All recent comments on applications from Boroondara City Council, VIC

There is a single dwelling covenant over this part of North Balwyn. The applicant would know this, and is yet another opportunistic attempt by a greedy developer to subvert the existing planning rules.

How many times are these developer going to challenge this long-standing and important statute in their relentless pursuit of profit?

We have already seen significant over-development around the fringes of the zone, and it provides a keen real-time insight into what will happen to the sustainable amenity of this suburb if Boroondara council does not reject this application immediately.

My issues as a resident are:

- I only purchased my property on the basis that apartments have a maximum 2 floors all down the street and developing more floors would compromise the suburban feel of the street and directly effect the light and enjoyment of the properties
- I love a cafe but there are plenty of cafes on the main strip and a business on such a suburban street would be a nuisance with street parking

I invite you to drive down the street and get a feel for the street and it’s current integrity and beauty would be compromised by such a development and directly effect the value and enjoyment of nearby properties.

Two floors would be consistent with the current nature of the street.

Below is an excerpt from the Balwyn & Balwyn North Citations : May 2016 report in regard to 146-148 Winmalee Rd, Balwyn.

Statement of Significance

What is significant?

Erected in 1931, the house at 146-148 Winmalee Road, Balwyn, is a double-stored rendered brick house in the inter-war Mediterranean style, with a hipped pantiled roof and symmetrical façade with tripartite round-arched loggia, recessed first floor balcony and flanking bays of shuttered windows.

The significant fabric is identified as the exterior of the original house, excluding the 1990s rear additions. The remaining elements of Walling’s garden scheme are also deemed to be significant, including both hard landscaping (paths, retaining walls and wrought iron gates) and plantings (notably the boundary hedge and the lemon-scented gum tree at the rear).

How is it significant?

Humara Ghur at 146-148 Winmalee Road, Balwyn, satisfies the following criteria for inclusion on the heritage overlay schedule to the City of Boroondara Planning Scheme:

Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics

Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.

Why is it significant?

Humara Ghur is significant as a large, notable and well-sited example of an inter-war house in the Mediterranean style that was popular in Melbourne the later 1920s and early ‘30s. The house exhibits most of the trademark characteristics of that style, including its pale-coloured rendered exterior, low- hipped roof with distinctive terracotta pantile, shuttered windows and a subtle touch of classical detailing in the tripartite loggia with round arches and Tuscan columns. The understated monumentality of the house is enhanced by its formalised landscaped setting that includes elements of a garden designed by Edna Walling. Sited at a slight angle to the street boundary, the house and its garden, which includes an eye-catching retaining wall of uncoursed stone and a massive cypress hedge, remain a striking element in the streetscape (Criterion E).

Humara Ghur is significant for its associations with celebrated Victorian garden designer Edna Walling, who prepared an ambitious landscaping scheme for the property in 1932 that was at least partly implemented, and of which key remnants are still apparent to this day. Although Walling is known to have received more than twenty private garden commissions in what is now the City of Boroondara, not all of these were implemented and some that were have since been destroyed. The Craymer garden is one of very few known to retain significant elements of Walling’s original scheme (Criterion H).

I am hopeful that the planned alterations and additions maintain the historic integrity of this signifigant house.

With requests for 3 variations to the planning rules (parking, loading & bike facilities) the site is obviously totally unsuitable for the proposed development.

Addendum to our last comments: The earlier application was withdrawn and replaced by this VicSmart application which apparently does not require neighbours to be notified. In any case, since we have already been made aware of the proposed building plans at 30 Woodlands Ave, we want our objections to be placed on record and taken into account whenever a building permit is being considered and also request they be forwarded to the applicant's building surveyor whenever he/she is appointed. Thank you.

We own the adjoining property on 9 Fordham Avenue, Camberwell and advise that Standard A14 is not complied with.

The conclusion in the report (second last para page 38) Clause 54.04-5 does not follow from the shadow diagrams in page 6 of the advertised plans. Standard A14 states in full as follows:
"Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space (POS) should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced."

The POS in the adjoining block (i.e. 9 Fordham Ave) is estimated to be 53 sq. meters. As at 10 am on 28 Sep 2023, just 5 days after the 23 Sep equinox, the sunlit area was 28 sq. m.

75 percent of the POS is 39.75 sq. m – since this is lower than 40 sq. m it becomes the minimum sunlit area per the standard. Since existing sunlight at 28 sq. meters approx. is less than the minimum, it cannot be further reduced.

The plan submitted for approval will by their own shadow diagrams reduce the sunlit area to average 20 sq. m between 9 am to 1 pm, 15 sq. m at 2 pm and 1 sq. m at 3 pm.

The applicant’s shadow diagrams (with existing shadows superimposed) have been submitted to council already.

Secondly, the section of the building which will overlook our Private Open Space of 9 Fordham will be situated just 1.1 meters from the fence (refer Section 3.2 on page 3) and will stand 1.5 meters higher off the ground level than at other areas on the plot (given the slope of the land) and will tower an overwhelming 6.1 meters (page 20 last para) over the 9 Fordham’s small private open space. This open space will be impacted by being surrounded by building bulk on all sides (it already has built up areas on three sides). The proposed plan locks out open space, disregards the sense of open feel, increases visual impact on the neighbouring properties and does not maintain the sense of separation between adjacent properties. As such it does not qualify to exceed the permitted site coverage ratio of 60% (per page 34 of the report).

