Recent comments

  1. In Croydon VIC on “Construction of a double...” at 74-76 Hillside Drive, Croydon VIC 3136:

    Liz Sanzaro commented

    We are very aware that this site has become massively overgrown, however we want to be sure, that no healthy mature trees are removed from the site, as this is part of the Orchard Drive, Hillside drive, Yarraduct place habitat precinct. This area has Environmental significance, due to the majority of properties providing great quality vegetation with mature trees that supports a diverse and health wildlife population.
    If Council could ensure and oversee exactly what is to be removed, we would be grateful.
    Cheers Liz
    President Croydon Conservation Society

  2. In Petersham NSW on “Application under section...” at 20 Hopetoun Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Robert Davidson commented

    Inner West Council confirmed that an occupation certificate has been issued. The owners moved in weeks ago and the compliance signs came down in August. The development has been signed off as complete, so this is not asking permission to change a development but is asking for back dated approval for breaching the development conditions.

    This developer has been a serial nuisance - ignoring requirements for sediment barriers, runoff controls, damage to the paths and blocking the street. Rubbish and vermin have been an issue for the last 18 months and the council has ignored local complaints. Out-of-hours work is continuing on the site and council's response is "call the police".

    If this 'modification' is approved it just shows that private certifiers have permission to set their own rules and that, at least for certain developments, IWC is not interested in taking any responsibility for what results.

  3. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Porter Street, Parkside, SA:

    Emma Miller commented

    No reason has been provided for the removal of this tree. Our area is rapidly becoming denuded of all trees, from Wayville to Parkside - so many trees are being removed for the convenience of developers. A recent report listed Unley Council with the worst record for removal of trees. What is going on here? I will certainly be paying attention to which members of Council approve these mutilations at the next election.

  4. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Tamara Johansen commented

    I object to this proposed development. There has been a relaxed view on approving apartment buildings that are too large and dense for the size of the site that they are on, with blatant disregard for our town planning outcomes. The people, rate payers, and long-term residents of Palm Beach are not happy.

    The design does not add value to our streetscape or "fit seamlessly" with the character of Palm Beach. We are not opposed to change but we want to see responsible development within our suburb that respects our town planning guidelines.

    The lack of car-parking, lack of setbacks, extreme site coverage, density, and lack of communal open space is a concern with this application.

  5. In Mount Waverley VIC on “Alterations and additions...” at 1/5 Arthurson Street Mount Waverley VIC 3149:

    Jan Moore commented

    I respectfully request that trees are not removed in the process, or for any thar are removed a replacement of same be planted. Recent developments in the surrounding streets often mean clear felling, have little setback for planting, resulting in a severely diminished tree-scape — a feature of Mount Waverley gardens and streets that in fact attracts residents to the area. Protect the trees please.

  6. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 31A Fernleigh Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Kim Mckay commented

    What now bullying by developers is ok by the council's? And more of these heinous units everywhere, gluttony and invasions, illegal land grabs by corporate terrorists , when will the councils take a good hard look in the mirror to see Australia is under attack, it is all invasions and war crimes...people are rising in mass millions soon will be removing everything you have done..These acts are heinous full of pure evil hatred against Australian society and you all are aiding and abetting it, who is paying you UN members of the world collusion of mass corporate terrorists rebranded as the disbanded UN....I object to these building, developers, abuses, extortion's, bullying tactics to who the dispute is with...probably the owner and elderly...

  7. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    April weir commented

    We object to this proposal as we live in close proximity to the intended development we are young family and do not agree with the types of people that’s could possibly be housed in a development such as this one , however i know that not all housing developments house ex criminals and people of This nature I do know that this development is not in a suitable area for the possibility of this , we do not have the facilities that boarding houses require in our area such as adequate transport eg train stations 24 hour medical care and mental health facilities close by .

    This development also is trying to house and have more parking spaces than I believe is feasible for the space provided .

    This is a high traffic area full of local
    family’s , school children locals & tourists . This is not a space that we should have to pass on a daily walk to the beach ,school shops of caravan park and could be a possible eye sore .

    As a local Buisness owner and neighbour I also believe that it devalues the housing and Buisness’s in the surrounding area and will attract people of lower social economics which makes it harder on our Small Buisness to succeed .

    Speaking to a lot of my clients about this and they too agree there has not been enough notice about this and do not want this boarding house in our local area .

    Please consider our submission to object to the proposal of 454 ocean beach road umina

  8. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 138-152 Victoria Road Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Mike Reynolds commented

    I object to this application for the Tigers site. The proposed height is far too high (12+ storeys) and completely out of keeping with the heritage streetscape in the surrounding Rozelle / Balmain area.

