Recent comments

  1. In Wattle Grove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Oatlands Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173, Australia:

    Daniel commented

    I seek to yet again reject this application due to the previous concerns regarding traffic congestion, lack of parking overflow and vehicular and pedestrian safety.
    The road is not wide enough, it is quite common to have to wait for traffic entering Oatlands Ct to pass parked cars before there is sufficient gap to drive through to exit. And at present it is a known black spot for near misses when turning out of Oatlands Ct as cars are obscured by the bend of Conroy Rd for some time before appearing in view.
    With this much traffic coming in and out at peak times , there is no way to stop parents from parking on the street as is evident at almost all day cares in Liverpool, as it is much more convenient to park on street and drop off children than drive in and find parking, drop off/pick up and navigate out of a tight parking area.
    There is little benefit to yet another daycare in our area, where there are multiple already entrenched within our community.
    There is no worse location for building a daycare in this precinct, it would have maximum negative impact to all the residents in this locale. Please consider the residents who would suffer congestion and accidents (liability) in this choke point should this be approved.

  2. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Zoe Shipley commented

    Is there any point giving community feedback on this? Given that Council says yes to everything every developer asks for anyway. Just stop ICC . History will remember you.

  3. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 51 Alexandra Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley H commented

    While it is good to see some urban renewal, can the owners/developer retain the trees on this block for shade and garden?
    All too often, these old sites are bulldozed completely when with some simple protections, existing garden/trees can be kept for added value and for future tenants to benefit from.

  4. In Umina Beach NSW on “Dwelling Addition” at 46 Britannia Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley H commented

    Can the owners/developer retain some of the trees on this block for shade and garden?
    With some simple protections, existing garden/trees can be kept for added value and for future tenants to benefit from.

  5. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Dwelling & Secondary Dwelling” at 71 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley H commented

    Can the owners/developer retain the trees on this block for shade and garden?
    All too often, these old sites are bulldozed completely when with some simple protections, existing garden/trees can be kept for added value and for future tenants to benefit from.

  6. In Warradale SA on “One, two storey building...” at 76 Lascelles Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    James Smith commented

    Hi Neil, I love your enthusiasm but this is just a portal for councils to say they have consulted with residents. Not a single application will be overturned because of comments made here. Its a disgrace what is being allowed to occur.

    I frequently object to developments and this is another one that should not go ahead due to housing density affecting traffic, access/egress, water pressure, and general amenity.

  7. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    This proposed addition is ugly. It is bulky and the tow8rr excedes the limit height for Launceston.

    Although it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise and it has simply created what looks like a carbuncle of boxes.

    If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    With all the attendant issues with a pandemic planning applications should be suspended during this time because really who has time to look at all the documents for this huge application and have a cogent argument.

    I agree very much with what someone else has written and have copied some of their ideas but I totally agree that this is too huge.

    It is an inappropriate architectural design that has been designed using computer aided software by someone in another state and that's not really take into consideration Launceston architecture delicate designs and environment.

    Kind regards
    Lisa

  8. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    This proposed addition is ugly. It is bulky and the tow8rr excedes the limit height for Launceston.

    Although it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise and it has simply created what looks like a carbuncle of boxes.

    If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    With all the attendant issues with a pandemic planning applications should be suspended during this time because really who has time to look at all the documents for this huge application and have a cogent argument.

    I agree very much with what someone else has written and have copied some of their ideas but I totally agree that this is too huge.

    It is an inappropriate architectural design that has been designed using computer aided software by someone in another state and that's not really take into consideration Launceston architecture delicate designs and environment.

    Kind regards
    Lisa

  9. In Waverley NSW on “Remove four (4) Lophostemon...” at St Catherines Girls School 26 Albion Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Roger Rajaratnam commented

    It is disappointing St.Catherine's wants to chop down even more trees. Large trees have already been chopped down at the pool construction site. These current native trees are on the other side of the school, so why chop them down?

    The trees add value to the streetscape and neighbourhood. They also add value to St.Catherine's presentation to the public. They provide a habitat for wildlife. They provide shade and help moderate heat, especially with a warming climate.

    We should be protecting our trees and planting more, not chopping them down.

  10. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Katrina Hill commented

    I am writing as I have several concerns about the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019 (other being advertised when people are preoccupied with a pandemic!) however I am not opposed to it (and I appreciate the adaptive reuse proposed and the architectural aesthetic).

    1. With continued conflict/discussion about an absolute height limit in Launceston no applications should be making statements that they comply . Or that they are 'fitting in' with the character of the city. It could be misconstrued that an outcome (on absolute height limits) is being withheld to benefit developers rather than protect the city and its character.

