Recent comments

  1. In Birrong NSW on “Building of granny flat and...” at 21 Hill Road, Birrong NSW 2143:

    Donna Pearman commented

    If the existing garage and carport are being demolished, does that mean that occupants will be parking permanently on the street? New developments should include off street parking.

  2. In Point Lookout QLD on “Dwelling” at 3 Hopewell Street, Point Lookout QLD 4183:

    T Menzies (Mr) commented

    Is there sewerage there? Other parts of Point Lookout lack not only 21st century sanitation, but decent public lavatories. For all the money the RCC receives one would expect better. The island is beautiful just the way it is and for the environment that includes, fresh air, the free supply of fresh water, wildlife habitat and just the sheer breath taking beauty so close to Brisbane, and should stay as such. Does Communist Chinese money speak more loudly?

  3. In South Coogee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 154 Moverly Road South Coogee NSW 2034:

    George Robert Leach commented

    When I visited here in 1976 this was a very nice home with gardens in a quiet. Sounds like someone is taking advantage of the neighbors, changing it into a commercial venture that will have a very large impact on the neighborhood. There is no telling what might happen with the traffic this will encourage. I haven't spoken or contacted anyone else in this township since 1980's.

  4. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Rowena Craick commented

    I object to this planning application on the basis that the traffic impact study does not accurately represent the impact on the local residential area.

    Traffic along Glenlyon rd, where the main bunnings entry/exit is proposed, is already at a complete standstill during (and outside of) peak periods. This study was conducted during perhaps the quietest period in living memory due to COVID lockdowns and is a disingenuous attempt by the developer to sneak this proposal though without accurately representing the true impact on the community and local traffic.

    Council has already held traffic studies and community meetings, hearing numerous concerns about ‘rat running’ traffic that try to escape this congestion in Glenlyon rd by racing north up Minnie street and east along Evans st. This development will dramatically worsen existing community concerns and this application proposes no improvements or solutions to manage the massive increase in traffic to the area. I am tired of seeing the Moreland council (and ratepayers) foot the bill for correcting poor development decisions after they have been approved. The developers should be responsible for major traffic alterations before approvals are given, not leaving it to council and residents to solve later after much community anger.

    This is a residential area, with high volumes of Cyclists which are already at risk in this intersection of Glenlyon/Lygon through the loss of the bike lane and turning traffic. There are also major safety issues for cyclists further back at Minnie and Glenlyon. Right turns by cars across traffic at the proposed entry and exit will also significantly increase risk to cyclists at this intersection.

    Extended opening hours is also inappropriate for a residential neighborhood.

    The are so many industrial sites in the area which are more appropriate for this kind of development.

    Although Lygon st is a high density growth corridor and Council designated activity Centre - numerous residential developments have been approved with reduced parking - on the sole basis that it is well serviced by cycling and public transport options - However this existing Lygon tram service now essential to these high rise residents will also be impacted by the increased traffic volumes heading to/from Bunnings. As the trams have no choice but to sit in the single lane traffic jams, this will severely impact the existing transport options the council has consistently encouraged reliance upon.

    Having watched Bunnings move into Sydney rd less than 1km away from this site and put the existing hardware store opposite out of business, I see no need for council to accept a second bunnings store which will also impact other local small businesses and inappropriately impact the residential amenity, traffic, public transport and cyclists.

  5. In Spearwood WA on “Demolition permit...” at 18 Adela Place Spearwood WA 6163:

    Katherine Harrup commented

    The house should be demolished due to the hoarding, all the cars, boat and caravan outside the front yard makes the place looks like a drug house plus it devalued the other properties on the same street as well as the suburbs
    I was going to a home open a few house down so I decided to check out the rest of the street to see what kind of peoples live in the street so besides 18 Adela place the rest of the neighbourhood looks pretty good but I personally decided not to move in the rent property due to the fact the 18 Adela place looks like a drug house there were others there for the home open that said the same thing plus we later found out that the owner is a convicted doggie Breeder whom have harm a lot of animals and got away with the 5 years jail term was enough to put most of us off
    So please demolish the house and clean up the suburb and shame on all the councillor for not doing their job earlier

  6. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Laurence commented

    10 stories, really way too high for this location - sunrise won’t reach 2 blocks west of Lygon for hours in winter. Is MCC creating a canyon out of Lygon by allowing this development- this bit of strip shopping hasn’t taken of in the 35 years I’ve lived here so good luck for this unwanted proposal- a wind tunnel and exacerbated parking problems is all that can be expected

  7. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Helene Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Keith Box commented

    Appropriate screening must be included in any permit granted to ensure that the privacy of all neighbours are protected from overlooking.

