Recent comments

  1. In Umina Beach NSW on “New Construction of...” at 1 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Is there a chance the owners can work around the gardens and some of the trees as part of this re-build? The Peninsula has lost too many trees and all too often, contractors clear-fell a block, not even leaving a weed! Can a shade tree be planted on the front verge when the project is finished for shade?

  2. In Saint Peters NSW on “To fit-out and use Suite...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O’Brien commented

    Axe throwing is a sport. There’s even a world championship held each year. I’ve tried it and boy is it hard work. I don’t think cricket is a sport but they keep building pitches for people to play it. I support the application and hope you will too.

  3. In Thirroul NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 178 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul NSW 2515:

    Jane Coburn commented

    Object to this application, traffic pressures already. And changing the character of the street from village.

  4. In Alphington VIC on “Proposed use to operate...” at 729 Heidelberg Road Alphington VIC 3078:

    Susan Faine commented

    I think this is already operating as a massage business (not message, as described in the Alert). Why the permit application now?

  5. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 2 / 426 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lynette commented

    When did the building of a six storey building become an option for developers in Surrey Hills, Vic? That is way over-development in the Surrey Hills Canterbury Rd. corridor.
    My second point is that it’s height and bulk would look over-bearing on the elevated site it’s planned for.

  6. In Gladesville NSW on “Section4.55 (2) -...” at 10 Monash Rd Gladesville NSW 2111:

    Fletcher simpkins commented

    Is this an application to amend an original residential development to include retail? On an intersection that currently has entry/exit to the Aldi and future entry/exit to the Bunnings? I think the application should be considered very carefully in the light of the added residential impact as well as expected additional traffic for current and approved retail on the local streets. I don’t think this particular intersection will be able to operate smoothly if more traffic is added.

  7. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Janelle Hyett commented

    I do not support this proposal as it stands. This area is so dangerous as it is. The current businesses have trucks parked which reduces this stretch to one lane and when buses are there the cars get banked up. School pick up and drop of times are horrendous. Once that issue is solved, then yes, provided the development does not exceed the current size height wise of the adjoining buildings.

  8. In Drummoyne NSW on “ePlanning Certificate...” at 40 Moore Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia:

    Ron commented

    Beautiful heritage home built here

  9. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Susan commented

    I’m in strong support of this proposal, I believe this will create more jobs in Diamond Creek and lift the profile of the area. This will be fabulous for our area and can’t wait to see it up and running.

    Susan Di Fabio

  10. In Warradale SA on “Three tow storey row dwellings” at 19 Gardiner Av Warradale:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Completely agree with Ferna. Unfortunately Ferna they all give us the runaround until we get sick of trying. Just want more rates and chop down trees. I have no objection to 2 on 1 block but in Struan ave they are building 7 on 2 blocks plus 6 on 2 blocks right next to it . Not enough car parks . All single garaging. No one listens.

  11. In Warriewood NSW on “Residential Flat Building” at 25 Warriewood Road, Warriewood:

    Stacey Mitchell commented

    What is a “Residential Flat Building”. The application does not give details on how many dwellings, storey’s. Warriewood is already over crowded, poor infrastructure, traffic chaos - this seems to be yet another “developer win” over community.

  12. In Noosa Heads QLD on “27 Atunga Heights Nosa...” at 27 Attunga Hts Noosa Heads QLD 4567:

    Rebecca Stead commented

    This beautiful site is an Open Space Conservation site with two existing dwellings allowed, with remnant habitat for wildlife and Biosphere classification. Please don't allow conversion of the land use or subdivide it.
    - the habitat of native wildlife seen regularly on this site (wallabies, echidna) plus koalas and sugar gliders in the vicinity is in question if 14 dwellings are allowed to build and convert Open Space into 3 new, subdivided lots.
    - all of the building sites (on slip hazard slopes), height (12m total) and the density of Lot 1 (medium density multiple dwelling) are in direct non-compliance with the Noosa Plan
    - even though a donated green area will be 'gifted' to the public from the existing Open Space Conservation there will be high fences erected between the properties and the public pathway, which appears to be of benefit only to unit residents rather than the public.
    - Noosa Council is so very careful to collaborate on sensitive sites with caring partners such as Noosa Parks and Biosphere (eg public boardwalk, logging land reclaimed as National Park corridors) it is galling to think an opportunistic build might contradict this careful focus.

