Recent comments

  1. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Gina Lathlean commented

    I do not support this application - I also live very close to this property and have issues with the hours of operation, the increase in noise and parking which is already an issue for residents. The reason we moved to this area was because it was quiet and had cafes that were open in the morning and closed in the evening. We have access to restaurants on Frenchmans Road, further up Clovelly Road, Randwick as well as Bondi. We do not have need of another restaurant bringing extra noise, increasing parking problems and changing the culture and nature of this quiet and quaint community.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacki Wesson commented

    I completely oppose this development. It is another bad example of planning for our local community. We have just witnessed the demolition of two worthy historical houses at Cnr Illawarra and church sts, and will have a sign to remind us of the strong community from which we have come. Cynical but true. This is another example, although slightly better as the facade is maintained.

    There is little consideration for the traffic congestion including Woolworths delivery trucks on the opposite side of the intersection and while warren road is considered a minor road, it functions more like a major thoroughfare and I have seen many an accident at the intersection. In addition, there are too few car parking spaces for both residents and visitors, and one of the nine spaces is deemed a "small car space" so effectively reducing the number to 8. (Well below the council requirement for 12.) Further, it appears that of the two accessible carparks, one is for the commercial space and one is for the residential space. This is not acceptable in a community where access should be universal.

    The ratio of studios apartments does not comply w regulations and does not provide a suitable level of accommodation for families. It is not a sustainable approach to community.

    The building height is also over the council regulations.

    I am really sick of council approving things - or state planning that are bad developments just because this is on the rail corridor. There is no forethought about how this structure will contribute to the built environment that most of us will still be experiencing in even so few as 10 years time.

  3. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Becky Senior commented

    I do not agree to this development. As a resident very close to this property it will affect me considerably.

    I will not be able to park with ease. Currently I am struggling to find parking already when returning home from work between 5pm - 7pm, if this bistro is to go ahead those times will be peak times and I will struggle further. I assume the council will also put time limits on parking which will hinder me and other residents further. Parking is becoming an issue in this area and if the council approves this development thats potentially a further 55 people who will need to park!

    As mentioned above I am very close to this building and the noise will be a further impact. Especially due to the bus stop right outside by building, more people will be getting the bus and therefore creating more noise on the street later at night in a quiet quaint neighbourhood.

    Kind Regards

  4. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Kate Gosford commented

    I do not support this application for the following reasons:
    1. Proposed hours of operation.
    This neighbourhood is chiefly a residential area with a few shops, not a commercial area. It is remarkably quiet at night when local businesses have closed. The population of this suburb is chiefly comprised of families and older people and there are currently no businesses open late at night. It's ok if you're young to want a restaurant close by but when you are older or have a young family, peace and quiet at night is a priority. Why can't restaurants and bars be confined to commercial strips such as Frenchman's road?
    2. Noise.
    The proposed extended hours of operation, until 11pm, will have a dramatic influence on the current night-time character of the neighbourhood. It will introduce a situation hitherto not experienced by residents--noise associated with the comings and goings of patrons and staff of a licensed premises, until almost midnight. The peace and quiet that the residents currently enjoy will be severely disturbed.
    3. Traffic and parking problems.
    Morning traffic and parking problems due to existing cafes is already at peak intensity. Early morning patrons often park illegally and drive unsafely, at a time when children are around. The DA states that there is ample parking in the area, but if you live in Earl and Castle streets you know this is not necessarily the case. It is already difficult for residents to find parking during cafe opening hours, and this situation would be extended to night-time if this development was permitted, introducing up to 100 new customers and staff to the area would exacerbate the situation.
    4. Service of alcohol.
    The proposed venue is to be licensed, with a bar. Will the bar operate only as part of food service, or independently as just a bar for the service of alcohol only? This would make a dramatic change to the character and activity in the area, and could affect the sense of security that residents currently enjoy.
    5. Future implications.
    There is concern approval of this DA will set a precedent for the introduction of more restaurants to the area thus contributing further to problems of parking and noise. What the area needs is a more diverse mix of businesses, not just cafes and restaurants.
    Finally, I urge the council to reject this application. I am by no means opposed to the vibrant cafe scene that currently exists, in fact I enjoy it and patronise it. However, I feel the introduction of another cafe with such long opening hours will impact negatively on the peace and quiet and amenity that the residents currently enjoy.

