Recent comments

  1. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at 20 Greenslopes Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    J Casey commented

    The amount of sub-division allowed in Greenslopes Drive is creating an overcrowded street, with parking, and therefore driving through the street becoming a major problem. I've lived in this neighbourhood for 14 years and I drive down this street every day. In the past five years it has become increasingly crowded with parked cars on both sides of the road, making it necessary for the drivers to dodge in and out of parked cars all the way along, creating traffic hazards and dangerous conditions. I can't count the times I have been in a situation where an aggressive driver has been barreling down this street in an attempt to avoid the lights at Hull Road/Mooroolbark Road intersection, and has almost collected not only my car but several parked cars. There has been no thought to this when allowing the housing/population of the street to double. There needs to be ample enough parking to accommodate this, so the street can be safe for everyone.

  2. In North Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 528 Charles Street, North Perth, WA, 6006:

    Trish Haynes commented

    I support this application, as there is a lack of dining options within walking distance in this area. I feel that this will improve the livability of the area and provide a good "vibe" for nearby residents.

  3. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kathy Harper commented

    We live locally, almost directly across from this building and vehemently oppose this application. In addition the points made above which we support, it is also inappropriate for such a "business" in this neighbourhood of families. It will attract a certain clientele, potentially undesirable, posing possible risks to the safety of the family community and reducing the value of the surrounding properties.

    Please deny this application and maintain a safe and happy community in Boroondara.

  4. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    S. Graham commented

    Every morning we stop at the stop sign in Gillman Street at the intersection with Camberwell Road and every morning we are confronted with a larger-than-life, borderline pornographic, image.

    My young children should not be exposed to this on their way to school - this sort of signage is usually limited to 'industrial' estates for a reason. It is not an image suitable for a family area, a residential area.

    Ratepayers like us find it offensive, and dread to think what sort of 'trouble' could be attracted to such an establishment so close to our homes.

    We as a community are trying to deal with rising levels of family violence and teens numb to pornography. Do not put another nail in the coffin of decency - this signage should be deemed unacceptable in this location.

    Please Council, consider your ratepayers and their expectations - at the very least the signage should be restricted to words only, without offensive imagery.

  5. In Balwyn VIC on “Construct four (4)...” at 7 Burroughs Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    BS commented

    What has happened to the two on a block law that was supposed to be introduced ?

  6. In Shailer Park QLD on “Reconfiguration of a Lot (1...” at 68-76 Kimberley Drive Shailer Park QLD 4128:

    Veronica and Larry Green commented

    Dear Logan Council

    I have been consulting with Cr Power for many years in my disapproval of planning for development for 67-76 Kimberley Drive Shailer Park. We purchased this property to live away from homes across the road and enjoy most of all the wildlife. We have watched your recent approvals and homes that were allowed to be build on the Kimberley Dr destroy the wildlife. We regularly remove kangaroo bodies who can't cross safely from the homes and watched them move away from this area. In this modern time you of all people know development destroys wildlife. You approved a state forest for the koalas and wildlife and the koalas have reduced from your destruction of the area and disease but they are still there and they don't know the boundary of state and homes unless you create them. You have so many other areas that the developers could work and not destroy our choice of lifelstyle and homes value and most of all the wildlife. You have areas that can be build on yet you seek to continue to approve developers to cash in on the best locations. I challenge any person who approves this development if they live in our area and demand that we as citizens have the same right to destroy their choice of lifestyle where they live and be allowed to redevelop it. I have had enough of this and I am so angry that I will take on any person who supports this development any further. I suggest the people concerned get of their chairs, visit the people and sites and start displaying some common sense. You have many areas that can be developed that people did not purchase from to choose a life style and you can create a choice for them. STOP destroying ours and start a new one in areas that people and animals are not hurt. I insist and demand.

  7. In Westbrook QLD on “Reconfiguration into 65...” at Ferguson Road Westbrook QLD 4350:

    Des Dolley commented

    What is the use of planning alerts if the development has already been completed and occupied ???,
    I find this very deceitful.

