Recent comments

  1. In Grange SA on “4 storey mixed use...” at 1-5 Jetty Street Grange SA 5022:

    Anne Wheaton commented

    Why is this not showing on the Council Website?

  2. In East Gosford NSW on “Construction of Donated...” at 28 Albert Street, East Gosford NSW 2250:

    Jenni Byers commented

    I am writing to lodge an objection to Council's DA/ 55218/18 - Tea House proposed for Caroline Bay Reserve and Dog Off leash Exercise Area. The proposal places the Tea House between the exisiting buildings and the water edge, requiring the land to be filled due to the water level. This essentially divides the reserve, forcing the public and their dogs to go closer to the waters edge and into the mangrove and wetland habitat to get from the reserve to the nature walk.

    If the Tea House was placed on the vacant raised site located on the eastern side (George Street side) of the reserve it would leave a natural openspace for the dogs to run, tai chi, family picnics and other activities that occur on this site.

    The choice of this particular area takes the best site for the tea house with no consideration of the other community activities that occur there; it is apparent that by placing it on the east side it would be a suitable compromise, better utilisation of the space and minimise risk to any fauna or flora sustained by the mangroves & mudlaps.

    Jenni Byers

  3. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 168 Oak Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Pat Johnson commented

    John R. , re your comment that we should take aim at SV. I have spoken up about the increase from 70+ units originally to over 800 ! It increased steadily but complaints were ignored. I am not optimistic that the residents there will use public transport !

  4. In Concord NSW on “Development Application -...” at 16 Salt Street Concord NSW 2137 Australia:

    Joey Isa commented

    I was looking at buying the house next door to this and a resident told me that there was a childcare being built. Putting a childcare in this street will not be good for the area as there are buses that go up and down the street which will make it dangerous for little children crossing the road. Another reason will be that people will not buy houses and would even sell their house as it will be busy and have no parking. A family member has been living in this street for 45 years and really do not like how there may be a childcare built. Once again this is a quiet area of concord and this is not suitable for it.

  5. In Unley Park SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 27 Thornber Street, Unley Park SA 5061:

    F. Potts, Malvern commented

    My understanding is that this tree stands at the rear of the property mentioned - please correct me if wrong. Given that it is a native and not obstructive there would need to be very significant, arboreal reasons justifying removal - and if an arborist's opinion supported removal on health or safety grounds then a second opinion should be sought.

  6. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Group Home” at 18 Judd Street, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Kerry Houghton commented

    I would like to voice my objection and concerns against this developement being approved
    The secresy over the charachter and background of the people who will be using this facility is a major concern for the security and safety of local residents
    The DA says there could be up to 24 people at one time and a turnaround of about 2 months to stay there so that is a lot of people of unknown character revolving through in a 12 month period. As well 24 people in this house seems a bit of overcrowding . Are these numbers required by the potential buyer to make a profit out of this investment
    The location is another point for concern ; It is in a narrow no thru road , 50 kmh and a 40 kmh in school zone times so parking could be a big issue. The property backs onto a sporting field/ tennis courts , the primary school and a couple hundred meters from the recent redeveloped Mullington park. Children of all ages utilise these facilities every day
    This is a very quiet area with a mixture of elderly and families so the safety of the elderly and children is a major concern as well as what children may witness if there is an " issue / disturbance" by residents or someone who isn't supposed to know they are there and what effect it might have on the children into the future
    All of these concerns affect the local residents but being the next door neighbor and this being a 2 storey house I have grave concerns about the charachter of the residents who will be able to look into my back yard where my grandchildren play and swim quite regularly . My property is fully fenced and locked gate so at the moment it is a safe area for my grandchildren to enjoy the outdoors
    In closing the secresy of this DA , the timing of cut off for objections being in the school holidays so P&C couldn't be contacted ( I have applied to council for an extension and it has been granted . 14 days extra to object) seems that the current owners who have applied for the DA and the proposed new purchasers didn't want the local community to know about it and probably don't care how it will affect the neighborhood

  7. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 35-37 Rockliffe Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Katherine Kingsbury commented

    Whilst I mostly agree with Caitlen's comments, I would like to point out that this land has rear access for cars from ? Franklin St. Lets hope that the design will utilize this rear car access. Katherine

  8. In South Plympton SA on “Division of land into 3 new...” at 9 Wintrena Street South Plympton, SA:

    Darren Oates commented

    Again Marion Council, can we stop allowing 3 houses to be put on these corner blocks. This will cause traffic issues as it is near Emmaus College, and again does not fit with the character of the area. Stop chasing rates revenue and only allow 2 at a maximum.

