Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 12 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Julie Lennon commented

    I would be interested to know if the council ranger/ arborist actually checks out the claims of the owners. If not, and the application is approved, then the application system is faulty. Approval can’t be carte blanche. Do we ever receive responses to these comments?

  2. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Claire Gordon commented

    Please don’t demolish this beautiful old home. Hobart as such a rich history and buildings such as this are part of this history. Also the plans for the new structure do not seem in keeping with the other dwellings in this area. Surely this will not be approved?

  3. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Daniel thomas commented

    This is totally inappropriate for the area. The road can cope with the current load on it and this will only make it a nightmare and even worse during the construction.

    The local area is family homes, with a family atmosphere. 5 story units is the opposite to this and would only degrade the area.

    Then there is the issue with public transport. It does not cope at the moment and again would only make it worse.

    Fix current issues before introducing more

  4. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Donna Thomas commented

    This is not the type of development required for this area. Our infrastructure is stretched and it’s medium density.
    How would you see this type of housing improve the area? It would not! It will put too much strain on our schools, roads and area. Considering all the development in surrounding suburbs, this is very short sighted for town planning.
    Town houses would be better suited.

  5. In Oaklands Park SA on “Two single storey...” at 476 - 478 Morphett Rd Warradale:

    S. Boho commented

    This vacant block of land had such a beautiful house on it originally until it was knocked down to profit someone’s pockets this area is being ruined
    How do people exit there driveways if this goes ahead

  6. In Rowville VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michael Vanin wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    I support the application. The owner is only exercising their democratic right to develop their own property in accordance with the agreed planning scheme that must take into account matters like infrastructure.

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  7. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Stephanie Fuller commented

    I am personally excited for the boom this development will provide to our local community and its residents. We have very limited options for accommodation of this nature and quality for our elderly residents so this will be a welcomed addition.

  8. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Amanda Langlands commented

    Finally! A development that caters for an obvious need in our community. As a local real estate agent of now 17 years I am constantly helping our retirees sell for them only to leave our area. Having to move away from the region they have know their whole life. Away from friends and family simply because other areas have housing that caters for their needs. I applaud the developers for their forward thinking

  9. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Michael commented

    This is a wonderful and much needed development for Woolgoolga and the Coffs Cosst region. As a former member for ASLARC ( Aged Services Learning and Research Collaboration) there has been a demonstrated need for this type of lifestyle living. This is not aged care but lifestyle living and gives significant social and economic benefits to the area in addition to meeting a gap. We have continued annual growth to the region and need to have the infrastructure and services to meet this need and not fall behind other regional cities. Education and Health are the two largest industry sectors for employment on the Coffs Coast and this type of accommodation option enables a transition option for accomodation for individuals/couples who don’t seek nor require aged care living. I certainly hope the council shows leadership and vision for the future needs of our wonderful city and support the benefits this brings in meeting our needs socially and importantly economically or risk losing even our own locals seeking this living to other regions which can offer it.

  10. In Taylors Lakes VIC on “Removal of the restriction...” at 68 Robertsons Road Taylors Lakes, VIC:

    Barbara Baxter commented

    The application is to remove the covenant to allow 2 dwellings to be constructed. The owner states this is for medical reasons to allow for on site support. With consideration as to what this may mean for the future, I wish to have this reconsidered by council to allow an independent persons unit to be temporarily constructed along with 1 single residential dwelling only. Whilst I am cognisant as to what the health concerns are of the owner, I am concerned that this is not the best long term solution for our area, and, as a rate payer this is one of the reasons why we purchased our property in this area.

  11. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Jonothan Davis wrote to local councillor Jeff Briscoe

    This is an heritage circa 1905 Arts and Crafts/ Edwardian building, it loss is part of the disappearing "heritage character' that the current tourist boom is coming in to admire. No one is going to give a second look to the architectural blandness that is intended to replace it. So this development needs to go before the alderman.

