Recent comments

  1. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    CathyB wrote to local councillor Samantha Ratnam

    This is a thin street, where car parking and congestion is already a problem. While the Moreland approach to urban density along main transport corridors sounds excellent in theory, thought must be given to liveability. People will continue to own cars in this area - the public transport and bike paths simply aren't good enough, or safe enough, to do without. This means that congestion and parking will become a huge issue as developments like this continue to be approved at such an incredible rate. Developers who have made, and are making, such incredible profit from our neighbourhoods, communities and homes should be required to add to the amenity, rather than bit by bit, destroying it.

    Delivered to local councillor Samantha Ratnam. They are yet to respond.

  2. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Kris Pryosusilo commented

    I find it very odd that TRC town planners will still accept proposals for unit development on a street soon to be zoned a "unit free zone" as per my understanding of Council's own planning scheme!

    Apart from that there are several more reasons why I think this is a bad idea, not the least that;

    1. As previous comments have already noted, parking congestion is going to be a nightmare for residents and visitors alike. Spillover kerb parking on a narrow 2 way street is not ideal to say the least.

    2. Neighborhood crowding is going to affect the quality of life and residents will suffer in the long term considering the number of units already in the street.

    3. I'm afraid that this will diminish real estate value in the area (though I'm sure some pre-hashed glib vested interest marketing hyperbole will be trotted out to say otherwise); but it appears this is not a concern for the developer, nor does it appear to be concerning town planners because WHY are Council still accepting development proposals?

    My impression is that this is a decision ill thought out and driven more by a concern for speedy profit than it is for the welfare of the *voting* Toowoomba citizenry who live in the area. If it can happen in Cranley St, it can happen anywhere in Toowoomba.

    Finaly TRC, why bother zoning the area as a unit free zone AFTER it's chock a block choking with units? It just doesn't make sense!

  3. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    William Kelly commented

    I really think there should be a royal commission into the Toowoomba council. I would like to know who changed the law to allow all the dog boxes of dwellings to be built. I would also like to know if any of the councillors have a vested interest in any of the blocks of land that have had these dog boxes built on them. Have any of the councillors subdivided their own block of land. The streets of Toowoomba are choking with traffic. Most of the units and townhouses have only one car garages. The dwelling are so small, people are using their garage as a storage area and park their car on the road. The town planners should be sacked. No use shutting the gate now, The horse is half way to Roma by now. There is not much land left in Toowoomba. Total greed. I spent a week at my daughters place in Cranley st. There was a gem expo at the school. The street was jammed with cars. Luckily I was parked on her property because I certainly wouldn't have gotten a park on the street. When these places are built, they must have room for at least 2 car spaces per dwelling.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michelle commented

    I fully support this application. Marrickville will benefit from an additional night time eating and meeting establishment.

    There is a growing need for more varied options now, especially given the fact that Council have recently approved more applications for apartment blocks in the area.

  5. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of land for motor...” at 24-26 Edward Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Jodie Miners commented

    Please don't allow reduced Carparking on this site. There is already a number of commercial vehicles parked outside, and if this is a Motor Vehicle Repair shop they will need a lot of carparking on site.

  6. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Jessica Kelly commented

    I have just been informed by one of my neighbours of this proposal - I live directly next door to 24 Cranley St.

    We have just spent thousands of dollars painting the entire house from top to bottom, only to potentially have all of that go down the drain with the drop in value this development will bring to our house.

    Another major concern I have is the lack of privacy that will be created. The units will have a full view of my house and yard, which will affect the enjoyment we have of our own backyard greatly.

    Not to mention the mess and noise we will have to endure while the house is demolished and units are being constructed.

    As other residents have written, Cranley St is FAR too busy and congested for even more dwellings to be constructed. The units in the street do not cater for the amount of cars the people living in them have ie. a single garaged unit occupied by a family who owns two cars. Guess where the second car ends up? On the street!

