Recent comments

  1. In Crows Nest NSW on “Increase the maximum height...” at 29 Albany Street Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Ian Brennan commented

    This application appears to be submitted as the building nears completion.

    It would seem that the development is looking to extend the already-agreed boundaries of the development, without understanding the impact to the homes across the road, nor the offices and amenities surrounding the development.

    It would seem that this would impact the environment around the area, leading to an encroachment of a "St Leonards" skyline into Crows Nest itself.

  2. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Brett Robinson commented

    I support this application.

    I am an ex-student of Inaburra, a Menai Baptist Church member and Music Director for the Sunday morning services. The relocation from one building to another building on the same site will have a number of benefits for the church and local community. From a sound perspective, the design of the current building (Media Centre) has an acoustic atmosphere where it is more difficult to control sound quality, clarity and volume. Consequently, the music and sound technical team have a heightened level of awareness when caring for the comfort of our congregation; in particular for our more senior members, young children and those with hearing sensitivities. While some audio improvement measures have been implemented, ultimately the design of the current building means that the desired level of audio control will not be obtainable.

    Utilising a purpose built facility (which is on the same site and has zoning that allows for the use as a Place of Public Worship) that alleviates these sound issues is the most desirable outcome. The Performing Arts Centre has been designed such that sound quality, clarity and volume can be controlled at an optimum level.

  3. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition, reduction...” at 153-155 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Roger Daily commented

    Yet another application for a reduction in the required car parking at the expense of the amenity of existing residents. If the developer wants to turn a profit from this site then do it in compliance with the requirements for parking. Richmond is being ruined by developments like this.

  4. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Judith Gray commented

    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge and I regularly use Dudley Road for access to Pacific Highway. I also use the Fernleigh track as a commuter.

    I am very concerned about the effect of additional traffic from the proposed development - parking is already difficult at the Whitebridge shops and I believe the additional ~ 200 vehicles likely from this development, that will be accessing Kopa Street will overload the roundabout area.

    I also have some questions about the development proposed on the Environmental 7(2) zone. I would like to know if this proposed pathway, stormwater management structures and landscaping meets the requirements for the ecological corridor.

    I also have serious concerns about the height of the proposed buildings on Dudley Road and the density of the other buildings proposed, which are not in keeping with other current developments in the suburb.

    Finally, I dispute that the dedication to Council of roads, park and conversation land is beneficial to the extent that the developers contribution S94 be waived.

    Sincerely
    Judy Gray

  5. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Peter Asmussen commented

    A Caravan Park in Wattle Crescent Glossodia would be completely inappropriate for more reasons than I could describe here.
    I hope that those deciding on this application have the sense to deny this application at the first opportunity.

    I sense that the local community, currently disillusioned with recent revelations of council decision making processes, will not not stand for this development going ahead.

    Over 500 people in 10 hrs have signed on to an online residents group opposing this application. I would expect to see a lot more opposition to this development, and to any council move to support it. I will involve myself fully in this opposition.

    I am involved in the community in many capacities...Rural Fire Service; Soccer Club; and with Glossodia Public School. I pay my rates and ask for no special considerations.

    I do not want this development to go ahead.

  6. In South Yarra VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 43 Wilson Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Jim commented

    There is too many apartments going up in this area. So many trucks and noise nearly all week. Traffic problems and hard to park.

  7. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Review request under...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    S Mirian commented

    I am the buyer of one of the two units this rooftop proposal affects. I am in support of the rooftop terrace being approved but not as presented in this submission. Outlined below are my reasons why this is the case. 

    1. I find it concerning that, as the buyer of this unit, our family pet who is home during the days while my partner and I are at work, will not be able to access the rooftop terrace. This was a strong incentive to purchase this unit and makes our PRIVATE PERSONAL space inaccessible for most of the day.

    2. It is completely unacceptable to separate private areas of a person's unit, with the only way to access this space being a shared staircase or common area. The previous plans showed our own internal staircase from the downstairs living space to the upstairs area allowing our pet and children between OUR OWN spaces. 

    3. It presents safety concerns as, in an emergency, a small shared stairwell is the only way out, and both PRIVATE rooftops may be used for entertaining with several people there at any time. It also seems highly possible that someone could potentially lock themselves out of their own unit and be stuck on the rooftop with no other way down. 

    4. This shared stairwell presents a security issue given that an intruder could try and gain access to one of the units from within the stairwell, uninterrupted and out of sight of any witnesses.

