Recent comments

  1. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Andrew Cox commented

    I am an owner in an adjacent property to this development [Key Largo Apartments]. I have serious concerns with this development for the following reasons.
    1. Insufficient parking for the number of rooms, should be at least 2 per apartment + Visitors. This is a significant failure of planning rules that is causing significant parking issues already
    2. Significant reduction is separation between towers, there is already a funneling effect from the existing building which affect our property, creating a narrower gap and an effective wall will significantly increase the issue.
    3. A height increase above the regulations
    4. Having a large number of occupants and a single direction access will cause disruption to the traffic flow on the esplanade while people wait to get into their carpark.
    5. Noise and the impact on Holiday Rental business operated at our property during the construction

  2. In Mount Colah NSW on “Section 4.55 (1a) -...” at 503 Pacific Highway Mount Colah NSW 2079:

    Angela Ratcliffe commented

    Not sure if anyone is listening to residents of Asquith and Hornsby as we live with increasing traffic congestion, streets full of parked cars, overflowing schools and a train station full of commuters.

    Whilst it appears we cannot stop development can Hornsby Council please look at developing the Asquith Shops. This is a third world shopping precinct that is dirty , unattractive and uninviting and unchanged from the 1950s. If we are focussing on the future please provide the community with a suitable and inviting shopping experience that serves the needs of the community from both a leisure and service prospective.

  3. In Botany NSW on “Modification to increase...” at 1497 Botany Road, Botany NSW 2019:

    Paul commented

    To General Manager of Bayside Council: regarding DA-2001/10382/B:

    Residential properties and light industry can cohabitate without greatly impacting on one another, if a balance is maintained.

    Converting the hours of operation to 5.30am to 6.00pm (12 ½ hours per day) Monday to Friday and 7am to 4.00pm (9 hours) Saturday or 71 ½ hours per week under the current development application “will impact” all residents within the surrounding area by destroying said balance. The number of Bayside residents impacted is not limited to those living opposite or next to said site. Residents will experience increased noise, increased trucking movements through Bayside with deliveries occurring in the early hours of the morning, the loading and unloading of said trucks, garbage collections, the reversing warning beeping of trucks and forklifts and the opening and closing of roller stutters etc. All of these activities should not commence until after 7.00am.

    Due to the close proximity to residential properties, all industrial sites hours of operations should be amended to the earliest starting time as 7.00 am to finish at 4.30pm (9 ½ hours) Monday to Friday and 7.30am to 12.30pm Saturday (4 hours) which converts to a 51 ½ hours per week, thus maintaining a balance for between Bayside residents and light industry.

    Based on the impact the increased hours of operations of Frank’s Fencing will have to local Bayside residents quality of life council should "reject" all aspects of this DA application.

  4. In Old Reynella SA on “Bulky goods development...” at 38-44 Panalatinga Road, Old Reynella SA 5161:

    Patricia Rowe commented

    How can significant trees be removed
    What about green space around this development.

  5. In Palm Cove QLD on “Operational Works...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Di commented

    To all correspondents on the 33 cedar road planning alert page - a standardised submission is now available on the following face book sites - cairns combined beaches association, palm cove/ northern beaches, cairns northern beaches - please feel free to print off a copy - add full name, full address, signature and date and drop it into Clifton post office - we can get them delivered to council

  6. In Redcliffe QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at Uniting Church in Australia 1 Richens Street, Redcliffe QLD 4020:

    John Brydon commented

    To Whom It Concerns
    I would recommend that the MBRC & Redcliffe Uniting Church give serious thought to the implementation of a safety traffic island at the intersection of Richens St & Williams St Redcliffe. Turning movements from driveways and intersections must be considered in this planning as well as pedestrians and the two child care centers at the end of Williams St. In recent years Williams St has become a short cut for the Ashmole Rd & Anzac Av intersection lights when RED. Vehicles cutting the corner of Richens St with speed and dangerous driving. Also vehicles speeding from one end of Williams St to the Houghton Ave intersection or from the Houghton Ave end the other way.
    I would appreciate your consideration with safety in mind for all.

  7. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    K S commented

    The commercial premises should cater to an appropriate business that will remain viable. A childcare centre with a kiosk may be the best alternate use for this space. Food and beverages would still be available and could be consumed in the public park.
    Would a stand alone café be viable/profitable in this space? Have previous tenancies and business owners been profitable? It is nice to have a café but if a café doesn't generate sufficient profit to remain solvent then other business types need to be considered.
    I purchased land and built in North Sapphire Estate. My decision would have been no different if Beachstone was a childcare centre with a kiosk and adjoining public park. I don't feel it would change traffic conditions or parking much at all.

  8. In Palm Cove QLD on “Operational Works...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Tracey Vince commented

    The not of development application signage at the block on Cedar Road is not clear. I've been made aware today the application includes two 7 storey towers as well as the one 8 storey and three large water tanks, which is not clear from the signs erected. It's impossible for people to make accurate objections without knowing all of the facts.