  9. In Forest Lodge NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 3 Wood Street Forest Lodge NSW 2037:

    Carolyn Prince commented

    Seriously Carole, you need to move on. Your objections to anyone who applies to do something similar to what you want to do is pretty petty. You might not be aware of this, but your objections to everyone's planning applications are emailed to thousands of people. We all know you object. Put yourself in this applicant's shoes and those of everyone else you've objected to. Saying "I object unless I'm allowed to do the same" makes you look pretty silly. If you think your application should be approved then appeal or take it to Land & Environment Court. Better yet, go speak to the planner on duty and see what they will accept and work with them to achieve it.

  10. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Dwelling House” at 48A Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    So. here we go again. A house is to be shoehorned onto a tiny block carved out of two lots to make a profit for someone who has no concept of the ambience of East Toowoomba, or the wishes of the majority of ratepayers who are sick and tired of the ongoing carve up of decent sited lots to satisfy the greed of a few.

  11. In Leichhardt NSW on “The modification seeks...” at Leichhardt Marketplace 122-138 Flood Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    George Nguyen commented

    I support this. The current restriction on Leichhardt Marketplace hours of operation are anachronistic and completely out of sync with almost every other shopping centre in Sydney which has major retailers.

  12. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 168 Oak Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    John R commented

    It is a boarding house on the station so the apprehension re. cars may not be warranted. We need affordable housing options for people in the Shire as well as it is getting expensive. I live in Kirrawee so understand the issues.

    SV is a monster. 800+ cars in there. If you really wanted to take aim at cars and traffic that was where your energies might have been directed but that horse has bolted. On the positive we will all benefit from the amenity at SV. I am actually looking forward to it being completed and hopefully the roads accommodate the additional traffic.

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

    M & T Lee commented

    Totally object to this development - Tallwoods is a beautiful, peaceful place which has amazing Australian wildlife in it and surrounding it, one of which is our koalas. This development is just not suited to this area and should be stopped. We do not want another 202 cabins at our doorstep.

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

    Jamies Izatt commented

    I strongly object to Development Application No.99/2019DA - proposed manufactured home estate.

    The reasons for my objection are as follows;-

    1. The fact that 202 new residences are to be built over a relatively small area of land causing overcrowding and congestion at the entrance to Tallwoods. The entrance/exit to Tallwoods is already complicated and compromised by the caravan park opposite which has yet to begin trading. How can the traffic flow be assessed when it is not yet at capacity without adding a further 200 plus motor vehicles to the mix?

    2. The housing type does not fit with the current Tallwoods design. The current entrance to Tallwoods is impressive and sets the tone for the estate. Once the manufactured homes are at the entrance, it completely changes the ambiance. Further, as there is only one entrance and exit to Tallwoods, in the event of a fire it would be pandemonium.

    3. It is unsuitable to put low socio economic residents in an area with no support. There is no public transport, apart from one bus per day, no shops within walking distance, one part-time doctor, no police station, no fire station. There is nowhere you can walk to from Tallwoods. The distances between places is too great and there is no footpath or cycle track in any event. Therefore, if a resident lives there without a motor vehicle they have no way out. Further, there is no employment in the immediate area therefore it would require residents to travel to Taree, Forster and Tuncurry. Without transport it therefore makes it an impossibility.

    4. The block of land designated for the MHEs is low lying. At various times flooding has occurred at the bottom of Coastal View Drive, making the area impassable. The only way out of Tallwoods at that time was to circumvent the Village and come out through the Boulevarde. This is a big enough problem when you have a car but without transport you would be a virtual prisoner.

    5. There are many other reasons why this application is unsuitable and have been mentioned by other residents on this web site. The fact that it would devalue the properties in Tallwoods is another strong contention.

