Recent comments

  1. In Tarro NSW on “Demolition of hotel, motel ...” at  133 Anderson Drive Tarro, NSW:

    Newcastle Rate Payer wrote to local councillor Michael Osborne

    What's the go with this development application to demolish the Tarro Hotel. The Planning Alert landed in my emails on 19th May 2016. The Tarro Hotel is flat to the ground. There is nothing left of it. Is this a Council, Planning or NSW Police issue?

    Delivered to local councillor Michael Osborne. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 365-367 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Glenda Egan commented

    I object to the building of another mosque in the city of Casey. There is one nearby already. The landscape will be tarnished, property values will decline and there is not enough infrastructure in place to accommodate the increased traffic that will be generated by the mosque. What about noise pollution? They call to prayer 5 times a day, are the nearby residents supposed to wear earplugs? Next time it will be a large mosque in Cranbourne and will object to that for the same reasons as above.

  3. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 1/13 Brownes Crescent, Eltham VIC 3095:

    ED commented

    Here is a location that does not require more dwellings. As a constant road user both with vehicle and pushbike, this street is adequately fled up with parked cars on both sides as the street residence do not wish to park in their own driveways. For council to permit such growth will just encourage the new residence to do the same and further congest this street. Not to say that the old miners home will be lost in a pile of rubble hence losing more of Eltham's history.

  4. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    C Freeman commented

    What happened to spreading the population and industry out westto stop the upwards movement? this 'idea' was rammed down my throat through my high school years...has all sense disappeared with the years? why are we not going west?

  5. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed raising of rear...” at 10 Baillie Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Kelly commented

    Whilst, I respect that work needs to be done, I think it's unfair that all of the Permit parking bays directly outside 10 Baillie are monopolised by this exercise. Residents are constantly penalised for upgrades to houses in this area. Furthermore, we cop the parking fines because our cars are easy prey, and anything with a 'load' gets overlooked. Mon-Fri for several weeks now 10 Baillie works have been hogging the permit spots. It should be a level playing field and 'permit' spots should not be open for negotiation because we pay our rates / water / electricity and all the other bills that involve living on this street. Favour residents.

  6. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Andrew Cruz commented

    I am a nearby resident and a property developer by profession. I can safely say this is a irresponsible and poorly designed building and it should be refused approval. There are so many omissions that its not worth assessing it properly. Not only are the choice of materials poorly thought out, the bulk and scale is incorrect. The setback and height do not match the LEP/DCP. Further more the renders are misleading and do not match the drawings.

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

    Bernard Becks wrote to local councillor Laurie Koranski

    once again (and predictably) it appears that local council has opted for rates revenue rather than creating what could be a magnificent riverside community.
    and lucky for the council that VETO got the power lines which were earmarked for this property underground .....

    Delivered to local councillor Laurie Koranski. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jen Barnett commented

    Once again a development that is far too big for the site. 8 stories is a ridiculous height and out of complete context with the local area. The surrounding streets and infrastructure cannot cope with this amount of people concentrated in an already crowded area, considering the massive developments already surrounding Sydney Park on 3 sides and the 2 huge complexes on May St and Alice St. This site should carry less apartments and lower rise, 4 stories max please. Over compensate for parking... Green space?

  9. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Darren Simpkins commented

    It is ridiculous in the extreme to have an eight storey building with 66 additional units spewing traffic onto a already busy intersection. Vehicle cannot get across the intersection to Sudney Park Road currently without having to cross two lanes of fast moving traffic along the Princes Highway heading into Newtown. This will create untold traffic chaos, in an already congested area. Not to mention the actual design of the building being totally out of character with the rest of the area and yet another historic building being demolished and replaced by some faceless glass fronted monstrosity. Please do your bit to save The Inner West and its unique character and refuse this application.

  10. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Karen Rowe-Nurse commented

    This development is too tall or the site. There are no buildings this height in the immediate or surrounding vicinity and it would be out of character for the area. It will overshadow smaller homes and be an unattractive addition to the area. Most people would have no objections to a three or 4 storey development in keeping with the area's character, but 8 stories is excessive. Road access would also be a problem - the roads surrounding this are generally narrow and already have limited parking. It is disingenuous to imagine that everyone who lived there would be car free and rely on public transport. I used to live in Lord St Newtown, still visit friends there and and cannot imagine that this is a suitable development for the area.

