Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Pearl Beach NSW on “Dwelling Alterations &...” at 2 C Amethyst Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Lyn cappella commented

    I object to this proposal They are wanting to put a huge dwelling on a small block it is unattractive and is an over development for a low density heritage village and it does not comply with the planning guidelines for Pearl Beach
    And it looks like it will affect all the property’s so
    The taking out of a 100 year old tree to put in a garage this also is a problem as the current root system is above ground the property has been cleared of all the trees and vegetation
    This is not why people moved to pearl beach to be overshadowed by huge ugly buildings

  2. In Burpengary QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -” at 493 Morayfield Road, Burpengary QLD 4505:

    Keith Gee-Clough commented

    Dear Assessment officer, 
    I am the owner of the adjoining block located at 497 Morayfield Rd Burpengary (Lot1 RP221893). The proposed amendment will reduce the functionality and net useable area of our property if the road is straightened. The road will have to swing further onto our property, resulting in a loss of more of our land, reducing the value of the property if we decided to sell. As it stands the property subject to the application has lost very little useable land compared to our site and now the application will further reduce our useable land. The road should have been designed so it came up the boundary between the two adjoining owners land. This would have been a fairer and more equitable solution. For these reasons we oppose the amendment to the plan as it is effectively adding a worsement to our site. 
    Please acknowledge receipt of this objection.
    Kind regards,
    Keith Gee-Clough

  3. In Ringwood VIC on “Development of three...” at 8 Fyfe Avenue, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Liz Sanzaro commented

    Yet again, back yard trees are to sacrificed to increase density. there are some very poor examples in close proximity that are a very high % hardstanding with tiny patches of grass, as yet no trees obvious. This is on a blanket scale disasterous for climate change.

    How is Council going to balance our environment with domestic development when no appropriate land is left on site for replanting of what is lost?
    We object to the removal, without seeing what measurers will be taken to retain some of the mature trees on site.

  4. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    John Batts commented

    A crucial question posed, Amanda.

  5. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Nicholas Pellow commented

    I’d love to know where all the developers who propose such disgusting designs and proposals hang out? Is it in their local 7/11, at public toilet blocks or under bridges that they get inspiration from?

    What is it they think they are adding to the cultural, aesthetic and community fabric to a place as unique as Bondi is?

    When they are finally at peace, and at the end of their lives, what will they look back on and really be proud of? Cementing in a beach, or is there something more worthwhile they may be able to do instead?

  6. In Balwyn North VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 8 Kyora Parade Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Margaret commented

    This property was built in 1939 not 1945. I was born there!
    My parents built it and they married in April ‘39 and it was ready for them to move into it. It was classified as outer suburbs then.

  7. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Mary S commented

    This is beyond disappointing. I have lived in the area almost my whole life, and my partner and I have recently purchased our first home down the road from this street. There's no denying that areas of Lawnton and Bray Park are tired, and I'm all for new developments bringing new life to a community. However, these apartment blocks are completely random, they do not offer any positive contributions to the area - they are a complete eyesore, contribute to parking issues, and will sit there half vacant until the rent is so low it attracts more of the wrong crowd. This is a family area, we should be investing in parks or public art - new developments should be considered based on what they can offer the neighbourhood. This development offers absolutely nothing.

  8. In Pooraka SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 17 Quinlivan Road , Pooraka SA 5095:

    Anthony Fitzpatrick commented

    What is happening after demolition. How is this a application for development? How can neighbours and concerned persons of the suburb assess and comment on what is happening to their/our/my suburb? What is council doing posting this on a website when it contains nothing for us to review and constructively comment on/ Please change the setup so we can review what is being intended as the person demolishing the site would not be doing so unless they had done a cost/benefit analysis and were making a profit in doing so.

  9. In Para Hills SA on “Demolition of all structure” at 23 Barkey Street , Para Hills SA 5096:

    Anthony Fitzpatrick commented

    Firstly an application just to demolish is not much advice as to what the intention is. Do they intend to build a single dwelling, two dwellings or 3 or more? Next when they demolish who from council overseas the disposal of abestos? I have had 3 homes demolished in Para Hills and on ONE of the same era there was NO removal of abestos, NO signs and NO one with abestos suits. How so? The home was the same era as the other two, it had eaves like the other two but no abestos. THe neighbour of that house when I spoke with him WAS/IS concerned there was no signage or visible removal of the abestos. We ALL know there is abestos in the eaves of homes built in the early mid and late sixties, so who on council is monitoring its removal and ensuring neighbours see someone from council that shows concern for the safety of surrounding citizens .... yes concern for the safey of citizens around these demolitions. WE look forward to seeing what is toing to replace the single home.

  10. In Eastlakes NSW on “Shop 2 & 3, 279 Gardeners...” at 279 Gardeners Road, Eastlakes NSW 2018:

    Kate Fletcher commented

    I could be completely wrong. But if this particular business sells poles used in the adult entertainment industry I don't think it is a appropriate place for it right at a busy bus stop used daily by many school children going and coming from Eastlakes shops.

