Recent comments

  1. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    AW commented

    I completely agree with all the comments opposing this development.
    Look what all the high rise student developments have done to Carnegie, it’s horrendous. Murrumbeena is a beautiful family suburb, not a place for transient student accommodation!
    I really hope the council can see this development is inappropriate and not inline with the current neighbourhood.

  2. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Timothy B commented

    Terrible location for a child care centre!
    We love our Beachstone Cafe and parklands! We regularly take our grandchildren to the park and enjoy a coffee or lunch at the cafe.
    It would be pretty unfair to take these facilities away from residents when they where a major reason for locating to the area.

  3. In Waverley NSW on “Remove four (4) trees...” at War Memorial Hospital 125 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Russell Dunn commented

    There is no information available to allow neighbours to assess whether or not the considerable loss of four trees could be avoided.

  4. In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:

    Dennis Dionyssiou commented

    Hi John,
    BCC came out in December 2018 and tested the unit for noise levels and it is within the BCC accepted range. As a result of this, BCC closed the case.
    The unit is a Mitsubishi PUHZ-RP250YKM-A.

    Thanks
    Dennis

  5. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Graeme Callen commented

    Please note the way I read it, it is a 9 storey development. (Retail ground floor, 8 levels of student housing above)
    Height aside, student housing is very wrong for the location.
    There should not be any relaxation of parking requirements (note student housing usually requires little or no mandatory parking)
    You want quality apartments more focused on owner occupation or higher level rental.
    This would then help the traders of Murrumbeena.

  6. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Barbara and Larry Evans commented

    I totally agree with Jeannine Anne Young. My husband and I are an older couple too.
    We moved here from Sydney three years ago and have enjoyed time spent with our family at the Cafe. Our visitors have also enjoyed a place to meet and a park area for their children to play.
    My husband an I enjoyed A Christmas in July night that the cafe hosted. Surely there must be plenty of childcare centre in the area without having to demolish the Bluestone Cafe that many people here have come to love and enjoy.

  7. In Redland Bay QLD on “Redland Bay Childcare” at 100 - 102 Collins Street, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    N commented

    Safety and traffic risk for kids, parents and local residents and should be avoided at this location.
    Already have speed issues and blindspits with local roundabout placement

  8. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Lisa Beach commented

    I have the following concerns about the proposed development:
    1). An 8 storey development is not in keeping with this neighborhood/family suburb. No other developments in the area exceed 4 storeys.
    2). A reduction in the provision of parking is not appropriate. There is already inadequate parking for people accessing local businesses and parking overflow from this proposed development would likely affect people accessing local businesses as well as impacting on station car parking
    3). Student housing is not required in this area, there are more suitable locations closer to university campuses. In addition it would likely mean these are very small/cheap dwellings.
    4). This would unfairly impact existing residents in neighboring streets due to overlooking, overshadowing and traffic flow/parking impacts.

  9. In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:

    John commented

    Hi Dennis, what is the make, model and decibel (noise) output of the air conditioning unit/s? Thanks

  10. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 14 Clarence Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Geoffrey Tittensor commented

    I had a similar problem at my Bentleigh property. I was told I did not need council permission to take down my very large gum tree as there was no overlay on the land, nevertheless I requested a permit, which cost me just over $100. Since the tree has been removed it has been much easier to keep the backyard tidy, and the gutters are not constantly needing cleaning out, and when I mow the lawn gum nuts don't shoot our like bullets, one actually broke a window. I used to send all my kids inside when mowing because of the danger the gum nuts, they shot out like bullets. The only drawback of having the tree removed was the cost, $4500.

  11. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 228-230 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Craig Wilson commented

    I agree whole heartedly with S. Bourne. This has to stop. Bellbird Park is changing for the worse. The council just does not care about its residents. The proof is in the developments.

