Recent comments

  1. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 123 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad Murray commented

    I've had a brief read of the DA and the proposed plan. I support the design and the height of the design. Yes it is taller than anything near by, but as the renders in the DA show, it's size will not be too significant from any distance and frankly, i'm sick of seeing good modern designs opposed because they don't fit in. Maintain the heritage we have and keep the areas where it is significant in tact, but this is not one of those areas and we don't live in the 1800s anymore. God forbid we end up with another Grand Chancellor monstrosity that is poor piece of architecture with a lame attempt at character.

  2. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - ePathway” at 3 Lewis Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Graeme Widmer commented

    My guess it they won’t have documents. They probably don’t have visa documents either. Paying their way though at Parra council.

    G. Widmer

  3. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Dirk Correll commented

    Please do not risk the children and youth in Umina by allowing this development. This development will be on a major thoroughfare that links children, parents and the elderly with West St shops, the surf club, the school, the existing playground precinct, the future Peninsula Precinct, the youth at Hope Church, the elderly at the CWA, and the tens of thousands of tourists who come to our lovely beach and village every summer. A Boarding House is certainly not in keeping with the surrounds and current demographic and it will lead to numerous issues. Please look for a more suitable and responsible position for this establishment.

  4. In Teralba NSW on “Medical Centre” at 59 William Street Teralba NSW 2284:

    Mohammad Shayeem commented

    As a new resident at Billy's Lookout, I strongly support this proposal of having a medical centre with pharmacy (if possible) at Teralba.

    There would be 400+ new homes at Billy's lookout within 3-4 yrs which would add approx. 1000 new resident at Teralba. A medical centre means we don't need to drive Glendale or Toronto to see a GP.

    Teralba needs more development like this as well as vibrant cafes, shops etc.

  5. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    David Morrison commented

    I oppose such a type of development so close to a primary school and children’s play area

  6. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Single House” at No. 11 (Lot 1) Buxton Street Mount Hawthorn:

    Kathleen P McGurk commented

    This section of Buxton St has been nominated to be a "Character Retention Area" as it has a unique character & charm, with its modest, traditional, single storied homes, many which are restored war service homes, which have front porches & which adhere to the setback laws.Those who live here have tried hard to preserve the visual character of the street & the large setbacks when we have undergone extensions & have created open, grassed areas & landscaping in the front of our homes to reduce to build up of urban heat as well as creating neighbourly interaction & the ability to survey the street in light of the increased break-ins in the area. As a result this area has a unique social character & should be afforded special consideration.
    In light of these facts, my objections to this proposed residence are as follows:-
    *It is not sensitive or sympathetic to the streetscape & established residences in the street & fails to compliment any of the existing buildings.
    *It is overly large & substantially bulky & visually dominates the entire block, thus overwhelming the landscape & uncomplimentary to any of the surrounding residences. *The excessive height will create shadows & reduce sunlight to the adjacent homes & impact on their solar panels.
    *The retaining wall at the property front exceeds the maximum allowed & does not consider the natural fall of the street, thus causing it to dominate the streetscape & reduce the ability for neighbourhood interaction.
    We are now at risk of having 2 adjoining residences ( No 9 & 11) which dominate the street & DO NOT satisfy the "deemed to comply minimal standards" & that lessons will not be learned from the non compliant residence of No 9 which was approved by the City of Vincent, thus contradicting their own policies.
    As there are now 2 empty blocks opposite ( Nos 8 & !0) . The risk of further unchecked development in this small area would radically change the visual impact of this unique hamlet.

  7. In Kellyville NSW on “Erection of 4 x seven to...” at 98-102 Fairway Drive, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Joseph Stephen commented

    I agree with this comment. You keep approving more and more buildings and the roads are unable to cope with this. There needs to be a halt in construction until infrastructure catches up.

  8. In Tamborine Mountain QLD on “Tourist Cabins (Tourist Use)” at 1 - 15 Slingsby Road, Tamborine Mountain QLD 4272:

    Ted Stelmasiak and Simone Stelmasiak-van Mourik commented

    We object to further business development in our area which is clearly designated as RREA Rural Residential on the Zoning Map 36. By approving business activities, tourism related or otherwise, this area will no longer be a residential zone.

