Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Wayne Harder commented

    I too, object to the application to subdivide the subject land further. This rural area forms part of a buffer zone around the Tyabb Airfield. Further subdivision will increase the risk of a burden on Council to manage noise complaints. As Council has been spectacularly incapable of managing such complaints in the past without trying to shut down the Airfield, no further subdivision of land around the airport should be permitted. I may not live in the area , but I certainly use this facility.
    Thank you.

  2. In Tyabb VIC on “Subdivide the land into six...” at 8 Peach Grove Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Eric Collier commented

    I object to the application to subdivide the subject land further. This rural area forms part of a buffer zone around the Tyabb Airfield. Further subdivision will increase the risk of a burden on Council to manage noise complaints. As Council has been spectacularly incapable of managing such complaints in the past without trying to shut down the Airfield, no further subdivision of land around the airport should be permitted. Thank you.

  3. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 78 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Daniel Remminga commented

    Eight dwellings on this block are not in keeping with the surrounding properties. Off-street parking should be taken into consideration. In addition, the impact on the surrounding properties' enjoyment of their own backyard should be given consideration.

  4. In Golden Beach QLD on “Extension to Existing...” at 127 Esplanade Golden Beach:

    Geoff Smith commented

    Great to see this facility being expanded. Caloundra is a Tourist town and the economy relies on visitors. Expanded tourist capacity supports this.

  5. In Arncliffe NSW on “Modification to include an...” at 96 - 102 Princes Highway, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Mark m commented

    I am concerned about the negative impact this development will have on the surrounding area. Currently there is limited street parking due to the other development at 1 Kyle street. During certain times there is no parking spots causing cars to double park or wait in the street for a spot, adding to congestion.

    There is already a high level of congestion on the local streets and this development will add to that.

    Open space is already severely limited in the local area and this will cause a further undersupply of open space. There already an undersupply of other services such as retail and shopping, fitness services, that has lead to congestion and significant queueing when using these services and this development will exacerbate this.

    Noise and dust. This area is extremely dusty and noise. As people are working from home, noise pollution will become more of a pressing issue. As I write this people are already working on this site and making significant noise from machinery before 7am. This will only get worse.

    Lack of space to put bins on the street. On bin day, bins already take up a significant share of the street taking away car spots and even blocking cars in. This development will exacerbate this problem.

    The development will cause significant shadowing. The development will block views and sight lines.

    The building height will be higher than the development at 1 Kyle street despite the slope of princess highway declining from 1 Kyle street to the development site. This is inconsistent with strategic and urban design princess for the princess highway area.

  6. In Kincumber NSW on “Emoval of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 13 Karuah Avenue, Kincumber NSW 2251:

    Ruth Ross commented

    Central Coast policy has all was been that removal of Swamp Mahogany trees required the purchase and replacement of these trees in our reserves. They are a significant important tree in the ecology, being an important feed tree.

  7. In Glenorie NSW on “Installation of a...” at 43 Cattai Ridge Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Rodney Frost commented

    We live less than 1km from this site and we struggle to even get 3G mobile service now and we have to go to the driveway for that. The location seems perfect as the power station is already there if I’m reading it correctly.

  8. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 63 Henry Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Lucy Rose commented

    Hi
    I oppose any 2 storey developments which are out of character to out green suburb

  9. In Bondi NSW on “Remove one (1) Eucalyptus...” at 51 Bennett Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Yuri PY commented

    One more Native tree removal application, this is out of control. Every week, many of those applications in this area, for absolutely no reason. and no compensation. What is the compensation for the community? How would be if everyone decides to remove native trees from heir yards? Local Council needs to stop this wave before is too late, or make a compulsory compensation.

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

    Mandy Gardoll commented

    As a resident of Montrose for 50 years this year, I wish to strongly object to the application for a Shell Service Station to be built at the site called in the application, 1 Montrose Rd, Montrose.
    Apart from the fact that the Montrose Township does not need third Service Station, the other two being the BP on the corner of Mount Dandenong and Canterbury Rds and the approved application for a second Service Station just a short way down Canterbury Rd from the BP.

    A visit to the Intramap website shows that the property is zoned Low Density Residential and subject to Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 22, the section referring to Montrose is below.