    Furthermore, it will create significant traffic impacts with no new public transport developments to support the additional volume. There have been numerous approvals for apartment developments in the area already and local traffic is now almost unmanageable at certain times.

    I understand the original precinct with apartment towers was approved when there was a plan to put a metro rail station near the intersection of Darling St and Victoria Rd. This may have supported the additional density, but given the metro rail station was cancelled, the assumptions underpinning the original approval have changed. So that site can no longer support the same building densities!

  9. In Kalkie QLD on “Change Other (Rooming...” at Georgia Tce, Kalkie, QLD:

    GILLIAN JENNEY commented

    I want to object to this planning application, having council already overpopulating and devaluing property already in One Mile Crossing due to allowing illegal dual occupancy accommodation to be built.

    I do not support this application on the following grounds:

    • It will detrimentally impact the amenities in the neighbourhood due to its size and scale.
    • It does not represent low density development that is traditional in the area therefore not maintaining the residential character of the area.
    • It will significantly increase the residential population of the area by over 300 people. this is well above traditional housing.
    • It will introduce significant numbers of transient persons into the community.
    • It will significantly increase traffic and cause serious road safety impacts on Morgan Way and Georgia Terrace; this area does not have the required infrastructure or roads for this high capacity housing.
    • There is no planning need to locate this high-density housing in the form of multiple units in this low-density housing area.
    • We have built our house in a low residency area for a reason. Our expectations are that adjoin developments should also stick to the character and intensity of this development in Our community. We request council to protect our investment and our community and protect the high level of residential amenity in our community. Not only will this detrimentally effect the value of the housing in the area, it will also detrimentally affect the low-density community aspect. There is no need for a development of this sort in a low-density area.
    • Council need to think about the local people who have invested in living and working in the Bundaberg Region and protect their quality of life and enjoyment of where they live. It is extremely disappointing after residential concerns regarding dual accompany dwelling that the council take one step further and decide to allow a high populated development in a low-density housing area

  10. In Marks Point NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at Lake Macquarie Airport, 862 Pacific Highway, Marks Point NSW 2280:

    Leeroy commented

    No matter where you go someone is complaining about aircraft noise. Whether it be Sydney airport, Warnervale or Lake Macquarie airport there are people like Cheryl who make up rubbish like "my tiles are loose" or "my windows are shaking ". What dribble!
    If your floor tiles are loose then you need a better tiles not a closure of an airport.

  11. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Alterations to the Burdekin...” at 2-4 Oxford Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Max Collins. commented

    There is no need for a roof top bar.
    Plenty of room inside.
    The noise pollution will be considerable.

  12. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Alterations to the Burdekin...” at 2-4 Oxford Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Shannan Keen commented

    We agree with all that has been said by Alexa Wyatt and by Luke Scanlan. Living in the centre of a vibrant city should not mean residents have to be exposed to noise pollution. Already there is far too much supposedly back-ground noise; every cafe, restaurant, shop etc has music blaring. It's now rare to find somewhere with the volume low enough to have a conversation or to quietly read, daydream or think. Noise pollution is the next great threat to our mental and physical health. Already studies are being done into the negative impact of noise pollution on our brains (I'm a neuroscientist) as well as on our hearing and the quality of our sleep. There is no reason for this bar to have no roof. A bar at roof level is great as it gives people wonderful views of our gorgeous City, however there is absolutely no need for it to be open-topped. We, along with many others, therefore vehemently oppose this planning application.

  13. In Ryde NSW on “Consolidation of two lots...” at 176 Quarry Rd Ryde NSW 2112:

    M La Caria commented

    I do support the childcare centre, We
    live locally and have recently become grandparents with 5 children living locally need childcare centres in walking distance instead of using our vehicles to drop off and pick up ! Keep jn mind the primary school around the corner ! suits us !

  14. In Unley Park SA on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 28A Grove Street, Unley Park SA 5061:

    Anne Wilson commented

    This attractive house and garden are a great asset to the ambience of the neighborhood, providing it with a landscape that is so sought-after in Unley. I wonder why it needs to be demolished.

  15. In Morningside QLD on “Multiple Dwelling, Multiple...” at 107 Grosvenor St Morningside QLD 4170:

    Saskia Peek commented

    Thank you BCC for approving this application. Morningside and Cannon Hill is looking like inner city slums and very tired. Being so close to the city and within walking distance to public transport it just makes sense to increase affordable housing. Two bedroom houses sitting on 834sqm close to public transport hubs need to be considered for increased affordable living. Areas that present a cluster of character homes that contribute positively to the Street scape should be protected. BCC needs to reassess the character zoning. Please see 5. 6. and 9.

