Recent comments

  1. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 114 The Boulevarde Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    M Matheson commented


    This DA looks pretty desperate in the way that it takes amenity from the neighbours and crams in as many units as is legally possible.

    The Boulevarde used to be the premier street in the suburb and two NSW state premiers lived in this street and nearby. But this block looks like a three-storey dog kennel.

    All the vegetation shown in the DA belongs to the neighbours or to the communal footpath. Most of the units stare over the neighbours.

    The front facade looks like a jazzy, pre-fab 1950s industrial building.

    Different materials and a reduction in the number of dog-kennel units might make this DA acceptable to a council that listens to its ratepayers.

  2. In Darlington NSW on “Fitout and change use of...” at 260 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Stephen C commented

    Mike, you are right, its not Thai (I think it was the handwriting :)). Doesn't actually say what they will be serving. Pizza, kebabs, burgers and chips, who knows? Maybe a KFC?

    What we do know is they do want a noise emitting commercial kitchen exhaust unit near my rear garden. What we do know is they do want an exhaust vent 'discharging at the first floor level' meters from my bedroom window.

    If you want a 'village' or late night economy just stroll up to Newtown, it's just up the road, you know, or over to Redfern, it's also within walking distance. Branch out. Also there's a kebab joint across the road to soak up the 'village' vibe :)

    It might be nice for some but I have to live with the noise every night whether I visit the takeaway or not. I have the noise and greasy, deep-fryer air - that is what I object to. Being so close to Newtown and Redfern is great, but it's the peaceful, clean lane is why I bought here.

    I can handle parties, road works, loud drunks shouting - all passing, all local colour - but the drone, grind and smell of air filtered through a grease-trap is a slow squeeze on mental and physical health.

  3. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Development of the land...” at 24-26 Haley Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Chris Smithers commented

    The addition of 3 double storey houses is likely to add 6 cars into the local environment. Given that this property is basically opposite Brooks Close what work is being done to minimize any issues with the intersection?

    There are a large number of developments happening adding additional load onto the Brooks Close at key times. As surrounding blocks are developed as well this will make this junction increasingly dangerous as visibility from Fraser St and along Haley street is often limited by parked cars.

  4. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Two lot subdivision,...” at 79 Orange Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Max Martinucci commented

    We own a property on the street and bought it because it was a tree lined street...... we have seen 3 trees disappeared lately and it upsets me!

    Unless a mature tree is replaced we will object to this!

  5. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Construction of one...” at 7 Highpoint Avenue, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    linda lin commented

    Hi I am looking to buy 5 highpoint ave Mooroolbark. may I know if any one apply any plan or permit for the address for 7 highpointave Mooroolbark?

    best regards

    Linda Lin

    my phone 0425 856 781

    my email

  6. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Jian Hu commented

    I object to this application by liquor land. There's no need for another liquor outlet as there's one already close by at corner of union rd and white horse rd. This will put more pressure on the traffic which is already very congested on the union rd and lack of parking will be big problem as well. Of course more noise due to the busy traffic!

    by Jian Hu

  7. In Darlington NSW on “Fitout and change use of...” at 260 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Mike Clay commented

    I have read through the documents and can't see any reference to a Thai takeaway. It is listed as a takeaway food outlet. The place will have seating for 18 people and will be open from 10am till 10pm. I think that's fair. Let's actually use the space and build more of a village around that strip. The benefit of living in the city fringe is being close to the late night economy of shops, bars, restaurants and takeaway outlets. That strip on Abercrombie St is underdeveloped, in my opinion - especially considering the quantity of new student accommodation being built in the area.

  8. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Stephen Capello commented

    There is no community need nor demand for a further liquor shop on Union rd when there are already 2 with another at Hamilton Street Mont Albert. Council have an obligation to meet community needs not the pockets of liquorland.

  9. In Darlington NSW on “Fitout and change use of...” at 260 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Alex V commented

    The existing Thai restaurant Stephen references is sub-20m from our bedroom window and doesn't bother us whatsoever. The endless roadworks have been far worse and they've been sufferable (just). The closer the Abercrombie strip of shops gets to a little (even late-night!) village, the better.

