Recent comments

  1. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Thomas Rose commented

    Can't believe this is planned. Obviously none of the planners live in the area. Traffic has been a joke for a while now, parking is non existent. One of the best things about the area is the sense of community and these sorts of developments destroy this. It is extremely sad and short sighted. We should be looking at ways to improve the area and develop a further sense of community, not remove it.
    Newtown is a beautiful and unique area. Please don't try and turn it into one of the lifeless suburbs we see out in the 'burbs. A giant shopping centre and skyhigh apartment buildings are a poor replacement for a community.

  2. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Chris Marklew commented

    I am a resident on Pearl street and this really is a zero sum game, the traffic is already at an almost standstill in the area at times, parking nigh on impossible, combined with the extended shadows, lack of privacy, noise pollution blocking of the cool evening breeze in summer, and aesthetic problem of a huge multi-story tower block set amongst the surrounding style of buildings in the area makes this a terrible idea.

    I will be getting a petition signed in the next 6 days and sending it to the council to let them know that nobody in the area will benefit from this and many residents will suffer and have a lessened quality of life, all so a property developer can build them high and pack them in for a huge profit. I will not sit back and watch a beautiful suburb be ruined. The council owe us support on this!

  3. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Essie Luckett commented

    Parking is already at a premium in our area. What about people who have more than one car per household. Plus the effect of all that extra traffic on Alice and surrounding streeets. Dreadful idea.

  4. In Gungahlin ACT on “COMMUNITY FACILITY -...” at 140 The Valley Avenue, Gungahlin, ACT:

    Will Sargent commented

    They have made no attempt to talk to the locals about how they would feel about having a large mosque in the area. They were not transparent in communicating with others about the effect of the building and operations to the residents that live within the area. Parking in the area will be effected as they have not enough parking for the 500 seats that they have planned. From the plans that they have presented, the building is an eye sore. I live within 100 meters of the planned site and I object to this building being built.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Pary Vlandis commented

    Council needs to consider the following before any application is even considered.

    1. Privacy encroachment. Units will look straight into existing homes in Alice Lane, Walenore Ave, Alice Street.

    2. The height of the unit complex will overshadow existing dwellings. Especially for residents in Walenore Ave and Holmwood street (where their residents back onto Alice Lane) Less sunlight for homes surrounding the site will diminish their right to quality of living.

    3. Noise pollution from the 300 plus residents at this development will affect all surrounding homes, diminishing their right to peace and quiet.

    4. Traffic!!! Traffic on Alice Street is at a standstill at peak hours and at a crawl at other times. With the development going ahead on Edgeware Road and the expansion of Marrickville Metro, it will be insane to allow another 200 plus residential units. The traffic will be choking Marrickville, Newtown, St Peters etc

    5. Parking is already difficult in its current state of a factory/retail units. Parking is a constant nightmare for surrounding residents and visitors alike.
    Adding 200 units and only 150 car spaces is a joke! This application doesn't allow enough allocation for parking for the units, let alone the commercial component of this development or the proposed residents visitors.

    6.There are currently about 7 operating commercial/retail on the site. They have about 50-75 carspots at the moment for staff and their customers.
    In the development proposal - 6 new commercial/retail and no proposed parking for staff or customers.

    This is an overdevelopment in an already overcongested area. It will diminish the quality of living for the current residents on so many aspects.
    I urge council to not allow this development through
    Pary Vlandis

  6. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Iain Chalmers commented

    As a resident of Alice St (2/146) I'm quite concerned about the traffic implications of an additional 200 residences, and the parking implications of 206 new residences with only 158 parking spaces.

    We've currently got a fairly big development nearing completion on Edgeware Rd next to the Golden Barley Hotel (151 Edgeware Rd) which will add additional traffic to Alice St.

    It's particularly concerning in the light of the go-ahead on the Marrickvile Metro expansion - there are very limited opportunities to increase traffic flow on the roads leading to and from the Metro, at least on the Alice St side - the railway line requiring bridges to the east making it difficult to get traffic over onto the highway - I'm strongly suspicious that we'll need to lose a lot of parking to turn Edgeware Rd into two lanes from Alice St (actually Victoria Rd, where the Metro traffic comes from) up to Stanmore Rd, and on Alice St up to King St. The Edgeware Rd / Alice St intersection is already a nightmare at morning and afternoon peak hour (and we're close enough to hear the regular crashes there too), and I can't see that there's much scope to upgrade that intersection without doing some _very_ expensive land purchases to make the space that'd be required.

