Recent comments

  1. In Chatswood NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11 Lone Pine Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    CrystalTan commented

    Dumping of soil in excess of 1.5 metres has left the land raised significantly above the previous natural ground level.
    Council need to get onto this and tell the owners to remove the soil before new levels are taken and a house built on the property.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Karen Soo commented

    I also strongly oppose this development as a resident that careful consideration and regard for the streetscape, character and accessibility for the area needs to planned and respected.

    Illawarra Road is one of the busiest foot and car traffic roads and arteries in Marrickville. There has already been more than 8 multi storey developments in the last 36 months we do not want a corridor of high rise apartments that will not support the already fragile infrastructure of the suburb nor support the character of the area.

    This again is not purpose built but profit focusses.

  3. In Bilinga QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 99 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga QLD 4225:

    Ian commented

    This is a totally inappropriate development in its current form, for multiple reasons; do not bend the rules, I live just around the corner from this proposed development, & have seen recently 2 developments in Pacific parade with virtually no green space, & they have been allowed to build right on to the property line at the rear
    (1) 12 stories is way higher than surrounding buildings, no more than 7 should be allowed
    (2) parking -street parking is time controlled, students will have cars, 173 units ( 223 beds )need over 100 parking spots, plus some for the proposed commercial areas; trades people etc
    There are no close shops, no close entertainment, minimal public transport, students will have cars, for shopping, entertainment & getting to their part time jobs
    (3) traffic - this proposed development is right on what is already a crowded intersection, don't make it worse

  4. In Coolangatta QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 11 Appel Street, Coolangatta QLD 4225:

    Mat commented

    No more town house should be allowed to be built in this area. It is dangerous to the school students causing major parking and traffic issues.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Peter Roberts commented

    I strongly oppose this development. As a former resident and continuing community member , I believe there are insufficient provisions for parking in an already far overcrowded stretch of road. We should not allow buildings over the council’s current height limit in any circumstances. But this development offers no tangible community benefit. And being to the north of lower density houses completely blocking all light for them is even more reason not to allow buildings of this height. These serviced apartments won’t create affordable housing and will take away from existing small business and shops and cafes. It adds up to harm and no benefit to the community.

  6. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Matthew Faulkner commented

    I have a several concerns in regards to the development proposal at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh.

    If this complies with council standards then something is seriously wrong with the standards.

    Road widths won't cope with the number of extra cars parked on street parking.

    An 8 dwelling structure is completely at odds with the area.

    The greed of one property owner should not trump the wishes of all other owners.
    Whilst the developer stands to make money neighbours stand to have their property devalued by it.

    There does not seem to be an urgent and huge demand for extra housing in the area.

    If a property is subdivided it would be reasonable to expect the community to accept it as progress. But 1 to 8 is too far.

  7. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Trevor. I’m entitled to my opinion and it’s repetitive as we are seeing the same sub division planning requests being put forward daily.
    Your message to me is rude and insulting. Given this is a forum for me to put my opinion to council that is what I’m doing and I don’t appreciate your response directly to me as it’s not the purpose of these alerts.
    I’m not saying stop all sub division just put more consideration around how many.
    I’ve been clear in my statements - the sub-divisions are doing nothing to improve the concrete jungle and again should be councils objective to turn their municipality around. In the interests of all residents. Mandate better landscaping for new developments as part of planning. Limit to less per lot to help with congestion - not 4 dwellings where 1 stood. Improve liveability for all. It’s all about balance.

  8. In Mont Albert VIC on “Residential apartment...” at 48 Kenmare Street, Mont Albert VIC 3127:

    Bron Dandie commented

    The thought of apartment blocks in suburban side streets is disappointing.surely apartment blocks are more suitable for main roads. What percentage of apartments are currently unoccupied? Are more apartments required? I can understand that ’investors’ want to make money, after buying prime real estate, but surely greed needs to be modified to maintain the rights of others, those who chose to live in leafy, not overpopulated suburbs.

