Recent comments

  1. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Mel commented

    Please do not approve this application. This is a residential street right next to 2 schools and 1 place of worship. Producing alcohol has safety and social problem implications in this location. It is promoting alcohol too close to schools and impressionable children and could cause explosions endangering children and residents. Select a suitable commercial location for office, manufacturing, producing, promoting of alcohol.

  2. In Tempe NSW on “To relocate a train...” at 884 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Melinda commented

    Great idea but concerned about traffic and parking congestion. Where is the parking allocation for patrons of this train diner? Will they share Harry de Wheel's cafe parking or will there be further congestion on our tiny neighbouring residential streets such as Station St, Young St, Old St, Bay St which already suffer from traffic/parking overflow from The Riverview Hotel, Peek a boo childcare centre on Holbeach Ave and Bay St?

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

    Chris Goodman commented

    Campbell Street is such a fantastic single-storey gold rush street on the west side and opposite. It is one of my favourite streets in Melbourne - completely intact on the west and anhialated on the east (like what is proposed for Bendigo St)

    I hope the new development is sympathetic and not high rise.

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

    Jolanda Waskito commented

    I would like Marrickville, where I have lived for the past 12 years and where I now own a home, to be a place where single family dwellings exist. I don't want our lovely suburb of wonderful citizens to feel like they're in the Inner City of Sydney. If I had wanted to live in the Inner City, I would've bought a home there. Density is already high with the Quarry down Illiwarra and the Revolution near the train station. There 43 car spaces in this proposal is going to add to the already growing number of cars in the area - and this is even before anyone has even moved into the Revolution building! We need more quality single family dwellings, not tightly packed units. Thanks very much. Sincerely, Jolanda Waskito.

  5. In Sydney NSW on “Continue the use of part of...” at 1 Macquarie Place Sydney NSW 2000:

    William Haire commented

    I being the nearest neighbour was NOT notified of this application. When I phoned the City of Sydney on 7/6/13 I was informed that no application had been received.
    I was told that the FA expires on 23/6/13 and I was not able to object as no renewal had been received.
    When I phoned on 21/6/13 and 24/6/13 Paige Martin at City of Sydney told me it was all done in April and she couldn't explain how come as I was not notified being neighbour most affected and no site notice as usual was on display.

    There is much more,

    Regards,

    Bill Haire
    M:0409078899

  6. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of multiple...” at 327 Union Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Joanne commented

    I find the statement 'construction of multiple dwellings on 2 lots' a little unclear. I've been to the council planning page for this application and it doesn't provide the number of dwellings either. Is it 2, or 4 or 8 or more? By the estimated cost of the project, this is looking like a high density proposition; I'm guessing it's 10 or more. If this is the case, then I don't think it's a good proposition as it will be for investor purchase and rental occupiers potentially with a high annual turnover of tenants. A medium density proposition would encourage at least some owner-occupier residency and hence better quality of build, utilisation and maintenance.

  7. In Zetland NSW on “Alterations to the existing...” at 6 Wolseley Grove Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    Considering the shortage of parking in the area, it would be more reasonable to approve 21 reisdential apartments and 29 residential parking spaces

  8. In Randwick NSW on “Section 96 (1A) -...” at 57-63 St Pauls Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Andrew Roydhouse commented

    Unfortunately this development has already been approved.

    What the developer is after now is not to have to pay the 1% levy (Section 94) on the project - an amount just short of $700,000. These amounts are to be used to offset the impact of developments. So for example they could be used to purchase additional land to add to a park etc.

    The developer does not want to pay this money - strangely enough.

    In their document they state that the 3brm units will sell for approx $900,000. Yet at one of their public briefings held at the Ritz they stated (in 2012 before Sydney property prices started jumping again) that these units would be unassisted living and in the high rise tower solely and were expected to sell for over $1 million given their never-to-be-built-out views of Coogee beach and the ocean.

    Now the prices mentioned have fallen, and they do not want to pay an amount to offset (ever so slightly) their development's impact on the local community.

  9. In Fullarton SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Torrens Avenue, Fullarton:

    Suzi Hutchings commented

    Can the reason for the need to remove this tree please be specified.

