Recent comments

  1. In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:

    Marc Ziegenfuss commented

    Please note that structures of 89 Towers Street infringe on the neighbouring property and that the Air conditioning unit is not compliant with Council noise regulations. Both disputes are currently officially active with QCAT and the BCC as per 22 June 2019.

  2. In Umina Beach NSW on “Senior Living Accommodation...” at 147 - 149 Springwood Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Melissa commented

    It’s great to see the accomodation for seniors bring upgraded.

    There are three (3) trees marked for removal.

    Can the Council please note these removals and ensure that their (apparent) 2:1 replacement process is undertaken?

    The inclusion of safe canopy-providing trees are extremely important for Seniors Housibd Developments. Trees reduce air conditioning costs and improve mobility and mental health.

    Please ensure a thorough, high quality landscape plan is adhered to and that there are sufficient large shade trees included in the plan.

    Thank you.

    Melissa Chandler

  3. In Coburg VIC on “Buildings and works for a...” at 387 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Dr Annely Aeuckens commented

    I wish to add my voice to the other people who have commented on this 'over-the-top' application. My objections are:

    - the development is far too high; any new building should not overwhelm Sydney Road which, at seven stories, this 'block of flats' would. By the way, I assume that the façade will be retained? Or are we to lose the distinctive characteristics of the historic shopping strip bit-by-bit? To be replaced by what?
    - a roof garden might sound like a good idea but it very much depends on how it is undertaken and, more to the point, how it is maintained over time.
    - where is the open space for the residents? The more people who come to live in Moreland, the greater the amount of green space that is required. And this is something that cannot be satisfied by a roof-top garden.
    - how will the building offset the environment impact it will create? Or will it simply add to an increasing heat-island effect?
    - a reduction in parking to increase use of public transport might be ok in theory but in reality it will lead to more street parking and further congestion.

  4. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 155 Church St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Anonymous commented

    I would ask a simple question to the planning authority.

    Have the planning decisions of the various planning authorities over the last decade lead to a objectively good result in Meadowbank for anyone but the developers? or to put it more simply, has Meadowbank been well planned?

    If you answer this honestly you will have the answer as to why this development must be rejected.

  5. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Fran Mansfield commented

    this proposed development has excessive height, scale and bulk.

    There are averse impacts on adjoining properties, particularly overlooking Impact , Visual
    Impact and Acoustic Impact.

    The adoption by the Applicant of existing “intrusive” 1960’s/1970’s buildings as a
    benchmark for justification of the proposed height, bulk and scale of the current
    DA.

    The measurement of floorspace ( the hallways have been excluded from the total calculation),

    The building is over height, and non-compliant

    non compliant parking provision

    Inadequate deep soil landscaped area due to the excessive extent of the proposed
    basement carpark.

    Inadequate Clause 4.6 Request seeking variation of the Height of Buildings Standard. S415 of the act
    Page 9 of the 38 page Statement of Environmental Effects, describes the site as cramped.
    "Figure 7:The subject site as viewed from the side fence of 1 Consett Avenue
    demonstrates the site’s cramped setting between 4 storeys buildings on all 3
    sides."

    I consider that such an approach is not supportable based on previous Land and
    Environment Court judgements.

    If the powers that be were to utilise the adjoining
    1960’s / 1970’s residential flat buildings as a benchmark, then the proposed development
    is of a height, bulk and scale which is inconsistent with these adjoining existing
    buildings.

    24 x 240 litre bins will be put out each week creating a traffic jam on Lamrock as trucks collect, and a blindspot for any vehicle crossing the pavement

    50 plus vehicle movements across the pavement each day could constitute a pedestrian hazard

    A non compliant provision of enough parking spaces

    Povided drawings are very scant on detail, in terms of solar access an isometric view should be demonstrated to asses the loss of sun on the street

  6. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mark mansfield commented

    this proposed development has excessive height, scale and bulk.