  8. In Bulleen VIC on “Construction of two,...” at 2 Helene Street Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Melinda Munday commented

    Roof top decks take away the privacy of all houses around this development. That is a terrible invasion of privacy for these residents and one that cannot be screened out. This should not be allowed. Revisions to the plans and house footprint should be made to allow for a courtyard instead. Planning approvals for multiple dwellings on traditional single home lots is eroding privacy and reasonable backyards and therefore functional and healthy living

  9. In Henley Beach SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 89 East Terrace Henley Beach SA 5022:

    Theo Ellenbroek commented

    This property is in the East Tce Historic Conservation Zone and 2 stories would not be appropriate here I suggest. Similarly the block of 2 story units on the corner of South St.
    They add nothing to the streetscape and fortunately are somewhat hidden by the pines.
    What is the point of a Historic Conservation Zone?
    Council has approved a few new developments in East Tce which do fit comfortably in the streetscape, but the new Lottery prize build by Scott Salisbury on the west side does not!!
    What are the current rules for developments in these special zones - it would seem anything is allowed. How are residents informed about new development plans in HCZ's?

  10. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Vicki Toes commented

    This Medical Centre is not aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding area. Dawson Street has period houses and this will look like a big white elephant. It says on the application that it will have 19 car spaces. If it has provision for 13 practitioners, who probably will all have a car....that’s 13 spaces taken. Now if all practitioners have a patient each, that’s another 13 cars so with only 19 available where will the other 7 cars be parked? Some might ride a bicycle to use those 20 spaces, but usually if you’re going to see a doctor it means you’re usually sick and you won’t be feeling like getting the old push bike out! The surrounding parking is not sufficient to support more parked cars. So then cars will probably park in private car parks ie: Fern Tree Plaza, Royal Hotel etc. thus taking away car spaces for those businesses.
    This application has serious impact on the surrounding neighbours, local traffic, aesthetics of the area and available parking. It is not justifiable or sustainable for the area which already has local Doctors and Dentists, and who don’t need to have their already suffering businesses impacted again as they try to survive during Covid.

  11. In Copacabana NSW on “Removal of 3 x Melaleuca...” at 239 Del Monte Place, Copacabana NSW 2251:

    Elaine norling commented

    Why ask to remove trees? Are they a danger ? If not they need to be retained for the sake of all who live on the planet.....climate change demands action from small gesture upwards
    Every action counts

  12. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 62 Verdun Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah commented

    It’s a shame that such a beautiful house will be demolished but I’m thankful that the elevations shown on the plans look really unique and nice. Thanks for not building a giant duplex here!

  13. In Frankston VIC on “Condition 1 plans - To...” at 56 Orwil Street, Frankston 3199, VIC:

    Mark commented

    The noise that this would create, as well as the health and safety hazard of having the building materials and dust etc so close to our eating areas, bedrooms etc would impact me due to my lung health.
    There is no room for extra traffic flow in this street either and not enough room on the property for them to have more cars parked as well as a house it makes it dangerous for us to leave our driveway due to cars being parked out front already because of their illegal boarding house they run. They have had upto 15 tenants since they bought the house at the end of last year and continued to run illegal inspections during stage 4 restrictions their tenants have told us it’s a boarding house

  14. In Kellyville NSW on “Removal of a Temporary...” at 118-120 Arnold Avenue, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Mohan Somasi commented

    Dear Madam/ Sir: We object to this development. The reason for this objection is due to increased noise from human resources and traffic congestion in the middle of a residential area and especially being close to our property and neighbourhood. We do not support this construction and infact we want this place of worship be relocated from our area completely.

    We are also apprehensive of potential devaluation of our property and other preperties in the area because of this place of worship.

