Recent comments

  1. In McLaren Vale SA on “Single storey dwelling and...” at 47C Chalk Hill Road, Mclaren Vale SA 5171:

    mark maxwell commented

    CAn you give me more detail of this planning approval.
    I am an adjoining land owner

  2. In Rhodes NSW on “Extension to Trading Hours...” at 6 Walker Street, Rhodes NSW 2138:

    Weifeng commented

    My kids would love to have macca in Rhodes.
    According to most comments above, i personally think, Perhaps council could employ a position which allow on spot fined.
    Imagine a new position opening.

  3. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1 Nineteenth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Anita Nolan commented

    I also think this development is visually appealing and designed to complement its beach setting. It is within height restrictions and contains large 3 bedroom luxury apartments with 2 parking spaces per unit. Hardly dog boxes or a future slum. It replaces two very old ugly buildings with a light filled new block which will be residential only. It is also lower than existing and proposed buildings in the immediate area.

  4. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Change of use from dwelling...” at 2 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Pamela Lansky Williams commented

    I feel that a practice f this type is quite out of place in the enduring Australian family lifestyle historically embedded in this area. It will unquestoonably attract a profile of random public who may have a sense of entitlement and undervalue it as a long established residential community
    My greatest concern however, is that if this practice is allowed to established, it sets a precedent for similar medical, cosmetic industry businesses to follow suit.
    This family friendly area should not become a business hub . That I understand is the purpose of the extensive developments and upgrades of Bondi Junction.

  5. In Grovedale VIC on “Construction of Thirteen...” at 212 Bailey Street, Grovedale, VIC:

    I. Flood commented

    Submission in Response to City of Greater Geelong - Permit number: 973/2020
    Advertised: 04 Jan 2021
    No decision before: 02 Feb 2021
    Site: 212 Bailey Street, Grovedale, VIC
    Proposal: Construction of Thirteen (13) Dwellings and Fifteen (15) Lot Subdivision

    RESPONSE TO SMP - Sustainable Management Plan

    PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - A BENIFIT NOT A CONSTRAINT

    " Planning Report PP-973-2020 - PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS ... "
    "...2. Council has previously advised they wish for the street tree on Bailey Street to be retained where possible. ..."
    > RESPONSE: COGG identified that the street tree should be protected and retained where possible. Street trees are an asset, community owned assets that contribute to the biodiversity of the area and the amenity.
    This existing street tree provides shade and shelter for pedestrians, fauna, avifauna and other living creatures. It should not be seen as a place to park a car under and so must be adequate car parking must be provided.
    An existing advanced tree has an even higher value than newly planted trees or replacement trees.
    There is further opportunity for indigenous trees to be planted on Council Reserves in
    Bailey Street and Pickerall Avenue.

    The existing street tree/s must be protected during the full period of construction and an inspection made at the end of the construction period. The Australian Standard for protection of trees re: construction sites exists because of decades of evidence of the destruction of trees as a result of building development. COGG has come a long way in understanding it's role in protecting the natural environment and is being pro-active.

    PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - ISSUES OF PARKING
    When assessing the permit and the provision of vehicle parking, COGG must protect the Council Reserves aka Nature Strips from future from vehicles parking on what is meant to be a Green Zone.

    "Analysis of car ownership in 2016, indicates 52% of households in the City of Greater Geelong had access to two or more motor vehicles."
    Further, approx 80% of households had at least one car. Source - Australian Bureau of Statistics.
    Geelong is entrenched as a car centric population. This is evidenced by:
    1/ The number of residents who drive 2 - 5 minutes to park at Marshall VLine Station.
    2/ The vocal opposition to discussion of road design that incorporates safe routes for walk and bicycle journeys at a COGG community consultation for the Draft Marshall Structure Plan.
    3/ The practice of parking on the council reserve for quick entry and exit and due to the garage being used for work or storage.
    4/ Not wanting to park on the road to avoid car damage.
    It is more than likely that most of the households in this application will have two vehicles. This is evidenced by the surrounding streets and households.

    Day and night, vehicles are parked on Council Reserves throughout the recent developments in the Marshall Precinct and areas bordered by Torquay Rd, Reserve Rd, Marshalltown Rd, Barwarre Rd and Barwon Heads Rd.
    Result - Diminished the Green Zones, tree root damage, unattractive land scape.

    PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - FRUIT TREE & SOIL TYPE
    The developer proposes a fruit tree for each yard, this presents many positives.
    The soil type would need to be considered when selecting the species of fruit tree.
    Marshall Precinct is more of a riperian zone - a layer of silt over reactive clay and very little organic matter.
    The most successful plants in the area are indigenous plants or native plants from a similar region unless the soil is prepared for non-native species.

    PROTECT AND ENHANCE GREEN ZONES - INSPECTION
    At the completion of the construction, COGG should inspect the planting and landscape works, to confirm they are completed in accordance with the approved plans.
    There is evidence that some developers neglect the final planting and landscaping -
    eg: Station Rd Marshall near Grove Rd. The landscaping was completed in accordance with the submitted plans a few years after completion, greatly improving the bio-diversity and amenity of the area.

  6. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Susan Morrison commented

    I wish to object to the development proposed for 47a Penrose Street Lane Cove West outlining some of my concerns as follows:

    We have a variety of businesses and infrastructure in Lane Cove West drawing people from different areas. Blackman Park has been developed and improved on immeasurably bringing more people to it, but without sufficient traffic management improvements. Wood Street is used as a rat run down to the Penrose/Burns Bay intersection especially in the evening, often with traffic waiting for the lights banking up as far back as the Beatrice Street roundabout. The vet, pet shop, butchery, cafe, seafood takeaway, gym, bottle shop, bakery and fruit market all draw customers from outside the area adding to the traffic on foot and vehicles. The development is located on a service lane, with no option for street parking nearby. The proposed twenty car parks and three disabled car parks servicing the forty-five units (which will sometimes house two people), a caretaker (and perhaps partner), a commercial site, a bicycle parking space and a motor bike parking space will result in an overflow at times, putting further pressure on local roads which already experience parking shortages and traffic jams at regular times.

    I fully support a diverse community. Lane Cove West has many apartment blocks, high, medium and low density residential blocks, a large industrial area, recreation, environmental conservation with some public housing, a refuge, retirement complex’s and another “boarding house” within 500m of the proposed development. We enjoy the range and diverse spread of zonings in our area due to previous planning controls which allows and supports cohesive community living, however it seems more and more that local controls are being pushed and overturned by the land and Environment court with greater powers and no regard for local input. I am concerned that calling this development application a “boarding house” is an attempt to somehow negate some of the current restrictions applicable to the site to allow a larger development and perhaps a gradual shift to apartment dwellings. This seems to have been the case at no 1 Johnston Lane Lane Cove West. Their boarding house application was knocked back by Council in 2014 but subsequently approved through a Land and Environment determination. The 1 Johnston Lane site does not appear to have an on-site manager (despite application being for 24 units - a manager is required on site for 20 or more units) with leasing currently being run by LJ Hooker. This is not in the spirit of the original approval or the B1 neighbourhood centre zoning, and in a few years there could be existing use claims to allow further development. It is the thin end of the wedge as developers push their way through planning controls.

    I do not consider that the site warrants another “boarding house”. The tiny allowance for a commercial space on the site hardly compensates for the diverse small businesses that currently cater to our community (including Pilates and dance studios.) The neighbouring properties zoned R2, with one listed as a General Heritage item, will have overlooking issues, and will be subject to noise at an increased level. There is very little “green space” proposed for the residents to enjoy on site, and there is no way to ensure it will continue to be maintained. (The units at no 1 Johnston Lane have had no land maintenance on their tiny patch until the last few months when the apartments were put back up to rent) The development proposal in its current guise will not enhance the current “community” feel of the area.

  7. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification to alter...” at 1-7 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Christine Dwyer commented

    This DA in its bulk and scale is not appropriate for this area and will cause traffic and parking issues in an area that has already limited parking. Furthermore, there has been a pedestrian death on the corner of Curlewis Street and Old South Head Road and this will cause more problems. This corner block with absolutely no vehicle access and nowhere to stop outside except for via Simpson Street which is a narrow residential street that already suffers from traffic and parking issues and will furthermore contribute to this issue.
    The excessive FSR should include the basement and again is outside the legal requirenment and should not be allowed.
    After the recent incident with the Developer, the council should be very careful and not grant this development as this Developer's building ethics should be under scrutiny after the recent dangerous workmanship and near death.
    There are too many approvals granted without looking carefully at the existing area/streetscape and does not blend in with the local area due to its bulk and scale.
    I would have also liked another officer to be delegated to this project as it could be a conflict of interest as it is the same officer that was responsible for the same builders DA just around the corner.
    Please take into account the already dense residential area before adding more traffic and congestion, particularly where there is little or unsafe access.
    Thank you.

