Recent comments

  1. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 3 Bird Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Enough subdivision in Eltham . We are losing too much of our native vegetation. There is not enough parking at the railway station, not enough parking at Woolworths or Coles. Bible Street is already impassable for two SUV’s . I am thinking of moving out of this municipality as it is completely losing the character it had when I moved in

  2. In Umina Beach NSW on “7 Lot Subdivision Strata” at 40 King Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    RB commented

    Lesley Harvey
    regarding hottest suburbs. yes maybe, so time to build more highrise to shade the streets?
    great idea

  3. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Denise Paoletti commented

    I strongly oppose this alteration/addition. 100 dwellings for boarding house will
    Change the face of this quiet family oriented street filled with single dwellings and terraces. The noise level will increase as well as the lack of parking availability.
    I sincerely hope it is reconsidered and scrapped as it has no place in this street.

  4. In Winston Hills NSW on “Building Certificate - A...” at 58 Caroline Chisholm Drive Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Neal and Susan Martyn commented

    BC68/2019
    RE-SUBMISSION re the above by Neal and Susan Martyn who originally commented about 1 month ago and have to date not received an acknowledgement from the Consent Authority:

    "It's difficult to know the even the general nature of the unauthorised works when relevant documents have been retained by a Council Officer.

    However it's apparent from a visual observation of the property that:

    1) the open carport at the front of the property and under the original roofline has been enclosed, presumably to create a garage with roller-door facing the street (?). These works have changed the appearance (streetscape) of the property and of its setback relative to those adjacent, and has additionally compromised the open character of its front yard in contravention of the requirements of the Winston Hills Special Character Area (clause 8).

    2) a large tree at the corner of Caroline Chisholm Drive and Homer Street has been removed and the fence improperly relocated off the boundary.

    It is likely that the above unauthorised works and those additional, the detail of which is being "retained" by Mr Mihaila, will be routinely authorised as seems to be the norm. in these situations.

    That in my opinion would be the wrong approach IF Council is serious about wanting to deter property owners from either themselves, or by the engagement of tradespeople, knowing undertaking building works without authorisation safe in the knowledge that a "get out of gaol free card" in the form of a Building Certificate will be routinely issued by Council after the event.

    An Order to restore the property to its original state may be a little heavy-handed, but then that depends upon the totality of the unauthorised works, and how near(er) neighbours feel about the matter.

    No matter the outcome of this Application, Council needs to either make a more concerted effort to make people aware of the rules governing such matters and then rigorously and consistently enforce those, or turn a blind eye!

    Having just spoken with the Applicants it appears that there are extenuating circumstances, that inter alia includes their claim that the unauthorised building works involving the attached garage were shown on drawings attached to the documents produced at time of their recent purchase.

    On the face of it this situation is unusual, but more to the point, if Council's advice of the Building Certificate Application via its online portal, and consequently via Planning Alerts, had included all relevant Documents supplied instead of those being withheld by one of its Officers, then transparency would have avoided our earlier queries of that, of the Application, and of its assessment.

    We reiterate though, that on the broader issue of unauthorised works being consented after the event by Council's issue of a Building Certificate, it needs to either make a more concerted effort to make people aware of the rules governing such matters and then rigorously and consistently enforce those, or continue to take the apparent "harder than a marshmallow" approach by turning a blind eye."

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 94 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon Rumble commented

    Council just emailed me to say the documents are now available. 21 days after they notified of the DA.

  6. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 42 Merton Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Ash commented

    I agree with Monique.
    The current structure must be preserved and restored accordingly. This is supposed to be a heritage/ conservation area and the destroying of the house contravenes this. The proposed structure is oversized, out of character and will deplete the nature of Merton Street yet further.
    This must be escalated to the heritage council for an assessment.

  7. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Public...” at 1 Twenty Fifth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Dominique commented

    There are almost 10 new Development approvals that have past through council or are waiting (to surely) be passed by council for the northern end of palm beach alone. All outside our town planning regulations for density, plot ratio, communal areas and green space, all with major consequences to neighbouring properties.
    Our narrow corridor of the coast cannot sustain the current community and tourism influx, let alone with the current, and evident, lack of future planning foresight by council for mass high density living and over supply of accommodation.
    We have city guidelines and city plans for a reason, failure to do so only destroys economic growth and the local economy.

  8. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Shane A. commented

    I went to view the DA as 100 rooms seemed excessive and I wanted to to get an understanding of the build. There are 'no records to display' for this DA so I am objecting, unless they be made available.

  9. In Fairfield West NSW on “Demolition, Subdivision &...” at 83 Madeline St Fairfield West:

    D Bruker commented

    I don't have any issues with dual occupancy developments, however with all the duplex's and triplex's in our street the parking situation is becoming alarming.

