Recent comments

  1. In Greendale NSW on “Regularisation of...” at 10 Wolstenholme Avenue Greendale NSW 2745:

    joe vella commented

    From a very Concerned Neighbour,

    I am deeply concerned regarding the development
    submission for any feedlot at 10 Wolstenholme
    avenue, Greendale.

    As a local resident of the area I am deeply concerned by the
    conduct and practices of the owner regarding not only the
    current cattle feed lot and object to any future propose feed
    lot on this site.

    Over the years I have noticed a significant transformation at the
    this property from a vibrant looking rural property that
    once had large beautiful gumtrees and black cockatoos that blended in
    with the rest of the other neighbors to a commercial truck depot / cattle feed lot.

    Regarding the current feedlot I am concerned regarding its location
    and the feedlot should NOT be positioned
    where it is. The owner when at full capacity appears to be
    running over 300 cattle in a very confined space. They do not
    look happy and miserable.

    When it rains the cattle are covered in cattle faeces and black sludge.
    I am deeply worried the contaminated waste is then directed
    into nearby neighboring properties contaminating their water
    supplies and dams in particular when it rains, (making their stock sick).
    The feedlot is also very close proximity to the road with the possibility
    of the contamination flowing down the road contaminating the water supply of other
    neighbors and water sources.

    I have seen the cattle stock drinking from the dams Where the
    contaminated water flows into. I have also noticed when it rains
    the water in his dams change to a disgusting greenish color that
    does not look natural.

    The smells omitting from the direction of the feedlot are putrid in particular
    when it rains, when the wind blows from the feedlot into your direction.
    Since this current feedlot was established their has been an outbreak of
    fly's breeding from the faeces and waste affecting neighboring properties

    This is not the location for a current or future feedlot and strongly object
    to any DA proposal for any feedlot at this location.

  2. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Louise Page commented

    I oppose the land being subdivided further. We have already lost the lovely open hillside on this corner and the construction of a suburban style fence on the corner of Jones and Mornington Tyabb Road which has completely destroyed the rural aspect. This corner is already far too busy with schools, trucks and general traffic. Tyabb has been identified as one of the Morn Pen's coastal villages of Westernport and is therefore meant to retain its coastal village ambience. It cannot possibly retain this significant attribute if we continue to develop the rural land around the village. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the land has a vegetation protection overlay including a creek.

  3. In Griffin QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 287 Brays Road, Griffin QLD 4503:

    Gary Cook commented

    No more developments until we get some basic services like a shopping centre and neighbourhood centre that was planed for Brays rd, what’s happened to that.
    This development shows the council has lost the plot completely.
    12 x 3 bedroom units in one backyard.??????

  4. In Scarborough QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 9 Brennan Road, Scarborough QLD 4020:

    Duncan MaCLEAN commented

    Have no issue but concerned :

    *any two story home home will effect my solar installation with shading . I reviewed the previous application for battlaxe block and made my decision based on that .
    * Street parking ibn Brennan is becomng and issue in Brennan and Coucl need to take yis into considerton.

  5. In Kangaroo Point QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 25 Ferry St Kangaroo Point QLD 4169:

    Christian Bassos commented

    Woolworths in this development site is fantastic news for the residents of the Kangaroo Point suburb - they will no longer have to drive their cars to other neighbouring suburbs to do their grocery shopping! Please approve this project - it is needed and wanted!

  6. In Hastings VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Plymouth Street Hastings VIC 3915:

    Kiah Goddard commented

    I do not feel that double storey dwelling is in keeping with environment. A single storey development site would be preferable. Considering neighbours privacy and shading also.

  7. In Kirrawee NSW on “Road Opening Multiple...” at 457 President Avenue Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Robert Jeffers commented

    What is being developed here? Please do not remove green spaces from the shire. The Shire is overdeveloped as it is, look at the Brick pit and the traffic issues it has created.

  8. In Ascot Park SA on “Three (3) Group Dwellings” at 7 Joy St, Ascot Park 5043 SA:

    Anthea Habel commented

    please make sure there is plenty of off street parking. This street is often used used by delivery trucks. Also ensure there is a marked spot for rubbish bins the rubbish truck often struggles to empty bins in this street (see opposite this location). This street is narrow with a bend and plenty of traffic to the train station and people who can not park close to the curb.