  8. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Change of use from dwelling...” at 2 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Steve Percy commented

    The whole idea is to seek comparative advantage by NOT basing in Bondi Junction thereby gaining more space and less traffic congestion, less perceived hassle for their clients; all at the local residents and area's ('heritage') expense. Not fair!

  9. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of an eight...” at 15 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Bob Phillips commented

    I don't agree with what is being planned for this site. We lost another iconic shop in Brunswick, and I feel the area is slowly becoming soulless. Please build something for the people of the community to enjoy.

  10. In Gladesville NSW on “New carport, front fence,...” at 29 Warner St Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Chris Gildersleeve commented

    I am a resident of Warner St Gladesville, the street where the construction is planned.

    Is the "Public Interest Planner", who is unwilling to publicly declare their name hiding behind a self proclaimed advocacy, a resident of Gladesville, let alone the City of Ryde?

    They appear to have a very strong opinion that there should be no flexibility in the application of planning guidelines. Such inflexibility discriminates against those who have houses constructed prior to motor vehicles being common in our society. Why are they so narrow minded????? Is it they didn't get what they wanted????

    The construction of the carport will provide shelter for a vehicle that is already parked in the driveway and reflect the approval provided to the neighbouring house and many others in the City of Ryde.

    Council needs to exercise its discretion of the good of the rate payer.

  11. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Jackie Daher commented

    This development does not have my support! Based on comments from other locals, they share the same concerns. The Burns Bay Rd corridor between Linley Point and Lane Cove West is already chocked with high rise buildings and traffic.The proposed 44 room boarding room development will further add pressure to significant peak hour traffic congestion on Burns Bay Rd, Wood St and Penrose St’s. Additionally, it won’t fit in with the character of the area. I urge the council to listen to locals and not approve this development.

  12. In Joondanna WA on “Residential - Four Grouped...” at 217 McDonald Street Joondanna WA 6060:

    Sebastian Marks commented

    To who it may concern,
    I am a neighbour to this property and I support this application. I live in 88 Hodgson street tuart hill, and if this application get a approved it would make my life and my family’s life better.

  13. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Nicole Bresnahan commented

    I would like to add my voice to that of my neighbours who have eloquently expressed their objection to this development proposal.
    This part of Penrose Street is a quiet, family residential area which has neither the need nor the infrastructure for a boarding house of these dimensions and the number of people it will service and traffic it will produce.
    I implore council to please reject this development and retain the existing environment that is currently enjoyed.

  14. In Wamberal NSW on “Short Term Rental...” at 12 Dover Road, Wamberal NSW 2260:

    Jennifer McCulloch commented

    To hear council is entertaining yet another DA for a house to accommodate up to 16 people is extremely disappointing. These applicants rarely live in the area so are unconcerned with the noise and disruptions that letting out this type of property causes. Partying, hens nights, loud music is not what local residents want. Please support our community’s desire and see that this will only equate to parking problems, unreasonable noise disturbance and the type of people not wanted in the area.

  15. In Adelaide SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 278 South Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000:

    Ian Malcolm Hordacre and Jeanette Elizabeth Hordacre commented

    1. Any height in the area from Sth Tce to Gilles St. between Charlotte St. & Louisa Street should not be above 4 storeys. There are heritage cottages and the existing homes in these 2 blocks are not above 2 storeys. To have a structure 8 or 9 storeys is not at all in height-harmony with this area!! To have had this 'approved' without giving ALL residents within these streets an opportunity to question the height aspect is unacceptable from all our neighbours' point of view and therefore very questionable as to why this happened. We would all like to know whether the height can be reduced to 4 storeys .. as it should have been approved in the first place.

    2. We were told by one of the workmen that vehicle access would be into Charlotte Street. If this is the case, did Council take into account that Charlotte Street has pushbike access BOTH ways which raises very obvious safety issues for cyclists? Cyclists don't just drift DOWN Charlotte St. to Sth Tce. they mostly race.

