Recent comments

  1. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 307 Lane Cove Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Michelle commented

    Blocking out the one open view of Lane Cove National Park with an 18 storey building is hardly the right balance between residential and corporate use of land. For the residential apartments in Macquarie Gardens who are sharing the view of the Lane Cove National Park, it would mean having sunlight blocked out by the 18 storey building forever, especially those in the lower floors which already have daylight compromised by growing gum trees in the complex. I am all for city development but the right balance and fairness to existing residential dwellers’ environmental well-being have to take priority. It would only be justifiable and a right balance to limit the proposed building height as with the other low rise buildings (not more than 6 storey) along Lane Cove Road. As well, with a high rise corporate building, the traffic at the Fontenoy Rd and Lane Cove Rd intersection would be much busier than it is already now. Great news that Eden Garden is expanding and it is welcomed but only if it does not disrupt the well-being of the residents of Macquarie Gardens whom will be directly impacted by an 18 storey building.

  2. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Ana commented

    Although I think that it is great that a health facility is being built in the area as it is sorely needed, and would be great if it was open Sunday (and this one seems to have some parking!), the building in itself is awful. It looks cheap and does not in any way fit in with the surrounding area, especially those blue bricks. What are they thinking. Bet this thing gets passed. As it state on page 39 of Appendix I - Built Heritage Assessment_PAN-825243MB "The screening of the building by the existing vegetation, proposed to be retained, will assist in minimising its visual impact" - Let's hope so. And it does in no way fit in with the surrounding terraces. Back to the drawing board I hope.

  3. In North Sydney NSW on “To modify Consent No 69/18...” at 4 Carlow Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Maria commented

    STOP PATHWAYS building multi-storey aged care facilities. This is not the way we should treat the people that have tirelessly looked after us growing up. They deserve open spaces to roam freely. Haven’t we learnt from covid, that high rise blocks are a death trap?

  4. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Mary Fletcher commented

    Bill Bourke, I completely agree with you. It’s just a pity that the GCCC doesn’t abide by their own rules and decisions. As many have said we aren’t against developments but they should be made to adhere to The Councils own Plan. When is the next election!!!!!

  5. In Scarborough WA on “Residential - Two Grouped...” at 324 West Coast Highway Scarborough WA 6019:

    joey eichorn commented

    Hello, I'd like to know more information about what is being considered for construction at this site please. I'm interest to learn how this will impact my view of the beautiful beach.
    Thank you.

  6. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Longtime patron commented

    TOTALLY agree with ND - will the selfish people who think only their opinion matters, stop trying to intimidate others. Sick of the self-evident self-promotion by breeders who clearly feel they've moved in and no one else matters. And while we're on the topic of anti-social selfish conduct - the footpath is for public use - not for private use.

  7. In Rose Bay NSW on “Remove one (1) Brushbox...” at 13 Onslow Street Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Em Hughes commented

    I do not believe trees should be removed without an appropriate reason.

  8. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    ND commented

    While I support this application it’s disappointing to see some of the remarks directed at someone simply for expressing their view. Please be mindful that this is consultation process, and residents have the right to voice their concerns.

    It is true that pedestrian access can be difficult at times, however the planning document notes the the impact of COVID restrictions which has made indoor dining untenable for this small (but much loved) business. Hopefully the widening of Arden St pathways around the school will help ease the congestion in peak times, slow traffic and help alleviate some of the concerns.

  9. In Shorncliffe QLD on “Material Change of Use - St...” at 26 Pier Ave Shorncliffe QLD 4017:

    Michael Biggers commented

    This application looks to extend the oval space for the college. With the huge and often inconsiderate expansion of the school, noise levels from the current oval have increased considerably to the detriment of the neighbours on Yundah St. This crowded oval is used from 6.30 am until late evening daily, including Saturdays as well. An expansion of this oval will create a much larger volume of loud noise to further affect these residents. Part of this proposal needs to include upgrading the entire wire boundary fence on Yundah St, to a solid sound barrier type of fencing, to at least a 2-3 metre height and control some of this noise. Considering the ever expanding college footprint on the area and the increased noise produced, it is a necessity to mitigate some of this to be fair on the residents that live here as well.
    Regards

  10. In Tamarama NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Silva Street Tamarama NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    Demolition, Car lift , car stacker, tree removal ??? Words fail me , surely the application should be denied.

