Recent comments

  1. In Milperra NSW on “Procedural paper...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Rowena Moss commented

    I am totally against this development.

    With an estimated some 450 million Australian native animals effected by the worst bushfires Australia has ever seen, I gotta say I’m horrified that you would even consider an application to develop the home of what could be some of the last remaining populations of some species.
    With all the devastation to their natural habitat it just seems incomprehensible that you would approve any development that would put them further at risk.
    Sadly many of these native birds, wildlife and plants species will be endangered or extinct after these devastating bushfires and its up to us to do everything we can to save them from this fate.
    Not to mention the major impact this will have on all residents within the district. There is simply not enough infrastructure for this development. We already have traffic problems on Henry Lawson Drive from Milperra Road to the M5.
    What about the extra traffic in the local streets, including past the primary school? What impact will this have on our already slow water pressure and congested telephone/broadband connections? There are also flood issues around the Riverlands Golf Course.
    This development would add at least two more cars per dwelling and we are talking around 241 dwellings. This would be an absolute gridlock and an environmental disaster. The community of Milperra is horrified as to what could happen to our safe and quiet suburb! We are totally against this development!
    The community of Milperra is horrified as to what could happen to our safe and quiet suburb! We are totally against the development of Riverlands Golf Course.

  2. In Wayville SA on “Remove significant Corymbia...” at 39A Davenport Terrace, Wayville 5034, SA:

    Wendy Bevan commented

    There must be a very compelling reason to remove yet another significant tree from the area. The trees provide shade and habitats for birds, possums and bats and insects and cool the suburb. This is a terrible decision

  3. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Julieanne Seymour commented

    Please , let’s start phasing out wood heaters in our communities and keep our air clean.

  4. In Bellerive TAS on “Change of Use to Dwelling” at 1 Cambridge Road, Bellerive, TAS:

    Zac Shutt commented

    This property should be used for something more productive for the community. Prime location for shops and restaurants that the growing community requires.

  5. In Narre Warren South VIC on “Four Lot Subdivision and...” at 338-340 Pound Road Narre Warren South, VIC:

    M. Lee commented

    The building is un finished and we are hearing loud calls to.prayer over loud speakers after 9pm tonight. Is this going to be an ongoing event? I live a fair distance from the site and it is loud inside my house!!

  6. In Surry Hills NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 146 Foveaux Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Madeleine commented

    Please consider the construction noise impact on the residents of Fitzroy Street when approving this. We already hear constant construction from the apartment building construction in Fitzroy Place, and the renovations of several terrace houses on the block. As those constructions appear to be reaching a close, we were looking forward to some long awaited quiet.

    This proposal is right next to residential properties and the shared Sheas Ln in between. This would be a considerable quality of life decrease for all residents who have already tolerated a lot of disruption for the sake of the neighbourhood's growth. Also as renters we do not realise the long term gains, such as property value increase, of these initiatives.

  7. In Bongaree QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 215 First Avenue, Bongaree QLD 4507:

    Janette Buchanan commented

    I have no objection to the business as such, but am concerned at the traffic hazard this could create.
    One of the target markets would be the 4WDs coming off the beach at Woorim, who wash the salt water off their vehicles.
    The positioning of this business would create a high number of vehicles that will have to turn right across two lanes of oncoming traffic to enter this business, and then turn right across two lanes of traffic to exit the business after cleaning their vehicles, to head north again on their homeward journey.
    This stretch of road and businesses already creates issues with vehicles trying to turn right (north) out of businesses.
    Not an ideal solution, but perhaps a roundabout at the corner of McMahon and First Ave, with a fence from here north to the roundabout at Goodwin & First Ave, would make it a safer stretch of road.

  8. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of four new...” at 53 Park Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    geoffrey james commented

    We oppose this application. We bought 1/55 Park rd 4years ago well aware that one day 53 would be developed but we assumed it would be 3 units {not4] consistent with previous and recent development at 61 park rd.All unit development between Ferndale rd and Alandale rd are3 units and we believe this is appropriate to maintain the character and integrity of the area. Within weeks of the sale of 53 park rd the 70 year old Norfolk Island pine tree at the rear of the property mysteriously died?We also oppose the possible closing of any rear lane access to our property.The lane is required for MFB and maintenance access.We believe it is the duty of the council to protect the integrity of the area bow to the wishes of greedy developers. Let us assure you strongly that we will do all we can to oppose the building of 4 units at 53 park rd.