  9. In Mount Martha VIC on “The development of a...” at 17 Vantage Point Drive Mount Martha VIC 3934:

    Dave szepfalusy commented

    The foreign developers currently own a significant number of vacant blocks of land in this street and are significantly devaluing the area by not acting on their planning permits and one might argue, land banking.

    The developers are also not regularly maintaining this land and it is overgrown with vegetation; which is dangerous in summer.

    I don’t believe the shire should allow an extension on these developments; as a permit is almost 6 years old. The developers are not interested in developing this land which Is causing harm to the community.

  10. In Chelsea Heights VIC on “To construct and carry out...” at 1-23 Wells Road, Chelsea Heights, VIC:

    Rohan Cox commented

    We need another Woolworth's super market in this area like a hole in the head,
    With Woolworth's taking over the mitre 10 site It would mean the closest Hardware store would be Keysbough or Mentone giving Bunnings a greater Monopoly in this area

    A Hardware store is More important for our community than another Supermarket.

  11. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Gabi Macdonald commented

    i strongly object to this proposed Bunnings shop. The increase in traffic will make already dangerous roads, deadly - the cars of shoppers, the utes of tradies and delivery vehicles will join a huge traffic flow. Many children, young people and disabled people live in this area. Moreland City Council should be a place of inclusion and safety for all people and this change to our neighbourhood will endanger all pedestrians and bike riders.

    The site is currently in a residential area - albeit close to businesses - and it is important that we don't bring an even bigger commercial interests into this spot. Sydney road is very close - there are many more suitable positions for Bunnings in the local area.

  12. In Prahran VIC on “Five Storey Mixed Use...” at 7-9 Robinson Street, Prahran VIC 3181:

    Yogesh Jain commented

    Has this been approved?

  13. In Dover Heights NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 247 Military Road Dover Heights NSW 2030:

    Helen Peters-Michael commented

    Roof line of the building needs to stay as is, should not be higher as this would impact on properties on the opposite side including mine.
    Also, if it is allowed to go higher it will set a precedent, for others to want to do the same.
    Any new structure should not impact me, or my enjoyment and outlook of my property.

  14. In Dover Heights NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 247 Military Road Dover Heights NSW 2030:

    Helen Peters-Michael commented

    I do not agree with this application being approved.
    The height and mass of the of the attic conversion is too great and will impact on the outlook of myself and other owners.
    It would also set a precedent for others to want council to approve buildings going higher.
    The value of my property would also be affected.
    As well, my view of the ocean would be impacted.

  15. In Lithgow NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Martini Parade Lithgow NSW 2790:

    Elizabeth Boyling commented

    Lithgow needs developments like this to add to the economy and diversity of the town. The block of land for the proposed building has for several decades operated as a commercial premises. It offers two laneway accesses as well as Martini Parade. There are strict regulations placed upon construction companies during the demolition and building process to ensure safety of workers and the community. This proposed plan is not a safety risk for the local school or children as it is located on the opposite end of the street. There are existing commercial business within close proximity therefore will add value to this region offering potentially more of a diverse business culture as well as new accommodation. This could also be an incentive for new business operators to come to town.

  16. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 21 Darley Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Jayden H commented

    Can Council ensure this new granny flat has on site parking? Those of us using this rear lane need clear access, not dodging parked more cars!

  17. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling CDC138222” at 56 Neptune Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Peter M commented

    Can Council ensure this new granny flat has on site parking? Those of us using the rear lane need clear access, not dodging parked cars.

  18. In Holsworthy NSW on “Erection of a storage shed.” at 76 Pleasure Point Road Pleasure Point NSW 2172:

    Nami commented

    As much as I would love to be nice I have to say the toilets at East Hill park is by far the most unhygienic public toilet ever. Especially during the COVID period the toilets are not even accessible to enter. Not like your average public toilet where there expected mess this one is actually filthy and very unhygienic. Please could you look into this for the public. There is toilet paper, pads with periods, urine and all over. I do apologise on behalf of the public however please look into this as it is something that would be good to be fixed.

