Recent comments

  1. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 23 Lens Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Jennifer Anne Herrick commented

    Not sure what the point is in continually pointing out the associated negative issues with secondary dwellings in the Peninsula. Council has made it pretty clear their intention to continue approving down this path. So just read what I've said before. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

  2. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 7-9 Granada Drive, Portarlington, VIC:

    Frances commented

    I agree with Anne above. It's a shame that the impact on immediate neighbours' views is often not taken into account. Often a very minor alteration to the proposed building can make a huge difference to a neighbour's existing view, but they are not entitled to an input.
    In this case, why does the building have to be higher than the legal 7.5m? Every time an exception to the rule is made, the very thing we love about this town is compromised.

  3. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Catharine Munro commented

    I hope Waverley council does the right thing and ensures a proper consultation period after the holiday period. Not a good look to put it through now.

  4. In Killara NSW on “Planning Proposal 95-97...” at 95-97 Stanhope Drive Killara:

    Adam Machon commented

    RE-ZONING OF 95 TO 97 STANHOPE TO MEDIUM DENSITY (the Proposal)

    Dear Panel Members,
    We refer to the application by Stockland Pty Ltd (Stockland) to re-zone 95 - 97 Stanhope Rd (Lourdes Village or the Village) from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential which we understand is now before Planning and Environment for consideration.

    We write to ask that you reject the re-zoning application on the basis of information provided below. While it is reasonable that Stockland should be able to improve on its investment, such improvements should be allowed for within existing planning guidelines. Be aware that the facility is under-utilized and impact assessment data is as a result flawed.

    We understand that following Ku-Ring-Gai Council (Council) unanimously rejecting the Proposal, Stockland has now submitted the Proposal to Planning and Environment seeking to overrule the Council’s decision and have the proposal instead approved. There is a real question of whether due process has been followed by Stockland.

    The proposed re-zoning, which will enable Stockland to more than double the size of the centre in terms of residents and staff, would be in reality a medium to high density development. If successful in its re-zoning application, Stockland contemplates construction of a medium density community hub with six storey buildings, a new Residential Aged Care Facility and a new Village “Main Street” in the middle of a residential low density area in a location at high risk of bushfire.

    Lourdes Village was constructed in 1983, amidst considerable opposition from local residents at that time. The argument used by the developers at that time was that it would not adversely impact local residents and the nature of this area of Killara.

    The Proposal
    We have recently spoken to householders nearby Lourdes Village, most of whom were not aware of the Proposal and those that were, thought the unanimous rejection of the Proposal by Council was an end to the matter. Council made a well considered and correct decision.

    All residents to whom I have spoken are strongly opposed to this Proposal for many reasons including those outlined below.

    1) Bushfire
    In the event of a fire there would be significant risk to the residents of Lourdes Village, many of whom are infirm, as well its staff, and local householders. Lourdes Village is located up the hill from a national park, bounded by a creek with a high level of undergrowth on the south and west in a bushfire zone with only one access road, Stanhope Rd which is a dead-end to the east.

    Stanhope Rd is a narrow road which in effect is a one lane road when it crosses the creek near Swain Gardens. Two cars may be able to pass, subject to parking, but not a bus or fire engine and a car. The bush fire exposure and the loss of life risk would be significantly exacerbated if a fire occurred when a function (which is often the case in summer) was being held at Swain Gardens. Rosebery Rd does intersect with Stanhope Rd prior to Swain Gardens, but again Roseberry Rd is a narrow road with insufficient capacity to cope with the traffic required to evacuate frail elderly residents and staff of Lourdes Village as well as local householders let alone allow emergency service vehicles to enter. Worldwide bush fires resulting in significant loss of life are becoming more frequent.

    2) Lourdes Village Residents
    The existing Lourdes Village residents are strongly opposed to this proposed redevelopment and have separately lodged objections to this proposed re-zoning. The proposed re-development will severely disadvantage residents who purchased and moved to what is a quiet residential area in a bushland setting, not contemplating that Stockland would be seeking to convert their village into a high activity hub.

