Recent comments

  1. In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 1 tree.” at 55 Godfrey Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Local Willoughby commented

    Lou is that you?

  2. In Balmain NSW on “OC - Number -...” at 35 Birchgrove Road Balmain NSW 2041:

    Ash commented

    Absolutely agree Michael. If a tree needs felling, the DA should be rejected!😡

  3. In Glenelg North SA on “Demolition of all existing...” at 19 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Bronwyn Watt & Darren Matthew commented

    I feel that the application here is a little misleading. It states two storey townhouses. When in fact it is a SEVEN STOREY (46 apartments), with 10 two storey townhouses in Todd street.
    This is a FIVE storey zone, so why is this development even being consider at SEVEN? I rang SCAP and they advised that it had to be at least six storeys. Seems the zoning is a joke not taken seriously.
    There is another 40 unit development (within 20 metres of this proposal) that was approved last December. This adjacent development has limited parking which will inevitably mean more residents cars being parked in the vicinity. We hope that you consider that Tod Street is very narrow and would find it difficult to accommodate more traffic and/or off-street parking. The area is already very congested. An extremely high-density living area, yet there isn’t enough thought going into the outcome of these high-rise developments.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “Alterations additions &...” at 72 Beauchamp Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    No information to review.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “Other Das” at 176 Lord Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Petra Jones commented

    No records displayed.

  6. In Petersham NSW on “Boarding House” at 47 Audley Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Petra Jones commented

    No information to review

  7. In Eltham North VIC on “Extensions to a dwelling a...” at 8 Highland Court, Eltham North, VIC:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Should not be removing any protected vegetation

  8. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and Construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    Kevin Coleman commented

    Just how many "boarding houses" can Kogarah cope with? The sad reality would seem to be that these are in reality sub-standard undersized tiny bed sitters with no parking & well below the normally required floor space.

  9. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    M Hughes commented

    I do not believe that another large back packers any where in our neighbourhood is appropriate. This is a residential area and the 'business district' should not be allowed to spread in Bondi in this way. In addition the building is too tall and out of character.
    This development should not go ahead.

  10. In Armadale VIC on “Multi-unit residential...” at 34 Armadale Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Craig Guthrie commented

    Very sad to Se this demolished today. I can't believe such a stately historic home could be approved for demolition? What a loss.

  11. In Balmain NSW on “OC - Number -...” at 35 Birchgrove Road Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael Johnson commented

    Hi
    More Balmain trees to be felled. Why?
    And if there is some reason (dead, dying, damage to existing - not new - structure) then is there a requirement in this DA that suitable replacement tree/s are planted and nurtured to a mature state?
    If not, why?
    We Balmain peninsular residents are fed up with the number of trees being cut down. This is an election issue.
    Thank you
    Michael
    Balmain

  12. In Berwick VIC on “Two Lot Subdivision” at 25 Scanlan Street, Berwick, VIC:

    Resident of Old Berwick commented

    This subdivision proposal within Olde Berwick should be closely looked at. The size of subdivision is incredibly small on a densely treed block and in a zone of desirable mature trees. It this subdivision was allowed to proceed it would inevitably encroach on the trees existing and thriving. In order to build two homes on this block the builder would need to develop into drip lines and arable land would be minimised.

    This sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to proceed. I urge council to review it carefully.

  13. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Louise commented

    I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
    - Noise and disturbance from the current backpacker lodge is bad enough. There are backpackers always partying, screaming outside as it is.
    - I constantly have backpackers using our garage door as a urinal, and see backpackers doing drugs at all hours outside on the street on the corner of Lamrock Ave and Consett Ave, yesterday being the most recent occurance!
    - There is rubbish on the corner of Lamrock and Consett Ave that never gets cleaned up.

    This development would be a disaster for the community and surrounding residents.

  14. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construct a 3 storey...” at 6 Bevis Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Tammy Kricheli commented

    Dear Neighbours,
    VCAT Reference NO. P840/2019 6-8 Bevis st.

    We would like to thank the Glen Eira City Council for voting against granting the planning permit and retaining the neighbourhood character for the overdevelopment of 6 - 8 Bevis Street.

    Please be aware that the last day for acknowledging your participation in VCAT is the 20th June. You can express your interest in the below listed forms:
    • You may participate and have allocated time to present your case in hearings (for information on how to object in VCAT please email to overdevelopment2019@gmial.com ),
    • You may also choose to be represented by one of the participant neighbours in the hearings (we are representing many of the neighbours who cannot attend the hearings).

    Please email your name, address and your concerns & constructive solutions about the development it the attached form (overdevelopment, adverse effect on the neighbourhood characters, overshadowing, overlooking, parking & traffic, impact on the existing and new residents’ amenities and any other relevant issues to your residence).

    Thank you
    Neighbours of Bevis St.


    OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR A PLANNING PERMIT
    Planning and Environment Act 1987

    WHO IS OBJECTING?
    Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    Contact Number:

    WHAT APPLICATION DO YOU OBJECT TO?
    VCAT Reference No.: P840/2019
    Property Address: 6-8 Bevis Street, Bentleigh East, VIC, 3165.
    Proposal: Construct a 3 storey building comprising up to 22 apartments and a basement car park

    NOTE: I would be interested in attending a consultation meeting.

    Yes / No represent us in VCAT for: Practice day hearing, Compulsory conference and Final hearing

    REASONS FOR YOUR OBJECTION AND HOW YOU WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE GRANTING OF A PLANNING PERMIT

    1.

