Recent comments

  1. In Umina Beach NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 42 South Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Yudhana Sunartha commented

    6 units on this size block is too many. Where will potentially 12 residents park their cars on a street that is already full from Bunnings shoppers, beach goers and west street businesses?
    I think up to 3 is a more appropriate amount for this size block and still allows for adequate landscape area.

  2. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Steve Levy commented

    The prosed development is totally out of character for our area. For some reason developers swoop on opportunities to make a substantial profit with no regard whatsoever for the area residents who reside in the surrounding precinct. Should this development proceed we will urgently list for sale our home to move to a local council area that cares for their residents. Everything pertaining to the scale of this development and is subsequent approval enforces desire and reasons to exit the area. We strongly and vigorously object to the proposed development and implore LCC TO REJECT THE PROPOSED DA.

  3. In Umina Beach NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 42 South Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Carlo commented

    We are perplexed as to how 6 units will be squeezed onto this block. We live over in Berith St & are continually seeing our street parked out by local residents & shoppers more than visitors. It appears, these days, each family has 2 cars. If 6 units go ahead, then where will one car each go let alone other cars and those of visitors? How about scaling back this DA to 3 units to allow for adequate parking, a garden & shade trees on our hot sand plain? More greenery adds value by the way.

  4. In Chatswood NSW on “Albert Avenue Railway...” at Albert Avenue, Chatswood,:

    Simon Lelli commented

    I strongly object to this application because it makes the area more dangerous and increases the cognitive load on the drivers in the area.

    There are already 3 sets of traffic lights within a 200 metre stretch of road and several T intersections from different sides and a large car park entrance. As well as normal roads/intersections that location has an additional two small (and somewhat unexpected) access roads immediately adjacent to the overpass on both the East and West sides.

    The possibility of accidents is particularly high as there are multiple modes of traffic including vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians PLUS delivery trucks using the access roads. The area also does not have clear line of sight along that stretch due to the overpass itself - as a driver regularly in the area I know the other side of the overpass is effectively a blind spot until I approach it and I go under the bridge.
    It is obvious that advertising and revenue by owning authorities are indeed an element of our modern world however this particular location is both dangerous and poorly suited for a digital billboard. Even a static billboard would not be ideal but would be better.

    I disagree with they opinion of Bruce Bradshaw I and strongly AGREE with David Grover.

  5. In Umina Beach NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 42 South Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Deb commented

    I am making this submission as a South Street, Umina Beach resident.
    I am not in favour of a six villa development.

    I live in South Street Umina Beach. I cannot see any documents relating to this development. Six units is too many for this 784sqm site if it is to allow for off-road parking for possibly 12 or more residents. Visitor parking for at least 3 visitor cars needs to be made available as is seen at 31 South street which has 6 units and six garages.
    South street already leaves no ability for residents to park outside their home during the 7 days of the week. Bunnings staff, Bunnings shoppers, West St businesses and shoppers, beach goers all fill up the current spaces.
    Three villas would be acceptable on this single residential block. Six villas also leaves no room for significant gardens or trees to offset the increase in hard surfaces. What is the vegetation component of this development?

  6. In Roselands NSW on “ORIGINAL CONSENT:...” at 116-118 Karne Street North, Roselands:

    Enza commented

    I feel and hear your concerns...... CBC does not care it’s all about profits. It’s disgusting. Don’t waste your time or emotional energy because regardless of our opinion it will go ahead.... it’s all a show to ask for our opinion. They do what they want.....

  7. In Roselands NSW on “ORIGINAL CONSENT:...” at 116-118 Karne Street North, Roselands:

    Gabi petry commented

    I am a resident of Leigh ave and have over the last few years watched the overdevelopment of Karne Street. Beautiful trees have been cut down to build concrete jungles with very little vegetation. It is disgusting that this council allows this to happen with little consideration to our beautiful suburbs and environment. Profit profit and more profit appears to be the councils main criteria. I strongly oppose all this developments. It’s creating noise pollution and overall pollution.
    If council is increasing the population and cars it needs to increase trees and vegetation’s. Shame on you

  8. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    Marc O'Conaill commented

    The creation of high density housing on this site is at odds with the character of the area. A number of large mature gum trees were removed, which has now altered the character of the area and disturbed a number of long-standing residents. The creation of such a number of houses and the large area of artificial surface is at odds with Council's aim to reduce on its already very high hotspots. The removal of trees has already contributed to this already. What is the point in aspiring to their goals when almost every decision Council makes in this regard is contrary.

    I too have concerns about the increase in cars on such quiet streets, which my family walk on a frequent basis.

    Thanks you.

  9. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Michael Wu commented

    My family strongly oppose this development:
    •the complex way too big and doesn’t integrate with its surrounds (detached houses/single dwellings).
    •creates issues with parking on nearby streets, add more pressure on wood street & penrose street, especially in the afternoon as cars by pass centennial ave and barwon road
    •the come and go short term residents doesn’t fit in our existing neighborhood
    •affects negatively local residents way of live and our quality of lives
    •this development just doesn’t fit in whatever way you look at it

    My family moved three times in the past 10 years or so from cope street, to Moore street and now penrose street, all in lane cove west because we like to live here at lane cove west.

