Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    K Czaban commented

    The Statement of Environment Effects is not yet available online as at 14/04/09.
    As the main summary of the proposal, being required to include "An assessment against all relevant controls in the LEP & DCP and any applicable SEPP" (from Inner West Council documentation requirements April 2018) , this is a critical document for review. Trust this will be uploaded ASAP

  2. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Change of use for existing...” at 9 Hartill-Law Avenue, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Adam J. commented

    To Bayside Council,

    I noticed that the Palms Thai Day Spa (5 Hartill-Law Avenue, Bardwell Park) has reopened with no shop signs or anything. If the police raided these premises when they opened under the Palms Thai Day Spa with sniffer dogs supposedly, then why are they allowed to re-open for business under 'no name'?? Nothing has changed in my eyes. My suburb is not part of some third world country where anybody and anything goes. I surely do NOT want my property to devalue in price.

    There should be rules where shop owners and business owners ensure the village of the suburb maintains a certain type of decorum, individuality and identity. And this begins with the Council. Three massage parlours within 20 metres of one another on the same side of the street is too excessive let alone damaging to the suburb esp as two are dubious businesses. Dubious? yes....why the need to be open 7 days a week from 10 am to 10 pm??!

    The Palms Thai Day spa that has NO NAME at the moment, looks dubious especially how the front window is covered by a large bamboo divider which is a health hazard let alone it looks some backyard operation.

    I will be taking this up directly with the Council as well as notifying the NSW Govt and Radio networks about the deplorable way that Councils allow such businesses to open up in our suburbs which are simply fronts for dubious businesses.

    Time that Bayside Council put their Constituents first and ensured that our suburbs' identity and character is maintained. Given the rates that we are all charged to pay, Councils should be doing more for the residents of the suburb and simply not neglecting their concerns and allowing such shop owners to open such businesses who do not even live in the area.

  3. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Katandra Crescent Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Chris L commented

    I object to this development as it is not in keeping with the rest of the houses in this area. This will add more traffic to the already strained roadways in the area. We do not need more small lot developments in Bellbird Park.

  4. In Healesville VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 15-17 McGrettons Road, Healesville VIC 3777:

    ROGER wrote to local councillor Noel Cliff

    When are you people going to let Marshal and his family build their two houses??????

    Delivered to local councillor Noel Cliff. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Andrew Bassett commented

    Sorry I meant Wicks Park not Tillman

  6. In Turrella NSW on “Construction of a six (6)...” at 12 Loftus Street, Turrella NSW 2205:

    Tiffany H commented

    This is the second boarding house being constructed in a small area. I have concerns that the community is not ready to sustain or support this type of development. Much more needs to be invested into parks, schools, roads and transport to properly support families of high needs in Arncliffe.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Mixed Residential Commercial” at 94 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Carmel Grimmett commented

    ‘No records to display.’ Standard result!

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Carmel Grimmett commented

    I agree with all of the responses against this DA. In the interest of good governance I request that IWC please put online Marrickville DAs immediately they are received.
    This is proposal is excessive. It would ultimately represent more value for the developers and the community if this parcel of land, and the others held by this developer, we’re considered as one zone. Scale needs to fit the existing neighbourhood. I believe it would ultimately be more profitable to aim for building a model suburb out of this site and the others across Victoria Road. Make it a Sustainability showcase. Show some vision. Buyers want to be in Marrickville because of the alternative cultures - build for that. Implement best practice waste management, WSUD and energy saving measures across the development.

  9. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 17 Belmore Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Tiffany commented

    It is very disappointing that this building has already started without proper consultation with the community. Whilst I support development, this will be the second boarding house being erected in a small area. Traffic and transport can sustain the increased density. The community shopping precinct needs a face lift, the local parks need to be invested in, and trains need to come more often so as to ensure that these boarding houses properly support residents and ensure a positive inclusion with the community.

  10. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 123 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Citizen commented

    The development applications is a voluminous 500+ pages long.
    Have not read it all.
    From what I have read it looks good. I hope that the bold aesthetic design stays and is not watered down. The height and sightlines are very bold and if the height is contested that the development still continues.

    Will the hotel have natural airflow into the rooms? Launceston temperatures and clean air make air conditioning unnecessary on many days.

