Recent comments

  1. In Campsie NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 10-12 Beaumont Street, Campsie:

    Dennis commented

    I do not agree with this proposal. The street and area is too overdeveloped with plenty of choice of affordable housing.

  2. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine Reynell commented

    No Andrew, when did that approval go through do you know? Given it was denied 5 years ago I’d love to know why it’s now been approved as suitable or acceptable under appeal ... this is a disaster for local residents on multiple fronts and completely unwanted over development!

  3. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Andrew Bullen commented

    You are clearly not aware that the original application was approved on appeal to the Planning & Environment Court. This change seeks only to develop the approved development in two stages instead of one.

  4. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    M Pasilow commented

    I thought it was just me who couldn't see any information. Glad to see it was council ineptitude. What is the point of this notification??

  5. In Capel Sound VIC on “3 lot subdivision - spear” at 28 Elizabeth Avenue Capel Sound VIC 3940:

    Ralph commented

    This matter went before VCAT.
    The member was very clear in his deliberations and what needs to be done to make it compliant, and the granting of the permit.
    Yet the builder had altered the internal design and changed the exteria materials e.g. frosted glass to clear glass and its height requirement.
    And also residing in the premises without a certificate of occupancy.
    How can the builder get away with this?
    He is making a mockery out of the Mornington shire and VCAT!

  6. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine Reynell commented

    This was knocked back 5 years ago and now I see it has been resubmitted - perhaps a different design, however still 14 units ... NO WAY TRC!!!

  7. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine Reynell commented

    Seriously??!!! This has essentially been rejected before - what has actually changed? There is no need to replace two houses with 14 ... please please please do not let it go ahead. There is so much overdevelopment in East Toowoomba it’s completely unfair to existing residents who bought here for nice size blocks, moderate traffic and low road noise etc etc. a development like this not only affects Bridge Street but also Cavell St running behind significantly. It is a “quiet” street and can not accommodate this influx of cars, visitors, bins etc etc.

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

    Lesley Oldfield 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.

  9. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Megan Forgus commented

    The development at this site needs to take into account the generally low density domestic houses and town houses in the area. Other than the building to be developed the surrounding area is suburban without any significant commercial development. Important factors are:
    - the height on the eastern site of the building needs to take into account the 5 windows on the western wall of the existing Cyclops building that are critical for light and ventilation
    - any assessment of the impact to traffic and transport must take into account the yet to be developed Epicure site on Allen St of 139 additional apartments yet to be absorbed by the small road network or light rail
    - the property is bounded by North St to the west which is essentially a one lane street, completely congested at all times, the overflow going to Elswick St where the recently refurbished St Columba primary school will be negatively impacted by traffic and parking overflow from the new development
    - to the east of the site Francis St is a no through road forcing any additional traffic back into the William St corridor
    - William St intersection with Norton St is the entry point into the network of the buses from Leichhardt bus station already creating significant congestion
    - Darley St further to the north does not cope well with peak hour congestion and will be stretched by the addition of 139 apartments at Epicure, let alone 186 more households which is the scale of the current proposal
    - the Light Rail is also already at risk of loosing its reputation that so enhances Leichhardt given its inabilility to deal with current capacity let alone cope with these additional developments at Leichardt North, Hawthorn Canal, Taverners Hill and the increased density of development at Summer Hill
    I am not against the development of the site, it is just the scale & density that is concerning. 187 apartments in the current footprint given the surrounding area and road capacity is too many

  10. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request to Change Approval...” at 68 Bridge Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    They don't give up do they? Silly me. I assumed that the TRC would automatically reject this stupid proposal out of hand after the outcry over the original DP. Well folks, here we go again. Fourteen units (14). That should do a lot for the local amenity. As I ststed before, That's up to 42, yes 42 wheelie bins to be collected each week. And don't go on about industrial bins. They would be a greater abomination.
    It's time to take the Coucillors to task. The election isn't far away. Let those gravy train ono- representative people explain away why this should be approved.

  11. In Bondi NSW on “Remove two (2) Ficus...” at 36-38 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Clarissa Watson commented

    At this time of climate change, when we have lost more than half of NSW's trees to fire, and will lose more to these same fires, we need to preserve every remaining tree possible, whereever it is.

