Recent comments

  1. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 24-26 Taylors Lane, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Josephine Skoblar wrote to local councillor Nicole Seymour

    No! No! No! We do not want our streets to be over developed with no parking and more residents than the area can cater for. Taylors lane is already busy enough without the extra residents in the street. There already is insufficient parking for kids drop off at the local St Simons school with cars looking for parking on Taylors Lane even further at times than this property. Further, development will only decrease the value of properties rather than increase and nobody wants these double storey houses built on tiny blocks where everybody can hear each other. Not a good move!

    Delivered to local councillor Nicole Seymour. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 24-26 Taylors Lane, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Josephine Skoblar commented

    No! No! No! We do not want our streets to be over developed with no parking and more residents than the area can cater for. Taylors lane is already busy ebough without the extra residents in the street. There already is insufficient parking for kids drop off at the local St Simons school with cars looking for parking on Taylors Lane even further at times than this property. Further, development will only decrease the value of properties rather than increase and nobody wants these double storey houses built on tiny blocks where everybody can hear each other. Not a good move!

  3. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Joe Borg commented

    The people of Portarlington dont need a huge eyesore such as this building .
    There is no need to have a building at this height (over 9.0 meters ) because it is already high on top of the hill and will have fantastic views over the township and the bay , with the maximum 7.5 mtr height limit.
    Other buildings which have been recently built in the area have followed the building guide lines set by the council.
    Dont forget these building guide lines were put in place to protect our fellow neighbours, the street scape and the local community from these types of developments.
    If this development is allowed to go ahead IT WILL open the flood gates for other oversized buildings to be built in our beautiful town.

  4. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 20 Forbes Street Hornsby NSW 2077:

    I.G. commented

    This architect needs more learning. What an ugly design!! Why should people put up with having to look at such barrack like building? Anyway the whole area is chock-a-block full of low caliber buildings and congesting the Hornsby area plus the surrounds. Enough is enough!

  5. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 24-26 Taylors Lane, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Pissed off resdient wrote to local councillor Nicole Seymour

    This is ridiculous once again to be adding to the traffic congestion in this area without consideration once again to the impact on those of us who live in the area. It can already take me 24 minutes to travel from one side of Rowville to the other lets just keep approving more development. Where will the cars park?? On Taylor’s lane no doubt -
    Knox
    City council need to stop and keep our area green and leafy like it should be!!

    Delivered to local councillor Nicole Seymour. They are yet to respond.

  6. In North Rocks NSW on “Tree Application - Pruning...” at 47 Statham Avenue North Rocks NSW 2151:

    Kathie Walters commented

    Yes. A sad story indeed. The people who do not value the trees seem to seek a world of nothing but concrete.

  7. In North Rocks NSW on “Tree Application - Pruning...” at 47 Statham Avenue North Rocks NSW 2151:

    Barbara Horsfield commented

    What a sad story.

  8. In North Willoughby NSW on “Removal of 5 trees &...” at 24B Forsyth Street North Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Strata Committee commented

    By way of background the removal of trees is to allow more than 40 new trees/plants.

    Tree removal includes ill and non-native plants.

    New trees will be extensive to the front boundary, driveway length and other site areas.

    The intention is to increase plant life on the property.

    The new plantings and varieties have been planned by Enriched Gardening and new gardens to be created by The Outdoor Professionals.

    Pruning is related to power lines

  9. In Blackwall NSW on “Dual Occupancy Attached &...” at 1 Waitangi Street, Blackwall NSW 2256:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is good for the area to have urban renewal, can the owners think about leaving room to plant some shade trees on the western boundary?
    The Peninsula has lost too many shade trees therefore any new advanced plants that can be planned for to allow them room to grow would not only add value to the property in 10 years time, keep the residents cooler in summer but benefit the area greatly.

  10. In Kalbar QLD on “Subdivision” at 4 - 10 Ann Street, Kalbar QLD 4309:

    Therese Eddy commented

    Does this area have a local heritage overlay with a heritage listed house up the road.

  11. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Jasna commented

    Dear Sir/ Madam,
    I would like to express my strong objection to the proposed development of a 40 bedroom boarding house at 1038 - 1040 Anzac Pde Maroubra. I believe that affordable housing should be distributed/scattered across a very broad area rather than in concentrated pockets, this just creates ghettos.
    Please learn from mistakes of the past.

  12. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “New - Insert Customer's...” at 6 Gladys Avenue Frenchs Forest NSW 2086:

    Colin Mitchell commented

    This development in Gladys Avenue is yet another example of developers exploiting loopholes in the legislation regarding SEPP and so called affordable housing.These are not low rent public housing units. They are advertised as executive apartments.The road is too narrow and already crowded with hospital traffic. It is meant to be a low density street and if the zoning changes to units on the Forrest Way side there will be even more congestion. If this development is meant to be for aged residents, how come each unit has four bedrooms? If this is allowed, then every house in the street could become a "boarding house".

