(... when Brunswick is full of warehouses and large industrial sites which could be developed into apartment buildings.)
Wilson Street, which runs between Jewell train station and Temple Park, is under threat with news that Moreland Council are set to approve a development of three separate double-storey units containing balconies on a block of land measuring approximately 8m x 37m at 117 Wilson St. The development would be surrounded by small, single-storey weatherboard houses which have little insulation to block noise from the balconies.
Why would Moreland Council approve such a development?
If this development goes ahead it’s clear residents affected by the housing (many of whom have recently renovated, some to accommodate newborns) will have no choice but to redevelop themselves or sell to developers – is this a ploy to create a ‘domino effect’ whereby the whole area is developed into apartments?
A Case of Bad Planning
The current application contravenes Rescode on many levels, but to sum up, here are some reasons why this development should NOT go ahead:
- it is inconsistent with existing neighbourhood character
- it is an overdevelopment of the site
- it affects the amenity of neighbouring properties
- the noise from three balconies will be too much for residents (particularly as they are already terrorised by noise from the balconies on the Spanish Cellars building on Barkly Street.)
The Human Cost
The cul-de-sac at the Temple Park end of Wilson Street where 117 lies is a quiet, friendly place which contains young families, students and elderly people, many of whom know each other and regularly socialise. These residents, along with residents as far away as Gold Street, have already been battling noise from parties and gatherings held on balconies at two apartments at the back of the Spanish Cellars buildings, since VCAT approved the building’s development. The conditions that VCAT put on the Spanish Cellars building to shield residents from the intrusion of that development are a joke – particularly the 'privacy screens' – which tenants use to sit on and view the goings on Wilson Street backyards while making comments on the activities there.
Good development vs bad development
Wilson St residents have no problem with high density housing. They do have a problem with greedy developments that ignore the existing pattern of development and neighbourhood character, resulting in a loss of amenity to neighbours and the area generally. A permit for this application would create a precedent that Rescode does not apply right across the Brunswick Activity Centre meaning developers can do what they please.
The development plan as it exists is clearly an overdevelopment of the small site, completely inappropriate for the character of this area and insensitive to the current residents of this community - and must be stopped.
Please Moreland Council - look after the people who elected you, pay you rates and make this friendly, diverse Brunswick community a wonderful place to live.For all enquiries please call 0404 072225 or email savewilsonstreet@yahoo.com.au
I lived on Wilson Street a few years ago, near the park. It's a lovely, quiet, family area with a nice sense of community.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I understand the requirement for high density housing in the city, there are areas already developed for this and it's important, no - essential that Melbourne preserves inner city areas that are free from this kind of 'progress'... peaceful areas for family and community.
I wholeheartedly support this call to save Wilson Street, and hope sincerely that Moreland Council will refuse this development by taking an integral stance on the preservation of Melbourne's traditional inner city neighbourhood communities and environments.
Sri Elkins, Carlton North
I am currently 7 months pregnant and live on one side of this development. If this goes ahead, we will have noise drifting down from the balconies straight to the nursery window - I can't understand why there isn't provision in the Moreland planning code to limit noise made by humans?? We already have a huge noise problem in this area because of the balconies at the back of the Spanish Cellars building. That is only just under control as my partner and I have negotiated with the real estate agent and tenants there that they keep the parties to a minimum (though they do forget sometimes when drunk) - I can't go through this again with 3 separate sets of neighbours with outdoor balconies. So do we sell and leave this friendly community we love so much and which represents what Brunswick means to us?
ReplyDeleteI've lived in Wilson Street for 22 years and Ive loved it. At 67 I hoped to continue to enjoy this pleasant little residential pocket for the rest of my life.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of development in Wilson Street over the years, houses have been renovated, extended and in some cases acquired a second storey.
So far it has retained its quiet, residential character and we, the residents have always had a little piece of open space for sunshine, privacy and a few plants.
I can't believe the council are going to allow double storey buildings to be erected down the length of the blocks!
Take note other Brunswick residents, if this can happen here, it can happen to you.
As a recent Brunswick resident, I can only support the Wilson St residents.
ReplyDeleteI recognise it is difficult for Councils to balance the rights of existing residents with the wishes of developers and the need for ongoing renewal and increased density. However it seems to me that the benefit of this development amounts to two additional dwelling units above the existing one dwelling. This will not do a lot to deliver Council's preference for increased densities near railway stations.
To me, this small benefit does not outweigh the disadvantages to the large number of residents in this already densely-packed neighbourhood. It would be out-of-scale, which encourages the unit dwellers to ignore their impacts on the surrounding houses. It does not promote appropriate high-density urban living, which needs to be sensitively done.
Moreland Council needs to pay attention to its own policies and guidelines about urban development.
As a long term resident of Wilson St (16yrs) I wish to add to the neighbourhood voice of concern.......the proposed development at 117 Wilson St is too much!!! We all support the sensible development of 117 Wilson St but 3 dwellings on a block originally intended for a single residence is short sighted and wrong. Two is "high density" but three is greed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a neighbourhood predominantly comprised of single dwellings accommodating families, couples, students and individuals. Over the years we have supported the rejuvenation and appropriate development of old warehouses, factories and houses and have enjoyed the benefits these have bought to the neighbourhood. We have also felt the negative effects from such developments (eg noise, traffic, rubbish, lack of car parking etc) and have an insightful view as to how development influences neighbourhood character. The proposed over-development at 117 Wilson St would be detrimental to the neighbourhood and community spirit. Three dwellings at 117 Wilson St are too many!!!
