Recent comments

  1. In Roseville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Addison Avenue Roseville NSW 2069:

    Richard Taylor commented

    1.This property appears to have been constantly added to over the past 15 years. It is now a massive/spreading building structure (thank goodness single storey) that it MUST now exceed Kuringai Councils own regulations about Floor:Space (Land) ratio for a Residential Zoning. The property contains masses of concrete pathways and driveways that would already exceed any desirable Built-Upon-Area ratio that the Town Planners would not approve further roofed areas.
    What is the actual FSR for this zoning, Council maps state 0.3:1 but this property exceeds this already, and exceeds BUArea by at least 5-10%. There is hardly any lawn/landscaped areas.

    2.An additional rainwater tank on the eastern side of house should also be part of the DA as the increase in roof space will create more stormwater racing out to the street/creeks of Middle Harbour. Retaining this water is paramount. A further 5000L rainwater tank is needed if this is to gain approval.

    3.The additions should not be approved as it will further detract from the Heritage Items at the front of the house as the garage at the moment is a respectable distance from the front Heritage Items, but bringing the double garage doors forward will impact the nature/appearance of the Heritage Items.

    4.The additional space created as a "Study" is more than likely going to be used as separate accommodation eg rented out privately. There is no need if this is going to be an internal "study" to have external access with doorways at the front or the side of the house. If this addition is approved, it should only be approved with the deletion of ALL Doorways, and only windows allowed (no egress permitted). The house already has a Front Door!!!. Egress from the double garage to the side path is interesting, but why egress to the side path, it should be only permitted towards the existing front door.
    NO APPROVAL should (in future) be given for any internal alteration such as bathroom/plumbing in this zone or for the closing off of any internal walls (thus creating separate/lettable accommodation)

    5.I note the new garage is going to be built and encroach on a Sydney Water Easement, is this permissible ?? Why were the original additions allowed to be built upon the Water Easement ?

    6.Council Town Planners should reject the front additions/alterations on this DA0536/18 on numerous stated grounds/reasons, not the least exceeding FSR and BUAs for Residential dwelling lots in KRC area. It will set a precedent that KRCouncil will not be able to back down from.
    Neighbours will have ongoing water/flooding issues because of it, especially in this climate changing era. There will be a lot more 1 in a 100 year flood events and the lack of soft areas will cause massive run-off/flooding issues on neighbouring properties/footpaths and roadways.

    7.If this is approved then all future applications in the KRC area will try to exceed FSR and BUA requirements. Water run-off is an extremely important issue. This property should be made to comply with such regulations, and in fact the DA not approved and the applicant if wanting approval for the rear additions should be made to comply with INCREASING the current landscaping and REDUCING the concrete areas/built-upon-areas.

    8.I hope Town Planning Officers have performed a site visit/inspection as this property has more hard/BU areas than stated on the submitted diagrams. Proper measurements need to be confirmed by Council.

  2. In Sawtell NSW on “Subdivision-Non Strata - 57...” at Sawtel Road Tormina NSW 2452:

    Diana Deeley commented

    I am a local resident AGAINST more Primary Koala Habitat being destroyed and local biodiversity being lost forever. Coffs Council cannot let this DA proceed. The proposed 50 metre wide “enhanced” wildlife corridor is a joke. For a start it will destroy a swamp which is zoned an Endangered Environmental Community, and will take years, if ever, with taxpayer funded council management, to develop into a suitable koala corridor. The only way this DA can get around the KPOM is by using immoral biodiversity offsets. It is a long way from being environmentally “ethical” despite what the developer would have us believe. The Council should never have sold it off, nor rezoned it R2. Whatever were they thinking? Buy it back! Turn it into a reserve and public resource for all residents.

  3. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Claire Bielski commented

    Canterbury road traffic is hectic now, even out of peak hours. There is always construction along the street now with lanes closed off which makes it worse. 6 stories will affect the light into a wide area of surrounding properties. There needs to be a careful study made of the Canterbury Road and properties fronting onto it or it will become another Punt Road.