  13. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of 1 x 2...” at 1 Agnes Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Tammy Kricheli commented

    Dear neighbours,
    Unfortunately, again we are facing planning proposal for 5 townhouses on ONE block. This means more people and more parking, which would affect our streets and may create precedence for the area, not to mention all other negative effects on neighboring amenities.

    Our neighborhood character can tolerate a sensible redevelopment but not overdevelopment, as currently only 2 townhouses are prevalent in the area.

    We are asking the council to help us to achieve that by keep our neighborhood tranquility as it is now.

    Just recently Council rejected the proposal for 6-8 Bevis Street (22 apartments), and now there is another proposal for 1 Agnes Street.

    For the last three years we haven’t been able to go on with our lives but to face yet another unreasonable development.

    As a result of continues attempts to force on us out of character developments we are gearing up to change the legislation and zoning for our area for reduced build mass and dominance under Res-code, considering overlooking, overshadowing, private open spaces, energy efficiency of existing properties etc.

    If you wish to be part of this initiative, please send me an email with your full name and phone number as we would be engaging Councillors and Members of Parliament to change the legislation of zoning. We believe that only if more residents can have bigger impact to expedite the changes.

    I will notify you with progress.

    overdevelopment2019@gmail.com

    Neighbours from: Bentleigh, Bentleigh East, McKinnon & Ormond that live in a residential area

    Tammy Kricheli

  14. In Artarmon NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Muttama Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Robin Roach commented

    30 Muttama Rd is in the Artarmon Conservation Zone and this must have been known to the recent purchasers of the property.
    At the time of my inspection this house, while in poor condition, appeared repairable. This house has many period features consistent with properties of this era. Council should only give approval for this house to be repaired, sympathetically extended while retaining its original period features.
    Approval of the demolition of the existing property will set a dangerous precedent of knockdowns and rebuilds that could forever change the character of this highly desirable part of Artarmon. The only circumstances I can envisage in which Council should give such an application serious consideration is if the applicant could demonstrate that the house generally has serious structural issues (e.g. leaning walls in risk of collapse) or the character of the house and time of build was wholly inconsistent with the general character of other properties in this conservation zone. In those circumstances only, a new construction might be approved if of a style that blends in and compliments the surrounding homes.

  15. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Ann Nichol commented

    Residents move to Portarlington because it is a seaside village. Even with expected population growth it does not need three storey dwellings. Housing needs to be designed for families and the ageing population.
    The Andrews Government has committed to enact legislation to protect town boundaries and height controls. This protective legislation is urgently required.
    Ann N.

  16. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Dean Wilson commented

    I object to this development on the basis that Kings Langley is a low density area, and this is a high density development.I brought in this area 2 years ago, and moved out of a high density area, so we would have a better lifestyle.
    In this current climate there is an over supply of apartments. This is having a knock on effect to houses. Driving down the value and rental return on apartments and houses. The demand for these apartments is just not there.No resident in Kings Langley want this development. Only the developers and council want this building for what they think will be a financial gain.

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

    Abraham Vargh wrote to local councillor Mike Clarke

    This is a green wedge zone so needs to e protected. This developmet will cause traffic chaos on this one way single lane road . This would also impact the property prices severly in surrounding suburbs. Please proect the greenery and pristine rural lifestyle of the hills.

    Delivered to local councillor Mike Clarke. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Class 1 Appeal in Land and...” at 429-449 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Peter Edwick commented

    The original development was completely deceitful as it included small boutique shops at street level. This was changed into a monstrous large shop for sydney tools with hideous street signage. This street signage is not in keeping with dulwich hill shopping centre and should be completely refused. Not only should current signage be refused but development returned to its original application of seperate shops.

  19. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of two...” at 107 Nicholson Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Clare Fitzpatrick wrote to local councillor Oscar Yildiz

    Please - You want 2 homes but only one parking spot? NO. You want to do this on Nicholson ST - a major road?? nuts

    Delivered to local councillor Oscar Yildiz. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Flinders Park SA on “Combined application 1:2...” at 23 Beatty Flinders Park, SA:

    John Baldwin commented

    I am not sure how this can be approved:
    *As it fails to meet the Council minimum block size as stated in your development plan of Policy Zone 16 of 300 sqm.
    *It isn't 17 m frontage to Beatty street its more 12m, as the corner cut off is council land and therefor significantly affects access if new dwellings face Beatty Street. This is in conjunction with driveway proximity to corners. If the corner cut off is used as a drive way, there is the potential for vehicles to be parked right on the corner obscuring traffic and causing accidents.
    *If the dwellings face Mountbatten Tce, to maintain correct set back requirements and distance to rear fence line of 3 M, the house would be no doubt not be able to provide the required Private Open Space requirements.
    With all of these considerations and shortfalls in block size and layout, the council cant possibly think of approving this.

