Recent comments

  1. In Millers Point NSW on “Alterations to subfloor...” at 74-80 High Street Millers Point NSW 2000:

    BARRY (BARNEY) GARDNER commented

    I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE NSW STATE HERITAGE PROTECTED?
    WHILST WE HAVE SEEN INTERNAL HERITAGE ABUSE OF MILLERS POINT PROPERTIES FROM PURCHASERS AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE NSW GOVERNMENT OWNED PROPERTIES ARE TO BE EXTERNALLY VANDALISED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT FOR GREED!!!

  2. In on “Rouse Hill Town Centre...” at Commercial Road, Civic Way, Caddies Boulevard, Rouse Hill:

    owen guo commented

    More resident ,good for local business,support.

  3. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 12 Vista Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Julie Rockliff commented

    I am a local Penrith resident who lives in Doonmore Street and I agree wholly with everyone else's comments herein. I am surrounded by all these new and ugly looking units which are destroying the character and charm of Penrith. This home should be Heritage listed immediately and an explanation given to the ratepayers as to why this has not already been done. Whoever is in charge of Heritage Listings in Council should give careful consideration to other beautiful old homes in the area before they are all bulldozed and forever gone. We need to keep some history alive for future generations. These units are going up pretty fast, makes you wonder what the quality of the workmanship and materials are like?? I hope Council are making sure that all of these units are being built with fire retardant materials and have appropriate emergency fire measures installed !!!

  4. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 55 Hannan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    David Park commented

    I refer to the construction of 4 townhouses at 55 Hannan St, Maroubra.

    Hannan St is a residential street and the majority are single dwelling family houses and this will create a serious precedent to allow more low/high density construction in a residential street. The road width cannot handle the traffic at present and this will just create more. No other major dwellings within this street apart for a block of units near Maroubra Rd.

    Insufficient parking for 4 townhouses and what’s available for visitors. More parking will be taken away for Hannan Street for general street parking.

    This will just cause more traffic, parking issues and set a precedent for more construction so it must be stopped. These should remain single dwelling houses for a family and not multi dwellings of 4 townhouses, it’s simply over development and a money grab.

    I strongly object to this development application. Council should be looking after existing residents and only consider construction on main traffic roads not family residential areas.

  5. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 37 Pemberton St Oaklands Park:

    D. Williams wrote to local councillor Kris Hanna

    Pemberton Street is already short on street parking in this area of development. Cars are parked continuously on both sides of the road reducing it to one narrow road which is dangerous. The street is already very high in traffic for a residential area as the street is used by vehicles travelling from Marion shops/ Oaklands Road to Marion Road. We have no visitor or resident street parking area for 29, 29A, 31 Pemberton street as these are used by the 3 row dwelling development houses you already approved at no 21 and did not consider development objections about insufficient parking then. Leaving NO street carparks for a 3 and 4 bedroom residence opposite. Vehicles are already taking up the street parking outside 35 and 37 Pemberton Street forcing vehicles to drive over concrete chevrons in the centre of the road to avoid parked cars on the both sides of the street which is dangerous. The 3 row dwellings at 21, 21A and 21B have garages so narrow that a sedan is too wide to get through the door and if a smaller car fits in there is no room to get out of the vehicle. The garages are therefore useless and force residence to park on the street taking all available carparks for 5 houses!!I am objecting to another 3 houses being built on 1 block in this street for these above reasons. It is zoned low to medium density but you are packing so many houses into this area with your development approvals that you are creating dangerous traffic conditions and you are taking away peoples enjoyment of living in this area and leaving houses with NO street parking at all!! No 19 and 21, 21A and 21B residence also already have issues with no street parking spaces being available and park in our spaces on our side of the street leaving us with no street parking. You will be creating more problems for residence in this street to approve another 3 houses on the one block. There will be no space for bins in most of the street on rubbish collection day. My bin has not been collected previously because of parked cars. Marion shop carparking overflow fills our street bumper to bumper cars at peak times of the year on both sides of the road and I have almost been hit twice on the road on my pushbike because of this. I have photographs of the parking issues and of cars wider then garage entrances in this street. The council do not take into account the existing parking problems and keep approving these developments. When writing to council about the existing parking issues they do nothing about it but make it worse by approving these overcrowded row dwelling developments.

    Delivered to local councillor Kris Hanna. They are yet to respond.

  6. In Woy Woy NSW on “Dual Occupancy Detached New...” at 18 Rothwell Street, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    chris munro commented

    I own the property behind 18 rothwewell street. I have a large inground pool next to the boundry fence of the property. Just wondering what steps have been considered to prevent damage to my pool from both dust and ground movments ?

