Recent comments

  1. In North Sydney NSW on “First Use of 11 non...” at 13 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Bronwyn Wilson commented

    We request that this DA be denied. This area is now predominantly residential- there are more residents and families here than commercial offices, the balance has changed. Indeed, the applicant Modog has been instrumental in this change by converting redundant office blocks into apartments, as well as constructing new residential buildings. However Eden Street and Myrtle Streets are not their personal feifdom. Residents’ wishes and their right to enjoy their property should prevail over this application. It took many years to have a brothel closed down in this area. To allow 24 hour operation would seem to be an invitation to more dubious businesses.

  2. In Forresters Beach NSW on “Alterations to Existing...” at 3 Lavinia Street, Forresters Beach NSW 2260:

    Laura McDonald commented

    Hello,
    What does Catholic retreat mean?
    Is it suitable to be in a residential area?

  3. In Armidale NSW on “Subdivision - 7 to 41 Lot...” at 15 Karina Close, Armidale, NSW 2350:

    David Rose commented

    With regard to this proposed development, it is noted that the Traffic Impact Assessment regards all access roads to the site as "below technical capacity" with an emphasis on access via The Avenue.

    - However Stage 1, and possibly Stage 2, will be immediately serviced for home and road building purposes, and then local traffic, by the gravel surfaced Sutherland Avenue. Residents on this thoroughfare already suffer from dust inundation and noise due to local traffic which originates from at least six existing dwellings, some with multiple vehicles and including the Developer's, located on Spring Hill Lane and the east end of South Hill.

    -Further, the 200 metre straight road section seems to encourage excess speed, past three driveways (11, 17 and 19), to and from the Old Gostwyck Road intersection.

    - Development approval should only be given if the Developer and Council seal Sutherland Avenue AND install traffic calming devices to slow traffic.

  4. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Paul Osborne commented

    As per advertised plans:

    11.4.20 Streetscape Integration and appearance
    A3. (b) existing fence to be retaiined

    ...in actual fact it's proposed to put a gate in through the 150 yr old brick wall?

    Why was this application received on 18/12/18 but only advertised 20/2/19 with just 2 weeks for comments/submissions?

  5. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Jon Seccombe commented

    The residents of the street have largely objected on the basis of traffic concerns affecting a street currently zoned residential.
    Other concerns include:
    2) Noise
    3) Commercial valuations affecting residential values
    4) Visual affects - downgrading of community ambience
    5) Telecommunication downgrades
    6) Environmental: Changed building footprints and drainage; exposure of children to toxins and increased risk
    7) Access
    8) Security
    9) Precedent for continued commercial development
    10) Evening activities

    Firstly, it is helpful to know whether this is a long day care centre or not. During playtime the combined sound of many children moving around will register at a very high level of decibels. For those immediately adjacent there will be little respite from this noise. Further up the street, the noise will be muted but will still intrude on owners in what is a very quiet residential street which has not been zoned for this activity.

    The introduction of commercial buildings will depress the values of residences as the area is no longer deemed entirely residential. It also sets a precedent that other commercial buildings may be allowed once the zoning has changed.

    Furthermore, this street needs continued greening: already two fine specimens of Harpephyllum caffrum have been removed in the last 18 months and the visual appeal of the street has decreased as more units/ buildings can be seen. Placing another large structure and removing a number trees will lower the aesthetic appeal of the street again with an impact on property values but also contribute to the downgrading of the environment. Removal of trees contributes to climate change: significantly, studies of micro climates show that the ambient temperature in a local area can rise significantly by as much as 8 - 10 degrees when all trees are removed and radiant heat comes from buildings and asphalt. This large structure suggests that there is insufficient room to include play areas for children AND will be an additional heat sink. Furthermore, this is a street with significant drainage issues. With climate change comes an increase in storm events depositing large amounts of rain: several have been experienced in the last few years and these have been exacerbated by over development. Increasing the built surface area in the street provides less opportunity for water to be absorbed naturally by soils and increases the damage caused to other built structures through flooding and excessive run off. These storm events with strong damage have occurred twice in our complex in the last 5 years. This building is at the top of the hill and it will inevitably cause problems for those further down the hill. Is the current sewage infrastructure capable of sustaining the toileting needs of another 60 individuals?