    These fires are likely to be our country's major extinction event. Urban populations of tree dwelling animals will become significant genetic pools in attempts to recover species that will now be endangered. So their urban habitat must be preserved.

    Native fig trees are very important habitat for our arboreal animals, providing food and hollows and crevices for shelter.

    The remaining trees of our state will also be important in the absorption of some of the carbon emitted by these ongoing fires. Each tree will play a role in lessening the impact of climate change from now on..

    I don't think that the urban public is aware of the absolute carnage that these fires have wrought. Almost no wildlife has survived the fires. Very few animals have come into care from the firegrounds. And the area covered by fire is the majority of our forest.

    We all have understand the reality of this, the worst and largest fire anywhere in the world to date.

    Please don't allow these trees to be removed unless they pose some threat which cannot be ameliorated. We must keep our trees and stop acting as though this is business as normal in the 1960's..

    Replacing the trees with young trees will not suffice as these trees are mature, and we need our mature trees. We cannot wait for new replacement trees to mature in 50 years.

    As a wildlife carer currently in a fire affected area, I implore urban people to start to think for the welfare of the planet and our children's future in all decisions. .

  12. In Ryde NSW on “To construct 3 x 2 storey...” at 17 Potts St Ryde NSW 2112:

    Rob Barbagallo commented

    This proposal should be rejected it is over development of the site and will have impacts on stormwater infrastructure a major concern for the area, including additional traffic and parking of vehicles on narrow Potts street.
    The ryde community is sick of this type of development, all across Sydney people feel underserviced, overcrowded, dwarfed by high-rises, squished into train carriages and busses, smothered by streets flooded with cars and crammed onto toll roads.

  13. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 91 Blackburn Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Michael Orlando commented

    Dwelling is very close to the boundary of our house, and a much higher fence is required. As there is a clear view straight over from their side of the fence over to our property.

  14. In Surfside NSW on “Legislation: CAA Action:...” at 25 Timbara Crescent Surfside NSW 2536:

    Joanne Thompson commented

    I have felt intimidated by 2 of the 4 dogs residing on this property. They tend to escape and or be on guard duty on the front deck almost always. This once pretty peaceful street is definitely impacted by the presence of the dogs and I will no longer walk in that direction as a result of the threat of them escaping or barking (particularly when I have my small dogs with me.

  15. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Georgia Cameron commented

    I am very concerned about the death of a number of Turpentine trees on this site at 25 Ray Road Epping, which is the subject of DA/19/2020 to convert the heritage-listed home to a childcare facility with 50 places. Before this DA can proceed, Council should appoint an independent arborist to investigate the death of the trees and mandate replacement trees immediately - at the owner's cost.

    Given the significant loss of heritage in the Parramatta Local Government Area, any further loss or "adaptation" to commercial premises is unacceptable in what is largely a residential area, and I therefore object to this DA.

  16. In Bondi NSW on “Remove two (2) Ficus...” at 36-38 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jason A Smith commented

    Do not remove these trees. There is not enough in this area

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

    Catherine Modini commented

    What is the point of planning guidelines when they are ignored by council and approval is given. Over development is only going to cause more traffic congestion, shadowing, wind tunnels etc. & total degradation to a once healthy, livable environment. This sort of development is not what people want!

  18. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 168 Camden Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    With this notification Inner West Council has exceeded its past record levels of non-information - not only has it failed to upload the application documentation but the summary provided is completely incomprehensible.
    "Alterations additions & outbuildings dwells only" - what does this actually mean?

  19. In West Melbourne VIC on “To facilitate the...” at 407-415 King Street West Melbourne 3003:

    Cindy Requin commented

    This building will be of great detriment to the students next door at Haileybury. It will affect the light in the classrooms. It will also affect that of the residents at Flagstaff Green. There is also not enough parking in this area for this type of accomodation.

  20. In Wagga Wagga NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at Sheriffs Office Court House 57 Fitzmaurice St Wagga Wagga NSW 2650:

    Jane Cale commented

    The Sherrif's Cottage was occupied by WAAAF officers during WW2 as accommodation. I am writing about this at the moment and am planning a trip to Wagga to have a look at it. Can you consider not knocking it down please? It's important to retain what history we have.