  11. In Unley SA on “Remove Gum Tree (Eucalyptus)” at 51 Thomas Street, Unley SA 5061:

    Wendy Bevan commented

    Yet another tree???? What of the habitat for birds and animals . More than one a week . Disgraceful

  12. In on “Office, Food and Drink...” at 9 Courage St Sippy Downs:

    Maree Peel commented

    There is an oversupply of childcare centres in Buderim already and all have vacancies. Another centre will cripple the industry.

  13. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 6 Kerry Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Barbara Darmanin commented

    The large trees on this property are not suitable for such a small block of land. They have branches hanging over the roof, create too much shade, are in danger of blocking drains and driveway. If permission is granted to remove the six trees what provision is made to require the residents to replace them with more suitable trees so the streetscape is not completely destroyed and wildlife habitat and corridoor lost? I ask that this be a condition of the granting of approval for removal and that a Parramatta Council Landscape Architect give advise as to the best trees to be used. There should not be wholesale clearing with no thought to the future enhancement of the land.

  14. In Healesville VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 17 Maroondah Highway, Healesville VIC 3777:

    Pat & Neil commented

    Hello there, I wish to request that we be provided with a copy of the advertising for this proposed amendment to the planning permit, from what we can see on your web site, we note the following:
    1. Part of the building is now 2 metres higher than the current approved permit, however this change has not been mentioned in the application for the amendment.
    2. Signage must be kept at minimum and low in height, alternatively, it will cause light pollution to ourselves and our neighbours.
    3. In regards to McDonald's, it must be noted that the main development (the epicurean centre) has promised to be of good, high aesthetics ie organic materials such as rammed earth etc. any Fast food outlet must be made to follow a high, architecturally aesthetic style. This is important, as the the site is highly visible and it is the entry to the beautifully quaint and the most sort after village in the Yarra Valley.
    4. In many villages/city's in Europe and other places around the world, where they have allowed McDonald's restaurants to be included in amongst their picturesque areas, McDonald's have had to lift their game, by including highly architecturally designed buildings, which do not stand out and scream out of its environment.
    5. Council has a duty of care to ensure that this overall site provides very high aesthetics, including landscaping and vegetation buffers in order to tone down the development and rather provide a Welcoming development into our beautiful Village that is worthy of its environment.

  15. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    JOHN ADAMSON commented

    It is generally accepted that planning on a state level is both dysfunctional and corrupt. Council has consistently prided itself on being the antithesis to the state in that its planning process would be one which followed the interests and wishes of local residents instead of blindly pandering to the financial greed of developers.This development should therefore be opposed ( in its current form ) for all the reasons given by residents and the developer instructed to resubmit something more reasonable .

  16. In Wavell Heights QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 24 Campbell Tce Wavell Heights QLD 4012:

    Vickie Dawson commented

    We live in Kinmond Avenue with a back entrance onto Eliza Lane. The traffic in the lane has become far heavier than the narrow lane can sustain. Our small garden and back gate backs directly onto the lane and when cars drive (frequently very fast) along the lane it is dangerous for us to exit our property that way. We only ever use that back entrance as a pedestrian entrance. The noise has also increased significantly making it less desirable a place to live. The narrowness of the lane makes it very difficult and dangerous for large vehicles and we have watched in horror as delivery trucks reverse the wrong way down the lane all the way from Rode Road because they cannot make the right angled corner near 41 Eliza Lane. I submit that access for the developments at 24 Campbell Terrace should not be into Eliza Lane and, as with those at 20 Campbell Terrace, a condition of development should be that there be no vehicular access to Eliza Lane

  17. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    Philip Bridges commented

    Dear Canterbury Bankstown Council,
    The development at Floss and Duntroon Sts in Hurlstone Park is, in my view, architecturally unsympathetic to the area.
    In regard to the social housing aspect, this is not a NIMBY statement.
    I believe that social housing has a place in all areas, social, cultural and architectural. This development however, is architecturally out of step with this heritage listed area, mainly due to its proposed height and bulk dominating the buildings around it and the local streetscape. This can be seen clearly from the view down Crinan St through the village.
    I share the concern about parking, especially as there is little street parking and only a small, time-limited carpark which is mostly used by local residents attending the village shopping strip.
    I am also aware that the original proposal, which I also disagreed with, has been modified to require extra height. To apply for an approval and then reapply for modifications is a well-known developer strategy to blur transparency, which is in my view not in the interests of this council's residents.

  18. In Camperdown NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 7 Layton Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Rita Sen Gupta commented

    What is the status of this development? If it is going through I will have no other option but to sell as my outlook will be completely blocked affecting, ventilation, privacy, noise etc.

  19. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 63 Henry Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    L McHugh commented

    I don't want another house on this street, especially if it is going to be out of the neighbourhood character as some of the new builds on Henry Street and Browns Crescent are. The current average block sizes allow for a beautiful canopy of trees, please no more subdivisions. I have watched as over the last few years the trees have been slowly cleared from this block at 63 Henry, I would assume for this reason.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

  20. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead commented

    His has already been posted - is there a difference between this and the original proposal?

