Recent comments

  1. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Mat Ward commented

    To lose such a marker of residential architecture in the area would be a terrible loss. I do not understand why this house is not in a historical register.

    The gentrification of Hobart and particularly North Hobart is a short term gain for an investor and a long term loss of historical and cultural identity for the suburb.

  2. In Eden NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing - 11...” at 235 Imlay St, Eden, NSW 2551:

    Robert Whiter commented

    Having seen the drawings submitted for this application I have to ask myself why would ANYONE think this project is acceptable. Smack in the middle of Eden's historic precinct at a location where parking is already at an absolute premium and almost non existent on days when our nearby court is sitting. If this project is permitted to go ahead it will remain a blight on the adjacent well maintained Historic buildings.....UGLY

  3. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove two...” at 163 Willoughby Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Heidi Winney commented

    Thoroughly agree that unless a tree is dead and must be removed, there is very rarely a need to cut it down when it's healthy. Trees are hugely important for air quality for humans and for animals and for the beauty and their shade! Please reconsider this application.

  4. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Linda Crispin commented

    Surely the council can not approve this? Is the intent really to demolish this beautiful historic property? How can this be permitted? I believe that it is important to retain a building that sits well architecturally with the buildings around it and to maintain the charm and character of the suburb. This is a travesty!

  5. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Carolyn Wigston commented

    I’d like to know whether this application is in keeping with development for our suburb.

    There are only single dwellings situated in the area and this seems like a problematic step.

    4 multiple dwellings on the residential block would really change the neighborhood aesthetic.

  6. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Jason Atkins commented

    The surrounding areas of Kings Langley and Lalor Park are low density, there's not even medium density in the general vicinity. It does not make sense to build something like this at this location. I'm sure someone in council can understand this.

  7. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Jessica Staveley commented

    This house is such a beautiful and historic building,how can you even think about letting it be demolished to build more units. One day when we are sitting here surrounded by nothing but generic box shaped buildings we will regret allowing these old buildings to be flattened without a second thought.
    There are more important things than financial gain.

  8. In Woolooware NSW on “Construction of Stage 1...” at 455 Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware:

    Jon dodd commented

    This will be my last post on this topic of the development at 455 captain Cook Drive, Woolooware.
    I urge residents who read these comments that it is extremely important to post your views, whether you are for or against this development.
    Please do your research on this development before commenting.

    Please contact the NSW department of Housing and ask them what percentage of these units they have the right to for public housing. (I think it is 10%) over a certain size.
    When you find out the answer please ask them their vetting procedures for their applicants, are they new immigrants, recently released prison inmates, our local homeless people, and or just people doing it tough and need a roof over their head. Please double check the vetting procedures to ensure the safety of our children and our elderly who are not capable of defending themselves.
    Then give the fire and Rescue a ring at Alexandria and ask them how high their ladders extend because you are think of buying on the 11th floor, and how many officers could they send to rescue you if the unforeseen happened and you needed to be rescued along with the other 3 to 4,000 residents.
    Then to satisfy yourself that you are buying yourself a home and lifestyle, or an investment, have a look at market prices now to prices paid for the first units purchased off the plan and remember with the current rate of units being built, when you want to sell in five to ten years time how your investment or home will sell with another 3 to 4,000 new units on the market in the sutherland shire in competition to your unit.

  9. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Heather commented

    I agree with all of the above objections. The lack of information available on this applications in appalling.

  10. In Elizabeth Bay NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 50-58 Macleay Street Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011:

    Stephan Gyory commented

    I fully support this application. I have lived 15 metres from this location for 20 years, PP needs more of this stuff. Hours should be later, til 10pm.

  11. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 12 - 22 Langston Place Epping NSW 2121:

    Angela Lindstad commented

    All the trees have been removed around Epping library. Not a shade anywhere ! How do you think this will end ?? We will have to wait until the towers throw some shade- unless they burn or crumble.
    Angela Lindstad

  12. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Jo Bloomfield commented

    This application is totally unsuitable for this area! There are no other unit blocks of this size in the area, and the local services (roads/public transport/shops/doctors) can’t even cope with the lower density buildings currently being crammed into the area.

