Recent comments

  1. In Windsor VIC on “Full demolition of existing...” at 54 The Avenue, Windsor VIC 3181:

    Jean McIndoe commented

    It is a disgrace, this is such a beautiful building. What is the point of the heritage overlay. Why does this keep happening, what is the planning department thinking.

  2. In Doncaster VIC on “Amendment to Planning...” at 399-403 Manningham Road Doncaster VIC 3108:

    Brian Thomas Bruce commented

    We have contacted the council on a number and been told that there were no planning applications in place for that property. We note that there has been consideration taken into account for the North, West and Eastern aspects of the application but NOT the South were we are situated. Our objection is the new height (Extra Floor) which has been sited as this will have a detrimental effect on our view. Also this must be over the previous height limitation imposed on the immediate area where the building is proposed.

  3. In Moorebank NSW on “Five storey residential...” at 2 Kalimna Street Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Anthony Charadia commented

    What infrastructure has been developed to cater for increased vehicles and residents that this development and the many others developments have imposed on the Moorebank prescient?
    What areas have been developed to cater for vehicle parking, school placements, shopping area. Roads in some streets have become so congested with cars that they are barely one way streets. Moorebank shops has become a permanent car park. Once again another inappropriate development for the area.

  4. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition of heritage item...” at 25 Station Street Dundas NSW 2117:

    J. Muzzatti commented

    If this is of heritage value then DO NOT DEMOLISH. This is why we have these laws. Seems to me that PCC is more interested in developers' donations than it is in maintaining heritage values.

  5. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    Janet commented

    Even I and my family strongly oppose the 6 double-storey properties and the waiver of on-site visitor car-parking requirement. The council needs to have a real dialogue with local residents of Rosanna and Heidelberg about the increase in local traffic which is undermining the safety of the residents especially the kids and the elderly.

  6. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 16 Duncan Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Lorraine Skerry commented

    I was under the impression that only Two Story Residents could be built in local streets. I have no problem with Two story Residents built,but I don't like the idea of three story Residents being built in our Street.

  7. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    Nathan commented

    Hello, As a resident living on Millicent Street near the proposed site, I am highly against the waiver of on-site visitor parking requirement and the six double-storey residences.

    As it's will become unsafe. The road exiting Lower Plenty road is already at peak capacity of parked cars causing it to become a one-way road, in addition, the road is curved at the end and is heavy inclined causing a lack of visibility for drivers. This dismal of on-site visitor parking would only make the problem worse. Millicent Street is a very busy road as drivers use it to cut between Lower Plenty road and Rosanna Rd.

    We have had friend's car side mirrors replaced, because of this very reason. Please consider the words of the people who live here and do not approve this application.

  8. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 116-118 Junction Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Rose Greenhalgh commented

    This is a development by sun properties - they set up companies for their developments. They have set up a web site for this development and one other called Archland.
    They are doing questionable quality i.e. colour bond roof and colour bond clad walls - and huge density (18 dwellings) in Douglas Street St Ives. 35 submissions went in objecting to the development. The residents want answers why this was allowed. We need to lobby our politicians to stop over-use of land, low quality, highly dense developments occurring within the loopholes of SEP 5 without re-zoning. Chadwick real-estate listed the property in Wahroonga and in the sales literature suggested SEP 55. Chadwick real estate are trying to now market the one in Douglas Street St Ives.

  9. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construct a 3 storey...” at 6 Bevis Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Shanta commented

    Is there a neighborhood group, to stop and curb and object to undesirable development of Glen Eira council area? Is over development of Carnegie a disgrace and do most of the long term residents and rate payer think that over development of parts of Caulfield Bentleigh, Mckinnon, Bentleigh East and Ormond, is disseminating and destroying the character of all these suburbs? Is it that for Glen Eira council Special Building and Heritage Overlay does not preclude any property from being demolished? Is it just bad luck for the long term rate payers who have invested their life savings and chosen to live in these suburbs and in houses which have Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay and choose to continue to live in such houses when developers are biting at the heels to demolish and rebuild large number of apartments? Who does one think the council is going to back?

  10. In Granville NSW on “Development Applications -...” at 2C Factory Street Granville NSW 2142:

    M Davis commented

    Parking for local residents & workers will be harder. An overspill will occur as worshippers park in already overcrowded nearby streets. Changes to housing density laws has already had a negative impact on quality of life for long term residents.Local Council has already not looked after All RESIDENTS. it is already difficult to park in front of your own house.
    Traffic will substantially increase on an already overcrowded Clyde Street. Getting out of own street into Clyde St will be even more difficult
    Council need to consider the already parking chaos In Granville CBD on a Friday as worshippers go to Granville Town Hall. This will be no different.

