Recent comments

  1. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30-32 Glebe Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    L Goodman commented

    What a bizarre heritage report - it seems to suggest that because it has a modern kitchen and bathroom it's not worthy of preservation. It's very disappointing if the council relies on reports prepared on behalf of a developer which is clearly biased in favour of the developer wishing to demolish a beautiful federation house.

    I object to this development.

  2. In Somerville VIC on “Producer's Licence” at Unit 25 50 Guelph St, Somerville 3912, VIC:

    Janice Cocard commented

    This address only has planning permission as a Warehouse, no manufacturing can take place from this Warehouse under the definition.

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

    Paul barton commented

    As attendees of St Mary’s and local residents we vehemently object to a such a development that serves some to the detriment of an entire suburb. What studies don’t show are the butterfly effects of these developments. Employee parking, visitor parking etc etc at the centre causes immediate congestion, parking issues in the surrounding streets with ripple effects for many streets around the area. You have children at St Mary’s and youths at the college - let’s add twice the traffic and see what happens to the safety profile within a 500m radius of the development. Listen to the people Waverley.

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

    Stephen Walker commented

    Yet again we see that Easts do not respect the decision of it own members in regard to any development of this site. Yet again we see Easts try to overturn the wishes the local community and its own members.

    Issues such as traffic congestion are a major concern with the area being inundated with traffic during school days. The traffic along Birrell Street is bad enough throughout the week without the added stress that this development will bring. Parking will be another issue around the area with little or no parking available at the moment for residents and their visitors.
    The height of the buildings will cause shadows to the nearby neighbours and the whole area will change from a lovely open space to yet another high rise in an area that has already enough large developments.
    I strenuously object to this development application and trust that the council will vote this application down and respect the wishes of the local community.

  5. In Sutherland NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Boyle Street Sutherland NSW 2232:

    Michael Linklater commented

    This is unnecessary, Sutherland and the surrounding areas are becoming over developed with no thought being put in to the infrastructure to handle the influx of new people caused by said developments. this is getting beyond a joke and myself and many other residents are getting sick of it.

  6. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 20 Keidges Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Daryl Rae commented

    Can someone please provide answers to the following?

    What is the actual distance going to be between the 3x 25KL Stormwater Detention Tanks southern wall and the Boundary of 22 Keidges Road? and
    what is it's actual location measurements from Centre street and Keidges Road, going to be?
    The Retailing wall should be continuous with no gaps along the boundary of 20 & 22 Keidges Road, currently it shows a gap. Is this necessary or can it be continuous?
    (Ref Drawing C105 and Ref; RL65.80 to 65.40) and (Ref Drawing C104 and Ref; RL 71.75 to front boundary of Keidges Road) just after the detention tanks drawing no C303
    Please provide the following measurement for every 10m Distances of the concrete sleeper retaining facing the 22 Keidges rd, including the Bottom and the Top
    Please provide the earthworks fill section close to 22 Keidges road
    Please provide full details of 5/B manhole and please include a stubb for future connection to the manhole Ref C105, ready for a southern connection
    Please provide all the Heights of all of the structures to be built
    Please provide the details connections to the Swale drain in Centre street that connects No 30 Keidges rd
    (Timber facing Palings to face No 20 Keidges Road, Timber rails to face No 22 Keidges rd)
    We would prefer that the Rails of the Timber fence facing towards 22 Keidges rd, so it's harder for people to climb over from the northern side (No20), because it has public access, can this be put into the drawings as a requirement?

  7. In Cronulla NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 44 Gerrale Street Cronulla NSW 2230:

    Kay Bonner commented

    Disappointed to see a building in this notable position with a height expectation over the already generous level. Also concerned about the lack of parking spaces, considering the obvious issues concerning parking in Cronulla.

