50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn VIC 3122

How can 6 stories and 35 units fit into this environment? Recent planning rule changes may permit such high density, however the local environment must be taken into account. Not only is such a development so outrageously out of compatibility with the immediate and more general neighbourhood the impact of 35 units in such a tight streetscape and the resultant congestion MUST be challenged!
Wattle Road and especially Carson Crescent are incapable of handling such density. Recent developments in upper Wattle Road have been restricted to 3 floors and there can be no justification for anything other than the same restrain being applied to 50 Wattle.
Just the shadowing impact alone on neighbouring sites should be sufficient to reject a 6 floor application. Surely this is an ambit claim to test the Council’s capacity to restrain rapacious developers prepared to exploit recent planning changes with no consideration of the local community.
Three floors at a maximum !

I strongly object to the proposed six-storey development at 50 Wattle Road.

A six-storey building is excessive for this narrow residential street and is completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. A development of no more than three storeys would be far more appropriate and better reflect the existing streetscape.

This proposal will result in significant overshadowing, loss of natural sunlight, reduced privacy and a noticeable loss of residential amenity for surrounding homes. It will also increase traffic, parking pressure and construction disruption in a street that is already narrow and congested.

The proposed two-level basement will require extensive excavation, creating prolonged noise, dust, vibration and inconvenience for nearby residents, with potential impacts on underground services and infrastructure.

The removal of mature trees is also a major concern and will further diminish the leafy character that makes Boroondara such a desirable place to live.

As local ratepayers, we expect planning decisions to protect the character and liveability of our neighbourhood. Existing residents should not bear significant and permanent impacts simply to maximise the development potential of a single site.

I respectfully request that Council refuse this proposal or require it to be substantially reduced to a maximum of THREE storeys so that it is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character and better protects the amenity of surrounding residents.

I live in Carson Crescent of which the development of a proposed 6 storey/35 apartment complex on the corner of Wattle and Carson Crescent will adversely affect.

I cannot conceive how a 6 storey complex can possibly be considered for such a narrow residential street. Wattle Road is at best a one way street. The proposed development will overshadow the neighbouring properties, loss of natural light, reduced privacy and add to the already congested parking amenities.

The permit application also asks for permission to remove 'canopy' trees on the property - I strongly object to their removal. Our established trees are what makes living in Hawthorn especially attractive.

I respectfully hope that council reject the current proposal for 50 Wattle Road and consider a more appropriate height of 3 storeys which would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood.

Completly agree with previous comments.

We might need more housing but it should not be done with total disregard to the environment in which they take place. The irony is that these luxurious appartement will be well above the budget of first home buyers.
When Carpe developers bought 48 A and 50 Wattle Road in November 2025, the old rules applied. The 26 May 2026 proposal by the state government was voted a couple of weeks later. The new rules are being taken advantage by the developers. It's an incredible unexpected potential finantial gain for them but these new rules are totally incompatible with the narrow street which already is experiencing congestion. There is a serious safety issue should this proposal goes ahead.

3 storeys is already a stretch but I understand that I need to accept this as long as there is respect to the privacy of neighbours properties and that they don't overshadow their open space.

Jocelyne Schiftan

I am writing to formally object to the proposed six-storey development at 48A and 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn. I fully agree with and support the broader concerns raised in the objections submitted by my neighbours. While I share their objections regarding the sheer scale and visual bulk of this proposal, my primary concern relates to the severe, unmanageable impact on local traffic and pedestrian safety.

Wattle Road is a narrow suburban street that is already heavily utilised as a thoroughfare by non-local drivers avoiding main arterial roads. Introducing the daily vehicle movements of 35 new dwellings will push the local infrastructure past its breaking point.

Specifically, the overflow traffic funnelling west down Wattle Road will dangerously exacerbate the congestion at the Power Street intersection. Attempting a right turn onto Power Street is already highly hazardous; vehicles travel at high speeds, and traffic frequently banks up, leaving no room to cross the intersection safely. The added volume from this development will make this crossing untenable and inevitably force spillover congestion into surrounding, equally narrow neighbouring streets.

This proposal also importantly presents an unacceptable safety risk to young children. The immediate block services numerous primary schools, including Glenferrie Primary School and St Joseph's Primary School. As a parent of two primary aged children who navigate this area, the prospect of forcing high density traffic onto a narrow, 3.9m wide road heavily used by young pedestrians and cyclists is deeply alarming.

I urge the Council to reject this application or mandate a drastic reduction in its scale to protect the safety, accessibility, and amenity of our neighbourhood.

As a long time resident of wattle road it has become increasingly frustrating trying to navigate the street as building developers disregard space, neighbours & functionality for profit.

Peak hour on this almost one-way road is a nightmare, suggesting to add another 35+ residents will only lead to more struggles. We are a quiet street that cannot support this type of development and should be protected against such builds.

I urge the council to not only reject this build but take action to prevent future constructions of this size from happening in streets that are not designed for such

I formally object to the 6 storey / 35 residences development at 48A / 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn.

Replacing 2 dwellings with 35 dwellings is far too many for a narrow suburban street such as Wattle Road.
The increase in traffic exiting Carson Crescent ( a dead-end street ) onto Wattle Road will be massive and at present the intersection of Wattle, Carson and New streets is dangerous and far too narrow.
Wattle Road is a narrow suburban street that is already heavily utilised as a thoroughfare by non-local drivers avoiding the main arterial roads. Introducing the daily vehicle movements of 35 new dwellings will push the local infrastructure past its breaking point.
This area services numerous primary schools, including Glenferrie Primary School and St Joseph's Primary School as well as an Aged Care home. Primary school kids walk and ride bikes to school and often have to resort to riding on the road due to the narrowness of the footpaths and the foot traffic and the ongoing building works. More traffic will make this road more dangerous.

As to removal of trees – we are constantly advised by State and Local Governments that we need more shade on our streets, so I would expect the council to refuse the request to remove any trees.

6 storeys will be an eyesore to the area and contribute to the ongoing erosion of what makes / made Hawthorn a great place to live.

I would ask that this development be restricted to 3 storeys, 18 dwellings and a single level underground carpark.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 6-storey apartment development at 48A and 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn.

While I understand the need for additional housing in Melbourne, I believe this particular development is inappropriate for the existing character and capacity of the surrounding neighbourhood. My concerns are outlined below.

1. Traffic and Parking Impacts

Wattle Road and the surrounding streets are relatively narrow and already experience congestion from local residents, parked vehicles, deliveries, and school-related traffic. A development containing approximately 35 dwellings would significantly increase vehicle movements in the area.

Additional resident and visitor parking demand would place further pressure on Wattle Road, Carson Crescent, Burton Avenue, New Street, Manningham Road, and nearby local streets. Increased traffic would reduce safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and children and make access for emergency vehicles more difficult.

2. Environmental Impacts

The proposal would result in the removal of established canopy trees, including a long-standing oak tree. Mature trees provide important environmental benefits such as shade, cooling, stormwater absorption, improved air quality, and habitat for local wildlife.

Replacing mature trees with new plantings cannot compensate for the immediate loss of canopy cover. The scale of the building would also increase hard surfaces and reduce the green character that currently defines this part of Hawthorn.

3. Impact on Neighbourhood Character

A 6-storey building is substantially larger than the prevailing residential form in the immediate area. The height, bulk, and footprint of the proposed development would dominate the streetscape and alter the quiet residential character of Wattle Road and surrounding streets.

The proposal appears inconsistent with the scale and amenity expectations of existing residents who chose to live in a lower-density neighbourhood.

4. Safety and Security Concerns

A significant increase in population density can place additional pressure on local infrastructure and public spaces. Increased traffic, visitor turnover, delivery activity, and basement access points may create new safety concerns for nearby residents.

Many residents are concerned that the development would reduce the sense of privacy and security currently enjoyed within the neighbourhood.

5. Cumulative and Precedent Effects

Approving a development of this scale may create a precedent for similar high-density projects in nearby streets. This could lead to progressive overdevelopment of an area that is currently characterised by quieter, lower-rise residential housing.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Boroondara Council refuse the current proposal or require substantial modifications that better reflect the capacity, character, environmental values, and amenity expectations of the local community.

Thank you

To whom it may concern,
Recently I drove down Wattle Road to visit an old friend who was visiting from Sydney. I was surprised that the road was so narrow and that for cars to travel in opposite directions one car had to pull over which was difficult because there was no where to do so. I had to back up and find a space on my side of the street.
Then I read of the application to build a 6 storey apartment building on 48A/50 Wattle Road and was flabbergasted! Wattle Road is a most inappropriate road for such a huge building. Besides dwarfing every other home in sight, it is a very dangerous proposal. Extra traffic on such a narrow road would be unfair for the residents and dangerous for all the school children making their way to school. Three stories is bad enough but 6 is outrageously dangerous.

Formal Objection to Proposed Development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed six-storey development comprising 35 dwellings at 48A and 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn. While I acknowledge the need for additional housing within Melbourne, I believe this proposal is excessive in scale for the location and would have significant adverse impacts on traffic safety, neighbourhood character, vegetation, and residential amenity. I respectfully request that Council refuse the current proposal or require substantial modifications, including a reduction in building height to no more than two storeys and a reduction in dwelling numbers to no more than 20 dwellings.
My concerns are outlined below.

