Recent comments

  1. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Tina commented

    How are emergency crews going to fit down this street? There's no way off getting an ambulance down here. This is ridiculous. Residents don't want it.

  2. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Kelly Logan commented

    I thought this estate was for growing families. The fact that there are already dual occupancies on both streets. The roads will not be able to handle the traffic and the park isn't very big enough either. Also for the people who have built, they will lose the northern sun quiet early..

  3. In Palm Beach QLD on “Operational Works Landscaping” at 418 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Monica commented

    Fantastic, this has been a long time coming the community will love this convenience

  4. In Healesville VIC on “Use of land for Industry...” at 7 Hunter Road, Healesville VIC 3777:

    Chris Gander commented

    As a local resident that visits the Watts River Brewery, there is significant street parking available, as Hunter Street has all industrial businesses that are only occupied during normal work hours. i.e. Monday to Friday 8 - 5..00pm.

    The hours when the brewery is open are outside of these hours and the whole of Hunter Street is available for parking. Hunter Street is very wide with angle parking.

    The brewery provides a great service to locals. It attracts and is a tourist venue for visitors, and local employment. It has also been used on occasion for charities to fund raise.

    I fully support the application for a reduction in car parking requirement.

  5. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Christine Yuen commented

    There are so many issues about this development that need to be addressed before council even begins to consider the viability of yet another boarding house in Kogarah - there are already 2 or 3 boarding houses within a two block radius of this current proposal, for starters.

    - The land is incredibly narrow and 50 rooms is simply inconceivable. That's 7 rooms per level. So many people living in claustrophobic quarters right next to the RSL - licensed alcohol and possibly gambling machines - sounds like an eventual recipe for disaster

    - Excessive overshadowing of neighbouring properties, especially the Veridian. The design of the Veridian seamlessly allows 5 storeys to be built on the mechanic site - Toska mechanic was fully aware of this during construction, as Veridian developers tried very hard to buy their land and amalgamate into Veridian. Toska refused, ended up with an isolated site, and are now offering their land to a boarding house development that will completely overshadow 10+ units and Veridian's communal courtyard AFTER they were offered above market price and still refused to sell. This will devalue so many Veridian properties - owners didn't even know about this development when they purchased. There's a massive lack of transparency.

    - Structual integrity of the Veridian buildings is highly likely to be impacted with 8 storeys being built directly next to them - wall to wall. Plus three levels basement parking, again directly adjacent to Veridian's own basement parking. The government and hundreds of homeowners can't afford to risk of turning into another Opal or Mascot Towers, especially without solid building regulations in place

    - The viability of the boarding house's car lift. They have planned for only one car lift. What if it breaks and all cars get trapped underneath? How will their car lift affect traffic if boarding house residents opt to park on the street instead of bothering to operate the lift? Parking is tight enough with the proximity to hospital and train station

    Overall, the boarding house is a big expense with equally large risks. Affordable housing is a necessary initiative, but council and government should be aware that there are many developers taking advantage of the Affordable Housing Act to turn a quick profit without looking into the future. This building is allowed to have extra storeys because of the act, violating building compliance and directly devaluing neighbouring properties. Not only should it be no higher than 5 storeys - I implore council to seriously consider the impact of so many boarding houses on the Kogarah community. What message are we sending by setting the precedent for allowing boarding houses to bypass rules and cause irreparable damage to hardworking people's homes and investments?

  6. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Romel commented

    This plan is way overdeveloped. I have seen the development plans, and I must say the building should not be 8 floors. Two surrounding building share a common wall with this property and if built the people on 5th to 8th floor will have a wall in front of their balconies or having an apartment right in front of their living room/bedroom with no sunlight or airflow. There will be no privacy, and there will be a safety issue as anyone can jump the fence and go into other building balconies. The distance between the units will be 3 meters or less. The shadow diagrams given to council are for 5 storey, but the application is for 8 storey. They are going to have 1 car lift. They need a minimum of 2 car lifts! How does that work for a small piece of land with 8 levels? To top it all they are going to dig 3 levels down next to the two-buildings, which will create more issues for the structural integrity of the adjoining buildings. I request to the council not approve this development. This development will cause nothing but grief and suffering to the residents in the adjoining building.

  7. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Neve Krst commented

    This is a blatant misuse of permits. Kogarah does not need more "boarding houses" - it needs well thought out development that takes into account the needs of existing residents, who do not want cheap slums thrown up next door.