    Also. Using "absolute" building heights (of existing structures) which include spires and towers (which are decorative and not of any mass) implies that this interesting and delicate skyline character can be added to by this new hotel. The telecommunication tower never went through any approval process and had three top floors added later when they failed to demolish a adjacent heritage building. It was never intended to be that tall. The things that were done to destroy the heritage and character of the city in the 70's and 80's are well remembered. And the Gorge hotel was knocked back (so should not be used for comparison)

    2. Pedestrianization about vehicle movements (my major concern).

    The footpaths along Cimitiere and Tamar are EXCEEDINGLY shallow (and thin) and have no street furniture to stop people making entry onto a very active set of roads. Cimitiere St. is a transport corridor and will have heavy vehicles operating (which tourists may not be aware of).

    In particular, the conference centre would likely see MANY people enter/exit within a short period of time (where visitor accommodation would not) which could easily see spill over onto the road. (Also, please note, as someone who has navigated the inner-city space at night cars are not necessarily within the speed limit in the CBD).

    This needs to be addressed BEFORE development starts not after and the rate payers of Launceston should not have to pay for it.

    3. Parking and traffic (the biggest issue for the community and developers)

    The CBD parking exemption code was never intended to apply to such a HUGE hotel. To say "no parking in required" is silly. People must park somewhere. Tasmania in general has a poor public transport system and car rentals, for Northern Tasmania, are quite high (by design).

    Making a statement about arrivals i.e. "some will arrive by taxi" is not evidenced based. No indication is given of percentages of people who currently arrive in which mode to the Grand Chancellor or the Casino (for example) which would be good examples. This information would be good to have.

    Hobart and Launceston operate VERY differently. Hobart hotels as 'assessed against' examples (height, car parking, transport modes and traffic movements) is not reflective of Launceston behaviours. There are accommodation entities and conference spaces in Launceston and they could be assessed against.

    Finally.

    The intended road system changes by State Government and the University of Tasmania inner-city relocation (including their car parking) are not inconsiderable and will alter the current operations in that area. Utas has had a lot of trouble working out traffic solutions and they will not be wanting tourists parking in car parks (close to the campus) intended for their students after such a difficult and long process to find a solution (do not assume students will cycle, walk and come by bus....as much as this will be encouraged and prefered).

    Thank you for your time.

  11. In Waverley NSW on “Remove four (4) Lophostemon...” at St Catherines Girls School 26 Albion Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    stephen lightfoot commented

    I object to the removal of these native trees. We should really stop chopping down our native trees and St Catherine's should respect our neighbourhood's limited green canopy. We need more trees not less. Thanks

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

    Neigbour Next Door commented

    The "anonymous" comment above is probably from the owner. Why would you build TWO houses in one block of land? How greedy can you get?

    1) Noise and Privacy Concerns
    This is a family area with very young children and infants. The construction of the 3-4 stories houses with 31+ rooms create a very undesirable living area in this low density residential suburb. If the property was on Anzac Parade, it would have been different but this is right in the middle of a residential suburb with 7 adjacent properties. With multiple rooms on the top floor, I'm concerned about the privacy of my children and the blocking of the sunlight for the garden / backyard. Partying with large amounts of people in the communal/outdoor areas will cause headaches for everyone in an otherwise safe and quiet area.

    2) Fail to Fit the Character of the Inner Residential Street
    The existing apartments are build on Anzac Parade and corner/intersections. Building a 31-room high-density boarding house adjacent to singles/two storey houses, averaging 3-5 person per block, is in complete contrast to the existing low density building scheme. With that many boarding rooms, low income occupants can come and go with no responsibilities to keep the area safe and clean.

    3) Safety Concerns
    The narrow strip of land is unsuitable for two densely populated building forms with car lifts and can cause people to be trapped in the middle of a fire. With boarding houses, visitors can come and go and there is a lack of safety emphasis to existing families in the area. Traffic from Anzac parade and Maroubra road are already keeping Robey / Ferguson streets very busy, with parked cars on sides.

    4) Lack of Parking
    Robey / Ferguson are small streets with limited parking. The parking in front of my house is already heavily occupied. With the increase of 31 rooms plus visitors on the weekend, there are only 2+7 on premise parking space. The rest of rooms with potentially 20-40+ cars have no where to park but fight for existing parking in the area. Furthermore, occupants will take up street parking before going through car lifts and underground parking.

