Recent comments

  1. In Rydalmere NSW on “Tree Application - 8 x tree...” at 3 Calder Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    harkirat commented

    Then why we cannot unite to raise the awareness.

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

    Toby Fogg commented

    This is a very significant contravention of height rules with the intent being to allow a rooftop terrace. These are clearly banned under Randwick planning rules on the uppermost roof and this significant height breach allows for an additional room above the main roof. Rooftop terraces are associated with considerabl noise and privacy issues and allow height rules to be breached in order to make permissible such a large terrace will set a very dangerous precedent in an area that has significant amounts of overlooking between neighbors already.

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

    David J commented

    I strongly object to the construction of a 3 storey 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade and sincerely urge Randwick Council to refuse this DA Proposal DA/144/2019).

  4. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 19 Gladstone Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Ken James commented

    I live next door to this property he has had his first application refused by The Planning Committee unfortunately for you Simon you wouldn't understand. Let's hope for your sake you are never put in our situation this has been going on since 2017. The more people that object the more hope again he will be refused.

  5. In Valentine NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing” at 19 Berringar Road Valentine NSW 2280:

    Luisa Hinton commented

    I don’t think any more multi dwelling residences should be approved until Lake Macquarie Council advises on how they have planed for additional infrastructure to cope with the influx of people to the area. Where will the school expand to to cope with all the new families? When will a new high school be built to cope with the potential influx of additional kids on each currently single house site that is to be replaced with multiple families?

  6. In Valentine NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing” at 19 Berringar Road Valentine NSW 2280:

    Joanne Laird commented

    Seriously LMCC, what is happening? How can this area possibly handle this? If this is approved, once again how are you going to control the impact on the infrastructure within ‘Old Valentine’? The 3 townhouses on the corner of Dilkera avenue & Berringar rd are perfect example. So dangerous there now.These approved decisions are ruining the area. Soon the whole of Berringar rd will just be Multi Dwellings.

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

    Julie Wilson commented

    Not another dual occupancy!!!
    NO NO NO. Not in our neighbourhood
    We have enough dual occupancies!
    North Kellyville has narrow streets clogged with rental tennant cars. Dwellings do not provide off street parking and bed sitters that are not cared for - lawns never mowed. The dual occupancies do not even have storage for a lawnmower.
    Not a happy voter!

  8. In Lewisham NSW on “Boarding House” at 40 Old Canterbury Road Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Jcp commented

    We have a so-called ‘Boarding House’ around the corner and most people seem to have a car because they’re parked along our street. It is advertised on a Real Estate agent as a flat for rent and not as Boarding House accommodation.
    So called ‘Boarding Houses’ are nothing but rental accommodation and more likely to be AirBnB.

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

    Lea Lev commented

    I am in full support of this DA. Not only is the current petrol station and neighboring decrepit properties an eye sore, but the design of DA is very well thought out and will definitely add to the street scape. The plans are well contextualised in terms of the size of the site and do not venture in the over-development of the site. I cannot believe the number of comments on here regarding traffic on Old South Head Road, honestly - if you don't want traffic, move to the country - this is city living and as the population increases, so does urbanisation, and with it comes increased housing density. Again, if you don't like it - move to the country. The gentrification of the Old South Rd corridor will only increase the livability of the area, not to mention increase the values of the surrounding properties. I am sure that everyone complaining about traffic in these comments uses public transport and car pools right, you know, to do their bit to alleviate the situation...

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

    Belinda Christie commented

    There have been a number of apartment blocks constructed on previous single dwelling sites over the last five years. There are also a number either under construction or about to commence between Dover Road and the North Rose Bay shops.
    Parking on Gilbert Street, is now almost impossible as residents on Northcote Street with more vehicles than garage space, spill over into adjacent streets.
    This construction has been 'in the wings' for over 2 years - evidenced by the sale of the 2 residential properties with 12 month or longer settlement clauses.
    Constructing a 24 unit apartment block with insufficient parking to house two vehicles per block, plus visitor parking, will further reduce the amenity for existing residents. Visitors to our houses will no longer be able to park within a reasonable distance as this parking will be taken by apartment residences and people attending the local synagogue.
    Council continues to remove existing bus stops to cater for development and provide temporary unsheltered stops in their place. However, they do not increase the number of bus services provided to cater for the influx of residents into new apartments.

