I am hopeful that the owners, the State government, Boroondara Council and heritage agencies will work together to preserve this very important historically significant garden.
I am commenting on the ‘reduction of standard parking requirement’. This is only a benefit to the developer AND NOT the residents of Kew for this is already a congested intersection and the additional street parking will create additional safety issues.
A permit should not be provided fir the removal of more vegetation from this property. Already a lot of greenery has been removed, that apparently did not require a permit. Now I assume they want to remove substantial greenery ie trees, hence the permit application.
The rules re tree diameter, are there to protect trees and our environment. The trees requiring a permit to remove took many years to grow, they are now part if our landscape and council must not allow their removal.
This vegetation will not be replaced by similar if a permit is granted, the owner will not be replacing mature vegetation with EQUALLY MATURE vegetation.
Do not grant this permit, PLEASE!!!
I am commenting on the ‘reduction of standard parking requirement’. This is only a benefit to the developer AND NOT the residents of Kew for this is already a congested intersection and the additional street parking will create additional safety issues.
Haven’t they already destroyed this Edna Walling garden by chopping everything to the base without a permit?
What now? Do they want to cut down the remaining large trees. Is this as they got caught the first time?
NO NO NO!
Climate requires a balance of i trees (sucking on CO2) and humans (generating CO2). Council must not continue to allow this overdevelopment to the detriment if our environment.
This was a green leafy area but due to so many overdevelopment projects, there is a constant shrinking if the number if decent sized trees and consequently a loss of habitat and food for possums and birds..
Interesting council members subscribe to reduced car parking. We are a family of 4. On works in Port Melbourne, one a night shift worker in Malvern, one in Campbellfield one in Trugannini. Councillors meet with your constituents!!!!!!!
Twenty-six apartments on 4 levels. More stress on our services. Can you guarantee that there will be a minimum of 66 car parking spaces plus car washing bay (from water tank) plus 10 visitor car parking spaces with enough turning space for the ‘Toorak Tractors’? Terrible strain on all our services, child care, schools, libraries, parks, water, sewerage, garbage collection.
OPPOSED !!!! Developers need to factor in more off street car parking spaces!!!!
What about the big development down the road Dickens Street & Toorak Road
(Kirra Gardens - 42 apartments) has been granted reduced car parking. Councillors are setting the standard for clogging up a very busy artillery roads. Boroondara has far too many ‘townhouses’ already causing traffic congestion. Councillors are supposed to be working for the people. I don’t see that happening. Where is the traffic planning ? Are you allowing 1 car and 1 bike space per townhouse? And allowing these townhouses to be small dog-boxes so it fits with the regulation square meter age for minimum car parking? What about the impact on our refuse ? More dwellings more garage, more stress on our water, parks, sewer libraries, child care, schools. The infra structure is over stretched.
Councillors who publicly say that car park reductions are a catalyst for reduced car use are either deluded or not being honest with ratepayers. It’s another one or two apartments which satisfies the greed of developers coming hard at Camberwell with little resistance from council we all protect the space and amenity existing residents live here to enjoy. Or perhaps the greed resides with council seeing the extra 1 or 2 rate payers per year multiplied by the number of overdeveloped buildings they are blindly approving against the will of existing residents. Completely unrepresentative and unacceptable.
Neighbours. FYI At a recent council Urban Planning Meeting is was clear that some councillors support reducing carparking requirements moving forwards at developments because they support the idea of encouraging less use of cars in Boroondara for climate and sustainability reasons. They want to see more residents using public transport and walking. They seemed to see it as an inevitable council strategy.
I endorse the previous comment. Parking in the area is at a premium already. Reducing it will further increase the load. Furthermore, the office workers will likely need somewhere to park! The overlay should remain.
Totally inappropriate development planned for this location. The constant assault on neighbourhood, environment, visual streetscape and loss of green space and trees is a disgrace.
The extra traffic that all these flats bring into the residential streets makes it far less safe for children and pedestrians in general.
With so many cars parked on nature strips particularly at night it has become increasingly difficult for single dwellings to avail of any guest parking on the street.
Large projects such as these cause untold inconvenience, noise, pollution, obstruction to properties and parking, and damage to our homes. Enough of this over development of our suburbs.
This road carries a high traffic volume and as such the developers should provide additional car parking spaces. 8 dwellings should be 16 car parking spaces plus 4 visitors car parking plus a car washing bay. The only public transport is a bus and a long walk to the tram. STOP LETTING THE DEVELOPERS GET AWAY WITH CAR PARKING REDUCTION
No reduction of parking should be granted. The proposed development is inappropriate for the site if parking is not provided on site.
