Recent comments

  1. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Matt Syron commented

    As an owner of a house in earlwood I strongly oppose this development. I purchased my house not too long ago to live in a low density housing community which I have been around for years. Just look st what the units have done to the Canterbury station area!!!!

  2. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Minor Change (s78) to...” at 659-667 Chambers Flat Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Sue-Ann Dunning commented

    I strongly object to this planning application being approved. There continues to be no future planning for new primary or high schools in this area, already the existing schools are to capacity. Logan Reserve State School is still on bore and tank 2017 how much longer will it take to hook up town water. The school will need new pipes for this to happen and what government funding has been allocated for this?

    Developers are only required to meet minimum requirements to carve up our rural land and do not provide the necessary local facilities to provide for community living. Suburban precincts soon become areas of low income owners with no bus services, local shops to support the community.
    The once beautiful trees and local shrubs just disappear in one clearing and we are supposed to except this environmental disaster.

  3. In Chipping Norton NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Balanada Avenue Chipping Norton NSW 2170, Australia:

    keith howdin commented

    I totally agree with the above comments. Liverpool Council has already acknowledged a traffic issue by installing the current traffic controlling mechanisms. I also agree that Balanada Avenue cannot currently sustain existing traffic, let alone the additional 13 Townhouses already approved at 22 Balanada and now an additional 13 at 21-23 Balanada The properties at 21-23 also have at least 12 large gum trees that are popular habitats for bird live. Bird live in this area is quiet abundant.

  4. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Barney Allen commented

    I couldn't agree more with the previous correspondents. I am well and truly 'over' witnessing the destruction of these once beautiful green suburbs all in the name of development. The new developments, in my opinion are destroying the once beautiful ambience of our suburbs. I spent thirty years working in south western Sydney where mature trees were often non existent. The resulting effect was that many of those areas were hot, dry and ugly. Trees provide homes to native wild life, filter the air, provide oxygen and shade, and lower the temperature at ground level. Developments must only be approved around the existing vegetation (trees) not over the top of it. If this means that the structures being built have to be smaller, then so be it. Developers seems to only driven by profit. It's time the local planners and politicians started respecting the environment, the wishes of long term residents and restore some respect for our previously beautiful green suburbs. If they can't find this respect, I suggest they move to south western Sydney and find more sympathetic suburbs.

  5. In Parramatta NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 39 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Susan E. Russell. commented

    Susan E Russell J.P..
    June M Bullivant OAM has said all there is to say. There is someone out there who could restore this building to it's original glory it is in a prime position for everyone to see. It is a shame it has been neglected. Preserve some of Parramatta's fast disappearing grand history please.

  6. In Launceston TAS on “Transport Depot and...” at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    R.Page commented

    Given the close proximity of the "Light Industrial" Zoning to residential properties, major shopping centre, schools and college the upgrade of an already too busy and noise polluting business that disrupts traffic through the CBD and inner business precinct and residential streets. The business has no regards for normal business operating hours like all of the other businesses in the same "Light Industrial" area. Forklift reversing beepers and B-Double prime movers operating at 1am, 3am on weekends or week days waking sleeping children is causing this business to effect the nearby neighborhood. The flood lighting of the premises already impacts on nearby buildings as well. This is making the residential properties less desirable and devaluing properties with 5 minutes walk to the City Park and CBD. There is already an issue of this Transport business effecting the flow of traffic in the suburb, the unrestricted noise and light pollution is already unacceptable, so why make this worse? It is already unacceptable and disappointing that the Council will not impose restrictions on this already very busy business, that the Council will not act upon when questioned to reasonable operation hours. Imagine if we mowed the lawn at 1am the number of complaints would be huge and the action taken by the Council would be swift and decisive, but because it is a business why should this be acceptable? And now they want to make more noise with more truck AND Trains too!
    This is not the Launceston that we would choose to live or invest in.

  7. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    It's disheartening to hear that developers seek to remove mature native trees simply because it does not assist with their preferred routing of power lines.