    I trust the Council will consider this matter and reject the application as they did on the previous occasion.

  15. In Leichhardt NSW on “The modification seeks...” at Leichhardt Marketplace 122-138 Flood Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Rebecca Salt commented

    I strongly support this application, Marketplace closing at 4pm on a Sunday is a huge inconvenience to busy residents. I do not see how this could adversely impact immediate neighbours of the centre and therefore cannot see any reason why this should not be approved.

  16. In Bondi NSW on “Remove one (1) Fig Tree...” at 39 Bennett Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Lenore Kulakauskas commented

    I agree with Amanda Hendriks. Removing trees when a hotter climate is with us now, is against any sort of environmental logic. Unless there is a very sound reason for removal, and the definition of 'sound' from a Council perspective needs to be strengthened, the tree should remain.

  17. In Roseville NSW on “Demolition of two (2)...” at 69 Archbold Road, Roseville, NSW:

    Allen Lin commented

    The intersections of Clanville Road/Archbold Road and Carnarvon Road/Archbold Road are busy all the time. There have been lots of serious accident happened recently. We have safety concern if those blocks are developed as seniors living village. it will be more dangerous not only for the potential seniors living there, but also for the local residents. By the way, there is a childcare just opposite those blocks.

  18. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 168 Oak Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Pat Johnson commented

    I agree with Steve, this is placing so much strain in an area that is already overcrowded with vehicles. The Sutherland Shire is being devalued with overdevelopment. Developers don't care as long as money rolls in. Once we had a Council that really cared about those who bought properties here!

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

    B Stewart commented

    Gateway Lifestyle at Red Head

    Are you all aware that the caravan park at Red Head has now been taken over by Gateway Lifestyle? Please see the following link: https://gatewaylifestyle.com.au/community/beachfront

    Stage 1: Approximately 78 houses with varying block sizes.

    They obviously off loaded the Tallwood's development as it was too hard and somehow have taken over the caravan park! There is no DA, etc with council for this development and the changes.

    Can anyone explain this as I don't know the history of this area or know much about the ownership of the caravan park; the zoning, if it was sold to Gateway Lifestyle and when, and why they are allowed change the use without council permission ??

  20. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 168 Oak Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Steve commented

    With the South Village and the numerous other developments in the surrounding area another large complex will just add more strain to an already over populated area. The traffic in Oak road is at a stand still at the best of times both at the intersections of Presidents avenue and The Princes Highway. Wanting to add another 50 room complex will add at minimum another 50 vehicles (at best case scenario) to the area along with the disruption during the construction phase which is surely to cause massive disruption in an already busy part of Oak road with both South Village and the existing shops with vehicles coming and going along with the traffic that uses the road as a bypass from one side of the railway line to the other.

  21. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 10 Andrews Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Julie commented

    It is a joke with all this overdevelopment of our once beautiful suburb it all come down to money such short term thinking l tried to stop a development a few years ago went to Many council meeting had all the council members come to view the issues all were in agreement that it shouldn’t go through except one town planner had encouraged the developer to try to go through with the subdivision which was wrong. This then went to V cat which l also went to not knowing what l was up against it was just a joke the property owner never turned up just a team of experts that don’t even live in our area needless to say the money won again with Vcat giving the developers the ok it’s just a disgrace what are we leaving our kids shame on them all

  22. In Dural NSW on “Residential - alterations &...” at 1 Pineview Place Dural NSW 2158:

    Santo commented

    Anne,
    The plans will be loaded soon, it usually takes a few days for Council to process the application.

  23. In Coburg North VIC on “To use the land for a Place...” at 1/15 Dawson Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Aydin commented

    Great to see our multicultural society working well. We are one of the most peaceful countries on earth and continuing to be inclusive and friendly to members of all faiths will ensure this continues. This area is in an industrial area, No parking issues here as there are literally hundreds of car parking spots in the area.
    I support being inclusive and helping others less fortunate.

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

    Jonathan Forrest commented

    I strongly object to Development Application No.99/2019DA, to pack over 202 cheap, demountable homes onto Lot 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point.

