Recent comments

  1. In Chatswood NSW on “Convert existing under...” at 455 Victoria Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    Animated/Changing signs are prohibited under Council bylaws within 2 m of frontage of store.
    The application must be declined.

    Further, the recently installed Chemist Warehouse's large LED advertising signage in the front window of their new store on Chatswood Mall is breaching this by-law at present.

    Council recently had Chatswood Hotel remove an animated awning sign from the mall a short distance further up from Chemist Warehouse and replace it with a static one.
    This is an important lifestyle and aesthetic principle long maintained by Council throughout Willoughby City.

  2. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “Community Title Subdivision...” at Ropes Crossing Boulevard Ropes Crossing NSW 2760:

    SOREN HEMINGWAY commented

    Dear sirs,

    Seeing that 5 trees are to be removed can the developer put in 6 or more trees once the site is developed?

  3. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at Lake Macquarie Square 46 Wilsons Road Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Ray commented

    (in response to Donna Cram's comment)
    Donna, as an electrical engineer is the specialist field of earthing and electromagnetism (in Australia's leading organisation in the field) I can assure you that there is no need for concern. Food will not be infected or contaminated, and no-one will get cancer. I know it's tempting to believe some of the 'scary' stories that are thrown around on social media, but they are just that - stories. There is nothing to fear at Mt Hutton.

  4. In Worrigee NSW on “First Occupation & Fit Out...” at 60 Isa Rd, Worrigee, NSW:

    David Bennett commented

    Excellent addition to suburb. With an application for an outdoor dining facility I assume there will be tea/coffee/cakes and the standard hot item s like pies and sausage rolls etc. Maybe even more involved meals. Attendees at the Medical Centre whilst enduring lengthy waits on occasions in addition to local residents, will be able to avail themselves of the Bakery . Maybe a requirement by Council for an awning with pull down when required, clear blinds to ward off the rain and wind would improve the outdoor dining set up immensely.

    PS You may not display the addresses on line but any interested parties may look up phone book for landlines and ascertain addresses with access to person's name. Possibly electoral rolls may be accessed also. Potential problems if some parties are unhappy with comments. By all means request names and addresses but keep NFP.

  5. In Matraville NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 67 Perry Street Matraville NSW 2036:

    Ian Levitt commented

    It is great to see residential growth in Perry St.

    Randwick Council has to approve any request that meets the objectives and planning controls contained in Randwick LEP and the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013,

    (Not like when previous approval has been granted to a Freight Fowarder across the road to expand and cut into public grass land to allow 40 ft container trailer trucks to reverse into a supposidly Drive in Drive out Property)

  6. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 8-10 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Bernie Watson commented

    No more building on Zig Zag Road, it will become too busy and overcrowded!!!! Enough is enough, this is a loved street because it is quite secluded, leave it alone

  7. In Macmasters Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development -...” at 77 Marine Parade, Macmasters Beach NSW 2251:

    Lisa Kane commented

    All this development must stop, this is a quite, small community in no need of these facilities. We live here because there aren't things like this. Somehow someone got away with building a ridiculous enormous house on Gerda Rd, don't let this happen again. None of this fits in with the small village feel of Macmasters Beach. This is a crime, if anything it should be part of the park next to it. How are people going to feel using the park with this looming over the top of them

  8. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at Lake Macquarie Square 46 Wilsons Road Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Donna Cram commented

    Why are these towers placed so close to residential,built up areas or shopping centres,,,where thousands of people commune,,,plus children with their childcare kindergarten...It is a known fact they are a danger to our health,,emitting radiation causing cancers,,,,WHY? I do understand we need them,,,for communication,,,,PUT them up in the hills bushland. Where they are still a danger,,yet with less risk....Even food will be infected at the Lake Fair...Please reconsider this application for all the good health and well-being of Mount Hutton residents and children,,,also the shoppers buying contaminated foods,,let alone their own health in shopping at Lake Macquarie Square,,,, Thanking You. Donna Cram

  9. In Aberfoyle Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 7 Park Avenue, Aberfoyle Park SA 5159:

    Linda Taylor commented

    There is already a well established petrol station in this area. There is no need for an additional petrol station. Additionally, the location proposed is directly adjacent to a roundabout and in the immediate vicinity of two schools. Traffic movements into and out of the petrol station will impact safety of both other vehicles and children going to and from schools.

    The current business at this site (hardware) is the only business of its kind in the Aberfoyle Park/Happy Valley/Flagstaff Hill area and should not be forced out by an unnecessary duplication of a petrol station.

