Recent comments

  1. In Rowville VIC on “Twenty two (22) townhouses” at 24-26 Taylors Lane, Rowville VIC 3178:

    MIM commented

    I have the same query, parking around Rowville has become very difficult, at both Stud Park and Wellington Village its is now ridiculous. Knox Council keeps approving more and more dwellings but nothing is being done about parking or increasing access to public transport.
    There are children walking to school and its becoming more and more dangerous with more cars on the road. There are lots of streets which are are have no lighting or poor lighting , with more vehicles means more people on the roads/footpaths I dont see any changes to the infrastructure , goods or services of this area, but lots more rate payers!

  2. In Alexandra Headland QLD on “23 Okinja Rd ALEXANDRA...” at 21-23 Okinja Rd, Alexandra Headland, QLD:

    Wendy & Chris Persse commented

    As we are residents directly alongside the caravan park we would like to strongly object to this proposal. Having market stall holders set up early each morning would disrupt the peace of the current residents. We are also concerned about the increase in traffic and lack of parking facilities. We already have access to many markets in our area - Fishermans Wharf, Kawana & Yandina.

  3. In Padstow NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 15 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211 Australia:

    Greg Exton commented

    Due to the increase in tragic this is a inappropriate development for the area the infrastructure(roads) can not cope now with all the extra traffic that comes down Watson road and feeds out onto Fairford road/Davies road which is the main roads for the traffic to Menai and going to Bankstown
    The factories in Enterprise ave employee local people
    The school Padstow North Primary backs onto the development this will severely affect the children at the school

  4. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of 5 storey...” at 54-56 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Emeritus Professor Alexander Grishin AM commented

    This is a case of over-development, where too many units are being squeezed into the available space. The lack of provision for adequate car parking is a recipe for chaos and disaster. Do we really need a fatality to occur before we as a community will decide that enough is enough. Such developments need to be stopped until they are adequately modified to provide parking and support a lifestyle that attracts people to this area.

  5. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Gai Hilton commented

    Please note - the ? is a typo, please disregard it. The sentence should read:

    I thank you for ethical decision-making, your engagement with the community and most importantly for making an informed decision through good preparation.

  6. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Gai Hilton commented

    When Mayor D’Souza was asked why he did not respond or attend the site when requested by concerned residents, I was astounded to hear his reply was that he did not need to do any of that, he could look on Google. It seems to me our Mayor has forgotten some of the most basic responsibilities of Councillors who are required to make informed decisions through good preparation and involvement, and engagement and consultation with their community.

    I am comforted by the responses and attendance of others Councillors who did indeed express their opinion that this childcare centre was inappropriate for the site and the street, and was not in the public interest. Some of these Councillors, who expressed they would normally vote to approve a childcare centre, gave their reasons why they could not vote to approve a centre on this site. They did ask themselves the question - ‘what impact will the decision have on the community (including residents and ratepayers) and the environment in both the immediate and long term’. I thank you for ethical decision-making, your engagement with the community and most importantly for making an ?informed decision through good preparation.

    Very concerning is that this approval will have an impact on the future of every site in every street within Randwick Council. Google did not help us, and we should never base our decisions on it.

  7. In North Balgowlah NSW on “<Insert details>” at 15 Gloucester Street, North Balgowlah NSW 2093:

    Justine Watson commented

    Please check they are not building too close to the Lane and right on their back fence. I understand this is certainly not legal and a little disturbed by the proximity of the large frame structure upon the lane. hard up aginst the fence.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 21-31 Pearl Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Doug Kollie commented

    What is happening here is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE! Given Sydney's critical housing ownership and rental crisis, it appears that for whatever political reason, this council continues to refuse to grant the developer the green (ha! say no more…) light to go ahead and build six modern townhouses that would be eagerly snapped up by so many desperate prospective home owners and rental accommodation seekers.
    The architecturally designed plans have been continually knocked back, resubmitted, and knocked back again by Marrickville council for over three years now. With so many people wanting to move into this area, and so few homes being made available, the situation is getting worse and the spiralling housing supply issues in Sydney’s inner city is only continuing to push up house and rental accommodation prices higher and higher.
    I sincerely question the ‘wisdom’ and long-term ‘vision’ of what seems like a petty bureaucratic finger-wagging power play.

  9. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 21-31 Pearl Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Doug Kollie commented

    What is happening here is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE! Given Sydney's critical housing ownership and rental crisis, it appears that for whatever political reason, this council continues to refuse to grant the developer the green (ha! say no more…) light to go ahead and build six modern townhouses that would be eagerly snapped up by so many desperate prospective home owners and rental accommodation seekers. The architecturally designed plans have been continually knocked back, resubmitted, and knocked back again by Marrickville council for over seven years now. With so many people wanting to move into this area, and so few homes being made available, the situation is getting worse and the spiralling housing supply issues in Sydney’s inner city is only continuing to push up house and rental accommodation prices higher and higher. I sincerely question the ‘wisdom’ and long-term ‘vision’ of what seems like a petty bureaucratic finger-wagging power play.