  9. In Lawnton QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 142 Francis Road, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Mark Walder commented

    The self fulfilling prophecy is included in the submission by the developer :
    ".....the site is zoned as Next Generation Neighbourhood – General Residential which means the landscape will become generally more unsuitable for Koalas in the future. Rehabilitating and retaining Koala trees would have the effect of promoting Koala activity in areas which are to become increasingly hostile and dangerous for Koalas in the future."
    Here's another prophecy :
    Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got til its gone
    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
    They took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum
    They charged the people a dollar and a half to seem 'em
    Joni Mitchell

  10. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Patterson Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Emma Smythe commented

    Is there a planning application to build a dwelling? I don't think anything should be torn down unless there's a plan to build.

  11. In Werri Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 57 Werri St, Werri Beach, NSW 2534:

    bernadette black commented

    I think that wood heaters should not be allowed in built up areas. The smoke from such heaters can cause problems for neighbours. I have no problem with them on farm properties with acreage.
    Sincerely,
    Bernadette Black

  12. In Blakehurst NSW on “Construction of a...” at 513 Princes Highway, Blakehurst, NSW Australia:

    Alan Taylor commented

    Since the approved development of Dwyer lane, 10 ywars ago. The addition of a Foot bridge for access to Blakehurst Primary School. Additional places and facilities at the Secondary School.The development of the past Motel will make the area even more intolerable with congestion for existing residents. This is a major thourough fare with poor turning into Primcess Hwy.

  13. In Wellington Point QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 6...” at 41 Mindarie Crescent, Wellington Point QLD 4160:

    Helen and Donald Gilmour commented

    We have several concerns related to this DA as follows:
    1. The conversion of one large block to six very small blocks will change significantly the overall tone and ambience of the Mindarie Cres neighbourhood from low density to medium density. This change should be something about which the neighbours were consulted. This is particularly relevant at the cul de sac end of the crescent as there is likely to be an additional 12 vehicles moving in and out of a small and restricted area if the development goes ahead.
    2. The construction of a proposed easement and associated earthworks is likely to impact on our property, particularly on the concrete parking area and sleeper wall at the western end of our house. We require assurances that no impact will occur to this or other parts of our property.
    3. The construction of a proposed easement and associated earthworks, particularly the construction of a sediment trap, has a high probability of adversely impacting the trees and other native vegetation on our property (as was alluded to on page 10 of the DA Decision Notice--dated 5-12-19).It should be noted that our property is registered as "Land for Wildlife" with the RCC and is included as a "Remnant Koala Habitat" and a "Regional Ecosystem of Concern" in the RCC environmental overlays. We require assurances that there will be no adverse impact on the environmental (or other) values of our property.

  14. In Burraneer NSW on “Tree Application” at 1/116 Woolooware Road Burraneer NSW 2230:

    Colin Bisset commented

    Agree with previous comment. There is nothing wrong with this tree.

  15. In Rokeby TAS on “48 Lot Subdivision” at 80 Burtonia Street, Rokeby, TAS:

    Dennis Matthews commented

    I urge the Clarence Councillors to seriously consider any negative ramifications of this project. If this project does not IMPROVE the lifestyle of existing residents, why would you approve it?
    As with any real estate project, the existing residents welfare and wellbeing must not be negatively impacted. Infrastructure, facilities, schools, medical and child care must not be put under strain with the additional residents.

    In making their decision on this project, Councillors should ensure that there is no pressure from State Government, nor a sense of obligation to approve a project that may ease accommodation issues in this city. Houses will be here for many decades, but accommodation issues may be solved in a couple of years with proper decision making.
    Rokeby ratepayers would be appalled if Councillors approved a project that would effectively "dump" new residents into the suburb whose services are already under strain.
    This may be a case of "Less is more"...

  16. In Winston Hills NSW on “Development Application -...” at 5 Lois Street Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Just a concerned resident commented

    The photo that you display is a photo of the old house which was demolished about 4 years ago. The dwelling that the alterations are proposed for is a two- storied townhouse which has already had changes carried out altering the finished dwelling . After many petitions and appeals to Council while the original dwelling was being erected it was found that the building did not comply with the specifications and amendments had to be carried out so the building would comply. We hope the Council is being vigilant with all the alterations already carried out and those that are now proposed. We would appreciate the photo of the house being shown be the house that these matters refer to. Will these alterations meet the guidelines or exceed the ratio of area of block to size of building . Reference numberDA/725/2019

  17. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of semi...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    This DA has caused too much controversy in the community, it should be taken into account that this DA just doesn’t suit the neighbourhood. Bardwell Park is one of the quietest suburbs within 15km of Sydney’s CBD. It should be kept this way and I suggest that maybe the developer should consider a building a single freestanding home rather than a giant duplex.