    There are averse impacts on adjoining properties, particularly overlooking Impact , Visual
    Impact and Acoustic Impact.

    The adoption by the Applicant of existing “intrusive” 1960’s/1970’s buildings as a
    benchmark for justification of the proposed height, bulk and scale of the current
    DA. I consider that such an approach is not supportable based on previous Land and
    Environment Court judgements.

    If one was to utilise the adjoining
    1960’s/1970’s residential flat buildings as a benchmark, the proposed development
    is of a height, bulk and scale which is inconsistent with these adjoining existing
    buildings.

    Inadequate deep soil landscaped area due to the excessive extent of the proposed
    basement carpark.

    Inadequate Clause 4.6 Request seeking variation of the Height of Buildings Standard. S415 of the act
    Page 9 of the 38 page Statement of Environmental Effects, describes the site as cramped.
    "Figure 7:The subject site as viewed from the side fence of 1 Consett Avenue
    demonstrates the site’s cramped setting between 4 storeys buildings on all 3
    sides."

  7. In Phillip Bay NSW on “Demolition works and...” at 48 Elaroo Avenue Phillip Bay NSW 2036:

    Noelle Sunstrom commented

    I respectfully request that the builders of this DA reconsider the construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the boundary with 50 Elaroo Ave.. The builders are recommending that we remove our trees along the boundary with 48 Elaroo as the builders will be cutting into 40% of the root systems they claim is on their side. These trees were planted over 25 years ago and today offer beautiful foliage and a haven for several species of native birds. May I suggest that the builders use some other form of drainage instead of building a retaining wall. Thank you and kind regards, Noelle Sunstrom

  8. In North Sydney NSW on “Change of use to motel” at 13 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Amanda Judd commented

    I find this quite amazing that MODOG have submitted this DA.
    The last DA for a change to 24/7 was submitted in March and was rejected.
    Nothing has changed.
    As a resident of 13 Eden Street this will directly affect my personal amenity.
    All previous objections remain the same.

  9. In Coburg VIC on “Buildings and works for a...” at 387 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Yen Loh commented

    While in theory, I support less reliance on cars, and therefore fewer parking spaces required, this is simply not practical in real life. While we may have public transport to the CBD (and even that was compromised this morning as due to a tram breakdown on Sydney Rd), people may not work in the city or may be shift workers who cannot rely on PT or simply need to take their kids to sport on the weekend. Therefore, you're just going to have as many cars but in fewer spaces, leading to congestion on the surrounding streets as we all fight for limited spaces.
    Also, a 7-storey development is totally out of character for the area. The visual bulk of the proposed building in the current environment is just ridiculous.

  10. In Thirroul NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 28 George Street, Thirroul NSW 2515:

    Jo Glynn commented

    Has Council considerede the impact on traffic of this development? Not only is this turning a 1-block house into a 4-unit dwelling, it will produce more than 4 times the amount of traffic for this incredibly traffic-locked suburb.

    If every house in Thirroul/Austinmer decided to follow the rules of Council's DCP, and turn their single dwelling into a multi-dwelling, either via granny flat/units/dual occupation/torrens-strata title then there will be permanent grid lock.

    There is a tipping point for traffic, and Thirroul/Austinmer have reached this tipping point. This development must be considered as too much traffic impact and should be refused.

  11. In Potts Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 21 Kellett Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    KERRIN commented

    I am a little confused?...that is not a garage....that is an apartment building!...unless you are talking about the 3 garages on the laneway and if you are....that is ridiculous!!!...in an already rat infested garbage truck and bins laden alleyway you want to put a boarding house???...that is disgusting overcrowding and greed!!!
    The answer is absolutely not!!!

  12. In Saint Albans Park VIC on “Staged Three (3) Lot...” at 7-8 Oakwood Ridge, St Albans Park, VIC:

    Kevin Neville commented

    Please lodge your Objection to this development before the closing date.

