Recent comments

  1. In Carnegie VIC on “Thirty Nine (39) Lot...” at 22 Jersey Parade Carnegie VIC 3163:

    belinda poole commented

    What!!! another one. Jersey Parade has already to many appartments, and surrounding areas are getting over crowded. Lack of parking is a big issue, and loss of character in the small suburb of Carnegie. These developments have to STOP NOW!!

  2. In Busselton WA on “Use Not Listed...” at Geographe Timber and Hardware Supplies 10 Bunbury Street Busselton WA 6280:

    G.Hartley commented

    I always thought their address was Gale Street, Busselton. Have they moved?
    Geographe Timber and Hardware Supplies 10 Bunbury Street Busselton WA 6280

  3. In Redfern NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 183 Regent Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fiona McGregor commented

    As a local resident and artist, I was overjoyed to see the opening of the Bearded Tit. It is unique among the burgeoning local bar scene in its support for artists and musicians, as well as its explicit agenda of fair treatment to all regardless of race, gender and sexuality. The staff are friendly, the prices fair; yet the amount of love, care and quirkiness that have gone into the bar are priceless. Please keep the extended opening hours. People need this safe space to socialise in safely, to earn a wage, and to make culture that all of us desperately need.

  4. In Whitfield QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 218 Woodward Street Whitfield QLD 4870:

    Eugene McNeilly commented

    Can you please advise if extended development is planned as this may affect my property access.

  5. In Caves Beach NSW on “2 Lot Stratum Subdivision” at 1 Mawson Close, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Liz Cunninghame commented

    I would like more information on what is being proposed
    Thank you

  6. In Victoria Point QLD on “Operationall Works for...” at 5 Simon Street, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Jim Overton wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    how does a 13 unit plan get approved on a nominated floodway

    Photo of Lance Hewlett
    Lance Hewlett local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Jim Overton

    Hi Jim,

    This application is actually zoned for higher density (UR1) but the owner/ developer is creating individual house lots and doing extensive drainage and other works to address the storm and tide overlays.

    Kind Regards,

    Cr Lance Hewlett [cid:]
    Councillor, Division 4
    Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island
    Redland City Council |
    Cnr Middle and Bloomfield Streets, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    PO Box 21, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    Phone: (07) 3829-8603 | Mobile: 0421 880 371 |
    Email: | Web:www.redland.qld.gov.au
    [cid:]https://www.facebook.com/lance.hewlett

    On 17 Apr 2017, at 7:50 am, Jim Overton <> wrote:

    how does a 13 unit plan get approved on a nominated floodway

    From Jim Overton to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    =========================================================================

    Jim Overton posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Jim Overton and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 5 Simon Street, Victoria Point, QLD

    Description: Operationall Works for ROL006086 2 into 13 Lots

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/802858?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  7. In Victoria Point QLD on “Operational Works for...” at 26 Base Street, Victoria Point, QLD:

    jim overton wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    what are operational works for ROL00610?

    Photo of Lance Hewlett
    Lance Hewlett local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to jim overton

    Hi Jim,

    This appears to be a standard. I into 2, Code Assessable DA. I would say the operational works could be the removal of the existing dwelling.

    Kind Regards,

    Cr Lance Hewlett [cid:]
    Councillor, Division 4
    Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island
    Redland City Council |
    Cnr Middle and Bloomfield Streets, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    PO Box 21, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    Phone: (07) 3829-8603 | Mobile: 0421 880 371 |
    Email: | Web:www.redland.qld.gov.au
    [cid:]https://www.facebook.com/lance.hewlett

    On 17 Apr 2017, at 7:50 am, jim overton <> wrote:

    what are operational works for ROL00610?

    From jim overton to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    =========================================================================

    jim overton posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to jim overton and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 26 Base Street, Victoria Point, QLD

    Description: Operational Works for ROL006140

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/802857?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  8. In Wantirna VIC on “Two dwelling development...” at 4 Baudelaire Avenue, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Sandy commented

    Hi i strongly support the application. But i hate when people comment without having adequate knowledge of planning policies. So far best council i dealt with is knox council. They have strict policy of landscaping when u do any development 175 sq m area with canopy trees and 30 percent area to be left for gardening. Thats best can be done with the area close to biggest shopping centre. There is some area in knox where 50 percent has to be left for gardening. So there policies are very good houses along stud rd is in high density so only front houses which are facing main polluted road are allowed to have 3 stories. Which is very gud decision.

