Recent comments

  1. In Queens Park NSW on “Remove one (1) tree located...” at 80 Queens Park Road Queens Park NSW 2022:

    Rodney Scherer commented

    Curious, I would assume it's the Palm tree (as it isn't identified in the application) Clearly planted to close to the house! the carport probably came after the palm was planted. Sure the most expedient solution is to cut it down, that isn't the best solution. Palms are relocatable, why not relocate, diagonally to the corner of the property and share some shade with the neighbour! If that's not a possibility perhaps it could be sold or donated to Council and they could transplant it into a public space! let us keep the urban area as green as possible!

  2. In Elsternwick VIC on “10 lot subdivision” at 10 St Georges Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    Erika Wils commented

    There is no further need for subdivisions and apartments in Elsternwick as already over saturated with too many development still happening like the monstrosity of a construction next to the CBA bank !!!! It is causing traffic congestion and adding to the already existing parking problems and overcrowding.

  3. In Lysterfield VIC on “The use and development of...” at 1470 Wellington Road, Lysterfield VIC 3156:

    Jenny Anderson commented

    I don’t object to anyone wanting to build on their own parcel of land no matter what it is zoned. If the property is sitting there bare with no purpose, no life, no homes, no gardens then it becomes a dead useless eyesore. There is to much vast land serving no purpose. How can we create a functioning community if we can not put use to our lands that we purchase because a self righteous person wants to oppose it. I believe all apposing to the progression of land thriving and growing into useful properties should move to areas where there is no human population. The other option maybe to use the land for rubbish waste maybe that way this may please the opposing minority.

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

    Edward Johnstone commented

    I have noted that an application has been made for the approval for 6 units on a block of land originally planned for one residential .
    When we decided to move into Wellington Point in 1976 our decision to buy in Mindarie Crescent was on the basis of this crescent being classified as residential A which to us meant a limited number of rentals.
    The land which is proposed to have 6 units or dwellings ( most likely shoe boxes) will no doubt have car accomodation for one vehicle. I therefore assume that extra vehicles and any boats( which are likely due to the proximity to the boat ramp) will be parked on either the footpath( illegally )or on the street.
    If they are parked within the turning circle of the crescent problems will occur for those residents with boats or caravans.
    Next problem is the parking issue when parents drop of their children to both Wellington Point Primary and REDLANDS College.There are already parking restrictions during drop of and pick up times next to the easement which a lot of parents tend to ignore
    causing safety issues for those children who choose to walk, bicycle ride or ride their scooters to school( which should be encouraged ).

  5. In Broadmeadows VIC on “Development of land for...” at 17 Broadfield Rd Broadmeadows VIC 3047:

    Kevin Balaam commented

    If this application is approved, then Belfast St would be highly unlikely to be extended across the Merlynston Creek basin to Broadfield Rd on this alignment to provide road access between Broadmeadows residential area and the Northcorp Boulevard Reserve. Unfortunately, the alternative of extending Dallas Drive to Camp Rd through the creek linear park would be a terrible outcome for local residents.

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

    Carol Johnstone commented

    We would be very concerned if this application was approved.

    Firstly when we bought into this area in 1976, the area was designated as residential A. If this block is broken into 6 small blocks this seems to threaten this designation.

    This street already takes a lot of school traffic, and experiences parking issues that evolve from this traffic. Parents use this street to drop off/pick up children from two schools - Wellington Point State School, and Redlands College.

    As the name suggests, it is a no through road, and cars/trucks need to turn in the cul-du-sac. If the side of the road is clogged with parked cars, this is going to cause problems.

    Additionally, the block in question doesn’t appear to have the road frontage to manage the parked cars of 6 units. It is highly likely that each unit will have 2 cars attached to that unit.

    Wellington Point used to be a nice suburb with a good cross section of housing styles, but the increasing number of buildings that are being approved in an effort to make as much financial gain as possible, for the council and the developer rather than add to the ambience of the area is of concern.

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

    Liz commented

    Croydon Conservation Society is hoping that this request has some serious reason for removal, such as disease, or being dead. At the rate of death of our local indigenous stringy barks, it would be really bad for the local environment to lose two more trees, for no good reason. The available mature habitat is shrinking at an alarmoing rate, this is bad for all species including humans.

  8. In Box Hill VIC on “Buildings and works for the...” at 17 Arnold Street, Box Hill VIC 3128:

    Hasan commented

    The precinct bounded by Arnold, Nelson, Whitehorse and Elgar Rd's is going to see more high rise apartment buildings being built over the next five years. This will increase the number of cars in the area as well as the demand for the limited numbers of on street parking which will result in more cars being parked in surrounding local streets. If this applicant wants to develop this site they should bare the costs instead of trying to transfer the costs and burdens of car parking onto local residents. Therefore no reduction in statutory car parking requirement's should be granted for this development.

