Recent comments

  1. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Mel Westcottg commented

    I agree, let’s support the small businesses who bring services and a sense of community to our neighbourhoods. For those residents who are less mobile please ensure there is adequate space for customers to “park” dogs and prams out of the way, remembering of course that there are two sides of the streets so people can choose to avoid it if they prefer. Let’s support these applications which add value to our communities and be stricter on those developers who only seek to make short term profit and have no personal investment in our way of life.

  2. In Brisbane City QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 309 North Quay Brisbane City QLD 4000:

    Julia commented

    This proposal should not be approved.

  3. In Gisborne VIC on “Development of two (2) new...” at 16A Calthorpe Street Gisborne VIC 3437:

    Annette Papax commented

    Letting concerned residents know that the beautiful Manna Gum on Council Land at 16A Calthorpe Street has been assessed as very valuable & we have been reassured by MRS Council that it will be saved & protected when this property is developed. However, the smaller eucalyptus tree just inside the fence line & tight up against the neighbours fence has not yet been assessed & is at risk of being removed to make way for easier access to the property.
    Given that it is a companion tree & tight up against the fence line allowing ample room to its right for vehicles to enter, some of us feel that it too is worth saving if possible?

    Assessment is happening soon & Thanks to everyone who commented. 🌿

  4. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 38 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Chris Williams commented

    There is insufficient parking on site. You just expect residents and visitors to park in an already crowded street. This inhibits traffic flow. Plus the quality of building is terrible. Take some responsibility council, govern these cheap constructions. Look after the residents instead of being so greedy for more rates.

  5. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Ralph commented

    As residents of Meadowbank, we strongly oppose this development. The area is already overpopulated!

  6. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 13 Edward Street, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Susan Curtis commented

    Serious this is so wrong in so many ways.
    My Objection was submitted and I am still fighting it.....

    The protection overlay is in place to protect this sensitive area and there should be NO option for appeal.

    This development is inappropiate to the size of land, location and impact it will have on its residents whether you have lived here short or long term..Yes a retirement village has merrits in the area but NOT at this location and 3 - 4 stories high!!!!

    Has there been a management plan on how the development will take place whilst School children make their way to School safely, Child care centre drop off and pick up, Sporting groups & hospital visitors struggle to find parking now, my head spins at the thought of trucks, cranes,concrete the size of ?? and how many workers would have to be on site ?? oh and lets not consider the noise impact either and for how long..

    How can Urbanlife group be advertising this development when it has NOT been overturned by VCAT?? It is still under review and will be heard on the 24th May 2021... Wrong Wrong.. or is there something we are all missing, the developer is prepared to pay what ever price is required to get what they want!!!! and we the residents have NO further options for a right of appeal to VCAT...

  7. In Sunshine Beach QLD on “Siting Provisions” at 4 Coral Sea Ct Sunshine Beach QLD 4567:

    Peter van Zijl commented

    We don’t feel it is appropriate to have STA’s in a mainly residential area with mainly owner occupiers.
    This narrow dead end street with yellow lines on the full length doesn’t provide for any parking. In a time that we need more long term tenants we believe it is not appropriate to allow for
    more STA’s.
    Please consider our concerns re this application.
    Thank you.

  8. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Hank commented

    So here is the problem:
    “........ The Council have a City Plan that guides new development, and that sits under the state’s Planning Act 2016. The difficulty we have in Queensland is that the legislation is merit based rather than being prescriptive like in some other states (NSW for example). That means the City Plan sets guidelines rather than strict regulations, and applicants have the ability to put forward a case as to why they should be able to offer alternative solutions to meet desired outcomes rather than comply exactly with the guidelines.

    The history of recent approvals on the Gold Coast would suggest that the Council is very open to receiving alternative solutions rather than taking a position of seeking closer compliance with the guidelines. The results of these decisions do have effects on the character of an area and these are decisions that the Council must take responsibility for..........”