1. Traffic Congestion and Road Safety
Wattle Road is already a narrow residential street that experiences significant traffic volumes. The site is situated at an intersection and is located within an area that already accommodates high levels of vehicle movement from residents, visitors, deliveries, and through traffic. Driving along Wattle Road is often challenging due to the combination of parked vehicles and the need to accommodate two-way traffic. Vehicles are frequently required to slow, stop, or manoeuvre around parked cars, creating existing traffic pinch points and safety concerns. The addition of 35 dwellings would generate substantially more vehicle movements throughout the day. Increased resident, visitor, service, and delivery traffic would place further strain on an already constrained road network, resulting in:
• Increased traffic congestion on Wattle Road and surrounding streets.
• Reduced visibility and safety at nearby intersections.
• Greater risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and school-aged children (noting there are 3 primary schools in this area – Glenferrie Primary, St Josephs and Erasmus Primary School).
• Increased difficulty for emergency service vehicles to access the area.
• Additional competition for on-street parking. The local road network is not well suited to accommodating a development of this intensity, and the proposal would exacerbate existing traffic and safety issues.

2. Visual Bulk, Height and Overdevelopment
The proposed six-storey building is significantly out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood and represents an overdevelopment of the site. Permission was only permitted from 17 March 2026 for development of six storey developments following the Victorian Government's finalization of 25 'train and tram zone activity centres' and it should be noted that this property was purchased in November 2025. It raises the question that given this permission was not available for a development of this size on purchase of the property then what was the developer’s original intent? It could not have been a six-storey structure of 35 dwellings. Whilst on locations like the adjacent Glenferrie Road this type of development with access to a major road could be accommodated, Wattle Road is a narrow, low-rise street. The height and visual bulk of the development would dominate the streetscape and create an imposing building that is inconsistent with the existing residential character of Wattle Road. A building of this scale would be highly visible from surrounding properties and public areas, fundamentally altering the appearance and feel of the neighbourhood. The proposal appears to prioritise maximum development yield at the expense of appropriate design outcomes and community expectations. A development of no more than two storeys would be far more consistent with the existing built form and would integrate more sensitively into the surrounding residential context.

3. Loss of Trees and Vegetation
I am deeply concerned about the removal of existing trees and vegetation associated with the development. Established trees make a significant contribution to the character, environmental quality, and biodiversity of the area. Mature canopy trees provide shade, reduce urban heat, improve air quality, absorb stormwater, and provide habitat for birds and other wildlife. The loss of established vegetation cannot be adequately compensated for by new plantings, which will take decades to reach similar size and environmental value. The removal of existing trees, combined with increased building footprint and hard surfaces, would diminish the green and leafy character that residents value and expect in this neighbourhood.

4. Impact on Neighbourhood Character
The existing character of Wattle Road is defined by its residential scale, established landscaping, and relatively low-rise development pattern. A two-storey apartment building containing approximately 20 dwellings would be consistent with the prevailing neighbourhood character. A three-storey block with 35 apartments would represent a dramatic departure from the scale and form of surrounding development. Residents have chosen to live in this area because of its established amenity and residential character. Approving a development of this scale would undermine those qualities and permanently alter the character of the neighbourhood in a way that many residents consider inappropriate.

5. Residential Amenity Impacts
The increased density associated with the proposal would likely result in a range of amenity impacts for nearby residents, including:
• Increased noise from vehicles, residents, visitors, deliveries, and mechanical equipment.
• Greater activity levels throughout the day and evening.
• Reduced privacy for adjoining properties.
• Overshadowing and loss of outlook.
• Additional pressure on local infrastructure and services.
These impacts would significantly affect the enjoyment of neighbouring properties and diminish the amenity currently experienced by local residents.

6. Inappropriate Scale for the Site
While I support well-designed housing growth in appropriate locations, the scale of this proposal is excessive for this site and its surrounding road network. A more modest development limited to two storeys and no more than 20 dwellings would better balance the need for additional housing with the need to protect local amenity, neighbourhood character, traffic safety, and environmental values. Such a scale would be more respectful of the existing streetscape and more appropriate for the capacity of Wattle Road and surrounding streets.

For all the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed six-storey, 35-dwelling development at 48A and 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn. I respectfully request that Boroondara Council refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments that reduce the scale, height, and density of the development. In particular, I ask that Council consider limiting any redevelopment of the site to a maximum of two storeys and no more than 20 dwellings, while retaining as much of the existing tree canopy and vegetation as possible.
Thank you for considering my objection.

Yours sincerely,

Joanne Tremonti

Formal objection to Proposed Development at 48A and 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn

I am writing to object to the proposed six story plus the additional roof mounted infrastructure at the development comprising of 35 apartments at the above address. The proposal is ham fisted and originated from the deeming provisions enacted by Government. It is a one size fits all approach to planning and development and requires immediate consideration for review.

I request that local government object to this development on the strongest terms available.

My concerns are out lined below;

I believe Council should be asked to review both emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety along Wattle Road, particularly in light of proposed developments that are likely to increase vehicle movements.
1. Emergency vehicle access
Based on my measurements, the available carriageway width is approximately 4.2 metres when vehicles are legally parked on the northern side of Wattle Road. This width is equally reduced at a number of choke points, including:
• intersections;
• Council kerb extensions and traffic-calming treatments;
• street tree plantings; and
• other roadside infrastructure.
Fire Rescue Victoria's guidance for emergency vehicle access demonstrates the space required for modern fire appliances, while the CFA recommends that emergency access routes provide a minimum 3.5-metre trafficable width with 0.5 metres clearance on each side, giving an effective clear access corridor of 4.5 metres. The CFA also advises that approximately 4 metres of clear space should be maintained between parked vehicles on urban streets to allow fire appliances to reach emergencies without unnecessary delay.
Given that sections of Wattle Road are reduced to approximately 4.2 metres, and potentially less at pinch points, it would be appropriate for Council to demonstrate that emergency vehicle access has been assessed and remains suitable under current, proposed and future traffic conditions.
2. Footpath accessibility
The footpaths along Wattle Road already contain numerous permanent obstructions, including:
• power poles;
• street signs;
• service pits and utility infrastructure; and
• street trees and associated landscaping.
These obstructions significantly reduce the available walking space. In many locations it is difficult for a person carrying an open umbrella or walking beside a small child and even walking a pet to remain entirely on the footpath. Pedestrians are often forced to step onto the roadway to pass these obstacles.
The situation becomes considerably worse on waste collection days when residential bins are placed on the footpath, further reducing or completely blocking the available pedestrian path.
Australian accessibility guidance generally seeks to maintain a minimum continuous accessible path of travel of 1.2 metres, with wider clearances preferred wherever possible to accommodate wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams and pedestrians travelling side by side. Council should demonstrate that the existing footpaths continue to provide this minimum unobstructed width after accounting for signs, poles, vegetation and waste bins.
3. Increased risk associated with future development
The proposed developments are expected to increase both vehicle ownership and traffic movements within Wattle Road and the surrounding streets.
This increase in traffic will occur in an environment where:
• emergency vehicle access may already be constrained;
• pedestrians are frequently required to leave the footpath to navigate around permanent and temporary obstacles;
• visibility is reduced at several intersections and roadway pinch points; and
• parked vehicles further restrict available road width.
These concerns are heightened because the area serves members of the community who may be more vulnerable, including:
• an aged care facility;
• a nearby primary school;
• children walking to and from school;
• older residents;
• people using wheelchairs, walking frames or mobility aids; and
• parents pushing prams.
Where pedestrians are forced onto the carriageway to bypass obstructions, there is an increased potential for conflict with passing vehicles. As traffic volumes increase, the likelihood of such conflicts also increases. This combination of constrained footpaths, narrow carriageways and additional vehicle movements warrants careful assessment before further development proceeds.

I object to Planning Permit Application PP26/0722 for 48A + 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn.
I reside in Carson Crescent and will be directly affected by the proposed six-storey building, two-level basement, 35 dwellings and removal of canopy trees.
My objection is not to housing diversity in principle. My concern is that this particular proposal represents an excessive and poorly resolved interface with the established residential properties in Carson Crescent.

The proposal should be refused or substantially amended for the following reasons:
1) The building fails to provide an acceptable transition to the low-rise residential character and private open space of Carson Crescent.
2) The height, massing and upper-level form will certainly cause unreasonable visual bulk and dominance when viewed from adjoining and nearby residential properties.
3) The proposal may cause unacceptable overshadowing of Carson Crescent secluded private open space, habitable room windows and solar access. Full shadow diagrams at hourly intervals between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September should be required.
4) The proposal will likely create unreasonable overlooking and loss of privacy from upper-level windows, balconies, communal areas and terraces.
5) The removal of canopy trees will cause a significant loss of privacy, shade, biodiversity and neighbourhood canopy. The proposed two-level basement will likely to compromise deep-soil planting and meaningful canopy replacement.
6) The basement excavation may adversely affect adjoining land, trees, drainage, groundwater and structural stability unless independently assessed and strictly managed.
7) The traffic, parking, access, ramp queuing, waste collection and servicing arrangements need to be clearly demonstrated in plans to avoid unreasonable impacts on Carson Crescent and Wattle Road.
8) The proposal needs to adequately respond to the sensitive Wattle Road streetscape and nearby heritage context.
If Council is minded to support the application, I request copies of plans and request plans to require substantial rear and upper-level setbacks, reduction or deletion of the upper levels facing Carson Crescent, retention of mature canopy trees where feasible, a reduced basement footprint, increased deep-soil landscaping, strict overlooking controls, and a construction management plan preventing adverse impacts on Carson Crescent residents.

