Recent comments

  1. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Diana Mousina commented

    Dear Randwick Council, I object to the construction of 40 units boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.
    This will create excessive congestion in an already dense area, increased noise and safety issues as well for families.

  2. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use –...” at 92-94 Fiona Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Elaine Ho commented

    Additionally to Brian Liverton's concerns. Fiona Street is a very narrow suburban street. The existing homes have the ability to park their cars on their respective properties. This street CANNOT cope with street parking because it is TOO NARROW and by allowing the overflow of the 'Temple' parking to be on the street it CREATES A HAZZARD BECAUSE NO EMERGENCY VEHICLES WOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN THE STREET. We really have to question what is behind the rapid development applications/approvals occurring under this administrator. It was a political appointment that was rushed upon Ipswich, when there were councils such as Logan, that have been under investigation for years and are still being investigated, and you have to wonder what the State Government is gaining out of this.

  3. In Balmain NSW on “D/2018/331 Part demolition...” at 57 Evans Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    John Stokes commented

    I think the removal of the native Tuckeroo should be subject to a requirement that a suitable replacement native tree be planted on the property.

  4. In Kew VIC on “Post Request(S72)...” at 68 A Wellington Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Terry Dear wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    Kerry, Mae, Bob etc
    The Boroondara Council does it's best to protect heritage buildings and try to maintain its heritage strategy but this has been taken out of its hands by VCAT. A few years back a landmark decision was taken at VCAT to demolish a house on the corner of Burke and Canterbury Rd even though it was the subject of a heritage overlay.
    VCAT is 110% pro-development, making it clear that every building is on a potential development site. Overlay or listing is no protection. The council fought tenaciously, taking the matter to the Supreme Court twice - but the matter was referred back to VCAT who immediately found in the developers favour.
    VCAT is the problem here and if you want to make a change talk to your local state govt member.
    The State Govt isn't interested in changing VCAT as it supports its growth strategy and acts at an arms length from govt - conveniently!
    So it's a very unsatisfactory system and one that is destroying our inner suburbs at a rapid pace.

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

  5. In South Coogee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Denning Street South Coogee NSW 2034:

    Marisa commented

    Rooftop terraces are so unnecessary as usually they sit above an already huge living area. They should have setbacks and privacy screens. Around my street there are about half a dozen houses with rooftop terraces and they all breach height limits but council have still approved them. Go figure. If it's any consolation, they are not really access friendly so not used much at all ... which really defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

  6. In Melbourne VIC on “Proposed demolition” at 409-413 St Kilda Road Melbourne 3004:

    Andrew Bennett commented

    What traffic management plans are proposed so that there is no further impediment to westbound traffic in Toorak Road West due to this proposed demolition?

  7. In North Rocks NSW on “Complying Development...” at 328 North Rocks Road North Rocks NSW 2151:

    Steven Gilbert commented

    Ignorant comments like Carea’s are the reason why small businesses struggle.
    Firstly, a complying development certificate means that this development has already been conditionally approved by a private accredited certifier.
    Secondly, the North Rocks Shopping Centre is a privately owned centre. This means that they can freely choose what businesses they would like in their centre. If they want to have 20 optometrists they can.
    And thirdly, the optometrist is also privately owned. Meaning if they want to take out a lease at the North Rocks shopping centre and compete with the existing optometrist then they can.
    So instead of providing useless complaints to council maybe you should try providing support to a small business which is most likely owned by someone trying to make a living for themselves so they can pay their mortgage and feed their family.

  8. In Kellyville NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy and...” at 62 Mapleton Avenue, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Julie Wilson commented

    Again ... yet another dual occupancies. No we don't want it.
    The State Planning Authorities have got it wrong. The planning regulations for our area need to be reversed single residential properties on these narrow blocks.
    These properties, built and owned investors with no interest in promoting a neat caring environment. Some of the property owners rent out the property the room... thus so many cars in the streets.
    No more dual occupancies!

