Recent comments

  1. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Billy Shannon commented

    I feel that it is appalling that the developers have tried to sneak through this application whilst everyone is distracted with coronavirus, and their timing seems to demonstrate the fact that they are aware of it being against public desire and best interest.

    The Broadway Hotel is a beautiful, unique building and Brisbane has lost far too much of it's heritage to greed and short sightedness. It really ought to be restored.

    Here is a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate that the "Brisbane City Council is committed to conserving our unique cultural heritage - from grand buildings in the CBD to schools, churches, factories and dwellings in our city’s suburbs." as quoted from the BCC webpage entitled Heritage Incentives Scheme.

    Many Thanks

  2. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Annie pope commented

    You’ve got to be kidding? Make an example out of these ruthless, money hungry cretins BCC. Once it’s gone, it’s gone and we’ve already lost so much. Please save!!!

  3. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Anthony Carmody commented

    I understand the city council will be very keen to get some revenue from this potentially lucrative commercial land. I also understand that very few property developers have the vision to invest in a building such as this, in need of significant repair and refurbishment. It is however important to remember that Brisbane has very few significant architectural buildings left. And that the significance and importance of local pubs and hotels comes and goes with community trends. If the Brisbane city council supports the demolition of this building it can never be replaced. The design that would be likely put in place of this building is statistically unlikely to retain architectural significance outside of a short period, it will not provide anything other than a short period of commercial gain to the council, owner and operators. There is also a high chance that it may not be a commercial success with a growing trend towards ordering food online. If the current property owner cannot, or will not refurbish this building it should be returned to the community.

  4. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Narelle McCoy commented

    It is essential to preserve this historic building from demolition. So much of Brisbane's large-scale heritage buildings have been lost, due to fires and development. Compared to Sydney and Melbourne, we sadly lag behind in recognising the value of these irreplaceable sites. Rather than adding another anonymous building, the Broadway needs to be restored to its original grandeur so that it can be enjoyed by future generations. Our heritage sites should be treasured and held in trust. Please take this into consideration when making your decision.

  5. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    George Long commented

    This is a historic building and needs simply to be restored and preserved. It does not need to be restored as a hotel/pub - it could be lots if things - and museum, an art centre, a gallery. These would be in keeping with current developments and growth of a rundown suburb which is on the up

  6. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 15 East Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    D Hill commented

    How is 15 East Street to be divided? How will this impact neighbours?

  7. In Forster NSW on “Hungry Jacks Restaurant” at 82 The Lakes Way, Forster NSW 2428:

    Dee commented

    Looking for a job !!! 🍔

  8. In Warradale SA on “One, two storey building...” at 76 Lascelles Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Hi James, Thanks for your response. Yes, it is appalling that we continue to be ignored and the greed, short sighted non sustainable over development continues.
    Not sure if you have seen on previous comments, but I have started a petition and placed the link below.

    For council to consider on this application;
    With the current pandemic, all the countries that have had rapid spreading of the disease have all been high density living areas. Do we learn? No we continue to allow this over development.
    As indicated, safe road use is already being jeopardised. With these developments, the risk of an accident is increasing. Does it take an injury or death for things to change? At what point do local and state governments become held accountable for this?

  9. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    RK commented

    Further to my earlier comments, the applications cites evidence that the business has been operating in limited capacity for a year, and has not shown any impact on neighbouring businesses or the community.

    Where is this evidence? .... all that is presented is the opinion of the planner that has been engaged. There is no control group survey, baseline, or any statistical measure provide to back this claim.

    The code also discusses the undesirability of clustering or concentration of such businesses to the detriment of the community. The proposed expansion must surely exceed a sensible limit in such a small area that is frequented by families. This scale and type of business would be better suited to an industrial area, which would also provide more discreet access to their clientele.

    In reading through the application, I can't help but feel that the use of disabled access is being used as a means to justify the lack of parking spaces to address one of the non-compliance issues. Given that the business has been operating for more than 12 months, what evidence is provided to demonstrate the percentage of the clientele who have required and will continue to require this access?

    The decision to ignore compliance issues on the basis of precedents of earlier applications (from 13 years ago) would also diminish the current context and recent growth of the area. It would not take into account the Artarmon Chamber of Commerce's recent strategy to revive the shopping strip by making it a more vibrant and family friendly environment.

    I would urge Council to engage in a period of community consultation to understand the sentiment and support for this type of application in the context of what the constituents would actually like THEIR local shops to be.

  10. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Jason Lehman commented

    I strongly feel that preservation of our iconic buildings & historically significant spaces is one of the most potent ways that we can powerfully retain & effectively expand our sense of cultural identity, while additionally retaining greater aesthetic & diverse cultural textures within our urban environments. The loss of this icon feels to me like it would be an absolutely devastating blow to our capacity & potential to uphold our already somewhat thin cultural perspective & identity.

