Recent comments

  1. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 34 Moore St, Lane Cove West:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    This section of Moore Street has road safety issues that should be urgently reviewed. It carries high traffic volumes in the am and pm peaks. It is also has no lines marked and has parking on the northern side. Vehicles turning left into Cullen Street do not keep entirely to the left hand side of the road. For safety reasons these issues should be reviewed prior to approval of any new development.
    Further, the Bush regeneration work by Lane Cove Council and volunteers is enhancing the natural landscape setting and upgrading the environment in the location.
    If approved, the development should be conditioned to retain remnant natural vegetation and trees in order to retain the natural landscape character of this area.
    I would appreciate the Council addressing these matters in the public interest.

  2. In Taree NSW on “Multi Residential - 11 Units” at 9 Fuchsia Drive, Taree NSW 2430:

    Jane Dargaville commented

    I prefer this kind of medium density development in town to any urban spread into bush or agricultural land. We can't keep mowing down trees and other vegetation to provide for human residences. Concerns about privacy can be met by ensuring the developers meet (improved) requirements to properly landscape: i.e. ensure developments are landscaped and that trees and shrubs are planted along borders and maintained to maturity. A similar two-storey townhouse development exists between Wynter and Little Wynter streets in Taree (and has been there for years) where fully mature trees provide more than adequate privacy for neighbouring properties. The major issues for me as this kind of medium density becomes more popular are: design, they need to be more energy efficient and social cohesion needs to be promoted with the creation of better community services and neighbouring green spaces.

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

    ershad chowdhury commented

    I just wanted to add that I would disagree with the traffic assessment posted. It doesn't say how long the data was collected for - just a random day in Nov 2017? What would be more practical is something more like average wait time at that junction .. then throw in about a 150 cars waiting at the junction (because 178 apartments, lets assume some are out of peak and use public transport, bicycles, etc) and see how long the wait time increases. Take in to account slowing down to turn in, cars stuck in the intersection, etc.

    My personal experience during the peak hours is about 5 - 10 minutes (2 -3 red lights) at that junction already, heading north on sunnyholt in the evening. I don't want to see that increase to 15 minutes.

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

    ershad chowdhury commented

    WE shouldn't consider high density housing near a choke point - serious disruption to traffic because vardy's road is heavily used already. I don't understand why every few years there is an initiative to have high rises in this area.

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

    Victoria Aubusson commented

    I believe this development will be of great benefit to our Woolgoolga community. There is a growing need for accommodation for seniors in the community and if we do not continue to make provision for it, people will be forced to move away from where they have spent a great part of their lives. This in turn impacts on other members of their families still within our community. This development will also bring more jobs to the area, something we desperately need to continue to keep our young people here and allow them to stay and raise their own families in such a great place. I do not understand why some people who live here want everything to stay the same. They have had the privilege of growing up in such a beautiful place and now they wish to deny the same rights to others because the don’t want progress, they want everything to stay the same. I find this a rather selfish and backward attitude. Not wishing to offend but without progress our town would wither away because the opportunities for younger people would be reduced forcing them to have to go elsewhere. I for one want to see young families being able to live and work in our area.

  6. In Flinders Chase SA on “Construction of tourism...” at Sandy Creek, Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, SA:

    Maggie Welz commented

    Ssndy Creek is not on the walking trail. It is a beautiful wild bay you can walk to and experience isolation and wilderness. The proposed development for the benefit of a few, would destroy this. National Parks are there for a reason.Protecting Wilderness is a duty of our elected leaders.For a government to consider going against its own guidelines for monetary gain is worrying and needs reconsidering. Many people with foresight and vision set up Flinders Chase National Park. It was not easy. Save our Wild places for the future.

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

    Paul Fitzpatrick commented

    As a Realestate agent I can see there is a need for this type of accommodation for the senior citizens. When people are trying to source this type of accommodation they are forced to look out of this area because there is no suitable property for them to buy.
    This type of accommodation will be highly sought after.

  8. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 O'Reilly Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Barry Moore commented

    I am against this application,
    It seem to me to be an overdevelopment of a very small block of land that can / will / could house approximately 66 people.

    All the other housing blocks in O'Reilly st have 8 units on average, with 12 to 20
    people on site, on larger blocks of land. These blocks of land are larger than the application.
    It is an overdevelopment of a relatively small block of hand, An appropriate development would be eight units with 20 people on site in keeping with the development of the street.
    Please block this application.

  9. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 39 Caroline Street South, South Yarra VIC 3141:


    Please don't accommodate more residents when the trams, trains, roads and parking cannot handle the existing capacity. And, to Ant's points, why are we so focused on tearing down buildings with providence for vanilla steel and glass buildings that offer nothing to the area?

  10. In Moorebank NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1 Malinya Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Helen Carter commented

    Going on the amount of work being done in the front yard and rear yard preparing for concrete driveways I am assuming this place has already been given approval for a medical facility. Can someone please confirm this??

