Recent comments

  1. In Vaucluse NSW on “Section 4.55: Modifications...” at 29B New South Head Road Vaucluse NSW 2030:

    Katrina Sorauer commented

    It is a DEVASTATING decision to approve this development! All of us long time Council rates' payers have objected to it, but were ignored by Woollahra Council. Not once did someone from the Council come to see how any of our properties would be affected by this DA! And we ARE affected, very badly. All we get each time is: "The issues you raised were not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application". Really? The total loss of our view of Rose Bay and surrounds, the sheer loss of privacy - overlooking of our much used outdoor relaxation area, as well looking right into all our rooms inside the house = not sufficient an issue, according to Woollahra Council. The Council has now successfully set a precedent in this once upon a time quiet residential area for multiple apartment developments to envelope us all.

  2. In Christies Beach SA on “Construction of 3 x...” at 10 Grundy Terrace, Christies Beach SA 5165:

    Pauline Richmond commented

    Dear Councillor the permission to build six two storey buildings is absolutely unacceptable. There only two next door , why are six being allowed here. We have already noticed more cars parked on the roadway in our street,Clement Terrace. They will be overlooking our backyards. Progress is good but our nice little seaside patch being further eroded. Packing folk into small spaces is nothing but a money grab by council and developers with complete disregard for community. Due to lack of parking when homes do not have enough is not good. We have two rental
    homes alongside and there are often six cars parked onroad and front gardens. Sometimes we already hear noise from existing townhouses at the back , they are not soundproof. I understand everyone has a right to a home but cramming more and more houses together is a real problem for those in homes around them. When we moved here in 2008 we were not aware that rezoning waa going to spoil the area like this Thank you for reading this , hoping you will not allow this to go ahead.
    Pauline Richmond

  3. In Lidcombe NSW on “Section 8.3 Review of...” at 1 Stanley Road Lidcombe NSW 2141:

    Tao Cheng and Chenxu Jiang commented

    1. The buildings do not follow with Section 6.1(Solar Amenity) of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.

    Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show the buildings do not meet Section 6.1 Part D2. The new buildings reduce the solar access of adjoining properties and do not allow the stipulated amount of sunlight.

    And the north facing windows of neighboring dwellings will have sunlight reduced between 9am and 3pm over a portion of their surface. This contravenes Section 6.1 Part D3.

    Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 Stanley Road's backyards will be impacted by this building plan. There won't have enough sunlight for the backyards which will reduce the value of the properties and cause people depression.

    2. This new plan will impact on the residents living in unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 Stanley Road as the parking is too close to the backyards. And no information provided regarding compliance under Section 5.2 Noise.

    The Acoustic Impact Statement is not available for people to review on the Cumberland Council web page.

    3. The proposed attic essentially comprises a 3rd storage in contravention of Section 2.4 of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 which states a maximum of two storage above ground level.

    The attic is much greater height than a typical roof and does not fit the form and appearance of a typical roof above the ceiling line. As much it is more reasonably described as a 3rd storage rather than an attic.

    4. Too many townhouses (6) will be built on 1 Stanley Road. There already have many townhouses on Stanley Road Lidcombe and it will directly reduce convenience for people living on this street.

  4. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Lynne Dougherty commented

    The Beachstone Cafe was a HUGE selling point when I bought my land. Like other residents, I have invested a considerable amount of time and money to build a structure and landscaping that complied with the master planned community's rigorous design guidelines. The location of the Beachstone Cafe is perfect in it's current function because it is a gathering point for family and community. Many of the blocks of land within the community are very small and residents do not have sufficient areas of outside space to host visiting family and friends, so the Beachstone Cafe and playground provides an integral part of socialization for many residents. Importantly, the Beachstone Cafe is inclusive of all age groups. The openness and accessibility of the cafe promotes a healthy and happy quality of life for residents. I am a teacher and a parent of four children and caution that proximity of the Beachstone Cafe to the beach makes it highly unsuitable to be used as a child care for the following reasons; the coastal habitat is a breeding ground for the highly venomous Red-bellied Black snake and Eastern Brown snake, both of which are frequently sighted within the vicinity of the cafe and are protected by Australian law under the Conservation Act of 1992. The ratio of supervisory adults in a childcare setting is far fewer than parents monitoring their children at the cafe and playground so the risk of a child coming into contact with a highly venomous snake is increased. My daughter worked at the Beachstone Cafe a few years ago and witnessed a few occasions where people picked up a snake from the grass, close to the building. Another concern is the location of a childcare center so close to the beach board walk access. Having multiple strangers passing by the center and having children in full view of those passing, increases the likelihood of attracting pedophiles to our community. The location next to the beach also increases the possibility of a child wondering off and drowning. Aesthetically, any alteration to the current structure to increase child safety would be unacceptable to the homeowners who purchased their land/homes with the understanding that the Beachstone Cafe structure was purpose built as a cafe and playground to be used as a gathering space for community as a way to offset smaller blocks of land as represented in the in the original masterplan of our North Sapphire Beach community.