    Is this hotel being built for a cableway, are there any design provisions on the building for a future application of a cableway?
    Document is so long to read all of it.

  11. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Dr Guy Strazzullo commented

    The proposed location for an Optus mobile tower in Alan Davidson Park, Wyoming is anti-community. It tests families’ trust in a Council that on the one hand made tremendous structural/aesthetic improvements to the park while on the other, wants to plonk a major structure in the middle of it. This will have significantly negative impact on people’s life on so many levels as stated by others here. The feasibility study by the council prior to DA approval should be tabled in all its details, including Council’s revenue from Optus at this proposed location as opposed to a safer one further up the mountains. The implementation of such irresponsible decision to allow this tower on the grounds will be a betrayal and a spear to the heart of the Wyoming community. I sincerely hope you come to your better judgement and save our park and our lives from this monstrosity.

  12. In Rydalmere NSW on “Tree Application - 8 x tree...” at 3 Calder Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Kathie Walters commented

    Parramatta City Council has completely lost its way and has no integrity. I have lost count of the trees scheduled for removal and yet PCC still spouts about preserving green areas and respecting nature. The developers own the council and trees are silent victims. This application is so vague as to be insulting to those of us who care about our environment.
    "8 x tree removal OR pruning". What on earth does that mean?
    My neighbours and I have emailed council on many occasions expressing our concerns and we have been lucky to receive an automated response. Sometimes not even that and certainly no further communication. Who and what is council for???????

  13. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove two (2) Alexander...” at 52A Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    John S. Batts commented

    Quite! Waverley Council's policy on trees looks a little hollow when reads about so many DAs that include removal (or "pruning" -- and that term may be euphemistic!).

  14. In Mount Colah NSW on “Commercial -...” at Asquith Golf Course 2-46 Lord Street Asquith NSW 2077:

    Vivek Pandey commented

    This application should be rejected as this would have severe impacts on the ecological and natural habitat surrounding Asquith Golf course. The Asquith Golf course is one of the landmarks supporting the flora and fauna in the Hornsby Bushland and the proposed DA would be detrimental and would have long lasting effects on the nearby community.

  15. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 95 Bridge Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Mark Singleton commented

    The council don't give a damn about existing residents they are just looking at rates revenue if it screws up your lifestyle privacy or views they don't care

  16. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Susan Leslie commented

    This application should be rejected. It will impact the immediate area with traffic, parking, noise, overcrowding and likely increased social problems. A boarding house of this size is not appropriate for the area. It is much too large, with inadequate parking, privacy and noise provisions. Consideration for the current residents should be put ahead of the profits of developers.

  17. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Kasia P commented

    I object to the construction of 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gemma B commented

    The height is too much for this area as nothing exists at that height around there. That amount of apartments is ridiculous - look at Mascot and its oversized apartment blocks which dominate the streetscapes. Unnecessary retail space as others have said. It's the wrong road for this bulky development as the congestion is already excessive there. Scale it right back!

  19. In Warradale SA on “Land division, 1 into 3” at 36 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Agree with you all. This used to be a pleasant area to live. 3 dwelling on one block is excessive and should not be allowed. Council blame State. State blame council. Neither care as they both get more revenue. Elected Councilor do nothing and our State member Corey Wingard does not bother to respond to raised concerns. Stefan Knoll (Dept of planning and infrastructure) continues to do nothing. Continue to raise your voice. I did not know about this site, nor was notified of the division opposite me and now have to knock on 2 doors just to get a vehicle off of my own property. Why people with 3 cars buy a "dwelling" with 1 car park is a mystery. 12 cars now on a narrow street. Don't let this happen around you.
    None of the afore mention elected people care or have taken any action to assist in the issue they have created. Do what you can to stop the continual degradation of this area.
    Perhaps we should all go and protest at the next council meeting?

  20. In Kellyville NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy and...” at 99 Garrawilla Avenue, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Susan Mace commented

    I totally agree with Julie Wilson. There are far too many dual occupancy dwellings in North Kellyville plus all the units that have been built, the traffic is terrible as the roads have not been completed as yet.
    The dual occupancy buildings do not have sufficient parking and usually if there are 2 families there are at least 4 cars which park in the street. There is only 1 road out which is Barry Road so if there was ever a bush-fire it would be very difficult to evacuate people from the area.