    Photo of Jeff Briscoe
    Jeff Briscoe local councillor for Hobart City Council
    replied to Jonothan Davis

    Will call it up

  12. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Paula Read commented

    This area is zoned 5 storeys. The proposed development is 7 storeys. Zonings and Development Plans should be rules, and not guidelines which can be overturned by planning authorities and/or the court.
    This proposed development is also close to the Michael Herbert Bridge (formerly the King Street Bridge) and entry/exit from a development of this size is going to create dangerous traffic conditions along Adelphi Terrace.

  13. In Umina Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development -...” at 3 Alfred Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can Council ensure this development has sufficient parking on site. All too often, these projects get altered afterwards and parking spaces vanish.
    Also, can the landscaping include some shade trees - preferably native?
    The Peninsula has now lost too many trees and is now rated with Warnervale, Long Jetty and Somersby as the hottest suburb on the Central Coast.

  14. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Construction Of Swimming Pool” at 3 Palm Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners plant some shade trees after their pool in installed?
    The Peninsula has now lost too many larger trees and is now rated with Warnervale, Long Jetty and Somersby as the hottest suburb on the Central Coast.

  15. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Dual Occupancy Attached &...” at 47 Bangalow Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners work around their lovely shady trees to put in their granny flat?
    The Peninsula has now lost too many larger trees and is now rated with Warnervale, Long Jetty and Somersby as the hottest suburb on the Central Coast.
    Any tree that can be preserved would be wonderful, not only for the future value of this property but also the other homes on Bangalow.

  16. In Newington NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 24 Watt Avenue Newington NSW 2127:

    John Phillips commented

    And what will be replacing it?

  17. In Woy Woy NSW on “Secondary Dwelling & Tree...” at 18 Angler Street, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    K Smith commented

    I do not support the proposed tree removal. With climate change it is critical that we maintain or increase tree cover. The Peninsular is very hot and getting hotter. Please retain this tree. Thanks.

  18. In Redfern NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 158-160 Abercrombie Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Deidre Gai Mitchell commented

    I encourage more dining and seating for the pub and if it is in Vine Street, then there should be very little impact to residents. The café across the road has seating in Vine Street albeit they are not open late but it doesn't impact pedestrians whatsoever.

  19. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Swim Spa” at 4 Garth Avenue Sandy Bay Tas 7005:

    David Gardiner commented

    1. The installation of the spa has led to significant changes to its surroundings which have caused the occupants of the adjacent property considerable dismay. The new raised rear garden landscaping surrounding the spa has effectively raised our neighbours’ patio level by about a metre. A plinth comprising new earthworks and a retaining wall to support the spa (already installed and in use) has added an additional metre. The top of the spa which now sits on the plinth adds a further metre. There is a newly raised, flat area of astro-turfed recreational space at the same height as the base of the spa, and close to it, which at one point is barely 30cms lower than our boundary fence. The top of the spa is very significantly higher than the boundary fence. We understand the original plan was to instal a traditional fire pit on or near the recreational space. This idea may have been modified in favour of a gas fire pit on the recreational space - or it may have been simply abandoned. At any event, the newly raised patio, the spa and the new astro-turf area all overlook us to a far greater extent than we could have imagined. The increased elevation of these new areas has not led to an increase in the height of the (now completely inadequate) fence. The addition of screening shrubs will hardly provide even a fraction of the privacy we previously enjoyed.

    2. The location and orientation of the spa on top of newly raised foundations and the newly raised recreational space pose another concern for us. The new spa is large, above ground and the top of it is about 5 metres higher than our ground level situated just a few metres away. These changes not only seriously compromises our privacy; the size of the spa poses a significant risk factor for us in the event of catastrophic failure of either the spa or it’s supporting base. We do not suggest the work has been badly carried out. Nonetheless it is emphasised the spa is very large, its fully loaded weight is perhaps 4 - 5 metric tonnes - and it is free standing on a newly constructed elevated plinth.

    3. Our concerns previously raised with Council were not only about the impact on our privacy and the risk of placing such a heavy spa on newly elevated groundwork. Both our neighbour’s property and our own are subject to a cautionary geotechnical report and restrictive covenant with Council. This may or may not have been breached. At any event the existence of such a covenant does suggest that there are concerns about the stability of the land on which our two properties are located. While the risk in regard to previous construction is not regarded in the report as high, there is a cautionary warning about major new earthworks being carried out which do not comply.

