Recent comments

  1. In Schofields NSW on “Construction of a 2 storey...” at 135 Alex Avenue Schofields NSW 2762:

    Natasha De Martino commented

    Alex Avenue is an extremely busy road, and this child care centre is directly across from Gozo street. There is a large number of residents who use the Gozo St intersection to turn onto Alex Avenue each day. This intersection is already a blind spot to turn right onto Alex Avenue, due to trees on the curb and cars parked.

    Of an afternoon the traffic from St Joseph's School banks up all the way down Alex Avenue from Jerralong Rd. This is going to cause major congestion with a daycare on that road.

    It is definitely a needed service in the area, however there needs to be a roundabout at the Gozo/Alex Avenue/Entrance to Child Care intersection to alleviate the traffic for local residents.

  2. In Samford Valley QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 90 Gibbons Road, Samford Valley QLD 4520:

    John Price commented

    This development will negatively affect our native wildlife due to loss of movement through their habitat. It is reported that koala numbers are declining so it seems unbelievable that council would approve a development of 15 lots on this parcel of land abutting Cr Brian Burke Reserve. ( a known koala zone)

    This development will cause more traffic along Gibbons Rd, which is already a black spot for vehicle accidents. Access to this development is at the base of a hill, which would be extremely hazardous to traffic travelling west along Gibbons Rd over the hill.

  3. In Normanville SA on “Land division” at 1 Cheeseman St, Normanville SA 5204:

    Kerry Rochford commented

    I am wondering if this is a practical idea given that street lighting, foot paths and drainage are in desperate need in Cheeseman Street. I am aware an upgrade is scheduled for 2021/2 so perhaps development should be postponed until then.

  4. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Rosserdale Crescent Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Debra Marshall and Marlise Tilders commented

    A friend and I walked passed Ranelagh House on Monday and were extremely surprised at the work being carried out at present. There appears to be a massive addition to this gracious old home, out of place to the home, with some 20 cars parked in the narrow road, all seemingly connected to the new structure, especially disappointing in these COVID times. We wish to know what the permit is for with this home, the subject of much protection in the past, and request that an inspection on site be considered in view of the size of the alterations and additions.

  5. In Werribee VIC on “Two additional dwellings at...” at 22 Duke Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Jane commented

    I really feel that really the people in that area do take pride in their properties and we do just not need any more soulless style units with plastic grass and yuccas please
    The style of those houses In this area are becoming to be more appreciated as mid century modern. Also we do not need any more multiple dwellings on a single block because ultimately that’s what this town now city was meant to have
    Our roads are full as are our schools and our council cannot keep up with what we have now let alone more multiple dwellings bringing more people
    Also there is so much land in this area without subdivision I could understand if there were no land but there is

  6. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mitch Jones commented

    This development is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

    - increase in traffic makes the surrounding streets more congested, polluted and unsafe
    - impact on local businesses by allowing a large corporate trade supplier to disrupt the local economy
    - cultural heritage of Brunswick east being a unique zone of small businesses. We don’t need more monolithic corporate developments in these neighborhoods. Instead we should be preserving a culture of difference and independence which keeps our neighborhood vibrant.
    - impact on local residents and neighbors. People should have a say on what gets built in their immediate vicinity.

  7. In Moonee Ponds VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 142 Maribyrnong Road, Moonee Ponds VIC 3039:

    Andrew Badge commented

    Hi, How is the reduction of car parking requirements feasible? The existing practice already impacts the parking availability directly in front of my house and within 100m. There are rarely free parking spots during operating hours since this practice opened.

    What are the details of the illuminated signage. The practice had previously installed a large illuminated without planning approval. This illuminated the interior of my house and my neighbours. It was removed but later re-appeared at a different angle. Where will this new signage be located. Where is the impact assessment on their neighbours?

  8. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Sheridan Wright commented

    10 storeys seems excessive amongst all the other developments in this area of maximum 5 storeys. Will create extensive shadow and parking issues.
    I'm not against this property being developed but it needs to consider its impact on current residents and cohesion with the street. Isn't 5 storeys enough?