  21. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolish existing shop,...” at 599 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Mar Beltran commented

    Old South Head rd is a third world country’s road in one of the most affluent suburbs in Sydney. I wrote to the liberal member for Vaucluse Gabrielle Upton about it 2 years ago. They sent me a lovely letter back completely ignoring the issues.
    Better infrastructure and better public transport too have been required in the area for a long time

  22. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing &...” at 3 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley commented

    Can the owners retain the trees in the rear of the block? All too often, for a knock down rebuild, every green thing is taken away & rarely replaced.
    The Peninsula is losing shade trees at an alarming rate resulting in proven urban heat island effect pushing up our local temperature by 4 degrees.
    Please keep the trees & plant some more at the end of the project.

  23. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 51 Honiton Avenue Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Julie commented

    The arborists report speaks of healthy, vigorous, native trees that are to be removed. Its just so sad. This is one of so many applications that have been approved.
    Parramatta council, where are the tree replacement plans? Shouldn't they be mandatory also?

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mike commented

    I got a nonsensical email from Council in response to the lack of documents.

    "Documentation is unlikely to be available straight away, but once the documentation is uploaded in our system and can be made available on Council's web page, it will be."

    Apparently "straight away" has been defined by Council as any time after the documentation is uploaded to their system, which given history of this could be weeks or months.

    I've read the Transport analysis document, which makes a lot out of a Green Transport Plan (Section 6) for the site. That plan requires extensive follow up "To ensure the successful implementation of the GTP, a Travel Plan Coordinator (TPC) should be appointed to ensure the successful implementation of the GTP. This could be the building manager or a member of the body corporate." Apart from the fact that it will take major initiatives from the NSW State Government to provide necessary transport incentives - none of which can be guaranteed by the developer or Council, it is painfully clear that the Council does nothing to follow up on any breaches of developments from approved DAs. Reporting such breaches gets zero response.

    While the plan seems to describe Victoria Rd as the sole arterial connection to the Princes Highway (one way only as there is no right turn from Enmore Rd to King St), it is Sydenham Rd's connection via Railway Rd that is the true arterial connection to the highway. Traffic is already regularly backed up from King St, down Enmore and Victoria Rds such that on weekends, it takes 20 minutes for a bus to travel two stops from Addison Rd to Stanmore Rd along the Victoria Rd route.

    The simultaneous expansion of the Metro, and the addition of all the new developments in this precinct are going to totally overwhelm the road infrastructure in this area. While they are considered independently of each other they are getting passed through Council. They must be considered together for sane planning.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Andrew Bassett commented

    Do we have a council with the power or even the will to protect or enhance the existing culture and amenity of the suburbs they preside over?
    This is another over the top development application which makes no effort to fit in with local urban character and culture. In an area where traffic congestion is a significant problem already how exactly are the minimum 270 cars plus delivery vehicles visitors vehicles etc. supposed to get in and out? The completion of the metro line will not miraculously solve this issue. The removal of functional light industrial buildings removes local job opportunities. As noted by others a large number of these dwellings are shoebox size and suited to transient occupants, few families can stay here. The retail level seems unnecessary given that a great shopping strip in Marrickville and Illawarra roads is already not fully occupied.
    The overshadowing of Tillman Park will degrade one of the few small green spaces in this area and no amount of landscaped public space between tower blocks can substitute for plain old non- intensive use public parkland and open space.
    It’s over the top, greedy and an eyesore even compared to the low level industrial landscape that is there now. Scale it back, make something that contributes to the community.

  26. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Jason, Rachael W commented

    We’ve been part of this community for over 15 yrs and not enough has been done to improve the lives of those that are residing in public housing, but also those living in private residential dwellings.

    As highlighted above, Maroubra can’t be the ‘play thing’, the dumping ground for developers....DA’s that plan to shove human beings in tight confined boarding spaces in an area that is struggling to keep its head above water, is simply not fair on anybody .... only stakeholders who stand to benefit will be the investors themselves.

