Recent comments

  1. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 43 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeff Thom commented

    Developments of this size are creating a dangerous precedent in the neighbourhood of Zig Zag Road, especially in light of current bush fire warnings.
    There are already significant and real safety issues with the southern end of Zig Zag Road (the hairpin bend and road drop, the Research Creek bridge and the Main Road intersection on any given day - It is not abnormal to be left waiting three to five minutes to safely exit Zig Zag Road onto Main Road these days). What is Nillumbik Council doing to update this infrastructure for medium density housing? And In light of current bush fire warnings as well as the bush fire overlay covering the area being approved, what is Nillumbik council doing to address fire evacuation capabilities on Zig Zag Road? In the event of a bush fire we in real and serious danger. Please address the safety issues with entry and egress on Zig Zag Road and advise our households.

  2. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Mark Chellew commented

    We live in The Element,106 The esplanade,Burleigh Heads
    We have numerous objections to this development
    1.It exceeds the maximum height restrictions and also appears to choose a very favourable natural ground level to facilitate a additional level
    2.The density of the building is higher than surrounding buildings and outside the acceptable norms
    3.The increased proposed density of the building may lead to possible cracking problems in surrounding buildings during construction due to the proximity issues
    4.Significant privacy concerns will exist.The development application incorrectly indicate privacy shutters on fig 11.These are not privacy shutters but optional adjustable louvers to block wind on high wind days.They were not installed by the owners for privacy reasons
    5.Some of the artist impressions appear to show the building set back further than what is proposed ( compared to neighbouring buildings),thereby creating a more favourable optical impression

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

    Christian Walker commented

    I wish to object to this hideous environmental disgrace that would affect all Craigieburn residents.

  4. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    David Emery commented

    Observations about the existing density of buildings and people are accurate, as anyone who lives, works or frequents the area would attest. Leaving aside the revenues, profit and wages activity created, which is short term and concentrated, a longer term view of the area and it's livabilty ought to have fair weight when considering this infill. The current building doesn't have redeeming features and devlopment is appropriate, but scale should be small, and retaining light and increasing setback (at footpath level) should be highlighted in any assessment. The proposal is an easy solution to a small city plot, and likely within plan, but I'd urge you to consider a lighter footprint, and leave more sunlight and footpath for the many folk who will pass through at all hours.

  5. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Amy Wooding commented

    To correct my comment made earlier today: I meant to say the The Griffiths Teas Building, not Mark Foys.

  6. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Amy Wooding commented

    The proposed development is completely out of scale and out of character with the area in general and the street in particular. That the Mark Foys building is tall should not set a precedent - it is set on the lower side of the street, and is an historic landmark building of cultural significance, worthy of exception. In fact, it is appropriately showcased by the absence of other multi-storey structures around it.

    In an era where AirBnb rules, do we really need another hotel in the area? Or, if we do can it not be created within the envelope of an existing building at the required scale? Plenty of large vacant properties on the opposite side of Wentworth Avenue ripe for conversion.

    This area of Surry Hills has other historic landmark buildings such as Paramount Pictures and Hollywood Hotel. The neighbourhood needs to preserved because it is unique, but also to sympathetically frame these special treasures, not swamp them in stature and shadow.

    Please reject this application.

  7. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Kim Mckay commented

    Why would you put a petrol station on a side road to the montrose round about? There was one on the round about that shut down due to the traffic conditions and other reasons. It is NOT needed when the limited traffic would not keep the service station afloat and NOT in a position where it would be termed "corporate profitable position", this is outright a very poor decision for such a business or of any community benefit.

    I see this as another excuse to remove more vegetation just like the house on Canterbury just before the Montrose round about after the Montrose fire brigade, every old growth tree removed, did the council know and give permission for that block to be totally cleared ? I knew the previous owners and they were told when they purchased the property none of those tree's were ever to be removed and they are in perfect healthy state not a threat.

