Recent comments

  1. In Gladesville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 23 Hepburn Ave Gladesville NSW 2111:

    T Craven commented

    As a ratepayer and property owner in the area, I disagree with this DA. It seeks to demolish an early 20th century house in good condition with some original interiors to build a dual occupancy which will further detract from the character and amenity of Gladesville. The current site as far as can be ascertained from Google maps contains numerous trees and extensive planting which is a part of the streetscape and will presumably be removed. There are no plans on Ryde Council website but I would assume that this will be another characterless concrete construction. Ryde Council please put all planning documents on the website.

  2. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 51 Alexandra Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lara commented

    Can they please keep the noise down on weekends. Starting up on and making a racket is not on, forget about the sleep in

  3. In Myrtle Bank SA on “Variation to...” at Unit 7 / 25 Culross Avenue, Myrtle Bank SA 5064:

    Liz commented

    Yes, it’s a way of circumnavigating fair and open discussion on planning applications. I’ve had two houses near me put in windows they didn’t apply for and when I reported it to council the non compliance officer just made them apply for retrospective planning. Raised money for them but did not allow me to have an opinion. Allegedly it’s quite ‘normal’ practice. Not for the average Joe, I bet we’d be made to remove them!

  4. In Box Hill North VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North VIC 3129:

    Hasan commented

    Further information in regards to plans to develop the site at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North. The land the Chapel is on and surrounded by is also covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay (SL09) and a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO 05),these protections must be enforced.

    If this application is approved it will set a precedent for the heritage value of Council Heritage protected buildings/land to be undermined - the Chapel at 147 Woodhouse Grove is covered by a HO99 and the vegetation is covered by a SL09 and VP05. Why have a HO99, SL09 and VP05 capability if a developer can get permission to override them whenever they wish to further develop properties? The developer knew when they bought the site that it was covered by heritage protections. It obviously was seen as having heritage value in the past when classified and it is now still more valued for its heritage given current building developments in Whitehorse generally and Box Hill in particular.

    The site should be converted into a park and the Chapel converted into a museum to show the religious, cultural and educational development of the area as well as the development of quarrying. The site must be preserved and protected for current and future generations.

    This application must not be approved by Whitehorse Council.

  5. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Christopher McManis commented

    I have to oppose this application as we already have about five or six along the strip already. If the ones that are already here cannot satisfy the needs of those who use them there are also some in the industrial area. Please do not let this one go ahead.

  6. In Artarmon NSW on “Change of use and fitout...” at 84 Hampden Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    BM commented

    Just no. We have too many of these on Hampden Road. It is the main road, containing restaurants, cafes and shops. Children and families pass by everyday. It is an inappropriate location.

  7. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Replacement of existing...” at 50 Botany Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Lisa Shepherd commented

    I completely share the above concerns and object to this proposal.

  8. In Mount Colah NSW on “Section 4.55 (2) -...” at 497 Pacific Highway Mount Colah NSW 2079:

    Rhonda commented

    I am concerned about the use of dark colours of the roof and external bricks. As the suburbs lose their green space and tall shade trees they seem to be replaced almost all the time by heat/light absorbing colours that add to the heat island impacts. There also seems to be a very narrow driveway entry for the residents into this development that allows for a two car width then as it approaches their gate, changes to a single car entry.

  9. In Essendon VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 66 Buckley Street, Essendon VIC 3040:

    Jenny Nola commented

    How are heritage homes like this one not listed on the heritage register? Beggars belief, we will have no heritage buildings left at the rate things are going.

  10. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Russell Philllips commented

    Brisbane needs to keep this unique and historic landmark.

    Much of our historical heritage has already been lost and with so few examples remaining this beauty deserves a future.

    It was a central point & is but a small glimpse of what was our urban culture in this area.

    Please do not allow apathy to deprive us & our future generations of that.

