Recent comments

  1. In Warradale SA on “Three tow storey row dwellings” at 19 Gardiner Av Warradale:

    Ferna Dawn Harris. commented

    Yes, I don't mind 2 on a block either. I did know and have commented previously about the 7 in Struan Avenue which is horrendous but I didn't know about the 6 next to it. That is completely ridiculous. It reminds me of the terraced houses in England where I have visited because that is how we will end up. They all park their cars in the streets on either side and it is really difficult but they are used to it and give way to others. Somehow I don't think Australians will be so polite. So, somehow, Johanna, I don't think we will get any replies from the not very polite Marion Council.

  2. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Walter Hill commented

    A complete obliteration of Upper North Shore quality of living standards and property..

    A final nail in the coffin of the previous lifestyle enjoyed on the Upper North Shore.

    We are rapidly gaining an overcrowded down market people environment with English

    rarely heard in Wahroonga, and townhouses full of refugees from the lower North and

    Inner West of Sydney.

  3. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 325 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mario Milici commented

    Can you please confirm that this permit amendment 'for the serving of alcohol' is only limited to the site previously known as 27 Wilson ave, now the rear of 325 Barkly st and NOT the whole development zone known as 'The Jewell Precinct'?
    The application contains several elements that are confusing inc
    - incorrect elevation drawings (Shown is the Union St site yet to be commenced)
    - 1 floor plan that shows a small area (27 wilson ave) and another showing the whole site
    - no advertising requirement...or notification to local business and residences


  4. In Hamlyn Terrace NSW on “5 lot subdivision & small...” at 38 Caravel Street Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Sam commented

    I echo the above comments and would like to add that the only reasons we chose to move to Hamlyn terrace is due to the open feel of the area and not to face the cramped townhouses/ multi story cramped apartments causing lots of grief for the resident who wanted to move out of the inner city chaos.So pls let stay this area open and airy as is, to not to let the quality of life to go down like its happening all over in Sydney city. Sydney city has enough space/places to have the multi rise apartments.

    Guys I'm ready to sign a petition to take it to the authorities if that's what it takes to stop such subdivisions. Pls pls don't let these guys ruin our pristine Central Coast, famous for its openness and tranquil environments..

  5. In Cammeray NSW on “Rear 2 Storey addition...” at 69 Pine Street, Cammeray NSW 2062:

    Amanda Judd commented

    Please note that this address is Pine Street East.

  6. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Georgie Napier commented

    On this part of Canterbury Road a development of this size is outrageous!!
    This should not have even been allowed an application!
    This is the suburbs, keep Surrey Hills that way! Build the new Melbourne City in Box Hill NOT Surrey Hills!

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

    W Z commented

    Problem with the developments at Wolli Creek, Canterbury Road and so many other places, is that there doesn't seem to have been any long term planning in the first place. Development starts with a few apartments which the existing infrastructure can cope with but then another piece of land becomes available, get's bought by a developer who puts up more apartments and in no time the infrastructure is swamped. There is a distinct lack of foresight from local and state governments into what kind of city we want to create for the future. The same goes for the rest of the state too.

  8. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 9 x TREE...” at 34 Boronia Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Kath Lee commented

    There is a DA (DA/769/2018) for both 32 & 34 Boronia Ave to build a day surgery. This tree removals are to facilitate the above DA. I OBJECT to both the DA and this tree permit as I do not see the need for removing trees given those trees are "good". We need the shade, air. We human are smart enough to incorporate nature into plans. Parramatta Council has agreed to cut down 5 trees including 1 on nature strip on my street recently citing "it is in the public interest" when easily the architects could plan around it. Therefore I OBJECT to removing all unnecessary trees.

  9. In St Leonards NSW on “Rezoning Review of North...” at 601 Pacific Highway St Leonards:

    Simon Lai commented

    I object to this planning proposal as there are already too many apartment buildings being built in St Leonards. Increasing the height at this site is unnecessary and would negatively impact liveability. This decision would be motivated purely by greed for money.

