Recent comments

  1. In Whitebridge NSW on “Additional 2 Roof top Units...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Vicky Scott commented

    I find it completely outrageous that the developer has submitted this application as additional to an existing dwelling when the dwelling hasn't even been constructed yet. This application is false and misleading.
    The JRPP removed these two dwellings due to height breaches and restricted the number of dwellings onsite to 89.This application blatantly disregards the JRPP decision which residents were told was final and could not be challenged.
    Myself and many others in the community objected to the over development of this site, the breaches of height restrictions and the traffic problems during construction and on completion and these objections still stand. If the Whitebridge community must accept the JRPP's decision so should the developer.
    I strongly oppose this DA and urge LMCC not to approve it.

  2. In Ranelagh TAS on “Visitor Accomodation (six...” at North Huon Road, Ranelagh, Tasmania, Australia, Tasmania:

    Robyn Leyshon commented

    I am concerned about the amount of traffic that uses North Huon Road. Visitor accommodation will add to the amount of traffic. The road has already taken on trucks from Huon Aquaculture recently and there are more properties being added along this road. The road is narrow, winding, with no edges on dangerous parts of the road; not really a decent road for people not familiar with it.

  3. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Debbie Macdonald commented

    As a young family living on fairway drive I am very concerned about this bording house. If this goes ahead I will not be sending my children to the public school.

    This bording house should not be built directly across from a public school, near the park and in a already high traffic area which is only going to get busier.

  4. In Meadowbank NSW on “New 5 storey residential...” at 102 Bowden St, Meadowbank, NSW:

    robert commented

    Agreed with previous comments. The area is over developed with infrastructure especially traffic condition on constitution road severely deteriated over the last two year. Heavy congestion during peak hours. Especially constitution road and Bowden street roundabout.

  5. In Rydalmere NSW on “Development Application -...” at 63 Pine Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Michelle t commented

    What a joke. 55 apartments in a quiet street next to a school which is on two sides of the road and the kids are crossing the road all day, A 40zone all day to help keep the kids safe and you decide to allow more and more cramped housing which means an excess on cars driving around. It’s an accident waiting to happen. You need to send someone there to watch all the kids that are on the road and see if this development is safe for those kids in the care of the school. 15 units max should be allowed! This seriously makes me sick to thInk what could happen to a child crossing the road as a result of greed.

  6. In Macquarie Park NSW on “To remove 17 trees” at 45-61 Waterloo Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW:

    Lloyd Pinczuk commented

    Proposals for development and expansion of Macquarie Park extend to 2028 at the minimum. As hinted at above, the buyer of this site didn't acquire it to open a hippie commune, but I hope the planning authorities consider in overall strategies that tree removal is suffocating the community - literally.

  7. In Kings Langley NSW on “Demolition, Dwelling...” at 45 Marton Crescent Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Diane McCullough commented

    I hope they remember Kings Langley had a covenant on it for brick and TILE ROOF. The suburb is beginning to look like a shanty town with all the tin roofs

  8. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Peter, Wahroonga commented

    This proposal is unsuited to the surrounding streetscape, residential character and adjoining natural environment (consisting of remnant Blue Gum high forest and Turpentine (home to powerful owls, satin bowerbirds and the like)). It represents the thin end of the wedge, as it is inevitable that if this DA is consented to, a further high density development will be sought for the adjoining former school site next door. Traffic volumes on Fox Valley Road have tripled in the 19 years I have lived here; it is a rat run from the Pacific Highway to Pennant Hills Rd and from Comenarra to the M1. Traffic comes to a standstill from around 8am and 5pm in that area at times, with long queues particularly heading south. Add in the San residential development of 5 storey apartments at 148 Fox Valley Rd and you have a collective overburdening of the area.

