Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Eastern Creek NSW on “Amended SEARs (from...” at Archbold Road Eastern Creek NSW 2766:

    Colleen Jeffery-Court commented

    I moved to Minchinbury 33 years ago because it had clean air, open spaces and a sense of community. I would never have built my home here or raised my children if the area had a waste facility that would spew toxic particles and vapour into our surrounding air. It’s enough that the flight plans from the proposed Western Sydney Airport will create noise and air pollution in our area. We were told decades ago that when the Waste Facility at Eastern Creek was full, that it would be closed, ending what has been an ongoing issue with bad odours emitting from the waste. We do not want to add an Energy From Waste plant in our area as well. We are being treating us as second class citizens. This would never happen in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, as it should never happen in Sydney’s Greater Western Suburbs. We want a healthy quality of life, not one that is determined by people who profit from polluting our surrounding environment. I oppose this proposal because no one cannot absolutely guarantee that my plant and vegetable gardens will be free from contamination, that our drinking water will not be contaminated, that toxic plumes will not be emitted, that air pollution will not be visible and that my health will not be negatively impacted. No risk is worth my quality or longevity of life outcomes.

  2. In Werribee VIC on “Use of a dwelling for...” at 21 Quarbing Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff commented

    This could be like putting a short stay hotel in a residential area but with inferior conditions such as shared bathrooms, kitchen/meals area, by people who do not normally live as a family

    How is potential overcrowding to be regulated? Who is responsible for this?

    What are Covid 19 community transmission implications in an area where many older more vulnerable people live?

  3. In Southbank VIC on “Use and development of a...” at Southbank Promenade 2 Southgate Avenue Southbank 3006:

    John Eltham commented

    I wish to object to an exemption being granted to Southbank Promenade 2 Southgate Avenue Southbank 3006 for provide bicycle storage at this site. The City of Melbourne is spending a lot of taxpayers money on bike paths and encouraging cycling. Many people who work at these restaurants cycle to work as well as customers who eat at the restaurant. To exempt the provision of bicycle parking at this location is not acceptable.

  4. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Gareth Morison commented

    My wife and I bought and built in the area based on the draw card of the cafe and it’s surrounds. We celebrated our wedding day there, we’ve had countless friends and family visit and fall in love with the cafe, and built many great friendships through our community there.
    About to have first our child, we fit the exact demographic and target market of a childcare centre. We simply do not want it. Not only would we be devastated at the loss of our beloved cafe, but it makes no sense to put our child in daycare on our doorstep. The cafe exists as a ‘destination’ amenity. It’s not in a strip mall, or near a school or even near anyone’s place of work - precisely where a childcare centre should be.
    Please do not approve this DA.

  5. In Elsternwick VIC on “Existing permit allows: A...” at 233-235 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    erika wils commented

    In total agreement with above and to add more how many more high rise units are we going to allow in our so-called VILLAGE causing overcrowding traffic congestion and not to mention the rest like safety and no where to park when one of us true village residents that have lived here for years want to park in order to do some shopping or pick up some take away in the evenings since it will not be safe to walk after dark surrounded by all these high rise dwelling with transient residents. Council please see the light and stop these developments and send the greedy developers packing.

  6. In Surry Hills NSW on “Installation of an awning...” at 494-496 Bourke Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Senta Hoyne commented

    I fully support this application. Businesses need our support now more than ever to thrive and survive. This will be a fantastic addition to this lovely neighbourhood establishment.

  7. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Wendy Lui commented

    I strongly oppose this proposal. Right now yet another new residential and commercial development is being completed opposite this address, and it’s intrusive and symbolic enough.
    In real time we have the opportunity to make important decisions about what we want in our community - it’s values, it’s priorities, it’s future - and this is not it.

  8. In Kilsyth VIC on “Remove restrictive covenant...” at 5 Eothen Lane, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Kim Mckay commented

    WHAT IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON 2724965 THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO REMOVE? SINCE THE FEDERAL COURT OF SA FOUND THAT NO LOCAL COUNCILS IN AUSTRALIA ANY STATE TO BE A GOVERNMENT AS OUR TRUE LAW STATES... ALL WORKS, CONTRACTS, LAND EMBEZZLEMENT'S, WATER THEFT (UNDER REBRANDED WATER FRAUD MARKETS BREACHING OUR NATIONS HIGHEST SECURITY LAWS), ETC, NO OPERATIONS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE!