    The development is totally inappropriate and is not inkeeping with this area in any way. It will destroy the amenity of beautiful Tallwoods Village. Our road infrastructure was not designed for the volumes of traffic this development will generate. This will put children catching the school buses at the entrance to Tallwoods Village, and also put other motorists and people walking around the village, in danger.

    Council has previously rejected an almost identical Development Application stating that it was not in the public interest on the basis of:-

    * negative impact on water and sewerage infrastructure
    * unsatisfactory asset protection zone
    * inequitable increased financial burden on ratepayers
    * insufficient local infrastructure
    * inadequate provision for koala movement
    * impact on visual amenity and lack of fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation.
    * extreme over-development and over-concentration of undesirable dwellings

    These are surely still valid grounds upon which to reject this latest application.
    When we purchased our first block of land in Tallwoods Village 11+ years ago we did so paying a high price as we were attracted by the low crime rate and the peaceful and beautifully natural amenity of the area. For these reasons we choose Tallwoods Village to live in to start our family. This ‘development’ will spoil the amenity of the area for all residents of Tallwoods Village.

    Tallwoods Village Covenant/quality of housing - Tallwoods Village is also covered by a Covenant that ensures (so we thought) that only quality houses are built and with this in mind we were led to believe that our substantial financial outlay for our home would be safe.

    Higher density development - The 2 previous areas of higher (medium) density development within Tallwoods Village (fronting the Boulevard and Hilltop Parkway) have been developed in such a way to fit in with surrounding high quality dwellings and with the general amenity of the area – bricks and mortar high quality permanent construction. Aspects severely lacking in the proposed development.

    Devaluing of Properties - This development, without doubt, will devalue the properties within Tallwoods Village.

    Public Transport/Essential Services - Tallwoods Village has extremely limited public transport, and is situated a long drive from doctors, dental and more importantly a hospital. When we purchased in Tallwoods Village we took this into consideration and decided to pay the premium price to live in this beautiful safe village.

    Crime and Safety - It is a fact that these kind of developments have a massive impact on the crime rate of an area and the safety of the residents in its surrounding area.

    Rates - the amount of rates this development would contribute is not in any way commensurate with the effect it will have on local infrastructure ie, roads etc. This is not just taking into account an average of 1 and most often 2 vehicles per dwelling but also the heavy vehicle movements require for the transport of the prefabricated dwellings and all of the associated vehicles etc cement trucks, semi trailers, gravel trucks, cranes etc.

    I ask that our elected members of Council reject the application and take steps to ensure that the loop-hole that attracts developers to submit applications such as these is closed immediately so no other community has to endure the anxiety and turmoil that this Development Application has presented to Tallwoods Village Residents.

    This development DOES NOT fit into Tallwoods Village - it is totally out of character. Demountable/prefabricated dwellings DO NOT have a place in Tallwoods Village. The development proposes a total over-development of the site.

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

    Jennifer Forrest commented

    I strongly object to Development Application No.99/2019DA, to pack over 202 cheap, demountable homes onto Lot 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point.

    The development is totally inappropriate and is not inkeeping with this area in any way. It will destroy the amenity of beautiful Tallwoods Village. Our road infrastructure was not designed for the volumes of traffic this development will generate. This will put children catching the school buses at the entrance to Tallwoods Village, and also put other motorists and people walking around the village, in danger.

    Council has previously rejected an almost identical Development Application stating that it was not in the public interest on the basis of:-

    * negative impact on water and sewerage infrastructure
    * unsatisfactory asset protection zone
    * inequitable increased financial burden on ratepayers
    * insufficient local infrastructure
    * inadequate provision for koala movement
    * impact on visual amenity and lack of fire prevention measures and emergency evacuation.
    * extreme over-development and over-concentration of undesirable dwellings

    These are surely still valid grounds upon which to reject this latest application.
    When we purchased our first block of land in Tallwoods Village 11+ years ago we did so paying a high price as we were attracted by the low crime rate and the peaceful and beautifully natural amenity of the area. For these reasons we choose Tallwoods Village to live in to start our family. This ‘development’ will spoil the amenity of the area for all residents of Tallwoods Village.

    Tallwoods Village Covenant/quality of housing - Tallwoods Village is also covered by a Covenant that ensures (so we thought) that only quality houses are built and with this in mind we were led to believe that our substantial financial outlay for our home would be safe.

