Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Bernard Hafey commented

    Only now just a few days before the end closure of comments are the documents able to be downloaded for review
    The shadowing diagram is wildly inaccurate if the think that wicks park will only have several metres of shade form a 14 storey tower this is grossly inaccurate , at 49 meter tall building will throw at least 50m of shadow or more in mid winter with the zenith of the sun, most of wicks park and the trees will be heavily shadowed from May though to July making it cold and unwelcoming , also the Tennis courts will be heavily shadowed.
    There is no justification for 14 storeys other than investor returns, large buildings as such will disrupt local community and impact local traffic, yes its close to the railway but tenants and the few owners will still have cars, look at Wolli Creek as an example of how over-development has destroyed any sense of community. if this was a smaller block below 8 storeys with more 3 bedroom apartments it would invite families as owner occupiers thats what any community values higher than transient rental apartments

  2. In Chatswood NSW on “Inspect 2 sydney Blue Gum...” at 33 Edgar Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    As neighbour to the rear of this property I support the sensitive pruning of these wonderful blue gums which are a treasured feature of our district. These tall blue gums have long been a significant feature of West Chatswood.

  3. In Rydalmere NSW on “Tree Application - 8 x tree...” at 3 Calder Road Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    harkirat commented

    please stop killing nature. My vote for party who stop killing nature.

  4. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree” at 8 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Liz Perram commented

    I am also concerned about the number of trees being removed and not replaced. Is it mandatory that these trees be replaced? From my experience once removed no new tree is ever re-planted in the majority of cases.

  5. In Forest Lodge NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 17 Creek Street Forest Lodge NSW 2037:

    Carole Knight commented

    I live at in Bridge road, and a couple of years ago, I made an application for improvements to my home that look suspiciously like these. They were refused, more than once. If this is passed, I will be talking to the ICAC. It is so very random how and why certain virtually identical improvements are passed or refused. It must be investigated.

  6. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 95 Bridge Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Luke Cullen commented

    Sadly this is yet another invasion of neighboring houses, we have lived next to this property for 31 years and enjoyed the advantages of our generous blocks. Last year the block on our northern side was developed making it necessary to spend $1000’s on drainage, landscaping and fencing. This new development will cause us more inconvenience with months of noise and then the loss of privacy when another dwelling is built. This council should listen to all the objections from ratepayers as we have spent considerable money to renovate our house in keeping with the streetscape of a 120 year old house. Let’s see what sort of atrocity the council will approve and what expenses we will incur for someone else’s development again.

  7. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Adele Marshall commented

    I am not happy about this proposal boarding house going up next door.

    It is not within the charter of the local area which are either one or two storey's only. There is nothing within this block that is 3 level's, so why should this be approved ?

    As the outside living area within this boarding house is next door to us, the noises will definitely be travelling towards us. So this will impact our quiet harmony that we are now living in. As transients they will not care how much noise they make day or night.

    I will also be sadden to see the big trees going on 1038 Anzac parade, with only shrubs taking their place. As I am not permitted to take down the 20foot trees that borders my courtyard so why are these people exempt ?

    I would like to know the following:-
    1 - Is anything in this building going to be soundproof ?
    2 - What social impact study has been done (as we already have housing commission on the otherside to us) which is also very noisy at night. The police are often called there because of this.
    3 - No trees should be removed, as you do not permit this for me
    4 - Will there be permitted restrictive time that people can be outside at night?

    Thank you

  8. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree” at 8 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Another concerned resident. commented

    I am concerned with not only the removal of trees, but also the lack of follow-up to ensure that planning directions to plant replacement trees are not followed through. For example Trade Link on Blaxland Rd Eastwood was told to plant replacement trees. This has not been done even though I have phoned the council and sent two emails. I was told by the council that they rely on neighbours reporting that trees have not been replaced!

  9. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 123 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Justin Byrne commented

    This is an absolutely amazing opportunity for Launceston to be placed on the hospitality map..
    Launceston desperately needs ongoing investment and new infastructure projects to both retain and attract back our states skilled young work force. Approve and give our beuatuful city the future it deserves.

  10. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove two (2) Alexander...” at 52A Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Deborah Prosser Baffsky commented

    Why is someone taking so many trees out?

  11. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove Camphor...” at 78 Victoria Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Nature commented

    In regards to trees and shrubs, these need to be kept (unless a risk to life) and in good condition, as trees & shrubs provide; life by providing oxygen, shade from sunlight, habitat to native wildlife, which causes pollination of flora & beautification of our environment.

  12. In Bulleen VIC on “Amendment to Planning...” at 116 Willow Bend Bulleen VIC 3105:

    Ann Bruce commented

    I thoroughly support this application. Manningham has an ageing population and people who wish to downsize and need single level living have nowhere to go in this city. Our Council seems obsessed with huge apartment blocks and tiny townhouses with 2-3 floors, no lift and parking for only 20% of the occupants judging by the on-street parking that follows the habitation of the townhouse.