  16. In Thornleigh NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Bellevue Street Thornleigh NSW 2120:

    J Bainy commented

    What is a boarding house development? How are you going to fit 48 units on this property?
    Why does this street/neighbourhood need a boarding house development with all the multi-unit buildings being built on our streets?
    Will this be a private facility or a government facility? And who will be residing in this facility?
    What will be the effect on the neighbouring homes and streets?
    More information is needed for the community to judge the benefit of this development before a decision can be made by council.

  17. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Patty commented

    I am a local resident and I strongly object to this development. Having read the Social Impact Statement 2.14 it states "the boarding house will be a privately operated facility and will not be operated by any government agencies servicing, supporting or providing rehabilitation or a repatriation service for criminals rapists alcoholics or pedophiles" Really! And how would the owner or manager confirm this to be true when most of the above live in social housing boarding houses or private boarding houses. I understand these people need to live somewhere but having 11 rooms and 1 room for a manager is never a good idea It creates social disharmony within the group that can and does spill out onto the local community This development must be rejected

  18. In Belmont NSW on “Industrial Buildings,...” at 24 Bluebell Street Belmont NSW 2280:

    gordon saxby commented

    will the building next to us have an impact on my solar power on roof and can you send me the proposed ground plan in detail of buildings and car park areas please if way entrances building height next to our boundary

  19. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 104 Caroline Street, Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    Sankaran N Murthy commented

    Re: Application no. DA-2019/339Property Address: 104 Caroline Street, KingsgroveProperty Title: Lot A DP 361159 & Lot B DP 361159

    In my opinion, this application should be rejected. There are two reasons for my objection.
    (1) There is no safe and convenient place to set down and pick-up the child-care children.There are already two (Catholic) schools in this part of the said street. Their staff and occasionally students regularly use the entire street for parking during school days. They have a legal right to do so. The schools do not provide enough off-street parking. If the street is full of parked cars, how will the child-care children access the child-care centre?- Double park to set down and pick-up? Dangerous and illegal.- Lots of cars queue up in the street while each car, one by one, enter the child-care centre, set down/pick up their children, and leave? This will cause extreme congestion and possibly illegal driving behaviour. This bedlam can already be seen in front of Our Lady of Fatima (OLF) School and St Ursula's School at opening and closing times. The last thing this street needs is more congestion in the morning and afternoon.- Reserve street frontage for the child-care centre? Well, OLF and St Ursula's have much wider street frontage and still they cannot avoid queuing & congestion. How will this smaller property manage it? If more space is taken up from the street, it will exacerbate an already impossible parking situation.
    (2) Caroline Street is now unofficially the bypass road for the extremely busy and congested Kingsgrove Road - but the street itself was designed as a residential street. No traffic management methods suitable for a busy street are in place - not even considering the danger posed to schoolchildren. The extra disorganized traffic generated by the child-care centre is dangerous not only for the child-care children but also the existing school children of the Catholic schools.
    In short, this street is just not suitable for this new development while existing residents continue to live there and the existing schools continue to operate.

  20. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Carla Simpson commented

    I strongly disagree with the proposal of this boarding house, whilst the idea is nice it does not suit the location. We are a tourist area and this will DE value all of the local residents houses and our community thrives on the tourism and holiday visitors. The Boarding house does not fit in with the community and will give reason for holiday makers to take their vacation elsewhere. We are also already limited with parking and infrastructure on Ocean beach road and this will only make matters worse.
    I am very against this boarding house and think that this application needs to be taken elsewhere

  21. In Salisbury Plain SA on “Amendment to da...” at 83-89 Saints Road , Salisbury Plain SA 5109:

    Colleen Dunk commented

    I have just noticed a planning alert for the property at 83 - 89 Saints Rd,Salisbury Plain SA ,It would be appreciated if you could advise me what has been proposed.for this property.

