Recent comments

  1. In Warradale SA on “Detached Dwelling Two...” at 17 Hamilton Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    David Peartd commented

    Too many cars parking on corner due to multi unit redevelopment .
    Car spaces reduced by the extra
    Any new units must have double garages

  2. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of detached...” at 79 Permanent Avenue, Earlwood NSW 2206:

    Marie commented

    Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback about this proposal. Can just say I am bewildered as to why anybody, in the middle of the worst water crisis in decades, anybody would consider putting in a backyard swimming pool.
    I would really like to see council ramp up any fees for swimming pool applications, along with the state govt ensuring that pools cannot be filled during water restrictions.

  3. In Collingwood Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - Three...” at 186 Collingwood Drive Collingwood Park QLD 4301:

    michelle Tyson commented

    we live quite close to this block of currently vacant bush land and we believe that there is koloas present on this land, we hear them calling each other at night during mating times. there is also a lot of wildlife that live in that bush due to clearing further down

  4. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Kelvin Bensley commented

    I must express my concern with this development proposal with the ability for a small cul-de-sac street to be able to handle the increased amount of traffic that would be encountered with parents coming and going to drop of their children in a street that is already struggling with traffic in the mornings. It would also be even more of a challenge for the garbage trucks to get their trucks around the cul-de-sac when collecting the waste bins which is also a current problem for them.

  5. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Robyn & Ken Stafford commented

    This proposed development of a Child Care Facility in the small residential Dan Street cul-de-sac is not in the best interests of the residents of Dan Street.
    As Dan street residents for 40 years, we cannot stress enough how serious our concerns are about this proposed development and are perplexed how a two-day study can give a true, proper and accurate indication of the specific traffic flow patterns and challenges this cul-de-sac endures.
    Figure 6 of the Traffic and Parking Assessment depicting Dan Street and Burnett Street is definitely not what we witness and experience routinely daily.
    Our daughter lodged a complaint to Council on our behalf earlier this year citing the dangers residents face due to the repeated infringement of cars street parking on BOTH sides of Dan Street and within a ten-meter distance of the Dan Street/Burnett Street intersection.
    We also spoke to Member for Parramatta Ms Julie Owens about this and despite the fact that line marking has been applied to the street indicating an exclusion zone for parking, this has done nothing to eradicate this danger. Residents from Burnett Street and overflow parking from those using the tennis courts and amenities in Burnett Street, continue to park in Dan Street.
    The obvious risks and dangers are that one cannot safely enter or exit Dan Street when this practice occurs as entering traffic is faced with only a single lane and car width to travel up the street. As often happens, a car attempting to exit Dan Street is coming the opposite direction creating an impasse for the entering vehicle. This is extremely dangerous as in many instances, entering vehicles are required to break at the Dan Street corner entrance as no available space exists to pull over kerbside due to parked cars occupying the space. The resultant situation is one whereby a vehicle entering Dan Street may have half entered Dan Street yet have half of the vehicle overhanging the northbound Burnett Street laneway and thus representing a potential traffic hazard for the northbound traffic flow on Burnett street which is regular and frequent in volume. I have personally sighted northbound Burnett Street traffic faced with such an encroachment swerve partially and/or fully over the marked centre lines into the southbound Burnett lane to avoid the obstruction which is a highly dangerous practice not to mention illegal.
    Conversely, when vehicles are waiting to exit Dan Street onto Burnett Street, one risks being hit by other entering vehicles, again, as there is only a single car with/lane with to enter and exit. Sadly, Dan Street residents have become accustomed to this infringement but the greatest risk if for cars attempting to enter Dan Street who are unfamiliar with this practice occurring within the street. It is worth noting also that cars entering the street tend to do so at unacceptable speed due to the Burnett street speed limit and the volume and traffic that flows on that road being a main route to Parramatta and the M4 on ramp.
    Traffic builds up at busy times making exiting the street almost impossible.
    You may be aware that a fatality occurred July, 2017, on the corner of Dan & Burnett Streets, with Dan Street being closed offs ago for many hours whilst the emergency services conducted investigations and made safe the intersection.
    Noting the proposed use of the premises as a Child Care Facility within this cul-de-sac, it poses the obvious question of how children would be made safe entering a street where such a fatality has occurred and street parking is allowed to continue lest an emergency of this scale occur again?
    With many residents parking cars on Dan Street already, where will the overflow of car parking for the Child Care Facility park, especially on days when there is a function? It is worth noting that many of the Dan Street residents are tenants with many family members and vehicles that are parked on the street as the driveways cannot accommodate them.
    Physical construction of a Facility such as this in Dan Street would make any resident’s life extremely difficult. There is currently insufficient road width for passenger vehicles let alone large scale and oversized trucks and earth moving equipment to enter the street. It will make it extremely difficult for residents to access their properties.
    We compel the Council to consider the facts in respect of the proposal taking into full account the premises and Dan Street conditions as outlined to arrive at a logical and common-sense determination not to approve this application.
    As a rate payer, the peace of mind and safety of the residents needs to be considered particularly in light of the tragic loss of life that occurred on this corner.