  8. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 25 Radcliffe Court Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    So if you want to see the future of Bellbird take a look at "Harrisville" across the road from Morgan street where a huge block is close to finishing. It says in the present council plan that the community will be consulted and involved 21 times. i could only find one case in which there has been any community involvement. Yes just 2.next too "Happy Jack" block 47 lots are all ready to go. I concetrate on the broader issue of planning as illustrating what Auxiarly units shows us about sistemic problems we are up against from the bottom to the top. how it works with these units in particular and planning in general and make the obvious reference from massive uncontrolled clearing to the bottom of the food chain in building a new room , sorry anxiary unit A resident close by said well at least the council has agreed to 29 lots,On the "Happy Jack"block with its duplexes now back to 47 lots,We now find that there were negotiation by council with the developers,with no explanation on the web site. Transparency, what transparency ?Further along Jones road is another large block. I spoke to 2 residents opposite. Both home owners had no knowledge of the development. One said he had bought his house in Bellbird to get away from Springfield. He was bemused and angry. He was of course worried that his house would drop in value. What has the "council " done ? Why didn't they inform such residents?With resignation he said that there was no use contacting the council .The history of the "Happy Jack" block is intuitive. 60+ objections to the proposed development . Every one objection represents about 10 residents who for various reasons didn't object.To us it illustrates the loss of credibility of the "council" especially in the vital area of planning. Transparency. A theme the newly formed community group are to investigate. With a lead time of at least 2 years to a new plan will be the death warrant for places like Bellbird. Another of the 21 references to community involves input by the residents working with Council.It is soul destroying for residents objecting to individual applications knowing that their objections will be ignored. The "Happy Jack block illustrates all that is wrong with planning. Consultation with council none. destruction habitat and vegetation and wild life corridors no council requirements. Look up the 21 requirements of the council/ community involvement,for Brentwood "forest" estate, A million trees were removed along with the top soil. The council sits on its hands as developers bring in the Dozers. This is the 21st century where a huge block at Eugene st will also be cleared to the sub soil Ipswich is right up there in regards to clearing Who's responsible for this. Looking ahead to the development of Eugene St Auxiliary units and especially Duplexs will collectively destroy Bellbird. Council can't even knock back a development like this. The council knows very well that auxiliary units are "small potatoes" but how many of the applications for them have been knocked back? From small potatoes to 34 hectares nothing is sacred. I have been told by state government that the 'council' I that I should speak to Mr Chemello He says that Council have to do the biding of the State government who first imposed the criteria for development . When? we have those "wild west' "planning" still with us. The developers are laughing all the way to the bank. If it is powerless to stop Auxiliary units how can it stop the development of Eugene St. As Margret Thatcher once said there is no such entity as community. "Council" by its actions or inaction's make it crystal clear that they see our community as a minor irritation. Think about that as a rate payer who pays the wages of the 100s of council workers including the planners. Its a moot point as to what value we are getting for our dollar from 'council" in general and planners in particular.

  9. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Michael Carlile commented

    This development is beyond the original vision and plan for the Kembla Grange Estate.
    The streets. Roadways and parking will already be pushed to the limits with the dual occupancy dwellings already in the area.
    The Proposed monolith is opposite a park, ruining views and creating a potential danger for kids and dogs and the general public with all the extra traffic created by having 6 units, directly across the narrow street. I re-iterate the point that these roadways were designed with a certain amount of traffic which will now be overloaded.
    Allowing a subdivision of this degree would cause so many issues that the original planning was not catered for.

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

    Jo Impey commented

    Murrumbeena needs housing for couples, older people, families and social housing for people on low incomes, not just student accommodation. Surely a building eight stories high can provide housing options for more than just students.

  11. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 104 Birdwood Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Jan Deighton commented

    What a beautiful tree. It gets rather hot in Umina during summer. Council and residents are working together to plant more shade trees to help reduce the heat and cool the surrounding ground. Could the tree be trimmed?

  12. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Angela Dive commented

    I think there are already too many of this sort of accommodation- there is not enough infrastructure to cope with another large building with many residents - the building is out is out of character for the street - it's already a difficult to visit that area wirh minimal street parking

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

    Monika L. Crescini commented

    Don't have anything against student accomodation and retail area but definitely against 8 storey building. The height shall match buildings in the area - and there is nothing above 3-4 storeys here. It would completely kill the vibe of Murrumbeena Village. The new building needs to match the height and character of heritage buildings on the street - especially as it would be on such an exposed location.
    It would be like an observation tower and people in the nearby houses will lose their privacy!
    I don't worry about the cars - even though already now very often we cannot get a parking spot at Murrumbeena Rd but I do worry about very big building full of micro cheap apartments and additional hundreds of people on the overcrowded trains in rush hours and not convinced that the new high capacity trains would help.
    Allowing an 8 storey building would set a precedence and in no time Murrumbeena will lose its heritage and green character.

