Recent comments

  1. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Gemma commented

    I have been informed by council that only the rear of the property will be demolished to facilitate an extension, and that the front of the property will remain.

  2. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a building...” at 67 Barden Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    There is no need for this whatsoever in our little community of Barden Ridge. Especially amongst our residential homes. This application needs to be knocked back asap. Our community will not stand for a place of public worship e.g mosque in 2234 at all. SSC needs to stop this proceeding any further!

  3. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a new...” at 152 Old Illawarra Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    Fully support the development it's long overdue for Barden Ridge. Teens will hang out anywhere that can't be a reason not to build. We need to be our own community not just a dumping ground for the Shires waste (tip) & a reactor. Traffic is everywhere & our traffic is mostly due to out of area students attending the Christian School & visitors to the Church during the day & evenings.

  4. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a building...” at 67 Barden Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    No place of public worship of any religion is needed in Barden Ridge. Barden Ridge has a Church already, the community requires so much more than a place of public worship.

  5. In Woody Point QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 13 Samuel Street, Woody Point QLD 4019:

    Sue Napier commented

    DA tracker (MBRC replacement for PD Online) doesn't work to see exactly what is proposed

  6. In Kilsyth VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 5 Idinia Street, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Diane commented

    Stop the over development of our suburban blocks. Enough is enough, your turning our suburbs into slums of the future. The traffic in our suburbs, is already chokng our small streets. I fear all the Council cares about, is raking in more money, from all the extra Rate Payers. Wake up before you destroy our Suburbs.

  7. In Highgate Hill QLD on “Carry Out Building Work -...” at 45 Mabel St Highgate Hill QLD 4101:

    Dr William James Metcalf commented

    Objection to the proposed redevelopment of 45 Mabel St., Highgate Hill (Application A005641086)

    I live at 50 Mabel Street, across from and just down from #45. We have lived here for 39 years.
    Mabel Street, south of Gertrude Street, is dead-end, running steeply down to an old creek at the bottom of the hill. Several houses on our street have more cars than off-street parking spots (and some have cars but no off-street parking), so our street is frequently congested. Garbage and delivery trucks, in particular, often have serious problems trying to turn around, usually impossible, or reverse up the steep hill - often not possible when it rains.
    Two of the houses on Park Road West also use Mabel Street for car access, and sometimes parking, so that adds more cars to our congestion.
    The proposed expansion of #45 Mabel Street would change that building from two to five bedrooms, from two to three stories, would more than double the footprint on this small block of land, and roughly triple the inhabitable floor space. It would also shade the garden of #47 Mabel Street.
    With heavy rain, a tremendous flow of water comes down Mabel Street and the storm-water drains are often unable to cope, so serious flooding affects the houses on Park Road West. One resident has installed sandbags near the storm-water drain below #45 to try to staunch this regular flooding of his yard and car. More than doubling the roof area of #45 would more than double its runoff, contributing to these unresolved flooding issues.
    Such a gross expansion of this cottage would seriously add to the current congestion on Mabel Street and utterly destroy the aesthetic and heritage value of this house (just as has been allowed to happen with the totally inappropriate modifications to the house four-doors above. It was a lovely, three-bedroom cottage and is now an ugly monstrosity, totally out of character.)
    To allow #45 to be redeveloped and expanded, as proposed, would reduce the 1880s heritage value of our whole street and, I believe, it would adversely affect the value of everyone else's property on our street.
    A small point on the issue of heritage is that ex Governor-General, Bill Hayden, was born and grew up at 48 Mabel Street.
    During the building process at #45 there would be serious impacts on Mabel, Louisa, Park Road West and, perhaps, Gertrude Street residents from trucks, machinery, tradesmen’s utes, etc. The impact would be noise, soil runoff and even worse street congestion.
    As an historian, I know that #45 Mabel Street (like our own home) was built in the mid to late 1880s. What charm it retains would be totally destroyed through the proposed expansion.
    And, on a procedural matter, there is no sign alerting neighbours to this proposed development, nor has any attempt been made by the non-resident owner and would-be developer to advise and consult with neighbours.

