Recent comments

  1. In Fairview Park SA on “Change of Use (Hairdressing...” at Unit 4 63 Hamilton Road Fairview Park SA 5126:

    Michael Slack commented

    I think this is a fantastic idea, and way overdue. I worked at both the pizza bar and fish and chip shop. Love the idea

  2. In Tecoma VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1529 Burwood Highway, Tecoma VIC 3160:

    N at Tecoma wrote to local councillor Mike Clarke

    Hi Mike,
    This Planning alert came to my email address today.
    It appears to relate to the McDonald's site... no details appear on Council site yet.

    You are aware of the Developer move to seek removal of 2 conditions applied to the abutting 1533 site no doubt? Less than impressed with that, I must say.

    Call if you want to discuss..

    Delivered to local councillor Mike Clarke. They are yet to respond.

  3. In Eltham North VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 29 Ramptons Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Too many small blocks on side streets are being overdeveloped.People are getting greedy, and not considering the future of the suburb. How many more developments of small blocks will be allowed.

  4. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 14-16 Taylor Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Caroline Wade commented

    Please Nillumbik Council save our green suburb from developers who are only interested in making a quick profit and then moving on to the next place.. probably next block or street. Eltham is like no other suburb in Melbourne and rhat is why we moved here. It's not built for this type of development over and over again but seems to be in the developers sites and this must be because the Council is seen as 'easy' to approve many units. Since moving here five years ago, the change in the traffic, the people on the train and the cars parked in Bible Street has increased substantially. I was starting to give up on asking you to listen but here I am again in case you have forgotten that people are not happy about what's happening to our suburb...

  5. In Margate QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 291 Oxley Avenue, Margate QLD 4019:

    Claudia Connolly commented

    I totally agree with all the points made in the previous objections. This is not what our local area needs - nor the wider Redcliffe community. We are surrounded by servos already.

    The community will be disadvantaged and suffer a loss of lifestyle and amenity if a service station is built in this location. Here are 5 good reasons why:

    1) Pollution of all types will increase - noise pollution, air pollution and light pollution.

    2) We are very concerned that weekend noise will increase and disturb the peace of the neighbourhood on Sundays and public holidays. To loose the peace and sanctity of our homes like this will be a significant loss of liveability for local residents.

    3) Another primary concern is that these facilities are a target for crime on a fairly regular basis. Obviously this is very undesirable for us living in adjacent areas. The obvious exit strategy would be up the hill into our area from where you can access Victoria, McDonald and Duffield Roads with less likelihood of detection. This potentially brings crime into our streets.

    4) Margate has a high density of medical providers. Is it safe for pedestrians to place a service station, with cars turning out of fast traffic, in the midst of this?

    5) Further to this, as Dover Road residents we have also noticed litter from cars has decreased markedly since KFR moved. If this goes ahead we anticipate litter will increase again as people turn up the hill via Boyce, Ewan and Hale Streets and throw litter from their cars.

    Whilst it's understandable for different business models to be proposed for Margate as the area develops, not all proposals will be suitable or beneficial. Clearly the negatives of this proposal far outweigh any benefits.

    For all the good reasons that have been given by the community in general - this project needs to be rejected.

  6. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of 2 x detached...” at 18 Allens Parade Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    EMMA CARMODY commented

    I have sent a letter of objection direct to Council.

  7. In Shorncliffe QLD on “Extension, Educational...” at 60 Park Pde Shorncliffe QLD 4017:

    Taya Nielsen commented

    I do not support this application, for a number of reasons:

    1. It will significantly and negatively impact on numerous heritage-listed buildings.
    2. I cannot see any REAL, SIGNIFICANT need for this development,
    3. The suburb of Shorncliffe is NOT there simply so the Christian Brothers can extend
    their influence on the locals.
    And
    4. It is becoming painfully obvious that whatever St Patrick’s College wants, they get.
    This in itself absolutely REEKS of influence peddling & corruption.

