Recent comments

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

    Georgia and Glen Skelton commented

    This is totally inappropriate for this area. We have just moved in to this area and renovated respecting the character of the area . To discover that our sky line may change completely is devastating. Please do not proceed.

  2. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Jennifer Nancy Litchfield commented

    Can you please advise what this telecommunications development is needed for? The first time I heard about this was when I saw the signs posted recently at the park. I thought everyone's mobiles and internet communications were all working well these days. I personally do not want this development to go ahead. I love to get away from my work on the computer and just go for a quiet healthy walk in the fresh air at the park.

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

    Sally Lo commented

    I am opposed to proposed construction of the mosque at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville for the following reasons:

    1) The proposed development does not agree to the area’s demography and it does not service the needs of the local residents of our community as a whole.

    2) King Georges Road is busy road no matter what time of the day it is, building a mosque in a residential area not only will it create traffic chaos, parking issues but also increase the noise level in the area, hence, another health concern for the local community especially those elderly people living in the retirement village across the road, who also need CLEAR access for emergencies and ambulance.

    3) Building a mosque in a residential area will bring worshippers outside the areas which is a security concerns to the local community.

    4) The mosque operating hours is disruptive to nearby residents. The expected operating hours will be from 3:30 am to 10:30 pm in summer and 5:00 am to 9:30 pm in winter.

  4. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Jennifer Nancy Litchfield commented

    Can you please advise what this telecommunications development is needed for? The first time I heard about this was when I saw the signs posted recently at the park. I thought everyone's mobiles and internet communications were all working well these days. I personally do not want this development to go ahead. I love to get away from my work on the computer and just go for a quiet healthy walk in the fresh air at the park.

  5. In Chippendale NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 166-170 Broadway Chippendale NSW 2008:

    David commented

    We live in a vibrant and growing city which is enhanced by facilities like the one proposed and we should understand that if we live within a kilometre of the CBD heavy footpath traffic will be implied. If we do not accept this as normal daily inner city life we should perhaps move to the countryside. More tables and less smokers.

  6. In Chippendale NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 166-170 Broadway Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Cameron commented

    I do not support the increase in outdoor tables. The venue has existing outdoor dining facilities, any additional seating and tables will encroach into and prevent reasonable pedestrian access in an area that has very high foot traffic. Additional seating and tables will see smokers needing to move closer to residential buildings and other small businesses on the street and should not be encouraged.

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

    GSUN commented

    i strongly objecting to the application of mosque on King Georges Road and Tavistock road South Hurstville reason because there are 3 mosques nearby include Rockdale, Penshurst and Kogarah, i do not see any reason why we need another one in Hurstville? Also we know most population in Hurstville are Chinese backgound, why would mosque need to be built where there are not many muslim around and which can affect the local residents. We also have worries for the influx of traffic in a quite surburban area and our local school around. please be more considerate!

  8. In Hallidays Point NSW on “Stage 2B of Rural Tourist...” at 296 Blackhead Road, Hallidays Point NSW 2430:

    Stuart commented

    The development proposes the construction of a roundabout at the entrance to Tallwoods on Blackhead Rd. The language utilised in the application indicates that the additional pavement will be added to the side of the existing pavement and will be a bitumen seal. Such works typically create a weak point at the join between the two pavements that fails prematurely and becomes a liability to the Council.

    The wearing surface of the roundabout should be concrete, a high spec RMS Asphalt could also be used if necessary. A bitumen seal should be avoided considering the forces to be placed upon the wearing surface which a bitumen seal would not be able to adequately withstand over the life of the pavement.

    Street lighting of the roundabout, suggest a central street light like those located at the intersection of Breese Parade & The Lakes Way. This will increase the safety of the intersection at night for those pedestrian, cyclists and motorists utilising it.

    The central portion of the roundabout island should not be fully mountable as this invites some motorists to drive through the roundabout at high speed in a dangerous manner for other motorists. I have witnessed local motorists doing dangerous manoeuvres that would strongly that such actions would occur without a raised non-mountable central island.

    How does the development link into cycle ways and footpaths in the local area?

    Construction of the roundabout should be undertaken in a short confined window of time to reduce impacts upon traffic flow along Blackhead Road.

    Considering the close proximity of wetlands to the construction works a higher quality, more defined, sediment and erosion control plans more in alignment with the new NatSpec design of sediment and erosion control spec.

  9. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of two...” at 122 Loongana Avenue, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    David Boyde commented

    We live behind the proposed construction site and believe that Moreland City Council needs to refuse this application for the proposed construction of the two dwellings (one double storey and one single) as a number of residents and ourselves who live in the ANA Estate Glenroy, believe that ANA Estate is fast losing its Character and becoming congested in addition road side parking will cause traffic problems and due to all the double storey dwelling being built our privacy would be invaded.

