Recent comments

  1. In Tranmere SA on “To divide land into 2...” at 3 Rodney Avenue Tranmere SA 5073:

    John Stapledon commented

    Looks like 3 on the block, not 2. How does council allow this? Every one of these developments depletes the tree canopy affecting bird and other life and creating more congestion in the street

  2. In Bronte NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 106 Hewlett Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    Geoff Edwards commented

    The comments of T Craven and Linda Avramides appear to misunderstand the proposal. The proposal is to reconstruct the existing presentation and match the adjoining semi, and thereby maintain and enhance the original Californian bungalow presentation and sandstone features. The proposal is not for a "McMansion".

  3. In Glen Huntly VIC on “Restaurant with liquor...” at 1072-1074 Glen Huntly Road Glen Huntly VIC 3163:

    Joseph Cullen commented

    I object to a planning permit being issued that would waive on-site parking and loading requirements.
    This is an extremely busy part of Glen Huntly Road, opposite one on the municipality's busiest parks viz Booran Reserve.
    Parking is already at a premium in this area.
    I would also object to a permit being issued for the sale of and consumption of liquor in this location, particularly again in relation to its proximity to a park heavily utilized by children and families and many teenagers after school.

  4. In Warradale SA on “One, two storey building...” at 76 Lascelles Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    Paul commented

    This development was already approved several years ago Neil, there were opponents to this application but council will approve a rat cage, so the application was endorsed.

    The applicants were smart in back dooring the council, so the actual building will be a semi detached 2 storey house with separate everything.

  5. In Currumbin Waters QLD on “Material change of use Code...” at 16 Currumbin Creek Road, Currumbin Waters QLD 4223:

    Jeff Hall commented

    OOOOPS, my previous comments were not for this property, rather it was for 7 Molucca Ave Palm Beach.

    Sorry for the mix up

  6. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 7 Molucca Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jeff Hall commented

    1 Building Height
    The current streetscape of Molucca Avenue comprises a mix of residential houses and units. These buildings are all single or double storey, some with pitched rooflines. The proposal significantly exceeds the current building profile heights with no architectural sympathy to relieve the appearance as a rectangular box of 3 floors, and attempting to site usage by exceeding the site coverage and boundary setbacks. The proposal is totally out of character for this streetscape. The height exceedance should not be allowed. This will cause large shaded areas over several adjacent properties.
    The company name, “Kalwun”, and other indigenous artwork should not be allowed as this is not a commercial area NOR is it in line with other buildings outward appearance in the local streets.
    Should Council approve this development it will set a precedent for other developments in similar zoned areas of Palm Beach.
    2 Site Boundary Setbacks
    The proposed development setbacks infringe on adjacent sites’ amenity and the box shape of the building is the worst outcome for neighbours. The architectural for this proposal shows no sympathy for the area and it’s feeling of space.
    3 Site Coverage
    By exceeding the site coverage requirements of the current Town Plan is attempting to maximise floor area.
    4 Vehicle Parking and Driveway
    I note that the design is 2 persons per unit. Council must understand that 8 parking spots for a total of potentially up to 16 vehicles is totally inadequate. Excess cars will park either in allocated visitor bays or on the street. As a long term resident of the area it is almost impossible to find a vacant parking space in Molucca Avenue and nearby streets, and even worse during holiday periods, public holidays and warm weekends and often cars are encroaching on peoples driveways making it near impossible for them to enter/exit. So where will the residents park?
    The survey conducted on the available on-street parking in no way takes into account night time parking, and typically there are no available spaces left in the street.. quite often neighbours have to park in Hawaii Avenue or Luzon Parade.
    Also there are at least 3 less spaces available THAN shown in the survey map due to Council Marked yellow lines, which demonstrates that the actual survey was poorly done OR done from an office chair.
    There will also be a reduction in on street parking due to the larger than normal/standard layback/driveway in this application
    The garbage bin collection point as indicated on the proposal is unworkable due to the fact that there will be vehicles parked there day and night, as is already the case ..the garbage collection truck already has a difficult time operating in our narrow congested street.
    5 Shadow
    The shadow plans show a totally unacceptable overshadowing of adjacent neighbours. The proposed shadowing would preclude the neighbor’s opportunities for energy efficient solar water and a PE system as well as their right to a sunny yard.
    6 Energy Efficient
    The development is not environmentally energy efficient. There should be a resident common garden space, solar hot water and PE, and storm water re-use. Instead it is noncompliance with Council requirements.
    7 Drainage
    The current storm water drainage in Molucca Avenue is totally inadequate as the street frequently floods during heavy rain, (a problem already brought to Councils notification on numerous times)…. The addition of larger roof collection and driveway/parking areas will only compound this further.
    Also of note the proposal states that there are existing 3 storey buildings in the street, THERE are none, of particular, the units across the street are only 2 levels not 3 as indicated.
    The proposal demonstrates the lack of care to detail in ascertaining the correct information regarding property heights, on street parking, storm water drainage and garbage collection.
    I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and I hope that my input and those of other concerned ratepayers are given due consideration and a more thoughtful and architecturally suitable development can be put forward instead.