  13. In Coogee NSW on “Refurbish of internal area...” at 238-246 Arden Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Ailsa Latham commented

    We have owned unit 1 in the acapulco block next door to the Crown Plaza for 1 year.
    Noise from the central exhaust tower and speakers in the coutyard are intolerable during the night. Our request are
    - that speakers in the courtyard for piped and live music, be mounted away from the unit block,not blaring towards us ,as is the present scenario.
    - that the three storey exhaust tower,located between the Blue Salt restaurant and Oceans bar, be given acoustic insulation.
    We ask that before refurbishment that as neighbours we are given due consideration to fall in line with Crown Plaza's signage-
    "Please keep noise to a minimum.Being Respectful to our neighbours".

  14. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Gail Ferrari commented

    I totally agree very strongly with the above comments. I'm very concerned about the through traffic to our lovely Chirnside Village, as the roads are already too narrow, and there is a limited way to exit the estate already. I also can't understand the address as being in Wonga Park! Please councillors.....reconsider your decision.

  15. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Michal McNeill commented

    So excited by this venue, will bring some great atmosphere to DC plus employment, great food and a night out!

  16. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 31 Flora Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Joseph DeBattista commented

    I have concerns with this application on the grounds of increased noise, dust and traffic. Flora st Arncliffe can,t take anymore traffic or congestion. Our road is full. If this size of development is undertaken (8 storey appartments on three blocks) we will have more noise , dust and traffic than Flora st can handle. All residents of Flora suffer from clear access to their driveways now, nevermind if a major construction project starts. Flora st can,t handle a contruction zone. I would suggest this project be put on hold until all other homes in Flora st have applications in for development. The disturbance created from this application along with the WCX project, F6 project is way too much for locals to endure. We have way too much noise , dust and traffic. I object to this DA 2019/33 at this time.

  17. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 12 - 22 Langston Place Epping NSW 2121:

    Jason Chung commented

    I am disappointed to see that a number of trees have been removed on Chambers Ct, which provided much needed shade near Epping library and softened the impact of adjacent buildings.

  18. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove 5 spotted...” at Pacific Highway Chatswood NSW 2067:

    louise whelan commented

    I agree with the comments made by the resident who points out that trees along the highway add visual benefit to the concrete landscape along that section of road and it is important that trees continue to add that environmental relief as urban buildup continues in Chatswood. There is no evidence that safety is a consideration, therefore for the community benefit I oppose the application.

  19. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Mick commented

    Agree with all previous comments made, lack of information on this application is astonishing to put it politely. Anyhow even in the information provided I object, this adds nothing to the area & local amenity, let's keep the remaining small business in the area, we don't need another de facto apartment building.

  20. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Rachel Lotherington commented

    As a home owners and residents living on one of the roads directly affected, my husband and I strongly object to this development. The increase in traffic alone puts our two young children in greater danger.

    Then we have the loss of beautiful bushland which is essential to the character of the area.

    Furthermore, the local schools are already inadequate to cater to the growing numbers of young children in the area. Croydon North Primary School was closed down some years ago, and we have no public secondary college in our suburb. The nearest secondary colleges are already very full, and I haven’t seen any plans to build a new public secondary school.

    As proposals go, this one has been incredibly misleading. The new houses will be in Chirnside Park, but the planning applications all say Wonga Park. (The border between the suburbs is the creek.) This seems to have been a deliberate decision to keep the public and local residents from realising that this application directly affects them.

    Do not sell off our precious public land. It’s not yours to sell, it belongs to the entire community.