  9. In Noosaville QLD on “Detached House - Short Term...” at 8 Hygieta St Noosaville QLD 4566:

    Celia Maloney commented

    This application should not be approved. No 8 and the adjoining property No 10 have a shared driveway so guests staying at No 8 would not be able to leave their vehicles there. I believe permanent residents live at No 10. Both properties are close to the turning circle at the canal end of Hygieta Street. Parking isn't easy in this enclave and more vehicles will end up parking on the street making it even more difficult for local residents in Hygieta Street and Laburnum Crescent.

  10. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 14 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Lisa Appelman commented

    Absolutely not! There are significant trees on this site. Access has always been dangerous even when a single dwelling.

  11. In Saint Marys NSW on “Section 4:55(1)...” at 12 Australia Street, St Marys NSW 2760:

    Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    I object to the granting of approval to amend conditions of consent.

    Insufficient information has been provided regarding interruption of diversion of overland water flows by the development.

    Insufficient information has been provided regarding the contemplation of water sensitive urban design.

    I note that the alternative water supply is not connected to lavatories in the Basix certificate document and object to this continuing and urgently request a condition of consent that the alternative water supply be connected to all lavatories, laundry and garden fixtures.

    I note from original plans the unsuitable internal amenity from lack of a suitably sized and designed space for washing machine storage and request this be urgently addressed.

    I note that there is no treatment of the driveway such as bunded pavement, on-site drain gross pollutant screens in order to prevent litter, leaked vehicle fluids, and car washing related waste from entering the storm water system.

    I request a consent condition that any resident is forbidden from washing motor vehicles upon the driveway, or washing of any waste bin upon the driveway.

    I request that the energy and thermal performance plans be redone with the minimum standards exceeded by 50%.

    I'm request consent condition that subsurface permeable drain pipe (agg drain) be installed so that the site cannot be inundated whatsoever during a precipitation event of 100mm of rain within 12 hours.

    As the land slopes towards the north there is insufficient information that the development will not increase overland flows of water and inundate land to the north in the event of a precipitation event of 100mm falling within 12 hours.

    Frankly I question this development should ever have been approved. I recommend that no occupation certificates be valid for the site until further engineering and planning scrutiny is undertaken and the owners and developer become more transparent with us. They expect it's St Mary's it should just get "boxes ticked and waved through" well I think it needs a lot more official scrutiny than has been the case to date.

  12. In Gosnells WA on “Demolition permit -...” at 82 Fremantle Road, Gosnells WA 6110:

    Kevin counsel commented

    Concerns over asbestos being airborne as there is a day care centre next door concerns over contaminated dust & dirt being airborne which could affect the children at the daycare centre with asthma and in general

  13. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 38 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Matt Annesley commented

    The traffic in Mooroolbark is crippling. The road design is not up to standards to carry the volumes of traffic.
    The new estate is going to bring Mooroolbark to a stand still.
    These high density developments, as proposed at 38 winyard drv, are only a money making exercise for council. Cause massive congestion on local roads and movement around our town.

    The carpark at Coles is already extremely dangerous and not suitable for the size of the town yet the council seems determined to jam as many ratepayers as possible.

  14. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Clifford Hearne commented

    Attn. Mr Alex Glassington, Senior Planner/Responsible Officer

    According to the city planning of the Gold Coast the maximum height of this building on 264 The Esplanade Miami 4220 should be only 15 floors high , so no building should be above this height, myself and my neighbours are very concerned that the proposal of this building which is to be 24 floors high. Which we strongly object to as it will deeply impact the living quality we have now and enjoy so much.

  15. In Machans Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 79-81 Tucker Street Machans Beach QLD 4878:

    Chauncey Millard commented

    Thia goes against the character or Machans Beach and the community does not want it.

