Recent comments

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

    Felicity Power wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    I am a parent of children at St Madeleine's, currently I would rather not affiliate myself with the Parish. This proposal is not widely supported by the school communities or members of the parish. The manner in which the proposal has been handled is unethical and secretive. Concerned parents of St Madeleine's are rallying against this. We are all hoping council will protect the interests of the community, the neighbouring residents, the 1600 children onsite. This proposal from the Parish Council poses enormous risks to all these children (pedestrian safety, child protection, psychological etc.) with a blatant disregard for their welfare. Please don't allow our kids to have to attend school metres away from a cemetery. This agenda is not driven by the masses, rather a handful of people. Catholic value: "love your neighbour as yourself".... ?????

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

  2. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Crystal . commented

    It's a joke. A complete discrace. Glenorie is loved by locals because its a quiet country town, we don't want it developed & espicially not by this ugly monstrosity... Good work Rob. You ate completely pissing of residents of glenorie once again with your genius plan. Why not just lock the gate again?... Knob Jockey.

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

    susan seward commented

    The unique selling point of Sanctuary Lakes is that your eyes can travel and not be blocked by house upon house or in this case town house upon town house. No more development please you will be reducing the quality lifestyle here. Its not needed. Its not being asked for. The only person/s who will benefit is the developer and Urbanedge Homes.

  4. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Dwelling House -...” at 66 Auklet Road, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Susan Foster commented

    I wish to draw attention to the ongoing water flooding issues from all this hill area. Water runs down stream to my property at [address supplied to council]. Currently in wet conditions Tennent Road actually floods meaning the existing water outlets are not sufficient nor is the water retention areas in Auklet vicinity.
    In relation to this development addition there should be more water catchment on site. Enormous amounts of water exist in this area and I'm sure a underground spring also exists. To make matters worse the final meeting place at Scrubby Creek is unmaintained, shallow and is not capable of holding waters it's currently exposed to. My property seems to be used as a drain for all the waters in Auklet vicinity and it is not acceptable. I would like all the existing water flow issues fixed before any new developments and addictions are approved in the area. The easement that runs adjacent to my property and then through my property cannot handle current conditions. The water from the top areas needs to be contained by larger and more containment retention areas.
    Kind Regards
    Susan Foster

  5. In Newport NSW on “Construction of a detached...” at 21 Irrubel Road Newport NSW 2106:

    Irrubel resident commented

    Will parking be provided on the property for the second dwelling ? Parking on our street is already extremely difficult and dangerous for pedestrians. So many small children live on this road, additional cars parked will cause unecessary traffic.

  6. In Rodd Point NSW on “Development Application -...” at 11 Arthur Street Rodd Point NSW 2046 Australia:

    Antonio commented

    Hello, It says that the neighbours have been notified,however, other than this online notification, I have not received anything in regards to this development.

  7. In Brunswick VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 310 Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    No. Just no. The great thing about Sydney road is that they have managed to avoid the towering monoliths of Lygon street. Sydney road still has so many character buildings which add such value to the area.
    The reduction of car bays is another ridiculous request where off street parking is at a premium.
    Please do not grant this application.

  8. In Port Adelaide SA on “Six storey office building...” at Nile St Port Adelaide SA 5015:

    Stephanie and Graham Roberts wrote to local councillor Michelle Hogan

    Good morning.
    We have a number of questions and comments.
    The first question and often the "elephant in the room" when it comes to developing Port Adelaide: are there no alternatives considering the number of vacant buildings currently for sale and lease in Port Adelaide?
    Is 6 storeys approved - even HIGHER than the Quest apartments currently under construction?
    Is the removal of trees necessary? They are used ALL the time by workers in the area as a shady retreat for breaks.
    Is the proposed building sympathetic to Port heritage?
    How many times will this occur, higher and higher until we don't have any heritage feel left in certain areas of the Port?
    Both myself and my husband are not happy with another monster "block" building (such as the Quest apartments) eating away at or heritage. Are we able to see the final plans/look of the building before the process goes so far as to make any changes impossible?
    It is possible to build in and progress the Port whilst maintaining its charm. This may mean investing more in a building and its surrounds (ie trees).
    We trust that the council and developers take this into account.
    Thank you

    Photo of Michelle Hogan
    Michelle Hogan local councillor for City of Port Adelaide Enfield
    replied to Stephanie and Graham Roberts

    Hi Stephanie and Graham
    Thank you for your email - and especially your support for maintaining heritage in the Port.
    Unfortunately this development, along with the Quest Apartments, has been classified as a state development and is considered and approved by the (state government) Development Assessment Commission, not Council. Developments over $3m are now automatically taken out of our hands and under the new Planning legislation, it looks like councils will have even less influence in ensuring community feedback is taken into account.
    If you are interested in this issue I encourage you to join the Port of Adelaide Branch of the National Trust, who have been campaigning around this for some time - the website will give you the details.
    I appreciate your concern and will continue to advocate on heritage and the natural environment issues within the council.