I would like an opportunity to see the plans. There were no details provided in the notice that I can find. Thank you

The development at 10 newburgh Place is wrong in so may ways.

The structure itself is made from prefabricated concrete panels with prefabricated heavy metal verandah railings. The right hand side of the North or station facing facade is filled in with prefabricated glass blick panels. The same on the South facade but on the left. Both sides of the building are covered completely with large prefabricated concrete panels with no windows or other openings. The overall picture is an eyesore, not unlike a highrise toilet block.

The building is currently 9 stories high but is still under construction. As a result it towers over the Aurburn Station building which is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. It is a blight on the station whether viewed from across the road on Victoria Avenue or from anywhere on Station Street and even from across the nearby sporting oval. It even rises above the charming heritage two storey shopfronts on Aurburn Rd.

The building totally blocks access to sun and direct light to all of the houses and rear of shops behind.

I find it staggering that such a project was approved even after being taken to VCAT.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the local authority that takes on street parking away for little used dining areas would even consider allowing a commercial devilment with REDUCED on-site parking!
This proposed development must retain the existing heritage structure, be no higher than this structure and obviously provide at least as .Uchida on sire parking as currently mandated.

This should not be permitted. There is an existing solid building and impacts on residual surrounding amenity should not be ignored

Should be capped at 2 levels. Traffic impacts and sewer impacts

This should not proceed

The heritage value of the current building. It is a reasonable example of heritage architecture. I feel any development should preserve all of the existing structure
2. Traffic effects.The area is swamped with vehicles and there is inadequate street parking as is. Cars of visitors and residents will add to congestion as they seek parking. The proximity to public transport does nothing - the majority of Australians own cars and need car parking. The commercial premises require parking for patrons.
3. Inadequate green space
Boroondara has been inundated with ugly new multi level developments. The majority of residents if asked are firmly opposed to these. However, Malvern and Toorak provide examples of multi level development performed at a higher standard, or even properties in Hawthorn West. Most save a strip of land at least 2-3m wide at the perimeter of the property and plant trees and other greenery, also planting greenery on rooftops.
4. Shadowing of neighbouring buildings.
this adds to the fear that these towers are becoming the slums of Boroondara.
5. Inappropriate height and density for Boroondara.

The style and visual bulk of the new addition is not in keeping with the style of the area despite some planning mistakes previously

This should not be allowed

The heritage value of the current building. It is an excellent example of heritage architecture. I feel any development should preserve all of the existing structure
2. Traffic effects.The area is swamped with vehicles and there is inadequate street parking as is. Cars of visitors and residents will add to congestion as they seek parking. The proximity to public transport does nothing - the majority of Australians own cars and need car parking. The commercial premises require parking for patrons.
3. Inadequate green space
Boroondara has been inundated with ugly new multi level developments. The majority of residents if asked are firmly opposed to these. However, Malvern and Toorak provide examples of multi level development performed at a higher standard, or even properties in Hawthorn West. Most save a strip of land at least 2-3m wide at the perimeter of the property and plant trees and other greenery, also planting greenery on rooftops.
4. Shadowing of neighbouring buildings.
this adds to the fear that these towers are becoming the slums of Boroondara.
5. Inappropriate height and density for Boroondara.

1. The style and visual bulk of the new addition is not in keeping with the style of the area. There is a heritage overlay in place to preserve the streetscape and ensure that the facades of heritage houses dominate the streetscape.

A time extension should not be granted. This should be an opportunity to recognise a planning mistake. The heritage fabric of the original building is seemingly grossly intact and it should be restored. The size and scale of the development is inappropriate and will have a marked impact on local amenity and add additional strain to other services including roads and sewers

In an area with limited carparking, a reduction in parking requirements is simply silly. I also can't clearly find the plans for the building but do not believe the heritage fabric should be touched nor more than 3 levels be involved

It’s astonishing how this got approved under the guise of affordable housing. None of these apartments will be ‘affordable’ given suburb location and they will only serve to reduce already stressed amenity in the area. Unrepresentative councils and State members letting down those they are elected to help

this is a busy street with limited parking. To have parking restrictions waived this establishment will create more congestion in and be unfair on other businesses in the area which do not have restrictions waived.

The further proposed reduction in car parking will negatively impact Burke Road traffic/parking loads and also, severely impact Victoria Road traffic/parking loads.
This development wants an accessible supermarket with ridiculously few car parks, and local residents, general Burke Road traffic flow, and probably the proposed development's residents themselves, all paying the price for inadequate car-park provision.
The overall development is already extremely under provided for car parks; has already received multiple concessions; and again wants more. Council needs to enforce logic and sense - and not cave to developers unrelenting car park reduction requests.
The developers will be long gone whereas local rate paying residents (and likely the development's residents themselves), will go on being negatively impacted for decades.

