Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 45 Orchard Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Bill Rankine commented

    Why are the trees being removed?
    There are no documents to view and no reason given for the tree removals.

  2. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    John commented

    Our property adjoins, i was not notified AFAIK of anything in May, 2020...

    Only here now because of 'new'??? DA...

    Gobsmacked.

  3. In Pearl Beach NSW on “Ree 1 - Livistona australis...” at 51 Crystal Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Stephen Parsons commented

    Euc. Botryoides is one of the signature trees of Pearl Beach. They should not be wantonly destroyed. The proposal should be rejected. The cumulative effect of such individual selfish actions is to greatly erode the amenity and environment of Pearl Beach.

  4. In Para Hills SA on “Three single storey dwelling” at 3 Cynthia Street , Para Hills SA 5096:

    Anthony Firtzpatrick commented

    I am absolutely against a 3 dwelling application for this site. This will result in semi permanent to permanent car parking on the street around the clock restricting ease of access for through traffic. Furthermore consider the people opposite this proposed development and the major inconvenience to them as they enter and leave their home. A 3 dwelling development will cause congestion, put any children at risk as traffice is delayed and the risk of people taking risks increase. Do not approve a 3 dwelling construction. Put a restriction on the buyers as to parking on the street. Public streets are for the public, not for people to buy cheaper housing and then use our street as a permanent car park.

  5. In Albany Creek QLD on “Operational Works -...” at Lot 15 Leitchs Road Brendale QLD 4500:

    Fraser Murcott commented

    That is No. 15 Leitchs Rd. Not lot 15 Leitchs Rd. Look at the plans.. You've done this before. They are at opposite ends of Leitchs Rd There is a river between them.

  6. In Rouse Hill NSW on “Occupation of Unit 1 for an...” at 1/591 Withers Road, Rouse Hill NSW 2155:

    James commented

    Hills shire, can more planning, thought, consideration and responsibility be put towards the infrastructure and roads prior to building & permitting all these developments?!

    The corner of Whithers + Annangrove road is now a nightmare in peak hour.

    And this is just the beginning! Now that you’ve permitted all this box hill housing development and that new corner industrial&retail that’s going to be point at this corner.

  7. In Wyong NSW on “Pylon Sign with LED Display” at Masonic Centre Wyong 365 Pacific Highway Wyong NSW 2259:

    Hi I’m a bit confused is that the old Masonic club but is there a funeral home? commented

    Hi I’m a bit confused is that the old Masonic club but is there a funeral home?

  8. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed development of...” at 16 Carrington Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Leigh Melling commented

    We have an issue with another dual occupancy build being allowed on carrington rd. There have been 4 groups built (with another already approved) along our short section of carrington rd in the last 3-4 years. It is directly across the road from a primary school and should be taken into consideration also.

  9. In Grange QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling...” at 58 Prince St Grange QLD 4051:

    Robert Wilson commented

    Lets be blunt a frank - none of the neighborhood wanted the land boundaries from no 71-73 Grange Rd to be turned sideways into Prince St. The very concept of a house at the back here is flawed but that is "Progress"!!!

    This imposter to the Prince St streetscape does not deserve the term quality development because its a budget house that is situated directly over a sewer line.

  10. In Bongaree QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 9 Dux Drive, Bongaree QLD 4507:

    Tania Simmons commented

    Please receive my objection to the proposed Gemlife MCU application.

    I urge Council to reject the proposed minor change and also to reject outright the proposed design concept to construct 28 new homes immediately adjacent to Dux Lake.

    My objection is based on the significant negative impacts this proposal will bring, compromising the values of the local environment and ecology, local amenity and community, and local economy.

    Dux Lake’s design purpose was to address local drainage and flood mitigation in an environmentally sensible way whilst having additional ecological and amenity value. Building the proposed 28 new dwellings with no buffer to the lake and it’s ecology is environmentally irresponsible and will no doubt also impact local drainage and flood management considerations.

    Neighbourhood amenity is focused around Dux Lake. The community can currently enjoy waterfront views and access parkland, walkways, picnic and sporting facilities, all with a feeling of openness and space. This will be restricted to the few and taken from the majority under this proposal.

    Bribie Lakes Estate and Gemlife developments were marketed highlighting the values of Dux Lake. In particular it’s amenity. Waterfront blocks sold at a premium reflecting this. This proposal completely compromises the values of the Lake not only for those properties immediately adjacent but to the whole suburb’s amenity. The waterfront esplanade quality of Bongaree Avenue will be lost. Clearly this will negatively impact local residential property values.

    This is an ill-conceived proposal from Gemlife. It will be bad for the local community, the local economy and the local environment. Council should reject this proposal outright.
    Regards
    Tania Simmons
    B. App. Sc. (Hons); Dip. T.
    Property Owner: Cod Crt, Bongaree

  11. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Concerned resident commented

    Somehow, once again it is not about respecting the environment, but the almighty dollar and how much a greedy developer can make.

    I strongly object to any "plantings" that are not of the natural variety.

    It is a fact that green space is not also of benefit to the natural environment but that it is also beneficial to the well being of humans.

