Recent comments

  1. In Wiley Park NSW on “Removal of wall & Kitchen...” at 39 McCourt Street, Wiley Park NSW:

    ISLAM SYEEDUL commented

    This new proposal is great step stone for the local community as well as whole of Australia in general.
    The propose site is not historic nor have any heritage listed area that could prevent further development instead more people bring into this community means more business more jobs for local.

    There will be no environmental issue at all reason being less car movement will be in this area, because this place will be served for the local adjacent area so people can walk to this place without need to bring their car. Also, it's not going to damage any wild life nor destroying their habitat.

    This is one of the significant proposal in Wiley park are and I strongly support this application.

  2. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    G E commented

    No no no. Our roads can't handle the extra traffic or parking as it is.

  3. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Marianne fusillo wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    The traffic is already at a standstill around here let alone putting more apartments, cars and people in. Your actual job is to look at if infrastructure can support this kind of development. No it can't. Already there aren't enough roads, and roads that are there are already restricted in terms of not being able to drive down all of them due to no through roads and heritage overlay. Furthermore, there are not enough primary schools to service the population - KPS is working way above capacity as is Holay Rosary. There is no local high school nearby. Put some money into education instead! PT is already standing room only at 6.30am and parking is impossible for residents who do live here. This is an unsustainable and quite frankly a negligent development. It should not receive council approvement and should not go ahead. There are already apartments up a couple of hundred meters down the road either side of this site as well as Arden just a couple of kms down the road too - and that is more than enough for the area. Too much even! As a council you should be encouraging investors to make Docklands more liveable instead! That's an area that you seem to have given up on because it had too many apartments and therefor didn't work. Put in schools, a cinema, play areas, community spaces and community will grow there. Have some common sense, please!

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

  4. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Michael carroll commented

    Out of character for the existing area. Current high of buildings that existing should be complemented not ignored. Existing infastructure in inadequate for this area epecially in regards to traffic flow and parking.

  5. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Marta Bogdanska commented

    I have rented and now I own property in Kensington and I think 82 apartments is much to big for the following reasons

    1. Already there are parking issues surrounding the iga, as stated by numerous people above. Adding more apartments, especially in an area with lots of share houses (which these apartments will no doubt have) means more than one car per apartment on average and the area is already at capacity, especially at night

    2. The intersection on gatehouse and Smithfield is already at capacity, and adding more local traffic will need to prompt a review of the turning restriction in the morning onto gatehouse (otherwise epsom will take a huge load of traffic, and Smithfield might become overwhelmed with illegal u-turns), and of the lanes sizes and light timing.

    I believe any new development should be in approximate size to the surrounding apartments on gatehouse, and surplus parking allocated. With each apartment come multiple inhabitant and of course their visitors and guests.

    Furthermore 82 apartments doesn't suit this area, and would not fit in with the atmosphere and appearance of the suburb which is partly why so many people want to live here.

  6. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Gwen Haritonidis commented

    My family and I have lived in Upper Ferntree Gully for 38 years and have enjoyed the ambience and the area being The Gateway to The Dandenong Ranges Park. We do not need another service station or fast food restaurant in this position. The public is well serviced with petrol stations and Burwood Highway does not need another one in such proximity to the other petrol stations. Also taking into account the Wildfire Management Overlay (BMO or WMO) it would make no sense to locate a petrol station in such a position.
    Please listen to the residents' real concerns about this proposed use.

  7. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Christian Thorn commented

    1. In the context of poor / non-existent management of existing parking restrictions, the addition of more housing without sufficient car parks of their own is very poor. Relevant councillors and planners should look at evidence of existing car parking problems before further considering

    2. The immediate vicinity is already struggling from excessive traffic throughput (a rat run to cut through to the city in morning traffic). This high density will only make it worse.

    3. The overall height is inconsistent with the immediate built environment and would materially degrade existing amenity of residents

  8. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Pamela Frost commented

    This propsal is totally inappropriate for the medium density, award-winning area that is Kensington Banks. Any new buildings in this area should be in keeping with the surrounding buildings. Inadequate parking is particularly a problem

  9. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Julia glass commented

    82 apartments with limited parking will cause massive issues. I live in the banks and we already have massive parking issues, often having to park well away from our house due to insufficient parking provided and overflow from developments like speakman street. Additionally, the intersection at gatehouse drive and Smithfield roads is already a bottleneck for traffic and cars getting in and out of the 1 gatehouse drive development. Another 82 apartments with insufficient infrastructure to support parking and traffic flow is unacceptable. Please do not approve!

