Recent comments

  1. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 53 Kingston Av Seacombe Gardens:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Usual overdevelopment. As usual I presume comments will be totally ignored. Many more cars parked on road....no room for sheds....garages turned into junk rooms and streets have more bins to collect. Where will the children play? (Sorry Cat Stevens)

  2. In Scoresby VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 720 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Ethel Thompson wrote to local councillor Nicole Seymour

    Having 12 double storey units on 2 blocks is ludicrous land size 724 m2 and the other block is 726 m2 this makes 6 units per block, each town house should have least 1 visitor parking so the cars are not parked on the street, the service road is 2 way and narrow and the entrance to the service road from Stud Road will become a traffic hazard. Only 4 units per block this size should be allowed . Having such large developments is not in keeping with the Knox leafy green atmosphere.

    Photo of Nicole Seymour
    Nicole Seymour local councillor for Knox City Council
    replied to Ethel Thompson

    Good Evening Ethel,
    Thank you for raising your concerns.
    I will ask one of our planning team to make contact with you as you have the right to formally object.
    I encourage you and any concerned neighbours to do so to ensure all view points are considered.
    Kind regards
    Cr Nicole Seymour
    Tirhatuan Ward

    Sent from my iPhone

    ****************************************************************************************
    This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. Privacy should be respected at all times. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify Knox City Council immediately by telephone (03-9298-8000) and destroy the original message.

    KNOX CITY COUNCIL
    511 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South. 3152. Australia
    ****************************************************************************************
    PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL

  3. In Camberwell VIC on “Post Request(Amended...” at 1 Quinton Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Lyn commented

    That’s another Aged Care facility - located so close to the one already operating on Riversdale Rd. 500mt east of it. I hope that parking facilities for visitors have been recognised as essential and not ‘watered down’ in numbers for the developers benefit.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 3 Scouller Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Roger commented

    Yet again, Inner West Council website is unable to display any information regarding planning applications. So much for community involvement and input. The sceptical amongst us would suggest a conspiracy to ignore???

  5. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Elizabeth Turner commented

    I prepare the fortnightly Portarlington Community Email Tree and have listed planning documents I know about here
    https://emailtree.yolasite.com/resources/Documents%20relating%20to%20Planning%20Applications%20Nov%202018.pdf
    Sorry, I think you need to copy and paste.
    We have an Intensive Housing Development Area that allows for three-story houses close to the town centre even though our Port Structure Plan from City of Greater Geelong says dwellings should be suitable for our predominately aged population. The GRZ1 zone covering Arlington Rise doesn't have a height limit. Some folk seem to believe the flat earth exists because they use Google Maps. Even though Port is on a hill, the Mayor at the time acknowledged the entry to Arlington Rise was in the wrong spot - the top of a hill. We are a seaside town, the character of our town is being lost sadly. Keeping the seaside town character would make Port so attractive - look at Queenscliff that draws so many visitors to marvel in it's historic built structure.

  6. In Enmore NSW on “Under Section 4.55 of the...” at 4 Sebastopol Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Roger commented

    Yet again, Inner West Council website is unable to display any information regarding planning applications. So much for community involvement and input. The sceptical amongst us would suggest a conspiracy to ignore???

  7. In Neutral Bay NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Spruson Street, Neutral Bay NSW 2089:

    Daniel Thackray commented

    As the property owner of a neighboring property on Spruson St, Neutral Bay, I would like to object to the planned development of the combined site 22 - 26 Spruson St Neutral Bay.
    There are several concerns with the proposed plans, namely;
    - The depth and type of excavation is significant and is highly likely to cause damage to adjoining properties. Our original cottage is approximately 100 years old and is approximately 25 meters from the proposed excavation site. The vibrations caused from such a significant and deep planned excavation is highly likely to cause structural damage to not only our property, but all other similarly constructed and closely located properties. This issue must be addressed via a redesign of the plans to reduce the size of the proposed development and depth & type of excavations required.
    - This development in not in keeping with the feel or current design of the street. The planned height of the development significantly is greater than the allowed limits. This will forever change the street feel, cast additional shadows & remove views from properties immediately across the street – devaluing their homes.
    - The scale of this development will cause significant logistical access issues. Spruson street is a very narrow street which currently has very limited access to residents and Council bus services. On-street parking is very limited and the immediate area is totally unsuitable for heavy vehicle access, the type of which will be required for a development of this size. This development is significant in size and will cause prolonged hardship for existing residents and any council bus service.
    - The existing traditional red-brick apartment blocks are part of the heritage and desirable streetscape of the broader North Sydney area & should be protected. The existing red-brick apartment blocks provide affordable living options for residents, positively contributing to a balanced mix of resident types within the immediate area. If they are not protected & developers are allowed to construct totally unsuitable, multi-million dollar apartments in this immediate area, then lower to middle income workers of the North Sydney area will no longer be able to find suitable housing options.
    The proposed development is significantly oversized and totally unsuitable for this location. The construction will cause immediate issues for all residents in relation to access, noise and potential permanent damage to properties during the construction phase. The proposed development will also cause permanent negative impacts to the existing residents and the streetscape due to the unreasonable height of the project & the impacts of a loss of natural light & views.
    The proposed development will also negatively impact the existing look, feel and traditional character of this immediate area with the removal of the classic red-brick apartment blocks that are a key feature of the broader North Sydney area.
    The removal of the existing three red-brick blocks will limit the availability of affordable residential dwellings within this area and permanently alter the demographic of the area.
    This proposed development should not be allowed to proceed as is currently designed.

