Recent comments

  1. In Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Orange Street, Hurstville, NSW Australia:

    Michael Miknic commented

    When will the Neighbour Notification Plans be able to be viewed on the internet ...it has bee a month already since the application has been submitted

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To use the premises as a...” at 422 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Phil Hall wrote to local councillor Mark Gardiner

    This development proposal will dramatically impact parking for local residents in Robert Street.

    There is already insufficient parking, and by increasing demand by approving this application, this will make matters much worse.

    The site has limited parking facilities, and will impact local residents with young families who will no longer be able to park on the street.

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Gardiner. They are yet to respond.

  3. In Marrickville NSW on “To use the premises as a...” at 422 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Phil Hall commented

    This development proposal will dramatically impact parking for local residents in Robert Street.

    There is already insufficient parking, and by increasing demand by approving this application, this will make matters much worse.

    The site has limited parking facilities, and will impact local residents with young families who will no longer be able to park on the street.

  4. In Canterbury NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 2a Charles Street, Canterbury, NSW:

    MICHELE VAN DER SANDER commented

    As per the previous comments. There are sufficient alcohol retail outlets in this area. Some diversity of retail offerings would be of benefit to the community.

  5. In Epping NSW on “Request for a Pre-Gateway...” at – Land at 2-18 Epping Road, 2-4 Forest Grove and 725 Blaxland Road, Epping.:

    Sue Simmonds commented

    I would implore the Council and the Department of Planning and Environment to respect and uphold Council regulations. The way developers are now using the Gateway Process makes a mockery of the rules and regulations set by council. Setbacks, frontages, building heights, building/land ratios, etc, should be set in stone. It is becoming increasingly common for developers to try to bend and change the rules, or ignore them, and unfortunately they seem often to be successful. I support Craig Watson in urging that any change to the LEP be rejected.

  6. In Epping NSW on “Request for a Pre-Gateway...” at – Land at 2-18 Epping Road, 2-4 Forest Grove and 725 Blaxland Road, Epping.:

    Craig Watson commented

    The residents of Epping participated in the lengthy Epping Urban Activation process. The Department of Planning formulated development guidelines that informed the LEP's for Hornsby and Parramatta council. All developers where aware of the constraints and form their own commercial decisions based on these contraints. To allow amendments to an LEP for private commercial reasons will make a mockery of the original planning process and break faith with the community.
    I would strongly urge that any change to the LEP be rejected out of hand.

  7. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Will the taxis be prohibited from parking on the street? How will this be enforced. I don't live on the street but it already congested with traffic and parked vehicles. I would hate for it to be inflicted with the same issue that council is ignoring on Henry St in Sydenham where taxis are parked all day and night, where they are switched over and plates transfer from one vehicle to the next. No one else gets to park there and with the influx of units being built in the area parking is already at capacity without the addition of business.

  8. In Kenthurst NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 20-22 Annangrove Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Amanda Lynch wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    I am strongly opposed to the proposed cemetery for Annangrove Road.

    As a mother of two students at St Madeleine's Primary School I have serious concerns about the safety implications for students and the community if the parking facilities on site are dramatically reduced to accommodate a cemetery.

    Having been briefed on the proposal just last week by both the parish priest and a member of the parish finance committee, it is my understanding that the cemetery is not being proposed because there is a demand for one in the area, but rather to bank roll the cost of building a new church on the site. I can't in good conscience support an application that doesn't meet the needs of the community but is solely a fundraising exercise.

    Lastly I would like to say I am less than thrilled at the prospect of my children being exposed to several funerals each week. I'm disappointed the parish hasn't thought to factor in the emotional well being of the children in their community and I sincerely hope the proposal is not given the green light.

    Amanda Lynch

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Byrne. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46-48 South Parade, Campsie:

    Min commented

    I really concern about impact of the construction to the Campsie public school where my child goes. The safety and privacy of the children in the school, the noise, pollution and the traffic would be much worst for the parents to drop off/ pick up their children. At the end of the day, these children are our future.

  10. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Penelope Bell wrote to local councillor Morris Hanna

    There needs to be consideration that this is primarily a residential street. On numerous occasions during shift changeovers, especially the 3am shift, drivers are loud and inconsiderate of sleeping residents when returning to their private vehicles parked on the street. Does this development include providing adequate parking for the drivers within the base?

    Delivered to local councillor Morris Hanna. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Leichhardt NSW on “The proposal seeks a minor...” at Lease 7 Darley Road Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    christine commented

    Hello everyone, My understanding after attending the Westconnext Info session on 13 August is that the Sydney Motorway Corporation is in negotiations to acquire this site for a 'dive' mid-tunnelling point and construction site. They will occupy it for 4 years with 24/7 trucks carrying spoil out of the tunnel. I suggest you contact the Council and your Local Member, as I intend to do, to try and stop this.