  10. In Stanmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 128 Percival Road Stanmore NSW 2048:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society requests that Council require a proper heritage assessment of this proposal. The property is a prominent period building within the Stanmore shopping precinct, and is a significant contributor to the character of the Annandale Farm Heritage Conservation Area. This has not been identified in the Statement of Environmental Effects provided with the application, and no Heritage Impact Assessment has been provided that would fully evaluate the impacts of this substantial proposal within this highly important heritage precinct.

    Scott MacArthur,
    Vice President, Marrickville Heritage Society

  11. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 23 Croydon Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society has concerns about aspects of this proposal and cannot support it in its current form.
    The removal of the garage wing of the 1920s apartment building is apparently required to construct a driveway to the rear of the property. This reveals the form of the gabled end wall of the original 1880s terrace house, but produces an asymmetrical main facade, which is intrusive to the general character of the Conservation Area. The option of modifying the gable to include a half hip and an eave matching the 1920s form has apparently been considered and rejected on the grounds that the proposed gable allows the form of the 1880s terrace to remain within the 1920s apartment building. However, as this produces such an ungainly main facade composition, other alternatives need to be considered. The use of face bricks on what is asserted to be the end wall of an 1880s terrace is inappropriate, and this wall should be rendered and painted for this to be consistent with the stated aim of retaining the form of the terrace house. As the original 1880s rear service wing is demolished, the greatest part of the remaining heritage value of the property would seem to lie in its contribution to the Conservation Area. To that end, creating a half hip and an eave matching the 1920s side of the building, to create a symmetrical main facade, that is more consistent with the character of the surrounding precinct would on balance be a better heritage outcome.
    The Marrickville Heritage Society calls for Council to request the proposal be modified to provide a better response to the heritage values of the Conservation Area.
    Scott MacArthur
    Vice President, Marrickville Heritage Society

  12. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Mona Vale Road, Pymble, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    Well have a look at DA0601/15 at http://datracking.kmc.nsw.gov.au/datrackingUI/Modules/applicationmaster/default.aspx?page=wrapper&key=346408

    There are no documents there at all !

    All that is there are the words "DA0601/15 (18/12/2015) 146 Mona Vale Road PYMBLE - Development Appli... "

    Incomplete words and not even with any URL link to the actual document !!

    I've never seen anything like this before .. what has happened .. have the staff left ... gone off mid sentence?

    It this because KMC has just been announced as crushed - being put our of existence. See their own message on this, that "On Friday 18 December 2015 the Baird Government advised NSW councils that it had made a decision .... Ku-ring-gai Council is to be forcibly merged with Hornsby Shire .." ( http://www.kmc.nsw.gov.au/Current_projects_priorities/Key_priorities/The_threat_of_forced_council_mergers )

    [ John Byrnes at St. Ives at 2:11 p.m., 21/12/2015 ]

  13. In Tamarama NSW on “Strata subdivision from 2...” at 7 Gaerloch Avenue Tamarama NSW 2026:

    Brian Abel commented

    Gaerloch Avenue is already stretched for on street parking so having another flat in the street will mean another car having to park on the street and just make the situation worse.

  14. In Buderim QLD on “112 Burnett Street BUDERIM...” at 112 Burnett St, Buderim, QLD:

    Christine Lambooy commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am extremely concerned that the service entrance for this development from Pine Street will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residential area. I believe the current traffic flow report for this development does not address this issue.
    This is a large aged care facility with at least 30 staff on site at all times. Volunteers, trades persons, patient transport vehicles and other support staff will also probably use this entrance.
    I am not aware of shift change times however these are likely to be at 6-7am, 2-3pm and 10-11pm for a 3 shift day and 6-8am and 6-8pm for a 2 shift day.
    As well there will be numerous large delivery trucks for laundry, catering and medical supplies using this entrance. This additional traffic flow will occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week.
    The impact of this extra traffic flow through this quiet residential area with narrow winding streets will be substantial, particularly with respect to noise levels and road safety (especially for children playing and commuting to school).
    This facility would be better placed in a less dense residential / non residential area.
    This valuable site is within walking distance to Buderim shops and primary school and would be better utilised for small block housing housing or single storey retirement village development, more in keeping with the planning scheme for this area. A well planned residential development on this site would allow more families and individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in our wonderfull village.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Yours sincerely,
    Chris Lambooy

  15. In Marion SA on “Demolition of public toilet...” at The Parade Marion:

    Mike Windows commented

    Of course the old toilet block has to go. It is not in good condition and is a hang out for undesirables. People using the toilet have been accosted by predatory homosexuals. Council has been aware of this for years and done nothing. This is popular recreation area and council needs to think again if they want to replace it with only ONE Excelloo. Will the Excelloo be intalled before demolition of the old one?