  14. In Waverton NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 19 Waverton Avenue Waverton NSW 2060:

    Lisa Deakin commented

    Hi: I’m writing regarding the application of works at 19 Waverton Street Waverton

    I live in 60 Euroka street waverton and my very old 1889 home sits directly below the 19 Waverton street residence. I’m very concerned about the proposed development as it will completely overshadow our home and we will achieve no sunlight during the day. Also the proposed pool will be very noisy and if there is ever a leak or maintenance problem our property will be damaged. Can you please advise me if this proposal has been approved by council yet, I’m very worried, many thanks, Lisa Deakin

  15. In Burpengary East QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 49 Creek Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    LGC commented

    Couldnt agree more with these comments. Its almost same where we are on opposite side in Burpengary. The once land full of trees and wildlife and what drew us to the area is now made ip of townhouses, tiny town housing areas and a gigantic truck and bus area. As mentioned in many comments ive made, our views from all areas of our home are now ulluminating truck signs and humming of truck and bus buisness. We can even hear the PA announcements. The highway noise is now much louder since they knocked down all trees and opened space up. Not to mention the congestion of Burpengary now. To get from train station to shops took me 25minutes due to over congestion and growth. Our once lovely area is fast turning into a Morayfield. I feel for people above. MBRC are disgraceful with what they hve done and allowed to the area. Now we have a once a tree area being pulled down to make way for a pokie club. Disgraceful and yes, shame on you council and your greed

  16. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Cameron Miller commented

    I strongly oppose the development application of a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street Petersham.

    I agree that the double storey, high density, design will impact the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring homes. The lack of noise restrictions until after midnight on 2 days per week from the outdoor communal area would be highly disruptive.

    In addition, Jarvie Av is a heritage conservation area with distinctive architectural styles of the interwar period. The proposed design will negatively impact the elements protected by the conservation order, notably (quoting from the HCA23 council document):
    - "a small area that is characterised by its hidden location and tightly defined streetscape of Inter-War bungalows."
    - "the area a tight and cohesive and streetscape rhythm, dominated by the single storey, low pitched multi-gabled and hipped roofs of the interwar period"

    We are a quiet community street, with the majority of residents being young families or elderly and long term residents. We have recently purchased in the street and did so due to the residential feel of the neighbourhood and heritage character. We would be devastated to see this destroyed by the development of a boarding house. This is completely unnecessary given the volume of boarding houses that already exist in the surrounding area.

    It is a known fact that the inner west is already a congested area. To increase the volume of bins on the street and further decrease the lack of parking is ridiculous. I live on Bishop Street, in a property with only street parking and I rarely find parking on Bishop Street and am forced to park in neighbouring streets. This is especially challenging of an evening and on weekends when there are sports teams playing in Marrickville Park.

    In addition, the property will be overlooking neighbouring homes which is a complete invasion of privacy.

    For all these reasons, and a clear opposition from the residents in the surrounding area, please reject the proposal for this development.

  17. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Lara Miller commented

    I strongly oppose this development application of 40 Bishop Street Petersham, into a 10 room boarding house.

    I live in a property on Bishop Street with no on-site parking and experience the lack of parking on Bishop Street on a daily basis. The street is already so congested that I often end up having to park far away from my property on neighbouring streets as there is no parking available on Bishop Street. It is ridiculous to consider the addition of a 10 room boarding house on what is already a heavily congested area for parking.

    In addition to this, I strongly agree with the other residents that this would increase traffic on the street in general and destroy the residential feel of the street.

    The property will also be overlooking neighbouring family homes, which is a complete invasion of privacy.

    In addition, the higher volume of bins on the street on collection days would further congest parking and likely increase the pest problem which is already a big problem in the area.

    Please don’t ruin our street with this ridiculous development. I am strongly opposed.

  18. In Scarborough WA on “Scarborough MRA - Change of...” at West Beach Lagoon 251 West Coast Highway Scarborough WA 6019:

    Melanie Tutavaha commented

    I am in full support of the proposed change of use of West Beach Lagoon, 251 West Coast Highway Scarborough. I believe it will be a positive upgrade that will promote residential infill in the revamped Scarborough foreshore.

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

    Anna Le Merle commented

    8 storeys is way too high and student housing is not necessary given we have no university (or high school) in the vicinity. 2 to 3 storeys max with boutique residences and retail or only retail is in keeping with the area. High density living brings poor quality builds as well as increased crime. I oppose this development.

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

    Paul Henry commented

    I welcome this development and believe a large influx of students will breath much needed life into the local shops.