  21. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Kade Taylor commented

    Hi, I am against the development of Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park. The traffic that the 40+ houses will produce on the underdeveloped roads like Black Springs Rd which is barely coping with the traffic as is. Then add the development which is not finished behing the Shopping Centre.
    The block sizes proposed are way too small, with some coming in at 350m2 which is tinym with most of the blocks in the estate around the 700m2+. This just seems like they are trying to squeeze as many properties as they can in.
    We need more open space and less development in Chirnside Park, infrastucure is not coping with the increased traffic in the area. Especially with Kinley Estate development in the future down the road.
    Please consider the locals views before approving this development.

  22. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Andrew commented

    We would like to strongly object to the development at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park.
    As our house is close to the entry to the estate the result of this development will increase the traffic past our house. We already find it difficult to leave our property at times due to the number of vehicle movements, and the roads are not wide enough to accommodate both parked cars and increased vehicles.
    The Regency Rise / Black Springs Rd intersection is already a difficult and unsafe intersection due to the crest of the hill at road level to the west of the intersection.
    We are very concerned that this new development will significantly add to the traffic past our house, which will make our lives more difficult.
    Furthermore at the bottom of Regency Rise where it meets Black Springs Rd additional vehicles will queue up, increasing the risk of an accident on Black Springs Rd due to an impatience.

    This new development should only proceed if there is vehicle entry/exit to this development via Holloway Road (and not allow through traffic into Regency Rise)
    While we recognize that the cost of an entry exit via Holloway Rd will be expensive due to the creek, Holloway road is currently underutilized and will easily be able to handle the additional traffic.
    The future residents of this development will also be better served by being better able to get to and from their future homes via Holloway Rd to the rest of the surrounding areas and into Ringwood or the city.

    If this new development is to proceed without a entry/exit to Holloway Rd, then we please request that an additional exit line be added to Regency Rise Nth bound at Black Springs Rd and that the crest of the hill on the road level to the west of the Regency Rise / Black Springs Rd intersection is removed to improve the safety of the intersection.

  23. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    John Thomson wrote to local councillor Tim Heenan

    My wife & I strongly object to the proposed housing development at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park.
    We reside in Regency Rise, Chirnside Park & at present we have an untouched natural bushland bordering on Brushy Creek behind our property.
    Consideration has to be given to how the local flora & fauna will be affected. The habitat will change irrevocably in this environmentally sensitive landscape if this development goes ahead.
    All the local residents will be impacted by the construction phase & then the ongoing traffic congestion that will occur once the development is completed. We are very concerned with the new residents of the 48 housing blocks all accessing Meadowbank Avenue, Regency Rise & Rosewood Place Chirnside Park with no other alternative.
    We are aware of the new footpath that will be created through to 3 Holloway Rd, Wonga Park & a temporary road from that address to service the trucks & work vehicles during the construction phase. In the original planning consideration should have been given to sealing that road on completion of the works so all residents will benefit.

    Delivered to local councillor Tim Heenan. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Woolooware NSW on “Construction of Stage 1...” at 455 Captain Cook Drive, Woolooware:

    Jon dodd commented

    I have to say that I have never whinged about any developments anywhere, until this development at Woolooware Bay, surely you can see that this woolooware Bay Area from woolooware road to Gannons Road when this development is finished With another how many residential towers, a shopping centre and a hotel is going to be hugely over developed.
    Honestly we are not talking about 100 units here, it’s probably more like 1000 units, a shopping centre with major retailers and a hotel,.
    It sounds like you don’t travel this road very often, afternoons when sports training is on from about 4 pm west bound traffic is chaos, it can take 15 minutes to travel from woolooware road to Gannons road about 500 metres. The weekends when the sports fields are in play, the traffic is chaos, just imagine having a shopping centre there as well as another 255 units.
    It’s beyond a joke and should never have been approved, Australia has about 7.7 million square kilometres of land, we don’t need multi high rise developments like this one and others that have been built in the sutherland shire. It needs to stop.

    The R4 developments need to be seriously revised. Just have a look at Cronulla, heavy residential, their is no way that such a large number multi storey high rise in such a small radius can be healthy and or safe. Go for a drive down Gerale street, MacDonald St, Ozone St, Cronulla Street, Surf Lane, Croydon St, Parramatta Street, Elizabeth st, you will find all multi storey Unit blocks, the old red brick units being demolished to make way for new developments with more units. It is traffic chaos in these streets after 6.30 am every day.

