Recent comments

  1. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 11A Tupper Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Joe commented

    Good question Amy!

    I suggest you keep asking till they fix it. It’s been broken for months and the amalgamated council, which was supposed to have efficiencies, has instead made things worse.

  2. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 10 Mistral Avenue, Mosman, NSW:

    Anthony Justice commented

    I am very concerned about this application. To think that a 7 storey apartment block is appropriate on this site is extraordinary. I don't believe this is in keeping with the surrounding area. It will be significantly taller than buildings around it, destroying the skyline and likely blocking light and invading privacy to properties nearby.

    As a resident of Calypso Avenue, I am also very concerned around the volume of traffic that a 7 storey apartment block causes on a narrow and blind access road (Magic Grove). This may just about be adequate for access now, but any increase in traffic down this tight access road is a risk to pedestrians and children in the area. I would like to note that there are already convex mirrors at the access road due to the limited visibility and it cannot be safe to increase traffic volumes to this route which a dwelling of the size proposed would inevitably add.

    I would propose that the development is scaled back significantly before it is approved - the height and residential capacity should not be increased from what exists on the plot at the moment.

  3. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - secondary...” at 14 Frew Avenue, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Peter Watson commented

    Objection. Doesn't meet the minimum lot size of 40ha . Bushland on that site is an essential part of the wildlife corridor connecting Garrawarra and the national parkland to the bushland of the water catchment land. Part of the Wilson Creek water catchment leading to the Hacking River. New boundary fencing will further inhibit the movement of wildlife in the corridor. Bushfire risk to new residents . New building approvals on E3 or E2 land will set a precedent for other non complying development.

  4. In Gerringong NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 143 Belinda St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Ian Skeel commented

    Please read 11.1 in your report
    The plans and I assume relevant paperwork were forwarded from Brendon Leos office to Linda Davis to present to KMC meeting 21/5
    Did she actually read them or go with staff opinions
    E.g all listed under section 11.1
    Item 4 – Lighting - concern is expressed about light spill from the facility.
    Response – The proposed development seeks to replace an existing facility of the same nature. The proposed single level building will house fewer residents than the existing facility, which could reasonably be argued to result in likely less light spill impact.
    Added to this, it is emphasised that the proposed single storey development is situated in an R3 Medium Density Residential zone, on a site that could readily support a substantially larger, multi-level residential development that would likely create significantly greater impact in terms of potential light spill. Having regard to this context it is not expected that potential light spill from the proposed development would be unreasonable or unacceptable in the urban environment of Gerringong.
    Notwithstanding this, a condition of consent will be applied requiring any external lighting to be positioned, directed and shielded in such a manner as to not shine directly at neighbours and cause a nuisance should the application be approved.
    Item 5 – Concern is expressed about loss of privacy for neighbours.
    Response – As above, the proposal seeks to replace an existing aged care facility, on a lot that could readily support more intensive residential development. Such an alternative would likely have significantly greater potential privacy loss impact for neighbours than the development currently proposed.
    What are these suggestions to be considered as!!!
    It was suggested main access to the development be relocated/redirected to Greta Street, either by direct access to/from the site or via the existing Mayflower Village entry at Greta Street.
    Response – The site has direct frontage to Croft Place from where Boronia Lodge currently obtains access. The applicant proposes to maintain this existing access arrangement. Reiterating that the existing 24 bed facility is being downscaled to a 20 bed facility and given that Council’s Engineers are satisfied that the existing road network and access can support the proposed development, continued use of the access from Croft Place is considered to be acceptable in the circumstances.
    Question -How many of the Dementia patients will be driving and what is planned for the balance of 4

    In the 100 bed construction these conditions were flouted :-
    Construction regularly occurred outside approved hours during construction of the 100-bed facility

    o No dust mitigation measures were taken during construction of the 100-bed facility

    o Rubbish and building material polluted the area and clogged storm water drains as a result of the construction of the 100-bed facility
    AND KMC were never able to get adequate responses from Unitings private certifier!

