Recent comments

  1. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Gow Lane Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael commented

    Why do the trees need to be removed?
    Balmain has lost a quarter of its tree canopy area in less than 20 years.
    Please require a 1 for 1 replacement of trees, with a requirement that the new trees be nurtured to maturity.
    thank you

  2. In Kingston TAS on “PSA-2015-1 - Amendment to...” at 27 Spring Farm Road and 34 Maddocks Road, Kingston, TAS:

    Alex Wolfert commented

    Are there any plans available to look at?

  3. In Kosciuszko National Park NSW on “Black Bear Inn -...” at 30 Diggings Terrace, Thredbo,:

    Richard and Sally Gallimore commented

    Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627
    Dear Sir
    of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627

    Dear Sir

    DA 10064 Proposed Redevelopment of Black Bear Inn

    I refer to the above matter, the further material provided by the proponent on 6 November 2019, and our submission in relation to the Development Application during the initial Exhibition period.

    We submit that nothing in the developer’s response addresses the concerns we raised in our original objection submission.

    We have read the follow up submissions made by Ray Temperley and Lynne McDonald and by Grant Kleeman, all from Squatters Run apartments. Rather than repeat the arguments set out in those two submissions we agree and adopt each of the Points in those submissions as our own.

    In addition, we submit that the developer’s response in relation to concerns about the access from the village square to the new development, are unsatisfactory.

    The stairway

    The developer suggests that screening plants will ameliorate the privacy issue in relation to the proximity to the bedroom window of apartment 17 Squatters Run. This response is unacceptable because it is well known that plants in the alpine area will take a very long time to grow to a sufficient height and density to provide any sort of screen. Further, the plants will do little or nothing to reduce the noise on the stairway both from voices and footfalls. Further, plants in the alpine area have a high mortality rate. The proposal is silent on the responsibility of Black Bear owners to replace plants when necessary and to undertake routine maintenance.

    The developer remains silent about the type of material to be used to construct the stairway. We submit that any form of steel stair tread will be excessively noisy and should not be approved. The developer remains silent on the issue of the safety hazard arising from the use of the stairs in icy or snowy weather. In particular, there is nothing in the DA to ameliorate our concerns about snow clearing, maintenance and assumption of legal liability by the owners of Black Bear.

    The developer remains silent on the question of how the stairs are to be lit. Given the proximity to the bedroom window of Apartment 17 and the living space windows of Apartments 27 and 32, strict conditions need to be imposed to ensure that lighting does not allow light spillage above waist height and the lighting be strictly confined to the stairs themselves.

    Having said that, we are opposed to the construction of the stairs in any form. The original DA from 2011 proposed stairs which would only be used by resident guests in Black Bear as the access to the restaurant was via Diggings Terrace. In that regard the original DA was misleading and should not be relied upon in relation to a development which is so substantially different from the original proposal. In other words, any consent from neighbours in relation to the stairway proposal in the original DA should be considered to be withdrawn as the proposal upon which neighbours might have been consulted bears little or no resemblance to the current proposal.

    The best solution is for the restaurant to be relocated to the upper levels of the building as in the current Black Bear with access from Diggings Terrace. Should the stairs go ahead then the lower doors should be secured by key pad to restrict access to resident guests.

    In the event that the restaurant remains in its proposed low level position it should not be visible from the village square by the use of hard screening, thereby minimising foot traffic from the square.

    Other buildings

    The developer points to other large scale buildings recently constructed in the village and suggests that this permits a further building of the scale proposed. In relation to the Peak and Elevation apartments we say that the bulk of the building sits below the road level so the bulk of the building is not apparent. In other words, the streetscape of the village is preserved. The Black Bear façade is completely inconsistent with the general streetscape in Thredbo and impacts adversely on the view of the mountain presented to a visitor arriving in the village from the Alpine Way.

    The Mittabar apartments are well recognised in Thredbo as being totally inappropriate and should not have been permitted. The size, bulk and proximity to the roadway of those apartments have no doubt been a significant factor in the general community’s objections to the Black Bear proposal.

    A right to a view

    We submit that no developer should have the right to intentionally devalue other properties and businesses for their own personal gain. Access to beautiful views and privacy add significantly both to the monetary value and the enjoyment of existing buildings. Not only will the proposed building decrease the capital value of other buildings, but it will also negatively impact on the businesses which are based in these properties.

    The impact upon the view available to guests of High Noon in particular has to be described as beyond significant to the scale of devastating.