  11. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Single Storey...” at 4 Rickard Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is good to see urban renewal, this application does not indicate what will replace this old cottage.
    As part of the demolition, can the workers work around the trees on this block? Too often, knock-down-rebuilds take away very single stick and blade of grass fence-to-fence and few trees for shade are re-planted. Can the owners work around the trees, seeing the front of the new building will face into the west setting sun blast in summer?

  12. In Lewisham NSW on “Boarding House” at 40 Old Canterbury Road Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Erin Farrell commented

    This is a brilliant idea. The more low cost housing in the area for singles and students, the better. People who live in boarding houses rarely have their own transport, due to lack of need. Parking will not be an issue, ergo neither will traffic.

  13. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New hotel development” at 5-11 Hollywood Avenue, Bondi Junction:

    C. Di Giulio commented

    Noise
    The acoustic assessment, as well as the SEE, are inadequate in that they mostly consider noise impacts to the proposal’s occupants. They do not consider the full range of possible noise impacts from the proposal to adjoining, existing developments, in particular existing residential developments. The acoustic assessment should consider noise impacts from the café (outdoor component), basement garage door, roof top open air terrace, ground floor open form terrace, as well as any mechanical equipment.
    In this case, the SEE has not fully considered all potential environmental impacts and cannot confirm the site’s suitability.
    Should the development proceed, the roof top terrace should not be operational after 6pm or before 9am 7 days a week. The café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. Deliveries, including any collection of waste, should not occur before 8am or after 5pm 7 days a week.
    Privacy
    The eastern elevation is almost entirely glazed, with occupants of rooms looking directly into dwellings on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Although glazing may be ‘visioning glazing’ as noted on the plans, occupants of the proposal will still be able to look directly at adjoining, existing dwellings. While ‘vision glazing’ may not be see through from other properties, there remains the perception by occupants of existing dwellings that they will be overlooked. The sheer number of rooms, and extent of glazing on the eastern elevation is extensive and will significantly reduce privacy.

    Building Height/4.6 Exception request
    The height permitted by the Waverley LEP 2012 is 32m. The proposal breaches this height by 3.8m. In breaching the height, the proposal includes 1 additional storey than what would normally be permitted. In doing so, it provides a full 11 additional rooms that will overlook adjoining dwellings, generating privacy impacts above what is contemplated by the Waverley LEP 2012. As such, the proposal is inconsistent with objective 4.3(1)(a) of the WLEP 2012, and the exception request cannot be supported.
    In our view, generating additional privacy impacts does not represent an appropriate transition with respect to building heights and surrounding land, as required by objective 4.3(1)(c), further demonstrating why the Clause 4.6 request should not be supported.
    Total Occupants
    The proposal allows for 198 rooms. Potentially, between 198 to almost 400 people could be accommodated within the development. Community services in the locality, and in particular active open spaces are severely strained. Adding further people to this extent will severely compromise existing community facilities. Ultimately it is permanent residents of the community who feel this strain the most, whilst for occupants of the proposal, it is merely a temporary issue, if an issue at all.
    Café
    The café is proposed to operate between 6am to 10pm, 7 days a week. As indicated earlier, the café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. This is particularly given there are dwellings directly on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue.
    Car Parking Along Hollywood Avenue
    We note the proposal includes parking along Hollywood Avenue. The noise impacts associated form this has not been considered in the acoustic assessment and should do so given the number of permanent residences on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Specifically, there will be noise from the closing of car doors, which during the night will disturb the sleep of permanent residents in a case where currently there are no car spaces.
    B3 Zone Objectives
    We note the land use related objectives of the relevant B3 zone focus towards promoting commercial floor space and employment generating. The proposal’s floor space is almost entirely for short term residential purposes and as such, is entirely inconsistent with the zone objectives. The proposal should be amended to include notably more commercial floor space to strengthen Bondi Junction’s roles as a core commercial centre, thereby providing further employment opportunities for not only a growing population, but more importantly, permanent residents.
    We understand Council and the relevant planning panel has enforced this outcome on several other developments and/or recent approvals within or in close proximity to Bondi Junction centre.