  4. In Elsternwick VIC on “Construct a 14 storey mixed...” at 7-12 Horne Street Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    Lars Holden commented

    I agree totally with Erika Wils. In addition to that, I wish to state the following:

    What is it about the 'Elsternwick Village' concept that developers and council refuse to acknowledge? In my view, a 'village' encompasses a sense of community, belonging, family and the obvious rest. Where do multi-storey developments, constructed in the main by developers whose only interest is to get in, get out, and make the most profit in the shortest space in time, then disappear without accountability for the mayhem and loss of amenity they have created, fit into this so-called 'village' fabric? These edifices are generally too small to attract long-term owner-occupiers, opening them up, as can be demonstrated time after time, to transient, anonymous populations of short-term renters who have no real affinity for the 'village', other than a convenience factor. These occupants are more than less of a younger demographic, more often than not childless, and when they decide to become 'fertile', as it were, suddenly there is a palpable and clearly identifiable effort to vacate these tiny living spaces for 'something' more commensurate to the lifestyle demanded by a normal family environment; that is to say, a home with a yard, a garage so dad can play with his car and maybe even build or make 'something', and mum can move around in the yard with the children and so on. The 'family' and the village concept is the absolute last issue in the minds of developers of these multi-storey monstrosities, it's all about profit and clearly council is not immune to this culture because, where else is it possible to exchange one rate payment on a single block of land to multiples of rates from that same footprint, now containing a multi-storey nightmare? In due course councils and developers will be held to account for these awful developments in the wrong locations.

    Most Sincerely Yours,
    Lars T. Holden

  5. In Tamborine Mountain QLD on “Shop (Business Use), Food...” at 147 Long Road, Tamborine Mountain QLD 4272:

    jeff carter commented

    Tamborine is Toxic via Visionstream Via Telstra A class action is being organised against Council you will most likely be approached in the new year, suggest you cancel Towers for the moment and 5G wont be tolerated, Information will be Delivered by Australia Post.

  6. In Queens Park NSW on “Remove five (5) trees. Two...” at 10 View Street Queens Park NSW 2022:

    Gayle Walker commented

    As usual, when I looked at council’s website, there were no documents to read. Removing five trees on one property just seems incredulous in this day and age. We need council to protect us from the environmental disaster that is looming over us. Think not only of the human beings that need the vegetation to clean the air, reduce pollution, provide pleasant streetscapes, etc. but think of the animals we are depriving of food and shelter. In fact, think more of them than of the human animal. More tree planting is required not only on public land but in private settings also. Please do not grant this request.

  7. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Rita commented

    This application for a six storey commercial building on the site encompassing 426-430 Canterbury road must surely be an ambit claim. I note an earlier application in 2015 was for 4 storey building. In addition to the unprecedented and highly inappropriate bulk and footprint for this suburb, the intersection of Warrigal and Canterbury road is already a choke point. This development would worsen congestion. Perhaps VicRoads will also oppose it.

  8. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of exsiting...” at 3 Bishop Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Barbara commented

    This street can not take any more duplexes when will Bankstown council stop allowing over development and start listening to the people who actually live in this area we are being over developed
    Not one of the duplexes that have been guilt actually use there own driveways and clog our streets
    What will Bankstown council do about this where is the new infrastructure that will be built for this type of overdevelopment

  9. In Elsternwick VIC on “Construct a 14 storey mixed...” at 7-12 Horne Street Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    erika wils commented

    Yet another high rise development and 14 storey proposal clearly not needed in Elsternwick considering what has been already been approved.
    I have a strong objection to any reduction in car parking spaces as already a very bad situation as it stands where spaces are at premium. It will also increase the congestion in Glenhuntley road enormously with pile up of traffic when trying to get across Nepean Hwy which already very bad at peak times and current short traffic light cycles.
    strongly oppose such big project and definitely no reduction in parking!!!

  10. In Woy Woy NSW on “New 3 Unit Development &...” at 13 B Farnell Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Janice Mcdougall commented

    Council. We are going to end up our Woy Woy will be overcrowded roads flooding more no doctors now for new residents. You are going to ruin everything. Please start saying no to developers and look after residents We pay your wages why not think of our lifestyle

  11. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    John Way commented

    Increase frequency services especially weekend 575 route...its a joke now and earlier and later services all day...infrastructure should match the over development the money is there...do you want labor to win bradford and berowa?