    You already have to weave around the cars lining the streets at all hours of the day. Some of them don't even belong to residents - the school and church create a lot of excess congestion.

    I am absolutely appalled that this proposal is even being considered. There is no regard for the home-owners in the street, who are slowly watching a quite, peaceful street get eaten up by greed.

  7. In Dakabin QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 205 Old Gympie Road, Dakabin QLD 4503:

    Keryn See commented

    I strongly object to this development. There had been a huge increase in car and pedestrian traffic since the opening of 7 eleven on this lot. To build more shops etc here would cause many problems. There has been two car accidents in this area as well. It is a fairly small lot; couldn't some trees and various plants be put here to create a green space to replace all the trees that we have lost in the area.

  8. In Sydney NSW on “Sandstone Precinct -...” at Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW:

    Eric Kok commented

    By building hotels here you need to provide lots of parking and public transport. Otherwise you will be putting lots of pressure on existing and future infrastructure. Yes there is already talk of metro services etc... but do they stack up against future growth??? Our services are already over capacity by a large margin.

    The design of the glass "box" addition also does not look right. Does not integrate well with the heritage elements of the building. It is too large and this "modern" "boxy" look cheapens and overpowers the building. Maybe it should be pitched instead and made shorter? But then it is profit margins over quality that rules in the end. Such a shame NSW.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kevin Brown commented

    Very supportive of any new bars, cafes, restaurants as well any extensions to trading hours of existing businesses or new liquor licenses. Fully support this application.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    M Skinner commented

    Very excited at more options for evening dining in Marrickville. I support this application and wish them the best of luck.

  11. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of seven...” at 481 Albion Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Andrew Harris commented

    Albion Street is at the point of not coping with traffic. Reality is that even if the occupants use the limited bus service, or the tram, they will own a car, possibly two. They'll also expect visitors, many of whom will drive. Continuing to ignore this growing problem will lead to serious problems for residents in the area. There is a school crossing just a few metres from this site, and a popular restaurant across the street. Any fool can see that problems are rapidly accumulating. What may seem a reasonable relaxation of rules on an individual application, quickly becomes untenable when repeated over many. Provision must be made on the site for car parking, as well as some visitor parking and traffic management. If the site doesn't have room for these things AND seven dwellings, then the number of dwellings should be reduced until there is room. It's not that hard to work out. This is an example of unsustainable development.

  12. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Andrew Harris commented

    Completely inappropriate level of development. This is surely an 'ambit claim'. Too high, too dense. The streets already struggle to cope. The main exits to Moreland and Melville roads will quickly reach problem levels for congestion and safety.
    Amenity of the dwellings will be severely compromised through lack of space, and neighbouring properties will suffer significant impositions on their space and quality.

  13. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    H. Wilson commented

    Cranley Street represents what TRC belives is what most of Toowoomba should look like twenty years from now.

    No gardens required for the Garden City.

    Streets full of cars since the revamped bus service we are threatened with is just as badly designed as the current one.

    No bird insect or small animal life to be seen or heard, apart from a rise of uncontrolled cats let loose from units all day.

    Well done Planners. A new Utopia.

  14. In Annandale NSW on “Application to place...” at Multiple Occupancy 107 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    Removing the JC Decaux Advertising Panel and "shelter", and then extending the awning around the building at 107 Johnston St into Booth Street would improve the attractiveness and amenity of the area immensely.

    See photographs of how busy the bus stop is at:

  15. In Victoria Point QLD on “Survey Plan -Standard...” at 5 Pelican Street, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Russell wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    This house would have been demolished without proper asbestos protection procedures yet again if not for vigilant residents alerting council and WHS Qld of impending works. Counci must be pro active in protecting rate payers health as these demolitions continue to multiply.

    Delivered to local councillor Lance Hewlett. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Costello commented

    Big supporter of this, a diverse range of nightlife is going to be required as new development increase around the train station and a broader demographic moves into this area. It's woefully underserved in evening entertainment at the moment

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Denise Moss commented

    Marrickville seriously lacks any diversity in night time dining. I'm an emphatic supporter of any restaurant wishing to extend their hours into nighttime dining. Let's hope they apply for a liquor license also. Keep them coming.