  15. In Narara NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 6 Pildara Street, Narara NSW 2250:

    Kathryn commented

    I disagree that so many Eucalyptus trees are approved to be removed in the area. It seems like one is being cut down every week. We need to preserve the old trees in the area not cull them all.

  16. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of six (6)...” at 480 Scoresby Road, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Trudi Pitches commented

    There should be no access to this property via Anne Road, it is already congested with parked cars from the units on the other side of Anne Rd. Not to mention the wait time for those who insist on turning right out of Anne Rd. The build up of traffic at this corner will be a recipe for disaster especially if our emergency services cannot get access into Anne Road.

  17. In Castlecrag NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 97 Sunnyside Crescent Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Scott Graham commented

    - Significantly increases the scale of the only visible building on the escarpment and in doing so, detracts from the views up from sugarloaf bay and across from Harold Reid. I'd always understood that there is a prohibition on building on the escarpment - I'd think that should also apply to increasing the scale of buildings currently over the building line.

    - Not good that the new buyer went ahead to DA stage without engaging neighbours

    - The impacts on amenity and property value of adjoining home on Edinburgh Rd seem not to have been taken into account - a property (and neighbour) who've been in place for >70 years.

  18. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Mark Jenkinson commented

    Where are mandatory height restrictions when you need them?
    Obviously the developer will play the game and get 8 levels through vcat, helping creating the dark and overcrowded wind tunnel that is becoming a feature of our suburb.
    Why is Moreland Council impotent on protecting it's urban landscape?

  19. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1105 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    concerned resident commented

    * The proposed development exceeds council criteria in respect of:-
    o Setbacks
    o Density - city plan provides for 1 bedroom per 33m2 (which would allow 28 bedrooms for site of this size). This DA is seeking 82 bedrooms, across 33 units.
    o Site coverage - it is over at 57.4% and is seeking 10 storeys.

    * There is restricted and unsafe access to the site – Jefferson Lane already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks are heightened given the close vicinity to close commercial neighbour businesses, including the Surf Club, which has member and public traffic and access needs.

    * There is inadequate parking provided in the application – provision has been made for a 2 level basement with only 57 carparks (53 for residents and only 4 for visitors) - for 33 units (with a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments). There is already a shortage of street parking within Palm Beach generally, particularly beachside of the highway and there is no street parking along Jefferson Lane. The DA references that street parking is available along Gold Coast Highway, however this is frequently used as a car parking solution for the rest of the buildings in Palm Beach that have already been permitted to build without adequate parking spaces.

    * The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas. The landscaping referenced is sparse and appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e to assist with privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate green areas.

    * The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, the impact on the privacy of neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development. Further, the anticipated shading caused by a building of almost 30m should not be overlooked.

    Finally, the DA references how the proposed development is consistent with the vision for Palm Beach and provides a good mix of building types. However, it fails to address how many of the neighbouring properties have similar development applications being submitted simultaneously, for very similar developments, seeking the same relaxations, and thereby destroying any intended mix of building forms. These developments set a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout Palm Beach, and countless other suburbs throughout the Gold Coast, who have been granted approval to destroy the very attributes that attract people to our coastal towns.

    The proposed development is at a form, scale and intensity that is inappropriate, inconsistent with the City Plan and will not benefit Palm Beach.

  20. In Connewarre VIC on “Use and Development of the...” at 65-105 Lings Road, Connewarre, VIC:

    Trevor Murdoch commented

    As a resident of Second Drive, Connewarre, on behalf of my family we wish to lodge our objection to the proposed development at Lings Road.
    -There is only one single point of entry and exit to the site catering for 200 cars per day on an unsealed road. If an emergency was to occur how do people exit the site safely?
    - Turning into Lings Road, from Barwon Heads Road, is already dangerous this would heighten road safety with an increase of 200 cars per day.
    - The increase of traffic to Lings Road, dust would adversely affect 13th beach golf course and the natural habitat.
    - The increase of noise level with late night functions.
    - Security of intoxicated patrons leaving the site.
    Thank you for your time in reading our submission.

