Recent comments

  1. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed alterations and...” at 219 Dryburgh Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    David Morton and Karen Buckley commented

    Thanks for letting us have a look at the application. We have some concerns regarding privacy in terms of our bedroom that is situated on the 3rd floor of 84 Munster Terrace North Melbourne. The proposed balcony looks down and into our bedroom windows and our balcony. Also, the pool on the first floor appears to be against our lounge room wall, which concerns us.
    Can these issues please be addressed prior to any planning permission being given.

    With Thanks.

  2. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    belinda poole commented

    This is a dead end street with our local Primary school on it. The traffic, parking and kids safety is a big issue here already. So much development and apartments are being built all around Carnegie Primary School. These dwellings are going to bring to many people to our already overcrowded community. A child will be hurt by huge trucks or a car coming and going from these sight. THIS HAS TO STOP NOW!!!!

  3. In Roselands NSW on “Demolition of all...” at 18-20 Canarys Road, Roselands NSW:

    Anne Owen commented

    Dear City of Canterbury,
    Canarys Road is already congested. It has become a parking lot for trucks. We see drivers park their trucks and travel by car to their homes. They are not local residents. The traffic calming measures are a great addition but with buses and trucks as well as parked cars and pedestrian traffic, it is a recipe for disaster.

    We have had massive mobile phone towers installed without consultation as they are on government land. The NSW government is in the process of having an ambulance/paramedic centre passed for construction on the corner of Stoddard and Canarys Rd.

    We have a new coffee shop Kitchen Zia which has brought a major increase in the need for parking. We have also had other local residents parking in Canarys Rd as they have no parking in Stoddard Street. The coffee shop, however, is not a negative. It looks great and provides a service that many of the local residents use.

    It has also been brought an increase in pedestrian traffic which is a positive for the local residents. The City of Canterbury needs to look carefully at this boarding house proposal. It is not in keeping with the existing local dwellings and will further increase local congestion Please reconsider this proposal.

  4. In Copacabana NSW on “Removal Approval Consent...” at 44 Segura Street, Copacabana NSW 2251:

    elaine norling commented

    I have be saddened to see so many of the indigenous old trees of Copacabana gradually disappear for the sake of views building footprints or 'owners' just not wanting the tree[s]

    It takes decades for our trees to be fully functional for the support of birds, bees and animals and the balance of our climate.

    What is the reason for this tree removal request being accepted?

  5. In Oaklands Park SA on “Privacy Screen” at 29 Pemberton St Oaklands Park:

    D Williams wrote to local councillor Kris Hanna

    The property that this structure intends to screen off (at about 2.6 metres high) is already overshadowed on its north side by a 350 m squared development built higher then the affected property not in compliance with Marion Council's overshadowing policy. The same property is also overshadowed on its easy side by a development built up by 600mm height with a resulting 2500mm high fence on the boundary. ALL boundaries surrounding this property were originally at the same level as this property before development approvals.. This screen was erected along the FRONT fence of the affected property without development approval and despite the owners objection of having 3 sides of their property now overshadowed because of developments and current council policies this retrospective-application for approval is a 'rubber stamp' approval process. The remainder of this boundary fence ( front fence) of the affected property has also been overshadowed by the carport of 29 Pemberton street as the carport has had solid material attached to the sides above fence height within about 20cm from the fence at a height well above 2100mm without development approval and is seeking retrospective approval. This is simply NOT JUST that a property is screened off and overshadowed on THREE sides by ridiculous structures and development policies. How can development policies allow this to happen. ALL council applications should consider how the properties sharing boundaries with an application are already affected by development instead of just approving applications in isolation just assessing the policies relevant to the actual application. Councils used to attend sites and visually inspect the impact on neighboring properties before they approved anything. How fair is it for a property to be overshadowed on 3 sides in a 'low to medium' density neighborhood? This is simply unsatisfactory!! The property that is affected by this 'privacy screen' application is also on the LOWER side of the fence line!!!