    It is our submission that the redevelopment of Black Bear be confined to the size, bulk and current height of the existing Black Bear, the access to the village square be restricted to the greatest extent possible, hard screening be installed to protect the privacy of Apartment 17 and subdued lighting be a feature of any stairway, should our submission that the stairway not be built is not accepted.

    Richard and Sally Gallimore
    Apartment 17
    Squatters Run

    PO Box 200 Thredbo 2625.

  4. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead commented

    No point in appealing Knox council will rubber stamp this - they have no interest in community amenity in Knox - only the rates that can be collected....

  5. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Robyn Ross commented

    I thought that this site was not zoned as residential seeing as it was a milk bar. Years ago I paid $10,000 to seal the road outside of my house along the service road. Since 3 units were built next door there is not one spare space for myself or any of my visitors to park along the front of my property or further down. Even though I paid very dearly for the privilege of having a sealed road I do not have any rights at all according to the council when I asked for a permited space to cater for my disabled friends as well as for myself who also has a disability. Units being built with double gararges mean nothing for most people use this space as a storage area and park out on the road. Now the council is deciding to tick the box on another complex of three double storey townhouses. Council should realize that existing houses have young drivers who need somewhere to park their cars and one would think that an already ratepaying household should hold some sway over a blow in, only looking in the end at the profit to be made and after they are sold couldn't give a hoot at what the rest of us have to put up with. Our whole estate is being turned into one double storey complex of townhouses. The council should "pull up its socks and put a stop to this overdevelopment.

  6. In Maudsland QLD on “Description: PRE-REQUEST TO...” at 64 Gaven Arterial Road Maudsland 4210 QLD:

    Sanchia Kerr commented

    I am concerned about the amount of dirt at this site. If we get a few rainy days there is nothing stopping a landslide to the road (which is vital to get to schools, shops and doctors) and houses nearby with men, women and children.

  7. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Landscaping” at 61 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Landscaping. I know it may be a forlorn hope,but it would be most informative to have the developers name.Seems most unusual , landscaping for what? I referred to a suggestion by the council that the developers would like to talk.Well no time like the present. For example Avid started the destruction of Brentwood";Forest" before they passed it on to some other developer . :"By their deeds shall ye know them". Can't see any responsible developer[?]with this. Why is it being landscaped and by whom. Jones road is being ripped apart, So landscaping may be a ephremism. So sorry who ever you are , i must object to this suss application.. Questions like are those forlorn trees part of the application? Who, what, when and where ? Can't be too careful with any such application amidst the clearing of our suburb.

  8. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Dawson Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Larry Gardner commented

    I fully support Andrew Harris review of the planning proposal. Overlooking the baths, cars crossing the footpath, cold dark shaded pathways and living spaces in the depth of winter are already overlooked issues on a great many of Moreland's approved high rise buildings. Let us learn from those errors.

  9. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of two or more...” at 80 Bedford Road, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Margaret H commented

    Bedford Road is already a nightmare at times especially during school times and with the train crossing & traffic lights causing bank ups -to have more density in such a small area with a development across the road from Ringwood Secondary Collage approved by VCAT now this proposed development and the possibility of another larger scale development up the road going ahead if unsuccessful at the upcoming VCAT hearing.

    This is going to make life very difficult not just for the locals [rate payers] who live in the side streets but also the students and parents who drop off or attend events at the collage which has developed with multi usage & the community centre just a short distance up the road.
    We need to look after all not just developers as they build and then walk away leaving the consequences for the locals to deal with after they have gone.

  10. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor accommodation -...” at 142 Bathurst Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Garry Stannus commented

    Yes, Councillors:

    keep on destroying community. You've already shown your willingness to jump to the wishes of the 'big money' (one Councillor excepted).

    Long term landlords v short term landlords?

    How about a municipality where home ownership is a priority, where homes are not targets for investors and where homes are not to be viewed as 'rentals' to be defended from the attacks of short term rentors and AirB&Bers?

    Home ownership.

