Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    I agree. This is a beautiful residential gracious part of Hawthorn and should be protected at all costs. The heritage and the history of the city of Boroondara should be cherished.

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

    L.Do commented

    Dear Randwick council, I object to the construction of 40 units boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.
    I sincerely urge Randwick Council to refuse this DA Proposal DA/144/2019). It does not suit the demographic in the area. It will also affect the traffic congestion and parking issues around the area. Right now as a mum I find it hard enough to find parking in streets nearby when I take my daughter to the park or swimming lessons near the proposed area where the boarding house will take place. I also worry about the noise and safety issues that this type of development can affect residents nearby and parking issues that will arise.

    Thank you.

  3. In Valentine NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing -...” at 31 Berringar Road Valentine NSW 2280:

    Diana Whitaker commented

    I Currently own 29A Berringar Road Valentine and lived there from January 1996 to October 2015. My house is currently rented.

    I am concerned as I feel this house represents a part of the early history of Valentine that many people may not be aware of.
    I am also concerned due to the number of multiple high occupancy dwellings that are being built which has changed the village feel that old Valentine once had and increased traffic and parking congestion.
    My other concern regards the safety for accessing the driveway as the property is at the corner of Berringar and Tallawalla Roads with traffic islands and Stop Signs.

    My neighbours, Mr. Allan and Mrs. Jean Fowler (and their Daughter Barbara) lived in the house up till the house was sold in 2004 due to ill health.
    Mrs. Fowler's father originally built the house (date unknown). He owned the land and grew fruit trees for many years. I believe the land was eventually sold for development.
    The Fowlers moved into the house when Mrs. Fowlers father required help. Mr. Fowler added onto the original house where they raised 3 daughters. Mr. Fowler was a keen horseman and kept a stable at the back of the yard for many years.
    The family at the time had many memories of living and growing up in Valentine when there were only dirt tracks and roads and very few people lived there.

    I am happy to be contacted for further information.

  4. In Terrigal NSW on “Construction of Residential...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Nicole Perezous commented

    As an adjoining neighbour, I had debated that the original development application had surpassed 5 years and secondarily should have been relodged and authorised prior to commencement of work.
    Additionally, adjacent properties didn’t receive plans nor be notified prior to construction.
    Furthermore, to only the developers benefit and exploitation of neighbouring properties the construction exceeded proposed heights.

  5. In Northmead NSW on “Development Application -...” at 59 Hammers Road Northmead NSW 2152:

    Keith Asboth commented

    The garage has been converted a number of years ago and let as a dwelling no less than twice. During its conversion, a container was placed at the front of the block which was a pedstrian and traffic hazard. The carport was erected a few years ago and removed several months ago. It was a large structure which may have been large enough for 3 large vehicles. The carport was very close to a shared fence. It also had a tall peaked roof. The aspect from a neighbours property is impacted by severely limiting view of nature reserve.

  6. In Mount Druitt NSW on “This development...” at 56 Mount Druitt Road Mount Druitt NSW 2770:

    Emade commented

    Could you send a copy of contract and an indication to price?


  7. In Gosford NSW on “Section 4.55...” at 65 Donnison Street West, Gosford NSW 2250:

    Margaret Hobby commented

    In Respose to RB , who hasn’t put their name to this as required, I’m guessing you are on the development team.
    The 8th storey is above the threshold limitation level ( 1m above level) allowed by council, so why should this be approved?
    You may think it is a great looking development design, that’s your opinion.
    You will not have it looming over the top of you and have your home life disrupted for 18 months or more with digging and building , noise , dust and being inconvenienced with trucks driving up and down the short street, horns blasting from 7am till 6pm 6 days a week, a crane waving across the top of your property.
    You will not lose your sunshine, mountain, sky and tree views.
    You do not have to look at the invasive building 10m from your house.
    The design isn’t that great it is quite ugly. And how can you say these buildings are doing great things for the area, only a few have been completed. You have no idea what the impact is going to be like on the Gosford infrastructure.
    We don’t have kerb and guttering in the street. Runoff after a storm from that property travels straight down the road and floods at the bottom of the street.
    The extra depth to dig the extra basement level will impact on the stability and structure of our house.

  8. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Helen Pickett commented

    Helen P
    I feel a more appropriate place could be found for a mobile tower, not in a sporting ground surrounded by a densely populated area.

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

    stephen johnson commented

    Does this proposal comply with the council's LEP? It appears to be the type overdevelopment both parties advocated preventing at the recent state election. Without adequate and efficient public transport these boarding house residents will need to use their car to got to the shops, Doctors, schools.

