Recent comments

  1. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    H Greenwood commented

    The constant division of land does not seem to take into account the impact on local wildlife or green space, which is what attracts people to the area. Nor does it allow for the extra traffic joining a busy, quite dangerous road. If the rates collected from this development are going to be spent on these areas, perhaps the council can include that in the development plan and alleviate local concerns.
    The local council need to decide what their plan for the area is. Are they planning to allow Athelstone to become an area of high density poor quality housing ?

  2. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Robbie Porter commented

    If this beautiful house is to be demolished for something circa 2000-2021 (i.e. dog boxes) it is such a shame. What happened to buildings/houses adding CHARACTER to a suburb? It is obvious the good old dollar rules these days.....Shame on you Council and developers.

  3. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    Julie Muirson commented

    I too, am concerned with the rate of development in Athelstone, but I’m more concerned by the number of mature eucalypts that are removed in order to maximise the number of plots. We seem to have less green area and more concrete, surrounding box-like high density housing. This must put greater strain on all our utilities as well as council facilities.
    Do developers have different rights in regards to removing trees than ratepayers?

  4. In Sandringham VIC on “1 Dwelling - New - Heritage...” at 29 Bamfield Street Sandringham VIC 3191:

    Jillian Callaghan commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I object to the planning application because the property is under heritage overlay HO24. What is the purpose of having an overlay and going through the process of classifying a building as heritage if it is to be overridden?

    As a result of Kerami’s ties to the early establishment of the area the property has historic and cultural significance. Its interesting architectural features also give it aesthetic significance. The demolition of this property would therefore detrimentally impact the municipality’s neighbourhood character, local history and liveability particularly in the face of surrounding subdivision and 'development'. Most importantly it provides a sense of identity and continuity in a fast changing world for current and future generations.

    Walking along Bamfield street never fails to give me pleasure because of the character of the buildings and the interest and beauty of Kerami. I am proud to show off the street particularly Kerami to visitors. As the area has few buildings of such historical significance and interest, it would be madness to demolish Kerami.

    Additionally, conservation of Kerami contributes to environmental and economic sustainability. A sensitive renovation of this house markedly reduces the waste, embodied energy and associated greenhouse gases which result from a demolition and a new build.

    Thank you for considering my objection.

    Yours faithfully,
    Jill Callaghan.

  5. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    H Greenwood commented

    The constant division of land does not seem to take into account the impact on local wildlife or green space, which is what attracts people to the area. Nor does it allow for the extra traffic joining a busy, quite dangerous road. If the rates collected from this development are going to be spent on these areas, perhaps the council can include that in the development plan and alleviate local concerns.
    The local council need to decide what their plan for the area is. Are they planning to allow Athelstone to become an area of high density poor quality housing ?

  6. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Karen Demellweek commented

    This proposal is wanting to change the existing approval by the Joint Regional Planning Committee which as a group we opposed strongly but were unsuccessful. A service access to and from Newport Rd was discussed but the RMS has categorically stated that this would not be an option because of the existing infrastructure.
    People would try to use it as an on or off ramp to the M1 which it would not be designed to do. The developer is trying to change an existing approval that went through a rigorous debate and consultation period with the community to get the approval as it stands.

    If people choose to be employed there then they must like everyone else enter via the M1.
    Noise and pollution is still an ongoing concern for residents who live on the adjoining properties and has not be addressed to the communities satisfaction.

  7. In Tootgarook VIC on “Shed - vicsmart” at 8 Carly Place Tootgarook VIC 3941:

    Anthony Daniel commented

    Hi Lynette,
    I know exactly how you feel and my sympathy with you; Notwithstanding, my circumstances are different.
    I followed what I considered to be reasonable and considerate protocol when I checked with the Shire regards to locating a temporary storage shipping container on our local property.
    It was explained clearly that it is prohibited to place any such structure between the existing house structure and the front boundary. Whereupon I commissioned plans to be prepared and applied for a building permit to accomodate our need.
    The cost was great, however I was pleased to have taken counsel from Shire officers. What annoys the heck out of me more than ever now is the number of shipping containers located in front yards in what appears to be a violation of Shire regulations.
    I think the Shire could do better in explaining and distributing, in clear language, building and planning requirements for suburban allotments.

