Recent comments

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

    Jan Wilson commented

    How many times do theneighbours in Bevis Street and beyond have to object to the gross, totally out of neighbourhood character, development of these two sites?

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

    Calvin commented

    As a resident living on Millicent Street, I oppose both the waiver of on-site visitor parking requirement and the six double-storey residences due to accumulation of parked vehicles on the street. Excessive traffic will become the norm for locals who utilize Millicent Street to travel from Lower Plenty Road to Rosanna Road and vise versa, and thus giving rise to congestion, especially during peak hours. The requirement of on-site parking will only restrict residents from conveniently accessing their residence, which can be reflected by the many cars who frequently park on Millicent Street, especially on weekend due to family visits and those who attend church etc. As a resident of Millicent Street, I have encountered numerous problems with parked cars blocking my bin- resulting in issues with garbage collection, and not to mention the difficulty when attempting to turn into my driveway due to the countless parked cars. Also, the streets are too narrow and unsuited for this type of requirement as parked cars experience damage from those who speed through the street and perform a hit and run.

  3. In Charlestown NSW on “Multi Residential” at 51 Dudley Road Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Kevin Barry commented

    I write in connection with the above Development application at 51 to 55 Dudley Road Charlestown. I have examined the plans and I know the site well as we have been residents of Alexander Parade for over 45 years. I wish to object strongly to the development of these units in this location for the following reasons.

    1 Units exceed the maximum height for R3 Zone:
    This proposal is too high for this location as all surrounding properties are low level, especially Alexander Parade properties (which is on the rear boundary) and is currently zoned R2.
    Alexander Parade is situated below this development so the allowable maximum height of 10m must not be exceeded anywhere as when viewing the development from our backyards in Alexander Parade the height is visually obtrusive and overbearing.

    2 Traffic concerns on Dudley Road.
    Dudley Road is a busy urban road with peak traffic in the early morning and late afternoon and this property is located in a school zone. It is on the opposite side of the road to an aged care facility (single Storey) and near the crest of a hill with double solid lines in the middle of the road. When travelling east along Dudley Road and vehicles trying to enter this development the sighting distance for vehicles coming up behind is less than 100m coming over a crest and with a 40km/h school zone sign the drivers would be distracted especially in the mornings with the sun shining directing towards you.
    The traffic survey attached to this application observed “high traffic demand for parking along Dudley Road.” So when vehicles will be leaving this development and turning left or right and with cars parked along Dudley road the drivers will be unsighted by both parked vehicles and sunlight looking easterly in the mornings and westerly in the afternoons.

    3 Stormwater removal.
    With a stormwater retention tank and pumping up to the road, the properties in Alexander Parade below this development will be flooded with overflow in the event of a storm like in 2007 when the Pasha Bulker ran aground. This application does not show what will happen in the case of a power outage, there is no power backup system which would be needed in a storm with similar intensity to 2007.
    What regular maintenance is mandated for this pumping system to make sure it is in proper working condition 24 hours a day?.
    The volumes of water coming from a development of this size would be disastrous on the properties in Alexander Parade.

  4. In Ermington NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 45 Fitzgerald Road Ermington NSW 2115:

    Karel commented

    Not again there is nothing wrong with those trees they just don't like trees this is the third time they trying to get ride of them now they have build the house now they want to kill those trees after. Why we need trees to live.

  5. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Dwelling House” at 48B Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall wrote to local councillor Anne Glasheen

    Well! The builders are seeking planning permission to erect a dwelling on this site but, as from yesterday the er were crews on-site carrying out earthworks and no doubt draineage, etc. If you know you are going to get the damn thing rubber stamped by this wweak willed Council, why bother with seeking planning permission? I think I'll put up a warehouse on my spare bit of dirt and see what happens. Probably nothing from Council, I can bet.

