Recent comments

  1. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 35-37 Fauna Place Kirrawee:

    Jade commented

    My Concern with this development is Asbestos, theses houses are very old and building with such close proximity will pose a risk to all residents surrounding this development.

    I also question the application of this development, the units are very small and car spaces are well below average, meaning more cars on our street and poor living area for who lives there which at this stage looks like it would be target to low income tenants.

  2. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    claude T commented

    I strongly object to the proposed Mosque at 849 King Georges Road Sth Hurstville
    This proposed mosque will have a huge impact on residents in this area for a number of major reasons. The proposed operating hours will cause noise and parking issues at times that are not consistent with general community standards. Operating from 3:30 am to 10.30 pm in summer and 5.00 am to 9.30 pm in winter adjacent to a residential area is
    not acceptable and should not be permitted.
    The increased amount of traffic from the very early hours of the mornings to late at nights
    this Mosque would generate, by vehicles entering and leaving and worshipers congregating prior to and after prayers , would be extremely disturbing to all nearby residents in this area.
    The proposed Mosque itself is out of character with existing buildings and houses in the areaand would be an eyesore, especially the huge dome.
    A further concern to me is the fact the area would regress ,resembling Punchbowl Lakemba and Auburn
    What will be taught to students seven days a week ? There are many English speaking schools In the area, without having classes to preach Koranic values, where anyone who does not believe in their ways is an “ infidel “. Young people are so gullible and easily influenced
    by some radical clerics, who come to Mosques by invitation , preaching hatred for our
    western values, this can only have a detrimental effect on our way of life in South Hurstville.
    The figures quoted at (76 ) followers approximately, are intentionally understated to meet one of the Planning laws , the Proposed Development Noise Report of (260) persons demonstrate deliberate understating of figures. The planned basement parking for 35 cars could not convey over 250 people, with more, during special celebrations, resulting in a spill over to nearby streets

    Please consider the ongoing impacts on the community, just to please a small minority

  3. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 72 Fitzroy Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Nicholas Olsen commented

    I hereby object to DA201500679 submitted to Marrickville for demolition of existing improvements and construction of a 2 storey building with 5 commercial tenancies consisting of an interior design office, engineer’s office, media office, architects office and artist studio at 72-74 Fitzroy Street, Marrickville, NSW.

    This application does not comply with the requirements as it does not minimise the adverse impact on surrounding residential properties. This development will lead to reduced parking for residents (which is already highly strained during the day), increased local traffic, potentially increased noise and conflict between pedestrians and cars entering the proposed parking space.

    No additional parking has been allowed for by this development. While there has been one parking space allowed for in the design this will be negated by the loss of a parking space on Fitzroy Street from the new drive way that has been proposed. This will lead to conflict between local residents and workers/customers of the proposed development.

    It makes no sense to have a business of this nature, or any for that fact, along a section of road that is surrounded by residential properties. Contrary to the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by the applicant the surrounding area is made up of residential dwellings and not light industrial and commercial use dwellings. There are no light industrial and commercial use dwellings where the site is along the stretch of Fitzroy Street between Edinburgh Road and Smith Street. The proposed development is directly in between two residential properties. There is a large factory opposite the site however this is completely fenced along Fitzroy Street with access obtained only via Edinburgh Road.

    As is the case with most other business’s along Fitzroy and Smith Street that have a driveway cars will likely be parked across the footpath as people working or visiting these premised view the space as another car park. This is dangerous to the pedestrians that use the footpath’s as they often have to step onto the road to around the illegally parked vehicle.

    Regards,

    Nicholas Olsen

  4. In Westmead NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 19 Booth Street Westmead NSW 2145:

    Anne Jaumees commented

    I am against this development. At 5 storeys it's totally out of keeping with the surrounding houses and Westmead as a suburb which even at its highest is mostly 3 storeys in Westmead. And that is in the more high density area between the hospital and the park. It will undoubtably impact on the general feel and amenity if the area. Any construction should be limited to 3 storeys with clear restrictions on how close to the perimeter the building should get.

  5. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 7 Carronshore Close Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Ray Clarke wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    How can the onslaught of appartment developments be stopped. I find the daily news of more developments depressing. Many it's time to Chang the council and somehow get rid of VCAT

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

  6. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Kirby Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Dave Solomons commented

    No problems with the application. Have requested Council discuss the completion of the kerb and guttering of the final section of Stanley Lane which is also alongside the development.
    Dave
    Gammell St
    Rydalmere

  7. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Alan Tan commented

    there're enough mosques being built around Sydney already for the 2%.
    Have you seen other religion building the places of worship like the moslem do?
    Where are the funds coming from?