  18. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 52 Poole Street, Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    Noah Faber commented

    I’m thinking this may be an issue with the website, but when I try to view more information there are no attached documents. I’m just concerned that myself and others aren’t able to view the specifics to this DA when all we can see is that alterations and additions will be made. This is incredibly vague as it could mean anything from adding a pool to extending the basement to make room for 10 off street car spaces. It would be a great help to me if I could have this clarified to me.
    Thank you.

  19. In Sandy Beach NSW on “Development Application...” at 66 A Morgans Road, Sandy Beach NSW 2456:

    Trish Cahill commented

    I would like to inquire as to the outcome of the DA mentioned in this application where the quarry proposed to expand outside their approved operational area by removing the eastern (sound buffer) rock wall. I, along with other residents, sent a submission against the DA and have not been informed as to the outcome.

    This current DA application does not provide much information and I gather that it is a request to relinquish responsibility for the easement ie; (positive covenant)? Please explain what it all means in layman's terms!!

    Thankyou

  20. In Burraneer NSW on “Tree Application” at 1/116 Woolooware Road Burraneer NSW 2230:

    nick deguingand commented

    Please disallow this tree removal application. THe tree cover in this area is being destroyed application by application, and the area's amenity is being destroyed.

  21. In St Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 161 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jen Barnett commented

    I support this application. This venue is on a highway, under a flight path, next to the Westconnex St Peters Junction. The possibility of noise is no excuse for complaint. No resident has lived here longer than this hotel (160 years approx). The IWC Good Neighbour Policy should ensure that the NIMBY attitude of certain residents don't further ruin the vibrant inner-city vibe of St Peters or hamper the efforts of any business, especially those promoting live music.

  22. In East Melbourne VIC on “Variation of category to...” at Shop 6 & 7 Tribeca Complex, 412-442 Victoria Pde, East Melbourne 3002, VIC:

    Erik Solum commented

    I wish to object to the application (No 66964A01) for a variation of category to General Licence that was submitted on 13/12/2019 by Pizzaiolo P/L, at shop 6 and 7, 412-422 Victoria Parade East Melbourne, 3002.

    I have two grounds for my objection:

    Firstly, there will be an adverse impact on the amenity of the Tribeca Apartment complex. The Tribeca is mainly a residential precinct containing more than 400 apartments. The residents expect that as a residential complex there will be a low level of noise appropriate to its residential nature.

    It is particularly important that the level of noise is kept low in the evenings as residents have right to quiet enjoyment of their homes. We have elderly residents and residents with young children and the extended licence requested will increase the noise issue due of the extended hours, the changed nature of the venue from a restaurant to a live music venue and because of the noise generated by patrons leaving the venue intoxicated.

    Secondly, there will be a direct impact on us as the Pizza Bar is not located in an appropriate location suited to the requested variation to its licence. The Pizza Bar is located in the ground floor of the largest building in the Tribeca complex. It has apartments directly above it and many apartments located nearby.

    I own a ground floor apartment only meters from the part of the plaza that patrons will use to enter and leave the Pizza Bar. The noise from rowdy patrons are already being heard and this is expected to significantly increase if this change of licence is granted.

    I plead you to please reject this application as the proposed changes will have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of Tribeca's residents.

    Best regards,

  23. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    KJ commented

    Childcare Centre's are a necessity and these days, the council ensures that the parking and access is beyond what is needed therefore minimizing disturbance to the local neighborhood, the Traffic and Acoustic reports make sure of this. children are not dropped off or picked up on the street and access to the centre's are always forward exit unlike most residential driveways. Most centre's are well presented architecturally and present a tidy well maintained asset to the locality. Childcare centre's are by far the best neighbors to have, they don't have loud parties on the weekend or at night generally most of the noises that come out of them during the day are happy noises.