  19. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of all...” at 81 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Joseph Fontana commented

    As a local resident I object to this application. Heritage Bondi architecture is being ripped down too often and far too many apartments are being built. This is right next to the Wellington Street old tennis court development which is excessive and has caused traffic and parking chaos already. The size of this development (71 appartments in four storeys) is also really overbearing, relative to its surrounds.

    The local infrastructure already can't cope, and this will just contribute to heavier traffic, particularly in peak periods at the Wellington / O’Brien Street intersection. This will impact on travel times for a large portion of the Bondi precinct whether using public or personal transport. Parking will be even harder, and school runs further choked with safety issues for children walking to school amongst the traffic.

    At a time when we have only just received notice about this area becoming a heritage conservation area, please do not let this application through before the beautiful suburb we all enjoy is protected from developments that impact our quality of life. This type of development is completely unnecessary and not wanted in our neighbourhood.

  20. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 18 Irving Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Valerie Hutchinson commented

    We do need more affordable housing, but not at the risk of losing our history. Surely the two can work hand in hand.

  21. In Bexley NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 56 Highgate Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    concerned commented

    Not sure whether the private certifier has taken into account the fact that the boundaries of this property we not finalised til after the CC was submitted.
    The additions to existing house, need to be the correct distance from the boundary.
    How can a studio be built on a property 10m wide without DA either?

  22. In North Richmond NSW on “Centre Based Child Care...” at 6 Keda Circuit, North Richmond, NSW:

    Christine Skurray commented

    I have just learnt that a 90 place Childcare Centre has already been passed for 7 Elizabeth Street, North Richmond. This will put another 80 odd cars onto Grose Vale Road at peak hour. Along with the already Existing Childcare Centres in Elizabeth Street and Riverview Street, North Richmond and the proposed one in Keda Circuit, surely this is over kill for this suburb.

  23. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Shez commented

    The block of land is not suitable for 8 units and does not fit within the overall style of Helensburgh. I moved to this lovely town to leave a busy, overpopulated and over developed area. Multiple duplexes have been built recently in this street or nearby and this does not fit with the town. There no footpaths or adequate parking nearby, and the units do not fit within the overall style of the town. The space should be used for a freestanding house with a backyard and not crowded apartment blocks. This beautiful town should not be allowed to become over populated and over developed. It isn't fair for the shopping and public transport we have here and local residents.

  24. In Lithgow NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Martini Parade Lithgow NSW 2790:

    Emily commented

    Martini parade is not an appropriate location for this sort of infrastructure. Place it with other apartment like buildings, if it will have commercial ground floor then it should be placed close to foot traffic and where the other commercial premises are located. The area of the small arms factory including the surrounding streets (one of which is martini) needs to remain as historically accurate as possible since the small arms is Lithgow’s BIGGEST achievement in my opinion supplying our troops with what was needed to protect our country in the time of war.

  25. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    David Wagstaff commented

