57 Wattle Road, Hawthorn VIC 3122

I object !
Now with two x6 story applications with Council I appeal to the relevant authorities to consider the impact of such outrageous density increases ( and subsequent applications if they are approved) on the very limited physical infrastructure of Wattle Road.
Surely a x3 story limit ( as has recently been applied to Wattle Rd) can meet a reasonable regional density increase while not totally overloading the available physical and social infrastructure.

I object to two six story buildings in 50&57 Wattle Road. Vehicle and people traffic are currently an issue and the thought of an additional 180 residents ( and cars?) in such close proximity must be considered unacceptable. Safety and emergency response capabilities in what is effectively a one way street should also be considered. Just because the new planning rules could be met is not sufficient for approval. The council’s responsibility to provide infrastructure and amenity must be considered in any approval process. The unilateral application of generic planning guidelines to meet a proposed increase in density target should NOT override common sense.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 57 Wattle Road

While I recognise the need for appropriate housing development, I believe the scale and intensity of the proposed apartment development is inappropriate for this location and would place further unreasonable pressure on an already congested residential street.

My concerns include:

Increased traffic and congestion
The street is already experiencing significant levels of traffic and congestion, particularly during peak periods. The proposed development would introduce additional residents, vehicles, deliveries, visitors and service vehicles, further increasing pressure on the existing road network.

Insufficient on-street parking
On-street parking is already heavily utilised by existing residents and visitors. Additional apartments are likely to increase demand for parking and could result in increased parking in surrounding streets, obstructed access and greater competition for limited spaces.

The presence of a primary school within the street is particularly relevant.
At school drop-off and pick-up times, traffic and parking demand already increase significantly. Vehicles stopping, parking and manoeuvring around the school create additional congestion and can create difficulties for through traffic and residents accessing their properties.

Additional apartments would introduce further vehicle movements into a street that already experiences predictable periods of significant congestion.

The safety of children, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users should be given particular consideration.

The aged-care facility is another significant consideration.
Aged-care facilities generate regular movements associated with staff, visitors, residents, taxis, community transport, medical services, deliveries, contractors and emergency services.

These movements are different from those generated by conventional residential development and contribute to the overall level of activity and demand on the street.

The proposed apartment development would add another substantial source of traffic and parking demand to an area that is already accommodating these competing requirements.

Overdevelopment of the site
I am concerned that the proposed number of apartments represents an excessive intensity of development for this particular site and streetscape. Development should be responsive to the existing character, scale and capacity of the surrounding neighbourhood rather than simply maximising the number of dwellings that can be accommodated on a site.

Impact on neighbouring properties
The development may have unreasonable impacts on surrounding residents through increased overlooking, visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing, noise and general activity associated with a substantially greater number of occupants.

Pressure on existing infrastructure
The surrounding street and local infrastructure are already under pressure. Further intensification should only occur where the capacity of roads, parking, drainage, public transport and other infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the additional demand.

Impact on residential amenity
The cumulative effect of additional apartments in an already densely developed area should be carefully considered. The planning assessment should consider not only the individual development but also the existing and approved developments in the immediate vicinity and their combined impact on local amenity and infrastructure.

Cumulative development
I am particularly concerned about the cumulative effect of continued apartment development in this area. Each individual development may appear manageable when considered in isolation, but the combined effect is increasing traffic, parking demand, population density and pressure on local infrastructure.

This is the second application for a six storey apartment in Wattle Road; the other is at 48A/50 Wattle Road. There are other properties with the potential to attract applications for high rise apartments.

The issues both of these applications raise, and the possibility of other similar applications, concern the ability of Wattle Road to absorb and sustain multiple high rise buildings in a street of varying degrees of narrow width. At its widest, Wattle Road is less than six metres wide. At its narrowest, it is less than four metres wide.

The main issues to which these applications give rise are, first, traffic volume: the two current applications would add potentially 180 extra vehicles to the traffic load Wattle Road bears as a road with an already-busy profile as the site of a school, an aged care facility and a substantial number of multi-residence, low-rise apartment buildings.

The traffic volume issue not only affects Wattle Road but also its feeder roads: Power Street and Glenferrie Road. The increased volume would give rise to bottlenecks at each end of Wattle Road. The increased volume would also affect New Street and Burton Avenue (both narrow streets), which are interconnecting roads feeding traffic into and providing exit for it from Wattle Road. Because of the increased traffic volume in Wattle Road and the increased incentive to use the interconnecting streets, Manningtree Road and Lisson Grove will also experience increased traffic volumes, with similar impact to Wattle Road at their eastern and western entry and exit points as well as at the intersections with the interconnecting roads.

For example, the traffic control measures at the intersection of New Street, Manningtree Road and Drill Street will have to manage a much larger traffic volume with a clear potential for bottlenecks, as will the intersection of Lisson Grove and Through Street (where a multi-level apartment building is currently being constructed).

