Recent comments

  1. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 11 Hilda Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Dan McIvor commented

    Is it possible to find out more information about these plans?

    I live on the bank fence of this property.

    Thanks,
    Dan

  2. In Prahran VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 66 York Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Matt Moisis commented

    A 3 storey development on this block is ludicrous. The street is narrow and congested and it would not fit in with the area. This proposal should be dramatically reduced in size.

  3. In Chirnside Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at 26 Billanook Way, Chirnside Park VIC 3116:

    Cedric Hordern commented

    Please advise what changes are intended so we can assess if we accept or disagree with the proposal. Currently "eplanning" provides no details whatsoever

  4. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out works to...” at 20 Canal Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jon Okeby commented

    After exposing the residents to the contamination on this site you have the audacity to ask if you can bury what can't be disposed of because it is so toxic? I hope one day that you are all indicted for this appalling excavation, let alone the ongoing exposure to the smoke stacks and vehicle emissions. A pox on you all.

  5. In Moorebank NSW on “Development Application -...” at 23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia:

    Belinda Smith commented

    This Application should NOT be approved. I presume any positive comments are from individuals in some way connected to the Developer, as the Residents stand united in the absolute objection to this Boarding House.
    This development in NO way is desirable or suitable for this quiet residential Crescent. There are many options locally for students and the like,(who would find this appealing), with Liverpool / Warwick Farm apartment living, the University at Milperra also has on site boarding. Templeton Crescent is a quiet, narrow family friendly Street, full of long term residents, many who have lived here since the 1960's. The immediate local infrastructure is not adequate for such a dwelling. We work very hard and pay a high price for our standard of living, one of which we are not willing to compromise.

  6. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of concrete...” at 265 Bunnerong Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Chunfu Cai commented

    Dear duty planner of Randwick City Council, I raise concerns regarding the above mentioned rear extension DA. The proposed backyard access stair connects to the existing landing at approximately 2.2m above is next to our property side boundary which does not comply with the local DCP 2013. A security issue also brings me attention because the boundary fence is only 1.8 meters high which is lower than the proposed new stair.

    Please feel free to contact me or Ms Pauline Chen, Treasurer - EC STRATA 1293 for further discussion. Thanks.

    Best regards,

    Chunfu Cai

  7. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Duckett Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Richard Burt wrote to local councillor Sue Bolton

    Sorry, but neither apartments or this development is giving anything back to the local community.

    This is about money.

    And if you think buyers who sign up aren’t going to try and park on street and dramatically add to existing parking congestion, your the mother of all optimists. Ride a bike or drive around the area, it’s a nightmare. I ride Sydney Rd Mon-Fri, everyone of these oversized, extreme developments make my commute infinitely more dangerous. Enough is enough, stop the blatant overdevelopment. We have to live here developers take the money and run.

    Delivered to local councillor Sue Bolton. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Blacktown NSW on “Development Application -...” at 1 Walters Road Blacktown NSW 2148:

    Sharon Zarzycki commented

    I think 43 rooms is excessive. Where will all of the residents park? Yes it is close to public transport, but realistically, at least half of the residents will probably own vehicles.
    Also there have been problems nearby with other boarding house residents causing issues for neighbouring residents. How will this be policed?

  9. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Scott liddicoatt commented

    Firstly I would like to attend to previous applications that have been totally ignored by this business/businesses that operate out of the above site.A Total disregard for council and of residents with seemingly endless breaches of almost every aspect of the daily running of the business..Parking issues ,dangerous driving issues,taxi drivers urinating on local streets in full view of children,taxi base labelled rubbish being thrown in gutters ,semi trailers full of cars being unloaded in narrow local streets and the list goes on.
    Currently the business seems on the surface to be behaving itself but still it's operating out of hours and still operating as a changeover base and storing changeover cars in local streets and in Pretty Girl .
    The residents are very concerned about the current plans as they will pave the way for this business to flout the Da conditions ie to increase operating hrs and 7 days a week as they have done in the past and is well documented by council and return the location into yet again a changeover base under the guise of a Repair Shop.
    The entire area surrounding this business has had to endure more than enough pain and inconvenience at the hands of Zevra/The Taxi Base/Taxi Solutions and would explore the council to seriously consider the previous constant breaching of conditions and almost arrogant behaviour of this business to locals and to you the council .
    This business cannot be trusted to do the correct thing by either council or the residents

  10. In Moorebank NSW on “Development Application -...” at 8 Goldfinch Street Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia:

    Brendan commented

    This development is definitely not consistent with the area. It does not take into consideration parking, traffic congestion, lack of infrastructure in the local area. This development should not be approved.

