Recent comments

  1. In Moorebank NSW on “Construction Certificate...” at 80 Lucas Avenue Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia:

    Mark Cavanough commented

    Again another completely inappropriate development. Six (6) storeys in a residential street !! It should be 2 stories maximum to blend into the neighbourhood. Further, 20 apartments are going to need at least 40 parking spaces for residents and visitors, not to mention the impact on the surrounding residents quality of life. When is council going to start putting residents first rather than developers ?

  2. In Campsie NSW on “Internal modifications to...” at 13 Elizabeth Street, Campsie NSW:

    Natalie Cain commented

    Work has been ongoing on these premises for the last year. There has been unapproved tree removal, the use of overpowering gas bombs (the fire brigade was called by concerned owners of the local preschool), the spillage of chemicals directly into the drain and work on the existing infrastructure at all times of day and night. The current owners are the same as those of Tixana Pty Ltd at 17 Elizabeth Street. They currently use 13b as a car park for staff working at number 17 and have installed lighting for this purpose. If the aforementioned hazardous activities are not of concern to council , then their unwillingness to limit their hours in accordance with council regulations should be investigated in the very least. Please reconsider and fully investigate any applications as they will do what they like regardless of council.

  3. In Warriewood NSW on “New - Residential Flat...” at 31 Warriewood Road Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Fiona b commented

    This area can not accommodate more development such as this. Our roads are so congested and the ongoing and ever-changing temporary traffic conditions cause major delays.
    Mona Vale and North Narrabeen Public schools are over crowded.

    This area used to be so lovely with paddocks, horses and wildlife. Now its a sea of roof tiles. An Apartment block in this part will further stymie the aesthetic of the area.

  4. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 53 Nicholson Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    jules commented

    Couldn't agree more with Yang. We must STOP all these madness of over-development otherwise we will have no character and history left of our town. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RUINED BY ALL THESE MACMANSIONS.

  5. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 121 Church St, Ryde, NSW:

    Rebecca Akouri commented

    I object to this development. The area so already overdeveloped and more people will continue to ruin this. The roads cannot cope. With the increase in apartments the value of propertys and Meadowbank community is being badly affected socially. We should stop saying yes to these developers and help the community come back from all the construction impacts.

  6. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 53 Nicholson Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Yang commented

    Hi
    The property doesn't have the necessary frontage of 17m required for a multi storey townhouse. Currently the property only has a 15m frontage. The property doesn't have adequate street parking either. As currently there is only one side of the corner block that has street parking. With extra residence more street parking is required on already very narrow streets. If you visit the site the corner street (Wentworth road) is very narrow. Extra cars parked will cause more congestion on a already very busy street. The building of a townhouse is also not in character of the general neighbourhood. There is no other townhouse in the area. Extra residence caused by the townhouse will lead to more traffic and congested roads.

  7. In Belrose NSW on “New - Construction of a...” at 16 Wyatt Avenue Belrose NSW 2085:

    Joy Williams commented

    This proposal of a boarding house is Not suitable for essential service people. These people are Shift workers that need their rest and sleep at different times of the day or night.
    Having 27 up to 54 other people in the accommodation will not allow for rest or sleep for these people.
    Mr Holman is the owner/ developer of this proposal, and the neighbour Of course he will say he supports this DA.
    This is owner/developer smoke screen.

    This development is not being place on Victoria Road, Gladesville, and has NO comparison.
    The Local Community in Belrose do not want Wyatt Ave turned into Victoria Road. As the owner/ developer is alluding to.
    Belrose and Gladesville are two different suburbs with two different Planning Controls.There are No comparisons.

    The owner of this development is the neighbour.
    But is acknowledging he will be affected by the
    Issues this proposal will bring.So why say it is acceptable. Maybe it is acceptable to the owner who is only interested in making money.
    We all can’t just get up and sell our properties, to make a profit, or continuing development expansion. Our properties are our Superannuation.