    Let’s see a better mix of housing options. This community needs help to address the social issues which seem to be getting worse, as already highlighted above. Council has already approved too many of these DA’s, approving the 9-11 Lexington Boarding House DA still troubles our family and friends. That is the last thing that nearby community needed. So unfair on them, particularly for the residents who plan to be there long term.

    DA/144/2019 must be declined for the sake and mental health of our residences and long term sustainability of the area. Let’s attract more families, more aspirational individuals who will be invested in the area long term...and will help make this place a better place to LIVE!

  27. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Cameron R commented

    DA/144/2019 must be rejected.

    Maroubra and South Maroubra already have too many social issues stemming from the heavy concentration of public housing dwellings.

    This community has been struggling to deal with these issues for years now. Approving this boarding house DA will not only add extra weight to residents and community groups, but it will also encourage prospective developers to lodge further boarding house DA’s. 9-11

    Lexington Place should have never been approved! As if that area of Maroubra needs more cramped housing dwellings??? Just madness.

    PLEASE stop making the same mistakes. NO MORE BOARDING HOUSES.PLEASE.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Robynne Hayward commented

    I sent this in reply to an email from the council apologising for the website not working -they said it was fixed on the 8th but even so the period for objections should be extended and they should ensure DA supporting docs are made available as soon as they are received.

    I hope that the period for commenting or objecting to this horrendous DA will be extended to allow for the fact that no one has been able to see the supporting documents until a few days ago. This is totally unacceptable.
    Please do not approve this DA. There are so many unleased shops already in Marrickville and Illawarra Rds, also the extended Metro, more retail space is not needed. The proposed height is totally out of character for the area, shadowing will make Wicks Park unappealing, traffic in the area is already out of control, and there are already too many future slum apartments in this area.
    When will this Council start to consider the desires of the local population rather than the greed of developers who seem to have an unhealthy hold on the Inner West Council. It surely should be in the interest of council members to increase the appeal of the local environment in Marrickville rather than turn it into an unliveable congested and over-developed future ghetto.

    I wish the council would consider the quality of the apartments they are approving. There are some very shoddy ones in the Sydenham area, such as one in unwins bridge rd where the slum landlord refused to fix the lift and the air conditioner, both of which stopped working shortly after the tenants moved in.

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Jayden D. commented

    This DA for boarding house accommodation with short-term residents contribute to the 'backpacker' style boarders and fuel the noisy/alcohol/drug-fueled 'undesirables' stigma Maroubra residents so desperately wants to avoid or remove.
    I want to qualify all the above comments concerning safety and increase in crime in concentrated mainly in Maroubra within Randwick, are government statistics from the 'Incidents of crime recorded by the NSW Police Force by Local Government Area'. This is a disturbing upward trend in various crimes that Randwick Council needs to take seriously and make active decisions to curb and My young family with 2 small kids needs to feel safe, please don't add fuel to the fire and REJECT this DA proposal.

    Facts and figures do not lie. Particularly worrying is the increase of 'Possession and/or use of other drugs Up 26.7% and Transport regulatory offence Up 41.8% is particular relevant now with more congestion and over development in Maroubra.

    Local Government Area Offence type "5 year trend and average annual percent change (Jan 2014-Dec 2018)"
    Randwick Non-domestic violence related assault Up 10.8%
    Randwick Sexual assault Up 8.4%
    Randwick Indecent assault, act of indecency and other sexual offences Up 10.7%
    Randwick Intimidation, stalking and harassment Up 14.6%
    Randwick Steal from retail store Up 10.0%
    Randwick Possession and/or use of cocaine Up 12.0%
    Randwick Possession and/or use of amphetamines Up 13.1%
    Randwick Possession and/or use of other drugs Up 26.7%
    Randwick Other drug offences Up 16.0%
    Randwick Prohibited and regulated weapons offences Up 14.6%
    Randwick Liquor offences Up 7.8%
    Randwick Breach Apprehended Violence Order Up 8.5%
    Randwick Breach bail conditions Up 8.4%
    Randwick Transport regulatory offences Up 41.8%

    'Source: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.'

  30. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree...” at 118 Pennant Parade Epping NSW 2121:

    Bill Rankine commented

    Please stop removing trees. Surely the tree can be pruned to make it less of a safety concern.

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