  12. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michael Vanin commented

    Hi Steve, how are you, long time no speak. To be fully transparent I own a 2,000m2 block which can be subdivided and the last time I checked we live in a democracy so I hope no one is suggesting that I am not entitled to comment.

    It is true the 2,000m2 blocks surround the 4,000m2 blocks which suggests a blending of the amenity however even the planning authorities at the time recognized that circumstances change and that's why the covenant restricting subdivision of the 2,000m2 blocks expired. Furthermore there are many examples of even 600m2 blocks in Rowville being subdivided and the construction of 2 storey town houses on major roads and intersections. This development is consistent with those development plot ratios.

    As long as the proposed development addresses the local amenity and infrastructure which I think it does I support it

  13. In Pearl Beach NSW on “New Two Storey Dwelling &...” at 1 Agate Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    L. Lans commented

    The actual limit for a holiday house is 4 bedrooms anything over that will need approval from council. I would think that all houses with five Or more bedrooms In Pearl Beach have not been approved to be used as a holiday house

  14. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 6 Penna Court, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    J. Fletcher commented

    Hello,
    I grew up on this street as a young kid moved out at 15,
    I know this wouldn’t mean much to anyone in the Knox council but please please don’t do any works in penna court, or any of the houses/ streets around it’s such a beautiful place I’d always dream for my kids to run around there like I used to and have things the same, houses still up not town houses.
    Developing the area around Knox isn’t really going to attract many people in living around the area all the people I know from there have moved away but what I ask is you keep them houses around for family’s like mine who need it, keep Ferntree gully what it is! Please!

  15. In Eltham VIC on “Removal of two trees” at Main Road, Eltham, VIC:

    Lucy Rose commented

    Please tell me why they are being removed
    Will other trees be planted??

  16. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 174B Sherbrook Road Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Rhonda Aloisio commented

    This DA was rejected by the LPP for mulitple reasons. The amended DA does not address the major concerns of the residents. The location is unsuitable for this number of dwellings. The Local Area Plan target of the Baldwin Precinct was to achieve approx. 92 dwellings. The approved DA's in Baldwin Ave for 57 townhouses which leaves 35 dwellings "required" to fulfil the quota deemed suitable. This site sits beside the border of a red fire zone and Sherbrook Rd is the only exit for all the residents, the light industrial area,1,500 high school students, 3 primary schools and numerous day care centres. The site will also mean that the current drainage to Cowan Creek will have to deal with run off water changing from 5 dwellings with extensive grounds that absorb water to 3 expanses of roofs that cover almost the entire site. The neighbours will no longer have access to sunlight for the greater part of the day during winter. The inhabitants will have to deal with exiting the driveway in a blind spot as it is just beyond the crest of a hill. For these reasons, I believe that this DA should not be approved.

  17. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    John Boyle commented

    "Planting" refers to a living organism of the kind exemplified by trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses, typically growing in a permanent site, absorbing water and inorganic substances through its roots, and synthesizing nutrients in its leaves by photosynthesis using the green pigment chlorophyll, and this living organism provides us with oxygen that is essential to all life on earth, and increase levels of positivity — seeing greenery and nature help us feel more relaxed and calm, which in turn benefits all of us throughout the day

  18. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Wendy Spinks commented

    Wendy Spinks
    Yes there are too many boarding houses in Kingswood, currently 24 and still being built. There would be 3 to 4 development application for boarding houses in Second Avenue under assessment. Submission/comments should be sent the Penrith Council, They do not consider any comments posted on Planning Alerts.
    Penrith City Council PO Box 60, Penrith NSW 2751 email council@penrith.city

  19. In Pearl Beach NSW on “New Two Storey Dwelling &...” at 1 Agate Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Stephen Parsons commented

    The proposed dwelling includes 6 bedrooms. Therefore it does not comply with the ruling on short term rentals/B&B for which the limit is 5. This raises the issue that I have noted already viz: how many kitchens. Is the proposal designed to be a short term rental by spreading the dwelling across 2 blocks?

  20. In Asquith NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 172 Sherbrook Road Asquith NSW 2077:

    Liz Paul commented

    I would like to request an extension on the deadline for local residents to comment on to this new DA for 172-174B Sherbrook for the CONSTRUCTION OF TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 42 TERRACES, which is currently set to 2nd July 2020.

    As an objector to the original DA 1338/2016 [DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF 3 BUILDINGS COMPRISED OF A TOTAL OF 10 TOWNHOUSES AND 46 MULTI-DWELLING HOUSING WITH BASEMENT CAR PARKING] I received notice in a letter dated 3 June from Council advising me that the Developer had submitted amended plans and would be challenging Council's refusal of planning permission in the Land & Environment Court. This letter states the closing date for objections to the amended plans for DA/1338/2016 as 25th June 2020. However, this letter made no mention of the new DA/365/2020 for the same site.

    I am not sure how Council now seeks to actively notify local residents of Development Applications in their suburb which would directly affect them - this information used to be in The Hornsby Advocate, but this is no longer freely circulated on a regular basis in the local community. I only found out about the new DA/365/2020 when typing in the Street Address of the site to the DA Tracker on the HSC Website to see the updated plans for DA 1338/2016!