In effect, this will be an eight storey building, requiring the massive infrastructure that any eight storey building requires. In a narrow street such as Wattle Road, such a building is neither sustainable in its day to day operation nor liveable for the surrounding community. The economics of the project are flawed. The developers of this property will bear none of the external economic costs of the project - traffic density, loss of tree canopy, construction disruption, audio and visual proliferation, de-characterisation of the neighbourhood. All of these costs will be borne by residents in the area bounded by Power Street and Riversdale, Glenferrie and Burwood Road. The developers will build the project and move on leaving the external economics costs to be borne by residents. Moreover, the project offers no opportunities for first home buyers. All the marketing by Carpe for its projects is directed at well-off downsizers. There is never a place for first home buyers. The project fails on three levels: it will have an overall negative impact on the community, it is flawed economically and it fails to meet State government objectives to provide first home buyer opportunities.

Re proposed development on the 48a and 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn Site.
Just because a developer has been able to acquire two adjacent sites large enough to meet recently legislated planning rules designed to promote ‘affordable’ housing that should not permit the developer to run roughshod over a neighbourhood’s amenity and support infrastructure. The proposed 6 stories and x35 units is totally out of compatibility and support for the Wattle Road and dead end Carson Cresent site.
The visual and overshadowing impact on the prevailing 1/2/3 story neighbourhood would be dominating. An additional 70 vehicles using Carson and Wattle will will at peak times create gridlock. Wattle Road is already carrying a significant role in meeting the increased housing density targets using an upper limit of 3 floors+ single underground carpark. That should be the limit applied to this proposed application. The proposed development and location will have no impact on the affordable housing market, please consider the developer’s promotional material for luxury appartments.
A x3 story development can deliver the expected returns for a developer while still respecting the site’s neighbours and not overloading the supporting infrastructure and amenity.

Re proposed building at 48a and 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn.
I ask the Council to reject outright the application for a six story thirty five residence building at this location on the grounds that:

x6 stories is so incompatible with the locale.
The infrastructure ( specifically vehicle and foot traffic) cannot support the proposed increase in occupancy density.
Carson Cresent is a dead end and cannot support the proposed entry and exit for thirty five appartments.
Wattle Rd and Carson Cres have already been used to meet city density increases by use of x3 story appartments to deliver a higher density but geographically compatible environment.
A x6 story structure which may be eligible under recently released guidelines will uniquely dominate its neighbourhood to the detriment of neighbours and the Wattle Road environment.
Six stories is so mismatched to the proposed locale that it would both visually and physically massively dominate. I note with little or more likely No Impact on affordable housing objectives.
I ask the Council to reject this proposed application, as a test case if necessary, in an effort to re-acquire a degree of influence for its residents and impose geographically reasonable density transitions under the recently gazetted building guidelines.
A three story building can meet density increase objectives without destroying the region’s amenity.
The developer is attempting to exploit guidelines with no regard for existing residents and the locale in general.
A x3 story building could deliver a commercially acceptable ROI and not impose the massively negative impact and incompatibility of a six story building.

As a close nearby resident of 50 Wattle Road I ask the Council to represent Resident objections to the proposed 6 story ( 35 apartment) building on the grounds of :
Physical incompatibility and Unnecessary dominance of the location
Inability of the street and footpaths to support the proposed density increase.
Likelihood of vehicle traffic gridlock in CarsonCres/New Street and Wattle Road
Massive overshadowing of neighbours.
Loss of tree canopy
Total and unnecessary missmatch with the location.
Risk of inadequate fire and emergency service access.
The proposal just doesn’t fit the location and won’t deliver the stated objectives of the new building code.
Massive permanent disruption of existing neighbours and amenity destruction.

Whatever profile and footprint are decided for 48A/50 Wattle Road, several conditions should be attached to it:
- there should be no resident parking permits granted for parking anywhere in the vicinity. All resident parking should be in the basement
- no guest parking permits should be issued
- waste management should be by private contractor with bins stored in the basement. No bins should be put out for public collection
- residents should not be granted hard waste collection privileges. No hard waste should be left for collection in any street in the vicinity. All hard waste should be disposed of at the expense of the residents of the property
- infrastructure such as air conditioning units should be placed in the basement and not on the roof so as to avoid noise pollution that might affect nearby neighbours
- any infrastructure that is not required for safety or other reasons to be place outside the building or on its roof should be located in the basement
- no car stacking infrastructure should be permitted. Such infrastructure would encourage residents to park in the street
- each residence should be provided with two car parking spaces in the basement
- there should be a mechanism to regulate car exit from the building. Only one car should be permitted to exit every two minutes. There should be one lane only for entry and exit on to Carson Crescent
- there should be a garden development and maintenance plan that ensures the property has as much tree canopy as is displaced
- privacy screens should be placed on all windows to prevent residents disturbing the privacy of their neighbours
- the building should be required to install anchor points and other safety features to ensure cleaning etc can be undertaken in a safe manner
- the building should be required to have and to update annually a safety and evacuation plan; and to operate a test of the plan annually
- the building should include in the basement infrastructure for charging electric vehicles
- the building should provide the infrastructure necessary for the installation of solar panels
- the building should be required to have a plan for noise reduction.

Many of these conditions apply to other multi-storey buildings in Wattle Road and should be applied to 48A/50, whatever its final shape and size.

I formally object to the 6 storey (plus plant on roof)/35 residence development at 48A / 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn.
A 6 storey is well out of character to the locality and would set a precedence for future local builds.
The increase in traffic entering/exiting Carson Crescent (a dead-end street) onto Wattle Road will be considerable. At present the intersection of Wattle, Carson and New streets is already dangerous at a one vehicle only section of Wattle.
Wattle Road is a narrow suburban street that is already heavily utilised as a thoroughfare by non-local drivers avoiding the main arterial roads. Introducing the daily vehicle movements of 35 new dwellings will push the local infrastructure beyond capability.
This area services numerous primary schools, including Glenferrie Primary School and St Joseph's Primary School as well as an Aged Care home. Additional traffic will make this road more dangerous than currently is for primary school kids that walk and ride bikes to school frequently having to resort to riding on the road due to the narrowness of the footpaths and the foot traffic and the ongoing building works.
Emergency vehicles to access the area in a timely manner will also be greatly affected.
I would expect the council to refuse the request to remove any trees as Local and State Governments advocate the many benefits trees contribute.
I respectfully urge council to reject the current proposal for 48A/50 Wattle Road and consider a more appropriate height of 3 storeys/1 basement which would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood.

We are townhouse residents in Wattle Road and will be adversely affected by the proposed 6 storey, 2 level basement apartment complex at 48A/50 Wattle Road. Like the other residents responding to this proposal, and for all the reasons given by them, we object to the scale of this proposed development. It is out of keeping with amenity, character and safety of the neighbourhood. Wattle Road, which is little more than a lane way, cannot cope with such a massive increase in traffic.
I would particularly like to emphasise the need for protection and retention of the significant trees on the site. When our townhouses were developed, the Council rightly insisted on the preservation of a large oak tree at the front of the property. This clearly reduced the scale of the project for the developer but we residents and neighbours - and the environment generally - have benefited from that decision.
We are genuinely in favour of increasing density in Hawthorn. But this proposal goes too far and should be significantly curtailed.

The current proposal presents a number of challenges for residents:
In recent years, there is considerably more through traffic from Power / Glenferrie Rds.
With the closure of two way traffic on Drill St due to the monstrous, inappropriate Sierra, our once beautiful green pocket of Hawthorn is no longer.
Pressure on already limited parking with the increase in tradie vehicles and trucks not to mention the parking on nature strips- the noise, machine vibration, music and dust will add to our misery.
Environmental concerns- stormwater drainage, waste management and collection logistics will affect us all.
Street safety- Carson Cres already enjoys high foot, pushbike and animal traffic with the Lisson Grove laneway, but why not allow more vehicles to turn into our driveways and attempt to park for the day.
A nightmare build will prevail with anxious and angry residents trying to get on with their lives.

I completely agree with the previous comments submitted.

I understand that additional housing is needed, but it should not come at the expense of the local environment and the quality of life of existing residents. A six-storey development is excessive for this neighbourhood and is out of character with the surrounding area.

I have recently experienced the impact of a new three-storey development on the corner of Through St and Riversdale Road. It has significantly reduced natural sunlight, increased rubbish in the surrounding environment, contributed to damage to roads, trees, and natural areas that were once thriving, and added to ongoing construction disruption. The price of each apartment is way above $1.5m and I don't believe any have sold proving these don't cater for the first home buyer.

Parking is already at capacity, and the surrounding streets are consistently congested. Higher-density developments without adequate supporting infrastructure place additional pressure on local roads.