  9. In Whitebridge NSW on “Additional 2 Roof top Units...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    KARYN Huizing commented

    My property adjoins this development and effects my everyday life.Council allowed and worked with this developer to get final plans that they found satisfactory. This was bitterly opposed by the community that expects that elected council are working for them. Now the developer is trying to overturn the JRRP findings using another tactic. The JRPP gave it's ruling and was clear that it's finding was final and height breeches etc were unacceptable. I seek notification from council as to how this new DA is even able to be lodged after this ruling. Will the JRPP be involved in the final decision on this? Have their findings changed and if so why? How could it possibly be that the community were not notified if these changes happened?
    I strongly oppose this DA and want council to answer these questions to myself and the community of Whitebridge.

  10. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Peter Iannetta commented

    I'm against this development. This facility so close to a primary school and playground is completely inappropriate and raises questions of child safety.

    Surely there are more appropriate locations that can be considered.

  11. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a helipad...” at 241 & 257 Toorak Road & 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra Victoria 3141:

    Geoff Dober commented

    Great News and congrats to Stonnington.
    Next there is the need to watch out for VCAT where the Penthousers will probably go next.

  12. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    J OCallaghan commented

    I object to this development as this house is clearly part of the heritage of Dulwich Hill and should be conserved. Regarding the proposed development, I agree with prior comments in respect to parking (or the lack thereof) and that the building does not meet floor space requirements.

  13. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Mark Taylor commented

    I think it is about time that council listens to the people that elected them rather than to avaricious developers. The residents of this and surrounding suburbs want to live here because of the beautiful dwellings and not in suburb of high-rise developments.
    It is also becoming increasingly difficult to move around and park in our suburbs because of this over-development.
    For these reasons I am against this development and suggest that Council looks to approve such developments in areas planned for such and not in the back streets of our residential inner-west

  14. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kim Tukian commented

    I'd like to repeat Isobel Deane's beautifully put comments on the above application.

    "Goodness me council. Do you not read the fatigue and frustration in the words of your residents? We are tired of the lack of your consideration towards your constituents and the push for construction. Please. Give it a rest."

    What Isobel said, 100 times over.

  15. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Susan B commented

    Hills Council please put a stop to this development as many residents are STRONGLY opposed to the construction of a boarding house on Fairway drive.
    My main concern as a parent is the close proximity to a primary school. I certainly would NOT enrol my children with the threat of sexual predators, crime and congestion across the road. I would NOT recommend this school to any one in this area.

  16. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Brett Randall commented

    I object to this development on the following grounds:
    * Loss of the existing charming residence which is in-character with the suburb and surrounds.
    * Lack of visual appeal of the proposed development.
    * Insufficient offsets at front of property.
    * Disruption it will cause to already-stressed local on-street parking.
    * Lack of further traffic capacity on The Boulevarde.
    * Not an especially environmentally-sound proposal.

  17. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a helipad...” at 241 & 257 Toorak Road & 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra Victoria 3141:

    Chris evans commented

    Its a bit suspicious that council have fast tracked their decision to refuse. Especially when they usually take months for us mere mortals. Has the council been coerced into fast tracking a decision in aid of the billionaire and his army of consultants and lawyers getting to vcat quicker? Lets hope that council puts up a decent defense in aid of the people who pay its wages.

  18. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 85 Victoria Road Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Aniket P commented

    Dear Denise,

    RE: DA/54/2018

    We refer to the proposed development of 85 Victoria Rd (Cnr Macarthur St) Parramatta. This letter is from the Executive Committee of 68 Macarthur Street Parramatta, which adjoins the proposed development site.

    We, on behalf of the residents at 68 Macarthur Street Parramatta, wish to raise some concerns in regards to the proposed development and ask for consideration in regards to the below points: -