    I moved to this area many years ago because of the aspect of the houses are all inline with each others property on the street. In the contract when purchasing our property, the council states "houses must have similar visual aspect" and "kept inline with the community appearance".

    I strongly object to this development proposal as it will be the white elephant in the street! Can't believe it has gotten this far.

  11. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Duckett Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Ben Russell commented

    To the people above who object... Do yourself a favour and learn about the development before you judge it based on it's size. I agree there is terrible development in Brunswick, but that is the exact reason we need Nightingale. Apartments that actually give back to the local community with parks and public spaces. Residents who actively engage in making Brunswick a better place. Melbourne needs more developments like this and we need to support community driven projects like Nightingale. As a local resident, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.

  12. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Bec Curran commented

    This business has no regard for the welfare of residents least of all the number of school children who use Union Street as a thoroughfare to get to school (Tempe Public School and Tempe High School). They have continually been in breach of the existing DA, operating outside of designated hours. Unregistered taxis are frequently dumped/parked in surrounding residential streets causing issues for many residents who don’t have off street parking. Taxis are often parked on footpaths causing pedestrians to have to walk on the road. Taxis are often seen driving down the wrong way down Union Street which is one way. They’re trying to access the highway which then causes issues for cars entering union street fromthe Princes Hwy and Smith Street. The staff have been overwhelmingly rude to concerned residents rather than approach them in a consultative way to reach compromise. I believe there are industrial areas more suited for this type of business which will impact the local community less. If this DA is approved, I also believe there will be no regulatory body “policing” this business to ensure DA guidelines are being adhered to. This has been the case with the past DAs for this business. I have never seen a ranger anywhere near this business despite a multitude of complaints made by myself and many other residents.

  13. In Carlton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 4 Prospect Street, Carlton NSW 2218:

    Kevin Coleman commented

    Yet another "boarding house"! This to my knowledge makes at least five (5) proposed such structures in the past six months. Will these ultimately be sold off as "studio apartments'? Would it be assumed 10 rooms, zero parking?

  14. In Kogarah NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 19 Scott Street, Kogarah NSW 2217:

    Kevin Coleman commented

    If the development is UNAPPROVED why haven't the owners been made to demolish it? The inference is that it is to be used as an outbuilding would seem to indicate that nothing has been done to address the illegal structure?

  15. In Dromana VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 203-205 Point Nepean Road, Dromana, VIC:

    Barbara Houghton commented

    FOUR storeys ?? How can this be ?? Isn't the maximum -which many residents are protesting about already - THREE storeys ??
    You are allowing overdevelopment of our beautiful Mornington Peninsula. You are turning us into just another metropolitan suburb of multi-storey concrete boxes. We live down here to escape all that. Please preserve the character of our beautiful Mornington Peninsula towns.

  16. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Partial demolition of...” at 367-369 Bourke Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Chris Davies commented

    The proposed design is totally inconsistent with the historical aesthetic of the locale. The proposal should be rejected on the basis that numerous properties in close proximity have been modernised and improved in a manner consistent with the historical nature of the area. Examples are 'Dominion Apartments', 'Eternity Playhouse', 'East Sydney Community Centre (Cnr Palmer & Burton)', 'East Sydney Early Learning' (277 Bourke St). All of these are old properties redeveloped and modernised in a manner sensitive to the history aesthetic of the area, not to mention the numerous terrace houses up and down Bourke St, Liverpool St, Palmer St etc all ow which had been modernised and redeveloped in a manner sensitive to the historic aesthetic of the locale.

    The proposed design should be immediately rejected and marked 'F-' 'Must do better'

  17. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Post RequestBuildings and...” at 126 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Mikail K commented

    I called PTV today and complained about the Coles construction tradesmen who park their huge utes in the Surrey Hills station commuter car park every morning. No controls from MTM and PTV, nor from council. This is really frustrating. Surrey Hills station car park already is out of capacity, it doesn't have the line marking and now Coles construction is badly impacting the community.
    I am not sure on what basis council give big corporate such an approval, to build a super market in a narrow street, that is next to a congested high risk level cross, while community experienced death of two souls less than couple of years ago.

  18. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Duckett Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Molly HH commented

    This development is a nightingale model which is NOT developer driven, it aims to provide sustainable and affordable housing to people who cannot afford to buy. By removing basement car parking it makes the housing more affordable. Those who sign up to ballot for an apartment do so, knowing they will not own a car. The last nightingale divided the money left over from the construction back to the owners instead of pocketing it. Nightingale is not that type of developer. These apartments will be sustainable and high quality designed by some of the best architects in Melbourne. These are the types of the developments we should be supporting - high quality and sustainable. The nightingale model gives back to communities. I highly recommend you look it up, visit one around the corner and read the reports submitted to planning before forming an opinion. Moreland has permitted many many developments that are of very poor quality and design but this is not one of them.