    Delivered to local councillor Anne Glasheen. They are yet to respond.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Dual Occupancy” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Colin Martin commented

    I am not the resident in this area, But I am familiar in this area as I often visit my friends in this area. This section of Addison road is not a conservation area and heritage listed item. I can’t see any heritage value to restore the house. The house seems to be neglected beyond repairs.
    I support this development. The design is double stories from the frontage and single story at the rear with off-street parking that will minimize impact to its neighbors from Agar and England Street. We should increase density of this section of Addison road and should allow more contemporary duplexes/terraces to be built.
    The proposed new duplexes are in proportion to the scale and style of the neighborhood, especially with the already approved development of multi-level apartments and commercial shops at the corner of Illawarra Rd and Addison Rd( Love car wash)

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

    Helen McLagan commented

    Helen
    Have lived in Millicent Street for many years, and there has always been a parking problem. Building 6 double storey townhouses (far too many) will only increase the problem. The council did approve parking restrictions which have helped, so we don't want that jeopodised. It is a very busy through road.

  8. In Enmore NSW on “To extend the trading hours...” at 2 Stanmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    SILVIA LEVAME commented

    Dear Mr Murtas,
    thank you for your email of 30-01-19 notifying me that the application from the Warren View Hotel has been approved with conditions. I would very grateful if you can let me know what these conditions are and what is the duration of the trial period.

    Looking forward to your clarification,
    Silvia Levame

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

    Sandi Daniels wrote to local councillor Allan Sutherland

    Please respect the need to keep Samford low density and population limited. Samford is the last fringe area of acreage and green space close to Brisbane, it is a tourist (coffee) destination and green lungs for the ever crowded city across the hill. This is not an appropriate development amongst semi rural space. Traffic, supermarkets and other infrastructure will follow and will change the area for ever. Please listen to the people that live here. It us not and never will be supported. Council will shoot itself in the foot by allowing a suburban footprint here.

    Delivered to local councillor Allan Sutherland. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 801 - 809 Pennant Hills Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Margaret commented

    Have heard parking won’t be free at Carlingford Court later in the year so that will stop parking all day so that will make more parking for shoppers. The car park is to be extended also which will be good.
    Margaret

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

    John Seddon commented

    One of the things I noticed in the traffic report was this;

    // 4.1 Car Parking Supply
    // In accordance with the Moreton Bay Regional Council Planning Scheme, the following car parking rate it applicable to the proposed development:
    // Multiple Dwelling
    // 3 spaces per dwelling
    // Based on the above rate, a total of 24 car parking spaces are warranted to achieve the acceptable car parking outcome for the proposed development.
    // The proposal provides a total of 18 car parking spaces, resulting in a shortfall of six spaces against the Council Planning Scheme. It is proposed that each unit will provide a double lockup garage, and visitor parking provided at a rate of one space per four dwelling. Such is considered to be satisfactory given the scale of the proposed development (8 units).

    I would refute this suitability because I would assume it's based on adequate on-street parking. I have lived in the adjoined street for 3 years, and the proposed site is at the apex of a corner meaning no immediate parking is available to the lot (how would this affect disabled guests), and there are subdivided sections already in the area meaning lots of driveways breaking up viable parking areas. This means if one of those 8 properties were to have a family gathering or party, the streets will be lined with cars some distance from the property.
    Now imagine it was Christmas or Australia Day and multiple properties were hosting (which is imminently possible); where will all these cars be safely parking? What will they be walking on given there are no footpaths in the area? Will illegally parked vehicles be policed?
    I also have concerns surrounding the impact on wildlife, noise levels, pollution, internet speeds, fire hazard, rubbish collection, etc, but they will be addressed in my written objection.
    It is also interesting to note the people in support of this (Nicole and C) so far, don't seem interested in providing their full names, or providing logical arguments beyond 'townhouses are good' (yes, in towns not villages), and 'change is inevitable' (which is a catchphrase invented by developers to make money).

  12. In Enmore NSW on “To extend the trading hours...” at 2 Stanmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Maybe it would be a good idea to write and ask what this means - or ring Kevin Smith on 93352117 from Council’s Development Assessment Section.