    Photo of Kris Hanna
    Kris Hanna local councillor for City of Marion
    replied to D Williams

    Dear D Williams

    On behalf of Mayor Kris Hanna, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received by Council on 23 November 2017 in relation to a planning application at 29 Pemberton St, Oaklands Park.

    I wish to advise that following review of the matters you have raised; a response will be forwarded at the earliest opportunity.

    If there is any additional information you would like to provide or questions you would like to raise in the interim, you are welcome to send them through.

    Many thanks,

    Nakita

  6. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Rate 3 Streetlighting -...” at 7001 Ventura Way Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Kim Vellnagel commented

    How many houses, what size blocks? Has this all been approved? I do not remember a consultation period?

  7. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Drainage Work, Stormwater,...” at 7001 Ventura Way Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Kim Vellnagel wrote to local councillor Andrew Antoniolli

    If I am correct, this will be the creation of a new network of streets along Happy Jack Gully that does not yet exist. Am I right in saying that this development is going to be another mass clearing of vegetation. Is this development in stages? It appears as though the corridor that borders Happy Jack Gully on both sides are going to disappear over time? Please clarify.

    Delivered to local councillor Andrew Antoniolli. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Avalon Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 69 Central Road Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Verity Austin commented

    Dear Angela Manahan,
    Case worker on No: No512/17
    I am the resident of 67 Central rd Avalon adjacent to 69 Central rd.
    I strongly object to the proposed development at 69-71 Central rd Avalon of 12 units of 2/3 storeys high by applicants
    Russell Whitaker ( Tucker Holdings Pty Ltd )
    Raymond Chang
    Bei Jiang.
    There are 6 fundamental grounds in my opinion for rejection.
    1: The bulk and size of this construction does give rise to unacceptable residential amenity impact on:
    Acoustics- with the driveway/ 2 storey underground car park being adjacent to bedrooms of 67 central rd. Construction noise will be horrific for approx. 2 years.
    Visual privacy and outlook from house and garden-
    The proposed 3 storey units are set back only 14m, 3 m from the east/ west fence- roof eaves breaching compliance.
    As a mother with young children I feel threatened by the sheer no. of potential people looking at my children in the garden.
    Solar aspect - shadow diagram indicates that at 3 pm 21st June almost the entire garden at 67 central road is in shade from height and bulk of units.
    Potential for efficient solar panels on house will be void.
    2: the road network cannot accomodate the present traffic. Future traffic generated by construction work, elderly residents of the 12 units, visitors and tradesmen will be diabolical.
    The safety of the community will be at risk.
    3: the bulk and scale of this and future developments would be inconsistent with the current strategic direction of Central rd, Avalon community.
    4: the building forms would have poor street scape, poor transitional relationships to surrounding houses and compromise residential amenities to existing and future residents.
    5: concerns arise over existing flood plains and elderly residents of proposed units.
    6: there are already numerous senior developments in the area which are not full, this proposed development of 12 units would decrease their value.

  9. In Avalon Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 69 Central Road Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Craig Boaden commented

    Central Road is a narrow quiet residential street. It already has problems with circulating traffic, as parking is allowed on both sides virtually making it navigable in only one direction at a time, which often causes issues. Buses often have problems making it past all these parked cars. Any increase in residential or other development density will only exacerbate this growing problem.

  10. In Richmond VIC on “Amendment to Planning...” at 527-531 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Robert Lee commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to: 527-531 Church St Richmond VIC 3121. Amendment to Planning Permit PL03/0041 to increase patron numbers of the existing restaurant from 150 to 250, allow the restaurant use to operate from 7am each day (not including the sale and consumption of liquor until 8am), increase the sale and consump...

    reason; The above premises has NO carparking, and the increase of ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE into an all ready full RESIDENTIAL AREA (Kingston & Brighton Street ect) and ther plans show it looking more like a BAR ans they want to increase the selling of alcahol, means it is really more of a bar! Where will an extra 100 people park? The property has THREE on street car spaces in its frontage to Church St, and NONE in its frontage to Kingston St. Where has the "multiplying effect" of this, and nearby properties that have also asked for "waivers" been taken into account? The NOISE of 250 people coming & going into residential side streets would be ridiculous.