  8. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Justin Morris commented

    In the description of "dance studio" they left out the "erotic" and "pole" component of it. The description in the advertising of the application should be be "erotic pole dancing classes". Exotic is where you wear a mask when you dance, erotic is when you are imitating a stripper. This can be witnessed with the larger than life half naked woman grinding a pole as their front window image.

    As the tenants up stairs I'm less than impressed with what it definitely going to disrupt our business in regards to noise from music. The entire fit-out has been done without a building permit or Part J compliance report (they have refitted 100% of the floor). In their fit-out their electrician pulled out all of our phone lines leaving our companies upstairs with no phones for a week. Many of the rooms have no ceiling or insulation with their "poles" bolted directly to our floor slab. One can but imagine the noise transfer in a room like that through to our office.

    There also seems to be a distinct lack of ventilation installed in the fitout.

    Given it a change of use and they are going to be looking at having anywhere up to 20 - 30 students on site at any one time the 1 single car park they have is grossly inadequate in regards to parking.

    Their website clearly shows the serving of alcohol in promoting hosting hens night events. I doubt booze fueled evenings of hens nights fits into the "dance studio" use.

    This all abuts residential 1. In an office building.

    There is a reason that studio type uses are usually over shops, next to shops that close at 5pm. We are a consulting office that is generally open to 7:30pm as we provide flexi time for parents. We are also often open during the day on weekends for those catching up work. We don't expect to be disrupted by noise during those times. Let alone the degradation in image as a professional consulting firm having an erotic pole dancing school down stairs with larger than life risque images on the windows.

  9. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, construction of...” at 402 Victoria Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Josie Botto commented

    This application should not be approved.
    The Development is too high for its location on a zone boundary with a lower density residential zone (east).
    It should adhere to PLEP2011 for:
    - maximum Height: Storey ratio of 12m: 3 storeys.
    - building separation.
    The non-compliance is not minor and has a huge impact on neighbouring properties to the east in regards to overshadowing and building separation. Regardless of possible up-zoning of these properties, overshadowing will still be a major issue.
    It is also unfair to expect the property to the east to compensate for the significant shortfall of building separation required to build a similar development.
    As for street access and traffic, accessing the public car park in Pine Street which will provide access to basement parking is already a nightmare, increasing the volume of traffic accessing this area will compound the problem.

    Being part of a Neighbourhood centre zone, which supposedly is the hub of the East Rydalmere precinct, why hasn't the local community, in particular surrounding properties been notified?

  10. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Heather Morris commented

    I have several objections to this business opening.
    1. Parking- As I work in the area and struggle to get a park at the best of times, I wonder how 20+ people a class or a party are going to add to the congestion of the area?
    2. Does the building have the required number of car parks to accommodate the number of people per class? In the past, the planning department has often refused an application if car parking requirements are not met. There should not be an exception made in this case.
    3. The description on the planning permit says a dance studio, it was certainly not made clear that it is an exotic POLE DANCING studio. I don't care if it is for fitness or not, this needs to be made clear in the planning application. In my opinion it was purposely omitted from the application so that the justified, natural objection to this type of business would be avoided.
    4. Signage. I find the signage for this business incredibly objectionable as the location, next to residences is very insensitive. Do the residents with young children nearby need to see a scantily clad woman with a pole in between her butt cheeks on the window every day? This is especially of concern considering that there is an occasional childcare centre only a few doors up in the fernwood gym.
    5. The business offers parties and hen's nights. Does that mean that alcohol will be consumed on the premises? Do they have a BYO licence? Do they have all the right facilities and requirements needed to accommodate such parties?
    6. The business located upstairs has the right to operate without being disturbed. How will that be possible? What acoustic sound baffling has been put in place to prevent sound dispersion? Are they required to put it in?

    Overall I think that is the wrong location for such a business. I think that my objections are relevant and I would like the application to be denied, if not for the flow on effects from the actual operation of the business but the parking requirements surely demand a refusal.

