Recent comments

  1. In Park Orchards VIC on “Removal of 34 trees” at 25-27 Elgin Crescent Park Orchards VIC 3114:

    Shaun Ruigrok commented

    34 trees is a significant loss of vegetation and canopy cover. Whilst details don’t seem to be readily visible online, I presume that the 34 trees largely consists of the radiata pines that dominate the landscape of this property - could you please confirm? Regardless, this will effectively “moonscape” the block. What conditions are placed on the applicant to re-establish native canopy cover, including number and species of replacement tree and required timeframe for re-planting?

  2. In Parkdale VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 192 Como Parade West, Parkdale, VIC:

    jonathon minns commented

    Hello
    As we live next door, is it possible to see plans please?

  3. In Albion VIC on “Construction of twenty (20)...” at 11 - 13 King Edward Avenue Albion, VIC:

    Kelvin commented

    my concerns around having such a large development is, it doesn't get maintained, rubbish bins are not brought in, grass is now mowed, rubbish is clattered around. You can see evidence of this in other areas of Albion where there are large amount of units and flats (even on King Edward St). I would like to see a plan for what the immanence plan is and keeping the place tidy!

  4. In Glenlyon VIC on “Variation of Licence” at 260 Green Gully Road, Glenlyon 3461, VIC:

    Jan Bull/Lyn Calleja commented

    Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.
    Reference:
    Proposal for expansion of redline area.Application no 64325A03
    260 Greengully Road.Glenlyon 3461

    To whom it may concern:
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I strongly object to the extension of opening hours at this location.There are relevant and concerning issues to this proposal.
    Greengully Road is at best barely serviceable as a residential/farming access road.It is often pot-holed,corrugated and the shoulder edges degraded.There are no marked fog-lines.It is a single lane carriageway and hence passing vehicles have to move close to the edges ,onto gravel ,to pass and this can be quite dangerous to unprepared drivers.Nightime and dusk particularly.Locals are aware of these issues and drive accordingly.
    Extended trading hours for events,functions,celebrations would bring non-locals to the area who would be a potential danger to local traffic,especially if intoxicated.
    There is an abundance of wildlife in this area especially at the Kangaroo Creek area-a narrow single lane water-ford crossing.Patrons would have to negotiate this in order to access no.260 often in poor weather conditions.
    There are frequent bends and dips and tight cornering in several sections.Potentially inebriated patrons of said venue would be at high risk of accidents.
    There are also residents who ride their horses,walk their children and pets along this stretch and added traffic would pose a danger to their well-being.Farm machinery is also driven along this road.The road would become degraded very quickly with more traffic,hence increase costs to council and rate-payers.
    With periods of high winds in the area there is the risk of falling trees, limbs and tree debris littering the road.Added to the narrow road,bad surfacing and darkness of the area there are also steep-sided drains and culverts.These are difficult to see in the darkness especially in foggy and inclement weather.
    Summer poses its own problems of fire danger and bush fires.A car accident throwing sparks or an irresposible cigarette smoker would set the surrounding bush aflame.There is only one way exit for non 4WD vehicles.
    Increased hours of patronage until 11.00pm.with alcohol being served is a disaster waiting to happen.
    I firmly believe this is an entirely inappropriate expansion.The local residents and wildlife do not need an added risk factor, greater traffic and noise level in their peaceful setting.
    I firmly object to such an extension of trading hours.The nearby township of Daylesford adequately caters for these needs.
    Sincerely yours,
    Lyn Calleja
    Jan Bull.

  5. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Steph C commented

    We do NOT need another petrol station in Montrose. There are plenty within a short distance. Please do not distort the natural beauty that Montrose has with another unnecessary service station. It will also increase traffic congestion, increase pollution. It would lead to the reduction of trees leading to decreased wildlife in the area. We strongly object this proposal

  6. In Glenlyon VIC on “Variation of Licence” at 260 Green Gully Road, Glenlyon 3461, VIC:

    John Ross commented

    I agree with the objections of Messrs. Matelli, Carter and Debney. Further, I suggest that the licence be further restricted to daylight hours. This area, accessed only by Green Gully Road, a rather dangerous, single lane road, is not suitable for night access except by locals and those familiar with the area. I suspect the applicant is planning to hold events there, such as weddings and parties, that would extend into the night when the risk is greater.

