Recent comments

  1. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of five (5),...” at 104 Doncaster Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Ben Dawson commented

    This density is out of character for the area and would set a precedent for this part of Doncaster road.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    J. Ocallaghan commented

    I object to this DA. It is too high and over-scale for this narrow stretch of Illawarra Rd, which is already a bottleneck in terms of traffic and activity. It is out of scale with the adjoining buildings, and will increase congestion, traffic and shadowing.
    I also object to the demolition of the historic buildings, as the Marrickville Heritage Society has outlined.

  3. In Kew VIC on “Buildings and works for...” at 121 Denmark Street, Kew VIC 3101:

    Bob Appleyard commented

    I support the comments by Nicole Ward. Kew Junction is enough of a problem with its traffic congestion without inappropriate development adding to the existing eyesores of high rise accomodation and the consequent increase in impatient traffic flow.

  4. In Cronulla NSW on “Construction of a new mixed...” at 37 Gerrale Street Cronulla NSW 2230:

    Michelle commented

    37 Units!!!! Where is everyone going to park? I hope there are 2 parking spots per unit being allocated under the building.

  5. In Tweed Heads NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 33 Boyd Street, Tweed Heads NSW 2485:

    Hayden Ledwidge commented

    Hi Council.

    Please no more social housing on Boyd St. We already have 25-27 Boyd as Social Housing and Fred's place at number 9 Boyd. Every day there's someone destroying property, screaming, littering etc. I appreciate we need affordable housing, but I do not believe it should all be so condensed. There's plenty of land in South and West Tweed.

  6. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Concerned resident commented

    As a born and bred Gold Coaster, I am acutely aware of the growing demand and impact of population growth and high-density development throughout the city. I submit the following points of objection:-

    1. The building envelope is too large for a 412m2 property and exceeds the criteria in respect of:-
    o Setbacks
    o Density; and
    o Site coverage
    The town planning report notes some ‘relatively minor alternative outcomes have been proposed’ to the development’s assessment, however these are neither minor nor justified, and the cumulative impact of these make the development inappropriate for the site.

    2. There is restricted and unsafe access – the required road frontage of the proposed development is 50% less than required, and merely moves the concern of vehicular access from the Gold Coast Highway to Jefferson Lane. Jefferson Lane is the sole vehicle access for many beachfront properties, and already poses a daily safety risk given the narrow single lane in one direction, with shared access for passenger cars, commercial vehicles, pedestrians, pets, cyclists and neighborhood kids. These risks will only be heightened and traffic congestion caused from another multi-unit property, particularly if its residents/guests are queueing along Jefferson Lane, for access to their car stacker.

    3. There is inadequate parking – provision has been made for a partial basement with only 10 resident carparks and 1 visitor carpark, when there are 5 x 3bedroom apartments being proposed. The resident car parking is proposed via a car stacking system, which will contribute to access concerns. There is already a shortage of street parking within Palm Beach generally, particularly beachside of the highway and there is no street parking along Jefferson Lane. Furthermore, the proposed development is listed as being for permanent and short-term accommodation, which supports a need for a greater number of parking spaces.

    4. The proposed development is not balanced between built form and green areas and there is no communal open space (and balcony space should not be considered an appropriate alternative). Palm Beach is already neighboring an existing priority koala area, yet we continue to see vegetation clearing and inadequate consideration of landscaping or regeneration in new development applications. The landscaping in the application appears to be proposed only to overcome other objections or concerns with the development (i.e soften the bulk of the form or for privacy), not out of any genuine desire to incorporate landscaping or green areas. The enhancement of Palm Beach ‘by subtropical design and landscaping’ is listed as a desired environmental outcome for Palm Beach, yet development applications are submitted with only a bare minimum of landscaping.

    5. The potential environmental concerns are not addressed in the application - there is added impact to the sand, water quality and ocean life of the beach environment, and adverse impacts to air quality and drainage. There is additional concern from anticipated increases in ocean tides, which poses a risk to the entire Palm Beach community.

    6. The proposed development will unduly impact the amenity enjoyed by surrounding properties. Specifically, there is an invasion of privacy for neighbours, given the proposed size and scale of the development, contrary to the suggestion in the application of ‘quality passive surveillance of Jefferson Lane and improve the relationship between the public and private realm’. The ‘relatively minimal’ shading referenced in the application is farcical; surrounding residents and general members of the public who walk along the coastline will be shaded by a 20m tall building and those impacts should not be overlooked.

    Though there is strong demand for real estate in Palm Beach, there are ample other properties that have already sought approvals or are under construction. All such properties have had various relaxations granted, which is a concerning precedent for subsequent applications, and the deleterious cumulative effect can already be seen throughout the Palm Beach community. Many such applications are seeking a material change of use on a small lot to oversized multi-unit buildings, all which will ultimately glut the town.