  8. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Gemma commented

    Again, why demolish an attractive habitable heritage property that contributes to the delightful streetscape of this suburb? Contemporary additions are understandable, but demolition?

  9. In Woy Woy NSW on “STAGED Multi-dwelling housing” at 8 Farnell Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Margaret Atkins commented

    what will be the situation once the updating of Blackwall Road by RMS comes into action re drainage, noise, pollution, law etc. I have just been in touch with Council regarding drainage and was told they knew nothing of the new updating RMS will be doing so what is going on there, as it is proposed to put footpath along Farnell Road which will take soil and grass away so water will have no soakage when it rains. NO MORE EYESORES
    PLEASE. Neighbours checkout the RMS update.

  10. In Oatley NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 18 Letitia Street, Oatley NSW 2223:

    Helen commented

    I hope the new construction will not be higher than the existing building

  11. In Plympton Park SA on “Two Single Storey detached...” at 2 Stradbroke Av, Plympton Park 5038 SA:

    Douglas Searle commented

    Two dwellings is acceptable in this area. Three and more dwellings creates big problems with off street parking.

  12. In Prospect SA on “Renovation of Existing...” at 99 Churchill Road Prospect SA 5082:

    Dr Catherine Grace commented

    Dear City of Prospect,

    I have sincere concerns about this application for 'renovation of an existing warehouse'.
    Firstly and most prominent,is the large works have been taking place without any applications: this includes the removal of the front, the roof, and the installation of spray-booth equipment.
    Even today -21.02.21- there are individuals at 99 Churchill working on the premises.My greatest concern is since they have already installed the items necessary for a 'spray booth' in the form of a large exhaust (on the forward front left near the roller door) that they will say this item was already at the property. The noise, fumes, and business would greatly impact my quality of life, and all those residents who attend the park across the street.

    I can to know about the spray-booth as the tow-truck driver who delivered it was speaking to residents in the area, and I was informed by someone who heard him speaking. I noticed the equipment and build, but I was unaware of the nature of the fan that I saw installed.

    My other concern is the lack of Community respect shown by those working on 99 Churchill; works have been done without permits, during lockdown; later in the evening and weekends (noise disturbance). I am aware that the City of Prospect has plans for the Churchill Corridor, and this business does not seem to be in-alignment with that plan for an improved, livable, and enjoyable place to live, shop and work.

    I am requesting to be updated on the progress, and I hope that Council reviews the building, the application and considers its impact thoroughly.

  13. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Sian Mueller commented

    I wish to submit my objection to the proposed 44 dwelling "Boarding House" development above.

    (1) The 44 dwelling building is totally out of character for the neighbourhood and would be a dangerous precedent in an area which is dominated by a quiet family orientated street of single residences of no more than 2 stories.

    (2) Parking. An additional 44 dwellings with only 23 car spots would obviously significantly increase the need for on street parking in the area. The parking around Penrose Street and Wood Street is already incredibly difficult with the roads basically turning into one way streets. Drivers have to wait for other cars driving in the other direction as there is no space for cars to pass each other. During school pick up and drop off it causes large traffic jams and frustrated drivers and is a danger to children going to and from school. This is also a massive issue on the weekend with children's sport where it gets so bad that the whole of Penrose street becomes a parking lot for people going to Blackman Oval. On two occasions I was stuck for the most of the day not able to get my car out of my house as people had blocked my exit by parking across the road. I believe an increase in another 44 residents is an impossible addition to our quiet neighbourhood.

    (3) Extra traffic. More people means more cars and more traffic along Wood Street and Penrose Street and Johnston Lane. It is terrible especially during peak hours (in the afternoon already bad from as early as 3:30pm coinciding with the school pick up which is 3:25pm) with many cars using these back streets as a "rat run" to avoid Centennial Ave. We have seen a detrimental effect from the massive Burns Bay Road development and another 44 resident dwelling would only make things disastrous.

