Recent comments

  1. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Craig. I watched and photographed their every step at "Happy Jack" I never saw one of our side there.
    Everybody moans about it, but when something like "Happy Jack" happens no one even bothers to look. I felt distinctly exposed as I visited almost every day. 6 dozers and various other "Big Blokes" saw me. But why worry about some one like me taking a few pics and there on my own.
    I made this "Development " clearly known to Chemello and chief planner Adams. If only I could have had a few other people there. Dont winge do something. Voice in the wilderness..Shag on a rock. Oh by the way Adams and Chemello I object to the destruction in my/your "Backyard" They know who I am and I think in A 2 Hour meeting with them they respected my views on "Happy Jack". I built up quite a relatgionship with Chemello, to the point that he replied within 2 days to every e mail i sent. Even suggested what should be my strategy on meeting the most important planner, Cameron Dick. . Dick is the only local pollie who wouldn't see me. If I was him I wouldn't see me either. Palaszczuik finally gave in and sent 5 of her flunkies to see me. That was the result of 50 emails i sent to her. Now I have to hassle Lance. Who would come with me?

  2. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 18 Kendall Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Anthony Rogers commented

    Lovely old house. Hope it stays put. The development will be ugly. You can kid yourself but the general standard of new architecture in the area is appalling. Pull down something ugly !!!

  3. In South Yarra VIC on “Condition 3 - Public Open...” at 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Teresa Simmermacher commented

    Hi Stonnington, Is this application to meet, reduce or exceed the Open Space contribution needed? If it is to Reduce the contribution, I am not in favour and support the need for this development to add to The open space that this monstrosity has taken from the area.

  4. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Jennie Minifie for Ryde Community Alliance commented

    It is a good question. Ryde Council provides minimal information on it’s website about the development applications submitted for approval by comparison with other councils.

    This one at 23 Hepburn Avenue in Gladesville is typical. People can make a submission but the limited detail and lack of access to the supporting documents and plans on-line, means at least a trip to Council offices to provide anything more than a very broad comment about the new land-use and the potential density.

    Other Council’s sites provide access to the full documentation of an application, so why is Ryde not doing so? It would assist people making submissions to provide specific comments in an efficient and effective manner.

  5. In Coolum Beach QLD on “Notifying Affected Entity...” at 1674 and 1676 David Low Way Coolum Beach:

    Genevieve Jones commented

    This development site is located within very close proximity to a highly significant Aboriginal site, recorded on the DATSIP Cultural Heritage Unit database, as site KC 203. The developer is required under the Queensland Government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, to consult with the Traditional Owners, and develop a cultural heritage (risk) assessment report and a cultural heritage management plan.

  6. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Replacement of existing...” at 50 Botany Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Lydia Santoso commented

    I agree with the above concerns and object to this proposal

  7. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Jonathon Carmody commented

    Yes definately agree with Eleanors comments.
    I was wondering when this large piece of paradise was going to sell to hungry developers and knew it would likely be carved up for financial gains and extra rates for council. I presume this block is now owned by 'overseas interests' in view to build more high density the peninsula.
    I live in the area and have seen several applications in Mt Eliza for subdivisions of well under 3000 sq metre blocks. Isnt there supposed to be a limitation on the size of subdivision in this area? As Eleanor points out - high density living is not suited in this area or any part of Mt Eliza for that matter..
    The traffic impact alone would be a problem - this road is already busy particularly with Toorak College nearby it is already chaotic during school hours. This is a special area of Mt Eliza. Its exactly why we want to live here. There are already too many subdivisions with high density living shot up all over the peninsula which has been slowly destroying a special part of Victoria.

    Lets hope common sense will prevail and not dollar signs - and see only a few properties built on this lovely estate.

  8. In Saint Marys NSW on “Construction of 4 x Two...” at 18 Morris Street St Marys NSW 2760:

    Nicole Baker commented

    Our street is already crowded. it's like a main road already! then our streets will be even more crowded at the risk of sideswiping a car parked on the side of the road or children playing near a road getting hit. There is not enough infrastructure for this to go ahead. The suburb is getting crowded, noisy, higher crime rate and much less neighborly enough. Time to stop trying to make a quick buck and respect the existing residence

  9. In Edwardstown SA on “Single Storey Detached...” at 15 Gilpipi Av, Edwardstown 5039 SA:

    Trevor Fechner commented

    Would you please ensure that there is a double garage in this plan similar to the houses built on land at No 10 Gilpipi Ave.

