Recent comments

  1. In Carnegie VIC on “Existing permit allows:...” at 11 Oakleigh Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Miriam Baxt commented

    If there is no real health issue with the tree/s they must stay.

  2. In Rhodes NSW on “Demolition of existing site...” at 16 Walker Street, Rhodes NSW 2138:

    Frank commented

    I strongly object any boarding house in Rhodes. It probably is the best option for the developer of the land for return of investment option, but it is the worst for the community around. There is no benefit for the would be resident of the boarding house as well in terms of supporting facilities etc. There is no intention for the developer to help these people at all.

  3. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Paul Grimshaw commented

    I would like to lodge my objection due to the size of the establishment and the already horrendous traffic at certain times of day in the area.

  4. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 53 Beaumont Street Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Lachlan from Rose Bay commented

    To all those writing in regarding traffic and parking, I suggest you get a Traffic Consultant to help you measure traffic flow and get some data on the actual situation. I live nearby (but in WMC) and, if the Development Application meets spec, there is little you can do except to get them to build sufficient parking for Residents AND Visitors (don't under-estimate how many of these there will be).

    The other thing that you will need to make sure is that the Developer has Parking Zones and you have an agreement in place as part of the Consent as to how they will minimise impact. I live next a site run by the Builder with the collapsed sites (A Current Affair in December) and unless they are breaking their Consent or think they will get fined, they do whatever they want. Otherwise the street will become impassable at times.

  5. In Toowong QLD on “Carry Out Building Work -...” at 45 Aston St Toowong QLD 4066:

    Elizabeth Robinson commented

    Yes we are all disgusted at the way this HERITAGE home has been distorted by the school.
    The school has done this with the FULL support of the council.
    This council is DEVELOP at any cost . For example look what they have done to the whole suburb of Toowong.

  6. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “Removal of regulated tree -...” at 9 Katherine Court, Flagstaff Hill SA 5159:

    Alex Prichard commented

    Please detail why this tree needs to be removed.
    If the tree is healthy, please also detail whether or not any native animals currently use this tree for food or shelter and what kind of audit has been done to ascertain the impact of the tree's removal on native wildlife.
    Also - please detail the effect the tree's removal will have on urban heat temperature as obviously the loss of shade will be significant.
    I understand that in some parts of Australia, E. Nicolli's conservation status is 'Vulnerable'. This should also be considered in addressing the application.

    I look forward to Council's reponse.

  7. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Use 92sqm of public footway...” at 191-195 Oxford Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Stephan Gyory commented

    100% support this. Sydney needs more to this and TSQ is in dire need of life.
    Would also love for sound restrictions to be relaxed on weekends seeing as how it is a major traffic intersection.

    I realise that Agent of Change means that Fredas is the responsible party here but it would be geat if the OXST planning review would address the issue of some residents complainting about music on a main traffic thoroughfare as well as Syney's last Entertainment precinct.

    Would also be great if the Police were a last resort in the case of sound disturbances.

  8. In Truganina VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 285 Palmers Road Truganina VIC 3029:

    Swati Parmar commented

    Car Parking reduction should not be allow as whole complete project as ones reduction allows the new purchase will have very limited use of their space for certain use for future buyers , car parking reduction should only be allow ones completed development title on particular one title. and when they propose business specify use purpose and plan.
    otherwise we only see development without any good use for general public . and also make it hard for council in determination of specific use in future. intention of this development only can bee see profit making from selling and not considering proper use of land

  9. In Toowong QLD on “Carry Out Building Work -...” at 45 Aston St Toowong QLD 4066:

    John Drewe commented

    I am very interested in progress of development for my old home(20yrs) at 25 Union St. It is a Heritage building. Are you allowed to inform me of progress? I am very sad to see the state of my old home since I sold it to BBC 20 odd yrs ago.

  10. In Corrimal NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 404 Princes Highway, Corrimal NSW 2518:

    Liz Mendygral commented

    In regard to this application I wish to lodge an objection on the grounds of continued over development in the Corrimal area in particular, and the northern suburbs in General.