    There have been incidents recently of subsidence due to excavation on what are effectively sand dunes.
    This block appears to have many well established trees that cannot be sacrificed for car stackers and swimming pools.

  11. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Bill Bourke commented

    The town plan is a joke any applicant can get a 50% uplift approved even if they don’t meet the criteria. The whole thing is a joke just to raise high density to justify the light rail.

  12. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Trudi Jenkins commented

    I completely agree with Sarah Reyes’ comments - the design aesthetic around this area of Zetland including the very ugly panelled apartment building opposite this planned building is horrendous and dated before it’s finished. Like cheap Lego buildings. Can we have a greener, more sustainable, organic look to these new buildings? Something that won’t look cheap and tired in moments.

  13. In Taylors Lakes VIC on “Use of the land for a place...” at 3 / 35 Melton Highway Taylors Lakes, VIC:

    John C Connor commented

    This is a horrible idea

    Taylors Lakes, and the surrounded areas, is a family friendly suburb, full of primary and secondary schools, and even a huge retirement village not that far from the proposed permit's address. Children literally will walk pass this venue every day after school, and see a venue full of people smoking and drinking alcohol at the front. It will devalue the shopping centres and the houses in the suburb.

    If this is the vibe Brimbank City Council wants near Watergardens, Taylor Lakes Shopping Centre, Lakeside Reception Centre, The Lakes Retirement Village, CRC Sydenham, etc, then the next council election will be very interesting.

  14. In Artarmon NSW on “Request to rmove one (1)...” at 5 Stafford Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Susan Livingston commented

    A beautiful Australian landmark tree that enhances the streetscape. Could careful pruning address the issue rather than removal?

  15. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 14 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Kate Tynan commented

    There are a number of substantial trees on this property that should not be removed.
    Three townhouses on a 747 square block is an overuse of the land. There is also an issue around the driveways for these units. There are already a number of units on the opposite side of the road which would be extremely hazardous. Anfield court cannot sustain any more driveways either. There seems to be very little consideration for parking
    $750,000 does not seem a reasonable figure for this size of development. I feel they will look cheap and devalue the area

  16. In Gisborne VIC on “Subdivision of the Land...” at 39 Willowbank Road Gisborne VIC 3437:

    Annette Papax commented

    This was to be expected in a growth region but so sad to witness the building of Housing Developments that move in & carelessly demolish an environment with complete disregard. We are not a suburb & yet this once lovely green field dotted with Eucalyptus & indigenous plants is quickly being marketed as ‘close to the a new Aldi’ & other conveniences. What happened to fresh air & open green spaces? Why is the MRS Council allowing such congested urbanisation to continue & where is the additional Freeway entrance for excess traffic? Where is the waterway & tree protection monitor & what has happened to caring, environmentally conscious infrastructure? A dirt mound & low rise fence at the freeway side is really short of attractive. We have a huge resource problem & this is being shamefully overlooked, making way for economic compromises. Very sad. Where we used to be a wonderfully green & popularly treed regional town that offered a variety of shops & good food we are quick becoming characterless with a whole lot of litter to spread around. We have overheard residents from further afield glad that it’s happening to Gisborne & not impacting on Macedon or Riddells or Woodend? From experience it is perhaps just a matter of time.. unless we all stand up & say “No” to the further careless urbanisation of our region.

  17. In Narre Warren VIC on “Variation of Licence” at 14-22 Lauderdale Road, Narre Warren 3805, VIC:

    Anne McCormack commented

    No thanks I believe there is enough gambling and alcohol facilities in my area

  18. In Blacktown NSW on “Trees removal, demolition...” at 291 Flushcombe Road Blacktown NSW 2148:

    Vish commented

    Please dont approve this DA.
    The road is already congested. No more business centres on this street please.
    The traffic is very worrisome during weekdays

  19. In Bronte NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 17 Gordon Place Bronte NSW 2024:

    Concerned resident commented

    Facadism. A previously well renovated house that kept many 120 year old original features to be mostly knocked down except for the front room with not one but two storeys plonked on top. Once upon a time these houses were respected for their heritage, now its anything goes. Soon none will be left. Also the plantings of bushes and plants do not compensate for the removal of mature trees.