    We object to the current proposal.

  7. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing 2...” at 56 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    No No No, The whole fabric of the neighbourhood is being destroyed by knocking down charming post war flats and replacing them with modern ugly blocks of apartments that are a blight on the landscape . The land mass ratio is totally ignored with the building taking up all the site leaving little garden area eating up the land above and below.
    It is greed that drives the uglification of Bondi. I’m sick of it !

  8. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    T.Ozer commented

    Hume City Council we are the rate payers! We should be asked and consulted with first. You shouldn't be making this decision independently! I'm tipping some of the decision makers don't even live in Hume, hence the care factor.

    Take other councils around you as an example - and see how they stick up for their rate paying residents! Don't think for second this ends here, we will do everything in our power to oppose and stop this.

    100% OPPOSE...

  9. In Currumbin Waters QLD on “Material change of use Code...” at 16 Currumbin Creek Road, Currumbin Waters QLD 4223:

    Jeff Hall commented

    We object to the current proposal:

    1 Building Height
    The current streetscape of Molucca Avenue comprises a mix of residential houses and units. These buildings are all single or double storey, some with pitched rooflines. The proposal significantly exceeds the current building profile heights with no architectural sympathy to relieve the appearance as a rectangular box of 3 floors, and attempting to site usage by exceeding the site coverage and boundary setbacks. The proposal is totally out of character for this streetscape. The height exceedance should not be allowed. This will cause large shaded areas over several adjacent properties.
    The company name, “Kalwun”, and other indigenous artwork should not be allowed as this is not a commercial area NOR is it in line with other buildings outward appearance in the local streets.
    Should Council approve this development it will set a precedent for other developments in similar zoned areas of Palm Beach.
    2 Site Boundary Setbacks
    The proposed development setbacks infringe on adjacent sites’ amenity and the box shape of the building is the worst outcome for neighbours. The architectural for this proposal shows no sympathy for the area and it’s feeling of space.
    3 Site Coverage
    By exceeding the site coverage requirements of the current Town Plan is attempting to maximise floor area.
    4 Vehicle Parking and Driveway
    I note that the design is 2 persons per unit. Council must understand that 8 parking spots for a total of potentially up to 16 vehicles is totally inadequate. Excess cars will park either in allocated visitor bays or on the street. As a long term resident of the area it is almost impossible to find a vacant parking space in Molucca Avenue and nearby streets, and even worse during holiday periods, public holidays and warm weekends and often cars are encroaching on peoples driveways making it near impossible for them to enter/exit. So where will the residents park?
    The survey conducted on the available on-street parking in no way takes into account night time parking, and typically there are no available spaces left in the street.. quite often neighbours have to park in Hawaii Avenue or Luzon Parade.
    Also there are at least 3 less spaces available THAN shown in the survey map due to Council Marked yellow lines, which demonstrates that the actual survey was poorly done OR done from an office chair.
    There will also be a reduction in on street parking due to the larger than normal/standard layback/driveway in this application
    The garbage bin collection point as indicated on the proposal is unworkable due to the fact that there will be vehicles parked there day and night, as is already the case ..the garbage collection truck already has a difficult time operating in our narrow congested street.
    5 Shadow
    The shadow plans show a totally unacceptable overshadowing of adjacent neighbours. The proposed shadowing would preclude the neighbor’s opportunities for energy efficient solar water and a PE system as well as their right to a sunny yard.
    6 Energy Efficient
    The development is not environmentally energy efficient. There should be a resident common garden space, solar hot water and PE, and storm water re-use. Instead it is noncompliance with Council requirements.
    7 Drainage
    The current storm water drainage in Molucca Avenue is totally inadequate as the street frequently floods during heavy rain, (a problem already brought to Councils notification on numerous times)…. The addition of larger roof collection and driveway/parking areas will only compound this further.
    Also of note the proposal states that there are existing 3 storey buildings in the street, THERE are none, of particular, the units across the street are only 2 levels not 3 as indicated.
    The proposal demonstrates the lack of care to detail in ascertaining the correct information regarding property heights, on street parking, storm water drainage and garbage collection.
    I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and I hope that my input and those of other concerned ratepayers are given due consideration and a more thoughtful and architecturally suitable development can be put forward instead.

