at 1 Cooloongatta Rd, Camberwell.
Kaydon Flats History
Planning of the site
The layout appears to come from necessity, with buildings spread about on either side of the now-filled and undergrounded stream gully. However, this is different to many ‘court’ cottages from the period which run along the boundary of a property in uniform file, or down and back, with the cottages on either side of a central road. The northern part of the site, behind shops and houses, had once been a tennis court which faced onto Riversdale Road and hosted a copse of trees, including a surviving Peppercorn, along the south edge of the court in the gully. The oak may have been a planting from the 1950s, as the tree appears more like a 60 year-old than an earlier planting from about 1900 at the time of the formation of roads in the area (Pictured online in the Melbourne aerial of 1945).12
The flat construction commenced with a building application being made in February 1959 to the design of Mackay & Potter, Architects and Engineers. The first group of four two-bedroom flats were completed by 1960, as advertised in the Age newspaper in June that year. The features of the ‘Exclusive architect-designed superbly built Flats’ included a spacious combined lounge-dining room, 2 bedrooms with built-in robes, a well-fitted kitchen, beautiful, tiled bathroom, Venetian blinds, flywire screens and doors, and wiring for a phone and television. Ready for occupation they were priced at £6,350, and £6,500 with a lock-up garage. Prices for units had risen markedly during the 1950s as illustrated by Parklands flats, built in Power Street, Hawthorn in 1953 and advertised for sale in the range £4,900 to £6,700.13.
Description & Integrity
The complex comprises five blocks of 17 flats loosely arranged in a court setting either side of a curving concrete driveway with generous garden landscape surrounds. The blocks are two-storey in height and are constructed in sand-coloured brick with timber details for windows and doors. The roofs are either hipped or gabled and clad with glazed Marseille tile work. The earlier upper block closest to Cooloongatta Road includes flats 1 to 4; the next downhill, flats 5 and 6. These are followed by two linear blocks with hipped roofs each with four flats – numbers 7 to 10 and numbers 14 to 17.
The last block to be constructed, with flats 11 and 12, illustrate a variation of the form in their planning and materials. Unobtrusive carports and garages are located to the rear of the blocks.
The five blocks of flats are highly intact and remain unchanged due to their continued, single ownership. The degree of intactness extends to building form, fabric and external details, the landscaping, landform, driveway, carports and brick garages, and brick bank of letterboxes. In addition to the flats there is number 13, a house possibly built for the owner/developer. This is a substantially larger and later construction with darker brick walls and tiled roof. This building does not contribute to the significance of the blocks of flats and their setting.
Assessment Against Criteria
Criteria referred to in Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay, Department of Planning and Community Development, September 2012, modified for the local context.
CRITERION A: Importance to the course, or pattern, of the City of Boroondara's cultural or natural history (historical significance). Kaydon Court Flats, built between 1960 and 1966, are historically significant for their association with the post-war boom in architect-designed flat construction throughout the metropolitan area, continuing its pre-war development pattern along tram and train routes. Kayden Court Flats are significant as a relatively early illustration of the extension of the post-war boom from Hawthorn to socially conservative Camberwell, where the community was highly protective of the suburb’s residential character. Kaydon Court Flats are historically important for demonstrating the growing demand for smaller size accommodation by couples and singles and the overemphasis placed on the single, free-standing house as an ideal, and the attention of architects and developers paid to this issue. Kaydon Court Flats illustrate an alternative to the standard form of housing usually associated with suburban living and are historically important as examples of the earlier tenant owned own-your-own system of accommodation, introduced c.1952-53.
CRITERION B: Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the City of Boroondara's cultural or natural history (rarity). N/A
CRITERION C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the City of Boroondara's cultural or natural history (research potential). N/A
CRITERION D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness). Kaydon Court Flats is a representative example of a post-WWII complex of compact, grouped units in a high amenity suburban location in a garden setting. Designed in rectilinear styles generally influenced by the Modern movement, they demonstrate the principal characteristics of the easily recognised, functional two-storey blocks of brick units which proliferated as an evolving typology throughout Melbourne’s inner and middle-ring suburbs during these years.