    3. Every relevant resident we've spoken to has been shocked to learn of the height of this building and wondered why they were all not given a chance to have a say. Not everyone gets the paper where we believe it was mentioned. A letterbox drop should have been mandatory by either Council or the proposed builder.

    4. In view of all relevant residents' concern over the height issue, will Council therefore please revisit the height issue to have it reduced to only 4 storeys please?

    Thank you for your time in reading this and we look forward to a considered reply. please.

    We have made NO donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  16. In Glenelg North SA on “Change in use of land from...” at 595 Anzac Highway Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Simon Tunney commented

    Totally inappropriate for the area. As a Glenelg North resident with a young family I strongly oppose the approval of this store

  17. In Chatswood NSW on “Albert Avenue Railway...” at Albert Avenue, Chatswood,:

    Louise Whelan commented

    I support all objections posted so far. There have already been pedestrian accidents in the past that I am aware of there and it is clearly a spot where drivers and pedestrians need all their attention skills. The kind of digital adverising described will add risk to safety in this regard, and nothing of any aesthetic value.

  18. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Robyn Stutchbury commented

    How very impressive to find so many vocal residents objecting to yet another Council approved horror in our area. Where were you all when a group of us tried desperately to prevent the shocking high rise development along Burns Bay Road some 10 years ago?

  19. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Change of use from dwelling...” at 2 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Aleksandra Kwiek commented

    It is really upsetting that someone is trying to turn such a beautiful heritage residential area into a commercial zone, especially that the Bondi Junction centre is designed specially for this purpose.

    Most concerning will be the significant lack of off street parking for the residents as the parking will be always taken by the patients and employees. Parking in the area is already extremely difficult, especially as the vast majority of houses on St James Road do not have off street parking of their own. This is very concerning if all the patients drive to the medical centre as it will reduce off street parking by at least 4-5 cars for patients, and a further 2-4 cars for staff, for the entire day (assuming the centre is doing well).

    This is unacceptable, as families with your children will likely miss out on being able to park near their homes, causing great strain on the safe movements from the family home to the car.

    Please also consider the noise caused by the air-condition units, procedure rooms and general traffic caused by cars traveling that direction. This is really upsetting if permitted, as generally residential DA plans are very restricted under explanation that this is a 'heritage residential zone' yet one of the houses will be turned into something completely opposite.

    Please reject this application and leave the 2 Birrell street and St James Road a quiet residential street as it deservedly should be.

  20. In Glenelg North SA on “Change in use of land from...” at 595 Anzac Highway Glenelg North SA 5045:

    C Donald commented

    Inappropriate for the area. Prime position for welcoming tourists to the Bay, not to mention the many families who live in the area and would pass by each day. For a council claiming to be focused on community, families and wellbeing this doesn’t match up.

  21. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Change of use from dwelling...” at 2 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Stephen Coudounaris commented

    This is a terrible use of this house. Except for one local corner shop, the north end of Birrell Street and St James Road are strictly residential. Most concerning will be the significant lack of off street parking. Whilst the area is generally limited to 1 hour parking, this will not deter virtually any patients from parking on St James Road as their appointments will most likely be under 1 hour. Further, having only on-site 2 parking spots would not event provide enough parking for the staff (at least 4 doctors and reception). As 1 spot is designated as disabled parking, that really only leaves one additional parking spot on-site for most times of the day, meaning there would a great number of additional patients and staff taking up valuable parking spots which is unacceptable.
    Parking in the area is already extremely difficult, especially as the vast majority of houses on St James Road do not have off street parking of their own. This is very concerning if all the patients drive to the medical centre as it will reduce off street parking by at least 4-5 cars for patients, and a further 2-4 cars for staff, for the entire day (assuming the centre is doing well). This is unacceptable, as families with your children will likely miss out on being able to park near their homes, causing great strain on the safe movements from the family home to the car.
    Please reject this application and leave the 2 Birrell street and St James Road a quiet residential street as it deservedly should be.

  22. In Edmondson Park NSW on “Concept DA for a mixed use...” at 164 Croatia Avenue Edmondson Park NSW 2174:

    Felicity Yu commented

    I am a local resident and I strongly support this proposed redevelopment. I commute to work in the city and walk along Croatia Avenue to get to and from the train station everyday. The existing condition of Croatia Ave is in desperate need of an uplift. There is no street lighting installed along the majority of the path between Soldiers Parade and the new childcare centre which makes walking there in the early morning and evening dangerous. There was a fatality last year when a car hit a pedestrian along this road. After the incident a temporary bitumen footpath was put in but this has not been maintained and is not safe to walk. The grass and weeds are now extremely overgrown which are potential hiding spots for snakes. People frequently dump rubbish along this road. This section is essentially still unkempt farm land which is not keeping in line with the rest of the suburb.