  7. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Richard Diepgrond commented

    Wrong area for this development. Traffic would be dangerous due to congestion between 3 - 6 nightly. There is no need for another service station on the same side of the road no more than 500m up the road. Demolition of a grand local iconic home to make way for the proposed development would be devastating for the surroundings homes.
    A development of this sort would be better suited further down the road towards lilydale as these is a plethora of existing service stations leading into Montrose but then nothing until you travel to either lilydale or mt Evelyn

  8. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    Mark commented

    It is already concerning that Council approved a three storey dwelling at this location, despite a good deal of local opposition. There were many reasons for not approving the original DA of three storeys, so for the developer to now ask for an additional storey is ridiculous.

    1) The DA that has been approved is already for three storeys - higher than all other dwellings in a residential street with single and two storey dwellings

    2) No satisfactory parking plan provided. Not enough spaces and an unsafe entry/exit on to a road that will have blindspots with the danger of resultant accidents

    3) This is a residential family street - a boarding house is not suited to this location

    As I said it is very disappointing that Council has for some reason approved a three storey dwelling, so I trust they will not make a bad situation worse by giving in to a developer who has been told a number of times that his DA is inappropriate and badly planned

  9. In Lower Mangrove NSW on “Removal of Tree1 Eucalyptus...” at 445 Oyster Shell Road, Lower Mangrove NSW 2250:

    Patricia Watt commented

    What is the reason for the removal of these trees?

  10. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Thomas commented

    Strongly disapprove this construction

  11. In North Rocks NSW on “Development Application -...” at 274 North Rocks Road North Rocks NSW 2151:

    Brian Borjeson commented

    North Rocks Road vehicular traffic is already fully congested. This type of construction is great for Council rate revenue, but what are the Councils proposals for the additional traffic created by these developments???

  12. In Reservoir VIC on “ePathway” at 647 Gilbert Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Emma commented

    I have big concerns with medium density housing on this corner. It is already very dense with parking due to another medium density building opposite this proposed site.
    Parking is a huge issue on Vale street at the corner of Gilbert road. It is often the case that if turning from Gilbert road into Vale street -you have to wait for oncoming traffic as all the parked cars (along Vale street) make this street a one-way access only.

  13. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Cindy Fletcher commented

    I am seriously worried that we are loosing the 'community feel' of our town. I do not understand why a petrol station would be build when there is one 200 meters down the road from another in such a busy intersection. The property there is just beautiful and in my opinion would be much better used to create a place for locals such as a restaurant/bar, wedding venue, public garden or cafe?

  14. In Thornleigh NSW on “Section 4.55 (1) -...” at 9 Station Street Thornleigh NSW 2120:

    Chris Kernick commented

    This application to demolish a heritage house in Station St appears to have been lodged on 22nd May and approved on 26th May?
    Could you clarify, if it is within Council regulations to accept demolition of heritage properties without allowing time for community comment?
    Presumably the owner is not planning to demolish just for the sake of demolition. Maybe I have missed something here, but shouldn't this be a 'Demolish and Develop'?
    Or maybe I just couldn't find my way through the documentation?
    Thanks

  15. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Rick commented

    This development is far too dense for this street. It has no additional access and will create issues for the on-street parking and traffic for residents. Kindly reconsider this plan.

  16. In Coburg North VIC on “Use of the land for...” at 2-4 Norris Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Danny Parks commented

    This land should be rezoned residential In my opinion. It is a lovely neighbourhood and better suited to residential living

  17. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Liz P commented

    I strongly oppose this application and do not believe a service station at this site is needed or will offer anything to the township of Montrose.

  18. In Coburg VIC on “Internally illuminated high...” at 1 Champ Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Annely Aeuckens commented

    While I understand that a certain level of signage is necessary, I am concerned about the overall impact on the site (ie heritage buildings), the environment and surrounding residential properties. A few of the proposed signs are close to 13 square metres in size, which is quite large. I would like to have the matter of these signs re-examined as to whether they are suitable as applied for by the developer.

  19. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Angela. B commented

    I am absolutely aghast at this proposal.
    Long time resident of Montrose and see no benefits to this service station being built.
    Agree with views above from previous contributors.