    I can't help but wonder whether the implications of this development, in the light of other nearby developments like 151 Edgeware Rd and Marrickville Metro, have properly taken into account the infrastructure requirements. It seems to me to be very shortsighted to build 206 new residences with only 158 parking spaces when it appears almost inevitable that existing approved developments are going to reduce the existing local on-street parking.

  7. In Balmain NSW on “Proposed first floor...” at 11 Young Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Leonard James Monro commented

    Concerned whether common sewer line running from 3 Young Street down to 15 young street and apparently leaking into Maude Lane will be covered over.
    Plans show a sewer easement along Maud Lane itself, but this is likely to to be for Sydney Water's main sewer line if it exists, and not for the common service line for these houses.

    Testing for the discharge from this line in the past has shown presence of chlorine but flourine failed to show.

    Point is it runs just to rear of walls of all those houses and alongside of No 15 out to Young Street above the stone wall. It does not run back to the sewer easement as such. Consequently the interests of Nos 3 to 7 and all those below the line need to be protected.

    (No 1 had their line around top of Maude Lane some years ago, and No 15 discharges into the line along the side section above the stone wall.

    Plans need to take account of this common section.

    At this stage no other objection as it seems to comply with FSR and other issues I will look at.

  8. In Epping NSW on “Commercial / retail /...” at 141 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    victor mannie commented

    My name is Victor mannie, the owner of this property. Please remove this listing.

  9. In Lilyfield NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 94 Cecily Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Dr Nigel K Dolan (real name) commented

    Dear LMC,

    I am the owner of 100 Cecily Street and it has come to my notice that a proposal for development of 94 Cecily has been lodged. As I am currently in WA it is difficult for me to assess the impact of the proposal - I thank you for the plans mailed to me, however, they are not of much use in terms of assessing the impact of the building on my own. Ie, there is no picture or sketch or indication at all of its size or bulk or position in relation to my own or the streetscape - and whether it would affect amenities eg overshadowing, overlooking my property etc. ( I also would like to know the council's rules concerning views - ie, should I decide to similarly put in a proposal to raise the level of my roofline.) From the plans I have seen my initial reaction is that both my house and my neighbours at 98 an 96 are low level heritage houses and the neighbour at 102 is much higher. Thus a high level house at 94 would rather diminish the 2 cottages 100 and 98 and would not follow the line of roof heights of that part of the street, ie, would be out of 'scale'. But as I said, it is difficult to judge without better diagrams. Any further information would therefore be much appreciated. Also, please advise what the timeline is for raising such concerns? Many thanks, Nigel.

  10. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “An accessible housing...” at 41-45 Cascade Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Ann Marie Renouf commented

    I would like to object to proposal of town houses adjacent to my property. Murray Ave which has been proposed as an entrance to the development, is a narrow road with no footpaths or curb and guttering this with the extra traffic and pedestrians will cause problems
    .On the development plan a retaining wall is shown on the boundary of my property with unit 13 a two story residence to be built there. Im sure that my privacy and sunlight will be lost

    Regards Ann Marie Renouf

  11. In Castlecrag NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 60 Sunnyside Crescent, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Anne McFarlane commented

    Re: DA2012/156 60 Sunnyside Cres Castlecrag.
    A survey done by previous owners of 163 Edinburgh Rd revealed that part of the front fence of 60 Sunnyside Cres. encroached onto the footpath and onto 163 Edinburgh Rd.It may be wise for the DA to include a survey to ensure the new fence is correctly placed.
    I have been unable to get a link to the details so I don't know what height is proposed.

  12. In Katoomba NSW on “S96 modification - mixed...” at 3-5 Goldsmith Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    El Gibbs commented

    Catherine, this development was approved in 2005, so there's no way to stop it now. The Section 96 refers to a small modification, rather than the whole development.
    Get in touch if there's any more info I can provide.
    El Gibbs
    Ward 1 Councillor, BMCC

  13. In Bahrs Scrub QLD on “Duplex Dwellings (28 Units)” at 30-44 Windaroo Road Bahrs Scrub QLD 4207:

    P. MacGillivray commented

    This application should not be approved: increasing density of population will cause further stress on the remaining wildlife in the area. There is a population of koalas in the area (I have heard them again the last two nights) plus a rich variety of species. If we are serious in wanting to maintain a balance and developing intelligently, duplexes should not be part of the plans for this area.

    Secondly, erosion has already taken place at the back of the blocs. It seems that the prevention work was done cheaply and is quite inefficient.

    Furthermore, the infrastructure is not sufficient to permit a significant increase in traffic: there would be a lot of pressure at the intersection of Bahrs Scrub road. This intersection can be dangerous and has been the scene of accidents.