    Even though each duplex etc allows for a garage and parking in the driveway for each unit the trend is that each occupant is not parking in the driveway they are parking in front of the houses that still have frontages.

    Eventually there will be no parking available.

    Council needs to include into each development more consideration for off street parking allocation.

    From our experience there should be parking for at least 3 cars per duplex/triplex.

  10. In Randwick NSW on “Construction of 6x2 storey...” at 18 Dolphin Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    nick commented

    This development is characterised as a "Development Application - Construction of 6x2 storey attached town houses and basement." The plans submitted clearly show a 3 storey development with basement.

    The orientation of the town houses runs West to East with the backyards on the Eastern side. This is counter to every other house and block in the Street. Recent construction in the street has all been 2 storey developments..

    The design has a significant impact on 20 Dolphin Street which would now have 6 backyards running along its Eastern boundary - shadowing, noise and privacy are a significant concern. All 3 levels of the proposed design have floor to ceiling windows with a terrace on the 3rd level - there appears to be no consideration for screening or noise reduction on any level. Given the topography of the site which already sits considerably higher than 20 Dolphin this development a third level is not appropriate regardless if it fits into spec. In fact on the Western/Dolphin Street boundary the site is non-compliant as stated by the developer. The third level needs to be removed.

    Traffic - this section of Dolphin Street is small and already heavily congested. Every morning and afternoon its a car park for 20 minutes and used as a rat run during the day. There is in fact a joint committee sponsored by council between residents and Claremont College to help manage the traffic flow. Adding more cars and entry and exit on Dolphin Street further exacerbates the issue.

  11. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 42 Merton Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Monique commented

    Strong objection to the demolition of this property and oversized development and house with no character.

    Council please keep what is left of Balmain heritage and architecture.

    I have objections to updating exiting house structure and architecture.

    Let's no loose what makes Balmain unique.

  12. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Elizabeth Dobrin commented

    Hope this environmentally significant site can be bettered with something that contributes to the area, community and wildlife rather than further exploiting it, adding to the congestion, pollution and money grabbing by the already very busy developers.

  13. In Cairns City QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at Unit 83 107-113 Esplanade Cairns City QLD 4870:

    lois raynor commented

    We're residents of 107 esplanade. What approval change is requested?

  14. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Robert Jansen commented

    The space should be used for relaxing and entertainmet, licensed cafes, children playground, grass, etc. there are now enough appartments in the Rockdale area a d we definitely don't want to build a posible ghost block.

  15. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Removal of Tree 1- Hibiscus...” at 23 Tudibaring Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Louise Hyman commented

    I own 25 tudibaring pde and this is a substantial deforestation of the block. I am especially sad about the coastal banksias which feed and home so many birds in the area including the occasional black parrot family.

  16. In Blackbutt NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing...” at 2 Kite Place Blackbutt NSW 2529:

    Jamie Stevoski commented

    Building on this land will create land slippage issues to those properties around it. Not only this but it will create privacy issues into those who have backyards in the local area. This is appalling management by Shellharbour Council!

  17. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Public...” at 1 Twenty Fifth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Kevin Kunst commented

    I’m completely OPPOSED to this Development and I am submitting my OBJECTION. Palm Beach is suffering from the High Density High Rises that are currently under construction. To add more High Rises to a suburb that has one on ramp for the M1 and is land locked between the 2 creeks... Tallebudgera and Currumbin Creeks, is reckless. City Plan Guidelines should be followed and not ignored by the GCCC. This development will destroy the amenity of the area and the setbacks are outside City Plan Guidelines. This will create chaos in our narrow laneways. The infrastructure can not support this development. Your planned Light Rail has no funding. It’s at least 8 years away. If ever!
    The loss of sunshine and privacy for neighboring residents is despicable. Please adhere to City Plan Guidelines. Please refuse this Development and others like it.

  18. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Public...” at 1 Twenty Fifth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Ben Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. The reckless disregard of City Plan Guidelines is again evident in the Developers Plans for this address. The Setbacks and the Lack of Communal Open Space is completely outside City Plan Guidelines. The Palm Beach area has been inundated with high density high rises that drastically exceed City Plan Guidelines and the suburb is struggling with excess traffic, blocked streets and dangerous cranes. There is no current infrastructure to support the continued approval of such developments. Light Rail is at least a decade away, if it ever even happens as there are no funds available to even commence Stage 3A. The Esplanade can not handle this influx of cars and extra traffic movements.
    Please adhere to City Plan Guidelines and REFUSE this development.