    Kind regards,
    Michelle

    Cr. Michelle Hogan
    Semaphore Ward, Port Adelaide Enfield Council

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

    Rene Kemplen commented

    Dear Councillors Please be advised that I am opposed to the proposed cemetery at 20 Annangrove road Kenthurst. The surrounding area accommodates many families whom have restrictions on what is permissible. Our land is zoned RU6 as such the lep2012_land_use_matrix published by THSC details that funeral homes are prohibited. Further to this a cemetery would bring additional traffic to the already congested Annangrove Road. Currently cars line up to turn into and out of the adjacent entrance and exit of the school at or next to the 20 Annangrove road land. Annangrove Road has a 70 k speed limit and is only 1 lane in either direction. Approving a development application that would encourage drivers to drive slowly (processions) with no overtaking lane is dangerous. There is already marked locations to the west of this development indicating a 'black spot' and enabling more cars that do not comply with the current speed limit (70 recommendation) would slow traffic, cause delays and increase the risk of incidents and accidents along Annangrove road particularly as there is no overtaking lane. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration.

  10. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Christy Taylor commented

    I also disagree with this application, the area will not cope with the extra people or traffic. Glenorie doesn't have the public transport system that usually go hand in hand with apartment living, nor do we have the jobs, meaning more traffic on an already congestion New Line road, old northern road and Windsor road during peak hour. Glenorie is a small village, rural community, apartments will rip that apart. As already stated there are already vacant shops in the complex that they haven't been able to fill, let alone adding more. To even consider this, the area would need to be able to increase the primary school land to build more classrooms, the preschool has a waiting list already for next year, which four years ago they weren't even filling a single day to maximum numbers, the consideration of another public high school would have to be considered and we would need closer emergency services, to deal with the increased numbers, the roads would need to be fixed, widened and more traffic lights added. That's a lot of council money spent on an area to upset the majority of residents and to increase one families wealth, that fight against any competition that try to move into the area. Glenorie is a beautiful semi rural area whose locals love the feel that exist here currently, we choose to live out here with a lot community hours each day to go to work, simply so that we can enjoy the vast land and country feel that we come home to, apartments will destroy the single reason a lot of us choose to live so far from everything. Please consider carefully, this will effect everything here.

  11. In Warriewood NSW on “Community plan of...” at 53 C Warriewood Road Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Vanesa Thaler commented

    We already raised the issue that access through Lorikeets grove is not suitable for all new developments in 53, 53b and 53c.
    If lorikeets grove was an access road (which at the moment doesn't qualify as one) it would only be allowed to provide chess to 30 dwellings and it already provides access to 18. Which means it will go over 30 with the 3 new developments.
    Access is required directly to Warriewood Rd for the above 3 mentioned developments. Numerous emails have been sent to council about this and an answer to this particular issue hasn't been received

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

    Ed G commented

    There's already enough apartments being built here. And green space is rapidly disappearing as a result of building so many cookie-cutter, ugly and substandard apartments. Traffic is also very congested around Pittwater Road, Julius Avenue and Epping Road and buses/trains are crowded.

    Fix the traffic problems first, improve public transport and provide more green space for the area. Consider areas where new businesses can operate. After all this is done, then you can look at building more apartments.

  13. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 92-94 Buckland Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Richard Hannan commented

    Walked past this site this evening (11 Aug 2016) and am very interested to know what is currently happening. Can hear water being pumped somewhere from spears drilled into various locations on site? Is this correct and Is this activity part of any remediation ..no one on site supervising so could not check so am asking here.

  14. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/4 Tyner Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    This could possibly be 14 Tyner Road. That property was sold in March for $1.06M. Only 720 sqm so likely just big enough for 2 town houses.

  15. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunications Tower” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Kerry and Paul Rounsley commented

    We strongly object to the proposed DA 1109/2016 at 120 Bullsgarden Road, Whitebridge. We live in Justine Avenue in the housing estate off Bullsgarden Road. We are concerned that this proposed tower is to be built close to existing homes, schools and places of employment.The health and concerns of people who live and work close by are not being considered. The original DA has been withdrawn. The proposed amendments such as the plantings will not disguise the visual impact that this high tower will still make. There must be other sites that can be used that are distant from residences and workplaces. We ask that other sites be considered.

  16. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Nina antoun wrote to local councillor Yvonne Keane

    The development dosnt fit in with the sourounding rural attmosphere our roads could not cope with more traffic and the more cars the more noice especially early hours of the morning and the late afternoons
    I disagree with this development and it is not viable for this area we already have empty shops?we do not need more shops if we require more buildings for people to live appartments is not the way as its not keeping to rural maybe council can think about beautifying sourounding properties on old northern rd were acreages ain't looked after and looks terrible by allowing smaller acreages (maybe this can. Be a thought for council ) Post Office Rd is already hard to come out if to get onto Old northern Rd .
    We are a rural area not a high density please keep the rural atmoshere this is were I have lived all my life and don't wont to live in suburbia

    Delivered to local councillor Yvonne Keane. They are yet to respond.

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

    Erin Smith wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    Dear Councillors,
    We are opposing the submission for a cemetery on Annangrove road due to traffic rthat it can't handle now and the devaluation of surrounding property as many can't sell homes if near a cemetery. People have paid millions of dollars to live in such a prestige suburb and this is not necessary and unacceptable planning by the Church

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

  18. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Deb Williams commented

    Is there even a need for apartment living in Glenorie. Apartment living goes hand in hand with areas providing transport and shopping - neither of which Glenorie is known for.

