Recent comments

  1. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Robert Jansen commented

    The space should be used for relaxing and entertainmet, licensed cafes, children playground, grass, etc. there are now enough appartments in the Rockdale area a d we definitely don't want to build a posible ghost block.

  2. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Removal of Tree 1- Hibiscus...” at 23 Tudibaring Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Louise Hyman commented

    I own 25 tudibaring pde and this is a substantial deforestation of the block. I am especially sad about the coastal banksias which feed and home so many birds in the area including the occasional black parrot family.

  3. In Blackbutt NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing...” at 2 Kite Place Blackbutt NSW 2529:

    Jamie Stevoski commented

    Building on this land will create land slippage issues to those properties around it. Not only this but it will create privacy issues into those who have backyards in the local area. This is appalling management by Shellharbour Council!

  4. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Public...” at 1 Twenty Fifth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Kevin Kunst commented

    I’m completely OPPOSED to this Development and I am submitting my OBJECTION. Palm Beach is suffering from the High Density High Rises that are currently under construction. To add more High Rises to a suburb that has one on ramp for the M1 and is land locked between the 2 creeks... Tallebudgera and Currumbin Creeks, is reckless. City Plan Guidelines should be followed and not ignored by the GCCC. This development will destroy the amenity of the area and the setbacks are outside City Plan Guidelines. This will create chaos in our narrow laneways. The infrastructure can not support this development. Your planned Light Rail has no funding. It’s at least 8 years away. If ever!
    The loss of sunshine and privacy for neighboring residents is despicable. Please adhere to City Plan Guidelines. Please refuse this Development and others like it.

  5. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Public...” at 1 Twenty Fifth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Ben Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. The reckless disregard of City Plan Guidelines is again evident in the Developers Plans for this address. The Setbacks and the Lack of Communal Open Space is completely outside City Plan Guidelines. The Palm Beach area has been inundated with high density high rises that drastically exceed City Plan Guidelines and the suburb is struggling with excess traffic, blocked streets and dangerous cranes. There is no current infrastructure to support the continued approval of such developments. Light Rail is at least a decade away, if it ever even happens as there are no funds available to even commence Stage 3A. The Esplanade can not handle this influx of cars and extra traffic movements.
    Please adhere to City Plan Guidelines and REFUSE this development.

  6. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Patricia Hawkins commented

    I have grave concerns for the well being of our community, in particular it’s psychological health. Rules for town planning are not just there to protect the land they are also there to protect people living in urban environments. Once you allow reason to be overrun by greed it sets the foundations for serious negative impacts on these communities. Councils are elected by the community in good faith that they will uphold these rules to the City Plan, sadly over the past few short years there is clear evidence that we as a community are being neglected by the very people we rely on to protect our families, homes and to maintain healthy environments . I therefore ask Council to provide very strong evidence that any further developments in Palm Beach adhere strictly to the City Plan and any codes that are involved and consider the social and environmental impacts of such.

  7. In Sylvania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13 Holt Road Sylvania NSW 2224:

    Joe commented

    Is it planned to use this dwelling as a rental property and " affordable housing" as mentioned in plans? They are accepting too many applications for boarding houses etc. in Sutherland Shire.

  8. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Kay Meldrum commented

    Kay Meldrum
    Any use of this land must stay for public use.Please no apartment towers.We all need green space.

  9. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 41 Chesterfield Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Resident commented

    I think this application is reasonable. The level of detail provided is refreshing.

  10. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Virginia Lowe commented

    Any development should be for public use, not handed to developers for more apartment blocks.

  11. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Bernadette Hayes commented

    Waverley Bowling Club Revised June 2019. DA 483/2018.

    I wish to object to the revised DA for the Waverley Bowling club.

    Firstly, while the DA has been amended, most of the points raised in my previous submission are still applicable. Once again, I refer you to the objection letter from Urban & co, which forms part of my objection. A copy of this can be downloaded at: http://www.savewaverley.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Planner-Letter-of-Objection-Web.pdf

    Further, I wish to raise the following points:

    The applicant has not shown that contravening the development standard of the LEP is justified. The significant quantitative variation from the controls does not meet the objectives of the planning control. In the absence of compliance with the control, an appropriate town planning outcome would not eventuate. It is not in the public interest and is overwhelmingly objected to by those living in the local area as shown by the significantly high number of submissions received by council.

    Building Height and Floor Space Ratio:

    The buildings are well in excess of the maximum LEP height and floor space ratio, are unsympathetic towards the streetscape/character of the area and will be higher than any other building in proximity, especially those approved since more stringent planning processes have been in place.

