Recent comments

  1. In Cherrybrook NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 18 Macquarie Drive Cherrybrook NSW 2126:

    OH commented

    Ena - you need to read the actual application. Please.

    This is not a new group home, this is not about bringing hundreds of difficult kids into your street. This is about a status quo, about two people with a disability and their carer. These people already live and work here. You probably have not noticed them at all until now. And that will remain the same. This DA is unfortunate - it's a mandatory requirement for changing the status from a home with two people with a visiting support person to a home with two people with a support person who is allowed to stay the night in their own room. These people need your support as a Cherrybrook neighbour.

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

    Domenica De pasquale commented

    To approve this development application is poor town planning by the GCCC.
    Palm beach TRAFFIC is horrendous due to the current over development and high density high rises already constructed that were NOT within the current town plan guidelines.
    With currently 10 cranes in Palm Beach constructing buildings that have ALL been given RELAXATIONS it would be criminal to approve another non compliant development with not enough car parks, visitor parking or green space.
    DEEP PLANTING is what the local community want and require for all large developments.
    Currently Bin collection day is horrendous in Palm beach with traffic, illegally parked cars and cranky garbage truck drivers.
    I invite you to come to 27th ave where the RSL have just finished three concrete jungles and with 39 apartments due to be constructed INFRONT of these with a set back of only 1.6 metres off the beach esplanade. This is town planning at its worst. The Gold Coast city council town planning department should be ashamed of what they have achieved. The future of Palm beach is at risk as all amenities are currently being greatly affected.
    The current Gold Coast Highway is at a stand still. Traffic is stopped. This road has not been upgraded since the 80s.
    I pay enormous rates.
    I developed a building with three car parks per apartment. With plenty of deep planting and 7 evergreen fully grown frangipani trees. We have plenty of lawn. A beach front pool and gardens. I maintained Pandanus trees which were planted in the 1950s. This is how development should be done to maintain the lifestyle that palm beach residents deserve and expect.

  3. In Kingswood SA on “Demolish Existing...” at 17 Belair Road Kingswood SA 5062:

    Leigh commented

    To everyone who have commented on this page that this information is not reviewed or considered by council as it’s neither a government or council owned site.

    To help save this property you will need to download the Category 3 form from the link below and complete and return by email to development@mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au.

    Submissions I am told close on the 12/12/19 so please everyone please get involved and together we can save this stunning home.

    https://eproperty.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/T1PRProd/WebApps/eProperty/P1/PublicNotices/PublicNoticeDetails.aspx?r=P1.WEBGUEST&f=%24P1.ESB.PUBNOT.VIW&rf=%24P1.ESB.PUBNOTAL.ENQ&ApplicationId=080%2f0563%2f19

  4. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Matt Mushalik commented

    Check immigration status. These speculators have only one thing in mind: money. In this way, our suburbs self-destruct. Councils are too lenient as they are under pressure from NSW government. We are getting 1 new heat island after the other

  5. In Gardenvale VIC on “Use of the land as...” at 217 Nepean Hwy Gardenvale VIC 3185:

    Emma Kelly commented

    This dwelling would be higher than anything else in the area and not keeping with the lower level dwellings in the area. There is nothing above 3 storeys in the surrounding area. It will also block sun from housing behind. There is also already very limited parking in the area which this will add to.

  6. In Tolmans Hill TAS on “Dwelling” at 3 Correa Place, Tolmans Hill TAS 7007:

    John Bender commented

    I cant find any plans on the Council web site for 3 Correa Place. Can you email me the plans or a link to the plans?

  7. In Cherrybrook NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 18 Macquarie Drive Cherrybrook NSW 2126:

    Denise Pintado commented

    I live in Cherrybrook and we are surrounded by group homes run by Inala. The clients are our welcome neighbours and I am shocked by your very poor attitude. Group homes are for people with additional healthcare needs they are NOT a threat to children or families. I don't think you know what you are objecting to or what a group home is. My family consists of 7 children 18 grandchildren, we have never ever felt unsafe. You are misguided about your complaint!