    As a land owner in Sawan Lane, I have a several concerns in regards to the development proposal at 14 Laurina Avenue, Helensburgh, they are parking, traffic flow and stormwater.
    Im sure this development complies with council standards but to add 8 houses to where there was once only 1 will lead to more parking problems in the the area. Another duplex was recently completed opposite this site so where there was once 2 residence's there will now be 10! Cars parking on Laurina Avenue will lead to further difficulties navigating the intersection of Boomerang Street and Laurina Avenue. Laurina Avenue is a busy road with cars accessing the preschool on the corner of Excelsa Avenue and Laurina Avenue, Rex Jackson ovals and bush tracks at the end of Laurina Avenue. With more cars parked on the side of the road Laurina Avenue will be reduced to a single lane with reduced visibility.
    During construction of this lot, I assume Sawan lane will be used for access. Sawan Lane once had 3 properties using it, it now has 7. The lane is only wide enough for 2 vehicles (no bigger than a 4wd) to pass side by side in a short 15m portion of the the lane, the rest of the lane way is single lane only. Residents have no other access to their homes and may be prevented from entering or leaving their place of residence if Sawan Lane is to be used for access during or after construction. Further to this, the laneway was asphalted around 2009 after a drainage problem arose after the development at 6 Laurina Ave. Insufficient drainage was put in place which caused the stormwater to overflow in to Sawan Lane and 3 and 3a Sawan Lane. To rectify this council laid a 20mm asphalt seal to the lane with a swale on the high side to divert the water. I do not believe this asphalt will stand up to added traffic and will lead to flooding again if the laneway is used for access during or after construction at 14 Laurina Avenue. Council or the developer will need to upgrade the lane to accommodate extra traffic.

  26. In Lithgow NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Martini Parade Lithgow NSW 2790:

    Kas Hilton commented

    1. Where is the evidence that multi level residential accommodation is required in Lithgow?
    2. What type of ‘commercial’ business/es will be located in the proposed building? There are so many vacant shops in Main Street and I’d like to see sympathetic restoration of those shops to their former heritage glory. Other towns in the Central West have paid homage to their heritage buildings and history by maintaining the buildings and creating pleasant and welcoming street scapes, something sorely missing in Lithgow.
    3. The location of the proposed development is inappropriate. I agree with other comments relating to the impact on students attending Cooerwull School and the associated risks of noise and traffic congestion.
    4. If there is evidence to support a multi level residential building, it should be located in an area where there are other similar, modern abodes. The style of the proposed development is ultra modern and as such does not blend with the heritage feel of the area.

  27. In North Tivoli QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 540-604 Warrego Highway North Tivoli QLD 4305:

    Neil Englund commented

    What protection is there going to be to stop noise, dust and extra traffic?

  28. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Trevor Scott commented

    Hi Nicole,

    Please stop your whining, you made your point on the first one, now you are just bring repetitive.

    I have lived in Manningham for 35 years and many houses here are falling apart, I subdivided so I could have a modern new home. Do not tar everyone with the same brush and if you did your research you would see more that 70% of approved development in Bulleen the owner has had the property as their PRIMARY RESIDENCE for more that 5 years, many being 10-20 years, Themis is not the get rich quick developers you are claiming is doing these subdivisions!!

    Bulleen is and always has been a concrete jungle, through subdivision we are seeing a welcome change aesthetically and welcoming new families into an otherwise aging (dying) community.

  29. In Bulleen VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 63 Thompsons Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Nicole Ward commented

    Another approved sub division in the area. Planning needs to be curbed in this municipality - every day there are sub-divisions being put forward, a quick profit turnover for developers, eroding the livability of our suburb.
    Two dwellings on a site that previously had one home introduces more cars, impacting local roads, surrounding residents losing access to natural light and privacy as these are all double storey replacing single storey residences.
    These townhouses are becoming an eyesore and creating a very unattractive suburb with increased congestion without any further improvement to public transport. More buses is not a long term sustainable solution.
    Please review planning within the municipality and put restrictions on the number of sub-divisions. It has to be a concern for the counsellors allowing this to happen under their watch - ruining the liveability of what was once considered a leafy suburb which is quickly changing.

  30. In Ringwood VIC on “Remove 4 trees” at 1 Cassandra Court, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Claude commented

    No, no, no, no! There aren't 4 trees to remove on this block. I can only see large canopy trees?! a couple at best. Why so many to be removed - what species and for what purpose. I thought this was supposed to be a green leafy suburb but too many trees are being removed in this area. What does Planning think it's doing. As a member of the Croydon Conservation Society I OBJECT very strongly to this.

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