    Thanks

  7. In North Bondi NSW on “Remove one (1) Cooks Pine...” at 126 Brighton Boulevarde North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Andrew Purchas commented

    Very good idea. The tree looks dangerous.

  8. In Canterbury VIC on “Post RequestDemolition of...” at 87 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Clare Buckley wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I am in complete agreement with Philippa Lucas. Maling Road is an attractive and popular shopping and cafe strip but parking is already at a premium. If residents of and visitors to, the multi dwelling development have to park in the street, it would exacerbate the issue of congestion and it would likely have the effect of driving shoppers and diners away. They would go elsewhere and this would be a great pity.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  9. In South Turramurra NSW on “Substantial alterations to...” at 218 Kissing Point Road, South Turramurra, NSW:

    Mr. Vincent commented

    We strongly oppose this proposal to convert the property to a Child Care Centre for the two reasons below.

    1. From the perspective of providing a safe environment, the proximity to the petrol station makes it a sub-optimal choice, unsuitable for children.

    2. The location of this property is in the Kissing Point Rd, which is the main road for traffic going through this neighbourhood. And it is close to the intersection with The Comenarra Pkwy. The facility will increase the traffic burden for the part of Kissing Point Road (from 218 Kissing Point Road to the intersection with Comenarra Pkwy), which is a potentially significant problem for people who need to go in and out of the neighbourhoood during the peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon.

    The negative impact of increased traffic for the road and the unsuitability of this location for children far outweigh benefits provided by an additional Child Care Centre. Council should set an example of how to best plan for a highly efficient, safe and well-balanced neighbourhood by not approving facility of this kind in an unsuitable location.

  10. In Oaklands Park SA on “Three single storey row...” at 37 Pemberton St Oaklands Park:

    D. Williams commented

    Pemberton Street is already short on street parking in this area of development. Cars are parked continuously on both sides of the road reducing it to one narrow road which is already high in traffic for a residential area as the street is used by vehicles travelling from Marion shops/ Oaklands Road to Marion Road. We have no visitor or resident street parking area for 29, 29A, 31 Pemberton street as these are used by the 3 row dwelling development you already approved at no 21 and did not consider development objections about insufficient parking then. Vehicles are already taking up the street parking outside 35 and 37 Pemberton Street forcing vehicles to drive over concrete chevrons in the centre of the road to avoid parked cars on the both sides of the street which is dangerous. I am objecting to another 3 houses being built on 1 block in this street for these above reasons. It is zoned low to medium density but you are packing so many houses into this area with your development approvals that you are creating dangerous traffic conditions and you are taking away peoples enjoyment of living in this area. No 19 and 21, 21A and 21B residence also already have issues with no street parking spaces being available and you will be creating more problems for residence in this street to approve a another 3 houses on the one block. There will be no space for bins in most of the street on rubbish collection say. My bin has not been collected previously because of parked cars.

  11. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Concerned citizen commented

    The council just does not care. I am having trouble getting into my own house or leaving the house ( I park on site within my garage) as the street is always full of cars from all the multi dwellings approved for this area ( Austin Cres, Pascoe Vale). It is a shame that councillors and town planners approve these applications based on technicalities of fine print (zoning BS) with absolutely no regard for the welfare of the residents of this community. Why can't I park on the street in front of my own house for which I pay rates to the council ? Would the council be happy if I park my car on council property if I cannot find a car park on my street !!... This is unethical and an immoral practice on part of the council approving these applications.

  12. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of part two...” at 84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    phoebe scali commented

    The cumulative effect of the non-compliance of numerous objectives and provisions of both the Rockdale Development Control Plan 2011 and the Rockdale LEP 2011 make this is an unsatisfactory proposed development.

  13. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 12 Vista Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Allison Matley commented

    I realise progress is important and change and growth is inevitable, but this does not have to be at the cost of our heritage. As others have said, a lot of Penrith's heritage buildings have been lost and at times it seems we don't quite know who we are trying to be, but how about we present as a modern progressive city that values its past and can find a way to present it to a wider general public. Don't let this council be one of short-sightedness, see the future but don't lose sight of the past. Buy the house and garden, open it as a tourist attraction, it wont cost as much as the walking bridge or the western gateway.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 63 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Paul de rossi commented

    It's a disgrace how many good, healthy trees are being destroyed in the community simply in order to improve the property value and ultimately to allow for further development. Council should get tough and enforce the laws.

