Recent comments

  1. In Northmead NSW on “Development Application -...” at 65 Moxhams Road Northmead NSW 2152:

    Daniel Fowler commented

    Having resided on Moxhams Rd for almost 10 years, being not far from the address subject of this application, I can say first hand how ridiculous it is. Ordinary peak hour traffic coming from Winston Hills starts on some days around 5am, with the intersections of Whitehaven and Klien's Rd's coming to complete grid lock. Trying get our car out of our driveway takes on somedays 15 minutes. Added to this Noosh at Northmead Public starts at 7am with countless drop offs occurring from this time. This then starts again around 330pm up until 7pm. The parents already have extreme difficulty finding a car spot as it is. In addition, when trying to turn right from Whitehaven into Moxhams becomes a blind turn on account of the grid locked traffic on Moxhams. I have first hand seen numerous near miss collisions at this intersection. This is without factoring in the near on 900 students who attend the school from 8am onwards. These parents have trouble also finding safe and legal parking to start with, let alone adding more congestion with this possible development. We have resorted to allowing other parents to use our driveway to safely get their kids to school. The current parking available can't accommodate the current level of usage, let alone having more strain added to it with this insane development. The safety of the students and general public will be put in grave danger if this is approved.

  2. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 8-10 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Enough of dividing small blocks. Not more subdivision in Eltham. The suburb is already overcrowded. No more removal of native vegetation

  3. In Eltham North VIC on “Amendment - Buildings and...” at 68 Progress Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Saying no to both developments. Enough of dividing blocks. And also to removing native vegetation.

  4. In Rockdale NSW on “Modifications to the front...” at 2 Clifford Street, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Noah Faber commented

    This looks really attractive, love seeing appplications like this! :)

  5. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Mark commented

    Maybe Council needs to ensure those that live in these appartments cannot own a car

  6. In Holland Park QLD on “Community Facilities,...” at 309 Nursery Rd Holland Park QLD 4121:

    Gillian Brown commented

    Very concerned about parking & traffic issues. The mosque sits on a hill & a very busy road, with little to no off street parking making entering & exiting nearby streets very dangerous. During worshipping hours in particular, cars are parked on both sides of the street, right over the crest of the hill leaving only just enough room for traffic travelling along Nursery Rd., this then impacts those entering Nursery Rd., from adjacent streets by having to enter Nursery Rd. blindly as there is absolutely no clear view whatsoever. After my complaint to council some time ago, yellow lines were painted on either side of Cape St. almost adjacent to the mosque, they were scarcely 3 metres in length making them next to useless as vehicles park right up to them. A Give Way sign was also installed which was an absolute no-brainer as you have no choice but to stop before turning into Nursery Rd.
    Also travelling into Cape Street from Nursery Rd during these times is extremely hazardous as coming up the hill & into the corner with cars parked on both sides leaves only enough room for one vehicle & leaving you with nowhere to go if a car happens to be heading into Nursery Rd, not to mention worshippers walking up the middle of Cape St on their way to Mosque, which happens all the time.
    Not sure what the answer is but someone is going to get hurt or killed & it’s not if but when.
    BTW other streets are also parked out in the area ie Steel Street & please don’t suggest residents find an alternate route to get to where they want to go as that’s no solution & very unfair.

  7. In Beecroft NSW on “Residential - alterations &...” at 113 Malton Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Graeme Widmer commented

    Dear Councillors,

    More unsightly alterations and additions in our prestigious suburb and it’s surrounds. This absolutely has to stop - the application is submitted under the alias of Pergola Land - no doubt to hide the names of foreigners who are only looking to gain.

    I urge you to put a stop to these people.

    Regards,
    Mr Widmer

  8. In Preston VIC on “Six storey development...” at 334 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Phillip Savino commented

    10 dwellings with no carparks is not acceptable. Residence in the surrounding area already find it difficult to park.
    Also 6 storeys is a blight on the neighbouring properties!