    The proposed height will result in buildings that dominate the streetscape, reduce visual privacy and will have significant overshadowing impacts. It bears no relationship to other developments adjoining the site. The streetscape analysis provided in the architectural design report does not take into account that Henrietta and Langley Avenue are both predominated by 1& 2 story dwellings. Many of these dwellings are within close proximity to the site and would be impacted by the proposed height and bulk particularly of buildings A, B & C. The use planting and green walls will not make the proposed scale of the built form any less dominating.

    While the DA application looks to draw comparisons with Waverley college, the later is lower density and has far larger offsets relative to neighbouring buildings. The buildings should be no higher than neighbouring buildings that have been required to comply with the LEP. The proposed height sets a dangerous precedent for future developments.

    In addition, there should be no plant, equipment and communal rooftop terrace on the roof of any building. A communal rooftop terrace will be a noise nuisance. Were these to be removed the proposed height of the buildings are still in no way acceptable.

    The development will significantly reduce solar access for buildings to the South. Solar access is also reduced to the bowling greens.
    The inclusion of 2 bowling greens/common use areas should not permit excessive height in other parts of the site.

    The applicant has provided no economic viability evidence to justify the need for the additional height and floor space required to offset the cost of providing community facilities. An economically viable development that provides benefits to the community could be constructed with the current LEP.

    Waverley Council is already able to achieve jobs and housing targets without the additional building height and scale proposed.

    The historic building will be dwarfed against the huge bulk of the new surrounding buildings. There should be more setbacks from the historic building to enable it to occupy the site without being compromised.

    Privacy and Overlooking Plan:

    Views provided are set back from the boundary. For example, B303, is shown from a vantage point well back from the window, not at the window. This is misleading and understates the overlooking aspect. Site planting should not be relied upon as an effective privacy plan.

    Loss of recreational space:

    Private recreational space is an asset and should be protected as such. This is of utmost importance in our densely populated area. Such zoning exists to provide amenity and improve livability of the area. This proposal significantly reduces the available private recreational space. Providing residential housing does not replace or justify the loss of recreational space. The loss of 1 bowling green, reduction in size of the remaining bowling greens and loss of surrounding open space will all negatively impact on the amenity of this recreational space currently enjoyed by a wide cross-section of the community.

    The development must not result in noise complaints from the adjoining seniors living as this could curtail bowling and club operations. To avoid this scenario, there should be larger offset between buildings and the club.

    Easts have made representations to the members of the bowling club that the two greens would be dedicated bowling greens. As such, there is limited open recreation space for non-bowling residents and non-bowling visitors to the club. As such, the DA should be amended to provide more open space.

    Traffic:

    The study fails to recognise the complex set of surrounding one-way streets and traffic congestion at Victoria St and Henrietta st. No assessment of the Victoria Street and Carrington road intersection has been carried out. This intersection is the cause of most of the problems with traffic congestion along Henrietta and Langlee Avenue.

    The significant increase in traffic volumes will have a detrimental effect on residential amenity. The proposed residential living will see a significant increase in cars using Henrietta St and Langlee Ave.

    It should be noted that the “senior living” is defined as over 55. As such, many residents are “young”, would still be working with children living at home and be still active users of their cars in peek hours.

    The proposed basement drop off and pickup area will further add to traffic and parking problems. Traffic modelling survey should be undertaken in the peak summer months when traffic volumes are higher to better assess intersection operation/impacts. There is no recognition that traffic levels vary due to ill weather.

    Easts traffic study provided in the DA is contradicted by its early study which shows that the Birrell Langlee Intersection is already near capacity. Traffic congestion has increased not decreased over the years.

    Widening of Langlee Avenue does not negate the difficulty vehicles have turning out of Langley Avenue onto Birrell street particularly during peak hours.

    The narrow and single lane road of Henrietta street with the counterflow bike lane is not conducive to any increase in traffic. The council has identified that the counterflow bike lane is problematic due to the narrow width of the road.

  12. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Aaron Wall commented

    This is beyond ridiculous now. We are so sick of seeing applications for huge buildings on tiny blocks of land. Developers must be laughing at our council for how much they are getting away with and how much money they are making. The ONLY approvals that should ever be given is those that are within our carefully considered town plan. This is beautiful coastline, developers will ALWAYS want to develop here regardless. Make them stick to the rules and make sure it is beneficial to all the locals who already live here!