    3) Traffic
    Stockland have submitted a traffic report that is far from complete. It only refers to Village residents and forms the view that the new residents will not travel in peak hour so more than doubling the off peak traffic is acceptable. The reports ignores increased traffic due to increased services and visitors’ traffic who will travel during peak hours. As well there would be significantly increased ambulances, bus traffic and the like to cater for a village more than double the size of that existing. The Village is serviced by only one public road, Stanhope Rd.

    4) Parking
    Stockland’s report advises that 1.5 spaces per self-contained units plus 1 visitor space for every 5 units. The report makes no mention of providing free parking for all staff and service providers.

    5) Noise
    Increased noise will significantly adversely impact the amenity of residents in the Village as well as householders who purchased their home knowing the closest medium density zoning was two kms away. The noise from the air conditioning of the proposed six storey buildings, ambulances, increased traffic, late night comings and goings of staff and visitors who have radios blaring, increased garbage pick-up compacting garbage for extended periods very early in the morning and such like will severely impact existing residents.

    6) Public Transport
    Lourdes Village is not close to public transport or any retail outlets.

    7) Visual Amenity
    The proposed six storey buildings sitting on top of the hill will be a significant loss of visual amenity for local residents and result in shadowing of existing dwellings. Further, the buildings by necessity will need to have significant lighting.

    8) Change of Nature of Killara
    This proposed re-zoning would create a high activity community hub in the middle of a residential zone to the detriment of local residents and village residents who live approximately two kms away from the nearest medium density zoning. It would establish a precedent for further rezoning in an area which does not have the infrastructure to support development on the scale proposed.

    9) Fairness
    It would seem that Stockland’s strategy is to acquire a low density retirement village in a dead end quiet area of Killara, rezone it to construct a high activity hub to reap the abnormal wealth gain that the rezoning would deliver to the detriment of the safety, health, amenity and wealth of local residents.

    Stockland is a developer seeking to obtain short term advantage. Stockland’s re-zoning application is opportunistic and without merit and should be rejected.

    We look forward to receiving your advice in relation to this matter.

    Yours sincerely,

    Adam & Erica Machon

  5. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Peter Gooley commented

    This application for a caravan Park had been rejected twice already.
    The complete lack of support services and transport options within Glossodia in general, makes this proposal completely unworkable.
    The need for residents to have their own vehicle just to access Windsor, North Richmond or Richmond means that any proposal will need to provide adequate parking onsite. Wattle Crescent could not support Street parking due to its width and steep edges.
    Current households in Glossodia typically have more than one vehicle.
    I doubt that the Caravan Park will address that need adequately, and will indicate that public transport is available.

    Public transport is less than adequate to provide for a concentrated population in such a small village.

    Access to services such as human services in Windsor, job interviews, employment agencies, would be quite restricted if attempting to utilise public transport, as one example of the challenges that would be faced by residents.

    Further, I would suggest that, one the plans have actually been made available for viewing, I don't that the Caravan Park applicant will have put forward a detailed plan for dealing with sewerage waste from the site. The Sydney water installed pressured system had enough extra capability for 6 houses. The system was not built to cater for such a development. The Jacaranda Ponds development proposal had to agree to build their own treatment plant before consent was even configured. As this property backs on to a creek that feeds the Hawkesbury River that flows to the oyster leases downstream, potential pollution from this site would impact dramatically on a creek system that supports creatures such as platypus.

    I disagree with this proposal and request that it be rejected for reasons I have indicated above.

  6. In Bankstown NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 38 Columbine Avenue Bankstown NSW 2200:

    peter card commented

    Too much development in this street allready with really ugly Dual occupancies and now a block of flats at 96 columbine too much over development. Cant park in the street anymore.

