Recent comments

  1. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Christine Tennent commented

    Please don’t destroy more of our heritage buildings, this is a land mark building and it is beautiful. The building should not be pulled down to build a block of flats.

  2. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Rod Glover commented

    So many people against this development and none in support! It would therefore be a farce if Council did not listen to its constituents and approved this development.
    I too agree that this building holds the key to the areas history and culture, wiping it away would be a tragedy, a miss carriage of the will of the populist and not a way for any council representative to gain the favour of its constituents, if they wish for reelection in the future. There are multiple old warehouse type lots that would be much more aligned with a development of this type in the area. Retain this building and reject the DA submission is my vote along with almost everyone else who has commented.

  3. In Fitzroy VIC on “Buildings and works for the...” at 299 Smith St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Jane Bourke commented

    Agree with Chris Goodman should be referred to Heritage Advisor, there needs to be more information regarding proposed heights,how many levels and how is original Victorian building going to saved and incorporated in proposed design?

  4. In Collingwood VIC on “One new building, reduction...” at 1-13 Oxford St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Jane Bourke commented

    There appears to be no information on the Yarra City Council town planning application about the height and how many levels this development is? The only information supplied is One New building with reduction in car parking? Could we get a more detailed description of this development please.

  5. In Elsternwick VIC on “11 lot subdivision on land...” at 66 Orrong Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    Anne commented

    where do we draw the line if we continue to allow developers to keep breaking regulations and create multiple dwellings that don't sell due to surplus of high density housing?
    The Heritage overlays have been established for a reason.. to maintain the integrity and historical significance of a suburb. At this rate, there will be no historical significant "anything" left for future generations to be inspired by.
    Development in Elsternwick has now crossed the line of "over" development; creating strain on infrastructure and traffic congestion.
    Where are the permits offering solutions to the problems that are a direct result of all these lot divisions? Lot divisions, which coincidently lead to further permits requesting the increase of number of storeys, and number of apartments?

  6. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Sebastian Aylmer commented

    The proposed development is gargantuan and unnecessary.
    There is no need for additional shop frontage in this area, gown there is considerable commercial vacancies on or around Crystal street.
    The proposed development does not add to the character of the street and in its current form is overt and oversized.

    The current building fits with the style and character of the area and has significant heritage value. Its Victorian era styling with side garage is unique and should be retained and provided heritage status to ensure is longevity into the future.
    It's demolition would be detrimental to the character of Petersham and have a negative impact on any rejuvenation efforts of Crystal Street and adversely alter the low density surrounds

  7. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Rachel Brittliff commented

    I’m appalled that the council is considering this application. This particular property has historical architectural value. The Inner West needs to retain its character. We do not need more units, especially given the lack of capacity in Inner West schools to accomodate the population growth that results from increased housing density.

  8. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Emily Lockwood commented

    This eyesore of a building should be knocked down to allow for more affordable housing in the area, strongly support redevelopment occurring on this site.

    It is not historically significant, it is just an old building that could serve our community much better with another purpose.

  9. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Harry commented

    Thank you Vicki, and Steve, enjoyed reading your views.

    With parking, this developer has tandem-parking, where cars are locked-in behind other cars. The Royal Hotel's carpark is for patrons only and is a tow-away zone. The bus-stop, with stationary bus, is directly outside 1 Mount View Road.

    (The developer, under female and male aliases, has said local residents are backward, deluded, very limited, have narrow provincial mind-set, are donkeys, coward naysayers, hypocrite, downers, idiots, B.S. cohort, pork chop, fools and old tosser owners.

    Developer here claims UFG has ''no architectural houses of remarkable note in a generic area, ''the houses nearby are of no significance'', that the area is ''commercially-focused.'' Comment asking for ''better access'' matches his planned second drive-way off Mount View Road for one car, in an already narrow and over-capacity street.)

    Objections to Council are open until council-vote, meeting likely in December.

  10. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Linda Watchorn commented

    I oppose the demolition of this building. Period homes are the very fabric of the Inner West. We have lost too much of our history already. We need to pay more respect to the craftsmanship that has gone into the houses built at this time. Far more than any of the mostly eyesores that are being developed in modern times - you just need to drive a few blocks along Parramatta Rd to witness ill thought, poor quality developments. European cities have buildings hundreds of years old why can't we. Governments should build our future but not to the detriment of our legacy. Sydney is sadly becoming more and more soulless year after year.

