Recent comments

  1. In Malvern VIC on “Demolition & construction...” at 8 Gordon Grove, Malvern, VIC:

    Grant Francis commented

    The problem with this application is that it does not take into account the size and bulk of the proposed building in comparison to the existing surrounding residential buildings, particularly to the rear of it.
    The developers and architects seem to think that the proposed development falls into some transition zone between a heritage overlay area and the more built up activity area that bounds Glenferrie Road.
    What they have failed to take into account is that it also bounds the intact victorian streetscape of Evandale Road to its rear.
    The visual appearance of the proposed building is reasonably acceptable to me from the front, however it needs to be reviewed from its rear.
    The visual bulk and imposing nature of the building proposed seriously impedes the heritage values of number 9 and 11 Evandale Road in particular, and the general overall historical look of Evandale Road.
    The developers should reduce the size of the proposed building in height and scale at its rear southern end.
    It is too close to the southern boundary and should be reduced to two stories at least from halfway along its length.
    Original planning in this area allowed for a green belt corridor through the middle of the homes with the buildings spaced quite uniformly at the same distance from the rear boundaries.
    This proposal goes against the "lay" of the rest of the area in a dramatic way.
    It is the sort of development that is much better suited to say Dandenong Road or one of the major roads in the area, not this quiet historical residential street.
    The home that sits directly to its south at number 11 Evandale Road is the oldest existing brick built dwelling in Malvern. It is featured on the historical societies walks of the local area as a significant building.
    If this proposal is allowed in its existing form it will dwarf the view of 11 Evandale Road from the only vantage point it can be viewed from by anyone with an interest in the architectural history of the local area.
    Surely it is for these kinds of reasons that there is a Heritage Overlay in place to protect the integrity of buildings such as this.
    If this is allowed to go ahead it renders the idea of protection by such an overlay useless and farsicle.

  2. In Fullerton Cove NSW on “Intensive Agriculture...” at 183 Cabbage Tree Road Fullerton Cove NSW 2318:

    Fiona Britten commented

    From the Stockton Local Newspaper - Good morning, I have an urgent enquiry relating to the filling in and diversion of the drain the 14 ft drain that currently runs through the property at 183 Cabbage Tree Road, Fullerton Cove. The paper will be running a story on this and the impact and concerns of residents. The article will be published next Wednesday and I am providing the opportunity to respond to the following:
    1) What environmental impact studies have been undertaken to ensure that he proposal will not have a detrimental affect and cause flooding to neighbouring properties?\
    2) Who undertook the study and what are their qualification and experiences in the Fullerton Cove area
    3) Is council confident that the diversion around the property and the increased demand on the Dawsons drain in Williamtown can be managed.

    The Fullerton Cove resident action group has been contacted for comment and as the Stockton Local always aims to provide a balanced and considered view, we would appreciate a response relating to councils position.

  3. In Emu Plains NSW on “Concrete Batching Plant” at 49 Sommerville Circuit Emu Plains:

    john may commented

    have they provided adequate landscaping ? to screen the development ie trees and shrubs
    will bin areas be covered during windy days ?
    Hours of operation ? does that include mixing on site
    How many trucks ?

  4. In Emu Plains NSW on “Concrete Batching Plant” at 49 Sommerville Circuit Emu Plains:

    john may commented

    I object to the concrete batching plant unless a landscape plan is provided by a qualified landscape architect or professional horticulturalist. These plants are historically an eyesore and have no landscaping to prevent dust issues.

    The consent should condition that on windy days the storage areas will be covered to prevent sand or cement materials from being blown off site.

    An adequate landscaped buffer to the street say 5 metres is normally required, along the frontage.

    The plant species chosen should provide adequate screening to assist in dust reduction (blown) on the roads on windy days). Trees and shrubs should be chosen with a tree every 7 metres, and 2 metre high shrubs in a line (2 m apart) in front of the trees.