  19. In Moorebank NSW on “Development Application -...” at 23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia:

    Nadia DI QUAL commented

    Statement of Effects addressed concerns. Clearly shows the number of residents, that a manager would be there and that the facilities will be safe and secure :)

    It is nice to see environmentally sustainable, affordable housing being offered in the area rather than just excessive 'mansions' for small families. Especially nice to see bike parking.

    I believe this development has the potential to be a great benefit to the community - providing especially important accommodation for the needs of students at local schools and university campuses. I know many who will benefit from a furnished room in a safe environment where communal areas allow the development of social networks. :)

    However, I would like to see a floor plan as the inside communal area sounds very small.
    Are the size of the kitchenettes in rooms sufficient for most needs?
    Would people end up using the external communal areas more than internal?
    Is there any need to review fences and boundary plantings to minimise noise travelling to neighbours if so?

  20. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Derby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Grant Webster commented

    Please do not approve this development. I have reviewed the application and do not believe it sufficiently assesses the impact to local environment, notably impacts to the Endangered Ecological Community - Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.

    The patch of remnant trees in the west of the property appears to meet the legal definition of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SydneyTurpentineIronbarkForestEndComListing.htm) which states that the community may occur as remnant trees, features Eucalyptus paniculata, Angophora costata and Pittosporum undulatum as characteristic species, and that it occurs on shale layers within sandstone. According to the arborist and Geotech report these conditions are met. This should then require an assessment of significance (5 part test), potentially an SIS, and offsetting if the trees were to be removed.

    The legal requirement of impact assessment to the ECC has therefore not occurred, and the proposal should not be approved in its current form. The proposal should be modified to avoid impacts to Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. The building footprint should be changed so the trees can be retained. This should be possible by building on the footprint of the existing dwelling. Additionally any impacts to Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest should be mitigated on site, with planting of local native species in the landscaping (I note Syncarpia glomulifera is indicated to be planted, other species from the EEC should be as well, such as replacement Eucalyptus paniculata).

    All efforts however should be made to retain the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest on the site, as the trees are important sources of genetic material for the local ecosystem, food sources for animals and form part of a corridor of trees leading along the west of Derby Street towards Devlin's Creek. Additionally, reviewing google maps street view, the remnant trees on the property appear to more closely resemble Eucalyptus resinifera (not E. paniculata as stated in the arborist report). This is also a Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest characteristic species.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Derby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    J Dawes commented

    Dear Councillors
    Please listen to the residents of Epping - we have had enough development and we want to retain our trees and some amenity for the existing residents (both human and fauna).
    I oppose this development and particularly I oppose that it will occur on what was previously crown land with many native trees.
    Please do not approve this development.
    Trees improve our local microclimate and provide a respite from the hot summers we are facing.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - removal...” at 21 Bulkira Road Epping NSW 2121:

    JDawes commented

    The trees in this area are important because they connect to the Dence park bush nearby. Please do not remove the tree - prune the affected branch if it is dangerous - not the whole tree.
    Please retain the remnant bushland for the local fauna to connect between different areas.
    Each tree that is removed affects us all - not just your neighbour.

  23. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Derby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Grace commented

    To whom this may concern,

    I have been a resident of Derby Street for the last 18 years.
    I saw your Development Proposal posted on the wall of 21 Derby Street, proposing the knockdown of 2 existing buildings for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building with 18 units, with basement parking.

    To say that I have disappointed and disgusted, is an understatement to say the least. In the last few years, the council has allowed a multiplicity of apartment blocks to be built around the station for seemingly nothing more than the financial interests of the council and wealthy investors with no sense of home and community.

    As a result, hundreds and thousands of extra cars are parking on residential streets. In the last year alone, I have struggled to park in front of my own house, and had to park on adjacent streets and walk to my own house. If we were to include another 18 units, assuming that 2 people live there only, that is potentially another 18-36 cars that will have to fight for the already minimal parking that is available. Not only that, but some morning it has taken me over 15 minutes to turn out of the roads to leave Epping. There is already an approved proprosal for not one, but THREE, high rise apartments on Langston Place with 18, 23 and 25 levels in each. Now, some basic mathematics would show you that Epping roads ARE NOT SET FOR THIS SUDDEN INCREASE IN POPULATION, nor do we have the infrastructure.

    I do not want to see Epping turned into overbuilt suburbs such as Campsie, where cars are littered all along the side walk and people live on top of one other.