  13. In Ashfield NSW on “To demolish a shed and...” at 122 Victoria Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Craig Forbes commented

    The property pictured is in Ashfield. The details are consistent with works at 122 Victoria Street Dulwich Hill which have already been under way for months.
    The 2 x 2 storey dwellings are completed to lock up stage yet the heritage building has been completely stripped back to its timber frame which is in a sorry state and has been exposed to the elements since last year.
    How can this possibly be compliant with Heritage Conservation requirements??

  14. In Coburg VIC on “Buildings and works for a...” at 387 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Emeritus Professor Alexander Grishin AM commented

    This is a case of severe over-development, poor planning and out of character with the neighbourhood. This application should be rejected on three grounds.
    1) Seven storeys with a roof garden will make this into an ugly monstrosity in the context of this neighbourhood.
    2) The reduction to the already inadequate minimum parking requirements will add to the very congested conditions that exist in this area.
    3) This over-development in its plan indicates that will cause a threat to children and the elderly pedestrians who frequent this area.
    We need more open space and a sustainable environment and not over-development

  15. In Saint Kilda SA on “Ramp replacements” at 27 Mangrove Street , St Kilda SA 5110:

    Lindsay Virgo wrote to local councillor Chad Buchanan

    May I ask why is this work being done?
    Are there any advantages to this alteration?
    Will there be any dis-advantages?
    Planning Alerts, you need to update your Councillor list, many of these people listed are no longer Councillors.

    Delivered to local councillor Chad Buchanan. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 155 Church St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Yan Cheng commented

    I support this development as a supermarket and local shops are long over due. Although there is a shopping village in Meadowbank near the wharf, but it’s more than 10-20 minutes walk away from most residents in the eastern part of Meadowbank near church street. So it’s not very convenient. I hope local and shopping traffic needs will be considered and enough and easy parking provided for shoppers.

  17. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 155 Church St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Huw Edwards commented

    I strongly object to this development. For the reasons why, refer to the thousands of warnings from residents submitted on simmilar developments in this area over the past 10 years which have been continuously ignored yet which have all been realised in that time. It would be wonderful if after 10 years of the best judges been proven right they were listened to at last.

    Further to this, the fact is that the greater Sydney planning commission has said that infrastructure must be allowed to catch up to development in this area. Zero infrastructure has been announced since that statement was released. So this development simply cannot be approved if the integrity of the states planning controls are to be maintained.

  18. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Matthew Bristow commented

    I strongly object to the development proposal under the guise of affordable housing.
    The reasons for my objection are, this is a residential area with one traveller's hostel in this street which is enough.
    Noise is already a problem in the early hours of the morning.
    Problems with rubbish will be compounded.
    Parking will be a serious issue.
    A 4 storey development is unprecedented and will overshadow the street and undermine its charm.
    Developers will say and do whatever it takes to maximise their return without any consideration for the community they leave in their wake.

  19. In Christies Beach SA on “Land Division - Community...” at 14 Taunton Parade, Christies Beach SA 5165:

    Pauline Richmond commented

    Not liking this, too many townhouses and subdivisions will bring really difficult parking problems

  20. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove a gum...” at 96-100 Albert Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    In an area of such intense development this tree is an important asset and should be retained.

  21. In Ormiston QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 108 Sturgeon Street, Ormiston QLD 4160:

    Graham Arnold commented

    This is another proposed overdevelopment along Sturgeon Street and doesn't take into account the increased traffic flow in close proximity to Ormiston College or the additional demands on infrastructure.
    The voices of developers appear to be given far more weight than that given to objectors, or common sense, and this adds to a deteriorating environment across many residential areas in the Redlands.
    Please reject this application

  22. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Road work, Stormwater,...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Rick commented

    It is difficult to be polite when we see the destruction of our suburb taking place. Ipswich Council inaction from the beginning of this proposal has caused the steady decline in habitat for wildlife and liveability for residents. One day it will be fully revealed where the rot started that allowed the adhoc misuse of the council guidelines and the approval of sub standard projects like this one. Where the incentive to do the right thing was overruled by the power of developers' money. What we do know is that residents who cared, can take solace in the fact that they fought the good fight and lost, but not so those planners and developers who can never forget what they did to earn their money.

