Recent comments

  1. In Pennant Hills NSW on “Commercial - change of use...” at 108-110 Yarrara Road Pennant Hills NSW 2120, NSW:

    John Whittaker commented

    I note this "heritage"building is changing use to a DISCOUNT RETAIL store I would be against it being painted yellow or changing the façade in any way..

    Allready a back wall is painted yellow.


  2. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Karen Clarke commented

    Planning to provide insufficient car parking is short sighted, especially as the city grows in the number of residents and thus number of vehicles on the roads. Less car parking does not reduce the number of cars, it merely pushes the cars onto the street and surrounding streets which then affects traffic flows. This has been seen in numerous other big developments in other areas.

  3. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 471-485 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Astrid McGinty commented

    Some buildings in the cbd should have full protection, and this is one. Even the roof line is beautiful, so I fail to see how a office block will be built that will not ruin this. Collins Street will loose it's charm if these buildings go.

  4. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross, resident of more than 35 years commented

    I agree with John Ferguson exactly - visitor parking must be provided for every property that is not a single dwelling. Knox City Shopping Centre is already a nightmare as far as parking is concerned, and it is private property to boot. That area cannot and should not be relied on at any time for parking for visitors of Knox residents, even if there is no kerbside parking possible in the vicinity.

  5. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 471-485 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Phoebe commented

    Demolishing the Olderfleet buildings? This address must be incorrect! I can't believe the council would even allow this application!

  6. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Robynne & Andrew commented

    We have a few objections.

    How many car spaces are there? The Acoustic plan shows 4 spaces but it looks like there will be only 2 spaces. 4 residential buildings and 1 commercial building will require more than 2 spaces, and there would be a significant impact on on-street parking and traffic in the immediate area where parking is already an issue.

    The arguments stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects are specious at best.
    The SEE states that “the shortfall in parking arises because the dimensions and area of the site are not sufficient for the full provision of parking, and there is a need to have a commercial area which approaches 30% of the ground floor area of the building, to maximise its potential for letting”.

    The only thing preventing the provision of required parking is the desire of the developer to maximise profits. Surely the proposed design should comply with the regulations, even if the potential profits are less. Developers' profits should not drive policy and should not be the most important factor in approvals of developments that impact on the local area.

    The SEE also states that the shortfall in parking would be acceptable because there is public transport nearby. Does this mean that people would only be permitted to buy the units if they did not own a car? Of course not. People who use public transport most likely own cars and need somewhere to park them. As Sydenham Railway Station is a hub, and commuters travel by car from other suburbs to start their journey here, this will increase pressure on the barely satisfactory amount of parking available for residents.

    The SEE blithely states that “customers would likely be visiting one at a time”, and “visitor parking will be distributed in the neighbouring streets”. Whoever wrote that has obviously never tried to park in the area.

    This area is affected by the MDCP Section 2.22 Flood Management. The ground floor looks to be below the permitted levels. The SEE states that flood-free access is not available from the street during flooding but there is no risk to life from flooding because residences are located above flood level. Does this mean that all commercial buildings do not have to comply with the restrictions on floor levels?

    The design is obviously constrained by low cost (the proposed building cost of $950,000 for 4 residences and a commercial building suggests cheap construction), with an unappealing frontage where the ground floor has a very low entrance, so that the front door looks the same height as the ceiling. The commercial area looks to be inadequate for anything other than a 7-Eleven or similar shop. It would be better to use this area to give the residential areas more space and provide the regulated amount of parking.

    The rooms are too small, with balconies looking straight into neighbours' balconies, with only suggesting 'plantings' giving privacy. Would this sort of construction be approved in the 'leafy suburbs'? Does Council intend to allow this area to become a ghetto of low quality, crammed accommodation where the greed of developers has more influence than the amenity of the area?

    The SEE states in the 'Social and Economic Effects of the Development' that the area is changing from the original small-cottage and corner shop to a new pattern of blocks of units. This may be what developers would like but the majority of Council DAs in this area are for applications by local residents to extend and renovate existing small dwellings, to a maximum of 2 stories rather than 4, and would prefer living in these to living in cheaply constructed tiny boxes.

  7. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed demolition and...” at 65-67 Flemington Road North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Andrew McRae commented

    This stretch of Flemington Rd from Wreckyn St to Harcourt St is being turned into Lego Land. All buildings of character and heritage are being demolished to make way for characterless high-rise packing crates full of shoe boxes. There will soon be nothing left of the charm, character and elegance. The commercial/light industrial aspects of North Melbourne will soon be gone for ever. A few older buildings remain squashed between developers' monstrosities, no doubt to be sold off as small business and even domestic life becomes impossible in the canyons. The building in question has a facade of character which fits in well with the buildings immediately to the west of it. It should not be turned into the same ghastly type of apartment block which has turned Vale Street behind it and Wreckyn St into a wasteland.

  8. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Please refer to my issues as predicted in DA201400097. I told you there would be a glut of applications and his would be the next property to make a multi storied development application.

    When will you stop crowding us in?

    My little terrace is going to become crowded in and it will become hideous to live here.

