Recent comments

  1. In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    William Jones commented

    I Vehemently Condemn, Object & Oppose this Proposed Development Application.

    There is always a large number of unattended young children walking past this address on their way to & from School, and also on weekends, due to Melrose Park being a very safe and relatively quiet area.

    I guess the cold comfort that we neighbours can all have, is that if it does get approved, the chances are it wont be round for too long, due to it being in the wrong area, as they have obviously not done their market research that well. Have a look around at your fellow Melrose Park/Meadowbank Residents and how many have tattoos? You could argue that they may have tattoos under their clothing, but you can usually tell the type of person who would get a tattoo & not many in the Melrose Park/Meadowbank area!

    Tattoo Parlours are not always - but usually - more prosperous in lower income areas, or Near major arterial routes, shopping centres or commercial areas.

    As someone who drives all around Sydney every day for work for the last 15 years it is amazing how many times you see Tattoo Parlours Start Up & Close Down in a very short space of time!

    The worst bit is the type of people that hang around them during their short duration - devaluing & degrading the area!

  2. In Chatswood NSW on “Inspect 3 trees for removal...” at 28 Eddy Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    All trees and shrubs must be kept as they provide; oxygen for all living creatures, shade from sunlight, habitats for living creatures and beautification of our neighbourhood. Only when trees and shrubs threaten lives, do they need to be trimmed or removed

  3. In Appin NSW on “Continued Use of Secondary...” at 23 Macquariedale Road Appin, NSW, 2560:

    Wendy Spear commented

    This is a test from Wendy Spear - please let me know when this is received on 4677 9668.

  4. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Louise commented

    We do not require another child care centre on KissingPoint Road. It appears to be common place a corner block is sold then becomes a child care centre because this and the over 55s residential development is a government incentive. KissingPoint Road Turramurra has many educational and Religious centres which all add to traffic congestion on weekends and weekdays, these include Turramurra Public School, Ku-ring-gai Kindergarten, and Good Hands preshcool, the new Montessori academy on the cnr Canoon and Kissingpoint Road. Also the Sikh Temple.

    We do not need another child care centre and this building will be two stories and will not blend into the surrounding area. I strongly object.

  5. In Bondi NSW on “Demolition of dwelling...” at 5 Castlefield Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Alicia McDonnell commented

    Castlefield street should be left as is, we don’t want a unit block! Residents appreciate our community and our streetscape as it is. Not to mention the parking situation and traffic in the precinct is already bad enough. Also - last time they did works on these houses (just over a year ago) it displaced rats in the area and caused all sorts of problems for residents and council.

  6. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Jo Chondroyiannis commented

    I cannot believe that Council would even consider such an application for this site. It is public space with sport being played all year round by people of all ages. It is used by local schools for carnivals and is smack dab in the middle of suburbia. What will happen to the football fields and cricket pitch? What is the liability to all involved for long term issues from radiation and safety of children climbing fences etc. Needs to be a public meeting to explain why it needs to be there.

  7. In Waitara NSW on “Construction of 2 x 6...” at 22-32 Park Avenue, Waitara:

    Concerned Resident commented

    I am rather confused about this Development application. The site of the proposed DA, located on the East side of Park Avenue, opposite Waitara Oval (Mark Taylor Oval), is zoned for 5 storey apartments. This is also clearly stated in the current DCP, refer to page 3-82 (82/93).

    The site zoned for 6 storey apartments, which is clearly referred to the current DCP, (Jan 2015) is the site enclosed within the streets, east side Waitara Ave, south side Park Lane, west side Park Ave and north side of Alexandria Parade. Refer to page 3-112 (112/119).

    The proposed 6 storey development does not comply with the current DCP which is zoned for 5 storey developments. That alone should be enough to reject the development. However there are a number of other issues of non-compliance and as the proposed development falls with the zoning for 5 storeys, I shall refer to section 3.4 of the DCP.

