Recent comments

  1. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 39 Caroline Street South, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    Really and truly ‼️‼️‼️
    Another beautiful original building to go‼️
    It has so much history of being south yarra’s first car service station and showroom then an iconic plumber.
    Surly a unattractive and of no architectural merit block of flats is not an answer to the continued attack on south Yarra’s dwindling historical history .
    Please reconsider this planning permit 🙏

  2. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Anne Boyden commented

    I would like to add another point regarding the danger of flooding to the Woolgoolga Art Gallery. Since the new temple has been erected in Hastings Street there have been improvements made to the drainage system which links Hastings St through the corner block on the West side of Short Street. Coupled with this the building of the units on the East corner of Short St and the building of the temple has caused more flood plain to be lost and now the upper reaches of Jarretts Creek is fed by a large and very direct culvert under Beach Street instead of meandering around the edge of that block. This will increase the amount and speed of the storm water drainage and coupled with the outlets from the development's bio-retention basin I believe will significantly increase the risk of flooding in the Woolgoolga Art Gallery and further downstream in the Sunset Caravan Park not to mention flooding of the road at the already inadequate culvert in Bultitude Street.

  3. In Farley NSW on “Crematorium and Cemetery -...” at 48 Old North Road Farley NSW 2320:

    Grant Banner commented

    There are a number of residences on Winders Lane, over the tracks but immediately behind Old North Road and potentially also impacted by this Application if approved. Already we have to endure increased particulate load from the third track, coal trains parking near us deep into the night and delivering diesel particulate into the atmosphere. The third track approved at the last second by the Kristina Keneally Labor Government in NSW, the very day she prorogued parliament for the election she lost. Particulate load as checked at 10ppm passes muster down the Valley, but check it down to 2 ppm as recommended and wow, guess what you would find. We all almost to each resident, experience NOW, nasal issues. The cancer load is also anecdotally higher than usual in our area. Guess why? What will a crematorium add to the atmosphere? Further particulate. This is not to mention the mercury seepage load into our bores at some residences, from a cemetery impacting acquifers. We are long-term here, with our 5000 new homes and residences, staring at a class action likely against the operators of the crematorium and against the Council for approving (if they do). The road from Kurri, coming off the Hunter Expressway is a death trap, imagine some distraught aged people, used to expressway conditions, not using GPS & driving that goat-track to try to find what used to just be Pondi Park, a quiet, private residence. Deaths are on-the-cards. Any stack for the crematorium will impact the skyline, be visible from Pindari House, a successful and currently operating B & B in our 'Lane' and would be an eyesore.

  4. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove 5 spotted...” at Pacific Highway Chatswood NSW 2067:

    David Grover commented

    It is critical these trees remain and am astonished anyone would wish for these 5 trees to be removed. They shield unattractive buildings from thousands of motorists and are essential to the amenity of the streetscape and of this busy arterial road.

  5. In Glen Iris VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 1655-1661 Malvern Road, Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Pamela Gilbert commented

    This development originally concerned two houses only and I objected to those plans.
    Now the development concerns three houses with the addition of 1661 Malvern Rd
    Although it is stated that the new plans were submitted on 20/12/2018 I have not and did not sight any planning permission sign on the property as is usually required to allow for objections.

    Will somebody from Stonnington Planning please explain??

  6. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Di Elliffe commented

    I'm not sure whether the comments made here actually make it through into the Council's formal feedback system. Could someone from Council confirm that these comments go through and are recorded? Thankyou.

  7. In Prahran VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 251 High St, Prahran 3181, VIC:

    John Tabbagh commented

    am a local resident and wish to object to the proposed liquor licence at 251 High St Prahran.

    I believe the granting of this licence would detract from the amenity of the local area. It would encourage spontaneous purchases of alcohol which would only increase the incidence of graffiti and vandalism already present in the area.
    I believe the availability of liquor at this site would detract from the harmony of the environment., by increasing the occurrence of litter. There would be litter associated with bottles dumped in surrounding streets from people walking home with a ‘traveller’.

    For the above reasons I think the granting of a licence would be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

  8. In Edmondson Park NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at Lot 2 Croatia Avenue Edmondson Park NSW 2174:

    Adrian Chung commented

    There is also a development on Perrone Rd for 54 units for an area that is surrounded by houses. Huge frasers development. What are your suburb projections on population and strategic capacity plans? Local councillors have no powers to block developments. We get no updates on progress, and when we ask about where the other objections are on the submission we are told they are redacted due to privacy. When you ask if the development is going the reaponse is council sees no reason not to approve the development. supressing information,keeping residents in dark so the council can keep collecting rates and funneling money into the pockets of developers. Where is the transparency?