    This is a beautiful area that has the potential to be used as a model of modern development: developing with a real plan with imagination and foresight that includes wildlife preservation and human habitation. It is a shame that little by little, permissions are granted without a common theme or measures to permit this.

  14. In Katoomba NSW on “S96 modification - mixed...” at 3-5 Goldsmith Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    El Gibbs commented

    Catherine, this development was approved in 2005, so there's no way to stop it now. The Section 96 refers to a small modification, rather than the whole development.
    Get in touch if there's any more info I can provide.
    El Gibbs
    Ward 1 Councillor, BMCC

  15. In Lilyfield NSW on “New dwelling” at 48 Gladstone Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Richard de kleijn commented

    Reference DA application D/2012/215 - 48 Gladstone St, Lilyfield

    Residents of 50 Gladstone St (neighbours and impacted party) found out informally today (12 May 2012) that a DA for demolition and a new two story development has been lodged on 5 May.

    To date we have not been officially informed nor is there any sign of a DA notification displayed at said address. Can you please inform us of the process to obtain all relevant documentation to allow impacted parties time to review the planning proposal and submit any concerns.

    Kind regards
    Richard de Kleijn
    50 Gladstone St., Lilyfield

    Tel.: 0423 173 911

  16. In Katoomba NSW on “S96 modification - mixed...” at 3-5 Goldsmith Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    Catherine Norman commented

    I live in Katoomba and I strongly oppose S96 modification/reference XM/1101/2005/B.
    This morning I was driving on the GWH traveling west and looked over to what most people see when they are on the highway coming into Katoomba. A piece of Australia's past in the guise of Katoomba's beautiful original buildings.
    Then when I turned off the highway at the Yeoman Bridge, I realised that if this development goes ahead all that will be there will be a modern eyesore trying to look like a beautiful original building.
    Please do not approve this development, it will not be sympathetic to our beautiful town.

    Thank you.

  17. In Potts Point NSW on “TAPA - On-premises licence” at 3 Orwell St, Potts Point 2011:

    derek butt commented

    I believe that the operating hours listed with an on license premises will impact directly on the health and well being of nearby residential apartments and the resultant noise from patrons and the dining room and kitchen noise will have an adverse impact on residents ability to rest and sleep directly opposite the proposed restaurant . All care should be taken for resultant street noise not to impact on the nearby residents .

  18. In Lindfield NSW on “Dwelling development -...” at 11 Eton Road, Lindfield, NSW:

    Stella commented

    I strongly oppose to a halfway house or boarding house of any nature being built in a residential street. This developement will no doubt devalue the neighbouring houses and the feel of our neighbourhood.
    Most people who live in these areas, spend big bucks to live here so i feel concerned for them not to mention their children and the surrounding schools.
    i would like to ask what the boarding house will be boarding? Over 55s? Students? recovering drug addicts? we are entitled to know!

  19. In East Albury NSW on “Modification of Consent -...” at 301 Norfolk St, East Albury, NSW:

    kate mathews commented

    I am the grandaughter of Mr Reginald Mcfarlane who was the home owner and built the property that is having renovations at 301 Norfolk Street East Albury, as this was my mothers family home we were curious as to whether the property will be demolished or retained i would appreciate if you would let us know.

  20. In Townsville QLD on “Compliance Condition” at 273 - 277 Walker Street Townsville City QLD 4810:

    Jessica Sandilands commented

    Completely inappropriate unit development location - will severely disrupt all of Blackwood Street from traffic, to open parking to residents and do you really want luxury units overlooking housing commission sites? It will also create more of a problem at that junction on Walker Street with traffic building up.

  21. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construct 39 dwellings on a...” at 17 Riversdale Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Amy Wills commented

    Thirty-nine dwellings on a lot of this size seems not only excessive, but disproportionate for this location.

    I am yet to see the plans for this development, but am concerned about what impact this will have on neighbouring properties (one of which is mine) and the overall landscape of the street.

    For instance, how many storeys are proposed for this development, and will this overshadow existing properties, many of which are heritage listed?

    How close to the front of the block is the proposed development to be built? A combination of multi-story development being built close to the street will result in lost city views for neighbours, further devaluing existing property on Riversdale Road.

    The site currently has lush vegetation, offering privacy between neighbouring properties. If this development was to be built, would these established trees and plants be destroyed, resulting in a concrete jungle style amenity, with perhaps some lip service being paid to underdeveloped young shrubs?

    I also have concerns regarding the car parking requirements for 39 dwellings. Clause 22.03 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme states that for new multi-dwelling developments, the requirement is 1.5 car spaces per dwelling for residents plus 0.2 car spaces per dwelling for visitors. For 39 units, this would result in a requirement of 66.3 car spaces. Even if the developer managed to fit 66.3 car spaces into an underground carpark on the 1,387 sqm lot, having that many vehicles in this location is untenable, and potentially dangerous.