    ALSO AT THE END OF FOSSEL ROAD KILSYTH/MONTROSE WHY IS OUR PUBLIC FOREST NOT PARK BLOCKED OFF BY A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WITH SECURITY? AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING? WHY IS THEIR BUILDING AND ROADS VIA OUR FIRE TRACKS ON THE FACE OF OUR PUBLIC OWNED MORATORIUM LAND AND PART OF OUR CATCHMENT FOR MELBOURNE - FACE OF MT DANDENONG RANGES? I DEMAND ON BEHALF OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF VICTORIA TO KNOW WHO THESE CONTRACTS ARE WITH? WHO EMBEZZLED OUR LANDS? WHO IS BUILDING? WHO HAS PURCHASED OUR MORATORIUM LANDS SO WE CAN NOTIFY THEM OF THE FRAUD AND SO THEY CAN GET THEIR MONEY BACK IN COURT (COMMON LAW COURT)? FOR NINE PLUS YEARS WE THE "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" HAVE BEEN DEMANDING YOU ANSWER TO US IMMEDIATELY OR WE WILL BE COMING TO ARREST YOU ALL AND MAYORS AND CEO'S AND FAKE TREASURY OFFICES FOR FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, AIDING AND ABETTING INVASIONS INTO OUR COUNTRY BY HOUSING THEM TO SQUAT IN OUR WAR ZONE BEING AUSTRALIA!

  9. In North Strathfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 25 George Street, North Strathfield NSW 2137:

    Anna Sun commented

    I do not approve of this development as George St is the only exit & entry road. George St is already traffic congested during peak hours. This kind of development will increase this traffic problem.

    If there are going to be 156 apartments then there must be at least 156 private car parking spaces & another 100 visitors parking spaces to reduce street parking. We are already low on street parking which is caused by all these exiting apartments on George St. Visitors visiting residential free standing home sometimes have no street parking or have to park a long way from the home they are visiting.

    My car mechanic works on this site. The new development should accommodate a car mechanical workshop.

  10. In Denistone NSW on “Construction of a new two...” at 512 Blaxland Rd Denistone NSW 2114:

    M.Kemp commented

    If this building application is approved, it should only go ahead if the mature large tree is protected. There have been many large trees lost in recent years on that side of Blaxland Rd, due to the growing number of building developments. I have looked at that glorious tree for over 30 years from my house. It provides shade in the hot summer, and shelter for birds. It would be criminal to destroy that tree.

  11. In Seven Hills NSW on “Studio- Detached” at 149 Cornelia Road Toongabbie NSW 2146:

    Iqbal Chowdhury commented

    Hi, just received the notice of this proposed development. It is a bit of worry for us as it will be directly positioned in the midddle of our backyard fence and will be obstructing our uninterrupted views. That was the main reason we bought this particular house and now this will be gone. Please let us know if it will be a high tiled roof or just a flat roofed studio if approved.
    Kind regards
    Iqbal

  12. In Mosman NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 33A Rangers Avenue, Mosman NSW 2088:

    john wyndham commented

    Our address is 24 Wolseley road, which backs onto Francetti Lane. We are not against this proposal or that proposed for 33 Middle Head Road. However, we have a strong concern that our access to our garage in Francetti Lane, (at the rear of both applications for development of 33 AND 35 Middle Head Road), MUST NOT impede our access to our garage on Francetti Lane. My wife and I are both in our 70s and access to the garage is imperative to our well being.
    We are conscious that with development applications for BOTH addresses being on foot, the chance of obstruction to our garage in Francetti Lane, from building construction vehicles etc, will be possible.
    Therefore would you please insist on these concerns of ours being considered
    in both applications.

  13. In Ringwood East VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 6-8 Angus Avenue, Ringwood East 3135, VIC:

    Liz commented

    This application is very curious, given it is for a premises that according to the local planning scheme, should be a residential address in a quiet surburban area, with unmade roads.
    It is unclear as to what type of licence it already has, and how that was aquired.

    Croydon Conservation Society has some concerns that this pocket of prime residential area, is being eroded by the emergence of two other places of worship nearby, in modified houses, and we are interested to know why this property has any type of licence ordinarily reserved for commercial permises.

  14. In Bondi NSW on “Modifications to the...” at 14 Fletcher Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Paul Paech commented

    QUESTION: "Modification to improve design that improve aesthetics and amenity of the proposed units"

    I haven't examined this proposal, but I suggest that the "title" given by someone to this DA needs urgent revision so that it describes the actual proposed works, instead of the lifestyle benefits of the DA to the inhabitants of these units.