  23. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 133 Oxford Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Chris Davies commented

    I don't hink we should be increasing the trading hours of the sale of tabacco products. If thr trading hours are to be increased, there should be a condition that during those extended hours the sale of tobacco is prohibited.

    I live just off Oxford St, I smoked for over 20 years and have now been clean for nearly 10 years. Walking down oxford street in the afternoon is like smoking 10 cigarettes with all the outdoor smoking areas and people standing on the footpath smoking. I think it is a matter of time until one of us sues the council for allowing this level of exposure to passive smoking.

  24. In Coburg VIC on “Buildings and works for a...” at 387 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Aaron Duque commented

    A further reduction in the car parking requirements especially as the development is on Sydney Road is manifestly wrong. This should not be allowed and the fact that greedy developers keep pushing this and it somehow continues to be allowed is astonishing. I understand planners do not live in the surrounds of the developments but please go for a drive and see what you’re doing to Coburg, Brunswick and all of Moreland with you’re over development of a once beautiful suburb.

  25. In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:

    Marc Ziegenfuss commented

    Please note that structures of 89 Towers Street infringe on the neighbouring property and that the Air conditioning unit is not compliant with Council noise regulations. Both disputes are currently officially active with QCAT and the BCC as per 22 June 2019.

  26. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at Lake Macquarie Square 46 Wilsons Road Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Jters commented

    Ray, can you provide data to support your claim that, 'nothing to fear at Mt Hutton' As I do worry that I will be shopping directly under a high energy EMF. Shopping at a different center will be my only option if this planned goes ahead.

  27. In Swansea NSW on “Detached garage. One tree...” at 33 Moxey Street Swansea NSW 2281:

    Julia Riseley commented

    Please ensure that there are No Birds Nesting in the Tree...Also No Possums living there...If there ARE Possums ~ You will need to contact the Appropriate Authorities to ensure that the Possums are Removed Safely. They are fiercely Territorial and require some thoughtful planning before relocating.

  28. In Plympton Park SA on “Row Dwelling Two Storey...” at 14 Shakespeare Av Plympton Park:

    TREVOR FECHNER commented

    i WOULD SUGGEST THAT APPROVAL NOT BE GIVEN UNLESS THE PROPOSED HOUSES HAVE AT LEAST ONE DOUBLE GARAGE. iT SEEMS THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF FAMILIES HAVE TWO CARS AND IF A DEVELOPMENT ONLY CATERS FOR ONE VEHICLE, THE OTHER IS PARKED ON THE STREET. IF THE CURRENT OWNER ONLY HAS ONE VEHICLE, SUBSEQUENT OWNERS MAY HAVE MORE AND DEVELOPMENTS NEED TO ALLOW FOR THIS EVENTUALITY. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM CAN BE SEEN IN MANY WESTBOURNE PARK STREETS. CARS ARE PERKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AND CARS TRAVELLING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ARE UNABLE TO PASS EACH OTHER.

  29. In Barwon Heads VIC on “Development of a Retail...” at 1-3 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads, VIC:

    Susan Tamblyn commented

    I am concerned with the reduction in car parking and loss of bicycle facilities. There is little enough car parking particularly on a very very busy street in Barwon Heads. Combined with no cycle facilities it is courting danger.

  30. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development -...” at 77 Marine Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Lee Wilmott commented

    The road is struggling with traffic and parking as it is. It is dangerous. these apartments will create more obstruction and danger,. There is a park next door that will have children. You cannot risk children and traffic in such a way...MacMasters has objected to it and continues to object. Who will get sued if someone is injured by the traffic because the concerns were not considered.

    Chelsea apartments are the example of the failure of a developer to consider the community he won't even live it but imposes on the community/ The commercial side of that failed as well.

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