Recent comments

  1. In Kew East VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 1547 Old Burke Road, Kew East VIC 3102:

    Axel commented

    Hello Officers,

    Please don't allow the application for this gorgeous art-deco residence to be demolished. So much of the City of Boroondara has been lost to the over-scrutinization of hertiage precincts and neglect to give overlays to viable precincts. These irreplacable homes define the city you govern and the fate of our built history lies on your correct judgement so our area stops becoming hollow and generic. Stop allowing this constant demolition and fight for these homes as if our areas aren't protected through overlays it has proven time and time again that no matter the quality of the house it will be demolished otherwise.

  2. In Ashbury NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 149-163 Milton Street, Ashbury NSW 2193:

    jamie bond commented

    Street parking will be an absolute disaster if suitable well position visitor parking is not allocated within the development. Are local parking permits being considered for Milton street to stop visitors parking in front of existing residents premises?
    Not to mention many of the existing dwellings on Milton Street have very small set back from the footpath. Noisy cars on Milton street is one thing but visitors coming and going at all hours from 128 dwellings totalling only half of the available development site will cause further disruption to existing Ashbury residents.

  3. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Melissa Brown commented

    I believe this proposed development to be unreasonable for the area for multiple reasons, Please see the following dot points for explanation,
    - Neighbourhood character - with most dwellings found west of Selwyn Park single family homes, many of them weatherboards I find the extreme number of dwellings proposed and the very modern facade of this development to clash with the visual character of the homes found in this pocket of Albion.
    - Removal of large existing trees - The ARBORICULTURAL REPORT for the site is dated May 2018, I believe a more current report should be supplied for the following reason. There are at least two large existing trees found at the back of sites 52 and 56 Selwyn Street. Neither of these are local indigenous species, however at least one (at 52) is a Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) (which is listed in the Arboricultural report as having low arboricultural value, despite being listed as a developing tree in good health and structure, and only semi-mature at 9m leading me to believe a new report should be undertaken). This species is an Australian native which attracts many native birds providing habitat for these local species. I believe the removal of this tree would be detrimental to local bird and possum species. It is stated in 5.4 of the arboricultural report that' Tree 1, a semi-mature Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta) has good structure, but was assessed as having low arboricultural value due to its size'. If we always allow trees to be cut down before they get to their full size then we will never have trees of high value within the municipality, this I believe is a failed logic.
    Also in 5.4 assumptions are being made about 'Tree 6, Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua) was dormant when assessed so foliage growth and health could not be assessed, however multiple pruning wounds were observed in the lower trunk with evidence of insect activity. The extent or impact of the insect activity is not known, however given the location low on the trunk, and the presence of epicormic growth at the base of the tree it is possible that the insect activity or decay associated with it is impacting on the health of the tree, and indicates a reduced estimated ULE'. Rather than make assumptions, a new assessment should be undertaken.
    - .use of glyphosate- Page 135. Establishment and maintenance notes. I would like it to be considered to use another form of weed removal other than a glyphosate based product. 'All weed species on site shall be eradicated. -Use glyphosate based herbicide.'
    - Additional crossover on Delmont Street - The intersection where Delmont Street meets Selwyn Street is on a bend on Selwyn Street, making it a blind corner. The current crossover where it stands is already very close to the intersection, and the plans are to put an additional crossover between the current one and the intersection. I believe this is a dangerous proposal for vehicles that would need to reverse out of this driveway into the middle of the intersection, and the residents, many young families.
    - Overlooking of private space at 1 Delmont Street. These are old plans that show the dwelling and shed at 1 Delmont Street, but fails to show the family pool that is located in the backyard at this premise, which would be overlooked by the proposed properties to be built at 52 and 54 Selwyn Street. All second story windows facing East should be fixed obscure glazed windows at a minimum for privacy of the neighboring property.