  8. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of an eight...” at 15 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Glenn commented

    8 storeys for just 21 apartments - clearly an overdevelopment of a small site.

  9. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mel W commented

    I object to the development usage of a 31 room boarding house. The neighbouring buildings are all home to working professionals, and young families and there is a lovely community feel in this part of Bondi. Boarding houses such as these attract transient tenants who have little respect for local noise laws. In areas like bondi these are likely to become party houses. There are already numerous other boarding houses in Bondi e,g Lamrock Avenue, Edwards Street, Campbell parade. I do not believe there is a need for more of this type of accommodation.

  10. In Corrimal NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 404 Princes Highway, Corrimal NSW 2518:

    Liz Mendygral commented

    Development is necessary for a continually evolving suburb however the cummulative affect of all the development taking place in the suburb should be taken into account when approvals are granted. Corrimal is not a suburb of Sydney but has and will continue to have the problems eg traffic congestion that exist in Sydney unless considered development approvals are granted and not just growth in a haphazad and greedy fashion.

  11. In Culburra Beach NSW on “Two (2) lot Torrens title...” at 32 West Cr, Culburra Beach, NSW:

    John Smith commented

    People choose to live in Culburra because of the low density lifestyle that single story houses on large plots can deliver. All the building blocks in this area are approximately 1,000 square meters, they were made this size to maintain this low density that makes Culburra so attractive. To suddenly double the density in this quiet area is completely out of character of the local neighbourhood. This land was bought as a single block and should remain as a single block as are all the other plots in the area, not subdivided for the greed of an investor.

  12. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet” at 183 Wynnum Esp Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Donna Carter commented

    As a local, we see so many more people from outer suburbs coming to enjoy the area, more places along the waterfront are always welcome, more places to eat will enhance the area and bring families. It will create extra jobs in the local area. My hope is that they create an inside area to dine as well, it’s hard trying to find a table on the waterfront and sometimes the wind is against us. I think another establishment to eat will be wonderful.

  13. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Tristan commented

    I don't like the size of the building and that is will be a boarding house. We need residents in that area.

  14. In Woy Woy NSW on “Residential Flat Building &...” at 16 Bowden Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Jj commented

    These development is really unnecessary.The place is already congested with traffic and not enough parking spaces for the residents.We have commercial buildings and 2 schools which is making the street already busy all the time

  15. In Pooraka SA on “Land division - 1 into 2” at 9 Rowland Road , Pooraka SA 5095:

    Lynne O'Flaherty commented

    Are details available on the division of the land e.g. block split in half, front block then hammerhead block at rear? Are plans available on the proposed dwellings, single or double story?

  16. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Vinoo Lele commented

    We strongly object to the proposal. We wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. Our houses on Myee Crescent have only a single narrow road for entry and exit. The construction will block traffic at various times for trucks to enter and exit thereby residents experiencing delays getting to work / school on time. Once completed the traffic and parking in the street will increase. We would like to endorse the objections raised by others in the area.

  17. In Corlette NSW on “Dual occupancy & TT...” at 14 Sergeant Baker Dr, Corlette 2315 NSW:

    Deb Hardwick commented

    I have recently moved to 16 Sergeant BakerDrive. Approval has been given for solar panels to be installed on 3 February 2021 to my property. I would be interested to view plans for the property 14 Sergeant Baker please, as it could make a difference to the placement of the panels. And I am curious as to the proposed building.

  18. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    H Greenwood commented

    The constant division of land does not seem to take into account the impact on local wildlife or green space, which is what attracts people to the area. Nor does it allow for the extra traffic joining a busy, quite dangerous road. If the rates collected from this development are going to be spent on these areas, perhaps the council can include that in the development plan and alleviate local concerns.
    The local council need to decide what their plan for the area is. Are they planning to allow Athelstone to become an area of high density poor quality housing ?

  19. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Robbie Porter commented

    If this beautiful house is to be demolished for something circa 2000-2021 (i.e. dog boxes) it is such a shame. What happened to buildings/houses adding CHARACTER to a suburb? It is obvious the good old dollar rules these days.....Shame on you Council and developers.