  10. In Shoal Bay NSW on “Extended trading...” at Shoal Bay Rd, Shoal Bay, NSW:

    Mark Williams commented

    https://amp.dailytelegraph.com.au/home/the-worst-pubs-named-and-shamed/news-story/ba610d5341954bd98706b8425256bd9c
    15 assaults in 1 year. Extending until 2 am will make it worse. The noise of the bands is a nightmare for residents. Please consider us and our safety and not greedy owners

  11. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Andrew Wong commented

    I have solar panels on my roof. I will not be happy if this 9 storey building shadows them.

  12. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Kate Golaszewski commented

    I live in Kensington Banks and parking in that area is already at a premium. In addition, traffic can be a massive issue already- folks driving in/out of the IGA car park, coming in/out of smithfield road and the nearby streets. 82 apartments is a ridiculous amount of apartments to put in that area and will only serve to benefit developers, whilst leaving the local community significantly worse off.

  13. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Kathryn Daly commented

    Navigating through gatehouse drive is already tight enough. As the only outlet from the Banks onto Princes Hwy, it needs to be free from parking congestion. It will act as a bottleneck. Any development of 16-22 Gatehouse Dr must have adequate parking included. I understand the need for more medium-density housing, but I also want to make sure the infrastructure supports comfortable living and commuting. Kind regards, Kathryn Daly, nearby resident and ratepayer at 74 Bayswater Rd, Kensington

  14. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Kel Andersen commented

    This proposed development is not in keeping with the Kensington Banks area and height restrictions should be addressed – this is three times (x3) the height of apartments across the road and is totally inappropriate for a suburban area, as well as privacy concerns of nearby neighbours it creates.

    There is a real concern that being this large will also cast a large shadow over adjacent existing open living areas and preventing natural light and ventilation to adjacent existing properties.

    As many other local residents have mentioned in above comments, parking issues in the Banks area is already a concern and this will not only cause further parking chaos but introduce extra amount of traffic in what is a residential area. These types of developments in suburban areas are shameful!

  15. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Therese Ryan wrote to local councillor Cathy Oke

    I am most concerned that this proposal is not in keeping with the low rise aspect of the kensington community and therefore I object to the planning proposal. The traffic is local and not condusive for such a high influx of traffic through the kensington estate. There is insufficient parking provisions and this is unsatisfactory as a residential solution.

    Delivered to local councillor Cathy Oke. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Kay commented

    Much too high an apartment block for this low rise leafy residential area. Parking already a struggle and this will vastly exacerbate the problem. A high density block like this is a total contrast to the rest of the area and will devalue many properties nearby as these will be 'in the shadow' of the large block. Please do not approve this building.

  17. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Jason Montgomery commented

    This development is totally inappropriate for this area and will have a negetive inpact not only on the surrounding environment (as both an eye sore but also as the development will significantly affect the distribution of natural light in the surrounding area) but also to property values within the suburb.
    In addition any application that seeks to introduce not only more traffic onto local streets but also more cars parked along allready congested streets is an outrage.
    Please advise how I or others in the suburb can lodge formal complaint etc to record our oposition to this application.

  18. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Sally Scott commented

    My family and I live in Upper Ferntree Gully and we disagree with the approach being taken to build a petrol station. There are 7 petrol stations between Scoresby Road and Upper Ferntree Gully, we don't need any more. Especially in a high fire risk area such as this one the council need to consider the danger they will be putting on the area including people, wildlife and natural vegetation. Please consider reviewing options for the site that local residents would be happy with.

  19. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Alexander Hons commented

    I oppose this development because of the impact on Lambert rd Reserve. This reserve is directly behind the proposed development is sensitive to vehicle access and any related traffic access; especially large construction vehicles. In the past any heavy traffic has created noise to surrounding neighbours and damage to the flora within this reserve. The bush regeneration in this reserve has been supported by council and local residents. I would anticipate that this fine bush regeneration work would be continued and any future major efforts to damage the reserve, even though indirectly, should not be allowed.

    A nearby recent development very close to this proposal had also created more night light pollution and loss of trees. The visual appearance as noted from Darley Road of several stories of building cascading down from Lambert Road also impacts on the 'green' look and feel of this area. From the proposal some heavy drilling equipment may need to be used and thus more noise created. The loss of so many large trees within the existing property is also a concern. Any noise created within this valley region has always been more pronounced due to the valley acoustics.

  20. In South Yarra VIC on “Variation of Licence” at Birdwood Avenue, South Yarra 3141, VIC:

    Fiona commented

    What is the exact address on Birdwood Avenue and what is the name of the venue applying for a variation?