  7. In Portarlington VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 7-9 Granada Drive, Portarlington, VIC:

    Anne commented

    I hope the neighbors don’t lose any views anda blocked out , this is happening a lot at Portarlington and it is a shame for people who have live their for years and all of a sudden all these homes are being built and people lose their views

  8. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 237 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Karen Eldridge commented

    We live next to The Marion and ask to be kept fully informed of all development applications to this site.

  9. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Stephen Burns commented

    At it again Easts ?

    This development was voted against 2:1 by members of the club last year at a specially convened meeting.

    Easts promised upgrade of club facilities when the merger of the bowling club and Easts occurred but none have been done apart from safety responsibilities.

    This development is against member wishes and should be rejected outright until members have agreed as to what facilities will be delivered for its members and not just for Easts Leagues club profit.

  10. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 Shackel Avenue, Kingsgrove NSW:

    Adrian Rumiz commented

    The private certification process is failing our community. Based on dwelling to land size there is no way this property meets those guidelines of a 50/50 ratio. It is disappointing that Canterbury Bankstown Council doesn’t stop dwelling been built that clearly exceed these guidelines.

  11. In Penrith NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision x...” at 255 - 265 High Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Elaine Watling commented

    I also feel that not enough consideration is given to history and heritage in our area (and many others). Sadly it seems that the love money and profit does indeed rule the world. There must be a more controlled and balanced approach that can be employed.

  12. In St Leonards NSW on “Rezoning Review of North...” at 601 Pacific Highway St Leonards:

    Heidi Winney commented

    I also object to the redevelopment of 601 Pacific Highway. It is one of the very, very few attractive buildings left - all the rest are totally devoid of architectural value. This building does not need knocking down, refurbishing perhaps. The wind tunnel effect in this area will become even worse than it is now as will the overshadowing. A 50 story building? Why? We definitely don't need it.
    There are a number of commercial office spaces in the St Leonards right now that are empty and have been so for some time. Exactly which companies are going to move in there with all the space that will become available? The developers should look at other areas and leave attractive buildings alone. Why does everything have to look the same - boxes and more boxes!

  13. In Bentleigh VIC on “The display of two...” at 524 Centre Road Bentleigh VIC 3204:

    Con Cerned commented

    Objection in relation to Road Safety. The area near the supermarket frequently has collisions and near misses due to vehicles entering or leaving the roadway. A blind spot to the two entry/exits to the supermarket is created by the addition of advertising. Addtionaly the signage creates a further distraction.

  14. In Point Frederick NSW on “Section 4.55 Amendment - as...” at 177 Albany Street, Point Frederick NSW 2250:

    Graeme Checkley commented

    I have accessed the Council website for this amendment and there are no documents. It is difficult to object to an amendment that states "as per 14 page attachment" when that is not posted in documents.

  15. In West Melbourne VIC on “To make minor changes to...” at 179-183 Adderley Street West Melbourne 3003:

    Georgina Macdougall commented

    Are pale blue and black heritage colours for this area ?
    I don’t believe this combination of colours will sit well with the existing streetscape.

  16. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Gail Wiseman commented

    KMC, we implore you to please listen to the very community you have been trusted to represent. Why are greedy developers and the Adventist organisation consistently prioritised over the community? We count on you to take care of the place where we have invested our homes and want to raise our children in a safe and healthy environment. We have made so many rational points with regard to increased traffic, evacuation in the event of a bushfire and the unique and precious nature of this area. Yet we are challenged with one DA after another for buildings that threaten all three of these points. Why is each DA treated in isolation, when it is the additive effect that will ultimately have such a devastating and permanent impact on the area? Please listen to your community and stop this spiralling and devastating impact on Fox Valley.

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “Fitout of empty suite as...” at Unit 34/23 Norton Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Darcy Fern commented

    This complex has a shop 34 and a unit 34. IWC might be approving something on the wrong property...

