Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Georgia Cameron commented

    I am very concerned about the death of a number of Turpentine trees on this site at 25 Ray Road Epping, which is the subject of DA/19/2020 to convert the heritage-listed home to a childcare facility with 50 places. Before this DA can proceed, Council should appoint an independent arborist to investigate the death of the trees and mandate replacement trees immediately - at the owner's cost.

    Given the significant loss of heritage in the Parramatta Local Government Area, any further loss or "adaptation" to commercial premises is unacceptable in what is largely a residential area, and I therefore object to this DA.

  2. In Bondi NSW on “Remove two (2) Ficus...” at 36-38 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jason A Smith commented

    Do not remove these trees. There is not enough in this area

  3. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Catherine Modini commented

    What is the point of planning guidelines when they are ignored by council and approval is given. Over development is only going to cause more traffic congestion, shadowing, wind tunnels etc. & total degradation to a once healthy, livable environment. This sort of development is not what people want!

  4. In Enmore NSW on “Alterations additions &...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    With this notification Inner West Council has exceeded its past record levels of non-information - not only has it failed to upload the application documentation but the summary provided is completely incomprehensible.
    "Alterations additions & outbuildings dwells only" - what does this actually mean?

  5. In West Melbourne VIC on “To facilitate the...” at 407-415 King Street West Melbourne 3003:

    Cindy Requin commented

    This building will be of great detriment to the students next door at Haileybury. It will affect the light in the classrooms. It will also affect that of the residents at Flagstaff Green. There is also not enough parking in this area for this type of accomodation.

  6. In Wagga Wagga NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at Sheriffs Office Court House 57 Fitzmaurice St Wagga Wagga NSW 2650:

    Jane Cale commented

    The Sherrif's Cottage was occupied by WAAAF officers during WW2 as accommodation. I am writing about this at the moment and am planning a trip to Wagga to have a look at it. Can you consider not knocking it down please? It's important to retain what history we have.

  7. In Chatswood NSW on “Removal of 1 Tree at the...” at 26 Douglas Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Sensible commented

    What reason does the tree need to be removed? Trees provide oxygen, shade, habitat for animals and beautify our neighbourhood. This looks to be mature tree and should only be pruned appropriately.

  8. In Roseville NSW on “Inspect 1 tree for removal” at 30 William Street Roseville NSW 2069.:

    Lower North Shore commented

    This looks to be mature tree and should only be pruned appropriately. What reason does the tree need to be removed? Trees provide oxygen, shade, habitat for animals and beautify our neighbourhood in the lower north shore.

  9. In North Ipswich QLD on “Stormwater, Drainage Work...” at 26 The Terrace North Ipswich QLD 4305:

    Bradley Frost commented

    I'm wondering what exactly will be happening at the empty lot at 26 the terrace North Ipswich. As I live almost next to that. Thank you.

  10. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 410 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    I’ve had enough of these greedy developers trying to turn Bexley into a ghetto just so they can buy their kids the latest and greatest Ferrari. Forest road is already incredibly busy, the speed limit of 60 is 20km too much for such a dense area and yet there are going to be up to 100 more people coming in and out of this place every day??? This is a joke!

  11. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 8 Windermere Road Epping NSW 2121:

    M McCartney commented

    The application does not state why the trees are to be removed. The photos provided indicate the trees are healthy. Perhaps they lie in the footprint of a future granny flat and that is the only reason for their removal. Nevertheless the once leafy suburb of Epping cannot afford to lose these trees. I therefore object to the removal of these two trees.

  12. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Jan Primrose commented

    Could Parramatta City Council please check the cause of the recent demise of the 7-8 Turpentine trees on this property. Council should condition that the same number of replacement Turpentine tree are to be planted as part of a landscape plan whether or not this DA is approved. They can obviously fit onto the site as they were there until recently.