  9. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mark J commented

    The Bunnings development is completely inappropriate for the following reasons:

    Traffic – Glenlyon Road is a busy road. I have lived on this road for over 10 years and traffic has become very congested. This road is already congested during the day, and completely bottlenecked at school pick up and peak hour. The development of this site will increase the traffic and increase congestion and pollution. Idling cars outside my front door reduces the air quality and makes this area unliveable.

    Safety - This road due to traffic congestion is not a safe shared space currently. This development will increase large haulage and traffic making the area increasingly unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and the for the local childcare and kindergarten.

    -Residential setting - inappropriate location for such a large commercial building. This business should be in a larger commercial space, to reduce the impact on surrounding streets, residents, noise levels, pollution, congestion and reduction of quality of life for residents already living in a high density suburb.

    -Creation of rat runs around the surrounding streets

    - Increased pressure of public transport services – with suspected delay in trams and buses due to traffic congestion

    -Increased rates over time – the residents will end up being responsible through their rates in paying to manage the impact of increased traffic in the region

    -Loss of local business. With the opening of the Sydney Road Bunnings – three local hardware stores were directly impacted, and have closed. We have a nursery in Lygon Street that will be directly impacted by this large store. Brunswick residents have moved to this region due to the creativity and character of local suppliers – Brunswick will become increasingly homogenised and soulless if large commercial superstores are permitted to compete with small businesses.

  10. In Pyrmont NSW on “PAN 34094 Alterations and...” at 34 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    David Carney commented

    This heritage listed building has been closed and looked very run down for years. It looks like it has had a facelift and a new lease on life. As a commuter who travels to Pyrmont every day for work i look forward to the rebirth of this building as a public space.

  11. In Gillieston Heights NSW on “Commercial premises,...” at 353 Cessnock Road Gillieston Heights NSW 2321:

    Bill Lockett commented

    We live in Redwood Drive and would like to see a plan of the layout of the retail area, wondering which end will be the IGA, Child Care centre etc. and what other tenants are planned for this development.

  12. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jo Kolevski commented

    10 stories is too high for this area of Brunswick East. Have things such as impact of natural light to surrounding buildings as well as the already limited parking in the area even been considered?!

  13. In Epping NSW on “Mixed use development” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Long-time concerned resident commented

    I strongly oppose the development of the high-rise at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121, i

    Epping does not need to develop to become another Chatswood with overshadowing. It is narrow-minded to think we can't respect the suburb's heritage and embrace suitable development at the same time.

    Because of the high density high rise developments, Epping now has nothing much to keep residents in their local area. We have to leave the suburb to work and shop,. Office space has been on a major decline, traffic is a nightmare, and streets are parked out by cars not accommodated by units or those seeking to use trains.

    We do not need to have more high-rise apartments to make the suburb looks more modern and energetic! It does the opposite and looks like a slum.

    A shopping centre is essential in Epping, which should include supermarkets, dining, coffee shops, etc., but not to the detriment of open space.

    The state government has a lot to answer for: allowing developers to build units to their hearts' content purely to line their own pockets, and without a moment's thought to the people they may be building them for.

  14. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 30 Hume Drive, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Daniela toecher commented

    Hi,
    I am against subdiving the proposed lot with the addition of 4 townhouses/duplexes that will lead to traffic problems and overcrowding of a quiet street. While most new townhouses have carparks, most cars are still being parked out on the street adding to significant parking issues for neighbours and the neighbouring streets as most families have a minimum of 2 cars.

    To note is that in recent years there have been a multitude of townhouse developments in the street including the one next door to it. Unfortunately, the street -
    and Helensburgh as a town - is losing its small town character and turning into a suburb with standardised townhouses like Engadine which I am sure is not in the interest of the majority of people.

    With the recent addition of all the townhouses in Hume Drive and Harper Lane, further subdivision and townhouse development should not be allowed in this area and the lot
    should be retained for a freestanding house with a backyard.

  15. In Kirrawee NSW on “Property Alignment Levels...” at 12 Fauna Place Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Jon commented

    A great consideration will need to be applied to the parking and traffic strategy if this development is approved. The other comments make great points that there is substantial traffic and congestion to the areas already. Apartment blocks are not providing enough basement parking with any excess cars spilling out onto the street. Parking in this area is already difficult due to its close location to the train station and town centre, where the close by car parking is timed (in most spots). This proposal does not appear to align with the local area of Kirrawee particularly in this location of single/double level homes. This will ruin the street for this local community.