    The proposed complex is directly adjacent a major arterial route. The pollution from tyre wear (compounds) will inevitably be deposited on the grounds of the day care centre and children will have direct exposure to tailpipe gases throughout the day - a matter of a few metres away: the nature of the onshore breezes pushing against the escarpment gives little opportunity for these deadly chemicals to disperse and be escaped by the moist vulnerable age group and will certainly have a deleterious outcome on health.

    This street is at the end of the line from the Corrimal exchange: whilst NBN is a significant outcome. there is still significant copper wiring and threats to internet speed need to be explored.

    The end of the street provides significant pedestrian access to the beach: will this be interrupted? Do we want a high degree of foot traffic going past small children: does this pose a danger to young children? Will further development provide a greater likelihood of break and enter offences?

    Owners of large buildings which have a significant investment will seek to maximise returns. Will this centre be used for evening events which are noisy and impact neighbours in diverse ways? Will it also be used for elections and other community events which may bring a level of traffic creating gridlock due to the extremely narrow streets?

    Ultimately this is a quiet, residential street which already has reached its capacity to sustain and this is whist it is entirely residential. It is a street of a certain character and charm although council needs to consider further tree plantings and other visual enhancements. As the current residents have indicated it is straining to support the current traffic: the addition of further traffic may lead to an increased number of serious traffic accidents and this in turn will put council in the invidious position of solving a problem of its own making - and the solution will not be simple or inexpensive.

  6. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Jon Seccombe commented

    The residents of the street have largely objected on the basis of traffic concerns affecting a street currently zoned residential.
    Other concerns include:
    2) Noise
    3) Commercial valuations affecting residential values
    4) Visual affects - downgrading of community ambience
    5) Telecommunication downgrades
    6) Environmental: Changed building footprints and drainage; exposure of children to toxins and increased risk
    7) Access
    8) Security
    9) Precedent for continued commercial development
    10) Evening activities

    Firstly, it is helpful to know whether this is a long day care centre or not. During playtime the combined sound of many children moving around will register at a very high level of decibels. For those immediately adjacent there will be little respite from this noise. Further up the street, the noise will be muted but will still intrude on owners in what is a very quiet residential street which has not been zoned for this activity.

    The introduction of commercial buildings will depress the values of residences as the area is no longer deemed entirely residential. It also sets a precedent that other commercial buildings may be allowed once the zoning has changed.

    Furthermore, this street needs continued greening: already two fine specimens of Harpephyllum caffrum have been removed in the last 18 months and the visual appeal of the street has decreased as more units/ buildings can be seen. Placing another large structure and removing a number trees will lower the aesthetic appeal of the street again with an impact on property values but also contribute to the downgrading of the environment. Removal of trees contributes to climate change: significantly, studies of micro climates show that the ambient temperature in a local area can rise significantly by as much as 8 - 10 degrees when all trees are removed and radiant heat comes from buildings and asphalt. This large structure suggests that there is insufficient room to include play areas for children AND will be an additional heat sink. Furthermore, this is a street with significant drainage issues. With climate change comes an increase in storm events depositing large amounts of rain: several have been experienced in the last few years and these have been exacerbated by over development. Increasing the built surface area in the street provides less opportunity for water to be absorbed naturally by soils and increases the damage caused to other built structures through flooding and excessive run off. These storm events with strong damage have occurred twice in our complex in the last 5 years. This building is at the top of the hill and it will inevitably cause problems for those further down the hill. Is the current sewage infrastructure capable of sustaining the toileting needs of another 60 individuals?

    The proposed complex is directly adjacent a major arterial route. The pollution from tyre wear (compounds) will inevitably be deposited on the grounds of the day care centre and children will have direct exposure to tailpipe gases throughout the day - a matter of a few metres away: the nature of the onshore breezes pushing against the escarpment gives little opportunity for these deadly chemicals to disperse and be escaped by the moist vulnerable age group and will certainly have a deleterious outcome on health.

    This street is at the end of the line from the Corrimal exchange: whilst NBN is a significant outcome. there is still significant copper wiring and threats to internet speed need to be explored.

