Recent comments

  1. In Umina Beach NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling with...” at 45 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Could the owners plant a tree for shade at the front when the build is finished?
    The Peninsula has now lost too many mature trees and is now rated (with Warnervale and Somersby) the hottest place on the Central Coast - because of trees disappearing. Any shade tree would be good, though Council would prefer a native.

  2. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Lisa Griffiths commented

    Very disappointing that East's are trying to underhand the residents. The development has clearly been voted NO by a poll last year 2:1 and would be voted NO again. This application is a a misrepresentation of what they really want to do as we have seen previously. I would be disappointed if Waverley Council agree to it.

  3. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    AM Taylor commented

    I agree with the sentiments here. Very disappointing that this DA would be lodged just before the holiday period. It fractures the community further if the opportunity for due process and consideration isn’t provided and will only strengthen the resolve of objectors.

  4. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - Four...” at 196-198 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    david Harris commented

    I totally object to this development.Also I hope I didn't heart right but its going around that you may approve this shocker as it was mooted in Jan
    Besides my lengthy objection, add to this . What will local people and indeed anyone else think when they see this block totally cleared. it is a travesty. Although there is a reserve opposite, you accept that another clearing so near to the reserve further isolates Koalas which I thought was oan absolute no I have checked out the 6 approvals being sought. They all have one thing in common the clearing of bush. How do you explain to us residents that planning will from now on be at the developers behest.
    Bellbird and its character is being treated like the wild west. What are you going to do to stop this horrendous avalance of developers unchecked STOP IT RIGHT NOW

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Dual Occupancy” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    John Williams commented

    This building has some heritage merit and the construction of new proposed development threatens the amenity of neighbouring properties. Brisbane Council does allow development of sites that are graced by historic houses of the house is physically moved and restored (perhaps that could be a last resort option?). Surely the original house could be sensitivity renovated and expanded upon?

  6. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Bernadette Hayes commented

    Very disappointing to see this DA lodged just before Christmas. The sensitive issue of the development of this much-loved community asset should be given adequate time for consideration outside of the holiday period.

  7. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - Four...” at 196-198 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Emma Perry commented

    I am opposed to this development. Removing all bush land for residential houses is both detrimental to the ecosystem and bad for residents. Diseases that are currently localised to the bush areas (tick born diseases) will have no place to go but into residential backyards. Plus we already have the koalas down as an endangered species and this is making it worse

  8. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Marc Schregardus commented

    This is typical of the underhanded techniques that Easts have already shown themselves to be more than capable of using. They are hell bent on destroying a community asset, that the community - despite the best efforts of Easts - has clearly said they don't want destroyed. Sickened - although not surprised - to see them trying sneak this through over Christmas. Hopefully Waverley Council are not as corrupt as Easts clearly are, and will delay this so that it can be given proper consideration - and rejected again.

  9. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 801 - 809 Pennant Hills Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Bruce Wheatley commented

    While the introduction of information advising of availability and location of parking spots is supported, it is difficult to believe there is a need to implement a time limit to free parking at Carlingford Court. One would have thought it highly unlikely that shoppers spend more than two, let alone three, hours at the centre given the existing mix of retailers. (I note that there is no mention of how long the period of free parking is to be.)

    I don't understand how the removal of the roundabout at Location 6 will enhance access to the multi-level car park as generally this doesn't seem to be a problem. It will make it more difficult for vehicles exiting that location as presumably they will be required to give way to:
    1) traffic entering from Pennant Hills Road wishing to travel to the western multi-deck car park or to the southern end of the centre, and
    2) traffic travelling from the southern end of the car park or the western multi-deck car park.

    The area of highest priority for the car park where resources should be concentrated is the access from Rembrandt Street into the at-grade car park. Traffic regularly backs up into the intersection of Rembrandt Street and Carlingford Road as vehicles wait to access this area. Consequently vehicles exiting into Rembrandt Street can have their vision obscured and not see vehicles proceeding further north in Rembrandt Street.