  21. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Sandra Panozzo commented

    The fact that this is was even allowed to be lodged with council is wasting everyone's time and council's money!!! It is absuletely absurd to even contemplate for a second!! In Australia we have some of the most low maintenance hardy and beautiful plants...absolutely no excuses to consider replacing real trees with fake! I have seen some really ugly buildings going up recently but this is really taking it to the next level!!!!

  22. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Jo Skinner commented

    How are the existing residents of the neighbouring homes going to be compensated for this eyesore?
    Not only will they financially bear the loss of the monstrosity with a decline in property values, they will pay with a loss of privacy with it looming over their homes!
    Council you are a disgrace! Approve this to be built next to your own property!

  23. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Sarah Johns commented

    How is this even being considered an option in terms of its location? The streets surrounding the proposed location were never designed for this type of dwelling to be built on it. Based on the apartments only being allocated 1 car space and the average household having 2 cars (minimum) that's 12 cars at the very least that will need to find alternative places to park. This will choke the local streets with cars and create hazards for local residents trying to get through as well as children that may play in the streets.
    It will also become the biggest eyesore for the area as the buildings surrounding it are no more than 2 storeys and the area is relatively flat. Residents residing in the houses surrounding this complex are going to struggle to sell because no one wants to live near a complex like this, and neighbouring houses are going to loose all chance of privacy in their backyards as residents will be able to see straight into them.
    This along with sluggish house/apartment sales already happening on new development in the area (Sanctum, Oxbow Crescent, and Corner of Francis and Isis Roads) means the market is going to be saturated further than it already is which in turn could drive down house prices for property owners in the area.

  24. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Joseph Howe commented

    Doesn't fit with the rest of the area, way too high density for the infrastructure.

    Streets are already small, adding highrise flats will just cause more issues & be an eyesore.

  25. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Ana Havea commented

    Building a 7 storey unit with 12 apartments on a 590m2 space next to owner occupied residents who have children and have been residing in the area for over 11+ years is ridiculous and dumbfounding. It’s amazing to see how little our neighbours know.
    I’m all for development. I understand that. but keep it out of already established Family suburbs where our kids play on the road because of the security and light volume of traffic and take it to the newly developed lands and main roads.

    This will invade our privacy with a number of occupants overlooking our backyards. How am I suppose to feel safe as a parent in my own house?

  26. In Plympton Park SA on “Demolition of single storey...” at 5 Browning Av, Plympton Park 5038 SA:

    Jamie Kloeden commented

    We understand that Plympton Park is a changing suburb with many blocks being subdivided and developed as time passes but we sincerely hope that the plans for 5 Browning Avenue involve a single new house or at worst, 2 dwellings. Our street is becoming tougher and tougher for parking with what was formerly 4 individual houses already being developed into 11 over the last few years so this will only increase the clutter on what was a previous nice, spacious street. It is also a great street with many families and the prospect of another large block perfect for a family house being lost for smaller dwellings suitable only for singles or couples would be another disappointment.

    We would also be extremely disappointed if there were any plans for a 2 storey property as it would be the only one of it’s kind in the immediate area and really would be a bit out of place.

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    No No No ,
    These are original early 20 century charming semis full of character , why allow the demolition of the fabric that makes Bondi unique and different ‘’demolition of existing dwellings and construction of NEW 3 STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH INTEGRATED PARKING AND SUBDIVISION , bland and ugly . Residents have to object strongly and say no to the uglification of Bondi by greedy developers who do not live in the local area.

  28. In Portarlington VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 122-138 Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Lainey Rae commented

    This is a support document for the Wellness Centre, Tower Road Portarlington.
    I wish to support the plan, Portarlington is in desperate need of nice accommodation for the many visitors to our town.
    Short term and long term it would create jobs for our locals.
    Tower Road is the perfect area to build a wellness centre, it will bring visitors from around Australia.

  29. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    Tim Carroll commented

    Dear Canterbury Bankstown Council,
    This application, shrouded in the old corrupt ways of Canterbury Council, has always been very controversial and attracted heated opposition from the many people that wish to not have Hurlstone Park 'developed' in the way that so many other heritage suburbs have been.
    There is still huge opposition to it and I see a continued fight as to what is built here.
    This application is clearly unsuitable for this site.
    No parking plan in a place already crowded, unsuitable usage, unsuitable size and height.
    I vehemently oppose it and call upon Council to NOT approve such an unsuitable development in a place where something that would be suitable could be built.

  30. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Mark John commented

    Well said Russell...... not content with displacing wildlife the council is now set to move out long term residents from suburban environments .... yet the eyesore they call Strathpine “CBD” remains under developed. Why not contain the high density housing to high rise development in the Strathpine CBD precinct, similar to Chermside but with the advantage of a rail link? Council prefer to pick the low hanging fruit first. More revenue in land development. Shameful.

This week