  9. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Kier commented

    How have you considered the preservation of the heritage features by approving demolition? Where's the balance between in keeping with the area, preserving history and having new dwellings that won't be worth as much as ones with the heritage features.

  10. In Elizabeth Bay NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 50-58 Macleay Street Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011:

    Linda Moffatt commented

    A great idea but I agree the hours should be extended to 11pm.
    Linda Moffatt

  11. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    June Havenaar commented

    Bad idea traffic is bad enough along Sunnyholt now so putting this building wil absolutely crazy .This area is a low density so why spoil it by put up a high rise crazy so please stop it Blacktown Council it’s a no brainer

  12. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Tim Chapman commented

    How can you go from single story residential straight to towering 5 story units in a suburban area, this is too big for Kings Langley and not in line with current community buildings, project needs to be drastically reduced to town houses more in line with rest of the suburb. Planning gone mad for profits only without any thought of residents whatsoever.

  13. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Tanya lindsay commented

    Please do not build this here . The police are overstretched to help us let alone hundreds more people , the roads cannot cope now with the cars / commuters and this is so bad for the environment . Why dont you plant some trees and put this development somewhere better suited . NO !!! We do not want it .

    No i have not bribed a councillor .

  14. In Camberwell VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 573 Camberwell Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Maureen Robinson commented

    While I accept that units such as this need to be built, particularly in areas close to transport and amenities, I am very concerned that this would have reduced requirements for car parking. Our local streets are already filled with cars, often belonging to people not even living in the street - we don't need to support this further. It is unrealistic to assume people living here will not have cars, so they need somewhere to park them.

  15. In Flinders Chase SA on “Construction of tourism...” at Sandy Creek, Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, SA:

    Patrizia Bronzi commented

    To whom this may concern,
    Sandy Creek and it's surrondings are unique and what makes it special is that its wild, untouched, unspoilt by us. This place and the few that are left like this are worthy of our outmost respect and protection. My insight on this proposed development is that its on a scale that will reduce the effectivess of conservation efforts. I therefore ask that you and all concerned in the decision making of Sandy Creek's fate would please put the land, the natural habitat and the wishes of the local Kangaroo Island people first.
    I look forward to your reply and any updates on this matter.
    Kind regards
    Patrizia Bronzi

  16. In Elizabeth Bay NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 50-58 Macleay Street Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011:

    Denée Gillin commented

    I have lived and worked in this area for the last 7 years and this is a wonderful advancement. I thoroughly support this application, I do however think 8pm could be extended to 9pm,
    (Or even 10pm) this would allow a 7pm dinner sitting, rather than being rushed inside mid meal.

  17. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 19 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Jason commented

    I am also concerned about the loss of a significant number of mature trees, as well as the increased local traffic from the higher density.

    The development site is immediately adjacent to a walkway to Essex Street, and there should be design considerations in keeping with this. The development provides a golden opportunity for Council to consider how the thoroughfare could be enhanced.

  18. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 113 Murray Farm Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Graeme Williams commented

    I wish that ALL tree removal applications showed this amount of detail as to the reasons for the removal request. Congratulations.
    Whilst we don't want trees removed wherever possible I completely understand your reasoning.

  19. In Eaglemont VIC on “Demolition of a dwelling...” at 14 Glen Drive, Eaglemont, VIC:

    John Horsnell commented

    There is nothing in this dwelling that reflects the character or the heritage of the Burley Griffin Estate.The architectural style is not reflective of the area.
    If this design is allowed to proceed to be built it will only encourage other developers to gradually eat away at the heritage of the area.

  20. In Edmondson Park NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at Lot 2 Croatia Avenue Edmondson Park NSW 2174:

    Liliana Samson commented

    I strongly object to this development. There is already so many new houses in Edmondson Park, so much so that the train station is running out of parking, there are no bus stops or buses, there are no parks. I've been living there for almost 3 years and the roads are in shambles ahd have potholes, there are people dumping rubbish everywhere. It's not a nice environment to live in.
    You are allowing new developments when you don't have the infrastructure in place, where is the proper planning of this suburb.
    Now you want to allow a development of 2 mere lots to build 34 houses?