    The cummulative effect of all these developments means gridlock in the streets and in particular the highway and Memorial Drive. Parking is already impossible in the streets around the corrimal shopping centre and more thought needs to be put into how the council is going to manage the traffic problems that are growing day by day!!!!!

  11. In Kellyville NSW on “Subdivision creating six...” at 139 Barry Road, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    James commented

    Council needs to be mindful that the Roads (Windsor, old Windsor, showground etc) are getting heavily impacted by these developments, not only in North Kellyville, but box hill aswell.

    We need better infrastructure or these mass overdevelopment curbed

  12. In Rhodes NSW on “Demolition of existing site...” at 16 Walker Street, Rhodes NSW 2138:

    Jessica commented

    I object to the building of a boarding house in Rhodes, it is out of keeping with the development of the apartments. There are no social services in the neighbourhood and depending on the residents of the boarding house may cause more crime from those in transition from prison, as well as abuse from the mentally unstable in transition from in-patient facilities.

  13. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Sonya Elciboga commented

    I object to the development of 5 floors; 3 is the acceptable standard in this area. The continued excessive manipulation of the codes and standard of height with development in this area is derogatory to the culture and identity that makes this suburb unique. I hope that maintaining the 3 level standard will preserve the quality of living for residents that have dedicated years to this beautiful part of the world.

  14. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 53 Beaumont Street Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Christina Maatouk commented

    This is absolutely ridiculous, surely this is a joke of an application by Pertama Development Pty Ltd!!!!???

    Not only is the tiny, narrow street of Beaumont Street severely lacking any parking options, and the gym down the road has made it even harder, but the street serves as the main thoroughfare to all adjoining streets leading up Dover Heights and down to Rose Bay shops.

    There is always congestion in the street, and cars are playing Mexican standoff as to who goes first, and who squeezes into tiny gaps if available. On multiple occasions our car has been sideswiped with no letter left to compensate for such. This is not to mention the extreme safety hazard at the entry up Beaumont Street - from the main road of Old South Head Road, where cars are left trying to turn into Beaumont Street and are still positioned on Old South Head road with heavy traffic, including buses beeping at them to move. How much more congestion do you want to add to an already congested and narrow street that is over populated as it currently stands.

    Additionally, the visual eyesore is a serious consideration - the purported development does not match the current streetscape or the density of homes in the street. We have also not been provided of an environmental impact statement of this proposed development. Nonetheless, the application is completely incongruent with the environmental and visual landscape of Beaumont Street, and Rose Bay. This is a suburban area, not a highly dense oversupply of apartments - go to Sydney CBD/ Barangaroo if you want that.

    You cannot be seriously considering increasing the already narrow and congested street, to serve the luxury purposes of the target market, so they have their harbour views, while the rest of the residents suffer with congestion, car accidents, visual eyesore, environmental depredation and tensions over parking.

    Get a grip Pertama Development, and the current owners of 53, 55 and 57 - stop being so shortsighted!!

  15. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Umbrella...” at 114 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Liane Rossler commented

    I agree with the above comments that it is incomprehensible to be removing healthy beneficial trees which contribute so much and are so valuable in so many ways.

    Established trees are especially valuable, and Waverley is known to be a suburb that would benefit from more trees rather than less.

    More trees are a goal and priority of local, state and global governments, and established healthy trees in Waverley should be retained and encouraged.

  16. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Daniel Brod commented

    It simple! If it’s outside of the city guidelines for planing and development, then it shouldn’t be allowed!!

  17. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Jack Lowenstein commented

    This is far too high and will be clearly in breach of both height and plot density rules. Let’s not allow this dangerous precedent. Also let us not reward an outrageous opening bid with a “compromise” to an already excessive four levels. Three is the rule.

  18. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Concerned Resident commented

    NO NO NO !!!
    Enough of oversized developments!
    Enough of out of character developments!
    Enough of more traffic!
    Enough of less parking spots!
    Enough of fee / contribution waivers!
    Enough of favouring developers over residents!
    The council is meant to act in residents best interests, not its own! This is our community, our home, our backyard ... listen to us!
    ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!