  5. In Booker Bay NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling House” at 112 Booker Bay Road, Booker Bay NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is great to see a replacement house, can the owners make every effort to preserve the trees on this block, work around them or prune them - anything but cut them down.
    The Peninsula suburbs have lost too many mature trees and we all need to work together to to preserve what's left and plant more for shade and habitat. Every tree, shrub or hedge helps keep us cool, the local animals in homes and the bees delirious.

  6. In Booker Bay NSW on “Swimming Pool In-ground” at 112 Booker Bay Road, Booker Bay NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is great to see urban renewal, can the owners make every effort to preserve the trees on this block, work around them or prune them - anything but cut them down.
    The Peninsula suburbs have lost too many mature trees and we all need to work together to to preserve what's left and plant more for shade and habitat. Every tree, shrub or hedge helps keep us cool, the local animals in homes and the bees delirious.

  7. In Wagstaffe NSW on “Demolish Existing 2 Storey...” at 71 Wagstaffe Avenue, Wagstaffe NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners work around the shade trees on this build?
    The lower Central Coast is losing too many mature trees in the suburbs. We all need to be mindful of retaining mature trees, even if they have to be pruned back initially.

  8. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - screened room...” at 16 Croft Pl, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Raewyn Thomson commented

    I concur with John Balck this DA needs full approval since they are exposed to plant room noise, constant stairwell lights, tree removal and yet have to go into construction mode, where we can only hope in this case there isn’t blatant refusal to meet upto KMC conditions as there was with the 100 room build.
    Personally for me the only positive for this DA is the workers take over Greta Street as well and as it slows the the rat race through the Elambra Estate . Uniting has a Master plan as confirmed by the GM they just won’t make it public so where does that leave the residents!

  9. In Shelly Beach NSW on “Proposed amenities building” at Shelly Beach Golf Club 86 Bonnieview Street Shelly Beach NSW 2261:

    Karl Baumgart commented

    I think it is inappropriate for a toilet block to be sited on a residential building boundary with the course as submitted. I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by persons with houses adjacent to this proposed amenity. My house is located adjacent to the golf course closer to the 3rd tee and we also witness frequent urination against our and adjacent property fence lines. The need for golfers to do so must reflect inappropriate alcohol consumption on the course since this only the third hole. (Country butchers electrify metal shopfronts for errant pets which would be a harsh remedy!) The provision of an amenity block on the front nine seems reasonable and necessary. An amenity block located adjacent to the fifth tee-fourth green would be more appropriate for local residents and perhaps more difficult in terms of plumbing lines but would be a reasonable outcome. Furthermore some signage by the club about where it is and the need to be respectful of neighbours should be required.

  10. In Naremburn NSW on “Inspect 1 tree for pruning...” at 11 Oxley Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Doug Daniell commented

    Hi this is a wonderful tree, but it is massively over sized for where it is locate. For the tree to be maintained and for its survival, I believe it requires pruning to remove or reduce the size of some branches - especially those over hanging property.
    I fully support pruning this tree.

  11. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a new front fence” at 18 Victoria Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    G. Depose commented

    Details of this application need to be made public.
    The property has been getting renovated in recently and still has workers, curious that this application has no information at all.

  12. In Colyton NSW on “Section 4” at 35 Day Street Colyton NSW 2760:

    Michelle Naumann commented

    Parking and foot traffic is already problematic at and around this area but I hope seeing it has already been approved this will not cause injuries or problems too much.. but I already voiced this b4 but it is quite concerning

  13. In Colyton NSW on “Section 4” at 35 Day Street Colyton NSW 2760:

    Michelle Naumann commented

    Parking and foot traffic is already problematic at and around this area but I hope seeing it has already been approved this will not cause injuries or problems too much.. but I already voiced this b4 but it is quite concerning

  14. In Pyrmont NSW on “Renotification: Use of...” at 50 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Adam Summerfield commented

    Fantastic for the community

  15. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a new front fence” at 18 Victoria Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    The file says 'No records to display'.

