Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 242 - 244 Beecroft Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Kate commented

    We have Langston Towers x 3, Oxford Central x 2 buildings, several high rise residential building on Cambridge Street! We have only 1 supermarket in Epping. Government is not considerable! They don't care if we have enough parks, parking spaces, playground for kids. That area should not be considered to have high rise residential buildings x 3! I strongly disagree about such an approval!

  2. In Epping NSW on “Mixed use development” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Matija commented

    I strongly support the development of the high-rise at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121, it is because, Epping needs to develop to become another Chatswood, Our mind can't be narrowed anymore. Now, there are not enough shops and supermarkets in Epping, we need to have more high-rise apartments to make the suburb looks more modern and energetic! I believe, not just high-rise apartments, we also have to have a shopping mall in Epping! Heritage? Too old fashioned!
    I hope more developers will realise Epping is a potential suburb for new apartments!

  3. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of a...” at 30 Sherbrook Avenue, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Glen Elliot commented

    The danger of even more traffic in this precinct cannot be overstated. If 39 additional residences are approved for this street, it is highly likely to significantly increase the risk of traffic accidents (and potential fatalities, given the speed at which cars drag up Sherbrook Ave towards Whitehorse Rd / Maroondah Hwy, from Madden St. Note: some children in families that have taken residence in the most recent new development in Heatherbrae Ave use the corner of Sherbrook Ave / Heatherbrae Ave as some sort of makeshift 'playground', doing loops on their bicycles at the intersection and I have footage of this. The risk is very real.)

    I also hold a letter from fifteen years ago, when my tenant wrote to Maroondah council about the dangers of turning out of Heatherbrae Ave (now Heatherbrae Ave East) into Sherbrook Ave. Cars parked close to the corners made visibility of oncoming traffic very poor. And fifteen years on, traffic has increased exponentially with the amount of development going on. The risks have naturally increased commensurate with the growth in local traffic.

    This is too many additional residences to approve in one part of Sherbrook Ave. It will drive up the risks of traffic accidents and possible fatalities. I submit that council should be giving serious consideration to these risks to the local community during the application process.

    On a personal note, as I occupy the corner property, my enjoyment of my own property will be compromised by this approval as well. As cars wait to turn into Sherbrook Ave, inching their cars forward to try and turn safely, I will be subject to further traffic noise with idling cars banked up to turn into Sherbrook Ave and/or impatient drivers tooting their car horns to agitate for risk-averse drivers to 'get a move on' and drive out into Sherbrook Ave. I have noticed this phenomenon already occurring and it stands to worsen with this additional 39 residences driving many cars up and down Sherbrook Ave.

  4. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Kristin commented

    As a resident of JS & living approximately 500m from the proposed Tavern, I’m beyond excited for this development.

    The development will see a large increase of property value, which in turn brings more residents.

    We’re super excited to finally have a place to interact/socialise with other community members & finally make some new friends.

    We have some really hard working men & woman in Jordan Springs & a nice cold beverage with some locals after a hard days work, sounds perfect!

    Can’t wait to see this development push forward.

    Sincerely

    Two very happy JS residents

  5. In Southbank VIC on “Application for planning...” at 132-136 Kavanagh Street Southbank 3006:

    Allen Gravier commented

    This is a terrible proposal owing to the loss of valuable public land. This is the only recreation area in quite a large part of South Melbourne having several thousand apartments. This is currently an historic site with recreation for local families.
    Even the proposal is greedy with a tall building overshadowing a small gem.
    If Council wants rooms for community use, buy a factory, do not steal a valuable park. Further affordable housing in high rise residential buildings is a furphy. We have Affordable Housing in our Tower, but it is only cheaper NOT affordable.

  6. In Bexley North NSW on “Two storey dwelling and...” at 50 Oliver Street, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Noah commented

    Is there anywhere online where the street elevations/neighbour notifications can be viewed?

  7. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Robbi M commented

    I have lived around the corner from the proposed site for 21 years. Over the years, the whole area including nearby Lygon, Albert and Nicholson st. have become overdeveloped with high rise buildings causing impenetrable, noisy traffic and a million cyclists - it's unsafe, polluted. The congested to the point of being dangerous.