  19. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Patricia Hawkins commented

    I have grave concerns for the well being of our community, in particular it’s psychological health. Rules for town planning are not just there to protect the land they are also there to protect people living in urban environments. Once you allow reason to be overrun by greed it sets the foundations for serious negative impacts on these communities. Councils are elected by the community in good faith that they will uphold these rules to the City Plan, sadly over the past few short years there is clear evidence that we as a community are being neglected by the very people we rely on to protect our families, homes and to maintain healthy environments . I therefore ask Council to provide very strong evidence that any further developments in Palm Beach adhere strictly to the City Plan and any codes that are involved and consider the social and environmental impacts of such.

  20. In Sylvania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13 Holt Road Sylvania NSW 2224:

    Joe commented

    Is it planned to use this dwelling as a rental property and " affordable housing" as mentioned in plans? They are accepting too many applications for boarding houses etc. in Sutherland Shire.

  21. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Kay Meldrum commented

    Kay Meldrum
    Any use of this land must stay for public use.Please no apartment towers.We all need green space.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 41 Chesterfield Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Resident commented

    I think this application is reasonable. The level of detail provided is refreshing.

  23. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Virginia Lowe commented

    Any development should be for public use, not handed to developers for more apartment blocks.

  24. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Bernadette Hayes commented

    Waverley Bowling Club Revised June 2019. DA 483/2018.

    I wish to object to the revised DA for the Waverley Bowling club.

    Firstly, while the DA has been amended, most of the points raised in my previous submission are still applicable. Once again, I refer you to the objection letter from Urban & co, which forms part of my objection. A copy of this can be downloaded at: http://www.savewaverley.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Planner-Letter-of-Objection-Web.pdf

    Further, I wish to raise the following points:

    The applicant has not shown that contravening the development standard of the LEP is justified. The significant quantitative variation from the controls does not meet the objectives of the planning control. In the absence of compliance with the control, an appropriate town planning outcome would not eventuate. It is not in the public interest and is overwhelmingly objected to by those living in the local area as shown by the significantly high number of submissions received by council.

    Building Height and Floor Space Ratio:

    The buildings are well in excess of the maximum LEP height and floor space ratio, are unsympathetic towards the streetscape/character of the area and will be higher than any other building in proximity, especially those approved since more stringent planning processes have been in place.

    The proposed height will result in buildings that dominate the streetscape, reduce visual privacy and will have significant overshadowing impacts. It bears no relationship to other developments adjoining the site. The streetscape analysis provided in the architectural design report does not take into account that Henrietta and Langley Avenue are both predominated by 1& 2 story dwellings. Many of these dwellings are within close proximity to the site and would be impacted by the proposed height and bulk particularly of buildings A, B & C. The use planting and green walls will not make the proposed scale of the built form any less dominating.

    While the DA application looks to draw comparisons with Waverley college, the later is lower density and has far larger offsets relative to neighbouring buildings. The buildings should be no higher than neighbouring buildings that have been required to comply with the LEP. The proposed height sets a dangerous precedent for future developments.

    In addition, there should be no plant, equipment and communal rooftop terrace on the roof of any building. A communal rooftop terrace will be a noise nuisance. Were these to be removed the proposed height of the buildings are still in no way acceptable.

    The development will significantly reduce solar access for buildings to the South. Solar access is also reduced to the bowling greens.
    The inclusion of 2 bowling greens/common use areas should not permit excessive height in other parts of the site.

    The applicant has provided no economic viability evidence to justify the need for the additional height and floor space required to offset the cost of providing community facilities. An economically viable development that provides benefits to the community could be constructed with the current LEP.

    Waverley Council is already able to achieve jobs and housing targets without the additional building height and scale proposed.

    The historic building will be dwarfed against the huge bulk of the new surrounding buildings. There should be more setbacks from the historic building to enable it to occupy the site without being compromised.

    Privacy and Overlooking Plan:

    Views provided are set back from the boundary. For example, B303, is shown from a vantage point well back from the window, not at the window. This is misleading and understates the overlooking aspect. Site planting should not be relied upon as an effective privacy plan.

    Loss of recreational space:

    Private recreational space is an asset and should be protected as such. This is of utmost importance in our densely populated area. Such zoning exists to provide amenity and improve livability of the area. This proposal significantly reduces the available private recreational space. Providing residential housing does not replace or justify the loss of recreational space. The loss of 1 bowling green, reduction in size of the remaining bowling greens and loss of surrounding open space will all negatively impact on the amenity of this recreational space currently enjoyed by a wide cross-section of the community.

    The development must not result in noise complaints from the adjoining seniors living as this could curtail bowling and club operations. To avoid this scenario, there should be larger offset between buildings and the club.