  12. In Blacksmiths NSW on “Recreation Area (Skydive...” at Blacksmiths Beach, 116 Ungala Road, Blacksmiths NSW 2281:

    Mr. Blacksmiths commented

    Parachute landings on a suburban beach (Blacksmiths) is a great idea. Surfboard and jet ski hire at the landing sight too please. Shopping centre landings for those who may want a less sporty experience? The golf course has plenty of space available intermittently. Land a hole in one! Hell, the more landing sites the better for tourism and the locals don't count because councillors and operators live elsewhere. I do hope councils liability insurance covers such novel approvals.

  13. In Newport NSW on “Subdivision of one (1) lot...” at 62 Hillside Road Newport NSW 2106:

    Malcolm McDivitt commented

    As a resident of Hillside Road we wish to express our concern about this proposed subdivision. We completely support Council's deemed refusal on the basis of:
    ° Significant impact on:
    - threatened species (Powerful Owl)
    - Endangered ecological communities (Littoral rainforest)
    ° Non-compliance of Lot size requirements
    ° Cumulative impact of development works.
    We also note the potential impact on the local stormwater catchment and slope stability resulting from vegetation removal and excavation. Development should not be permitted in this remnant rainforest area even if it requires some compensation/reclamation by Council and/or state government

  14. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Ravit Danieli Vlandis commented

    As a resident of Union Street, I'm very much concerned with the parking situation. Our street is a very narrow street and parking is scarce. we have parents park on our street picking kids up from school and to add the taxi drivers to that will be a disaster to us, tax paying residents and will affect our quality of life. It will also increase traffic in our street where so many kids love playing.

    Thanking you for your consideration.

  15. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Bec Curran commented

    These premises are currently operating as a taxi exchange. In an area where parking is predominantly on-street this poses a problem due to the influx of drivers leaving their cars in our already congested and narrow streets. They park in 'no standing' and 'no parking' areas which is dangerous at that point of union street with cars often nearly colliding as they pull in from the Princes Highway and Smith Street.

  16. In Canterbury NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 2a Charles Street, Canterbury, NSW:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I believe there are already sufficient liquor outlets in Canterbury. At least three of them are already within close walking proximity to the site proposed, plus Canterbury-Hurlstone Park RSL further up the road. There are two chain liquor stores within close driving distance.

    Council should be encouraging greater diversity of retail outlets and, in this case, if there is a desperate need for more alcohol in Canterbury, an independently owned/operated boutique wine or spirits bar would be a welcome alternative - and one that presents alcohol consumption in a more appropriate context.

  17. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    jill richardson commented

    Considering the way they keep the taxi base at Carrington rd and the surrounding rubbish that eminates from the premises,i could think of nothing worse,its too small and wiil increase hard rubbish ,not to mention paper coffee cups around the surrounding area.

  18. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 71-91 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    BIKESydney commented

    WestConnex is about to destroy Euston Road (upgraded to 6 lanes). The viability and future liveability of this development will depend on retention of the current low-traffic aspect of Maddox St. Further, due to planned development of the Alexandra Canal cycleway, Maddox St will become a regionally significant cycling route, and with that, east-west "crossability" (walking and cycling) of Euston is and will be hugely important.

    This development application should be revised to have its Section 94 contributions directed to traffic calming measures aimed at:
    - limiting the impact of high-speed traffic (including rat-running) through Maddox St caused by the vastly increased Westconnex traffic volumes and speeds, and
    - retaining east-west "crossability" of Euston Rd at Maddox St (in future, signal phasing for Westconnex will significantly reduce east-west "green time" - consider the limited north-south crossing opportunities on Gardeners Rd by comparison)
    - limiting the ingress of out-of-area traffic into Maddox St. The City should consider - through this development application - reconfiguring the entrances to Maddox as low traffic" or even "filtered permeability" ingress.

  19. In Canterbury NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 2a Charles Street, Canterbury, NSW:

    Laura Hart commented

    Heavens above! How may booze outlets do we need? Aldi, Local liquor, the one over the bridge and up past the petrol station, I assume you can buy it at the pub and there are two at least in Dulwich Hill and more in Campsie. And will the new Woolies they are promising us for the bottom of that monstrosity next to the station be selling it too? Please have a thought for the community and knock this one back.

  20. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 67 Caringbah Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Larry Cohen commented

    As owners of adjacent Townhouse No: 7 / 96 Yathong Rd (immediately north of this development), we object to the following items based on to Loss of Privacy.
    - Proposed removal of a mature Phoenix Carensis palm from the North West corner of the development block.
    - Proposed Upper Storey bedroom windows on the northern elevation of the development which will look directly down on our master bedroom sliding glass door / window, our rear deck and courtyard, and bedroom 2 window.
    Note: I have already lodged an objection to the above items through the DA Neighbor Notification process at Sutherland Shire Council.

  21. In Peakhurst NSW on “Remove Street tree in front...” at 41 Jacques Avenue, Peakhurst, NSW Australia:

    Concerned Local Residents commented

    When this development application was submitted, the developer proposed separate driveways which maintained the street tree.