    3.4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT.
    The DCP states the building should be a maximum of 5 stories and a maximum height of 17.5m
    The proposed development is 6 storey and 17.750m. This is non-compliant.

    3.4.5 SET BACKS.
    Rear-
    Basement setback is only 6m. The DCP calls for 7m setback.
    Ground floor setback is only 3m. It is well within the required 10m set back
    Levels 2, 3 and 4 are only set back 6m from the rear boundary. The DCP requires 10m setback
    Level 5 set back is only set back 9m. As per the DCP, it should be 13m.

    Front-
    More than 1/3 of the front building encroaches within the 10m setback and more that 1/3 of the front is facade is located within the 8m front setback. 2 ground floor street front balconies encroach well within the 7m set back zone.

    Side-
    Habitable rooms are only set back 4m which encroach well within 6m compliant side set back.

    3.4.6 BUILDING FORM AND SEPARATION
    The building floor plate exceeds 35m. It dose not have a minimum 4mx4m recess to create the appearance of two separate pavilions as stated in the DCP.
    The two buildings are only separated by 6m The DCP required a 9m separation.
    The northern side of the building along the boundary of 34 Park Ave required an additional 3m set back from the boundary.
    The building design does not visually break-up the built form. The façade is repetitive as a solid form, they do not look lightweight. The façade is repetitive in materials.
    The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
    The proposed paint colours of the building are too bold and will be overwhelming for the neighbours.
    The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
    The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.

    3.4.7 LANDSCAPING
    The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
    The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.
    The proposed development removes all existing trees on the site including trees that have been listed in the original DA to remain.
    The proposed development indicated gardens to the level 5 in the 3D rendered images, however the plans do not indicate that there are roof gardens. This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of what will actually be built.
    Due to the minimal setback to the rear boundary there is less that 40% area that can accommodate any trees that will be 10-12m.
    The required deep soil setbacks to the boundaries, 8m front, 7m rear have not been provided.
    The deep soil diagram provided on page 15 of the design statement seems to be misleading. It is showing more deep soil area than what will actually be provided. The deep soil area in the between the 2 buildings is indicated to be paved making the deep soil area unusable.

    3.4.10 MATERIALS, FINISHES AND SERVICES.
    The building colours do not reference the natural habitat.
    The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
    There is no indication of what type of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning system that is to be provided for the building. It is critical to know if there will be exposed wall mounted units.

    3.4.11 SUNLIGHT AND VENTILATION
    With the proposed design, less that 70% of dwellings in the block will receive 2 hours of sunlight.

    It will be interesting to see how this developer, Charbel Demian, who is currently under investigation with the ICAC, will get this development through. He has been around the block. He has all the right connections.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-5948247/NSW-Liberal-MP-embroiled-ICAC-inquiry.html

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/just-got-a-call-from-mp-friend-inquiry-hears-of-wagga-mp-s-sydney-property-interest-20180712-p4zr5x.html

    https://www.afr.com/news/government-mp-resigns-after-icac-wire-tape-is-played-20180713-h12o5x

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/we-were-kept-in-the-dark-teacher-tells-icac-of-tough-lessons-in-property-deals-20180724-p4ztcw.html

    https://marrickvillegreens.wordpress.com/issue/planning-heritage/lewishamtowers/

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/nsw/need-to-see-you-at-the-gym-icac-hears-of-texts-calls-between-developer-and-councillors-20180720-p4zsq7.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

    https://vaaju.com/aus/liberal-mp-terminates-the-party-after-having-allowed-to-apply-for-real-estate-payments/

    https://tech2.org/aus/the-alarms-of-political-influence-of-the-catholic-leader/

    http://www.alankabout.com/australian_news/132009.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx7cFAyyLDI

    https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWk4aU1iVmpJQU1FU1FEdmRlRXYtQjZLQUFQAQ?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/why-nsw-development-scandals-keep-happening-over-and-over-again-20181206-p50kmu.html
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/graft-favours-bullying-and-barbecues-at-canterbury-council-20180420-p4zaqz.html