  5. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Miscellaneous Projects-New...” at 15 - 17 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Anne Boyden commented

    I would like to register my objection to the erection of an Optus mobile phone tower in Beach Street. I cannot understand how a mobile phone tower can be given permission to be erected at the back of the Woolgoolga RSL without any community consultation.

    The Woolgoolga Public School is quite close by and there are 200 residents in the Sunset Caravan Park plus the residents in Newman Street, Boundary St, Beach St, Turon Parade and Bultitude St.

    Why do we need to have this in the village when there is plenty of open land on the west side of the Solitary lslands Way. I would appeal to you the CHCC to reconsider this plan.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Wesson commented

    Re DA201600221
    392 Illawarra Road MARRICKVILLE NSW 2204

    I have previously submitted feedback directly to council, and request that the following modified material be considered in conjunction with what I have already submitted.
    1) Commercial shop frontages on Warren Road. Shop frontages appear to be a requirement in all current apartment developments in the area. By complying developers manage to tick a box which reflects favourable on their application, however, the intent of this requirement is not matched by consequences for the community.
    We do not need more unoccupied shopfronts in this area. No commercial spaces in the RSL site development are occupied after a couple of years, which renders such developments even more detached from the communities in which they are situated. Long term pre-negotiated tenancies should be a prerequisite for all new shop fronts in this strip.
    2) There is already too much traffic on Warren and Illawarra roads. Provision of parking spaces will attract prospective owners who wish to have cars, further congesting this area. This section of Warren Road is already a hazardous pinch point, and any increase in traffic will lead to gridlock at peak hours, as well as additional hazards to pedestrians from frustrated motorists running the adjacent red light.
    3) Alternately, if insufficient parking spaces are incorporated into the premises, new residents with cars will have to seek parking in the already overcrowded neighbouring streets. Existing residents already have to find parking in neighbouring streets due to frequent crowding.
    4) Points 2 and 3 may appear inconsistent – should there be more or less parking in the development? The only workable option is for new residents to exclusively utilise the variety of public transport options available in the area. Unfortunately experience in the area shows that most residents will insist of owning cars regardless of their practicality – on this basis the scale of the development should be reduced so that population density is increased more evenly across the region.
    5) Why do we have local environment plans if they are disregarded once DAs are lodged? The LEP was developed through community consultation, and reflects community priorities and values. Any development on this site should comply with the height restrictions previously agreed through this democratic process.
    6) There are too many studio apartments. Families with children are being priced out of the new housing market in the area – the penthouse accommodation is beyond the means of most local families with two or three children, and would be crowded for a family of more than two children anyway (apart from very young children). The Marrickville Development Control Plan (2011) Residential Flat Buildings, General Controls (Section 4.2.3 of the DCP) states that 45% of apartments should be 3 bedrooms or larger. In the existing DA only 16% have three or more bedrooms. The preponderance of studio apartments (63% in the overall DA, rather than 20% required in the Marrickville Development Control Plan) on the lower floors will prevent social diversity and interaction with the community and environment nearby. A mix of 2 to 4 bedroom apartments should be a requirement on all levels.
    7) If a DA is approved there needs to be a restriction and/or due publicity on any subsequent variations requested by the developer. In other instances (DAs for other developments) height increases and increases in the proportion of smaller apartments have been subsequently approved with minimal assessment and community input. The same level of scrutiny should be applied to such revisions, which invariably increase developer profit rather than community benefit.

  7. In Eudlo QLD on “Telecommunications Facility...” at 419 Mooloolah Rd, Eudlo, QLD:

    Kevin Carroll commented

    Yes please, sooner the better :)

  8. In Vaucluse NSW on “Demolition of dwellings ,...” at 4 Isabel Avenue Vaucluse NSW 2030:

    Andrea Matis commented

    Both Diamond Bay Rd and Isabel Ave struggle to provide sufficient parking for current residents. This development will further negatively impact parking and traffic conditions for current residents. Some measure of responsibility should be given to the current Diamond Bay community living in the area is already overcrowded, allowing additional developments who are not providing the additional resources required to allieviate current problems is simply irresponsible.