  18. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Karla commented

    Well said all can I just add if Developers and Members of Local & State Parliament had to live in the suburb they build and approve in, our Shire and Sydney city would be a different landscape. I concur with the above comments from our local community opposing the development on the grounds of adverse impact to our community, lack of infrastructure, not keeping with the surrounding street appeal, and close proximity the awfully busy intersection next to the pool/park.

  19. In Woy Woy Bay NSW on “Outbuilding” at 43 Taylor Street, Woy Woy Bay NSW 2256:

    Geoff Shelley commented

    What is this out building to be used for?
    How high is it be?
    Will it block the last bit of water view we have?
    Where can we view the plan?
    How close will it be to or boundary?

  20. In Penrith NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision x...” at 255 - 265 High Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Ingelle Moore commented

    Does this mean these last standing terraces in Penrith are going to be pulled down and replaced with yet another big concrete, shoddily built apartment building?well there goes another part of Penrith ' s heritage -how little do Australians value their unique history -just turn our streets into a big Chinese city....

  21. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    And the reply from Michael Hill (for anyone interested) doesn't seem to show that they are very interested in compromise. I am not sure that he is entirely correct re window replacements etc either, but I will leave it to someone much more qualified than I am to tell him so.

    Interesting that he seems to think that the Mall upgrade (which no doubt will be replaced again in a couple of short decades) has set the precedent regarding the replacement of heritage with modern architecture too.

    Hi Allan,

    I have been sent your email from our online team and appreciate your interest in our newest store coming to Launceston.

    You are correct in that we are opening soon, in fact, preliminary site works have already started which is very exciting for us.

    I can understand your concerns around the heritage nature of the site, we have recently completed a refurbishment on a building in George St, Sydney that was built in the 1800’s with every heritage overlay imaginable, we embraced that with our designs which ended with a wonderful result for both Michael Hill and the City of Sydney.

    This particular tenancy currently doesn’t have any heritage overlays and from what we have been advised by the building owners, the under awning stained glass windows and curved glass façade have all been replaced and are not original. With this in mind and given surrounding recent tenancy fitouts and design we have opted for the store design you have seen on the council planning website.

    Having said that, our designer recognised that the above awning façade on not just our building but also the surrounding buildings were as you say intrinsic to the look of the downtown area and has opted to remain sympathetic to the surrounding sites by not altering that in any way.

    We feel that with the upper façade remaining, this will embrace the local area feel while the proposed under awning works will tie in with surrounding newer tenancies and also the recently completed modern upgrades to the Brisbane St mall directly opposite.

    As you can imagine, balancing both modern fitouts with older elements can be tricky but we all believe we have successfully fulfilled the brief on this site.

    We look forward to having our first ever store in Launceston and sharing some of our history and products with the Launceston residents.

    Thanks Allen.


    Regards,

    Brett Lancelot
    Manager – Projects & Design
    New Zealand | Canada | Australia


    P. +61 7 3114 3593
    M. +61 411 315 287
    E. brett.lancelot@michaelhill.com.au
    A.. 7 Smallwood Pl, Murrarie, 4172, QLD Australia

  22. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot - Four...” at 196-198 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    d moore commented

    This development application is incorrectly listed on PD on Line - it says it only applies to lot 196/198 plus lots 200/ 202 ONLY -
    when in actual fact it also includes lot 204 / 206 AS WELL AS THE REAR OF LOT NUMBER 208/210 -
    Real Areas are as follows
    196/198 area is 1.02ha
    200/202 area is 1.085ha
    204/206 area is 1.244ha
    AS WELL AS THE REAR SECTION OF LOT NUMBER 208/210 with an area of approximately 1500 sq meters - lots numbered 1 and 31 plus road access area
    The total area up for subdivision under this application has a total of 34990 sq meters
    NOT AS LISTED ON PD ON LINE AS A TOTAL AREA OF 21050 SQ METERS
    What a STUFF up
    Re calculation of lot size - there are several methods of doing it
    Method 1 - total area of 34990 sq mtres divided by 47 lots = 744.4680851sq mtrs / LOT which is well above the 600sq meters requirement
    Methot 2 - 10 to 15 lots / hectare - 3.4990 hectares multiplied by 15 = 52 lots - this development also meets this criteria easily
    And as you can see there are 32 lots with an area of 450 sq meters
    WHAT A DISGRACE
    That's even before the saga of vanishing wildlife in the area and tunnels under properties to provide drainage

