Recent comments

  1. In North Gosford NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 414 Mann Street, North Gosford NSW 2250:

    Steve Barwick commented

    What is this actual application??? All I see is a bunch of click bait crap, and fake news rubbish

  2. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Julian Forte commented

    This is a totally unacceptable proposal. The only winner is the developer and commercial contract for the fuel company. After all the efforts over the last ten years to divert traffic away from Scarborough beach road this defies common sense.

    As a rate payer I oppose this proposal.

  3. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Daniel Tarttelin commented

    After all the efforts over the past few years to make Mt Hathorn a Hub for the community to enjoy, it seems completely unnecessary to plonk a dirty, busy petrol station in the centre of it. As a resident of Mt Hawthorn I have never once found it difficult to access a petrol station already close to the suburb. We do not need this!

  4. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 311-315 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    R Reyes commented

    wow! 10 Storey building! I am for increased density developments but this is a bit of a joke! The council needs to protect not only the developers but also the residents in this area. It's all for the benefit of the developers. This area indeed needs to be redeveloped but have quality developments and not this

  5. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Clara Mason commented

    Tranquility is the vital factor in spending time in a Park. I also like to go and enjoy an entertainment centre and would support something in the area but not if it brings hustle and bustle to my vital interlude with nature. Please stop bringing a new amenity at the cost of an irreplaceable one!

  6. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “295 Bay Street Brighton Le...” at 295 Bay Street Brighton Le Sands:

    Janelle commented

    We are quite perturbed by this development proposal. All the above sediments should be considered by the council.

    Resident Parking or lack there of in the proposal is a major concern.

    Increased vehicle traffic and pedestrian safety is already an issue in Bay Street and the immediate surrounds. The everyday congestion has increased substantially in the last few years.

    The family orientation of Brighton Le Sands is why we live here with our little one we don't want this to be changed. We question how does a boarding house fit in with family orientation and local community.

    Pleae keep Brighton Le Sands safe and beautiful. We don't need a boarding house.

  7. In North Ryde NSW on “Lane Cove Road, Epping Road...” at 366-372 Lane Cove Road, 124A and 126 Epping Road and 1 Paul Street, North Ryde:

    Miriam Cumming commented

    Traffic generated by this development will be able to turn northbound onto Lane Cove Road, but any traffic heading south, east or west will be forced to use the existing narrow suburban local roads. The cumulative impact of the traffic from this development and the traffic generated by the Whiteside development (corner Epping and Whiteside Rds, currently under construction) will overload local roads and intersections, particularly Parklands Road, Pine St/Baringa St and the intersections of Epping/Napier, Epping/Paul and Epping/Kent Roads.

    I urge the Panel to be very vigilant when assessing the traffic impacts of this proposal.

    The wider concern is that sites on the south side of Epping Road in North Ryde/Macquarie Park are being re-zoned from low-density residential for higher densities in an ad-hoc and unmanaged way (e.g. Whiteside, Allengrove, this proposal), without any strategic plan for zoning in this area, which means there is no-one in government considering the cumulative impacts that continued ad-hoc project-by-project rezoning will have on amenity and traffic generation. Zoning decisions are being developer-led rather than part of any government strategic plan. The Panel must urge the State Government to make a strategic plan for the area south of Epping Road; until then no further developer-led ad-hoc re-zonings should be permitted.

  8. In Ormond VIC on “Construction of apartment...” at 12 Wheeler Street Ormond VIC 3204:

    Andres Olascoagac commented

    This development will affect our street character and will increase flood in our homes .
    Will put more pressure on parking,local infrastructure and green areas in our street

  9. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Renae Nahajski commented

    I too vehemently oppose the site becoming a petrol station. There are several already in the area and it would have a huge negative impact on traffic.
    I'm also very concerned over the health and safety issues many others have mentioned here, especially with a Child Care centre and residential area so nearby. It seems irresponsible to me for such a high risk service to even be considered on this location.

  10. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 16A Park Crescent, Pymble, NSW:

    Judy Benson commented

    When is enough, enough. Council is changing the whole face of our community. Our streets can't cope with the large amount of traffic being brought into this suburb with these new developments. Council should have some forward thinking and not slow so many developments to go on. Judy

  11. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Brad Hemmy wrote to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole

    I oppose the petrol station being built on the site.
    A lot of money has been spent to slow traffic and congestion on Scarborough beach road and make way for the cycle paths the traffic impact would not only make it dangerous for push bikes but all the pedestrians from the day care and the school.

    Delivered to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole. They are yet to respond.

