Recent comments

  1. In South Yarra VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 62 Arthur Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Tilly commented

    I live in one of the properties on Davison Place.
    Currently we have additional noise pollution and traffic using the area with the Metro Tunnel Project but this is a mid term pain for long term gain.
    There is nothing to gain with lots of pain in relation to the proposed planning application.
    Additional car parking and traffic, not to mention further potential blockages to an already chaotic one-way Street (that isn’t enforced!). This is in addition to the blocking of light from current residential buildings.
    Separate to this is the additional dirt, noise and traffic that would block the already congested area during construction works.
    The proposed purpose of this accommodation in short term dwellings also increases the risk of security and safety issues in the areas.
    I trust that my comments will be taken seriously and added to the picture that I am sure has been created by many others as to why this planning permission should not be granted.

  2. In Langwarrin VIC on “Condition 1 - To construct...” at 33 Leisureland Drive, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Judy Corcoran commented

    It is regrettable that a substantial tree has to be removed, as well as native vegetation. It should be part of the approval process that at least three trees that will grow to a large size, be placed in appropriate positions to replace the one tree removed, as well as native vegetation suitable to the area.

  3. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    JoeO commented

    Good point Steve P.
    I’ve complained to councillors, I’ve complained to the head planner, I’ve complained to the mayor.

    Next step is to turn it up a notch so they can at least provide a service that isn’t WORSE than it was 2 years ago.

  4. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Carport & Sail (Dual...” at 2 / 24 Palm Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is great to see older homes being updated, can the owners retain the shade trees on the side fence?

  5. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 30 King Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners instruct the contractors to work around some or all of the existing trees for the future amenity of three residents who will appreciate the shade?
    This area is rated as one of the hottest areas on the Central Coast and all efforts should be made at every stage to retain existing trees for shade (and habitat) as well as planting new trees.

  6. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling and...” at 9 Forest Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    When this development is finished, can Council ensure shade trees are planted along the side road? All too often on The Peninsula, trees are knocked down and somehow the developers run out of funds at the end to plant a garden or trees. Part of the DA compliance should be to adhere to Council's objectives of Greening Places and urban Canopy.

  7. In Mona Vale NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 56 Samuel Street, Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    David Daniel Leach commented

    I want to see the elevations as I live next door.

  8. In Lalor VIC on “Multi Unit (1 - 4 dwellings)” at 25 Messmate Street Lalor VIC 3075:

    Arthur commented

    Yes that's it, fill up the blocks with four units ! The council is happy, four rates per block, as if Messmate st wasn't busy enough! More money for the council to waste ! And,... they'll be four extra cars or utes sneaking in the middle of the night to dump rubbish in Scott street, or four mattresses sitting on the nature strip four 12 months instead of one before they're picked up ! With all the extra money the council is getting, you would think they would do something to discourage or punish the people that dump there filth in Scott st. all most every week! I suggested they put up some cameras linked to a hard drive they can go to the next day if someone dumps the rubbish and get their rego. OR to install some lights at the Dalton -Settlement rd. roundabout so we are not playing Russian roulette every time we have to go though it!

  9. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 42 Bambara Crescent Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Ingrid Ralph commented

    Please provide details on why they wish to remove the trees. We should be planting more trees not removing them. Or has the unprecedented bushfires and the massive loss of trees and fauna escaped this owners notice.

  10. In McKinnon VIC on “Alterations and additions...” at 181 McKinnon Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Peter commented

    There should be no street car parking concessions made to any type of development which imposes further traffic congestion in our neighbourhood.
    Such developments must be required to provide off street parking commensurate with the unit occupancy numbers.

  11. In Manly NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 32 Bower Street, Manly NSW 2095:

    Lou Sand commented

    During this world wide environmental crisis I think that the development of such a proposal so close to such a natural treasure (Shelley Beach and surrounds) is severely detrimental. Not only will there be a huge loss of biodiversity but the excess material waste that comes from removing such a massive house is an unfair contribution to landfill purely because the rich are not satisfied with their current dwelling. There will inevitably be a huge amount of water used in the building of this newly proposed house at a time where the whole country ought to be using as little water as possible. The demolition of the entire property will release awful sediments that will ultimately end up in the water that is a stone trow away from the house and, whilst different to the ash from the current ongoing fires that we have seen suffocate marine creatures, will have a profound effect on the local underwater environment at Shelley Beach. The newly proposed absolute diabolical renovation of this property will effect neighbouring views and reduce the value of surrounding houses effected. Because of the increased surface area of the roofing it will generate an exponential increase in run off from the house that could negatively effect the publicly owned nature reserve to the south of the house. Potentially causing small landslides or flooding in periods of heavy rain fall. Not dissimilar to the way in which the development of St Patricks estate flooded the pathway leading to Shelly Beach in March 2019, this development has the potential to do the same on a larger scale. The addition of a pool in an area that couldn't get any closer to the beach is a preposterous suggestion that suggests a lack of consideration. This is a case of the elite not considering the environmental costs of selfishness. I do so hope that you guys at the council have a deep and wide understanding of the environmental costs of this proposal and choose to properly investigate all of the detrimental aspects in accordance with the publics concern for the natural integrity of our beautiful Manly.