  11. In Box Hill North VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North VIC 3129:

    Hasan commented

    The history of the former Wesleyan Chapel - Source: Victorian Heritage Database Report

    This building was built by Mr. Joseph Aspinall one of the early settlers in the Box Hill area. He was also a councillor for Box Hill, an orchardist, member of the first Nunawading District Road Board and foundation member of the Box Hill Cemetery Trust. On January 15, 1884, he was appointed shire secretary until October 11, 1887. He was a Methodist who made his home at the north end of Aspinall Road available for the first services in the district.

    Aspinall acquired 49 acres from Jon Dane, grantee for Crown Allotment 12, in the Woodhouse Grove area in 1851. There was no grant of crown land, and not even a very good prospect of starting a school, but Joseph was a staunch Methodist. Woodhouse Grove had taken its name from a Methodist college in Yorkshire. He set aside half an acre of his land and persuaded his friend Ben Lawford who bought his property from Aspinall’s original purchase to act as Secretary of the building committee.

    Construction of the chapel commenced in 1855 using locally quarried Koonung Creek sandstone (Aspinall had previously worked a quarry on the Collingwood Flat).

    Woodhouse Grove was opened by the Rev. Daniel Draper on Good Friday 1856, and its anniversaries are dated from then; but the Argus, which rarely mentioned Nunawading at all, reported on 2 January 1857 that the foundation stone had been laid by Mrs. Draper on Friday 26 December 1856 before a crowd of about 150 including some who were journeyed out from Collingwood and Boroondara.

    Statement of Significance - Last updated on - September 11, 2002

    What is significant?
    The former Woodhouse Grove Wesleyan Chapel was constructed in 1855-56. It was one of the first church buildings to be built in the Box Hill area, and the oldest surviving church building in the municipality. It has been in continuous use as a church since its construction and is now known as The Grove Uniting Church. The Woodhouse Grove Chapel is a small rectangular building of coursed freestone with stone quoining at the corners. It has round-arched timber framed windows with cream brick surrounds and keystones. It is a simple single roomed building with a porch to the Woodhouse Grove elevation.

    How is it significant?
    The Woodhouse Grove Chapel is of historical, aesthetic and architectural significance to the State of Victoria.

    Why is it significant?
    The Woodhouse Grove Chapel is of historical importance as an early intact building within the broader context of Victoria and in particular in the Whitehorse area. The Woodhouse Grove Chapel is important as it demonstrates the early establishment of individual towns around Melbourne that later became part of and were enveloped by greater Melbourne. The chapel is a remnant of the original small, once rural towns that grew up around Melbourne in the nineteenth century.

    The Woodhouse Grove Chapel is of architectural and aesthetic significance as an unusual example of a Georgian detailed Wesleyan chapel. The chapel demonstrates an early use of cream brick and a rare use of the local Koonung Creek stone. The chapel is important as a substantially intact 1850s building which has undergone little alteration on the exterior or interior.

    A plaque was unveiled by the Mayor of Box Hill, Councillor Ray Hill marking the recognition of the chapel building by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) at a thanksgiving service held at the church on Sunday 17th November 1974.

    The City of Whitehorse Heritage Review completed by Allom Lovell & Associates in 1999 identified the chapel as being of State significance and recommended it for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register. Source:Victorian Heritage Database Report

    The building is on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) Number - H2010
    and is protected by a Whitehorse Council Heritage Overlay - HO99.Source: Victorian Heritage Database Report.

    Has the developer submitted plans on how this building will be incorporated into their proposed development and used? Will the developer maintain the building in its original condition? Will the building be altered in any way? Has Heritage Victoria been consulted in regards to how the building is to be restored and maintained? Has the National Trust been consulted in regards to how the building is to be restored and maintained?

    The development of eight double storey dwellings will overwhelm and destroy the context of this building.

  12. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 18 Kendall Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    jeremy commented

    Wonder if the house will be kept or another bit of old Coburg gone to the to the cookie cutter apartment built by the backyard developer with quality materials designed to.last until it's sold.....