    (4) "Affordable" Housing. Whilst I am a big advocate for affordable housing (My mother and I used to live in Housing Commission) we already have a very large Housing complex at 80 Penrose Street (which I live next door to) and another along Wood Street (where my mother still lives). Whilst I am proud that our neighbourhood welcomes people less fortunate than ourselves it is a sad fact that there are regular visits by police at 80 Penrose Street and a growing problem with mental illness and drugs and drug dealers, which in turn increases violent incidents. Inviting more lower income and transient residents into the area risks this problem getting worse.

    So I strongly object to the proposal and hope that some sense can prevail. There is already too much traffic and not enough parking in the area and we wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. I believe this Boarding House to be the first step in the erosion of this community.

  14. In Old Noarlunga SA on “Out door firing range and...” at 1559 Piggott Range Road, Old Noarlunga SA 5168:

    David Williams commented

    That's way too close to residential properties. Outdoor firing ranges should be well away from existing housing in my opinion. People also keep horses very near to this property.

  15. In Old Noarlunga SA on “Out door firing range and...” at 1559 Piggott Range Road, Old Noarlunga SA 5168:

    Lynelle Williams commented

    Very undesirable for this to be in such close proximity to residential areas.

  16. In Unley Park SA on “Removal of 1 Significant...” at 27 Northgate Street, Unley Park SA 5061:

    Lea commented

    Why is the tree being removed?
    Significant trees need to stay. Every significant tree removal needs to be scrutinised.

  17. In Old Noarlunga SA on “Out door firing range and...” at 1559 Piggott Range Road, Old Noarlunga SA 5168:

    C Marshall commented

    This is too close to residential areas, the noise pollution would be intolerable, things like this should not be in heavily populated areas

  18. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Dwelling House (New) &...” at 26 Beach Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Mel commented

    That tree is a beauty and provides shade and will help keep your lovely home and the street scape cooler!
    It would be wonderful if your plans are to work around it and keep it as part of the street scape

  19. In Healesville VIC on “Use of the land for a food...” at 114 Maroondah Highway, Healesville VIC 3777:

    Marcus Ballard commented

    This cafe further highlights the necessity for some type of safe crossing point across the highway at this end of town.

  20. In Umina Beach NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 42 South Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Brad commented

    With more families moving here and boosting our economy it is good to to see more new flat building units. Hopefully rents can be well priced and not over priced.

  21. In Gladesville NSW on “New carport, front fence,...” at 29 Warner St Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Andrew Franz commented

    People should identify themselves and their interests before commenting on any DA.

    As a resident of Gladesville, not living in that street, I support Chris Gildersleeve's comment that flexibility is important and would add that the comments from near neighbours should be weighted more strongly.

    A near-neighbour has a greater interest in the streetscape and the local environment and therefore their comments should be weighted more strongly. An unidentified entity's interest cannot be determined, so its comments should be given zero weight.

  22. In Urraween QLD on “Operational Works - Civil...” at Conservation Drive, Urraween, QLD:

    John Askwith commented

    Dear Ms. Hindmarsh,

    Are you able to tell me if the Application OPW21/0002 is in relation to the extension of Conservation Drive from it's current termination at the roundabout intersection with Satinwood & Harmony avenues and linking it to Pantlins Lane, Urraween?

    Kind Regards & Thanks,
    John Askwith.

  23. In McCrae VIC on “Development of a dwelling,...” at 37 Cook Street Mccrae VIC 3938:

    Mary Waterman commented

    Following up from what C Spychal stated: Why has block been cleared of all native vegetation before planning permit has been approved?
    Will the run off issues be investigated to ensure proper drainage will be dealt with?
    Are there any planning overlays for this area considering it so so close to Arthurs Seat Park?

  24. In Unley SA on “Demolition” at 46 Hughes Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Wendy Bevan commented

    Not clear what is being proposed here. Previous applications had significant upgrades proposed and now demolition? Heritage property on significant street

  25. In Old Noarlunga SA on “Out door firing range and...” at 1559 Piggott Range Road, Old Noarlunga SA 5168:

    Lisa Schuyler commented

    Very inappropriate too close to residential and the national park. Too noisy and dangerous for people close by.