  19. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 43 Woolooware Road Woolooware NSW 2230:

    Diana Fox commented

    I find this development completely absurd. I find it distressing and disturbing that a large number of trees are being destroyed, there could be possibly thirteen people or more living in this complex with only three one car garages provided provided and no off street parking at all. There is not even room to plant trees to replace those that have been destroyed or even a decent garden.
    The over development of this beautiful little suburb of Woolooware must be stopped, it is complete madness. There is no parking left in the streets anymore. What happens when these people inevitably have a second car, teenage children with cars, to say nothing of their visitors.
    Where do the children play, so sad that backyards are being taken away from growing children.
    Please, please stop this greedy insanity.
    We have tolerated the Woolooware Bay development which is still ongoing, the development on the corner of Denman Ave and Woolooware Rd north, many, many duplexes in the area but honestly this is just too much.
    Please stop, this must stop.

  20. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 13 Edward Street, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    David commented

    Anything that removes run down buildings is welcome in my neighbourhood.

    Resident since 2014

  21. In Morayfield QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 26 Rangeview Road, Morayfield QLD 4506:

    David Tscheinig commented

    As you must becoming aware now, most residents in and around Rangeview Road have lived in the area for around 20 years. You also must be asking the question “why” when most people re-locate a lot more often than this!
    The reason is that we chose to live in a more rural area, where it is ( was ) nice and quiet, we could have our little hobby farms with animals. We live amongst slots of wild life harmoniously, kids can ride their bikes around without the fear of getting hit by a speeding motorist etc.
    You are taking away this lifestyle from all that chose to live here and allowing developers to basically destroy this area which we love.
    If you really take a close look at JDobson road and see that that whole area has been totally cleared and atm looks baron, and soon will be filled with lots of houses on small blocks, McLaughlan roads newest sub division where it has also been totally cleared with 16 house blocks going in. Can you really say it has improved the area??? We do not want wider busy roads, street lighting, heaps more traffic etc!!!
    I understand, from a trusted source, that the developments along Oakey Flat Road ( and new off streets ) has not only Brough a lot more traffic BUT ALSO THE CRIME RATE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY!
    The above is alone a major road so I can understand better the development, but please leave our peaceful pocket that we all moved here for and love, alone.

  22. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Umbrella...” at 114 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    J. Huber commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    When the state has lost such a huge number of animals and trees in the bushfires, removing large trees in NSW is anachronistic. We are at an ecological tipping point following the bushfires.

    Many bird species have sought refuge in the city while the burnt forests recover.. They have lost their normal nesting sites and food.

    The biodiversity hotspot of the state was the Shoalhaven, which is a huge pregion south of Sydney extending to the far south coast. 80% of the Shoalhaven was burnt out including 90% of its national parks.

    The Shoalhaven has lost 72% of its terrestrial animals and the bird loss has not yet been calculated. The percentage loss in other parts of the state from the 2019/2020 fires, and from the drought, is not available, but is massive.

    Our surviving wildlife is in extremis and we need to include this in consideration of any tree removal.

    And apart from the fauna loss, there is a huge percentage of tree loss, which means there are less trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so the speed of the onset of climate change is increased. If we don't want our planet to turn into a hard brown rock like our sister planet Venus, which was a blue and green planet before it overheated, then we must start being serious in all that we do to slow climate change.

    Any trees, especially mature ones, should be retained now unless they pose a danger.

  23. In Malvern East VIC on “Application for Four Lot...” at 40 Tennyson Street, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Marlon Dubs commented

    This application has been made after a significant amount of building and development has already occurred. Is the building and development permitted before the subdivision permit has been granted?

  24. In Portarlington VIC on “Development of a Multi...” at 49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington, VIC:

    helen commented

    I object to the proposed development of 49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington on the grounds that it is an unnecessary development and is contrary to COG height and housing plans that have already been developed by the community.

    The supporters will argue that it will provide jobs and provide additional housing . Developments such as this are built by builders from outside of Portarlington and not by locals.
    In planning for housing , the community was considering “ affordable” housing and not just housing for the wealthy (provided for in the development of 72 - 74 Newcombe Street) .