    This raises two more general issues:

    (1) There has been noticeable tendency for developers to "overlook" certain environmental aspects of their projects when submitting their plans. If removal of a tree was not part of the initial Environmental Impact Statement then it should not be allowed as a follow-up application - the developer and architect would know full well from the outset that power was needed for their project, and would have considered how this was to be achieved.

    (2) It's not clear if the example Christine Beasley mentions involves overhead or buried cables, but these new developments should all be required to use only sub-ground cabling. This would go at least a small way to offset the environmental damage being done to our suburb. Besides the aesthetic aspect, underground cables are less prone to storm damage and reduce the hazards for road traffic. Any planning authority concerned with achieving a liveable suburb will recognise this

    It's not difficult to route underground cables around significant assets, such as mature trees.

  8. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    I totally support Michael and his most pertinent relevant points.
    Why would Council even consider getting rid of a tree-for what reason? I live across the road from "urban development " where individual homes have been knocked down before my own eyes as well as all of the garden trees shrubs grass flowers "massacred"-in one specific swipe. Clearly there had been no planning of garden or nature strip with the State Government or Council- why not.A specific example is at 19 Forest Grove Epping, a mature and healthy lemon scented gum tree bludgeoned slowly to death because a construction site-9-11 and now 15-17 said it got in the way of their power lines for their new 5 story block of units????As well as its environmental beauty it provided our street benefiting the day to day health of our residents walking past it or just standing and appreciating it's incredible beauty and fragrance. Gone-murdered-care of a certain Electricity company being employed by the State Government.
    Who are these(new?) residents who are wanting our green community stripped of its historical and environmental beauty. These trees have taken so many years to grow. When I moved to Epping back in 1991 Hornsby Council had very strict rules about not removing any tree on public space and you had to even get permission to cut down a tress on your own property. Where has that rule gone? I say "NO' to any tree being removed in Epping or surrounding areas such as Eastwood.
    It simply is not good enough for Council to turn our once green and proud Community suburb into a concrete jungle.
    Michael also mentioned the new cargo line train line. Before before it was built there was possibly one cargo train at around 1.00am-I can hear the trains very clearly from every train from my address. Since this new line has been installed and now full functional -very long cargo trains -each running in their length for around three minutes and now run regularly all from that 11.00 pm ALL THROUGH the night. My sleep is non existent as a result. Thus plus "urban development "across the road six days a week for two years now and another two to go at least. Council seriously needs to consider their " Duty of Care" for us residents in Epping and Eastwood and certainly stop allowing threes to be cut together with State Rail "sound proofing" the consistent noise disturbance" for us residents from these long noisy cargo trains running all night long seven nights a week ASAP.

  9. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    John commented

    How can this be even seriously considered given the current traffic issues in the immediate vecinity. The roads around there would have to be blocked for many months and given the ridiculous time you need to drive through there it is not practable as Hartill Law rd is a major artery through there. Wow Earlwood may start to look as embarrassing as Canterbury soon. Council should stop feeding off these developments and start looking after the community that vote them in before their pockets.

  10. In Lane Cove NSW on “Development of 9 Townhouses” at 175A Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    Margaret Clinch commented 10 days ago
    I oppose the development of 9 town houses in this part of Burns Bay Road.

    If densification proceeds in Sydney at the rate it has been happening, there will be nothing left of its character. This applies even more in the case of Lane Cove. The character of Lane Cove is being destroyed by too much development denser than free standing family homes.

    Lane Cove is a suburb where people have come to live to invest and enjoy its natural and leafy environment, and raise their families. It is a'modest suburb and not highly commercialised - a contrast with the character of Chatswood and North Sydney.

    Some years ago, there appears to have been medium densification on the upper strip of Burns Bay Road with a whole series of town houses along its way. These are quite spacious in layout compared with modern standard with setbacks and room for shared gardens. Nevertheless, these well established town house situations cause parking problems.

    This particular part of Burns Bay Road is near the dangerous intersection between Burns Bay Road and Centennial Avenue. Parking is also difficult there because of the nearly shops, a bus route, and a narrower section of the road.



    delivered to the planning authority report comment

    Fourteen days is a very short time in which to make a comment.