  9. In Camira QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 24 McGreevy Place Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Reference SPSR-3054/2019. You see what I mean. Another request for a auxiliary unit. I have explain many times why the community of bellbird object totally to this totally unacceptable type of development, I am fed up with repeating my and the communities objection. I'm sorry but I haven't got the time to reiterate my total opposition to these dodgy applications. What I would like is some explanation from planners of their attitude to these units and the seeming silence as to what the position is being taken. I imagine the answer we will get. :its on a case by case situation [?] Please clear this up so that we know whether you are granting applications and allowing increasing the worth of houses. POLICY PLEASE

  10. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 177 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    John Ferguson commented

    Once again developers want reductions in car parking. I say stick to the rules and stop being greedy. There is very little on road parking available in this area and with State and Council sanctioned over development of previously single dwelling properties the parking arrangement problems and overflow to other locations will increase. The occupants cannot be forced not to own vehicles at this time in this State and remember, the only public transport available is bus.

  11. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 9 Lewis Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David commented

    9 Lewis Road has an area of approx. 780 sqm.
    Is that adequate for Aged Care and visitor/staff parking?

  12. In Patonga NSW on “Internal Renovations/Fitout...” at 6 Patonga Street, Patonga NSW 2256:

    H crawford commented

    You have the wrong address for this. It is 6 Patonga drive. Please change it.

  13. In Oatlands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 59 - 59A Belmore Street Oatlands NSW 2117:

    DB commented

    I fully agree to all points made by Allen Chen. Additionally as a parent of a child who attends Oatland Public School, I can say that there are aleady significant safety issue surrounding children
    pedestrians where they are already difficult to see by drivers. Students at Oatland Public School already have to cross (on foot) multiple driveways on their journey to the front gate and adding another large commercial driveway to the vicinity of the School will only increase the risk to the safety of students making their way to and from school, as well as to any children enrolled at the proposed child care centre whos parents park on the street due to limited under ground parking spaces. This risk will also extend to children who attend the already existing child care centre on Belmore St. This proposer business would also create unnecessary competition with the smaller community child care centre on Belmore St and take away from their security and longevity as a local business within the Oatlands community.

    The under ground works also pose a real threat to the students and staff of Oatlands public school and local residents if not conducted in adherance to strick code regulations in regard to the under ground Caltex petroleum pipeline that runs through the property.

    Last of all, as with many area within the Parramatta City Council jurisdiction, the Belmore St road infrastructure was not designed to service the traffic volume that can be expected with a development such as this and will.suffer as a consequence.

    I am fully apposed to this development application.

  14. In McKinnon VIC on “A six storey building...” at 240-250 McKinnon Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Meeta commented

    The councilors clearly do not represent the interest of the long term residents of Glen Eira, they do not live locally and it is not in their own interest to slow down the over development of the area and complete destruction of the character of the suburb. Many suburbs have strict height and development regulations, but not Glen Eira, if there is a dollar to be made, it is on. In future we residents need to be overly cautious about the council representatives and who we elect.

  15. In Kilsyth VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at 638 Mt Dandenong Road, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Kim Mckay commented

    Why are you breaching the law? Every submission must have the date of submission recorded....

  16. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolish existing shop,...” at 599 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Joan Johnson commented

    Lea Lev,
    I am wondering how you are sure that those making traffic comments use public transport or car pools. No one has asked me how I commute to work, and for your information, Lea, I drive. How do you commute to work each day?
    Move to the country? What a sweeping statement without any thought put into each and everyone's circumstance.

  17. In Heidelberg VIC on “The proposal is for a...” at 169 Burgundy Street , Heidelberg, VIC:

    Lou La commented

    Ridiculous proposition! Block too narrow building too high. Slums come to Heidelberg via greedy developers! Should be disregarded by Council before ut gets any further.

  18. In Kilsyth VIC on “Amendment to permit” at 89-91 Canterbury Road, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Kim Mckay wrote to local councillor Fiona McAllister

    Amend to permit what? The absolute cover ups or no information or dance around effort of communities to have any say in our country is criminal...