    What advantages will another Bunnings bring to that site?
    We don't need or want another Bunnings when there is one in Sydney road, Fairfield, Coburg and Preston! It's common sense, is it not?
    It would be quite strange for council to allow this I think. It would really reflect badly on them, their ability to make positive, sound decisions.
    Please don't let us down Moreland Council. Please listen to us - we, the people who live here, who object.
    Thank you
    Robbi

  8. In Willoughby NSW on “Adaptive re-use proposal of...” at 6 Artarmon Road Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Norma Leong commented

    I object to the location of the air-conditioning condenser on the south east corner of the Loft building due to noise and discharge impacts on the Ashdown units at Castlevale.

    Castlevale residents have requested that the condenser be relocated away from Ashdown to minimise the above mentioned impacts, but Mirvac had advised, subsequent to a meeting with us, that they did not agree; arguing that the visual impact would be greater in an alternate location.

    My main concern are the noise and discharge impacts. I do not accept the visual impact is greater due to the greater distance from Ashdown. I hope Council will support my opinion.

  9. In Burpengary East QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 542 Old Bay Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Cassandra Switzer commented

    The area needs to return to rural it is becoming dangerous. Council us upgrading the wildlife areas to attract more animals and then they are being killed with more traffic in the area. We need to protect this little pocket for future generations to enjoy.

  10. In Brunswick East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 495-497 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    IRENE AND ALAN BENNETTS commented

    A 10 storey building particularly in that location is much too high. This will be an absolute disaster in terms of parking and accessability. It will also creatre considerable lighting issues to all other surrounding properties and make us lose the unique character we have at this end of Lygon Street. There are height limits and we believe upon examination this 10 storey exceeds the height limits for this end of Lygon Street.

  11. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove and replace one (1)...” at 45-47 Roscoe Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    I have noticed that umbrella trees produce a fruit that feeds lorikeets and possibly other wildlife why remove it if it has a purpose?

  12. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of the land for trade...” at 145 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Bill Ramsay commented

    More than 350 objections to date - which are supposed to be in the public domain. Council has advised they won't share a link to the objections until, they've had a chance to read them, probably in a couple of weeks. So at best guess 3 weeks after the Notice of Application closed (18 Sept) ratepayers and residents may be granted access to documents in the public domain. I've asked the Planner whether the Applicant will have access during this period.

    Council also ignored its own policy on Virtual Moreland and the mandatory povidion of 3D models for development in Activity Centres. Despite correspondence with the CEO (delegated to Director - Future Cities) I've had no response on the issue.

  13. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of one double...” at 4 Edyvean Street, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Bridget Larkin commented

    No more tree removals, our once beautiful leafy streets are becoming cement jungles....massive bulk builds, enormous negative impact on neighbours, neighbourhoods and the streetscape, not to mention the environment.
    Enough is enough!

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Marrickville Council needs to take stock of all high developments approved (commenced and not commenced) including locations to consider the impact holistically and not one by one bu one. Can Council advise if the traffic impact studies include the traffic impact of already approved developments. In relation to traffic,the Census Reports (for Marrickville State Suburb) for 2006, 2011 and 2016 state there are an average of 2.5 people per household with an average of 1.2 cars per dwelling. There is no reason to see this statistic altering in future Census reports.
    Marrickville simply cannot sustain the level of high rise development that continues unabated. The architectural merit of a number of approved developments adds nothing to the beautification of the suburb. Are the developers adding to a fund to create much needed green space? In short, stop and look at how you want Marrickville to continue. I do not support this application.