The increased traffic volume creates the second issue: increased potential for traffic safety failures. Greater traffic volume increases the prospects of driver inattention, e.g, to or by cars exiting from the driveways of high rise and other buildings; speeding; and the increased chance of road accidents involving pedestrians.

Thirdly, the applications, as far as can currently be known from the information available, make no provision for increased services - recreation areas, street services, rubbish collection, footpath maintenance, maintenance of the intersections between the private properties and public land, interaction between the new properties and existing properties - to provide for the needs of both the increased population to which a permit to build would give rise and the impact on existing residences.

In economic terms, the development would create external costs which would be passed on to existing residents. The current policy framework, which excludes local resident input to decision-making, reduces to zero the ability of existing residents to explain and seek remedies for the external costs they will have to bear.

Fourth, the application, so far as is currently known, does not make provision for any physical infrastructure that would ameliorate the impact of the high rise building on the local environment. The development application proceeds on the basis that the developer has no responsibility for local infrastructure to accommodate and make sustainable the impact of the high rise, deep basement building it proposes.

Relatedly, the application, so far as is currently known, makes no provision for reducing the external costs of construction that will be fully borne by local residents.

Finally, and again as far as is currently known, the application makes no provision for 'units' for first home buyers, one of the key reasons given for the current Victorian housing policy.

The development will benefit the well-off current property owners, who can expect a large payment for their properties; it will benefit developers who can expect significant profits from their investment; and it will benefit well-off downsizers who will be able to afford properties that, in all likelihood, can only be purchased for $1.5 million or more.

For all these reasons, the Council should refuse the application.

This application, the application affecting 48A/50 Wattle Road and other potential applications, give rise to a bigger issue.

It is not sufficient nor economically rational nor good planning for Council or the State government to consider development applications of this type on the basis of the facts of the application alone. It is clear that the two applications being made and the potential for others will not only have geographically-limited detrimental effects on parts of Wattle Road nor will they only impact the immediate and near-by neighbours.

The applications will have community-wide impacts, pass on costs that developers can avoid as a result of the policy framework in place, benefit only a narrow range of potential purchasers and property sellers and leave a legacy of unfulfilled traffic, safety, services and infrastructure issues.

Accordingly, Council should resist considering these applications on a one-off basis. Rather, it should apply a community-wide cost-benefit framework. This will require Council to develop an alternative approach to high rise development, an alternative that limits the profile and footprint of development to dimensions that are sustainable, liveable, have a wider community benefit and ensure the external costs they create are borne by the developers themselves.

Clearly, the Council's decision-making ability on these issue is confined by State government laws. The constraint will need to be addressed by Council developing and advocating its own position - the one in the paragraph above - with a view to changing the law. That will require courageous advocacy by all Councillors and Council officers.

To the extent possible, Council should refrain from taking decisions on the two current applications until progress is made on a new framework.

I write in objection of permit for development at 57-59 wattle rd, Hathorn.
I write in support of comments by Michael Angwin and Andrew G.

This is the second application for a six-storey apartment in Wattle Road; the other is at 48A/50 Wattle Road. Combined 90 dwellings, with potentially 180 extra vehicles.

Multiple issues raised (as per other comments) with new Activity centre rules that impact our area, are contrary to preserving liveability, amenity and infrastructure, eg:
- Traffic impact and traffic safety
- Negative impact on existing residences – overlooking, overshadowing, and construction related impacts.
- Negative impact on existing amenities / infrastructure
- Loss of tree canopy

If development is allowed to proceed, other properties along Wattle road will likely attract further applications for high rise apartments, and further amplify the negative impacts to the neighbourhood.
Understandably, the Council's decision-making ability on these issue is confined by State government laws. However, courageous advocacy by all Councillors and Council officers to address these constraints may help to change the law.
To the extent possible, Council should refrain from making decisions on the two current applications (and any new applications affecting Wattle road / Carson Crescent) until progress is made on a new framework.

I join others in the area around 48a and 50 Wattle Road Hawthorn as well as now the huge proposal almost opposite that site, for 57 and 59 Wattle Road Hawthorn. Large scale redevelopment multi-storey complexes of those proposed would overwhelm our quiet, or what was quiet lane.
Multi-apartment structures have been built where until recently gracious homes stood. Much space and vegetation has been consumed by bricks and concrete.
These dominating structures on the top of the Wattle Road hill over-utilise the sites on the narrow street which already busily houses Glenferrie Primary School and the large aged care facility Uniting AgedWell Community, both of which generate much traffic. Pedestrians, some on scooters, bikes or walking frames, others in pushers or wheelchairs are at risk.
We, neighbours affected by these huge proposals need to be supported by our Council as we call for more of a say in developments shaping the future of our environment.

I write in objection of the permit application for the development at 57-59 Wattle Rd, Hawthorn.

I fully support all the points made by Michael Angwin and Andrew G.

