Recent comments

  1. In Burpengary East QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 49 Creek Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Lynette Moon commented

    This block was a beautiful green space with a small rain forest and many trees. It was alive with native animals and birds - without notice, the huge machinery moved in over 3 years ago and took down every tree and demolished it in a few hours. There it sat - eventually, some of the trees grew back, they moved in again and cleared the block a second time and left a dust bowl. Some drainage work was done and concrete paths laid.
    So now we have a block with "landing lights" along the concrete paths, A huge mound of soil that is covered with weeds, the odd sapling and the rest? Your guess is as good as mine. The only benefit that I see is that when it rains the ducks like the puddles. What an absolute disgraceful waste of a once-thriving green space, which are few and far between up here in Queensland. This Council is only interested in the mighty dollar, as whoever passed this block for development must have been paid to pass it as it floods - trucking in loads of soil day after day to bring the level up to avoid this must certainly have cost the previous owner quite a few dollars and to what end? Now apparently Ingenia own it - we put up with the dust for months and now once again it shall start - months and months of huge machinery and dust to contend with. Shame on your Council, shame on you.

  2. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Jacci commented

    I agree with the comments above.
    Also please look at other country cities and the airfield / airports need to be clear of housing so strips can be expanded to accommodate larger aircraft or the Hems choppers dont get land locked!

  3. In Naremburn NSW on “1 x Casuarina - Advice -...” at 62 Market Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Amanda Smith commented

    Why are the trees being removed? The landscape of our suburbs is being destroyed . More and more trees are being removed usually for develpment. There is no information about the trees. I object to their removal .

  4. In Eltham VIC on “Amendment - Construction of...” at 99 Brougham Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary commented

    Sick and tired of people making a profit from a slightly bigger block of land. We cannot sustain more people in Eltham. Council seems to be approving most of these developments. Loss of native vegetation doesn’t seem to matter. Traffic problems don’t seem to matter either. Eltham is losing its name as a green wedge suburb

  5. In Willunga SA on “Land Division - Torrens...” at 9-11 Chapel Street, Willunga SA 5172:

    Lesley Redgate commented

    I live next door to this land in my state heritage listed home. I have lived here for 33 years nurturing and restoring my beautiful home. I hope state heritage will be consulted and any building that happens will be carefully considered before being approved. It’s a very serious issue and I hope it won’t destroy the history and identity of beautiful willunga. My home once had the sisters of st Joseph’s living here. There is a strong connection between the house and the church. Dividing the land and building between us will destroy the significant history which will be gone forever.

  6. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Carol Read commented

    I would like to raise a strong objection to the development application for a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street on several grounds:

    Firstly, the proposed development is not in keeping with the general amenity of the area. The existing dwellings on Bishop Street are predominantly single storey and single occupancy. The proposed development of a two story building to accommodate medium density housing compromises the existing street scape.

    Secondly, the proposed development does not provide for off street parking for each resident. Bishop Street is already full to capacity with the vehicles of existing residents so increasing the capacity of the property, without also providing off street parking will create an added traffic burden.

    Thirdly, the immediate neighborhood comprises many long term residents and young families. The proposed boarding house will encourage transient residents due to minimum occupancy periods of 3 months. This will change the sense of community that currently exists and which attracted many residents to the area.

  7. In Willunga SA on “Land Division - Torrens...” at 9-11 Chapel Street, Willunga SA 5172:

    Bronte Gould commented

    Sad to see this land listed. I hope the blocks are kept large in keeping with the area. And no 2 storey structures that resemble boxes. Is this a Heritage area?

  8. In Currumbin Valley QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 17 Estelle Road, Currumbin Valley QLD 4223:

    Nina Rankin commented

    Great concerns such a large Proposed application on Estelle Road.
    We live on Estelle Road and have for almost 20 years it is a quiet street as is all of the Valley, We have watched the Valley become a high flow area, with the popularity of the Rock Pools at the bottom of the street, the area has become a tourist haven. Once upon a time there were no cars parked on our road now in high peak seasons there are cars parked all the way up Estelle Road. The property in question is at the bottom of the road so that means more traffic and cars and more dangers.
    People move to this quiet haven for just that quiet, nature and privacy.
    This unsightly project will be a bad mark for the area. There are not many havens left on the Gold Coast.
    Please say NO and save this one. We are happy for progress and new homes in the Valley for families to enjoy, but not to this ridiculous extent.