  9. In Queens Park NSW on “Remove two (2) Gum Trees...” at 14/6-38 Blenheim Street Queens Park NSW 2022:

    Gayle Walker commented

    There are no documents to view on council’s website to indicate why these trees should be removed, so I can only comment on how I feel about it. If there are no reasons other than just wanting grass to grow or lack of sun, then I think they should remain in place. The gum is the quintessential Australian tree and it provides much needed food and shelter for our native animals.

  10. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Noah commented

    There has already been an application for a huge duplex here and no one apart from the developer had approved it. Bardwell Park has very few duplexes at this point in time and I believe it is in the best interest of all residents that it is kept this way. So many neighbouring suburbs such as Bexley North, Kingsgrove and Earlwood are losing their character to duplexes which crowd the streets with even more cars and people. They all start to look the same and soon the suburb loses all of its character.

  11. In Redfern NSW on “Installation of 3 wall...” at 77-123 Eveleigh Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Peter Prineas commented

    I see that five signs are to be placed on this excessive 24-storey tower, and that four of them are to be illuminated.

    I will resist the urge to suggest suitable wording for said signs.

    I object to illuminated signs. This building overpowers everything in the neighbourhood with its outrageous height and bulk and nothing more needs to be done to draw attention to it.

  12. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Sue Simmonds commented

    I am strongly opposed to this boarding house. Allan Y and the other respondents have listed all the reasons very well why this should not go ahead. For the health and safety of residents and children in the day care centres, as well as that of the potential boarding house residents, this application should be denied. I feel for those people who live near this site. They should not have to put up with such a large and totally unsuitable building near them. It is probably too late to block it entirely, but Council could at least deny the changes in the current application. It should never have been approved in the first place.

  13. In East Gosford NSW on “4 Lot Strata Title Subdivision” at 48 Webb Street, East Gosford NSW 2250:

    Maureen Delves commented

    I urge council to properly and fairly consider the parking problems that face the residents of Webb St, East Gosford. With more medium density housing there will be more vehicles from both new residents and and their visitors.

    During school term the street is filled with cars of the high school students who attend the two high schools close by. This is grossly unfair to the rate-paying residents of Webb St and the nearby streets.

    Unless council is prepared to tackle the parking issue I urge you to restrict student parking, or reject any applications for more residential developments with multiple dwellings on the one block.

  14. In Greendale NSW on “Regularisation of...” at 10 Wolstenholme Avenue Greendale NSW 2745:

    Annon amous commented

    To Heather and Rosalyn,
    Both of your comments have truth which are being addressed and taken very seriously.
    This dam Is monitored and a certain level is maintained to prevent any overflow. The runoff you saw was from the recently cultivated paddock to the west of the feedlot and only occurred due to the heavy rain in February where 500mm fell in a 48 hour period. There was significant runoff from all properties in the area that were bare dirt and that hadn’t seen rain for over two years. Please get your facts correct before commenting.
    The welfare of the cattle is kept to a high standard, animal welfare authorities are welcomed to the site regularly to attend to concerns of their welfare and they are very happy with the procedures and policies in place to keep the animals healthy and happy at all times. Stocking number rates are to Mla guidelines and all feedlots are built with slope to prevent wet boggy areas. Most large feedlots do not have any shade at all which is NOT the case on this property. There is ample shade for the cattle to shelter in should they choose to, most of them prefer to lie in a moist area anyways.
    The cattle DO NOT drink the water from the runoff dam, water is used from another dam which does not have any livestock mudding it up or Contaminating it. At the end of the day the cattle have to meet certain requirements and are tested regularly for human consumption. This is a standard thing with all livestock that are slaughtered for human consumption. Once again please get your facts correct before commenting.
    I will endeavour to visit you both at some stage this week to clarify any concerns you may have.

  15. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of exitsing...” at 62 Crinan Street, Hurlstone Park NSW 2193:

    Deirdre Ferguson commented

    And more trees to be cut down. There is little green space in this area and most trees are in yards. What a poor environment for children to play in.