    What is to happen to those parking spaces currently allocated to seniors?

  10. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    M Gray commented

    I trust that the deciding bodies will give people adequate time to respond. Trying to sneak it through over Christmas is rather disrespectful.

  11. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 30 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    S. Bourne commented

    I wish to voice my concern about this application, it is one of 3 that have been submitted for this development and there are bound to be more coming. These 3 would be almost 10% of the development already. I hope that the council is keeping a close eye on the number of applications for auxiliary units in this development so the total number does not end up exceeding both community expectations and the planning scheme in terms of density and separation of auxiliary units.

    The initial advertised plans for “Bellbird Gardens” were nothing like what it has shaped up to be and these original plans have conveniently been removed from the internet, but there were no auxiliary units planned at all. The developers lied to the community about their plans in order to get their approval and now intend on doing whatever they can get away to make more money and ignore the concerns of existing residents.

  12. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 14 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    S. Bourne commented

    I wish to voice my concern about this application, it is one of 3 that have been submitted for this development and there are bound to be more coming. These 3 would be almost 10% of the development already. I hope that the council is keeping a close eye on the number of applications for auxiliary units in this development so the total number does not end up exceeding both community expectations and the planning scheme in terms of density and separation of auxiliary units.

    The initial advertised plans for “Bellbird Gardens” were nothing like what it has shaped up to be and these original plans have conveniently been removed from the internet, but there were no auxiliary units planned at all. The developers lied to the community about their plans in order to get their approval and now intend on doing whatever they can get away to make more money and ignore the concerns of existing residents.

  13. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 12 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    S. Bourne commented

    I wish to voice my concern about this application, it is one of 3 that have been submitted for this development and there are bound to be more coming. These 3 would be almost 10% of the development already. I hope that the council is keeping a close eye on the number of applications for auxiliary units in this development so the total number does not end up exceeding both community expectations and the planning scheme in terms of density and separation of auxiliary units.

    The initial advertised plans for “Bellbird Gardens” were nothing like what it has shaped up to be and these original plans have conveniently been removed from the internet, but there were no auxiliary units planned at all. The developers lied to the community about their plans in order to get their approval and now intend on doing whatever they can get away to make more money and ignore the concerns of existing residents.

  14. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 3 Radcliffe Court Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    S. Bourne commented

    I wish to voice my objection to this development application (SPSR - 9978/2018). Auxiliary units on lots 3,7,11 and 15 is too many for development of this size. The approval of 4 auxiliary units (33% of the total lots in this development) would not meet community expectations or the planning scheme in terms of density and separation of auxiliary units especially as the lots are the smallest they can possibly be in the area.

  15. In Empire Bay NSW on “Demolition of Certain...” at 437 Wards Hill Road, Empire Bay NSW 2257:

    Craig Sparks commented

    This development will increase the traffic at the interesection of Empire Bay Drive and Wards Hill Road.
    With the development being for caravan sites this would suggest that the new traffic in and around the area will consist articulated vehicles of various sizes , eg caravans being towed and they do not manoeuvre as easy as a single car.
    With all the local residents and commercial business nearby the interesection is already quite busy at times.
    Should the development proceed priority needs to be given to making this intersection safer for all users

  16. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - Four...” at 196-198 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    david Harris commented

    I totally object to this development.Also I hope I didn't heart right but its going around that you may approve this shocker as it was mooted in Jan
    Besides my lengthy objection, add to this . What will local people and indeed anyone else think when they see this block totally cleared. it is a travesty. Although there is a reserve opposite, you accept that another clearing so near to the reserve further isolates Koalas which I thought was oan absolute no I have checked out the 6 approvals being sought. They all have one thing in common the clearing of bush. How do you explain to us residents that planning will from now on be at the developers behest.
    Bellbird and its character is being treated like the wild west. What are you going to do to stop this horrendous avalance of developers unchecked STOP IT RIGHT NOW

  17. In Roselands NSW on “Section 96 modification to...” at 37 Ludgate Street, Roselands NSW:

    charlie commented

    we bless this people how there very respectful to our public and parking spaces

  18. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Clinton Reilly commented

    This should be put through a proper consultation process after the holidays and not put through during the period around Christmas when few people are available to give it proper consultation.