    Again,We object to the current proposal.

  10. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR A SECONDARY...” at 14 Rylah Crescent, Wanniassa, ACT:

    James Moloney commented

    James M.

    I agree with everything Emma has noted above. The additional building is clearly designed to house a single person or even a couple in each of the 4 rooms each with there own ensuite. This could mean up to 8 people living in this house and 8 cars needing to be parked. ACTPLA needs to reject this application it is unacceptable!

  11. In Alphington VIC on “Amendment to planning...” at 538-540 Heidelberg Rd Alphington VIC 3078:

    Tas Topalidis commented

    The proposed amendment will have a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties in Yarraford Ave as follows:

    The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the neighborhood character;
    The proposed amendment will have a negative impact on the residential amenity and tranquility of the immediate area;
    Extended trading hours will create a negative visual amenity;
    Noise and disturbance will result from proposed extended trading hours;
    Noise and disturbance will result from trucks collecting bins and delivery vehicles loading and unloading. With extended trading hours it is highly probable that additional waste collections and food deliveries will occur;
    Noise and disturbance will result from bottles smashing when being collected;
    Noise and disturbance will result from patrons consuming alcohol;
    Potential odour emissions will result from the additional waste generated as result of extended trading hours;
    Potential attraction of pests (rats and mice etc) and harbourage areas will result from the additional waste being generated;
    Road accessibility with be adversely impacted, given the proposal is to reduce the current 14 car spaces on-site. If 16 off-site parking spaces are currently required, reducing the current on-site parking will further impact the off-site parking. The reality is, staff and customers have always accessed Yarraford Ave because it is convenient and there are no parking restrictions. This has directly impacted our tenants over the years, who have been affected when entering and exiting the driveway (at 46 Yarraford Ave Alphington) because cars are parked so close to either side of the cross over and directly opposite the cross over (at number 51). This has also negatively affected our tenants visitors.
    Additional cars parked in Yarraford Ave may cause road accessibility and safety problems for all users – patrons, staff, delivery trucks, rubbish trucks and most importantly emergency vehicles;
    With young families residing in the immediate area, children observing the consumption of liquor walking past the café to and from school and after school may cause a negative impact on them.

    Kind regards,
    Tas Topalidis

  12. In McKinnon VIC on “Extension of time to...” at 229 McKinnon Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Miriam Baxt commented

    While this was previously approved as time request means they were, this is an outrageous development on a single block.
    Considering the current climate & that there were far fewer interested buyers off the plan prior to COVID-19, this request should be rejected.

  13. In Morayfield QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 192 Oakey Flat Road, Morayfield QLD 4506:

    Leah Campbell commented

    I acknowledge that in the short term jobs would be created during the construction of this development though I question how many of those jobs would be filled by locals since a large number of developers have their own workforce who move from location to location as required.

    Currently between Caboolture South and Burpengary there are a number of Retail Precincts that do not have 100% occupancy being:

    - Market Plaza - Caboolture South,
    - Morayfield Shopping Centre
    - Morayfield Village Retail Centre
    - Burpengary Central Shopping Centre
    - Burpengary Plaza (very few businesses have opened since the extension)
    - ? Shopping Centre currently under construction opposite Burpengary Railway Station

    The number of retailers (many that have been in business for decades) that have either gone into liquidation, or are currently under Administration, over the last 6 mths places a question mark over the sustainability of the retail sector. Rents and competition with online stores have been identified as reasons behind these business failures. Many consumers are utilising online purchasing and with the current social distancing measures in place it is feasible that more consumers may investigate online shopping with the potential that these consumers will continue to utilise this medium once the social distancing measures are relaxed. More empty shops do not provide employment.