  13. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    No .look up my total opposition. Why waste my time. You will all enter the dustbin of history

  14. In Myrtle Bank SA on “Variation to...” at Unit 7 / 25 Culross Avenue, Myrtle Bank SA 5064:

    Di N commented

    So, the developer can ask for approval after the non authorised work has been completed? What use are guidelines?? Just to be stretched and manipulated by developers, it appears.
    Our Council tried and the developer continued the work.

  15. In Mordialloc VIC on “The subdivision of land...” at 26 Parsons Street, Mordialloc, VIC:

    John Askham commented

    We are due to have a baby in the next few weeks. This construction will mean we cannot use our garden as the area will be contaminated with dust and noise. The property whete construction will commence is along the full length of the rear of out garden with minimal cover from vegetation.

    The construction noise will also cause difficulties with sleeping for the baby, which will be very departmental for a new born and their development.

  16. In Ringwood East VIC on “Remove 2 trees” at 21 Hender Street, Ringwood East VIC 3135:

    Liz commented

    Clearly there must be a reason to ask for this permit, since every tree adds to the health and wellbeing of both habitat and people in Maroondah. Croydon Conservation Society, would object if there was no requirement to replace these trees on site elsewhere.
    Keep Maroondah clean & Green

  17. In Riverstone NSW on “Two Storey Dwelling” at 20 Galluzzo Street Riverstone NSW 2765:

    Rishi Amin commented

    Hi There,

    Welcome to my neighbor, Any chance I can get the plans for house and details of my neighbor just to understand if there is any impact in terms of Privacy.

    Regards,

  18. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    deb mostert commented

    STOP THIS HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT..... The constant eroding of bush land, larger blocks and open spaces to in fill for the benefit of investors does nothing to maintain the amenity for the existing folk in Bellbird Park. We feel under constant barrage from developers who seem to be able to do whatever they wish with ICC giving them permission to turn our once leafy suburb into a rental ghetto. I am concerned that this is not sustainable building planning and will just cause problems for us and council in the future. Have some vision and foresight to see what this will bring. No trees, no plants, no wildlife, everyone of these places running air conditioners because they are shoddy builds crammed in with no ventilation or breezeways allowed for. Cars parked everywhere because there is no parking, no public transport to service the extra people so increased traffic on already busy roads.

  19. In Erina NSW on “S4.55(1) Amendment - To...” at 89 Karalta Road, Erina NSW 2250:

    Frank Farrugia commented

    Is this part part lot of land for retirement village?
    Is so what is the total number of lots?
    Is there an architectural plan of proposed finished project?

    Thank you

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

    Nicholas D'Amato commented

    I with to commend the planning of the Building of the incinerator at the proposed site. People who object to this proposal have obviously not done their homework. This is 2020 and not the dark ages and no one is going to pollute the air. These incinerators nowadays emit clean air, much cleaner than the poison emitted from the cars objectors are driving.
    The objections are just knee jerk reactions and people need to do some homework. Go into YouTube and have a look at some of these incinerators. They are ingenious in their concept. Here a just a few.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYKANHHiBLs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo-pdOjE2ik
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DROZUstnsnw

  21. In Rockdale NSW on “17, 19, 21-25, 29, 31, 33 &...” at 17 King Street, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Leonie Bunch commented

    I note from the development plan that there are plans to remove the large gum tree on the eastern side of the block. That tree is one of the largest in the immediate area, one of the only eucalypts of that type, provides natural green shade on George Street and frequently has a variety of bird/animal life in it. Removal of this tree (as well as the small trees and shrubs on the border of the property would further contribute to increasing heat island and "urban desert' effects, where birds and important insect life (like native bees) have stepping stones of natural habitat removed between larger habitats, forcing them into smaller pockets.

    While I'm aware the buildings would provide (too much, from the height of the design)shade, and there is a proposal to replace the tree with two new plants, neither of these things will adequately replace the established tree, which has already survived development on all sides before.

    It would also be a shame to lose some of the character buildings on the proposed block, all of which are low rise, and replace them with up to 11 storeys - much more obtrusive onto the residents of Bay and King Streets than the current structures, but unlike the tree, there are other similar examples of each in the immediate area. The gum tree would be a unique loss to all residents nearby, human and otherwise.