    A concerned resident.

  9. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Kathryn Lord commented

    We cannot accommodate any more high rise in this section of Moorebank. Traffic and parking is horrendous. The Moorebank Library carpark is already being used by those from other high rise who don't have anywhere else to park. Moorebank Shopping Centre does not have near enough parking spaces for the locals who want to shop there and our local bus service only comes once every hour out of peak time. We just do not have the infrastructure to cope with any more high rise developments.

  10. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Eucalyptus...” at 15 Fern Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Rodney Scherer commented

    It sounds like the structural integrity of the roots has been compromised and it will be only a. matter of time before it falls over. Yes replant another tree but please consider indigenous species which will provide habitat for the birds and possibly flowers for the bees. Proper consultation with council arborist On species should be done before planting

  11. In Royal Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 12 Clovelly Avenue Royal Park SA 5014:

    Anastasia Greer-Clarke commented

    Requesting to see the plans for the planned development of 12 clovelly ave, royal park. We believe that there is plans for a 2 story development. We would like to see the elevations for this as it will overlook our backyard and the current fence height along the back of the property is very low (barely chest height).

    Regards Anastasia

  12. In Raymond Terrace NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 7 Irrawang St, Raymond Terrace 2324 NSW:

    Bronwyn Hoole commented

    Could you please advise the extent and
    Height of the improvements?

  13. In Kingscliff NSW on “Notified Development -...” at 27 Drift Court Kingscliff NSW 2487:

    Tracy Barrell commented

    How can anyone assume it's for holiday intended use. Kingscliff is a very sought after area to live with limited housing stock available. I also agree with the second comment that the first complainant would impact others when they potentially park and holiday in other area's.

  14. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Fiona Wicks commented

    I strongly oppose the construction of a childcare at this location. The traffic and parking report doesn't appear to focus on the traffic much but talks about parking a lot. The development proposes 18 parking spots whereas the Ku- ring- ai DCP requires 1 spot for every 4 kid. 76 kids are proposed thus 19 spots. Design shows 18 spots however report states 19. The centre requires 19 spots to be available but the proposal shows only 9 spots + 1 accessible available for parent parking whereas the remaining are taken up by staff parking.

    The parking may not be the concern if the above is overlooked however it is the traffic. Shaddock Avenue is used by parents of Gordon West School for parking. It is quite a narrow street which is unable to cater for cars parked on both sides of the street. It is almost impossible for traffic to flow in both directions in the afternoon and mornings.

    I urge council officer to physically inspect the site during morning and afternoon peaks prior to approving this proposal. Regardless of whether we will benefit or not from another centre, I strongly believe this site is not suitable for this proposal.

  15. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Ray Wu commented

    I strongly oppose the development for the following reasons:

    The new double storey design of the building does not complement and conserve the visual character of the street scape. There are currently no unit buildings on either Bishop St or Jarvie Av.

    Jarvie Av is a heritage conservation area with distinctive architectural styles of the interwar period. The proposed design will negatively impact the elements protected by the conservation order, notably (quoting from the HCA23 council document):
    - "a small area that is characterised by its hidden location and tightly defined streetscape of Inter-War bungalows."
    - "the area a tight and cohesive and streetscape rhythm, dominated by the single storey, low pitched multi-gabled and hipped roofs of the interwar period"

    The double storey, high density, design will impact the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring homes. The lack of noise restrictions until after midnight on 2 days per week from the outdoor communal area would be highly disruptive.

    The utility of the building is not consistent with the surrounding homes. This is because the surrounding homes are residences for families who have lived on this street for many years or they belong to young families that have bought in the area and intend to stay for many years. In contrast the proposed building is intended for single occupancy rooming for a period of 3 months. Therefore it will negatively impact the development of the community on the affected streets.