  11. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Anna Le Masurier commented

    I oppose this proposed development for a number of reasons, not least because its scale will exacerbate what is already a very congested location.
    - Re traffic: The intersection at which the development is proposed is already a bottleneck during weekday morning and evening peaks and weekends, made worse since traffic lights were recently installed at nearby Slade Rd.
    - Re pedestrians: the church, senior citizens and library opposite this site and the primary school 100 metres away mean there is a great deal of foot traffic around this site. I have witnessed cars going through red lights at this intersection multiple times, which particularly endangers younger and older members of our community. (I have reported red light infringements to the RMS but heard nothing back.)
    - Re parking and visitor access: Richard Ave is a narrow (one-way in parts) street, with limited parking already. In busy periods, people park on both sides of the street, making it hazardous to drive down. If there were increased development, this existing problem would worsen.
    - Re construction: the scale and location of this proposed development also pose problems for the build phase. I would anticipate that if it is approved, Richard Ave, Ibex Place and Sunset Rd residents will have limited access to their streets as there is not enough room to park dump trucks/utes etc. Is there a proposal to mitigate this?
    Finally, I have lived on Richard Ave for more than 10 years and have seen the traffic congestion, litter and parking availability worsen considerably around the area over this time. I am not a NIMBY but believe residential development should complement the neighbourhood, not degrade it. I was pessimistic when Council sold the narrow strip of parkland at the top of Hartill-Law a while back (which was a lovely piece of greenery and had aesthetic, well-kept flower beds which were a pleasure to sit amongst) and now unfortunately my fears have been realised upon seeing these plans. I believe Council should reject this DA as it will not enhance one of our suburb's main hub areas.

  12. In North Perth WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 12 Hunter Street, North Perth, WA, 6006:

    Naomi Leonard commented

    To Whom it may concern

    I am an adjoining neighbour to this property and the plans have never been seen or received by me regarding the current building submission.
    We have had excavation diggers turn up on the property today - Saturday 22nd April and this was our alert to look for the plans.

    The council has made no effort to inform any neighbours about the plans etc.

    This will be followed up at the council.


  13. In Moorabbin VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 Horsmunden Road, Moorabbin, VIC:

    Michael Engeman commented

    I object to this application for a lack of safety...

    1. Traffic congestion exceeding safe capacity limits:
    The proposed development will have a significant, unpalatable impact on traffic congestion to Clay Street and Horsmunden Road. These two are already struggling to cope with the existing traffic load (which far exceeds normal residential traffic loads, due to the close proximity of the Moorabbin Oval, Holmesglen Institute, adjacent dog park and not to mention an alternative route to Chapel Road.

    The corners of Clay and Horsmunden are tight and narrow and it's often very difficult to safely navigate them as there are multiple cars parked on the street leaving only a single lane to drive. Our streets cannot cope with any further increase in traffic and/or parking levels. Likewise, exiting Horsmunden Road onto Clay Street is also fraught with danger, due to the significant congestion created by parked cars and existing traffic.

    2. Unsustainable impact on street parking:
    The rising cost of home ownership has resulted in many existing nearby residents having older children living at home into their twenties, resulting in many residents parking cars on the street as they have more cars than their driveways can fill. The demographic profile of existing residents suggests this problem will only worsen over time.

    The area cannot cope with a further reduction in parking spaces which will ensue from having 3 x 3/4 bedroom dwellings, which will require additional street parking for both residents and visitors.

    "Roy Morgan Research reported the average Aussie Achiever household has 2.27 cars at home, while 11.6 per cent of Achievers have the means to own four or more vehicles".

  14. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Christina Karakiozis commented

    Please don't go ahead with another concrete jungle building clogging up our already contested roads and uglyfying such a beautiful suburb. This needs to stop!!! We need more green to deal with the concrete jungle already erected at KFC!!! Please think of the next generation, what are they going to be breathing???? Into air tanks at this rate!!!!