  10. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolish existing shop,...” at 599 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Tracy Lockwood commented

    Dear Waverley Council, I live directly opposite this proposed construction, on the Woollahra Council side of OSH. Why haven't residents on our side of the road been notified of this extreme development? I had to learn about this from a friend who lives in Bondi Beach.
    This will be a large scale project due to the amount of remediation required to remove the petrol storage tanks and all associated toxins. The residents of Old South Head Road are fed up with the congestion, dust, noise, relocation of bus stops and structural damage to nearby properties caused by the heavy duty machinery used.
    I note that the much smaller development one block down the road necessitated the closure of the bus stop for over 2 years. During that time, passengers had to wait in the rain at another "temporary" bus stop with no shelter. There seems to be no end to the development your council approves, with very little consideration for the people who have to endure endless construction along Old South Head Road. Enough is enough.

  11. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 33 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Sue Simmonds commented

    Yes, could someone please explain what ?????? means? Does it mean there are six modifications? If so, what are they? I think Kate may be correct in thinking that approval is probably a certainty regardless.
    Sue Simmonds

  12. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Hannah Benjamin commented

    I’m concerned about the RF levels and the health concerns it may bring. Also the environmental issues it could create. The impact on the oval is also a concern. Why and what need, do they have to put a tower up on the oval?

  13. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Amy Asmanas commented

    I am writing to ask the Central Coast Council to consider the opinions of Wyoming residents when approving a large telecommunications tower inside a community space. I have read conflicting reports about the safety of these and will freely admit to not being a scientist. I am however, a mum and have 2 children as well as a large number of family friends who use Alan Davidson Oval regularly.

    I am confused about a tower being built in a low lying area. A brief look at satellite images of Wyoming and surrounds show areas that would be expected to provide better reception/coverage from a higher elevation. Although I assume the cost to build is greater in these less accessible areas. I would hate to think that an area of such community importance was chosen due to financial savings for Optus.

    If having the tower in a lower area does in fact provide better coverage and has no health implications to locals but is just a hideous eyesore, why is being placed in an area Council has spent a large amount of money developing in recent years?

    Has the land adjacent to the corner of Renwick St and the Pacific Highway (train track side of the Highway) been considered?

  14. In Saint Peters NSW on “Industrial - use and/or...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Michael Dany commented

    No details provided, does anyone know the scope of works to be carried out?

  15. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 6 Nelson Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Clare Fitzpatrick commented

    Parking spaces are a must! Particularly in these small side streets, unless of course the council intends on making access for garbage trucks / fire trucks / police or ambos not to mention the common man impossible via car

  16. In Hawthorn VIC on “Display of Signage” at 426 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy Rea commented

    I am concerned that a commercial property is seeking permission to establish a business within a residential zone. I do not endorse this application.

  17. In Rozelle NSW on “Removal of 2 x Palms” at 23 Red Lion Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Jonathan McFeat commented

    While it is nice to have mature trees in abundance, the reality of living with this giant palms can be difficult for homeowners; with large fronds falling on roofs and surrounding structures. I would like to see native, flowering species replacing trees like this.

  18. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 33 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Kate commented

    What does ???? mean? Probably get approved anyway as everything else is, no matter how vague.

  19. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Britta Wilson commented

    I am not consenting for antennas and mobile phone towers to be erected at Alan Davidson Oval due to unsafe levels of radiation emitted. Members of the community using this beautiful recreational space, including the new playground would be exposed to those unsafe levels of radiation. For many years have we waited for this playground. Mobile towers are especially dangerous because they emit microwaves at a frequency of 1900 MHz. Recent studies have shown that the intense radioactivity from mobile phone towers adversely impacts every biological organism within one square kilometer.
    Please reject this application and suggest other spaces outsides this densely populated area and right next to sport fields and playgrounds.

  20. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 40 Rowntree Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    It should be noted that trees are important for the whole community as they are the homes of local birdlife in particular. The removal of these trees will significantly affect birds in the area, particularly as there are requests every week to remove trees in the small area that makes up Balmain. Planting new trees is no substitute as it takes many years for the trees to develop to the stage that they can be used by birds for home. I hope the impact of local birds and the need to keep the area green is considered. Thank you.

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kristina Czaban commented

    20/03/19 lodgement date noted online in Council e-records and still no documents online as at 04/04/19. Trust the Public Notification deadline will be based on when the documents are available for review?