  11. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, construction of...” at 402 Victoria Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This proposal seems excessive for the surrounding environment, casting significant shadow drastically impacting the privacy of the neighboring properties.

    This property should not be developed any higher than the surrounding commercial properties which are 2 stories high.

    There has been a strong rejuvenation of the properties along Pine St and the surrounding streets, and residents have invested significant money into that process. Approval of this type of inappropriate development only serves to devalue the investment they have made in the local area. Council should always prioritise the investment of residents (life long investments) who live in the in the area ahead of facilitating the profits of development companies which often do little more than devalue the investment of residents.

    This local area is already experiences heavily traffic and the addition of vehicles and parking for this development will also be problematic given the local school, and narrow nature of Pine St.

    I also note that there have been no properties notified of this development? Surely this needs to be rectified before any consideration of this development can proceed.

  12. In Brunswick West VIC on “Double storey rear...” at 505 Albert Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Liz Sharman commented

    As the owner of 507 Albert St, West Brunswick, I thank Council for the opportunity to comment on MPS/2013/1025 - 505 Albert St, West Brunswick.

    My comments are requests for the Planning Department to consider several items of concern which probably hold no water at VCAT, but could potentially be addressed should Council and the applicant see their way clear to revisiting these items. Therefore I raise them as concerns that I would like Council to clarify, not an overall objection.

    I appreciate that the applicant has not applied for reverse living arrangements, which many of us in the street and the ward councillors have strongly advocated against, and that allowances have been made, e.g. via recessing the top floor and fairly considerate window/skylight arrangements, for the neighbours at 503.

    The concerns are:
    (1) overlooking of private backyards in 505A, 503 and my property (507) from the clear glass windows on the north-facing second storey

    (2) the overall size of the development given the narrow width of the shopfront - particularly the large monotone built form which runs for a large extent of the western border, and which - not being recessed at all - will overshadow the neighbouring house at 505A and its north facing verandah and be quite dominant from my viewpoint at 507 and from the viewpoint of the closest neighbours in Hunter and Albert St.

    (3) The taking of the sight-line from the high point of the parapet at the front of the house - this may not matter as the second storey is set back some way, but the sightline therefore may also not clearly represent what people will see from the street and the balance/imbalance between the lower and top floors, i.e. the overall height of the development. All the nearby surrounding buildings were built mainly in the early 1900s, except for a recent new development (509) which is itself single storey. As you will know, this end of Albert St is predominantly single storey, standalone houses, except for the 1880s Hoffman workers and managers' terraces. It has a single storey overall profile.

    (4) the increasing difficulties in parking in Albert St, given the tight access to parking in the lane and in such a small proposed garage - and considering that this will be a minimum three bedroom dwelling.

    Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. I made no objections to the extension to 505A, or the new build at 509, but feel that there may be opportunity to reduce at least the overlooking and overall effect of this design, particularly on me and my neighbours at 505A and 503 and over the lane.

    Regards

  13. In Melbourne VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 374-380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Carol Mackay commented

    With extremely tall buildings planned to the north, and to the south, I think 48 stories, on this footprint, in this location, would make the streetscape in this part of town quite incohesive.

  14. In Melbourne VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 374-380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Greg Branson commented

    The height of this is out of scale with surrounding buildings. The character of this area is low rise and should be maintained that way. It will cause loss of light for many surrounding buildings.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 380 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Scott MacArthur, Marrickville Heritage Society commented

    On behalf of the Marrickville Heritage Society, we call for Council to reject this application. It involves the demolition of 2 largely intact Victorian villas, and the construction of an out-of-scale new building that looms over the remaining Victorian villas on the adjacent blocks along Church Street. Council has the power to impose an Interim Heritage Order on the 2 villas while their heritage status is confirmed, and this should proceed with urgency.

  16. In Balwyn North VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 1 Gardenia Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    This is ridiculous overcrowding and will cause untold traffic problems in an already dangerous traffic area. Boroondara Council is letting it ratepayers down !