  11. In North Ryde NSW on “To construct a dual...” at 32 Morshead St, North Ryde, NSW Australia:

    Linda Fang commented

    There is a big tree at front of house, how the driveways going to work with dual occupancy? Plus the size of the land, would it be too crowded for two houses?

  12. In Boronia VIC on “4 Dwellings” at 11 Grevillea Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Concerned Citizen again commented

    You only have to look at what they've doing to Laurel Avenue and Tormore Road, insufficient parking means cars are parked on the street, both sides of Laurel. Hard to see getting out of Laurel onto Tormore Road with all the vehicles parked.

    We don't want that to happen in Grevillea Avenue, the Avenue is not a parking lot and this particular site at No. 11 was meant to only be 3 dwellings, now it's 4 !

    Come on, enough is enough.

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

    Phil Beaumont commented

    I object to this application based on the parking-to-apartment ratio & the actual height of the build.

    Please take time to research the traffic & street parking situation in this area, even for a few hours. With the bottleneck on Warren Rd (East) and the Woolworths near by, the idea that 9 spaces will be suffice for 39 habitable rooms is preposterous.

    As mentioned previously, the parking proposal also goes against Council's DCP. Height also exceeds council's DCP.

    Also, as previously mentioned, please consider the retail shops under the Revolution Apartments. They've been empty for close to TWO YEARS! I have no idea how this can be allowed to happen. Please don't let it happen here

  14. In Newtown NSW on “Limited licence - single...” at Eliza Street Between King and Lennox Street, Newtown, NSW:

    Joe o commented

    Great event to have. So ial nutritious and fun. More of the same please!!

  15. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Jason Bockett commented

    Placing a large childcare centre on a street like Duncan Street is shocking. I can not believe this is even up for consideration. Wouldn't Maroubra Junction be a more suitable location with the correct infrastructure in place already. If any council member has taken the time to monitor the movement of vehicles on Duncan Street then I can't see how they would let this happen. If this does go ahead and I hear of any type of incident concerning the safety of a child, I will be the first one to take legal action against Randwick council.
    This can not go ahead!!

  16. In Meadowbank NSW on “Residential Flat buildings...” at 133 - 137 Bowden St, Meadowbank, NSW Australia:

    Jane citizen commented

    I agree totally. This has got to stop. We are inundated with buildings which potentially will lead to an oversupply. Furthmore i am concerned by the fact that the street i live on has a heritage listed house, the house next to it is being bulldozed as i write. And there doesnot seem to be a DA in place. What is going on??

  17. In Meadowbank NSW on “Residential Flat buildings...” at 133 - 137 Bowden St, Meadowbank, NSW Australia:

    concerned citizen of Ryde commented

    I agree infrastructure is lacking, traffic is a joke.

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

    Yvette wrote to local councillor Victor Macri

    Hi Victor,

    I realise the provision for parking within this DA is in line with Council's Development Control Plan but, given the current tight, merge-over-or-you-will-crash situation on that portion of street as it is, I do have real concerns.... NINE parking spaces for 19 Apartments (39 or so rooms!) seems totally inadequate.

    Reading the application, the Developer does seem to 'assume' residents will utilise public transport. In an ideal world, yes, that would be the case. However, we need to be realistic. People who live in Studio apartments aren't always "students" without a car (as per their assumption)

    I'm all for creating more places for people to live, especially if it's close to Public Transport, but please, we can't "assume" that those residing in the development will not require a space to park a vehicle. Especially in that area, next to Woolworths and other retail outlets.

    Thanks so much,
    Yvette

    Photo of Victor Macri
    Victor Macri local councillor for Inner West Council (Marrickville)
    replied to Yvette

    Hi Yvette
    Unfortunately all of the councilors have been terminated we are unable to help your best approach would be to engage the council staff if you to discuss the matter further call me on 0408219360.
    All the best
    Victor

    Sent from my iPhone

    This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not copy, reproduce, disseminate or distribute this message or any attachment. If you are not the intended recipient please email the sender or notify Inner West Council and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Any views expressed in this email transmission may represent those of the individual sender and may include information that has not been approved by Inner West Council. The Council will not be responsible for any reliance upon personal views or information not approved by Inner West Council. Inner West Council advises that this email and any attachments should be scanned to detect viruses and accepts no liability for loss or damage resulting from the use of any attached files.