    Thanks

  10. In Randwick NSW on “Section 96 (1A) -...” at 57-63 St Pauls Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Lisa Cairns commented

    I live very close to this development at St Pauls street and am extremely concerned about the effect of 154 vehicles on the already over-congested Spot and on busy Coogee Bay Road. There will be 113 new residents living at The Spot, and while I am sure not all of them will be mobile enough to access the facilites at The Spot, I am sure that enough of them will to make The Spot more crowded than it already is.

    Will mobility scooters be allowed? I am sure they will fit in wonderfully with the daily evening traffic chaos caused by the pedestrian crossings too close to the roundabout, the ballet school with the long queues of mums in SUVs who park wherever they like regardless of whether they are blocking the road, and the long stream of drivers crawling around ready to pounce on any free parking space rather than pay to use the Wilson car park Mobility scooter will just add to the general chaos and mayhem.

    If you are one of those considering whether to approve this application, I would urge you to visit the spot any evening around 6.30 (though I would especially recommend Thurs, Fri, Sat or 'Tight-arse Tuesday ' cinema nights) as long as the sun is shining. (Rain has a noticeable effect on keeping people away). Only then could you make an informed decision as to whether 113 new residents and 154 additional vehicles is a good idea for the area.

  11. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 314 Belmont Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Joe commented

    Have you thought of knocking on their door and having a chat about it?

  12. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 314 Belmont Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Hollie Ussher and Sally Harper commented

    We would like to comment on this development application as we share a common wall with this address, on our southwestern side. We are at 312 Belmont Street Alexandria.

    We note that the proposed first floor plan includes a window on this side (their northeastern side), above a shared common wall, which we feel may impact on our own proposed plans for development.

    We are in the process of planning renovations/extensions ourselves, that include a first floor development. Our plans do not include windows on either of our northeastern or southwestern sides. Only front and rear of our property.

    Our intention is to utilitise our existing wall boundary on the ground floor, and extend directly up.

    The proposed first floor plan of 314 Belmont street, Alexandria causes us great concern, as we would be extremely disappointed if we were unable to proceed with our own plans for a first floor wall on our own boundary, because of this window on their first floor.

    Therefore we strongly object to the proposed northeastern window on the first floor plan of 314 Belmont street Alexandria.

    Please contact us for any further information you may require to ensure clarity of this objection.

  13. In Buccan QLD on “Earthworks, Sediment and...” at 17-23 Buccan Road Buccan QLD 4207:

    Trevor Croll commented

    Yes I made this application for a small "dam" to limit the wet area and mud after rains and provide a small amount of water security, water in reserve of the big dam which this small dam flows into. This came about because of RSPCA/Council kennel inspection where the inspectors unreasonably gave me a compliance notice including things such as demolish my wood shed or bring it up to kennel standard, right down to smoothing the edge of guttering down pipe. Getting my small dam approved was on the compliance notice. You cannot reason with unreasonable people, Logan Council/RSPCA Animal Management have been unreasonable. I cannot reason with them.

    So I had to make an application and the initial fee was $3,840.00 and then I got a letter in the mail wanting an engineers report with contours based on sea level, another $6000.00 so the red tape cost was $10,000 for something that probably cost me $400 in diesel. Out of frustration I told them to take me to court as the red tape costs were unreasonable for the works.

    The way I see it I own this property and I can do what I like with it provided I do not adversely cause detriment to others. Since when has my ownership been usurped by Council? When did Council become our "landlord" whom we must get the approval of before we make any changes to our property?

  14. In Kew VIC on “Construction of a double...” at 13 Edgecombe Street Kew VIC 3101:

    J Goff commented

    The land at 11 & 13 Edgecombe Street appears to be a typical house size measuring 25 x approx 40 approx 1,000 m2. Seven dwellings on an average size house block is overcrowded and if approved will have to accommodate two cars per dwelling 14 cars and possibly 40 persons.
    Height and mass/bulk are visually unacceptable.
    The development overlooks and /or overshadows adjoining residences.

