Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

    PLANNING APPLICATION NO DA/276/2015
    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.

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

    Desley Mundell commented

    Concerned
    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.

  8. 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).
    www.bitrebels.com/design/inspiring-architecture-hotel-balcony-swimming-pools-12-pics/

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

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

    Tim commented

    DO NOT BUILD THIS TEMPLE!!!
    It will change the whole demographic of Windsor
    Strongly object!

  16. 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

  17. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    JL commented

    How many more apartments can you squash in this small area. You already have Arlington Grove on one side; there is a request to have a small apartment block across the road on Constitution Rd right near the Light Rail; on one side of the bridge you have Williams Parade apartments of over 1000 people living there; and on the other side of the the bridge are the Constitution Rd apartments with over 300 people living there. How many more apartments, people, cars can you squash in one area???? Constitution Road is already full of traffic and dangerous. You really need to consider the infrastructure here. The small streets and the Constitution Rd bridge is not made to support all these people and cars. Why is the beautiful community of Dulwich Hill being overtaken by greedy developers??

  18. In Sefton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 35 Waldron Road Sefton NSW 2162 Australia:

    colin M commented

    This is a big jump in density and change to landscape and area usage. 30 units seems like a lot.

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

    Petra Jones commented

    Is this an application for a change in purpose from a café to a restaurant? I'm not quite sure why a café would want to open until 11pm? Would appreciate some clarification.

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

    Sue never n commented

    Why does a cafe need to be open till 11pm. It would appear that it wishes to become a restaurant and have a licence for alcohol in the near future.

  21. In Cleveland QLD on “Combined MCU & OPW Multiple...” at 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD:

    Robert C Pendrey 17 Ostend Court wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    There is no room for on street parking in Sherrin Court or Ostend Court. There are already 8 or more cars parked at night on the street in Ostend Court adjoining this area because of the 8 Units at 19/20 Ostend Court. This on street parking already partially obstructs the intersection at Fitzroy Street. The units in Ostend Court each have one onsite park which has caused the problem. The site is too far from the railway station gain any parking concessions. The proposed units should each have 2 onsite car parks as the site has very limited road frontage.
    On the application: 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD (MCU013880)
    Combined MCU & OPW Multiple Dwellings x 4

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Mitchell. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Cleveland QLD on “Combined MCU & OPW Multiple...” at 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD:

    Robert C Pendrey 17 Ostend Court commented

    There is no room for on street parking in Sherrin Court or Ostend Court. There are already 8 or more cars parked at nigh on the street in Ostend Court adjoining this area because of the 8 Units at 19/20 Ostend Court. This on street parking already partially obstructs the intersection at Fitzroy Street. The units in Ostend Court each have one onsite park which has caused the problem. The site is too far from the railway station gain any parking concessions. The proposed units should each have 2 onsite car parks as the site has very limited road frontage.

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

    Andrew wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    The house was removed weeks ago and one block has a sold sign on it with the other block going to auction. This alert seems to have arrived well after the horse has bolted.

    Photo of Lance Hewlett
    Lance Hewlett local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Andrew

    Hi Andrew,

    I'm uncertain why the planning alert was late however the application you are referring to was a code assessable development which met with the requirements of the current planning scheme.
    Hope that helps. Let me know if I can assist in any other way.

    Kind Regards,

    Cr Lance Hewlett [cid:]
    Councillor, Division 4
    Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island
    Redland City Council |
    Cnr Middle and Bloomfield Streets, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    PO Box 21, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    Phone: (07) 3829-8603 | Mobile: 0421 880 371 |
    Email: | Web: www.redland.qld.gov.au
    [cid:]https://www.facebook.com/lance.hewlett

    On 21 Nov. 2016, at 5:46 am, Andrew <> wrote:

    The house was removed weeks ago and one block has a sold sign on it with the other block going to auction. This alert seems to have arrived well after the horse has bolted.

    From Andrew to local councillor Lance Hewlett

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

    Andrew 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 Andrew and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 5 Pelican Street, Victoria Point, QLD

    Description: Survey Plan -Standard Format 1 into 2

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/750214?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  24. In Redland Bay QLD on “Building Format Multiple...” at 21-43 Salisbury Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jane Townsend wrote to local councillor Julie Talty

    I too very much hope that the parkland isn't going. With so many smaller housing units, villas etc going in around Salisbury street we need our local parkland for local community members to access. The streets (if you can even call them a proper street in these new developments are so small...certainly not suitable for children to play games etc. C'mon Redland City Council....what are you thinking? And when are you going to do the much needed (and also overdue infrastructure upgrades) such as the roads that lead into Redland Bay???? Would love to hear a reply from our Council representatives...but in the local newsletters I received in the mail, there was very little talk of real action as to what is happening?