  11. In Kingsbury VIC on “Display of one (1) dual...” at 1019 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    L commented

    Hi team, I would like to know what it happening to this run down property? Rubbish all over the property for months and months now, condoms, garbage, needles ect..
    broken glass, and broken doors. The property looks like like a drug house. Smashed in doors and windows. Right across the road from latrobe uni, the tram stop and McDonald's. It's feral and makes me feel unsafe when travelling home alone.

  12. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 43 - 47 Murray Farm Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Karen Andrews commented

    Parking on/around this area is a problem, given there is not adequate parking for M2 commuters. Planning for this facility should easily accommodate deliveries, staff & visitor parking given the surrounding road congestion.

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

    Ross Dale commented

    Too much of this type of development is being permitted in Hobart.
    The proposed development of 4 architectural non descript units is an affront to the neighbouring properties and will only demean their street scape, certainly not improve it.

    Hobartians need to strongly protest against this development which will result in the destruction of another North Hobart architectural heritage gem. It will be another loss for Hobart's heritage too, and another step towards Hobart becoming another non descript city of no architectural heritage significance. Just a featureless boring place of no interest to anyone like so many of the world's featureless cities.
    Wake up Hobart! Stop the demise.

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

    Janae Yang commented

    I am horrified at the number of apartments they are planning to build. The area has always been a low density area. 'Vehicle access via vardys road only'- as if its not already congested enough.With 178 apartments nearly 10% of kings langley population will be living at this small corner of a busy road.This is totally a bad idea. Local shops will not cope with this amount of increase in population. Neither will the local school and hospital etc. I can already see cars parking in and around the oval thus frustrates local residents on sports days. Also the number of rubbish bins that will be out the front on collection day and the hygiene issues it will bring. Build it somewhere else more suitable please or a smaller size development should be considered.

  15. In Wantirna VIC on “Buildings and works and...” at 44 Templeton Street, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Libby Wade wrote to local councillor Jackson Taylor

    If this plan is to proceed you'd certainly need to consider a roundabout at Templeton and Barmah due to the increased traffic flow. It's already difficult to make a right turn from Barmah into Templeton at school drop off and pick up times. Templeton is a busy thoroughfare which carries traffic to three Primary Schools one Secondary and one Kindergarten adding a child care centre is necessary traffic flow and resulting congestion need to be carefully considered.

    Delivered to local councillor Jackson Taylor. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Taree NSW on “Multi Residential - 11 Units” at 9 Fuchsia Drive, Taree NSW 2430:

    Glenn Maddox commented

    the concentrated two story units on one boundary has a profound influence on our privacy as 3 to 4 units will have direct view looking down into our back yard .

  17. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 39 Caroline Street South, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    Adding to my previous comments.. why is it that the photo attached to these planning applications are always of a poor quality or taken of a view that does not show the buildings as seen from the street and passerby s .
    I suspect it is to fool any objections that may hinder their applications

  18. In Arana Hills QLD on “Operational Work -...” at 80 Plucks Road, Arana Hills QLD 4054:

    Linda-mae Dwyer commented

    The townhouse development on Plucks Road has as far as I know been rejected by Council. Yet the speed limit is still being changed.
    The change of the speed limit on Plucks Road, has created a significant road hazard.
    Due to the change of the speed limit on Plucks Rd, from 60km per hour to 50km per hour more motorists are opting to travel along Patricks Road and turn into Caesar Road to access the Refuse Station, Bunya Crossing and The Jinker Track. This is causing several instances of cars being T-boned on this intersection.
    Plucks road is one of the main corridors also to Rode Road.
    I oppose this change in speed limit and wish to record my opposition and concerns regarding the hazard that has now been created.

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

    Kevin Arkless commented

    As the adjoining owner of this proposed destruction of this Historic property by Chines developers with a building height of three stories towering above my small North Hobart style residence .This property is not listed on trust register but Hobart residents who read these comments can inspect this one of a kind property and have your say demolishing this property is pure vanderlisum Council can stop this destruction it only needs Hobart residents support . Contact alderman for support and lodge objections this could happen to the house next door to you with over seas investors Thank you for your support Kev

  20. In Bardwell Valley NSW on “Change of use from...” at 16 Hamilton Street, Bardwell Valley NSW 2207:

    N COE commented

    I would like to voice my objection to the proposed conversion of an existing out building to a secondary dwelling at 16 Hamilton St, BARDWELL VALLEY NSW 2207 (DA-2019/21) for the following reasons.

    The property is currently occupied by 6-7 people with associated cars and trucks. Parking for neighbouring residents/owners is already limited as many of the driveways in the street are too narrow to allow off street parking. Approving this DA would potentially increase the number of residents and associated vehicles at 16 Hamilton St at the address and therefore increase noise and further reduce available parking to nearby residents.