  12. In Kirrawee NSW on “Section 4.55 (2)...” at 26 Marshall Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Anne Monahan commented

    This is an example of a builder who has breached the conditions of consent throughout the build & the Private Certifier not ensuring the development is done according to consent.
    The rear townhouses were consented as 2 bedrooms each & now being sold as 3 bedrooms, as the TV area has become a room.
    The builder now wants consent for condition 2 iii to be changed to what he has built.
    The plants of existing properties do not give privacy from this development (as stated in the MA). All living areas of the 5 neighbouring properties are visible from this development.
    Consent was given with no rear bedrooms. The developer has built x2 bedrooms with lower sills, contrary to SSC consent.
    Why are the rainwater tanks & clothes lines not positioned according to the consented design?
    Council do not give retrospective approval to this builder please.

  13. In Wallabi Point NSW on “3 x Townhouses” at 18 Walter Fay Street, Wallabi Point NSW 2430:

    Mr Gary Jones commented

    We reside at 3 Howard St, which seems to be adjacent to the proposed construction of 3 terrace houses. We already have one two-storey construction adjacent to our property, about which we received no opportunity for consultation. Because we have no other information about this new development, we are concerned about the height of the development, and how close it will be to our boundary. We would appreciate any further information about this development that you could provide. Our contact phone number is 0459 925 045.

  14. In Queens Park NSW on “Remove five (5) trees. Two...” at 10 View Street Queens Park NSW 2022:

    David Gray commented

    The rear of this property faces Taylor Street. This street recently lost a very beautiful tall eucalyptus. Cut down! It needs trees and council should see that more are planted and grown.

    Of all the streets in Queens Park this is the that needs the most. This street is actually an alley, however it takes a great deal of foot traffic and therefore the planting of trees is appreciated.

  15. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Pine Crescent, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Grimshaw commented

    There is no point in asking permission to expand in such a ridiculous manner. It’s mearly a formality , the council will say yes after legally adding stipulations so they can show the people they are “helping” and covering their rears. Soon the population of Boronia will be so dense with people , they will be living in cages. And why should the council care. it’s not the street they live in I’m sure.

  16. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Marc P wrote to local councillor Garry Thompson

    Six storeys is far too high for Canterbury Rd Surrey Hills. Surely this is not within planning guidelines? Just because a developer submits such an application doesn’t mean it should go any further. Council do your job please and save or community.

    Delivered to local councillor Garry Thompson. They are yet to respond.

  17. In Hamlyn Terrace NSW on “5 lot subdivision & small...” at 38 Caravel Street Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Daniel commented

    This subdivision will ruin the whole estate and neighbouring. I have 2 young kids and to have them walk safely is impossible with the driveways that will come with this subdivision where there should only be 1 driveway. Not to mention the look and feel of this fantastic estate made up of single residential dwellings creating largeness and open feeling will be ruined with this small lot development. Very disappointed if this gets approved.

  18. In Alphington VIC on “Proposed use to operate...” at 729 Heidelberg Road Alphington VIC 3078:

    Leo ko commented

    I support any legal enterprise. There is a need for massage therapy in this suburb.
    One must removed ones own dirty thoughts about massage. Massage is a treatment and if you do not like it, don’t go. Your choice but please allow others to have a choice too.

  19. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 8 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Dani commented

    We have been counting the number of cars in our street - A very short culdesac in Umina.
    Our street has no gutters, no side walk, and mostly poorly laid loose gravel, holes in the verge packed with parked cars. We have a car pass our house every 20 seconds. Every 20 seconds all day every day. We can have over 40 cars parked in our short street. Small houses with massive granny flats will have 5 cars parked at the house on the verge.

    We have cars speed down our street all night, we have documented cars speeding at 11pm, 12pm, 2am, 3am.

    Our children have to walk on the street because their is no side walk and where there is grass it’s full of parked cars. Cars go by very 20 seconds as they try to walk safely on the only spot to walk ... the busy road. They have been hit by rocks being thrown off the road and nearly hit by cars when they are walking and riding their bikes.

    Is this the Umina/Ettalong/Ocean Beach that the residents really want? Once the area has lost its value it gone..

    Developers and investors blatantly ignoring building laws. a council not concerned about the safety and amenity of the area. Is this really what the residents want??

    I am very saddened by what is being done to this beautiful area

  20. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 69 George Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Greg Temme commented

    I have commented 2 times previously.
    I would urge everybody to have a look at the development application and notice that it is a full restoration of the Roxy theatre back to a theatre. the development is supported by a majority of "save the Roxy " and should be redeveloped as per the development application . If this is left up to Parramatta council nothing will happen and it will stay as it is , a mess.
    Here is an opportunity to have the Roxy restored to its previous Glory we should all be supporting this developer.