  17. In Melbourne VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 374-380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Fiona McLeod commented

    I live right across from the proposed development in Little Bourke St. My back deck relies on northern sun for my garden and this will be lost if this building is allowed to be 47 stories high. It is way too tall, there is nothing in this area that tall in the middle of a block. I will also have to look directly into a giant building from the back of my place.

    Please disallow the height of this building it should be more in line with the height of buildings in this area.

  18. In Dee Why NSW on “New” at 701 Pittwater Road, Dee Why NSW 2099:

    June Donald commented

    I believe this development should be passed.

    At the moment, Dee Why is a place I only drive "through", not "to", unless I am going to the beach area. The town centre is drab and ugly, so I would never meet a friend there for a meal of coffee.

    Dee Why needs to come out of hibernation, and the only way to do that is to have attractive buildings and shops, and to increase the town centre population.

    More people living there means more money being spent in the area, profitable businesses and more rates to Council, which in turn means more money can be spent on beautifying the town centre.

    The Dee Why master plan looks so attractive, but how can that be achieved if the main thoroughfare remains in its same old appalling condition.

    I say go ahead - get beautiful buildings and lots of people living in the town centre and bring Dee Why town centre up to the same standard as the Dee Why beach area.

  19. In Warners Bay NSW on “BULKY GOOD SHOWROOMS,...” at 240-260 Hillsborough Road, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Phil & Cheryl Morris commented

    We find it very unfair that we will have no reprieve from large trucks emitting diesel fallout, noise from large garbage trucks etc and relentless beeping of forklift movements if the proposed changes are allowed to go ahead.

    We have no objections to the general public being allowed to use the access road for the pick up of purchased goods, but please do not subject us to continuous noise and air pollution 365 days a year. We request that council be a little reasonable and considerate and at least allow what little quiet time we have on Sundays and Public Holidays to remain as it is now.

  20. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Two Dwellings (One Existing)” at 6 Wrexham Road, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Catherine Strichow and Hadyn Strichow commented

    We don't think this application should be approved as we would like to see some changes to the design. We would like to see concealed garages with pitched tiled roofs in lieu of open carports with flat metal roofs. We feel that the proposed design does not improve the appeal of the development and the streetscape. We are also concerned that there won't be 2 under cover parking spots for unit 1 according to the current plans. We feel there should be 2 concealed under cover parking spots for unit one considering it is a 3 bedroom unit. Due to the fact that there is limited street parking currently with a no through road and no turning circle at the end.

  21. In Byron Bay NSW on “Monterey Jacks - Liquor...” at 2/1 Carlyle St, Byron Bay 2481:

    Teresa Heal commented

    Firstly, My complaint is to OLGR. For the past 3 days when I go to their Website -Noticeboard-Applications, to view more about this application of Monterey Jacks, it says"sorry this site is not available."

    The simple line of information on web page says "licence transfer".

    I object to this facility having a Liquor Licence at all.
    It was wrong for it to be issued in the first place.
    It is attached to an English Language school.
    Surely they don't need alcohol to help them study.
    There is Byron Bay Primary schol less than 100 metres away.
    There is a church over the road.
    Previously, They have had live music outside the walls of the building, at night.
    ( much of the Dining is outside under a verandah) .
    This coupled with loud patrons has been an offensive noise disturbance for my home, which is approx 200 metres away.

  22. In Glenwood NSW on “Demolition of dwellings and...” at 92 Meurants Lane Glenwood 2768, NSW:

    Nathan Reynolds commented

    Why are you demolishing this perfectly good?

    I don't want to live in an area of identical houses.

  23. In Byron Bay NSW on “La Playa Tapas Bar...” at Shop 4 9 Fletcher St, Byron Bay 2481:

    Teresa Heal commented

    Under No circumstances should extended trading hours be granted.
    Not even for special occasions.

    Byron Bay has already been ruined by too many liquor licences and late 3am Nightclubs.