  12. In Donvale VIC on “Amend Permit Number...” at 339-341 Springvale Road Donvale VIC 3111:

    David and Lyn Appleby commented

    We completely agree with our neighbour mr Neil Meaden, Eleanor court turning is an accident waiting to happen ...the traffic is horrendous just trying to exit and enter,cannot imagine what it would be like with further cars wanting turn..Lyn and david appleby

  13. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 42 Bambara Crescent Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Paul De Rossi commented

    Seriously? No way, please block this without more detailed information. How can you buy a block of land knowing that it is full of trees then decide to bulldoze them all? I note there is no information on why they want to remove them all and no details on the sizes and types of trees.

  14. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Steve P commented

    I would suggest to those not happy with Inner West Council concerning the insufficient information provided on DA's, to contact and complain to the NSW Ombudsmen Office. https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/
    They investigate government departments including local councils.

  15. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 42 Bambara Crescent Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Gillian Ogg commented

    As a resident of Beecroft for 31 years, I have observed much attrition of the tree density in our suburb. Whilst I understand that development is unavoidable in older suburbs with larger blocks, it seems to me that removing 10 trees on a small block is somewhat extreme. It is well known that suburbs with fewer trees are hotter in summer and with increasing temperatures over all of Australia it seems very short-sighted to allow such an extraordinary number of trees to be removed. The amenity of Beecroft is under threat from developments of this sort. I cannot fathom why somebody would wish to live in Beecroft and then change the very things that make it such an pleasant place to reside.

  16. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 29 Abuklea Road Epping NSW 2121:

    concerned resident commented

    What type of trees are proposed to be removed? It seems a bit arbitrary to remove two trees in order to build a brick fence - is there currently a fence?
    There should be an arborist report to explain the type and condition of the trees.
    Please note that trees are an important local climate regulator and assist to keep the garden and house cooler and shaded in summer. Trees also provide valuable habitat for native birds and animals, especially near the important Terrys Creek reserve.

  17. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 42 Bambara Crescent Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Sue Robson commented

    So many trees have gone from Bambara Crescent already. I strongly object to the removal of all trees on that small block of land. We should be preserving our green environment.

  18. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Mark Singleton commented

    I thought the multiple dwellings on existing blocks were supposed to stop in East Toowoomba ? The council just seems to want as much rate revenue as they can get without considering the locals environment ... I don't trust the council are working for the individuals

  19. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 42 Bambara Crescent Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Anna Chipizubov commented

    This block of land is quite small yet there will be 10 trees removed leaving it completely bare of any vegetation. Is this necessary? It is terrible that someone would buy a lovely green block only to completely wipe out the vegetation to build whatever they wish with no regard to our treasured biodiversity. Perhaps if you want a tree less block you can buy in one of the newer estates. Not right to rub out the very thing that makes Beecroft beautiful.

  20. In Winston Hills NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Lanhams Road Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Kerrin Nuthall commented

    Childcare Centre's are a necessity and these days, the council ensures that the parking and access is beyond what is needed therefore minimizing disturbance to the local neighbourhood, the Traffic and Acoustic reports make sure of this. children are not dropped off or picked up on the street and access to the centre's are always forward exit unlike most residential driveways. Most centre's are well presented architecturally and present a tidy well maintained asset to the locality. Childcare centre's are by far the best neighbours to have, they don't have loud parties on the weekend or at night generally most of the noises that come out of them during the day are happy noises.

  21. In Christies Beach SA on “Covered seated area” at 2/53 Beach Road, Christies Beach SA 5165:

    David Baker commented

    Excellent restaurant. Would be better if the Veranda was able to be used.
    Owner has advised that council is holding off on development approval. They are asking for $3000 for the Car Park Fund first.
    Owner has requested to pay this in installments but has been denied.
    A little unreasonable for this action by council.
    I move to request Council to accept Payment arrangement and provide Building approval so we can utilise this beautiful Restaurant to its fullest.

  22. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jennifer commented

    Palm Beach residents rely on Council's development guidelines to indicate what development may be tolerated in their locality. However, it seems that Council have the view that their guidelines are just something that can be discarded and developers can invent what ever they like. Council, This is not acceptable and other ratepayers have called on Council to represent their views on developments in Palm Beach.

    Council, What is also not acceptable is developers overcrowding the land space with the building footprint, people and the accompanying numbers of vehicles.

    Council must be onside with ratepayers and protect what living standards residents want or need in Palm Beach.

