Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 177 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    K Dunn commented

    I oppose against this development based on the following :

    Reduction in on-site carparking provision of the proposed development is not acceptable

    The proposed development with 32 dwellings is an over-development for the site.

    The local amenities will be affected by this development.

    In fact, extra car parkinga should be required as Auburn Village is already congested with traffic and very limited parking available.

  2. In Balwyn North VIC on “Post RequestConstruct...” at 261 Balwyn Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Keith L. wrote to local councillor Lisa Hollingsworth

    I agree with Karen.

    I was under the impression that this outrage was in contravention of the councils own plan of 500m2 per dwelling.

    How does the council allow buildings that are in contravention of its own rules to proceed?

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Hollingsworth. They are yet to respond.

  3. In Montmorency VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Mountain View Road, Montmorency, VIC:

    Sebastian Brady commented

    I notice that there are a substantial number of trees being requested for removal. I feel that Montmorency is losing its trees at an alarming rate. It would be such a shame if this suburb continues to be denuded of its native vegetation. The abundant native flora is a strong marker of Montmorency's distinctive character and must be protected to maintain the suburb's appeal. Please make sure all trees are retained in the development.

  4. In Balwyn North VIC on “Post RequestConstruct...” at 261 Balwyn Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Karen McCoy wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    Thank you for your prompt reply. My comment was to highlight the inappropriate type of developments that have been approved by VCAT and urge you as our representative to do whatever you can to change the processes which allow these outrages to be built.
    Regards
    Karen

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Les commented

    I object to any change to the original development plans at Shell Cove marina that would increase the height or the housing density.
    the marina area is already being over populated with high density building and its not what the locals want. This is just a money grab for the developers and council shouldn't allowed it.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 400 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Scott MacArthur, President Marrickville Heritage Society commented

    400 Marrickville Road, Marrickville
    DA201700430
    The Marrickville Heritage Society is very concerned that the proposed alterations and additions to ‘Gateshead’ at 400 Marrickville Road will overall diminish the heritage significance of the property and the David Street Conservation area, and requests that Council not approve the development in its current form.
    The existing large single storey Federation style house, known as ‘Gateshead’ was built in 1912 for James Wall to a design by S. H. Buchanan & McKay Architects. It largely retains its original period detailing and form, including a variety of Arts & Craft features drawn from English Vernacular (bay windows, half-timbering) and Art Nouveau features - tapered chimneys, incised floral fretwork and scenery leadlights. While the rear section of the house is somewhat simpler than the Marrickville Road façade, it is largely as originally constructed in 1912, with a series of double hung window punched in the side walls. The house has many stylistic features that are evident in the surrounding period houses of the Marrickville Road, Livingstone Road and David Street precincts, and which warrants the inclusion of ‘Gateshead’ in the David Street Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), under Marrickville LEP 2011.
    The proposal will require the demolition of the 1912 rear single storey wing of the house, and its replacement with a stark flat roofed two storey box. The extension is to be constructed in highly contemporary materials, including vertical panels of ribbed Colorbond sheeting, in the currently inescapably fashionable dark grey colour “Monument”. The proposed demolition and new extension are not in keeping with the core heritage values and elements for the David Street HCA that are set out in Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (section 8.2.33.2): the aesthetic values of the HCA and its component streetscapes are derived from the high quality of Federation design and detailing in houses and their settings and the consistency of subdivision pattern, setbacks, built forms, roof volumes, materials, detailing and garden spaces.
    Further, the DCP specifically states that ‘The core period of heritage significance is 1890-1915. Any buildings or significant elements of the fabric from this or any earlier period must be retained and maintained (Section 8.2.33.6).’
    While the Society is supportive of the proposal to restore the lych gate, the replacement fences and garden walls should adopt the original detail, to maintain consistency with these existing streetscape features throughout the HCA.
    The Society requests that Council not approve this proposal because of the loss of original fabric entailed in the demolition of the rear wing of this important house, and its replacement with a highly contemporary and jarring extension.
    Yours sincerely
    Scott MacArthur, President Marrickville Heritage Society

  7. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    N & J Maihofer commented

    We moved into Shell Cove from Sydney 5 years ago to get away from the ratrace. We perused over all of the planning approvals with the original concept and decided this suited our life style and on those grounds purchased in the area. We disapprove of 11 storeys which will impact views to Bass Point and the Marina for many residents in Shell Cove plus being an eye sore, 4 storeys would be generous enough and more in proportion. We believe there is no valid reason (other than financial gain for Frasers) for the increase size of the development.