    SCHEDULE 22 TO THE SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY Shown on the planning scheme map as SLO22

    'Montrose and Mt Evelyn – these foothill areas at the base of the Dandenong Ranges contain houses which although occurring at more suburban densities are well integrated into an environmental setting. Some strong remnants of dry forest remain in the landscape and private gardens are spacious with a mix of native and exotic vegetation.'
    I think the words pertaining to Montrose in Schedule 22, ‘contain houses which although occurring at more suburban densities are well integrated into an environmental setting’, are directly in conflict with a Shell Service station complete with bright yellow and red signage being built at the entrance to the Montrose township, on the site where currently the house that many look on to be a Montrose historical site sits amongst the most beautiful mature trees and foliage.
    As to the Town Planning Report, there is lot of contradictory wording, a small example of which is below:

    6.3.2 Signage
    ‘The proposed signs are of a size suitable to the scale of the development and the sites industrial zoning’
    The site is zoned Low Density Residential so any signs suitable to an industrial zoning will not be suitable here.

    Most of the Responses to Objectives contained at 6.4.1 of the Town Planning Report are quite unacceptable and do not really address the actual Objective.
    For example;
    Objective
    ‘To recognise and conserve the environmental and visual sensitivity of the residential area’
    Applicants response
    ‘To ensure a visual sensitivity to the surrounding residential area, the proposal will incorporate generous setbacks to reduce visual bulk and provide for adequate landscaping opportunities’
    This response doesn’t really address the environmental conservation of the site as in conjunction with the Montrose Township and its residents, especially those in the neighboring residential plots. And just the words ‘visual bulk’ being used simply translates to the fact that the whole project is out of place on the site.

    As mentioned in 5.1 of the Town Planning Report, the site is in a LDRZ, the fact that it adjoins a category 2 road, therefore may apply for a permit for a service station, does not take into account any environmental, residential, visual aspects nor the thoughts, wishes and opinions of the residents of Montrose.
    Councillors please take note!
    It is clear from the amount of comments made in disagreement with this proposal that the voting, tax and rate paying residents of Montrose do not want this site to be made into an ugly eyesore thereby destroying the beautiful outlook and the village like feel of OUR town in the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges.
    Please do not approve this application.

  11. In Mortlake NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Bertram Street, Mortlake NSW 2137:

    Trudy Doelman commented

    I am a little unclear as to the height of this building as height should be restricted to three storeys high. This height is in keeping with the current streetscape.

    Traffic along Bertram St and Parking is also problematic.

    Please consider green space as many new developments in Mortlake as not environmentally sustainable.

  12. In Portarlington VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 122-138 Tower Road, Portarlington, VIC:

    Phil Cameron commented

    This is not an objection but a letter of support for the planning application for 122-138 TOWER ROAD PORTARLINGTON, Permit number 1/2020. Portarlington will benefit from the employment created by this project. Our town has limited employment opportunities for working families and this project will go along way towards addressing this issue via increasing direct and indirect employment opportunities. The project will also bring additional income into the town with a significant proportion being from new tourism. The investment application being proposed is a great show of support for Portarlington and the North Bellarine and should be supported by being approved by Council.

  13. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 17 Mcgill Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Jay commented

    Looks like the 'Lake' will now be filled in with a multi story unit block with underground car park....

  14. In Christies Beach SA on “Land division - Torrens...” at 64 Saltash Avenue, Christies Beach SA 5165:

    Mike England commented

    At 864 square meters, if this property is divided into 3 the size per block would be 288 square meters each. As this is below the City of Onkaparinga minimum size requirement the application should be rejected. As 64 Saltash avenue is opposite the Beach Road DCe zone, it should be designated as a distributor road with a minimum set back of 8 meters further reducing the viability of the application. On street parking would also represent a safety hazard in this location.

  15. In Glenorie NSW on “Installation of a...” at 43 Cattai Ridge Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Kaye Binns-McDonald commented

    I am greatly concerned about the construction of the proposed Mobile Phone Tower at 43 Cattai Ridge Road Glenorie, so close to not only my home, but all the homes in the area. I strongly object to the building of this tower, especially in this rural area where quality of life and the natural environment are paramount. I am also extremely worried of course for the health and well being of all those living within its scope. Both my husband and I do not want this tower, and strongly object to its construction.

    I have never made a donation to any council member or employee or politician.

  16. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 79 & 81-83 Wattletree Road, Armadale VIC 3143:

    MS LEONIE M WOOD commented

    Please, not five stories! Graduated development, that does not overshadow or dominate, is far preferable.

  17. In South Brisbane QLD on “Heritage Place - Partial...” at 79 Boundary St South Brisbane QLD 4101:

    Marlene King commented

    I do not oppose the alterations to the current West End Market site, but I do object to the proposed name: Soda Factory. Soda is used in the USA as a term for sweet aerated drinks, known in Australia as "soft drinks". The original name of the building was the "T. Tristram Aerated Waters and Brewed Beverages" factory.