  11. In Forster NSW on “Cemetery, Chapel and Tea...” at 85 The Lakes Way, Forster NSW 2428:

    David Mills commented

    David Mills
    Why do we have to have a funeral home in the centre of town across from a major shopping centre of Forster. This type of Bussiness would be better suited to a industrial area

  12. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michelle Wingrave commented

    More, can’t get parking in the service Rd now

  13. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Sandra Dobson commented

    I object to this proposed development - 1388 Gold Coast Highway Palm Beach - for the following reasons:

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for site coverage - 62% vs 50%

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for density - 1 bed/20.33m2 vs 1 bed/33m2

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for setbacks - there needs to be space to breathe between these developments

    - No allowance for deep soil planting or communal open space at ground level for residents

    - Design feels sterile and more suited to an inner city block than a sleepy beachside community, not in keeping with the local character of Palm Beach

    - 1 x visitor carpark to accommodate 9 x "villas" with the extreme lack of on street parking already apparent is not acceptable

    - There is already a 9 storey development approved on this very small, narrow street, and many others in the immediate vicinity including Canopy - grossly oversized and in breech of many acceptable town planning outcomes including density, setbacks, and design ;Pacific - zero setbacks, excessive height, excessive shadowing, offensive design that does not complement the character of our area; Magnoli apartments + villas - excessive density, excessive height; Siarn; 27th Avenue beachfront; the site currently occupied by Avvia restaurant; Periscope apartments.

    Please insist that the plans are reworked to comply with the acceptable outcomes for site coverage, density, and setbacks. Please insist on deep soil planting and appropriate parking provisions for the comfort & enjoyment of future residents.

  14. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 6 - 8 Moseley Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Great for rate revenue, but what is proposed to help with the vehicular traffic congestion that already exists within the area and adding more housed, re people = cars , will just increase further. It took me 5 sets of lights to do a right hand turn from Oaks Road into North Rocks Road, and eight minutes (sometimes longer) to get from Oaks/Jenkins Road, to cross Pennant Hills Road in the mornings.

  15. In Lobethal SA on “Storage building &...” at 4 Brettig Road, Lobethal SA 5241:

    Dianne Barrett commented

    I would appreciate a detailed plan of the continuing works at GE Hughes Constructions, 4 Brettig Rd, Lobethal, as I am their adjacent neighbour at 20 Kenton Valley Rd, Lobethal and have not been informed of any of the works which have been going on in the next paddock. The topography of the land has changed considerably due to earthworks which has sent a lot of topsoil blowing over my property.
    I have contacted council some time ago about a 'truck wash' also being put on ther property, alas, I have not received any further information of this either. On that matter, I am concerned for any potential polluted run-off water. I did contact the EPA over this matter. My property is considered to be a water catchment zone.
    I hope when they (GE Hughes Constructions) have finished all their earth moving that they will plant trees to make the view from my property more aesthetically pleasing.

  16. In Wombarra NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens title...” at 632 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Wombarra NSW 2515:

    Kerry Lawrence commented

    I could write a very long list as to why this proposal can never be acceptable however
    suffice to say we Wombarra residents are the caretakers of this unique village between the escarpment and the sea.
    It’s difficult enough for us already with increased traffic volume unstable walkways etc. Our bushcare programs are of a high standard with many volunteers also protecting Scarborough Wombarra cemetery . We are trying to protect Wombarra flora n fauna . This type of development undermines our safety and our vision for a sustainable creative and safe future for us and our next generations. We are a community , a village ... not a housing estate.
    Kerry L
    and family

  17. In Clarence Park SA on “Retain existing dwelling,...” at 438 Cross Road, Clarence Park 5034, SA:

    Dianne commented

    As a disabled person I have great concerns about parking at 440 Cross road, I have great difficulty in reversing out of my driveway due to the obstructed view from vehicles parking on curb obstructing my safe view. Due to the current congestion of 442 Cross Road units & multiple vehicles from 1 unit being 4 in total! Whilst reversing onto a high density, high traffic roadway, can I be guaranteed a clear passage in front of 440 to park, without impedance of future planning. I can only see this issue becoming more dangerous in the future as has been demonstrated via a number of close calls of potential collisions due to lack of safe vision. This has clearly been communicated as a mains road issue and not council. For safety reasons this must be addressed prior to any High density housing.

  18. In Gordon Park QLD on “Multiple Dwelling” at 44 Burnaby Tce Gordon Park QLD 4031:

    Jenny Bell commented

    The section of Burnaby Terrace where this development is to be built is a narrow one way section. Although the driveway will be situated in the two way area, visitor parking will be an issue. With only 1 visitor park underground with questionable access (see closed garage door in pictures), visitors and tenants will park on this narrow part of the street creating further traffic hazards for road traffic making it more difficult and dangerous to drive along this section of Burnaby Terrace. Could this one way section have a yellow "no parking" line?
    I also question that no storm water access tap will be provided for properties on the eastern side particularly 63 and 65 Alva Terrace. If and when there is future development of these properties, how do they then access the storm water drain?

