Recent comments on applications from South Australia Planning Portal, SA

  1. In Aldinga SA on “Community Division into 8...” at Port Road Aldinga, SA:

    Douglas John Bloomfield commented

    With the opening of the new Super School, this is about to become the only public green space in a rapidly developing area, with the train line due to go on the Western edge of it. Some residential development here MAY be beneficial, however we do not need any further commercial development adjacent to the existing. residential area. Nearby existing commercial developments are still way under-utilized. Any development now may well be a cause for enormous regret in the near future - say 10 years time. As there is no development plan or details available this development should be denied at least until a decent proposal is presented for consideration when a properly considered decision can be made. What does he want to do here?

  2. In Aldinga SA on “Community Division into 8...” at Port Road Aldinga, SA:

    Dr Robert Alan Gibson commented

    Please reconsider. This small pocket of land is unique and will provide a clear 'green-space' between the huge super-school development and the residential area of Port Willunga.
    I have been a resident and rate-payer of Port Willunga since the early 1990's and I am totally opposed to this development.

  3. In Aldinga SA on “Community Division into 8...” at Port Road Aldinga, SA:

    Elizabeth Adrienne Pearse commented

    NO,NO,NO!! Please leave that area alone, I have been here for 30 years and small pockets like that are becoming so rare. The new school could use part of it as an educational horticultural area for the students but keep greedy developers OUT, this beautiful area won't be soon, think of the future!

  4. In Modbury SA on “Land Division 1 into 15...” at 136 Reservoir Road Modbury, SA:

    Lesley commented

    This is too small an area to have that many dwellings placed upon it. The entrance/exit way is too narrow to allow 2 vehicles to pass should the need arise in the event of an emergency

  5. In West Lakes Shore SA on “Torrens Land Division (1...” at 13 Drysdale Court West Lakes Shore, SA:

    Tania Trabucco commented

    I may find myself in a similar position shortly with a potential 2 storey side of a house blocking out all my western sun from my lounge dining and kitchen.
    Apparently as long as you get 2 hours of direct sunlight on a day in June, it’s ok to build a 2 storey house practically right up to your border.
    These sorts of developments have to stop.

  6. In West Lakes Shore SA on “Torrens Land Division (1...” at 13 Drysdale Court West Lakes Shore, SA:

    Paul Trim commented

    Please only consider single storey houses on 13 Drysdale Court as the houses on the western boundary of this land will be greatly affected by a double storey house. The gardens and houses to the western boundary of the new land divide will be blocked from nearly all sunlight particularly in winter by a double storey building due to the proximity to the boundary. All other new dwellings in the court are single storey so these two new dwellings should follow to suit the streetscape.

  7. In West Lakes Shore SA on “Torrens Land Division (1...” at 13 Drysdale Court West Lakes Shore, SA:

    Dan Donovan commented

    Our home is adjacent to the western block at 13 Drysdale Court and the rear of our house is a mere 3 metres from the dividing fence. If a 2-storey house is built on this block, it would block all direct sunlight from our Lounge, Dining room and Kitchen for a large proportion of the available sunlight, especially during winter. I agree with my neighbour Merv Dann that it would be disastrous for us, lower our living standard and considerably lower the value of our home. There are already 9 dwellings on divided blocks in our Court, and all of them are single storey. We would like to see this maintained. A double storey house would seem very out of place and spoil the appearance of the rest of the street.
    Thank you, Dan Donovan.

  8. In West Lakes Shore SA on “Torrens Land Division (1...” at 13 Drysdale Court West Lakes Shore, SA:

    Mervyn Dann commented

    Please consider single storey houses only as I live on the west side of these blocks at number 12a, a 2 storey house would block out all of my daylight from the east side nearly all day because it’s very close to our fence besides the over looking is very undesirable plus we have all new single stories around the crt that have been split from one block to 2 looking well presented and a good streetscape enhancement Thanks for your consideration Merv Dann

  9. In Grange SA on “Division of land into 17...” at 236-238 Trimmer Parade Grange, SA:

    Terry commented

    I want to know as a resident of the area if we can stop this development. I can't understand how you can put 17 new lots on this block which has a frontage of 78.27 metres which will mean each property will only have a frontage of 4.6 metres. Are there rulings also that there need to be a certain amount of green area around the property.

  10. In Warradale SA on “Combined Torrens Land...” at 13 Ulva Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Once again. We in Struan ave are REALLY suffering. After having 7 monstrosities built across from us on 2 blocks we are now having another 6 across on another 2 blocks.

  11. In Warradale SA on “Combined Torrens Land...” at 13 Ulva Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Ferna Harris commented

    Totally agree with Neil Morris. Not only too many row dwellings now but double storey ones at that! They are not only cluttering up the streets but now with the double storey ones, they are blocking existing dwellings solar panels from sunlight. Something really MUST be done about this. Marion Council and DPTI should be hanging their heads in shame.