    A Maintenance program should be provided to indicate how the landscaping is to be watered, fertilised etc

  5. In Port Kembla NSW on “Proposed Refractory Building” at 36-46 Gloucester Boulevarde, Port Kembla:

    Jan Crombie-Brown commented

    VERY concerned about noise and air pollution - the site is extremely close to residential area. I understand that the council rezoned just to facilitate the refactory. Concerned about the 24/7 operation and the increase and incidence of trucks and heavy vehicles along Gloucester Boulevarde, a popular swimming, walking and cycling area - pedestrians and prams meet trucks! Not good enough. This is also very close to Port Kembla Public School. Residents and school were not initially notified and the whole process is open to scrutiny. I believe that the development being approved is nothing short of scandalous.

  6. In Orange NSW on “Quest Apartments (Motel and...” at 108 Summer Street & 43-45 Sale Street, Orange:

    Hamilton Dwight Walker commented

    This should be good for accommodation and will use the wasted land on Sale St but it will be a big apartment building like the Quest Apartments in Dubbo so stand out quite a bit in Orange CBD so need to be not ugly or an eyesore by good exterior design to match the local streetscape. It is a good idea that they are building offstreet parking or local parking will be congested for local shoppers. It explains why Ron Boulton Cycles relocated their shop to Lords Place as their shop is being demolished. His shop was not that attractive. A new tower with motel and shops will make the area more complete and attractive. The Summer Centre was dying as Franklins could not compete with Aldi, Coles and IGA. This should enliven the area after being run down for years.

  7. In Neutral Bay NSW on “Demolish and erect a duplex...” at 33 Holdsworth St Neutral Bay, NSW:

    Catherine McClean commented

    This house at 33 Holdsworth street, Neutral Bay was the home of important Australian artist Dame Eileen Mayo during her time in Sydney in the 1950's

  8. In Bellingen NSW on “Subdivision (x 2 additional...” at 42 William St Bellingen NSW 2:

    Cameron Bragg commented


    I am supportive of this application as it reflects what already exists in this part of Bellingen - large lots but not overly large. The existing land size isn't big enough for any real rural purpose and by allowing a subdivision of this nature provides an opportunity to increase the population of Bellingen without needing to add additional infrastructure.

    It has occurred to me that there is an addition subdivision being proposed across the road from here (in Scotchman Road). This would make five or six new properties all in this area. I also believe there is a house proposed to be built up the hill from this proposal, again in Scotchman Road.

    I assume that all of these properties will need to establish some kind of OSMS - wouldn't it be useful to take advantage of all this activity now and connect Scotchman Road to the town sewer - this would have long term benefits for the health of our waterways and could be partially funded by the money these properties would have otherwise had to spend to setup their OSMS.

  9. In Launceston TAS on “1. Change of use of part of...” at 2/23 Racecourse Crescent Launceston TAS 7250:

    Andrew Gall commented

    This is a test only.

    Andrew Gall

  10. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of land for...” at 1 Archibald Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Ken and Helen Amoore commented

    We wish to lodge an appeal against the planning application for the developement of the land at
    1 ARCHIBALD STREET, PASCOE VALE (MPS/2012/395) for 4 single story dwellings.

    Other multi unit developments in our street have all been contained to 3 units but have still resulted in excessive on street parking as most of these units use their garage space for storage instead of parking.

    We oppose this application on the grounds that the crowded on street parking will pose an unacceptable risk and inconvenience to the residents of this street. Already there are three multi unit developements in the immediate vicinity of this proposed development which cause significant traffic congestion very close to the intersection with Gaffney Street every night and weekend.

    We also oppose the construction of 4 units as this will significantly impact on the existing infrastructure and the character of the street and it also pave the way for more developments of this type which would totally destroy our once very pleasant street.

