Recent comments

  1. In Matraville NSW on “Use of premises as...” at 16 - 20 Beauchamp Road, Banksmeadow NSW 2019:

    Ian commented

    Residental areas and their health are to be considered before industry.
    We do not need more container Depots especially Fumigation in a residetial area
    This DA must not be approved!

  2. In Bronte NSW on “Remove one (1) Acacia tree,...” at 17 Brae Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    John S. Batts commented

    I wonder if this DA has an Arborist's Report recommending removal of the tree. Further, I would like to know if pruning has been considered as an alternative in this instance. Though acacias have been regarded as weed trees, they nonetheless contribute to the local green canopy, the percentage of which Waverley Council is committed to increasing in coming years.

  3. In Clyde VIC on “Urban Design Framework” at Clyde Major Town Centre (North-West Corner of Ballarto Road & Tuckers Road, Clyde), VIC:

    Sabawoon commented

    Hi this is Sab here. I have heard of the new Westfield Shopping centre will be built in Clyde North within years. I would be very interested in operating a small business in the shopping centre.
    I might be in the wrong page and i do apologise about that, it would be highly appreciated if i can get the right point of contact such as email.


  4. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 5 Oliphant Av Oaklands Park:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    I believe City of Marion has no say in this whatsoever!!!! Just keep putting everyone into little boxes and surround us with more cars and garbage bins! The city planners are ruining our way of life. We are all ignored in our protests.

  5. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Maxine Fowler commented

    What is the council thinking if it allows 5 homes on a block of land that has one house. Banks Road is a narrow rollover curb street. We also have drain covers which get dislodged when cars have to move further off the road because of the narrow road. These buildings are near a very narrow dangerous bend in the road.
    You must keep to the left of the road either way or there could be a head on collision.
    To have 5 houses with at least two cars per house and visitors cars would cause absolute chaos in parking and access to driving down the road. This road had one home per block of land we now have more than one house per block and no consideration is taken for the residents who have lived here as to any obstructions that occur with a new building.

  6. In Umina Beach NSW on “Dwelling” at 5 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Melissa commented

    Dear DA officer.
    There were two substantial trees removed as part of this DA, both Angophora Floribunda, an important tree for local biodiversity and listed as one of the Umina Coastal Sandplain Woodland species. These were once prevalent on the Peninsula but we are losing the last few to development and THEY ARE NOT BEING REPLACED.

    Can you please let me know:
    1. Is Council counting/recording numbers of removed trees?
    2. When will tree removals (as part of DAs) REQUIRE (not request) replacement trees of a similar canopy size and if local providence to be replanted?

    It is unsustainable and, from a planning perspective, irresponsible to allow these valuable trees to be removed without replacement planting. If an Angophora Floribunda can’t fit on the block you can state that 3 x blueberry ash (or a similar medium sized tree) by planted and they can go along the northern boundary.

    The Peninsula is now documented (by an independent study tendered by Council) to be suffering from Urban Heat Island Effect. This means hotter local temperatures that will lead to health issues and more reliance on air conditioning in summer. That and the habitat issue (already mentioned) both warrant strict rules for landscaping as requirements for residential DAs.

    Thank you for considering my comment.

    Melissa Chandler

  7. In Willunga SA on “Land Division - Torrens...” at 9-11 Chapel Street, Willunga SA 5172:

    Ann Wallman commented

    I can’t help but think that the Onkaparinga Council have not got a long term plan for this area including Port Willunga. The charm of the area is rural and historical. Cheek by jowl housing is so out of place in this area!!
    It seems money is the main object with complete lack of thought and foresight into the future. Once this land and other areas are built on they are gone forever! Please see the sensitivity of the area.

  8. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 23C Orchard Street Epping NSW 2121:

    KP commented

    It's a DA to build 2 storey house. That's a good enough reason to knock down tree.

    Not my property and neither am I a developer but will support this one.

  9. In Ryde NSW on “New multi-dwelling housing...” at 20 Forrest Rd Ryde NSW 2112:

    Cassy Norris commented

    This development will be directly opposite Ryde Secondary College, which has 1150 students, at least 7-800 of whom catch the many buses which turn via Forrest into Malvina Street. The rest walk in front of this address before and after school.
    I would like to ensure that the traffic engendered by the construction process addresses the safety of students at Ryde Secondary College, and also considers the impacts of dust on students, many of whom have allergies to dust etc.
    Malvina Street is very narrow, students are often being dropped off and picked up, large buses are often driving along the street and large trucks in this area between 8-9 and 2-4 pm would increase risks to student safety. Other options for entry to the construction site are available.
    Please could staff at Ryde Secondary College be consulted at critical stages of the construction to ensure safety of students, staff and community users?
    There is no objection to the application. We just want the process to incorporate management of any relevant risks to students, staff or visiting hirers or general public ( who use the site on weekends).