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-a-polymathic-genius-took-hold-of-sydney-s-second-cbd-20180907-p502dk.html

    https://insolvencynewsonline.com.au/developer-overcomes-asset-freeze/

  8. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    C Duffy commented

    I 100% agree with the comments above. There is a giant pine tree in our neighbours place that’s most likely been there 50+ years as she has been there for 64 years that hangs over our driveway and the falling needles and bats are ruining our two cars. She has tried to remove the tree 3 times as it’s also lifting up her path and she is in a wheelchair so makes it hard to get out and the council have rejected it because of rejections from the community so each night we have to put car covers on and save up for a carport all because of a tree that does more harm than good!

  9. In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    J fisher commented

    We already have a tattoo parlour in the west Ryde area. I don’t think it is appropriate to have this one in a residential area.

  10. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Peter S commented

    I completely agree with Rob Scott. There are too many people making objections without assessing the merits of the application. These people are diminishing the value of Planning Alerts as their comments add absolutely no value.

    If you want to provide your comments about a particular application make sure you assess the application on the merits of that application. Generic comments do not in any way help council make a decision.

    I also ask Willoughby City Council to stop putting every tree application for public comment. Every other council has clearly documented guidelines meaning that public consultation is not necessary. With the escalating anger shown by some of these perpetual objectors, I fear for the safety of any making an application.

  11. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 8 Marwood Drive Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Graeme Williams commented

    In the absence of any detail as to why the trees are being removed it is very difficult to assess the application. If they are healthy trees they should not be removed and if they need to be removed for some other reasonable reason there should be some requirement to replace them. The way things are going around Beecroft we soon will not be able to be called the leafy suburb.

  12. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Doug Lemon commented

    I totally agree with Rob Scott’s comentd.

  13. In Newington NSW on “Tree Application - 2 x Tree” at 26 Newington Boulevarde Newington NSW 2127:

    John Phillips commented

    And what will the property owner be doing about replacement of the trees?

  14. In Marsden QLD on “Construction of a series of...” at 1-13 Fifth Avenue Marsden QLD 4132:

    JOLENE WHITE commented

    Hi dose anyone know what's happening with the land on corner of faith ave marsden
    A sign has been out front advertising shopping center to come 2018??

  15. In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    billy bob citizen commented

    i find it funny how closed minded the people opposing this app are. its like you are all the cunninghams from happy days thinking that tattoo shops have degenerates and criminals and drug dealers hanging around them. just last weekend there was a international tattoo convention at the icc in darling harbour. if tattoo shops bring criminals about then we should shut down the financial sector because of the well known and widespread illegal drug usage and the fact drug dealers hang around the cbd

  16. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Bo Sharma commented

    My 92 years old father lives nearby and objects to this planning application on the same grounds that all others have objected.

    Belinda Seymour ( for Bo Sharma)

  17. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 99 Eastwood Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Concerned Resident commented

    This DA Seems to be out of character of the area considering it to be within Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area.

    There are no hospital of medical centre close by.

    The immediate area has very limited Public transport, and car parking is already very limited in the area.

    This is a residential family area and the area should remain this way

  18. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Rob Scott commented

    I've read a comment by Simon Dixon.

    Whilst we all should love trees, and we need them, some trees need to go. I too have been receiving Planning Alerts for a number of years. There seems to be a small number of people besides "Lou" who respectively care and make comments/objections about tree removals, people like David Grover, Jenkins Peter J, Peter Jenkins and Peter Hayes. Interestingly their objections are not always about trees in the same suburb or streets close to each objection. Yes they may care about the environment, but how can these people be honestly objective if they are not familiar with that particular home.

    I know of a lady who planted a tree (pine) for Christmas in front of her living room, on a water front property, that was 40 years ago, imagine that tree now, no view now, what would be the chance of having that removed?

