Recent comments

  1. In Lilydale VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 41 Albert Hill Road, Lilydale VIC 3140:

    Ben Watson commented

    Too many units, adequate off street parking is essential to ensure Albert Hill Road doesn't become a car park.

  2. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 30 Hume Drive, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Heather Berman commented

    Why are you turning Helensburgh into a suburb that’s choked with cars on the street and townhouse? It’s a small town that is rapidly losing its small town character. There have been significant townhouse developments in the last few years, and there is never enough parking allowed. Most of not all families have a minimum of 2 cars, more if there are young adults living in the house. Helensburgh has terrible public transport and as such everyone drives so the usual allocation of parking does not meet the communities needs. Once quiet streets are now like a car park. There is no need to over develop the place, leave it alone please

  3. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “1 x Araucaria heterophylla...” at 112 Broken Bay Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    David commented

    Great news to see a big tree being pruned instead of being demolished on The Peninsula. Well done owners to help keep shade trees intact.

  4. In Brighton-Le-Sands NSW on “Two storey dwelling” at 37 Princess Street, Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    NA commented

    Two storey what? Childcare center, overflow parking lot for Coles? Could be a bit more specific considering that property is the biggest and most valuable asset most normal people aspire to own in life.

  5. In Kogarah Bay NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 52 Souter Street, Kogarah Bay NSW 2217:

    Concerned commented

    Isn't the current house a two storey dwelling with inground swimming pool and a detached building in the back? Just confused as to whats wrong with the current residence? It just needs a render and maybe some new interior enhancements and its great!

  6. In Box Hill NSW on “Section 4.55(1A)...” at 15 Edwards Road, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    James commented

    Anna, have you seen the impact it has caused in the area?!
    Yes “priority” $$$, a lot to be made and I’m aware of Agenda 21.

    The quality of life declines with overcrowding population, simple.

  7. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 62 Verdun Street, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah commented

    It’s a shame that such a beautiful house will be demolished but I’m thankful that the elevations shown on the plans look really unique and nice. Thanks for not building a giant duplex here!

  8. In Epping NSW on “Mixed use development” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Louize Clarke commented

    I am curious to know if these comments are of any value to the developer and to council. I am sure many (possibly the majority of) comments were made opposing all recently built high rises in Epping yet they still go ahead -with minimal parking and little in the way of extra infrastructure to accomodate the thousands of new residents.

    A multi story public car park would be a good alternative to accomodate existing residents travelling by train.

    This public comment system seems completely futile when discussing multimillion dollar developments. The people’s voice falls on deaf ears. Which should shame those involved but it doesn’t.

    Progress and development is inevitable but to lose the history and ambience of a place while not gaining anything in terms of infrastructure and culture is just insensitive and uncreative.

  9. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 71 Regent Street, Kogarah NSW 2217:

    Angela commented

    Another over sized block within the area and again it impacts on air space and sunlight, stretches facilities, parking etc etc. Yes Council - the same comments but this type of development is wrecking Kogarah but obviously it’s great for rate collection.

  10. In Balwyn North VIC on “(CMP for Endorsement)...” at 139 Bulleen Road, Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Lazaros Zikou commented

    Council must not waive its own parking requirements, as requested by this Applicant.

    Any such waiver risks setting a dangerous planning precedent for the Bellevue Shopping Centre and its environs.

    Indeed, such a waiver is inconsistent with Council's own Bellevue Shopping Centre improvement plan, which is now finalised for delivery as part of the North East Link's litigation settlement whereby Council will receive $500,000 for this purpose:

  11. In Balcatta WA on “Development Assessment...” at Northlands Shopping Centre 377 Wanneroo Road Balcatta WA 6021:

    David Price commented

    I learnt today that Northlands Shopping Centre is to hav a Service Station and Liquor Store. I find it surprising that a service station is going to be placed in such a dangerous situation. Also we have enough service stations in the area. This would also be true of liquor stores. There is one fairly near on Main Street and a new one is opening on Karrinyup Road shortly. With all this proposed development it is hoped that the car park at Northlands West end will be upgraded. Parking bays are too small and the surface is awful. Elderly people find it hard to control a shopping trolley. One hopes centre management will learn from Stirling Shopping Centre, Westminster.

    David Price

  12. In Panorama SA on “Regulated Tree Removal” at 4 Moriane Avenue Panorama SA 5041:

    Greg O'Grady commented

    When it comes to removal of significant and regulated trees, It would be good if the development application included the reason.

    Too many trees are being removed, often for unnecessary and selfish reasons.

    It is not fitting with the endeavors of the City of Mitcham to preserve and maintain tree coverage.