  25. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Dave Faraday commented

    To Yarra Ranges Shire
    I wish to object the the proposed development of 50 houses at Lot 3 Holloway Rd.
    The chirnside village estate is a lovely peaceful area to live, where people walk their dogs, neighbors are friendly and know each other. There is a true sense of community, cooperation and peacefulness..its a great place to live.

    With the proposed development of all these new high density housing the area will signficantly change. There will be noise, traffic, congestion and pollution.. this will be further compounded by the access route being only Regency Rise and Meadowbank which are narrow roads that are already busy with residents currently parking on the nature strip and roads

    I have lived in the YR Shire my entire home ownership life and the Shire have always made good decisions in the best interests of current rate payers. Please do not approve this development

  26. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - ePathway” at 1 / 28 Valley Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Dawn Hedge commented

    The beautiful gum tree in Valley Road , that is threatened with removal , is a major corridor tree to parks either side of Valley Road and should not be removed . I have lived near by for 30 years and have observed the drastic decline in bird and animal life due to deforestation of their habitat . Powerful owls have been seen in this particular tree along with many other species .

  27. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Donna McPherson commented

    I strongly object to the proposed development . I consinder it to be absolutely sensless and insensative to the current homeowners (ratepayers) . How many delivery trucks, builders'vans, all the nesessary traffic to build a new estate, will be intruding on our beautiful neighbourhood? And, for how long? With only one road in/out of the planned development, it is unsafe for all.
    The flora and fauna has been displaced enough in the area. We are suppose to be living in a "green" zone!
    Where are our politicians?

  28. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Angie commented

    This is actually really sad. I walk these streets, very early, every morning. It is so quiet, with very little Maroondah Hwy traffic noise seeping through. On a few occasions I have been fortunate enough to see 2 kangaroos hopping along Regency Rise, through to Meadowbank and then into their “home”.

    I totally agree with what everyone above has said. It is just common sense really. I sincerely hope this development does not get approved. Thanks.

  29. In South Yarra VIC on “Conditions 1, 3, 4 and 6” at 162 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    TERESA SIMMERMACHER commented

    City of Stonnington,

    How are we supposed to know what the conditions 1 , 3 , 4 and 6 mean to us, your customers? Clearly this website must be updated to explain conditions to your citizens, as I have no idea what the impacts might be to this lovely building that is deserving of preservation.

    I also agree that the South Yarra area do not need yet another apartment building. Public transport and roads cannot support this.

  30. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Melissa Tee commented

    Regarding YR-2018/358
    Lot 3 Holloway Rd , Wonga Park.

    Myself my husband and 2 children would like to strongly disagree with this proposal.

    As we back onto this bushland we often go for walks etc,, and often come across Kookaburras, Kangaroos,lizards, frogs, turtles and all types of birdlife.

    For one we find the fact that it is called lot 3 Holloway Rd, very decieving as there will be no access from this road.

    We purchased our land in 2001 and paid a premium for this land as it backed onto bushland which in turn would give us uninterrupted views.
    We were always expecting that one day it would become a recreational reserve with some walking tracks etc.
    If this land is to be redeveloped it will cause several issues.

    Having one access point via Regency Rise it will no longer be a quiet safe street for our children to ride their bikes etc...

    The increase in traffic will and trucks etc.. will cause significant disruption to our wonderful neighbourhood, as well as noise and dust from the building sites.

    Noise from the builders and trucks at early hours during the week and weekends will disrupt our childrens sleep as they are used to having the peace and quiet with their rooms being situated at the back of our house.

    We feel that this developement will definitley cause house values to decrease.

    We feel that there is no regard for us as residents it is only a chance for councils to cash in on.

    The council really needs to care about the environment and habitats of all the wildlife that live amongst it, as well as the residents of this estate.

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