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

    john Citizen commented

    The proposed mosque at 849 King Georges Rd is the another example of the beginnings of the end of Christianity in this part of the world. The Saudi's will fund everything , the local governments will yield and result in mosques being built in inappropriate places such as here and all around Sydney.Then muslims will flock to the area, Christain residences / business will move out as muslims don't assimilate with Christians ,then muslims will buy up property until it becomes another Lakemba or Arncliffe.
    The other obvious impacts are:
    Parking crises.
    Noise at inappropriate hours.
    Intimidation of residences.

    We don't want a mosque here, it threatens our way of life , our childrens belief in Christianity.
    Why are the local governments so blind? The majority of rate payers don't want the mosque, so it is your duty to ensure it doesnt happen. The muslims are taking advantage of our Christian and Democratic beliefs ie. welcome thy neighbour with love and the right to express.
    Listen to us before it is too late !!!

  17. In Marion SA on “Demolition of public toilet...” at The Parade Marion:

    Cr Bruce Hull commented

    The good news is that those fellas should really get a room soon as the old toilet block is going! And we get a second hand Excel Loo, yup - that is just the one folks! This replaces 2 ladies toilets and 1 male toilet and 1 trough? You know what to do!
    Regards Cr Bruce Hull

  18. In Marion SA on “Demolition of public toilet...” at The Parade Marion:

    Fred Hill commented

    This has been a long time coming. The demolition is a good thing to have done if the final product is of a standard and capacity that is not a backward step. At times there are up to 100 people (or more) using the reserve and the prospect of fewer toilet cubicles than the present allocation would be a poor upgrade. The demolition is not a problem - what the replacement plans are could be but I have not seen any as yet.

  19. In Georges Hall NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 23 Cumberland Avenue Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia:

    malcolm mcfarlane commented

    How high will the structure be. Where is the shadow line. How close to the adjoining fence will the structure be. are there any windows over looking adjoining properties, Is the current building set back to be maintained. Can I view the proposed plan to make comment..

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

    Mirjana Taleska commented

    I am a very worried & extremely concerned resident directly affected by the proposal of a Mosque on the corner of King Georges Road and Tavistock Road South Hurstville. As a Kogarah Council rate payer and resident, I believe Kogarah council needs to take responsibility of the IMPACT such a Mosque will have on the local area today, tomorrow and the future, it will be irreversible. Local residence will be driven out of there homes they have shared for many generations. Take into consideration the situation of Lakemba + Kingsgrove Mosque, residence have sold properties for no other reason but disturbance the Mosque has attracted, Kingsgrove businesses have re-located or shut there business due to the high impact the Mosque has brought to the area. Businesses are unable to operate efficiently due to illegal double parking, and congestion to the streets NOT allowing business to access there own property. A Mosque on Tavistock & King Georges Road ISN'T a appropriate site for such a HIGH impact development for a local suburban residential area. Possibly Council should seek alternative and more suitable location. There is NO BENEFIT to our local or wider community for such a huge Mosque, not to mention the proximity to other local and near mosque, 3.1kms away at 445 Forest Road Penshurst, 18 Culwulla Street South Hurstville, 5 Queen Victoria Street Bexley, 3-5 Wollongong Road Arncliffe, 283 Bay Street Brighton Le Sands, 2 Fredrick Street Rockdale + 89 Railway Pde Rockdale, plus 6 at Lakemba + 7 in Bankstown all are within minutes away from public transport bus stations and railway lines. Does South Hurstville really need a Mosque it clearly shows there is NO LACK OF MOSQUE in our area already.
    The Mosque will have significant increased traffic impact and road safety conditions already under pressure to local residence, we already have experienced 2 separate road/car accident fatalities on Terry Street. Residence SAY NO MORE.
    The Mosque proposes 7 days prayers 365 days 5 prayers per day from 3.30am to 10.30pm possibly later, what impact does this have on local residence, noise, parking, privacy, environmental damage ,obstruction to enter your property, obstruction to business car park at IGA supermarket and small shopping village, obstruction to Nursing Home and South Hurstville Kindergarten, safety, all to the risk of local homes and property. Majority of the visitors to the Mosque will be from out of area. NO BENEFIT to our local homes and residence.
    Another great concern the Mosque proposes educational
    classrooms for children ! has the NSW board of Education approved such classes and there teachings. What education system will be followed ?
    The proposed Mosque development is massive oversized construction and not within the streetscape limitations, Such a Mosque will be overbearing to the local development, and will not fit in with the existing streetscape.