  19. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Miriam Fairhurst commented

    As an owner of a property in immediate proximity to this proposed development and directly affected by it I am appalled that I had to find out about this hideous piece of overdevelopment from Facebook. I have already identified a number of glaring errors and omissions in the DA and its associated documents. I will submit a detailed submission when I get a chance to more fully consider it. I would love speak to my elected local councillors about it, who can answer my questions and represent me in council meetings as suggested on this page but apparently I don't have any anymore. (Screenshots taken)

  20. In Kew VIC on “Construction of a new...” at 46 Stawell Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Julie Bell (the owner) commented

    It took multiple emails, a site visit and multiple changed drawings to REPLACE THE BACK FALLING DOWN FENCE!!!

    It is over zealous ridiculous controls from council on heritage homes.

    And why? My house is ugly. I would never pull it down, but allow me the right to update it.

    I've been told the only thing I can do without council permission is garden!!! Give me strength!!

  21. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brie commented

    its only a matter of time before this part of St Peters becomes a concrete jungle of apartment buildings that block out light, destroy privacy and increase traffic in the area. Look at all the other similar development plans around that area: Applebee St, May Stree etc. traffic will be worse than it already is and the streets will become wind tunnels. Ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous.

  22. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Adam Bryant commented

    And in case anyone missed it, this is in the proposal:

    5.2 Proposed Changes to On-Street Parking
    In order to meet the drop-off / pick-up parking demands of the proposed childcare centre, the following on-street parking restriction is proposed, as indicatively shown in Figure 5:
    An 29.4 metre ‘P15 Minute, 7:00am-9:30am, 3:00pm-6:00pm, Mon-Fri’ restriction on the eastern side of Duncan Street. The above parking restriction will accommodate five (5) drop-off / pick-up spaces that will satisfactorily accommodate the demand associated with the childcare centre. In general, this arrangement (with 15 minute parking during peak periods only) is supported by RMS Guidelines and will comply with the
    requirements for parallel on-street parking under AS 2890.5 (1993).

  23. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Dr Adam Bryant commented

    Would be keen to sign the petition.
    adamjacobbryant@gmail.com

  24. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Dr Adam Bryant commented

    I have just found out about this and unfortunately missed the deadline. I am happy to lobby against this to the greatest of my ability if there is any other avenue of objection.

    Placing a large child care centre on this residential street was shocking news for my partner and I, as well as our immediate neighbours who live in very close vicinity to was was just a normal house prior to this proposal.

    There has been no consultation whatsoever with the neighbours before this business placed the application.

    As far as I can see there has been no provision made for parking. This is a very heavily used street already by visitors to the area. There is very minimal off street parking for the residents. This is going to have a major impact.

    I am unable to see any provision for the increased traffic. Were the neighbours in any way consulted about the noise this would cause. For what really should be a suburban street, this street already suffers a serious traffic burden. This would be much worse if this proposal was allowed.

    Has children safety been considered at all? This is a main road. Is the council going to now make our street a school zone at 40km/hr?

    How can people who own a normal suburban house or unit be possibly subjected to the noise that a brand new business of the nature suddenly being jammed next to them (again presumably without any consultation)?

    This is a very poorly managed application and would proceed only against the great anger of the adjacent residents. I am simply shocked that this is even being considered.

  25. In Boronia VIC on “4 Dwellings” at 11 Grevillea Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    SRM wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    Hi JWB unfortunately council just don't care. There is no thought at all for existing residents. There are at least 5 streets in area of Boronia that I live in that our now so clogged that a normal vehicle can barely fit through. Matters are made worse by the fact cars travel in both directions. It's a nightmare for all including the poor garbos. Boronia will become the slums of Knox no doubt.

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 18 Baldwin Avenue Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Rob Gilham commented

    I live in Lockwood St Asquith, have you ever had to drive through Sherbrook Rd to Asquith during peak times, obviously no council members have to do this, I do and can't believe this DA is up for approval. I have lived here for over 65 years and have seen council after council want to turn this suburb into a concrete jungle with absolutely no consideration for the people who live here or more importantly "why" people live here. Today we still have houses with back yards for kids to play in, what do council really want, to support Developers or Residents. I have a house I'm happy to retire in, but not if we are next to units, why do you have such a desire to make me leave the suburb I was born in, have you driven past Asquith station early on a Sunday, so many cars, just the overflow from the Town Houses. Mon to Fri I can't park outside my own house, this whole area is overloaded with cars. The infrastructure simply can't handle whats already here let alone a development with 43 units, Please DON"T approve this DA