  5. In Cremorne NSW on “Modify DA 228/18 for...” at 71 Benelong Road, Cremorne NSW 2090:

    alastair perston commented

    We will see this Extension from the rear of our house but this
    will have very little impact on our property so we have no objection
    to this change

  6. In Forestville NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 33 Starkey Street, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Susan Macandrew commented

    $400/$450 rent per week is not affordable accommodation which is why many of the existing boarding houses are unoccupied! Affordable accommodation and/or homes for the over 55s and disabled should be a priority for Forestville area. I would urge council to think how the area will be transformed should many more of these boarding houses be allowed to be built.
    These types of dwellings are 'get rich quick schemes' for developers who in 10 years time will transform them into expensive apartments and the tenants will be made homeless.
    Its time for some long term affordable housing to be considered by Council.

  7. In Bexley North NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 72 Laycock Street, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Joshua commented

    As a resident for the past 14 years, this is exactly what the area does not need. If anyone knows Bexley North, especially the area where the bowling club is situated, it is a QUIET residential area. I can not imagine the noise pollution that will come about from this development, not to mention an excess number of people being dispersed onto the streets in the early hours of the morning. This is an obvious over-development in a low density residential area. If you can imagine this development to be acceptable in your area, feel free to have the proposed development moved to your locality.

  8. In Leura NSW on “Nineteen residential units...” at 8 Great Western Highway Leura NSW 2780:

    Dannielle Parisi commented

    These units do not have the architectural charm to sit at the entrance to Leura Village. How can this council allow more units that defile everything that locals and tourists love about Leura?
    Where is the character? Where is the foresight? Why are you ignoring the architectural heritage of our village?

  9. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Approval is sought for a...” at 122 Herring Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Aloysius Lee commented

    Dear City of Ryde Councilors,

    Recent news has revealed many problems with apartment buildings in NSW which stem from a lack of government oversight and regulation over the industry - therefore I must STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed plans for 122 Herring road.

    The plans for 122 Herring road place the new structures too close to the existing buildings and are TOO TALL for the area. Additionally, it removes greenery from the area, adds significant traffic without enough upgrades to Herring and Epping road and pose a significant quality of life decrease for the existing residents.

    Please reconsider your proposal – with the current state of the apartment building industry there are no guarantees from your council or the builders that no issues will arise.
    Will the council of Ryde fix any and all problems if they arise as a result of this new development?

    I do not wish my home at 120 Herring road to become like Mascot Towers and if there are any issues as a result of your approval for 122 Herring road, I will hold you directly responsible.

    Regards

  10. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    david malone commented

    I object strongly,
    Its a lovely spot for the community and if repurposed the community looses greatly.
    Parking will be affected
    The park is a community park not for private enterprise
    Small children and cars don't mix.
    This area has many tourists and public toilets so you never know who is there.
    The roads are totally inadequate.
    The whole centre would have to be fenced from the public which would be an eyesore.
    This will destroy the community feel to the whole area.

  11. In Melrose Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 657 Victoria Road Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    B. Shirley commented

    Does the council really care about the lack of adequate parking, the huge increase in traffic on an already over congested Victoria Road and the ridiculous traffic bank up at West Ryde. Have the councillors tried getting through West Ryde particularly on the weekend? Where are these new residents going to shop? It won't be in Parramatta but West Ryde. There have been physical altercations in Dickson Avenue West Ryde with traffic jams in Ryde Council's stupid diversion of traffic down an extremely narrow Dickson Avenue which remains a two way street leading to the shopping centre. Now they want to use Bellevue Avenue as an additional route to Eastwood. Can you believe it? The NSW state government is allowing further high rise in West Ryde with 7 storey buildings right next door to houses. What caring councils and government we have. You have to agree that they care about developers - not residents that's for sure!

  12. In Bulleen VIC on “Change of use to a...” at Bulleen Plaza 105 Manningham Road Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Chris Smyrneos commented

    If this photo is what I think it looks like (newsagents) becoming a recreation Centre... well that’s absolutely ridiculous!!! We have had Fernwood for many years and I don’t think it’s busy , having another one is useless. We need to retain the agency it services everyone and is the only agency in Bullen. Any other agency is too far especially for the elderly. Bulleen is a social hub for many residents and the news agency is part of this culture!!!

  13. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Removal of two protected...” at 756 Canterbury Road, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Bridget Larkin commented

    If the trees are ‘protected’ already there should be no opportunity to have them removed. Too many flexible rules in place and builders/developers are taking advantage of this. Protect our trees, they take years to reach maturity.