  8. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Anne commented

    I agree with Dan, that is ridiculous that they would be allowed to build to that height.
    Council really needs to put a stop to these high buildings

  9. In Kanwal NSW on “Dual Occupancy Conversion...” at 63 Pearce Road Kanwal NSW 2259:

    Judith Morgan commented

    motor vehicle congestion on Pearce Road is already horrendous. The Private Hospital still to open will increase the problem. A dual occupancy on this corner would need to have access to the side street, given that the property is on a corner. Even then this side street will be heavily parked on once the Private Hospital opens. Alternatively compel the builders to provide off-street parking for both dwellings. this can be easily done with a corner site.

  10. In Thornlands QLD on “Dwelling” at 17 Waterline Boulevard, Thornlands QLD 4164:

    Kath Boddy commented

    Hi, can you please advise if all of the council trees and garden will remain in situ exactly as they are, on the corner of this proposed property? Can you advise on which street the proposed property driveway will be, Springwater Street or Waterline Boulevard? Regards

  11. In Prahran VIC on “Two Lot Subdivision - PS...” at 442-446 Malvern Road, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Sue Tresider commented

    These properties are again up for sale, and the sale sign states clearly that planning approval has been granted for a major development. Recently there was substantial community outrage against the proposed overdevelopment, and the council wisely declined the application. If this development is now approved, why is an application being made now for subdivision which should have been part of the application for development process surely? And why weren’t the objectors to the development advised when it had been approved?

  12. In Cockatoo VIC on “Use of the land (existing...” at 4 Bailey Road, Cockatoo, VIC:

    Margaret A.Mitsikas commented

    to Cardinia Shire Council
    Regarding the proposal for a veterinary clinic in the existing premises
    at 4 Bailey Rd Cockatoo:
    Having seen the premises inside when it was previously empty,
    noted the number of parking options, and it's easy accessibility, I believe it is
    a most suitable site for a vet clinic.
    I do not think it will impinge on my life when I'm living in Baker St
    Cockatoo, in the near future. I wish the venturers success.
    Sincerely, Margaret Mitsikas. 4/5/2019

  13. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Gillian Fillmann commented

    I strongly object to the proposal for the 40 unit boarding house @ 1038-1040 ANZAC Parade
    This will create more congestion with extra cars coming and going on an already extremely busy main road.
    This will most definitely de value existing properties at a time when the housing market is already showing signs of lower prices.

  14. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Reuben commented

    Definitely opposed to this development Umina is a family friendly area. What types of people will be staying in the boarding house will they be safe around children? With a successful surf club and a primary school Very close is this really the type of development the area needs ? Umina has changed a lot in the last 10 yrs for the better, how would putting this building in affect the community.
    Concerned surf club member.

  15. In Orange NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 37 Kurim Avenue Orange NSW 28005 Callawa Street Orange NSW 2800:

    Peter wilson commented

    We do not want a low cost housing development in our area and feel it will be detrimental to the overall look of the area. The values of existing properties will be downgraded with the development. We purchased in the area due to the large sections and the peacefull community feel that goes with. The investors need to look elsewhere where there is already low cost housing and not damage the look of the area with high density housing.

  16. In Darlinghurst NSW on “S4.55 (2) modification of...” at 91 Crown Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Stephan Gyory commented

    I support this. They should be allowed to stay open even later on weekends.
    We need more nightlife in Sydney.

  17. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Julie commented

    This appears to be an horrific eyesore and will destroy the appearance of the area.

    Needless to add that the development does not meet any of the planning guidelines.

    Unbelievable that such a development could possibly get the green light from our council.
    What use are the planning guidelines? There seems to be no limits to what this council will approve.

    I certainly do not want such a development in Umina, let alone only metres from the surf club, where so many children spend their time. As a USLC member I am horrified at what a "boarding house" will mean for our club and beach.

  18. In Blackwall NSW on “Three (3) Lot Strata...” at 7 Gallipoli Avenue, Blackwall NSW 2256:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While urban renewal has positives, can Council ensure the developers preserve and work around the big tree at the front?
    The Peninsula has lost and is losing too many mature trees resulting in less shade amenity, habitat and increased reflected heat in summer.
    When the 3-villas are finished, can the garden be planted with natives that better tolerate the low-nutrient sand?