  11. In Melbourne VIC on “Partial demolition of...” at 600-608 Elizabeth Street Melbourne 3000:

    anna myers commented

    I think this is an unnecessary development. Office space is unnecessary in this area, and there is no need for another supermarket. Retail in this area is not in high demand, and does not do well in the area . A large number of student residents reside in the area and this would be disruptive to the residents.

  12. In Wamuran QLD on “Request for Change (Other)...” at 1085 D'Aguilar Highway, Wamuran QLD 4512:

    Sid commented

    I would be opposed to any development..i actually moved to to be away from it..all shops etc available only 15 minutes away. Please consider no future development

  13. In Leichhardt NSW on “Proposed demolition of all...” at 97 Edith Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    D.S commented

    Hi there
    Where are the plans for the two new proposed dwellings on this subdivision?
    Thank you

  14. In Samford Village QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 11 Bergman Street, Samford Village QLD 4520:

    Kerri Lambert commented

    I oppose this proposed development. I am a resident of one of the nearby streets and this development will only increase traffic to an area that is already at capacity. There is inadequate public transport infrastructure in the village to support high density housing so the residents must rely on cars to travel to and form work, school etc. There is not enough jobs for everyone to work in the village and to afford the cost of rent and property in Samford Village you need to work or be independently wealthy. This development is being marketed at affordable housing solutions to try and sell it to the locals. We all know that it will not be affordable housing but due to the property market in Samford it will be on the upper end. The increased traffic and cars parked all over the streets will make this once safe quiet neighborhood noisy and unsafe for pedestrians and motorists.
    Samford Village prides itself on being a semi rural country town full of history ad greenspaces. It is a tourist destination which the local business rely on to support their businesses and families. By changing the footprint of this unique suburb you will destroy this suburbs uniqueness. We have already lost a large native habitat tree in Cash Ave north at the new development currently underway. It had to be removed apparently due to signs of poisoning. Is this future we want for Samford?

  15. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    Beverley Matthews commented

    I support Lyn's objections and those of others here: opposing 6 double-storey properties and the waiver of on-site visitor car-parking requirement.

    I have lived on Millicent Street for over 60 years and believe this is an overdevelopment of the site - affecting the family atmosphere of the street, and creating additional traffic problems.

  16. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition of heritage item...” at 25 Station Street Dundas NSW 2117:

    Ben Stephens commented

    Um excuse me Mr Les Tod, OAM. Hon Secretary, Parramatta Branch, National Trust of NSW. Your comment... "This was listed on Parramatta City Council LEP 532 for good reason - it is of Local Heritage Significance" ... it seems this house had no local heritage significance at all. I'm betting it's replaced by a ghastly looking 3 storey block of units covered in cheap cladding and shotty render with limited parking for the residents. These poor quality developments are going up everywhere and they look terrible, 'bleeding rio rust stains in 5 years' is a new building standard.

    The photos displayed in the application for this house show a typical house in Dundas with a small amount of termite damage needing renovation by a motivated home owner. I've repaired and renovated many homes over the years with termite damage and this home has minimal damage.

    What is the point of having heritage laws? If a property is protected by heritage then it should be Protected and Restored, not bulldozed and replaced shotty developments. I've been living in this area for almost 20 years and prior to that Epping for 23 years, the number of heritage buildings bulldozed for large developments are countless. It's appalling and clearly obvious the objectives of the council and local government.

    Scrap heritage protection like you scrap heritage buildings, they do absolutely nothing anyway!

  17. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Dwelling-Alteration -...” at 61 Newmans Road Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Lianne Wosoter commented

    I have always thought that you apply for approval before doing the works. The works were done many months ago to accommodate fruit pickers therefore there was an increase in vehicles parked in the street during the peak blueberry season.

  18. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 2 x Angophora...” at 56 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can these native trees can be pruned instead of being cut down?
    The Peninsula has lost too many shade trees from maximum density housing, especially on road fronts.
    Shade loss is now at critical low levels in our area with Umina now rated as the worst heat sink location with Warnervale and Long Jetty.
    Please, please reconsider and prune - it will cost less now and add value to the property in the long run.

  19. In Booker Bay NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy” at 23 Telopea Street, Booker Bay NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    This lovely rear garden will be another green space that could disappear to the detriment of the area which has lost too many trees over the years from in-fill development. The frangapani can be saved & re-planted while it is dormant over winter?
    Can Council ensure the developers replace any plants when the granny flat is built?
    While it is good to see rejuvenation of old housing stock and the abatement of asbestos in the environment, can the design include a good garden layout for green space and shade - especially on the street verge?