  14. In Kilsyth VIC on “Buildings and Works to...” at 5 Kilsyth Avenue, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Ms Kim Mckay commented

    I will say it again, any more multi building on blocks in our suburban area's or on the face of Mt Dandenong ranges will receive criminal charges of corporatism terrorism by local members, international and political interests..

  15. In Speers Point NSW on “Community Facility (Multi...” at Speers Point Park 23 Park Road Speers Point NSW 2284:

    Catherine Walker commented

    As a local resident who uses this park about four times a week I STRONGLY object to the location of this building.

    It should absolutely in NO WAY block any part of the new boulevard or pathways the park has. The new boulevard is a vital and pivotal axis through the park which fantastically connects one end with the other. When it was built it just made sense. "Yes! Fantastic! What a great idea!" we all thought. Why on earth any one would suggest BLOCKING that with a building is beyond me. The markets use the full length of this boulevard for pedestrian access from BOTH ends, for vehicle set up for events and stalls. Honestly, have you seen how many people walk in/out that end of the pathway? Will you cancel farmers markets if it's built? How else will the trucks will drive in to set up? Do you think only people who park at the Warner's Bay end use the park? Why block direct access to the rest of the park from the other half of the parking?

    But most importantly to me, it is used by so many families every day of the week to walk, run and for us - have children ride bikes and scooters in laps, loops and figure eights around the park. The park as it currently stands is perfect for children, exercise and family outdoor time. This is why we use it so often!! Please please please DO NOT block the any part of the boulevard or current shared pathways.

    If you really must have this building (which sadly doesn't match the materials or appearance of existing built structures that are already in the park- where are the gorgeous hardwood timber features that are seen throughout the park?) then at least move it off the damned main pathway.

    The proposed location of this building... it just blows my mind. You have two gorgeous WELL USED "entry's" to this amazing park.. and then someone thinks "bam, let's completely block one."

    Please move it. The whole park is flat. There is so much space. I don't think the building is needed, I don't think it is using the right materials, but if you really must have it, then move it. Don't block our beautiful and well used boulevard.

  16. In Campbelltown SA on “To erect Two Double Storey...” at 8 Ann Street Campbelltown SA 5074:

    Rob De Ieso commented

    I object to this development of 8 2 storey townhouse on the following points
    There is already a high flow off traffic in Ann Street with a lot of motorist using this street as the main street to get to all side streets in the area, with 8 town house being built there will not be enough space for cars to park due to the street already having a lot of cars parked in front of 2 Ann Street all the way to 10 Ann Street.
    With the area of campbelltown already having a huge in flux of these dwellings this will decrease the value of property in the area as they have flooded the area. on a environmentally issue I know there a lot edeerly residents in the street and with all the dust and noise this will have a impact on the health. As a visual aspect all houses currently in Ann street are single storey and having 8 town houses it will be an eyesore

  17. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Sarah commented

    I’m disappointed at the potential loss of the community space which is a special feature of North Sapphire Beach. I am very concerned about the possible increase of traffic likely to occur at exactly the times our local children are walking between homes and bus stops. There are already several corners with poor visibility and inadequate traffic slowing measures and I anticipate safety to be a serious issue.

  18. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Rachel commented

    Loosing this space will take from the attractiveness that the area has built. The higher more constant traffic flow will definately make an impact on the one road in one road out situation. The cafe was community purpose built, not to be a child care centre. The area will loose the park playground and bbq areas. This plan does not suit the quiet residential setting.

  19. In Melrose Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 657 Victoria Road Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    P. Smith commented

    The TMAP for the area is a joke as is the overall development. Has Ryde Council and current Melrose Park residents been properly consulted. We don't seem to.
    count. But we will fight this. Seems Parramatta Council and Developers don't get it . Melrose Park is not a new suburb. It has been in Ryde LGA since the 1940s. You stole our name and atw are now trying to impose a development which impacts on our lifestyle but brings no financial rewards to the real residents of Melrose Park. Bring it on
    We are garnishing the legal and financial resorced to fight development which ignores us.

  20. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Melanie commented

    I believe that a childcare centre won’t provide the gathering space that a cafe/restaurant does. Sapphire Beach benefits from having a community space where all ages can meet.
    People are unlikely to feel comfortable gathering outside a childcare centre.

  21. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Marie Dreux commented

    I strongly oppose the development of 40 Bishop Street as a 10 room boarding house. This street, and Jarvie Street are quiet, heritage-protected streets which already have significant parking and congestion problems despite this. Further, such a development is not in keeping with the nature of the streetscape, will be detrimental to neighboring families in increasing both noise pollution as well as exposing children and young families to potentially criminal elements and those with serious mental illness. There are already such dwellings in surrounding streets, with inherent problems attached, but which are in wider streets with less congestion.

