Recent comments

  1. In Lewisham NSW on “To remove a Eucalyptus Tree...” at 15 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    J.OCallaghan commented

    I object to the removal of tree at 15 The Boulevard, Lewisham.
    What is the reason for the tree removal?
    Trees attract native birds, and preserve the natural beauty of the area.

  2. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    The apartment buildings are ruining the low key feel of Redland bay. Very disappointing that it has become developed in this way.

  3. In Eltham VIC on “Amendment -Use of the land...” at 1 Nyora Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Peter Duggan commented

    Please update the planning folder to show "plans" of proposed.
    i.e. https://epathway.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/webdocs/applications/650440/Advertising%20-%20Plans%20-%20391_2003_11AP_A%20-%201%20Nyora%20Road%20Eltham.pdf

    pdf is missing.

  4. In Milperra NSW on “Subdivision of proposed Lot...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Lauren Fee commented

    I am a resident of Milperra and I am wholeheartedly against this development proposal.

    I, along with a very large number of residents who have personally attended the many peaceful protests of this development am aghast that our cries have fallen on deaf ears or stupid minds.

    We barely have enough infrastructure to support the existing residents of Milperra. The public transport network is lacking at best, we have next to no shopping facilities aside from our wonderful local shop owners, our water supply is low nation wide which I’m sure you can also agree, would not be aided by increased population. Our waste facilities are sub-par, Henry Lawson drive is far from sufficient, there are simply not enough schools in the area (both public and primary) to cope with a booming population.

    The wildlife would be severely disrupted, PROTECTED species of trees would be carelessly discarded to make room for the money in your pockets.

    I won’t even waste my time continuing to educate you about the things you should already know.

    Have any of you actually taken the time to stay in the area and actually assess what damage is going to be done if this proposal goes ahead? I’m guessing not because no one of a sane mind would allow that type of damage to occur in such a great community.

  5. In Glenelg SA on “Removal of Significant...” at 37-39 Partridge Street Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  6. In Glenelg North SA on “Regulated tree removal...” at 27 Golflands Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  7. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Simon Burgess commented

    Sorry the approval was 2005 not 2095.

  8. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Simon Burgess commented

    This is an amendment to an existing DA approval for a retirement village and nursing home approved in 2095 by council. This is not a new application and what is proposed are not 'huts'.

  9. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 18A Fox St Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Hayley cook commented

    This is a great idea and could breathe life back into what was once the heart of wynnum. It is a derelict eyesore at the moment and has been for years. It's a beautiful spot with great potential. It's not going to be a large establishment and parking is sufficient. Any deliveries will use the back entry near the boat ramp and operate the same when it was the most popular fish and chip shop in town. I can't wait to have a beer over looking the creek again. Having grown up at the creek, fish markets and the fishers pub due my family being fisherman working out of the creek and my mum working in the kitchen at the pub, I truly cannot wait to see this place come alive again.

  10. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Clare Taylor commented

    What has happened with Gateway's application to the Land and Environment Court submitted last year and also what was the result of a site meeting which took place between Council, representatives of the Land and Environment Court and concerned residents?
    I think residents deserve an answer.
    Thanks,
    Clare Taylor

  11. In Lewisham NSW on “To remove a Eucalyptus Tree...” at 15 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    The attached File says—
    'No records to display'.

    Does this application cover one tree or more than one tree?

  12. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 3 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    confused local commented

    I agree with PWalls, there are too many developments threatening Lambert RD and sooner or later there would be too many. It's too much of a small street to comply with so many of these major developments. Council needs to step up and monitor the activity by being more stern against development approvals. Developers in Lambert RD seem to think they can do what they like, build the worst kind of unfit monstrosities and get away with it. But there are also specific rules that they need to apply with too.
    I object to this Development application.

  13. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Patricia Lamey commented

    This looks like a manufactured homes site and not a retirement village a new DA should be presented for community consultation !
    This property is in the path of fires coming across from Darawank reserve and it is dangerous to place so many of these huts there
    The roadside is unsuitable and dangerous for entry and exit
    There is only 1 road in and out to Lakesway making evacuation a risk in fire prone area
    There is not the infrastructure to support dense housing in this are
    The block is heavily wooded and near the Koala corridor
    The plan for these huts is not in keeping with the area amenity
    The transport to towns is limited
    We have no permanent doctor at Halliday’s point

  14. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 6 - 8 Moseley Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Jason Lin commented

    Currently the traffic on Moseley street is heavy especially during hours before school and after school. There are 2 big schools JR and Carlingford West next to the street.
    The Moseley street is not wide enough for parking, there are no enough parking spaces for 8 new occupancies.

    2 or 3 new occupancies to be allowed in the deveopment plan is reasonable.