  13. In Millswood SA on “1 regulated tree removal -...” at 45 East Avenue, Millswood SA 5034:

    Nathan Wright commented

    This is a beautiful tree but unfortunately it’s too dangerous for a residential area. I live next door to it, and we are under constant threat from the falling limbs. I’ve had to move our trampoline into the front yard in an attempt to keep the children away from danger. Please think of the residents living in direct proximity of it. If anybody concerned about this application would like to get in touch, I’d be happy to supply photo’s of the damage it’s done over the years.

  14. In Millswood SA on “1 regulated tree removal -...” at 45 East Avenue, Millswood SA 5034:

    Scott commented

    The tree in question is a risk to the children and families that live around it, and this particular tree is no where near the footpath to 'shade your walk'. I would have greater concern for the recent councils actions in cutting down of 'shade' trees along the trainline on Cormer Parade.

  15. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jason Gore & Erika Gardiner commented

    It is very disappointing to see this application being put forward with the idea that 10 stories is ok for this site. 10 stories is way too excessive considering it will block out much needed natural light to many neighbouring properties in the area. Traffic in the rear laneways is already a shambles with too many vehicles using it (especially large vehicles) Our building has been damaged numerous times. Adding a 10 story apartment block will greatly exacerbate these issues. It is my sincere hope that Moreland City Council contemplates these issues whilst also considering the existing owners of nearby properties who have paid a lot of money for the unobscured views and sunlight they currently enjoy.

  16. In Schofields NSW on “Construction of a 2 storey...” at 135 Alex Avenue Schofields NSW 2762:

    Natasha De Martino commented

    Alex Avenue is an extremely busy road, and this child care centre is directly across from Gozo street. There is a large number of residents who use the Gozo St intersection to turn onto Alex Avenue each day. This intersection is already a blind spot to turn right onto Alex Avenue, due to trees on the curb and cars parked.

    Of an afternoon the traffic from St Joseph's School banks up all the way down Alex Avenue from Jerralong Rd. This is going to cause major congestion with a daycare on that road.

    It is definitely a needed service in the area, however there needs to be a roundabout at the Gozo/Alex Avenue/Entrance to Child Care intersection to alleviate the traffic for local residents.

  17. In Samford Valley QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 90 Gibbons Road, Samford Valley QLD 4520:

    John Price commented

    This development will negatively affect our native wildlife due to loss of movement through their habitat. It is reported that koala numbers are declining so it seems unbelievable that council would approve a development of 15 lots on this parcel of land abutting Cr Brian Burke Reserve. ( a known koala zone)

    This development will cause more traffic along Gibbons Rd, which is already a black spot for vehicle accidents. Access to this development is at the base of a hill, which would be extremely hazardous to traffic travelling west along Gibbons Rd over the hill.

  18. In Normanville SA on “Land division” at 1 Cheeseman St, Normanville SA 5204:

    Kerry Rochford commented

    I am wondering if this is a practical idea given that street lighting, foot paths and drainage are in desperate need in Cheeseman Street. I am aware an upgrade is scheduled for 2021/2 so perhaps development should be postponed until then.

  19. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Alterations and additions...” at 35 Rosserdale Crescent Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Debra Marshall and Marlise Tilders commented

    A friend and I walked passed Ranelagh House on Monday and were extremely surprised at the work being carried out at present. There appears to be a massive addition to this gracious old home, out of place to the home, with some 20 cars parked in the narrow road, all seemingly connected to the new structure, especially disappointing in these COVID times. We wish to know what the permit is for with this home, the subject of much protection in the past, and request that an inspection on site be considered in view of the size of the alterations and additions.

  20. In Werribee VIC on “Two additional dwellings at...” at 22 Duke Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Jane commented

    I really feel that really the people in that area do take pride in their properties and we do just not need any more soulless style units with plastic grass and yuccas please
    The style of those houses In this area are becoming to be more appreciated as mid century modern. Also we do not need any more multiple dwellings on a single block because ultimately that’s what this town now city was meant to have
    Our roads are full as are our schools and our council cannot keep up with what we have now let alone more multiple dwellings bringing more people
    Also there is so much land in this area without subdivision I could understand if there were no land but there is

  21. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mitch Jones commented

    This development is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

    - increase in traffic makes the surrounding streets more congested, polluted and unsafe
    - impact on local businesses by allowing a large corporate trade supplier to disrupt the local economy
    - cultural heritage of Brunswick east being a unique zone of small businesses. We don’t need more monolithic corporate developments in these neighborhoods. Instead we should be preserving a culture of difference and independence which keeps our neighborhood vibrant.
    - impact on local residents and neighbors. People should have a say on what gets built in their immediate vicinity.

  22. In Moonee Ponds VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 142 Maribyrnong Road, Moonee Ponds VIC 3039:

    Andrew Badge commented

    Hi, How is the reduction of car parking requirements feasible? The existing practice already impacts the parking availability directly in front of my house and within 100m. There are rarely free parking spots during operating hours since this practice opened.