    Car parking and traffic. It is not desirable to have multiple vehicle crossings as they reduce the availability of kerb side street parking.
    Private open space is insufficient. Forty square metres in total is the
    minimum, with one part being at least 25m2 with a minimum
    dimension of 3m so that the space is practically useable. Private open
    space should not be located in street set-backs at the front of dwellings.

    The proposed development does not integrate with the neighbourhood
    character.
    Important characteristics include roof form, building height,
    building materials, landscape and fencing.

    The density of the development is excessive.

    Please ensure Councillor Phillip Healy has some involvement of this application. It is inappropriate.

  15. In Waterloo NSW on “Alterations to an existing...” at 899 South Dowling Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    The position on the map and the Google image (which is about two years old) do not match up! Nor does the address 14 Defries Avenue. Defries Avenue and South Dowling Street do NOT converge. The map indicates a position north of O'Dea Avenue, but Defres Avenue does NOT extend north of O'Dea Avenue.

    Once the exact position is clarified I challenge why yet another community property is being handed over to a developer for her/his sole benefit and profit??!! What is she/he giving to the community in return?

  16. In Sydenham NSW on “To retain the existing shop...” at 66 Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    It is important that additional on-site parking is provided for the new flats - at least 4 spaces would be needed.

    It is also important that on-site storage of garbage bins is provided and any private garbage collection between the hours of 6pm and 8am is prohibited so as to avoid disturbing neighbours.

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

    Jennifer Killen commented

    This application should be refused.

    The amount of parking is not sufficient for the number of flats..

    It is also important that on-site storage of garbage bins is provided with access for council trucks. If placed kerbside, the number of bins needed for this number of flats will not only be unsightly and probably smelly, but also make it difficult for pedestrians to use the footpath.

    Any private garbage collection between the hours of 6pm and 8am must be prohibited so as to avoid disturbing neighbours.

  18. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 174 Enmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    It is important that adequate on-site parking is provided.

    It is also important that on-site storage of garbage bins is provided and any private garbage collection between the hours of 6pm and 8am is prohibited so as to avoid disturbing neighbours.

  19. In Richmond VIC on “Removal of Native Trees on...” at 516 Victoria St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Mark Blackburn commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I am writing with the hope that this application is rejected and more native trees are not cut down. There is already a desperately low number of trees in Richmond and especially so with native trees.

    Please consider other alternatives to destroying what little we have left of our natural world.

  20. In Kew VIC on “Construct twenty one (21)...” at 281 Barkers Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Jack Roach commented

    21 apartments on this site is too much on too little. This area is to be gazetted as a General Residential Zone which will stop this sort of development occuring. This is nothing more than an opportunistic application that deserves to be denied.
    Jack Roach
    BRAG

  21. In Kew VIC on “Construct twenty one (21)...” at 281 Barkers Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Ian Barnes commented

    I agree with Terry in terms of the car parking reduction approach and the little planning regard for the off site impacts on residents. In Hawthorn East the issue is worse with business development reductions in required car parking requirements, reductions in large unit development car parking requirements, and now the local residential streets now awash with competing residential and employee parking. A fixation with reducing onsite car parking requirements without regard to existing residents or their visitors or the reality in terms of the generated and related unit traffic, is having a negative social and amenity impact on residents. All new unit developments should provide for their needs onsite, including sufficient visitor parking. If the development can't meet this requirement, why is the development being approved?

  22. In Kew VIC on “Construct twenty one (21)...” at 281 Barkers Road Kew VIC 3101:

    terry dear commented

    21 dwellings on 908m2 with reduced carparking.
    Question: where will the cars park that visit or are not catered for by the 'reduced carparking'? Answer: Edgevale Road.
    Squeezing 21 dwellings on such a small plot by reducing the carparking requirements just reduces the amenity of the surrounding streets, further clogging them with cars.
    I know it's fashionable to say that people will catch the bus/train/tram or cycle and in reality they may but they will still have a car. And when these dwellings are rented, there will be multiple cars per dwelling. Barkers Road is a clearway twice a day so when people do possibly catch the bus - tram is too far away, ditto train, they will leave their cars in Edgevale Road. And no I don't live in any of these sides streets - but have just seen the same thing happen in many other locations in the broader area.
    Poor proposal - make the developer reduce the dwellings and not give them a reduction in carparking.