  9. In Point Lookout QLD on “Dwelling - Dual Occupancy” at 15 Midjimberry Road, Point Lookout QLD 4183:

    Tom Menzies wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    RE: 30 Timbin Road, Pt Lookout.
    Dear Cr Mitchell,

    I am very busy, but noted that the building takes up most of the site.

    Please have someone measure the land left and it appears not to comply with the plans on the RCC site.

    Thank you.

    Photo of Peter Mitchell
    Peter Mitchell local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Tom Menzies

    This is an Automatic reply – Please do not respond to this email. Note: If you require urgent after hours assistance, please phone Council on 07 3829 8999.

    I confirm your email has been received and will be responded to as soon as possible.

    I receive a large volume of emails each day. All emails are important to me and I do my best to respond to them as promptly as possible. In some instances, I may ask that your email be responded to directly by Redland City Council staff if that will provide you the most efficient response to your issue.

    Although I will endeavour to respond as soon as possible, if you raised a question or requested a response and you have not been contacted by me or Council within ten (10) working days, please contact me on 3829 8607.

    Thank you again for writing to me.

    Warm regards

    Cr Peter Mitchell
    Division 2 (Cleveland/North Stradbroke Island)
    Redland City Council
    P: +61 7 3829 8607 E:
    PO Box 21 Cleveland Qld Australia 4163

  10. In Malvern East VIC on “2 lot subdivision - PS...” at 77 Manning Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Tony (Anthony) Thomas commented

    We live next door to this house and were NOT informed of this planning application. Why is this so? Did you not want us to know of it? How many other neighbours were not informed? Do you want to cut down the time we have to consider this?

  11. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Concerned Resident commented

    I'm strongly against this proposal. I feel like something of this nature shouldn't be located so close to the local primary school, parks, beaches and shops, and would cause a great concern for residents and families in the area. It goes against everything our local council should be trying to avoid as such, and would be better located in an area where it wouldn't be so noticeable or have the potential to cause a rise in criminal activity and crime.
    The idea of having the building back onto the rear lane that is also shared with Berith street residents is alarming and causes concern for my families safety.
    I also find the design of the building ugly and out of context for this street and location.
    Why not propose something that is actually going to better the area.

  12. 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?

  13. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one...” at 19 The Crescent Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    Any tree removal should only be allowed if endanger life. Trees provide the following (and not limited to); oxygen we all need to breath to live, wildlife habitat, enables pollination of flora with the wildlife activity, shade from sunlight, possible play and climbing activities for our children (if safe to do so) and beautification of our area (lower North Shore) and that is why most of us live here. Pruning of trees should be considered as an alternative.

  14. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one (1)...” at 15 Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    All Blue gum trees are protected and options tree removal are; removal if a danger to life only and replacement with suitable species or pruning with suitable permission. Trees are great benefit as they provide; oxygen, habitat, shade from sunlight, promote cross pollution of flora and beautification of the area.

  15. In North Willoughby NSW on “Request to remove two and...” at 2/19 Clanwilliam Street North Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Lou commented

    Removal and replacement of trees(2), is only an option if trees are threating life. If trees are threating life, then replacement should consider suitable species and maturity of replacement tree.. If this not the case then only other options are to prune trees within limits or leaving trees alone. Trees provide ; oxygen, habitat, shade from direct sunlight, promotes cross pollution and beautification to our neighbourhood

  16. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one (1)...” at 25 Stanley Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    Jacaranda trees are protected and only options are; removal of trees is permitted if endangering life and replacement with suitable species or pruning of tree within permitted limits. Trees provide ; oxygen, habitat, shade from direct sunlight, promotes cross pollution and beautification to our neighbourhood

  17. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - ePathway” at 3 Lewis Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Resident commented

    No documents recorded

  18. In Kellyville NSW on “Erection of 4 x seven to...” at 98-102 Fairway Drive, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Andy Chow commented

    Any infrastructure is to cope with this development ? This 217 units project creates serious traffic problems later on. It is recommended to not have such development in the area. Please consider the residents’ concerns. Please disapprove it. Thanks.

