Recent comments

  1. In South Launceston TAS on “Educational and occasional...” at 34-40 Howick Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Susan Wright commented

    I notice the increase in car parking provided for this application (compared to previous application)
    However I would like to make the following points:
    1. these car parking spaces (both those adjacent to the recreation hall and in the accommodation carpark) are already being utilised, so by marking them for Steiner use, it removes them from nurses home residential use. Where are those people to park?
    2. Children arriving at the school are going to be walking directly into the middle of the 4 car parking spaces (there is no footpath to the entrance gate), thereby being put at risk of being hit by cars reversing out and up hill, then turning at the end of French street.
    3. The placement of the disabled parking spot is laughable. (It also is an already allocated parking spot, so there will be one less for others). It is nowhere near the entrance to the hall and is down a very steep slope which is treacherous for able bodied pedestrians at the best of times and worse in winter.

    There is no mention in the revised application regarding the local resident's concerns of traffic congestion in the street. The Lord st/French street junction is narrow and prone to have the corner cut. An increase of possibly 72 extra traffic movements a day (18 children dropped and picked up) will surely impact upon the street. It is a dead end street so everyone coming in has to turn and come out the same way. There is no suitable "turning circle" at the end near St John street so once again children will be walking amongst cars which are reversing and turning to get out of the street.

    The one way steep section of Lord Street is already subject to vehicles travelling against the traffic flow. It is likely this will be flouted more as the number of cars using the area increases. Traffic coming (legally) UP Lord street are blind to the (illegal) cars coming down the street and near misses have occurred.

    Increasing the usage the hall is not sensible in a residential street which is already congested with parking and is a dead end through a tight intersection. The planner's opinion that "there are always traffic problems when schools are in residential areas" should not be accepted, rather it is a reason to NOT put the school in a residential street.

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

    Jodie hammond commented

    I am concerned regarding the parking situation too and also the potential for residents/holiday makers complaining about the noise from the Vic hotel which is opposite the development.

    Any building constructed needs to have sufficient sound protection that allows the vic to operate its entertainment. Too often those that move complain about pub noise (and people leaving the pub) and it's not fair to the existing businesses.

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

    Carmen Hui commented

    Not only will there be a lack of street parking for both residents and visitors around surrounding streets. The fact that the application was submitted by Perry Properties suggest it will most likely be intended for backpackers. They already own a large amount of townhouses near the area which are known to be decrepit as well as a late night party district for young backbackers. From the way those town houses are currently managed, I have little confidence that the proposed motel will be managed and looked after properly. I'm afraid this will bring a negative light to the area.

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

    Mathew Guy commented

    The other nearby property owned by Perry Management was a party district for backpackers with loud late night parties. I think this will also become a hostel for backpackers. It will detract from the area.

  5. In Oakleigh VIC on “The development and use of...” at 89-93 Atherton Road Oakleigh VIC 3166:

    Chen Shen commented

    There apartments are too high for this area, which totally destroys the consistency of the street view and the privacy of other people's back yard.

    Also, it will cover quite a lot of sunshine that people living by can enjoy now.

    Another thing is the traffic and parking pressure caused by this new development.

  6. In Patonga NSW on “Alterations & Additions TO...” at 8 Patonga Drive, Patonga NSW 2256:

    Paul and Kate Williams commented

    DA 011.2015.00048986.001
    Development Application - Alterations & Additions TO Existing Hotel & Takeaway Shop - Patonga Hotel
    Lodged: 15/12/2015
    Estimated Cost of Work: $ 2,223,050
    Officer: Michael Leavey

