Recent comments

  1. In Landsborough QLD on “Animal Keeping - Cattery -...” at 36 Amigh Rd Landsborough:

    andrea kinnear commented

    Amigh road is barely wide enough to cope with current traffic for residents several driveways are difficult to exit with limited vision of other vehicles we already have another application for a puppy complex and do not need additional traffic using this narrow road

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

    Chloe commented

    I would like to second Laura's comments about the unsuitable nature of this development for all the reasons she has given.

  3. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Mary Thompson commented

    I am a West Pymble resident who uses Shaddock Avenue to access Ryde Road. There are always cars parked on both sides of the road which allows only 1 car to move through (almost impossible at peak times for school pick up/drop off).
    I strongly urge you to reject this application as the road will not be able to cope with any extra traffic or parking. In fact I feel this would cause an unnecessary danger for pedestrians, and of particular concern, the many Gordon West primary children crossing here.

  4. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 13 Pleasant Road, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Mary Martin commented

    There is an answer. The developers need to dig an underground car parking however this adds additional costs to the build and it’s all about making money $$$.
    HOWEVER, we built a 3bdr apartment in Boroondara for our family of 4, with a Five car garage underneath. It can be done so why isn’t this being enforced and why are permits given “with a reduction in car parking”??????

  5. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 37 Merindah Road, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Graeme Jone commented

    Not sure what is the definition of 'Consulting Room' , from my understanding it is for 'Consultation' only and not the 'Treatment' why the hell Chair and Xray are required and not just 1 chair but 2 of them , that itself defies the DA and gives away intentions of Owner.

    I pity those who do right thing by having Surgery in Commercial Zones where they are supposed to be , it will be unfair if Council approves it. I might challenge them if they do.

  6. In Burpengary East QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 49 Creek Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Trish Wilson commented

    We had to move from Burpengary to Morayfield after the third time our home flooded -- 2009, 2011, and the worst in 2015. The worst flood was made worse due to lots of landfill by developers around us. We have 10 acres which we registered as land for wildlife because of our wonderful population of roos, koalas, possums, flying squirrels, etc., etc. It was almost stripped of trees when we bought the land over 20 years back, and my husband got busy and planted trees especially for koalas. We hoped to sell the property in order to buy another one, and, with the housing estates on one side and along the back fence, only developers were interested. However, MBRC, in their wisdom, decided to change the zoning so that developers were excluded, and they classified most of our block as protected because of the trees we had planted. Unfortunately this undervalued the property and made it impossible to sell. So, we had to move and get into debt again to do it. My husband is a sick man, so there was no choice in the matter. The flooding was bad in 2015, and at our age we knew we would never be able to deal with it again.

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

    Hasan Hassan commented

    They received approval to build 62 apartments in 2017. In Tuesday's planning alert (13/8) there were 44 apartments/lots, Thursday's planning alert (15/8) 50 apartments/lots.The building is almost finished - What will happen tomorrow? What is going on?

  8. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Tiffany Judson commented

    I agree with Tammy and Fiona. Traffic in Shaddock Ave is already dangerous around school zone times. To date, nothing has been done to manage that. There is also the issue of Mona Vale Rd/Shaddock Ave where motorists are not adhering to the lights or 40km zone. A childcare centre would only add to the chaos.

  9. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Romel commented

    This plan is way overdeveloped. I have seen the development plans, and I must say the building should not be 8 floors. Two surrounding building share a common wall with this property and if built the people on 5th to 8th floor will have a wall in front of their balconies or having an apartment right in front of their living room/bedroom with no sunlight or airflow. There will be no privacy, and there will be a safety issue as anyone can jump the fence and go into other building balconies. The distance between the units will be 3 meters or less. The shadow diagrams given to council are for 5 storey, but the application is for 8 storey. They are going to have 1 car lift. They need a minimum of 2 car lifts! How does that work for a small piece of land with 8 levels? To top it all they are going to dig 3 levels down next to the two-buildings, which will create more issues for the structural integrity of the adjoining buildings. I request to the council not approve this development. This development will cause nothing but grief and suffering to the residents in the adjoining building.

  10. In Umina Beach NSW on “New Gymnasium” at 5 Carawa Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance Club Umina could include some shade trees around this new build?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees resulting in a higher urban heat island effect across our area. Any shade for the future would be greatly appreciated by the users, owners and the locals.

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

    Simon Taylor commented

    Living in Wise Street I can attest that a development of this nature is completely out of character when compared to its immediate neighbours, raising a number of concerns for me.