    Finally it is not practical for boarding house parking to enter via Jarvie Avenue. Jarvie Ave is a tight street. It is not wide enough to be used as a thoroughfare because with cars parked on both sides of the street Jarvie Ave is functionally a single-laned street.

    For all these reasons, and a clear opposition from the residents in the surrounding area, please reject the proposal for this development.

  16. In Kirribilli NSW on “Modify DA 331/17 for...” at 105 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli NSW 2061:

    Sophie G commented

    good on you Philip!

  17. In Maraylya NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at Horseworld, 191 Maguires Road, Maraylya NSW 2765:

    Jodie Hine commented

    This is sad to see this great structure being demolished. I cant see why council wouldn't open this for public use for all horse riders. It seems all the prime farm land and horse facilities are being eaten up. Soon there will be no where for our animals to graze. Seems like such a waste.

  18. In Killara NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 23 Coronga Crescent Killara NSW 2071:

    Harry David Cramer commented

    Dear Ku-ring-Gai residents
    It is a shame to see this beautiful full brick residence being destroyed because of what they call progress.
    The house was built to the highest standard just before restrictions came into force restricting size because of WW2. In 1942.
    The way things are going there will be no heritage houses left to admire if a place like this is destroyed.

  19. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Sarah Rou commented

    Hi - our home is close to the proposed substation and I'd like to object to the location chosen. There is considerable land available surrounding this proposed substation that is much further away from homes. I am most concerned about those residents who reside within 100 meters of the substation in Chase Road.

  20. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Judy Benson commented

    Totally agree with Tammy. They are everywhere in residential areas locally and struggling to get children to fill the places. It’s changing the whole face of our suburbs and bringing so much extra traffic which our streets are not able to cope with.

  21. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Tony McLeish commented

    Leave the airport alone you muppets and remember all councillors are elected and paid by ratepayers.

  22. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Catherine Leigh commented

    5 dwellings are just too much for this block. Consider each house having a minimum of 2 vehicles , the street is not capable to have that many additional vehicles.
    I moved to Eltham over 15 years ago for the large blocks and the beautiful green suburb, it’s so sad to see what has happened to Eltham with everything being built on top of each other. We will start to become the next Doncaster or BoxHill. Very very sad.

  23. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Zayra Millan commented

    I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed development at 40 Bishop Street. My reasons are because 1) there is inappropriate road infrastructure for the proposed parking on Jarvie Avenue; 2) the proposal is not aligned to the physical and 3) community character of the streets concerned – Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue, the latter is a Heritage Conservation Area; 4) it will be disruptive to the community due to noise and traffic. These reasons are detailed further below:

    1. The proposal of 40 Bishop street will require entrance to parking via Jarvie Avenue. However, Jarvie Ave LACKS THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE to meet this purpose. It cannot support the increase in demand for parking and increase in vehicle traffic. This is because Jarvie Ave is an unusually narrow s-shaped street where traffic is required to give way to pull aside for oncoming traffic at various points. Jarvie Ave is a small, single-laned street, and has limited parking space for residents. It is not suited for use as a thoroughfare for parking, or for resident/guest parking for a 10 room boarding house. The traffic impact study provided notes that there is limited offstreet parking in the area and that Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are primarily pedestrian streets. These streets are designed to support an increase in vehicle traffic/parking demands.

    2. The proposal is not aligned to the physical character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Jarvie Avenue is a Heritage Conservation Area. This order was raised to protect the “aesthetic significance” of the homes here, homes that are examples of single storey Inter-War bungalows. The proposal for 40 Bishop Street will negatively impact this Conservation Area. This is because it proposes to build a double storey modern-designed building that does not match the heritage of houses surrounding it. The transport impact study also notes that the surrounding area are predominantly single storey residential homes.

    3. The proposal is not aligned to the community character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Both Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are quiet, family-oriented (babies, young children), primarily owner-occupied residential streets. The proposed use of 40 Bishop street is inconsistent with the family-oriented landscape of our streets because it comprises single-occupancy rooms targeted to individual residents.