  9. In Lilyfield NSW on “Demolition of sheds and...” at 12 May Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    Cannot agree more with Judy about the atrocious treatment of the 12 May Street home and grounds which should have been completely restored to its original condition. The disregard for heritage value is staggering. These are the Sydney equivalent of old areas of other cities such as the Marais in Paris. They can never be recovered. I have lived in Rozelle for 35 years and despair of the situation. Leaving shortly.

  10. In Wantirna VIC on “Two dwelling development...” at 4 Baudelaire Avenue, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    W Hinson commented

    I have no objection to this type of development in principle- but not if both new dwellings are 40 sq behemoths and every available and possible space concreted over! A single new home in Castlefield Ave is massive and there appears to be little space available for greenery. No doubt it is the green and leafy atmosphere of the suburb that has attracted buyers, yet the new developments want low maintenance, ugly concreted areas. Council must limit what can be covered in development and retain large areas of green on properties - regardless of what developers want.

  11. In Wantirna VIC on “Two dwelling development...” at 4 Baudelaire Avenue, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    Another move to turn green, leafy spacious Wantirna into a concrete jungle.
    This sort of development should only be allowed within 10k of the city, so those who enjoy fresh air and green suburbs can keep them.
    Resident of Wantirna for 40 years

  12. In Peregian Beach QLD on “Material Change Of Use -...” at 215 David Low Way Peregian Beach QLD 4573:

    J West commented

    I have concerns in relation to the amount of additional traffic and road congestion 50 units, plus their visitors, in the same small area will cause. Peak hour & holiday times through Peregian Beach/Springs area is already slow and disruptive to local workers who need to commute through this area on a daily basis, please don't add to it further.

  13. In Victoria Point QLD on “Secondary Dwelling” at 39 Brendan Way, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Mr Kim Ernest Edward Harley commented

    I wish to find out more about this application. In previous applications multiple dwellings have been requested, now a 'secondary dwelling'. Can you shed more light on this application including previous history if connected. I have read through the latest council meeting minutes but could not find reference to this application. Could you help me find out more about when it has been presented at Council meetings or to be presented please.

    Thank you.

    Kim Harley

  14. In Penrith NSW on “Use of an Existing Building...” at 57 Henry Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Rachael Wilson commented

    Henry St Lemongrove Bridge is already a nightmare at peak times, throw in the Thornton estate with its 1000 dwellings and this proposed school and it will be total gridlock. The site is totally unsuitable given the ever growing population of the cbd and the lack of suitable drop off points.

  15. In Crows Nest NSW on “Include entrance on...” at 7 Burlington Street Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Amanda Smith commented

    Please explain what a " more sympathetic " colour scheme will be ? The building is already beautifully coloured . Why can't Woolworths conform to what is already there ?!

  16. In Clifton Beach QLD on “Superseded Planning Request...” at Captain Cook Highway Clifton Beach QLD 4879:

    dave commented

    no infrastructure no roads no room no green space left high side of highway oversupply of 400 sq blocks ,what happened to sensible projects in this area we don't need to go from roof to roof and hear the people next door flush .leave the place with some character and lets keep the one road in rabbit warrens out
    the large lots on the hill side don't even get sewerage

  17. In Ermington NSW on “Development Application -...” at 3 Cowells Lane Ermington NSW 2115:

    Lynn Howles commented

    Good Afternoon
    In reference to the above application...
    A couple of years ago we went to a preliminary development meeting with council to do something quite similar to the above. We had our architects with us also at the meeting. We were told point blank the only thing we could do was to demolish the existing home and build a new attatched duplex. Can you please advise if the rules have now changed?
    Also our land size is 1107 square metres which is somewhat larger than the one on cowells lane.
    Thanking you in advance for your assistance in the above matter.
    Kind Regards
    Lynn Howles
    1 Bennetts Road West
    DUNDAS NSW 2117

  18. In Taminda NSW on “Signage” at Mail Sorting Centre 8-13 Goonan Street Taminda NSW 2340:

    just saying commented

    I'm not sure if How was responsible for breaking your parcel or riding over lawns, but regardless, this Web page merely contains information regarding a development consent issued by the TRC for signage at the mail sorting centre. It was determined in June 2014 so both complaints won't get too far sorry.