    There is almost nothing on the Waverley Council page detailing the proposal, so residents cannot comment effectively. This is not how it should be.

    This development was voted against 2:1 by members of the club last year at a specially convened meeting.

    This development is against member wishes and should be rejected outright until members have agreed as to what facilities will be delivered for its members and not just for Easts Leagues club profit.

    Also,

  19. In Newtown VIC on “Use and Development of One...” at 17 And 19 Holyrood Avenue, Newtown, VIC:

    Greg McDonald commented

    This is not an objection but rather an observation. These plans were drawn up 10 years ago and never acted apon. The area has moved on since and the demographics have changed considerably. Whilst also there 10 years ago, the Fyans Park Kindergarten has undergone expansion, Fyans Park Primary a little further north has an excellent reputation and this property backs on to a play ground beautifully maintained by residents. Much development has gone on around this location and house prices all now exceed $700,000. These commercial shops would be better left as shops and the undeveloped rear facing the playground allowed to become a cafe or restaurant at a tenants expense. The landlord could do structural upgrades and once the property is leased, then consider further development. I think this is an under use of this site and second story dwellings will have limited demand for residential rental or an owner occupier. Maybe think again. It may be in your best interests and those of the local community.

  20. In Redbank Plains QLD on “Extension to Currency...” at 109-115 Willow Road Redbank Plains QLD 4301:

    Glen Costello commented

    No. Please deny the extension application. There is currently a lot of heated debate about these developments going ahead on Willow road. The residents are clear and do not want these to go ahead, and now the delevoper must have a problem to be asking for an extension. So again the residents lives are on hold while waiting to see if their lives are going to be affected.
    Please ICC, listen to the people and for once and deny this extension then deny the entire development.

  21. In Glen Osmond SA on “Removal of two (2)...” at 34 Gilles Road Glen Osmond SA 5064:

    Ben Teague commented

    Council should compensate residents who have significant trees for the benefit of the general community. This could be in the way of council rate rebates or subsidized/reimbursed or council provided arborist care for the trees.

  22. In Glen Osmond SA on “Removal of two (2)...” at 34 Gilles Road Glen Osmond SA 5064:

    Ben Teague commented

    These are significant trees that add greatly to the amenity of the local community and complement the other significant trees in the area. Allowing removal of these trees will set a precedent which if followed could lead to the loss of other similar trees in the area and thus the general loss of the feel of the suburb. These trees also provide important habitat for native birds and animals. The whole point of significant tree protection is to protect this important habitat.

  23. In Bronte NSW on “Remove Five (5) Bottle...” at 4 Alfred Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    Gayle Walker commented

    I have read the owners comments about these five trees and the excuse for removing them seems incredulous. Trees will always drop leaves. Are they unhealthy because they have not been properly cared for? The applicant has written that other trees will replace them but no mention of what type of tree will suit them or the number of replacements. These bottlebrush trees are natives. What would be more suitable than native bottlebrushes?
    They aren’t particularly tall trees from what I can discern from the photo and their intention to replace these trees with another species needs to be identified and documented.

  24. In Mascot NSW on “Strata subdivision to 207 lots” at 53 - 77 Baxter Road, Mascot NSW 2020:

    Tess Michaels commented

    This was the plan for the onset with this development. Now they are strata subdividing 207 units and don't have to adhere to the residential DCP requirements for unit dwellings as they built on being a serviced apartment first.
    Parking will be a MAJOR issues, infrastructure in no way supports the continued increase in development in Mascot and basically overnight our area will have more units squeezed in.
    Botany and now Bayside Council are just hopeless in managing development and planning in Mascot. So many units built left unleased and yet they continue to approve more. This used to be great suburb but now is just a disaster.