    Council, Palm Beach residents are calling on you to say NO to further high-rise development overcrowding the precious little space available in Palm Beach.

  23. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Sal commented

    If its often happening that DA documents arent published online with the notification then its a breach of the planning legislation. Perhaps complain to the Internal Ombudsman at Inner west council.

  24. In Brown Hill VIC on “Multi lot subdivision and...” at Lot 2 Hillview Road, Brown Hill VIC 3350:

    Hamish Molloy commented

    I write in protest to the specified application for the following reasons:
    -Substantial negative impact on the local vegetation.
    -Conglomerate of housing development estates imposing a decreased standard of living, offence to public amenity, and unsightly imposition on pre-established green corridors in Ballarat.
    -Requirement for prioritisation of green wedges separating housing estates in Ballarat to prevent a monoculture of housing sprawl that is significantly detracting from the previous nature of Ballarat and destroying its environment.
    -This development presents a serious risk to spoil one of Ballarat's finest assets, being the Yarrowee Creek corridor.
    -The city expansion should remain in the West so to protect current spaces and preserve the regional characteristics of Ballarat.

  25. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Asad Rajput commented

    Dear Council,

    I wish to register a complaint against proposed Application No. P22489 by ENRGX PTY LTD for “Use and Development of a Waste to Energy Facility”.
    This is toxic for our environment and our health. WE DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS BEING APPROVED.

    Hume is a growing council with a lot of young families like us. We do not want this in our neighbourhood.
    Thanks

  26. In Birkdale QLD on “Change to Development...” at 167 - 173 Collingwood Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    Michelle Hardwick commented

    Since 1992 when we moved in off Tulloch road I have seen the Tarradarrapin wetlands slowly die as the housing population has increased. It is clear already that the development surrounding this area is already having a detrimental effect and I would strongly ask that a reconsideration be considered in the restructuring of this and any further development encroaching on these wetlands. The butterfly colonies have dropped off to be almost nonexistent, where as there had been quite a substantial colony of butterflies inside the swamp. The thickness of the swamp has become quite sparse allowing more sunshine in allowing weeds to slowly overrun. This I believe is as a direct result of polluted runoff into the drainage system from the surrounding estates. The fig trees that line that strip of Collingwood Road are a long time landmark and should not under any circumstances be put under stress through developing around them.
    Flooding across Pitt Street (beside the wetlands) would no doubt be an even bigger problem than it is now in heavy rain events, where water is even pushed up Tulloch Drive and Nelson Road. An even larger collection of rain water being diverted into a specific area, without allowing it to spread out, would create an even larger flood. I would strongly object to this development being allowed to progress.

  27. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Joeo commented

    I’m with you on that Adrian.
    It’s a shame that after amalgamation Marrickville DAs done come with the documentation.
    What is the point of announcing a da when the documents are unavailable!!
    Join me in insisting a DA is not validly made public without corresponding documentation. If Leichardt and other absorbed Council’s can do it why is Marrickville incapable of doing so. Even in the many years since amalgamation but also in the Past 2 years? They used to be up at the same time! Why is it no longer happening?? I thought the whole point of amalgamation was to pool systems and resources.

  28. In Redland Bay QLD on “New Dwelling” at 18 Jake Circuit, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Jonathan Gill commented

    There are far too many small lot builds popping up in Redland Bay and surrounds.
    Main street, Moores Road, Broadwater Terrace (old Banana Farm) and the estate on Sweansea Circuit are full of small lot low cost housing.

    Thornlands now looks like Nauru!

    There is too much of 'Logan' filtering into the Redlands and this Council is solely responsible for this.

    I oppose this small lot build.

  29. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Barbara Holliday commented

    Dear Council,

    I wish to register a complaint against proposed Application No. P22489 by ENRGX PTY LTD for “Use and Development of a Waste to Energy Facility”.
    This is toxic for our environment and our health. WE DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS BEING APPROVED.
    I DO NO CONSENT TO BREATHING IN TOXIC EMISSIONS EG. MERCURY, NITROUS AND SULFURIC OXIDES, DIOXINS AND FURANS THAT WILL BE BILLOWING FROM THE STACKS.
    WE DO NOT PAY OUR RATES AND TAXES TO SUPPORT YOU POISONING US.

  30. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Barbara Holliday commented

    Dear Council,

    I wish to register a complaint against proposed Application No. P22489 by ENRGX PTY LTD for “Use and Development of a Waste to Energy Facility”.
    This is toxic for our environment and our health. WE DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS BEING APPROVED.
    I DO NO CONSENT TO BREATHING IN TOXIC EMISSIONS EG. MERCURY, NITROUS AND SULFURIC OXIDES, DIOXINS AND FURANS THAT WILL BE BILLOWING FROM THE STACKS.
    WE DO NOT PAY OUR RATES AND TAXES TO SUPPORT YOU POISONING US.

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