  12. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Robert Woodley commented

    Please not another venue pumping doof doof music into our suburb. I live in Alexandria and often on Saturday night we have to listen to loud music, the thump of which you can hear all over the suburb. When I have rung City of Sydney or the Police they can do nothing because permission has been granted until 11 pm usually. Now this one is applying for 2 am. Please no more concerts and noise in our Saturdays.

  13. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Construction of an eleven...” at 295 Bay Street, Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    Suzie Sadi commented

    I oppose the proposed Development Application under review by Bayside Council for an 11 storey, 88 room Boarding House Tower to be built on Bay St Brighton-Le-Sands. It does not fit with the character of Brighton-Le-Sands. Brighton-le sands is one of the last few truly suburban areas left so close to the city. Many other suburbs have been destroyed by the mass production of similar building to accomodate students under the guise of creating 'affordable' housing (IE Kensington 2033)
    We are a tight little community of friendly neighbours who can walk down the street safely at night, we have neighbourhood parties and know the people down the street. I object to a building with too few carspaces when it is already hard enough to find a park. What sort of characters will you attract to such a boarding house? People who do not care about the area and the community. They stay anonymous and don't care of the impact they have upon others. Crime WILL go up. Sydney has become a selfish city. Insist the developer provide car spaces for 3/4 of the units. Otherwise expect 60 something extra cars to clog and fill the council car parks everyday. Please do NOT approve this housing development without thinking of the true impact it will have on residents. If you want more money put a fixed speed camera down Moate Avenue.

  14. In Westmead NSW on “Development Application” at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and 1/2a Darcy Road Westmead NSW 2145:

    Adriana Mendez commented

    Panel Members

    A ridiculous and greedy proposal but I will try and be nice. Can I take a guess on the proposed builder? Not Dyldam by any chance?
    I urge you to consider the implications that a construction of this magnitude will have on the current residents and the precedent it will set.
    1. Building will look out of character - keep it in line with current buildings. Westmead is not a city!
    2. Hawkesbury Road is a very busy road
    3. Access through Ashley lane is not possible
    4. There is insufficient infrastructure to support the number of residents of 355 + units
    5. More than 355 cars will be entering in and out daily
    6. Transport is inadequate at the moment please dont add to it!
    7. In the event that money over rules common sense I also urge the panel members that if ANY plan is approved that underground parking accomate 1.5 times number of units to ensure all cars are off the already congested streets.

  15. In Eastern Creek NSW on “Warehouse & Distribution...” at 22 & 24 Wonderland Drive, Eastern Creek:

    Sidney Clark commented

    I have received two packages containing unwanted, unordered products, addressed to "Sidney Clark, PO Box 1479, Runaway Bay, QLD 4216, Australia".

    I am returning them to you at “Fulfillment Centre, 22-24 Wonderland Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW 2766” marked "unwanted samples, return to sender please”.

    Details are as follows:

    AP Article id: SXB5664946010822, shipped on 10 January 2017; and

    AP Article id: SXB5667834010829, shipped on 12 January 2017.

    Please do not send me any more packages. If you do I will refuse to sign for them.

    Please do not attempt to charge me for these products. If you do, I will take legal action against you.

    Thank you.

    I have received two packages containing unwanted, unordered products, addressed to "Sidney Clark, PO Box 1479, Runaway Bay, QLD 4216, Australia".

    I am returning them to you at “Fulfillment Centre, 22-24 Wonderland Drive, Eastern Creek, NSW 2766” marked "unwanted samples, return to sender please”.

    Details are as follows:

    AP Article id: SXB5664946010822, shipped on 10 January 2017; and

    AP Article id: SXB5667834010829, shipped on 12 January 2017.

    Please do not send me any more packages. If you do I will refuse to sign for them.

    Please do not attempt to charge me for these products. If you do, I will take legal action against you.

    Thank you.

    Sidney Clark

  16. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Trish Leen commented

    After having lost my house in St Peters to Westconnex I still visit the park with my dogs.

    I am opposed to this development as we have already lost a huge amount of the Park. I agree with others in that the property should be returned to the Park.

  17. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Alex Ozdowski commented

    I actually support this proposal as long as impacts on neighbours are mitigated. I do think that the opening hours are pushing it and have concerns with that although I do think it would add an interesting venue for the local community to enjoy.