  10. In Parramatta Park QLD on “Combined Application...” at 7 Denbeigh Street Parramatta Park QLD 4870:

    Meredith Cunningham wrote to local councillor Richie Bates

    I wholeheartedly believe that the demolition of the cottages in Denbeigh Street should not have occurred. I actually recently walked through the highset cottage which was demolished and I cannot understand how this demolition can have been allowed. If every old Queenslander in Parramatta Park and Cairns North is subject to the testing that the engineers who compiled the report theoretically relied on, we will have no heritage or historical buildings left.

    The complete lack of community consultation in these matters is disgraceful. I have video footage of the demolition of one of the houses and it is guttung. Denbeigh Street is a character precinct street and demolition of these houses is disturbing. We cannot get our heritage back once destroyed and Cairns’ heritage belongs to all of the community, not just a few developers.

    Photo of Richie Bates
    Richie Bates local councillor for Cairns Regional Council
    replied to Meredith Cunningham

    Hi Meredith,

    Thanks for contracting me about this. I shall follow up and respond.



  11. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 12 Raniga Drive Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Auxiarrliary unit is only another way of increasing density,
    Dont risk it bellbirdians,It is the first step to a duplex which MUST be stopped,

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

    Jane C commented

    I support this application as it is the same for Woolworths. Perhaps restrict deliveries to between 7am and 7pm so sleep of residents isn’t disturbed. We live in a busy urban area and I would say that the train line and highway are noisier than a few delivery trucks. Bigger issue is rat running traffic on Arncliffe St - we need a better traffic management plan for the whole precinct including Discovery Point roads around the Wolli Creek station!

  13. In Peats Ridge NSW on “DESIGNATED/INTEGRATED...” at 1411 Peats Ridge Road, Peats Ridge NSW 2250:

    Andrew Nicholas commented

    This proposed development is massive. Over 1 million birds per year! the area is already saturated with chicken "farms' with the associated stench, dust and huge B doubles racing each other all to the detriment of others. It's now unpleasant to visit this once peaceful, pleasant area has become a nightmmare for residents and tourist alike. There are already too many of these factories which belong on poorer quality land away from less invasive farming and those who want to enjoy a rural ambient quality of life.

  14. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Clare Buckley commented

    Hold on to your hats folks!
    This is just the beginning of uncontrolled high rise multi dwelling buildings which will make living and working in Boroondara unbearable.
    Anyone who voted for the State Labor Party in the recent elections with Richard Wynne as the planning minister who is hell bent on destroying the leafy eastern suburbs, only has himself/herself to blame.
    This State government is undoing the residential zoning which Boroondara Council hitherto applied to our streets in order to preserve neighbourhood character and limit building heights.
    What can be done to stop this madness ?

  15. In Hamlyn Terrace NSW on “5 lot subdivision & small...” at 38 Caravel Street Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Adel Firth-Mason commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I concur with Daniel with his concerns on the future of this new subdivision.
    While affordable housing appears a priority in the area, it helps no one to create ghetto areas within previously zoned residential areas with larger land and home size. Our home values will be reduced, and the increased population in these small streets will place on overload on other infrastructures, and create an unsafe aspect with a multitude of cars in narrow streets.
    I do ask that while Council is keen to make profits, and generate affordable housing, that it consider existing residents by therefore reconsidering your built up regions elsewhere than Hamlyn Terrace.

  16. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 8 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    john o'leary commented

    interesting to say the least ..... as per recent examples, a secondary dwelling is not required to provide commensurate access for parking & indeed in this case consumes most of the existing primary dwelling's parking (the balance of which can only be accessed by gate / tree removal & a relocated invert over / across the street's primary swd inlet outside the property ... despite the claims of the SEE clause 3.1.5 which fails to mention any of this).

    unlike recent development on webb road where even the existing had no off-street parking before a secondary dwelling (with no further parking) was added & that is now further complicated by an opposite development at a "constricted / ill-aligned intersection" at least here there remains a modicum of on street parking way from intersections & other access for the owners & their new tenants.