  10. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Graham Bartle commented

    Absolutely no need for yet another liquor store in this area. As many other have already stated, there are at least three others within walking distance of the proposed one, and another is superfluous. The dry area is a rarity in this part of Melbourne and many people purchase houses because of this. If it is to be at all considered there should certainly be a strict 9.00 pm closing time.

  11. In Isabella Plains ACT on “MULTI DWELLING-4...” at 51 Galloway Street, Isabella Plains, ACT:

    Robert Ardill commented

    I am a resident nearby this development application. This area has mainly single storey homes and only a few two storey homes. There are no home units in this area of Isabella Plains. There are no units. This development appears to be 4 two storey units of 3 bedroom, two bathrooms and three double lock up garages. This home had 2 cars and now there would be 6 cars entering and exiting from this development.
    Ellerston Avenue on one side has been developed to allow many courtyard homes to allow affordability. This development is on the other side of Ellerston Avenue where there are mainly larger homes. Courtyard homes seem to have been restricted to one specific area of Isabella Plains. Thus development appears to be the beginning of intense developments of this type of " flats " development which is not the style of housing in this area. It will cause heavier car use in this area and also drop the appearance of the area as well. One house or two houses on this land would be appropriate but not 4 houses on this one block. This will start to make the area an apartment suburb rather than a nice home area. There are many areas where apartments are prevalent but this should not be the case in this part of Isabella Plains. I recall a real estate agent commenting to me only two years ago, while I was at an Isabella Plains auction...... " This is Isabella Plains....Nice homes do not get significant values in Isabella Plains". This development will not enhance the area but will devalue the area. I am objecting to this development and would like it to be only two homes at the most.

  12. In Kew East VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Irymple Avenue Kew East VIC 3102:

    Debbie McColl-Davis commented

    But the new fence is already built not dissimilar to the previous one.!

  13. In Darlington NSW on “Fitout and change use of...” at 260 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Stephen C commented

    Mike, I think you should actually read the proposal.

    It's not a cafe but a late night Thai Takeway.

    No coffee and conversation, just noisy exhaust fans, motor bikes running takeaway orders, garbage bags of rubbish in front of residents homes. literally.

    Four doors up there is a late night thai takeaway and the sound of the exhaust means no sleep before 10pm for local residents.

    It's a daytime use place, not a late night food factory. The rear of this premises connects to the rear of six terrace houses, just 10-20 few meters away.

    Local residents should say NO to this proposal.

  14. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Mary M commented

    There are already two liquor shops a short distance from each other on Corner of Canterbury/union and Whitehorse /union roads and another at Hamilton Street Mont Albert, where is the planning sense in providing a third outlet in the vicinity Liquorland or other it will just put smaller operators out of business.

  15. In Kensington VIC on “To replace an existing...” at 5-7 Bruce Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    Lisa Ingram commented

    We live next door and have no concerns with this application.

  16. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Jack Morgan commented

    1. There is no need for this shop. There is a nearby liquor store at the corner of Canterbury and Union Roads and another at Whitehorse Road/Union Road.

    2. There is already a problem with traffic in this area as the nearby railway gates are often closed, being on the busy Belgrave/Lilydale line. Traffic trying to get out of the side street has a problem now and the presence of this store will only make it worse.

    3. There is very little parking in the vicinity.

    4. Apart from this store being unnecessary, it is inappropriate for the area, being in a small shopping area largely devoted to small businesses (pharmacy, dry cleaner, florist etc.) and coffee shops.

    For all these reasons, I do not support this application.

  17. In Darlington NSW on “Fitout and change use of...” at 260 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Mike Clay commented

    We need more cafes in this area! I say YES to this application!

  18. In Greenwich NSW on “Greenwich Baths -License to...” at Albert St, Greenwich:

    Peter commented

    PS the submissions from people are on the LCC site, not this one. Anything you type here doesn't go to LCC.