  10. In Denistone NSW on “Demolition, tree removal,...” at 68 Denistone Rd Denistone NSW 2114:

    Ruth Perram commented

    This is a beautiful home which clearly has heritage significance as recognised by Ryde City Council. In terms of having maintained its historical architectural integrity and curtilage it is an outstanding example of a home of this period. Its demolition would be a absolute loss to the history of our suburb.

  11. In Boonah QLD on “Food Premises (Business Use)” at 11 Church Street, Boonah QLD 4310:

    Tammy Burns commented

    I agree wholeheartedly with Johanna Powell.
    It would be outstanding if council would approve a 'heritage building' to keep in theme with our country town.

  12. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 23C Orchard Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Julie commented

    All of the tree removals (4 different applications) contain no detail and have no reason given for the tree removal . This lack of transparency always makes one wonder!

  13. In Stanmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 82 Percival Road Stanmore NSW 2048:

    Petra Jones commented

    Can I suggest the installation of security cameras might be a better option than a Juliet balcony to improve laneway security. The purpose of this development needs to be documented, then a restriction put of the title to ensure it is not used for other purposes.The neighbours should be notified as to the purpose once known.

  14. In Boonah QLD on “Food Premises (Business Use)” at 11 Church Street, Boonah QLD 4310:

    Johanna Powell commented

    This application has recently come to my attention. I am a long term, rate paying resident of Boonah and quite frankly, am appalled that a Foodworks may even be considered an appropriate addition to this particular location. The top of town in Boonah has a number of heritage listed and heritage applicable buildings, including the beautiful churches on the left and the right of the street. ( located at 9 and 10 Church Street). The area has been quietly growing as the cultural precinct of the town, with a cultural centre, cinema, an art gallery, a library, a number of cafes and bakeries and a unique event space.
    The owners of the church at 9 Church Street would be negatively impacted by the construction of a Foodworks. They have sensitively restored the building and use the space for creative events including art exhibitions and music performances.
    Hundreds of locals and visitors alike have stuggled to turn safely from Walter Street directly into Church Street. Cars parked on Church St make it very difficult to see oncoming traffic. This corner is notoriously dangerous already and the addition of a poorly designed towering building will only add to the existing safety concerns.
    A few years ago our local IGA underwent a wonderful facelift and now is twice as big, stocking practically everything most families and individuals could ever want or need in relation to food and other necessary items, It also has an impressive solar array that does the town proud. The distance between the 11 Church Street and IGA is 300 metres, a two minute walk. If Boonah did need another food store surely it would make sense to put one on the outskirts of town to support the residents who live further away from the centre.
    Please can the council consider these points (and there are many others in relation to this proposal). We want to see thoughtful, creative and appropriate development of our town.

  15. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Banks Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Ed commented

    Looks like a nice house BUT I don’t agree with the roof terrace at all. It’s basically another full Storey for the house. It’s a 4 storey application, not 3 storey. Yet again people are pushing the envelope with their planning applications trying to get taller and taller buildings. It’s a race to the 5th storey. There should be no “minor structure” on the roof. Apart from the apartment buildings in the area, no one else has been permitted a built up roof terrace like this. Please council turn this down. Show us that the planning regulations actually mean something.

  16. In Mitchell Park SA on “5 Two Storey Row Dwellings...” at 42 Thorne Cr Mitchell Park:

    Carly W commented

    How could you possibly fit 5 x 2 storey houses on a block that isn't even 700 sqm? Car parking in the streets around Quick Rd/Raggatt Cres, are already lined with parked cars from the two storey houses along Quick Rd, making it difficult to get in and out of Raggatt Cres. This many houses on one block will make car parking in that street just as bad.

  17. In Mont Albert VIC on “50 lot subdivision” at 801-805 Whitehorse Road, Mont Albert VIC 3127:

    Moira Mayberry commented

    The City of Whitehorse Strategic Plan proposes reducing the number of traffic lanes on Whitehorse Road. This 50 lot sub division will massively add to the traffic congestion in Box Hill Central and surrounding roads. Are developers rushing in to obtain approvals with the maximum number of apartments before the Strategic Plan is approved?

  18. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    unhappy resident commented

    The scale of the building is not suitable to the surrounding streets of wise and robey, issues for parking as no parking close to this development on robey street and to state they only 7 car places, there is too much drugs and bad behaviour now in maroubra so people coming and going to a boarding house attract the wrong people in a small street
    this area is suitable for single storey house with some garden space
    Boarding house should be built close to main road as it suitable to public transport bus or tram there is too much greed with the developers and no consideration to the area and local people who live here for long time

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

    Kasim commented

    Very good decision which will help local community for the education of their young ones

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 14 Dudley Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    How many more boarding houses can you fit into a suburb?? Only eight car parking spots to cater for 31 bedrooms (four single rooms and twenty- double rooms), a managers room and a commercial tenancy would appear to be insufficient. The 2016 census (for Marrickville) states the average motor vehicle per dwelling is 1.2.