  15. In Kogarah NSW on “Demolition and Construction...” at 248 Railway Parade, Kogarah, NSW:

    suzanne o'connor commented

    Oh no .... not another Boarding House ! That makes six just in the immediate Kogarah Centre area . A new way to make developers more money .
    Seven floors... how many residents ? How much supervision of tenants? Who will live there ?
    The developers are the only people to be advantaged by these buildings .
    He will save a great deal of money by not having to pay the ‘ Open Space Contribution ‘
    To Council . Council loses.
    Saving on GST payable to Federal Government. Federal government loses.
    Saving on Land Tax payable to NSW state Government. NSW Government loses .
    The people who live there will be in tiny boxes . Future SLUMS.
    And who gains ? The developers/Owners .
    Not the community.

  16. In Mylor SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 36 Wilson Road, Mylor SA 5153:

    David Wait commented

    Dear Adelaide Council.
    What will be the intended final use of this outbuilding ?
    The smaller outbuilding was to be used as a B&B and we were assured that the bigger structure would never be used as a place of residence. The kitchen and bathroom in the bigger structure were ordered to be demolished by the council to ensure that the structure would not be able to be used as a place of residence.

    Has this council directive on the bigger building been changed ?

    We would appreciate your reply to my question.

  17. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Fumiko commented

    I’m definitely oppose this kind of development
    It’s not suits the area . We are getting better directions last few years but this kind of development will backwards this situation.
    It shouldn’t be go ahead.

  18. In Reid ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 72 Coranderrk Street, Reid, ACT:

    Rod Robertson commented

    Dear Sir/ Madam,

    In all correspondence to the legislature and the community, heritage areas are exempt from the Territory Plan amendments. As set out in the Taskforce information sheet on Variation 34323 that variation permits, but does not require, dual occupancy development on remediated blocks larger than 700 square metres sold through the Scheme in the RZ1 zone, except where they are in a heritage area.

  19. In Leichhardt NSW on “Proposed 3 storey mixed use...” at 18 Norton Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Ita Forum commented

    Dear IWC, how come there are no documents attached to this application?

    Local residents want to know what development has been requested for approval.

    Is Norton St the preferred location for a boarding house? What benefit does it bring to improving the street?

  20. In Bonville NSW on “Subdivision- 2 Lots...” at 28 Rutland Street Bonville NSW 2450:

    Jo Coaldrake commented

    I do not agree with a dual occupancy on this land. It does not fit in with the rest of the development. The other blocks are mostly the same size and are single dwelling. The driveway is narrow and serves lot 14 as well. It is not suitable for access to dual occupancy as well. There is no other dual occupancy in Rutland St that I am aware of, nor the surrounding area. Being near the bushland it is aimed at enjoying the environment. Dual occupancy on this block should not be approved.

  21. In Bulli NSW on “Use of food and drink...” at 238 Princes Highway, Bulli NSW 2516:

    Paul Defries commented

    Has the extended hours been granted to the cafe, Stokes Cafe?

  22. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    D Heazlett commented

    I strongly object to the development for the following reasons:
    It is not in keeping with the tone and culture of the community in the surrounding residential streets. There is already a large backpackers in the steet and others nearby all which bring noise late at night in to the streets. The neighbourhood needs to be a comfortable place to live.
    Infrastructure is also insufficient for the added influx of population.
    Rubbish is already a problem in the street that the development will only exacerbate.

  23. In Castlecrag NSW on “Proposed office/studio and...” at 18 The Parapet Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    David Baer commented

    As a neighbor (20 the parapet we have not been notified by council or owners of 18 the parapet.

    Planning notice was hidden and not in view during daylight hours.

    Proposed development encroaches my property

  24. In Eaglemont VIC on “Development of extension to...” at 101A The Eyrie, Eaglemont, VIC:

    Russell Hodgson commented

    If this planning permit is approved, could the council please guarantee 3 things:
    1. Please confirm that emergency services including the MFB can access the property via the right of way, as there does not appear to be access from the front of the property in case of fire.
    2. Please confirm that the owners are responsible for the restoration of any damages incurred to the right of way during construction (the right of way is narrow with fences from adjacent properties at risk)
    3. Please confirm that Melbourne Water has approved the significant excavations required within 1-2 metres of the main sewer pipe/easement running next to the fenceline and along the right of way, including approving construction equipment travelling over the sewer on the right of way.

  25. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Dual Occupancy (detached)” at 68 Newmans Road, Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Robert Buckley commented

    I would like to see the plans for this project, I have concerns regarding the height of the building and the position of the driveway entering the property, at this time I cannot see any plans for the proposed development

  26. In Glenelg North SA on “46 apartment building and...” at 19-20 Adelphi Terrace Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Susan You g commented

    We use Kings bridge daily as we go to Glenelg North Beach everyday. The congestion on the bridge at peak times morning, and from 3.30pm and week ends is bad enough but to put a huge apartment building at the end of it is just silly. Who is responsible for rubber stamping these stupid decisions? And we don’t even live nearby!

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of two detached...” at 15 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mary Robinson commented

    Infrastructure isn’t considered when approving developments. It’s already overcrowded in Bondi with no solution on public transport or roads.

  28. In Glenhaven NSW on “Place of Worship” at 1 Larapinta Place, Glenhaven:

    Joseph commented

    This is over a year. Where is the approval process at?

  29. In Bondi NSW on “Remove one (1) Eucalyptus...” at 5 Flood Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    I oppose this application for tree removal.
    Eucalypts are native to the area and provide food and shelter for dwindling wildlife. The application does not give a reason for the removal , or the age / size of the tree.
    So many of these applications are for the removal of trees, please preserve what we have.

  30. In Research VIC on “Removal of two (2) trees” at 6 Fleming Court, Research VIC 3095:

    Lucy commented

    Why are they being removed?
    Are they Dead?
    Is something being built?
    I disagree with any removal of live trees as each one that comes down lessens the green wedge

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