    The end of the street provides significant pedestrian access to the beach: will this be interrupted? Do we want a high degree of foot traffic going past small children: does this pose a danger to young children? Will further development provide a greater likelihood of break and enter offences?

    Owners of large buildings which have a significant investment will seek to maximise returns. Will this centre be used for evening events which are noisy and impact neighbours in diverse ways? Will it also be used for elections and other community events which may bring a level of traffic creating gridlock due to the extremely narrow streets?

    Ultimately this is a quiet, residential street which already has reached its capacity to sustain and this is whist it is entirely residential. It is a street of a certain character and charm although council needs to consider further tree plantings and other visual enhancements. As the current residents have indicated it is straining to support the current traffic: the addition of further traffic may lead to an increased number of serious traffic accidents and this in turn will put council in the invidious position of solving a problem of its own making - and the solution will not be simple or inexpensive.

  7. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of Boarding...” at 27 Paul Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Lisa Goodman commented

    What a tragedy to demolish a beautiful federation house and replace it with cheap apartments.

    This is another example of over - development masquerading as affordable housing. 18 units is far to high a ratio for the land mass. It is also out of proportion to the other houses in the street.

    There does not seem to be any documents under the tab on the council website so it's impossible to comment further.

  8. In Melrose Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 659 Victoria Road Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Mark commented

    Totally agree with all posted comments as well.

    I live a few hundred metres down the road and there has been zero community consultation. The idea that you would plan to house thousands more people in an area where the roads are already clogged 7 days a week is madness of the highest order. The infrastructure is not there to cope with this.

    The only people in favour of this are the developers. The rest of us will suffer noise, disruption, traffic, overcrowding,...

  9. In Wandin North VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 280 Beenak Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    Graeme briggs commented

    Are they applying for a second home on the property or a sub division

  10. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Francis Hancox commented

    All the above Objections Ring very true. This is a Residential St, Full to the brim with Strata Development, Parking is at a premium . Since the Opening of the Expressway traffic from the Western end of Russell St at 7 30 to 9 30 am, is, Unbelievable. Coming down from Woonona Hts to access the the Expressway, through Russell St and Roberts St then to Campbell St.
    This also would be the peak time for the Childcare Centres extra 60 odd cars, Morning and evening And, All in a hurry to drop off children.
    Planners come and have a close look, This is not the right place for this development

  11. In Revesby NSW on “The proposal is a mixed use...” at 9 Macarthur Avenue Revesby NSW 2212:

    Janelle Carter commented

    This proposal is for a 30 room, 48 resident boarding house on top of a childcare centre, and also another 3 residential units! This is totally excessive for this site and location. I've submitted a detailed objection to council but to summarise there are issues around parking, access, traffic, safety and more. The parking for this proposal is totally inadequate - 15 spaces for a 48 resident boarding house - and the childcare parking is inadequate too. There are traffic and access issues, as there are several one-way streets and narrow lanes in this part of Revesby. There are safety issues - both for the residents (the full proposal shows a shockingly small amount of private space available to each resident, one room has under 12.3 metre square for two people to live in) - and safety issues for the kids - how can anyone think it's a good idea to have a boarding house on top of a childcare centre? Furthermore I don't think there is a great need for this type of short-term accommodation in our area. I urge council to please vote against this application.

  12. In Wandin North VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 280 Beenak Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    Graeme briggs commented

    Are they applying for a second home on the property or a sub division

  13. In Wandin North VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 280 Beenak Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    Graeme briggs commented

    Are they applying for a second home on the property or a sub division

  14. In Kincumber NSW on “INTEGRATED Residential 108...” at 290 Avoca Drive Kincumber NSW 2251:

    Mr David Newell commented

    Having lived in Kincumber for 37 years I find it appalling that approval be given for a 4 storey "eye sore". Do you not think that Kincumber has an overload of retirement villages already? If approved a 2 storey MAXIMUM height should be enforced as this basically sits on top of the hill and does not fit in with the local demographics. An assurance that ALL staff and visitors cars are parked on site and not in surrounding streets also MUST be part of the application.