  20. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “8 Lot Strata Subdivision” at 261 Ocean View Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is good to see rejuvenation of old building stock and the abatement of asbestos in the environment, where is the parking for 8 residents, remembering most have two cars?
    Can the design include shade trees - anywhere?

  21. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 170 The Esplanade , Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Whom ever lives in this two storey house is going to fry in summer with high electricity bills for air-conditioning if there is no shade trees to the front and rear of this development.
    Can Council ensure the developers replace any plants when they (again) clear-fell this block?
    While it is good to see rejuvenation of old housing stock and the abatement of asbestos in the environment, can the design include a good garden layout for green space and shade?

  22. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Three (3) Double Level...” at 2 Warrah Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Whom ever lives in these two storey town houses are going to fry in summer with high electricity bills for air-conditioning if there is no shade trees to the front and west of this development.
    Can Council ensure the developers replace any plants when they (again) clear-fell this block?
    While it is good to see rejuvenation of old housing stock and the abatement of asbestos in the environment, can the design include a good garden layout for green space and shade?

  23. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Josh Cane commented

    The face/entrance to this property sits on the apex of the King St bridge turning onto Adelphi Tce. As it is this corner gets congested with traffic at all times of the day. Adding the entering & exiting of residents for 46 apartments and 17 townhouses would see major obstruction.
    The parking onsite would need to be sufficient as the road parking on Adelphi Tce is already a struggle during the week and near on impossible on the weekend.
    The fence line runs along side existing houses and townhouses, so I would like to know if the height of the buildings would impede current privacy.

  24. In Marayong NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 116 Quakers Road Marayong NSW 2148:

    Helen Minol commented

    Concern-The position of waste bins.How is this going to be handled?Double handling as is the case now.There will be an extra 72 residents in that area. Is there a delivery point for everyday needs in or near the new facility ? If not is it going to be transported internally or externally / Both points are a concern movement -noise will effect residents in facility and retirement Village.

  25. In Wamuran QLD on “Request for Change (Other)...” at 1085 D'Aguilar Highway, Wamuran QLD 4512:

    Matt Karle wrote to local councillor Adrian Raedel

    Ensuring a good outcome for the intersection of the D'Aguilar Highway and Campbells Pocket Road is essential. Approving a change to the development layout that locks in a legacy of failure for this particular intersection must be avoided.
    A response advising the Campbells Pocket intersection is not MBRC's responsibility is not acceptable if the layout council approves means nothing is or can be resolved at this particular intersection.
    Thanks.

    Delivered to local councillor Adrian Raedel. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Artarmon NSW on “Inspect 1 jacaranda tree...” at 1 Smith Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Jenkins Peter J commented

    Jacarandas are beautiful trees. This tree should not be removed unless it is a danger to people. Council allows too many trees to be vandalised.

  27. In Balmain NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 9 Gladstone Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael Johnson commented

    Every second DA wants to remove a tree. Unless council implements a code, the peninsula will be denuded of trees.
    1) Do we REALLY have to lose a tree in this specific DA case?
    2) Will the owners plant two new trees to compensate?
    regards
    Michael Johnson

  28. In Rockdale NSW on “Demolition of all exiting...” at 91 Frederick Street, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    N Lindsay commented

    The are already too many legally registered and illegally operating boarding houses on Frederick street. Given this, and the proximity to several primary schools in the area and daycare centers, this application should be denied for the additional risk of transient individuals it brings to the community.

  29. In Botany NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1377 Botany Road, Botany NSW 2019:

    Meagan Heaney commented

    As I resident who lives near by, I am against this boarding house and the over development of Botany. Too many units with not enough parking have already been approved. With all of these extra residents, due to over development, leaves getting in and out of Botany a nightmare. We do not need a boarding house, this is not the right type of area. Further development is also going to put pressure on existing services. We need to maintain our blocks for family homes.

  30. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Dwelling-Alteration -...” at 61 Newmans Road Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    My and Mrs Robert Buckely commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    My concerns regarding this conversion of a double garage into two bedrooms in this particular resident being the fact the new owners lease out bed for fruit picking people that being a larger number as many as 12 possibly more, they in the past have flooded the road with vehicles, this is not fair for neighbors that have their driveways with vehicles close to their entrance, Newman’s Road in a busy road and some cars travel regularly at speeds where when backing out your own drive blocks your view this has a potential of an accident happening.
    The residence had provided an been built for off street parking, now this conversion will force those who rent to fill the road with far too many vehicles, they have in the past parked further along Newman’s Road ve4y close to the sweeping s bends, this raised more concern of the danger this will pose if allowed to proceed

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