  13. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post Request(Section 72...” at 393 - 397 Burwood Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    As a local residents nearly 20 years, I feel very sad to see the proposal of this development and my objection to this development as folllows,
    1. The current iconic building is one of the favourite for locals and it will be a huge loss if a such beautiful building is disappearing due to this development.
    2. A 11 storey building located at Glenferrie and Burwood roads will be more than eye-sore development and it is a nightmare for the Hawthorn area.
    2. This development will block sunlight and daylight to our Hawthorn Town Hall building which is one of key community event's venue.
    3. The local traffic just CANNOT handle with those cars parked from this 47 dwelling development.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 9 x TREE...” at 34 Boronia Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    JDawes commented

    I strongly object to this application.
    The trees in this street are an important part of the overall streetscape and the microclimate and the removal of so many trees will affect the quality of the streetscape. The concern with branches falling in the storm can be addressed with appropriate pruning by a qualified arborist. Since the intention in another DA under consideration is to demolish the property, the motivation for the removal of the trees is questionable.

  15. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Remove...” at 4 Edenlee Street Epping NSW 2121:

    JDawes commented

    I am disappointed to see that the applicant wants to remove even more trees - this will leave the lot very bare according to the plan! The value of trees is in moderating the local climate and providing much-needed shade in summer. Please keep the trees and modify your housing plans!

  16. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Stewart Collins commented

    I support this proposal. It will be great for business in Diamond Creek bringing people from outside to spend money. That will have flow on effects for other businesses in the area. Some extra parking would be ideal but there is parking in other areas for people to work from. This will be awesome for Diamond Creek.

  17. In Eastwood NSW on “Multi-dwelling housing...” at 62 Abuklea Rd Eastwood NSW 2122:

    JDawes commented

    The scope and size of this application suggests that many trees would have to be removed from the lot to accommodate the large number of dwellings. It is surprising that this density of dwelling would be permitted compared with the style of residences and gardens in the rest of the street. I object to the loss of vegetation in the street and the high residential density that is implied by the proposal.

  18. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish an existing...” at 3 Boomerang Street Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Andrew commented

    "The house has no style" (Statement of Heritage Impact, page 14).
    This is polite, professional words for: "The house has a pug ugly style which is irredeemably out of character for the neighbourhood, Ku-ring-gai, Sydney and Australia."
    Technically, contrary to the entire history of heritage reports commissioned by KMC, ugly houses of many different styles is part of the heritage of Ku-ring-gai.
    KMC has proudly fostered this tradition by encouraging many very ugly apartment blocks (for which many ugly dwellings and many beautiful dwellings have been demolished).

    The proposed new dwelling has little architectural merit and adds little (if anything) to the neighbourhood, for specific heritage styles or otherwise, but it is much better than the current.
    Frankly, my dear, the proposed new dwelling could be used as a location for a remake of the movie, Gone with the Wind.

    The author of the report cannot bring himself to write anything positive specifically about the proposed new dwelling, other than it will be an improvement on the current situation.
    Misses the supposed purpose of KMC's HCA dictats, of course,but he has to work with the KMC HCA farce.
    So, we are all in this game of having no idea what actually is KMC's "heritage" framework, despite years of "consultations" and many lame reports, but if we can say the proposed new dwelling is less ugly than the current dwelling, all is good!

    The owners should be permitted and encouraged to knock down the current structure and have the heritage freedom to establish another ugly dwelling which is out of character for the neighbourhood other than there are several other similarly ugly dwellings in the neighbourhood.

  19. In Hadfield VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 8 Eileen Street, Hadfield VIC 3046:

    Wendy Rushby wrote to local councillor Oscar Yildiz

    Do our local councils actually look at these streets before they okay the building plans. You cannot get into these side streets now! Are our councils trying to drive the local shopping centre out of business? It really is becoming a joke in the Hadfield/ Glenroy area.

    Delivered to local councillor Oscar Yildiz. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Use and development of...” at 11 Pascoe Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Wendy Rushby wrote to local councillor Oscar Yildiz

    Where is the local traffic going too go to? There is too much going on already, we will not be able to drive anywhere soon.