    All planning requires examination of the benefit of any DA to the developers (often principally commercial) and carefully evaluating that against the short- and long-term impact of the proposed change (often negative) on local neighbours and the wider community. Council has a statutory responsibility not to favour one side against the other, as this description does.

    Over to you, Waverley Planners

  15. In Greenway ACT on “AMENDMENT TO APPROVED...” at 26 Cynthea Teague Crescent, Greenway, ACT:

    Robyn Rofe commented

    I have been trying to ring (6205 2888) to obtain answers to some queries however I have not been able to get an answer.

  16. In Brighton East VIC on “2 New Dwellings...” at 12A Hodder Street Brighton East VIC 3187:

    Brendan Hawe commented

    I have been alerted to this by a friend in the area. I find it quite strange that a medical centre would be constructed in the middle of a quiet residential street.
    The plan is for a commercial premises which is completely out of keeping with the surrounds and the character of the area. This is an old area that is inhabited by young families and not a business district. The planned medical centre is completely at odds with the surrounds and the local community feel of the locale.

  17. In Klemzig SA on “Demolition of dwelling and...” at 34-36 Cole St Klemzig SA 5087:

    Geoff Cann commented

    This address notified does not seem to exist, so which properties does this refer to?

  18. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 29 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    John Mulder commented

    Please ensure that adequate parking within the property for vehicles as the rear access lane is in constant use and directly opposite is a 3 car garage with 3 vehicles that are in constant use,,,,also these accesses need to be kept clear during costruction..also excess rain water will have to be drained to barrenjoey road as there is a garage at 36 banksia street that is already subject to flooding and any more water into that property would be devistatiing to the people that live there
    May be advisable to put no standing signs in the lane from the boundary 25 / 27 barrenjoey rd to the boundary 35 / 37 barrenjoey rd just to keep access for the vehicles that are parked within there own properties in this area,,,just in this area there are at least 9 vehicles parked that turn into the lane

  19. In Arncliffe NSW on “Proposed demolition,...” at 96 - 102 Princes Highway, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Yumeng Wang commented

    Hello, i am writing to express my concern about this development. I am concerned about increase in traffic on local streets, lack of street parking, reduced sunlight, reduced privacy, crowding, over development.

    The development is of a scale and size that will have detrimental impacts to the livelihood and amenity of this area. Already Wolli Creek and Arncliffe are suffering from overdevelopment and a complete transformation of its demographic character and streetscape.

    The development will add more cars to the road. Parking and traffic along Kyle street is already terrible. There no car spots available during certain times of the day along Kyle street, Duncan street and Charles Street. This develop will make this situation worse.

    The development will block sunlight entering my apartment in the winter months. The building will block all direct light. Forcing over reliance on heaters.

    People in the apartment will also be able to see directly into my apartment, bedroom and bathroom. It will result in a complete loss of privacy.

    This area is already suffering from overcrowding. The train station is packed during peak hour. Parks and shops are packed and the roads are clogged with cars.

  20. In Elsternwick VIC on “Existing permit allows: A...” at 233-235 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    Lars T. Holden commented

    What part of 'Elsternwick VILLAGE' concept does council, and particularity greedy developers, not understand? All these current individuals (some of whom operate or attempt to operate under the cover of secrecy) are responsible for the total destruction of the fabric of what the term VILLAGE stands for. These anonymous multi-storey structures that house further anonymous occupants, more often than not, of the 'short-term stay/rental' variety, add absolutely nothing to the so-called VILLAGE environment. These anonymous individuals are observed walking the streets without making eye-contact, without speaking, apart of course from ordering the take-away cafe-latte, and/or taking delivery of take-away meals from the 'ladies and gentlemen' on their numerous motor-scooters. Yes indeed, the FABRIC is torn and virtually irreparable. Adding insult to injury is the impost of greedy developers who consistently insult every constituent of this locale by applications to reduce the car parking requirements. Current council members and so-called 'developers' have nothing whatsoever to be proud of; they will in the future be ridiculed and condemned for their short-sighted and ignorant attitude. They will only held in contempt for their obvious pursuit of the omnipresent DOLLAR above all else.

  21. In Wantirna VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 40 Greenock Crescent, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Beryl Anderson commented

    Please,please,please change my house number from 61 to 55 !
    I have made this request several times.