    Parking in the surrounding area (Wise, Robey and Ferguson Street) is already quite limited and it can be stressful for residents and visitors to find parking. My worry is that with only 7 proposed car spaces for the 31 residents, any extra vehicle requirements will fall on-street parking - further exacerbating the difficulty in finding parking. I am not convinced that serious investigation into parking availability has been conducted - the only reference to traffic impact in the PDC Traffic Report was that the development would have “...no material impact on the performance of the external road network” however it makes no mention of the already congested residential streets. The proposed ‘car sharing’ solution only helps to address the issue if the residents do not have a desire to own their own vehicles which seems difficult to predict.

    The current development proposes that while “The subject site is not a heritage-listed item, but is located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the following heritage listed item: Semi-detached pair, 11 - 11A Wise Street … The heritage item has local heritage significance.” This semi is a modest single-level dwelling. The proposed development will tower over these properties, allowing for direct line of sight into backyards and rear living quarters. Additionally, being heritage items, there is little that can be developed on these adjacent properties to safeguard them from this invasion of privacy.

    In recent times there has been a worryingly high number of reports of international students being exploited by Sydney’s under-regulated informal housing market. Reports are already particularly prevalent in the nearby areas of Kingsford and Kensington. I am worried that the proposed development is a perfect fit for facilitating the financial exploitation of international students who aren’t familiar with standard housing practices in Sydney or don’t know their legal rights.

    I am opposed to the proposed development and I implore the Planning Committee to reject the development application.

  12. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Mick Winner commented

    In our very very narrow street Saddleback Crescent there are already six duplexes (more are on the plans) which the street cannot support because of lack of parking . Already the garbage truck has been having huge problems emptying bins as they cannot get up the Crescent with people parking on each side so they have been sitting on their horns waiting for people to move their cars .This development is only going to worsen this situation. I have never seen an estate so over developed and has the potential to become a major problem.I think Wollongong City Council is letting down the families of this estate by approving so many multi dwelling on 15 meter frontage.On this estate it should be one block of land one dwelling as the infrastructure cannot support more.

  13. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Joanna De Jesus commented

    Village: 2 story max, not 8 story. Definition of village needs to be considered.
    I am concerned about the local area, in particular the Murrumbeena primary school and the chaos the construction site will cause during school terms. Once built the rotating door of students not familiar to the area will make me concerned about my personal safety and security when I walk through the village and adjoining streets. History has proven a development like this takes months. The safety of getting kids to and from school will be a factor.
    There is already a lack of car spaces at the Murrumbeena train station and surrounding local streets capped at 2 hours. This screams more revenue raising by the council, again!
    It’s bad enough having the Carnegie high rises and most apartments are left empty with lack of tenants with too many apartments in the area. The train network cannot cope with more passengers. The state has not allowed for more traffic and congestion in our suburbs. Disappointing to hear about this but we need to be strong and voice our concerns.

  14. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Colin Baker commented

    The railway line will in the future be further developed to service the Hastings corridor, particularly if the port areas go ahead(which they will, eventually). The airport should have right of continuity, having been established long before any new planning applications. I believe the airport is the only one on Mornington Peninsula (Tooradin is not part of MP), therefore it's strategic value should be of paramount importance with a view of future expansion.

  15. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Michael commented

    There are already far too many duplex’s approved in stage 1, which also has some of the narrowest streets in the Illawarra. To top that off, the gutters aren’t rolled so parking will be impossible and traffic congestion for a supposedly young growing family community will be dangerous. This should not be allowed. One or 2 here and there is acceptable, but this is just out right careless and dangerous.

  16. In Highfields QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 14 Highfields Road Highfields QLD 4352:

    JAN VAN DER MEULEN commented

    AS NEIGHBOUR OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
    I LOVE TREES, BUT MOST OF THE TREES ON THE LAND ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT. SUITABLE TREE PLANTING ON THE ROAD RESERVE NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED.

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

    Laura commented

    This DA is for an above-height shop-top housing development whose size and bulk overwhelm all surrounding buildings. It directly adjoins an R2 low density housing zone but does not have any transitional height adjustment, or adequate setbacks, to meet requirements and prevent a building of greatly disproportionate scale and mass dominating the surrounding houses and streets.

    The DA describes this building as "3-storey". This is deceptive as it does not account for the communal rooftop area, which includes tall permanent structures such as shade cloths, or the more than one metre of "Underground" car park that will be visible from Watkin Street and the rear. Given the pronounced downward slope of Watkin St from Canterbury Rd, this building will appear as a 5-storey building (which it is when the two levels of basement car parking are included) from Watkin Street.

    This DA includes a poorly-positioned driveway located less than 20 metres from the intersection of Watkin Street and Canterbury Rd. In morning peak vehicle queues in Watkin Street most often stetch past this driveway. Serious safety issues are created when you add the 37 projected vehicle movements per hour, in and out of the proposed development, to this already congested situation.