  10. In Wantirna South VIC on “Four storey building...” at 438 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Linda Blease commented

    I am a resident of 440 Stud Road.

    KNOX CITY COUNCIL I BEG YOU, PLEASE DO NOT GRANT THIS PERMIT FOR 438 STUD ROAD, WANTIRNA SOUTH.

    I am not against developing this site, I am only against the massive size of the plans and the impact of this.

    Please stop overcrowding in the City of Knox before it is too late.

    The Knox Planning Scheme includes many statements about degrees, percentages, angles, metres, arc, height etc etc. However, surely council will put existing dwellings and residents/owners quality of life and financial position before the developers financial gains and more rates for Council?

    438 Stud Road is a very small block of land to start with yet the plans show a concrete monster of 4 storeys containing 24 x 3 bedroom, 2 x 2 bedroom apartments, 50 car spaces (residents) and 5 car spaces (visitors)!

    If this concrete monster goes ahead it will leave 8 existing north facing single storey units at 440 Stud Road in darkness all day. The increase in electricity costs will he enormous but the loss of the enjoyment of your own home and privacy will be far greater. There is also the noise pollution.

    The car parking situation at 440 Stud Road complex and 436 Stud Road complex is at dangerous levels. Knox City Council already granted permits without enough car spaces at both complexes. Every day there are cars parked on footpaths, in keep clear zones and anywhere they can. You cannot safely walk on the footpaths at 440 Stud Road. There is also a constant overflow of cars parked across 438 Stud Road site. Every week waste collection trucks struggle to access bins. There is no offsite parking on Stud Road.

    Every resident deserves safe access to their home and their car. Every resident deserves to have visitors.

    And on top of all the above is the very obvious and large decrease in property values if this 438 Stud Road development proceeds.

    Knox City Council:
    What about the safety of existing residents/owners and their visitors?
    What about our daylight and sunlight?
    What about our privacy?
    Where will all the cars go?
    Where will all the people go?
    What about our street strip character?

    If you grant this permit you are ignoring the safety and well being of the 86 families already living with difficulties in the bordering complexes at 440 Stud Road (36 units) and 436 Stud Road (50 apartments).

  11. In Rydalmere NSW on “Development Application -...” at 72 Antoine Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    ANDY commented

    Absolutely against. A complete lack of parking and oicated on s difficult to cross intersection

  12. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 82A of the...” at 21-31 Pearl Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Doug Kollie commented

    What is happening here is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE! Given Sydney's critical housing ownership and rental crisis, it appears that for whatever political reason, this council continues to refuse to grant the developer the green (ha! say no more…) light to go ahead and build six modern townhouses that would be eagerly snapped up by so many desperate prospective home owners and rental accommodation seekers. The architecturally designed plans have been continually knocked back, resubmitted, and knocked back again by Marrickville council for over three years now.
    With so many people wanting to move into this area, and so few homes being made available, the situation is getting worse and the spiralling housing supply issues in Sydney’s inner city and is only continuing to push up house and rental accommodation prices higher and higher.
    I sincerely question the ‘wisdom’ and long-term ‘vision’ of what seems like a petty bureaucratic finger-wagging power play.

  13. In Padstow NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 15 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211 Australia:

    Jim Sillato commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval of this application on many grounds, firstly it was only supposed to accommodate around 150 people and wasn't supposed to be used as a place of worship, but they have bought up a joining properties know full well they were going to expand and keep going until they get what they want.
    5000 worshippers is unacceptable for this area or almost any suburban area, traffic congestion, unacceptable noise, parking problems, to name but a few.
    Everywhere their is a mosque their is social upheaval and issues with local residents who only wish to live in peace, with the upheaval brought about by that many people descending on the local area.
    this will severely change the demographics and the fabric of the whole area.
    This development should be opposed and left as just a meeting hall as was originally approved

  14. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 114 Summerhill Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Fiorinda Koch commented

    This site is located at 106 Summerhill Road. It is not 114 Summerhill Road.

  15. In Burpengary East QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 542 Old Bay Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Sandra Smith commented

    This property already seems to be in use for bulk material storage. And has been for some weeks.

  16. In Rowville VIC on “Twenty two (22) townhouses” at 24-26 Taylors Lane, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Wendy belli commented

    I would Ike to know how the parking will be organized for such a volume of properties on such a busy road - what will
    Council be looking at with regard to the extra vehicles particularly so close to a school and a daycare centre. The building of these sorts of multi dwellings is well and truly out of control.... do our councilors or mayor have to travel Wellington road in the mornings - we are already choking with traffic and each time these developments are approved it simply adds to the problem

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

    Alice & Raimund Reisberger commented

    Having lived in Tallwoods for 14 years and enjoyed the peaceful environment. It comes as a total shock that some greedy company is planning to build a "ghetto" at our door step. We hope sense prevails and council will not approve this development as this would be environmental vandalism and should be challenged in court!!