  19. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Jason Lie commented

    Hi there,
    Please do not put in a toxic incinerator so close to residential areas. We just bought into the suburb at the highest peak of the market as we have started a family here in craigieburn. This will only mean housing values drop for all surrounding areas and will not only impact people from a health perspective but also financially. Please don't make us move as we really love the area and our parents have been here for over 20 years.

    Sincerely,
    Jason Lie

  20. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “The construction of two...” at 1 Blackwood Park Road, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Sandra Foster commented

    I hope you will take car parking into consideration. This part of Blackwood park road is right near Glenfern road. It has a solid line so cars are not supposed to park there, but inevitably they will and this will cause traffic mayhem. Happy to clear the garden, because its a huge mess, but the sit needs to have adequate parking for several cars.

  21. In Clarence Park SA on “Construction of 2 Two...” at 438 Cross Road, Clarence Park 5034, SA:

    Shane Langbein commented

    Parking in the area has already been negatively affected by the units at 442 Cross Road. Minimum of 6 parking spaces need to be available to prevent further parking congestion. Disabled people live in the area who cannot safely reverse onto Cross Road and need the parks in front of the property for safety.

  22. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor accommodation -...” at 142 Bathurst Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad Murray commented

    The people who own these houses should be able to do whatever they want with them.

    If there is a demand for airbnb and they comply with the planning and safety requirements then go for it. As a landlord myself (long term rental) I am more and more leaning towards short term rental. It is hard to find good agents, tenants do not take good care of the property, good agents are hard to find, when damage is done it is really hard to get the bond back to cover it and then sometimes we end up out of pocket.

    As long as agents have low expectations on tenants, tenants don't value the property that the owner has worked hard to buy and the bond is not easy to get to cover repairs, more properties will be going into short term rental.

    We need more rental properties, but red tape, availability of trades and not great planning instruments are not helping. We need less big houses and a far more small and medium houses and flats.

    If anyone from the state gov ever sees this, why aren't we able to rent out Ancillary Dwellings? There are a lot of pluses to them and NSW has shown how successful they can be at brining more rental spaces into the market...

  23. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 94 Stoney Creek Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    A.Stubley commented

    The area is zoned R2, and the maximum amount of boarding rooms is 12, so this cannot be approved. The new nursing home almost next door is 2 stories, why this has to be 3 is beyond comprehension, This development would back on to suburban homes right next to it in Abercorn St and Eddystone Rd, totally wrecking the streetscape.

    attached link to NSW rules which this does not follow
    https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Factsheets-and-faqs/fact-sheet-sepp-affordable-rental-housing-boarding-houses-2019-02-28.pdf

  24. In Kurralta Park SA on “Removal of a significant...” at 14 Broughton Avenue, Kurralta Park SA 5037:

    Julienne Lenain commented

    Trees must take priority over any building construction. We need all the shade and biodiversity we can get in Adelaide to keep our city cool and habitable.
    The tree should only be removed if it is certified by 2 arborists With good reason.

  25. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Tracey commented

    I object to this proposed development - 1388 Gold Coast Highway Palm Beach - for the following reasons:

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for site coverage - 62% vs 50%

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for density - 1 bed/20.33m2 vs 1 bed/33m2

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for setbacks - there needs to be space to breathe between these developments

    - No allowance for deep soil planting or communal open space at ground level for residents

    - Design feels sterile and more suited to an inner city block than a sleepy beachside community, not in keeping with the local character of Palm Beach

    - 1 x visitor carpark to accommodate 9 x "villas" with the extreme lack of on street parking already apparent is not acceptable

    - There is already a 9 storey development approved on this very small, narrow street, and many others in the immediate vicinity including Canopy - grossly oversized and in breech of many acceptable town planning outcomes including density, setbacks, and design ;Pacific - zero setbacks, excessive height, excessive shadowing, offensive design that does not complement the character of our area; Magnoli apartments + villas - excessive density, excessive height; Siarn; 27th Avenue beachfront; the site currently occupied by Avvia restaurant; Periscope apartments

    We need to protect our lifestyle we need to build a sustainable city, council need to look into reworking this development to suit the suburbs character

  26. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Dawson Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Andrew Harris commented

    1) ^ solstice! I meant winter solstice!

  27. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Dawson Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Andrew Harris commented

    I have a number of concerns about this development and application.

    1) It is clearly too high. It's higher than all of the surrounding buildings, and will cast a shadow across the area that will significantly reduce the amenity of the heavily used public spaces between Brunswick Baths, Brunswick Library, and the Town Hall. The shadowing diagrams in the application show the extent of the shadow reaching the far footpath at equinox, so for half of the year - the worst half, the shadow will be worse than that. That alone is unacceptable. The height needs to be lowered at least two levels, so that light is not obstructed right through to the winter equinox.