  11. In Urangan QLD on “635 esplanade, hervey bay” at 635 Esplanade, Hervey Bay, QLD:

    Shane O'Brien commented

    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Shane and i love to build things out of wood.
    There is an old abandoned house at 635 esplanade, i was wondering if this house belongs to you, would it at all be possible to retrieve some of the wood from the house before it is pulled down and thrown away.
    Building furniture out of recycled wood is much better for the environment and adds a lot more character.

    Thank you for your time.

  12. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 296-298 Botany Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Craig Fowler commented

    I think this is a wonderful idea! I live in the Linc building on mandible st and would much prefer Woolworths and other shops next door instead of the Christmas Wareshouse and Puma shop that are currently located here. Lots of people leave Green Sqaure train station in the afternoon and walk past this location on their way home. Having shops there would be perfect. Also the underground parking is a great idea to keep cars from parking in the sidestreets and allow people to drive there. Also with the numerous bike routes around the area it's also easy for locals to jump on their bike to go and grab a bite to eat, or something else at the shops. I strongly support this proposal.

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 82A of the...” at 234 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Hidden by site administrators
  14. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Justine Kinkade commented

    I am local resident and strongly oppose this DA in its current form. In my opinion, the DA does not provide sufficient parking spaces, will impinge on neighbouring property's privacy and exceeds the FSR Development Standard. Most importantly I believe the traffic assessment does not take into account the other developments due to go ahead or currently being built in the area such as Marrickville Metro, Edgeware Road and the one commencing soon at approx 25-31 Pearl St which will result in a number of apartments and further contribute to the poor traffic flow along Pearl St and into Alice St.

    I believe the land is underutilised and would welcome a DA that is sympathetic to its surrounds and has minimal impact on local residents therefore I object to this DA.

  15. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Kristin Moore commented

    I am a resident of Pearl Street and object most strenuously to this development - parking, traffic and noise are all issues, but most importantly the character of the area and the community will be completely ruined.
    There is a petition circulating now - please sign it if they knock on your door.

  16. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Alice Hoang commented

    I've been a resident of this area my entire life. It is largely unfair to the current residences and in effect, the community to strip this area of its much loved characteristics by adding buildings which just don't belong. To echo above comments, it is already difficult enough to commute through the streets of Newtown. I can only imagine that this development would result in an unhappy community as it benefits nobody who calls this place home.

  17. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Kate Levy commented

    I have lived in the area for some time now and I already see the issue with traffic flow and serious issues with a lack of parking. This will only be made worse by the development proposed.

    I also don't agree with building a large high rise development in an area with traditionally low rise buildings. It will simply ruin the beautiful and unique surrounds in the area of Newtown and take away from its personality.

    There is absolutely no benefit to existing residents of the area, the ones who have contributed to the community for years, through this development - which is why I strongly oppose to it going forward.

  18. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Guy Munro commented

    It's a shame to think that the beautiful surrounds that this area has to offer are being compromised by radical "improvements".

    I am a resident of neighboring Juliett Street and have been in the area for 7 years. I have to agree with the comments above that this is not adding value to area, rather, it will indeed create over-crowding, an influx of motor vehicles and less parking in already busy area.

    Why not invest the money into beautifying the park on Alice Street instead of lining the pockets of greedy, mono-focal developers?

    I urge the council to oppose this initiative. Put simply, it doesn't make sense.

  19. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Thomas Rose commented

    Can't believe this is planned. Obviously none of the planners live in the area. Traffic has been a joke for a while now, parking is non existent. One of the best things about the area is the sense of community and these sorts of developments destroy this. It is extremely sad and short sighted. We should be looking at ways to improve the area and develop a further sense of community, not remove it.
    Newtown is a beautiful and unique area. Please don't try and turn it into one of the lifeless suburbs we see out in the 'burbs. A giant shopping centre and skyhigh apartment buildings are a poor replacement for a community.