  19. In Greenwich NSW on “Greenwich Baths -License to...” at Albert St, Greenwich:

    Peter commented

    Hi Patricia

    This site is different to the Lane Cove Council site - this one is run by the OpenAustralia Foundation. This one might have the closing date incorrect but I suspect that's because their system doesn't allow the period to be extended like LCC have done.

  20. In Greenwich NSW on “Greenwich Baths -License to...” at Albert St, Greenwich:

    Patricia John commented

    This Da was extended until Firstly June 19th as advertise with 2or 3 different dates
    For the closing dates. The 1st date was June 10 th.
    So your statement that it finished 13 days ago is very incorrect.. That was the 1st
    Closing date!! P,ease get these important public facts correct for clarity in these matters.

    Than At GCA meeting on Wednesday June 17 th Michael Mason from LCC came to answer Residents concerns about this application for Alcohol being served.
    Michael said that as there was so much concern he would see that the deadline for this DA would be extended for Submissions to be sent -UNTIL at least the END of JUNE.

    So it is of huge importance that you please re instate ALL the Submissions
    That have been sent and lodged. On 17 th June there were 71 letters posted.
    Then over last 2 days until Friday 19th another 10 at least went in.

    It is important that Residents can look and read these as a matter of
    Public interest.

    You site seems to crash many times during the day??? Is this normal?
    Can this be fixed in interest of Land Cove Council Ratepayers.?


  21. In Petersham NSW on “To carry out demolition of...” at 102 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Lisa Skerl commented

    To the Marrickville Council

    Re: Major Concern for DA201500307

    The above DA reference is to occur in an area of Petersham that is considered a Heritage Zone. These areas must not see demolishing of buildings from the Late Victorian era, Federation or Inter War periods. The heritage trail from Newtown , Enmore through to Petersham and other areas of the Inner West needs to be preserved. Petersham needs to appreciate it's heritage unlike the events occurring in other LEPs with Rockdale , Burwood, Parramatta and Ashfield as examples of negligence in conserving Heritage zones.
    The two retail shops should be refurbished and altered only if to re-beautify the present building and to return them to their previous charm and glory not demolished. Newtown and Enmore are examples of residential and commercial areas that are thriving due to their ability to maintain older style shop fronts alluring people to shop due to the old charm.
    The height of the DA of a five storey building needs also to be reviewed and reduced to 3-4 storeys to maintain the local height of on New Canterbury Rd and in keeping with the look of Late Victorian buildings to both sides of the premise.

    Miss Skerl

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 16/261-263 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Joe loutfy commented

    Parking for the staff and the parents is important at this busy road,specialy in the afternoon, please make sure that this issue is addressed.

  23. In Ravensdale NSW on “Alterations, additions &...” at 201 Ravensdale Road Ravensdale NSW 2259:

    Deborah Leake commented

    I wish to comment on the development which has been undertaken at 201 Ravensdale Road, Ravensdale to raise concerns over density and the flow-on impacts for local residents.

    Increased density
    Over the last 7 years, 2 additional permanent dwellings have been approved taking the number of dwellings along this 300 metre stretch of Ravensdale Road to 5. To add another 3 units and a high density farm stay in the middle of the area significantly impacts the quiet enjoyment of this rural area.

    The development proposal is for 3 units accommodating 2 guests per unit per night. This is in addition to the accommodation offered in the main house, which is advertised as accommodating up to 12 people, taking the total capacity of the property to 18 guests per night. This is significantly higher than implied in the development proposal.

    The listing on Stayz also says “The property is full of beautiful spots to put a purpose built arbour or alter and create your own style of function” indicating the potential for events that could include a large number of day visitors.

    The development (as advertised) significantly increases traffic and noise associated from arrivals and departures, which could occur at any time of the day or night. The high capacity offered appeals to large groups increasing the potential boisterous noise, which could potentially be the case every weekend. Residents having a party from time to time is completely acceptable, but noisy gatherings every weekend will significantly reduce the quiet enjoyment of other residents in the area. As this is a rural valley, even conversations outdoors carry some distance.