  11. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 37 Fisher Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Hayden Walsh commented

    Council should dismiss this development application, along with the similar boarding boarding house development next this one at 41 Fisher St.

    These developments fail to preserve the extant intact historic character of the street that includes an excellent example of four similarly styled Edwardian houses, presumably by the same architectural firm. The matching aesthetics, including sandstone foundation, leadlight bay windows, and terracotta gabled roof are of high quality and make an important statement about the historic development of housing in the Petersham CBD.

    These 4 houses are part of a wider story that Fisher St tells about the historic development of Petersham which is evidenced by the various eclectic styles along the street, including Victorian, Edwardian, Art Deco, and post-war dwellings.

    For this reason, I believe Council needs to consider important heritage protections for dwellings along Fisher St, both for their ability to demonstrate on a single street the major historic residential type changes, and for its important link connecting Petersham's civic centre on Shaw St to Petersham's commercial centre on Audley St/New Canterbury Rd.

  12. In Burwood NSW on “Increase height and FSR for...” at 68-72 Railway Parade and 2-2A, 4-10 Oxford Street, Burwood:

    Pauline Forrester commented

    * the lack of setback on the southern boundary, is not in keeping with the requirements to enhance the setting of the building. The overall visual impact from the street will be negative,
    * the amount of traffic in this street is already excessive, given its proximity to the Primary school and the inadequate width of the street to allow for parking and the flow of 2-way traffic. Additional traffic into/out of this street will create issues.
    A building of this size; being disproportionately high compared to the ground area of the site, is out of keeping with the surrounding buildings. Whilst there are some high-rise buildings in the area, this one detracts from the area even more with an impression of extreme over-crowding.
    Therefore, I urge the Council to reject the proposed development plan

  13. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Change of use and waiver of...” at 674 Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Lena Verne commented

    Also think of the shoppers! NO where to park for them either! And very hard to turn right from any side street on Centre Rd., It requires a drive left and around a couple of blocks not to risk disaster due to traffic and low visibility past the parked cars and vans.

  14. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Bedroom Addition &...” at 12 Tudibaring Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Lee Wilmott commented

    There are no plans or application to be seen via any website

  15. In Avalon Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 69 Central Road Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Natasha Swingler commented

    Central Rd Avalon is a narrow Rd & cannot cope with 12 more occupants each with a car or two. It will create more traffic, the senior occupants may have difficulty coping with oncoming traffic in both directions on such a narrow road with parking on both sides as well as being a bus thoroughfare & garbage trucks on Tuesday. It will be hazardous to pedestrians elderly & young and people on bikes. There are only two roads from Barrenjoey Rd via Avalon Village that can access Clareville - Avalon Parade & Central. Why make Central Rd anymore congested with multi dwelling developments? It is the developer that profits from this construction, not the surrounding local community. Isn't there enough Senior living developments already along Central Rd??

  16. In on “Alterations and addition...” at 176 Cardigan Street Carlton VIC 3053:

    Heather Gilbertson commented

    Please confirm whether there is a height restriction for the extension component on these plans as have concerns if it will obstruct the view from the adjacent roof terraces.
    Also please confirm if the demolition includes the concrete wall adjacent to the property of 39 Grattan Place, as there is a small outdoor terrace and glass doors that will potentially be affected if this wall is removed. Thankyou