How does one protest??? Reasonable objections made under the Res Code do not seem to be applicable. Urban Village, Multiple Purpose Active centre???........where is the consistency in planning, what are the objectives???? Reasonable objections are difficult to formulate when planning policies are shifting but poorly articulated and communicated.
This kind of hodgepodge development must be stopped before yet another community is ruined. Surely, Moreland could develop all those unused warehouses into apartments instead of ruining the character of this street and neighbourhood.
ReplyDeleteAs a Planner and a resident in Brunswick, I took an interest in this proposal, although I do not live on Wilson Street. I am very surprised that Moreland City Council has not viewed this development as an impingement on the amenity of the direct neighbours. I agree that higher density development is an admirable goal, but not at the expense of amenity, which to me seems clearly to be compromised in this instance.
ReplyDeleteThis is not just a case of opinion either, this is what the planning code tells us. Clause 55.04 of the VPS states the objective "To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. "
The provisions state that the planning authority must ensure their decision protects the amenity of the habitable room windows and secluded private open space of existing dwellings.
This is one off the cuff observation from a lazy planner on a Friday afternoon - I am sure I could find 20 other points in the planning scheme which demonstrate this development does not meet the scheme. I would be very interested to see the planners at Moreland justify their assertions.
It is sad to see greed succeeding at the expense of the local community and the communities amenity. To approve such an ill considered over-development sandwiched between two modest dwellings would be to act against the best interest and wishes of the community that council serves. There are clear guidelines within which the responsible Planner should carry out his or her analysis of the project and these guidelines are clearly being flouted to achieve the green light desired by the developer. Very sad indeed. Please review the process.
ReplyDeleteprocess 1 |ˈpräˌses; ˈpräsəs; ˈprō-|
noun
1 a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end
I have lived in Wilson Street for 5 years, and find it be a quiet, friendly and relaxed slice of Brunswick to live in. Such a development would be totally out of character with the neighbourhood, would significantly adversely impact on the quality of life of those that live nearby, and detract from the amenity of all residents in the area. Such a proposal would be unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteAs other commenters have pointed out, this is not an issue about high-density housing (we're all pretty jam-packed as it is), or about replacing new for old (all things must pass). Such developments can happen sensitively and respectfully, and in a manner that is aware of the character of the neighbourhood that it is situated in - this has already happened a lot in Wilson Street. The proposal does not seem to take any of these aspects into consideration. Don't let this development proceed.
Moreland Council should listen to the residents of Wilson Street and consider the character of this little neighbourhood. The proposed development, as approved by council, simply does not fit.
ReplyDeleteWhile relatively close to the station, the Temple Park end of Wilson Street is a quiet little nook. High density living needs to be carefully planned and it best suited to major hubs, not quiet cul de sacs.
I haven't yet seen the plans, but....3 separate residences simply can't fit into that space without imposing on neighbours, and changing the character of the street in a negative way.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in Wilson St for four years, and I thought the street had heritage overlay protection - it's hard to imagine such a development being sympahetic to the heritage overlay requirements and being nothing other than an eyesore and out of character.
I hope this proposal gets rejected, and a more reasonable proposal actually succeeds - let me know how I can help out.
I lived in Wilson St for a couple of years, and have good memories its ramshackle yet odly compelling charm. Wilson St already has its fair share of high density development. It is a lovely balance of high rise (the public housing folks at the end of the street), developed terraces (those who've taken it up a storey to cater for their growing families) and those happy to keep it original(or can't afford otherwise) . What is the point in upsetting the apple cart? Why keep demolishing these old places to make way for mock georgian horrors that simply detract from the streetscape? What we need is a councillor who lives in the street. Then this type of development would never get off the ground!
ReplyDeleteThis is outrageous I am fully preventing this development
ReplyDeleteOur councilor can be found here
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-council/councillors/south-ward-councillors/cr-lambros-tapinos-south-ward.html
We should meet up and discuss our plan
WE have just moved to Wilson St 2 years after buying here slowed by over 9 months waiting for our planning permit, compliant to the 'heritage overlay' even though we didn't touch the front of the house. We had to jump through all sorts of hoops and must feel grateful that it didn't take longer meanwhile paying interest on a loan for a house we couldn't live in. Yet a developer, who only stands to make a profit, can do as he pleases. It would seem that 2 units on the block would not be worth his while developing and so we have to sit back and pay in the quality of our neighborhood for the profits of someone who will never even live here. Not happy.
ReplyDeleteWilson street is a narrow street with heritage overlay with small houses on narrow blocks making it totally unsuited to multi unit developments. The density of housing and population of our neighborhood is already very high . Elsewhere in Moreland and Brunswick there are many sites (with equally good access to public transport and no historic overlay) far better suited to apartment and unit development. So why here in Wilson Street ? From here on the ground, it seems that the developer of 117 misjudged the development and commercial potential of the site and that council - who should never have approved a 3 unit development - are making us pay for their mistake by reducing the amenity of our street .
ReplyDelete