Recent comments

  1. In Invermay TAS on “Residential - Demolish...” at 12 Windsor Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Allan Miller commented

    Another bit of Launcestons history being chipped away. Considering the loss of these places in the last few years, the council should carefully think twice before each and every time they rubber stamp another place for demolition.

    Invermay is important because it has retained much of its "working class" past, its modest buildings have largely remained intact, when similar suburbs in other places around Australia havnt fared so well, either being turned into industrial wastelands or filled to overflowing with Mc Mansions. Often both, in that order.

    Looking into the future, housing stock will (and is already) becoming scarce in the inner suburbs (UTAS will only add speed up this process) so to demolish existing housing stock (recent residential demolitions have been approved for car yards & carparks for instance) may well be something that we will regret down the track.

    This house will add to the look and feel of a future Invermay, when the industry begins to move further out, and the people begin to look for a place to live close to the CBD.

    I would argue that to demolish this place would be short sighted, and fail to see its value in a future more "residential" Invermay.

  2. In Maroubra NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 28 New Orleans Crescent Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Kirrilly Brown commented

    Demolition and current works now on this property have not been planned taking into account the impact on surrounding residents in terms of parking and access to their own property. Nor has there been any communication with residents. It's a very narrow, congested street already. Especially on garbage collection day.

    A number of times I tried to park close to my home (I have small children to manage, bags, work equipment etc) only to have a worker from the site bang on my car window, aggressively telling me to move further down the street. Threatening if I didn't my car would be hit by their truck. Meanwhile, all staff from the site monopolise resident parking in close proximity to the worksite.
    Trucks are also left over night and over the weekend, again reducing residents ability to find parking.
    On Friday 6th December my car was parked directly opposite the driveway to the construction site. When I left for work at 8am I noticed my drivers door had been damaged. The damage is high up on my car door, pushed in and scratched. The damage is at the same height as one of their work trucks and looks like they have reversed into my car. The site Supervisor advised if I can prove it was them, they'd happily pay for it to be fixed knowing that I can't. Since then I have discovered 3 other cars have also been damaged. Another vehicle parked a few days earlier in the same place as mine received similar damage to the drivers side door. Another has had their drivers side rear taillight smashed and a neighbor at number 30 New Orleans Cres Maroubra has had wet cement sprayed on their car with site workers wiping it off and leaving scratches in the process.
    The latter vehicle will be fixed as they acknowledged fault however for the rest of us it's an out of pocket expense and a lot of hassle. Not impressed.

  3. In Tewantin QLD on “Clearing Vegetation under...” at 27 Myles St Tewantin QLD 4565:

    Ms. Marguerite Wickins commented

    I should like to object to the removal of the gum tree at number 27 Myles Street. This tree is a habitat to many wild birds. Due to the removal in the last couple of years of other similar species in this neighbourhood this habitat is of vital importance in maintaining biodiversity. It has been pruned to make it safe and I can see no valid reason for its removal. Perhaps council can look at their planning approval process before allowing buildings being erected so close to existing significant trees.

  4. In Thornbury VIC on “Construction of a medium...” at 125 Darebin Road Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Paul Blamire commented

    Earlier in 2019, council told anyone living in a house build after 2010 that they would not receive any parking permits for residents or visitors, on the grounds that they should be able to accommodate all vehicles on their premises. Surely then, if you build a new property, it should have adequate on-site parking? Reducing the parking requirement is clearly designed to maximize density. The combination of high–density accommodation and no parking is the worst possible outcome.

  5. In Hamlyn Terrace NSW on “148 Lot Subdivision...” at 590 Pacific Highway Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Adel Firth-Mason commented

    I am concerned at the large number of buildings densely being planned so close together in the Hamlyn Terrace area.

    With the demographics of the area, the very real concern exists that very relevant and appropriate infrastructures are being significantly overlooked: schools, tertiary education, medical facilities, shopping centres, transport, parks, and traffic safety which includes traffic lights and parking.

    A lack of due process in these vital concerns will lead to greater concerns in the next 10, 20, and 30 years. Central Coast Council needs to consider these matters conscientiously in all its subdivision planning.