  15. In Melrose Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 659 Victoria Road Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Henk commented

    I agree with all the above comments, please note, I am not against progress, however, I am against overdeveloping of this area. Try to go shopping at either one of the closest shopping centres, its a joke everybody is most upset trying to find a parking spot.
    Secondly, try to get out of wharf road to go either to the top of Marsden road towards Carlingford or to west Ryde on a Saturday or even Sunday its a joke, counsellors who approve those applications obviously don't live here.

    Lastly, what really gets me, why approve an application if you can alter it anytime you like.

    Approve only the one and final application don't keep changing in favour of the developers, so they can make an extra $$$$$.

    Ryde council has stopped all developments due to road infrastructure not being ready could Parramatta council not do the same at least for this area.

  16. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Jeremy Wallis commented

    I live and own a property on Russell Street. I have a young family and use the end of Russell Street to gain access for walks, cycling and general exercise with the family reasonably safely, considering the amount of current strata properties and separate dwelling (houses) on this street.
    My kids use the end of the street regularly, biking, running, walking and skating, away from other traffic that turns regularly from West Russell into Robert Street connecting to Campbell Street which leads to other main arterial routes and vica-verca.

    East Russell Street past Robert Street has on average 28 separate dwellings (houses) X that by 2 cars per house on average = 56 cars. East Russell Street past Robert Street has on average 8 Strata type dwellings = on average 10 units per strata X 80 units on average, X that by 2 cars per unit on average = 160 cars + 56 cars = 216 permanent cars on East Russell Street past Robert Street not including West Russell Street dwellings past Robert Street, also not including visitors driving down Russell Street already struggling to find a park. THATS ALOT OF CARS IN ANYONES BOOKS.

    Lets talk about Robert Street crossing to and fro from Russell if you add more cars lets say 66 cars heading East off Russell to the Day Care Centre in a hurry turning to and fro from Roberts street or off Princess highway or Hadden Lane into a already congested Russell Street someone is bound to get hurt or heaven forbid killed by a car.

    The maths and safety of the proposed development does not add up to what I see and and others that live on Russell Street that is already congested enough.

    I strongly vote against it for the safety of our children, elderly and other everyday users that can simply walk safe enough to our local community amenities.

    Regards Jeremy Wallis

  17. In Dundas Valley NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Adamson Avenue Dundas Valley NSW 2117:

    Deborah Lidbury commented

    When will rectification work start on my property??????????which was caused by the construction of this dual dwelling!

  18. In North Sydney NSW on “First Use of 11 non...” at 13 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Tayla (A Lynch) commented

    What an absurd request. This neighbourhood is not the right place for 24 hour operation. It's on a street full of families and right by a school. This will end up being a seedy Crow's Nest Massage location 2.0 once you open it up to 24 hours. Totally unnecessary. Plenty of marketing/design studios/small businesses that are in keeping with the area that could lease this.

  19. In North Sydney NSW on “Modify condition I1 to 24...” at 13 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Amanda Judd commented

    Once again we are having to protect our small community.
    What type of business is this?
    As a resident of Eden Street I object to this application. The noise factor will interrupt the residents facing the courtyard at 13 Eden Street.
    Noise is elevated considerably between the hours 1am and 6am. Are we to close all of our windows and doors to protect our ambience.
    This application needs to be seriously checked in particular the noise reports provided.
    This is not the CBD this is a mixed use area and why should we open up hours for business to 24/7?

  20. In North Sydney NSW on “First Use of 11 non...” at 13 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Philip Newnham commented

    Once again,could the Council explain to the ratepayers what is a 24 hour business other than a convenience store or a Bordello or a Massage Parlour.

  21. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Brian Smith commented

    Russell Street Woonona currently suffers from traffic conjestion due to excessive strata development . Street parking is at a premium due to a high population resulting from this over development. Russell Street is narrow and two cars travelling in opposite directions cannot pass when inevitably there are cars parked at the kerb. The Russell Street/Robert Street intersection is another hazard as parked cars limit driver vision. The property nominated in this proposed development is situated at the end of the street on a cul de sac. I witness, on a daily basis cars frequently trying to use Russell Street to access Woonona east only to have to turn around after finding the cul de sac. This development, if approved will cause further unnecessary traffic problems and issues to the already frustrated residents of Russell Street Woonona. It will be noted as another poor decision made by the Wollongong City Council Planning Authority.