  25. In Caringbah South NSW on “Boundary adjustment,...” at 5 Dudley Avenue Caringbah South NSW 2229:

    Grant commented

    Yet another development. Why are we paying the exorbitant council rates currently for Caringbah South it is not a premier suburb anymore. It is being overdeveloped at a higher rate with the exception of Miranda (units) than any other suburb in the Sutherland Shire. There are now 64 duplex properties for sale currently in Caringbah South and they are not selling most are now hitting on the rental market which is now having a negative affect on rental yields. The other great tragedy from all this over development is the loss of fauna. The Sutherland Shire lost over 7000 trees just last year alone disgraceful. I have always voted Liberal but time and time again the show they are about nothing more than money. Time to vote the Libs out locally and state and Morrison has no chance.

  26. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Converting 2x existing...” at 59 Ebley Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Gayle Walker commented

    There are no documents to view on council’s website pertaining to this DA so it’s hard to comment. However, I want to stress how important it is to retain the fig tree at the front of this property. I have seen ringtail possums in this tree at dusk and it is providing habitat and food for our ever-shrinking population of ringtails. Whatever gets approved here, please keep this tree intact.

    Please ensure a POM is clearly drawn up for this boarding house including a direct phone line for complaints. Please don’t expect police and neighbours to manage this business.

  27. In Carlton NSW on “Amended Staged CC -...” at 2 - 6 Carlton Parade, Carlton NSW 2218:

    Suzanne O’Connor commented

    Why remove the trees ?
    We need green and open space . Trees should be kept AT ALL COST . We lose more and more trees to development constantly and Councils should make it their business to keep as many as possible .
    Having attended many Greater City Commission meetings the number one concern of attendees was the ‘ maintenance and creation of green space ‘ .
    Carlton Crescent is an attractive , tree lined street with buildings which are well set back
    And with gardens in front of them. This standard should be maintained.

  28. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 271 Gymea Bay Road Gymea Bay NSW 2227:

    Matthew Chapman commented

    271 and 273 Gymea Bay Road are two adjoining blocks immediately adjacent to a relatively busy intersection; the majority of traffic from Gymea Bay passes through the intersection, with Vernon Road being the only other alternative and minor in comparison. There is a public park opposite and a small commercial shop area a couple of properties away. Any development of this nature will need to have considerations/concessions to address traffic flow due to the increased density on the properties.

  29. In Botany NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1274 Botany Road, Botany NSW 2019:

    Vanessa Purnell commented

    There is already over construction in the area. There has already been an expansion of a boarding house a few blocks away. This is too much development and there is not enough provision for parking attached to the development. This block is primarily houses and we need to maintain blocks of houses in the area to maintain the balance. In addition the council is not upgrading infrastructure to cope with additional development which means over development needs to stop.

  30. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 11 Uldis Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Megan Probyn commented

    I strongly object to this application on a number of grounds. Mainly:

    1. There already 10 auxiliary units in this development site, with 9 facing Uldis Place and one facing Harris St. In addition, there is an 11th auxiliary unit built directly opposite this development site (at 24 Harris St) which will be directly opposite the unit proposed for 25 Harris St. Thus, with only 25 lots within this development site there is already an auxiliary unit concentration of 40%. To allow an additional 6 auxiliary units would result in a density of 65%

    2. All lot sizes for proposed auxiliary units are less than the 800m2 required for an auxiliary unit lot

    It is hard to understand why this application falls under the banner of ‘Superseded Planning Scheme Request’ when the initial development application for this development site (RAL - 1202 / 2016) did not request, mention or include auxiliary units in the provided plans. It shouldn’t be assumed that auxiliary units were approved in a development plan that did not specify them. I understand that a person is able to make a superseded planning scheme request for a period of up to one year after the planning scheme was amended however, as both the contract provided as ‘Application Supporting Information Appendix B Contracts’ of this DA and the amended planning scheme are dated October 2018, I seriously question which came first.