    Students getting apartments next to railway lines tend to not drive so I am not worried about the parking. Small apartments are perfect for students.

    This is great.

  21. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 25 Radcliffe Court Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Natalie Thorpe commented

    No, too many auxiliary units for rent in Bellbird Park. It isn’t an auxiliary unit it is a duplex. Look on the realestate pages they are all rentals. Owners are interstate. All the auxiliary units and the houses their attached to (duplexes) at the new estate in Tamatea Drive are ALL rentals. Often with several people living each side of the house. Most have four cars per dwelling!!! So no this should NOT be approved.

  22. In Coomera QLD on “Description: Class:...” at 7 George Alexander Way Coomera 4209 QLD:

    John commented

    I would like to know what was built here. It appears to be complete with gates and gardens but no signage.

  23. In on “Residential - multi...” at 29 Saddleback Crescent, Kembla Grange NSW 2526:

    Shawn commented

    I feel that this multi dwelling house goes completely against what this new estate is all about.
    Will square edged gutters cars cannot be park on both sodes of the street, when there is there is no way a car can get through.
    There is already several dual occupancy dwellings that have been approved and built on both Neeson Roads and Saddleback Crescent with limited parking spaces behind the fence line.
    To approve dwellings if this size will be visually unappealing, dangerous for children due to the width of the roads and due to the fact that is directly across the road from a children's playground

  24. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Penelope Vowell commented

    I strongly support and agree with all objections to the proposed 180 retirement lot development in Stuart Rd Tyabb. It was underhanded and dishonest of MPSC to try to prohibit operations at the airfield by incorrectly stating that permits had not been issued when they patently had and failing on their legal requirement by neglecting to keep their own records regarding permits covering the airfield. The airfield provides must needed employment and support for township businesses in what is a township facing economic stresses. SHAME on you Mornington Shire!

  25. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Jane brown commented

    My balcony will have an 8 story high brick wall attached to it , I’m on level 5 and if this goes ahead all my natural light will be completely gone which I can’t believe council is even considering this when council are there to ensure the community isn’t impacted greatly from DA applications.
    Serval issues with this DA , over shadowing is huge , potential structural damage to recently built Viridian building with a 3 level underground car park that is so small it needs a car lift , car lift in a boarding house?? , privacy issues with the boarding house above 5 levels where only 3 meters separates them, security issues where they can simply climb through a window and just hop onto my balcony? This so called boarding house isn’t really a boarding house and will not benefit the community only hinder it only ones who will be if it is the developer and the tenants in Viridian will suffer!!
    I completely oppose this DA

  26. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Jason brown commented

    This is a massive over development for the size of this tiny corner block from a very sneaky and Greedy developer trying to use “ affordable housing act 2009 “ to get this 8 story boarding house with 3 levels of under ground car parking using a car lift so he can get council approval!
    Seriously the council can see right through this by looking at the design with the top 3 levels having a north facing glass facade to captivate the city and Botany Bay views stripping away all the adjoining units in Viridian of their natural sunlight and views for a so called boarding house!! Please this will be 40 + rooms at Expensive cost of living lining the pockets of a developer who has no concern about the huge impacts it will have on all the Viridian apartments not to mention the potential of another opal and mascot tower with the 3 story hole he will be jack hammering up to build this
    I object to this in so many ways but mostly the fact and 8 story brick wall will be built directly in front of serval units completely blocking them out of any sunlight , how can council even consider this when there’s so much impact this will and can cause????

  27. In Malvern East VIC on “Development of nine (9)...” at 1975-1977 Malvern Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Fenty Cesal commented

    Hello there, good afternoon and i hope you are well.
    Just wondering if I could have more info regarding 1975 - 1977 Malvern Rd Malvern East Planning permit reference 0307/18?
    I have tried to access the council website in the past 2 weeks or so but there seem to be system issue.
    Link: https://eplanning.stonnington.vic.gov.au/EPlanning/Public/Error.aspx?ec=20
    Error message: "We are currently experiencing issues connecting to the Planning System.Please try again later."

  28. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Rosina Edwards commented

    I don’t believe Tyabb has the infrastructure to support this development and therefore lodge my objection

  29. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 104 Birdwood Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance this lovely tree could be pruned instead of demolished?
    The Peninsula is now rated by Council as the hottest areas on the Central which means not just planting more trees but preserved those that can be.

  30. In Carlton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 9 Fleet Street, Carlton NSW 2218:

    Richard Jones commented

    I wish to object to the above proposal as building and balconies are very close to Cumberland street and not set back enough. Not enough parking is provided for the 10 occupants. The building also over shadows the neighbour’s house to a large degree.

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