  16. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of exitsing...” at 62 Crinan Street, Hurlstone Park NSW 2193:

    Nicole commented

    There are three childcare centres in Hurlstone Park already, so what is the justification for another? Also, the streets around the station for at least 500 a metre circumference have virtually no parking already. A childcare centre draws a large number of vehicles at dropoff and pickup times, 5 days a week. Where are these vehicles going to park at these times? Seven car spaces will not even cover the number of staff required to run this centre.

  17. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification to Condition...” at 92 Ramsgate Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Peter Varga commented

    It is outrageous that Council approved this DA and ignored the objections of most of the neighbours to this development, which exceeds the DCP2012 Principal Development Controls in a number of items. These were all raised in the previous DA comments and objections by residents. The neighbours are considering forming a resident action group to fund taking action and appealing the approved DA unless Council comply with their duty of care responsibility in regard to protecting adjacent properties from construction activities including vibration damage.
    The site is not the required 15 metre frontage. There are 4 stories of living area, not 3.
    Boundary set backs have not been complied with.
    This proposed amendment increases the height of this 4 stories of living areas another 0.5m. This results in. A loss of sunlight and excessive over shadowing of neighbours.
    The geotechnical report for this development is stated to be for a development at 30 Pacific Street, Bronte and not 92 Ramsgate Ave.
    Council should reject this amendment and ensure that the Construction Certificate has specific requirements for vibration control limits and monitoring at the boundary and a building inspection and dilapidation report of adjacent buildings.
    Is Council compromised by the existing B2B business commercial relations with the applicant ?

  18. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Allan Y commented

    As a medical practitioner, I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it does not meet current health requirements. Self-isolation in the same room as another tenant while sharing a kitchen/bathroom is not good practise.
    As a resident, I oppose this proposal on the grounds that a three storey building amongst single/double storey dwellings will intrude on neighbourhood privacy.
    As a grandparent, I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is unsafe for a boarding house of this nature to exist on the same street as a daycare centre.
    Approval of this plan is irresponsible. Please reconsider and reject the proposal.

  19. In Chermside QLD on “Residential Care Facility,...” at 930 Gympie Rd Chermside QLD 4032:

    Carolyn Wendy Skitch commented

    Traffic is of concern, especially given that the large development approved for the bend on Curwin Terrace ,(outside the Mission’s Aged Care precinct) will increase even further the volume exponentially and may not have been factored into this application.
    The Boulevard provides access to/ egress from the Mission’s other entity, Wheller on the Park Retirement Village, where the average age of Independently living Residents is 78 years. Increasingly other members of the public are using The Boulevard as a quick through road and many drive at high speed. Only two weeks ago, a passing through driver lost control of his vehicle, knocked down a developed tree and came to a stop straddling the drain situated between the Parkside Kerb and Parkside fence. It would help if the Boulevard could be designated as an internal suburban Road and traffic restriction lowered from 40 Kim to say 20 Kim.

    Increased traffic noise is also of concern. Boulevard numbers 1 to 20 are privately leased Villas. Cluster 1 , 1 to 6, were fitted with acoustic screening as part of their development approval. Cluster 3, 13 to 16 and Cluster 4 ,17 to 20, are set well back from the Roadway. However, Cluster 2, 7 to 12 were the first built as part of Stage 1 of the WotP development. These 6 villas are quite close to the roadway and none has any acoustic screening. Furthermore, pollution from vehicular emissions is high, evidenced by dust intrusion and black “soot” accumulations.

    I ask that these matters be taken into consideration.

  20. In Woolooware NSW on “Tree Application” at 6/102-104 Kingsway Woolooware NSW 2230:

    Nick DeGuingand commented

    Please ensure that all removed trees are replaced by three similar trees as per council policy

  21. In Woolooware NSW on “Jacarandah and lLilli Pilli...” at 11 Ambyne Street Woolooware NSW 2230:

    Nick commented

    Please ensure that all removed trees are replaced by three similar trees as per council policy.
    The applicants may be well advised to keep their gutters clear, and present the evidence of potential concrete cracking.