  8. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Georgia Cameron commented

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DA/636/2017 and associated request to remove 8 trees at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood which as highlighted in the Heritage Report is within the Epping/ Eastwood Conservation Area and has a rear boundary on a Protected Biodiversity area.
    The Edna Hunt Sanctuary is significant not only for its critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest, but for its flora and fauna. The removal of 8 trees will have a detrimental impact on the Terrys Creek wildlife corridor and result in further loss of our urban tree canopy and habitat of the Powerful Owl, which is listed as a vulnerable species in NSW.
    The comment on page 7 of the Heritage Report “It also poses certain security issues with an incident of a trespasser who was found on the property and had gotten in unnoticed due to the dense blockage of the trees. Therefore it is in the best interest of the existing residents as well as the potential residents of the proposed secondary dwelling to have a clearly visible dwelling that allows ample sunlight access to the new dwelling whilst maintaining a smaller number of substantial trees in their surround” is not an acceptable reason to remove 8 trees.
    I trust Council will reject the application on the above grounds, and on the basis there is no provision for additional car parking.

  9. In Eaglemont VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 18 Outlook Drive, Eaglemont, VIC:

    John Horsnell commented

    This proposed dwelling has nothing in common with the architecture in the area and does not fit in with the heritage buildings in the area.

  10. In Botany NSW on “Demolition, subdivision and...” at 12 Hambly St, Botany 2019 NSW:

    Nicole Ireland commented

    I object to three residences on this block as it is not in keeping with the character of the street. It will increase the amount of traffic on the street, and impede on the surrounding residences.
    Please do not become another Coogee or Rose Bay where the suburban streets are dominated by destruction of original houses and building of close proximity housing (townhouses and flats).

  11. In Highton VIC on “Use and Development for a...” at 74 Belle Vue Avenue, Highton, VIC:

    Andrew commented

    In regards to the proposed development site I think that the entry and exist point needs to be looked at.
    I did attend the meeting for this at BPS and to find out that they were allowing for a left and right turn in and out of the property on the bend in Belle Vue Avenue seems ridiculous, as it is firstly a very busy bend and it would also add to traffic congestion due to the stop start nature of including a left and right turn in and out of the property.
    I mentioned using a slip lane to get off Belle vue and into the property as an alternative but obviously this has fallen on deaf ears

    I am not opposed to the development but believe that traffic issues have not been addressed properly and no alternatives have been put forward

    I think that by putting in a slip lane and moving the car park to the northern side and only allowing for vehicles to turn left into the property and left out of the property would be a much better free flowing solution.

    They mentioned this is going to be a link to BPS. If this is the case look at a traffic management plan to suite the whole area surrounding BPS not just the immediate site being built upon including Bellevue av, Cuthbert st and Larcombe st.
    I live on Belle vue and will be affected by this development
    Listen to the community that is going to be affected.

  12. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Amanda Hall commented

    My husband and I object to the propsal as it contavenes what was already planned, we moved into the area on that basis, we were happy with the original concept, we looked over all of the planning approvals and decided this was an area we wanted to live in. We think the Marina as originally proposed was and is a great asset to the community. The new development proposal is NOT what we relocated for.
    We do not beleive there is valid reason (other than financial gain) for the increase size of the development, we are concerned there is not adequate infrastucture to allow this deleopment to be approved.
    We are concerned the green space (Wetlands) will be eroded to allow for the extra land grab.