  8. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30-32 Glebe Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Judy eriksson commented

    The Glebe St development is the perfect example of how totally out of touch this planning committee and this council are with its community(rate payers) and will hopefully feel the full impact of these very poor planning decisions and for allowing the over development of our suburb come election time. Enough is enough

  9. In Narre Warren East VIC on “Other Applications” at 585 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren East VIC 3804:

    Adriana McCormack commented

    As a local resident I strongly object to this application. This is based on and restricted to the planning merits of the application; and flow from the many state and local planning policies which we have in place in the area to ensure that our municipality develops in an orderly and appropriate way for the benefit of our current residents and the long term future of the character of our suburbs and regions.

    This objection has nothing to do with creed or race, and Council should act in accordance with the matters set out in section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and the objections and submissions received from residents.

    These four key issues should be addressed
    1. The appropriateness of the scale and intensity of the proposed development on the amenity of the surrounding area;
    2. The impact of the proposed use and development on traffic flows and road safety;
    3. Compliance with Planning Scheme frameworks and policies for the Green Wedge; and
    4. Conservation of the landscape and scenic qualities of the Foothills area.

    The traffic is already at a chaos and people have moved here for the tranquil lifestyle. This application if it were to go through will only add to the chaos and cause unnecessary disturbance to the community.

  10. In Warradale SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 19 Gardiner Av Warradale:

    Johanna den Dekker wrote to local councillor Nathan Prior

    Everyone in this street. PROTEST. 3 on 1 block is too many.!!!!! Walk around to the end of Struan Ave and see the mess your street will be turned into. For years!! Plastic and rubbish everywhere. Dust covering everything. Loud machinery from 6 a.m. Be warned and PROTEST. I realise some development has to take place but with limits and more council inspections re the site conditions.

    Delivered to local councillor Nathan Prior. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Demolition, construction of...” at 336 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Helen Oliver-Skuse commented

    The existing buildings have very little aesthetic or historic appeal, or at least that's what it seems like from street level. As with the majority of such proposed developments it is the quality of the replacement that is the issue. Maybe the site could support 7 dwellings that have a high environmental overlay and utilise good architectural design. This costs money which most developers are reluctant to spend. It would be bad to see yet another cheap, unsustainable development where energy use levels etc are high due to bad design. And definitely a reduction of parking requirements should not be allowed. Council should not go easy on this.

  12. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Demolition, construction of...” at 336 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Robert Follis commented

    Another oversize development for the area.

    Parking requirements should NOT be relaxed, parking is already bad here and whatever you might hope, too many Australians want to own cars. Or add a No-Car covenant.

    The right size for this is about four proper apartments, not seven micro slums

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Dual Occupancy” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kate Doyle commented

    Living in a city, we should expect a degree of densification, but at what cost? Heritage buildings should be protected, otherwise we’ll have no physical reference to historical architecture and nothing but modern square boxes filling the streets (some of which should also be protected in the future so that future generations can appreciate a different slice of history).

  14. In Geelong VIC on “Use and Development of Land...” at 95 Eastern Beach Road, Geelong, VIC:

    Chris Mackey commented

    As a nearby resident, I think this is a really good development and am really looking forward to it. I'm confident the new owners will do a good job on the basis of their Melbourne cafe reputation. It will be vast improvement on the eyesore and poor quality food of the food trucks over recent years. Good on the council for helping this happen!

  15. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Renewal of footpath Seating...” at 181 Glenayr Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Fred Johanssen commented

    I'm not sure that Katzy is entirely aware of its obligation to bring in rubbish bins promptly after they've been emptied. Some Saturdays, the empty wheelie bins stay on the footpath all day. I know the business is strict Jewish so probably they're not allowed to move things, but some arrangement should be made (perhaps to employ someone who's not Jewish) to ensure the bins don't block this busy footpath.
    Perhaps approval of this permit can be used to remind Katzy's of this obligation.

  16. In Lewisham NSW on “Boarding House” at 11-13 Hunter Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    Why is there NO information on this?

    Has Council gone on holidays for a month?