    Ken & Robyn Stafford

  6. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Kim Kolo commented

    Further to my objections to the proposed development at 20 Dan Street. There is no Emergency Evacuation Plan attached to this application.
    With 53 children and staff how can the children be safely marshalled on the street as there isnt an area big enough or safe enough at the back of the building structure and in the front only the road and neighboring houses.
    Its not good enough for the application to say that a Emergency Evacuation Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of operations.
    There is NO Safe Area to Marshall BABIES and SMALL CHILDREN.
    This prosposal cannot be supported in this Street.

  7. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 43 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeff Thom commented

    So what do residents do when encountering gridlock on Main Road or Wattletree Road when attempting to evacuate Zig Zag Road? I have a child with disability I have to consider.

  8. In Malvern East VIC on “Variation of category to...” at 340 Waverley Rd, Malvern East 3145, VIC:

    Tina Stavropoulos commented

    We object to the granting of liquor license. Especially until 11pm.
    As residents of Darling rd for 55 years we already experience anti social behaviour from nearby cafes and restaurants.
    Adding another liquor license and late night trade to this small strip will make our lives more uncomfortable. We already live in fear from the rowdy and drunken behaviour from cafes/ nearby. We regret that we didn’t object to previous liquor & late night applications, and that since ended being a nightmare. Resulting in a late night beer garden nearby with live music. Including out of control parties!

    The customers will no doubt park in front of our house, then come back to their cars, yelling and continuing with their festivities...
    We have reach the quota on Waverley rd.
    Adding essentially what will be a bar/pub will encourage more late night drama to this neighbourhood.
    They are more than welcome to go to chapel st, not family oriented East Malvern.
    We implore you to please deny this license.

  9. In Banksia Park SA on “Land Division Boundary...” at 7 Tarraleah Street Banksia Park SA 5091:

    m commented

    how is it possible to know down a retaining wall thats holding my garden in place
    today the owner has spoken to me and claims that its on his boundary line no proof from a surveyor has been provided nor proof that it has been done professionally,
    secondly, since the house at number 7-9 tarraleah st banksia park has been demolished, our security and privacy has been compromised drastically with no word of compensation for the inconvenience during this time

    please visit this site and access it as personally something does not sound right to me, in the 37 years i have owned my property in that time no one who has owned the neighbouring property has ever said anything about the rock frontage fence "retaining wall" being any kind of issue it may be unstable yes, but no evidence has been given to me personally to prove it

  10. In Chevallum QLD on “Clearing Vegetation - Derek...” at 82-84 Dales Rd Chevallum:

    Carrol and David White commented

    We are opposed to more clearing of Vegetation on the land 82-84 Dales Road Chevallum. We have lived here 18 years next to this place which they have already cleared Vegetation. We cam to live here for peace and quite and not to see the neighbours Property with Dog Kennels approved. I have a letter from the Minister of Environment Dated 20th September stating that the Development is not proposing to clear ANY Vegetation and was told that by The Sunshine Coast Council. This letter was written to me by Christine Shewell on behalf of The Honourable Leeanne Enoch MP Minister for Environment. If this permission is given by the Sunshine Coast Council I will be contacting her again. As this is a Wildlife Habitat as well.

  11. In Northcote VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 279 St Georges Road Northcote VIC 3070:

    Anonymous commented

    Just like to point out the minimal four story buildings in the local area (as detailed in the Town Planning RFI updates pack).
    Northcote/Thornbury is known for its beautiful townhouses and the lack of medium density buildings is a key attraction for residents.
    I have just attended the Emmaline St Christmas party this evening and there appears to be a general sense of concern with the introduction of a four story apartment building. Given there are numerous other three storey apartment buildings (including across the road of Emmaline St and Gadd St) it would be appropriate for this project to also be restricted to three storeys.
    If you visit Gadd St which has numerous three storey buildings you will notice how claustrophobic and congested that street has become - please reject the four story proposal and keep Northcote apartment block free!

    An Emmaline St Neighbour.

  12. In Tamborine QLD on “Kennel (Rural Use)- Dog...” at 40 - 50 Goodsell Crescent, Tamborine QLD 4270:

    Harriet Hughes commented

    Tamborine Pet Farmstay had to undergo strict criteria to be accepted by Scenic Rim Council to meet approval.
    One was there could be no other kennel within close proximity .
    Goodselll Crescent is moments away and having spent a fortune to build and establish a business servicing a small community meeting all approvals , it would be grossly unfair to have another dog boarding kennels so close.