    • The proposed development of six stories seems too high for the location. The maximum height of current buildings in the surrounding area is only three stories high and this development would change the current look of the area.
    • The row of units directly adjoining the development is only two stories and the proposed development will tower over these units.
    • We have concerns the height of the proposed building will have a massive impact on our residents privacy and sunlight resulting in higher power bills.
    • The proposed building will be very visible from our pool area, again resulting in loss of privacy.
    • Our complex has extensive garden features which may be impacted by loss of sunlight.
    • Our complex has always been marketed as ‘resort style living’ and a neighbouring complex towering over our complex could very likely negatively impact the value of our units.
    • We are concerned that a development of this size is going to have only one entry & exit point for vehicles at a major intersection and will be prone to vehicle & pedestrian accidents.
    • We also have parking concerns by so many more units being added to the area. Parking around the area is already restricted everyday of the week. This oversized development will require in excess of 108 parking spaces for residents alone, additional spaces for a secondary vehicle & their vistors, car spaces for commercial residents, their customers & deliveries.
    • Finally traffic around this area is already extremely congested especially in peak times. Our residents already experience delays in entering and exiting our complex. This particular corner is an obstacle course. The bus lane on Victoria Rd ends & traffic attempts to compete & merge into the far left lane on Victoria Rd to enter Macarthur St. Once you have navigated this obstacle you are going to be confronted with vehicles entering & exiting the proposed development. Then the third obstacle are vehicles entering & exiting 68 Macarthur St. Traffic is often congested along the full length of Macarthur St and along Victoria Rd. This proposed development will only add to the existing problem.

    As you can see we have many concerns relating to the size and height of the proposed development. We welcome positive and appropriate development of the area. We wish to thank you for considering our concerns when assessing the proposed application.

  19. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Cynthia commented

    Not only the kids safety is the priority, there are also retirement villages built in the area, our senior residents safety need to be carefully considered too!

  20. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - 1 tree...” at 14 Marwood Drive Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Michael The Powerful Owl Guy commented

    If the tree roots pose an issue to sewerage and pool tiles, I would suggest a qualified arborist to undertake diligent root pruning, rather than removing the tree - regardless if the tree is an exotic. A reputable arborist would be able to undertake root pruning without damaging the tree; the benefit? the tree is saved for native fauna habitat, and the work will cost far less than removing the entire tree. Beecroft has lost far too many trees since 2011. Every tree must be preserved for the health of the community and out native fauna. Trees produce shade (protecting a person from the harsh rays of the sun, that result in skin cancer), oxygen, shelter, filter pollution and fights climate change. People move to Beecroft for the trees. Residents are the custodians of the trees not the owner; trees belong to the whole community regardless of there position on private or public land. Trees are the aesthetic, the integrity, the serenity of a community. We need more trees not less.

  21. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 85 Victoria Road Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Aniket P commented

    Traffic Flow:
    The morning peak hour traffic is chaos and in the evening it is worst on macarthur street as this is the only road which connects to the M4 in the western suburb.
    By introducing the shops and extra 14 units this introduced extra traffic with the trucks and customers cars in addition to the residents.The shops adnd extra 14 units make it nearly 100 apartments this is going to be the nightmare for the residents to get in and out of the 68 MacArthur street. It would be better to propose only the exit lane from MacArthur street and entry lane from Victoria road or vice versa. This will reduce the traffic on MacArthur street.

    Natural Lighting and Airflow:
    The Part of the 68 MacArthur street facing towards the Victoria road have a main windows on that side so the units have a proper lighting come into the house. Because of this proposal this will impact the people living on all 3 floors but it get worsts for the people living on the ground floor.So I am against in increasing the FSR and height to facilitate 14 units. This has been opposed on the previous DA and this should not be included as an amendment.

  22. In Rydalmere NSW on “Development Application -...” at 63 Pine Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This is a quiet residential area. Pumping 55 units into the space of 3 residential properties is completely out of keeping with the broader area.
    > St Mary's school at Rydalmere is already congested and drop-off and pick-up is already difficult, and only readlly possible at all while the small carpark across the road (which does not belong to the council) is available.
    > Ideally the development in this area should be limited to duplex to maintain the charm and character of the area which has raised considerably as the area has gone through a natural rejuvenation over the last few years, however the development across the road at 16 Myrtle street was limited to 3 storeys and 12 units, which should be the absolute largest development which is allowed in the area. It is also worth noting that the demolition 16 Myrtle street, a fibro property, occurred next door to a school with no appropriate measures taken to control the potential asbestos distribution, it was simply smashed to the ground while the kids were playing in the playground next door.
    > The development will completely destroy the privacy of the residents living directly behind this development, all of whom are no doubt long term residents who the council is meant to protect, not simply bend over whenever a development walks into the room with a proposal to get rich and destroy a local community.
    Why is it the council will happily line the pockets of a developer, but seem to not care at all when their actions seriously devalue the resident's investment in their property and local community. These developments ultimately force more adjoining residents to move out of the area, and more high density development being put in their place, and all of a sudden we have a lovely ghetto and increasing crime to deal with (which we are already experiencing due to the over development in the Dundas/Rydalmere area).
    Please do your job and represent the needs of your constituents in these matters and stop selling out our communities.