  9. In Punchbowl NSW on “Additional use of premises...” at 77 Wattle Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196:

    Arthur attie commented

    Great idea we need a change on that corner

  10. In Caringbah South NSW on “Our neighbours are building...” at 12 Beauford Avenue Caringbah South NSW 2229:

    Peter Jones commented

    This is an absolutely ludicrous proposal to design a house on a 1740 sq. Metre property that requires a neighbour’s tree to be removed.
    Surely the council’s response should have been to say go back to the drawing board and design the house around existing trees ect.
    I live opposite a development on a 2700sq. M
    Block and only 1 significant tree has been retained, the council even let them chop down a huge gum that was almost on the back boundary (app. 1 metre girth and 35-30 metres high). Last time I will vote liberal in Sutherland Council.

  11. In Box Hill VIC on “Buildings and works for the...” at 17 Arnold Street, Box Hill VIC 3128:

    Martin W.E. Friendship commented

    No reduction in statutory car parking requirements should be granted. The medical precinct is renowned for being devoid of reasonably priced and available parking. Medical staff need somewhere to park and so do patients. In this instance the Applicant should be requested to demonstrate that the proposal will meet the likely parking demand from both staff and patients in addition to that of any permanent residents.

  12. In Box Hill VIC on “Construction of a 20 Storey...” at 925 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill VIC 3128:

    Martin W.E. Friendship commented

    The requested reduction in statutory car parking and bicycle requirements should not be granted. There is already an inadequate supply of affordable short term shopping parking. This will be at increasing risk of being occupied by longer term business and hotel related parking where buildings do not provide adequate parking for the occupants.

  13. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Waterview Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Pamela Springate commented

    There is no thought for neighbours or street facade with the huge ugly plan proposed.
    The house was built in 1880 and deserves a bit more respect.

  14. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Laura commented

    I object to this planning application. Three houses on a 689sq metre is far too many. Please do not allow this to proceed and set a precedent for future developers to turn the lovely spacious blocks we have here in the City of Tea Tree Gully into a congested, densely populated hive of constant parking issues and construction noise for the sake of ‘progress’.

  15. In Maroochydore QLD on “Change to Development...” at 7 Yinni St, Maroochydore, QLD:

    Deborah Daniels commented

    Parking concerns in street.
    New development on same street 3 bedrooms and one car space. New development approvals should require more parking!

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

    Suzanna Szabo commented

    This was supposed to be an extension, not a demolition. It I should incumbent on council and the state government to plan appropriately. This end of Warren Road is largely made up of family homes in single storey, single dwellings. As with the demolition of number 27, it is obvious that a way has been paved for further inappropriate development. This part of Warren Road is a rat run through to Marrickville station for Sydney buses. There is already enormous congestion. Properties nearby that have been extended now overlook multiple houses in many directions, contrary to developers assurances that this would not happen.
    This part of the street is congested, has dumped cars, pavements destroyed, trees removed and an ever growing mishmash of development that most definitely does not fit into either the R2 zoning or in keeping with the 19th and early 20th century architecture.
    We already have 4 boarding houses in an area of less than 100 metres.
    We have a slew of public housing in surrounding streets that need updating, repair and maintenance.
    How about a bit of sensible planning and regulations that can be monitored and implemented without favouring greedy developers and lax local and state regulators.

  17. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Hannah commented

    Three houses on less than 700 square metres is ridiculous. We moved to this area for the beautiful leafy green spacious feeling.

  18. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Ben Woods commented

    The proposed 3 into 1 development for this site is not in keeping with the area at all and should be declined. The proposed sub-division will impact directly on the surrounding residents not only aesthetically, but also functionally. Being a corner block, street parking is not an option at all. Vehicles will be parked on the street and impacting directly the residents creating hazards accessing their own properties. Street parking is not an option for this development and off street parking for all residents should be a consideration even at sub-division stage. I object to this sub-division.

  19. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Louise Di Virgilio commented

    I object to the sub division of the one block into three on such a small block of land. There will be more noise complaints, street congested with cars and unsightly boxed in ghetto housing. There should be a rule to have one car park space on the road directly in front of the premises in addition to the visitor park on the property.

  20. In Griffin QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 287 Brays Road, Griffin QLD 4503:

    Steven Hubbard commented

    We are all tired of these townhouse developments in GRIFFIN! Vanessa Cook said it best they are an eyesore and don't attract welcome tenants. NO MORE TOWNHOUSES IN GRIFFIN!! This is becoming a joke!

  21. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Single Storey Detached...” at Unit 1 29 William Street Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Ryan pepper commented

    If the house is to be single story I support this, as we build our home to capture the view down the street. I know previously the owners were told they had to build a two story town house. But a single story would look nicer in the street

  22. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Andrew Foord commented

    I object to the divison into 3 properties. There should be a minimum of 300m2 per allotment. Also consider the additional strain on CWMS system in TTG.

  23. In Griffin QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 287 Brays Road, Griffin QLD 4503:

    Jodi oosthuizen commented

    Brays road is already dangerous as it is. There definitely doesn’t need any more complex units built.