  18. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Robynne Hayward commented

    I agree with all the objections made. It it true that any 'green space' under a noisy concrete interchange usually turns into a wasteland, although the homeless may find it useful.
    I can't believe that the rights that are supposed to apply to heritage listed buildings are so easily overturned by this government. Westconnex is demolishing the Rudders building, cutting it up and one of the proposals is to reinstate bits of it in Sydney park, as some sort of tacky and cynical 'reference' to the building. These people have no idea of how precious that green space is ... this is surprising, as I would have thought they would at least have regard for the huge amount of money spent on plantings and creating a wetlands area, obviously they don't have regard for the environment itself! I bet they don't live in the inner west!
    I agree with Matthew Cleary, westconnex should acquire the Euston Rd property and return it to Sydney Park to compensate in a small way for the loss of land from the park, the destruction of hundreds of mature trees, the demolition of people's homes, the horrible impact of the motorway on the remaining neighbouring homes, the ugliness of a concrete spaghetti junction, the destruction of the suburb's character and the impact of all of this on the whole inner west area.
    What's really depressing is the fact that all this destruction is for no gain. This motorway is not a long term solution to improving the traffic between the city and the outer suburbs. If the money had been spent on a sophisticated train system Sydney could have moved out of the transport dark ages. Once again economic profit (for a few, not the people of Sydney) is triumphing over common sense.
    As an aside, I read somewhere that these comments do not count as objections, unless this is specifically stated. I don't know if this is true, but for the record, I object!

  19. In Randwick NSW on “Outdoor dining for five (5)...” at 57 Frenchmans Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    VICTORIA ROWLANDSON commented

    Completely agree with Celia, a pedestrian crossing is required on Frenchmans Road somewhere near Corner 75 restaurant or the butcher/ bunnings. Many people cross the road here anyway which is dangerous.

  20. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    The changes to this particular area in Kew are nothing short of tragic. This is a magnificent treed and historical area with magnificent architecture. It is now unrecognisable including Alfred, Rowland, Grange and Edward streets. I grew up and lived here for 25 years and it is already ruined. This inappropriate further development must end now!

  21. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Merran commented

    The area is simply losing its leafy historical appeal. The gardens are disappearing, the trees are disappearing. The interesting houses are being knocked down. Something needs to be done. Kew will end up looking like North Balwyn.

  22. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Tracy Denham commented

    I vigorously oppose the proposal to turn this site into a petrol station. It not only seems to oppose all the other work that has been done to make Mt Hawthorn more pedestrian friendly but it would attract extra traffic to a site that is bordered by a busy primary school and a day care centre. That seems insane. There are myriad more community-friendly purposes for a site such as this. PLEASE do not let this go through.

  23. In Wentworth NSW on “Limited licence - single...” at 22-26 Cadell St, Wentworth, NSW:

    Des Jones commented

    I oppose the application lodged by the Mildura ski club holding any type of activity in the junction if he DarlingMurray rivers, the wildlife have struggled in Wentworth since these type of activities of large crowds have occurred, fireworks recently and every year have disrupted the wildlife and last year the constant noise of the power boats and people noise which continues all night is unacceptable, alcohol is usually reason the attendees leave the location in a total mess with unseen rubbishy entering the river over the period identified.
    Please take the event elsewhere like back in Mildura where originated and more resources to manage with little environment impact on location.

  24. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Jae Smith wrote to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole

    Any consideration being made to the extreme traffic congestion multiple cars, semi trailer re-fuelling trucks and the proximaty of this site to a primary school with +700 kids AND a day care centre? Scarborough beach road has been narrowed to promote safety for cyclists, people and motorists - how can this proposal possibly maintain that safety?! This position on Scarborough beach road would surely have to be one of the worst possible for this use!

    Come on council, do your job and reject this absurd proposal.

    Photo of Emma Michelle Cole
    Emma Michelle Cole local councillor for Vincent City Council
    replied to Jae Smith

    Dear Jae

    Thank you for your feedback. I share community concerns about the location of the proposed service station and do not think this is the right land use for this site. It once was a service station, but that is no longer a good outcome considering proximity to a high population primary school and the childcare centre with its outdoor playspace facing to the street. That, as well as the changing nature of the Scarborough Beach Road corridor.

    I am surprised to see an application for a petrol station at this location. A recent development for a car wash on the same site caused very similar community concerns around traffic safety and was withdrawn prior to making it to Council for determination.

    The development application is an "AA" use which requires Council to exercise discretion, rather than simply being a permitted use. Council Members don't have a role in determining which, and when, applications are advertised, as this function is carried out by Administration. I'll ask the Vincent Development Services staff when this application is likely to be considered by Council, and will let you know. I would be very happy to meet with concerned residents about the application.

    Best regards,
    Emma Cole

    Councillor - North Ward
    City of Vincent

  25. In Randwick NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 329 Avoca Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Mel commented

    I live on Helena Street and am concerned by the additional amount of traffic, congestion and demand for parking if this approval goes ahead, especially during peak drop-off and pick-up times. It is already a narrow street and as parking occurs on both sides, only one car can pass at a time.