    This proposal of a shared stairwell to units 9 & 10 is not a viable solution to council's concerns.

    The intention of adding the open rooftop provides more outdoor space, adding room for greenery and vegetation, and is in line marrickville council's green equity paper which promotes the idea of using open space.

    This most recent submission proposing a shared stairwell to the rooftop seems unnecessary. With the removal of the pergola, and by using a privacy blade on the rooftop level, as done on the north facing balcony below (rather than minimizing the trafficable space on the rooftop), there is sufficient space for two separate stairwells to each unit and would present an aesthetic that is already in line with what council has approved for the balcony directly below.

    This minimizes any privacy concerns and visual bulk as viewed from adjoining properties.

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    William Abell commented

    I have just one question:

    How can this application be even considered when the major issues from the previous application, which was rejected, have not been addressed?

  9. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Curli Abell commented

    I can not believe that this proposal has been amended to be even worse that what it was. This development is all about greed and does not have the well being of this area in mind at all.

    NONE of the issues from the previous application have been addressed. Complete contempt has been shown with an even worse proposal.

    If this land is to be developed it should be in keeping with what the majority of people want not what greedy developers want, you as councilors were voted in to represent us, it is now up to you to do your job and represent us.

    Do not let this proposal get through as it stands.

  10. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Anne-Marie Abell commented

    Here I am writing another objection to this proposal :-(

    I find it hard to believe that this latest proposal is even more appalling than the first!

    All objections previously have included concern over the density of the development and now this latest plan is for even greater density and more stories, all on an area of mine subsidence!

    Come on guys, let's get real here, please.

  11. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Brenda Carter commented

    The latest proposal for the development at 142-146 Dudley Rd., Whitebridge is even more appalling than the first. The chief objection previously had been the density of the over-development - the latest plan is for even greater density, plus more storeys than before, over a mine subsidence area.
    I attended the information session at The Place, Charlestown on 9th July 2014. The developer tried to gloss over the huge concern that the local community has about the enormous impact that the development will have on traffic in Kopa Street, Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road. There is urgent need for an independent assessment of current traffic flows over several representative days (not just on one wildly unrepresentative day as previously, which happened to be a sports day) to gauge impacts of the over-development.
    Further, I strongly suggest the proposal be put on hold following the revelations at the ICAC to allow a thorough review of controversial developments such as this, involving developers adversely mentioned in the commission.

  12. In Mona Vale NSW on “New single dwelling-...” at 93 Narrabeen Park Parade Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    Robert Brian Harvie & Miri Frances Craig commented

    Comment Re: DA No. NO297/14

    We are residents of 15 Bruce St., Mona Vale, which is situated directly East of the proposed new residence at 93 Narrabeen Park Parade, Mona Vale.

    Apologies, firstly, for our response's being a couple of days later than the published response time from Pittwater Council.

    We wish to state that we have no particular objections to the proposed dwelling, but we wish to make clear that we support the objections of our Neighbours, namely residents in Nos. 95, 140, & 142 Narrabeen Park Parade.

    These objections encompass height of eastern skillion roof, loss of views, & nature of vegetation.
    Our final comment is Our request for builders to have no loud radios whilst the building is in progress.

  13. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 7 Mcgill Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Stuart commented

    Lewisham is being destroyed by unchecked over development brought to you by Liberal NSW and their donors in the over-development industry, coupled with Marrickville council controlled by ALP and LNP.

    The traffic problems on Old Canterbury Rd at Station St and surrounds will be appalling after hundreds of apartments are built in such a small area. Goodbye local light industry and jobs, hello profit for land owners, including those who owned the mattress factory that mysteriously burnt down.

    These developments should be opposed.

  14. In Lane Cove NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    20/9/2014

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Can find no more details except this appears to be a modification of an application for 5 new multi-storey residential buildings to be constructed next to Burns Bay Road above View Street.

    If this is the case, there should be no late modifications which would add additional residences in the buildings. The development is too dense already, and quite out of character with the Lower Burns Bay Road/Linley Point area, in terms of a population
    bombshell and architectural design in a bushland area. Even with the new internal road, there will be traffic problems in Burns Bay Road.

    M A CLINCH
    PO Box 1076,
    Lane Cove, 1595.

  15. In Lane Cove NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    20/9/2014

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Can find no more details except this appears to be a modification of an application for 5 new multi-storey residential buildings to be constructed next to Burns Bay Road above View Street.