  10. In Highton VIC on “Construction of Thirty Two...” at 2 Morven Court, Highton, VIC:

    Keown Yvonne commented

    “Old Highton” has traditionally been an area of leafy mature trees that add to the amenity of the area. This is slowly being eroded away by a planning scheme which is encouraging higher density in this well-established area of Highton. This is resulting in backyards being subdivided, block sizes being reduced and trees being removed. One of the “features” of this older neighbourhood is slowly disappearing and the potential is a barren treeless neighbourhood.

    This Morven development is one such development. Problems I see are as follows:
    1. Beautiful mature trees are being removed, along with the birds and animals that reside there.
    2. The development does not have enough car park spaces. With the majority of units possibly having two cars there is no room for the second car, for a visitor’s car or parcel delivery trucks to manoeuvre in this neighbourhood. Car movement and parking will affect the wider neighbourhood and possibly South Valley Road.
    3. There has not been enough green space allocated by the developer for the amenity of the residents within the development to enjoy. The development, at first look, appears to be more of a money grabbing venture on the part of the developer to “create as many blocks as possible in the confined space”. A number of blocks need to be set aside by the developer for a park with seats or a playground for people to enjoy.
    3. The two possible tree species that the developer has included in the street site plan are not enough to add to the greenery of the development. One being deciduous and as such will be leafless for much of the year and the other being too big for the site. The development will appear barren and lifeless.
    I do not want to see this development continue in its current form.

  11. In Bexley NSW on “Modification to lower the...” at 19 Gladstone Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Miceal Bradley commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to object to the proposed amendment of DA-2019/117/A
    Modification to lower the basement level, and change basement layout
    When this application was approved by the planning committee on the 12/11/19 we raised the issue about the car park and the position of the Sydney water sewer pipe and we explained the existing drawings would not work as this pipe would run directly through the middle of the car park, but the representatives for the developer assured the committee that it would work and wouldn't cause any issues. 

    Additional boarding room
    With the already undersized car park per the number of boarding rooms how can an additional room be allowed when this development is already under the required amount of spaces needed ?   

    New balconies
    The main objections would have to be the privacy and  noise pollution for the existing surrounding residences and the proximity to heritage listed properties.
    I would also like it to be on the record as I have witnessed several "near misses" with the traffic coming in and out of this site as there is no traffic control. 

    Mick Bradley, Dana Gibson

  12. In Lyneham ACT on “RECONSIDERATION-201935687-B...” at 3 De Burgh Street, Lyneham, ACT:

    Iolanthe Mae commented

    Please don't demolish these buildings. We do not need more unaffordable townhouses.

  13. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Robbie Porter commented

    If this is the case Gemma, it is good news.

  14. In on “PROPOSAL FOR MULTI STOREY...” at Anthony Rolfe Avenue, Hinder St, Ernest Cavanagh St & Kate Crace St, Gungahlin, ACT:

    RG commented

    There are way too may apartments in this region with traffic and parking becoming very difficult.

  15. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Gemma commented

    I have been informed by council that only the rear of the property will be demolished to facilitate an extension, and that the front of the property will remain.

  16. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a building...” at 67 Barden Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    There is no need for this whatsoever in our little community of Barden Ridge. Especially amongst our residential homes. This application needs to be knocked back asap. Our community will not stand for a place of public worship e.g mosque in 2234 at all. SSC needs to stop this proceeding any further!

  17. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a new...” at 152 Old Illawarra Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    Fully support the development it's long overdue for Barden Ridge. Teens will hang out anywhere that can't be a reason not to build. We need to be our own community not just a dumping ground for the Shires waste (tip) & a reactor. Traffic is everywhere & our traffic is mostly due to out of area students attending the Christian School & visitors to the Church during the day & evenings.

  18. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a building...” at 67 Barden Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    T Johnson commented

    No place of public worship of any religion is needed in Barden Ridge. Barden Ridge has a Church already, the community requires so much more than a place of public worship.

  19. In Woody Point QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 13 Samuel Street, Woody Point QLD 4019:

    Sue Napier commented

    DA tracker (MBRC replacement for PD Online) doesn't work to see exactly what is proposed

  20. In Kilsyth VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 5 Idinia Street, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Diane commented

    Stop the over development of our suburban blocks. Enough is enough, your turning our suburbs into slums of the future. The traffic in our suburbs, is already chokng our small streets. I fear all the Council cares about, is raking in more money, from all the extra Rate Payers. Wake up before you destroy our Suburbs.