  16. In Everard Park SA on “Demolish existing buildings...” at 38 Anzac Highway, Everard Park SA 5035:

    C Heptinstall commented

    Is this the same application - lodged in April?
    "244/2020/NC 17/04/2020 38 Anzac Highway, Everard Park SA 5035 Construct four storey building containing office at ground and first floor, residential second floor (four dwellings), residential third floor (three dwellings) and associated car parking Waiting for Planning Information"
    Seems to have gone from 7 apartments to 37! 4 stories to what!

  17. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    erica plompen commented

    Interesting to note that Mr Lovelock works for the organisation who has pulled together the application for Bunnings - seems a bit of a conflict of interest and yet has been submitted to council as a 'letter of support'. What Mr Lovelock doesn't mention is that this site is transitioning from the industrial zone to a mixed use zone as council planners have determined that the industrial zoning is no longer appropriate given the changing nature of this area - so the application meets a zoning outcome that was appropriate 20 years ago, not that of today or the future of the area. It also does not comply with the DDO especially in relation to height limits and set backs - a fact acknowledged in its own application. While the site may currently be underutilised does this application provide the best outcomes and maximises its use - not according to the MUZ outcomes council is seeking.

  18. In Burpengary East QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 542 Old Bay Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Lynette Moon commented

    I absolutely agree with Kim Neate and her letter to Council. Burpengary East use to be a lovely area with trees and wildlife even on the Eastern Service Road now it is so busy with traffic because Creek Road and beyond has become a haven for developers who have no regard for wildlife. Trees come down and the big machinery moves in. The dust problem due to Ingenia development on Creek Road is appalling and for years we have put up with it. This block should never have been developed as it is flood-prone land but for some reason, who knows what, the dollars speak I guess, it has now become another village, as if we need another one. Trucks, machinery, concrete mixers all start around 6am each morning. What was once a nice place to live has become unbearable. Such a shame and a disgrace that the council believes that further development is needed in Burpengary East. I strongly disapprove of any further tree removal and housing in this area.

  19. In Samford Valley QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 90 Gibbons Road, Samford Valley QLD 4520:

    Aileen Bland commented

    Council appears to be too complacent when it comes to subdivision where there is clear Koala habitat. I am confused and and appalled that this continues to happen. We see clear advertising by Peter Dutton "dont abandon aust wildlife" but with this kind of subdivision council appears that it does not really care.. It also appears that money comes first. We are seeing too many subdivisions where all tree are being removed and our wildlife left with very little habitat. We need to make change now! This subdivision should be stopped or have very high restrictions.

  20. In Samford Valley QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 90 Gibbons Road, Samford Valley QLD 4520:

    Paul Bland commented

    There is no way council should allow a subdivision in a koala priority area with koala habitat. The application states "Yes – the development application involves premises in the koala habitat area in the koala priority area".
    Moreton Bay Regional Council has approved too many applications which removed Koala habitat. eg. Kremzow Rd Cashmere, Bunya Rd/Collins Rd Everton Hills. The response is to erect Wildlife Signs and or overpasses. Have a look where the overpass goes, nowhere. to a bunch of new houses and no habitat.
    With the Australian Koala population at endangered levels, and losing so many last year during the bushfires, it seems inconceivable that council would allow a subdivision which will remove Koala habitat and disrupt/displace koalas with the building sites etc of at least 14 new houses. The property owners should be proud to be able to retain that size property with a koala habitat. If not, put it on the market and I'm sure someone else would love it. It should be marked as never to be subdivided.

  21. In Westmeadows VIC on “Development of land for a...” at 11-17 Ardlie St Westmeadows VIC 3049:

    Nicole commented

    We don’t need another licence premise due to the fact that it will be opposite. Long standing hotel in the area, another cafe is not needed either.
    The child care centre is also across the road.
    Surely there is something better we can use such a beautiful building that will be fit for the area and the community.

