Recent comments on applications from City of Tea Tree Gully, SA

  1. In Hope Valley SA on “Demolition of all...” at 86 Barracks Road Hope Valley SA 5090:

    TINA EKSI commented

    I do not agree with this Application. There are 2 Significant Gum Trees On the Property that should not ever be Removed. The home should be heritage Listed as it is a beautiful home that fits in with the nature of the Area. The Property Adjoins a Reserve and should be Retained for the wildlife and animals it attracts. There are Sewerage Problems with the Property. Can you please contact me on 0451895670 to discuss further issues.

  2. In Modbury SA on “Land Division (1 into 5)” at 1 Benton Court Modbury SA 5092:

    Lucille Murray commented

    Good morning
    I have heard rumours that 1 Benton Court Modbury is being turned into 4 double story houses. Im a little concerned as this is a very small street that originally had 8 houses. Then 11, then 13. This tiny cul du sac was once a very quiet friendly road but lately its so noisy and busy - its lost all charm and feels really boxed in with houses.
    Can you please confirm if this is true?
    If so is there some way to discuss this with the current house owners of the street? We have had no consultations for any of the housing developments on our street.
    Thanking you in advance. And have a great week.

  3. In Dernancourt SA on “Single Storey Detached...” at 25B Nioka Road Dernancourt SA 5075:

    R Richards commented

    The land slopes to the rear of the block. How will stormwater runoff be managed to ensure that the stormwater flows to the street frontage?

  4. In Dernancourt SA on “Single Storey Detached...” at 25A Nioka Road Dernancourt SA 5075:

    R Richards commented

    The land slopes to the rear of the block. How will stormwater runoff be managed to ensure that the stormwater flows to the street frontage?

  5. In Dernancourt SA on “Land Division New...” at 76 Reids Road Dernancourt SA 5075:

    Louise Di Virgilio commented

    I think if a residential block is divided, each newly created block should have room on the road for one visitor park. If the new frontage only has enough room for a driveway it puts pressure on the street as no street parking is then available.

  6. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Laura commented

    I object to this planning application. Three houses on a 689sq metre is far too many. Please do not allow this to proceed and set a precedent for future developers to turn the lovely spacious blocks we have here in the City of Tea Tree Gully into a congested, densely populated hive of constant parking issues and construction noise for the sake of ‘progress’.

  7. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Hannah commented

    Three houses on less than 700 square metres is ridiculous. We moved to this area for the beautiful leafy green spacious feeling.

  8. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Ben Woods commented

    The proposed 3 into 1 development for this site is not in keeping with the area at all and should be declined. The proposed sub-division will impact directly on the surrounding residents not only aesthetically, but also functionally. Being a corner block, street parking is not an option at all. Vehicles will be parked on the street and impacting directly the residents creating hazards accessing their own properties. Street parking is not an option for this development and off street parking for all residents should be a consideration even at sub-division stage. I object to this sub-division.

  9. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Louise Di Virgilio commented

    I object to the sub division of the one block into three on such a small block of land. There will be more noise complaints, street congested with cars and unsightly boxed in ghetto housing. There should be a rule to have one car park space on the road directly in front of the premises in addition to the visitor park on the property.

  10. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Single Storey Detached...” at Unit 1 29 William Street Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Ryan pepper commented

    If the house is to be single story I support this, as we build our home to capture the view down the street. I know previously the owners were told they had to build a two story town house. But a single story would look nicer in the street

  11. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Andrew Foord commented

    I object to the divison into 3 properties. There should be a minimum of 300m2 per allotment. Also consider the additional strain on CWMS system in TTG.

  12. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Shauna mitchell commented

    Hello I am not agaimst sub division but this one is quite ridiculous...... there have been subdivisions in the street but by 2
    Not 3 ..... 689 sq mtr divided by 3 does not leave enough room for a single story house, on septic mind you in this area, need space for that and also would not fit in the character of the street as houses are set back from.the borders... this sub division of 3 is not in the character.of the street .maybe 2 but not 3. Where would people park... it's a corner block make difficult to turn . The council require a 5.5m 'visitors park' on each property to be kept free for visitors (not for tenents/owners) This area must be uncovered. If building occurs needs to be set back from the property border, this needs to be in line with other properties. I feel the sundivision of 3 and future building of 2 stories, as there are no other 2 stories in the street doesn't fit with the area.