  20. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Carly commented

    I strongly object to this proposed petrol station and agree with all the above objections. As you can tell by all the many comments and objections from residents it is obvious that we do not want this in Montrose. I grew up in Montrose and still live here and the area is known for being a great green community suburb which this proposed development will not add any benefit to. This proposed petrol station will not only cause more traffic issues around the already congested round about but it will also be an added danger to children and families who cross Montrose road and who ride bikes around that area.
    Absolutely shocking to suggest it built there and we will be sure to object at every stage of this. I only hope it doesn’t get very far with the council, it will be very damaging to the area.

  21. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Lauren Ewart commented

    As a resident of Montrose, I strongly object to this proposal for all the same reasons as previously mentioned.

  22. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Matt Lee commented

    As a resident of Montrose for 17 years, I strongly object to this proposal.
    Having raised a family here, utilizing the pre-school and primary school, I am well versed with the existing dangerous traffic conditions in this area.
    A service station with multiple entry and exit will greatly increase these dangers.
    Another service station is not required, with the BP just 200m away adequately servicing the community for many years. A newly refurbished United at Liverpool Rd further negates the need.
    Lastly, 1 Montrose Road is not the place for an ugly commercial outlet. It would significantly damage the appeal and aesthetics of the whole town.

  23. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Samara O'Shea commented

    I am 100% against a petrol station on Montrose Rd. It is not needed and will create major traffic issues and congestion. The site is a residential area, and it will ruin the look of our beautiful, leafy, town. Montrose has a petrol station already on the corner or Mount Dandenong Rd and Canterbury Rd, which is walking distance from this proposed site. We DO NOT need another one!

  24. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Peter K commented

    There is no need for this service station in this location! There is already a BP 500 metres from the proposal & the position near that roundabout & school is just ludicrous! I would advise against this strongly!

  25. In Thirroul NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 282-298 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul NSW 2515:

    Ian Dewey commented

    Yippee!!!!!!!!! More over development.

    I do hope that it is well designed as all residents of the area will spend a huge amount of our time looking at it, while we are grid locked. Also a good job we are fixing LH drive as all those north of thirroul will need to drive to bulli via Helensburgh.
    I enjoy live music, bye bye Beaches, and anitas as the NEW residents will have you guys closed down due to noise complaints, and you were there first. No more eating outside of the wonderful restaurants on the other side of the road, too noisy.......
    WCC has done a grand job of looking after the current traffic issues over our SINGLE lane bridge, what could go wrong with this development, golly I can’t think of anything!!!!
    Can’t wait for all the building and construction movements, this will get us ready for the extra traffic I guess.....

    Top idea, stop this disaster.

  26. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Jasmine Paola commented

    This makes zero sense. The difficulty to exit Montrose Rd can be dangerous during peak times let alone with the traffic slowing to enter the petrol station. Also agree with those earlier comments in regards to the BP service station 200m only a roll away.

  27. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Tanya Shaw commented

    This is a very busy intersection for road users and pedestrians. It would be foolish and dangerous to place a service station in this spot.
    For the village environment of Montrose this would be a visual eye sore.
    Further a service station is unnecessary as there are numerous placed on Canterbury road minutes from this location.

  28. In Gerringong NSW on “Medical centre” at 2/17 Noble St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Peter Hainsworth commented

    Gerringong currently have 8 Doctors at Gerringong Medical Centre with 3 nurses plus a pathology person Gerringong Town Medical Centre . has 2 doctors plus Laverty pathology person. We also have another medical centre opening in the near future on the corner of Jupiter & Coal Street Gerringong which is going to have several specialist medical people employed. I believe we currently have more doctors here than Kiama. With Gerroa only having 19%of the residents permanently residing there plus the Gerringong population I believe we have sufficient medical persons to service our needs
    Peter Hainsworth

  29. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Hayley Rindfleisch commented

    Please reconsider! This is unnecessary and will have a negative impact on the traffic, child safety, congestion in an already congested roundabout during peak time. There is a service station very close by. This is not needed!

  30. In Glen Osmond SA on “Land Division ( Torrens...” at 7 Woodley Road Glen Osmond SA 5064:

    Marc De Silva commented

    I am a very nearby located home owner to the recently sub divided property 7 Woodley Road and I think it is very disappointing that previously prominent substantial properties are being reduced to cluttered eyesores in my opinion as lovely spacious gardens are replaced by large dwellings with little or near nil landscapes.

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