    - Lack of adequate sustainability features. I feel for a development of this size it should at least give back as much as it takes from the community, and would like to see the addition of solar electricity (not just solar hot water, especially when providing a socket to charge an electric car), solar shading on the west side in addition to that proposed for the North side. External blinds are mentioned, but not specified as to which windows they will be present on. I find this proposal in 2020 is grossly inadequate and will lead to long term environmental and financial disadvantage for the end buyer of the property to retrofit features that in 2020 should come with every new build.
    The BESS report states that the floorplans with detailed locations and supporting documents and evidence is incomplete, this report should be redone with all required documentation to guarantee compliance.
    I am extremely concerned that the water tanks for Townhouses 8 and 9 are missing from the plans,
    - Delmont Street set back - The setback for the townhouses that face Delmont Street are currently at a minimum of 3m, and are not set back to the required depth to meet current house setbacks along Delmont Street, with the shallowest setback being at 5 Delmont Street. Page 55 of their planning document shows that the townhouses proposed facing Delmont Street is considerably closer to the road than that at 5 Delmont Street.
    - Heat and Run off - with many of the private open spaces completely surrounded on all sides by walls, they can hardly be called 'open spaces'. I am concerned about the heat that will be created and the increased run off due to lack of actual open green space in this development. In 4.0 stormwater management of the SDA I am concerned that the STORM rating report only received a score of 100 which is the exact minimum requirement needed to meet compliance, and makes no effort to go beyond what is required of the development. In 5.0 Building materials it is stated that "Where possible in accordance with town-planning requirements, the development will attempt to use light coloured materials for all external wall cladding, roof colours and paving to minimise urban heat island effect." however looking at the colours listed on the plans this does not seem to be the case.
    - cultural area sensitivity. This development falls completely within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (https://achris.vic.gov.au/#/onlinemap), and as such i believe should be developed to a higher environmental and social standard, rather than the highest possible profits of the developers (for example, the development on the opposite corner of Selwyn St and Dalworth Street would be a good place to start)
    - Density - as stated on page 52 of their planning document "The general residential density in Albion is generally considered to be a medium to low density in a garden precinct area... the site would be considered suitable for the the density
    of townhouses over the three combined lots as per this proposal'. When having just stated that the density in Albion is currently between low to medium density, i don't believe this high density fits with the current design of the neighbourhood.
    - use of timber wall cladding - although this seems to be the popular thing to do these days, they may look good at build, but with many lacking the maintenance schedule required to keep these looking good, start to wear and look terrible within just a few years. I believe this is a wasteful and unsustainable exterior for the long term.
    - Parking - a waiver has been sought for visitor parking for this development. I believe that the density that is already being proposed is to too high in regards to parking, let alone waiving any additional visitor parking. Selwyn Street is a narrow curved street which bends around the park in a hexagonal shape. The park side is already no standing, however illegal parking already often happens. The amenity and safety of the Albion community who use the park including many families with young children, are being greatly put at risk but this development and especially a waiver for visitor carparking. Any weekend or evening day when sport is on at the park is already a cause for concern in the area let along tripling the density of occupation at sites 52-56 Selwyn Street.

  4. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Tania Reid commented

    Selwyn St does not have the capacity for 18 extra car traffic, the road isn't wide enough, it's a high traffic area with the community house, tennis courts, children's playground, the oval. This is a highly popular area with the community and safe access to outdoor recreation is most important for the physical and mental health of this community.

  5. In Greenacre NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 8 Illawong Crescent, Greenacre NSW 2190:

    R.Ibz commented

    This street is to tight as it is already how are you accepting these building to go up and not considering the surrounding areas and residence . .the street parking and entering as exiting the premises are hard enogh now can’t imagine how it will be if this being approved . The council needs to understand and consider the neighbors who live near by . It’s just not right

  6. In Blair Athol SA on “Community Title Land...” at 71 Lionel Ave Blair Athol SA 5084:

    Ben commented

    Here we go again. This is ridiculous. One to four. Hopefully this will be rejected but I won't hold me breath.