    Many property owners purchased in this rural residential area knowing (and appreciating) that they would have to travel to access services but this 'downside' was more than made up for by being surrounded by nature - to wake up to the sound of birds, walk through natural bush land, investigate the ecosystem of the little creeks and dams or go to sleep to the sounds of male koalas 'barking' (and the possums fighting) - that is what attracted us to the area and there are so very few areas left that offer this that I believe they should be preserved not destroyed.

    I totally concur with Mrs C Wilson that in the area within the boundaries of Anderson Rd, Lindsay Rd, Hunt Rd, Hauton Rd, Bridges Rd, Oakey Flat Rd any development/sub division should be eco friendly rural residential lots whereby the natural elements of the area are enhanced not destroyed - e.g. the Hideaway

    I note a recent media release regarding the Moreton Bay Koala Mapping Review (primarily refers to protecting koala habitat but also local biodiversity) and I question whether this proposed Development will be assessed against it:

    "Moreton Bay Koala Mapping Review
    Published 27 March 2020

    Koala conservation and new koala habitat mapping across Moreton Bay was discussed when Minister for Environment Leeanne Enoch, department representatives and the Member for Pine Rivers Nikki Boyd met with Moreton Bay acting Mayor Mike Charlton, and community representatives from the Moreton Bay Region.

    Minister Enoch said that she has asked the Department of Environment and Science (DES) to work with the Moreton Bay Regional Council to ensure local biodiversity values have the appropriate level of protection.

    “The state’s new koala habitat protections are the strongest protections Queensland has ever seen and cover 690,000 hectares across South East Queensland which is an increase of over 421,000 hectares on what was in place under the previous state mapping.” Minister Enoch said.

    “We’ve used a state-of-the-art methodology and are following the advice of the experts.

    “The Member for Pine Rivers Nikki Boyd MP has been a strong advocate in her community and I would like to thank her and Mike Charlton the acting Mayor for Moreton Bay for working with the Government to ensure the best possible habitat protections are in place.

    “The work that’s being done will enable some parcels of land to be covered by the interim protections we already have in place, while an assessment of the habitat is undertaken.”

    Nikki Boyd MP said that her community are passionate about our local biodiversity and want to make sure that it is protected.

    “We’ve been working together with the community to make sure the most appropriate protections are in place for Moreton Bay’s koalas and the other wildlife we share this beautiful place with.” Ms Boyd said.

    The Department of Environment and Science and Moreton Bay Regional Council have also met with the Herbarium and expert panel chair Dr Jonathon Rhodes.

    DES officers are now assisting Council to identify additional data that may support further areas being included in the two-year transitional provisions or establish other mechanisms to protect areas with locally significant biodiversity values.

    Acting Mayor Mike Charlton said Council and the State Government had been working well together.

    “This is a win for locals and a testament to the success of local koala care groups in advocating the need for green corridors remain so that koalas can safely move between habitats,” Cr Charlton said.

    “I want to thank Minister Enoch for having an open door, an open mind and taking such pragmatic and decisive action in response to our concerns.

    “Moreton Bay Regional Council has one of the only koala management programs in all of Australia that is actually increasing our local population and we want to continue this success.

    “Our aim is for Moreton Bay Region to be the benchmark for koala protections, by demonstrating how urban planning can integrate with our natural environment to ensure human population growth doesn’t come at the cost of native species.

    “I look forward to continuing this productive relationship with the Environment Minister and thank our local Members of Parliament for helping to organise this meeting.”

    The Queensland Government received thousands of submissions during public consultation on the draft Strategy and is now analysing that feedback to inform delivery of a final Strategy later in 2020."

    Please consider the matters raised above and reject Development Application
    2020 / 40602 / V2L

    Kind Regards
    Mrs L Campbell
    Lot 97 SP 10210

  14. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 7 Molucca Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    This Development must have more car spaces ...
    Inadequate parking spaces is unacceptable.