  13. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Mike El commented

    Sophia St and Mary St must have access to Brigantine Drive in Shell Cove Waterfront.
    The traffic congestion on Cove Blvd and Harbour Blvd and around the waterfront with so many medium / high density dwellings will become impossible to get anywhere.
    Traffic flow has to be considered first. You only have to look at what's happening all over Sydney.

  14. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Anna Cook commented

    I think 11 storeys high is out of proportion to the area, 5 storeys would be generous and more in proportion.

    Where has the promised wetland gone?

    Where are all the kids going to go to high school? The local high schools are a long way away and all full.

  15. In Boyland QLD on “Tourist Cabins (Tourist...” at 68 - 70 Cherry Tree Court, Boyland QLD 4275:

    Paul mcgrotty commented

    We have had no information about this, was informed that the person wanting to build the 6 cottages/school camp . This is not normal process/procedure your client has friends in council we hear, has that been declared. my neighbor alerted me to this tonight, I am seriously concerned.

  16. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    D. Miller commented

    I, too, object to the removal of 8 trees at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood which backs onto Edna Hunt Reserve. This is an important group of trees that forms part of the Powerful Owl habitat in Edna Hunt Reserve. If these trees are removed, Parramatta Council will also be responsible for the decline of Powerful Owls in Sydney (just 200 exist in the greater Sydney region).
    Remove the development not the trees. There are other places humans can live. Save the habitat for our wildlife. We need to give it the respect it deserves.

  17. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Mrs Willie Harding commented

    I have always been for the Marina and yes we need to look into the future but NOT this rehashed application, it really smells of more money to be made, with no thought to the people who already live there. The original concept is great and that is what Frasers agreed to, so why change it now. I hope Shellharbour council also has some say in the above proposal, if not, all hell will break loose.

  18. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “<Insert Details>” at 69 Corymbia Circuit, Oxford Falls NSW 2100:

    David Bizzaca commented

    I believe that the upstairs balcony will not allow privacy to our backyard, entertaining and pool area. The application states that this balcony will not be a privacy issue as it is off a bedroom (actually off 3 bedrooms) and will not be used "often". If that is the case then why have it? For the applicant to state this fact in their application, indicates that they are aware that there is an issue with privacy. Also, "often" is not quantifiable. One persons definition of this word, in regard to this application, can be completely different to another's.

    The plan indicates that there are 3 sets of double doors that lead on the balcony, whereas the application indicates that there is only 1. All three will impact our privacy from these glazed doors.

  19. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Helen Copland commented

    We, my husband and I strongly object to the new plans for the marina. We moved to this area 12 years ago to enjoy the relaxed village lifestyle. The proposal is making it into a resort area. Tall buildings blocking everyones view, changing Shellharbour Village, extra traffic effecting the enviroment.
    Also losing the wetlands all for sake of money. We do not need it and we do not want it.

  20. In Portsmith QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 9 Hollingsworth Street Portsmith QLD 4870:

    Peter Boyd wrote to local councillor Terry James

    test - please let Peter Boyd know if this is received

    Terry - don't respond. Just let me know...

    Delivered to local councillor Terry James. They are yet to respond.

  21. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Logan dunlop commented

    I wish to object the new development at shellcove marina. I wish to object the height change of all buildings, and the increase of residents. This is just a money grab and shouldn't be allowed.

  22. In NSW on “Meadowbank Employment Area...” at Bowden, Belmore, Church & Waterview Streets; Nancarrow & Rothesay Avenues; Constitution Road and Hamilton Crescent West, Well Street, The Loop Road, Meadowbank/Ryde/Shepherds Bay, NSW:

    cici commented

    As a resident at Meadowbank, I hope the council will consider the infrastructure first, instead of approve so many residential development projects without any plan.
    Meadowbank is a nice suburb with train, ferry, waterview. However, with the increasing number of apt settle there, we found that Meadowbank has a very poor infrastructure plan.
    - Narrow Constitution Road (Ann Thorn Park section), I strongly recommend please have a plan to widening that part.
    - The roundabout of Constitution road and Bowen Street, we need a traffic light there or alternative efficient traffic plan.
    - Extremely narrow footpath for pedestrian from the Station to Constitution road and Bowen Street roundabout.
    - We lack of shops, restaurant, facilities for resident in Meadowbank.
    We would hope the council will have a great plan for that.
    Thanks!