  20. In North Sydney NSW on “To modify Consent No 69/18...” at 4 Carlow Street, North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Niall d'Christopher commented

    In a municipality that is required by the NSW Government to increase the resident population by 15,000 in the next decade there are several ways to achieve that before the state government takes over planning approvals in North Sydney.

    One way is to build massive towers like those that have gone up at Crows Nest (with many more to come there over the Metro Station) North Sydney and Milsons Point. Experience demonstrates that the open outdoor space available for current and anticipated residents falls way short of the standards recommended and significantly under the average open space across Greater Metropolitan Sydney. For instance, between the Harbour and North Sydney Oval there is more indoor seating than there is outdoor space/seating.

    Another way to accept another 15,000 residents is to allow current residents to add small units on top of their existing garages; many of which would have a small outdoor area for these new residents.

    Spreading the load, and therefore the impact, across the whole of the municipality will protect much of the village nature that characterises many suburbs in the municipality and at the same time provides less impact on the outdoor open areas that currently exist.

    The alternative? Massive high rise apartment blocks like the 37 storey building in Crows Nest and the approved 55 storey building in North Sydney. Overshadowing of properties throughout the municipality; creating wind tunnels like those that currently occur around the North Sydney CBD; grossly overcrowding some local open air outdoor spaces in areas such as Crows Nest, North Sydney itself and Milsons Point. Sharing the impact of accommodating 15,000 more residents across the municipality will more likely deliver the commUNITY we need. So no more of the NIMBY whining, the reality is change here is inevitable and we need to embrace it. If we don't that governments will take control and we ALL know what property developers want (and seem to be getting at the moment) and how they support political parties to get it.

    No 'Mascot Towers, or Opal Buildings. No more NIMBY guff. Embrace the change that is up us and CONTROL if for everyone in the commUNITY.

  21. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 13 Edward Street, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Danielle Mack commented

    Susan there are others standing up to fight it too. Are you on FB? A post was shared last week with details of a group who are trying to organise a meeting with concerned residents. I can't post their private contact details here though, I'm not sure how to get them to you. I received a letter from the developer's lawyers last week with amendments they've made but the shear size is just so inappropriate for this location. I just hope council win when it is heard at VCAT but I'm with you there should of been no right to appeal!

  22. In Machans Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 79-81 Tucker Street Machans Beach QLD 4878:

    Sam Stevens commented

    This is not in the zoning so no. This would be a horrible impact on the machans community.

  23. In Bolwarra Heights NSW on “Two semi-attached dwellings...” at 59 Stayard Drive Bolwarra Heights NSW 2320:

    Reanna commented

    Just wondering why the surrounding neighbours weren’t notified about the proposed dwelling

  24. In Cronulla NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 138 Cronulla Street Cronulla NSW 2230:

    Sandra White commented

    I know it’s too late...this is a done deal. I’m disappointed that a pub of all things is going to be built here. The RSL is across the other side of the park! This park is a haven for families and very unique in an ever expanding Cronulla.
    I’m just very, very sad that soon Cronulla is going to lose its heart and soul for ever.

    Please could you put the brakes on after this? Please please please don’t let Cronulla become a Surfers Paradise. The little seaside town and its links with the past is what people come to visit. Big pubs, big buildings, big problems we don’t want!

