Recent comments

  1. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 123 Johnston Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Rex Marshall commented

    Why is it the residents of Bellbird Park can clearly see the errors in the flurry of development approvals for our suburb but the paid council town planners cannot? This auxillary unit (duplex) does not meet the council guidelines. It is not situated on 800 m2 and exceeds the space requirement of 100m from existing duplex units in Mark Winter Court. Also its floor space is greater than 50m2 which exceeds that allowed by the council. It cannot be any clearer than this in the council guidelines...
    “Auxiliary Unit” means a building or part of a building used as a secondary residence not exceeding 50m² gross floor area with a maximum of one bedroom which is attached to or associated with a dwelling on the same lot.
    Council staff are paid by residents to maintain the guidelines not give in to every developer with a 'hare-brained plan'.

  2. In Malvern East VIC on “Condition 1” at 302-306 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Rachel commented

    Will the building exterior be retained? It should be within the neighbourhood character protection planning controls because of its era. And beauty.

  3. In Glenelg North SA on “Additions and alterations...” at 1/55 North Esplanade Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Concerned rate payer commented

    This already is a very dangerous corner with little visability as u turn to enter he Esplanade.

    Many homes next door and behind will have their views blocked from seeing the ocean to please one property. How can that be fair to rate payers who live there?

    It's also on the flight path for many planes making it dangerous as the flights come in very low to land.

    No one is happy about it.

  4. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 9 Citrus Avenue Hornsby NSW 2077:

    GIuseppe Fazio (not for publication) commented

    How in Hell can you put 15 townhouses in such small block? some people must have saw dust or rocks in they brains, this is only greed by Governments and I strongly agree with previous comment, when we are going to stop this madness?

  5. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Marine Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Edward commented

    Please keep the height of buildings that are absolute water front at the same level as they were previously. There has been a tendency for council to start approving taller buildings at the waters edge. This just results in more views blocked, taller buildings behind. Stop the densification of our area. Don’t allow 3 or 4 storey homes at the water’s edge.

  6. In Dural NSW on “SCC for Seniors Housing at...” at 795-821 Old Northern Road Dural:

    A. Ambrose commented

    This is not the place for more development. The road infrastructure is unable to cope with the existing residents. The traffic past this site is gridlocked every day. Do not introduce any more development until the existing problems have been dealt with. Old Northern Road and New Line Road are already at capacity. There should be a hold on any further development or usage intensification in this area until both roads are improved and expanded.

  7. In North Adelaide SA on “Land Division - Create 6...” at 202-208 Tynte Street, North Adelaide SA 5006:

    Nicholas Llewellyn-jones commented

    I think it is good. It will help local restaurants and businesses.

  8. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of Boarding...” at 27 Paul Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Patricia Droga commented

    Re 27 Paul Street
    I think it is a disappointing to see another beautiful old Victorian home destroyed for apartments. Why can't the developers at least think about extending the building and making it into two or three apartments by extending it?
    Waverley Council please leave some buildings in tact for the next generation to enjoy.

  9. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of Boarding...” at 27 Paul Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Jason Smith commented

    Please do not allow this development. This part of history should not be allowed to be destroyed for replacing with yet another shonky building

  10. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of Boarding...” at 27 Paul Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    IH commented

    To demolish this beautiful, heritage-listed house and replace it with the proposed ugly, over-sized and inappropriate high rise in the quiet cul de sac of Paul Street would be yet another travesty in a litany of poor planning decisions over decades.
    I have lived here since the early 1950s and can't believe how the appeal of our once -desirable Waverley area has been steadily eroded by successive councils which approve developments such as this proposed 'affordable housing' structure.
    We have lost so many of our precious building assets; residents are left with only ugly mistakes. It appears there is no end to these demolitions - Waverley is fast becoming an urban ghetto. Please stop now before there is nothing left of our precious heritage. Please, Waverley Council, do not approve the Paul Street DA application.

  11. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Kyeemagh Infants School -...” at 30A Jacobson Avenue, Kyeemagh,:

    Dean Katsikaros commented

    As a resident of Kyeemagh, I object to this development proposal for the following key reasons:

    - The suburb of Kyeemagh only has 919 residents, of which only 107 are aged between 5-14 years old (based on ABS 2016 Census Data, vhttp://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12226?opendocument).
    - Based on this census information and assuming every local primary school aged child were to attend the school, the development stands to cater to a population that simply does not exist in the area.
    - In catering to 500 pupils, it is clear that residents from other areas will be commuting to Kyeemagh. The area's roads currently face congestion at peak traffic times given its proximity to main roads and limited access from either Bestic Street or General Holmes Drive.
    - The introduction of additional cars and school busses catering to the drop off/pick up of students will create a traffic nightmare that the current roads are not equipped for. Note, access onto General Holmes Drive from Beehag Street is not permitted on weekdays until 10:00am, half an hour after school zone road restrictions end.
    - In addition to traffic congestion, there will undoubtedly be a range of subsequent safety hazards. The risk of traffic incidents in the area will increase. I note that in the last 12 months, approximately 100 traffic incidents have been recorded in Kyeemagh, of which the majority are within a 1km radius of the school (http://www.snarl.com.au/incidents/suburb/nsw/kyeemagh).
    - The additional noise, potential for vandalism, loitering, littering etc. is simply not acceptable to impose on local residents. The suburb does not have adequate facilities to cater to a 50% population increase.