  23. In Eastwood NSW on “"Amended plans have been...” at 7-9 Rutledge Street, Eastwood:

    marjorie roche commented

    It will be a smart addition to the streetscape.

  24. In Yarramalong NSW on “Change of use to Community...” at 36 Rose Hill Lane Yarramalong NSW 2259:

    L. Court commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: We urge Council to reject the Development Application 781/ 2013 to develop a "Community facility" at 36 Rose Hill Lane, Yarramalong:

    Just over a year ago, my partner and I spent a year living on Rose Hill Lane, Yarramalong. We felt extremely blessed to have spent this time in a part of Australia so close to Sydney, yet still so untouched by the corporate world.

    Towards the end of last year we were looking at buying a property in Yarramalong where we wanted to make a home and spend many years there. Throughout the process of going for a loan we learned of the application for a drug and alcohol centre for 36 Rose Hill Lane, Yarramalong. We were absolutely devastated and withdrew our application for purchase of the property in the valley immediately!

    When living in Yarramalong, we always felt safe. The valley is like no other place we have lived as far as a beautiful community feel, loving caring people and a comforting peace and quiet throughout the area. A real treasure of tranquil countryside beauty!

    My partner and I are writing today to air our grievances about the potential drug and alcohol centre and to let you know how much this would completely destroy the valley area. We are not against drug and alcohol centres, but feel that areas that are more built up with better public transport facilities and where more people can keep watch of what's going on where they live, would suit these centres better.

    The valley has no public transport, if attendees to the centre wanted to leave how would they get to Wyong or Tuggerah to the nearest train stations? Also, the amount of traffic in such a quiet area would be increased with the coming and going of employees, attendees and their visitors to the centre. If any of the attendees felt like leaving the premises at any time, on foot, what kind of things would be put in place to stop people from breaking and entering into nearby homes? I do not mean to imply at all, that people that attend these centres are criminals. However, there is substantiated evidence to say that some of these people may be inclined to steal if their addiction got the better of them. Most homes in the vicinity are on large blocks of land with no nearby neighbours to see what was going on.

    We also oppose the drug and alcohol centre because some of the buildings on the property have no council building permission and therefore shouldn't be permitted legally to be sold in the first place. On reading the application for the drug and alcohol centre I see that the centre wants to house 60 people at a time plus the extra people that are running the place (I note that the amount of employees needed to run the place are not in the application!) Again I do not see how this could be legal with clearly not enough space to house this many people with what is currently there, and again some of these buildings being illegal builds.

    We would like to mention the flooding in the area. While living in Yarramalong, on Rose Hill Lane in 2012, the area flooded heavily twice. Nobody could get in or out of the place for a few days during each flood with the vast amounts of water covering all of the lower field up to 36 Rose Hill Lane, also some of Rose Hill Lane itself, as well as Bunning Creek Road, (the road to exit the place) and its bridge. The water completely covered the bridge and rose up to the top of the bridge railings. I have photos should you wish to see them.

    On a final note I would be remiss if I did not mention the reputation of the Narconon centres across the world. There are many independent reviews to be read on the web. The centres lie about their success rates, have no certified help onsite and NO onsite doctors as they have been led to believe, and some of the centres' employees have been accused of taking drugs themselves while onsite.

    Here is an independent review of some of the centres throughout the world, filled out by people or their families that have attended Narconon centres world wide:

    http://narcononreviews.net/management/mgmt-narconon-southern-california-fresh-start/
    and
    http://narcononreviews.net/location/canada/
    (there are reviews from other countries at this link as well, including Australia)

    Here is an excerpt of just one of many devastating results from attending a Canadian Narconon centre:

    Narconon Survey Response #265
    This mother of a former client filled out the survey posthumously for her son because he committed suicide not long after leaving Narconon. She says that he lost all his self confidence when he was in the Narconon program, and never regained it after leaving. About housing, she says, "He said he had a room which was very sparse but since he was a bad person he didn't deserve anything better." She explains, "He started drinking after he left. He never drank before. He hated drink. He was also going to emergency rooms to get pills. He was not anything like the person that went there. He was so ashamed of what he had become after we had spent so much of our life savings on the program."