  8. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Robyn Ross commented

    Even if it was considered Michelle I don't even believe the Council would care. Whenever I drew their attention to something regarding my next door developement the only answer I received in return was that the developer would only go to VCAT who would then just rubber stamp it anyway. I thought it was a cop out.

  9. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl Minihan commented

    I don’t feel that this application for TWO LOW COST RENTAL DWELLINGS should be allowed. It brings down the value of the houses surrounding and for all housing in NARELLAN and NARELLAN Vale! If this is allowed then ALL EXISTING HOMES should be allowed to do the same. I see a DOUBLE STANDARDS in the CSMDEN COUNCIL where one is allowed and another application is not allowed. Please advise me if this goes ahead as l will be very vocal if it does. I DO NOT WANT THIS APPLICATION TO GO AHEAD AS STATED AT BEGINNING of THIS EMAIL! Thank you
    Cheryl Minihan

  10. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Construction of a shop top...” at 40 Merindah Road, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    WAYNE & LORRAINE GRINDROD commented

    As we have stated right from the very start of this horrendous project....this type of high-rise building is not fitting with the commercial and residential (1 house/1block) of this area....greedy Developer has paid the way through the Industrial Commission and hope the Company fails.
    Just imagine if we decided to build a high-rise development on our ordinary block of land .... that would be a big NO !!
    Please stop these money-hungry Developers in the Hills Shire Council area !!!

  11. In Cherrybrook NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 18 Macquarie Drive Cherrybrook NSW 2126:

    Ena commented

    We thought this application has been withdrawn as we comment to not suit group home in our environment. We don't wish to have group home near our home as we have small child and this area is totally family home not group home.

  12. In Toongabbie NSW on “Demolition of existing fire...” at 52 Cornelia Road Toongabbie NSW 2146:

    sri commented

    Don't want a boarding house in this quiet community.
    Due to varied nature of boarding guests it will be safety issues for kids in neighboring area.
    I am afraid approval of one may lead to more proposals of such kind that spoils the character of the community.
    May lead to more traffic congestion to already congested round about.

  13. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 43 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeff Thom commented

    Developments of this size are creating a dangerous precedent in the neighbourhood of Zig Zag Road, especially in light of current bush fire warnings.
    There are already significant and real safety issues with the southern end of Zig Zag Road (the hairpin bend and road drop, the Research Creek bridge and the Main Road intersection on any given day - It is not abnormal to be left waiting three to five minutes to safely exit Zig Zag Road onto Main Road these days). What is Nillumbik Council doing to update this infrastructure for medium density housing? And In light of current bush fire warnings as well as the bush fire overlay covering the area being approved, what is Nillumbik council doing to address fire evacuation capabilities on Zig Zag Road? In the event of a bush fire we in real and serious danger. Please address the safety issues with entry and egress on Zig Zag Road and advise our households.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    John commented

    It’s the changing of the guard with the huge influence of the different cultural change.
    We’re have all the jacarandas gone and green lawns, given way to duplexes with driveways as front yards, if you could call it that.

  15. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Keith commented

    Please note that Glen Eira City Council has released details associated with the Application for Planning Permit for the proposed developments of the 430-434 Neerim Road site - ref: GD/DP-32980/2019

    Visit: www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/submission to lodge a formal objection
    Or: PO Box 42, Caulfield South 3162

    An objection should include;
    - reasons for the objection together with;
    - a statement detailing how the objector would be impacted

  16. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 43 Zig Zag Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeff Thom commented

    Developments of this size are creating a dangerous precedent in the neighbourhood of Zig Zag Road, especially in light of current bush fire warnings.
    There are already significant and real safety issues with the southern end of Zig Zag Road (the hairpin bend and road drop, the Research Creek bridge and the Main Road intersection on any given day - It is not abnormal to be left waiting three to five minutes to safely exit Zig Zag Road onto Main Road these days). What is Nillumbik Council doing to update this infrastructure for medium density housing? And In light of current bush fire warnings as well as the bush fire overlay covering the area being approved, what is Nillumbik council doing to address fire evacuation capabilities on Zig Zag Road? In the event of a bush fire we in real and serious danger. Please address the safety issues with entry and egress on Zig Zag Road and advise our households.