  15. In Putney NSW on “To Construct a two story...” at 40 Delange Rd, Putney, NSW:

    Stuart Madeley commented

    Based on what Ryde Council approved next door to me where they waived the rules in their own Development Compliance Plan to allow the development to go ahead you might be in a better position than I've been left in. Even if you'd been given the plans and raised valid objections regarding a breach of their own plan they have the ability to waive it in favour of the applicant.

  16. In Kurmond NSW on “Lot 1 DP 794338Change of...” at 617 Bells Line Of Road, Kurmond, NSW:

    Leesa Schilling commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    From the mother of a graduate of One80tc in May, 2017. The following is my review of this exceptional program.
    My family and I cannot say enough great things about One80tc. This organization saved my son’s life. That can’t be overstated and his transition was total and complete in mind, body and spiritually. From the moment we made contact with the staff at One80tc to the time of “A”’s graduation 12 months later the staff, counsellors and program went beyond our wildest expectation.
    One80tc stood beside our family every step of the way and were always available to talk too and keep us up-dated of “A’s” progress.
    The support, kindness, dignity, even firm discipline and strength that my son needed during this time was always extended to him.
    I am sure “A” and our family will never forget his time at One80tc and what he was taught in the program will follow and guide “A” all his life.
    My son has been moving ahead in leaps and bounds since his graduation and not only does “A”, but our family see a great future for him.
    For the first time in a very long time I see and hear joy and hope in my son and as a mother this is truly a wonderful gift.
    I will never be able to thank One80tc and all the staff and wish them all the success for a great future. There are many treatment options in the marketplace and many of them are glorified babysitters that fail to provide a healing service, I definitely and wholeheartedly recommend this five-star facility to anyone in need.
    The proud Mum and Family of “A” a 2017 graduate of One80tc.

  17. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of part two...” at 84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Nathan Kearnes commented

    The proposed development should be rejected.
    It does not the objectives of the land zoning being 'low density residential' and 'context and setting that minimises any impact on the character and amenity of the area'.
    It does not comply with the height and floorspace requirements of R2 zoned land and the comments that the proposed development is consistent with existing and emerging character are misleading.
    The cumulative impact of the proposed development would set a precedence not in keeping with the objectives and requirements of the R2 land zone.
    The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of the DCP including: 'protect and enhance the character of the suburbs and neighbourhood'; visual amenity; street scape; setbacks; building design; tree removal.
    The site compatibility certificate is utilised in a way that is misleading with regard to building height (existing housing stock is predominately single storey); parking (not enough parking provided for each unit let alone visitors); built form and building design (not in keeping with existing housing stock).

  18. In Seven Hills NSW on “Waste Transfer Station” at 36 Powers Road Seven Hills NSW 2147:

    Raj chidambaram commented

    I fully agree with Leanne's comment.

    Lack of detail on environmental and local impact so close to residences on greenmeadows cr and channel street

    While these are in the parramatta lga surely Blacktown council will consider the impact on them

  19. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 63 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    Unfortunately I am not at all surprised . Daily we encounter applications to Parramatta Council to remove healthy trees in Eppjng and Eastwood which I believe are all too easily approved by Council.
    5 Maida Rd Epping is a recent prime example of investors trying to get rid of a perfectly healthily lemon scented gum tree. Local residents fought hard and we managed to save this tree. This MUST stop. And here is a landlord who has entirely taken matters into his own hands without an official application for the removal of this tree before Council . These are the laws we are meant to respect and abide by.The value our trees are vital for our health and green Community and Council must learn to appreciate and value our green history and green heritage.Urban development must have developed green scape in Epping.
    I really admire the tenant who has done the right thing and reported this illegal act to Council. I encourage all tenants and residents to keep an " eye out" and do the same. Be proactive to save our previous green scape.

  20. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Sumit Tayal commented

    I agree with Ian.

    The site multiple times in size to this location in front has about 12 houses.
    Have you noticed that this street is a car park for Oak Park Station travellers and you are taking the application with visitor parking waiver.

    I wish if the council can start thinking in favour or people who live in the area instead of builders who are just focusing on money.

  21. In Kurmond NSW on “Lot 1 DP 794338Change of...” at 617 Bells Line Of Road, Kurmond, NSW:

    Laurence Refalo commented

    Hi
    My name is Laurence Refalo
    I would like to mention that i have not received any information on this project and we live within 500m of the property in question with my wife and 4 children
    i believe that all residence of Kurmond and Kurrajong need to be informed before any further decisions are made on this project

    Thank you
    Laurence Refalo
    580 Bells line rd kurmond
    l_refalo@hotmail.com
    0414705705

  22. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Post RequestBuildings and...” at 1 / 99 Pleasant Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    M. Martin wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    STOP REDUCING CAR PARKING SPACES. Please, I keep asking and the council doesn't listen.
    Land is gold in this vicinity. If you must keep approving overdevelopment then get the developers to provide MORE. CAR PARKING SPACES. The developers won't because that costs more money, less profit. I'm fed up with this council. I have lived here for 40 years and you won't listen. If 10 units are to be built then please advise how many car parking spaces? 3 spaces per unit equals 30 spaces plus 15 visitor spaces? Can you confirm there will be a minimum of 45 spaces ?