  15. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “Removal of siginificant...” at 21 Birman Crescent, Flagstaff Hill SA 5159:

    Susanne Clift commented

    Agreed with above comments

  16. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Melaleuca...” at 2-8 Llandaff Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Valli Rao commented

    I'm a resident of 2-8 Llandaff St, and had a good look at the two lovely trees and their location as i passed near them today. I agree with Rodney and Nami completely, that the trees have to be removed for safety reasons (inappropriate planting as Naomi writes). Rodney's suggestion that they need to be offset with suitable trees that provide shelter for native birds is excellent.

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Nick Viner commented

    My main concerns are with parking for a development of this scale. On a small 2 lot subdivision at 9 Thornely Street, Leichhardt, I asked Council why it had approved 2 new dwellings with NO PARKING. There used to be a driveway at the old house at 9 Thornley Street with parking for 2 cars so 2 car spaces have just been deleted. This is on a street one block from Norton Street, one block from Parramatta Road and with a Pre-School facility further down the street. I'd hazard a guess that the new occupants will bring at least 2 - 4 additional cars to the street when they move in and there is nowhere for these cars to be parked. Council's reply to me was,

    "Council's controls seek to reduce the reliance on private vehicles to minimise traffic. The controls do not require new dwellings to provide car parking. The site is within the Parking scheme area and the new dwellings will not benefit from the scheme."

    Whilst I absolutely agree that reliance on cars must be greatly reduced, I fail to see how, in the absence of any significant investment in public transport, there can be a direct correlation between providing no parking and reducing reliance on private vehicles? People will continue to use their cars but parking will become an absolute nightmare. Why should Leichhardt residents put up with the continued destruction of their amenity by having their streets clogged with more and more cars? And a lack of parking in our suburb impacts upon the shops and local businesses too.

    I fear that Council's plans are just to encourage as much development as possible with as little parking as possible whilst trying to justify their flawed vision which makes no sense to the average person.

    186 units = potentially 186 or more additional cars.

  18. In Kirkham NSW on “Concept Development...” at 200 Camden Valley Wy, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Neville Hoskin commented

    While the proper development of this site is long overdue I have concerns with two issues in particular the first is parking within the golf club area, as I understand the proposal a new entrance will come of Lodges Road and impact the current parking lots, if current spaces are not retained than patrons will have to park on Lodges Road which is dangerous and will impact traffic in the area.

    The second concern is the impact on the golf course. To retain playing conditions changes will be required to the course layout. This needs to be done in a timely manner as not to effect the viability / profitability of the club. The club provides other services for locals and organizations and any impact must be minimal.

    It would be advantageous if these changes could be done prior to construction starting on some of the proposed buildings.

  19. In Milperra NSW on “Subdivision of proposed Lot...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    John Honeybrook commented

    I am a resident of Milperra and I am totally against the development of the Riverlands site. We met with the developers, Mirvac, who are also the developers for the WSU site at Milperra. Mirvac representatives stated that there were no issues with traffic around the Milperra area and the development of Riverlands and the WSU site would cause no traffic problems. Surely the addition of 197 home sites on the Riverlands site would add a minimum of 1.5 cars per household which would add roughly 300 vehicles to the traffic flow.
    There are no plans to address the traffic problems and on this alone the development should be stopped.

  20. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Roger Collins commented

    I can't understand the 400k DA for all that development I agree with Roy that either this is a low cost development on a high cost block of land; or, the DA estimate is deliberately low to reduce DA fees. Council is not always alert to this ruse as it missed one local development that went in below 4m but eventually cost nearly 10m bypassing scrutiny by Councillors as well as a hefty DA fee.

  21. In Roseville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 53 Ashley Street Roseville NSW 2069.:

    Peter Benjafield commented

    I refer to previous extensive communications on the issue of proper drainage of the tennis court and request details of what work is proposed to protect No. 51 from flooding and damage.

  22. In Birkdale QLD on “Other Change to Approval...” at 20 - 28 Burbank Road, Birkdale QLD 4159:

    jack commented

    Just returning the above comment. I would like to see the rezoning go ahead. I understand the parkland are important but t this could possibly to cause bushfires etc which would cause more health damage

  23. In Darnum VIC on “Development of a Storage Shed” at  44 Streitbergs Road Darnum, VIC:

    Jackie Rutherford commented

    Good afternoon,
    We put in an objection to this permit application on October 16th 2019. We have not yet heard back from you regarding the progress of our submission. It seems the owner has taken revenge on our objection to his application and now placed a large shipping container directly over the fence from our back verandah. Can you please advise on the progress of our objection to the plan for a warehouse(PLA0159/19 Development of a Storage Shed). Can you also please advise us on whether a permit was required for the shipping container? It appears the owner is making preparations to erect the warehouse, and yet we have not yet received any information regarding our objection. Should this permit have been approved, we will be taking the matter to VCAT, and hope to minimise costs to all concerned by dealing with the matter prior to any construction.
    Kind regards,
    Jackie Rutherford

  24. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 3 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Pwalls commented

    What is it with this street and developments.

    Number 10 has been trying to get approval for 3 years now.