  21. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove one (1) Queensland...” at 150-152 Glenayr Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Nicolette Boaz commented

    This tree is a beautiful small and glorious addition to any locale. I can only presume it is infirm. It needs to be replaced by 2 good sized trees. Although for critters small trees can never replace mature trees.

  22. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove one (1) Queensland...” at 150-152 Glenayr Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Nicolette Boaz commented

    This tree is a beautiful small and glorious addition to any locale. I can only presume it is infirm. It needs to be replaced by 2 good sized trees. Although for critters small trees can never replace mature trees.

  23. In Beaumaris VIC on “1 Dwelling - Alts & Adds -...” at 401 Beach Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Madeleine commented

    Hi,

    Please make adjustments to plan to allow for site permeability and the replanting of native plants in keeping with the point ave precinct.

    Everything else about the house is wonderful. It’s not alucobond or townhouses or apartments so people just need to chill.

  24. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Tamara Johansen commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I wish to raise the following concerns in relation to the proposed development at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach.

    1. The proposed building is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
    o Setbacks (0m on three sides)
    o Density (1 bedroom / 27.5m vs city plan 1 bedroom / 30m2) and
    o Site coverage (79% vs city plan 50%)
    The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

    2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

    3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns.

    4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

    5. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, and lack of setbacks, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

    Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized, unsightly, multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

    Let’s make some positive steps in the right direction by sticking to the city planning acceptable outcomes for Palm Beach for this and all future applications.

  25. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Arthur commented

    Really, 10 stories....this needs to be nipped in the bud.
    I want a double story exemption on my house and MORELAND council advised 6m maximum height
    Why would Moreland council event consider such a multi story dwelling...CLEARLY DOUBLE STANDARDS

  26. In Holsworthy NSW on “Erection of a storage shed.” at 76 Pleasure Point Road Pleasure Point NSW 2172:

    Nami commented

    As much as I would love to be nice I have to say the toilets at East Hill park is by far the most unhygienic public toilet ever. Especially during the COVID period the toilets are not even accessible to enter. Not like your average public toilet where there expected mess this one is actually filthy and very unhygienic. Please could you look into this for the public. There is toilet paper, pads with periods, urine and all over. I do apologise on behalf of the public however please look into this as it is something that would be good to be fixed.

  27. In Lakemba NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 78 Quigg Street South Lakemba:

    Carlo commented

    Only 8 car spaces for 15 rooms ???

    There is already a parking problem in Quigg Street

  28. In Lakemba NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 78 Quigg Street South Lakemba:

    Carlo commented

    Only 8 car spaces for 15 rooms ???

    There is already a parking problem in Quigg Street

  29. In Coburg VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 90 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Emeritus Professor Alexander Grishin AM commented

    This planning permit, MPS/2011/319/B, should not be approved for 3 reasons.
    1) It is a case of gross over-development with a six storey building + basement with major retail development and 37 units. This is too dense for the area available.
    2) The failure to meet even the basic minimum requirements for parking reflects this over-development. With only 23 parking spaces provided for the accommodation built and totally inadequate parking for the commercial development will force people to park in the street in this already dangerously congested part of Sydney Road in Coburg. As a resident, I am aware of the present traffic flow, this over-development will potentially lead to disaster with a threat to the safety of children and the elderly who presently frequent this area.
    3) This over-development is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and will reduce the quality of life in Coburg.
    This proposed development should be rejected and an alternative, more people-friendly and environment-friendly proposal sought from the developers.

  30. In Murwillumbah NSW on “Inground swimming pool” at 42 Tumbulgum Road, Murwillumbah NSW 2484:

    Charlie Deem commented

    Hello, I would like to raise one issue relating to this development. I do not oppose the owners seeking approval for their pool. My concern is I live on the hill on Old Ferry Rd and we hear everything that occurs in the backyards of the strip of houses along Tumbulgum Rd house #'s 26 to 42 even common conversation. It is unbelievable, maybe due to the natural amphitheatre type lay of the land, we've heard about cheating husbands, backstabbing of friends, owners having deep and meaningful conversations with their dogs, my personal favourite, we could write a book about it. I was hoping the council could express this concern to the owner/applicant so that he or she may consider screening to muffle the sound as part of their development but not expecting it to be a condition of it though.

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