  23. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Chris Brogan commented

    As a long time resident of our beautiful city of Sydney I an very concerned about the removal of trees at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood. I urge council to reject this development on the grounds that it will destroy Powerful Owl habitat.

  24. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Rhonda Lehwess commented

    In reference to the planning etc of the Shellcove marina. I would just like to know or ask the question where will be the wetland that the Shellharbour Council said there would be. I have looked at the site map and isn't there. This area was a big wetland for native birds and wild life in general and the new map of there shows no wetland which to me is not good for our environment.

  25. In Shell Cove NSW on “07_0027 Boollwarroo Parade,...” at Boollwarroo Parade, Shell Cove, Shellharbour,:

    Cheryl dunlop commented

    We moved to Shell Cove four years ago because we were attracted to the proposed marina and views of the area.

    The marina precinct plans looked to compliment the amphitheater style of the suburb, local beach and environment.

    The proposed changes to the marina precinct have serious concern due to the increase in the number of high density residential developments, the overall effects of limited views due to the height of the proposed buildings surrounding the waterfront. The original plans had these buildings set back to reduce the overall feel of the environment.

    We have grave concerns about increasing dwellings and maximum heights of building for many reasons:

    - given promises of maintaining beautiful views of Bass Point and the marina, the proposed changes will impact views for many residents and the low key, relaxed feel that lured faithful buyers to Shell Cove
    - 11 storeys in a small coastal town is an eye sore, it puts strain on environment and public resources
    - The increases in traffic, and reduced availability of parking is also of great concern. Residents have been waiting for better access to key locations and shopping facilities but the large increase in dwellings puts traffic flow, congestion at risk
    - the concern for increase in crime due.
    - We are concerned about the removal of the original 2013 submission commitment, replacing with a focus on tourism and economic rationale.
    As faithful residents we feel that this proposal is all about money and economy trumping everything else.

    We implore you to please consider your decision.

  26. In Warner QLD on “Operational Works for...” at 87 Warner Road, Warner QLD 4500:

    Trudy harries wrote to local councillor Mike Charlton

    I am concern. if this is part of the high denisty housing project.
    I am worried about the wildlife within our community. I have only lived here for 2years and loved the nature aspect.
    I witness wallabies in my front yard along with koalas. The owls and many variety of parrots , Black and white cockatoo. Fireflys as well. Our home also is the home of 3.5 metre python.
    I love wildlife aspect....
    I am extremely concern with additional traffic and others using the back streets as a run thru and how this will have an impact on the variety of species within the warner area.
    I know that the development is coming but i purpose blocking of warner rd around near whimbrel street. So no traffic can be diverted along the back streets.
    I could only imagine that the rate payers on paddys rd thru fare wouldnt be impressed either. This purposal i believe could help residents and wildlife adapt to a suburban lifestyle.
    I do plan on attending meetings to discuss along with other concerned residents.

    Photo of Mike Charlton
    Mike Charlton local councillor for Moreton Bay Regional Council
    replied to Trudy harries

    G'day Trudy,

    The application you refer to is a request for an extension to the currency period for an existing approval (issued in 2015) particularly with regard to the Operational Works permit component of the approval.

    If you would like further details on the existing approval, don’t hesitate to contact me directly on 3480 6869 or email

    Kind Regards,
    God Bless,
    Mike.
    ______________________________
    Mike Charlton
    Deputy Mayor | Councillor for Division 9
    Moreton Bay Regional Council
    220 Gympie Road, STRATHPINE QLD 4500
    PO Box 159, Caboolture 4510
    P: (07) 3480 6869 | M: 0417 757 751
    W: www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au

    The amendments to the MBRC Planning Scheme will be on consultation from Monday 21 August 2017 to Tuesday 6 October 2017. For more information visit https://yoursay.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/mbrc-planning-scheme-amendment-2017

    [Planning Scheme Amendment 2017]

  27. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 27 - 33 Pembroke Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M.Kemp commented

    I may be wrong, but I suspect that Patrick Anderson is "speaking with tongue in cheek".