  22. In Kirrawee NSW on “Property Alignment Levels...” at 12 Fauna Place Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Sue Adamson commented

    Sutherland Shire in time will become another ugly area full of terrible designed high rise apartments. Congested streets, no parking, Councillors love Developers & support them all the time. Cram lots of people into high rise apartments & the 'Rates money' just rolls in. Dog owners need more clean, safe Dog Parks for small Dogs it is desperately needed. Council Staff have told me they have no intention of building Dog Parks for small Dogs. Council wants little Dogs to share Dog Parks with PitBulls, Rottweilers, Staffies, Amstaffs & large X Breeds. Look what happened to the helpless little Dog (on a Leash) attacked by 2 very powerful, large, deadly killer Dogs (unleashed) in Cronulla Mall - 2 days ago. Council doesn't understand, a little Dog is incapable of
    protecting itself against large or very large Dogs. Perhaps the New Mayor, Steve Simpson can understand the plight of owners with small Dogs & the danger of them being killed in Dog Parks.

  23. In Westmeadows VIC on “Development of land for a...” at 11-17 Ardlie St Westmeadows VIC 3049:

    Deborah Burgess commented

    As a local resident I strongly object to this development. A multi story hotel will destroy the public amenity of the surrounding area. This development is modern in design and does not fit in with the Village character. This area is the entry point to beautiful parkland that is enjoyed by many families. The additional traffic will make the area unsafe for young children. And as for the reduction in parking requirements, we do not want a private hotel using our public car spaces. The parking at the rear of this site is to service the Preschool and recreational users.
    This site should be a single story development only that respects the heritage of the area.

  24. In Southbank VIC on “Application for planning...” at 132-136 Kavanagh Street Southbank 3006:

    Craig Elphick commented

    This proposal is another blow to the inner city - with COVID 19 making the city less attractive to new residents and property prices already under stress, this additional block will place even more supply to the market.
    Just as importantly, the park has become a real community asset in the past few months and allowed people to have a green space to exercise, children to play and people to have an area where they can enjoy an outdoor facility, not just for physical, but for mental health as well - there is nothing comparable in the close vicinity.
    Council should be doing their utmost to make the area an attractive place to live, this is doing the exact opposite.

  25. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Tyler Hyndman commented

    Another building that will create far too much traffic around Brunswick East and block out the sun for surrounding apartments.

  26. In Westmeadows VIC on “Development of land for a...” at 11-17 Ardlie St Westmeadows VIC 3049:

    donna harvey commented

    Absolutely no way to another gaming venue in our small community. This is a historic and unique building which should be honoured and developed with its' history in mind. The area is a sensitive natural environment and any development should keep this in mind. The site is part of our history and should be celebrated (not decimated). Would the current owner consider the spaces as a 'period' filming site for much needed Victorian based film and drama shows? This site and the surrounding area would lend itself to this kind of revenue creating activity. Given that film and tv often group locations together the many sites in this area could be a real attraction.

  27. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Karlea Tabone commented

    10 stories is too high for this area on Lygon street! It will create darkness and shadowing on surrounding buildings. Especially during the winter months. It will also be far too busy with traffic and car parking. Please re consider the height of this proposed building.

  28. In Burpengary East QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 542 Old Bay Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Kym Neate commented

    The leafy area of Burpengary East is being destroyed by high density developments like this one. Traffic is becoming unbearable for residents in the area, wildlife are being killed regularly and their habitats disappearing rapidly. The once appealing lifestyle with big blocks, leafy and natural bush land is being exchanged for developments that are engulfing our entire region. Burpengary, Western side is full of every imaginable takeaway or cafe, industrial and retail outlets remain empty throughout the Burpengary hub (Station Road). I strongly disapprove of this application, a further detailed submission can be required if necessary. Long term resident.

  29. In Kirrawee NSW on “Property Alignment Levels...” at 12 Fauna Place Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Abby commented

    I agree with all comments above. Traffic is a disaster coming through Kirrawee at any time of the day. Please sutherland shire council listen to your residents and stop this, its destroying the family friendly area. Another developer trying to make money without any consideration for current residents.

  30. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 85 Anzac Ave West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Belinda commented

    Is there a Public Protest organised for this? There should be! There is already four social housing developments on the block of the proposed development site. Another development of this type will adversely affect property prices, parking, and noise and neighbourhood appeal. It’s not right for one suburb to get more than its fair share of social/affordable housing. We need to picket Ryde council to stop the concentration of poverty in small geographical locale. If council members lived in the immediate area they wouldn’t be supporting the proposal! It’s Completely unacceptable!!

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