  12. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jennifer commented

    Strongly object to this and all high rise buildings close to the beach. The open space near the beach allows the sea breezes to reach more homes. High density residential parking Is ugly, spilling into and clogging the small roads in Palm Beach. Must be very difficult for fire trucks and increasingly difficult for ambulance access.
    GCCC must get real and allow more people to be beach visitors participating in the great Australian ritual of a day at the beach.

  13. In Redland Bay QLD on “Redland Bay Childcare” at 100 - 102 Collins Street, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Troy commented

    This is a child safety issue we don't need.

    The traffic from this childcare centre will be ridiculously increased. The road is used by school children getting on and off the buses and children are crossing an already busy road. It's will become a death trap for children with the amount of increased traffic.

    What measures have you considered to slow traffic if the child care is approved?.

  14. In Glenunga SA on “The removal of one...” at 2 Myola Avenue Glenunga SA 5064:

    PA McMichael commented

    From above and FYI.
    I now have learned that the trees were approved (by Burnside Council SA) for removal 1-2 weeks before this planning alert was sent, and without any independent arborist assessment. I am sorry to say even developers agree there is one rule for individual rate payers and one for developers. The environment and tree health and amenity are apparently irrelevant.

  15. In West Gosford NSW on “INTEGRATED Stage 1 - Hungry...” at 269 Brisbane Water Drive, West Gosford NSW 2250:

    Evan Nicholas commented

    This development is not needed. All comments about fast food outlets are relevant. We need something more. How many many shops have been vacated over the last couple of years. They need to be reinstated - bank, dry cleaners, fish& chips, a restaurant, bakery and others. Wouldn't go near Hungry Jacks any time.

  16. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Jo and Tim commented

    It would be a huge disappointment to lose such a beautiful community space used by many all year round. We moved here for the lifestyle and the nearby café and parklands were a deciding factor.

    Would you risk sending your child to a centre that close to an unpatrolled and not so safe beach? I certainly wouldn’t! I don’t care how tall the fence is or how well trained the staff are… kids are kids.

    If there is a need for another childcare centre this is NOT the place.

    Strongly disagree!

  17. In Kellyville NSW on “Four residential flat...” at 100 Fairway Drive, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Walter Wendel commented

    This area is already overcrowded. Not enough infrastructure, i. e. streets to support it.

  18. In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:

    Dennis Dionyssiou commented

    Please note that in regard to the QCAT order - 1.5cm has been removed from the front corner pillar and the wall has been rendered and painted. This work has been completed.

    In regard to the BCC complaint with the air conditioner, this case was closed by the BCC on the 8th of August 2019. The air conditioning unit is a residential unit and NOT a commercial unit as the occupant of 87 Towers St has stated.

  19. In Kellyville NSW on “Four residential flat...” at 100 Fairway Drive, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Sameer Desai commented

    Fairway Drive is already collapsing with current levels of traffic. Traffic controllers holdin on peak hours traffic is a normal sight now. BVPS has 1,000 kids capacity but that does not mean all the high rises have to be on Fairway. Council has not even opened up Free Settlers Drive for traffic. Substantial work on Memorial Ave and Severn Vale Drive Upgrade should have commenced by now to support traffic diversions and building developments. Tall buildings do not necessarily downgrade the community but phased development should be preceded by road/transport infrastructure. The roads and supporting infrastructure should have been put in place before high rise construction starts.
    Lack of traffic/speed limit signage and absence of patrol vehicles makes Fairway a haven for Speeding drivers.

  20. In Bakery Hill VIC on “Amendment to plans for...” at 29 St Pauls Way, Bakery Hill VIC 3350:

    Mary Debrett commented

    This is a significant historic site and some parkland should be set aside for commemoration of the Ballarat Reform League's Monster Meetings held in October 1854. The establishment of a commemorative space on the site has been acknowledged by Council and independent advisors in the past.

    Page 21 of the 2015 Independent Panel Report, Ballarat Planning Scheme Amendment C19, Planning Permit Application No PLP/2014/829 noted: 'Council agreed that there should be some form of commemoration on the site and also that the revised planning permit conditions provided for this (footnote 4: Condition 2g in the revised planning permit conditions requires: ‘the identification of a public reserve at the north western perimeter of the site and an historical interpretative area, and improvements, which illustrate the historical context of the site’.)