  19. In Sandstone Point QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 3-5 Spinnaker Drive, Sandstone Point QLD 4511:

    Chris commented

    There is no need for extra development on this site as there is a petrol station 2km from Spinnaker Drive in Ningi and another less than 3kms on Bribie Island.
    With traffic coming from existing units in Spinnaker Sound, the new complex on the corner of Spinnaker Drive and another unit block being constructed behind this proposed site, chaos will be created with more vehicles trying to enter and exit this area.
    Large trees and palm trees will be felled to make room for this development, maybe a small park would enhance the units being constructed by the owner.
    Local workers and residents buy coffee and food from the cafes and restaurants already existing in the marina area, why should these businesses be put under extra pressure to compete with another unnecessary food outlet.
    Priority should be given to installing traffic lights and widening of Bribie Island Road to make safe entry into Spinnaker Drive.

  20. In Doncaster East VIC on “Construction of a...” at 969 Doncaster Road Doncaster East VIC 3109:

    Sharene Hart commented

    What will this do to our property values? They have already dropped significantly due in part to the greed and disregard of aesthetics by developers. Our environment is going to the dogs.. everyone is upset about it. Corruption is out there and this is probably the root cause.

  21. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 79 Summerhill Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Fiorinda Koch commented

    This property is covered in imitation brick. Imitation brick and/or the sheeting behind it commonly contain asbestos. Any permit that involves demolition works of the existing premises needs to explicitly state that an asbestos check and safe removal of asbestos is required prior to demolition.

  22. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one (1)...” at 15 Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    The Sydney Blue Gums along Fullers Rd form an integral part of the streetscape and soften the significant impact of the traffic for this thoroughfare. The application should be refused unless an overwhelming reason exists for removal.

  23. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 400-402 Collins Street Melbourne 3000:

    H. Jordan wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    Dear Rohan Leppert

    I am disappointed that there has been a request for the demolition of the building - 400-402 Collins St. We have lost so much of the old Melbourne. More information for others to see can be found on these websites:

    I look forward to any information on the progress of this application. I do hope that Council recognises the visual and heritage value of this building and does not approve its demolition.

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 400-402 Collins Street Melbourne 3000:

    H.Jordan commented

    Dear Planning Authority,

    I am disappointed that there has been a request for the demolition of this building. We have lost so much of the old Melbourne. More information for others to see can be found in these websites:

    Please lodge my concern when considering approval of the application to demolish this building.

  25. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Roz commented

    My son and his family are wanting to buy in this area because at this point it appears we have a good school and great amenities for a young family. However, this proposal has turned them off. I wonder how many other young families will consider other areas if this application goes ahead. We need young families to feel safe here.

  26. In Minto NSW on “Use of Premise” at Al-Faisal College, 10 Benham Road, Minto NSW 2566:

    JAN ELDRIDGE commented

    Please reject this application. There is no more room in the area re parking, Children and general movement plus noise. To small an area. Enough trouble now dont need more

  27. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Vicky Rall commented

    I am shocked to know that the developers are, again, attempting to convince ICC to allow them to cram as many houses as possible onto this block. We live just meters from this block and are so concerned for our beautiful neighbourhood. The increase in traffic alone will be a nightmare. The increase in noise, waste and pollution will be devastating for existing residents and the loss of habitat is unconscionable. If this application is approved, it will turn this area into a ghetto for sure.

    ICC, please do not approve this. Most residents don't mind sensible development but this application is so incredible, one cannot consider the developers' motivations to be based on anything else but pure, undiluted greed. They are motivated by money and do not act in the best interest of the residents of Bellbird Park.

    Please stop this insanity by rejecting this superseded planning request.

  28. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 123 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    I am copy and pasting (again) my previous submission, as I was informed tha the DA was re submitted to council due to a technicality (again) and, therefore, all submissions need to be resubmitted. As the actual DA number seems to have remained the same, I am guessing that I can do it this way ?