  28. In Maroubra NSW on “Sec 96(2) - Extend 3 metres...” at 132 Broome Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Firyal shannir commented

    Very happy for this to proceed. I really want this to go ahead. Thank you.

  29. In Lilyfield NSW on “Rezoning Review of...” at 469-483 Balmain Road Lilyfield:

    Nicole Lowres commented

    I strongly object to the proposed re-zoning and development application for all the reasons listed above, particularly those raised by M Dodd. Additionally I would like to raise the following concerns:

    SOLAR ACCESS - SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL GET LESS THAN MINIMUM 3 HOURS OF SOLAR ACCESS
    The proposal will prevent the minimum of 3 hours of solar access (as per NSW Law) to the surrounding properties in Fred St, Alberto St, Cecily St and Sunnyside Townhouses. The developers are clearly aware of this as they state the MAJORITY of properties will still get solar access for TWO hours between 9-11.00 am. This is less that what the law mandates. Laws for new residential buildings state surrounding properties must get a minimum of three hours of solar access to principal private open spaces between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice (21 June). With the current proposal, solar access to the neighbouring properties will cease around 10.30 on 21 June, with NO solar access returning in the afternoon or evening.
    Every hour of lost sunlight has an adverse impact on the ‘enthalpy effect’ (in this instance, the ability of the material constituting the thermal mass, i.e. concrete, to store heat) that provides passive heat to the room, such that most passive solar design is ineffective with less than three hours of direct sunlight.
    Secondly, these overshadowing standards do not consider any impact upon the operation of solar collectors, with there being a sharp reduction in effectiveness for every hour of lost sunlight during the winter solstice.

    OVERSHADOWING AND PRIVACY
    The current height of the buildings on Alberto St , Cecily St and Fred St is not in keeping with the current street and residential landscape. Although it is stated that the buildings directly adjoining Fred and Alberto streets will be limited to the height of the current building, on the current proposal the height of the buildings front rises steeply up to 6 storeys (not far back from the street front) and has significant impact on overlooking and lack of privacy. This will directly affect privacy of neighbouring properties as the new residences will look directly down into backyard and into bedroom and living room windows.

    NO OUTDOOR OR GREEN AREA PROVISION
    Apart from the proposed retail café / plaza area, there is no outdoor area / green space provision in the proposal. It is just a high density residential block.
    The original proposal from the developers included two large open green areas to allow somewhere for the proposed residents to go. The current proposal has no provision.

    IMPACT ON TRAFFIC
    In addition to the issues of increased traffic congestion on Balmain Road, which is already a very big problem especially on the weekends where it can take upward of 10-15 minutes to drive 800 meters along Balmain Rd from Cecily St to Merton St Rozelle. The increased residential load will also have direct effects on Cecily st traffic, which already has congestion and safety issues. Currently Cecily st is only wide enough for cars to drive in one direction at a time. Therefore, the traffic going in one direction has to pull over and wait for the cars coming in the other direction.

    PROPOSAL DOESN’T OUTLINE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WILL ACCOMMODATE
    The total number of proposed residential units/townhouses/accommodation is not clearly stated. It is therefore not possible to directly measure how much of an impact the current proposal is going to have on the current local infrastructure including NBN, schools, transport and traffic

  30. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Michael commented

    I object to the removal of 8 trees at 60 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood which backs onto Edna Hunt Reserve . This is an important group of trees that form part of the Powerful Owl habitat in Edna Hunt Reserve. If these trees are removed Parramatta council will also be responsible for the decline of Powerful Owls in Sydney (just 200 exist in the greater Sydney region).
    Remove the development not the trees.

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