  9. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Engineering Construction...” at 40 Merindah Road, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Lorraine Grindrod wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    Please let me be very clear on this.....Council also did not approve of this Development and had no say in the final decision to go ahead with this Development but just wonder why the EPA has approved it.

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Byrne. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    Lyndel Perez commented

    With the demise of large dwellings in favour of high density accommodation throughout Boroondara, it could be expected that the site in question would seek a form of re-development.

    However for this particular site, the notion of a 3 storey building with 10 dwellings must surely have been submitted as a gambit claim for a less offensive development.

    This site fronts a single-lane, bluestone thoroughfare (Park Lane) of which even the garbage trucks cannot access. This tiny laneway cannot possibly support a 10 apartment building.

    Increased traffic flow in an already constricted area, a massive building and loss of neighbourhood character should all be of concern to the planning committee as it is to local residents.

    Thank you.

  11. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 2-32 Glen Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Bernards Becks commented

    should the proposed site now display a development notification for public awareness and or comment?
    found nothing visible on 29/05.

  12. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Ross commented

    I think it should remain as an eating house. Look at Chinta further down Scarborough Beach Road in North Perth for what can happen when someone with vision and passion get's hold of one of these old servo sites - It's making a much more useful contribution to the community than a car wash would. Don't change the use, get creative and do something that the community will value and thank you for!

  13. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    Judith Scurfield, Kew commented

    The existing house on this site is quite large, and could probably cope with an additional dwelling built on the site of the double carport, but to add 10 dwellings to the site would be ludicrous. Park Lane is a narrow one-way lane, adjoining Kellett Reserve and its playground, so there is no way it could cope with the additional traffic generated by 10 apartments, in an area already crowded with school and residential traffic.

  14. In Gladesville NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 15 Jordan St, Gladesville 13 Jordan St, Gladesville, NSW Australia:

    Sandra Clarke commented

    With so much high-rise construction in progress and planned for Gladesville, I certainly hope that Council will require these buildings to comply to the letter with the LEP and DCP, and not allow non-compliance as a trade-off for some minimal patch of green space or other such so-called "benefit" that would benefit no-one except maybe the people residing in the ne towers, as has happened elsewhere in Gladesville. I would also hope that traffic is well controlled during demolition & construction with minimal impact on the neighbourhood, unlike the disastrous situation that the Wharf Rd developments have created.

  15. In Tempe NSW on “To use the premises as a 24...” at 598 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    As a resident of Park Road I object to this application. With the added traffic that IKEA has caused and the added traffic that the approved Bunnings and Good Guys facilities will bring it doesn't make sense to add even more traffic to the area and putting more traffic on Park Road. With the changes made to traffic flow in lymerston, Samuel and Terry streets Park Rd has become a congested thoroughfare to avoid traffic lights and jams. It is unfair and dangerous to residents of Park Road.

  16. In Loganholme QLD on “1 Lot into 3 Lots and...” at 3 Illawong Street Loganholme QLD 4129:

    Bryan Mansfield commented

    A very strong concern is the natural flow of storm water which runs through our blocks. As this block has already been modified we already have a problem with water getting away after a lot of rain.The block has already been built up [by previous owner] and in some places is 1 metre above mine . What gaurrantee can I be given that this problem will not get even worse . As I understand the natural flow of water can not be interrupted . We are on the side of a hill and below road level their is a natural coarseway where the storm water runs

  17. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe0 commented

    Hi Tai
    You have every right to object to whatever you choose, as I have a right to comment your objection breaches no DA controls. I hated the proliferation of group places a few years ago but I had no grounds to expect change. In time most have left because there was no market for it.
    Your most recent comment goes beyond this specific DA by mentioning drunkeness, which convenience stores do not add to and the lockout laws, which had not created convenience store demands. but in response, I'm not against any community consultation, which is why I'm active here, to write to local authorities mainly as this isn't really a discussion forum. You mention consensus, but I should be allowed to disagree with you. A community voice does not guarantee consensus, indeed, in my experience, when a consultation is opened there are many opinions, sometimes conflicting, which is what a community is good at.
    There is a difference between your right to say your piece as much as mine to highlight that your stated issue with a DA breaches no planning controls.
    By all means, say your piece and I will listen quietly to hear what you say. But that's not to be confused with me having the same opinion nor whether your arguments have merit. A convenience store created before the lockout laws isn't "cashing in", nor is one that closes before 3am. Your complaints are connected to the lockout laws, which I completely agree with you on, and am happy to add my voice to yours on a balanced and well rounded nightlife, but the majority of your complaints are not connected to convenience stores as far as I can see.