    Its now a stage in my life that I will NOT plant a tree on my property, in fear that I may never be able to remove it in the future. Am I the only one with this thought? Yes council needs to encourage planting of trees, but also be a lot more amenable for removal. Maybe a register that you register planting a tree, and if so you can remove it without any consequence or fees to gain approval to remove.

    "Why grow dope when you can plant a greenie?"

  19. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Ainslie Quilty commented

    To whom It May Concern
    I am opposed to the construction of the mobile tower - the Optus website shows that Wyoming is fully covered by three other towers in close proximity. It also does not make sense to build the tower in a valley.
    Local residents and businesses were not contacted regarding the DA neither were the sporting clubs who lease the field.
    This is a park utilised by families, sporting clubs and people all year round and a park is no place to build a mobile tower.
    The heath concerns listing by many other people above should be enough for this to not go ahead however I will also be contacting my local member to oppose this.
    I implore you to reconsider and not go ahead with construction for the sake and wellbeing of the community.
    Many thanks
    A local resident and local business

  20. In North Tivoli QLD on “Material Change Of Use -...” at 540-604 Warrego Highway North Tivoli QLD 4305:

    Alexandra Gillies commented

    I am concerned about it being used as a 'landscape supply depot'. If this is the same as the depot that was on Tantivity Street that closed down years ago the stench coming from the depot was overwhelming.
    The area looking at being developed for change of use is very close to a number of built up high residential areas, and of this reason I do not believe is suitable for businesses that will encourage high levels of dust to fly into the air (eg from trucks) and for equipment and "goods" that will encourage unpleasant odours to emit from the property.

    In addition to the smell, I am concerned about an increased level of traffic in this area as the round about system and off ramp from the Warrego Highway as they stand now do not cope with the traffic as it is at the moment. The traffic at these roundabouts in the mornings and afternoons during peak hour cannot cope with the traffic now, and with the increased housing developments through Barellan Point, and "The Crossing" in Chuwar traffic is increasing as more families move into the area, and adding a number of trucks into the mix as the roads stand would increase demand on these already crippled roads.

  21. In Umina Beach NSW on “Additions To Residence Deck...” at 78 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners plant some medium trees for shade when the extensions are finished? I can see this block has not one tree but is lucky neighbours have kept theirs.
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees from villas and secondary dwellings causing (proven by Council) urban heat island effect - same for housing sub-divisions at Warnervale which are also 4 degrees hotter than areas that have retained trees. Would you live in a hot box/paying for expensive air-conditioning if you had a chance of living somewhere on our lovely coast or hinterland that has shade where birds are caroling?

  22. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling - Granny...” at 113 Karingi Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners site the new building so to plant some medium trees for shade when the granny flat is finished?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees from villas and secondary dwellings causing (proven by Council) urban heat island effect - same for housing sub-divisions at Warnervale which are also 4 degrees hotter than areas that have retained trees. Would you live in a hot box it you had a chance of living somewhere on our lovely coast or hinterland that doesn't have shade?

  23. In Fern Bay NSW on “Childcare...” at 43 Seaside Bvd, Fern Bay 2295 NSW:

    Jenny commented

    Hi on the development on seaside boulevard. I think a tennis court would be awesome. Absolutely not a skate park. I think skate parks attract kids that end up making the skate park a meeting ground for trouble and vanderlisum. And attract the kids to hand around at ungodly hours.