    Higher density development - The 2 previous areas of higher (medium) density development within Tallwoods Village (fronting the Boulevard and Hilltop Parkway) have been developed in such a way to fit in with surrounding high quality dwellings and with the general amenity of the area – bricks and mortar high quality permanent construction. Aspects severely lacking in the proposed development.

    Devaluing of Properties - This development, without doubt, will devalue the properties within Tallwoods Village.

    Public Transport/Essential Services - Tallwoods Village has extremely limited public transport, and is situated a long drive from doctors, dental and more importantly a hospital. When we purchased in Tallwoods Village we took this into consideration and decided to pay the premium price to live in this beautiful safe village.

    Crime and Safety - It is a fact that these kind of developments have a massive impact on the crime rate of an area and the safety of the residents in its surrounding area.

    Rates - the amount of rates this development would contribute is not in any way commensurate with the effect it will have on local infrastructure ie, roads etc. This is not just taking into account an average of 1 and most often 2 vehicles per dwelling but also the heavy vehicle movements require for the transport of the prefabricated dwellings and all of the associated vehicles etc cement trucks, semi trailers, gravel trucks, cranes etc.

    I ask that our elected members of Council reject the application and take steps to ensure that the loop-hole that attracts developers to submit applications such as these is closed immediately so no other community has to endure the anxiety and turmoil that this Development Application has presented to Tallwoods Village Residents.

    This development DOES NOT fit into Tallwoods Village - it is totally out of character. Demountable/prefabricated dwellings DO NOT have a place in Tallwoods Village. The development proposes a total overdevelopment of the site.

  26. In Bondi NSW on “Remove one (1) Fig Tree...” at 39 Bennett Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    Why does the tree have to be removed ? no reason is given . I am strongly against the removal of any trees in this very overdeveloped area.

  27. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Justin Simon commented

    This is a great idea, Hurlstone Park needs more people.

  28. In Leichhardt NSW on “The modification seeks...” at Leichhardt Marketplace 122-138 Flood Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Justin Simon commented

    I strongly support this application. I’ve often found myself needing to shop after 4pm on a Sunday (which is the absurdly early time it currently closes), and as a result have to spend 60+ minutes walking to Norton St and back.

  29. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Mary commented

    Since Ikea has made it way into Tempe, traffic has increased dramatically in Lymerston St, Tempe, constant traffic all hours of the day and night is unbearable.
    Marrickville and Inner West council have done nothing to assist the residents to reduce the noise, traffic and pollution in this area.
    Bunnings stores are located in neighbouring Mascot, Alexandria and Rockdale, no need for another warehouse bringing more congestion to Tempe.

  30. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Subdivision- 6 Lot - (4...” at 26 Headland Road Saphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Abbe Orrick commented

    I’d like to state my objection to the above development submission. This submission incorrectly states a number of impacts upon the surrounding community.

    The submission indicates that the surrounding public road access is well established due to the completion of Solitary Island and that stormwater services are adequate for the development. However it fails to address the current state of Headland Road, which is not fully sealed, has poor drainage and gutters in disrepair. This road is not capable accommodating the current daily vehicle movements and storm water requirements, let alone an increase in daily vehicle movements and storm water.

    The submission also indicates that the development will have no change to the visual enmity of the site. This is incorrect. A quick drive around the nearby streets of Sapphire or even a viewing on satellite imagery will demonstrate the low density housing of the suburb, the large lot sizes and the lack of visual bulks of building. The proposal does not reflect or respect the neighbourhood character at all.

    Finally the submission does not consider the impact the development will have upon the current residents of Sapphire. Residents will be impacted by the increase in noise, not only from the construction required to build the additional properties but also from the increased number of people and cars. Residents across the road and down the hill are impacted by the loss of privacy – especially if the dwellings are multi-storey. Residents across the road are also impact by the loss of view as the outlook drastically changing from a level of flora and fauna to a visual bulk of buildings. This in turn may impact the neighbours’ property values due to the decrease in privacy, loss of view and overdevelopment of the site.

    I hope will you consider these objections when discussing this development. It will be sad to see Sapphire lose its character.

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