    This wonderful Gothic-style house in the centre of Lewisham's dormant shopping village needs to be handled with care.

    And the front balcony needs to be re-installed!

  16. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 11A Tupper Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Amy Armstrong commented

    Where are the documents?

  17. In New Town TAS on “Demolition, New Building...” at 52 New Town Road New Town Tas 7008:

    Alison Smith commented

    I hope adequate off street parking is provided as this area is congested with cars during the week.

  18. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    G. Morrison commented

    I think it’s unfair that the Peninsula seems to be the dumping ground for all boarding houses & other such projects. I’m aware we need affordable housing but, why not share it around with other suburbs.
    The sneaky way the boarding house at Woy Woy was built should never be allowed to happen again. The boarding house in Woy Woy is not a success it has brought with it many many extra undesirable people who quite often start drinking alcohol at 9am & continue throughout the day, it has also encouraged more drugs in the area.
    Umina is just starting to get ahead with family oriented environment.
    Please don’t let Umina go backwards.

  19. In Randwick NSW on “Extension of trading hours...” at 73-109 Belmore Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    kat harte commented

    Extension of hours is fine but what can be done about all the McDonalds rubbish on the street and even in local neighbourhoods. With no bins on the street anymore for "safety issues" people are just walking home eating Maccas and throwing the rubbish on the street. Does Randwick or McDonalds not have a responsibility to pick it up? Moe hours = more rubbish

  20. In Modbury North SA on “Three detached dwelling,...” at 6 Alawa Avenue Modbury North SA 5092:

    B W commented

    Three double story dwellings are not suitable for this block. This development will congest parking and increase traffic in this narrow street to unacceptable levels. Impact on surrounding single story dwellings due to shading and encroachment of privacy will also be felt.

  21. In Roseville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 170 Pacific Highway Roseville NSW 2069:

    Stephen Hunt commented

    This would seem to be a substantial overdevelopment of a modest sized building block. The present building blends comfortably with the surrounding properties. If the requirement is for a Boarding House, then it should be an adaption of the present building rather than a complete rebuild.

  22. In Eltham North VIC on “Building and works to...” at 45 Orchard Avenue, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    It seems that everyone with a slightly bigger block is subdividing. There is no parking at Woolworths or Coles during the day. Bible Street is impassable for 2 SUV’s, it takes forever to get from Templestowe to Eltham during peak hour. We cannot support more people in Eltham. Also again there is removal of native vegetation . At this rate there won’t be any left

  23. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of semi...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Cameron Hons commented

    I've been told from the occupants of this property that despite previous rejections from Bayside Council and the community plus Land & Environment Court the house is still going to get knocked down, the approvals have been finalized and impending in the next couple of months. There has been no confirmation from either planning alerts or Bayside Council so I am not sure whether this is true or not, but they seem very persistent about it. If the house has approval for being knocked down, what will it be replaced with? And most importantly, how will the surrounding reserve be impacted throughout the development? These are concerns that I strongly encourage Bayside Council to investigate. Thank you for reading.

  24. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one (1)...” at 15 Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    L. Whelan commented

    This tree along Fullers road is a magnificent specimen and al efforts should be made to preserve it if it not a danger to life..