  17. In Putney NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 192 Morrison Rd, Putney, NSW:

    Tania Rogers commented

    I object to the development for the following reasons:
    As far as can be ascertained from the zoning maps (you need a microscope to see them and Ryde Council makes no effort to provide easily navigable online zoning maps) it is zoned low density residential where as the development is medium density.
    The development does not preserve and improve the existing character, amenity and environmental quality of the land (LEP 2014)
    Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing.
    • Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site,
    • Visual impact of the development is detrimental
    • Adverse effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
    • Design is inappropriate to the area
    • The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
    There is no provision made for increased traffic along MOrrison Rd which is a narrow road which is becoming increasingly more congested and dangerous to cross.
    Gladesville and Putney schools are overcrowded and this development exacerbates that.
    Traffic along Victoria rd corridor is at a standstill from 6 am to 6 pm and this development will continue to exacerbate the traffic congestion as the residents from the development will have to access Victoria Rd to move west or to the city centre.
    Gladesville and Putney are being overdeveloped with flats and McMansions and the historic and charming character of these suburbs is being destroyed due to poor planning decisions.

  18. In Woodford QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 12-28 Webb Lane, Woodford QLD 4514:

    Laurel Rohrer commented

    To Whom It May Concern:

    Regarding the application for a communication facility (140.04 m) at 12-28 Webb Lane, Woodford, QLD:

    The proposed Woodford site is home to one of the last unfragmented flying fox colonies.
    Flying foxes are to the critical environment, they are pollinators of many fruits and the eucalyptus tree that koalas eat.
    Flying foxes are also endangered species.

    Please consider another less environmentally damaging location for this facility!
    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

  19. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Construction Of New...” at 11 Tudibaring Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Nicole Wyrill commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am unable to see the plans for this development. However I would like to note that we would strongly object to any of the building/structure being over or cantilevered over the erosion line.
    I believe this would set a dangerous precedent.

    regards
    Nicole Wyrill

  20. In Wyongah NSW on “Carport & pergola (Amended...” at 55 Springall Avenue Wyongah NSW 2259:

    Kerrie Spindler commented

    Please note that I object to the additional Lattice being placed on fence line dividing both properties. This house was purchased for the View of both Lake and Ocean, this lattice will obscure all downstairs/ backyard of what we purchased it for. This takes away from the feel of the property.

  21. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Change of use and waiver of...” at 674 Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Barry Lewis commented

    The parking situation in and around the Bentleigh East shopping strip is getting stupid!
    With all the car park waivers this council are giving in the area, there will be no on street parking available for residents or their visitors.
    Please stop this madness and think of the residents.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 35 Camden Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    sue paterson commented

    I also live on the western side of this development.
    Surely there is enough light in the upstairs from the new rear verandah without new windows to overlook us all as well?

    I also don't think these windows have been very well thought out from an environmental perspective - the afternoon sun into those rooms with full length windows is going to make them ridiculously hot.

    As already stated above, these have already been installed - is this how things work now? Build what you like, then change your DA to get your own way?

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “Marrickville Metro - 34...” at 34 Victoria Road and 13-55 Edinburgh Road, Marrickville, NSW:

    sue commented

    We don't need an enclosed footbridge at our local shopping centre - please don't let the Metro become the inner west Bondi Junction.

  24. In Carnegie VIC on “39 Lot Subdivision” at 322 Neerim Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    belinda poole commented

    WOW!! We do not need more of these apartments/ developments. Please STOP this. Neerim Road has been destroyed. Carnegie is now very much overcrowded with cars and appartments. Sky rail WILL NOT fix the traffic issues we are seeing, but maybe if development stops, this will help.

  25. In Carnegie VIC on “40 Lot Subdivision” at 92 Mimosa Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    belinda poole commented

    This is just Crazy. By the time the new hight limits and planning for this area are put in place, it will be to late. Greedy developers destroying our once family friendly neighbourhood.

  26. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 124 Victoria Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    G Pontes commented

    I object due to lack of parking in the plans.
    Currently the property at this address has parking for two or three vehicles.
    The local area has a shortage of parking spots due to staff and students at Christian Brothers and commuters parking all day. The property should have off street parking for at least one car each.

  27. In Warradale SA on “1 into 3 Torrens Title Land...” at 2 Hamilton Ave Warradale, SA:

    A Jessup commented

    This allotment is currently 890 square metres in area, so if divided into 3 equal allotments the area of each would be 297 square metres. According to the Development Plan, minimum site areas for detached dwellings and attached dwellings are 375 square metres and 320 square metres respectively. Hence this development application should not be approved for either detached or attached dwellings.