    Stop the overdevelopment of Sydenham. Don't you have urban planners who can inform your decisions to make it comfortable for everyone, not just the developers pockets?

  9. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    There are too many of these low storied buildings going up. I'm starting to feel hemmed in. Is it not enough to leave it at height it is? Stop over developing and making parking impossible.

    This is exactly as I predicted. I'll be writing to council again saying this is exactly what ai knew would happen and it needs to be stopped.

  10. In Canterbury NSW on “Pazar Food Collective -...” at 325 Canterbury Rd, Canterbury 2193:

    Stephen Jackson-Vaughan commented

    A great addition

  11. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 45 Glenfarne Street Bexley NSW 2207:

    Kay Roberts commented

    The land is too narrow for this application, plus a lot of water pipes underneath the land and house. This property is best for rental.

    Regards Kay

  12. In Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 1F Robinson Avenue, Perth, WA, 6000:

    Andrew commented

    As agreed with the above members of the community, this is NOT a suitable location for a pharmacy. As stated, this is a one-way street that is NOT suited for retail. A pharmacy would draw too many people to this small area due to the extended hours it would be allowed to trade, not to mention the unattractive fascade that would be erected in this quaint little street.

    There is also very limited parking, which would put further undue pressure on those of us trying to currently find a park.

    And finally, there is absolutely no community need to have a another pharmacy in this area, with 3 already within 500m and at least another 3 more within another 500m of that (6+ within a 1km radius).

  13. In Lane Cove NSW on “Kuali - Liquor licence...” at 115-117 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove 2066:

    Michael Panzarino commented

    Alistair, Kuali is a restaurant. They are moving their license to a different premises. They aren't a bottle shop..

    You are also mistaken about the population of Lane Cove, it's about to jump dramatically with all the high density apartment blocks going up.

    I see no harm in this application

  14. In Balwyn North VIC on “Transfer Of BYO Permit” at Shop 5 & 6, 70 Doncaster Road, Balwyn North 3104, VIC:

    BS commented

    I don't think that there are any shops where the marker is placed….corner or Balwyn and Doncaster Road ? !

  15. In Lane Cove NSW on “Kuali - Liquor licence...” at 115-117 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove 2066:

    alistair duncan commented

    We do not need yet another liquor store. There are three already and the population of Lane Cove is not increasing by that much.

  16. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    John Ferguson commented

    Where will visitors park on this extremely busy road that has no parking?
    Except for the shopping centres there is no parking in the vicinity.
    Why are you, my council, following the mistakes of other councils and not enforcing visitor parking?

  17. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 261 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Claire Heaney commented

    There is absolutely inadequate parking included in this application.

  18. In South Tamworth NSW on “Utility Installation -...” at 3 Jean Street South Tamworth NSW 2340:

    Jeff Bartlett commented

    Further to my first submission, Council needs to ask Telstra why they are putting a development application here at 3 Jean Street when they already have a DA approved for another mobile phone tower, within 2 kilometres, that I believe has been approved, that would be in the middle of a rail road corridor, with no houses immediately "just over the fence" and probably solving the problem Telstra are trying to overcome. This tower DA application is at Duri Rd, across from the South Tamworth Vets. On making enquiries to Telstra locally (North West Region) about what was happening to this Duri Rd development, the Telstra officials could not find anything about it in their files and I had to send them their Telstra development notice, they sent out to nearby residents in April 2013 !!!! Could it be locally the Telstra Nth West were not aware of this other approved mobile phone tower DA? I think so because why would you make a DA for a tower upgrade in a heavily populated area, when you already have an approved DA, for the same thing, 2 kilometres away? Doesn't make sense to me and Council need to ask Telstra why they are not going to use the less invasive Duri Rd site.

    Jeff Bartlett

  19. In South Tamworth NSW on “Utility Installation -...” at 3 Jean Street South Tamworth NSW 2340:

    Jeff Bartlett commented

    Your comment: We in South Tamworth from the top of hill in Roberts St, towards Duri Rd, around Jill, John and Nancy St's have a black spot with Telstra. You can always tell when Telstra residents in Nancy St have a mobile phone call, they are standing in their yard with a mobile phone to the ear. And we are how far from the Tamworth Post Office???? The proposed Telstra mobile tower on Duri Rd, near Sth Tamworth vets, is not going to occur, according to information received by me from Telstra (available if required with a very embarrassing story about Telstra to go with it !!! ). If Telstra has decided not to go ahead with the Duri Rd development, the proposed development in Jean St is our life boat!!! This development will help to alleviate this black spot in South Tamworth and benefit South Tamworth residents.

  20. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 536 Mowbray Rd, Lane Cove North:

    Albert Babazogli commented

    With all the unit blocks going up on Mowbray Road (not just this one) is there any consideration to traffic flow and management?? I would be interested in hearing about any plans to improve or, at the very least, ensure traffic congestion is not adversely affected due to the additional vehicle movements.

    I have a particular concern with increased traffic congestion on the corner of Mowbray Road and Centennial Ave.

    Any information regarding this topic would be greatly appreciated.