  7. In Rothbury NSW on “Subdivision of One (1) Lot...” at 1406 Wine Country Dr, Rothbury 2320 NSW:

    Wayne’o Robertson commented

    Just out of interest do they have to have a turning lane in and out of wine country drive?

  8. In Penshurst NSW on “Trees” at 11 Ocean Street, Penshurst NSW 2222:

    Carol commented

    Well said Sophia I agree,

    “A beautiful tree avenue and leafy neighbourhood increases property values.
    Trees are also linked to a sense of well-being”

    Even if financial gain is our only motivation, how long is it going to take for us to realise trees will increase the value of our house/property/suburb. It's a win, win, the environment and our finances will both improve with the planting of many more trees.

  9. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Cassandra Connelly commented

    The Selwyn Park area is already a busy place with car and foot traffic, the impact of multiple dwellings on the proposed site will further impact this space and be a detriment to the local residents and those who use the community spaces and sporting clubs opposite. The additional vehicle traffic alone will affect the usage of the park for local residents, congest the street and most likely spill into community parking located in the park's grounds, ultimately impacting the usability of the facilities by residents.

    The original design of the neighbourhood did not intend for such developments to be placed within the community. If a design featuring a smaller number of dwellings, more in line with the character of the area were proposed, it would undoubtedly be better received by current residents.

    I urge the Council to examine the historical evidence both from Australia and overseas regarding issues that multiple dwelling developments have had on communities. This includes the research into the ongoing livability of neighbourhoods, as well as the long term impacts on the environment, before making a decision on this development. In the City of Brimbank, we have examples of multiple dwellings being built in the (approx.) 1970s that have diminished the character of the neighbourhood and impacted the local community in various ways.
    Council have an obligation to provide safe, livable neighbourhoods for residents now and in the future. I urge you to reject this proposal and prioritise the wellbeing of our residents, the local environment and our city.

  10. In Glenfield NSW on “Modification of an existing...” at 21 Glenfield Road, Glenfield NSW 2167:

    mohamed zayied commented

    what is the distance of the properties to the indigo townhouses in the next lot. and will there be privacy for neighbour's. can a proposed layout be provided for viewing

  11. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Chin Lee commented

    In addition to my comment regarding the dangers of a massive increase of on-street parking along Selwyn Street and surrounding streets, the construction of 9 units on a block where there was only three is not in line with the current neighborhood character.

    I acknowledge that development is required, but it should not be at the detriment of the local neighborhood character and safety of local residents. Agree with Naomi Harper that small to moderate sized developments opposite and around the park with designs that retain the local neighborhood character are appreciated. However, 9 units in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I too strongly object to this proposal.

  12. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Consolidation of three...” at 12 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Monique Schafter commented

    I don't support this application. Woolworths already has a metro less than 500m away and there is already an IGA and a Harris Farm on Hall St.

    This metro will also lead to further traffic congestion along Hall St and intersecting streets.

  13. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Katie Connolly commented

    I object to the lack of parking spaces allocated for the development. There is very little parking around Selwyn Park as it is, with visitors to the park having to use the tennis club car park. With 18 more car spaces taken from the neighbouring streets, people will be unable to find parking to utilise our tennis courts and wonderful park.

    My children also cross the road in this area and having more cars parked on the narrow road obstructing the view of the road is hazardous to say the least.

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

    Binbo Chen commented

    As a resident of Southbank, I strongly object to the application for a planning permit for the residential building proposed for Boyd Park. It is already a tiny green space and the only green space in Southbank. Even now it's quite crowded for residents in Southbank. There are already tons of tall buildings in Southbank and apartments are already over supplied. I don't think it is reasonable to take away our only green place and turn it into building.