    These issues only address concerns pertaining to the operational use of the proposed development upon completion. Throughout construction there are countless possible hazards which will be imposed that no amount of modelling or statistical analysis will ever truly capture.

    The attachments to the development proposal offer a biased take on the reality of what living in this suburb is actually like. Frankly, it is in the interest of the various consultants engaged to undertake the attached reports to skew their findings and recommendations in favour of the development. As someone who works in the construction industry and who has managed construction at a public school myself, I know all too well the real implications associated with a project of this nature.

    In summary, increased traffic, increased noise, increased public safety risks, increased waste generation and littering, increased likelihood of vandalism will result from the development and on this basis, the development should not move forward. I am sure that with some creative thinking and resourcefulness, SINSW can find a better solution to cater for forecasted population growth in this general region. Any additional costs associated with going down a different path than that proposed would be nothing more than a drop in the $6B ocean of funding allocated to the state wide schools upgrades.

  12. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 1 Dunmore Avenue Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Wade commented

    It seems we are at the mercy of developers and again another single dwelling disappears with its trees to make way for profit...
    What is the landscaping plan for Parramatta city council? Street trees?
    Don’t leave our leafy suburbs at the mercy of developers Parramatta council!
    We are Currently living next to a single dwelling that has turned into 2 duplexes - windows that invade our once private yard, every tree on the block was removed to make way for this. Every tree.

  13. In Tamarama NSW on “Remove two (2) trees...” at 3 Silva Street Tamarama NSW 2026:

    kathleen tangney commented

    N O T H I N G DOES MORE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
    THAN T R E E S !!!!!

  14. In Tamarama NSW on “Remove two (2) trees...” at 3 Silva Street Tamarama NSW 2026:

    KATHLEEN TANGNEY commented

    N O T H I N G DOES MORE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT
    THAN T R E E E S

  15. In Henley Beach SA on “Amendment to 252/1020/16 –...” at 251A Seaview Road Henley Beach SA 5022:

    Pam Hausler commented

    Thank you Anne, my mistake.

  16. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 1 Dunmore Avenue Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Humi commented

    Hello Parramatta council,
    We have multi level housing development on one side of Pennant hills road because of the existing zoning with Parramatta council. Now that our side of the road has amalgamated into Parramatta council from Hill shire council, could I suggest that the zoning be changed to R4, in order to bring some order and uniformity to this area.
    And assist in speeding up the light rail project. Carlingford rail station is only 300 metres from our place.

  17. In Lake Haven NSW on “Shed” at 13 Bensley Close Lake Haven NSW 2263:

    Mark Sawyer commented

    I have no problem with a shed going up next door as long as he doesn’t use it for panel beating and spraying painting his old cars he had been doing up for other people and himself over the last many years.
    We smell paint fumes often when we have family and friends over and it is an environmental issue when all the paint and bog dust goes down the storm drain.
    A prohibitive note should be made so that doesn’t happen.

  18. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 9 Citrus Avenue Hornsby NSW 2077:

    Carol Cannings commented

    I strongly disagree with the proposed new multi unit development, comprising 15 townhouses, at 9 Citrus Avenue, Hornsby.

    The road is too narrow to allow for additional parking along the street. The surrounding roads do not cater for any extra traffic which would come from such a large development.

    Local schools are already crowded and Hornsby Hospital has long waiting lists for anything other than emergency surgery. Even for those emergencies, you could very well be taken to another hospital because of insufficient beds and staff.

    In short, the current infrastructure will not allow any further developments which would bring more residents into Hornsby. Please do not give approval to this proposal.

  19. In Bentleigh VIC on “The owner remains intent on...” at 56 Fromer Street Bentleigh VIC 3204:

    Sophie Foster commented

    Regards of the owners intentions if he/she is unable to secure finance with the current market condition then it’s unlikely they could secure funding in the future. Lending conditions aren’t going to be relaxed within the next 6-12 months. This is based on my working within the industry. Perhaps application should be withdrawn until finance is secured rather than continue to grant an extension of the application.