I urge the planning authority to give greater consideration to the impacts of this proposal on the environment, neighbourhood character, infrastructure, and the residents who already live in the area. Future housing needs should be balanced with protecting the liveability and environment.

My wife and I purchased on Lisson Grove a few years ago because we found the area “peaceful”. The mix is single fronted homes, larger and established homes, and apartment living was the right mix. The streets are not overly busy and the local services are superb.

We use the walk cut-through daily … and the said property that has been taken down, along with its massive trees, frankly, looked like they should have been heritage listed. (But that’s a different issue).

Replacing this home with a 6 - story apartment complex, on the streets we have cherished for so long, feels wrong. It’s not a fit.

The issues that come along with this many people, cars, noise, and city services is beyond words. The streets alone can’t handle this trafffic and the extra parking needed on the roads: delivery, visitors, Uber, parties, etc.

Our Australian culture is in question. We are not a city like NYC, Hong Kong, or Mumbai…home living is via units that sit on top of each other and are filled with family’s too big for the square footage. (Forgive the generalization - but the point remains).

The is a cultural decision as much as anything. It’s a big call to think we can ever defend this many units and people on one block in this tight area.

Please consider carefully.

I vote no.

J.E. DeCarlo

I am writing to object to the proposed six-storey, 35-dwelling development at 48A and 50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn.

I want to be clear that I am not opposed to higher-density housing in principle. Hawthorn, like the rest of Melbourne, needs more homes, and I support well-designed medium and higher-density development in appropriate locations. But this proposal is the wrong scale for this site, and I agree with the concerns raised by other residents in their objections to this application.

Six storeys and 35 apartments is simply too much for a narrow residential street like Wattle Road. As other submissions have detailed, the road and surrounding intersections (Wattle, Carson Crescent and New Street) are already constrained, and a development of this size will add a substantial volume of daily vehicle movements that the existing road network was never designed to carry. This raises genuine safety concerns, particularly given the number of families and children walking and cycling to nearby primary schools.

I'm also concerned about the cumulative, forward-planning impact of approving a development at this scale. If this application is approved, it risks setting a precedent for similarly oversized developments along the rest of the street and surrounding area. Infrastructure including roads, parking, emergency vehicle access and adequate walking path widths needs to be planned for at a precinct level, not overloaded block by block through ad hoc approvals of individual outsized proposals. Approving this as-is, without regard to what it would mean if repeated along the street, is not sustainable.

I'd ask Council to refuse the application in its current form, or require it to be substantially reduced in height and dwelling numbers to something more in keeping with the capacity of the street and the character of the surrounding area, consistent with the more modest scale (maximum three storeys above ground) that other nearby developments on Wattle Road have been held to.

Thank you for considering my objection.

It is apparent when living on Wattle Road, walking on Wattle Road or looking at the Road as a casual observer that it is a Road which will continue to Develop new and higher density housing over time.

Anyone buying property on Wattle Road is aware that the Road has always been zoned for Development and growth. It is a continuous process, as evidenced by the housing built over every era. Houses, land and Apartments are less expensive here than in other parts of Hawthorn for this reason.

I feel if you buy or live on Wattle Road, you are making a choice to accept that it will increase in density and height over time. It is not a hidden or unknown factor. This is the trade off when buying property or living on Wattle Road. It is a place with high access to amenity and walkability, which will contain more new housing over time.

Planning Professional's have assessed the Road from a neutral perspective and determined the best case land use of the Road’s large blocks with single family dwellings built on them, is new housing and increased height and density.

Affordable housing like the Nightingale Developments would be more appropriate than the luxury units proposed.

Social and/or Public Housing would be more appropriate than the luxury units proposed.

It would have been great if the City of Boroondara had purchased the land at 50 and 48A Wattle Road and created and supported affordable housing here. I would support and encourage them to do this when other large blocks on Wattle Road are sold over time.

Residents in Boroondara seem to be in full support of affordable new housing being built. This is noted whenever expensive new Apartments are proposed. The main thing which seems to stop it, is the higher yields for Developers in building luxury new Developments. Many people wish to be able to stay close to their children and community as they age. Affordable housing options support this.

These smaller and more affordable housing typologies would create a greater Net Community benefit than additional luxury Apartments and would follow Hawthorns long history of being a place with less single dwelling housing than other suburbs.

Whatever is built here could be built with fewer car parks than average - due to the Roads walkability and proximity to transport infrastructure.

It does not seem like affordable new apartments will be built in Wattle Road or Boroondara like they were during the 1960’s and earlier in the suburbs history. This is a shame, as affordable housing is fundamental to facilitating the diverse and vibrant suburb Hawthorn is. It has historically attracted students, renters and people living in small and affordable dwellings.

There is an underenrolled School on Wattle Road, which would receive extra funding if people were able to access affordable housing on Wattle Road and send their children to the school.

Every other part of inner Melbourne already has Apartment blocks like the one proposed, including on small and narrow streets like Wattle Road. This type of housing is not new, unique or inappropriate in inner urban areas in Melbourne. If anything, it should have been built sooner here.

If there had not been ongoing and unnecessary Heritage Study’s of the Road - the block would have been sold and built on earlier - at a height of 3 stories. As would other blocks on the Road.

If these 6 story Apartments are built on this land now, this is in part attributable to the ongoing Re-litigation of houses through Heritage Study’s residents have asked Council to conduct repeatedly over time.

If the original growth zoning had evolved organically after 2014, it is unlikely there would be large sites like this left - where 6 story Apartments could be built under the new Activity Centre zoning.

I feel it should be noted that extensive resident complaints have slowed, stopped or made more expensive nearly every new build or renovation of an existing home on Wattle Road over the last 30 to 40 years. This has delayed new buildings, made them more expensive to the people who eventually buy them and has acted to reduce the amount of new housing built on a Road zoned for growth. It sets up a dynamic where people buy in good faith to create new housing - on a Road zoned for growth. Then face a barrage of opposition for doing what the zoning requires them to do.

This Development seems to be an appropriate, predictable and unremarkable building on a Road zoned for growth. In a city set to double in size. In a Municipality which is required to construct 65,000 new dwellings by 2051 to meet State Government new housing targets in locations close to transport. In a Municipality where every building which meets the heritage threshold, already has a Heritage Overlay.

While there will always be a tension between what developers build and what existing residents want, I feel
the big picture is - more housing here will create significant economies of scale and work to offset the large amounts of land locked up in single dwelling Heritage Overlays in Lisson Grove and Manningtree Road on either side of Wattle Road.

I feel more thought should be given to the type of trees retained or planted on Wattle Road. Each tree should be assessed to determine if it will have the capacity to survive over time as the climate changes and temperatures increase. Many European Street and garden tree’s will not be able to survive as temperatures increase. Planting new species which will be able to survive as temperatures rise should be prioritised and planted now, to provide maximum shade and cooling benefits to these Apartments and the Wattle Road streetscape.

It would create a net Community benefit if the Landscaping in this Apartment prioritised Indigenous and Native plant species to provide habitat for Indigenous Australian insects, pollinators, birds and animals. This would provide them
With shelter and access to food and create new and appropriate habitat for the other than human species which live on the Road.

I hope whatever is built is designed thoughtfully and with reference to making it liveable in climate change, using high quality design and materials, taking care to integrate it into the lovely existing streetscape and buildings, and is done in a way where the people living in it connect with and become an integral part of the Road and the Community. It is likely to be a landmark building on the Road, enjoyed by many people and providing habitat and homes to many other species over time.

re: Objection to Planning Permit Applications – 48A–50 and 57–59 Wattle Road, Hawthorn

I fully support the points made by Michael , Andrew, Ray and Garry, just to name a few.
I am the owner of 48 Wattle Road, Hawthorn, a property I have owned for 35 years and which directly adjoins 48A–50 Wattle Road. I write to formally object to the proposed developments at 48A–50 and 57–59 Wattle Road.
I recognise the need for additional housing in Boroondara and understand that recent State planning reforms encourage increased housing in appropriate locations. However, those reforms do not mean that every site should be developed to its maximum possible yield, regardless of its physical constraints or the cumulative impact on the surrounding area.

The scale of these proposals needs to be put into perspective. A six-storey development of approximately 35 dwellings on one site in this part of Wattle Road would already represent an unreasonnable change to the established residential environment. The prospect of two developments of this scale, delivering approximately 90 new dwellings between them, is overwhelming and plainly unacceptable for this very narrow residential street.
This is not an objection to additional housing. It is an objection to the sheer scale and cumulative impact of these particular proposals.

My primary concern is the cumulative impact of 90 additional dwellings on Wattle Road and their 2 and 3 storey underground car parks.
Wattle Road is already subject to significant local, school, aged-care, delivery and through-traffic. It is a very narrow residential street with numerous pinch points where vehicles travelling in opposite directions must wait for one another to pass.
The additional vehicle movements generated by 90 dwellings, together with visitors, deliveries, waste collection and servicing, would materially increase congestion and vehicle conflict. The surrounding road network was not designed to accommodate development of this intensity.