    5) Other Communities are Rejecting High Density Boarding Houses
    There are no reasons for such a high density boarding house in the middle of single/two storey houses. Other communities have rejected 10-30 rooms boarding houses on even bigger sized land.
    Engadine [10 rooms]
    https://www.theleader.com.au/story/5754312/residents-rise-up-a-second-time-against-boarding-house/

    Ettalong [30 rooms]
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/central-coast/land-and-environment-court-reject-plans-for-a-boarding-house-in-ferry-rd-ettalong/news-story/69fbd7da387a118463a6b5cc1ab159bd

  13. In Northcote VIC on “Proposed demolition of...” at 83 Charles Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Clare iacono commented

    If there is a heritage overlay why is the existing building allowed to be demolished?

  14. In North Bondi NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 62 O'Donnell Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    M Jones commented

    Hi
    I think we should know what sort of alterations and additions are being considered prior to any DA being approved.

  15. In Chelmer QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 45 Plumridge St Chelmer QLD 4068:

    Frank Mclaren commented

    What sort of House being built? I am against Unit & any house that is not keeping to the area.

  16. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Replacement of existing...” at 50 Botany Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    A Kinane commented

    I recognise that the telecommunications tower needs to be updated. However, the proposed EME levels and public exposure to these levels are a matter of real concern. People living within 100-200 metres of the tower will be exposed to EME levels of 3.77% when the current maximum EME level is 1.96%, so almost double the current EME max. levels. People living within 200-300 metres away will be exposed to 2.92% and even those living 300-400 metres away will be exposed to EME levels of 1.33%. I note that there has been an assessment of the impact of the increased EME levels on 5 schools in the area. However, there are a large number of properties and businesses in this area which will be negatively impacted by increased and unsafe EME levels.
    I note too that the proposed structure will facilitate the new 5G technology. A number of countries including Switzerland and Israel have a current moratorium on 5G technology due to human safety concerns. it would be appropriate to consult people on any proposed implementation given the increasing concerns in this area.
    I object to the new proposed structure based on the significant increased EME levels and request Council consults with all Waverley people on any proposed implementation of 5G technology..

  17. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    After looking through all of the docs, it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise.

    In the application the developer seems to acknowledge that it is far too big, in that they say the current plans attempt to “break the apparent bulk of the proposed building into smaller units”. I would argue that it has simply created what looks like a ad hoc pile of boxes. If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    Indeed this is higher than the ill fated Gorge Hotel (which was knocked back on appeal largely because it exceeded the planning scheme’s height limit).

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I wonder if this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    It is simply too big. Even at half the size, it would still simply look way too high looking over the smaller surrounding buildings, i.e. The Rankin & Bond building may as well not even be there !

    Some of the other smaller buildings, along Cimitiere St especially, don't seem to fair well in the plan either - the Heritage listed 1931 addition to the Harrop building, whilst technically still existing, is mostly gone. The R/S part has a giant door cut into it (so basically the whole facade is gone) and the L/S of it has a series of long modern windows cut into it - considering it is a listed building I am not sure that Heritage Tas would agree to that. If they did, it would set a scary precedent - anyone with an unwanted listed building could just take 99% away, leaving just a token pillar. I suspect they would have a fight on their hands if they did agree that was a good modern look for the building. Maybe a better idea would be instead of “in filling” the “gaps” along Tamar St and or William St. with ill fitting modern buildings, why not make that already occurring gap the entrance ?

    On the subject of creating more doors - the proposal should be commended for retaining the windows & doors of the original Harrop building, but the addition of an extra door will change the look of the building. Considering the door is already on the corner, we are only talking about a few metres - the extra door should also be knocked back by Heritage Tas. , or put somewhere away from the facade were it doesn't impact on the on the look of the building.

    Just finally - I should just add (just in case someone reads this in the upper realms of govt) that these kinds of largely administrative matters should really be put on hold during a declaration of a national and state disaster - to expect that people during these times of crisis and mass unemployment have to find time to defend their cities from developers wanting to make $s is unreasonable. I realise that is not a council issue, but I am adding it anyway. If this gets over the line because people are too busy defending their families and livelihoods to put in submissions, than there is a major problem that needs addressing asap.

    Cheers,
    Allan

  18. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Tim ONeill commented

    I would like to 2nd Eleanor's comments. We recently bought into the area and since then have seen numerous subdivision applications to the council, indeed 2 direct neighbours to our own property have recently applied. If we had known the character of the Daveys Bay Rd area was going to be eroded so much we would have been far less likely to have purchased.

    The historic site at 109 Old Mornington Road was quickly cleared and now there has been no activity for months. It's as if the developer wanted to prevent any intervention from the council or residents. In this current economic climate the best we can now hope for is that the site lays dormant and nature gives us some green space.