  21. In Highgate Hill QLD on “Carry Out Building Work -...” at 45 Mabel St Highgate Hill QLD 4101:

    Dr William James Metcalf commented

    Objection to the proposed redevelopment of 45 Mabel St., Highgate Hill (Application A005641086)

    I live at 50 Mabel Street, across from and just down from #45. We have lived here for 39 years.
    Mabel Street, south of Gertrude Street, is dead-end, running steeply down to an old creek at the bottom of the hill. Several houses on our street have more cars than off-street parking spots (and some have cars but no off-street parking), so our street is frequently congested. Garbage and delivery trucks, in particular, often have serious problems trying to turn around, usually impossible, or reverse up the steep hill - often not possible when it rains.
    Two of the houses on Park Road West also use Mabel Street for car access, and sometimes parking, so that adds more cars to our congestion.
    The proposed expansion of #45 Mabel Street would change that building from two to five bedrooms, from two to three stories, would more than double the footprint on this small block of land, and roughly triple the inhabitable floor space. It would also shade the garden of #47 Mabel Street.
    With heavy rain, a tremendous flow of water comes down Mabel Street and the storm-water drains are often unable to cope, so serious flooding affects the houses on Park Road West. One resident has installed sandbags near the storm-water drain below #45 to try to staunch this regular flooding of his yard and car. More than doubling the roof area of #45 would more than double its runoff, contributing to these unresolved flooding issues.
    Such a gross expansion of this cottage would seriously add to the current congestion on Mabel Street and utterly destroy the aesthetic and heritage value of this house (just as has been allowed to happen with the totally inappropriate modifications to the house four-doors above. It was a lovely, three-bedroom cottage and is now an ugly monstrosity, totally out of character.)
    To allow #45 to be redeveloped and expanded, as proposed, would reduce the 1880s heritage value of our whole street and, I believe, it would adversely affect the value of everyone else's property on our street.
    A small point on the issue of heritage is that ex Governor-General, Bill Hayden, was born and grew up at 48 Mabel Street.
    During the building process at #45 there would be serious impacts on Mabel, Louisa, Park Road West and, perhaps, Gertrude Street residents from trucks, machinery, tradesmen’s utes, etc. The impact would be noise, soil runoff and even worse street congestion.
    As an historian, I know that #45 Mabel Street (like our own home) was built in the mid to late 1880s. What charm it retains would be totally destroyed through the proposed expansion.
    And, on a procedural matter, there is no sign alerting neighbours to this proposed development, nor has any attempt been made by the non-resident owner and would-be developer to advise and consult with neighbours.

  22. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of an eight...” at 15 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Glenn commented

    8 storeys for just 21 apartments - clearly an overdevelopment of a small site.

  23. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mel W commented

    I object to the development usage of a 31 room boarding house. The neighbouring buildings are all home to working professionals, and young families and there is a lovely community feel in this part of Bondi. Boarding houses such as these attract transient tenants who have little respect for local noise laws. In areas like bondi these are likely to become party houses. There are already numerous other boarding houses in Bondi e,g Lamrock Avenue, Edwards Street, Campbell parade. I do not believe there is a need for more of this type of accommodation.

  24. In Corrimal NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 404 Princes Highway, Corrimal NSW 2518:

    Liz Mendygral commented

    Development is necessary for a continually evolving suburb however the cummulative affect of all the development taking place in the suburb should be taken into account when approvals are granted. Corrimal is not a suburb of Sydney but has and will continue to have the problems eg traffic congestion that exist in Sydney unless considered development approvals are granted and not just growth in a haphazad and greedy fashion.

  25. In Culburra Beach NSW on “Two (2) lot Torrens title...” at 32 West Cr, Culburra Beach, NSW:

    John Smith commented

    People choose to live in Culburra because of the low density lifestyle that single story houses on large plots can deliver. All the building blocks in this area are approximately 1,000 square meters, they were made this size to maintain this low density that makes Culburra so attractive. To suddenly double the density in this quiet area is completely out of character of the local neighbourhood. This land was bought as a single block and should remain as a single block as are all the other plots in the area, not subdivided for the greed of an investor.

  26. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet” at 183 Wynnum Esp Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Donna Carter commented

    As a local, we see so many more people from outer suburbs coming to enjoy the area, more places along the waterfront are always welcome, more places to eat will enhance the area and bring families. It will create extra jobs in the local area. My hope is that they create an inside area to dine as well, it’s hard trying to find a table on the waterfront and sometimes the wind is against us. I think another establishment to eat will be wonderful.

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Tristan commented

    I don't like the size of the building and that is will be a boarding house. We need residents in that area.

  28. In Woy Woy NSW on “Residential Flat Building &...” at 16 Bowden Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Jj commented

    These development is really unnecessary.The place is already congested with traffic and not enough parking spaces for the residents.We have commercial buildings and 2 schools which is making the street already busy all the time

  29. In Pooraka SA on “Land division - 1 into 2” at 9 Rowland Road , Pooraka SA 5095:

    Lynne O'Flaherty commented

    Are details available on the division of the land e.g. block split in half, front block then hammerhead block at rear? Are plans available on the proposed dwellings, single or double story?

  30. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Vinoo Lele commented

    We strongly object to the proposal. We wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. Our houses on Myee Crescent have only a single narrow road for entry and exit. The construction will block traffic at various times for trucks to enter and exit thereby residents experiencing delays getting to work / school on time. Once completed the traffic and parking in the street will increase. We would like to endorse the objections raised by others in the area.

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