  8. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Class 1 Appeal in Land and...” at 429-449 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Rebecca Gaylard commented

    The redevelopment of this site included restoration of original awnings which was wonderful as it restored heritage character to the prominent facade. Unfortunately this was all undone by allowing the originally-approved 7 tenancies to merge into 1 and revert to usage by Sydney Tools, not adding any foot traffic or interesting village shops. The large garish Sydney Tools signage has a negative visual impact on the surrounding area, along with the window bars. I strongly urge the court to refuse the signage.

  9. In Artarmon NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Muttama Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Kyle R commented

    This house is inside the Heritage area, and was listed and purchased such:
    https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/maps/f504c180-0c03-4107-d4d6-c6227de94371/8250_COM_HER_004_010_20121112.pdf

    I'm a near neighbour who has been in the house numerous times, and can confirm it is a true Federation style house through and through.

    It should be restored in keeping with the conservation area guidelines. Many of the bigger blocks in this area support keeping the Federation front of the house, and putting a modern addition on the back. However, this house is a corner block and at least two frontages are visible. Plus the downhill side is exposed to view from Muttama Rd due to the sloping block.

    I strongly oppose the demolition of this house. It is significantly old, true to its original style, and was purchased at a price that allowed budget room for repair and renovation.

    Thanks.

  10. In Shorncliffe QLD on “Extension, Educational...” at 60 Park Pde Shorncliffe QLD 4017:

    Taya Nielsen commented

    I do not support this application, for a number of reasons:

    1. It will significantly and negatively impact on numerous heritage-listed buildings.
    2. I cannot see any REAL, SIGNIFICANT need for this development,
    3. The suburb of Shorncliffe is NOT there simply so the Christian Brothers can extend
    their influence on the locals.
    And
    4. It is becoming painfully obvious that whatever St Patrick’s College wants, they get.
    This in itself absolutely REEKS of influence peddling & corruption.

  11. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of 4 new...” at 7/1 Bik Lane Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Carmel D’Andrea commented

    I feel that this is over-development of a small site. Car parking space should not be waived in small suburbs such as ours where space is at a premium. The liveability of this suburb is/will be curtailed if developers are permitted to over-develop these sites; short term gain ( for them ) but long term pain ( for us, the residents ).
    Thank you.

  12. In Werribee VIC on “The construction of a new...” at 14 Railway Avenue Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    Well put Lin

    To have max impact the objection needs to cite the sections of the planning scheme that gge development violates.

  13. In Rose Park SA on “Shade sail and support...” at 36 Kensington Road Rose Park SA 5067:

    Andrew McCracken commented

    As a nearby resident who has experienced significant noise disturbance from the outdoor area of this establishment I would kindly request that you consider consulting all surrounding residents and seek their input as to how the outdoor area which currently contains this shade sail is redeveloped to contain the noise from drunken patrons. I have already been forced to personally spend in excess of $40,000 in the courts to try and have the situation rectified which remains ongoing. The proximity of the existing outdoor area to developement which would appear to have been undertaken in breach of the original approval and which is likely to constitute "developement without approval" under the Developement Act 1993 is also of extream concern in the context of future attempts to rectified this problem.
    I look forward to discussing this situation in the context of achieving a satisfactory outcome for ALL residents (not just the business concerned).
    Many Thanks,
    McCracken Family (representing local residents)
    29 Hewitt Ave Rose Park
    0449902766

  14. In Belair SA on “Divide Land To Create One...” at 17 Gloucester Avenue Belair SA 5052:

    Andrew woodrow commented

    Given approval has been granted to subdivide this land and already 2 proposed homes are being marketed for sale, i would like to know under what circumstances was this land allowed to ge reduced to 2 x 550m2 blocks.
    I thought minimum block sizes needed to 1,000m2?
    This is setting a dangerous precedence for subdivision in the hills.

  15. In Kilkenny SA on “Change in land use from...” at 8 Kilkenny Road Kilkenny SA 5009:

    Ann citizen commented

    Social club for which group of citizens ? A club may involve an increased presence of drinkers, motor bike riders, parked cars, advertising placards,etc. Who are the new neighbours to be ? Is the building to serve a religious group ?