  17. In Highbury SA on “Land Division New Allotments” at 38 Edmund Road Highbury SA 5089:

    Trevor Klose commented

    I hope someone remembers that each of the replacement houses needs to have a garage capable of fitting a large car so it is used unlike other recent redevelopments. What is expected is that planning rules are changed to enforce this. Oh dear I just saw another pig fly by!

  18. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Robertbof commented

    Hello everyone!
    I want to present you the best site for sex Dating. - Click on me.
    Приветик всем!
    Хочу представить вам лучший сайт для секс знакомств. - Нажми на меня.

  19. In Melbourne VIC on “To construct a multi-storey...” at 7-11 Hosier Lane Melbourne 3000:

    Nicholas Dow commented

    Why should a "multistory" development escape the bicycle parking requirement? A large building will generate bicycle traffic and there is nowhere to put a bike in Hosier Lane.
    It would be contrary to Council's transport strategy.

  20. In Armadale VIC on “The purpose of this...” at 929-931 and 933 High Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Susan Barr commented

    6 stories in High street and waiving of parking and bicycle allowance is totally too much. Malvern streets are fast becoming dark and overwhelmed by tall inappropriate developments, particularly when there is no set back from the footpath. Please dismiss this application.

  21. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Bull and Bush Hotel Site...” at 360 Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills:

    Mark Donaldson commented

    I live in Charles Street and are already being impacted by traffic "cutting" through to Windsor Road because the intersection of Arthur Street, Seven Hills and subsequently Windsor and Old Northern Roads is a nightmare. All roads in the immediate vicinity of the current and proposed Dyldam developments cannot cope now. How are they meant to cope with the additional traffic flow. The madness of development followed by barely adequate supporting infrastructure must stop.
    Local Govt put their hands up saying we tried everything. State Govt put their hands up saying its a local issue or they meet their planning guidelines and targets.
    Time to start voting accordingly at all levels of Government people. We have both a state and federal election coming up in the next few months. Good place to start I reckon!

  22. In Warnervale NSW on “Residential subdivision of...” at 10 Honey Myrtle Road Warnervale NSW 2259:

    Deb commented

    I understood this estate was subdivided and sold for housing blocks, not dual occupancy lots. This would double the amount of people moving into the area which is currently "busting at the seams". We are still using an archaic boom gate crossing the railway line, roads which are falling apart, overflowing schools both private and state funded, promised infrastructure and garbage littering the sides of our roads. I have lived in Warnervale for 38 years and I am embarrassed at the suburb it has been allowed to become.

  23. In Elderslie NSW on “New Multi Unit Housing” at 110 Lodges Rd, Elderslie 2570 NSW:

    Luke and Tanya Chesworth commented

    My wife and I are pleased to see this small retail development finally moving ahead, and the amenity of Liz Kernohan Drive connecting to Camden Valley way and connecting both Camden Acres and Vantage Point estates is also welcome.

    We are concerned with the scale of the development though, the number of residential apartments and the impact of the additional traffic in the area is worrying, especially given the tendency towards greater density in the housing developments of the area.

    Of greatest concern though is the height and imposing stance that this development will have, which is out of character with the rest of the buildings in the local area. I would like to draw council's attention to the unit developments recently constructed on Vicary Avenue as a much better example of higher density accommodation for this area. We also note that large parts of level 2, and all of level 3 are above the 9.5m height line.

    We ask council to respect the 9.5m height line in this case, and restrict the development to the proposed spaces currently proposed to fall beneath this limit. This will allow the local community to benefit from the amenity of the proposed retail spaces and what we hope will become much needed affordable housing, while at the same time not suffering from the visual and tangible impacts of the proposed over height development.

  24. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30-32 Glebe Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Bill Green commented

    This stunning house is in excellent condition and is a reminder of what a grand suburb Randwick once was with many such houses.
    Council seems to regard any building as a contender for demolition if the price is right.
    Besides what a crime it would be to demolish such a building we only have to look at the mess that the current planning laws are causing.
    Any block of six with underground parking will often have residents with two cars not one, parking is already a nightmare around here and when the huge development in Alison Road off Carrington Road has sold or rented it will be impossible for residents without a parking space to park.
    This building should be preserves.