    So disappointed with you all. 😭

  25. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a multi...” at 14 Rotherwood Drive, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Jenny commented

    Under no circumstances should Council approve yet another construction of three Townhouses, these are my reasons.
    There are several significant trees that must be protected from the overuse of land considering its size and this proposal. Additionally, there would be concerns for the neighbourhood character adding to the already damaging construction of the same directly opposite through its visual bulk, concrete jungle, and inferior appearance! I would hardly expect that $750,000 would bring forth a quality build and just as the property opposite has, will further cheapen the area devaluing the surrounding properties. I also have concerns over how this development will affect drainage in the area, both Anfield Court and Rotherwood Drive have seen its fair share of issues with Council drains over the years!
    This will also generate more traffic, and therefore a potential hazard having these two properties opposite, that is a most likely 12 vehicles coming and going at all hours between them which will also generate more noise disturbance and during the night-time will also cause a disturbance through headlights shining into homes and will feel more like a major road we are living in, than that of a supposed quiet residential street, additionally it will be a nightmare on bin collection days! I also have concerns over parking, which is already limited, and just to accommodate three townhouses, this will result in further parking being reduced for the allocation of vehicle crossovers.

  26. In Labrador QLD on “Combined Application...” at 52 Harris Street, Labrador QLD 4215:

    Helly Watson commented

    Don't permit the building of this structure at 52 Harris St, Labrador.
    Please, seriously reconsider the logic, & practical implications of erecting a building of this size. Examine the green belt, which local ratepayers contribute too & support. We encourage, nurture & protect local species & provide water & shelter for fauna & flora.
    Every person on the Save Our Suburbs site is gravely concerned about maintaining the safety, privacy, integrity & serenity of our homes & our neighbours' homes. We value our own privacy & our friendships with each other. We choose to live in Labrador for the many beauties that it offers. All of which will disappear if our Suburb is raped & pillaged by a greedy, pimping Council.
    The GCCC is one of the richest in Australia!! I fear that Tom Tate is a dangerous, greedy & self-serving narcissist, who obviously doesn't have the very real concerns of the community, whom he is supposed to serve, at heart. Otherwise, he would pay heed to our words.
    He seems yo be feathering his own nest & allowing greed to rule sound decision making. There's nothing wrong with wanting a financially secure future, but you don't do it by robbing your constituents, friends & neighbours of their peace of mind, regarding the beauty, safety & security of their homes. Or by promoting high population concentrations in peaceful suburbs.
    I've said before, & I'll say it again. The height of buildings should follow the lay of the land. Low rise to the coast, high at the hills. We preserve views for everyone. We prevent wind tunnelling which coastal high rises create, we prevent reflected heat & glare of hectares of windows...it goes on & on.
    By providing adequate parking &/or transport to the many beauty spots out GC has to offer, this allows everyone to enjoy our beautiful GC home. There is an abundance of cleared land on the GC, already available for building, & an abundance of homes available for sale or rent.

  27. In Kilsyth VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 178 Cambridge Road, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Ms Kim McKay commented

    More subdivisions of corporate terrorism hell on the face of Mt Dandenong Ranges "CATCHMENT" lands... We are about to serve and arrest every local council, mayor, real estate with war crimes, embezzlement, corporate terrorism, aiding and abetting invasions into Australia being a war zone for 21 years, for embezzling to foreign agents and operating as foreign agents breaching our nation's security. So all planning, embezzlement sales, squatters in protected, moratorium restricted area's will be removed under compulsory acquisition and you all will be footing the bill to repay them all if they personally actually paid you for squatting. In war it is NOT ESTABLISHMENT it means WE DEMOLITION AND EVERY ROAD AND REVEGITATE IT. Also every poached, murdered, species in the trillions and every tree stolen, charges also, now that's the death penalty in Australia!

  28. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Steve P commented

    Yes, the more action the better, just do it. That area needs a little brightening up anyway.

  29. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 38 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Tracey Langridge commented

    It will be disappointing to see another high density development on this road. The road and residents will not cope with the traffic. Street parking will make it a one lane road.

  30. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Sarah Reyes commented

    It will be so wonderful to have this Health Clinic! The blue bricks however are a miss for me. Given that Green Square is becoming a beautiful green space perhaps we can keep the aesthetics in keeping with that theme or the surrounding buildings, which use lovely organic looking brick work or wood panelling. Also given the cladding is quite jarring it would be nice to balance this with a softer looking brick / rock / wood aesthetic.

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