  15. In Tweed Heads West NSW on “Amendment to Development...” at Hakea Drive, Tweed Heads West NSW 2485:

    N commented

    Kennedy Drive is already a traffic jam and with all the other developments Tweed has approved going to get worse.
    Unless council opens up their depot as a through way to the road out to the motorway or finds alternate roads it will be grid lock every peak hour to allow this.
    I have already had issues trying to get to the hospital in a hurry with the traffic.

  16. In Coledale NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens title...” at 650 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Coledale NSW 2515:

    Gerald Ross Vartan commented

    Submission: Da 2020/228 - 650 Lawrence Hargrave Drive.

    The submission for subdividing the above single lot as per address above from 1 lot to 2 lots. I object to this submission in its current form because:

    1. The council site plan shows that most of the area of 650 LHD is “a restricted building zone” with just a small area at the top of ridge allocated for the building –the existing building sits there (I believe this is because of historical land slippage issues in the area). By subdividing this lot from 1 to 2 mean that there is no longer any ‘restricted building zone’ to both lots and does that mean all property on the southern side will have no building restrictions either?

    2. Currently there exists a stormwater and drainage easement (I do not know if this is still current) on the southern side of property 652 LHD.
    This easement comprises structures for the drainage of ground water from the top of the ridge of 650 LHD down to and under the roadway to the ocean. The said drainage structure is a concrete spillway and a 250mm pipe that disappears into the ground and runs through the property (652) and under the boundary line and into the property of 650 as per council maps.
    Many years ago the owners of 650 filled in drainage pit on their side of the boundary with 652. The beginning of this stormwater and drainage structure now start with a pit inside 652. So currently all stormwater from the top of ridge of 650 drains ESE and over properties 652 and 652A. A building and retaining walls, as shown on the current plan, will only increase the diversion of the ground water onto adjacent properties 652 & 652A to a further extent. This includes the undermining the foundations of 652.

    3. There is always vibration through the ground in this ‘amphitheatre’ (it shakes window glass) from a wave breaking on the ocean rock shelf or when music with a low base note is played indoors (you can’t hear it but you can feel it). With all the proposed ‘rock breaking’ going on will vibration from it do to structural damage to other properties adjacent. Is the ground stable?

  17. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 7 Molucca Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Ian Robinson commented

    My concern is with the small amount of off street parking for the amount of units because when we built we had to have 2 off street parks per unit and had 3 rejections because council did not think the plans showed we could do that,our street is at most times full of cars parked on the street and even worse when on hot sunny days people going to the pirate park use our street parking.

  18. In Redland Bay QLD on “Inground Pool and Pool Fence” at 7 Westburn Court, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    ray kennedy commented

    They are working on a sunday with an excavator date 5/4/20 commenced 8am still working 9am this is against council regulations not allowed to work on a sunday

  19. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR A SECONDARY...” at 14 Rylah Crescent, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Emma W commented

    This building is of an inappropriate size for its location, and seems to be of an unusual design. As a four bedroom dwelling, all with ensuites and separate entrances, with extremely limited shared living space, the design seems to suggest use as a share house, student accommodation or short-term accommodation, rather than a regular residential build (and the design is indeed marketed as such on the builder's website). This seems out of character with the street, which had one of the lowest scores in Wanniassa on the ABS' Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage.

    With a total of seven bedrooms between the two dwellings, there is inadequate parking available on-site to accommodate residents of both dwellings. One parking space has been allocated to this new dwelling, and there is no visitor parking on the provided plans. This is particularly problematic given the new build's likely use as short-term accommodation. Rylah Crescent is a narrow, tight road, and on-street parking is limited.

    The building unnecessarily encroaches the solar envelope - a smaller dwelling, more appropriate to the size of the site would not have this issue.

  20. In Guildford WA on “Proposed timber Fences &...” at 79 James Street Guildford WA 6055:

    Victoria commented

    As a Hubert Street resident I approve, support and welcome the submission for the proposed fencing at 79 James Street. I look forward to seeing the beautiful end result which will be in keeping with both Hubert and James Streets. This will not only improve the privacy and security for its owners but improve on the streetscape.

  21. In Boondall QLD on “Multiple Dwelling, Multiple...” at 287 Muller Rd Boondall QLD 4034:

    Marco Alberti commented

    I strongly support the proposed units being orientated to and having vehicular access from Muller Road making this a far superior layout than the one to the south. Also strongly request that the footpath constructed to the Muller Road frontage be setback from the back of kerb by at least 1.5 metres as the one to the immediate south is located far too close and therefore the street trees intrude into the footpath space requiring pedestrians to leave the path to walk past street trees.