    Design Excellence
    We are of the view the proposal would not satisfy the amenity related objectives of the WLEP 2012 design excellence clause. As mentioned earlier, the proposal will severely overlook existing dwellings on the eastern side of Hollywood Avenue due to the extent of glazing on it’s eastern elevation. Further solid materials should be incorporated on the eastern elevation to reduce the perception of overlooking. Additionally, the extent of commercial floor space should be increased which will further decrease opportunities for overlooking (and in doing so, assist with satisfying the commercial related objectives of the B3 zone).
    Traffic/Parking
    The proposal includes 0 onsite parking spaces, whilst an onsite drop off/pick zone is also absent. Rather, the proposal relies on 2 – 3 potential on street spaces which currently do not exist and there is no clear policy direction as to whether they will be implemented.
    Any hotel, regardless of its location or perceived target market generates substantial parking demand as well as pick up/drop off requirements. In this case, the application’s traffic and parking assessment is questionable. Our experiences over a number of years is that traffic along Hollywood Avenue and surrounds is increasing substantially. This results in inconvenient congestion for permanent residents, as well as over use of horns and the like, to the detriment of private amenity.
    The proposal will generate substantial traffic and parking demands, and as a consequence, further congestion and amenity related impacts.
    Plan of Management (PoM)
    The PoM indicates that there would not be a reception as part of the proposal. This suggests the proposal is not a ‘hotel’, but rather a boarding house or other form of residential accommodation, both of which are prohibited in the subject zone.
    Further, the absence of a ‘manned’ reception brings into question security and the general operation of the premises. This is because reception staff typically provide the most effective form of surveillance to any hotel.
    A basement drop off zone is referenced in the PoM. The SEE and architectural plans do not show or reference such a zone in the basement.
    There is very limited details included in the PoM in relation to cleaning, and cleaning any outdoor spaces or any public domain in the vicinity of the proposal. The PoM should stipulate, at a minimum, during which hours outdoor cleaning will take place. This is important to protect the amenity of nearby residents. Cleaning with the use of motorised blowers, vacuum cleaners, or the like before 9am or after 5pm would impact on the amenity of nearby residents. This is particularly the case as there are currently issues with cleaning contractors at the premises using motorised machinery late in the evenings, impacting on residential amenity.
    The PoM should also detail exact cleaning procedures so as to reassure residents in the locality that the area will be maintained in a clean, and tidy condition..
    The PoM is flawed in that it does not suggest a contact number will be readily available to members of the public to respond to any nuisances. Typically, a hotel or boarding house operator provides an emergency contact number to adjoining residents or will offer to make such a number visible on the proposed building (such as on the front door).
    As stated in Council’s Pre-DA minutes, the PoM was to address social and economic impacts, but does not consider these in any form. The PoM does address how nuisances will be addressed, or how inevitable increase in community, social, and open space demands arising from the proposal (which could accommodate up to around 400 people) will be met.
    Floor Space Ratio
    We recommend requesting gross floor area plans as there appears to be errors in relation to floor space ratio, albeit it minor. For example, according to the architectural design report, it appears the basement laundry has not be considered as GFA, when it is not listed as item to be excluded according to the definitions in the WLEP 2012.
    Traffic Assessment
    The SEE and traffic assessment assume that all guests will arrive at the proposal by public transport, taxi, or walking. The lack of any onsite parking, and supposed reduction in congestion is based on this assumption. However, this assumption is not qualified with any evidence. It is recommended that a comparison analysis be undertaken of other hotels to confirm this outcome. In this case, it should be noted that most other hotels or serviced apartments in Bondi Junction include substantial onsite parking. This includes Meriton suites and the recently completed Quest hotel.

  14. In Rydalmere NSW on “Tree Application - 8 x tree...” at 3 Calder Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    W Cowan commented

    I agree with Kathie Walters comments .
    Developers are bullies showing no regard .