  22. In South Wentworthville NSW on “DA's - Attached Dual...” at 29 Brotherton Street South Wentworthville NSW 2145:

    Southwentworthville resident commented

    On a small, narrow street (only one car can get through at a time at the moment and the street is already packed with cars, work vans even trucks from the residents parked on the two sides), it is harmful to all the residential families living on the street when authorities allow subdivision using the same criteria compared to the larger streets. I have raised this to the council in the past. The criteria needs to be flexible and smarter. In the end, there are reasons why only blocks larger than 450m2 can be subdivided. Here we have blocks slightly larger, but the street is too small.

    We are importing the parking problems of Inner-West to this street !!! (without having the conveniences of living in the Inner-West).

    At the least, council and certified architects and NSW housing should allow for adequate on site parking for those subdivision, compared to the number of bedrooms. For example, if the total bedrooms is 8 for the development, then there must be 4 onsite parking. I am sure the development applicant welcome this too as it raises his/her property value and family members not having to parking on the street (I've observed minor accidents).

    At the moment, the council is doing the opposite. It limits the numbers of on-site parking for "street look/surveillance" reasons. It's important to address the daily challenges of the families of not being able to get through the street in early morning going to work, driving the children to school, rubbish bin truck blocking access, emergency trucks cannot get through easily, can't park in front of own house because there are cars from near by duplexes parked permanently etc.

    Again, we are importing the parking problems of Inner-West to this street !!! (without having the conveniences of living in the Inner-West).

  23. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 17 Belmore Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Eva Harrison commented

    I’m sure so far you have read majority of the comments that so many residents disagree the DA to be approved from council. First of all, Belmore Street is a one-way street. Lots of parents send and pick up their kids on this street. The accident rates definitely will increase if the DA passed. Even now many irresponsible drivers drive the opposite way although they have been informed. Secondly, Arncliffe doesn’t have enough shops, recreations, good infrastructures and easy transportations (often trains halt on weekends due to mainanence) whereas Rockdale and Wolli Creek have large shopping facilities and easy transportations to access. It would make much sense to have accommodations development in Wolli Creek or Rockdale. The accommodation business would not have enough demands at 17-19 Belmore Street thus not worth in a long run. Please reconsider this project again for both local residents and the future business.

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

    Jayden D. commented

    I object to the construction of 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.
    I sincerely urge Randwick Council to refuse this DA Proposal DA/144/2019) on the below grounds:

    1) The proposal is not within the public interest:
    Surrounding areas has been a mix of private homes, duplex developments, apartments and town houses which can best be described as low to medium density. The existing homes all compliment the demographic mix of the precinct – families, single professionals and retirees. The proposed development does not fit this mix or enhance it.

    2) The Maroubra community are AGAINST boarding house style accommodation:
    There are no authorised boarding houses in the proximity of 1038-1040 Anzac Pde. The direct opposite property at 1001 Anzac Pde has been refused DA for 10 boarding room, 2-storey house (let alone 40) for similar reasons and community concerns.

    1001 Anzac Parade MAROUBRA NSW 2035
    Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two-storey boarding house with 10 self-contained units, one car park space and associated works (SEPP Affordable Rental Housing)
    Lodged: 31/05/2011 (Refused: 23/08/2011 by Council).

    6 Fenton Avenue MAROUBRA NSW 2035
    Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works.
    Lodged: 20/08/2018 (Refused: 13/12/2018 by External Committee)

    3) Excessive noise and affects to neighbouring residents:
    Neighbouring properties are occupied by young family with small kids (mine family being one of them, 2 kids 1yr old and 3yr old), retirees & people working from home. The development is not considered to maintain the desirable attributes of the locality and protect the amenity of the existing residents.
    Long-term construction with associated noise, dust & pollution, earth-moving machines occupying the street and surrounds will have a negative impact on the resident’s quality of living.

    4) Surrounding accommodation comparisons:
    E.g. Adjoining property 1030-1036 Anzac Pde, Maroubra has a land size of 2212m2 with only 20 x 2br split-level town houses, with 20 car parking and 5 visitor parking with 2 car wash bays. Good balance.