    Although the plans suggest there is off road parking, it isn’t sufficient to accommodate up to 6 vehicles, which is not unlikely at capacity, as the shed and garage have been converted to accommodation. Currently, with just the house being rented casually, there are occasions when multiple vehicles have been parked on the road overnight. There are often large animals (kangaroos, wallabies, deer, wombats) traversing the road, especially at night, and having vehicles obstructing vision creates a risk.

    Managing problems arising from high density
    As all the accommodation on the property is available for rent, there is no owner or caretaker on site to assists guests should a problem arise, as it did at Christmas when the septic overflowed and the house had no water. These sorts of incidents are more likely to occur when there are large numbers of people accommodated as the house’s infrastructure was designed for use as a family home.

    Additional agribusiness on site
    As well as the farm stay business, it seems a bee keeping business is also planned for the site. The model proposed is not labour intensive, however there would still be a need for additional traffic and activity as someone tends to the bees, collects honey, moves hives, etc. It’s unclear where the hives will be located, however there are potential impacts of having high density guest accommodation alongside up to 80 bee hives, eg high potential of swarms and location of water points posing risk of stings to guests.

    I have no objection to a farm stay business/beekeeping business at this location per se, my objection is to the density and intensity of usage proposed and its impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of other residents in the area. The other farm stay in Ravensdale Road operates harmoniously, however it accommodates 6 guests significantly less than will be the case should these three additional units be approved.

  24. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Construction of a Six (6)...” at 1 Charles Street, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Murtaza Poonawala commented

    I would like to connect to this builder for Renderings and 3d visualisation of his new development. Kindly assist


  25. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construct buildings and...” at 25 Trent Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Bernadette Cowan commented

    If you would like to send an objection to council about the development of the 92 units at 25 Trent Street, Glen Iris, please send an email to

    I'm happy to send you some information about the development, how traffic congestion, parking issues (particularly streets surrounding Burwood train station), safety to residents and train commuters and the impact on the character and landscape of the surrounding streets are just some of the issues that Council will need to address, and a pre-written letter you can forward directly to Council, or send back to me and we will deliver it to Council on your behalf.

  26. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a 10 storey...” at 11-15 Brunswick Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    I'm extremely disappointed that a 10 storey building is proposed for this area.
    You will destroy the Community feel of the area, the demographic will change. Less families, less affordable houses, more short term residents and a transient population. This will be an eyesore and put pressure on an already struggling public transport system not to mention the terrible traffic congestion in the area.

  27. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 19 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Geoff Wilkins commented

    Dear Rosemary,

    This facility should be approved as there is a large Muslim community in the Banks town LGA and there is a lack of places for us to gather and meet.

    Also the mixed use facility will be used for male and female patrons at the same time. I'm not sure where you are getting the facts that male only people will use the facility.

    The facility is also in a industrial area, away from any houses.

    To be honest if this was a Brothel, Church, Buddhist Temple, or Synagogue I don't think you would be making a fuss about it.

  28. In Morisset NSW on “2 into 33 Lot Subdivision” at 108 Awaba Street, Morisset NSW 2264:

    Paul Sharp commented

    I think council should not approve this application. Council, look at how many more cars etc you are putting on Bridge st. Past Pre school Primary and High school, this street cannot take the extra load without a big improvement .Thanks Paul Sharp

  29. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 4B Finlay Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    David Jennings commented

    Has the additional traffic congestion been considered?

    This is already a very busy area, with the school on one side and a set of units on the other. I would be concerned about increasing the traffic in this location any further.

  30. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of land for...” at 10 Alsace Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Katrina Aspinall commented

    Hello, this is too high a density for this area. No exclusion to car parking as the streets around here are highly competitive for parking currently with older houses with no off street parking.

    Reduced number of residences and full requirements for car parking including visitors should be enforced.

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