Recent comments

  1. In Chifley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1243 Anzac Parade Chifley NSW 2036:

    Dawn commented

    We, as a community should prioritise keeping our children safe and I do not believe another half way house in the area is in the best interest of our kids security. Please don’t approve this DA.

  2. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Trudy commented

    These two heritage listed buildings are part of Arncliffe's rich history. They were stately homes of that era and need to be preserved as there is little local history left in the area.
    To demolish these two well-preserved time pieces of history speaks of no other suggestion than greed.

  3. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Jenny Duurland commented

    Jenny & Tim Duurland
    We are permanent residents at 6 Sheila St, and also attended the Council meeting, last Thursday, as one of the many very disgruntled local long term residents. We currently have building redevelopment going on next to us at 4 Sheila Street, that could not physically be any closer to our property. We have experienced bullying by the building developers, in building on the boundary and having part of their gutter butted up against ours, causing our pipes to leak, not to mention them disconnecting our down pipes & either not reconnecting or inadequately reconnecting our pipes. ( No prior consultation was made with us of their plans) We have concerns if there was to be a fire in the new residence, there would be hindered access by responding services , the very real possibility of it quickly spreading to our property & concerns for the actual residents being trapped in their house / “yard” with no escape route. Many times we are unable to access our driveway due to the increased on street parking or have almost been hit by vehicles trying to drive along Sheila Street, not to mention all of the foot traffic, from the local school / scout hall & residents who walk their dogs. We already have ongoing issues with leaking water pipes under the road, which will have so much more pressure put on them with increasing the street occupancy. What was once a beautiful green, leafy area, full of birds & native wildlife , is very quickly becoming a concrete region, lacking all the things we class as Rostrevor. Please reconsider the application for 7 Sheila Street & any future applications for possibly 8 Sheila Street.

  4. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46 Cowan Road St Ives NSW 2075:

    Ross Eichorn commented

    This absurd monstrosity of a development is a gross insult to all residents of St Ives.
    It reeks of corporate greed and one wonders if the owners would like this monolith being built next to their home or indeed in their neighbourhood ….. I suspect not!
    How could any approving body, be they local council or state, ever consider approving this application on such an horrendous scale which massively dwarfs all surrounding homes and makes a joke of traffic considerations and residential homes in the district.
    Local infrastructure is already at breaking point.
    It looks like corporate selfishness and distain for the lives of fellow Australians has been thrown out the window yet again in the quest for the almighty dollar.
    Are Thompson Health Care even reading these complaints let alone considering what they're doing to peoples lives?... I suspect not

  5. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Han Chung commented

    These houses are irreplaceable. Shame on council if they are not protected. You’ve ruined so many heritage homes in the area by not heritage listing properties. Don’t let this be another that suffers the same fate.

  6. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Eliza commented

    Heritage preservation is a community and council responsibility, it can’t be left in the hands of a sole owner/developer. The structures must be preserved to maintain their historical significance. There’s already a number of dwellings on the site.
    It’s time Council stepped up and started making planning decisions that benefit the whole community, not just a handful of developers and landowners.

  7. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Rabz commented

    I have a house within 20 metres of this property. I dont mind them building at all. I find it weird that some people would want to always have a whinge about this building or that building. The only people who should complain is next door neighbours. Firstly this may be only a subdivision at rear of the house not all of the land. Secondly what will all of u do if the house was burnt down by an accident, lay flowers on the footpath.? Or if the owners had decided to donate the land to make say a hospital, will u also put the look ahead of that decision. Bottom line the owners of a house who work hard for their money and pay off a loan to the dam banks should do what they want with their own properties as its their human right!

  8. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Diana Barnes commented

    If the heritage buildings remain and some 'add on' structures are being removed= all good.
    However, if they're removed= something is terribly wrong with a council that doesn't value the history and grandsire of this suburb and of this building.

  9. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Ann Daly commented

    It is important that these heritage buildings remain and are not altered as they are a part of the history of the area. Any alterations to other buildings on site should not detract from the existing heritage buildings and must not lead to overdevelopment. We need to maintain what little history we have left.

  10. In Rostrevor SA on “1 into 2 Torrens Title -...” at 7 Sheila Street Rostrevor, SA:

    Jeanette and Rob Perrin commented

    We have been concerned about the infill in Sheila Street for some time now, we have watched the 19 blocks change radically with 12 single storey dwellings replacing 6 residences over the past few years. The street was always noted for great street appeal with single storey homes - trees and behind the street in Leabrook Drive the creek and the many trees with associated bird and animal life. There are a further 2 dwellings potentially up for sub division but especially number 7 which is adjoining our Eastern boundary where there is a current application to build 2 x 2 storey town houses. This will mean we will have a large wall on our boundary and very little Eastern sunlight. Having attended the Council meeting last Tuesday we found there is a lot of unrest about the infill. The street is small and very busy and these plans are not desired by us as long term residents. Please reconsider the application for 7 Sheila Street.