  25. In Waterloo NSW on “Section 8.2(1)(a) Review of...” at 291 George Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Alexa Wyatt commented

    As a long term resident of the area I strongly support the refusal of this application. Regardless of what may have existed on the site several years ago, it is beyond irresponsible to open another retail liquor outlet in an area with a statistically high rate of residents with substance abuse issues. The supporting documents claiming the lack of social impact are breath taking in their simplicity and disingenuous arguments, such as suggesting that staff at the bottle shop developing a rapport with local customers will lead to harm minimisation. The staff are there to sell liquor to customers, is the applicant honestly suggesting they will refuse to do so? It is ludicrous to suggest that retail staff can suddenly occupy social work roles and functions. Nor are the following statements justifications" "...more general contributions of alcohol providing a social lubricant for communities. For better or worse, alcohol has a central place in Australian society". As the same document argues, the presence of numerous other liquor outlets nearby therefore precludes the need for another. Relying on statistics of domestic violence and assault related to alcohol ignores all the other social impacts created - the health issues related to excessive alcohol consumption and dependency, the mental health impacts of people with these issues and their families, the impact this has on employment and education opportunities, which in turn can lead to welfare dependency and the vicious cycle of poverty that creates. None of the documents arguing against the refusal even mention these broader issues yet they are just as profound and significant as assault statistics.

  26. In Moorebank NSW on “Unathourised works - Solid...” at 6 Astor Street Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Mark commented

    Yeh let's worry about a wood heater.....I wouldn't want you to be distracted from approving those 5 storey apartments destroying our suburbs.

  27. In North Melbourne VIC on “Building and works...” at 24-34 Villiers Street North Melbourne 3051:

    Jenny Schwarz wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    Street parking in the area is already very difficult due to Lort Smith, Women's Hospital and RMH. Any further reduction in Lort Smith on site parking will only make matters worse. At 7.30 this morning ALL Villiers Street parking was full.

    Photo of Rohan Leppert
    Rohan Leppert local councillor for Melbourne City Council
    replied to Jenny Schwarz

    Thanks Jenny

    The application has only just been lodged, so I'll have a look at it once it's advertised.

    Because the site is being rebuilt, a planning permit is required for various reasons, including to provide car parks at a rate less than the default rate in the planning scheme. Despite this, it is my understanding that there will be no reduction in car parks on the site to what is currently there. So 'reduction' refers to the default rate, not to what is currently provided.

    All the best,

    Rohan

    This email is intended solely for the named addressee.
    If you are not the addressee indicated please delete it immediately.

  28. In North Melbourne VIC on “Building and works...” at 24-34 Villiers Street North Melbourne 3051:

    Jenny Schwarz commented

    My concern is about a reduction in parking. It is virtually impossible now to park in Villiers Street during the day and any reduction will only exacerbate the issue.

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra” at 481-499 Malabar Road, Maroubra:

    Local Resident commented

    All,

    The developers of this site have lodged amended plans. If you object to the development please reiterate your objection to council by tomorrow COB.

    Reasons for objection include.

    - The density is not conforming with local controls and is out of context. The FSR is not complaint and is excessive.

    - The Primary School next door will have its playground placed in shade in the morning.

    - The proposed site through links are not usable community space. The extent of the site through links needs expansion with improved amenities, free and open access and rights assured via registered easements.

    - The common facilities are not for public benefit. The prior use as a Bowlo was Private Recreation that was publicly accessible. The proposed use is not in the community interest.

    - The statement in the Social Impact Statement, 23 April by Cred that the site was able to be purchased for private recreation purposes fails to acknowledge that the site was marketed by agents as a development opportunity that had greater commercial opportunity. By virtue of their use type Private Recreation uses can not compete commercially with for profit private development uses.

    - The extent of open space is not sufficient and does not enable community activity.

    - The schools either side of the development will be adversely effected by dust, noise and vibration. The two years of disruption will significantly affect hundreds of school children’s formative years. The wider community of Maroubra do not support the development

    - Sufficient notification of the amended plans has not been provided at the property.

    - The LEP does not permit the type of development proposed. Residents have based their purchase decisions on the prevailing LEP.

    - The architects plans do not reflect the statements made in the SIA that a community hub, cafe, swimming pool, cinema and multifunction rooms will be available for public community use.