    This is a review from someone who attended the Melbourne, Australia Narconon centre:

    Did any of your experiences at Narconon bother you while you were in the program?
    "Yes"
    Please elaborate.
    "There were many times I really needed to express my confusion about the program or my frustration and I was always Acknowledged with. "I understand" or "OK"! Or "The way out is the way through". Or "You need to push through this" Or "Harden up" Or "Its just stuck attention". Or "You're dramatising" It sometimes felt like I was talking to a wall. In the end I gave up trying to talk with these people, And it was at those moments when I needed some intelligent and reassuring conversation with the staff and all I was getting was getting nothingness. Thats when I knew there is something very odd with Narconon. Those experiences did bother me. In fact the whole program bothered me because I couldn't see how this had anything to do with kicking drugs and staying clean. All I got was 10 months of craziness and mumbo jumbo Hubbard Tech. And they were bad mouthing about the psychs whenever they get a chance to do so, They are obsessed about how bad the psychs are."

    Before considering the application for such a group to take up business in the Yarramalong valley, I implore you to read through the site links above and do your own research. There are VERY real concerns and some law suits in progress from attendees, their loved ones and ex employees from various Narconon centres all across the world including Melbourne, Australia!

    In accordance with Section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, I declare that neither I, nor anybody associated with me, has made any political donation or gift to a councillor or council employee within the Wyong Shire Council or surrounding councils.

    Thank you for reading this letter to strongly request that the Narconon application be rejected!

    Kind regards,

  25. In Wantirna South VIC on “Staged construction of a...” at Lot S2, 408 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    John Ferguson commented

    Why the reduction in car parking rates? there should be no reduction of car/vehicle parking.

  26. In Eastwood NSW on “"Amended plans have been...” at 7-9 Rutledge Street, Eastwood:

    IT is a amrt addition to the community. commented

    Is it possible to find out when these amended plans were submitted please/

  27. In Mentone VIC on “To Amend The Ground Floor...” at 114 Nepean Highway, Mentone, VIC:

    Robert Peck commented

    Professionally ran, and very safe,a great place to relax at the end of the week.
    Two thumbs up.

  28. In Sheidow Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 1002 Edward Beck Dr Sheidow Park:

    Philip Burrows commented

    Hello,

    We only found out about this by seeing stakes in the ground next to our property on the end of Currie Crt and then we found a note from the contractor DML.

    I think this is shocking communication, especially when these new properties are likely to over look our land. How many houses is contemplated, why have they marked out the slope that leads down to our property, etc.

    I tried to stop the council putting bollards on our property a couple of years ago but they just didn't listen and went ahead.

  29. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Wowcow - On-premises...” at Shop 2 16 Hall St, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Lenore Kulakauskas commented

    Dear Madam/Sir,

    On behalf of the Bondi Beach community I strongly object to this application. This is a shop selling ice-cream, a service that hardly warrants the selling of alcohol. Bondi Beach has been inundated with liquor licences over the past few years and the community is concerned, in light of the problems experienced at Kings Cross, that as we appear to have reached saturation point, any further liquor licences, particularly for an establishment that does not serve meals would be detrimental to the well-being of the community and the visitor attendances to this very popular beach.

    Of equal concern is the fact that this venue is located in a street that consists of mainly residential apartments, mostly strata'd.

    There are no conditions of consent as far as I am aware that would assist in lessening the adverse impact this establishment would have on the neighbourhood if a liquor licence was granted.

    Kind regards,
    Lenore Kulakauskas
    Convenor Bondi Beach Precinct
    BBP Alcohol Rep Waverley Council Liquor Working Group
    0407 170 680

  30. In Launceston TAS on “Business and Professional...” at 21 Brisbane Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    George Smilovich commented

    The signs on the outside of the building are already up so much for the process! I bet nobody makes them take them down either!

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