  25. In Narwee NSW on “Shop-top Housing Development” at 41 Broadarrow Road Narwee:

    Tanja Grifa commented

    Once the one went up on the other side of the station it was all over. That one now sticks out like a sore thumb so, what the heck.....let’s make it the norm. Despite there now being an oversupply of units. What is the plan? How many of these high rises are planned? How unpleasant is it going to be? The area needs to be improved, absolutely. But do we have to shove as many tiny apartments as possible in a tiny area? Is it going to be like Wolli Creek or Canterbury? The only winners are the developers who live in lovely leafy suburbs and the councils who will make a killing from developers levies and more rates.
    You can’t find parking in Narwee to do any local shopping as it is. I can’t see this improving with the increased traffic. I only hope the zoning area isn’t widened down the track.

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

    Mike commented

    Additional traffic and roads clogged already.
    Using open space and community facilities for more development and housing/care facilities..
    Not in the communities best interest and should not be allowed.

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

    T Craven commented

    The Heritage Report indicates that the Waverley Bowling club demolished some beautiful and historic buildings (Preston, St Gabriel's school) in the 1960s to build the club and bowling green which was disappointing to find out. However the current DA plans show a massive 6 story building completely out of character with the area. Estimated cost of work $83,042,442. The developer's own traffic report shows a NETT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC GENERATION POTENTIAL: 88 vph(AM) 154 vph (PM). The cumulative impact of this development along with other developments will increase the already unacceptable traffic congestion in the area. It is zoned RE2 so how is it that a high density aged care development can be built on the site? (RE2 Private Recreation provides a wide range of recreational activities on land that is privately owned. Other uses however are substantially limited.)

  28. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Demolition, construction of...” at 336 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    This is too big - the whole nature of the area is changing because of the increasing number of higher rise developments which are making the area into a very high density neighbourhood indeed. The amenities of the area are not increasing to match the population growth. Nor has sufficient been done to work out how to reduce the impact of so many people living closely together eg the small of a BBQ is often held to be desirable - getting the smell day after day after day is not! Same with parties and other noise producing events - the frequency rises until it is too intrusive. Parking already causes arguments in the area!

  29. In Warners Bay NSW on “Telecommunications Facility” at 7 Charles Street, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Nigel Barrett commented

    This is inappropriate in a residential area. The physical concerns & anxiety this will cause residents is unacceptable. I would also suggest it would significantly impact on land values. Close to sporting field where children visit also makes this a significant issue.

  30. In Dural NSW on “Seniors Housing Development” at Lot 2A Dp 158064 and Lot 1 Dp 230172 Nos. 3 Quarry Road and 4 Vineys Road, Dural:

    Concerned resident commented

    Hi .

    No Doubt it will be a nice seniors centre, but
    There is already a seniors home 100 meters down the road .
    You approve this and another one will pop up another 100 meters up the road and another and another . ....
    Dural will have the oldest population in Australia. I am not opposed to senior homes , but we already have a few in the area and more and more will pop up everywhere if this gets approved. Do you really want A seniors home to pop up next to your home or yours or yours , it’s about to happen And it will push young growing families to move away from Dural giving way to all these Pop ups everywhere. Pop,pop,pop....
    imagine a seniors home was built next to your 5acres , what will you do??? Move out of your beautiful home ? Stay? Sell off to another developer to build more senior homes ?
    It’s like having a block of units next to your peaceful 5 acres, your beautiful view will now be a bunch of brick walls, more traffic ,noise, less privacy.
    Just because the zoning allows it , it Doesn’t mean it’s right for the area.
    Here is a question. If this gets approved , how many more will council approve in Dural ? Consider each one by its merit council will say. That means another one will soon pop up next to your home .
    Can council say this will be the last one approved ?

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