    We sought to raise our kids in a coastal beach town - to teach them important values about contributing to their community, respecting the environment, loving one another and appreciating the peace and beauty of their surroundings. Now we find ourselves, with each new development application questioning how shortsightedness and greed risks destroying it all. The proposed development is at a form, scale and intensity that is inappropriate, inconsistent with the City Plan and will not benefit Palm Beach.

  7. In Mont Albert VIC on “Tree Removal (tree 1)” at 23 High Street, Mont Albert VIC 3127:

    Lynette J commented

    I have enquired further online about the application for 'Tree Removal' at 23 High Street, Mont Albert. No further information is given regarding the species, age, girth and condition of the tree in question. Can these applications state that information as a basic requirement please.

  8. In Maroubra NSW on “Modification of the...” at 134 Marine Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Danie Bligh commented

    Hi there,

    Can we receive the development proposal for this site please?
    The Reference doesnt download from the website.

    Specifically, did the DA agree to an extra floor/increase height?

  9. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Integrated Development -...” at 137 A Princes Highway, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Maggie commented

    I feel that the apartment block, walking distance from Turella train station will help boost the restaurants and cafes down past the round about giving them a lot more traffic and boost their lively hoods. Especially during these times.

    The car parks should be designed so to account for all the residents, though. If that is the case I think it is fine.

  10. In Kanimbla NSW on “Swimming pool” at 50 Marsden View Close Kanimbla NSW 2790:

    Mr carl pickard commented

    We the neighbouring land owners have absolutely no objections to this proposal. We think it’s a great addition to their home and it cannot bee seen from our plot.

  11. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of all...” at 81 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    S Kruger commented

    Broadly we object to this development:

    1. It overshadows neighbouring buildings badly. It's too high and will create permanent shadows over buildings/houses to the south on O'Brien Street. This will not only affect neighbouring building privacy and access to sunlight, but also any solar energy facilities used by neighbouring properties.
    2. The development is trying to covertly sneak in ahead of the established heritage review and report on O'Brien Street due in October. It's clearly not in keeping with the heritage of the area and they are trying to cicumvent this. The development erases the few remaining early 19th century bungalow-style homes that defined Bondi. Extremely rare to be seen now, so often replaced by homogenous unsustainable bland architecture that erases our history and heritage.
    3. 71 apartments, 71 car parks (including guests), 77 bicycle parks (including guests), and 24 motorcycle park. All resulting in massively increased traffic that will come from an increase in the number of dwellings - it must be remembered that it's not just owners who have cars and other vehicles (scooters, bicycles, etc). Delivery vehicles for home delivery of food, Australia Post deliveries, residents cleaning and dog walking staff. This is a massive increase in population and people to service that population in an area that is already quite dense.
    4. How does this add value to the area? Short answer - it doesn't. In any way whatsoever. It only adds people, traffic, congestion and shadows.

  12. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of six (6)...” at 480 Scoresby Road, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Sam commented

    The intersection at Anne Road is already a nightmare. With cars parked in front of units there is essentially one way traffic into Anne Road. This development is going to increase this traffic problem even more so. Put some no standing signs or double lines in for heavens sale.

  13. In Southbank VIC on “Application for planning...” at 132-136 Kavanagh Street Southbank 3006:

    David Greasley commented

    This park is one of the only green spaces in Southbank that gets direct sunlight. It is inconceivable that this would be taken away, it is an asset to the local community and has been highlighted by the covid restrictions and the thousands of us who live in apartments and need a communal open space. It is now more popular than ever and it would be a huge detriment and loss to our local community. It is terrible planning by the government that has left us in this situation of only one open, sunny space for tens of thousands of local residents and would be a neglect of duty to take what is left away. It can't be replaced. Please come down and look for yourself to see what we would be loosing and such a high density urban area.

  14. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Erica Ashley commented

    As a resident who uses Laurina Avenue daily to access my house, I am disappointed that this local developer is trying for what can clearly be seen as an over-development of the site at 14 Laurina Avenue.

    My personal reasons for objecting to this development relate to the issues of safety, environmental and the lack of beautification of the project.