  16. In Malvern East VIC on “Removal of the covenant...” at 911 Dandenong Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    R T commented

    What does ‘removal of covenant’ mean?
    Thanks

  17. In Shorncliffe QLD on “Extension, Educational...” at 60 Park Pde Shorncliffe QLD 4017:

    Susie Mogridge commented

    Can you please advise why the Council has not considered this application through Impact Assessment rather than material change of use? Also Morven is in fact a heritage building - why has this not been taken into account? Part 5 of the application should have noted 'YES' and relevant boxes ticked. The application indicates that it is 'extensions to educational establishment when in fact it involves an additional 344 sqm for the establishment of a cafe/canteen of large proportions which will have a detrimental effect on existing urban utilities, parking and transport corriders etc. The school are already well known to be a bad neighbour in the area as described at a local community forum, and community concerns are never taken into consideration.

  18. In Hawthorn VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 7 Lennox Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Pietro Meriggi commented

    The description of the scope is incorrect as the dwelling is NOT in an Heritage Overlay.
    Please update your Planning Alert as soon as possible to reflect the correct terminology as per Council's advertising notice.
    Thank you

  19. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 14-16 Taylor Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Totally inappropriate for a small side street. There is inadequate parking supplied, so people who live there and any visitors will have to park on the street. There is no provision for any green spaces around the houses. Four buildings would be more than enough. Eltham has a burgeoning population due to the number of flats and townhouses being approved. We already have massive traffic jams in peak hour. There is not enough public infrastructure to cope with more people. The buses and trains are already overcrowded, and there is totally inadequate parking at the railway station.Bible Street is impassable for two cars during the day , as it is unlimited parking. Stop spoiling this area

  20. In Indooroopilly QLD on “Multiple Dwelling” at 23 Lambert Rd Indooroopilly QLD 4068:

    Penny commented

    1)This is a design to be commended for its consideration of aesthetics & practicality: for residents, neighbours & passers-by. However, unfortunately the area has quickly become quite densely developed. Issues with parking & with all kinds of traffic movement preexisted the recent developments, meaning many local residents can not park to access the Railway Station or move easily to other destinations. Another developent adds even more people & cars (parked and moving).
    2)The development fortunately recognizes the several values of landscaping. Some of the suggested plants are native. The others do little for the needs of our native environment, which includes many kinds of animals & beneficial insects. This lack is a growing problem with the widespread increase in apartment & high density living, concurrent removal of mature trees & foliage, & usually replacement with non-native plants.
    3)Conclusion: I would prefer the space to be dedicated to underground parking for commuters, overlaid with a wildlife -friendly green space with trees, shrubs & groundcover suitable to the area, an adjunct to the Witton Barracks project. If this doesn't happen then I implore the developers to still include suitable native plants. Such a decision would have longterm & manifold benefits ( for everyone).

  21. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 123 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    I am pleased to see that the deco TRC facade is being retained, although it could be argued that the aesthetics and sheer bulk of what is proposed doesn't fit the character of the area. The gorge is a natural feature in Launceston, and to have it ruined with a building this tall in front of part of it is something that people in Launceston will regret for years to come. Indeed the people in the houses on the hill in West Lton must be thrilled at the thought of being able to see into the hotel rooms from their windows, and having their view dominated by an oversize mirrored tower. During the last demolitions this developer has already shown that they have little concern for the history of the site, and the LCC's apparent fear of the developer also seemed to be a factor. Given the sites history regarding brewing beer in the early 1800s (James Boags Juniors house was one of the houses demolished to make way for the carpark) and the close by female factory, it would be good to see at least some archaeology before it is transformed. Launceston (at least parts of it) are still unique and I believe it is time for the LCC to demand a better outcome for Launceston from developers looking only at their bottom line, and stop the current transformation into a mini Melbourne.