  20. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Chris Marklew commented

    I am a resident on Pearl street and this really is a zero sum game, the traffic is already at an almost standstill in the area at times, parking nigh on impossible, combined with the extended shadows, lack of privacy, noise pollution blocking of the cool evening breeze in summer, and aesthetic problem of a huge multi-story tower block set amongst the surrounding style of buildings in the area makes this a terrible idea.

    I will be getting a petition signed in the next 6 days and sending it to the council to let them know that nobody in the area will benefit from this and many residents will suffer and have a lessened quality of life, all so a property developer can build them high and pack them in for a huge profit. I will not sit back and watch a beautiful suburb be ruined. The council owe us support on this!

  21. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Essie Luckett commented

    Parking is already at a premium in our area. What about people who have more than one car per household. Plus the effect of all that extra traffic on Alice and surrounding streeets. Dreadful idea.

  22. In Gungahlin ACT on “COMMUNITY FACILITY -...” at 140 The Valley Avenue, Gungahlin, ACT:

    Will Sargent commented

    They have made no attempt to talk to the locals about how they would feel about having a large mosque in the area. They were not transparent in communicating with others about the effect of the building and operations to the residents that live within the area. Parking in the area will be effected as they have not enough parking for the 500 seats that they have planned. From the plans that they have presented, the building is an eye sore. I live within 100 meters of the planned site and I object to this building being built.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Pary Vlandis commented

    Council needs to consider the following before any application is even considered.

    1. Privacy encroachment. Units will look straight into existing homes in Alice Lane, Walenore Ave, Alice Street.

    2. The height of the unit complex will overshadow existing dwellings. Especially for residents in Walenore Ave and Holmwood street (where their residents back onto Alice Lane) Less sunlight for homes surrounding the site will diminish their right to quality of living.

    3. Noise pollution from the 300 plus residents at this development will affect all surrounding homes, diminishing their right to peace and quiet.

    4. Traffic!!! Traffic on Alice Street is at a standstill at peak hours and at a crawl at other times. With the development going ahead on Edgeware Road and the expansion of Marrickville Metro, it will be insane to allow another 200 plus residential units. The traffic will be choking Marrickville, Newtown, St Peters etc

    5. Parking is already difficult in its current state of a factory/retail units. Parking is a constant nightmare for surrounding residents and visitors alike.
    Adding 200 units and only 150 car spaces is a joke! This application doesn't allow enough allocation for parking for the units, let alone the commercial component of this development or the proposed residents visitors.

    6.There are currently about 7 operating commercial/retail on the site. They have about 50-75 carspots at the moment for staff and their customers.
    In the development proposal - 6 new commercial/retail and no proposed parking for staff or customers.

    This is an overdevelopment in an already overcongested area. It will diminish the quality of living for the current residents on so many aspects.
    I urge council to not allow this development through
    Pary Vlandis

  24. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Iain Chalmers commented

    As a resident of Alice St (2/146) I'm quite concerned about the traffic implications of an additional 200 residences, and the parking implications of 206 new residences with only 158 parking spaces.

    We've currently got a fairly big development nearing completion on Edgeware Rd next to the Golden Barley Hotel (151 Edgeware Rd) which will add additional traffic to Alice St.

    It's particularly concerning in the light of the go-ahead on the Marrickvile Metro expansion - there are very limited opportunities to increase traffic flow on the roads leading to and from the Metro, at least on the Alice St side - the railway line requiring bridges to the east making it difficult to get traffic over onto the highway - I'm strongly suspicious that we'll need to lose a lot of parking to turn Edgeware Rd into two lanes from Alice St (actually Victoria Rd, where the Metro traffic comes from) up to Stanmore Rd, and on Alice St up to King St. The Edgeware Rd / Alice St intersection is already a nightmare at morning and afternoon peak hour (and we're close enough to hear the regular crashes there too), and I can't see that there's much scope to upgrade that intersection without doing some _very_ expensive land purchases to make the space that'd be required.