    One possible strategy to help with this would be to introduce a 15min parking spots outside 329 Avoca St, and make Helena St itself a 2 hour parking zone (with residence/ visitor parking permits). This would reduce the number of people street parking during weekdays and improve traffic flow.

    I have no objections to the childcare itself, but feel measures need to be put in place to avoid traffic problems - for both the residents that live here and those that visit.

  26. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Demolition of...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Stephanie Glynn wrote to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole

    One drive past this location will provide you with sufficient understanding to oppose this Application!!

    By way of background, in 2007 – Council rejected a proposed drive-through bottle shop on the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Egina Street, based on very similar traffic congestion, traffic safety, and community concerns. This provides Council with an important precedent, with the petrol station being of a similar ‘drive-through’ nature, located on the same stretch of SBRoad and 100 metres closer to a school with a current population of 830 children.

    Of most concern is the traffic volumes of cars entering and exiting the proposed station AND the 'semi-trailer fuel tankers' which would need to service that site - within approx. 75 metres of the Primary School and 20 meters of a Daycare Centre. This will significantly impact an already congested and 'blind spot' section of Scarborough Beach Road, and pose significant risk to children and parents with the proximity to the these important community services.

    This application contains major planning limitations and safety concerns and should be rejected by Council.

    Photo of Emma Michelle Cole
    Emma Michelle Cole local councillor for Vincent City Council
    replied to Stephanie Glynn

    Dear Stephanie

    Thank you for providing feedback on the development application. I am also surprised to see an application for a petrol station at this location. The recent development for a car wash on the same site caused very similar community concerns around traffic and proximity to both the childcare centre and Mt Hawthorn Primary School. That application was withdrawn prior to making it to Council for determination.

    The site was once a service station, but transitioned away from that to become a shop with alfresco eating area as Mt Hawthorn Fresh. Unfortunately, that business didn't continue but I would prefer to see a similar use and I agree that a service station is not suitable in this location due to the issues raised.

    The development application is an "AA" use which requires Council to exercise discretion, rather than simply being a permitted use. Council Members don't have a role in determining which, and when, applications are advertised, as this function is carried out by Administration. I'll ask the Vincent Development Services staff when this application is likely to be considered by Council, and will let you know. At that time, I would be very happy to meet with you and concerned residents about the application.

    Best regards

    Emma Cole
    Councillor - North Ward
    City of Vincent

    Tel: 0407 427 588
    Web: www.vincent.wa.gov.au
    This e-mail is private and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise us by return e-mail immediately, and delete the e-mail and any attachments without using or disclosing the contents in any way. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the author, and do not represent those of the City of Vincent unless this is clearly indicated. You should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. The City of Vincent accepts no liability for any direct or indirect damage or loss resulting from the use of any attachments to, or information contained within, this e-mail.

  27. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    matthew cleary commented

    This proposal is contrary to what is required through the loss of available space at Sydney Park through the WestCONnex development. There is a nefarious claim that new green space will be provided through the spaghetti junction at the St Peters interchange. However I cannot imagine anyone other than taggers will use the space below the interchange. Just look at any 'park' in the US or Europe located similarly. Westconnex, at a minimum and as an act of good faith should compulsorily acquire this space and return it to the local community as compensation.

  28. In Camperdown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Kingston Road Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Pippin Schembri commented

    It is so disappointing that this should be allowed. A historic house such as this should be restored be it fully or partially. The front fascade tells a story of some of Sydney's history which is fast becoming destroyed by developers who do not try to respect and keep a little of our history. Melbourne seems to get it right sadly Sydney is getting it so wrong...

  29. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use and fit-out...” at 215-225 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Kate Kennedy commented

    This proposal is bizarre and given that there is already a DA for a mega unit development I cannot understand what is going on. Sydney Park is a much needed oasis in the increasingly congested inner west. Good planning and lots of money has gone into the Wetlands and this proposal jeopardises this sanctuary.
    However there are alternatives for an entertainment venue such as the heritage listed Rudders building. Westconnex will disrupt the area for some time and a noisy nightclub could be a good fit.

  30. In Camberwell VIC on “Development a building...” at 1186 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Judy Brown wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    Come on, more developers wanting reduction of carparking facilities! Have any councillors or council employees ever tried driving up this section of Toorak Rd? It is a nightmare, a bottleneck with cars parked and parking, tram, Hartwell junction and several traffic light junctions all converging together in a very short area.
    This area is fast becoming an area for more and more office developments and dwellings, workers, home owners and visitors need adequate parking. Suburban streets and major thoroughfares can no longer take up the extra parking as it is choking the flow of our city.
    Car parking should be maintained at all costs, it should be a non negotiable item in all developments for the amenity of all neighbours and those in our community.

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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.

Donate