    Basis of Objections:
    1. Scale of development / commercial operation not in keeping with small isolated hamlet
    Patonga is small township of approximately 200 premises comprised of permanent residents (working families who operate local businesses including fishing licences and oyster leases, and retirees), and a smaller number of temporary residents (“weekenders” who own properties for occasional use or as vacation rental accommodation). In the summer holidays, there is an annual influx of summer vacationers in rental accommodation and in the caravan park. The existing Patonga Beach Hotel is a popular destination for day trippers, including boaters who anchor for lunch on the weekend. The demand for hotel services (bar and meal service) fluctuates in tune with the seasonal demands on the town. As noted in the DA documents, the demand on the town’s limited amenities is significant during peak season and, as is illustrated by an analysis of the parking and noise studies accompanying the DA, takes the small township to capacity. The proposed extensions and expansion of the business into a wedding/event venue, will significantly increase both peak season and off-season usage of the Hotel and create an destination in and of itself for customers outside the immediate region. While the applicant is reasonably entitled to expand his/her business, as an objector to this development, we assert that the proposal is a) not in keeping with the scale and character of the town, b) will degrade the amenity of existing residents (including temporary vacationers) through loss of street parking, parking over driveways and in front of gates etc., and c) significantly degrade the amenity of those residents immediately adjacent to the Hotel with noise disturbance from night time events and the relocation and expansion of the commercial kitchen and industrial ventilation to the rear of the current Fish and Chip shop hard up against the boundary of 1 and 3 Bay Street.
    2. Parking and congestion
    The key commercial objective of the DA is to create a “wedding” venue for up to 150 customers, in addition to expansion of existing dining areas in the Hotel’s restaurant. As there are very limited public transport options into Patonga, it would be reasonably expected that wedding or other event guests would travel to Patonga by private vehicle. For a party of 150 guests, with an average vehicle to passenger ratio of 1:2.5, Patonga might be expected to accommodate up to 60 additional vehicles. The attached Parking Assessment shows that at the peak period of 13:00 there were zero available spaces out of the 90 space capacity between Memorial and Boat Ramp. By 14:50, only 18 spaces were available. This leaves a shortfall of 42-60 spaces, without taking into consideration any “stretch limo” style vehicles commonly favoured by bridal parties. The DA makes no provision for additional parking despite its intention to attract a very significant increase in customers. Observations by the objectioner on Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 December 2015 showed all available parking including in Bay Street (to the rear), Jacaranda Street and Patonga Street was taken up. Residents of 1 and 2 Bay Street had cars parked across their driveways / front gates. It is our view that a commercial enterprise seeking to expand should not do so at the expense of existing residents and customary users of the town.
    3. Noise
    There are currently two kitchens in the premises under DA application, a large fryer kitchen in the fish and chip shop and another commercial kitchen in the hotel. The DA proposes to consolidate the kitchens into a single kitchen annexed to the rear of the current fish and chip shop, hard up against the rear boundary of number 3 Bay Street. The noise and odour of the current kitchen exhaust fans is substantial – has council ever checked to see if the noise and odour abatement is consistent with a residential area? At present, the noise from kitchen exhaust fans is largely limited to daylight hours. The proposed expansion, although it does not propose an increase in hours of operation, will increase the intensity and duration of kitchen operations. The recommendation to remove the existing exhaust fans and to locate any new exhaust fans as far from property boundaries as possible is noted however the DA does not make any commitment to the noise rating of new equipment or location of fans (suggested “possible” distance of 12 metres is not committed).

    In addition to the ventilation systems (mechanical services), the DA proposes provisions to ameliorate music performed by bands in the ground floor dining area and the first floor wedding reception room. The technical provisions of solid noise barriers are again noted but it is unknown whether these will be adequate until an assessment of noise is made post construction.

    The anticipated increase in mechanical noise, odour and music noise, and accompanying noise of patrons in the venue, on outdoor balconies and verandas and arriving at and departing the premises, is likely to be substantial.

    Patonga is for Patonga residents and all others who enjoy its natural amenities. We feel that this development is out of scale with the town and will absorb too much of the town’s precious amenity in favour of a single commercial enterprise.

  7. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Modification to increase...” at Tea Gardens Hotel 4A Bronte Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Alexander Cameron commented

    The following serious incidents have occurred in the last year that are linked to the Tea Gardens:

    - on 22 August 2015, 29 year old Irishman Jason Cierans was placed into an induced coma following a brawl outside the Tea Gardens (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-in-induced-coma-after-brawl-outside-bondi-junction-pub-20150821-gj586g.html)

    - on 26 September 2015, another brawl outside the Tea Gardens made the news with a tourist headbutted and police were called (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/south-american-tourist-headbutted-for-no-reason-outside-bondi-junction-pub/news-story/e22b44feab208c7b16db847e9d31267b)

    - tragically on 8 May 2014 Irishman Donal O'Sullivan was found dead in a stairwell of Easts Tower, 150m from the Tea Gardens. According to news reports he was last seen leaving the Tea Gardens at 3am the prior Saturday morning (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/missing-irishman-donal-osullivan-found-in-bondi-junction-after-being-trapped-for-five-days-20140507-zr6kn.html)

    I'm not aware of any measures that the pub has undertaken to address this recurrent pattern of violence/excessive inebriation. Little appears to have changed since 2011, when the Eastern Suburbs Liquor Accord was signed after 40 police were reportedly required to deal with ejected Tea Gardens patrons who were attacking the hotel's security staff. I also note that this violent and aggressive behaviour may increase given that the Tea Gardens falls outside the Kings Cross lock-out zone.

    The Council should reject any proposal to increase the capacity of the Tea Gardens until the owners adequately address the existing problems with drunken violence and aggressive behaviour.

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

    Lucien Buddle commented

    I oppose the demolition of this 115year old Marrickville dwelling. In keeping with the early Sydney suburb of Marrickville, I would hope that the original part of the dwelling and original wrought iron fence, which dates to 1906 (Source: John Sands Directory), should be retained and utilised in any future development.