  18. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Andrew Watts commented

    I support this application for the restaurant/cafe. I think that it will improve the street in the area and improve the character of the area. I believe that it will enhance the 'village' feel already contributed to by the cafes in the immediate proximity.
    Hopefully it will help to attract other businesses that also enhance this strip. Currently, there are numerous under-utilised shop fronts that are ugly and detract from the look along this strip of shops/cafes.

  19. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    Katrina Dunn commented

    Hi
    Can management please review this proposal of having 10 apartments and reject the proposal. Park lane is a very SMALL NARROW LANE opposite a children playground . It can not afford extra traffics. It will be chaos for local residents and increase saftey risks to children playing at the park.

    Three story apartments will disturb neighbour privacy and overshadowing issue.

    Basically, it is impossible to have extra traffic as currently only one car can drive down the lane the time.

    Please do not put apartments ahead of the livelihood of the local residents and children saftey .

    Your sincerely,
    Katryna Dunn

  20. In Pyrmont NSW on “Change of use to a cafe (14...” at 308 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Margaret Kelly commented

    Just wanting to know what development is planned for the experiment street side of the three shops ,including the fig tree.
    The electrical cables draped over the street seem two close to unit balconies & terraces.
    Regards

  21. In Strathpine QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Melling Street, Strathpine QLD 4500:

    Jo- anne Lawson commented

    As a resident of Brennan Pde, I do have concerns about plans for six units due to the proximity of the Child Care Centre and heavy traffic and parking both morning and night in this vicinity. Parking for a unit complex needs to be adequate so that there is not a negative street parking impact.

  22. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Philippa commented

    I believe this location should be leased as the current Eating House and Shop and NOT change to Carwash (Unlisted Use) and Associated Car Parking. Here are my reasons.

    1. The location is diagonally opposite a school and directly opposite a day care centre and allowing the change to carwash would increase traffic down Scarborough beach road when it is already fairly clogged during peak hours.

    2. There are already several car wash businesses on Charles street, approximately 1km from the proposed Scarborough Beach Road site.

    3. I feel that a carwash on this site would not fit in with the vibrancy and flair of what the council has promoted the Scarborough Beach Road "strip" of Mount Hawthorn to be.

    4. A carwash is an anti-social business, again not fitting with the vibrancy of the area.

  23. In Tempe NSW on “To use the premises as a 24...” at 598 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Scott Williams commented

    I object to this application.

    The roads around Sydenham and Tempe are already at capacity with excessive traffic and a marked increase in heavy vehicles.

    I am a resident of Park Road Sydenham, and the intersections at Park Road / Princes Hwy / Talbot Street are already very busy particularly with traffic backed up from the Railway Road lights, and heavy vehicles turning from Princes Hwy into Talbot Street.

    This application will only contribute to further congestion making exiting Park Road onto the Princes Hwy increasingly difficult and dangerous.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Liquor licence transfer by...” at 323 King St, Newtown, NSW:

    zahn pithers commented

    This venue is innapropriate and encourages binge drinking. The many crowds of drunk people coming into and out of the venue is alarming. This venue is seedy and needs to be monitored more closely. Patrons leaving this venue are noisy and often damage cars and property.

  25. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Engineering Construction...” at 40 Merindah Road, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Lorraine Grindrod wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    This building project should not have been approved .... so wrong in so many ways and I know a lot of locals fought to defend the residents' rights in this area including myself ....wonder how much money passed hands with the developer ... just saying !!! Greed knows no bounds ...