    4. The proposal is disruptive to the community. It will generate an increase in noise due to increased vehicle, pedestrian, and noise from the outdoor communal space. This will disrupt the day to day living of residents on Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue. Jarvie Ave is ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE to noise. The Inter War character of the homes on Jarvie Ave means that they have minimal setbacks from the street – this means that the front of the homes are very close to the streets and are sensitive to noise.

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

    Jeff Nestor commented

    An 8 story student accomodation building on the corner of the Murrumbeena shopping strip and opposite the sky rail station will be an absolute blot on the whole local landscape......and an open invitation to wall in Melbourne St. as the shopping strip will just play for the same absurd height.
    Carnegie is already copping these absurd heights that can be seen from a kilometre away as you approach the local shopping precinct. It’s noted that these developments are just walling in neighbourhoods all through Glen Eira and parking is becoming a joke with all the parking facility exemptions......be it Carnegie, Elsternwick or Bentleigh.

    People bought into these neighbourhoods for the amenity and local community life.

    The last thing this corner needs is an 8 story student accomodation project that will be a slum in 10 years time.........look at the corner of Arrawatta and Koornang Rd. behind Carnegie Aldi. A visual blot that looks ready for demolition after less than 7 years. And now with 12(?) stories next to it. Again right opposite the station. All that public space under the sky rail will never see the light of day.....ever.

    Listen to the local community!

  25. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Merv Gillespie commented

    Clearly, the only beneficiaries of this project are the developer and the council.
    The Tyabb township and residents would not benefit, in fact the very village type atmosphere would suffer from the proposed high density development and dramatically increased traffic pressures.
    It’s not hard to foresee a troublesome future when only a small percentage of residents in a 180 unit complex start insisting on quiet enjoyment and begin complaining about nuisance aeroplanes.
    To put this ridiculous application into some context, this proposal is to put over five percent of Tyabb’s current population into that one block of land at 59 Stuart Road along with possibly 250+ cars.
    This proposal is a recipe for future friction, discontent and ongoing conflict that will only cause more division within the community.
    Therefore I strongly oppose granting this development application.

  26. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Dawn Laity commented

    I am appalled at the thought of another high density development in this area. In the areas of Hastings/Bittern there are shops and services to support these developments. I actually live in one. Tyabb on the other hand has a rural and village atmosphere and is unable to support the increased population. I have not even mentioned the airport/train line. Older people with an expectation of a quiet resort style life will not be happy with the noise being so close. It is an entirely unsuitable position for a development of this type. Please have some sense and do not approve this application.

  27. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 140 Bolton Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Arun Parmar commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I live at 3 Walsh Street, Eltham VIC 3095. We are sharing the fence with 140 Bolton Street, Eltham VIC 3095 (140 Bolton Street). I have asked the owner of 140 Bolton Street to replace the fence more than a year ago and he was agreed to do so but he never replaces it. I believe he knows that he is going to upgrade the property and intentionally wasn't doing so. My concern is to have a new fence before the construction work. The current fence is too old and it can fall down at any time which I have told to the owner of 140 Bolton Street already. I hope this matter will be taken into consideration.
    I am a bit concern with my privacy. I have two kids and want to live secure with my privacy. If there are any windows facing my property I want them to use privacy windows so that I retain my privacy.

    Kind regards,
    Arun

  28. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 23 Harold Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    David W commented

    I support this application as It’s great to see Parramatta becoming a City we need more investors willing to develop and enhance our city into a modern metropolis

  29. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    K Crute commented

    I agree with the above comments regarding lack of infrastructure, lack of facilities, the site being so close to the airfield and the railway. Given that council are making things very difficult for local business and community organisations I don’t see how a development of this size should be allowed to go ahead.

  30. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Meaghan Clark commented

    Not happy about this proposal so it’s a massive NO from me. Nuwarra road is completely shadowed by the latest appartments and I agree with other comments that they are not aesthetically pleasing nor fitting in with the area. You allowed George’s Fair to develop 5-10 years ago as a housing estate and then you approve these cheap alternatives to get people in the area only to overcrowd and devalued it. The people of moorebank are not impressed with the choices you are making for the community you serve. Enough is enough.

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