  15. In Enmore NSW on “To continue extended...” at 199 Enmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Petra Jones commented

    I strongly object to 24 hour gambling hours. Please reject this DA.

  16. In Castlecrag NSW on “First floor addition...” at 15A Edith Street Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    YewMing Lau commented

    I support this application. The height, bulk and footprint have been carefully considered in the context of the site. The addition of 2 car garages will relieve the demand of on street parking, which is a bonus.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Other Das” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Still no information.

  18. In Pyrmont NSW on “Internal alterations to the...” at 21-43 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Owen Ratner commented

    I don't know if the designated parking in Mount Street Walk was included in the current development consent. If not then I object to the designated parking area in Mount Street Walk for pick up and drop off. Apart from there already being very limited parking for locals the Chinese Restaurant in Harris Street has created a huge parking problem with large tourist buses parking in Harris Street, Mount Street Walk and Bowman Street in the immediate vicinity of the subject building. Also the building will have 190 parking spaces in the basement so it should be possible to provide for off street parking. Also there will be additional traffic congestion.

  19. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Subdivision” at 490-498 Marrickville Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Petra Jones commented

    No records available to view

  20. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree...” at 118 Pennant Parade Epping NSW 2121:

    Mark Gardner commented

    I see no compelling evidence indicating this beautiful old tree should be removed, council should permit an arborist to prune and shape this tree such that it can continue its peaceful co-existence with the people and fauna of Epping.

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    As I understand the Victoria Road Precinct Development, this DA is just one of proposed 1100 Units. The roads are already struggling with the traffic and this will add further congestion. The 2011 and 2016 Census reports states that the average motor vehicle per household is 1.2 so it is clear the number of cars are not decreasing even though there are two train stations - Sydenham and Marrickville in the area.
    The 2106 Census, states that apartments, flats and units made up 45.2% of dwellings in Marrickville,(by way of interest Dulwich Hill has 50%) however throughout NSW this figure is 19.9%. We need to take stock of what has been approved/built since this time and engage the town planners to ascertain what is required in respect of green spaces, schools, road upgrades, services (police, ambulance, SES etc). We need to stop approvals of significant projects in a vacuum and pretend they will have no impact.
    Green buildings are on the rise throughout the world and we need the Council to develop and mandate green building standards and reject soulless concrete blocks that are being approved. Buildings need to be eco-friendly and energy efficient, and improve the quality of the surrounding environment. The DA process needs to take into consideration the materials buildings are made of and the radiant heat they emit; We need better design elements such as green walls and roofs and high rise developments need to provide green areas for residents (Wicks Park should not be considered in this context as additional green space needs to be provided)
    In short, we need to drastically re-develop our planning laws to incorporate elements that beautify and cool our cities so that we can actually enjoy them. Each new DA should be assessed in terms of the impact they have on services and infrastructure(including roads) needed to be provided to the community. There needs to be ratios developed (people to green space, schools etc) and god forbid that the developers would actually have to give back something to the community. If they can't be provided the DA should be rejected. This DA provides no benefit to the local community - the gains will all be directed solely to the developers.
    I agree with previous comments relating to the need to maintain our creative and light industrial spaces and that the approval of this DA will be the beginning of the end for them. I also note the plethora of vacant commercial/shop front premises in Marrickville that have been vacant for some time.
    Please reject this DA application and support the wishes of the rate paying community. There needs to be a holistic approach to planning in the inner west and not the current piecemeal one.

  22. In Umina Beach NSW on “New Steel Framed Shed” at 6 Carawa Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners work around the shade trees in the rear yard? All too often, sites are clear-felled and the trees are never replaced making the "urban heat island effect" blighting the Peninsula even worse. If all else fails, can some shade trees be planted when the job is finished?

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

    Linda LIN commented

    I object to the construction of 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.
    I sincerely urge Randwick Council to refuse this DA Proposal DA/144/2019) on the below grounds:

    1) The proposal is not within the public interest:
    Surrounding areas has been a mix of private homes, duplex developments, apartments and town houses which can best be described as low to medium density. The existing homes all compliment the demographic mix of the precinct – families, single professionals and retirees. The proposed development does not fit this mix or enhance it.