  12. In Warradale SA on “Combined Torrens Land...” at 13 Ulva Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Ulva Avenue is predominately filled with row dwellings and has many allotments already split into 3 or more. Is this the last original property?? Being close to Westfield and Swimming centre, it sees increased parking and traffic regularly. Allowing yet more poorly planned row dwellings simply increases the demand for street parking while actually taking more legal park spots away.
    As previously commented and ignored, properties need dual driveways, 6m curb frontage, somewhere for bins, access for Rubbish and emergency services etc.
    Can council and DPTI stop being negligent and full fill their duty of care and safety to the community and put and end to the over development and residential infill.

  13. In Warradale SA on “Combined Torrens Land...” at 13 Ulva Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Overdevelopment once again. Is anyone listening or caring?

  14. In Wayville SA on “Primary Community Strata” at 56 Greenhill Road Wayville, SA:

    Emma Miller commented

    This is a company that has chopped down 5 mature and beautiful trees on Joslin Street. The whole leafy look of the entrance to the street is now completely ruined. Avenues of trees such as this previously was play an important role in providing safe passage for the parkland birds and other small native animals as well providing shade for walkers and decreasing overall ambient temperature. When will the council and town planners listen to the voice of the community and stop this wholesale destruction of our leafy canopies.

  15. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Canning Street, Glenelg North, SA:

    Paul Williams commented

    this added to the other developments in that area how is the council going to handle the influx of people visitors traffic
    7 stories please

  16. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Karen & David Hill commented

    We have lived in Sheila Street for nearly 10 years and actually live in a sub divided property. My concern is not with properties in the street being sub divided, but with this particular application and the 2 proposed properties being double storey construction. The view out of my front door and window is that of the wonderful treescape that runs along Fourth Creek, and this would be severely diminished with the construction of these properties. Also with the surrounding properties being single storey, we believe they would not blend in with the existing streetscape.

  17. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Jenny Duurland commented

    Jenny & Tim Duurland
    We are permanent residents at 6 Sheila St, and also attended the Council meeting, last Thursday, as one of the many very disgruntled local long term residents. We currently have building redevelopment going on next to us at 4 Sheila Street, that could not physically be any closer to our property. We have experienced bullying by the building developers, in building on the boundary and having part of their gutter butted up against ours, causing our pipes to leak, not to mention them disconnecting our down pipes & either not reconnecting or inadequately reconnecting our pipes. ( No prior consultation was made with us of their plans) We have concerns if there was to be a fire in the new residence, there would be hindered access by responding services , the very real possibility of it quickly spreading to our property & concerns for the actual residents being trapped in their house / “yard” with no escape route. Many times we are unable to access our driveway due to the increased on street parking or have almost been hit by vehicles trying to drive along Sheila Street, not to mention all of the foot traffic, from the local school / scout hall & residents who walk their dogs. We already have ongoing issues with leaking water pipes under the road, which will have so much more pressure put on them with increasing the street occupancy. What was once a beautiful green, leafy area, full of birds & native wildlife , is very quickly becoming a concrete region, lacking all the things we class as Rostrevor. Please reconsider the application for 7 Sheila Street & any future applications for possibly 8 Sheila Street.

  18. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Jeanette and Rob Perrin commented

    We have been concerned about the infill in Sheila Street for some time now, we have watched the 19 blocks change radically with 12 single storey dwellings replacing 6 residences over the past few years. The street was always noted for great street appeal with single storey homes - trees and behind the street in Leabrook Drive the creek and the many trees with associated bird and animal life. There are a further 2 dwellings potentially up for sub division but especially number 7 which is adjoining our Eastern boundary where there is a current application to build 2 x 2 storey town houses. This will mean we will have a large wall on our boundary and very little Eastern sunlight. Having attended the Council meeting last Tuesday we found there is a lot of unrest about the infill. The street is small and very busy and these plans are not desired by us as long term residents. Please reconsider the application for 7 Sheila Street.

  19. In Warradale SA on “Res Code 1 into 2 Torrens...” at 16 Lincoln Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Ferna Harris. We are all butting our heads against brick walls. Unbelievable what is happening around us and all they do is pass the buck.! Chop down trees and then petition about climate change! Trees keep our suburbs cool. Looking at and listening to birds and catching glimpses of the sky and sunsets keep us calm.

  20. In Port Adelaide SA on “Convert the former...” at St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide , SA:

    David Nearmy commented

    I am extremely worried about South Australia Planning. The photos and map have no relationship to the application for the the redevelopment. If this is the state of this department, I wounder it we need it at all?

  21. In Warradale SA on “Res Code 1 into 2 Torrens...” at 16 Lincoln Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Ferna Harris commented

    Noooo! I cannot believe this lovely house and garden are to be DESTROYED! What is wrong with you people? When I read the description of the house when it was up for sale I thought it had everything you could ask for in a lovely home but I guess once again, the utter greed factor comes in to play. I am really sorry that this home is to be no more. Such a loss to the neighbourhood.