    Trevor Fechner

  10. In Dundas NSW on “Development Application -...” at 245 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117:

    Mark Mueller commented

    That's going to be a lot of cars parked on the street for drop off and pick up. The street is already full from the development across Spurway. Parents won't use the underground carpark as it will be a hassle and they will come to realise they won't know it's full till they drive in

  11. In Box Hill North VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North VIC 3129:

    Khalid Moinuddin commented

    This is a significant heritage structure in this neighbourhood. The application should not be approved.

  12. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    RK commented

    My objection is not in principle against this type of business, but more about the concentration of so many similar businesses. This will only lead to a broader classification of Artarmon being recognised as THE suburb of brothels, attracting clientele travel from all other parts of Sydney and leading to an unsavoury experience for families who would otherwise enjoy the village-like dining experiences that are on offer today.

  13. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 7 Oaklands Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Charles Decelis commented

    I object to units because it will make it harder for the residents with more vehicles entering and exiting their properties it will cause problems like we have had in the past With heavy vehicles damaging Park cars when it was parking on both sides and recently since Hyundai moving into number six Oaklands Avenue they park Vehicles on the footpath and make it difficult for elderly residents With mobility scooters to see what’s coming up Yose Street and vehicles can only park on One side because on the west side is no standing between 7 am and 5 pm the street is too narrow we have trucks from Reece plumbing supplies and car carriers from Hyundai and Hyundai parked their cars illegally which makes it even harder to manoeuvre around them in yose Street and Oaklands Avenue and with the three units at number seven mean more

    vehicles they won’t have one to each unit there might be two vehicles to each unit or more and they won’t have enough parking on the property to accommodate them so therefore I object Kind regards Charles Decelis

  14. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Town Houses x 3” at 19 Warrah Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lara commented

    Horrible area now. Property prices ARE decreasing. Over crowded with junkies and drunks and centrelink bums roaming the streets with their open beer bottles yuck. What a ghetto. The new Redfern. With boarding houses and granny flats for low incomes equals drop outs and more nighttime hoods. How sad it is. For the commenters saying how good it is I notice they don’t use their names only initials?? The real residents mostly oppose.

  15. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Craig Wilson commented

    Obviously no ICC members live in Bellbird Park or otherwise this would not be happening. We bought here 5 years ago because we loved the bush and the large blocks. I went from acreage beside me to 48 houses/auxiliary units in the first 3 months. Now this eyesore at happy jack gully and another one right next door to that. Is the ICC so blind to what they are doing. Does no one there read these comments. Surely they must know that the residents are not happy here. Come on ICC listen to your constituents for a change. I dare you to say no to a developer.

  16. In Woy Woy NSW on “Two Storey Dwelling &...” at 24 Dorothy Avenue, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Lara commented

    When are the granny flats going to stop! No more, residents are fed up!

  17. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 85 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lara commented

    Agreed with another comment. No more granny flats!! Good grief the way this suburb is going, low rent granny flats with all the drop outs hanging about the streets. Enough is enough. Overcrowding is too much. The traffic is a struggle as is the parking, where does it end? There needs to be some serious discussion amongst residents.

  18. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Hi Mr Moore. You must have seen my suggestions for all this. just put in 1 or 2 sentences. That takes a couple minutes rather than the resoned objections. These comments mean nothing at all. Those bloody "planners "are above the "Law" anyway. Got a rhyme there.The council have NO power as they work under the State Gov. Mr McCallum our new MP. Just keep lobbying him to lobby the state Gov. Give this bloke a chance, then ask to see him. I will go with you if you like. You never know your luck in the big city.