    The property is located on a high-traffic road, just beyond a sharp corner bend. To the west of the property is a no standing zone at all times. To the east is a clearway between 4.30pm and 6.30 pm. Opposite the property is a clearway during the morning peak. Vehicles travelling along Riversdale Road and wanting to enter the property will significantly slow down traffic and add to traffic snarls along Riversdale Road, both in the morning and afternoon peak.

    To turn right onto Riversdale Road out of any of the properties on the Western side of the road is fraught with danger. With an additional 60-odd vehicles coming and going from the property it will slow down traffic flows on a road already congested during peak times by trams and fast flowing traffic. The potential for a fatality at this location is high.

    In fact, I would question whether this site should be developed at all. The current property on this site is a historic 1930s Art Deco mansion. Indeed, it was advertised for sale as “a grand property with unique art deco residence.†Hawthorn has Georgian, Federation, and Victorian homes, and some Art Deco apartments, but it is rare to see an Art Deco mansion. I would argue that this property should be added to the Heritage Register, and am surprised that it is not currently protected by heritage overlay.

    Surrounding properties, including numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and23 Riversdale Road are all protected by heritage overlays.
    Historically, Riversdale Road was lined with grand mansions. Unfortunately, over the years, particularly in the 1960s, many of these historic properties were demolished, replaced by units of less architectural merit, and a rare few of the grand old mansions remain.

    In this decade, it is happening again. We cannot let this become the new norm for Hawthorn.

    According to the Multi-Dwelling Development page of the Boroondarra Council website any new development should meet the clauses of the Boroondarra Planning Scheme (also known as ‘rescode’).

    Clause 55 of rescode states:
    • To achieve residential development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or which contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
    • To encourage residential development that provides reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents.
    • To encourage residential development that is responsive to the site and the neighbourhood
    In addition, Clause 55.02-1 ‘Neighbourhood character objectives’ states:
    • To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
    • To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

    I would argue that allowing a historic mansion to be demolished and allowing the development of 39 dwellings on this site flies in the face of rescode, and makes a mockery of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

    The Multi-Dwelling Development page of the Council website states in regards to proposed developments that: “the objectives of rescode must be met or a proposal will not be supported. †In no way does this proposal meet the objectives of rescode, therefore it should not be accepted by council.

  22. In Carlingford NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 4 Benghazi Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Richard Lau commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing regarding the new DA application for 4 Benghazi Road, Carlingford, NSW, 2118 DA/242/2012. that was lodged with Hornsby Council on the March 2012.
    I am highly concern that with a 2 attached dwellings on a small side street (Tripoli Ave) this will make us who live on the street very hard to get in and out from our street. Both Tripoli Ave, and Benghazi Road is already busy enought during school days. We do not need 2 more property build onto this area to creative more traffic. At the moment there are already cars park around this building site. which makes it very hard to turn right into Tripoli Ave from Benghazi Road if you are coming from Hornsby way. Especially in front of number 4 Benghazi Road they are already 2 cars park on either side this makes a street very tight and also turn the street into more like a one way street.

    Secondly, we do not need a multi-unit, 2 attached dwellings in this area anymore. on the last few months we have already a number of dwellings build in Benghazi Road. Some of which where a new granny flat that was build on 28 Benghazi Road, Carlingford which was approved a few months ago as a granny flat, and now they have just rent that granny flat out as a new house, "BRAND NEW GRANNY FLAT. FREESTANDING. 2 bedrooms Villa for Rent. $400 -$430 / Wk. 28 Benghazi Road, Carlingford, NSW 2118. Listed by LJ Hooker Carlingford"

    Also 23 Benghazi Road, Carlingford just started building their property after that DA was Approved 3 Months ago.

    This area does not need to have anymore new build. By approving this new development i feel that this will damage the area even further. As it will increase traffic, increase noise, make resident on Tripoli Ave much harder to get in and out of the property, make the area unsafe for kids to get to and from school.

    Also on this block of land there are a few old trees that has been there for more then 30 years and i feel that by approving this development these natural beauty will go with the house And damage the streetscape also.

  23. In Sydney NSW on “Use and fitout of ground...” at 200-218 Goulburn Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Naya Penabella commented

    I refer to your notice regarding the site mentioned above and the proposed 120 patrons and late operating hours:

    As the resident of 172 Riley Street, Surry Hills I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed 120 patrons and the late operating hours in such a highly residential area.