    Delivered to local councillor Oscar Yildiz. They are yet to respond.

  21. In Hadfield VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 8 Eileen Street, Hadfield VIC 3046:

    Wendy Rushby wrote to local councillor Oscar Yildiz

    Do our local councils actually look at these streets before they okay the building plans. You cannot get into these side streets now! Are our councils trying to drive the local shopping centre out of business? It really is becoming a joke in the Hadfield/ Glenroy area.

    Delivered to local councillor Oscar Yildiz. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    diane c holdsworth commented

    I read that Hornsby has already filled 96% of its obligation to provide added accomodation and that we are some years ahead of doing that in any case

    the concept of high rise also on the old side, on top of what is on the east side is simply obscene. I live where I can see the blocks of units. With tree removal and build of towers.....the skyline is hugely changed. Lovely twinkly lights to look at at night for me....but generally a nightmare to navigate. So..... I personally simply do not. Online shopping works well for me and looses business to local shops. I will not be the only one

    It is time to stop. The whole place is a shoppers/parking nightmare generally and no place for anyone with any sort of disability wanting /needing to move between "sides"

    diane

  23. In Petersham NSW on “Other Das” at West Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    Where are the details for this application?

  24. In Fairfield VIC on “Construct and use a five...” at 72A Station Street Fairfield VIC 3078:

    Han commented

    There must be at least 30 car parking spaces to cater for 20 apartments and for visitors to the retail and the apartments.
    This will remove the parking on the street nightmare

  25. In Penrith NSW on “Deletion of Condition 11 -...” at 21 Woodriff Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Concerned Neighbour commented

    It is not of council concern on how the developer funds the project or attempts to mitigate risk by selling apartments. If the developer wants to mitigate risk they can have investors purchase a share in the development. By allowing the building to be strata subdivided you are allowing the entire building to be sold individually which is not the intent of the original development. There have been design elements that were argued by the fact that this is a serviced apartment development. It will no longer be a serviced apartment building, it will just be another apartment complex under the disguise of a serviced apartment. If this is allowed, council will not know how many units are sold, if not all of them.The building has already pushed the planning controls with many items, especially height.
    For this change, I would expect the entire development to go through a new DA.

  26. In Warradale SA on “Three tow storey row dwellings” at 19 Gardiner Av Warradale:

    Ferna Dawn Harris. commented

    Oh my Goodness! Not again! This is getting too much for our area. Three homes where only one was previously situated. The streets are already getting too cluttered with cars making it dangerous driving about. We do not have the infrastructure for this type of development. Also, too many double story dwellings cutting out the sunlight for existing dwellings as is definitely the case with our house along our western boundary. Marion Council, you have got far too greedy for rates in allowing all these new dwellings to be built. Start thinking about your existing ratepayers who, like me, have been paying our rates for 36 years and in some cases, more.

  27. In Ivanhoe VIC on “Development of an apartment...” at 24 & 26 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe, VIC:

    Georgina Spring commented

    The mass, over development height and lack of set backs of the proposal is not in keeping with the delicate character of this precious area of Ivanhoe. This proposal is an attempt by the developer to maximise their return on this precious land holding. The green Avenue being the gateway to IVANHOE would be undermined by this huge proposal. The residents of the area have not been considered.

    This proposal is the first significant one on the south side of lower Heidelberg Rd and will form the base for future proposals along LHR.

    The proposal of course should be rejected in its entirety.

  28. In Saint Peters NSW on “To fit-out and use Suite...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Pat commented

    Awesome! Maniax is a great company and I fully support this application.

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70 Loch Maree Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Steve Hodgson commented

    Safety First!
    What a crazy idea!
    Has anyone given any consideration to the public safety!
    A large commercial operation right near a school, residents and aged people.
    This area is already very busy within school drop off and pick up times.
    What about the additional heavy traffic of trucks during demolition and excavation...
    Is the safety of school children and our elders not a priority!
    When does someone's commercial interests become more important than community.

  30. In Saint Peters NSW on “To fit-out and use Suite...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Joe commented

    Axe throwing is NOT a sport and is not something that should be going on in this residential area.

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