  6. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 32 Undercliffe Road, Earlwood NSW:

    Mr Adam Joseph commented

    This site is currently being investigated by DPIE NSW for potential naming as an "Aboriginal place".

    The Department has received formal notification by Ms Chantell Haines that the site includes caves of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, and residential dwelling construction on the site should cease while the authorities properly investigate this claim.

    Council should discuss this DA as a matter of urgency with Ms Jody Orcher of DPIE, Jody.Orcher@bgcp.nsw.gov.au or by phone on 0472 820 852

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

    Graham Wand commented

    I object to this proposed development because it is OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING GUIDELINES. This proposal is inappropriate for this iconic, though threatened, beach environment.
    As a 33 year local resident I am outraged that City Planning Guidelines are openly flouted to downgrade the beach environment. The vast majority of local residents have similar views, despite what GCCC would like us to believe.
    Keep the beaches desirable, stop inappropriate over development, and you might not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

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

    Margaret Rowles commented

    Being a resident of Burleigh heads for many years and having lived on the esplanade I feel there are far too many high rise developments taking place. So many on 1st Avenue. Goodwin terrace and white horses to name a few. Keep Burleigh with a village feel. Don't go the way of MELB with ghettos of small units with no parking.

  9. In Campbelltown NSW on “Modification of an exisitng...” at 17 Iolanthe Street, Campbelltown NSW 2560:

    Sanaz commented

    What rational is behind having a four storey 19 self contained room boarding house? The area already have 2 boarding houses and affordable housing as well.
    How is the developer going to handle the potential +19 parking spaces and the risk of antisocial behavior?

  10. In Merrylands West NSW on “Demolition and Subdivision...” at 23 Binda Street, Merrylands West NSW 2160:

    Rex Wright commented

    Demolition of house should follow asbestos remove standards and safety packaging removal.
    Enforcement will through council.

  11. In Priestdale QLD on “Commercial - Stage 1...” at 1034-1106 Underwood Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Robert Dickinson commented

    This submission is one made, not in support of the proposal, but to identify reasons why it should not be allowed.

    The land identified in this proposal is located immediately adjoining the Daisy Hill Conservation Park with its dedicated koala education facility, the Daisy Hill Koala Centre, established by the Queensland Government in 1995 and extensively refurbished in 2009 and most recently in 2018.
    A large bushland area lying partially within the boundaries of Logan, Brisbane and Redlands was incorporated into one known as the Koala Coast, proclaimed in the 1970s to ensure the survival of Queensland’s dwindling and threatened Koala population. Within this area, Legislative control severely restricted development, removal of vegetation with Vegetation Protection Orders and even restricted recreational use.

    As one of only two horse-mounted voluntary Park Rangers for Logan in the 70s, regular sightings of Koalas were made in and around the area identified in this proposal. Unfortunately, the Koala density has dwindled substantially since then. Now, being aware of this, both the State Government https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/koalas/conservation/draft-seq-koala-strategy
    and Brisbane City are independantly enacting moves to ensure the survival of the Koala. This is mainly by purchasing and revegetating where necessary, suitable tracts of rural land to establish and increase wildlife conservation areas necessary for this species to survive.

    The inappropriate location of the fenced (animal-proof and man proof) Buddist Temple already prevents unrestricted Koala movement through the region. Koalas will not simply walk around a new obstacle placed in a previously used path. The obstacle presents such mental stress that the Koala is unable to navigate an alternative, with dire consequences. To allow any extension of activities there would only contribute to other present issues likely to thwart successful implementation of moves to prevent futher loss of Koala bushland habitat necessary to ensure the survival of the Koala.

    Conclusion: Because the proposal identifies increased urban intrusion and human activity into an already ‘restricted’ Koala conservation area and likely to negatively impact further upon this conservation, it should NOT be allowed.