  11. In Kilsyth VIC on “Use and development of...” at 42 Orchard Street, Kilsyth VIC 3137:

    Kim Mckay commented

    With what authority? All local councils, Mayors, Parliament, police, universities, etc,have been charged, served, due to be arrested any time under our 100 years established law for treason, contemporary terrorism via espionage Incorporation, AEC also for breaching their operational fit for purpose duty which is to only apply our 100 years plus established law, all elections are defrauding the public, is treason against Australia, aiding and abetting infiltration and political interference. The AEC secret amalgamation in espionage is a war crime but it also declares everything since then is completely Ultra Vires which is a latin phrase used in law to describe an act or acts which requires legal authority, BUT is done without it, these acts or act are Ultra Vires termed "INVALID"...."VOID", NOT ACTIONABLE..... What are you planning or have espionage claimed to have passed rumors?

  12. In Saint Marys NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 217 Carpenter Street, St Marys NSW 2760:

    Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    The proposal has not dealt adequately with contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of glazing, insulation, building and roofing materials, energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through suitable pollutant traps and screens, internal amenity, light pollution and spill from the development and protecting residents from off site sources of light spill, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.

    Rainwater tank provision is too low noting the annual and average monthly precipitation for the location.

    Vegetation species are not adequately detailed sufficiently and consent conditions need to be imposed that only native vegetation indigenous to the area be used throughout the development.

    Each lot should have installed 6 star lavatories connected to the alternative water system and whose waste is channeled through a sewer dosing unit such as the Drainwave or equivalent in order to achieve maximum sustainable best practices.

    Alternative water system should be connected to the laundry supply as the current specifications show it is not. The alternative water system should have an outdoor tap connected at the front and rear of each lot to provide for gardening and motor vehicle washing using the alternative water system.

    Precipitation that falls upon impervious areas of the site runs off onto the street. Impervious areas should be by use of suitable gradients and/or creation of bunded areas divert non-roof precipitation within the site to a suitably landscaped area in order to filter pollutants such as leaks from motor vehicle fluids and effluent from motor vehicle washing so that they do not flow directly into the stormwater network.

    Thermal load is excessive and could be reduced in line with contemporary best practice as well as installation of higher efficiency air conditioning systems and increased ventilation of the roof space via the eaves and ridgeline.

    Energy use for hot water on the site is excessive and does not adequately contemplate contemporary best practice in sustainability. All hot water pipes must by conditions be suitably lagged and the proposal does not adequately contemplate the use of solar energy for water heating. Consent conditions should be imposed that substantially reduce the sites hot water energy consumption by the use of roof mounted solar water heating.

    Glazed areas are too low in size - meeting or only slightly exceeding minimum requirements provides unacceptable internal amenity and a lack of proper ventilation as well as access to natural light. Bathrooms and rooms with a southern aspect could or indeed should have skylights added in addition to windows.

    The proposal does not for contemporary best practices in thermal load and sustainability contemplate materials other than brick veneer for the solar exposed walls and insulation of walls and ceilings to achieve the lowest possible thermal load.

    Lavatories lack best practice sustainability and it's sought if the projects approved that a condition of consent is imposed to fit only 6 star lavatories from a recognised supplier, in conjunction with the Drainwave device or a suitable equivalent.

    Proposed capacity for rainwater capture is considered too low based on annual precipitation data for the region, the number of bedrooms in each dwelling and it's not considered contemporary best practice unless pressurised and delivers rain water to laundry and garden supply and lavatories. I would contemplate as appropriate a minimum capacity of 3000 litres per dwelling noting numbers of bedrooms and occupancy potential..

    High roof height and pitch and walls of brick veneer indeed the use of extensive bricked areas on the western and northern aspects detract from the areas character, fail to positively respond to the surrounding context, contribute to domination of the surrounds and fail to ensure an outcome that pursues contemporary best practice sustainability in terms of thermal efficiency of the structures.

    The proposal does not adequately contemplate sufficient waste disposal and it's submitted that as a minimum there be provided in a lot a 120 litre weekly general or 240 litre fortnightly general refuse service, together with standard recycling and green/food waste to be provided to each lot as condition of consent.