    Reference was also made to Mr Beeston’s evidence and conclusion that the site's association with the Monster Meetings of 1854, warranted retention of some open space on site for public use for recognising and interpreting the cultural significance of the Meetings. 'Preferably this space would be in the more elevated northern part of the site, because that is the area considered likely to have been associated with the meetings.'

    The adhesive, translucent imagery drawing on historical photos, appliquéd to the balcony balustrading, is quite inadequate as a way of commemorating the significance of this historic site and arguably inappropriate as an installation on private property. One can easily imagine that future property owners will baulk at having to replicate the imagery in the event of repairs being necessary. The 2015 discussion of what would be appropriate, notes space for public gathering and cultural interpretation. The current plans fail to provide this and should thus be required to be amended accordingly.

  21. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Samantha Ladd commented

    I object due to the application being well over density allocated in the current city plan also they are now allowing enough three em space and building boundary boundary.
    3 bedrooms per floor yet only 1.5 cars allocated per unit it not enough. There is no parking avail during quiet hours currently on the Gold Coast hwy. There will be at least 12 or more cars trying to fight for car space . This is unacceptable. If the light rail comes there will be no parking in the GC hwy so where will these cars go.

  22. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Samantha Ladd commented

    I object due to the application being well over density allocated in the current city plan also they are now allowing enough three em space and building boundary boundary.
    3 bedrooms per floor yet only 1.5 cars allocated per unit it not enough. There is no parking avail during quiet hours currently on the Gold Coast hwy. There will be at least 12 or more cars trying to fight for car space . This is unacceptable. If the light rail comes there will be no parking in the GC hwy so where will these cars go.

  23. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet” at 264 Swann Rd St Lucia QLD 4067:

    ALLAN HILLESS commented

    Parking on the outbound side of Swann Road is a problem To see any oncoming traffic when cars are parked there one has to enter into the oncoming traffic and this of course this blocks the pedestrian path and is very dangerous when exiting Lamont Street. I do have photos to support this claim. I believe parking should not be permitted at all in this area for safety

  24. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    James commented

    The Beachstone is a true coastal gem, my kid's and I have some of our fondest holidaying memories there. In it's short history it has become an integral part of a growing community that we visit regularly to see family and friends. To lose the Beachstone from the community would be devastating and simply can not happen.

  25. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling & Carport” at 31 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can Council ensure there is on-site parking on the lane way for the granny flat? Too often, a small build is squeezed into a backyard without any space for a car. Our rear lanes are cluttered with cars from in-fill development leaving little room for a bit of garden let alone a shade tree.

  26. In Kellyville NSW on “Four residential flat...” at 100 Fairway Drive, Norwest NSW 2153:

    Gagandeep Singh commented

    Completely outrageous application.
    Over congestion of already struggling roads and infrastructure.
    Will make this area one of the worst for families and community.
    Please reject immediately.

  27. In Bakery Hill VIC on “Amendment to plans for...” at 29 St Pauls Way, Bakery Hill VIC 3350:

    Stuart Kelly commented

    This proposed development is on Ballarat’s historic Bakery Hill, the site of the ‘monster meetings’ which took place in the lead up to events at the Eureka stockade.

    The expert panel which considered the development in 2015 had regard to the State Planning Policy framework which includes the following objectives -
    • To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.
    • To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

    In his expert witness statement Roger Beeston made the following points -
    •The subject site has a likely historical association with the mass protest meetings which occurred on Bakery Hill in the lead up to the 1854 Eureka rebellion. The meetings themselves are events of considerable cultural significance and it is considered that they are of at least State significance, and potentially of National significance or even World significance for their historic and social values.
    •Due to the likely historical association of the site with the mass protest meetings of 1854, I recommend consideration be given to the retention of some open space at the subject site for public use for the purpose of recognising and interpreting the cultural significance of the mass protest meetings. Preferably this space would be in the more elevated northern part of the site, because that is the area considered likely to have been associated with the meetings.
    •An archaeologist should be engaged to advise on post-contact archaeological potential.