  9. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Huntley Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Sandra commented

    Hi everybody,
    Make sure to start your comments with I OBJECT so there is no doubt that you are lodging an objection.
    I have already commented once but I must agree with P Hunter and Bruce Smith ( see above ).

    Just a heads up to anyone who is interested, Gardens R Us on Gardeners Road is set to close down this year as Sydney Water plans to sell the land for further massive high rise high density development. You can go to change.org and sign the petition if you wish.

  10. In Maroubra NSW on “Elvino Pty Ltd - Packaged...” at U 18 117 Boyce Rd, Maroubra 2035:

    Jane commented

    I am really nervous about this application. Considering there is a gambling hotel on the bottom floor of this building, that does gaming and sells liquor.
    How can an apartment within the residential side of this building sell alcohol out of their home? I'm just wondering what kind of business it will be, what kind of people it will attract, how they will utilise the lift after hours considering you need a lift key?
    Concerned resident of the building.

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

    Lin commented

    I agree with a lot of the comments. In order for this application to be approved more car spaces should be provided for the motorists visiting the motel + allow for sufficient guest only parking within the building. Local residents are already struggling with limited on street parking. Most of us don't have off street parking due to the limited plot sizes. In addition, Addison Rd Organic Markets, although great for the area causes massive congestion on Sunday's (along with dangerous driving) due to lack of sufficient off street parking. The council should learn from this experience.

    I also agree the Addison Road frontage has not been used to its full potential. More retail options (specifically cafes) should be encouraged to cater for the growing amount of residents and visitors to the area.

  12. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Modification to increase...” at Tea Gardens Hotel 4A Bronte Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Gayle Walker commented

    I agree. Tea Gardens is deplorable. I avoid walking past this establishment whenever possible. To me it always feels (and sounds) like there are caged animals inside. It certainly is not an environment I would want to see thrive. The patron numbers should be reduced, not enlarged.

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

    Harry Qiu commented

    I strongly against this DA application.

    - Huge noise problem for Mosque especially 7 days a week.
    - Extremely bad Traffic congestion if the buildings are allowed to be build.

  14. In Bolton Point NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 19 Macquarie Street, Bolton Point NSW 2283:

    Brian adams commented

    This building is in the middle of a natural water couse which drains a number of blocks and in high rain fall water will run through this area.

  15. In Morphett Vale SA on “Five x two storey...” at 24-26 Grazing Avenue, Morphett Vale SA 5162:

    sherifa van den heuvel commented

    Two story dwelling will not complement the area. 14 more dwellings will have signifiant effects on already old sewerage. Roads. Street and sherriffs rd u turn at acure ave already has enough accidents as road already cant cope with volume of traffic turing to go to Southgate etc
    Grazing are street is already in apauling state. The units have proved hard to sell by the exisiting ones recently built bringing in more rentals of low income bring down the values of existing property owners. Single story dwellings would not be as many or as much of an inpact if we have to have more units.

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

    Gillian commented

    I agree in order for this application to be approved more car spaces should be provided for the motorists visiting the motel. It's worth noting this area is a 20-minute walk from any train station for access to the airport so people may choose to rely on cars.

    I also agree the Addison Road frontage has not been used to its full potential. This is shaping up to become a high street and not a back road. As hundreds of people will be moving into the area with the 3 new apartments blocks going up – not to mention the possibility of over a hundred people staying at the motel - it would be great to see some more retail options.

  17. In Hallidays Point NSW on “2 Unit 2 Storey Tourist...” at 0 Diamond Beach Road, Diamond Beach NSW 2430:

    Lynne Smith commented

    If this is the property that already exists on the cnr. Diamond Beach Rd. and Headland Dr.
    they would need to have off street parking only as it is very close to the corner and when vehicles are parked on the road it is a hazard.

  18. In Coogee NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 115 Dolphin Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    H Vincent commented

    I have not been able to acess the plans submitted but I know the existing building is a 2 storey boarding house. The land use for this Lot is R3 with a building height of 12 metres. The proposed 5 storey building will likely be between 16.5 metres and 20 metres, which is well above the current maximum of 12 metres. The buildings on either side are 3 storey. It is not appropriate to construct a new 4-5 storey building. It will impact significantly on natural light, views and privacy to the neighbours and the streetscape character. There is also no mention of providing car parking spaces in the DA. With the 9 dwellings this could mean up to an extra 18 cars needing street parking in an area where there is not currently adequate parking for the existing residents in Dolphin street.

  19. In Lindfield NSW on “Renovation and extension of...” at 29 Grosvenor Road, Lindfield, NSW:

    Margaret Monger commented

    SOPHIE DELEZIO. - remember this story.

    Strong consideration needs to be given to this development.