  13. In Leonay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 8 Linksview Avenue Leonay NSW 2750:

    Alison Lopes commented

    1. The proposed construction may be built under the over 55's guidelines, but that is all - there is no policing that the units will be occupied by over 55's.
    2. It is a gross overuse of the land and not consistent with other properties in the street or Leonay as a whole.
    3. It will create more traffic problems in the area especially as it is so close to the local Primary School.
    4. The proposed construction goes totally against the Penrith City Council Urban strategy & Urban Planning for Leonay

  14. In Bardwell Valley NSW on “Change of use from...” at 16 Hamilton Street, Bardwell Valley NSW 2207:

    J commented

    I object to the change of use from outbuilding to secondary dwelling at property 16 Hamilton Street for these reasons:
    A secondary dwelling may increase the number of cars associated with people dwelling at 16 Hamllton street, ie tenants and visitors, therefore taking up car parking spaces on the road and outside neighbours houses. There is already problems with the limited number of car spaces available for the cars already using car spaces in Hamilton Street. Adding an extra dwelling without allocated parking will increase parking problems for neighbours.
    More people residing at 16 Hamilton may increase noise levels.
    16 Hamilton is currently a private rental property and therefore has no rental of tenancy agreement with a reputable real estate agency to manage the property. Without a rental agreement or tenancy agreement with a real estate agency problems with tenants may not be addressed adequately by the owner and problems may increase with an outbuilding becoming a legal secondary dwelling.

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

    Elizabeth Mary Pengelly wrote to local councillor Darren Grimwade

    As a resident of Samford Village for the last 13 years I absolutely oppose this development. I have family who have lived in the area for over 30 years, and although we have watched progress grow our village, we have never been more disheartened by the developments, than we are about this one. If approved, high density housing will take over this area - that is already overrun with the environmental impacts of land development and increased traffic, and the diminishing semi rural lifestyle people live in Samford for. Please consider the people in the street and next door to the proposed development, and even in the surrounding streets who have lived in their homes for many years. Consider - would you want this built next to your home??

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Grimwade. They are yet to respond.

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

    Elizabeth Mary Pengelly commented

    As a resident of Samford Village for the last 13 years I absolutely oppose this development. I have family who have lived in the area for over 30 years, and although we have watched progress grow our village, we have never been more disheartened by the developments, than we are about this one. If approved, high density housing will take over this area - that is already overrun with the environmental impacts of land development and increased traffic, and the diminishing semi rural lifestyle people live in Samford for. Please consider the people in the street and next door to the proposed development, and even in the surrounding streets who have lived in their homes for many years. Consider - would you want this built next to your home??

  17. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Susan Dunne commented

    I don't have a problem with the Micro Brewery as such but I do have a problem with the increase in traffic it will produce. The area is already congested with traffic with a lack of suitable parking. How much parking will be provided on site? The Plaza car park gets full during the day making it difficult, at times, for shoppers to find a space. If the Brewery opens during the day this problem could be exacerbated by Brewery customers parking in the Plaza which is only a short walk away, across the rail line

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kathy commented

    I am a concerened resident regarding 27 Warren Rd. This street is zoned as R2, not to be demolished or rebuilt. The residents of this street were petitioned and opposed the demolition of this property. The DA is constantantly changing and the truth about the development is not being true to the residents. The signage is not properly showing 'deep excavation. We have been advised by past counsellors that 27 Warren Rd has been voted never to be demolished. The proposal of the plan to demolish the property is not in character in the street.The shape,design architectual style, height and size. The historical heritage will be ruined.There will be an increase in noise and lack of car parking.The street is already heavily congested. The residents can't understand why the council has aloud this to happen.

  19. In Carnegie VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 24 Morgan Street Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Shanta Lobo commented

    So can the council please explain what is the value it puts on properties that have HO and SBO?

  20. In Pymble NSW on “Modification to DA0112/17 -...” at 16 Hope Street Pymble NSW 2073:

    Derek Curtin commented

    Who are you Fact Checker? Are you the certifier? Are you the owner? Why no name? You have assumed a name that asserts knowledge but is that true? You have no credibility until you reveal who you are.

    Also you make the statement "the original DA is compliant". The problem seems to be that what was built is not, thus the requests for modifications.

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

    Tingting commented

    My name is Tingting and I live on Millicent St. I strongly oppose the construction of 6 double-storey dwellings and waiver of on-site visitor parking requirement.