  21. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Alida Reggars commented

    Canterbury road traffic is unbearable now! Building more high occupancy buildings is
    Not in the interest of good planning and safety to local taxpayers

  22. In Saint Peters NSW on “To fit-out and use Suite...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    drew fairley commented

    This is a great company. I fully support its development.

  23. In Bowral NSW on “Residential Care Facility” at 39-41 Aitken Road, Bowral NSW:

    Vicki Stirling commented

    I have been a resident of Aitken rd for approximately 3 years. I built a new home. At the time the decision to purchase and live on Aitken Rd was due to its "R2: Medium density zoning. To my way of thinking I took that to mean that "we" would not have an overcrowded street. A feature of Aitken Rd is that at school drop off and pick up it is a very busy road. The school was there before we were and that is an acceptable thing.

    So if the care facility is approved (which I believe it shouldn't be.) That will amount to a constant traffic flow all day and on weekends too.

    It perplexes me that an aged care facility can even get to the point of putting in a proposal when the R2 zoning matrix highlights what is deemed acceptable in that zoning and what isn't. A care facility and multiple buildings not being part of that matrix to name a few.

    So not only is this being considered, at what time was or is the zoning for the street changed.

    The highlands has an abundance of Older residence care options already. When and where will the council say enough already.

    Many may see it as just the residence if Aitken Rd having a whinge. More care facilities will have an impact on an already stretched public hospital, and other medical services as well.

    Bowral is losing its charm with every new development. Why is it that urbanization is a priority. When we allow big developments like this to rule our street scape shame on us. Bowral will be just another suburb.

  24. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling, Carport...” at 44 Paul Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Here we go again - lovely mature trees smashed down for another granny flat!
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees and Umina, with Warnervale is now rated the hottest suburb on the Central Coast. Can the contractor please work around these trees? Please - can residents value shade trees as an asset instead of a trip hazard?
    Can Council ensure this new granny flat has on-site parking? More often than not, tenants have two cars thus rear lane ways have become cluttered and impedes access for other residents and emergency vehicles.

  25. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 122 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can Council ensure this new granny flat has on-site parking. More often than not, tenants have two cars thus rear lane ways have become cluttered and impedes access for other residents and emergency vehicles.
    When the project is finished, can the owners plant a shade tree in a corner? The Peninsula has lost too many trees and Umina, with Warnervale is now rated the hottest suburb on the Central Coast. Can all residents value shade trees as an asset instead of a trip hazard?

  26. In Umina Beach NSW on “Establishment Of Use -...” at 11 Oscar Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    If the proprietor has to supply more customer parking on site, can he/she not remove any more greenery in the front yard?
    Can a native shade tree (brush box?) be planted on the front verge when the project is finished for shade from the sun setting to the west?

  27. In Umina Beach NSW on “Primary and Secondary...” at 50 Cambridge Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance the developer can work around the tree as part of this re-build? Can a native shade tree (brush box?) be planted on the front verge when the project is finished for shade?
    Can council ensure the granny flat on the rear lane has on-site parking? Too often tenants have two cars and our lane ways are being cluttered thus creating access issues for other residents and emergency vehicles.
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees and mostly, contractors clear-fell a block, not even leaving a weed, increasing the heat-sink effects for the rest of us! Umina with Warnervale are now rated as the hottest suburbs on the Central Coast. Residents and contractors need to value their trees to add amenity for themselves and the community.

  28. In Umina Beach NSW on “Establishment of Use -...” at 236 - 242 West Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can Council ask the owners where the customers will park to access this gym?

  29. In Woy Woy NSW on “Secondary Dwelling & Carport” at 19 Balaclava Avenue, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While Council has to show the State Government it is complying with medium density housing quotas, the Peninsula is now over supplied with rear-lane "secondary dwellings" where tenants, more often than not have two cars and guess what, they have to park on the rear lanes! Can Council ensure there is on-site parking for this granny flat and plant a shade tree between the flat and the house?

  30. In Umina Beach NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing...” at 180 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance the developer can work around the trees on the boundaries as part of this re-build?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees and all too often, contractors clear-fell a block, not even leaving a weed, increasing the heat-sink effects for the buyers and the rest of us!
    Can a native shade tree (brush box?) be planted on the front verge when the project is finished for shade?

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