Recent comments

  1. In Maroubra NSW on “Works as built (sub floor...” at 11A Wise Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Grant and Judy Taylor commented

    We are the adjoining semi to this development with great concerns about these works that started with out a DA sited Back in November 2017 .
    Which has resulted in damages sited in the engineers report just submitted .
    Council warned that there was serious ,dangerous and structural problems with 11a which may impact on our semi s structure also.
    I know for a fact there was no standing room under 11 a it was an area to store garden equipment ie ladders etc you were unable to stand up in that space before being purchased by the now owners I believe there is now standing room under 11 a (we were informed by council. )
    Before further work we want safety and structural damages attended too making safe for all including our home .
    We don’t feel this is a necessary development to create a sub floor room in this heritage property which may result in further risk to our home .

  2. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 6 Bevis Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Maria fassoulakis commented

    This proposed project for 19’dwellings/ 3 storeys is inappropriate development with for the residential area. It is out of character for the area and will impact on residents in the street and in in the local area.

  3. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Ronald Smith commented

    Great to get a medical facility for a growing population. Hopefully it’s open 24/7

  4. In Preston VIC on “Construction of a six (6)...” at 345 Bell Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Hugo D. commented

    24 dwellings and 2 shops over 6 stories and a reduction in car parking?

    GENIUS MOVE!

    Come on Darebin, start standing up to Developers that are ruining our suburbs.

  5. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of 15...” at 231 Spring Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Hugo D. commented

    Hey Darebin,

    We all know you guys like to approve reductions in car parking requirements in the mistaken impression that it encourages public transport use and bike riding, but surely this one is taking the mickey?

    FIFTEEN dwellings and not just a reduction but "a waiver of the car parking requirements"?

    You gotta be kidding me! Oh I know, according to some people on this site, people with cars can just "park somewhere else". Cos that doesn't shift the problem elsewhere does it?

    Come on, Darebin Council, start to stand up to these developers please........

  6. In Willoughby NSW on “Request to remove 1 tree” at 110 Mowbray Road Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Ontoa Ma commented

    Where possible trees should always be preserved especially if they have been around longer than the dwelling

  7. In Chipping Norton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3/ 5 Longstaff Avenue Chipping Norton NSW 2170:

    Gavin Brown commented

    Longstaff is already so overcrowed with people parking in the street because of 2/3 dwellings on one block ...and down the other end of Longstaff they’re trying to get another approval to go ahead for I’ve heard a10plus unit block with underground parking ...the current residents and there visitors struggle now to park outside there homes ....
    How many car spaces do these dwellings get approved for ?
    Sure it’s progress ,but what’s the councils limit on these type of dwellings .is every 2nd or 3rd block going to be a multi dwelling...is that future for Longstaff ....its lost all its heritage and character ...
    This is not the inner city it was once a great place to raise a family with large lawn areas where your children could kick the ball with there friends on there front and backyard lawns ...
    Now it’s just a concrete jungle ....
    I’ve lived in the street for 50 years thank you Liverpool council for turning my beloved street into a ghetto ...

  8. In Little Mountain QLD on “Reconfiguring 1 Lot into 24...” at 102 Old Caloundra Rd Little Mountain:

    Leisl commented

    As the direct neighbours of the development and owners of semi-rural property, we are appalled that such a developement would be allowed in respect to zoning and major traffic concerns. This will be detrimental to the surrounding land, flora and and fauna. We have a large family of kangaroos who rely on our properties for food and protected shelter. We also have great difficulties with traffic attempting to exit from our street (Old Caloundra Road) and this developement will hinder our movement even more. There has been no thought or consultation with neighbours into this development.

  9. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Wendy Spinks commented

    27 Park Avenue, Kingswood,  will have 64 rooms -  4 single  and 60 double rooms.  and  will accommodate  up to 124 people with only 32 on site car spaces.   All development applications for boarding houses  refer to the SEPP(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009,  but the rent in these boarding houses range from $260 to $350 per room,  with an additional cost for on site car parking.  In the last 3 to 4 years there has been a minimum of 26 boarding houses built, under construction or approved within 1km of Kingswood Primary School, on Second Ave.    These boarding houses have supplied over 400 rooms and most of these boarding houses  DO NOT HAVE AN ON SITE MANAGER. Boarding houses may be required,  but they should NOT be grouped together.   There have been FOUR boarding houses approved and built in a row,   with another 2 boarding houses built  within 50 metres.    Steps need to be taken to stop the destruction of Kingswood by the developers.