  17. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Mark Chellew commented

    We live in The Element,106 The esplanade,Burleigh Heads
    We have numerous objections to this development
    1.It exceeds the maximum height restrictions and also appears to choose a very favourable natural ground level to facilitate a additional level
    2.The density of the building is higher than surrounding buildings and outside the acceptable norms
    3.The increased proposed density of the building may lead to possible cracking problems in surrounding buildings during construction due to the proximity issues
    4.Significant privacy concerns will exist.The development application incorrectly indicate privacy shutters on fig 11.These are not privacy shutters but optional adjustable louvers to block wind on high wind days.They were not installed by the owners for privacy reasons
    5.Some of the artist impressions appear to show the building set back further than what is proposed ( compared to neighbouring buildings),thereby creating a more favourable optical impression

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

    Christian Walker commented

    I wish to object to this hideous environmental disgrace that would affect all Craigieburn residents.

  19. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    David Emery commented

    Observations about the existing density of buildings and people are accurate, as anyone who lives, works or frequents the area would attest. Leaving aside the revenues, profit and wages activity created, which is short term and concentrated, a longer term view of the area and it's livabilty ought to have fair weight when considering this infill. The current building doesn't have redeeming features and devlopment is appropriate, but scale should be small, and retaining light and increasing setback (at footpath level) should be highlighted in any assessment. The proposal is an easy solution to a small city plot, and likely within plan, but I'd urge you to consider a lighter footprint, and leave more sunlight and footpath for the many folk who will pass through at all hours.

  20. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Amy Wooding commented

    To correct my comment made earlier today: I meant to say the The Griffiths Teas Building, not Mark Foys.

  21. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Amy Wooding commented

    The proposed development is completely out of scale and out of character with the area in general and the street in particular. That the Mark Foys building is tall should not set a precedent - it is set on the lower side of the street, and is an historic landmark building of cultural significance, worthy of exception. In fact, it is appropriately showcased by the absence of other multi-storey structures around it.

    In an era where AirBnb rules, do we really need another hotel in the area? Or, if we do can it not be created within the envelope of an existing building at the required scale? Plenty of large vacant properties on the opposite side of Wentworth Avenue ripe for conversion.

    This area of Surry Hills has other historic landmark buildings such as Paramount Pictures and Hollywood Hotel. The neighbourhood needs to preserved because it is unique, but also to sympathetically frame these special treasures, not swamp them in stature and shadow.

    Please reject this application.

  22. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Kim Mckay commented

    Why would you put a petrol station on a side road to the montrose round about? There was one on the round about that shut down due to the traffic conditions and other reasons. It is NOT needed when the limited traffic would not keep the service station afloat and NOT in a position where it would be termed "corporate profitable position", this is outright a very poor decision for such a business or of any community benefit.

    I see this as another excuse to remove more vegetation just like the house on Canterbury just before the Montrose round about after the Montrose fire brigade, every old growth tree removed, did the council know and give permission for that block to be totally cleared ? I knew the previous owners and they were told when they purchased the property none of those tree's were ever to be removed and they are in perfect healthy state not a threat.

    So what is yarra ranges council actually doing about providing protections on our native Indigenous lands we all depend on for the survival of all life being the 2nd driest island continent in the WORLD?

  23. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Paul & Ann Duncan commented

    Been watching (and hearing) beautiful, large, healthy trees being brought down all around this area in Carlingford for some time. Very sad. When did people start despising trees to the extent that they can't wait to have them destroyed??