  24. In Tea Tree Gully SA on “Row Dwellings” at 22 Highfield Drive Tea Tree Gully SA 5091:

    Shauna mitchell commented

    Hello I am not agaimst sub division but this one is quite ridiculous...... there have been subdivisions in the street but by 2
    Not 3 ..... 689 sq mtr divided by 3 does not leave enough room for a single story house, on septic mind you in this area, need space for that and also would not fit in the character of the street as houses are set back from.the borders... this sub division of 3 is not in the character.of the street .maybe 2 but not 3. Where would people park... it's a corner block make difficult to turn . The council require a 5.5m 'visitors park' on each property to be kept free for visitors (not for tenents/owners) This area must be uncovered. If building occurs needs to be set back from the property border, this needs to be in line with other properties. I feel the sundivision of 3 and future building of 2 stories, as there are no other 2 stories in the street doesn't fit with the area.

    Received notice today 2nd January

  25. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 12 Cudal Place Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Has the Council allowed this property development (or will they allow) to be sub-divided into two separate propertied or will the development be a strata type?
    As there will be an additional premises on the property, there will be additional vehicular traffic.
    What provision is the Council making to allow for this additional traffic. Also., This is a narrow street, as there most likely will not be sufficient on site vehicular parking for the additional cars that this development will bring with it, What parking provisions are the Council looking into.

  26. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 12 Cudal Place Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Bob commented

    What is happening with the Duplex or Dual Occs, harmonisation of the Parramattaa five LEPs areas?? These developments should be banned.

  27. In Launceston TAS on “Residential - Demolish...” at 8 Lord Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    K Simpson commented

    The application to demolish this residence should be rejected.

    The application has failed to:
    1. assess the heritage values of the property. The absence of a history of the house is alarming. There has been no historic research undertaken to determine historic heritage values and at which threshold: state/local. Former owners/occupiers and the original builder/architect have not been investigated/reported upon;
    2. address the architectural values of the residence (or lack thereof) and provide a comparative analysis of similar houses in Launceston. Is this building rare, or increasingly uncommon?;
    3. demonstrate the façade has been compromised. A walk past the property clearly provides evidence of an intact inter-war residence with a high degree of integrity;
    4. investigate examples of buildings damaged by fire. Far more extensive fire damage occurred to Finneys in Brisbane St (2004), 1 Elizabeth St (c.2000) and 78 Canning St (1970s) to name a few. These buildings have been successfully conserved;
    5. highlight the impact on the nearby residence of nationally renowned figure Rev. John West, anti-transportationist and newspaper editor. The demolition of 8 Lord St will negatively impact the character of the area; and
    6. provide evidence of future intent for the block. It is argued that councillors could make a more informed decision if proposed plans were lodged simultaneously;

    Councillors should also take into account the Robert Nettlefold v Hobart City Council precedent in RMPAT (2000) and Supreme Court (2001). An applicant requested permission to demolish a historic building not on a heritage register. Both bodies dismissed the application.

  28. In Launceston TAS on “Residential - Demolish...” at 8 Lord Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Paul Osborne commented

    The reasons given for demolition of this building are extremely cynical. The house obviously needed renovation and repair when it was purchased. The fire damage is only superficial and easily repaired, and the lack of security can be resolved by hanging a new door instead of leaving the house open.

    If the council allows these beautiful character homes to be demolished by opportunistic developers, the heritage of Launceston will be lost forever and it will become a facsimile of every other mainland city.

    The neighbouring property at 10 Lord St ,and this property by association, is listed in the Council's own heritage study commissioned in 2006. The study specifically the historic importance of these types of houses, and their combined value as a group to the streetscape.

    "A fine example of the high quality late Victorian timber building that gives
    Launceston much of its character. This building is part of a large group
    of similar buildings that demonstrate the key style attributes with high
    quality workmanship and detailing and often in groups in prominent
    locations with views over the city.

    The building has historic significance for its place in the major phase of
    development of Launceston, aesthetic value for its fine form and detail,
    some social value as part of the collective timber housing that makes
    Launceston a desirable place to live and for its streetscape value. Each
    building in this large group of houses is distinctive and adds to the
    collective value as well as having individual significance."

    Launceston Heritage Study
    Site Inventory
    August 2006

  29. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Laura arnott commented

    As a local resident, traffic around the area has been significantly impacted by westconnex and it’s already very hard to get in and out of a Leichhardt via darley road. I don’t disagree with flats being built on this location but ask the council to consider traffic And parking impacts when reviewing the proposal. 186 separate dwellings seems overly excessive and will have a material negative impact on current residents.

  30. In Griffin QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 287 Brays Road, Griffin QLD 4503:

    Vanessa Cook commented

    Absolutely NO MORE Townhouses in Griffin. They are such an eyesore and often don’t attract the best tenants. Griffin already has a problem with wayward kids roaming the streets at night.
    We have too many townhouses already - enough is enough!!

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