Recent comments

  1. In Chatswood NSW on “L 1 - 'Babylon display...” at 409 Victoria Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    The Concourse and its assets were planned for people and not as advertising suites.
    Enough! far too many of these exist already and have turned the Mall into a wasteland of banks, Chemist Warehouses and real estate spruikers.

  2. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Tanya L Battel commented

    We are not far from the proposed site. Like many others, we purchased our current apartment at 238 The Esplanade at considerable cost and were influenced by the strict Council guidelines as to any further developments in the area. Such a development will detract significantly from the attraction of the area - that's the appeal of Burleigh - that it is not a "Broadbeach" or "Surfers Paradise". The current height restrictions need to be maintained.

  3. In Riverwood NSW on “Unauthorised work deck and...” at 82 Hannans Road, Riverwood NSW:

    concerned neighbour commented

    Just checking if this is allowed now as its being done again next door to their back verandah.

  4. In Rozelle NSW on “Change of Use - No building...” at 657 Darling Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    A Chance commented

    There is absolutely no detail on what the proposed change of use will be!!!
    Surely this flies in the face of planning application mgmt???😡

  5. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Judy and Neville Anderson commented

    Have they considered the problems with traffic for these units having to go down a narrow one way lane which often has people and children walking on it as there is no footpath and no lighting at night. To jump out of the way of a car coming round the bend someone may well go over the edge down a big drop through trees to a solid path.
    This development is ill considered and will destroy the natural beauty of the area.
    Please limit any high rise near our beautiful unspoilt waterfront.

  6. In Coolum Beach QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet -...” at 1820 David Low Way Coolum Beach:

    Lisa Rivers commented

    My objection to the development at 1820 David Low Way is the objection to the proposed/advertised roof top bar.
    1. My apartment is located immediately adjoining 1820 David Low Way. It is approved as a caretakers apartment and (if this change goes ahead) it will be immediately adjoining a rooftop bar and the reasonable expectation would be an increase in noise from the venue and from patrons entering and exiting the venue.
    2. Parking in the precinct is already stretched. Including a rooftop bar facility will result in numerous additional vehicles intruding on the private parking in our building (as there are only limited sites available at 1820 David Low Way itself and very little nearby street parking.
    Thank you for your consideration.

  7. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Melaleuca...” at 2-8 Llandaff Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Jeremy Danon commented

    I am on the Strata Committee of the relevant property. The Committee has received expert advice that the tree is not stable and as such, could pose a danger to people and property. You can clearly see that the small retaining wall supporting the tree has large cracks. As a Committee, we would be negligent if we did not act appropriately. As such, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Naomi and Valli that the tree needs to be removed.

  8. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Dan Eather commented

    My family moved from Redland Bay for exactly this reason. We figured if the council had no intentions of protecting these areas we may as well move somewhere that had better infrastructure and more jobs. I'd urge anyone who takes issue with the council's obvious development agenda, to vote with their feet and leave the city. There are plenty of beautiful pockets around brisbane which have far better public transport and many more job schools/unis and job opportunities for children.

  9. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Robert Miller commented

    Due to the large number of residences and new people moving to Redland Bay, the roads in around this area are already heavily congested in the mornings and afternoons. The Victoria Point shops and carparks are overflowing on weekends. Low density housing is fine for slow increase in numbers that gives commercial developers and TMR time to upgrade infrastructure. Medium density housing like these units is allowing for population increases that outpace development of infrastructure.

    RCC is approving developments such as these that do not fit with the infrastructure and character of Redland Bay, I wish they would stop and consider retaining the feel of Redland Bay. Higher densities should be reserved for Cleveland to provide more people to frequent the restaurants and businesses of that area and not continue to add to the overcrowding issues of Redland Bay.

  10. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Troy commented

    Disgusting..

    Majority of these applications will go in the developers favour.

    The problem is if residents vote the development down developers go to court and 99% of the time a Judge (that doesn't live in the area) will give it a thumbs up. Zero consequence to the Judge.

    The RATE PAYING residents can do nothing to stop these buildings going up.

    Certainly the system is broken.

    Imo, Dyor

  11. In Gladesville NSW on “To construct covered deck...” at 81 Wharf Rd Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Andrew Franz commented

    What does this mean exactly?
    "To construct covered deck to the front & rear of the dwelling a double carport with the front building alignment".