    I can't help but wonder whether the implications of this development, in the light of other nearby developments like 151 Edgeware Rd and Marrickville Metro, have properly taken into account the infrastructure requirements. It seems to me to be very shortsighted to build 206 new residences with only 158 parking spaces when it appears almost inevitable that existing approved developments are going to reduce the existing local on-street parking.

  25. In Balmain NSW on “Proposed first floor...” at 11 Young Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Leonard James Monro commented

    Concerned whether common sewer line running from 3 Young Street down to 15 young street and apparently leaking into Maude Lane will be covered over.
    Plans show a sewer easement along Maud Lane itself, but this is likely to to be for Sydney Water's main sewer line if it exists, and not for the common service line for these houses.

    Testing for the discharge from this line in the past has shown presence of chlorine but flourine failed to show.

    Point is it runs just to rear of walls of all those houses and alongside of No 15 out to Young Street above the stone wall. It does not run back to the sewer easement as such. Consequently the interests of Nos 3 to 7 and all those below the line need to be protected.

    (No 1 had their line around top of Maude Lane some years ago, and No 15 discharges into the line along the side section above the stone wall.

    Plans need to take account of this common section.

    At this stage no other objection as it seems to comply with FSR and other issues I will look at.

  26. In Epping NSW on “Commercial / retail /...” at 141 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    victor mannie commented

    My name is Victor mannie, the owner of this property. Please remove this listing.

  27. In Lilyfield NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 94 Cecily Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Dr Nigel K Dolan (real name) commented

    Dear LMC,

    I am the owner of 100 Cecily Street and it has come to my notice that a proposal for development of 94 Cecily has been lodged. As I am currently in WA it is difficult for me to assess the impact of the proposal - I thank you for the plans mailed to me, however, they are not of much use in terms of assessing the impact of the building on my own. Ie, there is no picture or sketch or indication at all of its size or bulk or position in relation to my own or the streetscape - and whether it would affect amenities eg overshadowing, overlooking my property etc. ( I also would like to know the council's rules concerning views - ie, should I decide to similarly put in a proposal to raise the level of my roofline.) From the plans I have seen my initial reaction is that both my house and my neighbours at 98 an 96 are low level heritage houses and the neighbour at 102 is much higher. Thus a high level house at 94 would rather diminish the 2 cottages 100 and 98 and would not follow the line of roof heights of that part of the street, ie, would be out of 'scale'. But as I said, it is difficult to judge without better diagrams. Any further information would therefore be much appreciated. Also, please advise what the timeline is for raising such concerns? Many thanks, Nigel.

  28. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “An accessible housing...” at 41-45 Cascade Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Ann Marie Renouf commented

    I would like to object to proposal of town houses adjacent to my property. Murray Ave which has been proposed as an entrance to the development, is a narrow road with no footpaths or curb and guttering this with the extra traffic and pedestrians will cause problems
    .On the development plan a retaining wall is shown on the boundary of my property with unit 13 a two story residence to be built there. Im sure that my privacy and sunlight will be lost

    Regards Ann Marie Renouf

  29. In Castlecrag NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 60 Sunnyside Crescent, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Anne McFarlane commented

    Re: DA2012/156 60 Sunnyside Cres Castlecrag.
    A survey done by previous owners of 163 Edinburgh Rd revealed that part of the front fence of 60 Sunnyside Cres. encroached onto the footpath and onto 163 Edinburgh Rd.It may be wise for the DA to include a survey to ensure the new fence is correctly placed.
    I have been unable to get a link to the details so I don't know what height is proposed.

  30. In Katoomba NSW on “S96 modification - mixed...” at 3-5 Goldsmith Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    El Gibbs commented

    Catherine, this development was approved in 2005, so there's no way to stop it now. The Section 96 refers to a small modification, rather than the whole development.
    Get in touch if there's any more info I can provide.
    El Gibbs
    Ward 1 Councillor, BMCC

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