    The small rural village will be gone, along with the local shops. Leaving the suburb with only Woolies.

    How on earth can council consider high density living in the centre of a rural community?

  19. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Cathy Bennett commented

    This is an inappropriate application for Glenorie for the following reasons:
    *Design not in keeping with the village atmosphere
    *Buildings too high for the surrounding areas
    *Shadowing on to surrounding houses not fair to those who have lived there for decades.
    *Infrastructure not set up for this density of housing eg traffic, sewerage, drainage.
    *Existing shops will have income affected.
    *Already empty shops here - don't need more shops .

    Please do not approve this application .

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 11 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    The trading hours our excessive and will heavily impact the quality of life for residents. This application should be rejected.

  21. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Michelle Bullen commented

    I am totally against this type of development for a "Semi Rural" area also as was stated above we do not have the infastructure or road capacity to cope with the added population that this will bring we have only just been connected to a pressure sewerage system which is at capacity already and many people are still having issues with their electric pumps not functioning properly also due to the large number of quarry trucks and delivery trucks already using Old
    Northern Road and Post Office Road the ongoing traffic congestion would be a nightmare and make paedestarian access unsafe please please do not let our beautiful Village be ruined by this kind of development.

  22. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Michelle Bullen commented

    I am totally against this type of development for a "Semi Rural" area also as was stated above we do not have the infastructure or road capacity to cope with the added population that this will bring we have only just been connected to a pressure sewerage system which is at capacity already and many people are still having issues with their electric pumps not functioning properly also due to the large number of quarry trucks and delivery trucks already using Old
    Northern Road and Post Office Road the ongoing traffic congestion would be a nightmare and make paedestarian access unsafe please please do not let our beautiful Village be ruined by this kind of development.

  23. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 114 Napoleon Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jodie Bareham commented

    I agree with Lynda Giann's comment. Ample off street parking for both residents and visitors is required on the property. The street is too narrow for street parking.

  24. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/4 Tyner Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse wrote to local councillor Lisa Cooper

    Agree.. Checked out land.vic.gov.au and that site has no record of 1/4 Tyner Road.
    Something sinister is afoot.

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Cooper. They are yet to respond.

  25. In West Perth WA on “Proposed Multi Storey...” at 31 Malcolm Street West Perth WA 6005:

    Connagh Hopkins commented

    Time and again, property with historical significance in Perth prove to be attractions. Inherent value of property is increased because of it. Please consider the development of this property carefully. It has the potential to enhance the commercial value of any development if it is kept intact.

  26. In Belivah QLD on “1 Lot into 11 Lots and...” at 31 Belivah Road Belivah QLD 4207:

    RF wrote to local councillor Laurie Koranski

    This particular development by Davidson at Belivah is absolutely not in line with any type of normal town planning. Previously, this area has been seen a rural residential with most properties in the area sitting on 1 1/2 acres (both Bannockburn and Rosemount Farm). I find it amazing that the developer can propose block sizes as low as 187sqm and with maximum size sitting around 600sqm (disgusting money grab if you ask me). As someone previously mentioned about Bannockburn Road (19 units on one block), all this is doing is devaluing the suburb as most of these mini blocks will be either owned by investors or housing commission (no owner occupiers anymore). Also, if you have look at the entire proposed development (31 Belivah Road) you will see that where those beautiful gums trees along Beaudesert Beenleigh road now stand, a future park is proposed.. I wonder if the developer will at least retain these magnificent trees?? I recently voted in the new councillor Laurie and am now wondering if she will actually stand up for rural residents in the area and block this development, or as a minimum demand that the minimum block size stay at 500sqm no less. Having said all that, consider.. on the corner of Bannockburn road and Beaudesert Beenleigh road there soon will be, Bannockburn village with Woolworths, a wonderful parking lot, shops and cafes, next to that those 19 units and then opposite.. Davidson at Belivah with its lower socioeconomic design.. My advise folks, sell up and move further out as logan city council and co. is about to impose Yarrabilba style design on our fair suburb.
    Sorry that no-one cares anymore..

    Delivered to local councillor Laurie Koranski. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Telopea NSW on “30 - 32 Marshall Road and...” at 32 Marshall Road Telopea NSW 2117:

    Kerrie commented

    It is difficult driving along Marshall Road now without the addition of more cars,especially if they are parked on road. This development will only result in more congestion. This street needs to be widened as even now you have to pull over to allow another car to pass and especially when the bus is there driving its route.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 11 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    zio ledeux wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    i agree with all of the above comments

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Epping NSW on “Hornsby Shire Council” at 38 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I was led to believe this was a heritage building and it would be preserved. It is a great loss to our community to lose this building. It is disappointing that Parramatta City Council does not do more to preserve the heritage of the Epping area. It is unfortunate they are just following what Hornsby Council has already determined.

  30. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/4 Tyner Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    L Slade commented

    Hello there must be a mistake there are already two two story town houses there !

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