    So what is yarra ranges council actually doing about providing protections on our native Indigenous lands we all depend on for the survival of all life being the 2nd driest island continent in the WORLD?

  8. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Paul & Ann Duncan commented

    Been watching (and hearing) beautiful, large, healthy trees being brought down all around this area in Carlingford for some time. Very sad. When did people start despising trees to the extent that they can't wait to have them destroyed??

  9. In Toongabbie NSW on “Demolition of existing fire...” at 52 Cornelia Road Toongabbie NSW 2146:

    Toongabbie@Citizen commented

    I will like to highlight and object on the construction of this boarding house in Toongabbie.
    • All locals and also council should stand up and review and reject this proposal for Toongabbie.
    • The boarding houses proposed for Cornelia Road are close to the two primary school, and secondary within a range of 500 metres posing a “serious risk to school children arising out of potential occupants and traffic” on Cornelia Road.
    • This is next to busy roundabout and will undoubted cause significant problems with traffic and possible risk/safety concern and with school children as this construction will close to three major school in Toongabbie.
    • This will cause significant traffic issues for people from Seven hills and Toongabbie during peak office hours.
    • The development will attract a “different demographic to this family-friendly area” which is the again in the catchment for 3 schools.
    • There could be potential health risks if a number of people living in these boarding houses are smokers and health issues around families with young kids.
    • The aspect of trust for Cornelia Road will be seriously questioned if the boarding house development proceeds.
    • People staying in short-term motel-style accommodation/boarding will be mainly transient people of varied life experiences, some of a conflicted nature and will impact residential area.
    • The houses on all sides including the adjacent neighbours will have their privacy significantly impacted by the proposed building which should be considered by the council.

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

    Shannon May commented

    I object to this application on the basis that this building will add to the congestion that is already in Palm Beach and most certainly the small street of 22nd Avenue. The suggested site is too small for a building of this application and it does not adhere to other guidelines such as set backs, room size, deep root plantings and it does not adhere to the village lifestyle that was Palm Beach.

    Development is fine, but over development in Palm Beach is unnecessary and is destroying the very reason why people wanted to live there in the first place. This unsightly building along with other new unsightly buildings will certainly become the future slums of the suburb. Everyday the likelihood of the light rail going through Palm Beach is becoming more and more UNLIKELY. This is not a good enough excuse to allow relaxations in the City Plan.

    Developers must stay within the guidelines of the City Plan and the GCCC must now stand up for the City and push back on these developers cashing in and walking out when they are done. We the residents of the Gold Coast voted this Council in to work for us, not themselves and their developer friends. In addition, I was told directly by a GCCC city planner that west of the GC Highway has a height limit of 2 stories and it is shown so on the map... despite other buildings being pushed through without reason. It's time these planners stand by their word.

  11. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 426 Canterbury Road, Campsie NSW 2194:

    Dennis M commented

    Canterbury Road is filled with apartments making livability and accessibility very difficult in Campsie. Council needs to limit the impact by creating a road that is livable. There are many shops on Canterbury Road that have not been leased for over 4 years, adding more will just add to the problem

  12. In Adelaide SA on “Continue use of the...” at 399 King William Street, Adelaide SA 5000:

    Natalie commented

    To extend the use of this car park it must be made complaint with the original application. It is currently a dirt car park with no designated entry and exit, pedestrians are quite regularly hit by cars coming and going from this car park. I believe the original application had something about hedges or fencing being put up which has never occurred. It also has not been sealed and the dust from the car park travels to nearby residents. Further the pot holes etc are dangerous. Adelaide City Council must inspect this when considering the application.

  13. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    George Vlamakis commented

    135 student apartments and only 11 car spots! Are you kidding? Please don't make the mistake of assuming that university students (including international students) do not have cars. This has not been my experience at all, living locally in the hub of a high international student area. I'd also urge the Council to consider the mental health impact of architecture, where people live alone in little shoe boxes. Why can't students apartment share, in 3 bedroom units. I dare say, most would prefer this arrangement, than living alone in a shoe box. I urge Glen Eira Council, to give thought to a. adequate car parking provision, and b. the mental health impact of solo living in tiny spaces.