  20. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    Julie Muirson commented

    I too, am concerned with the rate of development in Athelstone, but I’m more concerned by the number of mature eucalypts that are removed in order to maximise the number of plots. We seem to have less green area and more concrete, surrounding box-like high density housing. This must put greater strain on all our utilities as well as council facilities.
    Do developers have different rights in regards to removing trees than ratepayers?

  21. In Sandringham VIC on “1 Dwelling - New - Heritage...” at 29 Bamfield Street Sandringham VIC 3191:

    Jillian Callaghan commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I object to the planning application because the property is under heritage overlay HO24. What is the purpose of having an overlay and going through the process of classifying a building as heritage if it is to be overridden?

    As a result of Kerami’s ties to the early establishment of the area the property has historic and cultural significance. Its interesting architectural features also give it aesthetic significance. The demolition of this property would therefore detrimentally impact the municipality’s neighbourhood character, local history and liveability particularly in the face of surrounding subdivision and 'development'. Most importantly it provides a sense of identity and continuity in a fast changing world for current and future generations.

    Walking along Bamfield street never fails to give me pleasure because of the character of the buildings and the interest and beauty of Kerami. I am proud to show off the street particularly Kerami to visitors. As the area has few buildings of such historical significance and interest, it would be madness to demolish Kerami.

    Additionally, conservation of Kerami contributes to environmental and economic sustainability. A sensitive renovation of this house markedly reduces the waste, embodied energy and associated greenhouse gases which result from a demolition and a new build.

    Thank you for considering my objection.

    Yours faithfully,
    Jill Callaghan.

  22. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    H Greenwood commented

    The constant division of land does not seem to take into account the impact on local wildlife or green space, which is what attracts people to the area. Nor does it allow for the extra traffic joining a busy, quite dangerous road. If the rates collected from this development are going to be spent on these areas, perhaps the council can include that in the development plan and alleviate local concerns.
    The local council need to decide what their plan for the area is. Are they planning to allow Athelstone to become an area of high density poor quality housing ?

  23. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Karen Demellweek commented

    This proposal is wanting to change the existing approval by the Joint Regional Planning Committee which as a group we opposed strongly but were unsuccessful. A service access to and from Newport Rd was discussed but the RMS has categorically stated that this would not be an option because of the existing infrastructure.
    People would try to use it as an on or off ramp to the M1 which it would not be designed to do. The developer is trying to change an existing approval that went through a rigorous debate and consultation period with the community to get the approval as it stands.

    If people choose to be employed there then they must like everyone else enter via the M1.
    Noise and pollution is still an ongoing concern for residents who live on the adjoining properties and has not be addressed to the communities satisfaction.

  24. In Tootgarook VIC on “Shed - vicsmart” at 8 Carly Place Tootgarook VIC 3941:

    Anthony Daniel commented

    Hi Lynette,
    I know exactly how you feel and my sympathy with you; Notwithstanding, my circumstances are different.
    I followed what I considered to be reasonable and considerate protocol when I checked with the Shire regards to locating a temporary storage shipping container on our local property.
    It was explained clearly that it is prohibited to place any such structure between the existing house structure and the front boundary. Whereupon I commissioned plans to be prepared and applied for a building permit to accomodate our need.
    The cost was great, however I was pleased to have taken counsel from Shire officers. What annoys the heck out of me more than ever now is the number of shipping containers located in front yards in what appears to be a violation of Shire regulations.
    I think the Shire could do better in explaining and distributing, in clear language, building and planning requirements for suburban allotments.

  25. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Gemma commented

    Again, why demolish an attractive habitable heritage property that contributes to the delightful streetscape of this suburb? Contemporary additions are understandable, but demolition?

  26. In Woy Woy NSW on “STAGED Multi-dwelling housing” at 8 Farnell Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Margaret Atkins commented

    what will be the situation once the updating of Blackwall Road by RMS comes into action re drainage, noise, pollution, law etc. I have just been in touch with Council regarding drainage and was told they knew nothing of the new updating RMS will be doing so what is going on there, as it is proposed to put footpath along Farnell Road which will take soil and grass away so water will have no soakage when it rains. NO MORE EYESORES
    PLEASE. Neighbours checkout the RMS update.