  24. In Toongabbie NSW on “Demolition of existing fire...” at 52 Cornelia Road Toongabbie NSW 2146:

    Toongabbie@Citizen commented

    I will like to highlight and object on the construction of this boarding house in Toongabbie.
    • All locals and also council should stand up and review and reject this proposal for Toongabbie.
    • The boarding houses proposed for Cornelia Road are close to the two primary school, and secondary within a range of 500 metres posing a “serious risk to school children arising out of potential occupants and traffic” on Cornelia Road.
    • This is next to busy roundabout and will undoubted cause significant problems with traffic and possible risk/safety concern and with school children as this construction will close to three major school in Toongabbie.
    • This will cause significant traffic issues for people from Seven hills and Toongabbie during peak office hours.
    • The development will attract a “different demographic to this family-friendly area” which is the again in the catchment for 3 schools.
    • There could be potential health risks if a number of people living in these boarding houses are smokers and health issues around families with young kids.
    • The aspect of trust for Cornelia Road will be seriously questioned if the boarding house development proceeds.
    • People staying in short-term motel-style accommodation/boarding will be mainly transient people of varied life experiences, some of a conflicted nature and will impact residential area.
    • The houses on all sides including the adjacent neighbours will have their privacy significantly impacted by the proposed building which should be considered by the council.

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

    Shannon May commented

    I object to this application on the basis that this building will add to the congestion that is already in Palm Beach and most certainly the small street of 22nd Avenue. The suggested site is too small for a building of this application and it does not adhere to other guidelines such as set backs, room size, deep root plantings and it does not adhere to the village lifestyle that was Palm Beach.

    Development is fine, but over development in Palm Beach is unnecessary and is destroying the very reason why people wanted to live there in the first place. This unsightly building along with other new unsightly buildings will certainly become the future slums of the suburb. Everyday the likelihood of the light rail going through Palm Beach is becoming more and more UNLIKELY. This is not a good enough excuse to allow relaxations in the City Plan.

    Developers must stay within the guidelines of the City Plan and the GCCC must now stand up for the City and push back on these developers cashing in and walking out when they are done. We the residents of the Gold Coast voted this Council in to work for us, not themselves and their developer friends. In addition, I was told directly by a GCCC city planner that west of the GC Highway has a height limit of 2 stories and it is shown so on the map... despite other buildings being pushed through without reason. It's time these planners stand by their word.

  26. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 426 Canterbury Road, Campsie NSW 2194:

    Dennis M commented

    Canterbury Road is filled with apartments making livability and accessibility very difficult in Campsie. Council needs to limit the impact by creating a road that is livable. There are many shops on Canterbury Road that have not been leased for over 4 years, adding more will just add to the problem

  27. In Adelaide SA on “Continue use of the...” at 399 King William Street, Adelaide SA 5000:

    Natalie commented

    To extend the use of this car park it must be made complaint with the original application. It is currently a dirt car park with no designated entry and exit, pedestrians are quite regularly hit by cars coming and going from this car park. I believe the original application had something about hedges or fencing being put up which has never occurred. It also has not been sealed and the dust from the car park travels to nearby residents. Further the pot holes etc are dangerous. Adelaide City Council must inspect this when considering the application.

  28. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    George Vlamakis commented

    135 student apartments and only 11 car spots! Are you kidding? Please don't make the mistake of assuming that university students (including international students) do not have cars. This has not been my experience at all, living locally in the hub of a high international student area. I'd also urge the Council to consider the mental health impact of architecture, where people live alone in little shoe boxes. Why can't students apartment share, in 3 bedroom units. I dare say, most would prefer this arrangement, than living alone in a shoe box. I urge Glen Eira Council, to give thought to a. adequate car parking provision, and b. the mental health impact of solo living in tiny spaces.

  29. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    David Moffet commented

    This DA is totally out of character with all buildings surrounding...this is an historic precinct, and to slap a seven storey hotel in this street is ridiculous.
    On top of this, this street is already overpopulated with workers ands residents in apartments and offices...the street cannot cope with existing traffic now.

    A seven storey hotel will cast shadows in the afternoon on neighbouring parklands

    The hotel will also destroy the historic vista of the Mark Foys warehouse when viewed from the south...

    I recommend you reject this application

  30. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 235 Canadian Bay Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tony Laurent commented

    I live on 237 Canadian Bay Road - next door to this monstrosity in the making. I am very disappointed with the MPSC for a number of reasons.

    The process was lacking in transparency - communications were almost non existent. It will ruin the entire area.

    Anyway, I think we all now have some insight into how developers and councils operate - don't we? I would recommend reading 'The Age' every day as the John Woodman/mafia saga unfolds. Fascinating, but sadly not surprising.

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