  24. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of 2 x detached...” at 18 Allens Parade Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Jane Howes commented

    This feels like a disingenuous change to the original DA, which was quite sympathetic to the street and residents. But, lo and behold we now have a new , larger and much more impactful application. This is disappointing. Issues with this application:
    Whilst we appreciate the attempt at creating additional parking it is not sufficient to accommodate the likely number of residents. This is obvious.
    Parking is already an issue here which regularly requires me to spend up to 30 mins looking for a park so I can enjoy my home. I often have to navigate my two small children, our bags, the shopping up to 800m. This development will make this materially worse.
    The traffic going up and down Allen's parade is frequently unsafe which I have discussed with Council before. People driving up to 80kms down the road and making unsafe turns in their desperation to obtain parking.
    The property is next to a heritage listed property which may be damaged by the deep excavation.
    The proposed property height is now overbearing and out of step with a residential street. This will decrease property values in our street as it will make the street much uglier. Can you please confirm regulation compliance for height?
    It is an unappealing design. Absolutely unrelated to the 1920-30 and Federation style homes that it surrounds. This is a taste issue but surely there are more imaginative and appropriate designs. It seems that Bondi junction is where architecture goes to die. Who is driving an overarching vision for the landscape of Bondi Junction? Isn't this you Waverley Council? Let's do better.
    It appears from the model to be a greedy footprint. All house no outdoor area. Can you pls confirm it complies with regulations?
    Thank you for reading.
    Jane

  25. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of a...” at 13 Silkwood Way, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Melissa commented

    Placing more homes on Silkwood way will produce more traffic and more residentail cars on a street which doesnt have ANY off street parking. Sub-divided land and townhouse/unit properties on this stress will also have a negative impact on the property value of the homes on Silkwood Way and surrounding streets. The grandeur and prestigious look and feel of Silkwood way, its large blocks and large homes as you enter the estate will be gone if these properties are allowed to sub-divide their land and build multiple dwellings on their block. This will be the second home on the street sub-dividing their land and I'm sure other properties will follow their lead. Currently, there is a $100-$150k premium to live on Silkwood way and surrounding streets in this estate, and having recently purchased a property on one the streets coming off Silkwood way and paying the $150k premium to live in this estate, I am not impressed to see sub-dividisions coming up! If sub-divisions are permitted on Silkwood way, it will de-value the properties in the estate, create more traffic congestion getting onto Wellington rd and create parking issues on a street which is already facing major parking proplems. Of all the streets in Rowville, this would have to be the worst street to allow sub-divisions!! NOT IMPRESSED!!!!

  26. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove 1x...” at 44 Waters Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Peter jenkins commented

    The amount of trees being hacked down is disgusting . Council allows this far to often. Our suburbs are being turned in to concrete jungles. Trees provide food and shelter for birds and animals. Please refuse this application

  27. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of 2 x detached...” at 18 Allens Parade Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Sue Trim commented

    Another over development in the area this time in Allens Pàrade. Residents who have been in the street over 40-50 years and other home owners im the street are over-looked once again. The impact to the street will be huge. Disgraceful Council - all about greed.

  28. In Merricks VIC on “Use the land for a...” at 3649 Frankston-Flinders Road, Merricks , VIC:

    Michael Gielb commented

    I’m a long time resident of Balnarring.
    I can’t see any positives or benefits for residents of the Peninsula in this proposal.
    We would get more noise and disturbance and it will be very unlikely that the fly in / fly out restaurant visitors will take the time to visit other areas or businesses on the Peninsula.

    Michael Gielb

  29. In Umina Beach NSW on “Additions To Residence Deck...” at 78 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Melissa Chandler commented

    It’s hard to tell from this DA if a double width driveway is part of the design.

    Double width driveways really should NOT be allowed on the Peninsula. They create a permanent hard, heat trapping hard surface which is useful only for a matter of seconds and which reduces the potential for trees and/or grass to be added to improve the character of our suburbs.

    Nearby in Brisbane Avenue a new build property added a “double” driveway, and to do so removed a tree planted by the community.

    A single width driveway is sufficient. How often do two cars leave a garage simultaneously? Never.

    Thank you.

  30. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 75 Chesterfield Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Liz Perram commented

    Is there a reason for removal of his tree? Has council assessed the health of the tree? We need trees for the benefit of our urban environment. They improve the quality of our air and provide shade. The Eastwood-Epping area is slowly being denuded of its beautiful trees with rampant development. It's time for councils to step up and protect our 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