    Please consider solidly protecting & preserving this significant building, & encourage the integration of it’s beauty into our already excessively concrete jungle.

    In good faith

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

    Rachel commented

    I object to this proposed development on the grounds it contravenes the City Plan Guidelines as already outlined.

    Further, the shadow the building will cast means neighbouring properties will only have a few hours of sun in March and almost no sun in winter. The is also incredibly close to the boundaries.

    There is already another nine storey development approved on the adjoining block.
    At the moment the streets are already narrow, crowded and dangerous.
    Council, please consider neighbouring properties and the dangers, especially now Council is proposing a change in the landslide risk to adjoining lots.

  12. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    russell greet commented

    Much of Brisbane's character is seen in it's streetscapes, landmarks like this need to be preserved to save us from becoming an anonymous conglomeration of concrete and glass

  13. In Southport QLD on “Operational Works Private...” at 6 Chester Terrace, Southport QLD 4215:

    Valerie Shooter commented

    This planning application was sent in to the GCCC 4 days AFTER work to remove native trees at 6 Chester Terrace, Southport, happened. This shows lack of compliance and this application must have only been received because I rang GCCC to question what was happening to native trees in the historical garden precinct of Southport in which I live. I spoke to Scott from compliance, who would not tell me if a planning application had been received and whether it had been approved. I was told it would invade the owner's privacy but it sounded like lack of transparency and subsequent revelations have found this to be correct. I sent a complaint via the attached GCCC feedback to say I was not satisfied with the website. I rang the council after this happened and put in a verbal complaint (Report # 582635). If this sort of thing is happening in 'Caretaker mode' before voting for a new council can take place (and during a lock-down because of Covid-19 ) it is reprehensible and worthy of being referred to the State Government and the media.

  14. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Brian Dewberry commented

    I presume this is a Construction by a Private Certification Company. It also appears that by following that procedure, you do not have an opportunity to refer to building constructions that may have negative or positive effect on the value of your property.

    Furthermore it may appear that there may be unreasonable circumstances with regards to how the original property was certified. Also is there any follow up when trees are removed that in the new construction suitable trees must be replaced. If you cut a tree down in your own property . Council recommends that you replace the tree that you removed. This is also why the earth is warming up because of lack of trees to absorb Carbon Dioxide.

  15. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Jeffrey Smith commented

    There are too many brothels in the Artarmon village area. This proposal is too close to a school and shops where children and families congregate. The concentration of brothels is already impacting the character of Artarmon, there are other much more appropriate locations..

  16. In Gladesville NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 6 Eltham St Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Russ Young commented

    Andrew I do believe it is a large vessel capable of holding a body of water, upon which the upper class float around in inflatable chairs swilling wine. The more expensive the better.

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

    Hafiza commented

    I oppose this project as it is too close to residential areas. The incinerator will negatively effect the wildlife, as well as potentially pose a risk to the community.

  18. In Preston VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 36-46 High Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Stephanie Stojcevska commented

    I strongly object to the application to the above planning proposal for a multitude of reasons as stated below;

    1. Obstruction of view; which ultimately will reduce the amount of natural light and therefore affect quality of life.
    2. Sun obstruction over pool area as well as the potential new dwelling overlooking the Newbury’s pool area. This is a concerning privacy issue for current Newbury residents if they were to use and facilitate the pool area.
    3. If above planning proposal is approved, the construction work would disrupt residents, as well as create dust and debris over pool area as well onto residents balconies and furthermore, inside their apartments. This is a major concern and can potentially cause health hazards for residents with properties that face over High Street.
    4. Residents of the Newbury are required to pay body corporate fee’s for the general maintenance of the building. If above planning proposal is approved, the pool will become uninhabitable for use, due the potential dwelling blocking natural light therefore, residents of the Newbury's body corporate fee’s are unjustified.
    5. If above planning proposal is approved, it would ultimately devalue all properties facing the High Street side.

    I hope you consider my submission of objection to the application stated above.


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

    Hafiza commented

    I oppose this project as it is too close to residential areas. The incinerator will negatively effect the wildlife, as well as potentially pose a risk to the community.

  20. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Pam commented

    I agree with the previous comments that there are enough brothels in this area and am concerned that it is quite close to a school and shops where families congregate. A more remote location would be suitable or a completely different area of Sydney.

  21. In Preston VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 36-46 High Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Chantelle Brown commented

    I want to oppose this application to build a huge complex butting up against the Newbury building. This would completely shut me in with no light which will significantly reduce my comfort and health and well-being. The noise from construction would affect all residence and create a lot of health hazards for our appartments and pool. We would never be able to open our doors and have light coming in. This would significantly affect the value of my property.