  9. In Indooroopilly QLD on “Multiple Dwelling” at 145 Central Ave Indooroopilly QLD 4068:

    michael yeates commented

    As a resident of Indooroopilly for any years and reluctantly supportive of planned increases in density replacing yet another part of Brisbane character housing, the problem here as elsewhere in Brisbane can be traced back to decisions to not release redevelopment in planned phases thereby encouraging uncontrolled redevelopment in this case three storey walkups.
    Ths recent decision by Council to allow 6 storey (and in some areas, higher) without consideration of existing development as in this area repeats the process by effectively ignoring the fact the existing develolent was planned, and intended and desired, by Council ..!
    This is NOT town planning if the result is the destruction of the amenity that Council planned.
    It makes a mockery of planning let alone any claims of sustainability if owners can no longer rely on the amenity.
    The submissions should be supported by Council.
    The approval has not been acted on by the developer.
    The approval should not be extended.
    If the approval lapses, the future development should be restricted to strict compliance to ensure no negative impacts on adnoining properties.
    Arguably, the nearby residents have every right to expect no less from Council.

  10. In Wanniassa ACT on “LEASE VARIATION - To vary...” at 32 Denigan Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Emma W commented

    This would be an excellent use for a building that has sat empty and unloved for a long time. Please consider parking availability for the change of use, and that the current parking levels are not reflective of usual, as the Active Leisure Centre pool is out of commission until next month. The existing parking should be able to accommodate, say, a 24 hour gym, but may be inadequate for another indoor sports use, such as a dance studio with frequent class times.

  11. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “A concept development...” at 8 Central Place Ropes Crossing NSW 2760:

    Katelyn Foss commented

    This is fantastic. We need more affordable housing. I hope this will be approved.

  12. In Kurralta Park SA on “Removal of a significant...” at 11 Clifford Avenue, Kurralta Park SA 5037:

    Sarah commented

    We are loosing too many trees in our area as properties are subdivided. I thought significant tree status protected trees, but it seems permission is always granted and we loose the wildlife and cooling effects of local tree canopy. How can we protect our historic and significant trees in an infill development environment? I would like to see Council outlining their plan to increase trees in our area and increase and protect public green spaces in light of shrinking private green space.

  13. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 150 Trafalgar Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Dani commented

    Can the council please ensure that laneways are not being used as primary access roads.

    Umina laneways are becoming extremely dangerous for residents using the laneways and for residents in their backyards.

    Just yesterday a Ute was seen speeding down a laneway and fishtailed on the gravel around a corner narrowly missing the corner fence of a backyard with children playing.

    There are no safety measures in place for these laneways which are increasingly relied on a main access streets.

    The end result is making backyards and homes at risk and the area very dangerous for residents who have no safety zone or buffers between themselves in their yards/houses and cars, trucks etc doing 50-60km+ an hour on narrow gravel laneways.

    Laneways are also becoming clogged with cars parking adjacent to fences. Again make the area extremely dangerous and extremely clogged. The laneways are not designed or built for this kind of use and will the council take responsibility when an accident happens? Because insurers maybe able to question whether policies are relevant to these issues being created.

    Overuse of the gravel laneways is also causing problems with excessive dust from the gravel.

    Council has caused these serious problems with very poor planning and regulations. This is not healthy for the elderly residents nor for young children or asthmatics.

    Council needs to do better for the residents of Umina and Ettalong.

  14. In Cleveland QLD on “IGA Supermarket - Tenancy 4...” at 4 / Ross Court, Cleveland QLD 4163:

    Happy shopper commented

    Give me a supermarket over more houses any day of the week!

  15. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “A concept development...” at 8 Central Place Ropes Crossing NSW 2760:

    Soren Hemingway commented

    Dear Sir,

    Will the park opposite Coles be removed?
    A nice shady park and worth keeping.