  18. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of the land...” at 80 Tyler Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Simon Djordjevic commented

    As a local community member I am pleased the majority of residents will be townhouses.
    Only 55% total land area being covered in buildings is also pleasing.
    Hopefully green space will be well designed to aid in establishment of privacy and value add to the development, and to the local community

  19. In Kallangur QLD on “Request to be Assessed...” at 176 Old Gympie Road, Kallangur QLD 4503:

    Keryn See commented

    To build more units/ townhouses when there are over 50 already built around the corner in Whitehorse Road and then more to be built further down Whitehorse Road, is this really needed.
    This property is also opposite a busy intersection with a 70 speed limit. Traffic issues will need be considered as well.

  20. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition of external...” at 146 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117. Demolition of external structures, tree removal, construction of 5 town houses with attics and basement carparking pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009:

    Susan Yang commented

    I live next door on a neighboring property. I have lived in the duplex with my family of six people for 5 years now.
    I am writing because I haven't found further details about the proposed development, only seen notification in the post for development of 5 town houses.
    Without having seen the plans, I want to share my dismay to see such a proposal on land that could comfortably fit two -three townhouses, but five townhouses in excessive for the land size.
    I am concerned about :
    1. Traffic - I have witnessed an incident where a driver turning at high speeds on a Saturday (not peak traffic) from Adderton Road to Kissing Point Road, skid onto the foot path outside my property damaging turf along the side of the road.
    I have also witnessed two identitical accidents occurred a year apart, a car flipped over on 148 neighbour's driveway. I can see rail fence are being built to prevent cars from opposite side of the road travelling at high speeds fly over the road.
    I am afraid the new rail fence will have the effect of bouncing cars back to my driveway in case of freaky accidents.
    I fear for future where the occupants of 146 Kissing Point Road will be exiting and returning to driveways along the same section on 3 properties on Kissing Point Road, 140-142 (7 townhouses), 144 (duplex) and 146 (proposed 5 townhouses) will cause traffic incidents and slow traffic as cars drive at speeds of 70km/h, vehicles turning onto Kissing Point Road.
    I fear for my family especially young children's safety at the front yard.

    2. Neighboring residential character -This section on Kissing Point Road is loosing character.
    There are inconsistent dwelling sizes relevant to land size; view in sequence from 138 Kissing Point Road there is a house, 7 townhouses, duplex, proposed 5 townhouses, a house, house on the corner of Kissing Point Road and Burke St.
    I would recommend a duplex style on the property for the land size it occupies.
    I sincerely ask you consider the points above and safety of residents over developers ambition.
    I look forward to reviewing plans for the property for further comments.
    p.s I have not made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  21. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Desley Mundell commented

    Not to mention the mayhem that will be the story of Simla Street when three buildings are erected on a block of land that now has one house and NO parking in the street already.

  22. In Mc Mahons Point NSW on “New swimming pool and...” at 9 Warung Street Mcmahons Point NSW 2060:

    Concerned wrote to local councillor Tony Carr

    On drawing S02, section 2 shows a glass end wall for the pool. The pool is planned to end at the site boundary, on the cliff face overlooking Henry Lawson Avenue and the harbour.

    The plan is for a rectangular version similar to the first picture at the following link (but not jutting out).

    Delivered to local councillor Tony Carr. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a five...” at 289-291 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Alexander Grishin commented

    Sydney Road Coburg is already an area of medium to high density development. Most days there is gridlock on Sydney Road affecting cars and trams. Increasing the density by the building of this mausoleum-style development will make a difficult situation more difficult. Five-storey developments in this area are out of keeping with the architecture and will impact in a negative manner on the quality of life for people who live in this area. We need a general heritage strategy developed for this area that would take into account the pressure on infrastructure, parking, quality of life and the environment before further intense development is approved and the quality of life is further eroded.