  20. In Highton VIC on “Limited Licence - Renewable” at 36 Scenic Rd, Highton 3216, VIC:

    Pamela O’Donnell commented

    What type of venue is this to become?

  21. In Camira QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 8 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Yes incompatible with Ipswich planning scheme. Auxiliary units are just a "smart way of getting another room added to your house. totally at odds with the character of bellbird pk.even more obvious when a developer is involved.
    stop this sneaky development

  22. In Wahroonga NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) for...” at 161 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Magda Daidone commented

    The traffic congestion on Fox Valley Road and The Commenara Parkway during peak times is horrible, it has been made even worse with all of the construction. Please don’t allow them any extensions and for this company to destroy our beautiful suburb..

  23. In Flinders Chase SA on “Construction of tourism...” at Sandy Creek, Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, SA:

    Emma Bell commented

    The Flinders Chase National Park Management Plan Amendment 2017 stated new “minor development zones” including the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail. Sandy Creek and Sanderson Bay are NOT listed as minor development zones and are not markedly on the map as part of the trail. Does DEW provide maps that show the actual boundaries of these development zones or are they adapted to suit?

  24. In Wahroonga NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) for...” at 161 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Jane Watson commented

    Dear KMC,
    Please do not extend the time for the display units for another 3 years. As a local resident and business owner in Fox Valley Road I am finding the traffic congestion on Fox Valley Road, unbearable. As well, the construction on the corner of Fox Valley Road and The Commenarra is causing great inconvenience. The construction workers are using many of the parking spaces, often parking there all day. Our businesses are being affected and the inconvenience to many people is on a massive scale. Please consider our situation.

  25. In Saint Clair NSW on “Retrospective Consent for...” at 162 Bennett Road St Clair NSW 2759:

    Elizabeth CHAPPLE commented

    I support the application for Health Consulting Rooms at 162 Bennett Road, ST CLAIR 2759. I have not made any donation or gift to any Councillor or Council employee. The locality is convenient to the shopping centre where any scripts can be filled and it is next to the bus stop with a shelter which is convenient to locals who may prefer the bus to the chaos that is the shopping centre's carparks...

    Ref DA19/0162

  26. In Lisarow NSW on “Places Of Public Worship on...” at 50 Bannerman Road, Lisarow NSW 2250:

    RhondaLynch commented

    I am opposing this application. This area has been a haven for wild life but, over the last three years, has been ripped of its native habitat. Now it’s happening again. We will have a huge influx of traffic in a once quieter semi rural area. Affecting the wildlife in our area and increasing noise. Please stop this application, now.

  27. In Lisarow NSW on “Places Of Public Worship on...” at 50 Bannerman Road, Lisarow NSW 2250:

    RhondaLynch commented

    I am opposing this application. This area has been a haven for wild life but, over the last three years, has been ripped of its native habitat. Now it’s happening again. We will have a huge influx of traffic in a once quieter semi rural area. Affecting the wildlife in our area and increasing noise. Please stop this application, now.

  28. In Lisarow NSW on “Places Of Public Worship on...” at 50 Bannerman Road, Lisarow NSW 2250:

    John Lynch commented

    This proposed church is not a place of public worship. The Plymouth Bretheren changed their name from the EXCLUSIVE Bretheren in 2012 and this proposal is exclusively for them. In late 2005 the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled the Bretheren should not be eligible for property rate exemptions because private church services did not fit the category of public worship. This development is not in the interest of the public and the immediate residents of Bannerman Road. The new housing development adjoins and I’m sure residents would appreciate a true public facility such as a hall that could have multiple use including child-care.
    The site has been stripped of its trees once habitat for the Regent Bowerbird, an endangered species. This slope needs stabilisation and could slip into the houses below without vegetation holding it together. The houses below are cut into the slope and will already have drainage problems but these problems will be excaberated by this inappropriate development.
    I urge the council not to approve this application because of the site and because the use of the site is not inclusive of all rate-paying residents.

  29. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Lawrence Cornfield commented

    We stay opposite the Patawilya Reserve on the corner of Tod and MacFarlane streets.
    We are not looking forward to these developments and cannot see how they are going to benefit us and the area in any way. The only benefit to building these apartments appears to be to the council rate coffers. The flats are far too high and dense for the neighbourhood, anyone can see that. You are also talking of hundreds of extra vehicles in an area that is already congested and with limited access. The council should stand up for the rights and privacy of their local ratepayers, not stand by idly and allow inappropriate developments to get pushed through.

  30. In Henley Beach SA on “Amendment to 252/1020/16 –...” at 251A Seaview Road Henley Beach SA 5022:

    Anne Wheaton commented

    Hi Pam - It is the Mexican restaurant Zambrero that is asking for extended hours on a Friday not the Ramsgate. Interesting to note that Henley Square now has approx 21 licenced venues.

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