    This development is to occur on the already dangerous bend of Boomerang Street and Laurina Avenue. The increased traffic flow in the past two years from the new bike track, Kids Korner Pre-School, the increased amount of sporting activities on the ovals both weekends and evenings and the activities of the local club, has prompted me to use the word dangerous. If you approach this bend from Parkes Street and try to proceed down Laurina, you can only do this safely if no other car is heading in the direction of Parkes Street. If a car is approaching in the opposite direction, one car must stop and pull over behind cars already parked on Laurina as it effectively has made Laurina Avenue a one lane street near this bend. This is only going to worsen and become more dangerous with the development. The other traffic issue is cars leaving Boomerang Street to proceed to Parkes Street. These cars firstly go too fast and secondly approach the bend on the wrong side of the road as the road has no kerb and guttering, has numerous broken edges of the road surface and many potholes. It is a relatively sharp bend and since drivers have no obligation to give way to any other drivers, other than drivers exiting Laurina Avenue towards Parkes Street, there is a total trust system in place, that everyone is going to be 100 percent sure of what every other driver is going to do. I understand no developer can be responsible for all road users yet the reason I am stressing on this point is that there is now a real consideration to add a development right on the bend. I am no safety expert but there is a very real perceived risk of an incident regardless of severity, may occur on this bend.

    As for the environmental aspect of this project, and based on the landscape plan submitted to council, the majority of plants are Blue Agapanthus (85 to be exact). Given the area near the development is in close proximity to bush land (as most of Helensburgh is), the way the landscape plan is presented does not take into consideration the active wildlife we have in the area. The native animals and birds we have in the vicinity of Laurina, Excelsa and Rajani Roads are an asset to our community. Both day and night, many species of wildlife can be seen using our trees and gardens as corridors to move safely from one place to another. I cannot see anywhere in the landscape plan of this development where the wildlife has been taken into consideration. This is an environmental issue and one I believe needs addressing with wildlife experts.

    Lastly, the actual look and feel of the development is very concerning to say the least. I will only stress on one aspect to bring this to the attention of the application committee. The façade on the front property boundary has a blank wall. In extremely simple terms – it just looks ugly, put there for no other reason than it needs to be there and is completely out of place.

    This development is totally over the top for the site and I would like to see some serious consideration taken to avoid this project being approved in its current development application state.

  15. In North Richmond NSW on “Centre Based Child Care...” at 6 Keda Circuit, North Richmond, NSW:

    V Andrew commented

    May I correct my comment re : parents parking at the school ... not all parking illegally
    Only on some occasions they have parked very close to the corner and made the road very narrow
    We actually couldn’t fit our car and caravan down on one occasion
    I apologize as I didn’t mean all parents

  16. In Eastwood NSW on “Removal of two trees,...” at 30 Trelawney St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Barbara Buining commented

    From the photograph accompanying the map, this house already has a driveway and a garage on the left. Has the property become dual occupancy to require an additional driveway and carport, and the destruction of yet another significant mature tree? What happened to Ryde Council's tree preservation policy? I object to this proposal.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kristina commented

    This section of Illawarra Road has heavy pedestrian & vehicle traffic and the proposal of a car park entry on Illawarra Rd introduces another point of congestion & a new pedestrian hazard. Additionally, increased congestion is confirmed in the Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment: a substantial traffic increase of 79% from 14 to 25 peak hour movements. The proposal should only be considered when the laneway is available and redesigned with no Illawarra Rd vehicle entry.

    Will also express concern re the proposed overshadowing of the private open spaces of Central Ave residents at the rear of the development- appears excessive. At June 21, No's. 11,13, 15 & 17 have only 1 hour of reasonable solar access to private open space between 10 & 11am with substantial overshadowing commencing from 11.30am. The submission also does not clearly address the direct solar access to rear elevation windows (confirmed as principal living areas in the SEE) at June 21 . Are these properties compliant at present /do they receive the 2 hour required minimum on June 21?

  18. In Castlecrag NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 97 Sunnyside Crescent Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    I Connolly commented

    Concerned about the scale of the building visually impacting views from the Sugarloaf Track and Mill's Point as well as adjoining homes that overlook the site.

  19. In Peakhurst NSW on “Demolition works, and...” at 932 Forest Road, Peakhurst NSW 2210:

    J Byrne commented

    Is a boarding house really suitable smack bang opposite a family park and in the heart of a family suburb? These types of places typically attract ex criminals, the homeless etc who cannot get work at a level to afford a normal place to rent, and I for one would certainly forgo taking children to the public park opposite here knowing this was here. Aside from that aspect, there is already a large Housing Commission aged care residence being developed on Forest road, just up the road from this on the roundabout to Lugarno and several other duplex sites on this road, the traffic congestion is already difficult along here at peak times, you can keep adding higher density housing, but unless you have infrastructure to match how are you supposed to get to work?

  20. In Southbank VIC on “Application for planning...” at 132-136 Kavanagh Street Southbank 3006:

    Kieren Malone commented

    The demolishment of the park will deprive families, children and local businesses of a vital place to meet, exercise and play. Over the past few months, this park has been the only place where locals have been able to congregate and escape the restrictions that isolation has placed on them. There are multiple empty buildings across the street that could be used for the same purpose that the council proposes. Please don't deprive us of our park!