  22. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 7 Oaklands Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Charles Decelis commented

    I object to units because it will make it harder for the residents with more vehicles entering and exiting their properties it will cause problems like we have had in the past With heavy vehicles damaging Park cars when it was parking on both sides and recently since Hyundai moving into number six Oaklands Avenue they park Vehicles on the footpath and make it difficult for elderly residents With mobility scooters to see what’s coming up Yose Street and vehicles can only park on One side because on the west side is no standing between 7 am and 5 pm the street is too narrow we have trucks from Reece plumbing supplies and car carriers from Hyundai and Hyundai parked their cars illegally which makes it even harder to manoeuvre around them in yose Street and Oaklands Avenue and with the three units at number seven mean more vehicles they won’t have one to each unit there might be two vehicles to each unit or more and they won’t have enough parking on the property to accommodate them so therefore I object Kind regards Charles Decelis

  23. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    PB commented

    We have enough brothels in Artarmon. I'm not sure that the suburb wants to continue to add brothels and run other retail businesses out of the Artarmon retail zone. Council need to enforce a concentration limit on the number of brothels in the retail strip so that it doesn't become Sydney's equivalent of Patpong Road.

  24. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 51 Alexandra Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lara commented

    Can they please keep the noise down on weekends. Starting up on and making a racket is not on, forget about the sleep in

  25. In Gladesville NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 6 Eltham St Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Andrew Franz commented

    What is a "swilling pool" and why does it cost $730,796?

  26. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Replacement of existing...” at 50 Botany Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    L.Bray commented

    EME levels are generally provided in percentages, showing the the site's percentage of the SAFE limit for someone exposed to the site 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

    If that is correct, then the new site, bringing fantastic new 5G service to the community is producing 2.92% of the threshold for what is defined as SAFE! For someone living at the site all day, every day. So I don't think these concerns are justified. If you wrote your responses on an iPhone you probably got more exposure to radio frequency due to your proximity than you would living under the site. And let's not forget existing neighbours already experience similar EME levels from the existing tower.


    - EME increases are well within acceptable boundaries.
    - The tower is falling down and needs an upgrade.
    - 5G is awesome and goodness knows after this lockdown we need high capacity wireless internet to break us free from NBN/copper stranglehold.
    - there is an old structure, probably of little historic or aesthetic value that's going with it.

    A win, win, I assume.

  27. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Andrew Franz commented

    Comments about an "early 20th century house" are not relevant unless it is heritage listed.

  28. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Star. Read my comments more carefully. We do the heavy lifting you think your comments are taken seriously. Have you watched the destruction of our bush and residents fight for Eugene.We have to use every objections we can.This development is close to "Happy Jack". Name calling doesn't help anyone. Chemello and Adams took me seriously even if you dont. If you dont know how this system works ask Dickson. Cave and Adams council planners,which for your edification are leading members of the ICC.

  29. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Suellen Hazell commented

    I thought Council had made a decision to stop this destruction of our history???? To demolish an early 20th century house in good condition with original interiors to build a dual occupancy which will further detract from the character and amenity of Gladesville is criminal and greedy. The current site as far as can be ascertained from Google maps contains numerous trees and extensive planting which is a part of the streetscape and will presumably be removed. Ryde Council please live up to your promise and stop this destruction. We need our history kept safe, once it gone, its gone forever and our children are robbed of their culture.

  30. In Taringa QLD on “Multiple Dwelling” at 25 Union St Taringa QLD 4068:

    Norma Lucille Jolly, Warren Brisbane Jolly and Jennifer Margaret Jolly commented

    The following points reflect our concerns and objection to the proposed development at 23, 25 and 27 Union Street Taringa.
    Traffic major issue as of March 2020 in Union Street Taringa. BBC parents am/pm drop off and pick-up of students attending BBC. Buses taking students to various
    events and to and from school. Senior students getting their drivers license throughout the year and increase in students parking in Union Street. Local traffic in street see amount of houses, unit blocks, units and duplex in Union Street alone. Western suburbs traffic- Moggill Road busy both morning and afternoon drivers use Union Street as a thoroughfare to Stanley Terrace to Indooroopilly State School and back onto Moggill Road during peak hour. AFL Junior Western suburbs playing weekend and Friday night games in the winter season. Cricket BBC playing games in the summer season. Only one way in and out of proposed development. Car parking for owner, occupiers and visitors will be an issue. Large areas of on street parking in Union Street are already no parking or limited 2 hour parking Monday to Friday. Increase in number of illegally parked vehicles particularly during school drop off and pick-up and weekend sporting activities.
    Existing dwellings in Union Street include 21 houses, 1 duplex, 4 unit blocks with a total of 27 units.

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