  24. In Ryde NSW on “To construct 3 x 2 storey...” at 17 Potts St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Fletcher Simpkins commented

    This is yet another example of planning gone mad - Potts and Weaver Sts are already clogged with cars belonging to residents or those going to the Ryde Aquatic Centre. To add 3 additional residences on this small suburban street will add further congestion on this already crowded street. Given the size of the block, I would like to see how exactly 3 residences will fit, and the extent of overshadowing and encroachment on the amenity of the existing houses.

    Perhaps the residents, rather than the real estate agent, should be listened to.

  25. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of semi...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Alex Metry commented

    I strongly object to the development proposal & amended plans. There has been a lack of effort to address peoples concerns on the amended plans from past Environmental Court rulings. Lambert RD is not a good spot for major developments as once big trucks are in the area the entire street gets blocked up. The trees on the property blend in to the site well and is also good for local habitat. Bayside Council have about 25% tree canopy space and it will be a shame to lose more due to development.
    It has a threat of overpopulating our suburb. this decelopment proposal is highly innapropriate and I strongly advice council to reject it.

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 35-37 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kitty commented

    I look forward to their being more medium density, lower cost housing in the Inner West. Not only will it provide housing for singles who can’t afford single dwellings in their own, it will prevent the spread of urban sprawl, which is a major factor in the destruction of green space. We should be making housing for the many who need it, not keeping housing only for the few who can afford it.

  27. In Rokeby TAS on “48 Lot Subdivision” at 80 Burtonia Street, Rokeby, TAS:

    Barry Taylor commented


    The proposal of 48 lot subdivision by All Urban Planning Pty Ltd and Mission Australia for 80 Burtonia Street Rokeby, in not only offensive but also insulting the intelligence of long-standing residents of Rokeby. Along with the actual design, which looks like a prison complex, it states that 53 families or more will be placed into an area about the size of one and a half AFL ovals, with the construction of forty seven 2 bedroom units plus a building block of one bedroom places of unclear, to me, building type.

    Besides the drainage and traffic problems (for which a survey was conducted over 2 x 1-hour surveys in December 2017 and May 2019 covering Burtonia Street, Hart Place and Tollard Drive), which is ludicrous - pedestrian and vehicle traffic are a lot heavier than is indicated in this survey and there are many crashes along with continual hoon driving.

    With the building of this complex there is additional risk to the safety of children attending the adjacent Rokeby Infant and Primary School with added traffic and closure of the underground pedestrian tunnel.

    I understand the State Government is under enormous pressure to provide housing, as the homeless numbers climb, but this area is not the place, there are no medical facilities in the area - the Clarence Plains Community Health Centre (80 Burtonia Street) indicated on the plans, has not been open over twenty years, there is very limited employment opportunities in the area and public transport is a joke. Mission Housing have an unbelievably bad reputation in the area when housing people in the old area, renting out places to people with obvious problems such as addict, unsociable behaviours. Many places are left empty for long periods or unmaintained, which leads to vandalism and good people, which most Rokeby residents are, feeling downhearted with their surroundings. Why build another complex when the current area is neglected and underutilised?

    As a long-time private property owner and resident, I have had discussions with older and young residents in the area around the evasiveness of the Clarence City Council and the Hodgman Government to us ratepayers and voters.

    I ask the Aldermen who vote on the plans if you would have this subdivision in your back yard? I will be asking the Premier, Will Hodgman the same question as I believe the current government has reacted in a knee jerk manner to the housing problem.

  28. In Upper Swan WA on “Two Outbuildings (Sea...” at 21 Station Street Upper Swan WA 6069:

    Peter Wilson commented

    why does he need 2 sea containers when he has a 30mtr x 20mtr shed no one is allowed more than 1 container on there property under shire rules

  29. In Ryde NSW on “To construct 3 x 2 storey...” at 17 Potts St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Robert Bagala commented

    I support this submission & propose that we certainly do need more of these types of beautifully designed home developments in our local area. Council should support this style of planning & construction as I know first-hand that demand by families seeking products such as this, is strong & very well received by us local residents also.

  30. In Ringwood East VIC on “Remove 2 trees” at 10 Elizabeth Court, Ringwood East VIC 3135:

    Claude Vanstraelen commented

    Cutting down native trees should be banned, stopped and criminal at the rate climate change is affecting us and native wildlife. I'm sick of hearing of native trees being cut down to make way for more.
    What possible reason could you have you have to permit this. Native trees should have and deserve protection for all.
    Stop allowing trees to be cut down. You are ruining the very fabric of the area. Don't alienate native wildlife.

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