  21. In North Richmond NSW on “Centre Based Child Care...” at 6 Keda Circuit, North Richmond, NSW:

    V Andrew commented

    Being a owner resident of Keda Circuit we strongly object to the proposed Child care centre at No .6 Keda Circuit .
    There are 2 centres very close near the shops .
    Our street is quiet and peaceful
    We have enough trouble entering onto Grose Vale Road with all the illegal parking with parents at the school
    This is completely in the wrong area and not needed .

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Claire Croumbie-Brown commented

    The Inner West Council must stop the demolition of the beautiful old properties in Marrickville. Marrickville is a suburb with great character and proposals to replace our old properties with modern developments is truly a crime. We saw it done in the 1960s and the 1980s and it’s happening again now.

    Traffic in the area is such that it can not accommodate more cars. So a four or five storey building would add to the traffic chaos we already experience.

  23. In Bilinga QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 99 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga QLD 4225:

    Gary Cahill commented

    As a concerned nearby resident I have read the applicants entire submission and I am concerned over the safety element of using Golden Four Drive as one of the exit points of this accommodation complex.
    I transverse this exit from Golden Four Drive to the Gold Coast Highway nearly every day and most times have to wait in a service lane on the southern side so as not to block the through traffic , cars and buses on the northern side travelling south just have to sit in the middle of the road as they wait to turn right to the air port or highway.
    The opposite entry is worse turning off the highway as you can not see properly through the blocking cars awaiting to turn out of Golden Four Drive. You risk being hit on many occasions.
    The proposed exit from this application into Golden Four Drive will only add to the congestion and risk. As the proposed exit lines up directly with the lane to the Uni, through the lights you can see this being used as a direct short cut by the students and service vehicles, creating a serious risk to other road users as they cut through the intersection.
    Just recently there was a motor vehicle accident adjacent to the property, these can only increase as 400 odd extra transit this corner daily as they go back and forth to the Uni.
    The projected car ownership of student residents does not stack up in reality when comparing to the applicants other inner Brisbane city locations as lifestyles will be different .
    Street parking is time restricted, so where can any overflow legally park??

  24. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of all...” at 81 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Nicolette Boaz commented

    I strenuously object to allowing this development to go ahead. This Small local street has had 2 enormous behemoth developments passed in the last 2 years. This is the only street to run between Bondi Rd and O’Brien st - the only 2 inroads into Bondi. If there is a crisis this road will be crucial and it is already beyond usable. For the sake of the people who have to live here please do not allow a monetary decision to ruin their lives and amenity. Because that is all that is in offer here. The infrastructure of Bondi and in particular Wellington St cannot take any more development.

  25. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Paul DeBono commented

    There is hundreds of good quality quarter acre blocks suitable for housing in the council arrested Dp2644. The land is freehold and council should not have hoodwinked owners in their sleezy land pooling scheme and States Helensburgh big plan in 1989. In stead these day's they seem proud to allow development on blocks around the village without any environmental improvements.

  26. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Concerned resident commented

    Hi all - beware, the proponent has submitted an amended DA for this absurd development. It's not over yet. Please lodge your objections to Randwick council

  27. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 17 South Pacific Drive, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Elaine Norling commented

    Why remove this tree ?

    We need all the trees we can get for a cooler climate etc.

  28. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 25 Dight Avenue, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Bret Hester commented

    Each day more sub-divisions are being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the amenity of our suburb.
    Two dwellings on a site that previously had one home introduces more cars, impacting local roads, surrounding residents losing access to natural light and privacy as these are all double storey replacing single storey residences.

    Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions. Why are our elected counsellors allowing this to accelerate under their watch?The liveability and character of what was once considered a leafy suburb is quickly disapearing.

  29. In Woy Woy NSW on “Dwelling Addition - Awning” at 27 Watkin Avenue, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    John commented

    We do not agree with the timber decorative fence that divides the Banderry of 27 and 25 Watkin

  30. In Camberwell VIC on “Extension to an existing...” at 1 / 2 - 4 Georgina Parade, Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Julie O'Shannessy commented

    To whom it may concern ,
    the enclosure of the front porch at Unit 1, 2-4 Georgina Parade is on common property and cannot be enclosed without the approval of owners corporation. This was discussed at a Special General meeting on 7/7/2020 and the resolution was NOT passed.

    Furthermore, a breach notice was issued during the construction on 25/6/2020 to the owners Mr and Mrs Frohn who ignored the breach notice and continued building.

    In fact, there are 3 owners who have objected to the enclosure of the porch.

    I object to the owners of Unit 1, making modifications to their property which are not in keeping with the other units.

    Owner of Unit 5.

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