  17. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 6 Edith Street Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Donna Coombes commented

    I have been a resident of Edith Street for 46 years. This is a quiet residential st, over the last few years the increased traffic from the University has reached an all time high, add to this the parking issues with school drop offs and pick ups in the afternoon. Most time getting in and out of the street is a nightmare. We already have two boarding houses in Manning Street and one on the corner of Edward and Manning Street. That particular intersection is an accident waiting to happen. At times the car there parked so close to the corner you cannot see oncoming traffic.
    Are these buildings boarding homes or half way house?
    In closing Edith Street does not need another boarding house or 13 extra cars.
    Regards Donna Coombes
    18 Edith Street
    Kingswood. 2747

  18. In Peats Ridge NSW on “DESIGNATED/INTEGRATED...” at 1411 Peats Ridge Road, Peats Ridge NSW 2250:

    Helen Nicholas commented

    I have had the pleasure of regularly visiting & staying in the area of Peats Ridge . It is a naturally pristine environment & an attractive destination to those who live on the central coast & Sydney. The allowance of rapid expansion of factory farming by the Central Coast Council in the area displays an utter disregard to residents & visitors who should be able to rely on the Council to protect their constituents & the environment before big business. It begs the question as to where the Councils allegiances lie... do the right thing Central Coast Council (Gosford) don’t put profit before your costituents.

  19. In Peats Ridge NSW on “DESIGNATED/INTEGRATED...” at 1411 Peats Ridge Road, Peats Ridge NSW 2250:

    Shannon Fitzgerald commented

    I am a regular visitor to the beautiful area of Peats Ridge. The Chicken farms reek, creating a vast catchment of poluted air. The smell makes me question the safety of the air I breathe when visiting. I am shocked and appalled by the flaccid government bending to corporate interests whilst forsaking that of their constituents and visitors.

  20. In Peats Ridge NSW on “DESIGNATED/INTEGRATED...” at 1411 Peats Ridge Road, Peats Ridge NSW 2250:

    Christina Kelly commented

    The environmental impact and damage posed by the expansion of the chicken sheds within the area is highly concerning. There are proven health and environmental risks which are extremely concerning for residents.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 9 x TREE...” at 34 Boronia Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    I object to the removal of these 8 trees which includes high value indigenous trees. I observed 32 Boronia Avenue from the street today and could not see any broken roof tiles. The trees requested for removal are not touching the building at 32 Boronia Avenue and do not appear to be causing any damage. The removal of these trees, for the reasons given, is contrary to the City of Parramatta Council DCP 2011 and cannot be justified.
    The arborist report (28/09/2018) for the DA at 32-34 Boronia Avenue identifies trees 5, 6, 7 and 9 to be structurally 'good'. It is unlikely these trees structural strength would have changed so significantly in the short time since the September report. I note a subsequent arborist's report is not evident on the website. There are also no engineer or building reports to back up the allegations of the trees causing damage. Without these reports the allegations of the trees causing damage seems subjective and without sufficient evidence.
    The arborist report also identifies tree 5 as a spotted gum to consider retention and tree 8 as a lemon scented gum to also retain. These 2 indigenous trees should be protected.
    Please consider that these trees form a grove between the two houses for which there is a Development Application and this tree permit application is to help facilitate the approval of the DA. The previous DAs have been refused. It would not be in the public interest if these trees were permitted to be removed only to find the current DA is also refused. The trees would have then been removed for no reason.
    It will significantly change the streetscape if these trees are removed. The trees are needed to keep the area cooler and for Epping's wildlife. Tree 8, a Lemon Scented Gum is a bountiful source of food during the winter months for Epping's birdlife.
    Please refuse this tree removal application.

