Recent comments

  1. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Simon Milner commented

    Only three parking spaces in a new development of 14 apartments? Owing to the new developments already underway or recently completed with minimal to no parking (Cargo Lane on Brennan Street, Axis Apartments on Brennan Street and the row of new 3 and 4 bedroom terraces on Power Avenue (between Wyndham and Brennan Street) this block has rapidly degenerated into a bun-fight of residents contesting each other for limited on-street parking.

  2. In Belconnen ACT on “MIXED USE-NEW BUILDING....” at Eastern Valley Way, Belconnen, ACT:

    Tiffany Bonasera commented

    Good evening,

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.

    Given the scope and nature of the development, I would like to express my strong (extremely strong, in fact) objection to this proposal.

    Please find below the reasons a development of this nature would detract from the positive future development of Belconnen Town Centre / and the wider Belconnen community.

    1) The sheer size and scope of this development does not complement the existing streetscapes or community in any way. While I understand the Territory Plan has stipulated the "densification" of town centres like Belconnen, this type of "densification" is at odds with the general characteristics of the local community. Such highrises may be appropriate in major cities, but they do not have a place in what is proudly, the Bush Capital.

    2) The impact of a construction / development of this size is not fair or equitable to the people who reside in and around the Town Centre, and surrounding suburbs. Existing and future residents should not be subjected to increased noise pollution from additional vehicles, shadows created by the development, the works, long hotel operating hours etc. This, again, is not consistent with the Territory Plan's objectives of maintaining our bush-setting appeal.

    3) Belconnen is not the place to have a highrise building of this nature. The local residents enjoy the outdoor spaces, such as around the Lake, as well as the local skate park. These outdoor areas may not directly be affected by a development of this nature, but again, it detracts from the overall enjoyment local people have when interacting with their environment.

    By allowing a development like this to go ahead, it sets a terrible precedent - and one that will ultimately damage the reputation of this area in the long term.

    Thank you for considering my objections. I welcome being contacted to discuss this further.

    Kind regards, Tiffany Bonasera (local resident)

  3. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Kim Skildum-Reid commented

    Although I am probably the one that created this hullabulu by posting the question "what kind of massage parlour is this going to be?" on a community forum, I support this application. The statement of environmental impact had been missing from the DA, so the type of parlour was unclear. When the question was asked of Council, the statement was posted, thus making it clear that this is a THERAPEUTIC massage place. I believe that it will be a positive impact on the local area and that anyone who took the time to read the statement of environmental impact and look at the plans would concur.

  4. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Alex van Vucht commented

    Okay, probably unlike the three other people who've responded, I've taken the time to read the application. This business provides Thai therapy massage, and there is strictly no sexual activity. It's a lot healthier than the fast food business that was there.

    This will provide a new activity that residents can enjoy and thus spend more time in the neighbourhood, thus improving the area in general.

    I support this application.

  5. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 22 Archibald Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Ken Amoore commented

    Further to our comments which were sent in the mai, l we would ask that consideration be given to retaining at least some of the existing trees, in particular the Liquid Amber tree near the front fence and the Pittosporum near the northern fence.

  6. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Hayley commented

    Tempe/Sydenham is full of families & children we do not need a massage pal-our of any sort to bring our community down. Why do people think they can just turn our neighborhood into trash! Come on people get behind your suburb and stop trash coming in. Kids are our future and we don't want our kids walking the streets and seeing rubbish and thinking its ok.

  7. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Diana commented

    Massage Parlour is not needed in sydenham... I object..

  8. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Denyse McLean commented

    We need cafes and chemists, NOT massage parlours in the local area. I object to this application.

  9. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Modification of consent” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram commented

    Hi,

    I hope this will be approved as over 25 families are waiting after depositing around 10% each on properties for over 1.5years now.

    I am one of them.

  10. In Rooty Hill NSW on “” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram Riaz commented

    Hi,

    There are 25 families waiting for this property to be build since 1 and half year now.
    Would request to please process the work as soon as possible.

    Thanks with Regards,

  11. In Swan Bay TAS on “Subdivide the balance lot...” at 456 Los Angelos Road Swan Bay TAS 7252:

    Jeanette Zelesco commented

    Refer to TPC. We have been living in the Swan Bay area for now 6yrs, we enjoy the peace & tranquility it has to offer that is why we chose to live rural. We are concerned about the proposed development. Apart from the effect it will have on the following, road needs major upgrading!!!! During peak school season the school bus travels around LosAngelos Road, it is not anywhere near wide enough for both car & bus to pass safely, i always have to pull over to the side to let it pass, very dangerous!!! The impact it will have on wildlife etc. Again this can all be referred to TPC Report. Dont get me wrong we are not against development & moving forward, but it concerns us of the amount & size of the blocks also!!!! Please take our thoughts into consideration!

    Regards, Jeanette Zelesco Robert Morosini

  12. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Justin Koke commented

    I am actually wondering if this application is actually a retro-active application since this business is already placing tables and chairs on the footpath!

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Liz commented

    Footpath seating is great for the community vibe. But it's bikes on King St that is often dangerous and there's not much space for safety when bikes are driving through groups of people and kids and prams and dogs. Especially when there is a dedicated bike path on Wilson St.

  14. In NSW on “...” at council@campbelltown.nsw.gov.au, NSW:

    Karenn Solomon commented

    This is concerning the proposed development in Fluorite Place, I am appaulled that the council would consider such a development in such a built up area. We have lived happily here for 30 years now, taking pride in our street. And for Endeavour to come along and distroy the entrance to a highly reguarded and one of the best streets in Eaglevale, well I dont' know what to say. Years ago we saw notification of a substation being built near Eaglevale Pond. The vast vacant area around the pond would not impact on any one and could be hidden by screening plants. But our street the homes would only be a street width away. What are they thinking.??? This isn't even taking into consideration of the resale values in our lovely, well kept street. And the poor people over the road from it, my goodness. All the young families that have recently bought into this street now have to worry about health issues, as do all of us. But the children. I am so in a state of shock at Campbelltown Council for allowing this to take place.

  15. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Shane Turner commented

    I strongly approve the proposal for the outdoor seating at 278 King St
    Looking at the plans there is still 2500 that would be open space for pedestrians.

    I feel that the placement of the 2 small tables and the stools is in keeping with the area's cosmopolitan feel.

    I took a walk along King Street to look at other businesses that have tables and chairs on the footpath and I see no difference from thier locations to 278 King Street.

    King Street is a very busy thoroughfare for cars/trucks and pedestrians the more people that are sitting around at the restaurants and coffee shops etc. softens the area thus making it a more enjoyable place to live and work.

  16. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mark Kelly commented

    The current situation on the footpath in this part of King St is that there is already insufficient room for the pedestrians already using it during the hours and on the days stipulated in the application. There is no question in my mind that if that application is approved it will produce a significant bottleneck for pedestrians on King St, damaging the amenity for locals and other businesses. Much as I would like to see more outside seating in Newtown, there is simply no space for it at this location. This is a busoness which, moreover, is already one of the few that already boasts outdoor seating, and our scarce spatial resources should not be squandered on expanding that.

  17. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Tim commented

    Its hard enough to walk down the busy street as it is without more tables and chairs on it. The other ice cream shop up the street proves this. Pedestrians need to come first and shops really need to trade within their boundaries.
    Newtown already has plenty of character and doesn't need another pretentious gelato, Mexican or Thai to improve what is already a great neighbourhood.

  18. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Best gelato this side of the harbour, probably this side of the country!
    Definitely support their use of the sidewalk as it brings real style and character to the neighbourhood.

  19. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East, VIC:

    Maria Sau-king Wong commented

    Dear Sir,

    A contractor called Joe Robb used this address 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East 3145 as his office when putting up my retaining walls at my property. It is now cracking. He refuses to come back to look at it.

    I have to go for VCAT to dispute his work done but I need his address to serve him the notice. Do you have the owner's address of this property's application? Where are they now? They are not honest tradesmen. They use this address on their business card but I am not sure they are the tenants. Their business name called Advanced Paving on their card

  20. In Malvern East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 781 - 805 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    We have recently been informed that the proposed development at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unacceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
    Residents have graciously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unacceptable.
    The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self-serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
    For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enormous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
    This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the development at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
    The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concessions.
    We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 storeys proposed is acceptable but rather is there any limit at all. Notwithstanding council’s proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enormous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upper bound limit, and therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
    The debate needs to define what the limit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conclude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

  21. In Malvern East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 781 - 805 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    We have recently been informed that the proposed devlopment at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unnaceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
    Residents have gratiously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unnaceptable.
    The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
    For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enourmous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
    This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the devlopment at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
    The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unnacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concenssions.
    We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 stoereys proposed is acceptable but rather is their any limit at all. Notwithstanding councils proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enourmous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upperbound limit, and therefore therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
    The debate needs to define what the llimit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conslude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

  22. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 3 Turner Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Egle Garrick commented

    Concern with unauthorised fill laid by builder in the laneway to building site (off Cardwell Street, between North Streets and Truner Street). Laneway is a grassed drainage reserve and very susceptible to flooding. Builder has laid concrete fill along driving tracks to assist truck movement to remove soil. If fill is not removed, flooding will occur into North Street properties. Council had to remove unauthorised fill from a previous job at great expense to reslove flooding issue - laneway is grassed to allow natural drainage.

    Also concerend by the VERY large trucks which have been accessing the laneway to remove fill.

  23. In Marsden QLD on “Commercial - Multi Unit...” at 89-99 Demeio Road Marsden QLD 4132:

    There is already too much traffic on Bardon Road and this would be affected by development on Demio Road. commented

    Having lived on Bardon Road for the last 30 years, it is appalling how the volume of traffic has increased over the years due to more and more "development" in the area. Each new housing development, with most households owning at least 2 cars, means an astronomical build up of traffic on Bardon Road. Already at certain periods during the day, it is impossible to even cross the road in order to walk the dogs, but now it is getting impossible to access our driveway with our caravan whenever we have been away, due to the sheer volume of traffic and so many aggressive, impatient drivers.

    No more developments should be passed by council until such time as there is a road through from Third Avenue to Wembley Road, taking the pressure off Bardon Road, which is, after all, a residential area.

    My wife and I strongly object to this proposed development.

  24. In Chatswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Freeman Road, Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Alexandra Allende commented

    The application should not be approved. Reasons are many and include
    1. The area has a peaceful character and is safe, with a family friendly environment. Having a transient population changes the dynamic of the place.
    2. A boarding house is already being built in Albert street by the railway station, which although not desirable is still more in tune with the surrounding area. One of the attractive qualities of living in Chatswood West is that it is removed from the super high density of the commercial hub near the station, and this should be preserved. It maintains a residential tone to a suburb which would otherwise be just high density and highly commercial.
    3. I have lived in this street for 7 years and was born in the area (in Artarmon) more than 30 years ago so I am very familiar with the locality and I agree that families value peace at night so they can sleep undisturbed. Noise pollution would be unavoidable with that many students in the area.
    4. There is an extreme shortage of parking in the area. In the block of apartments where I live visitors parking is limited and often used inappropriately, having 12 allocated parking spots for that many boarders is crazy.
    5. The park right next to the apartment block on Freeman Road has been used on occasions by school students to smoke and drink alcohol, or truancy which gives a bad example to kids crossing this area and the development of student accommodation in the street will only negatively impact the numbers of unsavoury characters and affect impressionable children. Again this brings down the standard of the area.
    In conclusion I strongly object to the development of student accommodation in this street as it will be detrimental to property and rental values and cause noise and traffic pollution and encourage unsavoury behaviour in the area,

  25. In Portarlington VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 6-8 Brown Street, Portarlington 3223, VIC:

    Ian Whitehead commented

    As I am aware, the Portarlington Business Development Association is behind the push for the Liquor outlet. Perhaps the Association could be renamed "The Portarlington Booze Encouragement Association". The number of alcohol outlets will soon outnumber the number of real estate agents operating in town. What a strange set of priorities we have.

    This application should not be approved because of the problems it will cause. There are already too many alcohol outlets for a town of just over three thousand people. The streets are littered with empty bottles flung from cars. There has been an obvious increase in traffic-related issues to do with alcohol. There is no effective policing.

    Apart from the list of liquor outlets mentioned in the previous comment, there is the bowling club and the football club where alcohol is consumed. We should stop this application now.

    I have not, and would never donate to a Councillor or Council employee. Heaven forbid.

  26. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Conversion of approved...” at 23 Gertrude Street, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Robert McDonald commented

    Hello Rockdale City Council.
    While I have no objection to the proposal to remove the commercial units from 23 Gertrude, I do have some concerns over the provided documentation.
    The document "Statement of Environmental Effects - 23 Gertrude Street & 20-26 Innesdale Road Wolli Creek - Opra Architects". States that building "A" will have 42 x 2 bedroom apartments and building B will have 33 x 2 bedroom apartments for an incorrect total of 74 x 2 bedroom apartments rather than 75 (the actual total of the two buildings).
    The document also refers to drawing A03- Revision R which is not attached with the application.
    Also the attached drawing "Site Plan - 23 Gertrude Street and 20-26 Innesdale Road Wolli Creek - Opra Architects" contains a commercial unit in Building A which according to the proposal would not exist. Is it possible for the updated Site Plan to be made available?

    I feel that as an off the plan purchaser of this property that the developer should perhaps provide the correct documentation if they wish to change their approval.
    It would have also have been nice of them to inform those who have already purchased units in this development of this proposal, rather than having to find it out by searching through the Rockdale Council website.

  27. In Portarlington VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 6-8 Brown Street, Portarlington 3223, VIC:

    Katarina Mrhar commented

    I emphatically think that this application SHOULD NOT be approved. Portarlington is already saturated with outlets that can provide alcohol to the public. The township already has a packaged liquor outlet in Newcombe Street less than 50 metres away. Additionally the local IGA also in Newcombe Street provides ample opportunity for people to purchase packaged liquor. There is also another IGA on the corner of Fenwick Street and the Geelong-Portarlington Road that distributes pre-packaged liquor to the public. Most cafes and restaurants in the immediate area have a liquor licence. The Portarlington Golf Course is another major outlet where alcohol is available. Portarlington is also surrounded by an economically viable wine industry that does not need further economic pressure from a cut-price discounter such as Woolworths that sells wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages produced outside the Bellarine geographical area at prices against which local boutique producers cannot compete.

    Portarlington does not have a permanent police presence; there is no police station; the closest one being at Drysdale 10 km away. During the holiday periods between December and Easter residents often must tolerate the drunken and disorderly behavior of inebriated people as they walk the "gauntlet" of drunks along Newcombe Street while going about their daily business. Introducing another liquor outlet less than 50 metres away that is known to provide discount prices will encourage even further consumption of alcohol and accompanying bullying, violent and aggressive behavior.
    Unless the police presence is increased during these holiday periods and a crack down on aggressive drunken behavior no further liquor licences in Portarlington of any sort should be issued.

  28. In Newnham TAS on “Install a 25m high monopole...” at 178 George Town Road Newnham TAS 7248:

    Tony Thai commented

    Objection,
    This Telstra antenna pole can not locate in the residential area.
    This device is too high and affect to surrounding area.
    Adverse to neighbourhood amenities
    Should not be approved.
    Tony Thai
    0433194143
    2 WATERFORD AVENUE
    MARIBYRNONG
    VIC 3032

  29. In Ashburton VIC on “Construction of 22...” at 322 High Street Ashburton VIC 3147:

    Rod Harrop commented

    The construction of 22 dwellings, aside from any other neighbourly concerns, poses an unacceptable risk to public safety. Exiting driveway at this location is absolutely treacherous, as there is insufficient safe distance from the blind kink westward of Warrigal Rd. The greatly increased in/out traffic associated with such a development will exacerbate this danger significantly. Traffic along High St. is often heavy, and opportunity to exit "safely" is very limited as it is now. Exiting driveway is never truly safe anyhow, cars positively fly around this bend. Councillors are welcome to come and see for themselves. Simply too close to BLIND corner to be contemplating development of this scale. Please build this one elsewhere and avert potential deaths/injuries. Modifying road access cannot possibly reduce risk sufficiently for this development to be appropriate.

  30. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 12 Henry Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mrs Brenda Worrall commented

    Having seen the plans of the potential construction of three dwellings at 12 Henry street Eltham I wish to voice my objection to the two proposed driveways which would exit into Taylor street .
    From the bottom of Taylor street to the proposed driveways there are already 7 driveways and two garages exiting onto that street already;of these driveways some are used by more than one car and dwelling.
    Taylor street is very narrow and is already very busy with school buses and drop offs and returns by cars entering Taylor street and exiting by Henry street this means it is already difficult to reverse out of the driveways onto Taylor without adding more driveways.
    These driveways need to be redesigned so that cars exit and enter through Henry street.
    My main objection is that my driveway would be almost directly oposite one of those proposed for 12 Henry street.

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