    Where is the plan?

  12. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 18A Fox St Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Stephen Quartly commented

    The future development of 18A Fox Street as a food and drink outlet, over looking the bay will be a great asset for local residents and visitors alike. With the future new cruise terminal and airport extension, more tourists will visit the Wynnum foreshore area.
    In regards, to comments to excess noise and parking, council has the opportunity to extend parking along the foreshore area either side of the creek, with angled parking bays.
    With the northern end of Wynnum CBD under extended development with the new cinema and high rise developments, the population in general will require more food and entertainment outlets. Let us not forget, where the new 40 plus apartment complex now exists, a local hotel used to be on that corner of Fox Street. I in my 35 plus years of being a resident of the Bayside, I have not heard of any complaints regarding noise or parking problems from the previous mentioned hotel.
    Progress and growth are a normal occurrence in a popular bayside setting. The new development is NOT a large hotel complex, it is simply a medium size food and drink outlet, with a valued view overlooking the bay.
    In consideration of the local residents who claim they will suffer excess noise and foot traffic around the precinct, the park and surrounding green areas will act as a buffer to the perceived noise problem. I am sure the Council will consider the whole infrastructure plan to make this part of Wynnum a desirable place to visit and live.

  13. In Roseville NSW on “Inspect 1 tree for removal....” at 44 William Street Roseville NSW 2069.:

    X commented

    The Tree is a very large mature tree and should not be removed and pruned instead (if necessary). Trees removal should only be done if threaten life. Trees provide, oxygen provision, shade, natural habitats and in this area natural beauty .

  14. In Lewisham NSW on “To remove a Eucalyptus Tree...” at 15 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    J.OCallaghan commented

    I object to the removal of tree at 15 The Boulevard, Lewisham.
    What is the reason for the tree removal?
    Trees attract native birds, and preserve the natural beauty of the area.

  15. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Civil and...” at 149 Esplanade, Redland Bay QLD 4165:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    The apartment buildings are ruining the low key feel of Redland bay. Very disappointing that it has become developed in this way.

  16. In Eltham VIC on “Amendment -Use of the land...” at 1 Nyora Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Peter Duggan commented

    Please update the planning folder to show "plans" of proposed.
    i.e. https://epathway.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/webdocs/applications/650440/Advertising%20-%20Plans%20-%20391_2003_11AP_A%20-%201%20Nyora%20Road%20Eltham.pdf

    pdf is missing.

  17. In Milperra NSW on “Subdivision of proposed Lot...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Lauren Fee commented

    I am a resident of Milperra and I am wholeheartedly against this development proposal.

    I, along with a very large number of residents who have personally attended the many peaceful protests of this development am aghast that our cries have fallen on deaf ears or stupid minds.

    We barely have enough infrastructure to support the existing residents of Milperra. The public transport network is lacking at best, we have next to no shopping facilities aside from our wonderful local shop owners, our water supply is low nation wide which I’m sure you can also agree, would not be aided by increased population. Our waste facilities are sub-par, Henry Lawson drive is far from sufficient, there are simply not enough schools in the area (both public and primary) to cope with a booming population.

    The wildlife would be severely disrupted, PROTECTED species of trees would be carelessly discarded to make room for the money in your pockets.

    I won’t even waste my time continuing to educate you about the things you should already know.

    Have any of you actually taken the time to stay in the area and actually assess what damage is going to be done if this proposal goes ahead? I’m guessing not because no one of a sane mind would allow that type of damage to occur in such a great community.

  18. In Glenelg SA on “Removal of Significant...” at 37-39 Partridge Street Glenelg SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  19. In Glenelg North SA on “Regulated tree removal...” at 27 Golflands Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Kathy F commented

    Why is the tree being removed?

  20. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Simon Burgess commented

    Sorry the approval was 2005 not 2095.

  21. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Simon Burgess commented

    This is an amendment to an existing DA approval for a retirement village and nursing home approved in 2095 by council. This is not a new application and what is proposed are not 'huts'.