    This site once was a garden and I would like to see this returned.

    Portarlington is a seaside town that does not want to be overdeveloped like other nearby Victorian coastal towns .

  25. In Banksia NSW on “371 Princes Highway &...” at 371 Princes Highway, Banksia NSW 2216:

    Claire commented

    Council must consider the cumulative impact of traffic from the recent DAs on Hattersley St as these together will all have a big impact on the flow of south bound traffic on the highway from an increased number of cars turning right into Klimpton St. If these developments are all permitted then Council must make the highway south-bound from Tabrett St to Bestic St a no stopping zone to prevent serious delays to south bound traffic on the Princes Highway. Also the traffic report appears deficient in not considering the impact of traffic on Taylor Ave, which is a blind turn given parking outside the retail businesses there. The traffic report also underestimates the need for childcare parking for drop-off/collection and staff - nothing also that Banksia and Rockdale must be nearing saturation for childcare given all the new operators opened and approved to open over the past 12+ months.

    This application from the developer is poorly considered and weakly argued, particularly in relation to traffic impact.

  26. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove one (1) Umbrella...” at 114 Birrell Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Kate Watson commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    When the state has lost such a huge number of animals and trees in the bushfires, removing large trees in NSW is anachronistic. We are at an ecological tipping point following the bushfires.

    Many bird species have sought refuge in the city while the burnt forests recover.. They have lost their normal nesting sites and food.

    The biodiversity hotspot of the state was the Shoalhaven, which is a huge pregion south of Sydney extending to the far south coast. 80% of the Shoalhaven was burnt out including 90% of its national parks.

    The Shoalhaven has lost 72% of its terrestrial animals and the bird loss has not yet been calculated. The percentage loss in other parts of the state from the 2019/2020 fires, and from the drought, is not available, but is massive.

    Our surviving wildlife is in extremis and we need to include this in consideration of any tree removal.

    And apart from the fauna loss, there is a huge percentage of tree loss, which means there are less trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so the speed of the onset of climate change is increased. If we don't want our planet to turn into a hard brown rock like our sister planet Venus, which was a blue and green planet before it overheated, then we must start being serious in all that we do to slow climate change.

    Any trees, especially mature ones, should be retained now unless they pose a danger.

    Thank you

  27. In Umina Beach NSW on “Dwelling Additions and...” at 25 Sydney Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Mel commented

    Hello,
    It would be so wonderful if you could keep the tree there. As you know it will help keep your house cooler in the hot summer months and assists in keeping the wider area a little cooler as well.
    Not sure what your renovations look like - but hoping the tree can stay. Maybe a little pruning would help it fit in with your plans.
    Best of luck with renovations!

  28. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Mary commented

    Would be a great idea to get on and off m1.

  29. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Sonya Elciboga commented

    I object to the development of 5 floors; 3 is the acceptable standard in this area. The continued excessive manipulation of the codes and standard of height with development in this area is derogatory to the culture and identity that makes this suburb unique. I hope that maintaining the 3 level standard will preserve the quality of living for residents that have dedicated years to this beautiful part of the world.

  30. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 53 Beaumont Street Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Barry White commented

    For a very narrow street, that I have witnessed 6 car incidents of damage within the past 3 months and numinous speeding issues and arguments between drivers trying to pass each other in the street. It doesn't seem a great idea to take 3 properties and turn them into 11 .. which regardless of underground parking will add to weight of traffic already using the street... Has anyone thought about guests visiting or residents of the property having two cars etc.. and needing spaces on the street.

    The road was not designed for increasing traffic especially given that its used as a thoroughfare for dover heights traffic and the fact that the council approved a gym on the corner, with no parking adding to further frustration for the residents looking to park outside or near their own homes.

    Please come and monitor a normal Monday morning when the schools are back with issue of backed up traffic, regular disputes between drivers of who will let who through or when people are trying to turn into Old South Head Road etc.. and then you may be able to see how the road was built to house only so many dwellings.. not increase this to potentially 22 additional residents and also additional cars for them beyond their single space in the garage, as well as their guests.

    So as a resident of the road of Beaumont Street, I will be objecting to this development

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