  8. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 432-436 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Amy Wooding commented

    I concur with the previous comment (by Michael Dunn): it is fine to increase the building density in the area and I support appropriate residential development, however, I oppose the wholesale demolition of existing buildings in favour of retaining facades. There is great heritage value and beauty in the Surry Hills area, and this is a significant part of what makes it unique. Being one of the oldest residential areas in Sydney it deserves preservation - our built history should be considered a cultural legacy. We continue to protect The Rocks because it works as a tourist attraction, but as someone who was born and grew up in Sydney, I too thank the likes of Jack Mundey who campaigned to save that area long before anyone considered the tourist dollar.
    Local history belongs to the people of Sydney, and the original architecture actually attracts people to live in Surry Hills. The more of it is lost, the less appealing it will be to visit and live in the area in the long term, as it becomes yet another homogenous, boring 'modern' suburb. Don’t let short term developer profits waste our precious places. Please keep old facades for everyone, now and in the future.

  9. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Ryan Perrett commented

    1. Residential area

    2. Will be too busy and noisy for the area

    3. Congestion

    4. Safety of citizens

    Please do not approve this proposal.

  10. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 7 Carronshore Close Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Clare J Buckley commented

    Please no, it will destroy the character , ambience and serenity of this tiny court. Please Council, say no to these developers and preserve the beauty and desirability of our leafy Boroondara.

  11. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 432-436 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Michael Dunn commented

    I support the building of more residential buildings but I OPPOSE to the demolition of the existing buildings. The facade of this character building should be incorporated into the apartment design due to its heritage value. We have enough of builders demolishing terraces just because it is too difficult/expensive to preserve the facade. Look at the terraces opposite this building that were already destroyed due to careless builders. Surry Hills is a unique suburb and we should continue to preserve its character instead of demolishing everything.

  12. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 7 Carronshore Close Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Clare J Buckley commented

    Please no, it will destroy the character , ambience and serenity of this tiny court. Please Council, say no to these developers and preserve the beauty and desirability of our leafy Boroondara.

  13. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    S commented

    This development is not suitable for our area. People of this faith are an insignificant % of residents and so it will draw a lot of outsiders from other areas to visit. These people are culturally very different to our national values, they do not respect those who do not follow them and they do not respect our cultural values. We do not want to attract more of them to our area where we will be made to feel unsafe for walking down the street in a summer dress....keep the mosques in areas where there is a high% of Islamic people.

  14. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Annie Wang commented

    Noise is the main concern. It is busy as it is I really feel sorry for the local residents if this is to go ahead. I am surround by 5 neighbouring houses and OCCASIONALLY need to complaint to them about the noises already. However having a CONSTANT noise from the venue would be unbearable.

  15. In Newtown NSW on “Application to demolish...” at 36-38 Wilson Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Janet clayton commented

    Can you let us know when this decision will be considered by Council?

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Trischelle Roberts commented

    This is a highly problematic application that superficially appears to meet the needs of the area but is, in fact, contrary to supporting increased density, urban regeneration, and the character and culture of the area.

    Perhaps most importantly, there is a lack of value for the current aesthetics and culture of the area, which represents the potential for appropriate and long-term positive urban renewal. To suggest that this generic and inappropriate design will be an improvement on the industrial building currently on the site reveals a gross misunderstanding of the character and aesthetics of the area. The density (particularly considering that the property is geared towards short-term accommodation) is inappropriate and does not represent a valuable contribution to density for potential residents. There is simply no evidence that this development will support sustainable forms of transport (Sydenham and St Peters Stations are some distance away). Existing culture in the area - particularly the Vic on the Park, one of the few venues continuing to support musicians and artists in the area - has not been adequately considered. Other feedback has expressed concerns about the management of the property which I will not repeat here.

    In short, this proposal represents a short-term vision which meets the needs of the developers and contradicts the needs of the area and community.

  17. In Jimboomba QLD on “Shopping Centre Expansion” at Flagstone Village 1-21 Bushman Drive Jimboomba QLD 4280:

    mark walker commented

    22/26 bushman Dr
    Jimboomba 4280
    QLD
    09/01/2016
    Counter objection over response by
    Carl knaggs and amended plan to expansion
    flagstone village complex
    mcui/36/2015

    Mark walker and Christina walker would like to express the views of residents from
    35-39 bushman Dr as being in line with what our thoughts are on this matter at hand the views of Mr Carl knaggs are not with the residents of the community and should not be considered in the submission as not being a resident has no rights of say in this matter and in no way shape or form being validated concerning this proposal.