    Number 12 has built a monster home with all sorts of unapproved areas ( basement garage, 3 full levels, over FSR, over height), and got away with it.

    Number 3 now wants council to approve a development that was built under Complying Development, but was not Compliant Development?

    We object to Number 3 obtaining approval for this. $30k seems too cheap, and the entire house should be subject to the development assessment, and its not possible he built it for just $30K..

  25. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 3 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    CamH commented

    I object to this DA.
    Allowing this development application to be review purely on the unapproved area is ridiculous. This will set a precedent that any developer can simply submit a CDC, and then build a different design to what is set out on the CDC plans. I hefty penalty should be given to them to deter any developer wanting to do this. A similar case was to this occurred in Earlwood a few years back, where the developer built his garage out to suit his needs. He was fined 20-50K from Canterbury council for this, and was required to resubmit the DA, and associated fees. Home occupation certificate should not be issued until the owner/developer has been penalised accordingly to deter any other potential builders doing the same. I believe a new DA would be required to be submitted for this property.

  26. In Milperra NSW on “Subdivision of proposed Lot...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Rowena Moss commented

    I am totally against this development.

    With an estimated some 450 million Australian native animals effected by the worst bushfires Australia has ever seen, I gotta say I’m horrified that you would even consider an application to develop the home of what could be some of the last remaining populations of some species.
    With all the devastation to their natural habitat it just seems incomprehensible that you would approve any development that would put them further at risk.
    Sadly many of these native birds, wildlife and plants species will be endangered or extinct after these devastating bushfires and its up to us to do everything we can to save them from this fate.
    Not to mention the major impact this will have on all residents within the district. There is simply not enough infrastructure for this development. We already have traffic problems on Henry Lawson Drive from Milperra Road to the M5.
    What about the extra traffic in the local streets, including past the primary school? What impact will this have on our already slow water pressure and congested telephone/broadband connections? There are also flood issues around the Riverlands Golf Course.
    This development would add at least two more cars per dwelling and we are talking around 241 dwellings. This would be an absolute gridlock and an environmental disaster. The community of Milperra is horrified as to what could happen to our safe and quiet suburb! We are totally against this development!
    The community of Milperra is horrified as to what could happen to our safe and quiet suburb! We are totally against the development of Riverlands Golf Course.

  27. In Donvale VIC on “Amend Permit Number...” at 339-341 Springvale Road Donvale VIC 3111:

    Neil F Meaden commented

    We already have a Child minding centre within spitting distance of the above and don't need another.

    The added road congestion caused by the near by the recently completed Child minding centre at 318 Springvale Rd, will be further exacerbated by yet another centre nearby, making it nearby impossible to enter or leave Eleanor Crt.

    The failed Child minding centre proposal in nearby Pescara Cl was thrown out because of similar concerns by the rate paying residents.

    Please provide me the means of formally objecting to this latest hair brained proposal

    Rgds

    Neil Meaden RFD

  28. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 3 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Hons commented

    The proposed development was built under a CDC, and has completely bent the rules of the side setback.

    They owner and builder clearly have no regard for the development process, and surrounding neighbourhood, and thought they could build whatever they wanted.

    Masking a development as a CDC, and then building whatever you want want is so far outrageous, and is purely demonstrating that the owner/developer felt they could get away with whatever they wanted without penalty.

    This development application should be rejected, and the entire development would need to go through a DA process. Alternatively, they should be required to remove the imposing wall and lower roof. You cant have it both ways, as this is a blatant attempt to trick the system.

  29. In Milperra NSW on “Procedural paper...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Kris commented

    There is absolutely no benefit for the area regarding this development or any planned development surrounding the university. To repeat what some of the other commentators have said, we do not have the infrastructure to accomodate thousands of new residence and cars on the lot. We do not have adequate transport or car spaces at our local railway stations for new residences, our local schools and child care centres are crowded enough, extending HLD will barely assist in alleviating the current traffic issues let alone thousands of more cars with Riverlands and the University being developed, and the lights at Pozieres are a nightmare already. Our animal populations have been devastated with the fires, the Riverlands is a flood zone. Mirvac already has plans to turn Milperra into a slum with its grotesque designs as it has in the North West; with any amenities only being available to those within the new area. How, how is this good for the area??? This has been vehemently been battled for years, for it to have reached this point shows a lack of regard for the communities thoughts and feelings on the matter. I have little faith in our councils and government- they do not care about the feelings of the public not of the environment. Milperra does not have amenities or infrastructure of Revesby, Padstow or Panania, which have already been negative affected by over population and poor planning. Please do not ruin our small community. This benefits no one but the back pockets of the greedy. The five in my family are heavily opposed to this farce.

  30. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “Removal of siginificant...” at 21 Birman Crescent, Flagstaff Hill SA 5159:

    Edward commented

    I am object to removal of the tree as another environmental sacrifice to unsustainable development. It is always a way to proceed without cutting significant size trees

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