    All we can do is hope How will develop into a more responsible postie.

  19. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 15 Knox Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Barney Allen commented

    Surely you can't be serious? Removing a Sydney Blue Gum! These majestic trees take many decades to mature. Tall natives are vital to a healthy ecosystem. The destruction of this or others should be criminal in my opinion. The wonderful Kookaburras and Powerful Owls that would frequently visit Epping are fast becoming a rarity and the reason for this is the removal of natives such as this. These carnivorous birds require tall trees for their perching, nesting and hunting. I drove past a development site the other day and read the developers' blurb raving about the 'green' view where it looked down on the little park opposite. Epping has always been known for its beautiful trees and I don't mean the token ones found in parks, I refer to the ones in the yards of homeowners. Don't let this Sydney Blue Gum fall the way of so many others.

  20. In Penrith NSW on “Use of an Existing Building...” at 57 Henry Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Anna Taylor commented

    Firstly the site is inappropriate its on the corner of a very busy intersection. There are 2 schools in very close proximity and its very busy and congested area. Where are parents going to park to get their children to school ? It's a nightmare already its a crazy idea. We don't need another school in this area.

    Secondly we don't need a Muslim school in Penrith. We are mostly Christian in this country why are we allowing a minority to take over our local area ? They are not inclusive or tolerant of other religions. They say anyone can go there but honestly who would send their children to a Muslim school if they are not Muslim NO ONE. Its allowing them to be segregated and not assimilate. This causes a them and us mentality.
    We have a diverse community at the moment who get along well. This would cause a disruption to our community and it will never be the same. Please do not allow this proposal to go ahead.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Development Application” at 24-36 Langston Place, Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    I can only endorse M McCartney's comments. It is very important that planning authorities enforce the prevailing standards, to ensure the integrity of the planning process. There does seem to be a tendency of developers seeking to "push the boundaries", by proposing non-complying developments and/or seeking modifications for existing approvals. The latter can only be seen as a deliberate ploy to circumvent planning controls.

    The effects of overshadowing on the environment and the serious exacerbation of existing traffic issues have been aired many time before, but they are more relevant than ever, and it is important that planning authorities recognise the harm that that the over-development of Epping is causing.

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

    Vicki Majstorovic commented

    There is enough congestion at earlwood , too many units going up , creating chaos for earlwood and the surrounding suburbs. Just driving up to Earlwood Monday to Friday during peak is a nightmare this will just add to the problem. Why doesn't the council use the land to widen the road instead. The council shouldn't be approving all these developments to money hungry developers!!!

  23. In Coolongolook NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 21 Bengal Street, Coolongolook NSW 2423:

    Janice Dance commented

    I totally agree with Neryl. Especially as there will soon be 2 servos's at Nabiac.

  24. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - mixed...” at 128 Belinda St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Andrew Morgan commented

    Is it ever going to stop? It is now almost impossible to see the ocean from anywhere in the Main Street. Privatisation of public views,a planning disaster further demonstrated by the view when walking north along Werri Beach. Did those who allowed this disgrace ever look at it from the beach?

  25. In Taminda NSW on “Signage” at Mail Sorting Centre 8-13 Goonan Street Taminda NSW 2340:

    Sandra elson commented

    I got a parcel in the mail and it was broken. Not very happy. I would like to know how is responsible for that.
    Thanks

  26. In Taminda NSW on “Signage” at Mail Sorting Centre 8-13 Goonan Street Taminda NSW 2340:

    Sandra elson commented

    I got a parcel in the mail and it was broken. Not very happy. I would like to know how is responsible for that.
    Thanks

  27. In Melbourne VIC on “Restaurant and cafe Licence” at Shop 1, 360 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, VIC:

    Krystyna and Clyde Croft commented

    As residents in Collins Gate we object most strongly to this application. It is an incredible indictment of the transparency of the planning process that residents of Collins Gate only discovered that a licensed restaurant trading very late into the night was proposed for the 360 Collins Street development with very late night access though a doorway to Collins Way thus directing restaurant patron traffic beside a residential development in the CBD which has been established now for over 20 years. Collins Way - the access way proposed - is a narrow lane way and with its unbroken hard surfaces opposite Collins Gate acts like an amplifying sound tunnel which directs sound - and smoke - upwards into the Collins Gate residences. We hear all the "liveable city" rhetoric and would have assumed that such a development would not have been contemplated other than as a result of a significant period of discussion and consultation with Collins Gate residents. We would have liked to make formal objection to this application - but have been unable to do so having been away for Melbourne and without internet access - but trust that these comments will serve the same purpose. In any event our objection has four elements. First, experience over the last 20 years in the area has demonstrated that increased availability of alcohol increases antisocial behaviour and that a late license as proposed is likely to produce this result in Collins Way beside our residence. Apart from being most unpleasant it will be disruptive of sleep and the general amenity of residences - particularly as the late license is proposed for 7 days a week - no respite at all. Secondly, and related to the first is our concern for our safety and of others accessing the entrance to Collins Gate at night - as the entrance is off the lane way - Collins Way - the restaurant access. Thirdly, the proposal will encourage smoking in Collins Way and this will produce the further unpleasantness - and health hazard - of cigarette smoke flowing into the residences through open windows [Collins Gate is not air conditioned and ventilation is through open windows]. This will also be further disturbing of sleep and will produce a situation with respect to cigarette smoke even worse than that applying when the adjoining land was an open public square where cigarette smoking was both clearly noticeable and unpleasant in Collins Gate. There is no doubt that passive cigarette smoking is a health hazard - as is also demonstrated by the concern of the Melbourne City Council in this respect and its moves to ban smoking in public places. Fourthly, we are very concerned at the noise that will be created in Collins Way - beside the residences - as patrons come and go from the restaurant or, even worse linger conversing loudly and possibly smoking and charged with the effects of alcohol. For these reasons we urge you to refuse this application. Other measures such as reduced trading hours, no smoking signs, signs urging quietness etc may 'tick boxes" but that is all as general experience shows these measures are ineffective and the latter are not enforceable in any event. The CBD is certainly a commercial centre but it has become a major residential area as well as a result of State and local government policies, hence the uses must be balanced. Collins Gate is a long established residential development and its amenity should not be prejudiced by a commercial development which has been sprung on the residents with no consolation or discussion.

  28. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification to internal...” at Retail 154 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Paul commented

    As of now, there are two supporting documents available on Council's web site. One of these, the Statement of modifications, says: "Proposed Modification: The Application seeks to modify development approval DA413.2015 as identified in the proposed plans enclosed."
    As this document itself contains no plans, can you kindly assure me (& others) that these will be provided on Council's DA tracking website?
    Thanks

  29. In Penrith NSW on “Use of an Existing Building...” at 57 Henry Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Michelle Dwyer commented

    TIMELINE: PENRITH ISLAMIC MOSQUE AND OLD PUBLIC SCHOOL SITE DA

    1. October 2014 – Islamic Mosque at Kemps Creek approved by Penrith Council (10 Councillors for, 5 Councillors against)

    2. 25 August 2015 – Government Property NSW sale of Penrith Infants School, 57 Henry St, Penrith $4,500,00.00

    3. Early 2016 – Pre-DA

    4. 11 September 2016 – Penrith Council Elections – 15 Councillors (10 re-elected, plus 5 newly elected)

    5. March 2017 – DA

    Yes, the sale process/decisions for the school land and the Heritage listing are separate to the DA process, but the DA process is only up for consideration because the developers were sold the land. If any part of that sale decision or the Heritage listing decision were flawed, the sale can legally be overturned and I am certain there will be public furore!.

    A full and thorough investigation of all events shown in the timeline is paramount, so that the Penrith community can be certain that no inappropriate actions have taken place!

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

    R Davies wrote to local councillor Albert van Zetten

    This major industrial development on the fringe of our CBD and adjacent to major residential suburbs of East Launceston, Newstead and Central launceston including schools, hospitals and tourist accomodation should be a major concern for all.
    The large truck movements through our city in and out to service this large and ever expanding industry creates major traffic problems. The noise that the trucks, massive forklifts and clanging containers, and reverse beepers starts from 4.30am onwards and goes all day and often weekends. There are currently no restrictions on operating hours.
    Wait for the trains/rail to join the circus!! Do we really value our heritage City and tourism and lifestyle? Call me a sceptic but when would you lodge a potentially controversial DA? let me think, 1 day before Easter, when everyone turns off for 7-10 days, an extension to the time for public comment surely seems appropriate, Aldermen.

    Delivered to local councillor Albert van Zetten. 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