  13. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Staged Multi Lot Subdivision” at 22-72 Robinson Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Toni Arfaras commented

    The Narre Warren North area is supposed to be within a green wedge area with consideration given to the Casey Foothills. The recent amendment to the Cell N Development Plan changed the minimum subdivision size from 2000m2 to 1000m2 for the land at 2-10 Kostic Boulevard, 21-27 Robinsons Road, and 31-35 Robinson Road, Narre Warren North. Allowing blocks below this 1000m2 subdivision size is against what was agreed to by the City of Casey. If this does procede the rural aspect of this area will be lost and this will be to the detriement of the this landscape.

  14. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. Yet another Palm Beach Development that is drastically outside City Plan Guidelines. The SETBACK at the rear boundary is totally unacceptable. The GCCC have completely destroyed the AMENITY of Palm Beach by approving similar developments already. The Development takes up nearly all of the block, this will incur massive traffics problems for local residents, as construction materials, the Site Office and trucks will use the street and not the SITE. The Community have had enough inconveniences on their local roads from these MONSTEROUS DEVELOPMENTS that are oversized and outside City Plan Guidelines. The height will destroy any sunshine for the adjoining property. The local infrastructure can not support any more of these Developments that do not adhere to City Plan Guidelines. I’m aware of the Planned Light Rail Stage 3B, however it is possibly a decade away before this section of the Light Rail will see its first passenger. I’m also aware that many, many thousands of Gold Coast residents are willing to protest Light Rail Stage 3B. It may never happen. So, these Developments should not be approved until Stage 3B is complete. (If ever, as I’m aware there is no financial backing for Stage 3A yet). Good Town Planning is essential. Why have City Plan Guidelines if we do not enforce them? It seems this GCCC Planning Committee are simply ignoring essential guidelines that are in place to create harmony in our communities. We already have chaos in the Palm Beach community, thanks to the reckless disregard of GCCC City Plan Guidelines. Please REFUSE this Application.

  15. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Diana commented

    Okay for demolition as long as free moving public access is maintained in future works.

  16. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Helen Treuen commented

    I am happy for the building to be removed as long as the space is used for the community - not for more apartments!

    This should be kept as community used space - cafe, restaurants, or an extension of the children play areas, bike tracks etc.

  17. In Belfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11-17A Burwood Road, Belfield:

    Maree commented

    This development size is not warranted for the suburb now that we have the HUGE tower going up on the corner and more to come from the Strathfield Council side that we cannot control and Canterbury is not interested in.
    This area on Burwood road has no accommodation for parking or pedestrian usage and is becoming very dangerous with cars and buses even outside peak.
    Please post you objection when you receive notification

  18. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling and...” at 6 Bena Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance the owners can add some shade trees when the granny flat is finished.
    The Peninsula has now been named by Council as the hottest suburbs on the Central Coast.
    Adding a few trees for shade would greatly improve the livability for tenants and improve the value of the home overall.

  19. In Umina Beach NSW on “7 Lot Subdivision Strata” at 40 King Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Now that Ettalong Beach and Umina are cited by Council as the hottest suburbs, can the developers of yet another maximun density housing project PLEASE leave some room for shade trees?
    Too often, tree demolition is agreed to and rarely replaced when the job is completed despite the plans showing gardens and trees.
    Can Council ensure plantings are done or at lease one tree is preserved?

  20. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 17-19 Piper Crescent, Eltham VIC 3095:

    wendy kilcullen commented

    I oppose this development in this location. This pocket of Eltham has the character of larger blocks not medium density housing better suited to central Eltham. There must be a boundary that is applied for cutting up the larger blocks else the very character of Eltham will be lost.
    In addition, there is significant tree canopy that will be lost with the carving up of the block and building of 6 dwellings. As previously stated, this is changing the character of Eltham, removing habitat for the many animals that currently (how much longer) live in the area and also reduces any shade/cooling effect.
    This is utter greed at the expense of Elthams character.

  21. In Coburg VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 9 Station Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Clare Fitzpatrick commented

    No a Medical centre needs as much parking as possible!!! Especially given its vicinity to the train station and its parking problems to push patient cars on to the street and cause problems for the neighbours is not on!

  22. In Belfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11-17A Burwood Road, Belfield:

    Jane commented

    Absolutely disgusting! For the amount of new residential buildings and commercial rentals on this road the council needs approve an upgraded council carpark.

  23. In Girraween NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at 96 Oramzi Road, Girraween NSW 2145:

    Swami commented

    I strongly object to the proposed development of boarding house at 96,Oramzi Road. The chosen location is a serious concern to the safety and security of school children, given the fact that it is too close to the primary school. Also, with the boarding house, it seems that the council is adopting to double standards in terms of adherence to its own guidelines. The nature of the proposed accommodation & the type of occupants that it would house is a recipe for disaster in a peaceful community.