    If this is the case, there should be no late modifications which would add additional residences in the buildings. The development is too dense already, and quite out of character with the Lower Burns Bay Road/Linley Point area, in terms of a population
    bombshell and architectural design in a bushland area. Even with the new internal road, there will be traffic problems in Burns Bay Road.

    M A CLINCH
    PO Box 1076,
    Lane Cove, 1595.

  16. In Summer Hill NSW on “The Temperance Society Bar...” at 122 Smith St, Summer Hill 2130:

    Connie commented

    The small bar is a great addition to any community. Small bars encourage civilised gatherings in a friendly environment. They provide an opportunity for community members and friends to meet and exchange ideas in a more intimate environment. I would be very happy if this new bar was up and running in Summer Hill asap.

  17. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Canberra Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    Suzanne Flannery commented

    Canberra Avenue is a quiet street with no side walk. It is a steep corner where the proposal is. There is already a childcare center a 100 metres away on Bannockburn road, 400 metres away a childcare centre on Pentrecost Avenue. The owners of all Canberra Avenue will protest the proposal with a group petition by the end of this week beginning 19th of September 2014. The sign post for the proposal was erected on site today.

  18. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Andrew Morgan commented

    The NSW Planning Dept has a opportunity to influence the developer to create a development in line with the nature of the suburb. At present the development proposal resembles a ghetto. The development could enhance a village style precinct if done tastefully and to a scale that is in line with best practice with medium scale developments. It should incorporate open space as this is the nature of the area.

    My concerns

    1. The loss of open space. The current area area was used by many people in the area as a dog recreation area, people used to fly model planes and kites and other open space activities. The loss of this is detrimental to the general health of the suburb and I believe the developer should incorporate some open space in the development to maintain the general feel of the area.

    2. Parking in the shopping area. Prior to fencing off many of the shopping centre employees would park on the grass and leave the carpark for customers. This worked well. Now cars are regurlarly paked back over the bridge and down near the day care cnetre. This is a significant safety risk and the area was not designed to cope with the amount of on street parking. The new development will also reduce the available parking in the carpark while adding more shops.

    3. Traffic - the Kopa st intersection is not designed to cope with the amount of extra traffic due to the amount of dwellings in the development. Duirng school hours the place is already gridlocked. The extra traffic will see people making irrational driving practices at a high risk area near the day care centre and where the children walk to school.

    4. Density - the amount and scale of the development is totally out of character with the rest of the suburb. It is even worse than the first one.

  19. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Mell Magill commented

    I am writing to object to the above mentioned development. I do not see the necessity of a 5 story apartment building, the land proposed for development is already at a high point in the suburb.
    The current infrastructure to and from this proposed development is not really suitable for such an influx of the proposed traffic which would be a direct result of such a large development. The area is a high foot traffic area, with a nursing home, Primary and High schools in very close proximity. Also a leash free dog exercising area runs adjacent to the proposed land marked for this development. During the summer season, and surf club activities, this area is already unable to sustain the amount of vehicles needing to park, with traffic spreading over onto Mawson Close, The Esplanade, and Caves Beach Rd. The result is over crowding of the surrounding streets and access and street visibility is a severe problem. Such a high density development would only add to this problem.
    I do not see the necessity for another supermarket, there is a line of shops directly across the road and the two big supermarkets only minutes away.
    The resultant height of such a large development would definitely impact many home owners in Caves Beach, even as far back as Easton Lane, as most of the suburb looks over this area. Not to mention the obvious that it would be a complete eyesore that you would not be able to hide or disguise as the land is, as mentioned, the high point of the surrounding district.

  20. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Meredith Coxon commented

    I am writing to object to the development DA/1376/2014 – 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach. Even though our house is not directly affected by this development, I do not think that there is any need for a 5 storey apartment block within Caves Beach. This is not an inner city community, where housing is at a premium. I believe that even 2 storeys on that high block will create enough oceanviews for the residents. Which I consider is what the developer is after - blocking the views of the residents in the unit block that has just been built behind, and making it a focal point for all houses that are placed higher than this development.

    The building of a new small supermarket is also not necessary. We currently have a small line of shops that does the community well enough, and should you need more, Coles and Woolworths are a short walk or drive down into Swansea.

