Recent comments

  1. In Wollongong NSW on “Commercial - alterations...” at Australian Taxation Office, 10 Atchison Street, Wollongong NSW 2500:

    Robert Mc farlane commented

    Do u do taxation rollover from held by taxation to my new super account

  2. In Caulfield North VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North VIC 3161:

    Nalesch commented

    Please stop destroying our neighbourhood with crummy, cheap, generic, low quality high density development! Evgenyia’s comments about the effects of over density, lack of greenery and biodiversity leading to illness couldn’t be truer or more timely. Why people feel the need to destroy gorgeous historical homes rather than giving them the TLC they deserve and bringing them back to life is not understandable. Please CoGE stop allowing this!!!!!! Overcrowding is making us sick!

  3. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of an...” at 8 Montgomery Street, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Samantha commented

    How many more apartment blocks will be crammed into the area? The development is becoming ridiculous in what is supposed to be a leafy green area. Too many cars and not enough sunshine and trees

  4. In Elsternwick VIC on “Existing permit allows: A...” at 233-235 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    JulieG commented

    I absolutely agree with Lars T. Holden's comments.

    Who is responsible for approving these monstrosities in council? Someone must be getting something under the table, it is the only thing that makes sense..

  5. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Stage two of a subdivision...” at 127 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    I have no basic problem with the sub-division, but what are the Council implementing to cope with the additional vehicular traffic this and all increases to the current population of the area.

  6. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Stage one of a subdivision...” at 127 Aiken Road, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    I have no objections to the sub-division; but when the construction starts, what additional provision will the Council be implementing for the additional vehicular traffic these building will bring with their occupants.

  7. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of seven...” at 6 Gilda Court, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Rodney commented

    One of the reasons I bought in Rowville many years ago was for the low density housing. I put up with a lack of public transport and extra travel time to enjoy the space. I would have gone to the inner suburbs if I wanted to smell my neighbours breakfast or hear them fart with the compensation being able to jump on a train to go to work. Rowville’s roads and infrastructure can not support over development we have no public transport and that means the only option is cars. As it is Bergins road and Wellington roads are car parks.
    Complacency and being accomodating is how we got into this mess we are in today!

  8. In Rosemount QLD on “Extention to Relevant...” at Upper Rosemount Rd Rosemount:

    Deborah Moseley commented

    When I looked at the Town Plan during the community consultation I could see that steep land would be well protected by vegetation. Sadly this has not been adhered to and I have observed that more than 2000 trees have been cleared along Upper Rosemount Road and we have lost echidna, kangaroo, wallaby, bandicoots and more than 20 species of birds as a result.
    Upper Rosemount Road is the site of many burial caves and I know that the Kabbi Kabbi elders are saddened to see developments override the DATSIP plan where Cultural Heritage is registered. I am aware that there are burial caves in this area, and I would only support further development if trees are preserved, erosion is controlled and the Kabbi Kabbi Native Title Claimants are consulted.

  9. In Christies Beach SA on “Residential flat building...” at 19 Davis Avenue, Christies Beach SA 5165:

    Sandra Ringshaw commented

    Can you please advise is there provision for onsite car parking for residents and or visitor parking.

  10. In Dickson ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR MULTI UNIT...” at 44 Marsden Street, Dickson, ACT:

    Jane Goffman commented

    I am familiar with this project and support it, and the draft concept sketch plans were commendable. However Dickson Residents Group members and to the best of my knowledge all of my neighbours are currently overwhelmed by the COVID-19 state of emergency and will have zero capacity to download, review and examine the associated plans and documentation. North Canberra Community Council meetings have been cancelled so there is currently no effective face to face forum for sharing information or for the applicant to present and answer questions. I am therefore unable to discuss or coordinate a response to this proposal and am concerned that in the absence of meaningful feedback the process of assessment will proceed without any effective planning input or community buy-in, which may well mean that the approval is regarded as flying under the radar and the project, and possibly also its future tenants, is tainted. Under the circumstances I would recommend postponing public notification until such time as the COVID-19 state of emergency has passed and community groups are able to resume operating. Failing this, it may be necessary to classify special projects on the basis of their urgency for addressing COVID-19 and ensure that resources are allocated to contacting a wider circle of adjoining properties by mail with all the necessary information.

  11. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of seven...” at 6 Gilda Court, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Herb Mackay commented

    The land area is massive and should be able to accommodate the proposed number of dwellings, however I would be concerned with the potential number of additional vehicles (11 dwellings 2 vehicles) at least 22 vehicle movements in this court. Kids in the court would no longer be able to play safely.

  12. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of an...” at 8 Montgomery Street, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Peter commented

    7 storeys AND reduced carparking.... seriously?
    And the benefit to our community and culture of more chicken coops is.....more chickens ...how sad. But no doubt council will approve because they have forgotten their raison detre...a community based committee to coordinate the wishes of the community... instead they are now just the puppets of developers
    I'd love to know the ratio of approved (with minor alterations) Vs knocked back.