Replacing 2 residences with 55 is folly and the burden it will create on the surrounding neighbourhood will be massive.

55 apartments, 6 levels above ground with 3 levels of underground car parking, does not add any affordable housing nor does it dovetail with the Activity Centres assumption that people will not need cars and will walk to public transport.

Has detailed traffic volume analysis been done, taking into account the 35 additional apartments sought via the permit application for 48A/50 Wattle Road, the 55 apartments of this application and the impending build of 45 apartments on Wattle Road at the Power St end? An estimate of approx. 270 extra vehicles. Not to mention the potential for more applications. Our Council needs to take a wholistic approach to these applications and not just review / approve standalone.

Wattle Road is a narrow residential street ill suited for such increases in traffic volume. Footpaths are narrow and are used by many local pedestrians, of which many are school children or elderly.
Adding developments such as these with the increased vehicle traffic will increase risk and danger to the local community.

Removal of any tree canopy should be outright rejected. 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.

Developments should be restricted to no more than 3 storeys to ensure that the neighbourhood is not overwhelmed with too many residences without State and/or Local Governments having first invested in improving the surrounding infrastructure.

The developers of these projects take little or no responsibility for the mess they create when building and bear zero responsibility for the “mess” the leave behind.

As such I call on OUR council to reject the application.

Whatever profile and footprint are decided for 57-59 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. Bin collection from he property should not take place on the same day as Council waste 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; roof infrastructure should be minimised so as not to add to the building's height
- any infrastructure that is not required to be placed for safety reasons 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 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.

In addition to these conditions, the developer should be required to provide the following to the Council:
- a traffic management plan to ensure minimum disruption of Wattle Road and resident safety during construction and car entry and exit planning, design and infrastructure to ensure that vehicle entry and exit from the building causes no disruption to neighbours or to Wattle Road at large
- a street cleaning plan to ensure the waste and other material created by the construction will be minimised along with inconvenience to residents
- a plan to ensure that any vehicle associated with the construction does not park in non-parking areas, that all construction vehicles obey time-limited parking restrictions, that there is no parking on footpaths and that no over-sized vehicles enter Wattle Road
- a noise reduction plan during construction
- a plan to notify residents of every stage of development; the plan should contain an undertaking to consult with residents monthly on the progress with construction.

Finally, the developer is not named in the application. The Council should require the name of the developer to be published along with its investors and financial backers; and to require the developer to submit a financial statement or plan that guarantees that this project can be worked to completion.

Many of these conditions apply to other multi-storey buildings in Wattle Road and should be applied to 57-59, whatever its final shape and size.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development of six-story, 55 apartment building at 57 Wattle Road, Hawthorn.
My primary concern is the impact the proposed development will have on traffic movement, parking availability and the capacity of Wattle Road to safely accommodate a substantial increase in residents and vehicle movements.
This proposal follows closely after the recently submitted application for a six-storey development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road for 35 apartments. While each application may be assessed individually, the cumulative impact of multiple large apartment developments within a short period must be considered. The combined effect has the potential to fundamentally change the intensity of use of Wattle Road and significantly increase traffic volumes in an already constrained local road network.
Wattle Road is a relatively narrow residential street that already experiences considerable traffic pressures from existing residential development, a primary school, an aged care facility, service vehicles, visitor parking and local traffic movements. School drop-off and pick-up periods regularly generate congestion, parking shortages and pedestrian activity. The aged care facility generates ongoing movements from staff, visitors, contractors, delivery vehicles, patient transport services and emergency vehicles.
The addition of a significant number of new apartments at 57 Wattle Road, combined with the potential development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road, will introduce additional resident vehicles, visitor vehicles, deliveries, rideshare services and service providers into a street network that already experiences capacity constraints.
Particular consideration must be given to:
• Increased vehicle movements entering and exiting driveways and basement parking.
• Additional pressure on already limited on-street parking.
• Increased congestion at the intersections with Glenferrie Road and Power Street.
• Increased traffic through surrounding residential streets as drivers seek alternative routes.
• The safety of school children, pedestrians, cyclists and older residents.
• Access for emergency services and other essential service providers.
I am also concerned that the development represents an excessive level of built form for the site. A six-storey development will introduce substantial visual bulk and scale that is inconsistent with much of the surrounding streetscape. When considered alongside the recently proposed six-storey development at 48A & 50 Wattle Road, there is a risk that Wattle Road will experience an accelerated increase in density without a corresponding assessment of local infrastructure capacity.
The road network, parking availability, drainage, public realm and local amenity are all finite resources. Development should only proceed where adequate consideration has been given to the cumulative impact on surrounding infrastructure and the ability of the area to accommodate substantial population growth without adversely affecting existing residents.
I respectfully request that Council carefully consider the cumulative impact of this proposal together with other recent and potential developments in Wattle Road and assess whether the existing road network, parking capacity and infrastructure are sufficient to support this level of intensified development.

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