    Delivered to local councillor Fiona McAllister. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Montrose VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 2-4 Belfast Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Kim Mckay commented

    Since there is no date of submission means it is not valid, is it unconstitutional? Meaning are you applying our country's true federal constitution as it is being reinstated as i type?

    "The date MUST be entered on receipt, if not it is then declared "NOT Valid", mail, document law! There should be NO ability to change such a date on the system used to store any submissions or any Government departments systems, which includes all submissions to government departments, subsidiaries and franchise's/associated gov.

    Scott Morrison has been served by the house of lords that he must immediately take actions against all government departments members who are NOT applying our TRUE Constitutional laws, to report it to all security agencies to take actions or step down.

    So there is a Country wide HOLD on all illegal policies , trade deals, fraudulent contracts, tender's and laws which have been made up (fake) by these treasonous members and the unconstitutional election happening while the high court has pending cases against AEC of every state and ABS and others for fraud, manipulations of votes, posing as government officials and not applying our country's true federal constitutional referendum laws....every vote is fraud and treason against Australia!

    Local councils are not exempt from these crimes because you are NOT a government department under our TRUE Federal Constitution, you do NOT have the illegal powers you are claiming, therefore you have NO power to sell our lands, our assets, our forests, issue fines or any other charges, nothing. But most of all real estate & development is a massive conflict of interest on any legal level.

    Every government department, subsidiaries or franchise's associated to the current further decentralisation's happening across Australia holds the highest True Federal Constitutional Security breaches which hold the death penalty, Morrison and others are lying to every person in this country and to the world. Just because they say it out loud does absolutely NOT make it constitutionally legal....

    Yours sincerely
    Ms Kim Mckay
    03 9761 8253

  20. In North Rocks NSW on “Complying Development...” at 328 North Rocks Road North Rocks NSW 2151:

    Carea commented

    Dear Parramatta City Council,

    In response to the application to have another shop fitted as an optometry practice.

    I am concerned that there is already an optometrist at North Rocks. A more useful service may be beneficial to the North Rocks community. Such services could include the RMS, an employment service, Medicare or a Disability community service. North Rocks has a high aging population and require services that are accessible through low economic means and facilities catered to their needs.

    I am also concerned that North Rocks shops may have difficulty maintaining the leases of their spaces with such competition. Having competing optometrist will ultimately cause financial hardship to both practices. Recently one of the two optometrists closed down.

    In addition, the establishment of a new optometrist is wasteful to the environment. There is already 2 shops fitted as optometrist in this case complex Would it be possible to use the existing space and minimise the environmental impacts and disturbance to the North Rocks community with ongoing developments?

    Thank you for taking the time to consider my response.

  21. In Kellyville NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy” at 20 Expedition Street, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Sue mace commented

    It is just getting ridiculous too many of these dual occupancy buildings in our already over developed suburb when will it stop? Too many flats, rentals, dual occupancy buildings and all extra traffic on our e already busy unfinished roads,

  22. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of 11 dwellings...” at 56 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Harry Birkenfelds wrote to local councillor Jake Keorg

    Shame shame,shame,hopefully if its approved there will be a condition to provide sufficient of street parking not only for homeowners but for visitors as well.The situation in Pejaro Crt is a joke with numerous owners from the 3 multi unit complexes opposite in Kathryn Rd parking their cars in the court for days and weeks on end.Then on the weekends in become worse with their visitors also parking in the Court making it extremely difficult to access our own place.A previous mayor said he would look into it,just before an election some years ago,guess what nothing happened!!

    Delivered to local councillor Jake Keorg. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Heidelberg VIC on “The proposal is for a...” at 169 Burgundy Street , Heidelberg, VIC:

    Lou Vaiano commented

    This building seems very out of touch with surrounding buildings. This 6 storey building will dwarf the existing 1 and 2 storey buildings and stand out as an eye-sore.

    I urge council to reject this proposal or significantly reduce the overall height to be more in keeping with surrounding buildings.