There are also genuine public-safety concerns. Wattle Road is used daily by school children, elderly residents, cyclists and parents with prams, and the surrounding area includes schools and aged-care and nursing facilities.
Existing narrow footpaths are already constrained in places by power poles, signs, service pits, mature trees and waste bins. Increased traffic would exacerbate these existing safety problems.
Emergency access also requires careful consideration. The narrow carriageway, parked vehicles and other pinch points raise legitimate concerns about whether fire appliances and ambulances will always be able to obtain timely access.
Council should therefore require an assessment of pedestrian safety and emergency vehicle access based on the combined traffic generated by the proposed developments.

2. Scale, height and neighbourhood character
The issue is not whether additional housing should be provided, but whether this level of development is appropriate on these sites and in this street.
The height, bulk and continuous built form would create a dominant presence in the streetscape and place considerable additional pressure on local infrastructure, parking and residential amenity.
The cumulative effect of the two developments must be considered together.

What might already be considered an extreme development on one site becomes overwhelming when essentially the same scale of development is proposed on two sections of the same residential street.

3. Loss of established trees
The proposed developments would result in the removal of established trees that contribute significantly to the amenity and environmental quality of the area.
Mature trees provide shade, cooling, habitat, stormwater absorption and visual amenity. New replacement planting cannot provide equivalent benefits for many years.
Council should therefore give serious consideration to whether the extent of vegetation removal can be avoided through a reduction in the scale or footprint of the developments.

4. Excavation and risk to adjoining property – 48A–50 Wattle Road
I have particular concerns regarding the proposed two-level basement at 48A–50 Wattle Road and the extensive excavation immediately adjacent to my property.
My house is approximately 150 years old and sits close to the shared boundary. Unlike modern buildings, it was not constructed on contemporary concrete footings. Excavation of this scale therefore creates a genuine risk from ground movement, vibration and changes to soil or groundwater conditions.
Before any permit is granted, Council should require an independent geotechnical assessment demonstrating that the excavation can be undertaken without compromising my property or established trees.
A detailed pre-construction dilapidation report, construction monitoring and appropriate safeguards should also be mandatory, with compensation and clear responsibility for rectifying any damage caused by the development.

5. Residential amenity, privacy and the rights of existing residents
The proposed developments would substantially increase vehicle movements, noise, activity, servicing and general disturbance, both during construction and after completion. Existing residents would also experience a significant change in the scale and intensity of development surrounding their homes, including a substantial loss of privacy and a change in the character of their immediate surroundings.
I recognise that the recent planning reforms, including the provisions of Clause 57, have changed the planning framework and allow greater development than may previously have been possible. However, the introduction of these new standards should not mean that the reasonable privacy and amenity of existing residents are simply disregarded.
Existing residents have established their homes and lives in this neighbourhood with a reasonable expectation of residential privacy and amenity. The fact that planning controls have changed does not make the resulting impacts on those residents insignificant.
Where a development of this scale creates opportunities for extensive overlooking and substantially reduces the privacy currently enjoyed by adjoining homes, Council should consider whether the design can be modified to minimise those impacts, rather than treating the new standards as an automatic justification for the maximum possible development.
The issue is particularly significant when the cumulative impact of two major developments is considered. The combined loss of privacy, increased activity, traffic, noise and visual dominance would represent a profound change for existing residents.
Planning reform may appropriately seek to increase housing supply, but it should not be interpreted as requiring existing residents to accept an unreasonable or disproportionate loss of residential amenity.

6. A more balanced outcome is achievable
A more appropriately scaled development could provide additional housing while respecting the physical limitations of Wattle Road, protecting public safety, retaining established vegetation and providing a more reasonable transition to existing homes.

Conclusion
The combination of 90 additional dwellings, six-storey building forms, increased traffic, pedestrian and emergency-access concerns, loss of established vegetation, extensive excavation, loss of privacy and impacts on residential amenity demonstrates that these proposals, in their current form, exceed the reasonable capacity of the sites and surrounding road network.
One development of this scale would represent a very substantial and disruptive change to Wattle Road and its residents. Two such developments proposed together would transform the street and overwhelm its existing capacity and character.

I respectfully request that Council refuse the applications in their current form, or require substantial reductions in height, dwelling numbers and overall scale so that any redevelopment is genuinely consistent with the capacity of Wattle Road and provides a reasonable balance between additional housing and the rights, safety, amenity and privacy of existing residents.

I repeat here an opinion I posted in the comments page for an application on 57/59 Wattle Road.

I write wrt ED’s recent points made regarding applications for 57/59 and 48a/50 Wattle Road.
The point is the relative scale of these proposals.
I contend ED’s last paragraph destroys their own submission; in that they refer to the existing ‘liveability’ and ‘loverly existing streetscape’ which these two proposals will destroy by not integrating.
For reference I quote ED.
…..is designed thoughtfully and with reference to making it liveable in climate change, using high quality design and materials, taking care to integrate it into the lovely existing streetscape and buildings, and is done in a way where the people living in it connect with and become an integral part of the Road and the Community.

A more considered 3 three floor upper limit addresses every point raised by ED without overloading the infrastructure and existing amenity AND still significantly contributing to an increased population density.
Ray Wood
Ray Wood

We object in the strongest terms to this proposal. Our grounds of objection are -

Height
The proposed development looms at 25 metres in height at its highest point. Its height contributes to the overshadowing and overlooking amenity concerns of adjoining residents, and beyond. The height of the proposal is not consistent with the existing Wattle Road streetscape, which fluctuates between one and two storeys, with a very occasional, well setback third storey. The proposal would be clearly visible from the length of Wattle Road, Carson Avenue, Lisson Grove, Manningtree Road, Burton Avenue, and New Street. New mid-rise housing should not command the streetscape far beyond its boundary. Extra density is needed, but at a scale that will be welcomed, not inflicted on the community.

Overlooking
Overlooking is a great concern, with ongoing privacy for both indoor and outdoor spaces. It is relevant that there is currently no overlooking to adjoining properties. There is significant overlooking from all levels into the secluded private open space of adjoining properties. The dominance of the height of the development results in a direct line of sight into the habitable rooms of adjoining properties. This is a complete and absolute invasion of privacy which was never possible, but for the deemed to comply regime.

Street Context
We are concerned the proposal fails to integrate with the existing streetscape and if it proceeds, as currently designed, will damage the streetscape irrevocably, something that is exacerbated by the fact that the development will sit on a corner block with a very prominent position on the streetscape.

A number of the properties in the immediate vicinity are covered by Heritage Overlay, and are considered significant to the heritage character. The surrounding dwellings are typically of brick or weatherboard and are one or two storeys in height. This is in stark contrast to the proposed development which is projected to be 6 storeys and to be treated with modern materials.

Overshadowing
The proposal creates significant overshadowing on a number of properties. The proposed overshadowing does not meet a reasonable standard. Moreover, this overshadowing may have a detrimental effect on flora and breach significantly the 9 am – 3 pm, 22 September test.

In many cases, the entire outdoor area of adjoining properties will be overshadowed and is a fundamental infringement upon the amenity of those properties.

Setback
The proximity of the proposed development, especially given the wholly out of character scale from all four boundaries is of major concern.

Wind Assessment
The change in wind behaviour caused by the erection of such a sizeable building is of significant concern, noting the leafy character of the streetscape and gardens.

Trees
There are a number of mature specimen trees along the Wattle Road frontage of number 50 that should be retained.

Noise
There will be an enormous increase in noise that the proposal would introduce to the quiet Wattle Road community, some mechanical (air con, ventilation units, extra cars, delivery trucks etc) and general noise created by a 3,400% increase in residents on this block alone.

Traffic
There is a significant concern about the narrow width of Wattle Road and the risk of accidents and noise from high utilization and the significant problems it would cause for emergency services, especially ambulance and fire. It is worth noting there is a large aged care living facility on Wattle Road to which ambulances are regularly called. Additionally, there are two primary schools with access from Wattle Road – Glenferrie Primary School and St Josephs School which has a gate onto Wattle Road. Children regularly walk along a narrow pedestrian path to school, both accompanied by adults, and alone. A narrow in and out driveway servicing seventy (70) cars would result in a wholly unacceptable element of danger to the most vulnerable of users, primary school pedestrians. The aged, at the other end of the lifetime spectrum, are also regular users of Wattle Road, and again are a vulnerable class of pedestrian navigating driveways on such a narrow road.
An additional concern is the bottlenecks that will be caused by a large number of cars exiting via Glenferrie Road and Power Street. Right hand turns out of Wattle Road will result in enormous ‘backing up’ of traffic as cars wait their turn to exit Wattle Road.

Parking onsite needs to embrace the need for visitors use, as there is little space to accommodate numerous visitors, especially given the number of dropped kerbs along Wattle, Carson and New Streets. Additionally, the topography of road and the traffic calming measures introduced by Boroondara council years ago already result in gridlock at times. Motorists often mount the kerb along Wattle road to ensure another car can pass. This presents a real and present danger to residents whose frontages are close to the path, pedestrians, cyclists and other road and pavement users.

Deliveries to the proposed building would result in a constant number of vehicles pulling off to the side, often breaching the pavement to deliver by the likes of behemoths little concerned with their local footprint, such as Amazon, Uber Eats, Door Dash and countless other App based delivery platforms. Ubers, taxis and other app based rideshare providers will be banked up and down the road waiting for their ‘rides’ as there is nothing on the curtilage of the proposed development that takes this into account.