    The verges need to have paved pedestrian access not wholly but according to the Australian standards.

    The proposal had not adequately contemplated suitable external lighting to avoid spill of light affecting other occupants within the site and lots neighbouring the site.

    The proposal is in a street corner site and does not adequately contemplate impacts upon visibility for traffic using the intersection to or from any direction.

    While I do not object to the development overall I would desire that unless the sustainability and amenity concerns be properly addressed by the Applicant and/or suitable consent conditions, that otherwise the determination in the alternate should be one of refusal.

  13. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Julianne Sanders commented

    I oppose the demolition of this heritage building. This destruction of our history has to stop.

  14. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Not happy jan commented

    I oppose this DA. There are already major developments of apartments occurring within Crystal, Trafalgar and Audley Street. The recent developments still have shop spaces that have not been leased out over the last two years. More idle shop spaces are not required. Where are all of these new residents and visitors going to park cars? There is very limited parking available in the area between Crystal, Trafalgar and Audley streets. Why destroy more of architecture that speaks to the history of the area? The current new apartments lack any thought in design and have been hastily built. How about you wait and see what the occupancy rate is on all the new developments before approving more?

  15. In Wandin North VIC on “Change of use to medical...” at 350 Warburton Highway, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    Jenchurai Brown commented

    My objections to the proposed medical centre at 350 Warburton Highway Wandin North:

    1. The location is too close to neighbouring homes.

    2. The car parking will be inadequate and overflow outside nearby residential homes.

    3. Traffic going in and out will be dangerous because of the hill.

    4. It is too close to the busy popular Warburton Trail.

    5. A medical centre already exists within walking distance on Clegg Road.

    6. Seville Medical Centre is only five minutes away from the proposed site.

  16. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    P. Bolston commented


    Steve, Harry or is it Morgan? Anyhow,
    I Also feel I'd love this to be built.

    Obviously, because Maxi supermarket --& its run down huge plot with noise, cars, & huge amount of available parking.
    That's is next to this new development.

    There's no loss of privacy, no parking issues, no street or traffic issues, no noise, therefore it's on a commercial zoned lot already with no effect on listed building or conservation area, the proposed layout and density of building is appropriate with its
    design, appearance and materials and with Covid and employment a useful help to government generation related policy and so forth.

    Renounce and enjoy!

  17. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Vicki commented

    Harry thanks for your great information. Steve...I’m clearly part of the “old tosser” brigade and I appreciate your friendly advice to our new neighbours (or are they? 😉) about bin night...very helpful of you. Thanks Dobson resident for pointing me in the right direction on whom to vote for. My goodness....some of these comments read like who’s who of the neighbourhood. My husband has lived in the area since 1985 and I have worked in the area since 2000 and lived in our house since 2004 so between us we know just about all the locals. Not one single resident I have spoken to, that will be highly impacted by this development, is happy with it. Us “old tossers” are happy for the development to go ahead if it was single storey with half the amount of doctors. We already have all the doctors we need in the area with the hospital nearby and really??? do we need more??? Completely inappropriate to the streetscape.

  18. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Lyndsay neighbour commented

    Spot on. Clearly, all the sensible supporters are right.

    The objectors are one of few in modern denial.

    The supermarket next door/opposite is absolutely awful concrete jungle but this will go a long way to do great things for our area.

  19. In Forrest ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DWELLING...” at 43 Melbourne Avenue, Forrest, ACT:

    Moira Smythe, Secretary (Communications) Forrest Residents Group commented

    This application relates to an important heritage-nominated house for which two previous DAs were disallowed within the last year based on heritage and zoning.
    It needs referral to the Heritage Council.
    The documentation is inadequate; where are the plans?
    I make this comment as Secretary (Communications) of the Forrest Residents Group, an affiliate of the Inner South Canberra Community Council.

  20. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Justin Simon commented

    Sounds like a great development, I support it. This building does not have any particular heritage credentials apart from being old.

    If we abstained from building on any site with a building over 100 years old we wouldn’t have any new housing in the inner west.