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 402 Riversdale Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    M. Martin wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    Again developers are requesting a reduction in car parking spaces. When will council take steps to improve car parking in our already overcrowded shire. INCREASE CAR PARKING SPACES. If you continue to approve multi storey developments then you must increase provision for cars. Just because we have public transport nearby doesn't mean there will be less cars.

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Ellenbrook WA on “Removal of Native...” at 236 Banrock Drive The Vines WA 6069:

    Andrea McDonnell wrote to local councillor David Troy Mcdonnell

    The removal of the bush will destroy the view from the front of my house, also there is no planning approval for anything to take its place. This will mean I will be looking onto a desolate eyesore for an undetermined amount of time, this will devalue my property by a considerable amount and may mean I owe more money than my house is worth.

    Delivered to local councillor David Troy Mcdonnell. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Coasters Retreat NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Coasters Retreat Coasters Retreat NSW 2108:

    Andrew and Nina Warden commented

    We support the application. The proposed additions are most appropriate to accommodate family requirements. The design and structure are attractive and totally consistent with the character of the neighbourhood.

  26. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    IAN JONES commented

    I object.
    How can you place 16 dwellings on a space that originally held 2!
    The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both.
    The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of all pedestrians.
    The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    This development will negatively affect the livability of the street and community.
    Such a large development will destroy the amenity currently enjoyed by surrounding residents and visitors to the area.

  27. In Galston NSW on “Residential - Single New...” at 30D Arcadia Road Galston NSW 2159 Australia:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I support this Application. The new homes being built in the Galston area, particularly in Arcadia Road are revitalising Galston Village and the surrounding area. They are also greatly improving the streetscape in Arcadia Road.

  28. In Canterbury VIC on “Post RequestDemolition of...” at 87 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Philippa Lucas wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    There is already significant congestion on Maling Rd due to shoppers looking for parking spaces. Reducing the provision of parking by new developments will increase pollution and traffic congestion.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Manufactured Home Estate” at 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Daniel commented

    I oppose this application with every fiber of my being.

    202 manufactured homes with rent to be $160 a week for a perpetual lease? This will attract persons not conducive to the current residents of Tallwoods.

    Look at other similar recent constructions in the Taree area, such as the Gill Avenue apartment complex and the Bruntnell Street apartment complex which were beautiful upon construction and are nothing more then an eye-sore a bare few years on. These were also portrayed as 'downsizing' and not exclusive to over 55's as is this DA.

    If approved this 'estate' will be nothing more then an eye sore and slum built into one of the most tranquil and beautiful localities in the Councils area. But a direct quote from the DA; "A public reserve in the south west corner of the site will be created and dedicated to Council". So it's easy to see how the system works.

    A study of a similarly built estate in Parklea created a slum with all manner of criminal offences sky-rocketing.

    The DA social impact statement relates solely to the residents being catered for and their perceived 'positive' demand on local services but does not at any point touch on the current residents and how they will be affected.

    Current residents have not been consulted and are going to be negatively affected by a decrease in their housing prices and their quality of life. It seems the current residents of Tallwoods and the locality of Hallidays Point in general have been forgotten and hung out to dry.

    Any possible negatives in the DA are fobbed off putting the onus back onto the current infrastructure stating it will 'likely' increase over time. Public transport consists of one bus running per day from a bus stop four kilometres away? DA states it'll just increase over time.

    Increased demand on the one part time doctor in the Hallidays Point area? More doctors will come over time.

    Increased strain on the current emergency services? They'll just increase over time.

    I can only concur at EVERY other comment made by persons on this application who appear united in their opposition of this DA. Councils will be happy to continue to increase rates but have little caring for the community they will burden.

  30. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 12 Vista Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Michelle Dwyer commented

    Penrith Council and it's Councillors will continue to do whatever they choose, only to gain the $$$$ and dump on not only Penrith's Heritage but Australia's Heritage too! The Vista Street property should NOT be sold to developers. In contrast, does anyone think Waverley Council would get away with selling Vaucluse House to developers for billions of $$$? No, there would be community uproar and the NSW State Government would not allow it!!! So, those same principles must apply to the Vista Street property, thus it should never ever be sold!

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