  22. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Highgate Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Ann commented

    This design is totally out of character for the street, its way to top heavy and looks like a concrete jungle. If changes could be made to the front and set back a bit it would be much better, to soften the boxy look of the design

  23. In Keiraville NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 58 Murphys Avenue, Keiraville NSW 2500:

    Eric Davies commented

    To Whom it May Concern.
    The above Development proposal has been brought to my notice and,in my opinion, is inappropriate in its present format for both the site and detrimental to the Keiraville Communities expectation of Council to control over development in this area.
    The growth of the Wollongong University has already outstripped the capacity of road and services infrastructure in this locale and a Development of this type will further exacerbate the problem.
    The proposed Development is out of character in a predominately single dwelling or low density rated site.
    Ten 2 story Town Houses on a site previously occupied by 2 homes indicates that the property is mooted for student accommodation maximised by utilising a floor plan in excess of Council's own low density ruling with virtually no green space and inadequate car parking facilities.
    Height of the buildings creating shading and invasion of privacy on adjoining properties is a major problem. If approved it would reinforce the obvious notion that Council is only interested in generating rate income at the expense of existing amenity enjoyment for effected adjoining properties. This Development has been inadequately publicised and one wonders if there is a hidden agenda in doing so. Of course, Council's usual process for dealing with Public opposition to such problems is to act as Pontius Pilate and have the matter referred to the Lands and Environment Court who also seem to be tarred with the "Development at any cost brush".
    There is an obvious need for lower cost accommodation to service the need of both the General Public and Students in Wollongong but this Development should only be approved if it is re-planned for a reduced footprint and fewer accommodation units preferably on a single level. The provision of adequate off street parking spaces goes without question.

    Yours faithfully

    Eric Davies

  24. In Arncliffe NSW on “Integrated Development -...” at 19 Valda Avenue, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    James F commented

    So I’ve been living in the area for just under a year and already within a kilometer radius of my property I’ve seen 4 proposed large scale boarding house developments be submitted to council.

    My comment would be to simply note that the Arncliffe/Turrella/Wolli Creek area already has lots of high density development planned and that the mood of residents is that we don’t want anymore boarding houses than we already have.

  25. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Class 1 Appeal in Land and...” at 429-449 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    JOHN ADAMSON commented

    I would appreciate more detail as to what this actually means as, at present, the entire block 429-449 New Canterbury Rd Sydney Tools site is a virtual defecation over the heart of Dulwich Hill shopping centre and makes a mockery over any pretense of there being any of the village atmosphere Dulwich Hill may once have had.

  26. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Class 1 Appeal in Land and...” at 429-449 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    JOHN ADAMSON commented

    I would appreciate more detail on what this actually means as , at present, the entire block 429-449 New Canterbury Rd Sydney tool site is a virtual defecation over the heart of Dulwich Hill shopping centre and makes a mockery over any pretense of there being any of the village atmosphere Dulwich Hill may once have had

  27. In Beecroft NSW on “Residential - Seniors...” at 95-97 Copeland Road Beecroft NSW 2119 Australia:

    Steven Gilbert commented

    This is not the first time that Graeme Widmer has made objections based on blatantly racist remarks:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/comments/78013/reports/new
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/comments/78012/reports/new
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1170443

  28. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Dan Henderson commented

    I object to the construction of 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.

    I firmly believe this will impact leasing and resale of neighboring properties.

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Laura commented

    Dear Sir Madam,

    I would like to express my strong objection to the proposed development of a 40 bed boarding house at 1038 - 1040 Anzac Pde Maroubra.

    This proposal does not fit with the demographic of the area and surrounding dwellings.
    I have grave concerns for other families like our household who originally moved to Maroubra seeing the positive changes that have been made to the safety of the area in the way of redevelopment of private homes, apartments and townhouses.

    All of the residents I have spoken to in my building, and friends and family who live in the area are also strongly opposed to this proposed development. Honestly it was a shock to even hear that this proposal was being considered given the DA refusal of the 10 boarding house directly opposite at 1001 Anzac Pde.

    Traffic outside on Anzac Pde is already too busy and this proposed development will only add to the congestion and lack of parking. I am also concerned about the type of person/people that this boarding house may attract, as safety for my family is of upmost importance.

    I urge you to please reject this proposed development, and to openly listen to what other residents in the area are also saying.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

  30. In Kellyville NSW on “Detached Dual Occupancy -...” at 56A-56B Mapleton Avenue, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    J Wilson commented

    As a community we would like to see NO MORE DUAL OCCUPANCIES unless Council can ensure the landscaping and lawns are maintained (with regular mowing contractor employed)and off-street parking is provided for at least four vehicles. We would prefer none of these dwellings but we can thank the State Government for the State Planning Authority for this poor planning. It needs to be revised!

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