  23. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 3 Lots...” at 2 Braemar Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Edward Heslop wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    This is the one house in this area that under no circumstances should be messed with or reduced in size. It’s physical size depends on a generous house yard as it is a grand house of grand proportions. Given the relative rarity of properties of this scale it should have some sort of planning caveats that exceed the normal conditions. Even if it is not heritage listed it should be planning protected. It’s original driveway from James St is apparently now the axis of modern Geddes Street. Rather than subdivision it should have an historical plaque from council at the front fence celebrating its significance in the South Toowoomba area.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Antonio. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/29 Grandview Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    A. Oliver commented

    Correct me if I’m wrong but are you allowed 5 units on this what was one block living on ??? This needs much more consultation on it’s a massive overdevelopment!
    Has anyone actually seen the impact on this street from poor planning it’s like Russian roulette just trying to manoeuvre up the whole street . A school at the end of street which is rapidly getting larger every year and a kindergarten and another public school just a little further on its utter madness ! How can this be it’s very poor to even give any consideration to such a poor plan needs to be rejected:((
    What about talking to the people and asking how they would like to live :(

  25. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Gagan commented

    This Boarding house was approved 8 years ago. Demographic of Fairway drive and area around is completely different at present. Boarding house is still not built and 100s of families have moved in area area without any knowledge of this approval. Council should reconsider this approval and give current residents a chance to have their say. A decision taken by few many years ago can not be forced upon unsuspecting residents who have been kept in dark about this out of character development for area.
    Residents are very concerned about this development in their neighbourhood specifically next to a new primary school.We urge Council to stop this unjustified development and STRONGLY oppose boarding house on Fairway drive.

  26. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Isobel Deane commented

    Goodness me council. Do you not read the fatigue and frustration in the words of your residents? We are tired of the lack of your consideration towards your constituents and the push for construction. Please. Give it a rest.

  27. In Rydalmere NSW on “Development Application -...” at 63 Pine Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Robert Pellegriti commented

    Are you serious?
    Right near a school ?
    It’s already congested enough during school drop off and pick up.
    Also, How can council guarantee that some dirty paedophile wont have a balcony view of my kids playing in the playground ?

  28. In Kellyville NSW on “Units 1, 2 and 3 - Erection...” at Units, 1-18/Fairway Drive, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Deepak Jain commented

    This is not a suitable location for building a housing board facility next to primary location. I am not sure what is the reasoning behind but along with other residents I am very concerned with the safety of kids in the area. It is also going to make already crowded fairway drive even more crowded.

  29. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 73 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Hayden Walsh commented

    Inner West Council should deny this development application immediately.
    Not only does this development flout the planning controls re floor space and parking but it seeks to destroy the historic streetscape by demolishing the extant fine freestanding 1920s home.
    This home should be protected by heritage controls.

    Across the Inner West there are plenty of run-down, derelict sites, vacant and unused lots, and former industrial sites that developers could reinvigorate with new houses, terraces, and apartments.

    The Inner West Council should work with developers to unlock these potential sites and work to prevent greedy developers from attempting to squeeze in apartments wherever they can.

  30. In Warradale SA on “Removal of three Regulated...” at Ewell Av Warradale:

    andrew jessup commented

    Hello, I'm wondering which trees at the Hamilton Reserve are to be removed and why.

    Thank you
    Andrew

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