    The Panel concluded that “The proposed public reserve and commemorative material in the northern area of the site are appropriate and should be a planning permit requirement”

    A proposed permit included two clauses relating this conclusion -
    2 g. provide a public reserve at the north western perimeter of the site and an historical interpretative area, and improvements, which illustrate the historical context of the site;
    and
    7. The interpretative public reserve required by condition 2(g) must be constructed prior to the Statement of compliance for the first stage and be vested in the Council, without cost, as a reserve in the first plan of subdivision of the land, all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

    However I understand that the permit as issued by Ballarat Council no longer included either of these conditions. In view of the historic importance of this site the reinstatement of these conditions is essential and in fact would represent the bare minimum protection of this area.

    The “PERFORATED SCREENS WITH IMAGES OF OLD BALLARAT TO BALCONIES FACING ST PAULS WAY” are presumably an attempt to present the development as being sensitive to the heritage of the area. This can only be described as highly insulting to Ballarat as a historic city and a leading member of the HUL initiative. The images shown on the application – views of Sturt Street and Bridge Street – are of areas which have no obvious link to Bakery Hill.

    In addition to the heritage issues this whole development has a number of significant short comings.
    • Work done on the site so far has resulted in the removal of a substantial number of mature trees – apparently in contravention of previous permits.
    • The designs pictured in the application appear to represent quite outdated and unimaginative buildings – which have prompted comments such as ‘cheap and nasty’ and ‘why didn’t they use an architect?’
    • The Marvella Skywalk ‘Luxury Apartments’, although all on upper levels above car parking, there appears to be only very limited provision for disabled access via a single ramp to only one of the two residential levels. This ramp does not provide access to the car parking spaces for these apartments.
    • Internal dimensions of passage ways in some of the apartments also appear to be such as to limit access by wheelchairs.

    I therefore strongly object to the current application and ask that no permit be approved without major amendments being required.

  28. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Jeannine Anne Young commented

    I am very disappointed that the owners of the Beachstone Café want to convert it to a child care centre. There are lots of child care centres already in our vicinity, and many of them have vacancies. What we do lack in this suburb, (and indeed the greater area), is amenities for adults. The removal of the café will strip us of a much needed community amenity. This will be particularly hard on older folk in our community such as my husband and I. The café fills a large section of our social activity, and we hoping that it would continue to do so in future as we become less mobile. There are lots of older folk in the Sapphire Beach Community who have no need for child care, but do have a need for age appropriate community facilities.

  29. In West Gosford NSW on “INTEGRATED Stage 1 - Hungry...” at 269 Brisbane Water Drive, West Gosford NSW 2250:

    M B commented

    A gym and child care is good. The coast is growing exponentially and there isn’t enough child care. There are zero vacancies locally so I agree it’s a good idea. However, fast food, seriously? We are facing an obesity epidemic as a nation and you want to add to it? Harris Farm, an upmarket deli..that’s what the area wants. Flat and undercover parking. Green spaces and sustainable practices.You put junk in and it’s asking for trouble in regards to rubbish and loitering. Have you even considered a family style restaurant? The area is teeming with young families! Think outside the box please, the coast is a changing area and it’s time to pull this precinct into the present.

  30. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Robyn Norman commented

    I bought my property at Sapphire Beach 12 months ago and was surprised to hear of the DA for a childcare centre at the Beachstone Cafe locality.
    Taking away this convenient popular cafe would be an immense loss to the local community. The cafe is a great location for locals and visitors to meet up for drinks, meals, music and a playground for the kids.
    A childcare centre is not needed as there are plenty in the Coffs area.
    A 'hole in the wall' coffee bar would not suffice for the residents and ratepayers who value the convenience of having the cafe close by.

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