  26. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification to alter...” at 1-7 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Hayden Ryan commented

    In the proposed plans, I note that the proposed "new street tree sites" on the corner of OSH Road and Curlewis Street will block the view/sightline of the traffic lights at this busy junction - there was a pedestrian death at that very spot in the last year - if the Council Planning officer could please come have a look.

    Council should consider a revision to the footpath plan and tree placement on the Curlewis Street side - One option would be to relocate some of the trees to the Simpson street footpath - trees are good, so removing/reducing the number of trees in this DA is not the right solution.

    Given the pedestrian death this year - I think it reasonable Council ask the Architect to come up with a better greenery solution for that intersection (Curlewis Street side). Combining the bike racks with garden beds/low-height shrubs could work as a solution.

    Thanks

  27. In McCrae VIC on “Development of a dwelling,...” at 37 Cook Street Mccrae VIC 3938:

    C Spychal commented

    This very large plot that has already been cleared of dense native bush adjacent to Arthurs Seat State Park and earthworks have begun in earnest. It can be seen quite clearly from the road. Run-off over the winter and spring has been considerable into the plots below and around the creek towards Bass Street basin. I hope no more vegetation is to be removed. Are the amendments to the plans available for public viewing please?

  28. In Athelstone SA on “To divide land into 11...” at 356 Gorge Road Athelstone SA 5076:

    Susan Moir commented

    My husband and I agree 100% with Kate Marsden. We feel the same as do many of the residents in the area. It has been devastating to watch an historic house go along with the trees which many koalas brought up their young each year. Residents are feeling more and more hopeless with what is happening in recent years! Soon those of us who moved here for what Athelstone had to offer eg. trees and wildlife will no longer recognise the area.

  29. In Ocean Grove VIC on “Construction of Two (2)...” at 14 Canis Crescent, Ocean Grove, VIC:

    Linda Rider commented

    This is absolutely ridiculous! Have you guys driven past the house ? No way you can have that many homes on that one block, the number of cars alone would be insane. And why should they be able to build higher than others in the area
    This is what is ruining the coastal town of Ocean Grove
    Make it stop before our coastal area is totally ruined
    It is also very unsafe to add so many cats entering and exiting the property

  30. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of part of front...” at 58 O'Donnell Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jane Broderick commented

    The reason for the demolition of this verandah is questionable in that I believe it is to facilitate yet another unsuitable car space access in a very busy, narrow street with limited parking options for the current residents of the street. As a very long term resident and rate payer of more than 20 years living in the apartments adjacent to this property, I have observed many an application for access to a car space denied in this street because of the very narrow nature of the Cul De Sac. Unfortunately a very poor precident was set when number 52 O'Donnell was suddenly given access to off-street parking after it had been denied many times to the former owners and with good reason. Due to this bad decision number 54 was also eventually given approval and subsequently partially demolished their verandah to facilitate a parking spot. I note that the owners of these residents frequently park across their driveways. Is this due to the difficulty in accesability to their parking spaces when a vehicle is parked opposite their driveways? I also note that these driveways take up more than one car spot each.

    In summary the main reasons for my objections are 1) Limited street parking for the majority of residents of the street that have no off-street parking. 2) Ability of landowners to buy exclusive use of the street at the expense of other residents and community, enabling them to add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the value of their property. 3) Destruction of the historic streetscape and greenery by changing the heritage look of the homes and the removal of hedges, trees and plants which are replaced with concrete and cars.4) Loss of a once safe footpath where children were safe to play on their skateboards and scooters, (there is only one footpath)..5) Owners of these newly acquired private parking spaces all over Bondi and beyond often reserve them for visitors/ income whilst they, themselves take up one or a number of the reduced car spaces on the street that they have helped to create at the expense of other residents.

    If council continues to facilitate more private off-street parking and footpath access to individual landowners thereby contributing to their personal wealth at the expense of other residents and ratepayers, there needs to be fair compensation. For example, provision of area parking permits for residents with no off-street parking , improvement to the compromised heritage, attractiveness, safety and amenity of the street.

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