  14. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    David Moffet commented

    This DA is totally out of character with all buildings surrounding...this is an historic precinct, and to slap a seven storey hotel in this street is ridiculous.
    On top of this, this street is already overpopulated with workers ands residents in apartments and offices...the street cannot cope with existing traffic now.

    A seven storey hotel will cast shadows in the afternoon on neighbouring parklands

    The hotel will also destroy the historic vista of the Mark Foys warehouse when viewed from the south...

    I recommend you reject this application

  15. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 235 Canadian Bay Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tony Laurent commented

    I live on 237 Canadian Bay Road - next door to this monstrosity in the making. I am very disappointed with the MPSC for a number of reasons.

    The process was lacking in transparency - communications were almost non existent. It will ruin the entire area.

    Anyway, I think we all now have some insight into how developers and councils operate - don't we? I would recommend reading 'The Age' every day as the John Woodman/mafia saga unfolds. Fascinating, but sadly not surprising.

  16. In Coffs Harbour NSW on “Multi-Dwelling Complex-New...” at 2 A Gundagai Place, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450:

    DONNA NEILL commented

    It appears that the parking impact study has glossed over the fact that this street is a dead end with little available street parking.
    When vehicles park either side of this street at kerb level there is only room for 1 car to navigate past. Local residents have tried to overcome this problem by parking on the grass verge.
    Also the fact that there is a 26 villa complex at end of the street (7 Gundagai Place) has not been mentioned - only that it is in the area of "medium density" housing.
    This area is definitely not suited to boarding house type accommodation as indicated in this DA mainly due to limited parking and narrow street and also that a 2 level construction will cast shadow on next door house, and villa complex behind on western side.

  17. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14-16 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad Murray commented

    Personally, I like the design, but there is a pretty significant issue here that the developer has misled council already by stating that the wall would be retained and then demolishing it as soon as the DA advertising was complete. There was some talk of restoration, but that has not happened.

    The wall was supposedly to be retained as per the last DA and so as to address the concerns of most of the the representations, but it appears this was a deception.

    Now this new plan is being put forward with no reference to the planning scheme or the issue of the fence. So using the drawings, as they are all that appears to have been submitted, the fence that is being put back looks very different to the one that was removed without approval. As the plans are all that is there to go by, it appears that the developer has no intention of replacing the fence as it was.

    I'd also note that the overshadowing of the new design is significant, but that is an issue for the neighbours effected.

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

    Sharee Fiume commented

    Council needs to enforce the maximum 50% site coverage with ZERO tolerance for any application that exceeds this.

    What is the purpose of council regulations if they are not adhered to?

    Families make decisions on where to buy and where to live, partly based on what council allow and do not allow in the immediate vicinity. We need to be able to trust council to adhere to their own regulations, not bow to the $ of big developers.

  19. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Ken Evers commented

    It is Parramatta Council , enough said !
    The mayor recently had good press about his comments on the value of trees. A typical politician....all talk, no commitment.

  20. In Sandringham VIC on “Residential Bldg - New Use...” at 10 Harston Street Sandringham VIC 3191:

    sandra commented

    i feel sandringham commuters are struggling for carparking. i Object to this, due to being a shop owner. . Struggling on parking ,Struggling For Sandringham Customers and congestion of traffic in such a small village. i am so dissapointed on how many apartments are allowed in the bayside area.

  21. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of Use from Bar...” at 313-315 Flinders Lane Melbourne 3000:

    Gary Biddle commented

    We also overlook adjacent Finders Court, which has become a dismal all-night den of drunkenness, human waste, noise, trash and thieves. Club patrons and homeless continually lurk and harass residents and pedestrians alike as an easily observed active drug trade lures uncontrollably shaking teens to addiction, as previously documented to the City. If the argument is that yet another all-night club will help the economy, it is self-evidently false. Yet another loud and lascivious establishment will rather dissuade investment, job creation, and legitimate residential and commercial development in one of the most visited and photographed areas in all of Melbourne and Australia. Rather than yet another nefarious night crawl, this area should attract a complete clean-up that will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of renewal and a renaissance that will make Melbourne proud, as residents commenting here and surrounding high-rise developments confirm.