  21. In Armadale VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 1112 High Street, Armadale, VIC:

    Anthony Stuart commented

    Permit Number: 0656/15

    Address: 1112 High Street Armadale

    Proposed: Part demolition and construction of a multi-dwelling development in a Commercial 1 Zone and a reduction in the car parking requirement and in a Heritage Overlay

    Applicant: Zeno Entity Architects

    Reasons for objections breeches guidelines set out High Street Activity Structure Plan as follows:

    The development breaches the Heritage Grade C guidelines as it does not retain or reflect the original character that is integral to the High Street streetscape & surrounds.

    The development requires the demolition of the heritage shop, being part of the east wall fronting Stuart Street which is unacceptable as this corner site is of heritage significance.

    The development is a visual dominance to the streetscape with 4 storey building built on all of the of the 252sqm footprint of the site, The proposal dwarfs adjacent buildings and fails to interface with retail to the east. The size and scale of the structure exceeds the generally accepted 12m height for the area.

    The development fails to provide a 3m setback from the South boundary as there isn discrepancy in the true ground level that should be taken from the rear laneway.

    The development fails to provide 1.0 space per 5 residential units required by the statutory parking rate. Each of the 6 units MUST have one car space each and 1 retail car space plus loading space and a provision for 1 visitor parking. The scheme proposes a car turntable that is 6m in width that that is so tight it encroaches into the boundary walls .It is impossible for vehicles to access or reverse onto the turntable then proceed to do 3 point turns with our damaging the structure of the building or other vehicles which is totally inadequate.

    How will I be affected:

    As a neighbour my property falls in a Heritage area which is part of Armadale charm and appeal.
    The developments sheer visual dominance along with the demolition of a prominent ninetieth century architecture corner diminishes the integrity of the area.The development does look or feel integral as part of the High Street streetscape. The proposal does not maintain the heritage fabric being over 14.5 meters in height and fails to provide adequate car parking with access and movement.

  22. In West Tamworth NSW on “Community Facilities...” at 120 Goonoo Goonoo Road West Tamworth NSW 2340:

    M. Billings commented

    I object to this mosque (community centre) proposed for Tamworth. In fact I object to any mosques being built in Australia. They are not just a place for prayer, but a place for hate preaching against western civilisation. Muslims will not assimilate into our culture, so why should we with there's. Why are Muslims a protected species in Australia, when we all know they would not afford us the same treatment in a Muslim country. Each new mosque, each new objection to our laws, our way of life is just driving an even bigger wedge between our two cultures. If they are happy to come live in Australia, then they should be happy to asslmilate & not try to change Australia into the place they left.
    No to all mosques.

  23. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement.” at 239 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lyn Joy commented

    What are the proposed plans/reasons for this application?

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

    justin wyllie commented

    Not all mozlims are terrorists, but mosques teach the koran, which states evil has a right to be committed against "non believers".

    Do you lock your house and car doors at night??...if so, why, when almost nobody is a thief........... but most mozlims arent terrorists, so you're going to allow a mosque to teach terrorism anyway??

    All mosques are a threat to australian freedom of lifestyle, whatever "culture" you're bought up in, Islam is a threat to it....

  25. In Eltham VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 26 Pryor Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Gillian Essex commented

    Traffic density is already an issue in Eltham as is overcrowding on the trains. The addition of 108 dwellings in central Eltham will compromise the livability of this Shire. The removal of vegetation will compromise its Green Wedge status.

  26. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 26 Pinnacle St Miranda 2228:

    Tracy Weekley commented

    I am the owner and resident of 22 Pinnacle street and have rescinded the option for sale. This matter is currently a matter before the law society. Therefor I do object to the application until the matter is resolved.
    Tracy Weekley

  27. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 26 Pinnacle St Miranda 2228:

    Tracy Weekley commented

    I am the owner and resident of 22 Pinnacle street and have rescinded the option for sale. This matter is currently a matter before the law society. Therefor I do object to the application until the matter is resolved.
    Tracy Weekley

  28. In Albert Park SA on “Alterations to existing...” at 6 Jervois Street Albert Park SA 5014:

    Roy Fryar commented

    Re Development of 6 Jervois Street Albert Park.
    I noticed car parking along the boundary fence of 39 May Street, it would be much appreciated the developer could they please place a kerb approximately 1.5 metres from the fence to help prevent damage to the fence.
    Thanking you
    Roy Fryar
    Mob 0408422815

  29. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 10 Botherambo St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Roger Daily commented

    No reduction in parking requirements! We already have huge parking issues in this area for existing housing stock so if you can't fulfill the parking requirements then reduce the number of dwellings until you can

  30. In Richmond VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 107 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Roger Daily commented

    Enough of these applications for waiver of car parking requirements! The Yarra Planning scheme needs to be changed so that reducing the parking requirements is not an option before it is too late, if it isn't already. A recent building close to this one has 17 apartments and 4 shops yet only 4 parking spaces. How was that ever approved? I object and the time to stop this madness is now.

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