  13. In Caulfield North VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North VIC 3161:

    Evgeniya Uchitel commented

    The high density and pollution from it already have shown with China how dangerous it is od development and mutation of the deadly viruses and other diseases but people don't learn lessons until disaster already happens. The $$ is killing human population.

  14. In Elsternwick VIC on “Existing permit allows: A...” at 233-235 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    Lars T. Holden commented

    Here we have yet another travesty in respect of the concept of 'Elsternwick VILLAGE'. Approvals for such monstrosities simply illustrate the continuum of the 'Australian Ugliness' and the indifference of local councils, at least, so far as local amenity is concerned, especially when relatively small existing building footprints can be turned into hugely more lucrative, multiple rate payments on the same existing footprints. And adding insult to injury, there is what appears to be almost mandatory, the obligatory application by the developer for a reduction in parking requirements. This is an absolute joke that is being played on the huge percentage of rate-paying local Elsternwick residents whose general amenity, and that includes street parking, is being irrevocably diminished exponentially at an alarming rate. Wake up people!

  15. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of seven...” at 6 Gilda Court, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Robyn Ross commented

    Knox council is turning the area into another future Hong Kong. It's utterly disgraceful. There is no consideration given to the ratepayers and the state government, through VCAT, is no better. Daniel Andrews can retire to his farm whilst the rest of us have to contend with high density over populated chaos.

  16. In Caulfield North VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North VIC 3161:

    erika wils commented

    In total agreement with you Lisa and to add further another destruction of a beautiful solid period home appropriate for the location and replace it yet another flimsy high density development where there is no need for it.

  17. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 2A Gould Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jacinta Franich commented

    I am not happy with this application for 2a Gould St, North Bondi. It still uses the space in much the same way as the previous application even though it is one residence.

    As a long term resident of Gould St, I have noticed many developments around the area. Most have been in keeping with the style of the area, rather than this style of big, square homes which take up as much space as possible.

    I have two main concerns - parking availability and shadows across our house.

    The house currently has 2 garages on Murriverie Rd which could be used in any development, rather than take up valuable car parks on Gould St, particularly given those garages also have room for cars on the driveways - giving 4 possible car parks.

    The shadows across our house are significant. From memory I think this is worse than the previous development application.

    Finally I am very unhappy with the garage having a door coming off the side. THis seems unnecessary and could impact on noise levels and privacy for our house.

    I hope you will consider these implications in your decision.

  18. In Caulfield North VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North VIC 3161:

    Lisa Roberton commented

    Inappropriate development for this address, especially when there are many other high density developments meters away from this address.

  19. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of seven...” at 6 Gilda Court, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead commented

    You have got to be kidding me. High density townhouses in such a tiny court?... Don't be ridiculous.

    With 65% of households in Knox having 2-3 cars or more that could mean over 33 cars trying to find parking in that court if they don't include double garaging spots .

    Utter nonsense

  20. In Erskineville NSW on “Section 4.55 (2)...” at 642-644 King Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    C Grimes commented

    Midnight is a reasonable compromise for a venue immediately adjacent to a residential area. 2am is too late.

  21. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Hariklea Rossis commented

    There is enough pollution and waste which is spread all over Craigiburn, Mickleham and surrounding areas. It has become a dumping ground for everyone, one of the reasons being it has become so expensive to go to the waste collection facility in Hume, that people find it easier to just dump in our streets.

    It is beyond belief that the council would approve such a facility in the community, without consultation of its residents. Why am I hearing about this from a flyer which was put in my letterbox by other concerned residents. Why has the council not been forthcoming with this information. I find this appalling and totally unacceptable.

    I don't want mercury, nitrous and sulphuric oxides, dioxins and furants being spewed into the air for my children to breathe. Furthermore, I don't want the protected flaura and fauna to be disturbed either.

    I STRONGLY OBJECT to this project in our area, and ask that you have a really good think about what you will be doing to the residents of Craigiburn and Mickleham in particular.

  22. In Shoalhaven Heads NSW on “Urban Dwelling Additions -...” at 37 River Rd, Shoalhaven Heads, NSW:

    Lynda Gordon-Squire commented

    I am concerned by the number of trees being removed. Over the past 4 years that I have lived in the area, there has been an alarming number of trees removed from this small town, apparently with Council's approval.

  23. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Two lot subdivision...” at 30 Joan Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Ed Stanley commented

    I thought this area was already restricted to one house per EXISTING allotment under the current hills overlay. However several blocks have been totally cleared and huge houses built some including huge garages or granny flats come "Air BNB" leaving no space for the trees to keep the hills green. If we keep allowing wall to wall houses and subdivision to foster the love of money then we forfeit the Green Hills which can never be replaced. I say no subdivision for this allotment or in this lovely area.