  21. In Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 1F Robinson Avenue, Perth, WA, 6000:

    Darren Bowden commented

    I am opposed to this change to retail use mainly because of the already high volume of traffic in our street and the limited parking availability. There is already a number of existing pharmacies in the immediate location.

  22. In Brunswick East VIC on “Use and development of land...” at 91-93 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    There is already an enormous problem in parking in the inner suburbs. Councils like to pretend we are not a car -orientated society but, although I use public transport whenever I can, the reality is that cars are needed for some journeys. My friends already don't visit me because of parking problems - I do not consider that living in the inner suburbs means you shouldn't have friends being able to visit.

    Developers often ask for a reduction in the parking requirements so they can maximise their already excessive profits at the expense of living conditions for the residents of an area. Too often councils reduce the parking requirements, with long term implications for residents. Parking requirements should be made more stringent not less - councils should consider the needs of residents more than the profits of developers and their future rates (councils are already rolling in cash). By disallowing the required parking requirements of developments, the inner suburbs become less liveable year by year.

    Councillors probably live in the now 'protected' parts of their shires where excessive developments are not allowed at all - shame on Australia for polarizing society into have and have-nots in so many ways.

    Please do NOT disallow any reduction in the parking requirements.

  23. In Eltham VIC on “Construction of a...” at 804 Main Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    JK commented

    There is way too much overcrowding and traffic in Eltham this will make it worse, Eltham is (soon to be was) high class living area due to its natural landscape and trees, we don't need apartments, its an ugly look and degrades the look of the town.

  24. In Lindisfarne TAS on “8 Lot Subdivision resulting...” at 163 Gordons Hill Road Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Tony Jeffrey commented

    163 Gordon's hill rd
    I can't believe that you people can approve such a dense development, Gordon's hill rd is hard enough to live on now our beautiful 100 yr old home will be feted by another disgracefully designed housing estate. Obviously you council members don't have a block of units next door to you $ $ $ $ that's all you guys think about whilst declining the value of property in the surroundings in the process. I wake up this morning to find a street light pole in my kitchen window. So this development needs it own street lights, my goodness lets just turn the area in to one big housing commission project area because they work really well, so thanks again for your lack of care and forward thinking. There's a reason families are selling up in Gordon's hill road, have a look in the mirror, to find the answer.

  25. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Camilla Lloyd Jones commented

    Another place for those awful woman with there 4x4s,screaming kids,iPhones,gym gear/skin tights YUK. and take away latte's to hang out.I'm all for it if it gets the trash of our streets in Hawthorn.

  26. In Burnley VIC on “Minor demolition and...” at 52 Madden Gr Burnley VIC 3121:

    Rebecca Saint commented

    I support the works and Cafe. However please improve the parking in front of the houses 148 to 158 Stawell St. Residents have been petitioning Council for 18 mths with still no response. Paperwork with support of all residents was lodged over 12 mths ago. The cafe will put even further pressure on this parking.

  27. In Currumbin QLD on “Description: Class: HOUSE...” at 15 Pall Mall Avenue Currumbin 4223:

    Nigel Dowling commented

    I am the next door neighbour (17 Pall Mall Avenue) to this property. We have just been shown the building plans today which indicate the owner intends to build right to the boundary line that we share. The owner also admitted that this was the case to us. If this is approved it will severely impact our privacy and enjoyment of our property. It will also have an adverse effect on natural light entering our property in the afternoon. According to council regulation I was under the impression that the maximum limit to build next to a boundary line was 1.5 metres, and that is with a council relaxation. The plans we were shown today are in clear violation of this.

  28. In Balmain NSW on “Removal of 1 x Tree” at 29 Gow Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Jeanette Milne commented

    I received a Notice of Development Application for 29 Gow Street (D/2014/304)

    I wish to object to the removal of the tree.

    - it is the major tree in a small cluster used by birds. Even small clusters of trees in urban areas are used by migrating birds.

    - it is healthy, showing new growth

    - it is aesthtically beautiful

    - it is one of the few remaining mature trees in Gow Street. Any replacement would take decades to reach comparable maturity

    - it is one of the tallest trees in Gow Street. Any replacement would take decades to reach the same height.

    - this tree provides habitat for wildlife, improves air quality, and helps reduce water runoff and erosion

  29. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 248 Riversdale Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Sandy Rea commented

    It is untenable to have reduced car parking spaces. It is already a mixed area with private home residential (single dwelling) and unit development. There is little facility to accommodate extra parking. The number of units developed on this site should strictly match the number of car spaces that can be provided. council needs to be very mindful of ambience of the area, congestion and the evolving character of the area where single dwellings are demolished and replaced with density living.

  30. In Helensburgh NSW on “Mixed use development -...” at 12 Walker Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Gaetane commented

    Is it necessary to destroy the front shop, it is the only remaining historical building in this most visited area. Only the pub and the post office have any appeal, most of the other new buildings are just 'functional' but pretty bland.....
    I'm not opposed to development, but Helensburgh is loosing any esthetical appeal. New building recently built seem to date from the 80 and give the impression of rushed development projects with not a care in the world for the long term, the design, the art, architecture, heritage or landscaping.
    Helensburgh is becoming a functional hub but forget to reflect its very own community and history.

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