    This proposal does not fit the C8 or the R2 character of the area. It is WAY out of character.
    This will severely impact the residents in Wyatt Ave
    and the sounding area.
    This cannot be assessed under the SEPP of affordable Housing, as this does not apply to the
    C8 Locality.
    Approval of this Application will set a precedent
    For other undesirable and unsuitable intensive urban development in the C8 Locality.
    Development should blend with the character of the area not stand out and not conflict.

    Desired Future Character C8 Locality Statement in part.
    “The present character of the Belrose North Locality will remain unchanged except in circumstances specifically addressed as follows.
    The natural landscape including landform and vegetation will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Buildings will be grouped in Areas that will result in the minimum amount of disturbance of vegetation and landforms and buildings which are designed to blend with the colours and textures
    Of the natural landscape will be strongly encouraged.”
    There has been NO attempt to adhere to the Desired Future Character Statement.
    This is a Very High Density “for profit Development.
    Excessive Noise will be generated.
    Traffic will be at grid lock.
    The large number of people in one confined building.(up to 54 tenants)
    Lighting spill onto my residence and other neighbours homes is unacceptable
    Movement of occupants.They are transit tenants who will not form part of the local stable community.
    This is a community who cares about our locality, our families and our environment.
    This development will not benefit existing long time residents of the community in any way.

    We strongly object to This Development Application, and ask Council to reject this Application.

  8. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of four...” at 20 Staley Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Jane Morgan commented

    I agree with greening up the area , however please do not sacrifice parking for a park.

    There is not enough parking in the area.
    Spending Friday nights watching and waiting for someone to leave to I can properly park my car, and to leave it parked the whole weekend to ensure I do not lose the spot, is the definition of lack of parking. Visitors are like vultures during weeknights and weekends.

  9. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of a heritage...” at 701 Park Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Jane Morgan commented

    Objection to demolish a heritage building and its replacement, a stack of shoeboxes. The council is destroying the neighbourhood. They recently approved 6 x 4 storey, poorly designed "townhouses" with 4 heritage overlays next to it. The council is just plain ignoring heritage listings. There needs to be a review of the council's processes, the way they make decisions (fair decisions), and the level of transparency. For an applicant, they are sooooo helpful. For an objector, we are treated like we don't live in this planet. We are given limited information. Information that is vague, unhelpful, and at times, misleading to deter further questions. The council drags their feet to get onto a call, to attend meetings and even responding to emails, then all the sudden the application is granted and the only way we can fight to is to go to VCAT. They rest their hopes on maybe we would go away. It's bias and unfair.

  10. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of ten double...” at 2-4 Inverness Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    A.J. Morgan commented

    Agree with parking issues in the whole Moreland area. There is a lack of permit parking to ensure residents get priority parking. When previously raised (many times) to council, they advised that permit parking will affect local businesses. I think the popularity of Brunswick and cope with permit parking. Visitors can come via public transport since that is the reason we've been given for why public transport corridors are being developed to the point of suffocation.

    Also roof decks is going to cause privacy issues and the reason for it, is to provide the dwellings that extra tiny bit of space since the site of being over developed.

  11. In Brunswick East VIC on “The sale and consumption of...” at 331-335 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jane Morgan commented

    Will the applicant be applying for serving of alcohol on the footpath?

  12. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of the land...” at 5 Little Miller Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    A.J. Morgan commented

    Overcrowding, rather than high density living, leading to poor quality of life and strain on amenities in the area. No parking as it is. Reduced parking waiver does nothing to help traffic in the area due to the sheer amount of apartments. We want homes, not shoeboxes.
    Council pretends their hands are tied, ignore our cries, and ask for more money (with negative return). The process they go through, pretending to hear us, hold meetings; it's all bureaucratic checkboxes to ultimately approve a decision they made before even receiving an application.

  13. In Brunswick VIC on “To construct buildings and...” at 34 Breese Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    A.J. Morgan commented

    Will serving of alcohol be allowed outside of the premises? This is outside of councils jurisdiction but we still have a right to know.