  22. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Caleb Baker commented

    Sheila st is a small street close to a school that has considerable traffic on it during school drop off and pick up. It has had a number of properties sub divided in the past resulting in smaller houses where the occupants end up parking on the road, presumably to use their garage for storage. This results in increased danger for children trying to cross the road between parked cars.
    Additionally the character of Rostrevor is being changed by having many small dwellings, and cutting down the native trees in the area.
    A number of houses have been sub divided on sheila st already and another is in the process of being built. Sheila st risks being a long line of small attached houses with no on street parking available for school drop off and pickup.

  23. In Modbury Heights SA on “1 into 3 Torrens Title -...” at 1 Leda Court Modbury Heights, SA:

    Bw commented

    1 into 3 torrens title does not fit with the current local infrastructure. Leda court and Vulcan ave are congested everyday due to school traffic any increase of traffic has a dramatic effect on the functionality of this small area. Recent subdivisions nearby have increased traffic and street parking through attached streets making it one way during school pick up and drop off and dangerous at all times outside of this. Council requirements of having a 5.5m open visitors parking space on each property doesn't allow enough room for such a development on this block.

  24. In Hectorville SA on “Land Division” at 31 Laver Court Hectorville, SA:

    Angela Strauss commented

    Traffic in the Hectorville area (especially Laver St) has increased immensely and more housing will congest it further. The parking in this culdesac is full now. If the new dwellings don't have more than 2 car parking spaces per dwelling there will be no street parking for those tenants to park, let alone visitors. One way to stop the overflow of traffic is to consider closing the end of Laver St or half way up the street. Laver St and Laver Crt used to be a quiet place where children played, (9 years ago), and that's why we bought here. Now it's a dangerous and noisy place because of excessive development and ridiculously more traffic. More dwellings will only further impact the congestion and noise level, let alone the quality of our home life.

  25. In Eastwood SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 210 Greenhill Road, Eastwood, SA:

    Carol August commented

    We hold serious and well founded concerns, re the provision of parking for yet another building of this scale [7 storeys including the office basement area] on Greenhill Rd.
    It is an out of hand reality, that all residential streets south of Greenhill Rd, are clogged with parked cars Mon - Fri because office workers are not provided with sufficient parking.

    This is a planning issue which has reached a critical point with regard to the rightful expectations of the residents living in this Urban Corridor Boulevard Zone [Greenhill Rd Policy Area 19]

    Currently the minimum provision is 3 car spaces/100M2 for commercial developments. This is manifestly inadequate and we implore the Planning Authority to address this issue urgently before any further approvals are granted for redevelopment in this Corridor.

  26. In Nailsworth SA on “Land Division to create 2...” at 69 First Avenue Nailsworth, SA:

    Jeff Frost commented

    Is this land division for two freestanding homes and is the land still under the ownership of SA Housing Trust? Will adjoining home owners be notified of buildings plans prior to development?

  27. In Flinders Park SA on “Combined application 1:2...” at 23 Beatty Flinders Park, SA:

    John Baldwin commented

    I am not sure how this can be approved:
    *As it fails to meet the Council minimum block size as stated in your development plan of Policy Zone 16 of 300 sqm.
    *It isn't 17 m frontage to Beatty street its more 12m, as the corner cut off is council land and therefor significantly affects access if new dwellings face Beatty Street. This is in conjunction with driveway proximity to corners. If the corner cut off is used as a drive way, there is the potential for vehicles to be parked right on the corner obscuring traffic and causing accidents.
    *If the dwellings face Mountbatten Tce, to maintain correct set back requirements and distance to rear fence line of 3 M, the house would be no doubt not be able to provide the required Private Open Space requirements.
    With all of these considerations and shortfalls in block size and layout, the council cant possibly think of approving this.

  28. In Hove SA on “1 into 3 torrens title” at 14 Railway, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Neil Morris. Once again totally agree with you. Why are they destroying the peaceful suburbs we live in. I am not against redevelopment,just overredevelment.

  29. In Hove SA on “1 into 3 torrens title” at 14 Railway, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Building 3 dwellings here will result in more cars parked on the road, preventing rubbish bin access, visitor parking and basic safe access down the street. This should only be allowed IF each dwelling has dual SIDE by SIDE on property parking. i.e. 2 vehicles per property side by side.
    This roadway is used by many patrons for access to the train network. Reduced parking and general congestion will have impact on the safe access to this area and the safety of pedestrians and drivers alike.
    There are too many properties being split in this area and this will cause more vehicle accidents, thefts, violence and drop in community civility.

  30. In Warradale SA on “Division of land into 2 new...” at 32 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Building 2 dwellings here will result in more cars parked on the road, preventing rubbish bin access, visitor parking and basic safe access down the street. This should only be allowed IF each dwelling has dual SIDE by SIDE on property parking. i.e. 2 vehicles per property side by side.
    Being opposite a public park, reduced parking impacts the parks accessibility, making it harder for people to gain safe access to a public space.
    Other neighbouring properties also have been flagged for demolish and splitting into 3 dwellings, again reducing access, parking, safe access and restricting traffic using the road to drive a vehicle. There are too many properties being split and this will cause more vehicle accidents, thefts, violence and drop in community civility.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts