Recent comments

  1. In Wantirna South VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 390 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    Thanks for hanging around Mr Taylor. Obviously Knox council wasn't a real priority for you and parking is getting worse.

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

    Gail Wiseman commented

    Please, KMC, do not approve this DA for a further 3 years. The traffic congestion in our community is already becoming unbearable and unsafe (in case of a major bush fire). The SDA continues to act as a local Lord of the area and it appears that every wish of theirs is granted without due consideration of the impact to this community that has made its views known to both KMC and the SDA on numerous occasions. In the latest hearing for these display homes, the SDA developer was outnumbered in quality and quantity of the objections by the local community members, but it still had no impact on the outcome. When will our pleas be heard? We live here too! We are Mums and Dads who have worked hard our whole lives to afford our homes which are now being severely impacted by one organization's greed. Please KMC, help the community you represent!

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

    Peta Maloney commented

    This should not be approved for obvious reasons. What is the point of heritage conservation if these properties are allowed to be demolished?

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

    Mark White commented

    Please KMC, do NOT extend this DA for a further 3 years. The current traffic and congestion along Fox Valley Road is now intolerable , work is already behind schedule on the upgrade of the Fox Valley Road, Comenarra Parkway intersection. With the ongoing construction and associated street car parking from construction workers and hospital / Sanitarium/ South Pacific Adventist staff is totally swamping the district streets. Driveways are being blocked , cars are parked on bus stops . The addition of Child care centres (x2) will add to the congestion and is another reason why any extension of this DA must be blocked. This community should not be expected to accept the whims of the South Pacific Division of the SDA church and its desire not to listen to community angst and impose its after thought DA extension request.

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

    Vicki Hanson commented

    It would appear that the views of the Fox Valley community mean nothing to the Adventist hierarchy, most would think, that with all of the objections by the residents to their Wahroonga Estate they would be happy to leave things as they are, but NO, now they want to extend this DA for a further 3 years. Please KMC do not allow this to happen, make a stand and say NO enough is enough, the community needs to be heard, DO NOT approve this extension of time.

    (No donations or gifts made)

  6. In Goodwood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 31 Albert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Malcolm wrote to local councillor Michael Hewitson

    I totally agree with Emma...enough is enough with people coming into the neighbourhood we all love, and then trying to change things. I would very strongly suspect that this tree was there a long time before the applicant's owned this property. If you don't like the way the area looks, then I'd respectfully suggest you move elsewhere.

    Delivered to local councillor Michael Hewitson. They are yet to respond.

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

    Bobby commented

    Come on Parramatta Council, is our suburb changing into multiple town houses & dual occupancies? Our streets are no wide enough to handle this over development…
    Bobby.

  8. In Blue Knob NSW on “DA18/5 - 929 Blue Knob Road...” at 929 Blue Knob Rd, Blue Knob 2480 NSW:

    vanessa pelly commented

    a landscape buffer needs to be planted according to councils guidelines PRIOR to a construction certificate being issued. This is clearly stated in the DA approval that was emailed to me by David Leard. As yet, no landscaping works have been undertaken on this site to buffer the neighbours to the north.

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

    John S. Batts commented

    Well said Billy, Lisa, and CB! Having Victorian and other heritage buildings in the Waverley area is no insignificant part of the attraction of this part of Sydney. Moves to destroy this environment must be opposed.

  10. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 61 Denison Road Lewisham NSW 2049:

    J. O'Callaghan commented

    I object to this DA as it involves demolishing the original existing Victorian terrace house, and sqeezing 2 new Torrens title dwellings (and swimming pools) onto the property, with no off-street parking allowance.

    The development is out of keeping with the area, and it is a shame to lose the original terrace building, which while not heritage listed, has original features and attributes (which would benefit from being restored rather than demolished). The 2 new residential dwellings proposed on the existing property will be crammed into the site (built right to the boundries) with 2 swimming pools at rear.

    This development will put additional pressure on the parking in an already busy street, with potentially 4 additional cars (eg 2 cars per dwelling) using on-street parking. The property currently has 1 off-street parking spot, which will be lost under the proposed DA.

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

    Pam Hausler commented

    I am concerned about the change of trading hours because there are already issues with patrons of this Hotel and the surrounds. A Policeman friend of mine said nothing good happens after 1 a.m, this Hotel is currently conducting business late into the morning already and in my opinion doesn't need to trade later.

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

    Patricia White commented

    Nobody but the Adventist hierarchy want the display units or the units they intend to sell from there. Obviously they are worried about the housing market and want to keep their options open.
    They have already been given far more support than any other developers and more than they deserve. DO NOT, please, grant them any further favours.

    (no donations or gifts made)

  13. In Potts Point NSW on “Alterations to existing...” at 81 Macleay Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Stephan Gyory commented

    Yes brilliant, just what the street needs.
    Resident at 89 for 10 years. More of this stuff please; we live in a city not a sleep village.

  14. In Potts Point NSW on “Use 9sqm of public footway...” at 81 Macleay Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Stephan Gyory commented

    Yes brilliant, just what the street needs.
    Resident at 89 for 10 years. More of this stuff please; we live in a city not a sleep village.

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

    CB commented

    I hope that Waverley Council deny the DA to demolish this beautiful, heritage Victorian house. There's absolutely no need for 18 more 'affordable units'. Paul St already has two huge and ugly unit blocks (31-29 and 37-43 Paul St) that downgraded this heritage area forever. It would be such a shame to damage it further and remove what little original architecture there is left in this streetscape.

    Does 'heritage listed status' hold any value anymore or, is the only decision-maker in Bondi Junction these days the developer's dollar?

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

    George Gleeson commented

    Why, oh why should this development application be given approval to extend a further 3 years. The community has already expressed their concern regarding the DA and the following road congestion and many other issues regarding the construction of high rise apartments along Fox Valley Road which are associated with this DA application. Please KMC do not give this development any further favours!!!
    Do not approve the extension of time, please!!!!
    George Gleeson
    209 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga

  17. In Goodwood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 31 Albert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Emma Miller wrote to local councillor Jennie Boisvert

    I would like to know why this tree must go. It looks healthy and is on council property. If it is just for shading on solar panels, this is a precedent that cannot be made as all trees would subsequently be at risk

    Photo of Jennie Boisvert
    Jennie Boisvert local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Emma Miller

    Dear Emma, I do not know why it has been listed for removal but will ask staff if they can comment. I suspect that the tree has been damaged to such an extent that it'd integrity has been compromised, Regards, Jennie

  18. In Goodwood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 31 Albert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Emma Miller commented

    I would like to know why this tree must go. It looks healthy and is on council property. If it is just for shading on solar panels, this is a precedent that cannot be made as all trees would subsequently be at risk.

  19. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove 1x Iron...” at 11 Hercules Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    All trees need to be preserved as; produce oxygen for life, create natural habitates for wildlife and create beautification for the neighbourhood (and that is why people live in the North Shore). Only when trees are a threat to life, should they be removed.

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

    Rachel Grant commented

    I wish to object to this application for an auxiliary unit as it contravenes the Ipswich Planning Scheme, is incompatible with the character of Bellbird Park and will mean a small block is shared between two residents.

    Auxiliary units, according to Council's Implementation Guideline, are to be built for the purposes of housing elderly relatives, teenagers boarders.

    As this is a new build by a developer, it is patently obvious that the auxiliary unit will not be used for any of the purposes stated above!

    Council, please enforce your guidelines and reject this MCU!

  21. In Melbourne VIC on “Proposed new tower development” at 295-305 King Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Tee commented

    Hi
    Is there any outcome of this application ?
    I’m looking to purchase a property which will be directly affected by the construction of this building.

    Any information on his proposal would be appreciated

  22. In Allenby Gardens SA on “2.4 metres high fence along...” at 2 Lewanick Street Allenby Gardens SA 5009:

    Ben Farmer commented

    I am the resident here , and have recently
    Had someone try to break in the back door , also had syringes thrown over the fence , looking to get the place secure plus privacy also as the houses opposite can see right over fence . Fence rails are also rotten from termite damage

  23. In Goodwood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 31 Albert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Philip Henschke wrote to local councillor Michael Hewitson

    Why?
    PS planning alert list of councillors is quite out of date with Lachlan Clyne still listed as well as departed councillors eg John Koumi

    Photo of Michael Hewitson
    Michael Hewitson local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Philip Henschke

    Dear Phillip,
    Thank you for pointing this out. I will ask Julie Kerr our executive PA who is helping me keep up with the volume of emails and issues to follow this up so we are up to date!

    Kind regards,
    Michael

    Mayor Michael Hewitson AM
    Unley Council
    City of Unley
    P: 0439 752 867
    unley.sa.gov.au

  24. In Bentleigh VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 40 London Street Bentleigh VIC 3204:

    Cate commented

    Hi,
    This very old fibro and weatherboard property is currently being demolished but has no asbestos warning signs in sight. Wondering why this is as we were informed the property had asbestos and want to know what precautions are being taken given children walk/play past it every day.

  25. In Schofields NSW on “Child Care Centre,...” at 64 Advance Street Schofields NSW 2762:

    Nicole Campbell commented

    I find it so disappointing that all Councils seem to care about these days is money. So they will approve ugly looking flats in areas where they are ridiculous and unnecessary and tiny clone looking houses that are all on top of each other with barely any yards.

    Schofields is fast becoming a very ugly suburb instead of a nice suburb that was semi-rural. You look out the window approaching the train station and you see a sea of gray roofs packed in on one another like a big ugly cancer on the ground. On the other side is are several unattractive apartments being constructed next to large properties, some with horses.

    We don't need all of these apartments. It's ridiculous and destroys the lifestyle of living in a nice suburban street. I think a lot of people will no longer want to live in Advance Street once these apartments are there and other areas where the council just approves it because they can make more money.

  26. In Magill SA on “To erect 3 double storey...” at 14 Lorne Avenue Magill SA 5072:

    Doreen Ryan commented

    The application above is going to create more parking issues in our area. At present the streets are very busy as we are very close to the University and with this development we will have 4 extra families instead of 2. It will also change the dynamics of our area from our community feel in Balmoral Ave to higher density housings which will spoil our Magill Village. Our neighbour is also concerned regarding his solar panels and his northern aspect will be compromised along with his privacy overlooking his house and yard with a two storey house next door.

  27. In Wantirna South VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 390 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Jingjing Wang commented

    I would like to know the current state of the proposed development. Is the development going ahead or refused? Can I request to be kept informed of any progress regarding this possible development?

    Kind regards
    Jingjing

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

    Billy commented

    How can the owner and the Council even consider this DA when the house at 27 Paul St has been identified as a Heritage item by the Council themselves! It is on Waverley Council's Heritage list as a fine example of Victorian architecture. Please refuse this DA without any further consideration. There is also a Victorian house next door so together they create a significant Heritage streetscape.

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

    Rodney Scherer commented

    I can see why the owner wants to remove (2) trees. However, they have failed to say why! and what are they going to do to replace the lost habitat to the local fauna and the aesthetic of the streetscape? Clearly, there is a quick fix to a problem of an inappropriate tree being planted and that is to remove it! but thought should be given to what would be appropriate in that location and this is where LG should provide some guidance.

  30. In Coburg North VIC on “Building and works to...” at 150 Newlands Road, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Clare commented

    So we want a bigger premises but few parking spots?!? Crazy!

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