    The property is currently a private rental and has had some problematic tenants over the years who have shown little regard for the surrounding residents/owners with frequent excessive noise and other antisocial behaviours. As there is no real estate management involved, and the owner has showed little concern over complaints, nearby residents have no recourse when problems occur. Approving this DA would allow for even more tenants to be installed with the possibility of further disruptions to what was once a peaceful and tranquil street.

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

    Josephine Skoblar commented

    Why ruin the beautiful streets of Rowville by making it over populated with units and townhouses. Streets like Murray crescent offer decent sized blocks but once one person subdivides others will follow and then eventually our suburb will commence to look like other over populated areas where you can bearly drive through your own street or even park your car. The Rowville area has significantly increased in price over the last 9 years, allowing subdivisions lowers the price of the area. Think carefully before approving this, many don't want development in the area, they are just too afraid of their neighbours to speak up.

  22. In Sawtell NSW on “Subdivision-Non Strata - 57...” at Sawtel Road Tormina NSW 2452:

    Nicole commented

    For a council that is driving ecotourism as part of the Coffs Coast future, approving such a large residential development in a koala corridor makes no sense at all. We bought in this lovely, quiet neighbourhood over 3 years ago and enjoy the peace and tranquility that it offers us. Increased development will impact not only the native flora and fauna, but also the peace and safety of this great area of Boambee East

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

    Estelle commented

    Kings Langley is not the location for a structure of this size. It already takes up to 30 mins just to get from the round about at Whitby road onto seven hills rd during peak traffic, and that is a road that should take no more than a few minutes and that is just exiting the suburb. To get onto Vardys road can be difficult as well. Kings Langley is not a suburb that has been designed to absorb an increase in population to this extent. The infrastructure is just not in place. The privacy of those surrounding houses and sports fields is a major issue for the area as well. Having people being able to watch the local children and families in their own homes and backyards or while participation in sporting activities will greatly impact the value of the area as well as the quality of life of those who live near or use the places close by. Kings Langley has always been a low density area and is near breaking point now, what will adding this structure to the suburb do? I have lived here for 20 years and have seen the area become inundated with extra traffic as it is used as a cut through, with each new apartment complex that is completed in surrounding suburbs. I myself can not even attempt to look for work on the other side of sunny holt road as the traffic is that bad that I would not be able to make it to the schools on time. Please do not allow this structure to take place, even local schools are going to struggle to absorb all the extra children. Kings Langley is just not the correct space for this development.

  24. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees” at 5-11 Benton Avenue Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Jenkins Peter J commented

    Please refuse this application.
    Trees are an asset to our community. They bring shade, support wildlife and beautify the area. Council are allowing too many trees to be hacked down and are turning our suburb into a concrete jungle.
    Please do not let these trees be vandalised , refuse this application .

  25. In Wantirna VIC on “Buildings and works and...” at 44 Templeton Street, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Michelle West wrote to local councillor Jackson Taylor

    What traffic management contingencies have been considered for this area. This will push the traffic from Burwood Highway into Milpera and Bambara St instead of vehicle's using Templeton St because of congestion. Bambara St is already used as a quasi raceway for member's of the public to beat the lights etc and make headway through the estate. There are currently no speed deterent's in this area, and the increase in vehicle's using the "rat run" will impact the amenity of the the residential landscape.

    Delivered to local councillor Jackson Taylor. They are yet to respond.

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

    Daphne Parker commented

    What a boon this development will be to our community. Woolgoolga is such a lovely township and many people choosing to retire here. This development will address the need for over 55's accommodation in the area. With such close proximity to many services in the town; shopping, coffee shops, restaurants, medical, tourist attractions and the beach are all within walking distance to this development, having little or no impact on traffic movement.

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

    JUANA CHACANA commented

    We are pensioners in the area and oppose this development. It is very difficult to get out of our home, situated on the main road. There isn’t enough amenties to cater and to put high density living there. Look elsewhere to built, this is far too congested and emergency services already have problems getting to us. NO THANKS - HIGH DENSITY LIVING

  28. In Camberwell VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 573 Camberwell Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Iva kock commented

    Of course they will park in the residential streets. Then the council can change the parking from all day to permit and 2 hour parking for example.
    Then the council can create revenue by issuing parking fines. A win win for the council. Extra rates from the development and parking fine revenue.

  29. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    ShiRong commented

    My name is ShiRong and I live on the other side of the Millicent Street. This street is already very crowded with the car parking alongside the street. It gets really busy, especially during rush hours, due to the traffic passing by. A lot of drivers taking this street as a shortcut between Rosanna Road and Lower Plenty Road. This application for construction of six (6) double-storey dwellings and waiver of on-site visitor car parking requirement would cause a lot issues to the community. Road would become too narrow for the traffic with even more cars parking on the street, as well as the safety problems for people and properties.

    To make it short, I strongly oppose this application as it will bring more chaos to the already too dense community.

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

    Elisa K commented

    Four Multiple dwellings is quite an ambiguous description. Perhaps residents/home owners around this property should be consulted on the specifics of the planning permit.

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