    Approval of this project will set a dangerous precedent for high rise development in the area. Could I invite council members to walk to the end of the Palm Cove jetty and look back at the beach? All you will see are palm trees and no buildings. We'd like to keep it that and not jeopardise the tourism industry in Palm Cove.

    Please reject this proposal and review the previous approvals given for mass density housing. I believe that many years ago this land was offered to council to purchase, and it was rejected as not being in the public interest. I think it's definitely in the public interest and ask that you pursue this avenue.

  9. In on “Use and Development of the...” at 4 Poplar Drive Romsey VIC 3434:

    Geoff Rayner commented

    This development is not in the right location. This is a RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
    and this development even goes against the councils own Geenfield Policy.

    We are currently building a home located within the Autumn Views Estate where the development has been proposed to be located. We chose the location of Autumn Views for it's quiet atmosphere and family orientated feel, located in a small country town. When purchasing the block of land, we had no knowledge of the possibility of a child care center and/or medial center being considered as a possible development within the estate. We were told that the 4 Blocks in question were reserved for Display Homes. Now that we have heard of the proposed development we are regretting our purchase of land at this location and would have chosen another location to invest our money into.

    A facility that includes a 53 space car park and facility that will be in operation from 6:30am to 10pm at night will cause issues to the emotional well being and physical safety of local residents. The increased traffic flow will create unnecessary noise and safety risks to residents. The streets within the Estate were not built to accommodate such an amount of traffic and will also cause added congestion to the already congested Melbourne-Lancfield Road, especially during peek hour times. The increased traffic will destroy the infrastructure put in place resulting in further costs for the council and rate payers of the community. Many future residents of the estate have chosen this location for the quite atmosphere that will allow them to raise children in a safe environment. With the increased traffic flow (some 200 odd movements per hour) from a 53 space car park in this location is an accident waiting to happen.

    The Autumn Views Estate currently consists of less than 100 blocks that are located within a Greenfield zone. The building restrictions for land located in a Greenfield zone involves significant setbacks for each lot. the proposed development would not be abiding by the requirements of the zoning which have been enforces for those currently building within the estate, such as myself. From my understanding the purpose of land being allocated as Greenfield is for it to be a residential area that takes into account the key environmental elements of the town and the traditional characteristics of Romsey. The Greenfield policy intention statement states that it is to
    "Ensure the future subdivision of the greenfield area provides a form of development that reflects valued features of adjoining residential areas and creates a new neighbourhood character which consists of low scale single storey dwellings set within a landscaped setting."
    The proposed development does not align with the planning for the future of Romsey and the Greenfield area as stated within the Macedon Ranges Shire Council own Romsey Residential Character Study Design Guidelines.

    There are many alternative locations within the Romsey community that this development would be more welcomed by residents. The center of town is allocated as a medium density area and would be much more suited to a structure of this proportion. The infrastructure within the medium density area would also better support the increased traffic and general requirements of this facility.

    It is clear from the current conversations occurring amongst residents of the estate and many other residents of Romsey that this development has no support in this location.
    Put a stop to this development or seek an alternative location

  10. In Palm Cove QLD on “#MCU Multiple dwelling and...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Colin Hardiman commented

    Apart from the complete eye sore and the degradation to the standards of all the locals this complex will create, has any consideration been given to all the wildlife that inhabit this area at present, in particular the large colony of flying foxes that are a great attraction to tourism

  11. In Naremburn NSW on “Removal of 1 Jacaranda and...” at 71 Park Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Amanda Smith commented

    I object to removal of the trees. The landscape of our surburb is being destroyed. We're going from leafy environment to concrete jungle. Trees provide shade and shelter.

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

    Stacy Heywood commented

    I oppose this application. It is too close to homes and where families spend their time outdoors. I don’t want our air to be polluted anymore than it already is!

  13. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 970 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    S> Matrin commented

    Yes removing native vegetation is not a plus. However if intent on '"so called improvements"" - then please include adult gym park equipment. Otherwise leave as it is -we all need ""unimproved sites"" for habitat and visual nom-uniformity.

  14. In Albanvale VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 80A Oakwood Road Albanvale, VIC:

    Caio commented

    Adam,
    Thumb up,
    We have to vote for a new coucil lord mayor for next election.

  15. In Thurgoona NSW on “Modification of Consent -...” at 52 Fairway Gardens Rd, Thurgoona 2640 NSW:

    Simone Creek commented

    I would feel that 3 townhouses is excessive, as it is situated opposite an intersection on the Main Street of Fairway Gardens Estate.
    The rise and bend on Fairway Gardens drive at that intersection where the majority of traffic cross unmarked sides of the road. This would present a hazard to the possible number of vehicles,entering, living , parking or visiting that address. In close proximity to the future proposal of a roundabout and Day are Centre on what is the primary entry road to the biggest development Estate in the highest developing area in the region.
    This area is also not at the moment a high density housing area which adds to the Estates attraction. I feel that this will impact on the value of neighbouring properties.

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

    Bharat R commented

    I strongly oppose this project. This should not be built around the Craigieburn suburb. It can be very harmful for the health and well being of the community. They should plan for an environment friendly alternative.