  12. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of detached...” at 79 Permanent Avenue, Earlwood NSW 2206:

    Troy commented

    The issue of Pool has clear guidelines and requests for permits to fill in the current water restrictions.
    I don’t see why we need to make a fuss about filling a pool when water suppliers have hundreds of water pipes fueling water into the streets because they are not maintained. This isn’t the forum for hating on everyday humans whom wish to enjoy a pool in their beautiful backyard. If anything. It means less people driving to the beach to relax over summer. That means less emissions...

  13. In Birchgrove NSW on “Construction Cert Private...” at 20 Rose Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Michael commented

    The Peninsular’s tree canopy coverage has reduced significantly in the past 10 years.
    Please make approval conditional on a 1 for 1 replacement of removed trees, and guaranteed proof the new trees will be nurtured to full maturity.

  14. In Tewantin QLD on “Clearing Vegetation under...” at 27 Myles St Tewantin QLD 4565:

    Peter Hunnam commented

    I think that this blue gum, E.teriticornis, outside 27 Myles Street, should be protected. This tree has been an attractive part of the streetscape for many decades, enjoyed by several generations of residents, used by the many lorikeets, corellas and other birds as a food source or roost, and providing natural shade, humidity and water circulation.
    This particular species of tree is characteristic of Old Tewantin, yet has not been protected adequately from house developers and builders. Too often in the past few years, these mature street trees have been sawn down because the householder has not liked the falling leaves or strips of bark, or the roots spreading through the soil.
    The streetscapes of Tewantin have been noted specifically in the past for their mature trees - notably as part of the formal justification for the region to be designated as the Noosa Biosphere Reserve in 2007. Over the subsequent 12 years, this noteworthy feature has been decimated by individuals who it seems are not prepared to sacrifice any of their property to benefit the local biodiversity, environment or community amenity.
    In Tewantin and other Noosa suburbs, we need much better conservation rules for our ‘green streets’ and urban biosphere, and we need to work as a community to actively enhance the natural values of our limited public green spaces, not degrade and destroy them cut by cut.

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

    Mike Renison commented

    As a resident of Burleigh Heads, I object to this proposed development because it is outside of the the Planning Guidelines. This proposal is inappropriate for this iconic beach environment.
    The local residents fought hard to prevent unnecessary multiple daily overhead flights damaging the ambience of this beautiful area and are similarly outraged that City Planning Guidelines are openly flouted to downgrade the beach environment. There are vast areas of SE Queensland available for large buildings.
    Keep the beaches desirable, stop inappropriate over development.

  16. In Bexley NSW on “Construction of two...” at 41 - 49 Abercorn Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noa commented

    Where is there a wombat crossing? This should be considered and be taken seriously.

  17. In Bexley NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 11 Northbrook Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah commented

    This has already been subdivided. Why am I getting this notification?

  18. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To modify Determination No...” at 412-418 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kitty Farrell commented

    As a close resident of this bottle shop, I wholeheartedly support the modification to this determination. I firmly believe this application is needed in the push against Berijiklian’s nanny state of NSW.

  19. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Jodie Skinner commented

    This application should certainly not proceed. I grew up in Dan Street and my parents still reside there after some 40 years. We are there several times a week and it is increasingly difficult getting in and out of the street as it is now. Dan St is a narrow cul de sac with one way in and one way out. It is already heavily congested. Introducing a 50+ spot day care centre would have major impact on not only the residents of Dan St but on the traffic flow on Burnett Street in both directions.

    As it is now, with cars parked on both sides of the road you constantly have to pull over to allow cars to continue up or down the street. Cars park at the end of Dan Street – right on the edge of Burnett Street (from residents as well as people parking from the tennis courts and football fields- I have previously made complaints via Snap/Send/Solve) - it is extremely dangerous turning in and out of Dan Street. I have had several near misses turning in and out of the street as cars coming the opposite way have nowhere to go, with cars parked on both sides and it is a matter of time before there is a major accident. There has previously been fatalities on the corner of Dan and Burnett Street so council should be well aware of the dangers.

    It often can take several minutes to turn right out of Dan Street – or right into Dan Street from Burnett. This means the cars bank up behind you. Please stop and think what would happen if you allowed this to proceed. You could have traffic backed up to Hilltop Road!