  16. In Noosaville QLD on “Detached House - Short Term...” at 8 Hygieta St Noosaville QLD 4566:

    Jeanette Gentle commented

    From the Council web site, many applications for STA are currently being approved. On the 16 February 2020 I sent an email to all the Mayor and all Councillors expressing my concern about the approval of 5 Robert St Noosaville for STA. Councillors responded by saying 5 Robert St was approved because it was designated medium density residential. Brian Stockwell in his email indicated that he “totally agreed that the area immediately surrounding Laburnum Crescent should be protected from further development for short stay accommodation and the Noosa Plan 2020 makes it an inconsistent use”.

    Why then would the Council even consider approving 8 Hygietia St as STA, especially as it is surrounded by permanent residents?

    For your information:
    • 7 Hygieta St New Zealand owners who live there permanently in winter months.
    • 4 Hygieta St Low-cost rental permanent residential.
    • 6 Hygieta St Owner occupied permanent residential.
    • 10 Hygieta St Owner occupied permanent residential.
    • 20, 18, 15, 14, 13, 11, 12, 9, 8, 6, 5, 3 Laburnum Crescent Owner occupied permanent residential.
    • 15,17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 Cloudsley St Owner occupied permanent residential.

    We all know that one STA can destroy the amenity of an area for multiple owners. It would seem permanent residents continue to have no rights to protect their neighbourhoods from the scrounge of STA. This is not just about the noise, parking issues, garbage issues, multiple families in a house etc, it is about the destruction of permanent residential neighbourhoods, which the Council is complicit in, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of community in Noosa. For example, if I am forced to sell because of STA encroachment, the community will lose someone who volunteers: doing front of house/duty manager at Noosa Arts Theatre, Co-ordinates a walking group for NPA, is a member of the Committee which facilitates Friday Environmental Forum, works at the Noosa NP info hut, constantly picks up rubbish, monitors the environment, volunteers at events etc.

    In addition, 8 Hygienta St has a shared driveway. Given that many STA involve multiple cars, often parked illegally, one can only image the problems which will be created for the resident who shares the driveway.

    It is my view that STA is an accommodation business, and like any business should be excluded from residential zonings. I would strongly request that 8 Hygieta Street’s application for STA be rejected.

  17. In North Sydney NSW on “To modify Consent No 69/18...” at 4 Carlow Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Chris Brunck commented

    We have real and recent experience with a rooftop deck. Two matters need to be considered: noise and privacy. Noise travels freely from such a deck, as anyone knows with roofing work nearby. Further, the timing of such noise tends to be when people are at home (ie. evenings and weekends). Our neighbour has a part-enclosed rooftop deck and the family has parties which sometimes continue into the night. From our house it seems as though they in the next room.

    Lastly, a rooftop deck means rooftop views, so if you value the privacy of your garden then this can make you unhappy.

    These rooftop decks may seem a nice idea for one owner but in practice can make several neighbouring owners upset. Not a good idea in such a dense suburb.

  18. In Machans Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 79-81 Tucker Street Machans Beach QLD 4878:

    Tom Reid commented

    I am writing in response to Development Application 10722/2021 for a rezoning of the properties at 79-81 Tucker Street, Machans Beach.

    The Development Application is requesting approval for a medium density housing development for a property whose zoning overlay permits only low-density residential housing. I object strongly to this planning application.

    Low-density residential zoning was approved over 20 years ago in response to widespread community support to preserve the character of Machans Beach through the Machans Beach Community Association. The current zoning laws are highly valued by those who live at Machans Beach.

    Neighbouring beach side suburbs have undergone multi-unit development with medium density housing having considerable impact on the communities. Machans Beach has been able to preserve its highly desirable and unique neighbourhood character because of its zoning overlays.

    Such character is typical of other desirable areas in Cairns such as the hill slopes of Freshwater, Edge Hill and Whitfield in which unit developments are prohibited because of zoning laws. The zoning laws are there for the protection of the neighbourhood character of these areas and exceptions should not be made to developers.

    Importantly, if approval is given to change the zoning for one property, the precedent is immediately and irrevocably set for others to apply for zoning changes.