  24. In Eastwood NSW on “ePathway” at 58 Eastwood Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Paramalingam Jeyalingam commented

    there is no public lane available between the southern boundary of 58 Eastwood Avenue and the Northern boundary 58A Eastwood Avenue, as shown on the google map. The city council must check the title plans of the respective properties.

    there are three private lanes belong to 56A, 56B and 58A only. the above said lanes are privately owned by respective property owners and has no access permission to 58 Eastwood Avenue.
    the google map is wrongly shown a lane between the boundaries. The council must check the title plan of the 58A Eastwood Avenue to confirm before any such decision is made.
    the private lanes belong to 56B and 58A Eastwood Avenue will not be allowed to access 58 Eastwood Avenue property.

  25. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Melita Chambers commented

    If the development is approved, which I am sure that it will, this is the 5th multi unit development in three years between Ramsay Street & Geddes Street. Where previously there has been 5 houses there will now be a total of 21 units. There is even more that have been approved and yet to be built between Geddes Street and Hume Street also.

    How has the council accounted for the increase in traffic and parking in the street? The street is already excessively busy during the school term with students and teachers from the high school using our street as a parking lot. Add to this the increase in cars from new units being developed with inadequate parking spaces, our street is now dangerous and overcrowded. As Leanne said it effectively becomes a one way street especially during school terms and also after 5pm when people return home from work.

    Residents of Cranley Street have previously unsuccessfully attended a Development Assessment Panel meeting in July 2015 to oppose the units at number 19.

    Please note I have already called the TRC on 131 872 and spoken to a planner (Michelle) but I have not answers and I don't believe my objection was registered as I didn't receive a reference number for my call.

  26. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Lehane Amanda commented

    Exactly Tony Hill, we did not need a Bunnings and inner city apartments with boutique retail underneath would have been an ideal development for this site.

  27. In Annandale NSW on “Application to place...” at Multiple Occupancy 107 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    Tables and Chairs could be placed where the current JC Decaux advertising panel and "shelter" are located. The advertising panel and "shelter" obstruct passenger sight of oncoming bus and access to the actual bus stop, which is outside crusts.

    A permanent bench should be installed at the actual bus stop, outside Crusts, under the awning. See bench at bus stop at Nelson Street.

  28. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Ross commented

    I live on Blaxland road in one of the units next to Forest park and I'd love to see where this affordable housing is!? I'd like to meet any young people that can afford a $600,000+ 2 bedroom unit. I went to the launch of some other units at Macquarie Park the other day and it was ALL investors and starting prices in the $700,000 range. If I wanted to buy anything at the moment I'd be looking into the Blue Mountains or up onto the Central Coast for my partner and I and our two kids.

    I know this thread is just for a tree but the development around Epping is out of control and nothing is being done about the infrastructure around the area. Apart from maybe the train line but I'm unsure that's going to ease any issues once all of these new apartments come online.

  29. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Tim commented

    It will change the whole demographic of Windsor
    Strongly object!

  30. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Tony Hill commented

    I wish to lodge my objection to this proposed development. It is in no way in keeping with the character of the area. If the council continues to approve unit developments in heritage/character areas, those areas will be ruined. I implore the council to cease approving unit developments in area where they are not complimentary.

    The council wants more people living in the 'nodes'- close to services, schools, parks and transport and yet they approved Bunnings on a site that should have been developed as inner city apartments and stores that would have invigorated the northern end of Ruthven Street. This would have been ideal directly opposite the proposed Railway development, but no, the council allows for a historically significant building (Rowlands Pub) to be torn down and most of the 'inner city' area to be turned into a car park.

    I to have written to councilors in the past regarding concerns pertaining to the desecration of heritage/character areas/building only for the councilor (Chris Tait) to subjugate his responsibility to an underling to reply. You are the elected councilor Mr. Tait, have the decency to reply in future

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