    Often it is extremely difficult to get in in and out of your own driveway – again introducing more traffic into an already heavily congested spot makes no logical sense.

    Where would all the parents park? What happens when the daycare hosts the many functions( Easter/Xmas/ Mothers Day/Fathers Day etc) that occur throughout the year – both parents/grandparents arrive in separate cars. You are now talking about 100-150 cars…trying to park in an already overcrowded narrow residential street with only one way in and out, with only room for 1 car to proceed up or down the street at any one time.

    This is certainly not in the best interests of the residents of Dan Street - I urge council to deny this application.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 4.55(2) of...” at 2/153-155 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    anne mcdougall commented

    Happy to see Sauce expand it’s operations to include an additional food and drink premise. Sauce are good neighbours and this will increase their value to the inner west Brewery trail

  21. In Thornbury VIC on “Construction of a medium...” at 125 Darebin Road Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Clare Iacono commented

    Parking on Darebin Rd is already limited. Reduction in public parking spaces should not be approved. This will mean a loss of amenities for the general community for the gain of one developer.

    Also SEVEN dwellings seems like high density development. What is the definition of medium density development?

  22. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of detached...” at 79 Permanent Avenue, Earlwood NSW 2206:

    Mick commented

    I support the application and totally disagree with the objectors as the arguments put forward are feeble to say the least.

    What gives them the right to deprive a family of enjoying the great amenity a pool provides a family!

    It can take years of planning to get to the DA stage and at the time the planning commenced, there were likely no water restrictions in play.

    Additionally, a responsible pool owner will know that once the pool is filled and well maintained, the water management an consumption side of the equation is not dissimilar to someone maintaining a garden. Are we to also ban all gardens in NSW.

    The drought is a natural phenomenon, one which our politicians have hopelessly planned for and let us down miserably.

    Let's get real people, whilst we all need to conserve our resources and be mindful of the environment, prohibition is not the solution and history evidences this doesn't work.

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

    Con Zois commented

    A building of this height is totally not in character with Murrumbeena. This is 'greed' dictating the terms of construction. Where is the balance shown here between the interests of developers and the residents who live in Murrumbeena and have enjoyed the neighborhood for its unique character and liveability? Can someone in planning please listen to the all the concerned residents who live in Murrumbeena and have replied back with concerns?

  24. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Rosa Ventra commented

    Cumberland Council​​​​​​

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    Objection re Development Application DA2019/432/1 – 20 Dan Street, Merrylands

    I live at 17 Dan Street Merrylands (owner) and would like to lodge an objection to the DA for the childcare centre at 20 Dan Street Merrylands as following:

    1.​Over the years the number of cars using Dan Street and parking in the street
    has increased such that there are difficulties in parking and navigating the
    narrow street.
    2.​The increased traffic due to a 53 place childcare centre will become a serious
    traffic hazard affecting pedestrians and resident traffic alike, particularly as
    the street is not a through road and the cul-de-sac becomes congested with
    turning traffic.
    3.​This turning traffic will be made worse by the entry and exit to the childcare
    parking area under the building.
    4.​Dan street is so narrow that when cars are parked on either side of the road it
    becomes a single lane.
    5.​Peak time for drop-off and pick-up times of the childcare centre are bound to
    coincide with peak resident traffic morning and afternoon.
    6.​Currently Dan Street is mainly single storey dwellings while the proposed
    Childcare centre is in effect a three storey building when the underground
    parking is taken into account. This is a gross overdevelopment in a quite
    street, totally in violation of the present scale of development.
    7.​The amenity of the street will be significantly impacted by the increased noise
    and air pollution caused by excessive traffic.
    8.​Wait times to exit and enter Burnett Street at peak times are extensive. Either
    turning right into Dan Street from Burnett or turning right into Burnett Street
    from Dan Street can take 10-15 minutes at present. The increased traffic
    expected with the childcare centre could gridlock Dan Street. Such lengthy
    delays are unacceptable.
    9.​Burnett Street is a major road to and from Parramatta and for the use of the
    M4. As such it has continuous traffic in peak times. Serious safety issues have
    already been identified. A number of accidents have occurred at the corner
    of Dan and Burnett Streets including at least one fatality.
    Please consider the residents of Dan Street and reject this ill-conceived development. There must be other areas more suitable for a childcare centre.