    Where is the sense of community?

    Not only this, but these 3 storey apartment blocks would be towering over the current houses, which would invade into everyone's privacy.

    I know for many years proposals to turn 21 Derby Street into apartments have all been rejected.
    So I would like a thorough explanation. WHY NOW.

    In addition, why would you cut down all those native trees such as the spotted gum? Epping is overpopulated and quickly turning into a concrete jungle. Please leave what little greenery there is left.

  24. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Derby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Grace commented

    To whom this may concern,

    I have been a resident of Derby Street for the last 18 years.
    I saw your Development Proposal posted on the wall of 21 Derby Street, proposing the knockdown of 2 existing buildings for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building with 18 units, with basement parking.

    To say that I have disappointed and disgusted, is an understatement to say the least. In the last few years, the council has allowed a multiplicity of apartment blocks to be built around the station for seemingly nothing more than the financial interests of the council and wealthy investors with no sense of home and community.

    As a result, hundreds and thousands of extra cars are parking on residential streets. In the last year alone, I have struggled to park in front of my own house, and had to park on adjacent streets and walk to my own house. If we were to include another 18 units, assuming that 2 people live there only, that is potentially another 18-36 cars that will have to fight for the already minimal parking that is available. Not only that, but some morning it has taken me over 15 minutes to turn out of the roads to leave Epping. There is already an approved proprosal for not one, but THREE, high rise apartments on Langston Place with 18, 23 and 25 levels in each. Now, some basic mathematics would show you that Epping roads ARE NOT SET FOR THIS SUDDEN INCREASE IN POPULATION, nor do we have the infrastructure.

    I do not want to see Epping turned into overbuilt suburbs such as Campsie, where cars are littered all along the side walk and people live on top of one other.

    Where is the sense of community?

    Not only this, but these 3 storey apartment blocks would be towering over the current houses, which would invade into everyone's privacy.

    I know for many years proposals to turn 21 Derby Street into apartments have all been rejected.
    So I would like a thorough explanation. WHY NOW.

    In addition, why would you cut down all those native trees such as the spotted gum? Epping is overpopulated and quickly turning into a concrete jungle. Please leave what little greenery there is left.

  25. In Redbank Plains QLD on “Minor Change - RAL - One...” at 32 Greenwood Village Road Redbank Plains QLD 4301:

    Glen Costello commented

    No. Please stop these delevopments getting larger & larger. One block into 176? That's an added 500 people to that small area plus another 200 plus vehicles on the road which again hasn't been built to accomodate the volume.
    These micro estates are not what the local people want or need. Before any further applications are processed they should be all submitted for general public acceptance and no more council just forcing us to accept their decision. We live here, it's time the council stopped and actually listened to what the people want. 176 extra houses in this area is not what the people want.

  26. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Post RequestBuildings and...” at 126 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Rob Lewis wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    I second Frank's comment. Half the train carpark unavailable due to tradesmen taking the spots. The rules of the carpark clearly state they are for commuters only. When will council start enforcing this.

    Delivered to local councillor Phillip Healey. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Duckett Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mario commented

    Did I read somewhere of a discussion panel regarding SKYRAIL along this corridor...will be just like the scene from the 'Blues Brothers'. Another useless objection right here.

  28. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Derby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Simon Day commented

    Dear Council, I oppose this development application.
    Derby St is one part of Epping I regularly perform litter pickup, as it adjoins the Devlins Creek bushland, becoming Lane Cove National Park a short way downstream.
    The small birds I see during this activity will undoubtedly retreat further into this rapidly fragmenting and diminishing beautiful natural haven, further stressing its resources.
    Application ignores all natural area aspects of the immediate site and locality.
    No more secret crown land sales and no more greedy, ugly, no care for country development in this unique landscape.
    I’ve not made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  29. In Redbank Plains QLD on “Minor Change - RAL - One...” at 32 Greenwood Village Road Redbank Plains QLD 4301:

    Glen Costello commented

    No. Please stop these delevopments getting larger & larger. One block into 176? That's an added 500 people to that small area plus another 200 plus vehicles on the road which again hasn't been built to accomodate the volume.
    These micro estates are not what the local people want or need. Before any further applications are processed they should be all submitted for general public acceptance and no more council just forcing us to accept their decision. We live here, it's time the council stopped and actually listened to what the people want. 176 extra houses in this area is not what the people want.

  30. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree...” at 689 Blaxland Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Paul Angel commented

    Mature trees cannot be replaced. Epping’s reputation as a “leafy” suburb is being quickly eroded from the the development beyond the rezoned precinct in the heart of the 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