    What are the details of the illuminated signage. The practice had previously installed a large illuminated without planning approval. This illuminated the interior of my house and my neighbours. It was removed but later re-appeared at a different angle. Where will this new signage be located. Where is the impact assessment on their neighbours?

  23. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Sheridan Wright commented

    10 storeys seems excessive amongst all the other developments in this area of maximum 5 storeys. Will create extensive shadow and parking issues.
    I'm not against this property being developed but it needs to consider its impact on current residents and cohesion with the street. Isn't 5 storeys enough?

  24. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mark J commented

    The Bunnings development is completely inappropriate for the following reasons:

    Traffic – Glenlyon Road is a busy road. I have lived on this road for over 10 years and traffic has become very congested. This road is already congested during the day, and completely bottlenecked at school pick up and peak hour. The development of this site will increase the traffic and increase congestion and pollution. Idling cars outside my front door reduces the air quality and makes this area unliveable.

    Safety - This road due to traffic congestion is not a safe shared space currently. This development will increase large haulage and traffic making the area increasingly unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and the for the local childcare and kindergarten.

    -Residential setting - inappropriate location for such a large commercial building. This business should be in a larger commercial space, to reduce the impact on surrounding streets, residents, noise levels, pollution, congestion and reduction of quality of life for residents already living in a high density suburb.

    -Creation of rat runs around the surrounding streets

    - Increased pressure of public transport services – with suspected delay in trams and buses due to traffic congestion

    -Increased rates over time – the residents will end up being responsible through their rates in paying to manage the impact of increased traffic in the region

    -Loss of local business. With the opening of the Sydney Road Bunnings – three local hardware stores were directly impacted, and have closed. We have a nursery in Lygon Street that will be directly impacted by this large store. Brunswick residents have moved to this region due to the creativity and character of local suppliers – Brunswick will become increasingly homogenised and soulless if large commercial superstores are permitted to compete with small businesses.

  25. In Pyrmont NSW on “PAN 34094 Alterations and...” at 34 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    David Carney commented

    This heritage listed building has been closed and looked very run down for years. It looks like it has had a facelift and a new lease on life. As a commuter who travels to Pyrmont every day for work i look forward to the rebirth of this building as a public space.

  26. In Gillieston Heights NSW on “Commercial premises,...” at 353 Cessnock Road Gillieston Heights NSW 2321:

    Bill Lockett commented

    We live in Redwood Drive and would like to see a plan of the layout of the retail area, wondering which end will be the IGA, Child Care centre etc. and what other tenants are planned for this development.

  27. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jo Kolevski commented

    10 stories is too high for this area of Brunswick East. Have things such as impact of natural light to surrounding buildings as well as the already limited parking in the area even been considered?!

  28. In Epping NSW on “Mixed use development” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Long-time concerned resident commented

    I strongly oppose the development of the high-rise at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121, i

    Epping does not need to develop to become another Chatswood with overshadowing. It is narrow-minded to think we can't respect the suburb's heritage and embrace suitable development at the same time.

    Because of the high density high rise developments, Epping now has nothing much to keep residents in their local area. We have to leave the suburb to work and shop,. Office space has been on a major decline, traffic is a nightmare, and streets are parked out by cars not accommodated by units or those seeking to use trains.

    We do not need to have more high-rise apartments to make the suburb looks more modern and energetic! It does the opposite and looks like a slum.

    A shopping centre is essential in Epping, which should include supermarkets, dining, coffee shops, etc., but not to the detriment of open space.

    The state government has a lot to answer for: allowing developers to build units to their hearts' content purely to line their own pockets, and without a moment's thought to the people they may be building them for.

  29. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 30 Hume Drive, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Daniela toecher commented

    I am against subdiving the proposed lot with the addition of 4 townhouses/duplexes that will lead to traffic problems and overcrowding of a quiet street. While most new townhouses have carparks, most cars are still being parked out on the street adding to significant parking issues for neighbours and the neighbouring streets as most families have a minimum of 2 cars.

    To note is that in recent years there have been a multitude of townhouse developments in the street including the one next door to it. Unfortunately, the street -
    and Helensburgh as a town - is losing its small town character and turning into a suburb with standardised townhouses like Engadine which I am sure is not in the interest of the majority of people.

    With the recent addition of all the townhouses in Hume Drive and Harper Lane, further subdivision and townhouse development should not be allowed in this area and the lot
    should be retained for a freestanding house with a backyard.

  30. In Kirrawee NSW on “Property Alignment Levels...” at 12 Fauna Place Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Jon commented

    A great consideration will need to be applied to the parking and traffic strategy if this development is approved. The other comments make great points that there is substantial traffic and congestion to the areas already. Apartment blocks are not providing enough basement parking with any excess cars spilling out onto the street. Parking in this area is already difficult due to its close location to the train station and town centre, where the close by car parking is timed (in most spots). This proposal does not appear to align with the local area of Kirrawee particularly in this location of single/double level homes. This will ruin the street for this local community.

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