  19. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Cassandra Schultz commented

    As a long term resident of the area, It saddens me greatly to see that this rare and precious heritage building is under threat. I was previously a resident of Melbourne before moving to Woolloongabba over 20 years ago. My first thoughts upon arrival was to be pleased at the beauty of the Queenslander style houses, but surprise at the lack of larger heritage buildings. Melbourne has a number of beautiful and significant buildings in the city, including several grand old theatres and beautiful pubs and hotels.
    I had the pleasure of working on the exhibition The Ipswich House, at the Ipswich Art Gallery, and in doing so, visited a number of beautiful houses in that city. I learned that the vernacular of the Queenslander was developed there and in Brisbane, and that a number of architects lived in Ipswich. The exhibition attracted a great deal of attention, including a feature on the national TV show, Statewide. This building is a rare treasure anywhere, let alone in Brisbane. It was also a community hub, I often wandered up to have a coffee on the weekend, especially when it had markets outside. I had meals and drinks there and met with my neighbours.
    This Heritage belongs to everyone, not just the individuals who purchased the building and consider it to be a financial asset only.
    I strongly oppose the demolition of this hotel. Let it remain as a reminder of the lives, history and people who came before.

  20. In Goodna QLD on “Other Change –...” at 61A Bertha Street Goodna QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Stop this development.

  21. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Where is my comment on this "development? To repeat as you know by now i am utterly and totally against these transparet development. Stop clearing bellbird.. Waste of time ipswich planners.should all be sacked after apologising for aiding such blights on our landscapes Shame on you

  22. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Jones rd. Those immoral developers have no shame as they destroy Bellbird with the tacit agreement of the council and cowboy planners

  23. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    D Moore commented

    NO. 1
    October 2018
    1 -Development Standards for Auxiliary Units and Dual Occupancies, including
    those which are Used to Accommodate Relatives or Aged or Infirm Persons
    2. Locating an Auxiliary Unit
    (1) Auxiliary Units are to be provided at appropriate
    distributions throughout the City to deliver a diversity
    of housing types and avoid over concentrations.



  24. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Sam Ayoubi commented

    I oppose the construction of this incinerator.

    To construct such a facility would endanger the residents, flora and fauna that this area is known for.
    We, as nearby residents, are proud of the Green Wedge and the Hume council has shown great care until now to treasure the rare sights that surround this location.
    This facility would only undermine our suburbs.

  25. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    T Craven commented

    As a ratepayer and property owner in the area, I disagree with this DA. It seeks to demolish an early 20th century house in good condition with some original interiors to build a dual occupancy which will further detract from the character and amenity of Gladesville. The current site as far as can be ascertained from Google maps contains numerous trees and extensive planting which is a part of the streetscape and will presumably be removed. There are no plans on Ryde Council website but I would assume that this will be another characterless concrete construction. Ryde Council please put all planning documents on the website.

  26. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 51 Alexandra Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lara commented

    Can they please keep the noise down on weekends. Starting up on and making a racket is not on, forget about the sleep in

  27. In Myrtle Bank SA on “Variation to...” at Unit 7 / 25 Culross Avenue, Myrtle Bank SA 5064:

    Liz commented

    Yes, it’s a way of circumnavigating fair and open discussion on planning applications. I’ve had two houses near me put in windows they didn’t apply for and when I reported it to council the non compliance officer just made them apply for retrospective planning. Raised money for them but did not allow me to have an opinion. Allegedly it’s quite ‘normal’ practice. Not for the average Joe, I bet we’d be made to remove them!

  28. In Box Hill North VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North VIC 3129:

    Hasan commented

    Further information in regards to plans to develop the site at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North. The land the Chapel is on and surrounded by is also covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay (SL09) and a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO 05),these protections must be enforced.

    If this application is approved it will set a precedent for the heritage value of Council Heritage protected buildings/land to be undermined - the Chapel at 147 Woodhouse Grove is covered by a HO99 and the vegetation is covered by a SL09 and VP05. Why have a HO99, SL09 and VP05 capability if a developer can get permission to override them whenever they wish to further develop properties? The developer knew when they bought the site that it was covered by heritage protections. It obviously was seen as having heritage value in the past when classified and it is now still more valued for its heritage given current building developments in Whitehorse generally and Box Hill in particular.

    The site should be converted into a park and the Chapel converted into a museum to show the religious, cultural and educational development of the area as well as the development of quarrying. The site must be preserved and protected for current and future generations.

    This application must not be approved by Whitehorse Council.

  29. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Christopher McManis commented

    I have to oppose this application as we already have about five or six along the strip already. If the ones that are already here cannot satisfy the needs of those who use them there are also some in the industrial area. Please do not let this one go ahead.

  30. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    BM commented

    Just no. We have too many of these on Hampden Road. It is the main road, containing restaurants, cafes and shops. Children and families pass by everyday. It is an inappropriate location.

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