  11. In Somerton Park SA on “McDonalds Restaurant” at 262-270 Brighton Road Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Hayley commented

    As a City of Holdfast resident and rate payer I oppose this application. I am concerned at the possibility of increased traffic flow through our backstreets which are already used as cut through roads at high speeds. I am also concerned about the fast food smell which is likely to be affect local residents. The environmental impact of a fast food restaurant in our beachside suburb is also of great concern.

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

    Dave Koorey commented

    This construction is not conducive to the street or landscape. It is too large, too high and too wide. There are no gardens or landscaping to suit the style of the street. The house is far too large for the intended block and and style of the street. Can people please be aware & respectful of their surroundings when deciding to build

  13. In Mount Vernon NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 110 - 112 Mt Vernon Road Mount Vernon NSW 2178:

    Luanne Thompson commented

    There is a rural area my parents live there and I go there daily it will be far to much congestion in this quite area the roads are not fit for a large centre it’s hard to get in and out of Kerr’s Road most days I do a u turn at Caltex as you cannot get through without heavy delays and the fear of an accident

  14. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 302 Church Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Brandy commented

    We need for this area not another crock shop , I been a few time in this shops same name brand in church street just few meter away , prices always not fixed morning deferent than night . And selling expired stock .. we need Woolworths or 7 eleven in this area . Please review your approval before you go ahead .

  15. In Warradale SA on “Res Code 1 into 2 Torrens...” at 16 Lincoln Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Ferna Harris. We are all butting our heads against brick walls. Unbelievable what is happening around us and all they do is pass the buck.! Chop down trees and then petition about climate change! Trees keep our suburbs cool. Looking at and listening to birds and catching glimpses of the sky and sunsets keep us calm.

  16. In Lilyfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3 Garnet Avenue Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    S Lenton commented

    This street has had constant restructuring for the past 2 years , is there anything else coming up? We are constantly needing to clean cars with all the dust , parking spots are also hard to come by and now this will be even worse. How long will this rebuild take?

  17. In Strathpine QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 84 Samsonvale Road, Strathpine QLD 4500:

    Jeff Mears commented

    There are some growing concerns about the extra traffic that will come with the development . The Samsonvale Road looks like having 3 residential streets with access and 2 streets feeding to one set of lights already seeing heavy loads due to the railway station. And to make the situation worse there are not enough car parking spaces at the station so most of the streets already have parked cars turning the streets into one lane.
    Hopefully this will be addressed at the planning stage of the development.

  18. In North Toowoomba QLD on “CMS Building Format” at 151 Jellicoe Street North Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Leigh commented

    Unless I'm mistaken, this block is already built on!!
    Is this the norm now, build first, then apply to Council?
    Id be interested in how this can happen Please?

  19. In Port Adelaide SA on “Convert the former...” at St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide , SA:

    David Nearmy commented

    I am extremely worried about South Australia Planning. The photos and map have no relationship to the application for the the redevelopment. If this is the state of this department, I wounder it we need it at all?

  20. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolish existing house,...” at 103 Gale Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Pam Chan commented

    RE: Planning application for 103 Gale Road Maroubra NSW 2035
    I would like to voice my concerns over this application, we currently live very close to this property
    • My elderly parents both aged in their 80s, as well as our neighbours live very close to the property 103 Gale Road, Maroubra and we are really concerned about the noise and air pollution during construction and after. My parents (as well as our neighbours) are home all day and believe this will affect their quality of life at home. Noise concerns and air pollution (especially dust) are major concern, as I believe this will restrict my parents from gardening and relaxing in their backyard and hang clothing and cleaning. (Most nearby residents are at home most of the day)
    • We are really concerned that you may be allowing these townhouses to be built in a ONE standard block in a small residential street, this is way too much development in Maroubra Junction. There is enough of these buildings at the edge of our roads and on the main roads. We as home dwellers, do not want to be overshadowed constantly by apartments/high rise townhouses, the property of 103 Gale Road, Maroubra is in a quiet street where many of the properties are just one level AND relatively small lots. Also is not on a corner or mail road so why is this type of development being allowed.
    • In Gale Road Maroubra, the car parking is filled on both sides of the road for most of the day and in between, the main road can only reasonably “fit” one car lane. This is going to just add to traffic to this street with the new building with its construction work and with the additional of the new residents in the 4 town houses.
    • This property is only 1 block away from 2 primary schools and another school 2 blocks away on the other side. There will be more rubbish, noise, development, traffic and access issues, intrusion of privacy, garbage and pollution.
    • The height and overall width of the property is extremely high and wide appears take up most of the lot. It will totally overshadow surrounding properties, as well as privacy being an issue