    Yes more facilities are needed but not at the expense of young lives

    Grosvenor Rd is already overused due to more developments locally is used by local and tourist buses, trucks well above recommended tonnage added to being the local Race Track at any time.

    Please rethink this proposal with serious consideration.

  20. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Modification to increase...” at Tea Gardens Hotel 4A Bronte Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Brett Notley commented

    The last thing that Bondi Junction needs is an increase in people coming out of the Tea Gardens. This pub causes enough problems already!! It sometimes feels like you are "running the gauntlet" when walking past it.

    Surely this application will be knocked back.

  21. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Huntley Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    P Hunter commented

    Agree with Bruce Smiths comments above.
    This is Australia and Australians love their cars.
    Particularly given that public transport does not provide regular services or areas for people who choose to sit at bus stops inhaling fuel fumes whilst waiting more than 10 minutes for buses..
    Stop building these monstrosities only for profit for the builders and Govts..
    Socially and psychologically, they are destroying the lives of Australians.
    living in a unit is soul destroying..
    Everyday Australians can not afford them any way. No this is not a request for more subsidies eg fhog etc.
    If Governments managed their areas properly i.e. economies then we would not require large sums of subsidies... You can not throw money at any problem and expect it to just go away...
    Stop the sales for public assets and create more public park spaces..
    NO more units..

  22. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Mr Moustache - Liquor...” at U 3 77-79 Hall St, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Michael Morrison commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    The owners of this business have been selling dinner vouchers on Groupon and have failed to honor the vouchers as the business has been closed.
    The vouchers also included alcoholic drinks (when they did not hold a valid liquor licence).

  23. In Falls Creek NSW on “New Commercial - Micro...” at 28 Gardner Rd, Falls Creek, NSW:

    Grant Narbeth commented

    along with many other residence in the street I have submitted our objection to this DA

    I wish to list some objections to this DA as follows in summarised form as my full objection will be uploaded to shoalhaven council site by the extended reply date of 20.1.2016

    Anti social behaviour due to intoxicating liquor consumed onsite .
    Possibility of drink drivers leaving the location .
    Noise.
    Environmental damage.
    Traffic both damage to road footpaths and reduced visibility when entering and leaving personal driveways due to vehicle obstruction .
    80 kph roadway increased risk of motor vehicle damage from speed and visibility due to height of delivery trucks .

  24. In Sydney NSW on “Erection of 2 roof signs to...” at 265-273 George Street Sydney NSW 2000:

    James Bradley commented

    It is requested that approval is NOT granted for these signs to be illuminated.
    This building signage would be seen by nearby residential apartments.
    Illuminated signs would adversely impact on residents at night-time.

  25. In Springwood QLD on “Multiple Dwelling (57 units)” at 105-109 Barbaralla Drive Springwood QLD 4127:

    Andrew Adam commented

    With such a large scale housing complex being proposed I wish to establish whether the application includes sufficient off street parking? Presumably with 57 units there will be need for over 100 car places at a minimum. In case of emergency will Barbaralla Drive be the only egress point?

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

    John commented

    I also wish to add my displeasure in this proposal.

    What compensation does the council expect to pay the local community for the interruption in their lives if another mosque is in the area? There is already a mosque in Arncliffe so how much more demand are they envisioning for this new Mosque? What about the traffic and congestion they envisioning in this area?

    When are the next council elections to occur? If this proposal goes ahead I'll be empowered to rally for a change in the next election.

    I do NOT agree with this proposal and hope the council will do the right decision and decline this. Considering the amount of people that have already showed their unhappiness with this proposal so far... lets hope the council can see sense and make the right decision before we are forced to do the same on the next elections.

  27. In Warriewood NSW on “Erection of shade sails...” at 12 Jacksons Road Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Terry Wooldridge commented

    I am pleased to see this application and look forward to the shade sails being installed.
    I hope shade sails will also be installed to any future roof top car park built at the shopping centre.
    On another matter, when are the 'slippery when wet' floors throughout the car park going to be rectified?

  28. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 12 Union Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    David John C wrote to local councillor Sam Iskandar

    will the new extension affect the three story apartment complex next door: will it;
    - block the easterly views?
    - block any breeze or cooling winds?
    - block the sun?

    What are the construction working hours and will the contractor be working weekends? If yes, what times?

    Delivered to local councillor Sam Iskandar. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Huntley Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Bruce Smith commented

    It is totally unrealistic to build 155 apartments without providing at least 300 car spaces. The area, adjoining streets, etc, are already filled to capacity with parked cars. To escalate this current situation is grossly irresponsible and one cannot help but wonder what it is that motivates planners to come up with such a proposal.

  30. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Modification to increase...” at Tea Gardens Hotel 4A Bronte Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Victoria commented

    I am complete agreement with Alexander's comments. This establishment does not have a positive impact on the Bondi Junction culture.

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