  10. In Aberfoyle Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 7 Park Avenue, Aberfoyle Park SA 5159:

    Kathryn Steadman commented

    We already have one petrol station onkaparinga council please tell me,why we need another so close to our school. Too much traffic already

  11. In Belconnen ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MIXED USE...” at 40 Cameron Avenue, Belconnen, ACT:

    Elizabeth Anne Kilcullen commented

    In view of recent disasters with high-rise buildings, I would be very concerned to see any more high-rise residential blocks built until there are proper construction standards enforced and protections for owners and tenants.

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “Multiple Single Dwellings” at 27 Premier Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    There are no records to review. How many multiple single dwellings will there be on the site? Has parking been factored into the plans? We cannot assess the application without actually seeing the plans!!!!

  13. In Bellmere QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 26 Ellwood Drive, Bellmere QLD 4510:

    Erika Chapple commented

    As Leonie mentioned in her comment it is imperative that any further subdivision in this area carefully considers the impact on native local wildlife including koalas and kangaroos but also the many bird species that proliferate the area.
    Furthermore this is a peaceful neighbourhood and construction noises and the movement of construction vehicles for months and months on end cause locals (both human and animal) disruption, all for an end result of a tasteless brick box that stands out like a sore thumb and would be better suited to one of the many nearby cookie cutter subdivisions.
    Please consider ALL the locals before commencing any works.

  14. In Priestdale QLD on “Commercial - New Amenities...” at Underwood Park 956-1028 Underwood Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Rhy sRyan commented

    I love underwood Park, it would be one of the best Parks and Facilities anywhere in Australia.. Keep up the good work in its development and further improvements. The Dog areas are awesome as well.
    Congratulations to everyone in its design and development.
    Thanks
    Rhys

  15. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Chris commented

    DCC attracting developers by giving two free kicks as incentives. No car parking and no developers contributions and over development further impoverishes the community at the expense of amenity!
    It’s all about amenity!!

  16. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Gore Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Wendi Aylward commented

    I am opposed to the proposed development being considered at 6 Gore St, Arncliffe.

    My objections are:
    - The surrounding structures in the street and area are low density and are designed for families. The proposed development is not in keeping with other properties in the immediate vicinity.
    - the proposed number of tenants shall increase the number of bins in this part of the street to an unworkable number.
    - up to 19 residents could potentially live on the property putting an excessive number of vehicles on the street.

    On the grounds stated above I request that you reject the proposed development.

  17. In Keiraville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 12 Dallas Street, Keiraville NSW 2500:

    Adriana Van Bockel commented

    This is an absolutely ridiculous idea, to have this type of development in this area. This estate is already congested with traffic from University students and local residents looking for parking spots. Many times they're parking illegally along Dallas and Binda St.
    Apparently with only 5 car spots available, they will be on the street. Not a good idea.
    With 19+ bedrooms, the number of students will impact on local residents, the noise, parties, constant stream of people all hours of the night.
    This application is not suitable for this area. It's not in keeping with the tone of the estate.

  18. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at Lake Macquarie Square 46 Wilsons Road Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Donna Cram commented

    Why are these towers placed so close to residential,built up areas or shopping centres,,,where thousands of people commune,,,plus children with their childcare kindergarten...It is a known fact they are a danger to our health,,emitting radiation causing cancers,,,,WHY? I do understand we need them,,,for communication,,,,PUT them up in the hills bushland. Where they are still a danger,,yet with less risk....Even food will be infected at the Lake Fair...Please reconsider this application for all the good health and well-being of Mount Hutton residents and children,,,also the shoppers buying contaminated foods,,let alone their own health in shopping at Lake Macquarie Square,,,, Thanking You. Donna Cram

  19. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Gore Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Local resident commented

    Dear Bayside Council (Rockdale),

    I did not receive a notification from the council about this development, but was informed by another resident of the area.

    I am concerned about this proposed development being considered for approval at 6 Gore St which is within 150m from my property.

    My objections are that:
    - The neighbourhood is a quiet family area with long term residents. Properties in this area are highly sort after by other families.
    - The architectural designs do not demonstrate a building that is in keeping with other properties of the area.
    - The materials highlighted in the design documents do not meet the quality of other properties in the area.
    - The proposed boarding house would mean up to 19 residents would potentially be able to live on the property. This is a relatively small block and although some underground parking has been planned it is likely that on-street parking would be required.
    - The plans show very limited access to private space for the residents of this property. This may mean that residents are forced to socialise/smoke etc outside causing noise.
    - Large multi-apartment complexes within a few hundred metres already offer affordable rentals and there are high vacancy rates for these developments. Therefore this build is not necessary to address affordable housing.