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Byrne. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Tai Lee commented

    Kye Sanderson & Joe O, I have to disagree with you both. Anyone in the community where they live is completely entitled to object to new developments and new businesses in their community. That's why it's called a community, and if a consensus is reached that a business or development is not in keeping with what the community wants, then it should be denied. I'm sure there are many similar examples e.g. small towns who didn't want fast food chains like McDonalds in their town, and they were stopped before they could even open their doors. We don't have to let any and every business open wherever they like purely because of free market principles. Without any community consultation and consensus, then we're not really a community at all and we have no say in anything outside the walls of our own private homes. I for one have witnessed a change in Newtown in recent years that I attribute to the lock out laws in Kings Cross. We're getting a lot more late night drunken visitors to our suburb, and correspondingly more violence and disturbance to local residents. A proliferation of franchised late night bright light convenience stores appears to me to be an attempt to cash in on and encourage this changing demographic of Newtown, and I for one would rather see new businesses and regulation attempt to reverse this trend, instead of accelerating it. In the last year my wife and I have both felt less safe and less at home than ever before (been here 7 years) walking down King Street on a Friday or Saturday night, having to ignore random comments from drunken patrons crawling to their next venue. It's starting to feel like Darlinghurst or Kings Cross. My kids also don't appreciate being woken up at 3AM by drunks hanging around outside our front door, or running down our street screaming at each other, which again has never happened in our previously extremely quiet out of the way street, which is not even that close to King Street, but is still obviously absorbing some overflow as more late night visitors try to find parking on our streets. Now all that obviously can't be attributed to a single convenience store application, but clearly residents are noticing changes and the growing number of these types of business do appear to be linked. It might be unlucky that this application is late to the party, but if there are already several convenience stores within very close proximity, we should absolutely be considering how much patronage Newtown convenience stores are expecting as late as midnight, 7 days a week. If you want another convenience store, great. Voice your opinion in support of the application. But don't try and tell others who object that they have no right to object to what is happening in their community.

  27. In Cotswold Hills QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350:

    Michelle Hoffman wrote to local councillor Geoff McDonald

    Cannot believe that yet again we, the residents of Cotswold Hills, and specifically Morris Court, are being let down by some nameless person who has no idea of the impact that their decision making has on us. We all chose to live in the Cotswold Hills area because of the lifestyle that it provided. This lifestyle is now slowly but surely being taken away from us. Morris Court is a cul-de-sac at the moment, and the residents of this street really want it to stay that way. Why hasn't anyone in council got the ability to make a stand on this and stand up for ratepayers and not just let developers from out of town come in and do what ever they want???????

    Delivered to local councillor Geoff McDonald. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe O commented

    I'm with Kye on this.
    Objecting to the use of a shop unit as a convenience store is unfounded.
    There are no planning controls this application infringes.
    There is no evidence of a "proliferation" of convenience stores, no evidence of any negative impact of them, and there are fewer fast food outlets here than there were 9 years ago. There are many restaurants and shops, which has been the case for a very long time in King Street, and which have formed its' character for many years.
    If there were noise, light, odour or other issues that impact on local community enjoyment of the area, I would understand, but someone complying with local planning controls to operate a business of their choice in an area reserved for business has every right to do so.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Demolition of all buildings...” at 46A O'Connell Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Margaret Kesteven commented

    1. There is an old house on the site, which, it is believed by the locals, is the house occupied by a farm hand or shepherd, in the days before the city had spread to what is now Newtown. It would be a shame if the house were demolished before the heritage value is assessed.
    2. The property has no street frontage (access is by a pedestrian walkway - previously, the dunny lane); it would be interesting to know how the materials of the existing house, when it is demolished, will be removed.
    3. The proposal describes a house which completely covers the site, two stories high. While it is under construction, where will the builder store his materials?
    4. I have never made a donation or gift to a council employee or other official.

  30. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 28 Murphy Street, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Bruce Swift wrote to local councillor Meghan Hopper

    Objection against another block of units in Murphy street this one being at 28 Murphy Street Oak Park , the appeal of this street-cape is diminishing due to the number of multiple developments altering the overall look and feel of this area. Parking and safety issues are of great concern as the street parking has increased considerably dues to the lack of adequate parking with the new dwellings this in turn may increased risk affecting school children walking each day to Oak Park Primary.

    Large established tree has just been removed from this property again changing the overall look of the street.

    Delivered to local councillor Meghan Hopper. They are yet to respond.

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