    Hurlstone Park is a suburb with recognised heritage value. Residents have been fighting for at least 3 years to retain this heritage and village feel. In 2016 Greater Sydney Commissioner Morris Iemma described the unique character of Hurlstone Park as unsuitable for any but the most limited development. This DA does not even remotely meet that standard.

    Overdevelopment, beyond both business and residential needs, has dominated this area for too long. It is time to prioritise community amenity and sympathetic, suitably-sized development to restore some balance.

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

    Gail Norman commented

    In Tuesday's planning alert (13/8) there were just 44 lots. Today there are 50. Why the change?

  19. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Jelo Drake commented

    Development is much need in this area. Removal of on-street parking is needed to declutter the streets in Glen Eira.It makes transit safer for kids cycling to school. Murrumbeena Rd is a death-trap for cyclists currently so would be great to see parking removed or reconfigured along there – also helps to encourage use of bikes lessening traffic, which is much needed.

    Students will likely use the train to get to Caulfield and will bring much needed revenue and activity to this area. 8 storeys is high but in-keeping with the rezoning along most train lines.

  20. In Cronulla NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 John Davey Avenue Cronulla NSW 2230:

    Amelia Glass commented

    It seems such a shame number 8 John Davey Avenue Cronulla is to be knocked down. The outside particularly is such a good example of Australian mid century architecture. I can understand anyone’s desire to make a profit out property but it’s sad history is erased in doing so, especially since people are starting to appreciate mid century design.

  21. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Change of Use (Animal...” at 26/19 Cornhill Street, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Danie commented

    I’d like more information on this, are they going to be training dogs on the premises? What will be their operating hours?

  22. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Tina commented

    How are emergency crews going to fit down this street? There's no way off getting an ambulance down here. This is ridiculous. Residents don't want it.

  23. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Kelly Logan commented

    I thought this estate was for growing families. The fact that there are already dual occupancies on both streets. The roads will not be able to handle the traffic and the park isn't very big enough either. Also for the people who have built, they will lose the northern sun quiet early..

  24. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Landscaping” at 418 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Monica commented

    Fantastic, this has been a long time coming the community will love this convenience

  25. In Healesville VIC on “Use of land for Industry...” at 7 Hunter Road, Healesville VIC 3777:

    Chris Gander commented

    As a local resident that visits the Watts River Brewery, there is significant street parking available, as Hunter Street has all industrial businesses that are only occupied during normal work hours. i.e. Monday to Friday 8 - 5..00pm.

    The hours when the brewery is open are outside of these hours and the whole of Hunter Street is available for parking. Hunter Street is very wide with angle parking.

    The brewery provides a great service to locals. It attracts and is a tourist venue for visitors, and local employment. It has also been used on occasion for charities to fund raise.

    I fully support the application for a reduction in car parking requirement.

  26. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Christine Yuen commented

    There are so many issues about this development that need to be addressed before council even begins to consider the viability of yet another boarding house in Kogarah - there are already 2 or 3 boarding houses within a two block radius of this current proposal, for starters.

    - The land is incredibly narrow and 50 rooms is simply inconceivable. That's 7 rooms per level. So many people living in claustrophobic quarters right next to the RSL - licensed alcohol and possibly gambling machines - sounds like an eventual recipe for disaster

    - Excessive overshadowing of neighbouring properties, especially the Veridian. The design of the Veridian seamlessly allows 5 storeys to be built on the mechanic site - Toska mechanic was fully aware of this during construction, as Veridian developers tried very hard to buy their land and amalgamate into Veridian. Toska refused, ended up with an isolated site, and are now offering their land to a boarding house development that will completely overshadow 10+ units and Veridian's communal courtyard AFTER they were offered above market price and still refused to sell. This will devalue so many Veridian properties - owners didn't even know about this development when they purchased. There's a massive lack of transparency.

    - Structual integrity of the Veridian buildings is highly likely to be impacted with 8 storeys being built directly next to them - wall to wall. Plus three levels basement parking, again directly adjacent to Veridian's own basement parking. The government and hundreds of homeowners can't afford to risk of turning into another Opal or Mascot Towers, especially without solid building regulations in place

    - The viability of the boarding house's car lift. They have planned for only one car lift. What if it breaks and all cars get trapped underneath? How will their car lift affect traffic if boarding house residents opt to park on the street instead of bothering to operate the lift? Parking is tight enough with the proximity to hospital and train station

    Overall, the boarding house is a big expense with equally large risks. Affordable housing is a necessary initiative, but council and government should be aware that there are many developers taking advantage of the Affordable Housing Act to turn a quick profit without looking into the future. This building is allowed to have extra storeys because of the act, violating building compliance and directly devaluing neighbouring properties. Not only should it be no higher than 5 storeys - I implore council to seriously consider the impact of so many boarding houses on the Kogarah community. What message are we sending by setting the precedent for allowing boarding houses to bypass rules and cause irreparable damage to hardworking people's homes and investments?