  15. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Consolidation of three...” at 12 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Erica commented

    As so many others have pointed out, we don't need another big chain store in Bondi. We already have a Woolworths, IGA and Harris Farm within short walking distance. The village feel that locals love and that draws so many visitors to Bondi will be further eroded by converting more premises on Hall Street into a big chain store. It will also create more traffic on a busy street without enough parking to serve need already, and where pedestrian safety and enjoyment should be more of a priority. Let's keep the village feel alive by nurturing smaller businesses that enrich the culture of our suburb, rather than big chain businesses that homogenise it.

  16. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Naomi Harper commented

    Realistically it could be 18 cars at MINIMUM parked on these streets- now add the visitors' cars...say +9?where will 27 cars park?

    Not to mention the increase in vehicular traffic and risk to each and every child using Selwyn Park and crossing the surrounding streets to do so.

    The sun glare alone trying to navigate around the park to exit the area in the mornings is extremely challenging- then add a few parked cars as there are now with the existing dwellings, and its very dangerous. Serious accident of this nature occurred right there 9 months ago. Now lets consider all these extra cars ...it'd be near impossible to fit through and i feel like it would be a daily battle just to survive getting out past it all!!

    The sheer increase in vehicle numbers just puts our children and families using this area at such risk and it completely goes against the intentions of how this area is meant to be used and enjoyed. No point having such a brilliant park with all it's brilliant facilities (which you as a council have achieved) if you can't get to and from it safely! Don't undermine what you have achieved by approving this proposal.

    I've been here 14 years and I understand the need for increased housing, and appreciate quality developments (such as what exists on the opposite side and all around the park), being small to moderate sized developments that have contributed to the character of Albion- but 9 in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I strongly object to this proposal.

  17. In Kirrawee NSW on “Tree Application” at 72-78 Flora Street Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Julie Adamson commented

    Reading the number of requests regarding the removal of Tree requests - sadly the future looks very bleak for Trees in the Shire. We will have to drive to the Royal National Park or the Blue Mountains to see Living Trees.

  18. In Kirrawee NSW on “Tree Application” at 465-479 The Boulevarde Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Julie Adamson commented

    Reading the number of requests regarding the removal of Tree requests - sadly the future looks very bleak for Trees in the Shire.
    We will have to drive to the Royal National Park or the Blue Mountains to see Living Trees.

  19. In Como NSW on “Tree Application” at 55-61 Cremona Road Como NSW 2226:

    Julie Adamson commented

    Reading the number of requests regarding the removal of Tree requests - sadly the future looks very bleak for Trees in the Shire. We will have to drive to the Royal National Park or the Blue Mountains to see Living Trees......

  20. In Jannali NSW on “House extension. Two trees...” at 6 Warrigal Street Jannali NSW 2226:

    Julie Adamson commented

    Reading the number of requests regarding the removal of Tree requests - sadly the future looks very bleak for Trees in the Shire. We will have to drive to the Royal National Park or the Blue Mountains to see Living Trees.

  21. In Portarlington VIC on “Development of a Multi...” at 49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington, VIC:

    Peter Ellenby commented

    Should not be built on the North side of Newcombe Street - that area was initially reserved for the town folk and should remain so. Incremental creep with intense development such as this one does not make our town any better, now and into the future.

  22. In Sandstone Point QLD on “Request for Change (Minor)...” at 1780-1820 Bribie Island Road, Sandstone Point QLD 4511:

    Denise Heelan commented

    It is quite dangerous to keep allowing further development at Sandstone Point or Bribie Island. The road to and from Caboolture has far too many cars funnelled into it. There seems to be no plan to widen the road or build another bridge. Infrastructure seems to come a long time after development approvals are given by councils.

    Not building another bridge is a good idea, but so is capping the population of Bribie Island which is in danger of being loved to death.

  23. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Consolidation of three...” at 12 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Di Robinson commented

    There are already enough supermarkets within 1 block. Woolworths and IGA as well as Harris Farm. This would also impact on traffic congestion, parking and local community and pedestrian amenity on Hall Street. We would like to preserve the village atmosphere and have no further large street outlets.