  14. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of three...” at 212 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Marion Hunt commented

    BArkley Street and Brunswick in general is so over developed with high rise and overcrowding so this is yet another too big project in residential street
    Parking, traffic, overcrowding, loss of community feel, overshadowing, safety, public transport not coping now at peak times
    Councils and government have got to stop all this- people are fed up an
    and had enough

  15. In Warriewood NSW on “New - Residential Flat...” at 31 Warriewood Road Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Helen Rollinson commented

    Our primary school, Narrabeen North Public School, has gone from approx 500 to over 700 students in three years, with more demountable classrooms each year. Where does it end? We can't get out of our driveway for all the traffic gridlock. Local roads are regularly congested & we're delayed by road closures for more building works. We bought into a quiet suburb that is rapidly becoming high rise, urban & congested.

  16. In Werribee VIC on “Application to construct...” at 9 Margaret Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Linda Moloney commented

    The greedy, greedy Wyndham council continuing to allow the further slumming down of the neighbourhood character of the streets of Werribee. These lovely old homes are being pulled down and replaced with with what...quality boxes!!. Disgraceful planning management policy of the greedy Wyndham Council...this planning rot needs to stop...

  17. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of the land...” at 5 Little Miller Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Richard Burt commented

    I agree with the above comments, and I object to the reduction in car parking requirement as it will cause congestion which will directly affect my ability to safely transit the area during my commute (by bike).

  18. In Beverly Hills NSW on “Front fence proposed to be...” at 6 Frederick Avenue, Beverly Hills, NSW Australia:

    Victoria Carlisle commented

    A front fence of 1.6m is inconsistent with the existing streetscape and neighbourhood. The visual impact of a 1.6m fence is adverse because of the obvious way it will stand out, particularly as it is on the outside of a bend in the road.
    As the property already has a high gate to separate the rear yard from the front yard it is unecessary.

  19. In Belrose NSW on “New - Construction of a...” at 16 Wyatt Avenue Belrose NSW 2085:

    Therese Webber commented

    This has got to be a joke. This is not what Belrose was set up for or should be set up for so i suggest this to be declined. I don't think anyone bought houses here to be anywhere near boarding houses. What is the council thinking to even consider such an application?
    Please put your thinking caps on and decline this application.

  20. In Tanah Merah QLD on “Shed” at 50-52 Tanah Merah Avenue Tanah Merah QLD 4128:

    Awet Neighbour wrote to local councillor Darren Power

    This structure is already built.
    The earthworks and resculpting of the land has disrupted the natural contours and diverting rainwater onto the neighbors land causing considerable damage every time it rains heavily by flooding their property.
    The applicant should modify the fencing between the properties or put in drainage to ensure the rainfall remains controlled and confined to their property and not cause damage to the neighbors. The former being a relatively cheap fix which the applicant should conduct before commencing.

    D P
    Darren Power local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Awet Neighbour

    Dear Awet,
    I am sorry but Tanah Merah is not in my division, you will have to contact Cr Steve Swenson on Sorry I don't have any control over property development outside my division.

    Kind Regards
    Darren

  21. In Tanah Merah QLD on “Shed” at 50-52 Tanah Merah Avenue Tanah Merah QLD 4128:

    Awet Neighbour wrote to local councillor Luke Smith

    This structure is already built.
    The earthworks and resculpting of the land has disrupted the natural contours and diverting rainwater onto the neighbors land causing considerable damage every time it rains heavily by flooding their property.
    The applicant should modify the fencing between the properties or put in drainage to ensure the rainfall remains controlled and confined to their property and not cause damage to the neighbors. The former being a relatively cheap fix which the applicant should conduct before commencing.

    L S
    Luke Smith local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Awet Neighbour

    This is an Automatic Reply – Please do not respond to this email. Note, this inbox is only monitored during business hours. If you require urgent after hours assistance, please phone Logan City Council on 07 3412 3412.

    Thank you for contacting the Office of Mayor Luke Smith. This is an automated acknowledgement that your email has been received.

    Correspondence that is clear and concise will be evaluated and passed on to Mayor Smith, your Divisional Councillor or the Council administration as appropriate.

    The Mayor welcomes your feedback however, due to the large volume of correspondence received a formal response is not always possible.