  15. In Crows Nest NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 160 Willoughby Road Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Charlotte Hunter commented

    Public transport to Crows Nest is not great so people from surrounding suburbs do need to drive. The shops want people to be able to purchase items and residents will want visitors. Of course this development should have as much parking as possible. Meters, 1P and 2P parking and only two public car parks in Crows Nest mean that all developments should comply. Unfortunately our society will not be car free anytime soon. A large development that does not comply will negatively impact other residents and businesses it has to be fair for all.

  16. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Ell Dee commented

    Ian and Trudi your comments are true and the discussion of many.
    I work 1 km away from my home and need to take my car. In the past it took me 4 mins to get there, it know takes 15 mins and Im having to take risks most days just to get out onto Stud rd.

  17. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Ian Simpson commented

    Trudi we argued for traffic lights in council but it is a Vic Roads responsibility and they won't install lights unless 4 people are killed at the intersection over four years. No intersection qualifies in the Knoxfield estate. Knoxfield is the only estate that does not have traffic lights to control exits at any exit street.
    For every development we lose a couple of trees. Whatever happened to the leafy image of Knox. New residents only want to remove trees. We need more Gardens for Wildlife.

  18. In Mordialloc VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 524-528 Main Street, Mordialloc, VIC:

    lyndal guterres commented

    There is too much traffic and congestion via main street already. As a rate payer it takes me 30 min at times to go from nepean hwy(white st) to Doyles hotel, absolutely ridiculous. Too much development without enough road access, stop! Its a grab for rates by council, its not in the best interest of residents.

  19. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Noella Moore commented

    I agree for all of the above reasons - it is not an appropriate use of this site. We would loose the green space which we need to help with cleaning the air with all the pollution of the idling cars polluting the air on that corner. Rebuild the building on the same style if need be but DON'T make it bigger please.

  20. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Evonne Kalafatas commented

    Building another block of apartments in the artery of a heavily congested part of Earlwood, will only add more cars, more pollution, more angry residents, more trafficand change the feel to the area. The drive from Slade Rd to Homer St can take me up to 20mins to do 1km. It's HELL. My parents who are in their 80's who drive my sisters kids to school from Glenview Ave to Homer ST can take them over 30mins to do a 3kms trip. Something has to give. The answer is not high density living. Let residents build granny flats - expand this - lets think horizontally and not vertically. Parents driving their kids to EARLWOOD public, LADY OF LOURDES and UNDERCLIFF PUBLIC are going to just crack! I rarely get to work on time - so I feel my hand is forced to put my kids not only in afternoon school care but also before school care because the traffic always makes me late. A 7km drive can take me 45 mins! This rush to provide CHEAP and OVERPRICED, UGLY, SUB STANDARD housing is not the answer. Our infrastructure is ALREADY not coping - how much more can you squeeze in. Either get the cars off the road, create the most amazing and reliable public transport - but you can't. This is a planning disaster. I implore you to really listen to the genuine concerns of the residents, the people having to drive through the area. Is this really the solution to our HOUSING CRISIS? These pop up horrors are creating all these sub horrors - enough is enough. Highly concerned and very upset resident of Bardwell park - who shops in Earlwood, who's parents live in Earlwood, who loves EARLWOOD and BARDWELL PARK and its surrounds! More green space please . This concrete jungle is exploding.

  21. In Venus Bay VIC on “Remove Reserve Status” at 3 Marine Parade, Venus Bay, VIC, 3956:

    Debbie Kraushofer commented

    How dare you. This is our park. What are your doing selling our park? And this park which was zoned PPRZ!

    You have a legal obligation to reinvest the income from a sale of public open space back into public recreation - it cannot go to general revenue, and you know it, so why sell our public park when you have no plan for how you intend to spend the income.

    This demonstrates your complete bloody-mindedness and disregard for the for the citizens of Venus Bay who have objected to this over and over and over again. You are supposed to be acting in our interest. I will be writing a complaint to the ombudsman today.

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 22 Garners Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    David Jones commented

    Surely some thought must be given to the neighbors! Privacy is being removed piecemeal, to who's benefit? Will this make for a better community? Once again, this is change by stealth. The walls are built right up to the boundary, then you add a balcony which affords no privacy to the many neighbors. The council must surely be the gatekeepers to this sort of construction and apply a principled set of standards for the Marrickville community.