  17. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 16 Harp Street, Campsie NSW 2194:

    Dennis Markou commented

    I as a resident of Belmore oppose this the demolition of this building. The building has significant importance to the Art Deco Community in Campsie/ Belmore. I would suggest Council to work with the developer to flourish the design concept to incorporate Campsie/ Belmore's Art Deco history. I would further would like to bring Councils attention to the LSPS plan they have for the area to convert it into a Health Precinct. Council should have a consistent plan if the vision to create a Health Precinct into flourish en.

  18. In Rockdale NSW on “15-21 Bay Street, 1-11...” at 15 - 19 Bay Street, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    suzanne o'connor commented

    I wonder how liveable all theses places will be ?
    And how ‘ walkable ‘ the streets !
    I suspect pretty bad on all fronts .

  19. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 94 Stoney Creek Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Ann commented

    Hi.
    No No No again, this is not zoned for 3 stories to start with, why are so many DA's going in for boarding houses. Why do developers seem to think its Ok to now ruin Bexley, like they have done with Arncliffe, Rockdale and Wolli Creek? We will end up with 3 stories all the way to Hurstville it not OK

  20. In Upper Swan WA on “Amendment to DA-77/2014 -...” at 21 Station Street Upper Swan WA 6069:

    Peter commented

    We object to this as we are right behind his property and this is not an industrial area so why does he need to have a prime mover there.

  21. In Kilsyth VIC on “Use of an indoor recreation...” at Unit 9/143-145 Canterbury Road, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Kim Mckay commented

    Seriously another gym, fitness centre what the hell, that must be about 14 in the exact same area where all citizens in the community is being torture with the thumping noise from them all.

    How is this Yarra Ranges council when did they rezone?

    I reject this and any further so called cover gym's or fitness centre's or recreational facility (NOT).... this is absolutely heinous attacks upon us all...i am going to initiate an investigation into every gym, etc, on that side of Canterbury road and the same block of factory area's. How is a gym, fitness centre come under industrial area?
    What university is doing this? Or involved in these cover up businesses..?

  22. In Albanvale VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 80A Oakwood Road Albanvale, VIC:

    Adam Bunderla commented

    I think this proposal is fantastic, one of the best changes the area will see in my lifetime.
    It will be really great if they could ground the whole powerline from neale road right up to through the new estate and remove the eysore/health hazard that it is. the skyscrapers have to go!
    we need mccann drive to be linked and joined up to rockbank middle road in burnside with a small bridge over the waterway. im sick of driving 10-15 minutes to visit people less than 1km away over the creek.
    this will improve accessibility to both brimbank plaza as well as caroline area springs for all those living in the region.
    to have only taylors road and ballarat road as the only way to caroline springs is badly thought out planning in my oppinion.
    density around the shopping centre should be the priority moving forward.
    a new bus bigger terminal with a safe walking path to it will compliment the new estate and give those in albanvale something to cheer about.

  23. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 970 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Kara Duncan commented

    Oh yes that's all we need is removal of MORE native vegetation in this time of climate change. The natural vegetation is more important and needed than ANOTHER recreation area. Why does the vegetation have to be lost and not incorporated into the outdoor recreation???? I say NO to this development.

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

    Natasha Petrovska commented

    I am opposing this project. Why build such facility in the middle of suburbia???

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

    Harrie commented

    I opposed this project as it is harmful to the community and environment! Please keep Craigieburn safe!

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

    Samira Ali commented

    Please let everyone be healthy and breathe fresh non toxic air. The feeling of so many of us living close to it gives me a nightmare. There are so many who have an objection like me, but they may not have sources to be heard.

  27. In Annandale NSW on “Upgrade of the central...” at Ningana Housing Collective 105 Annandale Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Jim Bendfeldt commented

    About bloody time!

    Ever since I first lived at Ningana (1981-87) and again 1997-2000, I have thought that a rooftop recreation area would bring the place together as an intentional community. We had tried similar in the early 1980's with the downstairs gardens and children's playground (cubby house and swing set) and good times were had by everyone. We even hired acoustic bands on our anniversary days, that would play into the evening. Unfortunately, dear old and late Doug Reid went a bit overboard with the gum trees on the southern boundary. Anyway let them be a memorial to Doug.

    I wish you all the best with this venture, hello to everyone, and no I haven't made any donation or gift to councillors or council employees.

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

    Hasan Tan commented

    This is outrageous! I do not support such a facility. Especially with the lack of communication by the council on its potential effects on our health.

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

    Sarah Richmond commented

    I and many of the people living in the Hume area are very much against this incinerator. I believe our health and environment will be greatly impacted if it goes ahead. There has to be a better and safer alternative.

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

    Karyn O'Donnell commented

    Please don't destroy the future of our children. We don't want them breathing in this second class air. Our health system can't cope as it is, does it really need more pressure. Do children need more health issues on top of all the allergies, asthma, add, adhd and the like. It's about a change in habit to prevent the waste, not disposing of it in a non environmentally friendly way.

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