    Easts have made representations to the members of the bowling club that the two greens would be dedicated bowling greens. As such, there is limited open recreation space for non-bowling residents and non-bowling visitors to the club. As such, the DA should be amended to provide more open space.

    Traffic:

    The study fails to recognise the complex set of surrounding one-way streets and traffic congestion at Victoria St and Henrietta st. No assessment of the Victoria Street and Carrington road intersection has been carried out. This intersection is the cause of most of the problems with traffic congestion along Henrietta and Langlee Avenue.

    The significant increase in traffic volumes will have a detrimental effect on residential amenity. The proposed residential living will see a significant increase in cars using Henrietta St and Langlee Ave.

    It should be noted that the “senior living” is defined as over 55. As such, many residents are “young”, would still be working with children living at home and be still active users of their cars in peek hours.

    The proposed basement drop off and pickup area will further add to traffic and parking problems. Traffic modelling survey should be undertaken in the peak summer months when traffic volumes are higher to better assess intersection operation/impacts. There is no recognition that traffic levels vary due to ill weather.

    Easts traffic study provided in the DA is contradicted by its early study which shows that the Birrell Langlee Intersection is already near capacity. Traffic congestion has increased not decreased over the years.

    Widening of Langlee Avenue does not negate the difficulty vehicles have turning out of Langley Avenue onto Birrell street particularly during peak hours.

    The narrow and single lane road of Henrietta street with the counterflow bike lane is not conducive to any increase in traffic. The council has identified that the counterflow bike lane is problematic due to the narrow width of the road.

  25. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Aaron Wall commented

    This is beyond ridiculous now. We are so sick of seeing applications for huge buildings on tiny blocks of land. Developers must be laughing at our council for how much they are getting away with and how much money they are making. The ONLY approvals that should ever be given is those that are within our carefully considered town plan. This is beautiful coastline, developers will ALWAYS want to develop here regardless. Make them stick to the rules and make sure it is beneficial to all the locals who already live here!

  26. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Staged Multi Lot Subdivision” at 22-72 Robinson Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Toni Arfaras commented

    The Narre Warren North area is supposed to be within a green wedge area with consideration given to the Casey Foothills. The recent amendment to the Cell N Development Plan changed the minimum subdivision size from 2000m2 to 1000m2 for the land at 2-10 Kostic Boulevard, 21-27 Robinsons Road, and 31-35 Robinson Road, Narre Warren North. Allowing blocks below this 1000m2 subdivision size is against what was agreed to by the City of Casey. If this does procede the rural aspect of this area will be lost and this will be to the detriement of the this landscape.

  27. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 468 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this Development. Yet another Palm Beach Development that is drastically outside City Plan Guidelines. The SETBACK at the rear boundary is totally unacceptable. The GCCC have completely destroyed the AMENITY of Palm Beach by approving similar developments already. The Development takes up nearly all of the block, this will incur massive traffics problems for local residents, as construction materials, the Site Office and trucks will use the street and not the SITE. The Community have had enough inconveniences on their local roads from these MONSTEROUS DEVELOPMENTS that are oversized and outside City Plan Guidelines. The height will destroy any sunshine for the adjoining property. The local infrastructure can not support any more of these Developments that do not adhere to City Plan Guidelines. I’m aware of the Planned Light Rail Stage 3B, however it is possibly a decade away before this section of the Light Rail will see its first passenger. I’m also aware that many, many thousands of Gold Coast residents are willing to protest Light Rail Stage 3B. It may never happen. So, these Developments should not be approved until Stage 3B is complete. (If ever, as I’m aware there is no financial backing for Stage 3A yet). Good Town Planning is essential. Why have City Plan Guidelines if we do not enforce them? It seems this GCCC Planning Committee are simply ignoring essential guidelines that are in place to create harmony in our communities. We already have chaos in the Palm Beach community, thanks to the reckless disregard of GCCC City Plan Guidelines. Please REFUSE this Application.

  28. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Diana commented

    Okay for demolition as long as free moving public access is maintained in future works.

  29. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Demolition of three storey...” at 100 Bestic Street, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Helen Treuen commented

    I am happy for the building to be removed as long as the space is used for the community - not for more apartments!

    This should be kept as community used space - cafe, restaurants, or an extension of the children play areas, bike tracks etc.

  30. In Belfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11-17A Burwood Road, Belfield:

    Maree commented

    This development size is not warranted for the suburb now that we have the HUGE tower going up on the corner and more to come from the Strathfield Council side that we cannot control and Canterbury is not interested in.
    This area on Burwood road has no accommodation for parking or pedestrian usage and is becoming very dangerous with cars and buses even outside peak.
    Please post you objection when you receive notification

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