  23. In Parramatta NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 39 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    It is important that the heritage of this building be preserved, it was built by David Lennox, in 1854 when he returned from Victoria after travelling down through NSW and Victoria buidking bridges as he went, Australia's Master Bridge Builder, only three of his bridges remain to this day, the sandstone one over Church Street which was altered recently by Parramatta Council to allow pedestrian traffic and bicycles through, this action has ruined the heritage value, one at Landsowne and one at Lapstone. David Lennox is buried in St John's Cemetery in O'Connell Street in Parramatta.

  24. In Jamberoo NSW on “Two (2) lot torrens title...” at 14 O'Mara Pl, Jamberoo, NSW 2533:

    Mrs V Baker commented

    It is quite disappointing that Kiama Council has not put some tempered brakes on for just a little while. O'Mara Place is a new development; and was put through at such great haste that it is evident nobody has looked at the impact that the constructions has had on the immediate local area. Each consecutive house built seems to be higher and bigger than the last one. It may be coincidence, but it is clearly evident that this Chapel Hill development has ruined Jamberoo for a very long time, well, actually forever. So very sad that nobody bothered to look at the impact of the vista and feel of the locale. To come to an environment like this and build a house that is fence to fence to fence to road is unbelievable. (so sad) To add; there is nothing wrong with looking at the vista and feel of a locale , as housing in this municipality is not urgent and nor is it an emergency. The Chapel Hill development is not excusable. The Kiama Council did not consider the sensibilities in the village nor the character and allowed the construction of eyesores one after the other. I do not blame the people. (but the may have considered the feel around them). I hold the Kiama Municipal Council fully responsible for this travesty. No one can deny the fact that it is an eyesore and nobody does deny it. Sensibility and good taste is perhaps hard to obtain for many.

  25. In Crows Nest NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 160 Willoughby Road Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Edward Re commented

    I'd like to see parking requirements waived for this building. It is close to 2 train stations, several bus options, plus will be next to a large supermarket and child care.
    We can't keep adding people's cars into the system, so it is time to start looking toward having residents who are willing to go car free, for the sake of the environment and the future.

  26. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use of land as a service...” at 1157-1165 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Krystal Bassett commented

    Please listen to the residents, we don't want this!

  27. In Saint Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 12 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Lee commented

    Much prefer it to the warehouses that are currently underused and not well maintained. A group of strange gypsy people lived in one of them until recently. I live in the street, am not concerned about the height or size. I would like to ensure the trees planted out the front aren't damaged. I certainly hope they're higher spec than the appartments opposite them.

  28. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Operational and...” at 75 Boundary Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jane Townsend commented

    I too am is the traffic situation going to cope with this? Already this road can be heavy with traffic at the Boundary street exit to get out of Redland Bay. Seems like a case of not if but when accidents will occur. Cars turning right onto Boundary Street from Beenleigh Redland Bay Rd already don't have a turning arrow....and not much information has been shared from council to really know how it is going to work....or why this is even needed??

  29. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Michael Bianchino commented

    Why does the applicant want to remove trees? There is no literature on the council website stating the reason. What type of trees? Indigenous, endemic, exotic etc Are they mature trees? Heritage or landmark trees?
    Trees are a community asset regardless if they resided on private or public property. Trees sustain whole ecosystems. They filter polluted air. They combat climate change. Something people in Epping should be concerned since the suburb has been impacted with over-development; also the burden of a new freight line that has increased wheel squeal and diesel fumes emission by 50%.

  30. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 60 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Craig Brown commented

    If The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned then so am I.
    Therefore I also request that the application is not approved until a revised proposal is provided with additional clarifying documentation and information, with the deletion of works that will have an adverse impact on the heritage values of the house, the adjoining terrace, and the Heritage Conservation Area. The Statement of Heritage Impact should be updated to include a proper assessment of the importance of the property and its curtilage, and how the works will protect these heritage values.

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