  13. In Kingswood SA on “Demolish Existing...” at 17 Belair Road Kingswood SA 5062:

    Lynne Rawson commented

    I used to live just along from this house ( in another beautiful historical home on Balham Ave.) we still love close by. Please do not allow a glass fronted modern building replace a wonderful well built home. There are already too many large modern constructions in this area. We need to keep this area alive showcasing the wonderful smart historical construction that is sadly disappearing. Please keep this building as it is. Thank you. Lynne Rawson

  14. In Myocum NSW on “Swimming Pool” at 1018 Myocum Rd, Myocum 2481 NSW:

    Jill Moonie commented

    Hello Byron Council,
    Regarding swimming pool DA's.
    Isn't it time to put a halt to any new builds of swimming pools? Water is so precious, we need it for drinking - humans and animals; agriculture; fighting fires etc. We need water for so many things before it should be used to fill private swimming pools.
    Isn't it time for a moratorium on all new builds of swimming pools? We have a fabulous pool in Mullum, beaches galore.
    Is this something that can be raised at Council?

  15. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - One...” at 8-10 Janelle Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    No No No. Close to an Environment' hot spot.
    If you decided an application for a subdivision
    Nice house

    Double the value. Nice Little earner
    Get application approved
    Probably wait for a Buyer.
    I feel a duplex and an auxiliary coming on.
    Shoddy building.
    Renters pay your mortgage for you
    Negatively gear it.
    Bellbird with 80% renters .
    They are all at it
    The tentacles spread out from Springfield . Desolation row
    last year. Move application day to Xmas Eve.
    You can't get more cynical than that.

  16. In Thornbury VIC on “Construction of a medium...” at 125 Darebin Road Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Lynton Doyle commented

    Why permit a reduction in Car Spaces, that results in significant off-street parking, increased congesting in the immediate area and the surrounding neighborhood.
    Are Council considering accepting, that the Developer can construct some Premises with “NO CAR PARKS” or are Council possibly permitting a relaxation in the number of car spaces related to the size of the Premises, thus allowing a more intense development on the site??
    A development of this size should require more than one (1) Visitor Car Space.

  17. In Bridgeman Downs QLD on “Subdivision of Land,...” at 422 Beckett Rd Bridgeman Downs QLD 4035:

    F. DOUGLAS commented


  18. In Palm Cove QLD on “#MCU Multiple dwelling and...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Dale Edney commented

    Dear Planning Team,
    Whilst I am saddened that we will lose a really special piece of nature in Palm Cove, which has not only been habitat for a rich abundance of wildlife, but also has kept our special village feeling like a village and not just sprawling suburbia, I do understand that that the investor wants to make a return on their investment.

    It would be wonderful if the Council could buy back this piece of land and protect this beautiful piece of nature, but if this can't happen, then please take the following into consideration.

    My understanding is that the developer has asked to develop up to 8 stories because the current 'palm tree' height restriction wasn't in place when the land was purchased.
    I, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of the majority of Palm Cove residents, feel this is a cheap shot and extremely disrespectful of the region that they're developing in. As developers, they're attracted to Palm Cove because it is special and valuable, and I believe it is so because it still feels like a village. The very thing that their development would change once and for all.It's opportunistic and disrespectful to attempt to benefit from the reputation of Palm Cove (which has been built with the cooperation of all developers up until this point), by building structures that completely change and cheapen the very value proposition they intend to capitalise on.
    It would be considered ludicrous to argue that one could drive a car without a seatbelt and baby restraint because one purchased the vehicle before safety restraint regulations were introduced. Likewise, it would be ludicrous to say that one didn't need smoke alarms in a rental because the house was built before smoke alarm regulation was introduced. In the same way, it would make just as little sense if the planning team approved this development beyond four stories because it was purchased before the 4 story height restriction was introduced.
    We desperately need to place value on beauty and livability in our village and our region and open space is critical to maintaining these aspects.Please seriously reconsider this development and by no means approve anything over 4 stories. That would be a slap in the face to all those who have made this beautiful village what it is today.
    Please feel free to contact me at any stage to discuss.
    Dale and Stephanie Edney

  19. In Carlingford NSW on “Complying Development...” at 80 Coral Tree Drive Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Would it not be better for the pool to be cut down below ground level, a concrete slab placed over then soil and lawn/garden, converting it into an underground rain water storage tank. The stormwater drainage connected to the pool sides to collect the roof discharge. The existing pool pump used to fill above ground tanks, them gravitate to water for the gardens and lawns. If the pool is filled, (depending on soil type, if clay) it could cause a problem with the excavation holding water. (like a farm dam) years of settlement. Make it a useful thing.

  20. In McKinnon VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 1 Penang Street Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Miriam Baxt commented

    This sounds like excessive [over] development for that situation.