  23. In Montmorency VIC on “Six (6) lot subdivision...” at 21 Virginia Court, Montmorency, VIC:

    Rob Horan commented

    I only object the trees being cut down along the northwestern boundary fence. They provide screening and are constantly occupied by native birds and insects. By size and age of tree they may be of "low value", but they are highly beneficial to the local environment.

  24. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad Murray commented

    As an immigrant to Launceston one of it's real charms is the character of the streetscape, especially around the CBD. Under no circumstances should the original facade of this shop front be allowed to be removed. The curved glass frontage and leadlight is of an era and should be SOOO easy to integrate into the design of any new shop. If anything, it will add to the facade.

    The council should seriously consider protecting the remaining original shop fronts to retain as much character in the city as possible. Is it possible to heritage list the facade of this building?

  25. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 11 Uldis Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    J Burnell commented

    Auxiliary units should not be approved on this development as it would be creating a defacto duplex dwelling estate which does not conform to the planning scheme requirements in terms of clustering and separation distances. This concentration of auxiliary units will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, car parking, traffic congestion and recreation space, particularly as this development does not have good access to facilities and services.

  26. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 30 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    J Burnell commented

    Auxiliary units should not be approved on this development as it would be creating a defacto duplex dwelling estate which does not conform to the planning scheme requirements in terms of clustering and separation distances. This concentration of auxiliary units will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, car parking, traffic congestion and recreation space, particularly as this development does not have good access to facilities and services.

  27. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 14 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    J Burnell commented

    Auxiliary units should not be approved on this development as it would be creating a defacto duplex dwelling estate which does not conform to the planning scheme requirements in terms of clustering and separation distances. This concentration of auxiliary units will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, car parking, traffic congestion and recreation space, particularly as this development does not have good access to facilities and services.

  28. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 12 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    J Burnell commented

    Auxiliary units should not be approved on this development as it would be creating a defacto duplex dwelling estate which does not conform to the planning scheme requirements in terms of clustering and separation distances. This concentration of auxiliary units will have an impact on the visual amenity of the area, car parking, traffic congestion and recreation space, particularly as this development does not have good access to facilities and services.

  29. In Carlingford NSW on “Construction of Residential...” at Common Property, 11 Boundary Road, Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Nadine Raes commented

    I am no longer able to stay at home with all the construction noise. There are huge trucks all day congesting a very narrow row and making a huge amount of noise. It takes forever to get out of your building. They are blocking driveways as there is no road for them to go into. And this is just demolition. What is it going to be like when they are building.They are preventing me from doing what I need to be doing in my home because of all the noise they are causing. Is council going to pay for a hotel every day for me so that I can work and be in peace. I have the right to be at home inside my 4 walls without anyone disturbing me. I have the right to do what I want at home without anyone stopping me. I bet you no one in council lives in a construction zone. Come and try it or else we will all have to get together and do a class action. I am calling for anyone who wants to join me.Don't just complain. Do something about it.

  30. In NSW on “Operation of surf school” at Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Chris Cassidy commented

    Any attempt to increase the commercialisation of Seven Mile Beach, a unique community asset, should be strongly opposed. The beach is a community wide resource that should not be curtailed or lessened in any way for the purpose of enriching commercial return.

    The application as set out, would , in my view , prioritise commercial gain to the detriment of other recreational beach users, this is NOT its purpose.

    Any future policy should provide an appropriate balance between the operation of surf schools and recreational beach users.

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