  27. In Marsden QLD on “Operational Works Landscape...” at Apex Park (marsden) 123-127 Fourth Avenue Marsden QLD 4132:

    erica palmer wrote to local councillor Jon Raven

    I would like to see a childrens playground built at apex park, marsden, there are new housing developments being built without appropriate facilities for the children living nearby, and there are always children playing out on the roads, it would be great if there was a fenced toddlers area also
    thanks,

    J R
    Jon Raven local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to erica palmer

    Hi Erica,

    Thanks for your interest in Apex Park. You'll be pleased to know that as part of the works required for the nearby development Apex Park will be upgraded.

    I've attached an image of the proposed layout for the park. As you can see there will be some swings, and other play equipment as well as a table and shelter.

    [cid:]

    If there is anything else I can help you with please let me know.

    Kind regards
    Jon
    [cid:]Councillor Jon Raven | Councillor for Division 5 | Logan City Council

    Phone: 07 3412 5505 | Mobile: 0499 560 995
    Facebook - Cr Jon Raven |
    PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld 4114 | www.logan.qld.gov.au

    Division 5 includes Marsden, Berrinba, Loganlea, Waterford West (part of) and Crestmead (part of)

    Logan City: Building Our Communities, Our Businesses and Our Pride

  28. In West Perth WA on “Installation of Acoustic...” at 1 Altona Street West Perth WA 6005:

    Greg P commented

    Dear. City of Perth. I think further work on noise pollution is required for 1 altona street. The low vibration noise is 24hr a day 7 days a week it never stops. it is still so loud at night that even with ear plugs I still hear it and I'm at 34 kings park road. There must be a problem with this aircon unit as other buildings in west perth do not seem to have this problem. I think maybe some sort of acoustic dampening is required. Rubber ? As a resident it is already causing me stress and is an unreasonable constant annoyance. Greg P Kings park road

  29. In Boronia VIC on “4 Dwellings” at 11 Grevillea Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    JWB commented

    This Avenue has a dead end with no proper turn around at the end for vehicles and leads directly into a school. One side of the Avenue has parking restrictions during school days and parents drop off and pick up children and park on the other side causing traffic chaos especially if motor vehicles are already parked on the unrestricted side.

    Garbage collectors also have trouble now emptying bins and turning around is difficult and with the extra bins and extra vehicles in the street, will make matters worse as parking becomes a major concern which contributes to access problems for residents as well as garbage collectors etc.

  30. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Extension to Residential...” at 280 Hume Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Leanne Kratzmann wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    Areas in the vicinity of Cranley and South St are becoming dangerous parking lots as a result of irresponsible approvals of unit developments in this area. Cranley St has almost reached one way traffic status as residents in unit developments park in the street because they cannot negotiate their inadequate narrow driveways and cars often have to pull over to allow other vehicles to pass when South St is used as a parking lot for the nursing home. Council needs to consider traffic flow in these areas before giving a rubber stamp to every development that comes their way.
    I suggest someone from the planning committee should take a drive by in these areas in peak school traffic and when CBD traffic is heading south around 5 pm.

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Leanne Kratzmann

    Thanks for your email Leanne
    I have forwarded it to our planners and transport areas
    Kind regards

    Cr Carol Taylor
    Sent from my iPhone
    0427723948
    Please excuse typographical errors!

    On 21 May 2016, at 2:42 PM, Leanne Kratzmann <> wrote:

    Areas in the vicinity of Cranley and South St are becoming dangerous parking lots as a result of irresponsible approvals of unit developments in this area. Cranley St has almost reached one way traffic status as residents in unit developments park in the street because they cannot negotiate their inadequate narrow driveways and cars often have to pull over to allow other vehicles to pass when South St is used as a parking lot for the nursing home. Council needs to consider traffic flow in these areas before giving a rubber stamp to every development that comes their way.
    I suggest someone from the planning committee should take a drive by in these areas in peak school traffic and when CBD traffic is heading south around 5 pm.

    From Leanne Kratzmann to local councillor Carol Taylor

    =========================================================================

    Leanne Kratzmann posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Leanne Kratzmann and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 280 Hume Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350

    Description: Extension to Residential Care Facility 35 Rooms

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/666221?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

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