  21. In Torrensville SA on “Demolition of one...” at 176 Henley Beach Road, Torrensville SA 5031:

    margaret-ann copeland commented

    Good day, I have just seen this application to demolish the old homes, which are now businesses at 176 Henley Beach Rd Torrensville. These buildings contribute to the character and appeal of our high street. They are attractive and unique to our type of area. It is quite distressing to think that they are at high risk of being demolished. What will take their place? The new Western Clinic further east on South Road is an example where lovely old shops, with their original shop front features were demolished, and an unattractive, lacking in any architectural interest was put in their place.

  22. In Greenacre NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 225 Hume Highway, Greenacre NSW 2190:

    Sara commented

    What additional transport infrastructure will be put in place for this? Currently no train in the vicinity. Public buses are often full. There needs to be a commitment to increase buses if this is approved. Will cause a lot of congestion and stress on street parking.

  23. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Linda knight commented

    I strongly object to this proposed building, 22nd Avenue is far too small and narrow it is congested as it is,cars parked on either side, garbage day is horrendous. This lovely Street is still able to allow children to play outside something that would not happen if this plan goes through please reject this proposal let’s keep the charm of Palm Beach.

  24. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    I believe the owners should have the right to be allowed to demolish and build two houses on their land (depending on sizes of dwellings), but I do object to the fact that Council went out of its way to change the criteria for land owners who would have been able to do the same thing on lots the same size, and bigger, by restricting dual occupancy on lots under a 18 meter frontage, which I see as very unfair on us who have property in medium density R3 zoning. Luckily for these applicants, they have a larger frontage even though I question if they are in medium density zoned area. I agree with Cheryl Minihan, in that it is unfair, and a double standard, but I believe the owners have the right to do this.
    Alana Jeanes

  25. In Cherrybrook NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 18 Macquarie Drive Cherrybrook NSW 2126:

    OH commented

    Ena - you need to read the actual application. Please.

    This is not a new group home, this is not about bringing hundreds of difficult kids into your street. This is about a status quo, about two people with a disability and their carer. These people already live and work here. You probably have not noticed them at all until now. And that will remain the same. This DA is unfortunate - it's a mandatory requirement for changing the status from a home with two people with a visiting support person to a home with two people with a support person who is allowed to stay the night in their own room. These people need your support as a Cherrybrook neighbour.

  26. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Domenica De pasquale commented

    To approve this development application is poor town planning by the GCCC.
    Palm beach TRAFFIC is horrendous due to the current over development and high density high rises already constructed that were NOT within the current town plan guidelines.
    With currently 10 cranes in Palm Beach constructing buildings that have ALL been given RELAXATIONS it would be criminal to approve another non compliant development with not enough car parks, visitor parking or green space.
    DEEP PLANTING is what the local community want and require for all large developments.
    Currently Bin collection day is horrendous in Palm beach with traffic, illegally parked cars and cranky garbage truck drivers.
    I invite you to come to 27th ave where the RSL have just finished three concrete jungles and with 39 apartments due to be constructed INFRONT of these with a set back of only 1.6 metres off the beach esplanade. This is town planning at its worst. The Gold Coast city council town planning department should be ashamed of what they have achieved. The future of Palm beach is at risk as all amenities are currently being greatly affected.
    The current Gold Coast Highway is at a stand still. Traffic is stopped. This road has not been upgraded since the 80s.
    I pay enormous rates.
    I developed a building with three car parks per apartment. With plenty of deep planting and 7 evergreen fully grown frangipani trees. We have plenty of lawn. A beach front pool and gardens. I maintained Pandanus trees which were planted in the 1950s. This is how development should be done to maintain the lifestyle that palm beach residents deserve and expect.

  27. In Kingswood SA on “Demolish Existing...” at 17 Belair Road Kingswood SA 5062:

    Leigh commented

    To everyone who have commented on this page that this information is not reviewed or considered by council as it’s neither a government or council owned site.

    To help save this property you will need to download the Category 3 form from the link below and complete and return by email to

    Submissions I am told close on the 12/12/19 so please everyone please get involved and together we can save this stunning home.

  28. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Matt Mushalik commented

    Check immigration status. These speculators have only one thing in mind: money. In this way, our suburbs self-destruct. Councils are too lenient as they are under pressure from NSW government. We are getting 1 new heat island after the other

  29. In Runcorn QLD on “Road Works and/or...” at 97 Warrigal Rd Runcorn QLD 4113:

    Woo Wang commented

    Don’t do it you will flood the area with Muslim terrorists. The area is full of this human vermin already.

  30. In Gardenvale VIC on “Use of the land as...” at 217 Nepean Hwy Gardenvale VIC 3185:

    Emma Kelly commented

    This dwelling would be higher than anything else in the area and not keeping with the lower level dwellings in the area. There is nothing above 3 storeys in the surrounding area. It will also block sun from housing behind. There is also already very limited parking in the area which this will add to.

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