  22. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Chris Kingston commented

    The proposed development of a child care centre means a loss of car parking, loss of community, increase in traffic in a family oriented community and an increase in noise.
    The proposal means losing car parking spaces and an increase in traffic flow and volume.
    The present development itself has very limited parking availability, to the point that people park on verges and roads-infringement notices for vehicles are often served and parking is dangerous in corners etc.
    If the proposed development goes ahead, visitors to the community park and locals will have nowhere to park-leading to further congestion and dangerous road conditions.
    An increase in traffic, and no arterial road, will mean that a greater danger is posed for the large amounts children in this family friendly community of Sapphire beach. It will also create very limited parking for locals and visitors to the beach access.
    This will deter the sense of community that the current cafe and park allows the residents of Sapphire beach.
    The plans and proposed development are out of character with the local environment, the sense of community this space creates and the natural beauty of the area. I am against this application and ask the Council to reconsider this application.

  23. In Chatswood NSW on “Application to remove one...” at 92A Beaconsfield Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Meredith Anne Foley commented

    I would trust that Council's trained arborists will check to see whether this tree 'could' be dangerous before any decision to remove is made. The trees on private land behind the row of houses on Beaconsfield form an important wildlife corridor - noted in WCC Natural Heritage Register.

  24. In Miranda NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 40 Malvern Road Miranda NSW 2228:

    Leonie Miller commented

    Could you please inform me of what alternations and additions are happening at 40 Malvern Road Miranda as our property is directly behind.

  25. In Melrose Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 657 Victoria Road Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Gladys commented

    Wow another over developed area already in a congested area. What are the traffic management plans for easing the congestion on Victoria Road? Why aren't there more car spaces when it says 1077 dwellings? Who is the brains behind this with 277 residential and only 318 total spots? There is no train stations in the area so they'll be driving mostly as buses aren't the best.

  26. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of Three Two...” at 45 Webster Street, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Renate Johnson commented

    What has happened to this application has it been approved.

  27. In Bethania QLD on “Multiple Dwelling (65...” at 107 Church Road Bethania QLD 4205:

    Victoria Ross commented

    I object to the proposal for 65 townhouses to be built at the end of Church rd.
    This will seriously impact the environment and residents and owners' right to enjoy our lifestyles we are used to. The destruction by stealth of all the trees for the Station Road units and the impact of the builders and the erection and filling of the 120+ units have already had negative impacts on Church and Station roads and roads and intersections in the vicinity. This gives even less reasons to accept these 65 unnecessary town houses.

    Church road cannot deal with the impact of 65 townhouses in a street designed for houses. At a minimum of 2 residents per townhouse, 130 extra residents and their vehicles will seriously impact current house residents' quiet enjoyment of their environment and access to greenspace and the natural environment.
    I believe it will devalue our lifestyles and house prices and wonder who on the council, in which we have no representation, could even contemplate such an adverse proposal for this Division's residents.
    Negative impacts, such as those stated by myself and others include; Fire ants, floods, the railway maintenence issues and hugely increased volume of trucks, eath moving equipment and motor vehicles, noise and increased population and change in the demographic of this neighborhood .
    The school, church and cemetery and street will lose all contemplative ambience.

    I heard about the proposal to push Church rd. into Eden's Landing 30 years ago, but was assured this would not happen, for all the obvious reasons already noted.
    Positive impacts? None, except those for greedy self- serving developers . Let us vote on this according to the standpoint on this issue of the new councillors elected in the next elections early next year.

  28. In Speers Point NSW on “Community Facility (Multi...” at Speers Point Park 23 Park Road Speers Point NSW 2284:

    Philip Uebergang commented

    I strongly object to an 'arts' project that will cost this community over $2M. We pay rates for local government services and local infrastructure, not for vanity projects.

    Speers Point Park has also been tampered with enough. Leave it alone and let the community enjoy a peaceful place. Quiet, leafy areas are rapidly diminishing in the local area as it is, thanks to the council's determination to develop every spare space available.

    The council has already failed to demonstrate that it possesses any nuance in relation to art funding. Recent 'artistic' funding efforts around the lake are cringe-worthy and, again, have used our money in the cause with insufficient return to the community. A high exposure project of this size and nature by a council with a questionable recent history in the arts, is fraught.

    This development should not be approved due to its illegitimate use of public money, and the risk that it represents to the community in disfiguring this popular park, particularly in view of council's recent history in such matters.

  29. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Rehabilitation works in...” at 196-198 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Zoe I have never seen anything coming from the council. about birds. When they slash and burn 30 hectares of our bush at Eugene St it speaks volumes about about the council and state. . Who speaks for our birds. Someone somewhere ?

  30. In Artarmon NSW on “Application to remove one...” at 300 Mowbray Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Roger B commented

    Rather a drastic and unnecessary remedy. Applicant should clean/fix their gutters, perhaps prune tree to reduce impact.

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