  24. In Denistone NSW on “Proposed torrens title land...” at 14 Ryedale Rd Denistone NSW 2114:

    Yvonne Hall commented

    A letter of 5 April annexes to it a copy of the proposed subdivision. but with writing on it that is so small that it is impossible to see what is intended.

    I assume that all that is intended is to divide the land into 2 lots, but in circumstances in which the subsequent intentions are not clear.

    In these circumstances it is not possible to express informed views as to whether to consent or to object or not and hence in thea bsence of any further informetiaton the proposal is objected to.

    Hence, we seek more information and a copy of the plans with writing of such a size that it is legible.

  25. In Magill SA on “To divide land into 4...” at 14 Lorne Avenue Magill SA 5072:

    John Frith commented

    Allowing a lot of 743 square metres to be divided into four separate titles (average 185m each) may well be permitted under the current development plan, but does that mean Council must approve it?
    I would suggest the planning section and the DAP panel seriously think about whether this is in the best interests of all concerned (ignoring the developers obvious interests), before giving this the green light.
    It is definitely not what the community in the immediate area wants as evidenced by the support for Council's proposed development plan amendment about to be submitted to the minister. Unfortunately, approval by the minister is still a long way off, so in the meantime let's get the planners thinking more like they used to prior to John Rau's grand ideas for infill development being forced upon us.
    Anyone spending any amount of time in the area surrounding UniSA Magill Campus of Lorne Ave, Balmoral Ave, Brougham St, Cosgrove St etc. will tell you that the high levels of traffic and parking congestion are major concerns. If Council’s planners do not encourage developers to submit applications that really do address these concerns then it is the community that suffers further from the resulting overcrowding, noise, congestion and bad conceived urban infill with a lack of space for new residents to have gardens, street trees, storage and off-street parking spaces (one per dwelling is grossly inadequate).

  26. In Kellyville NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy and...” at 99 Garrawilla Avenue, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Maryann Vernon commented

    I agree with Julie and Susan regarding dual occupancies. The streets are not equipped for the numerous car holders of a dual occupancy that can only realistically hold enough parking for 1 dwellings worth of individuals.
    I live on a different street to Julie in the same estate and it is also disappointing to see that the lack of storage for gardening equipment etc or sense of ownership of such dwellings resulting in landscaping that is not maintained and as a result brings down the image of the whole street and estate.

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove two (2) Alexander...” at 52A Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Deborah Prosser commented

    I agree with you Ilona, actually Waverley council used to have a more thorough criteria and make people replace the trees they removed through disease, age or the renovations they were undertaking. More and more in Waverley it feels like there is no longer care or concern for the long term outcomes of tree removals and over development.Having lived here all my life, as did my father, it is extremely upsetting to feel that the Council is not putting into place a more considered long term considerations of the impact of decisions on the landscape and infrastructure of this area.

  28. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Joe Bloggs commented

    This is a test
    please disregard

  29. In Heidelberg VIC on “The proposal is for a...” at 169 Burgundy Street , Heidelberg, VIC:

    Cheryl Daye commented

    The proposed design is disproportionately narrow and high, bulky, and lacking any aesthetic appeal. It will dominate the streetscape and is out of keeping with surrounding buildings.
    Although parking requirements are met, they still seem inadequate given the location and problems already experienced by local shoppers.
    The lack of external windows ( apart from front and year) would appear to make the interiors dark, claustrophobic and gloomy.
    In my opinion, this is a very poor design and will not enhance the local environment in any way.
    I would urge Council to reject this application.

  30. In Chatswood NSW on “Inspect 1 tree in back yard...” at 62 Fullers Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Lou commented

    All Trees and Shrubs need to be considered to be kept or pruned in a manner that will keep them well preserved. When life is threatened by trees, then firstly correctly pruning trees should be done, before considering removal. The trees flora gives use; oxygen to breath, wild life habitats, enhances cross pollination of flora, cross pollination of flora enables food for all life, shade from sunlight and beautification of our neighbourhood.

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