  15. In Werribee VIC on “Two additional dwellings at...” at 22 Duke Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Dee commented

    We do need modern homes since we live in modern times Yes, BUT we DO NOT need congested suburbs. Why? There's plenty of land elsewhere. Go ahead and knock off and rebuild or RENOVATE to keep abreast of modern look. No need to cut down plots with gardens, squeeze in lots of small units, it doesn't make sense for a well-being perspective. Council please don't allow anymore units. It's unfair. Make money on new land, build as you wish there. WHY build on established suburbs and attract rentals where most tenants don't care about the house. Look we take pride in our homes, our neighborhood and amenities. Stop reducing the plots it takes away alot from the neighbourhood and introduces unwanted issues like congestion, loss of privacy, loss of backyard space essential for well being. Perfect example is right now. During covid times we have had to stay home, neighbours and I have enjoyed our back yard. The kids have somewhere to run around. We can do things outside and feel merry. Council, don't please don't introduce any more units. It's really unfair. Sure, renovate but don't subdivide

  16. In Box Hill NSW on “Section 4.55(1A)...” at 15 Edwards Road, Box Hill NSW 2765:

    James commented

    It makes you question the local council’s judgment with planning.
    The area’s infrastructure has been affected in the past 5-10 years; Lack of schools, hospitals, and most noticeably the roads.
    The main roads; Windsor Road, old Windsor Road, through to Kellyville, rouse hill, Bella vista, castle hill and even other precincts; seven hills & Blacktown. Have all been Heavily impacted by these developments, and I assume to the point that there’s no return or hope to restore. (And yes this is All noticeable for those who daily commute)
    What’s hard to believe and accept is that traffic is even chaotic on Saturday + Sunday’s mid morning, which is just ridiculous.

    I almost guarantee that my opinion (or others who feel the same, won’t make a difference In anything.) but I will say this overpopulation in the hills shire (box hill, Kellyville north) has made life more difficult and unpleasant to live in every month that goes by.

  17. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Ashwar Kumaraguru commented

    Im looking forward to having a pub in this suburb. Its such a thriving community and I believe having this would allow the community to have more options having a meal and drink close to home.

  18. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Manimala Balakumar commented

    I as a parent of young kids do not want a pub in our locality providing easy and provoking access to alcohol near residential area.
    We have a lot of vandalism happening to public parks and amenities at the moment. Adding a pub to this locality is going to worsen it.
    School is around. It will not be a right thing to have around the lakes where there is no protection for people walking. There is definitely going to be an increase in crime. I do not support the idea of pub in residential area near schools. Terrible planning.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 315-317 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin commented

    Downtown Marrickville is an intriguing mix of detached houses, decaying 3-4 story shops with tenancies above from the last century and late century disasters. The recent advent of low rise apartment blocks like this one, sympathetically set back from the roads brings a welcome mix of improved quality construction and more and better housing. Council should be careful to try and retain this mix while accepting that increased housing requirements mean that detached, single story housing will need to be lost to support them. The council should use these developments to seek more footpath space to allow for road users to safely traverse the Increased on pavement outdoor dining. Consideration should also be given to making this section of Illawarra road a shared zone, especially as foot traffic increases with the numbers of new residents, and attraction to amenity. In short, developments like this, while not ideal are a requirement, but the planners should ensure they use developments to improve amenity of the area as part of that approval.

  20. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Anonymous commented

    I oppose the proposed development of a public tavern in Jordan Springs.

    As at current, there are in excess of 15 public houses in Penrith and its neighbouring suburbs. The most proximate to Jordan Springs’ residents is around 3.5km from the centre of Jordan Springs. Accordingly, there is no necessity to the development being approved.

    Secondly, the proposed development does not provide for adequate parking which will negatively impact the availability of street parking. I support and adopt the submissions in respect of same of James Koerner above.

    Further, the proposed development will impact on nearby residents’ right to quiet enjoyment of their home. This is of particular concern noting the extended trading hours which have been proposed, and noting that the proposed development is in close proximity to a retirement village.

    Given the current crime statistics for the local area, I also submit that by approving the public tavern, residents would be placed at risk of disorderly conduct offences, which increase directly in correlation to proximity to public houses.

    My opposition to the Tavern however is squarely linked to the social context in which the Tavern is proposed to operate. Crime data for the area indicates that Jordan Springs sits in an area that has elevated in incidences of:

    1. Assault (currently increasing at a rate of over 20% year, and 42.2 per 100,000 population higher than the State average).
    2. Theft (21.4 per 100,000 population higher than the state average)
    3. Sexual Offences (6.6 per 100,000 population higher than the state average)
    4. Drug offences (28.3 per 100,000 population higher than the state average and currently increasing at a rate of 54.2%).