  22. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 32 Smith Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Poli Leota commented

    I object to this application on the grounds that the noise pollution in our vicinity has severally disrupted our sleep. It is wearing us down and we find ourselves affected by the lack of sleep during the working week. Sydney water improvements is another example where one group hands off to another group with almost around the clock noise. As does the Meriton traffic disruption during the weekend. I do not mind that the work occurs during the working week when I am not at home - like most residents at 70-74 and 76 Phillip Street. Yet giving up a Saturday and a Sunday to more noise and traffic disruption is beyond the pale. Build your 28 floor building but do it within the clear guide lines set by the council. Stop the noise pollution!

  23. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Vanessa Crew commented

    As long term business owners (18 years) next door to this property we object to this development.
    The height of the building is totally inappropriate for the ‘village’ of Murrumbeena and will spoil the charm of our village atmosphere.

    We also have grave concerns with interruption to our business due to construction as loss of the limited parking we have will be greatly impacted.

    More parking is needed in the area. The words ‘student accomodation’ are being used to allow the developers not to provide on site parking which is costly.

  24. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michelle commented

    Robyn, those units have been poorly designed with the turning circle into the garage only catering to a small car, fitting two cars in would be impossible...clearly not something the council considered.

  25. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor accommodation -...” at 142 Bathurst Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad commented

    Thanks for your comment Garry. That's a whole complex issue. I've often said that we should remove stamp duty down here in Tas and just let people buy and sell their houses to suit their needs without taxes masquerading as fees. People would move here and buy if they wanted to and others would downsize as they would get to keep their money.

    But there are a lot of people who just don't want to buy and don't want to be in debt. They need to live somewhere...

  26. In Moorebank NSW on “The construction of a multi...” at 15 Araluen Avenue Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Helen Carter commented

    These developments are just getting out of hand and has to stop. Doesn't sound as bad as a multi storey until you discover that 4 townhouse replace two houses multiplied by all these recent applications & all the while increasing traffic, reducing parking in the shopping centre, more traffic on Nuwarra Rd and so it goes on.
    Nuwarra Rd is full of potholes from the number of trucks using this shortcut to the M5 plus increased traffic is making getting a round Moorebank a nightmare. Enough is enough.

  27. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    D.G. commented

    As mentioned above by Louise, all submissions against this plan should be made by emailing mail@gleneira.gov.vic.au or via submissions link www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/submission by 18th December 2019

    Adding to my previous comment, the reduction in car parking is concerning. Assuming students won't have cars is ridiculous. They will end up parking at the station, using spaces needed by residents with no choice but to drive to the station.

  28. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Proposal Caravan Park” at 157 Glenfern Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Felicity Leopoulson commented

    This subject land was purchased
    in 2015 by parties Corporation Newco Pty Ltd; Willowvale Investments Pty Ltd, Lizza.

    But, subsequently on-sold early
    2019 there to current owner Hong Guo of "Joe Investments Australia Pty Ltd."

    Which was incorporated, as an Australian company,
    on 12/03/2019.

    Therefore, in addition trust foreign ownership laws were complied with in this matter if applicable.

  29. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Julie Lennon commented

    Parramatta council neglecting the value of trees again.

  30. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Firth Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Noah Faber commented

    These boarding house applications are surely all linked somehow. I never used to see so many applications for boarding houses ever. Surely these davelopers can just leave our community alone and go somewhere closer to the city to build their monstrous complexes. The character of the area is being lost to developers who make more money in a week than what some people would dream of making in a lifetime. Could they at least restore the current corner building and build something modern on top of it?

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