    Thank you for taking my concerns under consideration

  20. In The Gap QLD on “Build Over or Near Stormwater” at 12 Gymea St The Gap QLD 4061:

    Vesela Crossley commented

    The drainage of the old house was fully blocked and frequently coused flooding to the nearby property .Please be sure that new drainage sisstem will take place of the old septic tank.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 74 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine commented

    Where is the reason written for this tree removal ?What officer Michelle Fleming from PC is allowed to write this application on behalf of the owner at 74 Oxford St Epping
    Which tree where?
    Not one more tree should be removed from Epping - council should be protecting these trees as too many have been already been lost to Urban Development over these past five years and weekly now we are receiving more and more these applications without any valid written account as to why the tree needs to be removed.
    Where is the valid written account to explain why this tree has to be removed ?
    Without a valid account this tree must stay.
    Our suburb is becoming more and more like a desert without any shade for our hot months fir residents .

  22. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    John commented

    Some may say profiteering but these people build houses that we live in, I don’t think we can begrudge them earning some rewards for effort, you get paid when you work, and you probably didn’t put your assets up for grabs by the bank if things go bad like the recent times, and let’s not forget the council and government getting their cut like the developer levy, the developers get what’s left over and that can be very little given their risks. ( several years of holding costs hoping no major down turn) Councils put up so many obstacles that take time to pass through, and often at their own whim, parking is an issue and it should be dealt with even if the public transportation is close

  23. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Demolish...” at 14-16 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Donald Cameron commented

    This type of opportunistic approach devalues the neighbourhood by diminishing the amenity values. So called "infill" removes gardens and green spaces, increases population density, produces tiny lots with little if any gardens, often attracts cheaper rents which often bring associated problems, the only beneficiary is the developer who makes a quick buck, whilst all around pay for the rest of the lives.

    I have seen numerous examples of this behaviour, and see nothing but rubbish. Furthermore I have seen single storey houses approved to become 2 storey houses, with longtime neighbours shaded and views blocked, powerless to avoid the development which diminishes their amenity and devalues their asset.

    When will the LCC see reason?
    See what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable...

  24. In Beecroft NSW on “Residential - alterations &...” at 113 Malton Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Bart Rademaker commented

    Where has Mr Widmer been hiding ? Australia is the product of 'foreigners', most probably including himself. This forum is for constructive feedback, not bigotry.

  25. In Eltham North VIC on “Amendment - Buildings and...” at 68 Progress Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Julianne Napolitano commented

    Enough is enough too may small subdivisions just to make a buck is completely ruining our special suburb cutting down trees It’s not why l chose to live here

  26. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    PG commented

    Agree with all of the above along with waste management issues, visitor parking, noise, privacy,
    Should be mandatory with these types of developments to include either underground car parking or perhaps reduce the footprint the allow for onsite parking.

  27. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Polly Mclennan commented

    Idealistically, yes, wouldn't it be great if we didn't need cars. But this is not realistic, in fact many share houses and families have multiple cars. So having ONE car park for each apartment should be at the bare minimum. Please don't give these profiteering developers an exemption to not include a car park, as it simply moves the issue of car parking to neighbouring streets, which are already clogged with parked cars from nearby apartments.

  28. In Bellmere QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 26 Ellwood Drive, Bellmere QLD 4510:

    Leonie maltman commented

    I object to this application on the grounds that it is a koala and kangaroo habitat and where the road is proposed there is a koala tree right in the middle. Also this is a rural community and this development will create extra traffic as well as noise pollution and disruption to this street that is unwanted as well as destroying a peaceful neighbourhood.

  29. In Clovelly NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 26 Eastbourne Avenue Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Dali Ivkovic commented

    I would like to put to your attention that the installation of the a/c unit on the roof of the 26 Eastbourne Avenue Clovelly is not as per DA and is extremely unsightly.

    As a result, we at 36 Shackel Avenue experience severe deterioration of the wonderful coastal views due to a large yellowish a/c box being erected on the roof. It is in our direct view from 2 balconies and a large window.

    The property block size allows for the a/c unit to be placed on the side of the property or elsewhere concealed from the roof line to comply with the council DA and stop our property value deterioration.

    Kind regards

  30. In Glengowrie SA on “Detached Dwelling Single...” at 1 Harding St Glengowrie:

    Pat Penny wrote to local councillor Bruce Hull

    does this planning alert refer to 1a or 1b?

    Delivered to local councillor Bruce Hull. They are yet to respond.

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