    If there is to be a change to the zoning overlays, this needs to be done in consultation with the community and not at the discretion of the Council and developers.

  19. In Sturt SA on “Demolition” at 3 Franklin St, Sturt 5047 SA:

    Russ Jones commented

    Is the old gum tree going to be pulled out at no 3 Franklin street Sturt S

  20. In Box Hill NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 21 Nelson Road, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    James commented

    This should not be approved!

    We do not need more tract housing that’s causing more traffic congestion, choking up the hospitals and schools and now it’s found that these tract housing are causing suburbs to be hotter due to excessive tree removals and hot roofs.

    How many native trees will be removed for this and flora and fauna be impacted by this ?!

    Where’s the town planning/planner in this?

    We need more employment land in the area! More infrastructure, hospitals and schools!!

  21. In Oyster Bay NSW on “Subdivision of one lot into...” at 39 Como Road Oyster Bay NSW 2225:

    Ryan Broom commented

    Can council please consider the volume of trees to be removed, and balance against the scale of the development proposed? The scale and maturity of trees to be lost is significant and irreplaceable.

  22. In Gerroa NSW on “Remove flat roof & contruct...” at 44 Stafford St, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    ROY SCHMIDT commented

    I am a bit perplexed re this DA, as a fence went up & work commenced on the new roof etc about 3+ months ago?? Was it not approved prior to commencement?

  23. In Box Hill NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 21 Nelson Road, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    James commented

    Residents of the hills shire need to be aware and not to be shy to speak up about developments like this.

  24. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Joseph O'Donoghue commented

    What a shame some idiot residents spoil it for others. This is a brilliant idea and I support it whole-heartedly. To the disgruntled resident above – get a hobby!

    Little additions like this to the streetscape can generate very valuable ambience, that help to foster a sense of community and things happening. It is healthy, more of it is needed and we should be doing all we can to facilitate the use of and the sound of the local streetscape being used and enjoyed. Look forward to visiting the cafe and enjoying the tables and chairs once approved.

  25. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Alexis commented

    I live very close to this cafe. Happy to see more outdoor seating made available. As someone who (once) travelled extensively, I can honestly say that the cities and towns (mainly in Europe) where there is abundant outdoor seating are the places with the best atmosphere and vibe. It encourages people to be outdoors, engage with each other and a sense of community.

  26. In Box Hill NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 21 Nelson Road, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    James commented

    This should not be approved!

    We do not need more tract housing that’s causing more traffic congestion, choking up the hospitals and schools and now it’s found that these tract housing are causing suburbs to be hotter due to excessive tree removals and hot roofs.

    How many native trees will be removed for this and flora and fauna be impacted by this ?!

    Where’s the town planning/planner in this?

    We need more employment land in the area! More infrastructure, hospitals and schools!!

  27. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    JT commented

    With age comes wisdom. Totally agree with the long term resident. Let people get outside, create community and help these struggling restaurants. This should be a given and not wasting everyone's time

  28. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Substantial alterations and...” at 51 Ebley Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Liane Rossler commented

    Hard to disagree that ‘this exact part of Ebley St is already one of the the dirtiest and worst kept parts of Bondi Junction.’ This heavily pedestrianized and utilized area needs dramatic improvement for the community, visitors and neighbourhood.

  29. In Kew VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 281 Barkers Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Deborah Cohen commented

    Why is this property allowed 3 stories, when I live at 185 Barkers Road, and Council imposed a two story limit? Council should make the height permit be consistent for all parts of Barkers Road. I object to the 3 stories for this block. It is inconsistent with the existing policy.

  30. In Burraneer NSW on “To stop bird faeces, leaves...” at 2/136C Woolooware Road Burraneer NSW 2230:

    C commented

    Should be mandatory that for every bedroom, there should be provided a car space ( notice I didn’t say garage- they don’t make garages anymore). Council can stipulate this. And not tandem garages either.

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