  21. In Highett VIC on “Construction of 3 Double...” at 56 Matthieson Street, Highett, VIC:

    Lesley and Michael Lyons commented

    I'm very concerned about developing 3 double story town houses on a 697 sqm.block.There is a protected gum tree on the block!!!
    Parking is limited to one side of the street and with 3 single units directly across from no.56 the middle unit is unable swing into the garage and that is a small car. We are also concerned with privacy looking into our back yard etc.
    Alot of trees have already been cut down can you let us know which ones are protected?

  22. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    David Foxe commented

    Extending ALDI's trading hours to 10pm will result in an increase in car and foot traffic noise. It is also extremely concerning that ALDI will be able to sell alcohol after 9pm. It appears that ALDI is constantly allowed special considerations that go beyond that of the Discovery Point restaurants and shops—please refer to the previously approved applications. Magdalene Terrace, Mount Olympus Boulevard and surrounding streets are densely surrounded by residential dwellings. Approval of this application will be detrimental to the Wolli Creek community. It is the responsibility of the local council to put the considerations of the community first rather than big businesses.

  23. In Wandin North VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 57 Hunter Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    Mario Canale commented

    I’m next door to this site you want to build I’ve been intense farming for 50 yrs and I don’t know how to change my method of farming to suite a resteraunt let us farmers do our farming and have this car parks and resteraunts in the city where the belong and let the farmers on the land where they belong to farm as this is very intense farming please consider the affect that it will have as my neighbor on my farming business I strongly disagree with any shape or form of any development as a neighbor to me as it will affect my farming business thanks

  24. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Section 4.55(1A)...” at 127 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    OK if there is going to be additional provisions for the additional vehicular traffic that the increase in population this development will incur.
    The Council should indicate what provisions will be made,
    The Council will add to their dollar rate base.

  25. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of two...” at 8 Laura Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mrs Brosca commented

    I was just concerned about the back window of property 8 Laura St Brunswick not being obscure and looking into 9 and 11 Lydia Street Brunswick back yard and living area. When we built we had to have our back window frosted for the privacy of others which I think is more than fair. Hoping that the same applies to 8 Lydia st Brunswick. Would appreciate answer on my concern.

  26. In Vermont South VIC on “Single Dwelling on a Lot...” at 3/7 Hunter Valley Road, Vermont South VIC 3133:

    Androulla Yena commented

    The previous owners of this property applied to Whitehorse Council for a 2 LOT sub-
    division under the NRZ7 zone (area of limited change) and does not specify minimum lot sizes) & a permit was granted - with conditions. However pursuant to this an application for a 4 LOT subdivision was also submitted to council. In the meantime the area had been rezoned NRZ5 (amendment C160 minimal residential development) and was refused by Council and went to VCAT. The argument presented to VCAT was that although the plots fell below the minimal recommended size (328 sqm - 293 sqm -
    239 sqm - 258 sqm) under NRZ5 there was no reference to plot sizes and against this argument a permit was granted by VCAT contrary to Whitehorse Council's refusal, concerns and arguments.

  27. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use to...” at 5-7 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    BIKESydney commented

    Regarding DA D/2019/864

    This DA should be approved on conditions that:

    - the existing footpath in front of the be designated for use as a Shared Path

    - the redevelopment investigate opportunities to clarify the existing footpath of street furniture, including the little (if ever)-used Telstra phone box

    - it being clearly indicated that no vehicle parking is permitted on the path (as commonly happens now). This is even captured on Google Streetview (link below)

    The existing path on the northern side of Henderson Road in this area will be crucial for walking and cycling once the Waterloo Metro Station opens (and also because the Henderson Rd road reserve may possibly be reapportioned in future with changing transport demands).

    Vehicles regularly park illegally on the footpath:,151.198753,3a,75y,320.86h,87.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s589cF8yB4yRKndd7n77ktg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

  28. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Other” at 354 Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park, NSW 2193:

    Nicola Brown commented

    The height of this proposed development is not in keeping with the streetscape for the area. There are already too many new dwellings in the area without any further infrastructure development (for example, no increase in the capacity of local schools). In addition, there are already empty retail outlets in new and existing developments nearby. There seems to be an oversupply already.

  29. In Glebe NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 70 Hereford Street Glebe NSW 2037:

    Carole Knight commented

    Seriously. I want the same. Well, just an attic room, refused 3 times. Why is the DA process of the City of Sydney so random?

  30. In Glebe NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Hegarty Street Glebe NSW 2037:

    Carole Knight commented

    Why can they do this? I am just up the street and can't get an attic room. Something very random in the approvals process of the City of Sydney.

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