    Delivered to local councillor Julie Talty. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for fitout and use for...” at 102 Hampden Road, Artarmon NSW 2064:

    Timothy Neville commented

    There's really no problem with another takeaway shop in the area.

    The council should however consider its impact on the three other sushi retailers in the area.

    Not positive for their sales, as a takeaway sushi shop will significantly undercut and be anti-competitive for the area. There isn't the foot traffic or population in Artarmon to support another food provider, we have already seen the closure of two food suppliers in the area. With Development Applications in Willoughby and Artarmon for medium density apartment blocks e.g. Channel 9 and the Hampden shops, constantly being declined and knocked back by Council there is nothing that would suppose their are more people to be moving to Artarmon in the short-term and the Hampden road closures are going to make business not only difficult for the existing businesses but even more so for a new face.

  26. In Bexley NSW on “356 & 358-368 Forest Road...” at 356 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    V Mac commented

    Residents bought in this area knowing that there were height restrictions. It is unfair for those buyers to have to be overshadowed by this building. And they cannot afford to buy air rights like wealthy developers. Parking is also an issue as this entire corner is no stopping and no parking. Where would the extra cars these tenants will have be parked? Relatives and visitors, too? Too many apartments for such a small block. And on a dangerous corner. There's a bus stop where the driveway is supposed to go. Red-light speed cameras, electricity wires and poles. This development needs to rethought.

  27. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Designated/Integrated...” at 2 B Occupation Road, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Ann commented

    Really!!!!! how much more over-development is going to happen, It's getting ridiculous trying to get to and from work, and even shop at local centres. This is supposed to be crown open land, not selling off to highest bidder. Stop wrecking my home environment. This is downright wrong!!!!

  28. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I'll preface my objection with a request that Council (ie Government appointed Administrator), Land and Environment, and developers read these two articles (and I'm not affiliated with either of the authors or the companies):

    http://www.durackarchitects.com/2016/11/11/the-value-of-housing-density/

    http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-must-learn-planning-lessons-as-knock-down-and-redevelop-no-longer-works-20161119-gsq6fp/

    Going up is not the answer and, as the Domain piece points out, once you build to the boundary line with a succession of these monstrosities, it locks us out of flexible re-use at a later stage. In saying that, we also need to avoid a repetition of the ubiquitous blonde brick villas of the 80s.

    Turning now to the architectural merits of this building, there are none and approval sets the tone for more of the same. Removing common space to make a buck on extra units is either poor arithmetic by the developer from the get go or just a cash grab. The plans appear silent on passive solar or water collection, energy saving strategies or anything more than a token attempt at "landscaping" (ie planter boxes).

    I live down the way in Canterbury where equally appealing eyesores are popping up with abandon. Drive down Charles Street and see how Dulwich Hill can be similarly "beautified". I'm protesting in solidarity because it's a creeping tide of rubbish development that threatens all of Sydney (with the possible exception of Point Piper).

    Unfortunately, as experienced in other suburbs, some developers will just keep bringing it back to Land and Environment until local objections are worn down or worn out - end result often being worse than the original proposal.

    Increasingly, my personal "vision for Sydney" may be the one in the rear vision mirror of my car as I depart for good.

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

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I am not anti development as falsely accused. I am, however, against the pointless destruction and removal of trees and I do have a problem with overdevelopment. Please look at the demolition work underway in 4 Forest Grove, Epping and you will see how they are placing rubbish around the base of the trees on the boundary with Forest Park. These trees belong to the Park so they are not in the way of any development. I am against the way I continually see contractor's complete disregard for the trees (not to mention nature strips, local roads and public foot paths) but it is a missinterpretation to say I am against development.

  30. In Epping NSW on “20-28 Cambridge Street,...” at 0 Cambridge Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    With such a huge building proposed where is the traffic from at lease five hundred car spaces going?
    Traffic will be jam packed at the intersection of Cambridge and Oxfords Sts day in day out as a result of this 23 storey building going ahead.
    Once again here is an example of no traffic planning by the State government.

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