    In comparison 1038-1040 Anzac Pde, Maroubra property has a combined land size of ONLY 845m2 (423m2 + 422m2) for a proposed 40 boarding rooms across 3-storeys. This equates to a minimum of 40 adult lodgers (plus onsite caretaker) AND “up to 2 adult lodgers and 1 visitor shall be permitted in the double rooms”!! This is medium to high density living quarters.
     This equates to potential 80+ lodgers, with only 20 car park spots/8 motorcycle spots!!
     There will be excessive noise due to high traffic in and out of the complex and driveway.
     There will be excessive noise from lodgers/extra visitors within open courtyards and communal areas facing surrounding properties.
     There will be privacy issues when the high 3-storey building overlooks adjacent properties courtyards and directly into their balconies and bedroom windows.

    5) Complaints handling:
    The submitted plan of management for complaints handling by the boarding house caretaker is inadequate and is reactive rather than preventative. It does not contain enforceable and realistic management measures to mitigate potential noise impacts on the neighbours.

    6) Existing Crime in the area:
    The precinct already experiences an over representation of anti-social behaviour including violence against persons and property, armed robbery, drug use, public drinking, loitering and littering, loud and aggressive behaviour (especially night time). E.g. Nearby Lexington Place has been riddled with crime, social unrest and social disadvantage for years and this is not an area that would absorb a further influx of up to 80+ persons or more for the proposed 40 short term boarding units.

    7) Kids, traffic and congestion:
    Murray Street to Jersey Street are already very busy streets providing access from Anzac Parade to the Des Renford swimming pool complex (already has street congestion issues), kids scooter park, kids’ playgrounds, sports fields, and cycle track and netball courts situated at Heffron Park. The development of a boarding house in an area frequented by young children and young and elderly people accessing sporting facilities is totally inappropriate.

    There are 2 bus stops, one right in front of 1038-1040 Anzac Pde and one situated in front of the Pizza Hut and Porta’s Liquor outlet on the opposite side of the road. Murray Street parking and Anzac Parade middle section parking is used constantly for customers to these retail outlets and the delivery vehicles, as well as being full of vehicles from surrounding residents. There will be more pressure for car space during clearway times on Anzac Parade, making this area inadequate to cater for an influx of 80+ short term boarder’s vehicles (since there is 20 proposed car spots only).

  25. In Penrith NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 569 - 595 High Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Suzanne commented

    Please do not take everything from the community to cash in on greed & profit.
    Penrith used to be a great place with so much space,now it is all multi storey &
    more eatery chains than we need.
    Keep the community college for everyone in its easy to get to place.
    Think of real people & their needs before $$$$$

  26. In Gymea NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 14/4 Warburton Street Gymea NSW 2227:

    Cess commented

    Why is it that there has been zero notification by council to other owners in the apartment block ?????????

  27. In Fish Creek VIC on “Use of the land for motor...” at 242 Soldiers Road, Fish Creek, VIC, 3959:

    Mr & Mrs Cary commented

    We object due to the concerns of noisy air compressors noisy rattle guns and we are concerned with the impact to the environment due to engine and transmission oils ,and greases and extra petroleum products - especially being in a rural farming location - located next to dams,stock and water ways.
    We don’t choose to live in an area that is exposed to a mechanics workshop impacting on our rural lifestyle

  28. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Bruce Wood commented

    Dear Gosford Council,
    I strongly appose this construction and installation of a new phone tower in Wyoming
    This location my have not been thought out thoroughly
    Not only do we have the sports ground next to the suggested location
    It is also located near a scout hall, child care, hydrotherapy pool, local shopping centre, local hotel, doctor surgeries and residential housing
    Not that long ago smoking was not harmful and was prescribed by you local GP and asbestos was safe to use in houses

    Thank you for the opportunity to lodge this comment

    Bruce Wood

  29. In Terrigal NSW on “Construction of Residential...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Richard Ernest Abarahams commented

    Should Chris Norris be correct in his assessments, then one needs to ask why does Council allow the submission of non-complying developments, which should only be lodged by appropriately qualified persons, thus diminishing the wasted time by concerned ratepayers. It is accepted that this council supports the rapid development of Gosford and its environs, but please do not allow develoopment that clearly may sit outside of the current legislation. Similalrly, do not favour greedy developers who have no concerns about the problems they leave behind.

    The council must also ensure that they can continue to provide the additional services that these developments require without imposition upon ratepayers for additional rates to assist these land-hungry and greedy developers.

  30. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Kimberley Stone commented

    I must ask that these developments are moved elsewhere. I know it is difficult to find appropriate areas for such things, however, a child's playground and sporting field in the center of a very active suburb, inches away from homes, schools, and shopping centers is not the location for anything industrial, let alone something which poses an insidious health risk. Please continue consideration for other more appropriate sites, thank you.

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