  24. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Naomi Harper commented

    Realistically it could be 18 cars at MINIMUM parked on these streets- now add the visitors' cars...say +9?where will 27 cars park?

    Not to mention the increase in vehicular traffic and risk to each and every child using Selwyn Park and crossing the surrounding streets to do so.

    The sun glare alone trying to navigate around the park to exit the area in the mornings is extremely challenging- then add a few parked cars as there are now with the existing dwellings, and its very dangerous. Serious accident of this nature occurred right there 9 months ago. Now lets consider all these extra cars ...it'd be near impossible to fit through and i feel like it would be a daily battle just to survive getting out past it all!!

    The sheer increase in vehicle numbers just puts our children and families using this area at such risk and it completely goes against the intentions of how this area is meant to be used and enjoyed. No point having such a brilliant park with all it's brilliant facilities (which you as a council have achieved) if you can't get to and from it safely! Don't undermine what you have achieved by approving this proposal.

    I've been here 14 years and I understand the need for increased housing, and appreciate quality developments (such as what exists on the opposite side and all around the park), being small to moderate sized developments that have contributed to the character of Albion- but 9 in this location is absolutely unacceptable and I strongly object to this proposal.

  25. In Eatons Hill QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 12 Marylin Terrace, Eatons Hill QLD 4037:

    Karen Bermingham commented

    Putting a daycare centre directly across from Eatons Hill State School would be ludicrous. Already this year parking safely has become impossible due to covid rules. Take this out of the equation and still there will not be enough parking for families, but the residents who live in that area will have to put up with more cars parking outside theirs houses taking away their freedom to park where they want.
    Also with putting the daycare there what happens with catchments.
    By agreeing to this daycare you will need to think about the safety of the school children and parking areas so the children are not put into an unsafe predicament with cars.
    And what about the two daycare centres that are near to the school? What effect it will have on those businesses too.

  26. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Consolidation of three...” at 12 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Heather commented

    It is difficult to articulate the change a Woolworths metro in Hall st will make to the ambience and culture of Bondi Beach but it will change Bondi Beach from a village high street feel with variety and unique shops that is a destination for Australian and overseas tourists to a big commercial corner.
    Woolworths in the Pacific hotel is a perfect location as it offers convenience without changing the ambience . Woolworths in Hall st does not fit with what people all over the world appreciate about Bondi.
    I would also hate to see Woolworths push out another IGA which happened on Curlewis street.
    With the post office being turned in to apartment blocks I would urge the council to think about what is being lost in the iconic village of Bindi Beach with developments and approvals.

  27. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Clare Kearns commented

    As a resident and mother of 3 young children from a neighbouring street, and as a Sunshine Cricket Club member and regular patrons of Selwyn Park, the winding narrow street is already congested with resident cars and heavy foot traffic. Adding 9 more dwellings where 3 currently exist would not only add to an already congested street, but cause more traffic hazards for existing residents and locals. There are many young families, and a duty of care on a narrow street for their safety should be prioritised.

  28. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Gavin Cribb commented

    Loading this place up with units is going to make it a ghetto.
    Look at any of the areas with groups of 6+ units. In 5 to 10 years they’ll become run down and no-one will want to live near them. Seriously, opposite the oval where kids play - think about the longer term impacts not just the hear and now.

  29. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    Philippa C commented

    This area is already congested and narrow therefore further multiple dwellings will add to the danger for pedestrians - most of whom are young families accessing the park and associated facilities. It is already dangerous manoeuvring 2 cars in opposite directions in this area as it is a narrow and on a bend. I strongly oppose this development.

  30. In Albion VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 52, 54 & 56 Selwyn Street Albion, VIC:

    jodie commented

    There are absolutely no parking places for residents now . Imagine with 9 new cars or 18 with people having a car each . Its unsafe. They need to include a car park

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