    Thank you for your consideration on this matter.

  22. In Sutherland NSW on “Construction of two...” at 108 Flora Street Sutherland NSW 2232:

    James Kwok commented

    What's wrong with the existing 4 storey development? I am very concerned how a 6 storey development will have on adjacent buildings in terms of shadowing and privacy. There are no other 6 storey apartments on Flora street.

  23. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Kane Fraser commented

    Agree with Eleanor, completely. This area is renowned for its tranquillity and large leafy blocks, because of this it has manageable/low traffic volumes. A development of this nature would be the first of its kind and subtract from the many reasons while people pay a premium to live in this amazing area. It would also have a considerably negative effect on traffic volumes, many of the roads in the surrounding streets don't allow for much in the way of off-street parking, this development would bring more vehicles into the area and clog up the streets. The secondary traffic impact would be on the already struggling village car parking situation, which is a problem in its current state. Mount Eliza earnt much of its enviable reputation based on the streets surrounding development, this would the beginning of its un-doing I'm sure.

  24. In North Arm Cove NSW on “Convert existing double...” at 43 Eastslope Way, North Arm Cove NSW 2324:

    Jenny Little commented

    Am confused - Am being informed re this DA which is across the other side of the bay yet did not receive any such notification (which I was waiting for) on the property behind me next door. Main concern was the proposed drainage plans -& what is already going into the bay - not the building itself.

  25. In Saratoga NSW on “Telecommunications Tower” at 138 Davistown Road, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Hayley Hogger commented

    Pretty sure we are all now learning that things like money and good phone reception pale in comparison to our health.
    Until we know EXACTLY what these towers emit/do to us, we need to not install them.

  26. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Where is my comment on this "development? To repeat as you know by now i am utterly and totally against these transparet development. Stop clearing bellbird.. Waste of time ipswich planners.should all be sacked after apologising for aiding such blights on our landscapes Shame on you

  27. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Roach Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Paul commented

    Do you really want to commence an excavation (plus demolition and construction) now, while so many are working from home, while so many kids are trying to school from home, while many may be isolated at home without being able to escape the noise (and dust)?
    We ourselves have an HSC student now studying from a home close by.
    How about we give these developments a break for a while.
    We’re all making sacrifices. How about you delay this until the Coronavirus has passed us.

  28. In Myrtle Bank SA on “Variation to...” at Unit 7 / 25 Culross Avenue, Myrtle Bank SA 5064:

    C Piper commented

    What exactly is the variation that is being requested? Have there not been enough variations to the original approval already? Why only a variation on one of the units and not any of the others?

  29. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Use the land as an...” at 730A Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Laura commented

    Curious as to what type of education centre? This area is extremely congested, not only during peak hour but all day. The parking on Saint Georges Avenue and other adjoining side streets is already beyond capacity, used by visitors to Moorabbin Hospital and anyone visiting the Centre Rd shops; if parking is not provided on the ‘education centre’ site, these areas will no doubt be used.

  30. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Manufactured Home Estate” at 303 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Mr Andrew Nash commented

    Good Evening Mid Coast Council,
    I am extremely bewildered, as to why these Corporations ( Matthew Wales for Joint Venture P/L ) still try and impose these Manufactured Home Estates ( MHE ) into an existing area, where there is minimal room or no subsequent room for additional dwellings. This is at least the third attempt for this proposed Estate of Manufactured Homes, directly adjacent to Tallwoods Village. I would like to strongly object to this proposed development as the current infrastructure would not be able to handle all of the additional cars on the nearby roads and also not to mention, the added pressure and additional Water and Sewerage Services in the Local Area. As I am writing this Email to you, there are already countless Individual Dwellings being constructed in and around the Land on the Tallwoods Village Golf Course Site. In conclusion, based on all of the above reasons, I would like to strongly object to the proposed New Dwellings at 303 Blackhead Road, Tallwoods Village, Hallidays Point, NSW, 2430.

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