  19. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    MBloomfield commented

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This building is located in a prominent location adjacent to a busy intersection, bordering a light industrial area with limited parking. It is disrepair and a blight on the local neighbourhood. In my opinion, the location of the building is not suited to a "hotel/leisure/entertainment" precinct in that location. Additionally, the building appears to be constructed from a lightweight material of questionable heritage value. I would strongly oppose the redevelopment of this building in its current form and use at this location.

  20. In Warradale SA on “One, two storey building...” at 76 Lascelles Av, Warradale 5046 SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    This development should not go ahead.
    There is already over development opposite this property and all down Lascelles resulting in cars constantly blocking the road, parked both sides.
    The corner road of Mattson also has been destroyed with the majority of properties already turned into row developments.
    Safe access in and out if this street has already gone. Being a corner block, surrounded by overdevelopment, this application will only make this worse.
    Streetscape also needs to be considered with NO two stores buildings in the immediate area. This development would look completely out of place.
    Put an end to the destruction of Marion area and a Adelaide suburbs. This application must be rejected.

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

    Leisa Sutton commented

    I would like to strongly object to the removal of the covenant on Lot 1, 20 -28 Burbank Rd Birkdale 4159. The removal of this covenant would be detrimental to the wildlife in the Redlands and Birkdale in particular. Koalas are active in the area and are known to use this particular area for breeding and food. With the devastation of the bushfires though Australia this past summer it is important to maintain these areas for our wildlife as we lost so many in the fires.
    We don’t need any more high density housing but we do need more areas for our wildlife, koalas are in need of safe areas to walk and feed in.
    I urge the Redland City Council to reject this application.

  22. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    Daryll Bellingham commented

    The hotel should be repaired and restored to its previous heritage value rather than demolished. This is one of Brisbane's remaining old pubs with character and a very distinctive design. It is obviously possible to renovate old hotels in sympathetic ways and still be commercially successful. Brewhouse Brisbane on the corner of Stanley St and Annerley Rd, South Brisbane is a good example as is the old Red Brick on Stephens Rd and Annerley Rd.

  23. In Mount Eliza VIC on “Ten (10) lot subdivision...” at 109 Old Mornington Road Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Eleanor Woolley commented

    Such extensive subdivision in what is considered the Golden Mile of Mount Eliza completely goes against the peace and privacy of this area. It encourages high density living, noise and excessive activity, diminished vegetation and trees for local wildlife (this plot has already removed extensive vegetation), and increased local pollution. It is not what the area is known for or desired to be. There is no need for such high density building in this area.

  24. In Woolloongabba QLD on “Hotel, Demolition” at 93 Logan Rd Woolloongabba QLD 4102:

    B Cavanagh commented

    Hello and thank you for the opportunity to have my say about this important historical site. Brisbane doesn't have the best track record for looking after our historical building. Out of all the cities in Australia (and I travel regularly) it is clear to me that Brisbane has fewer remaining old and special building pr capita in the country. This particular building (though badly burnt) has so much character and individual style still remaining and is, in my opinion, able to be repaired to a level that would give Brisbane back at least one of it's special historical sites. In conclusion, it is rare, it is able to be rehabilitated , and it is of significant value on multiple levels. Please do not let us lose another special building. Our future is in your hands Thank you

  25. In Wollongong NSW on “Commercial - alterations...” at Australian Taxation Office, 10 Atchison Street, Wollongong NSW 2500:

    Robert Mc farlane commented

    Do u do taxation rollover from held by taxation to my new super account

  26. In Caulfield North VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North VIC 3161:

    Nalesch commented

    Please stop destroying our neighbourhood with crummy, cheap, generic, low quality high density development! Evgenyia’s comments about the effects of over density, lack of greenery and biodiversity leading to illness couldn’t be truer or more timely. Why people feel the need to destroy gorgeous historical homes rather than giving them the TLC they deserve and bringing them back to life is not understandable. Please CoGE stop allowing this!!!!!! Overcrowding is making us sick!

  27. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of an...” at 8 Montgomery Street, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Samantha commented

    How many more apartment blocks will be crammed into the area? The development is becoming ridiculous in what is supposed to be a leafy green area. Too many cars and not enough sunshine and trees

  28. In Elsternwick VIC on “Existing permit allows: A...” at 233-235 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    JulieG commented

    I absolutely agree with Lars T. Holden's comments.

    Who is responsible for approving these monstrosities in council? Someone must be getting something under the table, it is the only thing that makes sense..

  29. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Stage two of a subdivision...” at 127 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    I have no basic problem with the sub-division, but what are the Council implementing to cope with the additional vehicular traffic this and all increases to the current population of the area.

  30. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Stage one of a subdivision...” at 127 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    I have no objections to the sub-division; but when the construction starts, what additional provision will the Council be implementing for the additional vehicular traffic these building will bring with their occupants.

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