    As indicated above, there is already a high concentration of inappropriately named ‘auxiliary units’ in Uldis Place. I say inappropriately named because these ‘auxiliary units’ loosely (barely) comply the definition for an auxiliary unit. While they are one–bedroom apartments attached to a dwelling on the same lot (one component of the definition of an auxiliary unit), whether or not they have a gross floor space of 50m2 is questionable. Furthermore, these units have not been built as being SECONDARY or SUBSERVIENT to the principal dwelling as is required through the Ipswich Planning Scheme; they have been built as a second, completely independent dwelling complete with its own back yard as the lots on which they have been built are separated via fencing. Thus, these ‘auxiliary units’ have been built in a dual-occupancy style, which does not comply with either the definition of an auxiliary unit or with the intended use of an auxiliary unit [Ipswich Planning Scheme’s Implementation Guide No. 1, Definitions section (a) (ii) “The term (auxiliary unit) does not include “Dual Occupancy”…’; and, Guidelines section 1 ‘Accordingly the development of an Auxiliary Unit… will be treated in a similar manner to a single family dwelling’]. This definition and statement of intended use existed before the planning scheme was amended and therefore should be enforced on the current superseded planning scheme request.

    In attachment A1.1 (Auxiliary Unit Provisions) of this DA (SPSR-10104/2018), the applicant highlights the following sections of the Ipswich Planning Scheme (part 12 div 6):
    - Table 12.6.1 section 3
    - Table 12.6.2 section 6
    The information in both of these sections is identical and relates to auxiliary unit location. The highlighted section of the DA appendix state: ‘Auxiliary Units - (b) are dispersed and avoid concentrations to ensure amenity and streetscape character is consistent with the intent of the zone’. Already this aspect of the planning scheme has been breached in the development site as:
    - 10 of the 25 available lots (40%) are already supposed ‘auxiliary units’ and therefore there is already a concentration of them
    - Up to 5 of the current ‘auxiliary units’ are situated on adjoining lots (no’s 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Uldis Place) with an additional 3 ‘auxiliary units’ opposite on adjoining lots (3 and 7 Uldis Place and 19 Harris St). Therefore the current auxiliary units are not dispersed
    - The current 10 ‘auxiliary units’ in are in fact duplexes and as such there are two dwellings per lot instead of one single family dwelling with a self-contained unit attached and subservient to the principal dwelling. This equates to 20 independent dwellings – add to this the three single dwellings built to date and you get 23 dwellings (built on 13 of 25 lots) within this 1.6 hectare development site and a density of 14 dwellings per hectare. As this development site is located within a residential low-density zone where the dwelling density is defined as being 10-15 dwellings per hectare, only one more dwelling can be created for this development site to be considered consistent with the intent of this zone. With 12 empty lots and only one more dwelling allowed so the ‘intent of the zone’ can be retained, it is already clear the intent of the zone will cannot be retained even in single dwellings are built on the 12 remaining unoccupied lots. If the current style of supposed ‘auxiliary units’ are built on six of these unoccupied lots as requested in this DA, the dwelling density will substantially exceed that intended for this zone.

    It is clear that even if this DA does fall under the umbrella of a superseded planning scheme request, it MUST BE REJECTED on the grounds that it still does not comply with the edition of the planning scheme that preceded the October amendments. That is, the DA proposal:
    1. Will add to the already high concentration of auxiliary units in the development site and increase the concentration from 40% to 65% (16 ‘auxiliary units’ on 25 lots)
    2. Further prevents auxiliary unit locations to be dispersed
    3. Causes the dwelling density to substantially exceed 15 dwellings per hectare which is not consistent with the intent of the (residential low-density) zone

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