  28. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Sec 96: AA to increase the...” at 50A Dunstaffenage Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    James commented

    THE increased floor levels will make this house present an excessively out of character street appeal for an area under an interim heritage order. The heights will impose the facade on the street. New modern builds should be built to ensure that they will not impose on the diminishing heritage of this area. The original approval should stand and if this new council wish to start supporting these kind of amendments then the community will end up with the same council we had before the sackings. Stick to the rules.

  29. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 8 Tarragundi Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Neil Donovan commented

    Can someone advise me which tree is "under consideration"? It is not clear from what is shown on Council's website, whether the one tree for assessment is in the front or rear of the property.
    Similarly, does an owner have to provide a reason for a tree's removal?

  30. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 187 Slade Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Maritsa commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: DA-2017/541

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons.

    1. The proposed development replaces a two-storey hotel/motel with a 9 storey mixed use development and 6 storey hotel immediately adjacent to a low density two-storey residential street. Even allowing for the size of the site, the proposal exceeds the maximum height limit in the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 by 9.4m. There is no reason to approve such a height which would be well above nearby properties. The proposal has a floor space to site ration of 2.61:1, well above the guidelines even allowing for the large site. The proposal is an unacceptable and unjustified overdevelopment of this site.

    2. The existing mixed use developments on Slade and Bexley Roads are a maximum of 5 storeys. This proposal exceeds its neighbours by 4 storeys and this results in the proposal presenting as a huge, overbearing block far exceeding any adjoining development.

    3. As shown in the shadow diagrams and discussed in the application, because of the excessive heights there would be a significant constant overshadowing onto the block of residential flats immediately to the south of the development. This is unacceptable.

    4. As discussed in the application, the soil on the site is potentially contaminated which will adversely impact on the proposal to develop apartments on the site. This must be investigated and the impacts addressed before any development is approved, let alone a development of this scale.

    5. Contrary to the claims in the application, there is potential impact from the construction and from the proposed underground parking on the local water table. The site is not suitable for such a large development or for one with underground car-parks.

    6. The proposed hotel faces directly onto the existing residential flat development to the south of the site and will adversely impact on the views to and from this development. The proposal does not provide any means to minimise this impact.

    7. The roads in this area are significantly congested during and outside of peak hour, and in particular at the intersection where this development is proposed. This will add a significant volume of extra cars onto Slade Road, a local road already at capacity. The proposal will also direct all car movements for the apartment complex basement parking, onto Sarsfield Circuit, a local residential street which will have a negative impact on existing residents.

    8. The proposed mixed use development with additional shops, and the expansion of hotel activities will adversely impact on the capacity of, as well as entry and exit into, the small existing Council car park. The application does not provide mechanisms to minimise this impact on the existing shopper car park.

    9. This proposal is in addition to proposed Priority Precincts at Bardwell Park, Turrella and Earlwood which will significantly increase residential densities along this train line. The train services on the East Hills line are already running at capacity with no upgrades planned to service this increased need. This overdevelopment will add to this impact.

    10. Despite the identification of at the Priority Precincts at adjoining train stations there is currently no State wide planning for infrastructure needs arising from these proposals (e.g. primary, high schools, parks, hospitals). The cumulative impacts of the Priority Precincts must be addressed before applications of this nature are considered for approval.

    11. The development is near to the Wolli Creek Regional Park. Increased denisty of accommodation, residential or hotel, presents a risk to the park through increased use of the park and via an increased risk from infrastructure failure.

    12. There appears to be no adequate planning for waste removal and other needs from the mixed use development and motel.

    13. The proposal does not meet deep soil requirements and therefore is not able to provide any significant planting or trees other than on the rooftop of the proposed mixed use development. This is completely inadequate on such a site. Landscaping, including trees, at street level is necessary for the aesthetics and amenity of the area.

    Yours truly,
    Rubina

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