    It would be more appropriate to use an Australian term not an imported one.

  18. In Seven Hills NSW on “Demolition” at 26 Chopin Street Seven Hills NSW 2147:

    Ian Grady commented

    Given the age and location of this house there will be asbestos fibro sheets lining laundry, bathroom and kitchen as well as probably the eaves. Demolition will require specialist removal of this dangerous material.

  19. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 78 Winyard Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Elaine Jackson commented

    This is surrounded by single dwelling properties. If you added 8 dwellings, what happens to parking? I walk this road 3-4 times a week, sometimes weekends. Even on weekends there is no parking I have seen may occasions where cars bypass each other going different directions and have to wait to get around parked cars, this road is not suitable for so many dwellings.

  20. In Pearl Beach NSW on “Dwelling Alterations &...” at 2 C Amethyst Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Ann Parsons commented

    Lyn Capella The DA at 1 Agate Avenue Pearl Beach has the house going across 2 blocks 1 & 3 Agate which I didn't think was allowed.

  21. In Brighton VIC on “1 New Shop-top Dwelling and...” at 264 Bay Street Brighton VIC 3186:

    Chris Bishop commented

    Note that this build is well, well advanced, if 264 Bay st

    How is it that Planning permission can now be involved unless a change, which was not
    widely advised as we are aware.

  22. In Glenelg SA on “Regulation 47A Minor...” at 8 South Esplanade Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Can you please supply specific detail as to what these changes are, why they are considered necessary and what the benefit is, and to whom. Thank you.

  23. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Dawn gridley commented

    Really not needed in this area at all.
    Closer to Strathpine shops I'd understand. But it's going to look completely out of place. 7 story is just way too big for Lawnton.

  24. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 63 Henry Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    P Stephen commented

    The new and second building that it is proposed to be built on the site is more than twice the height of the existing building! It will tower over neighbouring properties and is totally out of character with the area. Block sizes should be kept as they had been planned many years ago when designing the area - no subdividing.

  25. In Newtown NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 1C Whateley Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joeo commented

    I’ve been following these guys for years since their first pop up shop and they have been doing it right from day one. This modest extension of one more hour has my full hearted approval!

  26. In Pearl Beach NSW on “New Two Storey Dwelling &...” at 1 Agate Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Lyn cappella commented

    This application does not comply with height restrictions for Pearl Beach
    The amount of bedrooms 6 look more like a boarding house not a residential property
    And the pool in an area that has water problems
    Does not make sense
    And then the issue of taking out more trees
    So as a resident I object to the way the plans are at the moment they need to comply with restrictions on Pearl Beach

  27. In Pearl Beach NSW on “Dwelling Alterations &...” at 2 C Amethyst Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Lyn cappella commented

    I object to this proposal They are wanting to put a huge dwelling on a small block it is unattractive and is an over development for a low density heritage village and it does not comply with the planning guidelines for Pearl Beach
    And it looks like it will affect all the property’s so
    The taking out of a 100 year old tree to put in a garage this also is a problem as the current root system is above ground the property has been cleared of all the trees and vegetation
    This is not why people moved to pearl beach to be overshadowed by huge ugly buildings

  28. In Burpengary QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -” at 493 Morayfield Road, Burpengary QLD 4505:

    Keith Gee-Clough commented

    Dear Assessment officer, 
    I am the owner of the adjoining block located at 497 Morayfield Rd Burpengary (Lot1 RP221893). The proposed amendment will reduce the functionality and net useable area of our property if the road is straightened. The road will have to swing further onto our property, resulting in a loss of more of our land, reducing the value of the property if we decided to sell. As it stands the property subject to the application has lost very little useable land compared to our site and now the application will further reduce our useable land. The road should have been designed so it came up the boundary between the two adjoining owners land. This would have been a fairer and more equitable solution. For these reasons we oppose the amendment to the plan as it is effectively adding a worsement to our site. 
    Please acknowledge receipt of this objection.
    Kind regards,
    Keith Gee-Clough

  29. In Ringwood VIC on “Development of three...” at 8 Fyfe Avenue, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Liz Sanzaro commented

    Yet again, back yard trees are to sacrificed to increase density. there are some very poor examples in close proximity that are a very high % hardstanding with tiny patches of grass, as yet no trees obvious. This is on a blanket scale disasterous for climate change.

    How is Council going to balance our environment with domestic development when no appropriate land is left on site for replanting of what is lost?
    We object to the removal, without seeing what measurers will be taken to retain some of the mature trees on site.

  30. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    John Batts commented

    A crucial question posed, Amanda.

This week