  22. In Wynnum QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet,...” at 18A Fox St Wynnum QLD 4178:

    Hayley cook commented

    This is a great idea and could breathe life back into what was once the heart of wynnum. It is a derelict eyesore at the moment and has been for years. It's a beautiful spot with great potential. It's not going to be a large establishment and parking is sufficient. Any deliveries will use the back entry near the boat ramp and operate the same when it was the most popular fish and chip shop in town. I can't wait to have a beer over looking the creek again. Having grown up at the creek, fish markets and the fishers pub due my family being fisherman working out of the creek and my mum working in the kitchen at the pub, I truly cannot wait to see this place come alive again.

  23. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Clare Taylor commented

    What has happened with Gateway's application to the Land and Environment Court submitted last year and also what was the result of a site meeting which took place between Council, representatives of the Land and Environment Court and concerned residents?
    I think residents deserve an answer.
    Thanks,
    Clare Taylor

  24. In Lewisham NSW on “To remove a Eucalyptus Tree...” at 15 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    The attached File says—
    'No records to display'.

    Does this application cover one tree or more than one tree?

  25. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Unapproved Development -...” at 3 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    confused local commented

    I agree with PWalls, there are too many developments threatening Lambert RD and sooner or later there would be too many. It's too much of a small street to comply with so many of these major developments. Council needs to step up and monitor the activity by being more stern against development approvals. Developers in Lambert RD seem to think they can do what they like, build the worst kind of unfit monstrosities and get away with it. But there are also specific rules that they need to apply with too.
    I object to this Development application.

  26. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Retirement village (staged)” at 361 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Patricia Lamey commented

    This looks like a manufactured homes site and not a retirement village a new DA should be presented for community consultation !
    This property is in the path of fires coming across from Darawank reserve and it is dangerous to place so many of these huts there
    The roadside is unsuitable and dangerous for entry and exit
    There is only 1 road in and out to Lakesway making evacuation a risk in fire prone area
    There is not the infrastructure to support dense housing in this are
    The block is heavily wooded and near the Koala corridor
    The plan for these huts is not in keeping with the area amenity
    The transport to towns is limited
    We have no permanent doctor at Halliday’s point

  27. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 6 - 8 Moseley Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Jason Lin commented

    Currently the traffic on Moseley street is heavy especially during hours before school and after school. There are 2 big schools JR and Carlingford West next to the street.
    The Moseley street is not wide enough for parking, there are no enough parking spaces for 8 new occupancies.

    2 or 3 new occupancies to be allowed in the deveopment plan is reasonable.

  28. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “Removal of siginificant...” at 21 Birman Crescent, Flagstaff Hill SA 5159:

    Susanne Clift commented

    Agreed with above comments

  29. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Melaleuca...” at 2-8 Llandaff Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Valli Rao commented

    I'm a resident of 2-8 Llandaff St, and had a good look at the two lovely trees and their location as i passed near them today. I agree with Rodney and Nami completely, that the trees have to be removed for safety reasons (inappropriate planting as Naomi writes). Rodney's suggestion that they need to be offset with suitable trees that provide shelter for native birds is excellent.

  30. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Nick Viner commented

    My main concerns are with parking for a development of this scale. On a small 2 lot subdivision at 9 Thornely Street, Leichhardt, I asked Council why it had approved 2 new dwellings with NO PARKING. There used to be a driveway at the old house at 9 Thornley Street with parking for 2 cars so 2 car spaces have just been deleted. This is on a street one block from Norton Street, one block from Parramatta Road and with a Pre-School facility further down the street. I'd hazard a guess that the new occupants will bring at least 2 - 4 additional cars to the street when they move in and there is nowhere for these cars to be parked. Council's reply to me was,

    "Council's controls seek to reduce the reliance on private vehicles to minimise traffic. The controls do not require new dwellings to provide car parking. The site is within the Parking scheme area and the new dwellings will not benefit from the scheme."

    Whilst I absolutely agree that reliance on cars must be greatly reduced, I fail to see how, in the absence of any significant investment in public transport, there can be a direct correlation between providing no parking and reducing reliance on private vehicles? People will continue to use their cars but parking will become an absolute nightmare. Why should Leichhardt residents put up with the continued destruction of their amenity by having their streets clogged with more and more cars? And a lack of parking in our suburb impacts upon the shops and local businesses too.

    I fear that Council's plans are just to encourage as much development as possible with as little parking as possible whilst trying to justify their flawed vision which makes no sense to the average person.

    186 units = potentially 186 or more additional cars.

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