  18. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 422 Riversdale Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Don McLean wrote to local councillor Lisa Hollingsworth

    It is disgraceful that the obliteration of the heritage of this part of Melbourne is being permitted. Remember the 1960s when demolition was in full swing and the proliferation of hideous cream brick blocks of flats was permitted, in fact, encouraged.
    Now we are seeing it all over again ! The fact that the developer has applied for a waiver of car parking suggests over development of the site.
    The bull-dozing of that heritage home in Kew yesterday, which would have needed a permit, illustrates the alarming attitude Council has to preserving the history of Boroondara.

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Hollingsworth. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 620 - 624 Burwood Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Jack Roach ( Committee member of Boroondara Residents' Action Group(BRAG). commented

    Car parking in this area is very difficult so any reduction of car parking is not sensible.
    for this proposal.

  20. In Melbourne VIC on “Proposed amendment to...” at 364-370 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Brian Cartmell wrote to local councillor Cathy Oke

    We need to retain some space and amenities for the ever increasing population along with some buildings maintaining there original form.

    Council needs to address these developments and get to the basics, like open space, foot paths, the problems with rubbish trucks and very importantly noise abatement.

    Delivered to local councillor Cathy Oke. They are yet to respond.

  21. In East Lismore NSW on “Dwelling” at 6/60 Barham St, East Lismore 2480 NSW:

    Virginia Seymour commented

    There is currently a significant landslip within close proximity down slope (north)of this property on the adjacent parcel of land. currently no work has been done to make safe. LCC is aware of the issue and have apparently begun a temporary fix to a broken storm water pipe on the adjoining property where the landslip is occurring.
    Without significant slope stabilization works i am concerned that this development with cause further destabilization of the slope and be in itself at risk of being undermined by landslip issues.
    As a down slope neighbor to this proposed development i am concerned that our property will be further impacted by the excessive water run off and land landslip.

  22. In West Ryde NSW on “Construction of new 24 room...” at 100 Station St, West Ryde, NSW:

    Wendy Merkel commented

    My family and I strongly object to the proposed development. The site sits right on the border of West Ryde and Meadowbank. Despite the artificial street address identifying it as being part of West Ryde, it is in substance part of Meadowbank as its residents are most likely to use the public amenities in Meadowbank due to much closer proximity.

    Meadowbank is already a very high density residential area where parking and traffic have become a tremendous problem in recent years due to additional thousands of new units having been built and are still being built.

    The tall and mature trees (particularly those along Charity Creek) are precious to the local area due to their air purifying ability. They also make the streetscape much more pleasant. Therefore, they should stay, not to be touched. Besides, there is a big substation next to the site. This makes it even more necessary to keep all the mature trees untouched.

    As a general observation, in recent years planning authorities including Ryde Council does not appear to have given the keeping of mature and beautiful trees much thought at all when it comes to its approval of new developments Meadowbank and its immediate surrounds. One case in point is the Crowle Estate development (at the formerly Crowle Home and German School sites) at 72-78 Belmore Street, Ryde (which borders Meadowbank). When the site was sold to the developer, there were a row of mature and very beautiful trees on Belmore Street and Junction Street which, had they been kept, would have made the development and the local streetscape much more attractive. With their removal, the development which contains hundreds of characterless units looks sterile and uninteresting. In their place, the developer has put it a few sorry looking short and insubstantial trees likely to reach around 3 metres in maturity.

    So please keep our precious trees because they belong to the local community. We all know that trees take many many years to grow and mature but can be cut down using powerful chainsaw within minutes.

    Going forward, I earnestly hope that the planning authorities in Ryde will give the trees priority and much more thought, and only consider to have them removed if it is absolutely necessary to allow a reasonable proposed development (which are sympathetic to the locality and surrounds) to go ahead.

    Thank you.

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

    Stevie Vang commented

    I almost bought land in Tallwoods Village because of the atmosphere. I did my research and decided not to do it because of the change that will come with that kind of development. (BTW Thank you very much for all your comments).

    What is the intention to that? Jobs for an already underemployed area or less impact to the environment?

    I guess many potential buyers or new "real" home owners look somewhere else if they going to find out about the development. As I do. Sad.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 148 Wells Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Michelle Nash commented

    I think it is an utter shame that the lovely dwelling is going to be replaced by two terraces. It's a shame that the council is allowing this obvious greedy development without considering the amenity of the street.