  19. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 37 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Sharon Collier commented

    It is really difficult to drive up and down Winyard Drive as cars park on both sides and the Rd is not wide enough, a lot of people don't give way. Any new units should have ample parking on the property, Not on the road,

    Thanks

  20. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of 2 x detached...” at 18 Allens Parade Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Andrew Dickson commented

    I don't understand how a development like this could be considered in what is zoned as a general conservation area. We should be protecting what remaining original low-rise housing there is to retain a shred of character in this neighbourhood.

  21. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    suzanne mckay commented

    This is a real shame. The area has a disproportionate amount of affordable housing and a history of social issues. Just as the balance was starting to be restored this comes along. This, in all fairness and respect to all members of the local community, should be rejected by Randwick Council.
    The proposed development would be nothing short of an overcrowded mess.
    There is a stretch of the Southern end of Anzac Parade where there are lovely private dwellings that are well maintained and welcoming. Amidst that here is government housing beside, alongside, across the road and down the street. How about a bit of equity and balance!
    Stop targeting South Maroubra with short term, transient and low income housing (which will probably be exploited to the further advantage of the developer).

  22. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 129A Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Dan Fitzgibbon commented

    This building is too large in size for size of block.
    We do not need a 3 storey house in residential area of Portarlington

  23. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Local resident Umina commented

    As a local resident of Umina I without questions oppose this development.

    This development is not in keeping with the community and village nature of the area or the current community use of the area.

    The council should not be approving these developments. The size, style, and proposed use are in direct conflict with the community expectations and in contrast to the local government area development rules. The councillor must stop ignoring the regulations for development in our area and this council must stop ignoring the residents concerns.

    If these developments continue local residents need to start protesting at the council doors and demand the council act in the interests of local residents.

    The major needs to ask - are you really wanting to be the person who led the destruction of one of the oldest and most beautiful community areas on the central coast.

  24. In Frenchs Forest NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 5 Skyline Place Frenchs Forest 2086:

    Deborah commented

    Let's keep residential development within the planned Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Frenchs Forest Precinct planning. This site should stay as business use. We need careful planning to continue to create work spaces and employment opportunities in Frenchs Forest.
    Why build housing for Seniors (or anyone) within business parks.

  25. In Mangrove Mountain NSW on “Section 4.55 Change...” at 150 Lillicrapps Road, Mangrove Mountain NSW 2250:

    Marilyn Steiner commented

    There is nothing up on your ePortal on this property, as of 4 May 2019

  26. In Hove SA on “1 into 3 torrens title” at 14 Railway, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Building 3 dwellings here will result in more cars parked on the road, preventing rubbish bin access, visitor parking and basic safe access down the street. This should only be allowed IF each dwelling has dual SIDE by SIDE on property parking. i.e. 2 vehicles per property side by side.
    This roadway is used by many patrons for access to the train network. Reduced parking and general congestion will have impact on the safe access to this area and the safety of pedestrians and drivers alike.
    There are too many properties being split in this area and this will cause more vehicle accidents, thefts, violence and drop in community civility.

  27. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 53 Kingston Av Seacombe Gardens:

    Neil Morris commented

    Building 3 dwellings here will result in more cars parked on the road, preventing rubbish bin access, visitor parking and basic safe access down the street. There are too many properties being split and this will cause more vehicle accidents, thefts, violence and drop in community civility.
    To reduce impact to street, EACH dwelling must have side by side on site parking to prevent impact to the street.

  28. In Warradale SA on “Division of land into 2 new...” at 32 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Building 2 dwellings here will result in more cars parked on the road, preventing rubbish bin access, visitor parking and basic safe access down the street. This should only be allowed IF each dwelling has dual SIDE by SIDE on property parking. i.e. 2 vehicles per property side by side.
    Being opposite a public park, reduced parking impacts the parks accessibility, making it harder for people to gain safe access to a public space.
    Other neighbouring properties also have been flagged for demolish and splitting into 3 dwellings, again reducing access, parking, safe access and restricting traffic using the road to drive a vehicle. There are too many properties being split and this will cause more vehicle accidents, thefts, violence and drop in community civility.

  29. In Forresters Beach NSW on “Alterations to Existing...” at 3 Lavinia Street, Forresters Beach NSW 2260:

    Laura McDonald commented

    Could we please see the alterations to the original plans?

  30. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Stuart Davidson commented

    This proposed developed should not be approved under any circumstance!

    The development is a complete waste of a valuable block in an already over crowed area of Umina.

    The area is full of families who I'm sure like myself are extremely concerned about this type of proposed development and the type of people who would be stay there. Also I can't understand how this type of development could be considered by the council in such close proximity to a local primary school.

    Also in addition to my concerns about the proposed use of the block the proposed design of the new building looks terrible and to my untrained eye seem to break a number of local planning rules i.e. floor space ratio, areas of deep soil planting etc.

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