  22. In Guildford WA on “Proposed timber Fences &...” at 79 James Street Guildford WA 6055:

    Judith Scorer commented

    I totally agree with regard to the proposed fencing at 79 James St Guildford.
    The owners have been trying for years to resolve this issue to everyone’s satisfaction.the fence is absolutely necessary for the safety, security and privacy of the owners, their children and property.
    The timber fence that has been already built is a huge improvement on the old timber pickets and I have no doubt the front fence will be built to the same high standard.
    Looking forward to a speedy resolution and a fabulous new front fence. Totally in keeping with both Hubert Street and James Street landscapes.

  23. In Chipping Norton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 162 Longstaff Avenue Chipping Norton NSW 2170:

    Anne Forsyth commented

    I total disagree with this development. I have lived in the area for 40 years and in this street for 14 years.
    As we reside towards the cul de sac part of the street, this area can get very congested with extra cars, let alone 8 units going up with at least 2 cars per unit.
    Also if this proceeds through council, when construction commences we as residents at the end of the street, makes it very difficult for residents to pass through.
    Liverpool council should be ashamed of all the units going up in our once lovely suburb.
    We don’t have enough parking at Moorebank shops now let alone more and more units that are increasing.
    So it’s a NO from me.

  24. In Guildford WA on “Proposed timber Fences &...” at 79 James Street Guildford WA 6055:

    Daniel Morath commented

    I think the fence will look improve the streetscape and do justice to the previous fence.
    The owners definitely need the privacy as James Street is very busy and the adjacent neighbours on Hubert Street have been allowed to build a massive extension, which allows views into the backyard.
    The brick fence is in keeping with what has otherwise been accepted along James Street and the timber reflects the more modest Hubert Street.
    Looking forward to the completion!

  25. In Waterloo NSW on “Concept (stage 1)...” at 207-229 Young Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Yo De Torres commented

    I agree with Alexa. This development is of a huge scale and will have a massive impact on the surrounding area. It must surely be considered within the context of a cohesive vision for the entire precinct. It is such as shame that there has not been more co-ordinated planning for the redevelopment of Waterloo and Zetland. The mish-mash of building styles, materials, size and finishes of new developments has really diminished the aesthetics of the area. Let's try and get it right from here on in.

  26. In Bronte NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 106 Hewlett Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    Linda Avramides commented

    I agree with T Craven. This is a travesty. Yet another 100+ year old Federation House with original sandstone features that could be restored instead destroyed for another McMansion thus destroying the amenity and heritage of the Bronte a bit more. The character of our suburbs is being decimated. Yesterday whilst walking in Coogee I overheard a girl from the UK commenting on how strange Coogee is. "Each house look different here. In the UK each suburb has retained its historic character..." Please stop this happening while they think we aren't looking.

  27. In Guildford WA on “Proposed timber Fences &...” at 79 James Street Guildford WA 6055:

    Daniel Morath commented

    I think the fence will look improve the streetscape and do justice to the previous fence.
    The owners definitely need the privacy as James Street is very busy and the adjacent neighbours on Hubert Street have been allowed to build a massive extension, which allows views into the backyard.
    The brick fence is in keeping with what has otherwise been accepted along James Street and the timber reflects the more modest Hubert Street.
    Looking forward to the completion!

  28. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 3 Gowan Court Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    It is difficult to comment on the amendments to the approval when those conditions are not stated here. Therefor I feel that the original conditions should stand.

  29. In Bronte NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 106 Hewlett Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    T Craven commented

    Very sad to see another 100+ year old Federation House with original sandstone features that could be restored instead destroyed for another McMansion thus destroying the amenity and heritage of the Bronte a bit more.

  30. In Warradale SA on “Regulated tree - removal” at 36 Kent Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    Geoff commented

    you may well find that any planning application by a council needs to be assessed by a separate state government planning authority, and they charge the applicant fees as well.
    My understanding is that If a council wishes to cut down or prune a regulated/significant tree because it is diseased or damaged, they need to get planning approval. Of course the power companies have no such restraints AFAIK . I may well be wrong in both cases. Happy to be corrected. .

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