Services
The increase in use of utility services such as power, water, sewerage, drainage and internet cannot be overstated. Further, the lack of permeable ground on the site will significantly contribute to flood risk.

I object in the strongest possible terms to the development proposal at 48A & 50 Wattle Road (PP26/0722). This proposal should be refused. It is not merely excessive or poorly judged; it is the foreseeable result of State Government planning reforms that have stripped councils of meaningful discretion, reduced local decision-making power, and enabled high-density development in locations that cannot reasonably, safely, or credibly absorb it.
1. This proposal exists only because the reforms override local judgement
Under the new planning amendments, Wattle Road is treated as a blank, generic development zone. The reforms disregard the street’s scale, history, constraints, and identity. A six-storey, 35-dwelling block is not the product of careful local planning; it is the automatic output of a top-down system that has deliberately reduced Council’s ability to exercise judgement and protect established neighbourhoods.
2. The reforms intentionally exclude real world conditions
The new framework is designed to ignore:
• neighbourhood character
• heritage context
• street capacity
• cumulative density
• infrastructure limits
These are not minor matters. They are matters that appear to have been given reduced practical weight under the reform framework. The proposal at 48A & 50 Wattle Road is unworkable because the framework does not adequately confront the basic physical reality of the street it is being imposed upon.
3. All negative impacts are symptoms of the reforms
Overshadowing, overlooking, excavation risks, tree removal, traffic pressure, and cumulative amenity loss are not isolated concerns. They are the predictable consequences of a planning system that has reduced Council’s practical ability to refuse or reshape oversized developments, even where the surrounding area plainly cannot absorb them.
4. The reforms enable uncontrolled cumulative density
Wattle Road is already facing multiple separate development pressures. In addition to the proposal at 48A & 50 Wattle Road, separate developments are also associated with 57 Wattle Road and 23 Wattle Road. Under the new rules, projects of this kind can accumulate one after another within the same street without coherent sequencing, infrastructure upgrades, or any serious mechanism for Council to manage cumulative impact. This is not strategic planning. It is deregulated intensification imposed on a small residential street.
5. This proposal demonstrates how the reforms are failing communities
48A & 50 Wattle Road is a case study in how the new Victorian planning amendments are enabling unsafe, unsuitable, and damaging outcomes. The reforms:
• reduce meaningful community input
• sideline Council’s practical decision-making role
• place greater weight on development yield
• give insufficient weight to physical constraints
• give insufficient weight to neighbourhood identity
This development is incompatible with Wattle Road, and the fact that it can be advanced at all demonstrates the defect in the reform model. A planning system that cannot properly ask whether a proposal fits its street is not delivering good planning; it is overriding it.
6. Site-specific impacts on Wattle Road and surrounding properties
In addition to the broader problem created by the planning reforms, this application has specific local impacts that make it unsuitable for 48A & 50 Wattle Road and the surrounding residential area.
• Traffic and parking pressure: A 35-dwelling development would significantly increase vehicle movements, parking demand, delivery activity, waste collection pressure, and congestion on a street that was not designed to function as a high-density access corridor.
• Overshadowing and loss of sunlight: A six-storey built form risks unreasonable overshadowing of neighbouring homes, private open space, gardens, and existing solar access, particularly given the established low-rise residential context.
• Overlooking and privacy loss: Upper-level apartments, balconies, and windows would create direct overlooking into adjoining properties, reducing privacy and residential amenity for existing residents.
• Excavation and construction risk: The scale of basement works, excavation, truck movements, vibration, and construction staging may create unacceptable impacts for adjoining properties and the local road network.
• Tree removal and loss of landscape character: The proposal risks removing mature vegetation and replacing the existing garden setting with an over-scaled built form that is inconsistent with the landscape character of the street.
• Cumulative density impact: When considered alongside other separate developments in the same street, including 57 Wattle Road and 23 Wattle Road, this application would contribute to rapid and unmanaged densification without adequate infrastructure, traffic, open space, or neighbourhood character assessment.
These impacts demonstrate that the proposal is not merely undesirable in policy terms; it is unsuitable on its own planning merits. Council should assess and oppose the application based on these concrete local effects, while also recognising the broader failure of the reform framework that has allowed such an application to proceed.
The proposal at 48A & 50 Wattle Road should be refused. It is the direct result of a planning system that no longer adequately protects neighbourhoods, respects local conditions, or allows councils to exercise the judgement communities expect of them. Council should use every lawful assessment power still available to oppose this application and should not allow 48A & 50 Wattle Road to become the test case for a defective reform model being imposed on a street that plainly cannot accommodate it.

Objection to Planning Proposal PP26/0722
48A & 50 Wattle Road

I object to the proposed development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road (PP26/0722) and respectfully submit that the application should be refused.

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing and increased residential density in appropriate locations, this proposal represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development for Wattle Road and highlights broader shortcomings in the current planning framework. The proposal fails to adequately respond to the physical constraints, infrastructure capacity and established character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Planning Framework Fails to Reflect Local Conditions

The current planning reforms have significantly reduced the ability of councils and local communities to influence development outcomes that directly affect their neighbourhoods. As a result, Wattle Road is effectively treated as a generic development opportunity rather than a unique residential street with its own established character, constraints and infrastructure limitations.

The proposed six-storey, 55-dwelling development appears to be driven primarily by development yield rather than by a considered assessment of whether the site and surrounding area can reasonably accommodate development of this scale.

Good planning requires more than compliance with broad policy objectives. It requires a genuine assessment of how a proposal fits within its local context and whether it contributes positively to the surrounding community.

Insufficient Consideration of Infrastructure and Neighbourhood Capacity

A key concern is that the planning framework appears to place insufficient emphasis on matters such as:

Neighbourhood character and streetscape consistency.
Heritage and established residential context.
Road network capacity.
Existing parking pressures.
Infrastructure constraints.
The cumulative effect of multiple high-density developments within the same locality.

These factors are critical to determining whether development is sustainable and appropriate. In this case, the proposal appears to exceed the capacity of the surrounding area and would further burden infrastructure that is already under increasing pressure.

Site-Specific Impacts
Traffic and Parking

The proposal would introduce a substantial increase in vehicle movements associated with residents, visitors, deliveries, contractors, service providers and waste collection.

Wattle Road was not designed to operate as a high-density residential access corridor. Existing traffic congestion and parking pressures would be exacerbated by a development of this scale.

The cumulative traffic impacts must also be considered in the context of nearby education, aged-care and residential land uses, all of which already generate significant vehicular activity.

Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight

A six-storey building has the potential to create significant overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties, reducing access to sunlight for homes, private open space and gardens.

Given the established low-rise character of the area, these impacts are likely to be substantial and inconsistent with reasonable residential amenity expectations.

Overlooking and Privacy

Upper-level apartments, balconies and windows would increase opportunities for direct overlooking into adjoining residential properties.

This would result in a loss of privacy for existing residents and diminish the amenity of neighbouring homes.

Construction and Excavation Impacts

The scale of the proposed basement and excavation works raises concerns regarding construction impacts, including:

Heavy vehicle movements.
Noise and vibration.
Potential impacts on adjoining properties.
Disruption to local traffic and parking.
Extended construction activity within a residential environment.

These risks warrant careful consideration given the proximity of surrounding homes.

Loss of Vegetation and Landscape Character

The proposal may result in the loss of existing trees and vegetation that contribute to the character and appearance of Wattle Road.

The replacement of established landscaping with a large-scale built form would further erode the residential character of the street and diminish the area's visual amenity.

Cumulative Development Impacts

Perhaps the most significant concern is the cumulative effect of ongoing high-density development within Wattle Road.

This proposal should not be assessed in isolation. Consideration must be given to other developments within the street, including those at 57 Wattle Road and 23 Wattle Road, and the combined impact these projects will have on:

Traffic congestion.
Parking availability.
Population density.
Infrastructure demand.
Public amenity.
Neighbourhood character.

While a single development may appear manageable when viewed independently, the combined effect of multiple projects can fundamentally alter the function and character of a residential street.

Without a coordinated approach to infrastructure provision and growth management, the continued concentration of large apartment developments in Wattle Road risks creating adverse outcomes for existing and future residents alike.

Conclusion

The proposal at 48A & 50 Wattle Road represents an excessive level of development for its location and raises significant concerns regarding traffic, parking, amenity, infrastructure capacity, neighbourhood character and cumulative development impacts.

More broadly, the application illustrates the shortcomings of a planning approach that prioritises housing yield without adequately considering local conditions, existing constraints and community impacts.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse this application or require substantial amendments to reduce its scale and intensity to a level that is genuinely compatible with the capacity, character and amenity of Wattle Road and the surrounding neighbourhood.

I therefore object to Planning Proposal PP26/0722 and request that it not be approved in its current form.

I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development at 48A–50 Wattle Road, Hawthorn.

My concerns are based not only on what I have read about the proposal, but on my personal experience of living in Wattle Road and in the adjoining family home. I know the street well, understand how it functions on a day-to-day basis and have experienced the particular characteristics and constraints of this part of Wattle Road.

I understand that the planning controls applying to Wattle Road have recently changed and that the new Housing Choice and Transport Zone is intended to facilitate substantially more housing. I am not opposed to additional housing in principle, and I understand that Clause 57 provides a deemed-to-comply framework for four-to-six-storey developments.