  21. In Chatswood NSW on “Removal of 1 Tree at the...” at 26 Douglas Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Sensible commented

    What reason does the tree need to be removed? Trees provide oxygen, shade, habitat for animals and beautify our neighbourhood. This looks to be mature tree and should only be pruned appropriately.

  22. In Roseville NSW on “Inspect 1 tree for removal” at 30 William Street Roseville NSW 2069.:

    Lower North Shore commented

    This looks to be mature tree and should only be pruned appropriately. What reason does the tree need to be removed? Trees provide oxygen, shade, habitat for animals and beautify our neighbourhood in the lower north shore.

  23. In North Ipswich QLD on “Stormwater, Drainage Work...” at 26 The Terrace North Ipswich QLD 4305:

    Bradley Frost commented

    I'm wondering what exactly will be happening at the empty lot at 26 the terrace North Ipswich. As I live almost next to that. Thank you.

  24. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 410 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    I’ve had enough of these greedy developers trying to turn Bexley into a ghetto just so they can buy their kids the latest and greatest Ferrari. Forest road is already incredibly busy, the speed limit of 60 is 20km too much for such a dense area and yet there are going to be up to 100 more people coming in and out of this place every day??? This is a joke!

  25. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 8 Windermere Road Epping NSW 2121:

    M McCartney commented

    The application does not state why the trees are to be removed. The photos provided indicate the trees are healthy. Perhaps they lie in the footprint of a future granny flat and that is the only reason for their removal. Nevertheless the once leafy suburb of Epping cannot afford to lose these trees. I therefore object to the removal of these two trees.

  26. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 25 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Jan Primrose commented

    Could Parramatta City Council please check the cause of the recent demise of the 7-8 Turpentine trees on this property. Council should condition that the same number of replacement Turpentine tree are to be planted as part of a landscape plan whether or not this DA is approved. They can obviously fit onto the site as they were there until recently.

    That being said the works required to this beautiful heritage home to make it compliant with the requirements of the NSW Education and Child Care SEPP are incompatible with the heritage values of the building, the locality and of Parramatta City Council. This DA should be refused.

  27. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 44 York Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    I object to this DA. There is no arborist report to identify which trees are for removal and how the remaining trees will be protected. There are some beautiful street trees in Dorset Street next to this property and it would be tragic if they were damaged due to not following proper tree protection procedures. Without appropriate arborist information the DA should not be considered or approved.
    The Statement of Environmental Effects report provides several maps on pages 12 and 13. The identification of the site in the DA is inaccurate in all three maps. This means that approval of this DA would be questionable administratively.
    There is also a scarcity on other information which makes it difficult to access this DA. The City of Parramatta Council should request further information before proper consideration for this DA can be undertaken.

  28. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 85 Wyralla Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    M. McCartney commented

    This application states the tree removal is for the purposes of allowing development in the future. This is not a valid reason for tree removal and needs to be considered within the DA for this property in a Heritage Conservation Area. It would appear there is now a trend in Epping to remove trees to prepare selling the properties for development. This does not support reaching a 40% tree canopy and it makes the suburb hot, unhealthy and a bad place in which to live. The air quality is bad enough without adding to it by removing all the trees which provide oxygen for us to breath.
    The application states 'no' to the question is it within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). However, the property is within the Eastwood/Epping HCA and as such any tree removal requires special consideration for the heritage. Without a valid reason given by an arborist it should not be approved.
    I therefore object to this tree removal.

  29. In Bondi NSW on “Remove two (2) Ficus...” at 36-38 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    B hayes commented

    Everything should be done to ensure that these tress are not removed. They provide vital habitat and shade.

  30. In Redland Bay QLD on “New Dwelling” at 18 Jake Circuit, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Gary Mclean commented

    This council is out of control with all these tiny shoebox homes being built where you can shake your neighbors hand while your brushing your teeth in your bathroom and they are making breakfast in their kitchen.
    No wonder the fire department are angry.
    They can't get down the sides of most new homes.
    Looks like a new council will be elected this year.

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