  24. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Dwelling-Alteration - House...” at 14 Mcphee Close, Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Phillip Mark Dalton commented

    The site plan in this DA does not match the orientation of the existing dwelling. The site plan shows the extension being made towards the No' 12 boundary when the Elevation clearly shows the extension coming out of the gable end which faces The CuDeSac of McPhee Close. Is this extension going to encroach on the standard building setback required?
    Please advise.

  25. In Salamander Bay NSW on “S4.55 (1A) Amendment to...” at 256 Soldiers Point Rd, Salamander Bay 2317 NSW:

    André Dussart commented

    This will increase the profile of Salamander Village so that is a good thing.
    However it has to be assumed that onsite parking will be used by employees. Parking will continue to become a greater issue along Soldiers Point Road and council should plan ahead for this.

  26. In Chatswood NSW on “Change of hours of...” at 12 Ashley Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Happy bookworm commented

    There will be an added impact on that section of William Street opposite Lexus if the hours are lengthened.
    It is already an area in demand by both Subaru and Lexus (although neither will admit to that!). It makes parking extremely difficult even in the two hour zones in William Street. If this was more regularly policed there might be a better chance to find a casual spot.
    Those who live in their area of William St already suspect there is discussions between the parking police and the car yards to the advantage of the latter. Of course, that is a battle for another time but the premise still stands....no lengthened hours.

  27. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 2A Gould Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jacinta Franich commented

    I am not happy with this application for 2a Gould St, North Bondi. It still uses the space in much the same way as the previous application even though it is one residence.

    As a long term resident of Gould St, I have noticed many developments around the area. Most have been in keeping with the style of the area, rather than this style of big, square homes which take up as much space as possible.

    I have two main concerns - parking availability and shadows across our house.

    The house currently has 2 garages on Murriverie Rd which could be used in any development, rather than take up valuable car parks on Gould St, particularly given those garages also have room for cars on the driveways - giving 4 possible car parks.

    The shadows across our house are significant. From memory I think this is worse than the previous development application.

    Finally I am very unhappy with the garage having a door coming off the side. THis seems unnecessary and could impact on noise levels and privacy for our house.

    I hope you will consider these implications in your decision.

  28. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 280-282 Crown Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Frederik Alan-Smith commented

    I support this appleication as Riva rena is an asset to the neighbour hood and shouls actually be allowed longer trtading hours considering their location and contribution to the atmosphere to the neigbourhood

  29. In Collingwood Park QLD on “Earthworks and Clearing...” at 7002 Isabella Street Collingwood Park QLD 4301:

    Wendy Davidson commented

    WHY A PRE START MEETING WITH GOLD COAST COUNCIL OFFICER?

    TREE CLEARING NOTES: 1. CLEARING OPERATION MUST BE UNDER TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPROVED DRAWINGS, MANAGEMENT PLANS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 2. CLEARING OPERATIONS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO AREAS OF VEGETATION AND TREES APPROVED FOR REMOVED. 3. CLEARING OPERATIONS MUST IMPLEMENT DIRECTIONAL FELLING TECHNIQUES TO ENSURE THAT CLEARED VEGETATION DOES NOT DAMAGE
    AREA OF RETAINED VEGETATION. 4. CLEARING PERSONNEL WILL COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVES PROVIDED BY THE FAUNA SPOTTER - CATCHER. 5. TREE PROTECTION FENCING WILL BE MONITORED ON A DAILY BASIS. 6. ALL CLEARED VEGETATION IS TO BE CHIPPED AND MULCHED ON SITE, AND USED FOR LANDSCAPE WORKS, BATTER STABILISATION, EROSION
    CONTROL AND OTHER APPROVED CONSTRUCTION WORKS. 7. MULCH STOCKPILE AREAS TO BE RELOCATED IN AREAS APPROVED FOR VEGETATION CLEARING, AND EXTERNAL TO TREE PROTECTION
    ZONES FOR RETAINED VEGETATION. 8. NON-RECYCLABLE VEGETATION (INCLUDING ALL NON-NATIVE SPECIES) AND DEBRIS WILL REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT A COUNCIL WASTE FACILITY. 9. NON-NATIVE PLANT SPECIES ARE NOT BE INTRODUCED TO THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, WHETHER BY TOPSOIL, MULCH OR
    ANY OTHER MEANS. 10. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONAL WORKS: · IDENTIFY AND MARK THE EXTENT OF TREES TO BE RETAINED
    · INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND SIGNAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS. · CONDUCT PRE-START MEETING WITH CITY OF GOLD COAST COUNCIL OFFICER. · ALL CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL INVOLVED WITH CLEARING OPERATIONS TO BE INDUCTED AND AWARE OF ROLES,

  30. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Two lot subdivision...” at 30 Joan Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Steve Piefke commented

    There should be definitely no subdivision on this block or in this area for that matter or it will end up like Knoxfield and Scoresby. They used to be nice suburbs; they’re turning into over crowed slums now. Keep this area green. No subdivision

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