  22. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 235 Canadian Bay Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tony Laurent commented

    The John Woodman saga has grown like a cancer. We can now read how the Cranbourne area was rezoned as residential, and land values skyrocketed overnight.

    Councillors all over the Melbourne region have clearly had their snouts in the pig's trough. Disgusting.

    There needs to be an urgent inquiry into all major planning permits o these last 10 years. A third party inquiry in which we the residents can have some confidence. And councillors need to be audited forensically and very thoroughly - change in ATM and card usage habits, luxury overseas holiday, new pools/house extensions, et etc..

  23. In Austral NSW on “Development Application -...” at 95-105 Seventeenth Avenue Austral NSW 2179, Australia:

    Mary grech commented

    It doesn’t make sense to develop any more schools in the area until 15 th Ave is upgraded. 15th Ave is so congested at children pick up and drop off times now. How many schools of the same religious education do we need in this locality?

  24. In Goodwood SA on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 12 Erskine Street, Goodwood 5034, SA:

    Leah commented

    Another heritage property up for demolition? This is a disgrace. The property was bought a year ago, only to be demolished. Buildings like this are a part of our collective history - which we all have stake in. Knocking them down erases this history one by one and detracts from the character of the neighbourhood of Goodwood. This demolition should not be allowed. Heritage properties should be retained as contributory items. Or - Goodwood, another concrete box for you.

  25. In Austral NSW on “Development Application -...” at 95-105 Seventeenth Avenue Austral NSW 2179, Australia:

    Rashika commented

    There is a lot of congestion on 15th Avenue because of Unity Grammer School, all the parents dropping their kids park in the no parking no stopping zone and create traffic congestion, the proposed site so close to the unity grammer school , I stay up ahead on Sixth Avenue for me to come on 4th Avenue it takes 15 mins sometimes or even more. This choose site is not at all favourable to the local residents.
    Please consider this.Regards

  26. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 234 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Zoe Anderson commented

    Seriously Moreland Council. 35 dwellings on this size block? Your planners must have the worst nights sleep destroying our local municipality like this. Shame, shame, shame!

  27. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 79 Bransgrove Road, Revesby NSW 2212:

    Alison Miller commented

    I live in 88 Bransgrove Rd Revesby diagonally opposite this proposed development. This has always been a busy, accident prone spot. The peak hours traffic has exploded since we got traffic lights and medium density homes. We had no signs on this corner til after seven deaths in the 60s/70s,we got give ways then stop signs. I've lived here since 1957.
    If this building is built, the drop off and pickups and onsite parking and local parking will impact on the park called Johnson Reserve which is used thrice weekly by schools and sport's clubs.
    Also trying to pull out into traffic or turning against out would be lethal as Queen St is very narrow at that point.
    Having lived here so long and knowing that there's a child care centre half a block away in Queen St and one on Bransgrove Rd, makes this centre unneeded.
    Also, there already a number of cars and trucks that park there day and night because it's opposite the park so they're not blocking their own drives. There not residents cars but locals.
    Indeed we have had three cars through the brick fence showing the speed and volume of card is no place for young children. Alison Miller

  28. In Burrill Lake NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Princess Av South, Burrill Lake, NSW:

    Tony Rolfe commented

    As a former owner of Edgewater (1993 - 2004), I want to Express my admiration for this development. This 4-star location deserves a 4-star development.

    Concern for the land immediately in front of the existing log wall is misplaced. This area has been used as a footpath since before we bought the motel and no one had any concern then.

    This development will be the gem in Burrill Lake and I urge Council to approve it.

  29. In Tumbi Umbi NSW on “Transitional Group Home and...” at 30 Bakali Road Tumbi Umbi NSW 2261:

    Ian Powell commented

    I understand that these facilities are required but the location of this particular application is not acceptable. I am concerned about the close proximity to a retirement village where there are vulnerable members of the community and I believe the knock on effect could be detrimental to a lot of the residents. Please ensure this application is denied

  30. In West Lakes Shore SA on “Torrens Land Division (1...” at 13 Drysdale Court West Lakes Shore, SA:

    Mervyn Dann commented

    Please consider single storey houses only as I live on the west side of these blocks at number 12a, a 2 storey house would block out all of my daylight from the east side nearly all day because it’s very close to our fence besides the over looking is very undesirable plus we have all new single stories around the crt that have been split from one block to 2 looking well presented and a good streetscape enhancement Thanks for your consideration Merv Dann

This week