  16. In Northmead NSW on “Development Application -...” at 65 Moxhams Road Northmead NSW 2152:

    Annette Cross commented

    I have resided in Whitehaven Road for 12 years. I currently travel to work by car. Over the last few years it has become increasingly difficult to turn left out of Whitehaven onto Moxhams Road due to the amount of traffic coming up Moxhams Road. Congestion starts from 7 until 9.15am and 2.30 till 4.00pm. There are numerous cars, parents and children at this intersection and I cannot believe that someone is wanting to put ANOTHER child care centre in what is already a well serviced area. Please come and see before this ridiculous application is considered.

  17. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 22 Black Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Claire Plummer commented

    Dear Planning Authority,

    I’m dismayed at the planning officer’s report giving the green light to the arches tower.

    Please schedule this for discussion at the planning authority committee.

    This building proposal is particularly awful and it is hard to imagine a more cynical design.

    Regards
    Claire

  18. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 22 Black Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Claire Plummer wrote to local councillor Mark Riley

    Dear Mark,

    I’m dismayed at the planning officer’s report giving the green light to arches tower.

    As per my phone call, please step in and schedule this for discussion at the planning authority committee.

    This building proposal is particularly awful and it is hard to imagine a more cynical design.

    Regards
    Claire

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Riley. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 177 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Kirsten Mathers commented

    I disagree with the reductions in car parking on this one. This service road is already cluttered with parked vehicles making using it very difficult for locals. Squeezing 4 dwellings onto a block where there was once only one is also not ideal. Please seriously consider the situation.

  20. In Cleveland QLD on “IGA Supermarket - Tenancy 4...” at 4 / Ross Court, Cleveland QLD 4163:

    very concerned resident commented

    If we were in the month of April I would think this is an April Fools Joke ! Is this the IGA Cleveland relocating or the IGA Thornlands relocating? If it is not the existing IGA stores repositioning I find this absolutely disgusting. We have the above 2 IGA stores within 5 Kilometers of each other . They compete with a Woolworths & Coles already & if the Bayside Bulletin is to be believed we will soon have an Aldi as well. We will have 6 supermarkets in a 5 kilometer radius. Surely something like "HARRIS SCARFE " that is in Carindale would be much better to fill empty shops in Cleveland . We already are catered for with a Big W , 2 Kmarts , Target & Best & Less in the other Redlands suburbs so Cleveland center need something like Harris Scarfe so you can buy sheets, p.j's, towels & the such like & also attract shoppers from other neighbouring suburbs because Cleveland will have something different to offer. NO MORE SUPERMARKETS PLEASE

  21. In Kealba VIC on “Application for approval of...” at 27 Driscolls Road Kealba, VIC:

    Alek Uncovski commented

    - 98% of Kealba is house blocks detached dwellings, the plan has NO house blocks
    - increase of 500 cars during peak times affecting traffic flaws. Bulk and scale (too intense, too small, too many dwellings)
    -at least another 1000 people impacting on our roads, car parking and public transport.
    - finally, imagine another 400 kids needing access to child care, kindergarten, primary and secondary schools. We do not have the infrastructure for this.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “Other Das” at 176 Lord Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe commented

    Where are the supporting documents?

  23. In Kallangur QLD on “Request to be Assessed...” at 176 Old Gympie Road, Kallangur QLD 4503:

    Morton commented

    These houses seem to be on decent sized blocks, so I am probably on the developers side in this argument. Good for them.
    People need to realise that the very houses they live in were also built at some point in time. Or were they just always there? :)

  24. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Julie C commented

    I oppose this 'Boutique' Boarding house. As a proud Umina and peninsular resident of over 40 years I have slowly seen the area decline with the approval of too many Granny Flats and multi unit developments. We are now faced with overcrowding more cars and rubbish in our lane ways, less parking in the streets, our roads are a disgrace, employment issues, longer waiting list for specialist services and more anti social behaviour
    Is this 11 x 1 bed studio rooms aimed at single people? The agreement shows a space for putting in number of occupants per room not a limit so could easily be rented to couples and now has the potential of housing 22 people plus the on-site managers this must raise serious concerns and issues for council and for neighbouring residents. What is the maximum occupancy for this development.