  13. In Edwardstown SA on “Division of land into 2 new...” at 45 Conmurra Avenue Edwardstown, SA:

    Trevor Fechner commented

    Make sure the new dwelling has a double car garage able to take a Camry size car. The streets are being cut off by cars left at the curb overnight instead of being stored on the property

  14. In Flinders Chase SA on “Construction of tourism...” at Sandy Creek, Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, SA:

    Tim Kelly commented

    1. The clearance as identified is not plausible and is not consistent with requirements for fire preparedness and access for fire vehicles anywhere else in the state.

    2. The proposals in bushfire risk locations that could only be assessed as extreme with poor communications, poor access and no possibility for staff or occupants to reach safer places, could not be made safe even with a dramatic increase in fire asset zones, buffer zones and access roads.

    3. The proposal if approved could either:
    • Trigger a statewide challenge of development approval conditions which demand extensively greater clearance, vehicle access and turning points, additional asset [protection zones or.
    • Lead to the subsequent further clearance of much larger areas of native vegetation at Flinders Chase for achieving the minimum standard for fire vehicle access and turning, greater asset protection zones around the developments and all access roads, with additional bushfire buffer zone at Sandy Creek.

    4. AWC as the proponent , the land owner being Department of Environment and Water on behalf of South Australians and the authorising Native Vegetation Council, do not actually have the authority to confine the clearance to 1.715 hectares. Further clearance may occur for a variety of reasons and will be approved or exempt from approval as incidental to an approved development, including:
    • Fire access roads, bridges and turning points in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Ministers Code of Practice for undertaking Development in fire prone areas.
    • The Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee (made up of a range of government and non-government nominees) may require additional asset protection and/or a bushfire buffer zone (at Sandy Creek) and along access roads and/or burning for kilometres around both development sites, access tracks and existing roads.
    • There is no authority to confine prescription burning for ecological/environmental objectives only, and it is probable that within a short time, there will be additional burning in the area for reducing risks to life and property. This will further erode the wilderness value of the park.
    • At any time, the CFS can authorise large fuel reduction burns for non-environmental life and property protection needs at the sites and at the staging areas and near access roads and tracks, caused by these developments.

    5. To be consistent with the Park Management Plan and the Government People in Parks Strategy, these developments should be built in locations that are already cleared such as at camping grounds and existing settled infrastructure sites, away from unspoiled wilderness.

    To see more detail, the Planning Authority/SCAP is welcome to read my full submission on the proposed native vegetation clearance, provided to the Native Vegetation Council.
    Kind regards
    Tim Kelly

  15. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove two (2) Alexander...” at 52A Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Rita Sherwood commented

    I object to the removal of so many trees from this premises. We need trees for wildlife, shade etc. Could council please reject the removal of so many trees.

  16. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Proposed Construction of...” at 36 Mawby Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Jason Blyth commented

    I object on the basis of my understanding that the current residential zoning rules restrict sub-division and development to two plots only, in keeping with the character of the area.

  17. In Birchgrove NSW on “CC No: 18/2786-1 Internal...” at 39 Wharf Road Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Jo Smithg commented

    This is an iconic house in the area, as well as being heritage listed.

    It is requested that any changes take into account the heritage issues. Additionally, it would be reasonably expected the tree would be older and it may have a heritage value as well as being important to the maintenance of the local wildlife and birdlife.

    Thank you.

  18. In Birchgrove NSW on “Removal of private tree in...” at 87 Phillip Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    I support that a tree should only be removed if it is classified as dangerous

    As a general rule, any assessment should be done by an independent assessor, possibly employed by Council, not by a company which will financially benefit from the removal of the tree.

  19. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 147 Midson Road Epping NSW 2121:

    concerned resident commented

    I am extremely disappointed that the applicant wants to remove EVERY TREE on the block and on the nature strip. That is 11 trees on the block and 2 trees on the nature strip. The two trees on the neighbour's yard at the back should be preserved.
    Parramatta Council should retain mature street trees not remove them. There is already a driveway. Adapt the plans to use the existing driveway!
    I am concerned that the leafy nature of Epping is being destroyed and this DA does not support any trees on the block. It is highly inappropriate for the streetscape and for the local environment in Midson Road.

  20. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Lyudmila Chausova commented

    Please do not overpopulate Randwick/Maroubra area. This suburbs are so unique and extremely family orientated. Let's keep the same spirit for other generations.