  22. In Preston VIC on “ePathway” at 11 Avondale Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Adrian D'Amico commented

    Plans for 3 double storey townhouses on a approx. 450sq block! Far too many. All three units build to the boundary, with the rear two taking up the complete width of the property and facing Sinnot Street. There are currently no houses facing Sinnot St from Avondale Rd, no footpath, no provision for visitor parking on that side of the road.

    The shadow diagrams show shading to the west to adjacent house living areas for most of the morning, and to the east blocks solar panels in the afternoon.

    Does not fit the character of the street which is single storey, free standing 1930's to 50's houses. All with clear set back from neighbouring properties.

    Other developments in the area have fewer properties for the same size land, and they have better clearance to neighbouring properties. This is a quiet street, not a main road or corner block, and should not be filled with double storey units.

  23. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 325 Barkly Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Marianbe commented

    This is over limit
    Too big too high for this street
    Get real- this overcrowding overdevelopment is ruining / slumming our inner city big time

  24. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Rodger commented

    We need again to look at the proposal to make old mans valley ,valley road a gated community, top of Pretoria parade Gated, top of Rosemead Gated , we don't want that type of development hear keep it in the Train station Westfield part of Hornsby .

  25. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Laura becerra commented

    At last! A business like this will be great for diamond creek! It will lift the profile of the area. Fully support it.

  26. In Launceston TAS on “Resource Processing -...” at 29-45 William Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Susan McClarron commented

    I cannot work out from the online plans which 2 buildings are to be demolished. Could you please clarify?

  27. In Parramatta Park QLD on “Combined Application...” at 7 Denbeigh Street Parramatta Park QLD 4870:

    Jeremy Collingwood wrote to local councillor Cathy Zeiger

    this development should have never been allowed . if people are given the chance these iconic workers cottages would have been done up an they should be given first option .. how are developers allowed to demolish these beautiful homes with a dodgy pest inpection an engineering report ? and very slyly the demolition may i add.. Where is the protection of these homes gone.
    This is the 6 th home in 2 blocks to disappear from history in the last 18 months. if it carrys on there will be nothing left.
    Stop the demolition!

    Delivered to local councillor Cathy Zeiger. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Sawtell NSW on “Subdivision-Non Strata - 57...” at Sawtel Road Tormina NSW 2452:

    Morris & Elayne Hamilton commented

    We do not live as close ( Corrigan Avenue ), as some others who have commented on this proposed development, but have driven around the Hi-tech Industrial Estate to examine the likely environmental impact, we are concerned that the Coffs Harbour City Council is not being "upfront", as it appears that this "Proposal" has been on the "books" since 2015.

    Having been an Environmental & Planning Officer in Local Government for several Country Councils over 30 years - retired for the past 24 years - a development of this size in my opinion, is totally out of character with Council's Policy of a "Koala Management Plan", let alone the impact upon the "local biodiversity" of the area.

    The current Hi-tech Industrial Estate is well "screened" at this time with minimal impact on the area, both "visually" and "sound wise" and should remain so.

    We are extremely concerned that this "Proposal" is an attempt to be "pushed-through", and should never at this stage of being considered by the Land and Environment Court.

    We are therefore strongly against the Proposed Development, certainly in it's current form.

    Morris & Elayne Hamilton.

  29. In Willoughby NSW on “Request to remove 3 trees...” at 203 Mowbray Road Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    David Grover commented

    These trees are a significant feature of the streetscape of Mowbray Road. The larger tree could be lopped rather than removed.
    If removal is permitted, suitable replacement trees should be required to be planted within a defined timeframe.

  30. In Saint Peters NSW on “To fit-out and use Suite...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Kate Hafey commented

    Maniax is a great business. We've been there for several social events and the sessions have always been run very responsibly. There is a full safety demonstration before the session proceeds and they don't allow players to participate under the influence of alcohol, etc.

    Aside from the casual just-for-fun sessions, they also have axe-throwing competition sessions – if you've ever observed this in action you'd know it definitely is a form of sport.

    Maniax also gives back to the community, donating vouchers to organisations such as our local public school for fundraising raffles.

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