  22. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    The development will impinge on the historic feel of the area as the land is such a narrow piece that currently has an excellent set back with mature trees visible as one passes by.
    I am suprised a new dwelling is allowed so close to the existing house.
    The front historic fence should remain and the entry be on the Scott St side.

  23. In Lewisham NSW on “Boarding House” at 40 Old Canterbury Road Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Susan Meech commented

    Nothing to view - no plans, nothing. This is an incredibly small piece of land with traffic constantly turning left onto and along Barker St to travel over the overpass or back onto Old Canterbury Road. there is no available or safe parking at all near by.
    The only crossing is a block away under the railway bridge which is no where near sufficient or safe and residents are in danger trying to cross this road on a daily basis.
    Building a boarding house on this corner creates its own danger with people exiting.

  24. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Alex Dodds commented

    I am a resident of Russell Street, Woonona, I object to this development, and agree with all previous comments made on this submission.

    Along with all the other residents of Russell Street, I have to deal with an already very congested cul de sac, an already dangerous road junction with poor visibility at Robert Street, and weekly problems on rubbish collection day for residents and council colleagues driving the garbage trucks.

    Adding an extra 60-70 cars per weekday would only make those problems and dangers worse. It’s only a matter of time before a serious traffic accident happens on this street, and the proposed development would increase those chances.

    Being the father of a small child I totally understand the need for another childcare centre in the area, I waited 8 months to secure a spot for my son nearby. But, any additional centres need to be built in a far more accessible and safe location that doesn't so negatively affect the existing residents and community.

  25. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Laura commented

    i object to this development. As a resident of Russell Street, Woonona I echo all of the comments made above with regard to the increased traffic an additional 60+ cars per day would cause in an already very congested culdesac. Also the increased safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians, and the further inconvenience it will cause on rubbish collection day for your council colleagues driving the garbage trucks.
    As a mother of a small child I absoluteluy recognise the need for another childcare centre in the area, I waited 8 months to secure a spot for my son, however it needs to be built in an accessible and safe location that doesn't so negatively affect the existing residents and community.

  26. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Chris and Barbara commented

    We object to this development.
    There are already too many dwellings in Russell St.
    Driving along Russell St is currently a hazardous and stressful experience as the road is too narrow to accommodate the steady stream of traffic and parked cars.
    The area simply cannot support the increased traffic flow which will result from the development of a day care centre.

  27. In Killarney Vale NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 61 Robertson Road Killarney Vale NSW 2261:

    Angela commented

    OMG! We had heard that this block was purchased by Indiginous and will be used to house disability/pensioner indiginous peoples. Funnily, we and other neighbours only heard about it AFTER it was too late for protesting the submission. We contacted the local member who got back to us and confirmed what we had heard. As much as we are all very unhappy about this news, we cant stop it now & are just hoping that they are very, very careful about the type of people they are puting into our lovely community.

  28. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one silky...” at 16 Colwell Crescent Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Dean commented

    Owner here: an arborist inspected the tree and said it is diseased. As the tree is positioned above power lines and within two metres of the house it was recommended to us to have it removed due to safety concerns.

  29. In Toronto NSW on “One Lot Subdivision into two” at 1 Pheasant Street Toronto NSW 2283:

    Jutta Altenburg-Swan commented

    The area here is a treasure, especially because we can breath between houses and their gutters. So far as I know, this block contains already a double story house, subdividing this land makes it dense. Knowing there is bush land around, high density of housing should be avoided. Please do not think to take the bush away! Please don’t spoil the area recklessly. Be considerate and try to gain value to this area instead of taking value down. We all pay our taxes and high rates to the City Council, we take care for our environment in our surroundings and so should do our city council.
    Thank you

  30. In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:

    Matt McHugh commented

    I completely object this development, as a resident living close by the parking is already at an absolute premium with cars already resorting to parking on the council strip especially on bin day!!
    The extra traffic chaos the culdesac is going to cause is not just a headache for residents but a flat out safety concern for all involved!
    I have also been witness to several accidents on the entry to Russell St from Robert St due to lack of vision from the already heavily parked vehicles in this street. Another 60+ vehicles coming and going in this area is a disaster waiting to happen.
    This area of Russell St is not the correct location for this construction

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