    That being said the works required to this beautiful heritage home to make it compliant with the requirements of the NSW Education and Child Care SEPP are incompatible with the heritage values of the building, the locality and of Parramatta City Council. This DA should be refused.

  13. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 44 York Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    I object to this DA. There is no arborist report to identify which trees are for removal and how the remaining trees will be protected. There are some beautiful street trees in Dorset Street next to this property and it would be tragic if they were damaged due to not following proper tree protection procedures. Without appropriate arborist information the DA should not be considered or approved.
    The Statement of Environmental Effects report provides several maps on pages 12 and 13. The identification of the site in the DA is inaccurate in all three maps. This means that approval of this DA would be questionable administratively.
    There is also a scarcity on other information which makes it difficult to access this DA. The City of Parramatta Council should request further information before proper consideration for this DA can be undertaken.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 85 Wyralla Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    M. McCartney commented

    This application states the tree removal is for the purposes of allowing development in the future. This is not a valid reason for tree removal and needs to be considered within the DA for this property in a Heritage Conservation Area. It would appear there is now a trend in Epping to remove trees to prepare selling the properties for development. This does not support reaching a 40% tree canopy and it makes the suburb hot, unhealthy and a bad place in which to live. The air quality is bad enough without adding to it by removing all the trees which provide oxygen for us to breath.
    The application states 'no' to the question is it within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). However, the property is within the Eastwood/Epping HCA and as such any tree removal requires special consideration for the heritage. Without a valid reason given by an arborist it should not be approved.
    I therefore object to this tree removal.

  15. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    anpayy commented

    The development may have a significant effect on traffic flow in narrow urban streets not designed to manage large volumes of traffic during the narrow time frames of the centres meeting times. http://khamphukhoa11.com There currently exists serious traffic risks on Heathcote road and the Princes Highway in the area as exampled by frequent serious accidents on Heathcote road and the imposition of a 50 kilometer an hour limit through Heathcote shopping centre. http://webbenhxahoi.com It is of concern that there does not appear to be any intention to conduct road works to improve local infrastructure to manage this risk.

  16. In Bondi NSW on “Remove two (2) Ficus...” at 36-38 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    B hayes commented

    Everything should be done to ensure that these tress are not removed. They provide vital habitat and shade.

  17. In Redland Bay QLD on “New Dwelling” at 18 Jake Circuit, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Gary Mclean commented

    This council is out of control with all these tiny shoebox homes being built where you can shake your neighbors hand while your brushing your teeth in your bathroom and they are making breakfast in their kitchen.
    No wonder the fire department are angry.
    They can't get down the sides of most new homes.
    Looks like a new council will be elected this year.

  18. In Glen Waverley VIC on “Variation of covenant...” at 38 Gyton Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    Simon Spillane commented

    There are many covenants in this area from material to number of dwellings per block. I think it would be wrong to start a precedent to allow covenants to be removed.

  19. In Coffs Harbour NSW on “Multi-dwelling housing (6...” at 3 A King Street, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450:

    Trish Welsh commented

    I think it’s unfortunate that Aboriginal Housing sees fit to put all indigenous in the one building instead of blending into the community through supportive housing. Influences of non indigenous folk as neighbours could assist with empowering indigenous people to succeed in their work and lifestyle choices. Therefore I do not support the application in its current form as I would like to see indigenous people placed in housing in the general community

  20. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Gum tree...” at 119 Henrietta Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    John Flint commented

    Waverley council, should ensure any applications for removal of trees are presented in a form that gives sufficient information to the public so that they can make informed comment. This should also include photos of the tree.
    With the fires destroying much of the native habitat around Sydney it is important to leave as many trees in the urban environment so that displaced birds can find a new home.

    This application has been uploaded to the councils document repository as a raw email with embedded PDF document . 99% of the public are not going to be able to decode this file.

    To Emma Smythe and others commenting on planning alerts site, the application is for removal of a gum tree in the back yard. The owner states it is dead. There is correspondence from 2017 whereby in a previous application the council only allowed part of the tree to be pruned. The part remaining has apparently now died.