    Received notice today 2nd January

  13. In Banksia Park SA on “Land Division Boundary...” at 7 Tarraleah Street Banksia Park SA 5091:

    m commented

    how is it possible to know down a retaining wall thats holding my garden in place
    today the owner has spoken to me and claims that its on his boundary line no proof from a surveyor has been provided nor proof that it has been done professionally,
    secondly, since the house at number 7-9 tarraleah st banksia park has been demolished, our security and privacy has been compromised drastically with no word of compensation for the inconvenience during this time

    please visit this site and access it as personally something does not sound right to me, in the 37 years i have owned my property in that time no one who has owned the neighbouring property has ever said anything about the rock frontage fence "retaining wall" being any kind of issue it may be unstable yes, but no evidence has been given to me personally to prove it

  14. In Gilles Plains SA on “Single storey detached...” at 657 North East Road Gilles Plains SA 5086:

    Paula Moore commented

    Requesting more clarification on the description of ‘dwelling‘ proposed for this subdivided site. Is the dwelling a single home. Is the dwelling single storey or double storey?

  15. In Banksia Park SA on “Demolition of all...” at 3 Oleander Drive Banksia Park SA 5091:

    Rosse Morton commented

    I would like to know if this is demolition for sub-division. ?
    Will another new connection be added to the CMWS ?
    Any why is a significant tree being removed ?

  16. In Modbury North SA on “Three detached dwelling,...” at 6 Alawa Avenue Modbury North SA 5092:

    B W commented

    Three double story dwellings are not suitable for this block. This development will congest parking and increase traffic in this narrow street to unacceptable levels. Impact on surrounding single story dwellings due to shading and encroachment of privacy will also be felt.

  17. In Fairview Park SA on “Change of Use from a...” at Unit 4 63 Hamilton Road Fairview Park SA 5126:

    Michael Slack commented

    I think this is a fantastic idea, and way overdue. I worked at both the pizza bar and fish and chip shop. Love the idea

  18. In Greenwith SA on “Demolition of house and...” at 34 Bowmore Court Greenwith SA 5125:

    glenn haydon commented

    It is deeply disturbing that I find out that this house is to be knocked down and I believe to be replaced with a Sub divided housing probably two storey . I believe that if this is the case all the nearby residents should be consulted to find out if they like their privacy compromised for a fist full of dollar let alone the degradation of the area. This is happening all to often with NO consultation whatsoever with the local community and also compromises the local area with parking already at a premium as well as more demand on the already overworked road system.
    I believe that this is a criminal act and should be condemned by the Council.

  19. In Highbury SA on “Land Division New Allotments” at 38 Edmund Road Highbury SA 5089:

    Trevor Klose commented

    I hope someone remembers that each of the replacement houses needs to have a garage capable of fitting a large car so it is used unlike other recent redevelopments. What is expected is that planning rules are changed to enforce this. Oh dear I just saw another pig fly by!

  20. In Modbury SA on “Demolition of all structures” at 43 Australia Avenue Modbury SA 5092:

    Andrew commented

    How can you possibly allow this block to have been subdivided into 3 allotments of only 217m2. This is completely not in keeping with the character of the street and is the number 1 reason why residential streets are becoming congested as these new residences will not allow for sufficient car parking.
    This is a completely disgraceful decision to allow for this kind of subdivision and has now set a precedent for other blocks on this street to also be subdivided thereby creating eventually an unliveable ghetto.

  21. In Highbury SA on “Row Dwellings” at 23 Harold Street Highbury SA 5089:

    JOSEPH BASSETT commented

    I am a resident who has been living in the area for over forty years and we have the only gum tree left in our street and often have visitors spend time in our tree. Developers will always find some devious way to have trees removed well before they demolish the house. I simply ask this question. Why do some councils choose quantity over quality of life, if we want a better vision for the future they need to practice what they preach for the good of the community if we continue down this track with three homes on one block our children, grand children have only our generation to blame. for the bad decisions of the few. Have we not learnt form Campbelltown council and all the problems associated with dense housing or are we just going to close our eyes to what some call progress with three homes on one property our local newspaper explained this well. Once this decision has been authorised there is no going back and then when it is all to late what are you going to tell our children?.
    It's not to late to look to our past to improve our future, we should be leaders on improving the future not followers..
    I object to multiple dwellings on one block we will now have to put up with the it is well documented that garages in these dwellings are too small and used as store rooms gym's etc the dangerous situation of cars parking both sides of the street when is the Teatree gully council going to realize that our future resists the overcrowding which leads to other community problems.
    Please, a row of dwellings will only lead to huge problems for our suburb. learn from problems caused in Campbelltown before it's not to late.

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