How many storeys would this building be?

Reduction of parking requirements in this context is irresponsible. The large development will already be putting pressure on services and clogging roads, but lack of parking will cause spillover into nearby streets as well.

The proposed 6 dwelling development is considered inappropriate for the St James park heritage precinct and in particular is out of character her with the adjacent single dwellings at 6 and 10 Yarra St.

The existing site includes a heritage dwelling at the back of the property which is proposed to be demolished.

It is absolutely unconscionable that this development could be approved with below standard on site parking when street parking in Burke road is already at crisis level.

Below is an excerpt from the Balwyn Heritage Peer Review Stage 2 Background Report in regard to the heritage house 8 Boston Road, Balwyn.

BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME

8 Boston Road, Balwyn Statement of Significance

Heritage Place: 8 Boston Road BALWYN PS ref no: HO875

What is significant?
‘Rexmoor’, 8 Boston Road, Balwyn, built for the Small family in 1888, is significant. Significant elements of the place include the house and two early outbuildings at the rear of the property. The front fence and gates are not significant.

How is it significant?
‘Rexmoor’, 8 Boston Road, Balwyn, is of local architectural (representative) significance to the City of Boroondara.

Why is it significant?
8 Boston Road, Balwyn is a fine and externally intact example of a two-storey Victorian Italianate dwelling. It demonstrates key design elements of the Victorian Italianate style, including an asymmetrical form, returned verandah, slate hipped roof, bracketed eaves and projecting bays. It is a well-designed and carefully detailed example of the style, distinctive for its use of gable ended bays and the use of medieval/Queen Anne details, the house is representative of Mansion development along Mont Albert Road. While some of the verandah details have been reinstated in keeping with historic photos, there is high overall integrity of the design. This is further strengthened by the unusual and very distinctive Tudor style chimney stacks with coupled octagonal flues. Also, of note is the tripartite arrangement of round arched windows, the use of
balconettes with iron balustrades resting on masonry corbels and the unusual timber frieze on the lower level of the return verandah. The integrity of the place is enhanced by two outbuildings at the rear of the property that appear original or early and are remnants from its earlier generous garden setting. (Criterion D)

Primary source
Balwyn Heritage Peer Review Stage 2 Background report 12 April 2019
8 Boston Road, Balwyn citation, September 2019

This document is an document in the Boroondara Planning Scheme pursuant to section 6(2)(j) of the Planning and Environment Act 198.

This house is in a heritage area. If the house is demolished the owners do not have to supply a building plan. Unacceptable andtakes away the Heritiage planning protection

It is my view that due to a desire to rebrand the illuminated signs, that the "right of use" provisions noted in the VCAT decision of Kevak Hotels Pty Ltd v Darebin CC [2022] VCAT 318 apply only to premises use that is the same or substantially similar, and not to the display of signs that are illuminated at night as they are matters ancillary to the premises use.

The display of signage illuminated at night is a matter that needs to be carefully considered regarding its necessity, response to context, heritage overlay, the Decision Guidelines, and the Clause 65 VPP matters.

I consider that the matters regarding needing a permit, and impacts upon amenity apply whether the signage is erected on a street or boundary wall, roof, inside a glazed area and that the defining element of it impacting upon community amenity and character is that if it is visible from the public realm, a road, and/or any surrounding site.

Insufficient information has been provided as to the content and use of the proposed new signage, is it discrete "business identification signage" only or does it seek to also display or promote any other branding or insignia.

The display of illuminated signage at this site at night, fails to respond appropriately to the context, heritage overlay and Clause 65 VPP.

The display of illuminated signage at this site at night, operating beyond the trading hours of the business premises, responds negatively to the surrounding context, heritage overlay and Clause 65 VPP.

There is a real risk that illuminated signage may dominate the surroundings given the context of the surrounding uses. An excessive amount of illuminated signage may create excessive visual clutter impacting pedestrian and road user safety, and wayfinding by pedestrians particularly impaired persons.

I note that the signage is proposed upon the western street wall and/or inside the glazed area of the western street wall of the subject site and therefore it is considered to be works in the periphery of a road reserve and requires referral to the Head, Transport for Victoria for their concurrence to be sought.

Glenferrie Road and its road reserve is zoned Transport Road Zone 2, and the responsible authority is the Head, Transport for Victoria.

Considered optimistically and generously, business identification signage should only be illuminated at night during the operating or trading hours of the business, and not at any other times between sunset and sunrise.

I urge the responsible authority to refuse the application for a permit unless these conditions if imposed are acceptable to the applicant:

1 That the signage use be for business identification purposes only and not the promotion nor display of any other advertisement, images, trademarks, branding or insignia;
2 That the total area of any illuminated sign is to not exceed 1 square metre;
3 That the signage be only illuminated between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm daily except at any times that the business premises is open for trade outside of these hours and then only during those times;
4 That the concurrence of the Head, Transport for Victoria and any other referral authority be sought and obtained;
5 That the signage not be erected above the street awning if it is to be illuminated at any time between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am.