  18. In Surry Hills NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 202-210 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Alexander Payne commented

    There is already far too many boarding houses and approved for construction boarding houses in this vicinity. That block needs approval for commercial buildings only since the racket created by the trains opposite (blowing horns and changing track noises) will cause severe reduction in rent and attract the wrong sort of people. I sometimes avoid walking along that part at night since there are so many interesting characters loiter Ng around fast food outlets and derelict buildings.

  19. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold temporary weekend...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Gail Sims wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    I hope the market does get approval for my own selfish reasons. I love markets. No doubt anyone who lives nearby may have different ideas unless parking and congestion have been taken into account.

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Construction Certificate -...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Warren Alexander commented

    By time, they have been digging for over 2 years. This (Aldi) will be a welcome addition to Wolli Creek as well as filling in that ugly hole.

    While we don't need anymore apartments, it was always going to be the case, so just have to accept that one. Completing that corner of Wolli Creek will be very welcome not to mention Aldi bringing some competition to Woolies.

  21. In Wantirna South VIC on “Use and development of land...” at 355 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Mrs Lorraine Slade commented

    Good Afternoon , Where exactly is this extra building going on what part of Villa Maria from their first stage ?
    May I come down and look at the new proposal next week on working days!

  22. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Construction Certificate -...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    David Foxe commented

    I am the property owner of an apartment in the Pavilion building on Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek. I am concerned about the impact the additional 9 levels of apartments will have on the overshadowing of my apartment, as well as loss of privacy from my balcony. I am also highly concerned that if the building of the additional 100 apartments is approved, additional residential car spaces will not be provided over and above the already DA approved 210 car spaces allocated to retail customers.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jennifer Killen wrote to local councillor Jo Haylen

    I object to this application. Parking is one issue, the potential for late night noise for current residents is another.
    I wonder at the motivation of people who consider a motel a great addition to the area - how will this type of accommodation contribute to the community? By definition, motel residents are transient.
    Are there conditions that would ensure that the number of people occupying each room complies with fire safety and other standards?
    Has the developer considered the implications of the high ANEF?
    "Street level activation" - what on earth does this mean? More convenience stores which underpay their workers?
    Is this development in the public interest - especially when the current record of the developer is considered?

    Delivered to local councillor Jo Haylen. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sophia Philps wrote to local councillor Max Phillips

    Those of us who already live on Addison Rd are constantly looking for a parking spot, often encroaching onto the side streets. This development will add to these pressures. Please reconsider the lack of parking spots that will be available in the current plan.

    Delivered to local councillor Max Phillips. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Buderim QLD on “24 & 26 Box St BUDERIM -...” at 24 Box St, Buderim, QLD:

    Ainslie Davies commented

    As a business owner in the Medical centre on the corner of King and Box streets, I am very concerned about safety of our aged clients as they exit the medical centre car park onto Box street with increased traffic in Box Street.

  26. In Thorneside QLD on “Netball Courts x4” at 208-212 Mooroondu Road, Thorneside, QLD:

    Rowena Plant commented

    May I get further details of this application

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 144 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Craig Brown commented

    This is not a good proposal, on the one hand council seems to be shuffling artists and low income earners away from the old industrial zones where they have been able to establish their own network of low-cost shared housing, but on the other hand allowing significant historical dwellings to be knocked down and replaced with cheap boarding houses? So sick of seeing councils stacked with councilors with no vision for the area or the community, just dumb plans to wreck the joint in the name of profit.

  28. In Saint Leonards VIC on “Multi-Lot Staged...” at 67-79 Ibbotson Street, Indented Head:

    Ken Kayler-Thomson commented

    That is great to clear a fire hazard for a start and clean up the area go for it.

    Regards

    Ken

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    David wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    Perry Properties have shown a total disregard for the residents of this area in the way they have let and managed their other properties. This seems like a cheap back[packer addition rather than a residential development that will add value to the community. Parking is now impossible and we have seen no holistic plan for the precinct. I object to this proposal because it is a "motel" meaning a backpacker doss house. I would support a residential development that attracted home makers who enhanced the community rather than detracted from it.

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  30. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Steven DaRocha commented

    I too am strongly against this proposal with respect to the community , I have seen that Kaos with traffic in can cause and noise it creates in Auburn and Lakemba As the parking facilities they have said would be under the place of worship I cannot believe it is sustainable as the other suburbs mentioned causing traffic Kaos and parking on Footpaths and service station WILL be a major Issue . I stand with the residence in the area and say NO WAY.

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