CRITERION E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance). Kaydon Court Flats are aesthetically significant as an architecturally competent and intact complex of post-WWII units purposefully designed for a garden setting by accomplished modernist architects, Keith McKay and Charles Potter, whose larger commercial buildings share certain stylistic features with the domestic scale, suburban Kaydon Court flats in their restrained use of brick pattern-work, window walls and an interest in balanced rectilinear geometry of horizontal and vertical elements in their overall structure. The flats are aesthetically important for their ability to demonstrate a planned design that is contextually sensitive to acceptable levels of density for a middle-ring, suburb typified by free-standing houses, family living, gardens and privacy. The design of the complex contributes to the domestic character of Camberwell as a successful compromise between the ideal of individual suburban housing (and owning a house) and multi-flat blocks. Kaydon Court Flats are aesthetically significant as a development which anticipates the large ambitious cluster style housing projects in the outer eastern suburbs designed and constructed by Merchant Builders from 1968.
CRITERION F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance). N/A
CRITERION G: Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance). N/A
CRITERION H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in the City of Boroondara's history (associative significance). N/A
Statement of Significance
What is Significant?
Kaydon Court Flats, 1 Cooloongatta Road, Camberwell, are significant to the City of Boroondara. The complex comprises five blocks of 17 flats loosely arranged in a court setting either side of a curving concrete driveway with generous garden landscape surrounds. The blocks are two-storey in height and are constructed in sand-coloured brick with timber details for windows and doors. The roofs are either hipped or gabled and clad with glazed Marseille tile work. The earlier upper block closest to Cooloongatta Road includes flats 1 to 4; the next downhill, flats 5 and 6. These are followed by two linear blocks with hipped roofs each with four flats – numbers 7 to 10 and numbers 14 to 17. The last block to be constructed, with flats 11 and 12, illustrate a variation of the form in their planning and materials. Unobtrusive carports and garages are located to the rear of the blocks.
In addition to the flats there is number 13, a house possibly built for the owner/developer. This is a substantially larger and later construction with darker brick walls and tiled roof. This building does not contribute to the significance of the blocks of flats and their setting.
How is it significant?
The whole of the site, excluding the free-standing house, is of local historical, architectural (representative) and aesthetic significance to the City of Boroondara.
Why is it significant?
Kaydon Court Flats, built between 1960 and 1966, are historically significant for their association with the post-war boom in architect-designed flat construction throughout the metropolitan area, continuing its pre-war development pattern along tram and train routes. The flats are important as a relatively early illustration of the extension of the post-war boom from Hawthorn to socially conservative Camberwell, where the community was highly protective of the suburb’s residential character. (Criterion A)
Kaydon Court Flats are historically significant for demonstrating the growing demand for smaller size accommodation by couples and singles and the overemphasis placed on the single, free-standing house as an ideal; importantly they illustrate the attention that architects and developers paid to this issue. The flats are historically important as examples of the earlier tenant owned own-your-own system of accommodation, introduced c.1952-53 which introduced an alternative to the standard form of housing usually associated with suburban living. (Criterion A)
Kaydon Court Flats is a representative example of a post-WWII complex of compact, grouped units in a high amenity suburban location in a garden setting. Designed in rectilinear styles generally influenced by the Modern movement, they demonstrate the principal characteristics of the easily recognised, functional two-storey blocks of brick units which proliferated as an evolving typology throughout Melbourne’s inner and middle-ring suburbs during these years. (Criterion D)
Kaydon Court Flats are aesthetically significant as an architecturally competent and intact complex of post-WWII units purposefully designed for a garden setting by accomplished modernist architects, Keith McKay and Charles Potter, whose larger commercial buildings share certain stylistic features with the domestic scale, suburban
Kaydon Court flats in their restrained use of brick pattern-work, window walls and an interest in balanced rectilinear geometry of horizontal and vertical elements in their overall structure. (Criterion E)
The flats are aesthetically important for their ability to demonstrate a planned design that is contextually sensitive to acceptable levels of density for a middle-ring, suburb typified by free-standing houses, 12 family living, gardens and privacy. The design of the complex contributes to the domestic character of Camberwell as a successful compromise between the ideal of individual suburban housing (and owning a house) and multi-flat blocks. (Criterion E)
Kaydon Court Flats are aesthetically significant as a development which anticipates the large ambitious cluster style housing projects in the outer eastern suburbs designed and constructed by Merchant Builders from 1968. (Criterion E).
Grading and Recommendations
Recommended for inclusion in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay of the Boroondara Planning Scheme as an individually Significant place.
Lack of Parking is already an issue in this area, do not reduce parking requirements! Why have these regulations if they’re always overruled?
We should not reduce parking requirements, thank you very much. We need no more cars looking for a non-existing parking spot, left poking into driveways or covering up fire hydrants.
NO.