    Byron Bay has high alcohol related VIOLENCE !
    That means drunks bashing people, so STOP this.
    STOP allowing more alcohol and longer hours in my town.
    Teresa Heal
    21 middleton Street Byron Bay , 2481

  24. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of a...” at 7/1 Bik Lane Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Bonny Varghese commented

    There is already a problem with the traffic through Bik Lane and would it get worse if there is another construction in its proximity. Would the entrance to the proposed development be sharing the same approach?

  25. In Geelong VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 199 Malop Street & 7-21 Bellerine Street, Geelong:

    Gaz Dalton commented

    I am a local resident, residing 200 metres from the Lord Nelson Hotel and I strongly object to the application to increase the operating hours of the Hotel beer garden on the grounds of the continuous noise generated by the musical entertainment. The Hotel beer garden currently has loud music emitting from the premises that intrudes on and reduces the quality of life of all neighbouring residents. I can hear it clearly inside my house and the noise makes it impossible to sleep on nights when it has gone on well after 10pm, even though I understand it is currently only licenced until 9pm.
    I would have no objection to the beer garden if there was no noise or music audible outside the premises at night. As the proposal stands and at the noise levels currently emitted, I have no choice other than to oppose the extension of the Lord Nelson Hotel beer garden operating hours.
    The beer garden has no roof and therefore cannot be soundproofed to ensure the amenity of local residents, perhaps the proprietors could conduct any musical activities inside the hotel where the sound levels could be constrained and controlled. In past decades the Lord Nelson Hotel had musical entertainment inside the lounge section of the premises and this caused no problems to local residents.
    We all want to co exist and I welcome the renovations and improvements that have been made at the Lord Nelson in recent times. I think that the current owners could work with local residents, listen to our concerns and a positive outcome could be achieved.
    If the application is approved as it stands the quality of life in this neighbourhood will decline greatly.

  26. In Woolooware NSW on “Cronulla-Caringbah Sharks...” at Captain Cook Dr, Woolooware 2230:

    Tony Lindsell commented

    These games are being played on School grounds with the club house on school grounds as well and therefore as per the Department of Education rules there should be no Alcohol consumed any school grounds.
    How can any Alcohol Licence be granted while it is in direct conflict with the Department of Education.

  27. In Coogee NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 86 Mount Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Sandy Jenkins commented

    The plans show that the garage studio window will be directly opposite my bedroom window.
    Unit 7 /86a mount street
    Corner, back unit over looking 86 mount street's existing back yard.
    Can the window by moved closer to the back of the building, ? Closer to mount lane entrance

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Application under Section...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    James commented

    With regard to the parking, I think that there should be minimum 1 space per occupancy (residential and commercial) and provision for visitor and customer parking where applicable. I also believe from a traffic engineering point of view that the entry and exits be on opposite ends of the building in different streets.

    As for the trade parking during construction; this is a short term imposition that cannot be avoided despite the outcome of the final structure.

    Waste removal between 8am to 6pm? I think thats stretching it a little too far.

  29. In Collingwood VIC on “Multi Unit Residential...” at 120 Campbell St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Alice Brown commented

    I agree with Mr Goodman,
    'I hope the new development is sympathetic and not high rise.'

    It is culturally important to keep high rise 'new style blocks' away from these old areas.
    I am a resident in sackville street since 1999. I am aware of the need for housing, new developments, yet keeping a grip of important areas and not over-loading them with a whim of "post office box" size apartments, that eventually lose their glamour and the old slum days of Collingwood return.

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Application under Section...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Holmwood resident commented

    Ok here we go once again, Those who are interested this is began 2 years ago. Instead of stating the fact it should never of been allowed. This site needs to be developed but in the right way. So please submit your letters directly to council and traffic, as not only will there be 201 new units, but 201 new cars and people in our area. During developement this also increases to 1000 tradies and trucks and waste management, for the 6 day working period. I have been to the meetings, and we need the people and voice of the community to get this point across. So stand up and do the right thing, and support the community. Dont winge when it goes ahead, and you havent even written one line.

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