    Therefore the dual occupancy was approved on the basis that the street tree would not be removed.
    Approval instructions as follows:-

    "CC5007 - Council Street Tree - The Council street tree, Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine), is to be protected and maintained during demolition, excavation and construction of the site. The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970 2009 Protection of trees on development sites and include a protection zone of at least 3 metres. Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist (AQF Level 4 or above in Arboriculture) and must be retained thorough all stages of construction. "

    "CC2027 - Development Assessment – Design – Tree Removal prohibition - No consent is expressed or implied for the removal of any trees on Council’s public footway."

    This street tree provides valuable street scape for all residents of the surrounding suburb. Too many of the suburb’s developed trees are being removed for new buildings which is having a significant effect on the ecosystem.

    Local residents did not have the opportunity to object to the removal of this tree in the development application process and don’t support it’s removal after the design and construction has occurred. This is also OUR tree.

    Hurstville (Georges River) Council say NO to developers who want to change applications after the approval process and construction. These types of “modification submissions” are a well known exploitation process, mostly by developers, to change/alter their design after the event, so to avoid community consultation on a design aspect that would have received overwhelming negative input by the community.

    Bottom line, the development was proposed and approved with the street tree, so no part of the design now warrants its removal, it needs to remain for more reasons than it needs to be removed.

  22. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46-48 South Parade, Campsie:

    John Horner commented

    Various objections and concerns which have been detailed in an email to Council today 2016-08-15.

  23. In Point Cook VIC on “Development of the land for...” at Sanctuary Lakes North Boulevard Point Cook VIC 3030:

    Julie White commented

    The townhouses are awful to look at. Nobody likes them & they're ruining the look of Sanctuary Lakes. For a premium resort they look cheap & nasty.

  24. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    This application is out of proportion in the area as more that four storeys is too dense for these suburbs. Blenheim Park is needed for the use of locals, particularly families living in apartments. More development connote work anyway without road and rail infrastructure ahead of time.

  25. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed change of use to...” at Hardimans Hotel 521-535 Macaulay Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Rachel wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    This is a local landmark which is in need of a major revamp. Kensington is still very sleepy at night and is in need of more restaurants and places for us locals to walk too. We already have enough new residential developments in the area and not enough places to dine and drink at night it just doesn't make sense! It should also be saved for heritage reasons as it an art deco building. Renovate the pub YES - NO to apartments!

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a five...” at 94 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Mark Simpson wrote to local councillor Samantha Ratnam

    Good to see that the developer has already begun demolition of the existing housing on this block while the planning permit is still in the advertising stage. This to me this shows exactly what the developers think of the planning process - just get on with stamping our plans so we can get on with making money. They already know that regardless of what the council say they'll take it to VCAT and get what they want anyway. So the destruction of our suburbs continues unfettered.

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

  27. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed change of use to...” at Hardimans Hotel 521-535 Macaulay Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Antony Makin wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    Nope nope. Hardimans is the only local pub in the area and any diminishment in the amenities there has the potential to be a major impact on the cultural life and vibe of the village. This pub has so much potential to be one of our most loved social and community hubs, but it requires the right foresight, investment and ownership, not some cop-out development.

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Newport NSW on “Subdivision of one (1) lot...” at 62 Hillside Road Newport NSW 2106:

    Jain Parsons commented

    Dear Sirs
    I am writing to strongly object to the application to subdivide 1.06 Hectares of land into 4 lots creating a massive environmental impact.

    As a resident of Bilgola overlooking proposed site, I am appalled at the morning song otherwise known as chain saws which occurs practically daily in this area. When I moved into my house 3 .5 years ago, I could hardly see any neighbour's properties because of the glorious blanket of trees - now this is sadly not the case. I sincerely hope that you will not allow such carnage knowing that our threatened species would be even more impacted as well as create a massive change to the already compromised landscape . Every tree cut down has an impact - not to mention the noise pollution and resulting traffic congestion.
    Your sincerely

  29. In Point Cook VIC on “Development of the land for...” at Sanctuary Lakes North Boulevard Point Cook VIC 3030:

    Lyndsay Lewis commented

    There are already too many townhouses in Sanctuary Lakes which has increased the amount of traffic that drives around the boulevard. We moved here due to the open spaces which were written into the development design and it seems now to be eaten up by development after development without any consultation with the people it impacts, mainly the current residents

  30. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed change of use to...” at Hardimans Hotel 521-535 Macaulay Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Manika wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    We don't need a capital fix accrued from more residential development to fix this pub. What we need us a new owner with business acumen and capital required to make it work within the full commercial potential of this site's footprint, as it is. We need a good local pub, with a garden out the back for kids to play etc. Kensington needs more green/ play space/ social space, not less. Rick, you have had a good go to make Hardimans work without success. Give someone else a chance to make it work and preserve kensingtons historic commercial heritage. I'd hate to think we lose another pub because some bloke thinks he has all the answers.

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

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