    2) The entry/exit point crosses a footpath which is heavily used by children, on their way to school, or to swimming lessons, and elderly/infirm people attending fitness classes at the baths. The very low volume of traffic generated by the current car park is already obstructive at times. The substantial increase that could be expected with this development will clearly increase conflict, and create an unacceptable hazard for vulnerable users of the public space. The entry/exit to the building should be moved to Saxon Street.

    3) There are a large number of units with windows and balconies that overlook the Brunswick Baths. Users of the baths implicitly consent to being seen by other users of the baths. They do not consent to being viewed by anyone outside the baths. Children attending swimming lessons and the like cannot consent to it, and I think it unlikely that parents of those children would either. There are clear bans on taking photographs or video of pool patrons from within the baths complex. There can be no such control placed on owners of overlooking apartments. Therefore, it's clear that the design must be altered to preserve the privacy of users of the baths. Balconies and windows must not overlook the outdoor bathing areas.

    4) The proposed building will cast a significant shadow over the Brunswick Baths building, reducing the council's capacity to generate solar electricity, and reduce emissions. The proposed building's paltry solar array should be increased to a realistic size, and an agreement reached that compensates council for the loss of solar generation, whether in kind, or financially.

    5) The Acoustic Memo fails to mention the existing nightclub, Howler. The whole area around Howler is currently dominated by Cultural use, Recreation, and Retail. Residential areas are well distant, on the other side of Sydney Road. By-laws must be put in place that provide substantial protection for established venues like Siteworks and Howler from noise complaints of new residents in this development.

    6) Should the development go ahead. Provision must be made to keep the footpath and road spaces on Dawson Street fully functional throughout construction. This is a very busy pedestrian thoroughfare, used by children and elderly. The levels of disruption that have been associated with developments along the Upfield Bike Path would be completely unacceptable in this situation. Covered scaffolding and protected thoroughfare such as is common on developments in the CBD must be used, and the entry point for the building site must be via Saxon Street.

    7) The bicycle parking provisions are good, but architectural renderings don't show the existing hoops on the footpath in front of the building. These must not be compromised, or removed.

    8) Car parking is an area of concern, though I do believe it's acceptable to reduce our reliance on cars, and the statistics support it, there must be by-laws to reinforce that. Council needs to address the inevitable overflow of such developments. It may be that by-laws need to be enacted that preclude residents of units that do not have spaces in such developments from being included in parking provisions provided by council in the future. This may mean that the owners of units would be ineligible for parking permits.

    Overall, the amenity of the valuable public spaces along Dawson street must prevail over the developer's desire to wring as much revenue as possible out of their site. People matter.

  28. In Kingswood SA on “Demolish Existing...” at 17 Belair Road Kingswood SA 5062:

    Jackie Woods commented

    Although progress is wonderful there needs to be a balance between moving forward for the sake of it and preserving parts of our community's history. Beautiful buildings such as this one need planning development and council's help to be protected and saved for future generations to see the beauty from this era and the styles in fashion at the time. This is a gorgeous location and through creative planning this house could be used commercially without losing any of its integrity and maintaining it as part of our community. We seem to be too quick to demolish everything for the sake of making money. There is more to a community than that and the constant erosion of beautiful old premises that don't quite fit the desired need of now, eg for a new car yard, are suffering the consequences of this. Please help save this building and others of its era before none are left for us to admire and enjoy.

  29. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Trish Hawkins commented

    The development at 1388 Gold Coast Highway does not comply with GCCC code on:
    density, setbacks, site coverage, amenities such as communal open space and car parking.
    I strongly object to this development for the reasons given above .
    The council requires us to be polite and direct, I request that council should give the residents of Palm Beach a fair say . Sadly that has not been happening since this council was elected.
    Councils are elected in good faith by the community to uphold the laws of the city but I see no evidence of this instead building codes are being broken repeatedly and relentlessly. Where will it all end. The community has no power against greed. Very sad to see a beautiful part of Australia ruined.

  30. In Kingswood SA on “Demolish Existing...” at 17 Belair Road Kingswood SA 5062:

    Louise Nordestgaard commented

    Please do not demolish this beautiful and historic building. A car yard can be built almost anywhere. There are many spaces along South Road at the moment. Car yards do not really belong in such a graceful and attractive area, and do not add to the ambience of a genteel suburb.

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