    Yours faithfully,

    Rosa Ventra

  25. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 20 Dan Street, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Brian Roughley commented

    I am writing as a owner of 19 Dan Street Merrylands and wish to express my objection to the DA for the childcare centre at 20 Dan Street Merrylands on the following grounds:

    • Dan Street is a quiet residential street ending in a cul-de-sac, with predominantly single story dwellings that would be totally overpowered by the scale of the proposed 53 place childcare centre consisting of two stories above underground car parking
    • Dan Street is a narrow street which reduces to a single lane of traffic when cars are parked on either side of the street. There is already traffic congestion at certain times of day, primarily morning and evening
    • the noise and air pollution caused by the extra traffic to the childcare centre both morning and evening will be excessive
    • human nature means that parents will not use the underground parking when they are able to double park to drop off their children, totally congesting the cul-de-sac. I know first hand what happens as I currently live next door to two child care centres in a street which is much more accommodating than Dan Street.
    • Burnett Street is a major through road during peak hours which makes it extremely difficult making a right-hand turn into Dan Street and making a right-hand turn from Dan Street into Burnett. There are already delays for residents entering or exiting Dan Street peak times which will be the only compounded by additional traffic
    • there has already been at least one fatal accident on the corner of Dan and Burnett Street
    Please consider the residents of Dan Street and reject this application
    Brian Roughley

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “To fitout and use the...” at 12 Dudley Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Eric Rixon commented

    I support this development request, it will be great to have a local grocery store that I can pick things up from on my way home Dulwich Hill station.

  27. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 32 Kearnes Rd, Oaklands Park 5046 SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    This area's roads are a parking lot already. Division of blocks into 3 cause nothing but issues and need to be banned.
    Please challenge the development ensure that consideration is given to the driveway width (min dual), orientation of the building and driveway locations to maximise the curb parking in front of the development, instead of forcing cars on the road and blocking existing residents and creating more neighbour disputes.
    This level of infill is destroying Marion area (along with other suburbs in Adelaide). Please fight against this and ban this level of over-development. http://chng.it/4xHd8JWHcY

  28. In Warradale SA on “Detached Dwelling Two...” at 17 Hamilton Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Agree David. Lucky this is only 2 and not the split into 3.
    Again, same issues are created.
    Council need to challenge all of these developments and ensure consideration is given to orientation and the impact this infill has to the existing infrastructure and residents.

    Please visit http://chng.it/4xHd8JWHcY and support a ban on the over development in this area.

  29. In Scarborough WA on “Development WA - Twelve...” at 5 Brighton Road Scarborough WA 6019:

    Enrico Pennacini commented

    Brilliant...even better than previous approval

  30. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material change of use Code...” at 1466 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Tamara Mitchell commented

    I am writing to express concern with regards to the proposed commercial development at 1466 Gold Coast Highway, on the corner of Twenty Seventh Avenue.

    As a long-term resident of Twenty Seventh Avenue Palm Beach, I find it inappropriate that a medical centre / dental surgery operating seven days a week be built in a quiet, family orientated, medium-density residential zoned area, with only six car spaces provided and one staff carpark to accommodate four tenancies.

    I object this development for the following reasons:

    - Site is zoned RESIDENTIAL, this is a commercial premises and is inappropriate for the area
    - Inadequate car parking is proposed. Six on-site customer car spaces for four tenancies is probably about half of what is realistically required. Common sense would suggest a minimum of twelve car parks for customers and five staff carparks at minimum would be required so as to not negatively impact the residents of this residential area
    - Proposed plan does not meet acceptable outcomes for site cover - 58% vs 50%
    - Proposed plan does not meet acceptable outcomes for setbacks - 3.9m vs 6m
    - This does not fit with the GCCC's objectives of creating more housing options to support the forecasted population boom and new dwelling targets set by the state government. A more appropriate use of this land would be a duplex development, which are in high demand in Palm Beach.

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