    As a local resident who has already engaged with council regarding proposed developments on this parcel of land, and taking in to account the seemingly limited public notification to local residents of the new DA/365/2020, please can you extend the notice period on this DA by a minimum of a 10 working days?

    Thank you in advance for your consideration.

  21. In Edithvale VIC on “Construct one double-storey...” at 54 Fraser Avenue, Edithvale, VIC:

    Clare McPhee commented

    Council advocates that the two storey component of the development be placed at the front of the block.
    Therefore say NO to two storey in the backyard.

  22. In West Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 166 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    Karen Evans commented

    Good afternoon

    Since 166 Warwick street started operating the following things have happened:
    1. Overwhelming cars in Warwick street from Harrington street right up the length of the street with visitors ( to the point when I have a permit I cannot park in Warwick street
    2. The people that frequent 166 Warwick Street stand in the middle of the street directing traffic to stop so their visitors can park in the street or park on their car park.
    ( this creates more disruption to the flow of traffic in a busy street and I am now aware they have not any right to do this given they do not wear high vision clothing or anything to show they are traffic management so hopeful your staff will speak to them about this )
    3. There are so may other areas around Hobart that Could have this large volume of visitors without the impact that currently becomes a nightmare to me given I do not have off street parking to my home and have lived there for over twenty years and haven't had this much problem in twenty years so hopefully you will understand why i have sent this message

  23. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Vanessa commented

    Here we go again.
    This is a way over development for this street. These are meant for the buffer zone to the 1 acre blocks behind it.
    Previous developments of 4 dwellings have been knocked back so why should this be ok?
    Having this many dwellings crammed in is just going to sprawl the massive amount of cars etc on to the street. Leave these developments for closer to the shops and facilities. And I too think it inappropriate for a real estate agent/developer/or persons of interest to comment that this is ok.

  24. In Eltham VIC on “Removal of 9 trees” at Coleman Crescent, Eltham, VIC:

    James S commented

    Can a clear reason please be provided for such a large number of trees being removed? Otherwise I highly disagree with this being approved.

  25. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Donna Coombes commented

    Clustering this type of housing is turning our suburb, Kingswood into a future Redfern. We already have 4 in Manning Street and several more in Second Avenue with more to come. Parking and traffic is already turning our streets into chaos at times.
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  26. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Mike Patton commented

    Seriously - how many boarding houses does the Penrith city area need? There's already an over supply and adding even more is just a cash grab from the developers.

    Say NO!

  27. In Collingwood VIC on “Change of use & liquor licence” at 4 Peel St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    jacqueline rayner commented

    Hello, could you please explain this proposal more clearly? I live very close by.

  28. In Aspendale Gardens VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 12-14 Kerr Crescent, Aspendale Gardens, VIC:

    Shellie Kavanagh commented

    I would like some more information with regards this amendment to application as there is no information on the council website

  29. In Glen Iris VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 1536-1542 Malvern Road, Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Adrienne Chau commented

    The problem as I see it is the car access for this property. Malvern Road has huge traffic volumes including trams and Scott Street is very narrow and due the number of flats without parking facilities there are plenty of cars parked all day. From my perspective as I overlook the property is the noise factor and the number of overlooking apartments facing my apartment my only view facing North and my only sun. At the moment the only noise is church on a Sunday and it has not been a problem. I am concerned with the probability of comings and goings day and night noise from the number of people and my privacy which I now have being totally destroyed.

  30. In Pearl Beach NSW on “New Two Storey Dwelling &...” at 1 Agate Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Stephen Parsons commented

    The plan to take out several trees is too open-ended. Most of the trees on the block are Melaleuca Quinquinerva which are Koala Feed Trees. All of the trees carry numbers. It is imperative that the exact trees planned to be taken out are identified and agreed with Council. There is no arborist report. There has to be and this should identify the trees planned to be removed.

    The block is very much water prone. Denuding it of trees will exacerbate this. This and the adjacent block are most likely historical water courses before the dune cut was effected and the whole of Agate still becomes extremely slushy when it rains. Under these conditions installing an in-ground pool is bound to meet with hydrological problems. The water table is so high that it is possible that pressure will raise the pool (if fibreglass) or crack it (if it is concrete). The plan for a pool also increases the number of trees under threat of removal. The outlet from the pool will also add to chemical release. There is actually nowhere for the water to flow from this block, unless storm water drains have been installed under adjacent blocks. I do not think this is the case. So where will chemical or salt overspill from the pool go? In short the plan to install a pool is environmentally questionable and adverse.

    The proposed building does not comply with building height limits In one place the proposed height is indicated at 9.917m in Clause 4.6, well above the 8.5m limit just recently conceded to by our Progress Association in a submission to Council. Moreover in the Site Calculations, the height is listed as 10.3m, almost 2m above the limit. The arguments for height variation are far from convincing.

    At the moment, Agate Av is a quiet by-street where children can play. In my view the proposed structure is ugly by reason of its sheer mass. The amenity and ambience of Agate Av is set to be destroyed by this one development.

    No floor plan has been made available. Are there 2 kitchens in one building? It is not clear what is planned at this level of detail.

This week