  25. In Clovelly NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 26 Eastbourne Avenue Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Linda Vella commented

    I strongly object to this application for a number of reasons. I don’t understand why a very expensive house like this can be built and the best solution has to be to place air conditioning towers in the roof instead of beside the house as most neighbours have done.
    The air conditioning units are highly visible from all directions, they obstruct the views of the coastline from ours and other homes behind in Shackel Ave and are an eyesore from street level on Eastbourne Ave as well. The house exceeds height limits with these units and this is totally unacceptable when views are protected in this area.
    The units need to be relocated, they were not on the original plans and were placed without approval. The part of the roof where they located is architecturally interesting yet, they have chosen to spoil the roof line with these units. Poor decision.

  26. In Balmain NSW on “OC - Number -...” at 35 Birchgrove Road Balmain NSW 2041:

    Ray Stevens commented

    Michael & Ash,
    Are you aware of the difference in applicants here? You seem to comment on every tree issue that arrises. Have you ever read Council's tree protection order or Council's proposed tree policy which is now under public review? I suspect not. Your rants are ill informed and waste Council's time as they need to be addressed in Council DA reports. If you just shoot from the hip without even checking the details of the various applications you will not be taken seriously when it comes to a time when it does matter.

    If you are so passionate about trees why not sign up to Inner West Council's, Community Engagement Environmental Committee and do something constructive.

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Aaron Michie commented

    Also strongly object to this development and wish to echo the comments made by the other objectors above:
    - Parking on Lamrock avenue is already overcrowded, another 93 lodgers will make it impossible to find a park
    - Height requirements are exceeded
    - The noise and rubbish from the Village (neighbouring boarding house) is excessive, to add 93 lodgers would create even more of a dumping ground on the street.
    - The driveway is too close to the neighbouring property
    - The FSR appears not to include hallways, this should not be the case

    Bondi Beach is a residential community that being destroyed by constant commercial development that does not take community interests in mind. This project does not and anything to local community, and simply serves to bring revenues to developers and business interests. It should not be allowed to progress

  28. In Winston Hills NSW on “Building Certificate - A...” at 58 Caroline Chisholm Drive Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Neal and Susan Martyn commented

    UPDATE BY NEAL AND SUSAN MARTYN.........

    Having just spoken with the Applicants it appears that there are extenuating circumstances, that inter alia includes their claim that the building works involving the attached garage were shown on drawings attached to the Title documents produced at time of their recent purchase.

    On the face of it this situation is unusual, but more to the point, if Council's advice of the Building Certificate Application via its online portal, and consequently via Planning Alerts, had included all relevant Documents supplied instead of those being withheld by one of its Officers, then transparency would have avoided our earlier queries of that, of the Application, and of its assessment.

    We reiterate though, that on the broader issue of unauthorised works being consented after the event by Council's issue of a Building Certificate, it needs to either make a more concerted effort to make people aware of the rules governing such matters and then rigorously and consistently enforce those, or continue to take the apparent "harder than a marshmallow" approach by turning a blind eye.

  29. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Canning Street, Glenelg North, SA:

    Paul Williams commented

    this added to the other developments in that area how is the council going to handle the influx of people visitors traffic
    7 stories please

  30. In Balmain NSW on “OC - Number -...” at 35 Birchgrove Road Balmain NSW 2041:

    Cam commented

    Michael,

    Whilst I admire your passion in saving trees, I suggest you learn the planning process before imposing your personal view (not "residents") to ensure it's relevant and not seen as cut and paste spam (which is what it obviously is)

    This application is for an OC, so the work is done. The approval to do the work and remove the trees was given on the 8th of March 2016, 3 years ago. The trees are probably long gone.

    I suggest you adjust the cut and paste comment that you have been posting for over a year to be aimed at new DA's, be relevant to the specific DA, and maybe the supposed "election issue" for you is a little out of date considering local, state & federal elections are some way off?

    Comments on DAs should be relevant. This isn't.

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