    - The SIA comment that there is other open space in proximity to the site is not a valid reason for reducing the open space in Maroubra. Maroubras population has increased in recent times. More open space is needed to provide that needed by the local community and the visitors that flock to the beach each day.

    - The use will not provide public benefit, only commercial benefit to the developer and private benefit for those that can afford its product offering.

    - The SIA comment that the area is well serviced with comparable clubs, p23, is erroneous.

    - The SIA comments that the there is more than enough open space. This comment is subjective and local residents disagree

    - The declining economic viability of the Bowlo is due to mismanagement and not sufficient argument against a change of use at the detriment of local residents amenity. If the site was sold at a price that acknowledged the RE2 zoning exclusively then operators of private recreation facilities could have competed on a fair basis. Instead the site was sold on the speculation it would be rezoned.

    - The existing aged care locations should be densified prior to absorbing open space

    - The open space audit, Appendix 1, SIA by Cred p 24, lists places well beyond that considered a reasonable walking distance. All parks over 800m away should be removed from consideration

    - Offensively the SIA states that facilities such as Centrelink and the Ambulance station are sufficient community facilities to justify the Bowlos destruction

    - The traffic management study fails to acknowledge the school pick up peak period at 3pm. Two primary schools sit each side of the site.

    - Employees car parking is not sufficient and car parking for the facility will spill over onto the already crowded roads.

    - Visitation traffic has not be given due consideration in the traffic report

    - The local road network and parking bays are not sufficient to hold existing uses that parents of local school children require plus the load from the over development of the site.

    - The traffic management plan suggests that bicycle will be a reasonable alternative means of transport for aged car and dementia suffering attendees

    - No date is supplied for when the traffic audit was undertaken. Was it completed at a time and date when the school was operating?

    - The prior mistakes allowing 4 Storey Development, noted in GSAs Urban Design Report p12, are not justification for extra ordinary allowance of the GFA and density that are not compliant with the LEP or local character

    - There are not sufficient setbacks from the boundaries

    - Local residents disagree with the flippant statements by GSA that the Bowlo makes no contribution to the street scape. The visual impact of the proposed development will be substantial and detrimental to sight lines. The photos provided in GSAs design statement are conveniently positioned to enhance their claims and not entirely and truthfully descriptive of the impact

    - The medium density site used as justification on p19 is under investigation. It’s approval came after political donations by the developers

    - School operations and future uses of open space may be effected by complaints from the elderly residents

    - Privacy of local residents will be impacted by overcrowding

    - The scale and urban grain of existing development has not been respected in the proposed design

    - Gates are shown on the plans for communal space. This space is not for public access or may be restricted by the operator post OC

    - The dementia courtyard will be dark from the surrounding density and height of the buildings

    - Building separation is not sufficient or inline with the width of Rossiter Ave

    - No meaningful sustainably initiatives or VPA that benefit the community are proposed

    - The GSA statement that the facility will not place additional burden on existing community facilities is false. Should the development proceed then enhancements to the local open space are desirable.

    - Should this development proceed it will set a dangerous precedent and will encourage the sell off of all bowling clubs and all Private Recreation lands to private developers

    - Sufficient detail of materials is not provided. Ensuring against combustion and provision of a materiality that is of a good standard is required

    - The current site through link receives constant sun. This will reduce to 2 hours per day. Not an inviting space that invites crime.

    - Visual impact study is self serving and by its own admission limited in scope.

    - Increased visual impact, restricted sight lines and reflection of the building will increase danger of traffic to students.

    - The current community are not supportive and we trust those charged with ensuring land is used in accordance with those outlined in the LEP and by the natural laws of merit. This site is not appropriate for the proposed use.

  30. In Roseville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 170 Pacific Highway Roseville NSW 2069:

    Pankaj Shinde commented

    This development should not be approved. The nature of this area is residential and families live here. Pacific Highway is already overburdened with traffic. The architecture of the building needs to be in line with heritage as well.

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