  21. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Annie Alexander commented

    I object to this proposed development because this building seems inappropriate for the environment it would be in. As a resident of Burleigh I despair at the thought of the loss of space, increase in high rises, the impact on the residents living close by, the seemingly lack of regard for keeping places attractive, quiet, healthy for the people who actually live and work there as opposed to keeping developers happy and lining their pockets. Australia is already showing it's lack of regard for the climate we all share, this seems to be just another nail in the coffin. The impact of increased traffic, emissions, light pollution, loss of space etc never appear to be taken into consideration. Palm Beach is so unattractive now due to the huge number of buildings that have gone up in recent times. The uniqueness of areas like Burleigh, Palm Beach, etc are slowly being lost. We are losing the Fishhouse soon which is another blow to the local community but I suppose that's ok because there will be yet more exclusive apartments for developers, property investors and the like to buy and leave empty in the quiet season.
    This proposed overdevelopment is saddening, embarrassing and completely uncalled for. I expect GCC to act on my behalf and consider community interests, not just itself and the financial goals of developers.

  22. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Gum tree...” at 119 Henrietta Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Richard allen commented

    Why does a gumtree need to be remove in this area. When council is promoting living connections, planning of trees for bird life...why

  23. In Menangle Park NSW on “Modification of existing...” at 170 Menangle Road, Menangle Park NSW 2563:

    dennis shi commented

    I like and support it.

  24. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Gum tree...” at 119 Henrietta Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Emma Smythe commented

    Unable to read the permit application. What format has this been saved in? Why does the tree need to be removed? Object to any tree being removed unless it is dead and likely to cause injury to people or damage to property.

  25. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 18A Fox St Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Rick Madden commented

    This development is required for the Wynnum area and would greatly assist other local business in the area. The development would be a family friendly venue with the park close by and would be a much better alternative to the dilapidated building that is currently there.

  26. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 6 Stewart St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Barbara Buiniing commented

    This development is only three doors from my house on the corner of Clanalpine and Stewart Streets and at no time have I received any notice or plans and would like to see the original plan approved. Alterations which would cost over $800,000 are not minor and I would be concerned if this a back way of introducing another multiple occupancy dwelling. Stewart Street is narrow and already parked out during business hours and tradesmen and visitors have to park in driveways.

  27. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 21 Bowden Gr, Oaklands Park 5046 SA:

    Adele commented

    Bin storage needs to be considered. Bins sitting permanently in front of garages is not a good look for the area.

  28. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A)...” at 11-13 Solent Circuit, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Kerrie Baldini commented

    What are you talking about - Esplanade is nearly completed....

    Are they now putting in 2 more buildings ????

  29. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 18A Fox St Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Steve Henderson commented

    How wonderfull would it be to give our support to a local Wynnum Business instead of having to venture to neighbouring Manly for a similar venue . I feel it will inject a bit of life in to the area which in turn would benefit other struggling businesses and flow on to property values. Having spoken to a lot of people about the development I have yet to hear a negative comment , from the day the the idea was announced there has been an heir of excitement that something was finally happening in Wynnum.

  30. In Lawnton QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 151 Bray Road, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    John Humphreys commented

    I have read through the DA for this site and as far as I can see there are only a couple of mentions of dust control in the whole application,
    A clause must be added to make sure that on days of earth works, tree munching or anything else that created dust, a water truck must be on site to minimise the impact of dust on close by properties.
    Not good enough to be told write a letter to Council and then wait 2 weeks for a response when the dust is finished, Local residents require a contact (phone number} for a council officer so immediate response will happen. We have just had 2 DA's close by and on one occasion the dust from or bob cat loading a truck was higher than a two story house. Please take my comments as constructive as we are the residents that have to keep cleaning up the dust (pool, solar panels, deck, tables even top of the coffee table and deep freezer inside the house).

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