  21. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Five Storey Hotel Building...” at 216 Memorial Avenue, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    jobs commented

    Why do we want high rise? 5 storeys isn’t high rise . it has to be viable for a developer to build. i’m happy developers would like to build in Ettalong and Peninsula, we should be grateful. great for the economy and employment

  22. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Amended Plans)...” at 1 / 735 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    I object this development based on following comments,

    As the proposal mentioned 4~5 building levels and 29 dwellings, it means about 6 units to 8 units each floor. For a such small size of land, I am wondering how the each dwelling accesses daylight penetration, fresh air and external view to achieve the well-beings of residents?

    The development is on the main street, Glenferrie Road, surrounding by heavy traffic and restaurants. I got questions about how the development is going to prevent its residents from the traffic noise, restaurant noise and restaurant smoke pollution.

    About the rubbish bins, how can the council or a private company collects dwellings waste from the site?

    About increase local traffic by the development, the local traffic is already over crowded, a huge amount of local people, especial school kids walking passing in front of the site, it will be a safety concern about when up to 29 residents cars drive-in and drive-out traffic frequently on Glenferrie Rd.

  23. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    C. Harden commented

    Disgusting !! How can anyone even think about demolishing these beautiful heritage buildings. Bayside council please do not approve this demolition.
    I grew up in Arncliffe. These old homes are part of our history and must be retained.
    Surely there is enough development happening in Wolli Creek and Arncliffe.
    Homes near Kogarah Golf Club Arncliffe have been rezoned and will soon be 8 storeys.
    At least preserve these special old houses that are irreplaceable.
    Bayside Council please look into this issue.

  24. In Paddington QLD on “Dwelling House, Demolition,...” at 38 Central Ave Paddington QLD 4064:

    Debra Edwards commented

    I would like to know if a new deck is allowed to have a direct line of vision into the neighbouring homes bedrooms.
    No gifts or donations made.

  25. In Coogee NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 157T Dolphin Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    L Paul commented

    The current sign makes a terrible dragging noise as it changes from one add to the next. It is not so noticeable during the day, but it is at night when the rest of the street is quiet and residents are trying to sleep. Can the new sign be made silent or turn it off at night rather than have it operating 24 hours 7 days a week.

  26. In Point Cook VIC on “Amendment to the Planning...” at 215-221 Sneydes Road Point Cook VIC 3030:

    Hilke Legenhausen commented

    Please don't reduce parking spaces - they are already limited there.

  27. In Kealba VIC on “Application for approval of...” at 27 Driscolls Road Kealba, VIC:

    Julie dawidowicz commented

    I object to this development as it changes the dynamics of Kealba. One of the appealing aspects of Kealba is a quiet neighbourhood with little traffic. I do not wish to see a ghetto being built, I do not want to spend 20 minutes getting out of the area and have the situation that you see outbound on Green Gully Road every morning. I do not want an influx of people creating over crowding. Develop by all means, but develop properties that are similar to the rest of the area...blocks of land for houses, with a nice park in between, increasing the value of the area.

  28. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46 Cowan Road St Ives NSW 2075:

    Shahin Ganji commented

    I am totally disappointed with the planned construction in Cowan Road. In my opinion this will impact our already struggling infrastructure and noise pollution. There is no consideration to the traffic , and how it will increase the number of accidents. Visitors to the street are already suffering with the limited parking. Bupa has a facility around the corner, there is no reason nor demand for this project to go ahead. It appears it is driven by pure greed and selfishness.

  29. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Peter Wilson commented

    These items are on the state Heritage register:

    Could the Council explain, as a matter of extreme urgency, whether they plan to disregard or override the heritage listing? Legal proceedings should be initiated immediately if there is any attempt to disregard the recognised status of these properties.

  30. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Peter Wilson commented

    These items are on the state Heritage register:

    Could the Council explain, as a matter of extreme urgency, whether they plan to disregard or override the heritage listing? Legal proceedings should be initiated immediately if there is any attempt to disregard the recognised status of these properties.

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