  24. In Highgate Hill QLD on “Extension, Dwelling House” at 1 Derby St Highgate Hill QLD 4101:

    Luis Jativa commented

    Dear Madam, dear Sir

    it has come to my attention, that the amazing Rosebery House by Brit Andresen & Peter O´Gorman might be significantly altered in the near future. These are really sad news for everyone.

    I am an Spanish architect with a background in Pritzker Price winning architectural offices (Herzog & de Meuron, Basel, 5 Years), artists studios (Ai Weiwei Studio, Berlin, 3 years), architectural publishing (Arquitectura Viva, Madrid, 5 Years) and teaching (TU Berlin, Department for Architectural Design, 2 years), and I am currently working at the Design Department of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, Germany (https://www.gnm.de/museum/mitarbeiter-und-gremien/mitarbeiter-im-ueberblick/jativa/).

    This house is a major work of architecture, Australia should be immensely proud of. Please do not allow any major changes, but rather support its restoration and conservation for the future generations.

    Thanks for your attention,

    Luis Jativa

  25. In Berkeley NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens title...” at 30 Imperial Drive, Berkeley NSW 2506:

    Marsha and John McKay commented

    This is not an objection, but an issue of concern.

    This issue only applies to 18 Imperial Dr Berkeley.

    Concern -garbage bins
    The residents that live on the private road behind us place their bins along outside our house, for garbage collection on Wednesday mornings.

    Over the past years, with further dwelling developments with house numbers 26,26A and 22 and 22A, the bin numbers have increased by eight bins. Now with two dwellings built on No 30 that means an addition of four more bins. Altogether that will be eighteen bins outside our house. Thus the bins are now moving to a position in line with our front door. With this comes odour especially in summer with smells like prawns etc as they sit in the sun. The bins lie there all day until people return from work. I feel this is a health issue. the smell sometimes floats into our backyard.

    Also litter often comes and blows onto our front lawn from pieces when bins are emptied.

    The other issue is we have on street parking. One car is on our driveway the other one to two cars park outside our house. This means we will be restricted further as there needs to be room for the council garbage truck to access all bins. We have the right to park our cars comfortably outside our house on any given day. I can't see why bin placement can't be relocated to the reserve across the road. As this is where the private road residents get their council cleanup garbage collected.

    If bin placement was to be relocated, residents would have to be notified.

  26. In Hawthorn VIC on “Restaurant and cafe Licence” at 725 Glenferrie Rd, Hawthorn 3122, VIC:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    I have lost count of the number of failed restaurants and cafes at this address! It's a licence to lose money. Firstly there is nowhere to park. It's all one hour, no time to relax and enjoy the cuisine and surroundings. Council need to extend parking restrictions especially at the weekend if these small businesses are to exceed. It's a sad fact but this stretch has so many empty run down shops it's an absolute disaster zone. Prospective businesses really need to do their homework before signing leases in this area.

  27. In Girraween NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at 96 Oramzi Road, Girraween NSW 2145:

    Rema Nazha commented

    Att: Cumberland Council,
    I object to this construction as this will further conjest an already conjested streets. The area has been overbuilt and to bring in this construction is going to cause many issues. We have 2 schools already in the vacinity of this area and parking and safety is already an issue. There are also a number of other saftey and welfare issues that need to be seriously considered when you have 2 school populations nearby.
    The other concern i have is that council was not very transparent about this and i and our neighbours will be lodging formal complaints with our mps and appropriate ministers. This area does not need anymore buildings. Thank you

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition, tree removal,...” at 27 Premier Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michael Shoory commented

    Please extend the consultation period so proper consideration can be given. Fully opposed the demolition. But as Gabby Richards says, no opposition to building a second dwelling after subdivision.

  29. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Staged Multi Lot Subdivision” at 22-72 Robinson Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Fahad Hanna commented

    everyone had the right to make most use of their large land- This is easier than having a large mosque approved in the area- I think locals have every right to now pursue development and making use of their otherwise "expensive" and high maintenance properties.
    Best wishes

  30. In Glen Waverley VIC on “Construction of a four (4)...” at 1 Railway Parade North Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    JOHN RIVIS commented

    This is clearly an overdevelopment of the area. It dwarfs the existing single storey properties neighbouring this proposed development. Limiting this development to 2 storey with underground carpark is not unreasonable.

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