    Millicent St is already very busy during day and night as drivers use it as a short cut between Lwr Plenty Rd and Rosanna Rd. Rosanna Rd is already chaotic that everyone knows. My partner's car mirror has been ripped off twice when parking right outside our home during the past 2 years. If you pay your attention, Millicent St is full of townhouses/units at the both sides.

    I still remember at 5am early morning we got woken up by the door bell as the bin collection truck couldn't go through because of cars parking on the street. The poor driver had to knock every house's door and hope to find the cars' owners to move them. If the application of construction of 6 double-storey dwellings is approved, traffic and parking on Millicent St would get even worse.

    I hope council should consider the traffic fact and for the benefit of all the residents on the street, should not approve this application.

    Regards,

  22. In Botany NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1274 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 too, especially with one already nearby. Further development is also going to put pressure on existing services. We need to maintain our blocks for family homes.

  23. In Botany NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1274 Botany Road, Botany NSW 2019:

    Yvonne Raulston commented

    As a resident of Botany for almost 20 years, I have noticed so much change to traffic and parking in our local area and I feel potential growth will put pressure on infrastructure and existing services.
    Please maintain this block for only family homes as this is only fair to residents living in this already established suburb.

  24. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove one tree...” at 4 Darvall Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    peter jenkins commented

    this tree should not be removed unless it is a danger to people.
    Too many of our trees are being hacked down.

  25. In Enmore NSW on “To extend the trading hours...” at 2 Stanmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jen commented

    I'd say unbelievable, but it's typical. "Community interests" seems to mean the interest of business and developers and not residents. IWC is a JOKE.

  26. In Narara NSW on “1 x Eucalyptus saligna...” at 70 Fountains Road, Narara NSW 2250:

    Min commented

    Why do you keep allowing people cut down Eucalyptus trees? At least one is being cut down per week lately. This is the first that I've noticed appear on planning alerts though. Leave the Gum trees alone!!

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

    C commented

    Emotive subject in Samford for many years.
    Nobody is saying a townhouse development is it will become ghetto dwellers.
    Firstly consider the price of the end product, and that makes the comment or suggestion void.
    It’s about the change an inevitable change.
    Barriers to the development are:
    Traffic increase to the main road yes but not Main Street directly
    Public transport is nil
    I suggest if you want to voice your concerns go to the Council meeting and be heard on facts not emotion. Bob our previous council member was a strong advocate, talk to him. However whinging about change will fall on deaf ears. Because if you go back 30 years Samford was vastly different.

  28. In Umina Beach NSW on “New Two Storey Dwelling” at 19 Honeysuckle Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Damien commented

    Sneeky barstards get approval for a 2 story Mc Mansion over xmas new year. So nobody can complain. It will be directly over looking my pool there goes any privacy.

  29. In Enmore NSW on “To extend the trading hours...” at 2 Stanmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Mike commented

    FYI to everyone as I've just had an email from Council about this - bad news is that the proposal was APPROVED. As always the council refers to "the interests of the community at large" without ever making clear what this means.

    ========================================================
    Thank you for your submission concerning a Development Application under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify Modified Determination No. 200600467.01 dated 24 December 2018 to modify condition 2A to alter the commencement date of the trial period on the above property.

    Please be advised that the matters raised in your submission were considered in conjunction with the assessment of the application and having regard to the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the Council's codes and policies, the interests of the community at large, and the reasonable expectations of the applicant.

    The application was subsequently APPROVED subject to conditions.

    You do not have a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court in respect of the merits of the Council’s decision. However under Section 9.45 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, any person may bring proceedings in the Land and Environment Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act. You should obtain your own legal advice about whether such proceedings may be commenced.

    If you wish to discuss the matter please contact Kevin Smith on 93352117 from Council’s Development Assessment Section.

    Yours faithfully

    Luke Murtas

    Manager Development Assessment

  30. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 801 - 809 Pennant Hills Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Kaz commented

    During this modification to the car parking area if improved keep clear signs could be placed on Pennant Hills Rd & appropriate painting on roadway for vehicles to keep clear this would also assist in improved traffic management at the exit area into Pennant Hills Rd.

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