  21. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Ken Wilson commented

    I have lived in Upper Gully for 20 years now, I have never seen such a greedy council as the current one in office, with all the planning going on and buildings wanted to be built I'm sure some one is getting a back handshake here,? I have been trying for over five years to get parking fixed in my street because we can not at times get in or out of my drive way or even park at the front of my house and NOT one Council person has fixed it, yes they promise they will all talk.
    To go ahead with this monstrosity in such a beautiful surrounding area would be devastating not only to the wild life that does live in there such a lizards and the like.
    The council will try to rush this through but when a resident wants something done in their street you are made to look like a fool and jump through their hoops.
    This plan in Burwood highway is we don't need all this added petrol stations and stores on that side of the road, as I have said I have been here for 20 years and where they are now hasn't not bothered me one bit, we have always gone to the shell station and done the U Turn to come home, so what.!
    If the council remembers there was a fire on that side of the road some time ago, if there was a service station/Crap Donald's there this town would have gone up in smoke. We don't need one there and we shouldn't have one there, but I know the councillors with the back hand shakes will not be happy just remember you are to represent what he people want, NOT WHAT YOU WANT . .!!

  22. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Catherine O'Sullivan commented

    I moved to this area for the beauty of its surrounds not to be crowded in by over development - Upper Ferntree Gully is the Gateway to the Dandenong Ranges why is the Council intent on over developing such a beautiful area.

    It is a shame local politicians are remaining quiet - stating it is Council business !

  23. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Nicole commented

    City of Melbourne, particularly the planning department should be ashamed of themselves for continually approving apartment buildings in already highly populated inner suburbs that struggle with parking.
    Quite obvious that they are not thinking of the existing residents & community, rates income appears to be their main objective as there is no other positive.
    Melbourne is already over populated with apartment buildings which are not fully occupied, keep the buildings to the city not our lovely inner suburbs as they will become unpleasant places to live if this continues.
    Stop approving such developments!!!!

  24. In Penrith NSW on “Use of an Existing Building...” at 57 Henry Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    James Will commented

    This site is not suitable as an education facility. It should be redeveloped to serve the retail needs of the people of Penrith as the site is in such a prominent location of the CBD.

  25. In South Tamworth NSW on “Subdivision (One Lot into...” at 7 Scott Road South Tamworth NSW 2340:

    Jeff Bartlett commented

    Surely this area would be considered flood prone???? I can remember flood waters flowing right though there. And we have not had a major flood, with the new levee bank system around Taminda yet, where is all that water going to back up, into the Scotts Rd flood plain, right where this building will go. My objection is to the risk to any building that might build on that site due to flood, how can the Council contemplate such a risky, due to flood, application???

  26. In South Yarra VIC on “Variation of Licence” at Birdwood Avenue, South Yarra 3141, VIC:

    Anonymous commented

    I am a medical practitioner and local resident. I have been alarmed at the increase in drunken, aggressive behaviour by men who spill into the footpath in Domain Road and eventually onto the road. At night they become uncontrollably loud and I have seen disinhibited men phsycially attack passers-by. This is dangerous, and a degradation of the amenity.

  27. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 16-22 Gatehouse Drive Kensington VIC 3031:

    Xia commented

    My lord, 9 storey. 82 apts. thats so sad for lovely Kensington. We dont want high rise apartments. Ugly like Docklands. Parking nightmare. Rankins road is packed with cars parked down the street everyday of the week, often visitors park ilegally on permit spots. I can see how this will happen to Gatehouse drive once the Apartments built.
    No one wants to buy houses near huge apartment buildings. Which means it will devalue the houses nearby.

  28. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Michelle Cahill commented

    My god!!! This is just terrible! The image of UFTG being a green, leafy gateway to the Dandenongs will be lost forever! A petrol station?????? All that beautiful vegetation lost for what? Fast food restaurant? UFTG would feel no different than Tecoma with McDonalds being built there. Totally inappropriate.

  29. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Cyndi Tomlinson commented

    A service station selling fuel and junk food is not what we need in this part of Knox. The removal of significant vegetation is against planning overlays - overlays that were agreed on for good reason. That part of Burwood Highway is a high fire danger area and should not be a site for fuel. It is a great site for a shop, tourist information centre, and small cafe. I would not object to appropriate development but this plan for an ugly, generic, freeway type service station and convenience store would result in an eyesore. Tourists come out here in droves because the Upper Ferntree Gully area is unique, and serves as the gateway to the Dandenong Ranges. Shouldn't we be making the most of the beauty of the area instead of paving over it? We need creative solutions that will exploit opportunities and bring more business to UFTG whilst maintaining the unique character of the area. This planning application lacks imagination, vision, and common sense. Please do not approve it.

  30. In Caulfield South VIC on “Development of land for the...” at 394 Hawthorn Road Caulfield South VIC 3162:

    I Marian commented

    I tried to get more information from Planning about this but was told that the person handling the matter was out. I seek to know how high the development is and how is parking to be arranged? Parking requirements are there for a reason and they should not be reduced in return for increased profit to the developer and increased rates for Council. This is not the CBD or St Kilda Rd so please show some common sense and reject this application.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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.

Donate