  21. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    David Sattout commented

    I oppose this application on the grounds that

    a) the existing structure well represents the period in which it was erected;
    b) the demolition of the existing structure would further diminish examples of Sydney's built history;
    c) the site does not well accommodate density of this kind; and
    d) Sydney generally has suffered due to a spate of dense over-development over the past decade or more

  22. In Oyster Bay NSW on “The large overgrown tree...” at 117 Carvers Road Oyster Bay NSW 2225:

    Susan Gardiner commented

    Pleaching the tree sounds a good idea to me as it should improve the shape and size of the tree keeping in a manageable size and good shape.

  23. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Clare Belinda Marshall commented

    I oppose this DA based on the fact that there will soon be an extreme amount of apartments in the area with two new apartment precincts in Petersham already under construction.
    Local amenities cannot support this amount of new dwellings and the traffic issue alone is a concern. Schools and transport will also be overloaded.

    People living in these areas often move here to experience the character of the area. There won't be any 'character' left if houses like this are continually knocked down for 'lego' brick style apartments with empty shops underneath.
    Many of these retail shops under apartments are left empty and not utilised for years, which is already an eyesore to the area.

    This is a clear form of knocking down rather than upscaling an already beautiful building.
    In Europe places of historic value and kept and renovated to modern standards.
    In Sydney, everything is flattened.

    Soon enough the area will be as homogenous as Canterbury has become, and Hurstville before it.

    Please stop destroying the character of the area and building the same unit blocks over and over again.

    The apartments that are submitted for building will NEVER hold as much historical value as this one building has already.

    I oppose this DA.

  24. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    D Armstrong commented

    Please stop approving the destruction of the architectural heritage of the inner west. The layered architectural history of homes in Petersham and the inner west more broadly is a significant part of what makes our area special. We do not need more old homes to be replaced by architecturally lightweight apartment blocks.

  25. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Kylie M commented

    I've recently seen the demolition of historical buildings in the Inner West to make way for more apartments. The Inner West has such beautiful history in its buildings and we need to protect it. I oppose this DA.

  26. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Daniel lund commented

    This building as an fantatist example of heritage architecture should not be demolished to be replaced with anything. Once this is gone a price of history will be lost never to be replaced. I strongly oppose this DA.

  27. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Gary Sailor commented

    Strongly oppose knocking down old homes of historical significance in the local area.
    Just to line the pockets of property developers whom from recent observations have provided no community benefit or upgraded local infrastructure that needs to be updated to cope with extra congestion that new developments bring to the community and the sub standard quality of the dwellings being sold to unwitting consumers

  28. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at 122 Crystal Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    D Ha commented

    Petersham’s character and value comes from its history and impressive Victorian/federation architecture. It’s why I moved to the area and would hate to see landmarks such is this grand terrace turn into another shop or apartment complex. Re-development doesn’t add value to the area, restoration and preservation of history and architecture does.

    Please think about what makes suburbs like Petersham highly valuable and coveted compared to those concrete jungles and charmless suburbs where no respect has been paid to historical architecture. There is a reason why Petersham is more covetable to live in and that’s why we buy there, pay council taxes etc. we don’t need another cookie cutter suburb with masses of new developments

  29. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of a Medical...” at 1 Mount View Road, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Harry commented

    Objections are still open and can be made until Council meeting vote. Council meeting will probably in be in December. Objections can be made direct to Council.

    Some issues are
    Not enough on-site parking for 13 doctors with 30min/15min appointments.

    Traffic congestion and safety for children and families, as there is a school nearby. Traffic congestion would make crossing dangerous for schoolchildren, families, bike-riders and dog-walkers.

    Not suitable for surrounding area, it is one-corner property, oddly zoned commercial, in a block that is zoned Residential, and surrounded by mostly single-storey homes.

    The ''visual bulk'' of the building, with noisy air-conditioning and bright lights, directly overlooking single-storey homes.

    Loss of canopy trees, Knox already has less canopy trees than Whitehorse. Upper Ferntree Gully is the ''Gateway to the Dandenong Ranges''.

    Removing canopy and safe access to Ferny Creek Trail - which is a ''wildlife corridor'' where many native birds move through, being close to the National Park

    So if anyone else wants to make an Objection, please call Knox Council and submit your objection in writing.

  30. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 58 Smith Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Mark commented

    I am not concerned with the appearance of the development, my biggest concern is privacy. Does the proposed development respect the privacy of the surrounding properties, specifically those that are on Albert Street whose rear yards will be in the line of sight. If so, how is this guaranteed?

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