  21. In McKinnon VIC on “A six storey building...” at 240-250 McKinnon Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Barry Lewis commented

    When will they take notice of the residents that the reduction in parking requirements are making our roads harder to use, let alone for the current residents to have visitors that have to park in the streets.
    I'm not opposed to progress but this over development of our suburbs is just too much - and the traffic congestion is/has become unbearable.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 147 Midson Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine commented

    I see a “ very big” problem with Parramatta Council removing trees from the nature strips which in fact are the property of council.Too many applications are happening DAILY seeking approval for tree to be removed with no given reason.Give us residents an explanatory descriptive reason as to why it has to be removed ?Parramatta you must not stop this easy access to removing our tree lined streets
    Too many have been murdered already and removed for “ urban ”these last five years without consultation of residents as well.
    Totally against the removal of this innocent nature strip tree and it all must stop. Please listen to us rate paying residents for a change.

  23. In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    William Jones commented

    Must Read Intersting Link!;-

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260014515_Inked_into_Crime_An_Examination_of_the_Causal_Relationship_between_Tattoos_and_Life-Course_Offending_among_Males_from_the_Cambridge_Study_in_Delinquent_Development

    Then form your own judgements if you think Melrose Park needs a Tattoo Parlour!

  24. In McKinnon VIC on “A six storey building...” at 240-250 McKinnon Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Barb commented

    Whenever is this going to stop - high rise developments taking over our streetscape & developers not willing to provide adequate car parking for the dwellings being built. I was under the impression after attending meetings regarding the "revamp of Bentleigh" 5 storeys was Glen Eira Council's preference ?
    How much more can our streets & services take and how much more consistent disruption do residents have to put up with ? Already apartment block residents in Bent & Nicholson Sts parking in the railway car park permanently as not appropriate car parking provided at complexes - hence commuters forced to park elsewhere - in the streets. . You build 2 & 3 bedders - provide the same in car parking.
    Don't want to even ask what the loading bay waiver is ?
    I'm not opposed to progress but this over development of our suburbs is just too much - and the traffic congestion is/has become unbearable

  25. In Goodwood SA on “Construct two storey...” at 5 Blackett Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Fran Smith wrote to local councillor Lachlan Clyne

    Heritage style cottages in this part of Goodwood are so much in demand, and people are willing to pay very high prices for them. Would it really not be possible to restore this cottage and add a new extension on the back, or into the roof cavity, and still not over-capitalize in this area? I believe would be a better solution for this site. Has the demolition already been approved?

    Delivered to local councillor Lachlan Clyne. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Christina B commented

    Delusional and inaccurate is describing Cobham Ave as a "very busy main road with rev heads speeding". I live on Andrew Street of which Cobham Ave comes off. I could have a nap on the street during the day and not get run over. It is Quiet. And Cobham even quieter. Only busy peak times by inconsiderate drivers trying to bypass Victoria Rd. In fact trying to get out of your driveway to drop your kids at school is met with tooting horns and annoyance. But that's another issue. All the people thinking its a great idea, approach the applicant and tell them to open up at - or next door - to your house. Melrose Park is a quiet suburb of very few streets and that's why people purchased here. Playing oztag at Meadowbank park once a week doesn't make you an expert on the area.

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “Other Das” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    JoeO commented

    Hi Veronica.
    There's a problem with Marrickville DA reporting in that the documents appear days after the DA is posted. Keep reminding them, like this, that they need to post a DA WITH all documents available at time of posting. If Leichardt can do it there's no reason for Marrickville to not do so as well.

  28. In Everard Park SA on “Erect shade sail over...” at Everard Park Reserve & Playground, Africaine Avenue, Everard park 5035:

    Brian Stacey wrote to local councillor Bob Schnell

    Fantastic!
    Something that I have been hoping for, for a long time!

    Delivered to local councillor Bob Schnell. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolish existing shop,...” at 599 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Bruce Kluk commented

    The problem is that the councils and the state government are not spending money on the infrastructure, namely roads. Old South Head Rd is a disgrace and needs to be urgently upgraded and widened to cope with the traffic volume for the people who live in this area. We have been ignore for too long.

  30. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at St Clares 41-51 Carrington Road Waverley NSW 2024:

    T. Craven commented

    St Clare's wish to demolish their own convent building which sits next to the heritage listed convent chapel to create a garden, and move the remaining religious order, with the excuse is it was built in 1964 and is not that old.
    However clearly there are very few examples of 1960s Roman Catholic convent buildings in Australia and particularly in Waverley and for that reason alone it has historical and cultural significance to the area which would have only become more important with the passage of time. The building was also consecrated by Cardinal Norman Gilroy, the first Australian-born Archbishop of Sydney and for that reason it also has historical significance.
    The current convent building would also have been ultimately paid for by hard earned donations from Catholic parishioners which would have included my forebears.
    It is disappointing that the School, the Archdiocese and the Catholic Church have made this ill-considered decision to demolish a significant part of the history and heritage of Waverley and the Diocese and waste the donated money of previous generations. The building could have been repurposed rather than demolished. It also seems hard to believe that the land will simply lie vacant as a garden.

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