However, I do not believe that the existence of the new zoning means that the maximum possible development is automatically appropriate on every site. The particular physical circumstances of Wattle Road need to be taken seriously.

The reality of Wattle Road
Wattle Road is a relatively narrow residential street. It is not a broad arterial road designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic.

Having lived here, I know how quickly the road becomes difficult to navigate when there are cars parked along the street and vehicles travelling in both directions. At busy times, particularly around school pick-up and drop-off, the available road space can become extremely constrained.

There are already periods when vehicles have difficulty passing each other. Construction vehicles and vans associated with existing development can make the situation considerably worse.

Adding approximately 35 dwellings to 48A–50 Wattle Road would inevitably increase the number of people using the site and the associated vehicle movements. There would be residents, visitors, deliveries, tradespeople, waste collection, service vehicles and other activity.

This needs to be considered in the context of the actual physical capacity of Wattle Road, rather than simply considering the number of parking spaces provided within the development.

The cumulative impact is particularly concerning
I am also concerned that 48A–50 Wattle Road should not be considered in isolation.

I understand that substantial development is also proposed at 57–59 Wattle Road. If developments of this scale are permitted at several locations along the same relatively narrow street, the cumulative consequences for traffic, parking, pedestrian movement, construction activity and the general residential environment could be significant.

The street has to function as a whole.

It is not sufficient to say that each individual development can be assessed separately if the combined result is a level of intensity that the street itself cannot comfortably accommodate.

Increased density must still produce a reasonable outcome
I understand the State Government's objective of increasing housing supply. I also understand that the new planning framework is intended to make it easier to provide four-to-six-storey housing in appropriate locations.

But increasing housing density should not mean that the quality of life and amenity of existing residents become secondary considerations.

There needs to be a sensible balance between providing more homes and ensuring that the resulting development is appropriate to its particular location.

In my view, the question should not simply be:

“Can this site accommodate a six-storey building?”

The more important question is:

“Is this particular six-storey development, at this particular scale and density, an appropriate outcome having regard to the site, the surrounding homes and the capacity of Wattle Road?”

Relationship with existing homes
Having lived in the family home, I am also very aware of the relationship between the existing properties in this part of Wattle Road.

The proposed development represents a very substantial change in scale from the established homes surrounding it.

I ask Council to carefully consider the effect of the proposed building's height, bulk and proximity on neighbouring properties, including:

visual bulk and dominance;
loss of outlook;
privacy and overlooking;
daylight and sunlight;
overshadowing of gardens and courtyards;
the sense of openness around existing homes; and
the overall transition between the new building and the existing residential environment.
These impacts should be considered together rather than as a series of isolated technical requirements.

Clause 57 and the deemed-to-comply provisions
I understand that Clause 57 contains deemed-to-comply standards and that, where the applicable standard is met, the corresponding objective is deemed to be satisfied.

However, I ask Council to carefully establish that the actual final proposal satisfies all applicable standards.

Where a standard is not met, I understand that the relevant decision guidelines must be considered in determining whether the corresponding objective is achieved.

I therefore ask Council not to assume that the new zoning itself establishes that a development of this scale is appropriate.

The new planning framework may permit substantially greater density, but it does not remove the need to properly assess the particular proposal and its relationship with the surrounding environment.

Traffic and pedestrian safety
I am particularly concerned about traffic and pedestrian safety.

Wattle Road already has periods of considerable congestion and restricted vehicle movement. When cars are parked on the street, the effective width of the road is reduced substantially.

Additional development will increase vehicle movements not only from residents but also from visitors, deliveries, waste collection and service providers.

I ask Council to consider what the street will actually be like when these additional demands are placed upon it, rather than relying solely on theoretical traffic generation figures.

Pedestrians, cyclists, children and people accessing neighbouring properties also need to be considered.

Construction impacts
There is also likely to be a substantial construction period associated with a development of this scale.

I am concerned about excavation, construction traffic, trucks, machinery, vibration, dust and noise, particularly given the proximity of existing homes.

If the proposal proceeds, I would ask Council to ensure that neighbouring properties are properly protected and that appropriate construction management conditions are imposed.

The character and liveability of Wattle Road
I am not suggesting that Wattle Road should never change.

I understand that cities evolve and that additional housing is necessary.

But there is a difference between accepting change and accepting development of any scale simply because a planning control has changed.

Wattle Road has particular physical characteristics which cannot be changed simply by changing the zoning. The road remains narrow. The existing homes remain close to one another. The surrounding residential environment remains what it is.

Planning controls should respond to the physical reality of a location rather than assuming that the physical environment can simply absorb unlimited increases in intensity.

My request to Council
I respectfully ask Council to:

carefully assess the final proposal against all applicable Clause 57 standards;
properly consider any standards that are not met and the relevant decision guidelines;
assess the actual cumulative effect of this development together with other substantial developments proposed along Wattle Road;
carefully consider traffic, access and pedestrian safety;
assess the effects on neighbouring properties, including privacy, daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, visual bulk and outlook;
consider whether the proposed scale and density represent an appropriate transition to the existing homes;
carefully consider the likely construction impacts on surrounding residents; and
ensure that affected residents receive proper notification and a genuine opportunity to examine the final plans and make submissions.
I also urge Council to communicate to the State Government the concerns that arise when the new density provisions are applied to a street with the particular physical constraints of Wattle Road.

I strongly support sensible and well-designed housing development. What I question is whether a development of approximately six storeys and 35 dwellings, together with other substantial development proposed along the same narrow street, represents sensible and sustainable planning for Wattle Road.

I ask Council to consider not only how much development the new planning framework may permit, but whether the resulting development will actually work for the people who live in and use this street.

I object to the proposed development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road (PP26/0722) and respectfully submit that the current application of 6 storey building with 35 apartments should be refused.

I acknowledge the need for additional housing and increased residential density in appropriate locations, and this is currently happening in Wattle Road with the replacement of single dwellings be replaced by townhouse/apartments with 8 to 10 residences with a height of 3 storeys. I accept this.

However, this proposal of 35 apartments creates essentially an additional 60-68 cars in Wattle Road.

Wattle Road
- is a narrow throughfare, approximately 5.7 metres at its widest and 3.9 metres at its narrowest. Nearby connecting streets (including New Street, Burton Avenue and Carson Crescent) are also narrow and already affected by parking and traffic pressures.
- functions as a transit road for traffic entering from Power Street and Glenferrie Road
- has a primary school and aged care facility that draws in significant traffic, and significant increases in traffic may also be dangerous for elderly residents and children.

Coupled with the ever-increasing traffic of delivery vehicles to residences (a sign of the times of today) and the continued use for access of waste management vehicles, Wattle Road will not be able to cope with the additional traffic. In fact, it will reduce road safety for pedestrians, school children, cyclists and the elderly residents.

The planning framework does not reflect local conditions and local voice for expressing these concerns does not seem to be available under the latest planning schemes imposed by the State Government. It feels that someone from afar saw it being a called 'ROAD' and immediately thought that that 6 storey buildings can be accommodated. In reality, Wattle Road is a 'LANE' and should have been called 'Wattle Lane'.

I am asking for decision on this application to be based on better planning; housing that is sustainable, liveable, safe, supported by infrastructure, and respectful of the people who already live here.

Wattle Road can accommodate more people. But it should not be overwhelmed by repeated
maximum-envelope developments that shift the costs of growth onto local residents

Sir/ Madam
I have visited Wattle road many times. It has recently come to my attention that public notice is shortly to be given for the proposed development at 48A–50 Wattle Road.
I have taken the time to read a number of the objections already raised by local residents, and I strongly support the concerns they have expressed.
However, I would like to make a rather simple common sense observation.
How can a six-storey development of approximately 35 apartments reasonably be contemplated on this particular site when Wattle Road is such a narrow and constrained street?
At its narrowest, Wattle Road is approximately 3.9 metres wide. With cars parked on one side, passing vehicles already have difficulty negotiating the road. At times, getting through requires drivers travelling in opposite directions to rely on each other's courtesy and, on occasions, to use the driveways of properties along the street to allow one another to pass.
This is the existing situation , before adding the traffic and activity generated by a six-storey apartment development containing approximately 35 dwellings.
This is not an abstract planning issue. It is a question of how the street actually functions in everyday life.
Wattle Road is also not an isolated residential street with little activity around it. There are schools in and around the street, including a school on Wattle Road itself, as well as two nursing homes. There are children, parents, pedestrians, elderly people, carers, visitors, deliveries and service vehicles using the area.
The road therefore already has a range of competing demands, and these are not going to disappear simply because planning controls now allow greater development intensity.
The question of road safety
I am particularly concerned about what this means for road safety.
If two ordinary cars already struggle to pass each other when cars are parked on the road, how will the street cope with the additional movements associated with 35 apartments?
It is not just the residents' cars that need to be considered. There will be visitors, deliveries, tradespeople, removalists, waste collection, couriers, building services and other vehicles.
And what happens when a larger vehicle needs to enter or leave the site while another vehicle is travelling along Wattle Road?
The consequences of congestion on such a narrow road are potentially much more serious when emergency access is considered. Fire engines, ambulances and other emergency vehicles cannot rely on courtesy or on being able to use private driveways to get through.
This is surely something that warrants very careful consideration before a development of this intensity is allowed to proceed.
This cannot be considered in isolation
I am also concerned about the cumulative effect of development in Wattle Road.
A single additional development of this size is questionable, but when several substantial developments are proposed along the same narrow street, the combined effect on traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, noise and general amenity will be unmanageable.
The Council should therefore be asking a straightforward question:
How much additional development can Wattle Road realistically accommodate before the physical limitations of the street become a serious problem?
A change in planning controls does not make a 3.9-metre-wide road wider.
It does not create additional parking spaces on the street.
It does not make it easier for cars to pass.
And it does not remove the need for emergency vehicles, school traffic, pedestrians and residents to safely use the road.
Common sense should form part of the assessment
I appreciate that there are new State planning provisions intended to facilitate increased housing in appropriate locations. I am not opposed to increased housing or sensible development.
But there must surely be room for common sense and proper consideration of the physical reality of individual streets.
The fact that a six-storey development may now be contemplated under the applicable planning controls does not, in my view, answer the fundamental question of whether this particular development is appropriate on this particular site.
Before the application proceeds, I would urge Council to satisfy itself that every relevant requirement is genuinely met and that the practical consequences for Wattle Road have been properly assessed — particularly traffic, road safety, emergency access, parking, pedestrian safety and the cumulative impact of other developments in the area.
I also urge Council to make clear to the State Government that higher-density planning controls cannot sensibly be applied in exactly the same way to every location. There will inevitably be streets whose physical limitations make them very different from others.
Wattle Road appears to me to be one of those streets.
I ask Council to exercise the greatest possible scrutiny of this proposal and to consider not merely what the planning controls may technically permit, but what is reasonable, safe and sustainable for the street and the people who use it every day. If there is a time constraint to assess the application meticulously, an extension of time is warranted. The consequences of the wrong decision are serious.