  10. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 182 Boronia Road, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Barbara Walters commented

    I would like to know why a waiver for car parking requirements has been granted for this site. This simply means that many more vehicles will be parking along the roads instead of the property. I understand the theory of creating more living space within walking distance of public transport but that does not necessarily equate to less vehicles being included with these properties. You only have to drive along the streets where high density has been allowed, to see all the extra vehicles parked along the streets. Sometimes it’s very difficult to pass along the street, which blocks the flow of traffic and becomes a hazard not only for traffic but for children trying to cross the street.
    Next question is, why are so many two storey town houses being allowed to be built? Most of us who choose to live in Boronia enjoy being able to see the Dandenong Ranges but these buildings are quickly stopping our views and the sense of space and greenery we used to love. One particular case is the corner of Rangeview and Chandler Roads, it makes me feel like I’m in Box Hill.
    Why is infrastructure not addressed either when allowing these thousands, of look a like boxes. For example, the corner of Erica and Orchid Avenues opposite the train station but more into Orchid Avenue, floods very badly. Combine the huge amount of flood water over the roads and the streets lined with parked cars, it’s a nightmare.
    Stop destroying Boronia!

  11. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 12 Stuart Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Peter Hine commented

    This is another development where we have 4 families living where previously there was one. As has been shown with similar developments these will be minimal parking on the blocks, and all the vehicles are parked on the street, as the garages are not used for vehicles; take a drive through the area at night or weekends

  12. In Shell Cove NSW on “Use Of Shellharbour South...” at Boollwarroo Parade Shell Cove NSW 2529:

    Philip AYRTON commented

    South Shellharbour Beach is not a suitable site for parachute landing operations. It is located within the training area for YSHL, and this area has been a training area for over 30 years, not 20 years as mentioned elsewhere. The Danger Zone created around these areas essentially puts a 2 nautical mile diameter column of airspace up to the ATC step into Sydney at 7500' high, and in a training area this makes no sense at all. There has already been a parachute drop zone established in Stuart Park, adjacent to Northbeach, Wollongong at approximately 10 nm from the airfield, which works reasonably well, and can be accommodated as the area is far enough away from YSHL not to interfere with operations at the airfield, and it essentially deals with transitory aircraft, moving north and south along the coast while the Shellharbour/Bass Point area has transitory aircraft as well as high intensity advanced and ab initio training, aircraft endorsements, Biennial Flight Reviews and the like, which if compounded by an associated danger zone (apparently not mentioned in the DA submission) and possibly upto 8 canopies descending in that space on a regular basis creates an intolerable safety risk.

  13. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Susan Hazelman commented

    Please reconsider, there is enough boarding house accommodations in Kingswood which already do not attract safe residents. This is at a further detriment to the local community and the existing young families that already live here.

  14. In Kings Beach QLD on “Change to Development...” at 5 Ormonde Tce Kings Beach:

    Jim Chisholm commented

    It is interesting to note that the redevelopment 5 Ormonde Terrace was advertised (large public Billboard) prior to construction commencing as eight residential apartments with architectural impression of the façade and new building. This same Billboard clearly stated all eight residential units had been sold prior to the commencement of demolition and construction which is still just a hole in the ground. Why was this MCU delayed and why is there no public advertising in place for public comment.

    Ormonde Terrace south from the Shearwater Resort is residential and holiday apartments. There are two concentrated shop areas at either end of Ormonde Terrace adjacent to parkland and serviced by public car parking space. Ormonde Terrace does not have sufficient parking spaces on either side of the street to both service the beach and visitors to the residential apartments. The inclusion of two shops (without adequate parking) within the midst of these apartments will only worsen the current parking issues.

    Furthermore as a neighbour impacted by this change, I am very concerned about the additional noise and traffic that will be introduced through the introduction of these two shops in the middle of what is a safe residential and holiday apartment area which is used by families with young children.

  15. In Monash ACT on “LEASE VARIATION - To...” at 178 Clive Steele Avenue, Monash, ACT:

    Sir Robert Loxley Huntingdon commented

    When Monash was first developed as a suburb, the southern section was proposed to be a golf course! (That proposal was that far advanced at the time that it appeared in the "Gregory's Map" of the mid to late 1980's).

    How many more times will the ACT Planning & Land Authority allow Lease Variations that simply steal what was once deemed "community land" only to be sold off to greedy developers!

    You people and the ACT Government should be ashamed of yourselves! You are simply over-paid, low-witted, scum who willing take bribes on a regular basis! Never pretend that you actions are for the benefit of the community. You are the REAL criminals!

    Your actions are a blight on the great man whom this suburb is named after, General Sir John Monash, (1865 to 1931); together with those great men who fought and died for the freedom of our beloved country. (This area of Monash is now overrun with drug peddling, terrorists working out of the Canberra Islamic Mosque).