  27. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Romel commented

    This plan is way overdeveloped. I have seen the development plans, and I must say the building should not be 8 floors. Two surrounding building share a common wall with this property and if built the people on 5th to 8th floor will have a wall in front of their balconies or having an apartment right in front of their living room/bedroom with no sunlight or airflow. There will be no privacy, and there will be a safety issue as anyone can jump the fence and go into other building balconies. The distance between the units will be 3 meters or less. The shadow diagrams given to council are for 5 storey, but the application is for 8 storey. They are going to have 1 car lift. They need a minimum of 2 car lifts! How does that work for a small piece of land with 8 levels? To top it all they are going to dig 3 levels down next to the two-buildings, which will create more issues for the structural integrity of the adjoining buildings. I request to the council not approve this development. This development will cause nothing but grief and suffering to the residents in the adjoining building.

  28. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Neve Krst commented

    This is a blatant misuse of permits. Kogarah does not need more "boarding houses" - it needs well thought out development that takes into account the needs of existing residents, who do not want cheap slums thrown up next door.

  29. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 25 Radcliffe Court Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    So if you want to see the future of Bellbird take a look at "Harrisville" across the road from Morgan street where a huge block is close to finishing. It says in the present council plan that the community will be consulted and involved 21 times. i could only find one case in which there has been any community involvement. Yes just 2.next too "Happy Jack" block 47 lots are all ready to go. I concetrate on the broader issue of planning as illustrating what Auxiarly units shows us about sistemic problems we are up against from the bottom to the top. how it works with these units in particular and planning in general and make the obvious reference from massive uncontrolled clearing to the bottom of the food chain in building a new room , sorry anxiary unit A resident close by said well at least the council has agreed to 29 lots,On the "Happy Jack"block with its duplexes now back to 47 lots,We now find that there were negotiation by council with the developers,with no explanation on the web site. Transparency, what transparency ?Further along Jones road is another large block. I spoke to 2 residents opposite. Both home owners had no knowledge of the development. One said he had bought his house in Bellbird to get away from Springfield. He was bemused and angry. He was of course worried that his house would drop in value. What has the "council " done ? Why didn't they inform such residents?With resignation he said that there was no use contacting the council .The history of the "Happy Jack" block is intuitive. 60+ objections to the proposed development . Every one objection represents about 10 residents who for various reasons didn't object.To us it illustrates the loss of credibility of the "council" especially in the vital area of planning. Transparency. A theme the newly formed community group are to investigate. With a lead time of at least 2 years to a new plan will be the death warrant for places like Bellbird. Another of the 21 references to community involves input by the residents working with Council.It is soul destroying for residents objecting to individual applications knowing that their objections will be ignored. The "Happy Jack block illustrates all that is wrong with planning. Consultation with council none. destruction habitat and vegetation and wild life corridors no council requirements. Look up the 21 requirements of the council/ community involvement,for Brentwood "forest" estate, A million trees were removed along with the top soil. The council sits on its hands as developers bring in the Dozers. This is the 21st century where a huge block at Eugene st will also be cleared to the sub soil Ipswich is right up there in regards to clearing Who's responsible for this. Looking ahead to the development of Eugene St Auxiliary units and especially Duplexs will collectively destroy Bellbird. Council can't even knock back a development like this. The council knows very well that auxiliary units are "small potatoes" but how many of the applications for them have been knocked back? From small potatoes to 34 hectares nothing is sacred. I have been told by state government that the 'council' I that I should speak to Mr Chemello He says that Council have to do the biding of the State government who first imposed the criteria for development . When? we have those "wild west' "planning" still with us. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank. If it is powerless to stop Auxiliary units how can it stop the development of Eugene St. As Margret Thatcher once said there is no such entity as community. "Council" by its actions or inaction's make it crystal clear that they see our community as a minor irritation. Think about that as a rate payer who pays the wages of the 100s of council workers including the planners. Its a moot point as to what value we are getting for our dollar from 'council" in general and planners in particular.

  30. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Michael Carlile commented

    This development is beyond the original vision and plan for the Kembla Grange Estate.
    The streets. Roadways and parking will already be pushed to the limits with the dual occupancy dwellings already in the area.
    The Proposed monolith is opposite a park, ruining views and creating a potential danger for kids and dogs and the general public with all the extra traffic created by having 6 units, directly across the narrow street. I re-iterate the point that these roadways were designed with a certain amount of traffic which will now be overloaded.
    Allowing a subdivision of this degree would cause so many issues that the original planning was not catered for.

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