Regards

Ronald Purvis

I live in East Hawthorn and I regularly walk and cycle in Wattle road. I am writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed development at 48A–50 Wattle Road and, in particular, whether a development of this scale and intensity is suitable for Wattle Road.

My concern is not with additional housing in principle. It is with the scale of development proposed for a very narrow and constrained residential street, and with the cumulative impact of multiple large developments occurring along Wattle Road.

The scale is unsuitable for Wattle Road

The proposed six-storey development, comprising approximately 35 dwellings and two levels of basement, represents a very substantial increase in the intensity of use of this site.

Wattle Road is not a wide arterial road capable of easily accommodating this level of additional activity. At its narrowest, the road is only approximately 3.9 metres wide. With vehicles parked along the street, two-way traffic can already be difficult, and larger vehicles can create significant problems passing one another.

It is difficult to see how the additional residents, visitors, deliveries, waste collection, tradespeople, service vehicles and other traffic generated by a development of this size can be accommodated without putting further pressure on the road and surrounding neighbourhood.

Traffic and road safety

Road safety should be given particularly careful consideration.

The narrowness of Wattle Road creates obvious constraints for ordinary vehicle movements, but it also raises concerns about access for emergency services. The ability of fire, ambulance and other emergency vehicles to reach properties quickly and safely should not be taken for granted as development density increases.

There are also pedestrians, cyclists, children, older residents and people with mobility difficulties who use the street. Increased vehicle movements and delivery traffic in an already constrained road environment could make the street less safe for everyone.

Parking is another concern. Thirty-five additional dwellings will inevitably increase demand for parking, visitor parking and short-term stopping. Even where parking is provided within the development, there will still be deliveries, visitors, tradespeople, moving vehicles and service vehicles using the surrounding streets.

The cumulative effect must be considered

I am particularly concerned that this proposal cannot properly be considered in isolation.

There are also significant development proposals at 57–59 Wattle Road. The combined effect of several large developments on the same narrow road could be very different from the impact of either development considered separately.

The Council needs to consider what Wattle Road can realistically sustain as a whole — in terms of traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, drainage, infrastructure, construction activity, noise and the general liveability of the street.

There must be a point at which the cumulative increase in development exceeds what the existing local infrastructure and road network can reasonably support.

Impact on neighbouring properties and quality of life

A development of this scale will also have significant consequences for existing residents.

The increased height and intensity of development can result in:

greater overlooking and loss of privacy;
increased overshadowing and loss of natural light;
greater visual bulk and dominance;
increased noise and activity;
additional traffic and vehicle movements;
reduced sense of openness and residential amenity; and
greater disruption during construction.
These impacts need to be considered not simply from the perspective of whether the development can technically be fitted onto the site, but whether the resulting environment is reasonable for the established residents who live around it.

Drainage and local infrastructure

The impact on drainage and other local infrastructure also warrants careful scrutiny.

Replacing a substantial site with a large apartment development and two basement levels has the potential to alter stormwater flows and place additional demands on existing drainage infrastructure.

More broadly, the Council should satisfy itself that local roads, drainage and other infrastructure can accommodate the cumulative increase in population and development intensity being contemplated along Wattle Road.

Compliance should be established before the process proceeds

Given the exceptional scale of this proposal in the context of Wattle Road, I believe extreme scrutiny should be applied to every aspect of the application.

I understand that the new planning provisions provide a deemed-to-comply pathway for certain developments. However, that should not mean that compliance is assumed simply because the site is now within the relevant zoning.

Council should carefully verify compliance with every applicable requirement and standard, including those relating to height, setbacks, overlooking, overshadowing, amenity, access, parking, traffic, landscaping, drainage and other relevant matters, before allowing the proposal to progress further.

Where a standard is not met, the relevant decision guidelines and the actual circumstances of the site must be properly considered.

A broader question for Council and State Government

This proposal also raises a broader issue about the application of the new higher-density planning controls.

A zoning change may permit substantially greater development potential, but it does not change the physical characteristics of the streets on which that development is located.

Where a street is exceptionally narrow and constrained, and where multiple large developments are proposed at the same time, Council should be prepared to tell the State Government when the practical consequences of the new controls are creating unacceptable pressures on local communities.

I believe Council has a responsibility to represent the residents who live in these streets and to ensure that changes to planning policy do not come at the expense of their safety, amenity and quality of life.

I therefore ask Council to apply the highest level of scrutiny to the proposed development at 48A–50 Wattle Road, to assess its cumulative impact together with other major developments in Wattle Road, and to ensure that the capacity of the road, drainage and local infrastructure is properly considered.

This is not simply a question of whether six storeys can technically be built on this site. It is a question of whether a development of this scale and intensity is appropriate and sustainable in this particular street.

I respectfully ask Council to protect the safety, amenity and quality of life of the existing residents of Wattle Road while assessing this proposal.

I write to join others who have voiced their concerns about the six storey apartment blocks under consideration at 50/48A Wattle Road and also those proposed at 57-59 Wattle Road.

The reality is that Wattle Road is a narrow residential street. It is not a main road. For these two blocks to be considered almost opposite each other is mind blowing. 35 apartments and then 55 apartments will exhaust the environment - the air, the lack of vegetation, the volume of traffic entering and exiting the two vast blocks and the services these overwhelming abodes will call on. The street needs to function.

The current maximum three storey limit must continue to be applied. This is not a main road.

There are elderly wheelchair and walking frame residents in the two nearby aged care facilities. There are bike-riding primary school children in the street as well as parents with pushers. Food delivery people are also called upon to use the street as well as rubbish collectors, tradespeople and of course the visitors and residents of the street.

Overshadowing current homes, depletion of vegetation and lavish apartments do not enhance the meagre multipurpose street.

Please establish that the actual final proposal is assessed accounting for the surrounding environment. Please support those of us who are mightily concerned at the overwhelming options proposed for consideration. These two whopping projects must be reined in.

With respect, we are looking to you to work to this end.

proposed development 48A-50 Wattle road

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development at 48A–50 Wattle Road and the implications of further high-density development in Wattle Road.

Recently, I was travelling along Wattle Road to visit a friend at around the time school was finishing. I was quite shocked by the situation on the road. Traffic was extremely congested and, at one point, we were effectively stuck because there was not enough room for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass each other. There were also construction vans using the street, which made the situation even more difficult.

This was not an abstract planning concern — I experienced first-hand how difficult it can already be for traffic to move along this relatively narrow residential street at a busy time of day.

I subsequently learned that there is a proposal for a six-storey development containing approximately 35 apartments at 48A–50 Wattle Road, as well as further substantial development of 55 apartments proposed at 57–59 Wattle Road.

I find the prospect of adding this level of density to such a narrow street extremely concerning. If the street is already struggling to cope with existing traffic at busy times, I question how it can reasonably accommodate the additional vehicle movements, deliveries, visitors, service vehicles and other activity generated by substantially more dwellings.

I understand that the planning controls for Wattle Road have changed and that the new zoning is intended to provide additional housing. I also understand that Clause 57 provides a deemed-to-comply framework for developments of this type.

However, increased housing density should not mean making the existing environment effectively unmanageable for the people who live there and use the street.

I urge Council to look very carefully at the cumulative impact of the proposed developments on Wattle Road, including traffic, access and pedestrian safety. I also urge Council to communicate to the State Government the very real concerns about whether developments of this scale are appropriate in a street with the physical constraints of Wattle Road.