  25. In Cleveland QLD on “Apartment Building x 14...” at 222 Middle Street, Cleveland QLD 4163:

    Jenni Lovell wrote to local councillor Karen Williams

    Just wondering whether Council should go down the path of Permit Parking in Shore Street East? Parking is already an issue in this street most weekends due to Stradbroke Island Travel and whilst it is currently not too extreme, additional apartments (as there are currently many new developments not yet occupied - eg. Cnr of Wharf and Middle) are going to cause many problems for local residents.

    Photo of Karen Williams
    Karen Williams local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Jenni Lovell

    Dear Jenni,

    Mayor Karen Williams has asked me to thank you for your email and respond on her behalf.
    I have forwarded your email to the relevant Council area and will advise when I have the information.

    Cheers,

    Allan McNeil
    A/Executive Officer
    Office of Mayor and Elected Members
    Redland City Council
    PO Box 21
    Cleveland QLD 4163

    Phone: 07 3829 8874

  26. In Wantirna South VIC on “Four storey building...” at 438 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Jisha Krishnan commented

    I lived at 440 stud road for past 3 years, and I know how difficult it is to find parking for our second car & visitors. When the construction for 438 stud road occurred, it was so noisy, dust coming through rear door into may main lounge room. It is already congested with the current population living in this area. There will not be spots for waste trucks to enter. With the new building coming so close to units it will potentially cause chaos in the area. Can you please reject this application. Do not give permits for the sake of having more buildings and making money. An estate must be livable with a quality, in appearance too.

  27. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 721 Blaxland Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    Day after day week after week Parramatta Council in 2016 and now in 2017 is being asked to consider yet another removal of a tree in Epping. This very mature tree( I live just around the corner from this address) has happily lived and thrived in the front of this block of units for at least over 30 years. Upon my close inspection of this historic tree it is strong, not unstable.no roots protruding, beautiful and very necessary to keep. So many of our trees have been killed and removed by developers when clearing sites in this close vicinity for units and council allowing it. This totally unnecessary removal of a tree is becoming too readily asked for and Parramatta must put a stop to it. Council must plan for operational " urban development" with the importance of green scape being "critical" for our living environment. How on earth will children know in the future know what a developed tree in Epping will feel or look like??

  28. In Kensington NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 19A Boronia Street Kensington NSW 2033:

    Michael Locke wrote to local councillor Lindsay Shurey

    I'm not sure what is being planned. Are 2 units, 3 and 4, being replaced by unit 6?
    Also, what is meant by 'affordable'?

    Photo of Lindsay Shurey
    Lindsay Shurey local councillor for Randwick City Council
    replied to Michael Locke

    Hi Micheal
    Thank you for your email. I'm not totally sure of your question, however I have asked to seen the Report when finalised.
    I will get back to you when I have more information. Can you advise me of your views on this DA, it is a little unclear in your email.
    Best

    Lindsay Shurey
    Greens Councillor
    North Ward

    On 25 May 2017, at 10:10 PM, Michael Locke <> wrote:

    I'm not sure what is being planned. Are 2 units, 3 and 4, being replaced by unit 6?
    Also, what is meant by 'affordable'?

    From Michael Locke to local councillor Lindsay Shurey

    =========================================================================

    Michael Locke posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Michael Locke and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 19A Boronia Street Kensington NSW 2033

    Description: Section 96 modification of the approved development for allocation of unit 6 in lieu of untis 3 & 4 for affordable housing. Original Consent: Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 4 storey residential flat building to be used as 'in-fill affordable housing' comprising 6 dwellings and a basement for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscape works and new front boundary fence

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/829429?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    "Please come and visit us at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au"

    *****************************************************************************************

    This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. The use, copying or distribution of this message or any information it contains, by anyone other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender.

    Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Randwick City Council, unless otherwise stated.

    This message has been scanned by anti-virus software prior to transmission.

    *****************************************************************************************

  29. In South Geelong VIC on “Use of an Existing Building...” at 223 Yarra Street, South Geelong, VIC:

    G Cole commented

    I think that it is completely inappropriate for this proposal to go ahead. There is a convenience store within such a very short distance of this site (on the corner of Foster Street) being operated by a local family. Surely some consideration needs to be made regarding the same type of business being built within such immediate vicinity of one which is already established?
    This proposed business will also impact on the business of the little kiosk within the South Geelong train station?
    I strongly oppose to this planning application.

  30. In Lakemba NSW on “Subdivision 6 Ernest St...” at 6 Ernest Street, Lakemba NSW:

    Annette Featherstone commented

    Hello. Is there anyway the builder could please get in touch with me. My Gramdma and mother grew up in that house and my mother is devastated that it has been torn down and is wondering if anything of the house remained. Doors or whatever....

    The residents were Mills

    Thanks
    Annette

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