  22. In Thirroul NSW on “Residential - dwelling...” at Lot 15 Armagh Parade, Thirroul NSW 2515:

    Phil Byrne commented

    There needs to be some serious discussion regarding this DA. The block is almost 90% remnant vegetation and is the last remaining corridor connecting Leishman Park to the escarpment. This corridor is used by wallabies, arboreal mammals, and a diversity of birds, reptiles and amphibians. More importantly, a drainage line/creek (joining a retention basin entering Leishman Park) runs straight through the proposed development site. Significant tree removal has been proposed, which will break the corridor, disrupt water flow, and significantly damage the riparian zone. Of equal concern, because the site is located in a high bushfire risk zone, once the dwelling is built, there will be nothing stoping the additional removal of trees within 10m of the dwelling, and any vegetation within 50m. Given the significant amount of illegal tree removal (achieved both physically and through poisoning) that has already occurred at the top end of Armagh pde (since building of the Altitude Rise estate commenced approximately 3-4 years ago), council needs to carefully evaluate the local benefit of approving this DA. To provide some historical context, this block was never meant to be developed. It was gifted to council by the original developer, but, due to management costs, it was retuned and subsequently sold. At very least, the council should stipulate that revegetation of the riparian zone is essential, and put a monitoring plan in place to protect the remaining remnant vegetation post development. Without these actions, the corridor will be broken and the integrity of the fauna in Leishman park will be permanently compromised. As a parting comment, I'm actually astonished that this DA is even being considered. Every couple of years following a big rain event (e.g. 100-150mm or rain over 2-3 days) the proposed site for the dwelling literally turns into a waterfall (I have video evidence if council would like to view it). Building a house smack in the middle of this flow seems like complete lunacy. Who is held accountable if this DA is approved and there is significant damage to property? Please visit the site and give this DA very careful consideration.

  23. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Tim Morison commented

    I regularly visit the area and a childcare centre in this location is inappropriate in my view. The increased traffic and additional parking required will be detrimental to the current environment. I strongly object to this development application.

  24. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Ron Keenan JP commented

    A very STRONG NO from me. It's not appropriate to have a dwelling of this capacity on Ocean Beach rd for one. The road & traffic are terrible as it is & to allow a possible 12 with the manager cars to come & go from one address is only going to cause havoc & danger. Kids use that footpath regularly & I can envisage problems with the extra cars that may come & go from this address, with the possibility of a child being hurt or worse. The roads on the peninsula are terrible as it is & are struggling now. We definitely need them fixed before any further possible road users move in.

    This type of housing is not suited to a beachside area like we have either. I appreciate that there are people needing this, but the size of the land & location don't fit the criteria. The residents either side would not be happy Im sure. It's certainly a way of the person applying for this to maximise his dollar, but I wonder would he like it next door to his home?

  25. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Natalie commented

    I object to this submission.
    The position is busy and there is a lack of parking especially on the summer weekends when nippers is on.
    A boarding house should not be located in such close proximity to a primary school and nippers on the weekend due to the safety of the children as who will be living in this boarding house?
    This type of development will change the feel of Umina, local people including myself who have moved up from Sydney, bought here because of the beach side feel Umina has. It’s a tourist spot that people visit from all over the country - the caravan park is rated in the top 5. A development of this type will go against everything the local people want and councils efforts to develop it into a better place attracting tourists.

    A boarding house will not add to the local community. It will take away.

  26. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Andrew commented

    If you look at Woy Woy during the day and night and the effect the boarding house has had to the public’s safety and quiet enjoyment of the public amenities locating a boarding house right on umina cbd is a massive mistake.

    There is need for these types of dwellings and I would suggest locate them in the woy woy housing estate around Nambucca drive.

    I would hate to see the effect it will have on west street and the beach. If it’s like Woy Woy it would make our beach feel unsafe which is our main tourist attraction and will cost jobs & tourism income for the peninsula.

    Big NO from me and should be for everyone

  27. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Natalie commented

    There clearly is not enough infrastructure in Umina to support such a high density development. Roads are already congested with heavy traffic on west st and ocean beach road.
    There is already a lack of job opportunities locally to the local residents and such a high density development such as this will create extra pressure on the job front with unemployment already at very high rates.

    This type of development has no contribution to the local area. It annoys me that the past application received a very strong NO response from the public so the developers thought they would pull it from the DA process, make some changes and then resubmit without locals (including myself being notified).

    I own a property within 150 meters and have not been notified, there is a lack of duty and I strongly oppose this development.

    Clearly the developer is interested solely in his back pocket and not the impact this will have on the community.