    4. We have no desire to be unreasonable about any neighbours who wish to improve their homes by means of modifications to their properties. But equally, there should be consideration of the potentially significant impact on those nearby. There is a point beyond which some modifications become not only undesirable but unacceptable. For these reasons we object to the changes described.

  20. In Oaklands Park SA on “Two single storey...” at 476 - 478 Morphett Rd Warradale:

    Ferna Harris commented

    My Goodness - who in their right mind would build private dwellings on this block which has been vacant for a very long time and for very good reason I would think? How are the residents going to get out of their driveways as the photograph depicted was obviously taken at a very rare time of the day when not much traffic was on the road? Also they will have, at night time, car lights shining in their windows from traffic exiting from the shopping centre. It appears to me, to be quite a dangerous position for private dwellings. Just goes to show the lengths some developers will go to make money.

  21. In Rowville VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Russell Nelson wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    I agree with Josephine and strongly oppose the subdivision. The resultant smaller blocks and and condensed living will ruin the livability in Rowville and overwhelm the inadequate infrastructure. Greed is the reason for the proposal not the betterment of Rowville

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Anne Boyden commented

    Reading the latest comments I see that my concerns have been interpreted incorrectly. I am concerned about the impact this development in it's present form will have with regards to the increased risk of flooding the Art Gallery and possible flooding downstream in the Sunset Caravan Park and don't believe there has been enough provision made for weather events such as East Coast Lows. I am also concerned about the traffic at the intersection. I have lived here for over twenty years and use the intersection on a daily basis so I am familiar with the current problems affecting it. It is my intention to draw attention to these points of concern in order that they be addressed beforehand rather than having to be fixed up later.

  23. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    KEVIN commented

    Unable to understand why such a project is allowed to be carried out. Not acceptable.
    The type of construction is unsuitable and does not fit in with the rest of the residential houses in the suburb and in the area.
    once approval has been given it will set a precedent and will encourage other developers to build more apartments in the area. I OBJECT TO THIS CONSTRUCTION

  24. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 12 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    I object to the removal of these 2 trees. There is insufficient information provided in the application to identify their species and to justify their removal. We also do not know their value for local wildlife.
    The City of Parramatta Council belongs to the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils which has a Turn Down the Heat Strategy in which it would seem preserving the tree canopy is crucial. This strategy needs to be honoured by preserving our trees.
    If the trees are close to the house and worry the owner perhaps they could be pruned if required rather than removed.

  25. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 24 Dent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    I object to the removal of this tree. Although it looks like someone has damaged the bark it may still survive. Please give it the chance to recover by refusing its removal. Every tree in the City of Parramatta Council area needs to be valued and preserved as too many have already been removed.

  26. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Jason commented

    Personally having so much family in the area looking to downsize/retire, I know how hard it is to find accommodation like this for over 55's. The older generation is forced to move out of the area to something more suitable. This is a great move for not only Woolgoolga, but for the whole Coffs Harbour Region.

  27. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Alicia commented

    The Mid-North Coast Region is lacking in this type of accommodation for such a highly sought after area for retirees. Woolgoolga is a perfect position for an over 55's development, being so close to the beach, medical facilities, restaurants etc. A great and beneficial move for our area.

  28. In Boronia VIC on “The construction of seven...” at 6 Bambury Street, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Disappointed commented

    I was under the impression that visitor car parking was essential for 5 or more units. No wonder the streets are clogged with parked cars. Seriously.

  29. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Leesa pettit wrote to local councillor Anna Reynolds

    Another classical and stunning piece of what makes Tasmania so unique, to be destroyed. Once it's gone it can never be recreated. I hope something can be done by the community

    Delivered to local councillor Anna Reynolds. They are yet to respond.

  30. In Willoughby NSW on “Removal of 3 x trees - 2 x...” at 10 Nardoo Road Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Jenkins Peter J commented

    Please refuse this application.
    Too many of our trees are being destroyed.
    They provide food and shelter for birds and animals.
    Also trees enhance the suburb.
    Council is allowing too many trees to be vandalised.

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