  27. In Oatley NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 18 Letitia Street, Oatley NSW 2223:

    Helen commented

    I hope the new construction will not be higher than the existing building

  28. In Plympton Park SA on “Two Single Storey detached...” at 2 Stradbroke Av, Plympton Park 5038 SA:

    Douglas Searle commented

    Two dwellings is acceptable in this area. Three and more dwellings creates big problems with off street parking.

  29. In Prospect SA on “Renovation of Existing...” at 99 Churchill Road Prospect SA 5082:

    Dr Catherine Grace commented

    Dear City of Prospect,

    I have sincere concerns about this application for 'renovation of an existing warehouse'.
    Firstly and most prominent,is the large works have been taking place without any applications: this includes the removal of the front, the roof, and the installation of spray-booth equipment.
    Even today -21.02.21- there are individuals at 99 Churchill working on the premises.My greatest concern is since they have already installed the items necessary for a 'spray booth' in the form of a large exhaust (on the forward front left near the roller door) that they will say this item was already at the property. The noise, fumes, and business would greatly impact my quality of life, and all those residents who attend the park across the street.

    I can to know about the spray-booth as the tow-truck driver who delivered it was speaking to residents in the area, and I was informed by someone who heard him speaking. I noticed the equipment and build, but I was unaware of the nature of the fan that I saw installed.

    My other concern is the lack of Community respect shown by those working on 99 Churchill; works have been done without permits, during lockdown; later in the evening and weekends (noise disturbance). I am aware that the City of Prospect has plans for the Churchill Corridor, and this business does not seem to be in-alignment with that plan for an improved, livable, and enjoyable place to live, shop and work.

    I am requesting to be updated on the progress, and I hope that Council reviews the building, the application and considers its impact thoroughly.

  30. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Sian Mueller commented

    I wish to submit my objection to the proposed 44 dwelling "Boarding House" development above.

    (1) The 44 dwelling building is totally out of character for the neighbourhood and would be a dangerous precedent in an area which is dominated by a quiet family orientated street of single residences of no more than 2 stories.

    (2) Parking. An additional 44 dwellings with only 23 car spots would obviously significantly increase the need for on street parking in the area. The parking around Penrose Street and Wood Street is already incredibly difficult with the roads basically turning into one way streets. Drivers have to wait for other cars driving in the other direction as there is no space for cars to pass each other. During school pick up and drop off it causes large traffic jams and frustrated drivers and is a danger to children going to and from school. This is also a massive issue on the weekend with children's sport where it gets so bad that the whole of Penrose street becomes a parking lot for people going to Blackman Oval. On two occasions I was stuck for the most of the day not able to get my car out of my house as people had blocked my exit by parking across the road. I believe an increase in another 44 residents is an impossible addition to our quiet neighbourhood.

    (3) Extra traffic. More people means more cars and more traffic along Wood Street and Penrose Street and Johnston Lane. It is terrible especially during peak hours (in the afternoon already bad from as early as 3:30pm coinciding with the school pick up which is 3:25pm) with many cars using these back streets as a "rat run" to avoid Centennial Ave. We have seen a detrimental effect from the massive Burns Bay Road development and another 44 resident dwelling would only make things disastrous.

    (4) "Affordable" Housing. Whilst I am a big advocate for affordable housing (My mother and I used to live in Housing Commission) we already have a very large Housing complex at 80 Penrose Street (which I live next door to) and another along Wood Street (where my mother still lives). Whilst I am proud that our neighbourhood welcomes people less fortunate than ourselves it is a sad fact that there are regular visits by police at 80 Penrose Street and a growing problem with mental illness and drugs and drug dealers, which in turn increases violent incidents. Inviting more lower income and transient residents into the area risks this problem getting worse.

    So I strongly object to the proposal and hope that some sense can prevail. There is already too much traffic and not enough parking in the area and we wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. I believe this Boarding House to be the first step in the erosion of this community.

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