    I am concerned that with the operating hours extended past 9pm, there will be:

    • Increased noise late at night when residents are trying to sleep
    o Despite the use of the footway traffic finishing at 12am, it will still take an hour or so for staff to clean the area and allow guests time to finish their drinks and meals bringing the real finish time to near 4am
    o The music from the pub itself till 3am each night is loud enough and with the addition of 120 patrons outside till 3am the noise would now be impossible to sleep through
    • Disruption of residents’ ability to enjoy quiet time with family and friends without being drowned out by drunken Firefly patrons. Note that the Firefly Restaurant Bar is directly adjacent to 172 Riley Street
    • Increased traffic on Riley Street, Goulbourn Street, Pelican Street, Campbell Street, Waine Street, and Arnold Place, which are already very busy streets as more patrons frequent the area
    • Increased violence in the nearby area as drunken patrons lash out at each other or nearby residential property.

    My concerns regarding increased violence are backed up by numerous articles in the newspaper this year and last year stating strong links between alcohol and violence.

    Given my above concerns, I request that the operating hours be limited to 9pm as this represents a fair medium for the Wine Bar and for neighbouring residents.

  24. In Figtree NSW on “Residential - dwelling house” at 27 Lantarra Place, Figtree NSW 2525:

    Richard Barnes commented

    Will the 2 drainage pits and easement located along the divided fence line of properties Lot13 (27) and Lot15 (29) Lantarra Place Figtree be kept untouched and not built upon. My question should have no bearing on this application only that I would like to see this easement undisturbed.

  25. In Bondi Beach NSW on “MAD PIZZA BONDI BEACH -...” at 15 O'Brien Street, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Shane Birges commented

    There is already over supply of liquor places and there is no real reason for another one of them to be allowed to open in the precinct.

    Alcohol related issues is major in the area and authorities who are responsible for the licenses really ought to seriously consider what they are doing to the community in the area by allowing so many alcohol venues. People already have places where they can consume alcohol both at the premises and take away and they are doing that on the streets too.

    It would be appropriate for these same authorities to go to the venue and in the close proximity to the venue and see with their naked eyes how within a few steps of each other these locations, cafes, bars, hotels, clubs and restaurants they are.

    It is time that these same authorities give us residents’ seriously good reasons why they should be allowed and not for us to tell them why these venues should not be allowed to have the alcohol licenses.

    Enough, is enough, is enough?


  26. In Wollongong NSW on “The Drop Culture & Arts...” at 1a/39 Market St, Wollongong 2500:

    mr Adam Smithfield commented

    I am very concerned of the intent to use such a small space in a very old building (19/39 market st wollongong NSW 2500) , that does not have any fire safety systems in place.

    According the local paper (illawarra mercury 24/2/12 page 3) they are going to be trading as a bar (selling alcohol and playing live music) for the next 2 weeks.

    Im worried that places of this nature can get quickly out of control due to the lack of space and consumption of alcohol, and if something was to happen there is a greak risk of personal injury(due to the major inadequcies of the fire safety systems in the premisis).

    The other thing im concerned about is why is the licence "granted" before the submission close date as expired? (5/3/12)

  27. In Newport NSW on “Construction of a shop-top...” at 316 Barrenjoey Road Newport:

    Michael and Sarah Lawrence commented

    I wish to object most strongly to this DA as it does not comply with the Master Plan for Newport in a number of important ways, most importantly it is too high. I understand from a detailed analysis that there are a number of other non compliances. If the new Master Plan is to have any credibility it must be enforced. Otherwise it will be of no value and any future appeal to the Land and Environment Court on Master Plan non compliances will see the Council overruled.

    If Newport is to be the village that all of us living in Newport wish it to be, such large and bulky developments as this proposal must be refused.

  28. In Boronia Heights QLD on “Domestic - Carport” at 4A Alloa Court Boronia Heights QLD 4124:

    Ana commented

    Carport was build more than a year ago and causing a lot of problems to the neighbours as has no drainage (storm water), each time is raining is flooding the property next to them.
    A complain was made to Logan City Council to fix the situation and only then they actioned the registration of the carport. But drainage (storm water) is still not fixed and flooding the next property.

    How can this be registered ????

  29. In Boronia Heights QLD on “Domestic - Carport” at 4A Alloa Court Boronia Heights QLD 4124:

    Gabriel commented

    The carport have a complaint on the Logan city council because is not having any dranage on the property and is foodling our property every rain and this request is for something that is allready built.

    Please action accordingly.

  30. In Heathcote NSW on “Change of Use of a...” at 1347 Princes Hwy Heathcote 2233:

    Mark Mcevoy commented

    In what form of buisness is recreation gym ,solarum ,yoga.

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