    If your email is in relation to an event invitation or meeting request, the Mayor’s Executive Assistant will contact you once your request has been reviewed. Please note that it is the policy of the Office of the Mayor that invitations received with less than 10 working days' notice are unlikely to be considered.

    Thank you again for taking the time to contact the Office of the Mayor.

    Kind regards,

    Office of the Mayor, Logan City Council
    Phone: 07 3412 3412
    PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld 4114

    City of Logan: Innovative, Dynamic, City of the Future

    [sig block]
    ****************************************************************************
    The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee and may be confidential, private or the subject of copyright. If you have received this email in error please notify Logan City Council, by replying to the sender or calling +61 7 3412 3412 and delete all copies of the e-mail and any attachments.

    To view Logan City Council's Privacy Collection Notice, please visit www.logan.qld.gov.au or click on the following link http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/home/terms-of-use.

  22. In Tanah Merah QLD on “Shed” at 50-52 Tanah Merah Avenue Tanah Merah QLD 4128:

    Awet Neighbour commented

    This structure is already built.
    The earthworks and resculpting of the land has disrupted the natural contours and diverting rainwater onto the neighbors land causing considerable damage every time it rains heavily by flooding their property.
    The applicant should modify the fencing between the properties or put in drainage to ensure the rainfall remains controlled and confined to their property and not cause damage to the neighbors. The former being a relatively cheap fix which the applicant should conduct before commencing.

  23. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    garry draffin commented

    The additional facilities at the greenwich infants school are welcome but the impact on parking and safety {particularly children] is unacceptable . Street parking has to be found for the 15 sites taken from the school grounds as well as the inevitable increase required for the 70 odd additional pupils families . The area is already congested.
    The other issue is the arrival/departure of infants .this is a kindergarten/infant school and infants are not "kiss and drop"- they are walked into school or at the very least watched from car to school grounds . This is already difficult and will be impossible and dangerous once this work is complete .
    please survey the parents at school time - not a desk review!!
    Consider angled parking on the school side of Wardrop st -this will create an extra 5/6 parking places .
    Persuade the education dept to put build staff parking under the proposed building .
    All of the above wont be enough but its a start !!

  24. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    garry draffin commented

    no

  25. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Electronic advertising signage” at 1029A Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Danielle Mack commented

    We do not need or want any electronic signs in this area. It’s bad enough with all the car yards and their hideous signage. This shop is right on burwood hwy and is in a prominent position it does not require electric signage. If anything the entire area along that strip of burwood hwy right up to Upper Ferntree Gully needs to be scaled back on signage. The entire area looks ugly. We need more landscaping not signs.

  26. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Electronic advertising signage” at 1029A Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Danielle Mack wrote to local councillor Jake Keorg

    We do not need or want any electronic signs in this area. It’s bad enough with all the car yards and their hideous signage. This shop is right on burwood hwy and is in a prominent position it does not require electric signage. If anything the entire area along that strip of burwood hwy right up to Upper Ferntree Gully needs to be scaled back on signage. The entire area looks ugly. We need more landscaping not signs.

    Delivered to local councillor Jake Keorg. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 121 Church St, Ryde, NSW:

    Sara commented

    Absolutely agree. Too many units in too small an area. Traffic problems are horrendous. Local residents can't even park outside of their homes anymore.

  28. In Warriewood NSW on “New - Residential Flat...” at 31 Warriewood Road Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Louise arminak commented

    Too much pressure on infrastructure and changing the character of the suburb

  29. In Austral NSW on “Development Application -...” at 275 Fifteenth Avenue Austral NSW 2179, Australia:

    Peter Garvey commented

    Hours of operation on both days should be from 5.00 pm - midnight only.
    Music noise should be kept to a minimum.
    No Fireworks due to surrounding remnant forests.

  30. In Manifold Heights VIC on “Construction of Two (2)...” at 244 Autumn Street, Manifold Heights, VIC:

    Jane Tierney commented

    The section of Autumn St has Californian bungalow style dwellings,it is a style that the council should be protecting not demolishing and allowing unaesthetic "contemporary" dwellings which look out of character to shadow the area.

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