  16. In Kingsford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 87 Middle Street Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Natalia L commented

    There is already a 3-storey apartment building on the opposite side of Shaw Reserve, another 3-storey building on 87 Middle Street will make Shaw Reserve playground dark and uninviting.
    Note that there is already a boarding house application for the adjacent lot on 89-91 Middle Street.
    How many boarding houses does Randwick Council, especially Kingsford, need? They are vacant, even in pre-COVID times. Whatever happened to regular apartment unit developments? Suppose these boarding houses had tenants, why should people be forced to pay through the nose to live alone in single-person units? Consider the long-term mental health implications of social isolation. I understand the Council is trying to meet a certain dwelling number target, but these are really just ROOMS, not dwellings. Proper dwellings are homes to couples, families, and small groups of friends. Proper dwellings with long-term residents create communities. Boarding houses are nothing but glorified motels. Is this what Randwick Council wants for Kingsford?

  17. In Buddina QLD on “Dual Occupancy - M & N...” at 9 Parkana Cres Buddina:

    Pol Woos commented

    This street is busy enough.

    The shadows of multiple double storey houses is not appealing.

    The lot size is not appropriate as it's too small.

    The built form and scale is not appropriate for the area.

    Street is already overcrowded.

  18. In Caloundra QLD on “4 Multiple Dwelling Units -...” at 32 Warne Tce Caloundra:

    Anne Frederick commented

    Looks like appropriate considered development. Bouquets not brickbats !

  19. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Joy Dutton commented

    I don’t understand why rules can be changed to suit developers. At first I heard it was going to 15 stories, then 22 now I understand they want it to be 24. This is just not good enough, what exactly are the rules. Please don’t approve this development.

  20. In Darwin City NT on “Part change of use (ground...” at 25 Cavenagh Darwin City, NT:

    Doug commented

    This is not a public comment/submission and just a test to see if this system operates effectively

  21. In Greenacre NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 48 Shellcote Road, Greenacre NSW 2190:

    Silvia Talarico commented

    I agree with Sara. Greenacre looks terrible now. Too many duplexes.

  22. In Bolton Point NSW on “Dwelling House & Associated...” at 117 Enterprise Way, Bolton Point NSW 2283:

    Keitha Jones commented

    Can you tell me if this is single or double storey house (wondering about our loss of view) Thank you for the information

  23. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Jack commented

    Definitely NOT! I Disapprove. Penrith area has become a junky drug addict graveyard. It's time to clean up and stop the expansion of such developments.

  24. In Helensburgh NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 12 Stuart Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Heather Berman commented

    Helensburgh is a small town and there has been too many developments approved. It is not a suburb of Sydney, and all the developments are spoiling the character of the town. Too many blocks have been carved up into duplex’s which is changing the natural streetscape in a negative way. Large houses all crammed together does not suit the town which is known for its wide streets, trees, and open natural landscapes. Please stop Helensburgh from turning into another overdeveloped suburb of the Sutherland Shire.

  25. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 182 Boronia Road, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Bronwyn Stephen commented

    Yet another step along the road of the disappearance of the leafy green image of Knox. Town houses such as we seem to be expected to accept now, town houses of two storeys dominating the blocks previously occupied by one house, overlooking neighbours, destroying privacy and with numerous cars parked on the street or nature strip. Yes really positive planning.

  26. In Moorebank NSW on “Construction of a...” at 32 Mckay Avenue Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Carol O’Donnell commented

    This block of 22 units is another destruction to our already over crowding streets right opposite Nuwarra Public School. This road is already congested, where will visitors and family park when visiting the residents in these units. How many car spaces are allocated to this block of units.

  27. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Darryl commented

    There is more then enough of these types of housing in the area, i strongly disagree with this development.

  28. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 16 Hibiscus Haven, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Dena Maddick commented

    Again another application for more noise,food,drink,people, and traffic chaos! And absolutely no regard for local residents.Shame that we do not have any influence on the City Council's Planning decisions...fait accompli by the time the planning alert occurs.

  29. In Lilydale VIC on “Remove a restrictive...” at 61-63 Eucalypt Drive, Lilydale VIC 3140:

    Claire Ann Creasy commented

    I object to the removal of any covenant and believe this application should be denied. Everyone that has bought a property on Eucalypt Drive were well aware of the covenants and if they want something different they should move elsewhere. Many of us bought our properties because we felt protected by the covenants.

  30. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling -...” at 8 Bourke Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Sunny commented

    It looks like this house has a tree that needs to be spared in the construction of a secondary dwelling. Please save the tree and enjoy the benefits of shade, bird life and added value to the property.

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