  21. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Ryan Flood commented

    This development is total out of character to this area. This type of construction would be better off near the train station or similar areas.
    This section of sunnyholt road is busy at the best of times, adding this amount of units and the amount of trucks that will be about during the construction, is a recipe for disaster.
    The local schools are under pressure and this type of construction won’t help.
    I can only imagine the amount of cars that will get parked in and around the local sports fields, thus added frustration to the local residents on sports days.
    We have built a very much family orintated area, low crime and little vandalism or graffiti, this type of development will only become a blight on the area, not an improvement.
    I can see no positive to this type of development

  22. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Kelly O'Brien commented

    I have concerns relating to the following:

    - The dormitory rooms planned for the podium mean high density bedrooms looking directly into our properties at 1 Margaret st
    - The podium height is higher than planning standards
    - There is already another property at 80-88 regent st being assesed for student housing in addition to the newly completed Iglu at 66 regent st. This is already a huge increase in student housing within a very small area. I agree with Donald Glover's comment that the impact of current plans should be measured before any more are approved.
    - The planning documents show the Podium on Margaret st side being up to the boundary. Does this mean the building will be even closer to 1 Margaret st than the current building
    - This seems to be premium priced student accommodation. How does this address housing affordability in inner sydney?
    - what measures are in place to minimise disruption and noise for the residents in 1 margaret st?
    - what measures can be made to allow sunlight for the residents at 1 margaret st? Is something like the heliostat at central park chippendale feasible? Based on the plans it seems we will have a significant decrease in light into our building.
    - how will additional parking requirements be met?
    - the laneway seems to be only optional at this stage, will there be an increase to the building size if the laneway is not approved?
    - overall it seems to be a very large building proposed for a small site.

  23. In Bayview NSW on “New - (insert details)” at 9 Minkara Road Bayview NSW 2104:

    Janice Haviland commented

    Dear Sir
    In the interests of conservation and protecting our natural environment please decline commission for the building of residential age care units to be built on Pittwater Golf course.
    The Land & Environment Court of NSW is hearing “closing arguments” on Tuesday 12th February 2019 , in the matter for the proposed development of 85 Seniors Housing units in 7 buildings that will be multi storeys high on Bayview golf course in Pittwater’s largest gazetted Wildlife corridor .

    As well as looking unsightly this development will have enormous ramifications for the wildlife that inhabit this corridor.
    The impacts on biodiversity are very substantial and adverse. Proposal fails to comply with PLEP and PDCP requirements .The visual impact of the proposed buildings will be huge after removal of 249 mature trees that are 70+ years old. Destroying all these trees that are the homes for a variety of bird species as well as other animals will have enormous consequences for these animals.

    For the environment and the wildlife that call this area home please preserve this wildlife corridor and do not approve this development. We must preserve these natural environments for future generations to enjoy.
    Yours sincerely
    Janice Haviland

  24. In Charlestown NSW on “Demolition and Boarding House” at 3 Mulbinga Street, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Kellie commented

    I thought if you were a convicted pedophile, you were not allowed to live in close proximity to anywhere that is frequented by children. How can they possibly even consider allowing this facility to built directly next door to a child care centre and so close to schools, public swimming pool etc. There is something morally wrong with this decision and the council should not even consider it.

  25. In Cranebrook NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 174 a Linden Crescent Cranebrook NSW 2749:

    Frank Agius commented

    My name is Frank Agius of 11 Willowgum Crescent, Cranebrook NSW 2749.

    I have just been alerted by one of our neighbour's of an application of group housing to the address of 174a Linden Crescent, Cranebrook NSW 2749.
    This property back onto mine and am very upset that we have had NO notification directly from council of the development application to allow us the chance to reply.

    I strongly object to the application for the below reasons.

    We bought here and spent good hard earned money to live here away from the High density residential living to have peace and quiet in a family based area.

    I am also concerned of the fact of devaluation of my property having Group home living on my back fence as may reduce the number of potential buyers in the future.

    Septic/ we are on septic tanks Not sewer

    Excess stormwater



    kind regards

    Frank Agius

  26. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    A Grant commented

    Kings Langley is low density housing. Property prices are a direct result of people seeking low density housing suburbs and land. Building these will change the dynamics of the suburb causing our property value to drop.
    Local schools will not cope with the drastic increase in student population as will local hospital services which are already struggling.
    Traffic on Sunnyholt rd and Vardys road is already an issue, increasing this traffic will greatly impact drivers in the area.
    Kings Langley is one of the few suburbs remaining that has a suburban low density community. People seek out these suburbs, it’s a Blacktown gem. The proposal is inappropriate for the suburb and will have detrimental effects on the community.

  27. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove 5 spotted...” at Pacific Highway Chatswood NSW 2067:

    Gertruda Chan commented

    I don’t support the removal of the trees along the highway. Chatswood is getting very built up with tall buildings around. The trees provide a nice landscape and green view to the area.

  28. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Alison Smith commented

    Demolition for financial gain resulting in the loss of such a characterful building would negatively impact on the local environment.

  29. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Ruth Malcolm commented

    I am concerned about the well being of Mr K Arkless who resides at 81 Letitia St. He is very old and has been unwell.
    I feel this unwanted development will be detrimental to his health. Has he been consulted?

  30. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Tomas O'Meara commented

    This is a local landmark for me And I walk past it often. I will be greatly disappointed to see such an extraordinary residentual home destroyed in a rush to make a quick dollar.

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