  21. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of 1 x 2...” at 1 Agnes Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Graeme Gibbons commented

    Please council, you are voted in by our local community to represent us
    We continue to see our streets become choked with cars parked in front of over development of houses on single blocks, we continue to raise this with you but it seems like your priorities are not to listen to the voices of the people living in our local community but to continue to destroy our neighbourhood. I call on the people to consider on who they vote on to council to represent us at the next election as I feel that we have not got the right people who are looking after or listening to our community.

  22. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Rebecca commented

    This is way too tall for a building in this spot. It will already have spectacular views if only double storey. There's nothing to be achieved here anymore than what could already be provided from a double storey dwelling

  23. In Lewisham NSW on “Commercial Premises Use...” at 127 New Canterbury Road Lewisham NSW 2049:

    J O'Callaghan commented

    This current DA is an improvment on the previous DA for this site, however there are still issues with a lack of parking, and the proposed height/bulk of the development.

    There is already a lack of available parking on Hunter Street. The current DA does not adequately allow for sufficiant onsite parking for the residents of the new development (ie only 12 car parking spots). This is going to cause undue pressure on an already overcrowded street in terms of available parking.

    Also, the proposed height and bulk of the new development is out of keeping with with the original historic Hotel and facade. This should be addressed so as to be sympathetic to the existing historic structure.

    These issues should be considered by Council when assessing the DA.

  24. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 14-16 Taylor Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    chris brand commented

    Having reread the Planning Practice Note 43 on Neighborhood Character and also in reference to Standard B1 in councils ordinance document, it would be useful for Council(s) to have a clear guide for both developer and residence in regards to this. Neighborhood character as it seems to be subjective at best (past experience) while I am quite sure that is/was not the intention of the standard. In reference to the application, it is of a high density proposal in an area that is majority single dwelling residential (google maps) and as such, developments of this scale and density should be discouraged.

    I note the applicants site coverage of 62.64% where under Standard B8, site coverage is set to a maximum of 60%. Further to this, units 3-6 do not have much open space at all and would fall wall above the 60% . Site coverage should be based on a per unit basis as otherwise it makes no sense.

    Council should discourage such inappropriate developments.

  25. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New Mixed Use Building” at 47-55 Grafton Street, Bondi Junction:

    julia durzi commented

    have you considered the surrounding residents that live for the harbor and city views that will then be taken away by this new apartment? who will compensate them with the prices that they have paid for the view and location? this addition will be such a denotation to the amazing and exclusive area.

  26. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Christina commented

    I have moved to the area recently and am horrified that a boarding house is placed so close to a primary school, family area and surf life saving club. Absolutely against this kind of development and concerned that the council does not want to improve the area.

  27. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of 1 x 2...” at 1 Agnes Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    David Weiner commented

    Once again an overdevelopment with five dwellings resulting in traffic and parking issues
    15 cars parked in the street on this Sunday morning.
    Enough of inappropriate plans.

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

    Delyse Phillips commented

    I am alarmed by the idea of a telecommunications tower being built in one of the very few playgrounds in the area. The sports fields and playground are in constant use by children, and is a suburban area surrounded by housing. Surely, given that the proposed location is in a valley surrounded by hilly bushland, a less controversial location could be found.
    I am a Vodafone mobile customer and have no coverage problems in the suburb, so am unsure of the benefit of the tower, but have many concerns around increased radiation, particularly impacting children (as it is likely to do if it is built in a children's park).

  29. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Julie Anne McKenzie commented

    This development would set a precedent in this area; at the moment, units on the north side of the railway are confined to around the Blacktown CBD. Houses on corner blocks in North Blacktown are already giving way to town-houses every time one is sold. That is bad enough, but it is NOT acceptable to have multi-storey hi-rise or low-rise amongst or adjacent to low-density individual dwellings.
    These units would be the thin edge of the wedge: Before long there would be units being built all along Sunnyholt Rd from both directions and the current infrastructure is not good enough to serve existing residents, let alone the hundreds of people units will bring! People live in this area because they like having the space, privacy and safe feeling of a neighbourhood of individual dwellings.
    Units do NOT belong 3 kms from the CBD. Don't approve this. Please.

  30. In Hove SA on “1 into 3 torrens title” at 14 Railway, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Neil Morris. Once again totally agree with you. Why are they destroying the peaceful suburbs we live in. I am not against redevelopment,just overredevelment.

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