    I am pleased to see that the deco TRC facade is being retained, although it could be argued that the aesthetics and sheer bulk of what is proposed doesn't fit the character of the area. The gorge is a natural feature in Launceston, and to have it ruined with a building this tall in front of part of it is something that people in Launceston will regret for years to come. Indeed the people in the houses on the hill in West Lton must be thrilled at the thought of being able to see into the hotel rooms from their windows, and having their view dominated by an oversize mirrored tower. During the last demolitions this developer has already shown that they have little concern for the history of the site, and the LCC's apparent fear of the developer also seemed to be a factor. Given the sites history regarding brewing beer in the early 1800s (James Boags Juniors house was one of the houses demolished to make way for the carpark) and the close by female factory, it would be good to see at least some archaeology before it is transformed. Launceston (at least parts of it) are still unique and I believe it is time for the LCC to demand a better outcome for Launceston from developers looking only at their bottom line, and stop the current transformation into a mini Melbourne.

  29. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    M. Pierce commented

    I am opposed to this development. I believe the location does not meet the necessary criteria as outlined in the Central Coast Draft Affordable and Alternative Housing Strategy (2018). That states that location is ‘a key issue in terms of social equity and sustainability’ and should be located close to ‘larger service centres with a comprehensive range of retail, health, recreation and support services and facilities, and where possible, public transport. A focus on transit oriented developments near major railway stations is also important given the level of commuting out of area in the Central Coast.’ It recommends locating affordable housing within 800 metres of railway stations, and focusing on business zones such as Gosford and Woy Woy. Clearly, Umina Beach does not fit that criteria, being over 4 km from the nearest train station. Additionally, council is required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to ‘take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application’ and to ‘consider whether a proposed development is in the public interest’. The proposed location is close to children’s playgrounds, sporting fields, surf clubs, and schools, and right at the gateway to the suburb, yet not near social services, and in a suburb that has an undersupply of doctors, no police presence, and a consistently greater than state and national levels of unemployment. Furthermore, whilst across the Central Coast, apartments make up 8% of housing stock, in Umina Beach, dwellings other than houses has increased over the last 10 years to 23% of the housing stock in 2016. This has been coupled with a population increase of nearly 10%, without the associated infrastructure to support it. Adding to this already existing inequity in Umina Beach is ignoring the social impacts of higher density living and changing the essential nature of our coastal village. There are many investigations and studies that have highlighted the costs of development without attention to infrastructure, particularly ‘soft infrastructure’ such as access to employment, and the establishment of local services and strategies to develop community cohesion. The Macquarie Fields riots of 2005 are example of an area that had basic hard infrastructure provided such as shops and affordable housing, but without other hard infrastructure such as a community centre, and the essential soft infrastructure. ( This study also notes The failure to provide adequate and sustainable community infrastructure results in long-term costs and consequences. This is particularly so in areas that are already disadvantaged or show signs of the potential to become increasingly disadvantaged over the medium to long term. The study indicates ideally a town of our size would have a neighbourhood centre, a community hall, and a senior citizens centre. Umina Beach, with its already higher than average unemployment, lack of a police station, and other essential infrastructure needs is in danger of suffering long term costs of ongoing unsuitable developments, including this one.

  30. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    My understanding is that after 2 years and then ability of the community to hopefully stop these totally inappropriate developments Auxiliary units and duplexes as part of a new planning scheme will see the stopping of these blights on the landscape. Trouble is that these blights on the landscape will have already been built, . By then it will be too late and our comments are just a waste of time now Bellbird Park will be unrecognisable. The fault is that of the State government who have set residential zones with no further examination of these blights on the landscape. Every thoughtful colmment by "us"goes nowhere. We have stated quite forcefully the inappropriate nature of these developments. I call on the Council to do all they can to "slow down" this process and give our community some recognition of our total opposition to Auxiliary units and Duplexes. If you want to know what we are in for check out Harrisville. Springfield in the making and incremental destruction of our once "Leafy suburb"

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