Stop destroying the liveability oc our suburbs.
Totally inappropriate development planned for this location. The constant assault on neighbourhood, environment, visual streetscape and loss of green space and trees is a disgrace.
The extra traffic that all these flats bring into the residential streets makes it far less safe for children and pedestrians in general.
With so many cars parked on nature strips particularly at night it has become increasingly difficult for single dwellings to avail of any guest parking on the street.
Large projects such as these cause untold inconvenience, noise, pollution, obstruction to properties and parking, and damage to our homes. Enough of this over development of our suburbs.
This reduction in car parking spaces is completely unacceptable in an already congested road with No Standing sign always ignored.
I sincerely hope that Council examines the application to reduce the standard parking requirements in this application very carefully.
Parking along Glen Iris Road at the Camberwell Road corner is already horrific, with the no standing signs ignored and the area not policed by Council’s by-laws officers.
Please consider the environment and the area. This is a gross overdevelopment of the land space and will have severe impact on; The volume of road traffic and parking. Green cover. Open ground for water absorption and this would be used as a president for similar development in the area.
The truth of the matter is, if it has a "non contributory" grading then the owner can choose to do what he/she wants with a new build. Besides driving past this old house I cant see what heritage value it adds , and why someone would want a house like that preserved. I wish the owner good luck and support this permit application
The people have different choices and we need to respect that not just respecting neighbours who just love their heritage characteristics and everyone else has to follow this choice (very selfish).
People working hard for many years to pay off their mortgage loan and need to have the ultimate rights to make their choices to do whatever they want to do with their house. Not selfish neighbours to tell them what to do with their house. Thanks
This proposed development is absurd. It is totally inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood character and will irreparably damage the streets visual amenity and neighbourhood character. This property is one of the only remaining properties in the area that showcases the street’s historical vineyards. It should be heritage listed! I am also deeply concerned about the impact that such a high density development will have on traffic congestion and more importantly safety. The street is very narrow (only one car can pass through) and the property sits between St Joseph’s primary school and Glenferrie primary school. The street is also the home to many elderly residents. This development will increase traffic congestion inevitably increasing the risk of another tragic accident.
This proposal does not meet with ResCode or the Local Planning Policy Framework requirements in particular Clauses 55.02-1 - Standard B1 (Neighbourhood character), Clause 55.03 -1 (Street setbacks). Houses on either side to the east and west are heritage listed and both are setback from the street, number 74 by approximately 15 metres, number 78 by 31 metres. Houses across the road are setback 15 metres (numbers 73,75,77 and 79 Wattle Road). This proposal brings development up to the street with minimal setback. How is it therefore possible that this development can be allowed when it is so flagrantly at odds with the existing character in the street, determined by adjacent and opposite existing Victorian homes. If this is approved it is an absolute insult to the existing community who have purchased homes in this precinct based on their character. If this is approved it makes an absolute mockery of planning rules and the Planning Scheme. How can you therefore expect the community to take these seriously when developers ignore the rules so brazenly? Council has a responsibility to uphold the Local Planning Policy Framework. Please do so.
I am extremely disappointed to see this application is still being pursued despite overwhelming opposition from the local community, and strong evidence that the existing structure should have a heritage overlay. To reiterate the arguments already presented, this application represents the destruction of an important Victorian heritage building. In a 2009 Hawthorn Heritage precinct study its level of significance was rated at the highest level, and its unique setback from the street shows its original build as a vineyard, reflecting the rich history of the area. We are very concerned about the direction and pace of development in Wattle Road, in particular this one, and note that the extreme density of the proposed development townhouses will damage the visual amenity of the street and will also increase a number of issues in the area including traffic density, pedestrian safety (due to the extreme narrowness of the road at the point of 76 Wattle Rd) not to mention its close proximity to Glenferrie Public and St Joesphs Primary, both of which already generate a large amount of road and pedestrian traffic. Absolutely flabbergasted and very disappointed to see that this development is still on the table.
17 dwellings on 904sqm is all that is wrong with the infill development occurring on Boroondara.
We need higher density housing for sure, and quality builds that appeal to families and those wanting space and some garden. But this proposal has crowded development written all over it. Developers making money from selling the amenity of Boroondara. Council must moderate what's being proposed.