    2) The Maroubra community are AGAINST boarding house style accommodation:
    There are no authorised boarding houses in the proximity of 1038-1040 Anzac Pde. The direct opposite property at 1001 Anzac Pde has been refused DA for 10 boarding room, 2-storey house (let alone 40) for similar reasons and community concerns.

  24. In West Ryde NSW on “Amended plans for a...” at 58-60 Falconer Street, West Ryde:

    Danielle commented

    Blocking of light from the 2 storey dwelling between the hours of 9am-1pm to the villas next door.
    1 identified visitor spot for over 20 dwellings is inadequate.
    Traffic congestion on Victoria road, Ryde road and Blaxland Rd which all surround the proposed dwellings.
    Already congested street parking.

  25. In Chatswood NSW on “Double sotry residential...” at 9 Macartney Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Linda Sala commented

    It is disappointing to see that this application for a replacement Clarendon Home is being considered, when Nos 1, 11, 17 and 19 Macartney Ave have been sympathetically renovated into two storey dwellings, while keeping the character of homes and street in tact. Also as the eastern side (where no: 9 is located) of Macartnery abuts Maclean Street, I would have thought that it would be even more important to retain the character of these homes in this area.

    Given our location to this proposal it was disappointing not to have received any written notification of this DA nor was there any evidence of on site notice of the DA.

  26. In West Ryde NSW on “Construction and Strata...” at 58-60 Falconer St West Ryde NSW 2114:

    Richard Johnson commented

    1. The proposed building has an impact of creating a shadow, in which it blocks all natural light from 9am -2pm upon all 6 Villa's that reside on 64-66 Falconer St.

    2. The height of the property even at the lowest point removes all privacy from residents on 64-66 Falconer St, due to elevation, roof pitch and secondary story.

    3. As identified on the proposal, there is 1 visitors spot available for the entire development. Currently street parking is a premium with proximity to the station and main road. This would result in an increase of car's parked and reduce the availability for visitor to the area to find parking.

    4. Traffic congestion at peak times for Hermitage road, Victoria Rd and Ryde Rd are already beyond capacity in both directions, adding 14 additional cars, as allocated on the plans, would increase pressure on these main arterial roads and local streets.

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

    Tony commented

    What has been done about the drainage issue? The main drain for runs right through the middle of this site (as per pervious planning) And as such u cant build with 3 meter of it or over the top of it. As this is case surly council will reject this one. This of cause not show issue of over shadowing and no step back

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

    Craig Wilkins commented

    Flinders Chase National Park is the most botanically unique area in South Australia.

    Plans to build luxury accommodation villages in the Park on wild coastal sites with staggeringly beautiful views are not appropriate and will see intact vegetation cleared for their construction and ongoing operation.

    To be consistent with the Park Management Plan and the Government People in Parks Strategy, these developments must be confined to locations on already cleared areas at camping grounds and existing settled infrastructure sites, away from unspoiled wilderness.

    The local Friends of Flinders Chase National Park volunteers are clear: any tourism development linked to the KI Wilderness Trail must be on the track, not located kilometres away in the middle of intact wilderness.

    Major development on public land – let alone in the middle of a fragile wilderness area – requires far greater community scrutiny and transparency than development on private land.

    We urge the State Government to suspend the current private development plans for one of our oldest and best loved parks and start talking to the Friends of Flinders Chase about better options.

    Craig Wilkins
    Chief Executive
    Conservation SA

  29. In Winston Hills NSW on “Erection of a Residential...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    John and Denise Powell commented

    I agree totally. This is not the first time.

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

    Brian Liverton commented

    Material Change of Use 92-94 Fiona Street Bellbird Park
    I object to this MCU 2572/2019 to build a Buddhist temple on the site mainly because of the infrastructure in this locality. This section of Fiona Street is already a busy road, and being narrow has no provision for on street parking. This will then require that the property will need the removal of established gum trees to allow for worship parking by their congregation. This in turn will effect the wildlife in this area.
    I have no objection to the property being used for its original application as a Buddhist retreat

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