  28. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a (2) Two...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Rodolfo commented

    This development has been re submitted again. Is it because of the number of objections it had the first time around?
    There were a large number of objections and the developer "withdrew" the application. Why?
    I oppose this development because of its size, appearance, potential occupancy rates, security, type of residents, position of the development and their contribution to the character, lifestyle, economy and well being of the community. This type of development does not contribute or enhance the Umina Beach Village character. This is a family area with many vulnerable aged residents.
    It is alarming for a lot of residents to learn a police comment and assessment has been sought.
    Why the need for a police assessment, when the developer suggests the accommodation is for young and low income workers
    This is very concerning and it seems to be extremely dishonest. Why then, does this development application need high security cameras and a 24/7 on site manager for the on going management of the tenants in these premises?
    Why are there so many rules, conditions and restrictions on the tenants of these units, if they are only low income and of good character?
    Why the need for a police report, security measures including CCTV, the need to manage the premises with an on site manager 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if the tenants are meant to enrich the character and diversity of Umina Beach?
    We have to add the fact that there are about seven (7) alcohol serving venues within walking distance of this development which by being so easily accessible, will have a negative impact on the community and business of the surrounding area, mainly during the evenings and at night forcing residents to avoid this part of Umina Beach and access to facilities such as the beach and recreation precint.
    The touristic and family friendly feel of the area will be compromised and heavily impacted and it's identity lost to this type of development.
    This location does not meet the Central Coast Draft Affordable and Alternative Housing Strategy (2018) requiring this type of developments be located close to large service centers and efficient public transport.
    The council strategy also recommends affordable housing should be located within 800 metres of railway stations and focusing in business areas like Woy Woy and Gosford.
    Council is also required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to take into account the social and economic impacts of a development application and to consider if a proposed development is in the general public interest.
    We do not have any government bodies or agencies and insufficient police presence in the area.
    There are no local social agencies or mental health and drug services. They are located in Gosford.
    There are no Medicare, Centrelink or welfare services near by, with these facilities locate in Woy Woy, four kms away!
    There are insufficient job opportunities in the area with most locals having to travel away from the area for employment.
    This development only has six parking spaces with no parking available for its potential 22 residents living in 11 self contained units.
    The application states there will be an on site manager 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
    How long will this Managers position last and who is going to enforce this condition once the development is approved and completed?
    They are low cost and small area apartments, which could attract tenants with different background, attitudes and behavior to the community that might be disturbing to local residents and the public in general.
    I don't understand how this type of development could even be considered or accepted by council when it is so close to a primary school, two surf life saving clubs, the biggest children and family recreation center in the peninsula with its extensive parklands and proposed redevelopment. A very popular beach frequented by visitor from all places, caravan and tourist park, Hope church, CWA, and Umina Sunday markets.
    Council should not approve this type of development because of the apartments size, building area, location, occupation density and proposed use as it does not match the population and general type of buildings in the area.
    This development does not comply with many of the planning rules because of it's appearance, size, parking provisions, setbacks, privacy aspects, location and by being located in one of the busiest roads in the peninsula.
    Let us remember the effect the boarding house operating in Woy Woy has had in the area's residents and businesses before trying to halt the progressive gentrification and character of Umina Beach.
    This development has no reason to be approved because of the above reasons.
    It is a very strong "NO" to this development from me.

  29. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 104 Caroline Street, Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    Branko Jazic commented

    Under NO circumstances should this development proposal be approved. The amount of traffic flow, lack of adequate parking and overdevelopment of existing schools has created a dangerous and difficult situation for local residents, community and most importantly the children that attend the two schools located in this block between Shaw Street and Edward Street. it is already such a difficult situation and the construction of a child care facility for 96 children will significantly increase the risks already present.
    This proposal should be rejected.

  30. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 104 Caroline Street, Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    Diana Jazic commented

    I have lived in Caroline Street (across the road from the Catholic primary school) for 50 years and I am shocked and dismayed that yet again, this development proposal is being considered. In the block between Shaw and Edward Streets there is a primary school and a high school. The primary school offers no staff parking and the high school only recently provided very limited parking for their staff. There are over 1,500 attending both schools. Since construction of the M5 Caroline Street is also used as a detour avoiding Kingsgrove Road and during 2018 speed humps were constructed to reduce the speed of vehicles. The behaviour of drivers particularly in the morning and afternoon creates a difficult and dangerous situation for children and local residents. Resident driveways are continually blocked and far too often the traffic controller during the morning and afternoon school periods struggles to safely control and direct the flow of vehicles. Exiting and entering our driveway has become increasingly difficult and there have been far too many accidents in the street where vehicles have crossed the footpath, damaging private property (fences) - and miraculously no one was injured or killed. Construction of child care centre in this street will significantly increase the risk to health and safety of the community in particular children. This proposal cannot and should not be considered for approval under any circumstances. Bayside Planning Committee - please REJECT this proposal!

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