    There is already an established body of research that indicates that there is an association between the density of onsite premises and crime, and in those circumstances I would urge Council to act proactively and protectively by declining the development application.

  21. In Punchbowl NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Lancaster Avenue, Punchbowl NSW 2196:

    Peter commented

    Terrible design in a residential street. Nobody voted for this increase in density.

  22. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove 2 trees” at 24 Garland Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Amanda commented

    Naremburn and another application for tree removal. Will Willoughby City Council be replacing the trees ? It seems that pretty much every application for planning permission in Naremburn is for tree removal . At this rate there won’t be any trees left !

  23. In Narangba QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 197 Callaghan Road, Narangba QLD 4504:

    JN commented

    I am a new resident to the area in Alkina estate and have been emailing the council and developers trying to get an answer on when the intersection on new settlement road will be completed to enter Alkina Estate. It has only been a little over 12 months since I started driving on it but Callahans road has degraded significantly and is extremely dangerous for motorists and pedestrians.
    The developers advised me that the council is holding up the approval process for the intersection. I cannot get any answers from the local councillor. It makes sense for them to approve the intersection as soon as possible to avoid further damage to Callahan’s road as it will save them money having to keep repairing it.

  24. In Werribee VIC on “Two additional dwellings at...” at 22 Duke Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Jerry Fuschiani commented

    Looks like a reasonable proposal. A lot of complaints so far about it but it will make this hood nice and swanky. Lots of aging facades everywhere.

  25. In Berwick VIC on “Development of a Dwelling...” at 44 Peel Street, Berwick, VIC:

    Maria Scanlon commented

    I oppose the removal of tree 22. It is historic and enhances Olde Berwick. To remove would be so disappointing.

  26. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Lauren commented

    As a resident of Jordan Springs I would love the addition of a pub to our suburb.

  27. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Anil Shukla commented

    There has been so much development in Meadowbank area already. Another large development is being constructed in Melrose Park. No additional infrastructure or public green space has been added resulting in existing facilities over crowded and overused.

  28. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 2 Mawarra Street, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Joanne Evans commented

    This proposal would have to be illehal if it is accepted. Not only is it against the character of the area, it will be directly across tge rd from Palm Beach Primrary School and thus causing safety concerns for children and parents at pick up and drop off times. Due to lack of car spaces that developers never include in their plans , such as Sunland did for the ghetto Magnoli.
    In addition LOCALS DO NOT WANT ANY MORE HIGH RISE. Especially in a residential LOW RISE area such as Brooke Ave, 23rd Ave and Mawarra St. It is NOT sustainable!!
    And what are the proposed setbacks? And greenery ? What about sustainability and the environment? I see you will be bulldozing mature trees which are used by pollinating bats, Rosellas , Butcher birds, magpies, galahs. No thought given whatsoever.
    It seems the greedy corrupt GCCC never listen to their constituents.
    The 9 story apartments to be built on 23rd Ave where the current shops are shoukd NOT be higher than existing residential blocks in the same area- 3 stories!! WHY DONT YOU GOVT OFFICIALS LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE !!!

  29. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    Ashley commented

    Build the pub more local jobs from construction through to the pub opening. More jobs are needed especially now. Plus the pokies would be good to escape from domestic chores on a Sunday afternoon.

  30. In Jordan Springs NSW on “Construction of a Single...” at 3989 Lakeside Parade, Jordan Springs NSW 2747:

    On Board commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I am a resident of Jordan Springs who resides 600m from the proposed location of the pub and support the decision of a local tavern being proposed for the site on the corner of Lakeside and Jubilee.

    I also expect it will be made to adhere to strict guidelines to ensure resident safety and comfort to not provide extreme noise pollution to neighbouring dwellings, something I am sure developers and future management will maintain.

    As long as the Jordan Springs Tavern is respectful and mindful, I cannot see why anyone would be opposed to a local club which can support sports and social clubs, fundraising opportunities as well as community support and living. Can’t wait to see what comes of it!

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