  23. In Hawthorn VIC on “(Cond 7,10,11 & 12 for...” at 1 Cook Street, Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Jon Hickman commented

    There is already excessive traffic near the Glenferrie/Burwood Rd intersection, down as far as and potentially beyond Bunnings (with the new development underway to the west of Bunnings). Additional on-street parking would significantly worsen the situation. Additional on-site parking for this development is needed, to avoid this. Also the development will significantly worson congestion with turning movements on Burwood Rd, close to Glenferrie Rd. How will this situation be miticated?

  24. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Change of use from dwelling...” at 2 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Kelly Eldridge commented

    I agree with the previous comments. This is a strictly residential area. Parking is difficult for residents on the best of days and this will only make it worse. There are significant facilities for the same services in the Bondi Junction commercial precinct. Please leave this quiet residential street as it was intended - for the peaceful families who live there.

  25. In Glenelg North SA on “Change in use of land from...” at 595 Anzac Highway Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Georgina Cole commented

    At the main entrance (Anzac hwy) welcoming tourists and families, locals and visitors will be a sex shop. Is this what our community needs? Is this what our community wants? Personally I believe it is detrimental to the area. These items are bought online and such a shop would be better placed not in a prime spot. The reserve is a place for the city to bay, bay sheff, car events, sporting events, a family playground, i do not believe this is appropriate and fits within the current community design of the area Holdfast has created.

  26. In Kellyville NSW on “Subdivision creating 13...” at 100 Barry Road, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Sid Szyndler commented

    Totally agree with James and Glenn, Hills Shire Council is not interested in its people living in the area. We have moved to this area few years ago and we hardly noticed any improvements regarding roads and infrastructure but what we did noticed is huge number of HIGH RISERS. Our local roads are not coping with the number of cars and there is a lots of HIGH RISES planed for this area. My plea to to Hills Shire Council is to stop approving HIGH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS in this already overdeveloped area.

  27. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Use 92sqm of public footway...” at 191-195 Oxford Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Anna Bowen-James commented

    I am most supportive of this application- the footpath in that area is wide enough to accommodate tables and chairs. Isn’t that what the wider pavement was designed for?
    As for noise from the venue, the ambient traffic noise (buses and trucks especially) create so much noise, it masks the music from the venue.
    Cities are noisy - but they should also be lively. Freda’s cafe brings life to Taylor Square!

  28. In Ocean Grove VIC on “Construction of Two (2)...” at 14 Canis Crescent, Ocean Grove, VIC:

    Fay Bristow commented

    This proposed development is not consistent with the area. The height of buildings should not be over the current recommendations. Over development of this area is not consistent with the existing family environment and should not be allowed.

  29. In Gladesville NSW on “New carport, front fence,...” at 29 Warner St Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Public Interest Planner commented

    To Whom It May Concern

    We have a democratic planning law regime in Australia where the rule of law applies. The same law/rule applies to everyone equally and fairly. With respect, it is evident on Planning Alerts that many applications were approved and/or certified contrary to planning regulation in Ryde, and Council DCP and LEP are not observed. DAs are frequently approved with known breaches.

    Unless anyone can demonstrate as to why they are above the law, there is no reason that special approval is granted to certain individuals. We advocate for public interest in planning law. We strongly encourage community participation in planning decisions and approval process, and voice any objections. If you are a community leader, the best thing you can do is to read the law and follow the law, and lead by example. If you are a council planning officer, the best thing you can do is to courageously and rightly follow the planning regulation and apply it as it is without fear or undue influence. We wish you all the best.

    Yours faithfully,

    Public Interest Planner (Advocate)

  30. In Kellyville NSW on “Subdivision creating 13...” at 100 Barry Road, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    James commented

    Glenn, it’s almost hard to believe that the two closest government hospitals to the area; one built in 1978’ /43years ago (Westmead) & the other 1965’ / 56 years ago (Blacktown).

    You can only imagine how much the population/ residential housing would’ve differed back then to what it is now... and so far, this is all we get from the government for now.

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