  22. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of exitsing...” at 62 Crinan Street, Hurlstone Park NSW 2193:

    Laura commented

    Inner West Council have already approved a 40 space child care centre as part of a hideous, over-height 5 storey development on the corner of Watkin Street and Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park - about 400 metres from this proposed D.A. How many empty child care centres do greedy councils think we need?

  23. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of a 3-storey...” at 14 Clapham Street, Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Lynette Joy commented

    Surely a 3 storey building in a residential area is incompatible with the amenity of the surrounding housing stock? How are these exceptions able to get approval? Let one in and then that becomes the rule of thumb for further applications.

  24. In Charmhaven NSW on “Alterations and Additions” at 131 Panorama Avenue Charmhaven NSW 2263:

    suzanne king commented

    We are the owners of 2 units on 131A panorama ave Charmhaven. Can we please have details of the submission or DA for 131 panorama ave Charmhaven. Can you pls send it to sueki100@gmail.com
    Suzanne King, Stuart King & Robert King.

  25. In Old Noarlunga SA on “Land division - Torrens...” at 1 Church Hill Road, Old Noarlunga SA 5168:

    lisa schuyler commented

    I object to this land division as it is a threat to the character of the vicinity of the church. it also puts at risk the heritage value of the area. The cemetery is an important part of old noarlunga and needs to be protected. building housing close by is detrimental to these structures and environment. I am concerned about the amount of development that is closing in around the onkaparinga river onkaparinga hills area. this is why I object to this land division.

  26. In Greenacre NSW on “Fitout of T.K.Maxx retail...” at 355 Waterloo Road, Greenacre NSW 2190:

    jenny commented

    i need tk maxx to chullora
    we love it here

  27. In Greendale NSW on “Regularisation of...” at 10 Wolstenholme Avenue Greendale NSW 2745:

    Rosalyn Faddy commented

    Most feedlots are run on flat land with owners spare land around it to isolate and retain overflow from surrounding properties. This certain property fronts a road where when the effluent discharges onto makes the road extremely slippery and dangerous. As I have a property with a usually dry creek down steam the overflow runs straight into it and settles in ponds which my cattle used to drink from but when stagnant just pollute the ground around and killing the resident water wildlife and with the flow continuing into the Nepean River where market gardeners pump from onto vegetables for human consumption and people swim in and further down stream small towns drink from river.

  28. In Doncaster VIC on “Construction of nine,...” at 19 Bayley Grove Doncaster VIC 3108:

    John Swanson commented

    I have been a Manningham resident for the last 54 years. I appreciate that change is part of life. Having said that Council has been negligent in the development of Doncaster as suburb with only road transport (No Rail or Tram lines) Whilst it is easy to blame state governments there is a point where common sense must occur. Traffic management plans appear to have been treated like the baby and the bathwater been thrown out in an effort to raise more rates.

    Manningham needs to put in place adjuncts to the planning scheme. When you are building multi unit developments in small courts (Like Curlew Court) there is clearly an issue.

  29. In Kingsford NSW on “Construction of an eighteen...” at 391-393 Anzac Parade Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Michael Wright commented

    This looks to be the first wave of the K2K Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres Planning Proposal implemented. A 399 room boarding house is not ground breaking urban renewal & not the creation of a "ideas hub with new community centres, exhibition spaces and an Innovation Centre designed to encourage creative start-up businesses".
    It is a dramatic expansion of the decades long creep of boarding houses and student accommodation into all areas of Kingsford.
    Is a 399 room boarding house even required in these times with COVID-19 restricting students at the uni?
    I object to this development one the follow grounds:
    * height at 18 stories is way too much
    * number of rooms is way to much - at 399
    * congestion caused by volume of people in this small area
    * need for 399 boarding house?
    * lack of developers levy to assist with impacts.
    * unsightly extreme development not in fitting with character of Kingsford
    Please reject this application

  30. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove 1 tree” at 36 Park Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    A Smith commented

    A high number of planning applications in Nuremburn appear to be for the removal of trees. It seems that there will soon be no trees left in the area. Why are the trees being removed and does anyone care that the canopy of this suburb is being destroyed ?

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