    Having an additional 79 Units occupied will create more traffic – cars already tear along Caves Beach Road now – and this is quite close to the Nursing Home which would be a danger to the elderly residents and their visitors. Currently in the daytime, when cars are parked across from the Nursing Home, a blind spot is created, this would be much worse with more traffic flow. There is only one exit in and out of Caves Beach, which is quite dangerous enough now.

    Our house currently gets a ridiculous amount of runoff water each time it rains, from the development that was built previous to this one. I am really not sure that there is sufficient drainage in this area to accommodate this development. I am particularly concerned that the land that will house these units will be built up before construction, making them much higher than the 2 storeys on the picture. Making them completely overlook the yards of the current owners – much like the imposing houses that are currently being built on the fenceline of the Resort development.

    It is hard to trust this development will not be completely different to what is in the plans – it seems to be completely secret and underhanded with no notice to the community. This should be put in a prominent place so that all residents can have their say – and give them more than the paltry 2 weeks that has been granted with this application.

  21. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jill Cassidy, Honorary Research Associate, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery commented

    I wish to object to the proposal to demolish the old 'cordial factory' in the CH Smith complex. Bricks made in the 1830s were often of poor quality but this building is one of the oldest in Launceston and should be retained if at all possible. It is a reminder of the very early days of settlement when this area was of great importance to the economic and maritime activities of the fast-developing town. The whole CH Smith complex has the potential to be of great interest if developed appropriately so that it could become a most welcome introduction to the city.

  22. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Daniel Degrassi commented

    I support this application on the grounds that it will advantage many and should not negatively impact any members of the local community.

    Moving the primary meeting place from one building to another within the same complex:

    - Will not increase the amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic which are already very small compared to school day volumes

    - will allow better access for the elderly members of the congregation and for children who have additional needs

    - will make it easier for visitors and new people to find the church meeting location, reducing any potential impact on neighbouring properties

  23. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Roger & Elizabeth de Quincey commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

    Re DAO383/2014

    We strongly object to the proposed demolition of the C. H. Smith facade.

    In Kevin Newman's words (Examiner, 12 March, 1992):

    'Our heritage is precious' and 'When times are tough and jobs are scarce it is hard not to let a building be destroyed, because the immediate argument about jobs and new development are very persuasive.' He went on to argue that often a building that appears derelict and beyond redemption can be saved. 'Launceston has a reputation as one of the most authentic 19th century cities in Australia.' The city's character is precious and can be 'regarded as an Australian historical gem and a tourist Mecca.' 'The envy of Australia and indeed the world!'

    Think twice before knocking it down - you can't put it up again.

  24. In Summer Hill NSW on “The Temperance Society Bar...” at 122 Smith St, Summer Hill 2130:

    Liz commented

    Fantastic idea! We need another place for brunch and breakfast in Summer Hill on weekends. Hopefully it will be cosy and prices will be reasonable. Also hope they do great coffee and loose leaf teas!

    Look forward to having a drink after work here too!

    Since moving to Summer Hill from Newtown, we have missed small bars. Hope they get outdoor seating too.

  25. In Beecroft NSW on “Proposed Redevelopment...” at 87-91 & 95 Beecroft Road and 16-24 Hannah Street, Beecroft:

    rick commented

    Do not become like a paramatta council and keep approving developments around beecroft. stop destruction of beecroft. There are more than 350 units that are going approved to be built around beecroft . Has anyone thought of the insufficient surrounding infrastructure, seniors , families living in this area.Do you know about the accident that killed someone at the corner of beecroft road and hannah street. Yes council will become rich with increased council rates but this will come at the expense of safety,people losing sleep due to freight noise, sickness due to cutting of trees etc.

  26. In Ballina NSW on “New Dwelling - Single...” at 2 / 49 Bentinck Street Ballina NSW 2478:

    russell shepherd commented

    would like to see a copy of application as my property backs onto this property would like to know if it is two story re. shade angles e.t.c

  27. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Eric Vaughan Ralph Ratcliff commented

    I also object to any proposal to demolish the Canal Street building, a characterful relic of our early waterfront that can be made a prominent landmark at one of the gateways to the City centre. It can enhance the interest of any adjacent development, making it less of an object to drive past and not take notice of.
    The disputed site has a number of buildings worthy of conservation - Plain Colonial, Early Victorian/Regency, Art Deco and Edwardian (Federation).
    Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

  28. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Eric Vaughan Ralph Ratcliff commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of Launceston,

    I strongly object to the application to demolish the Charles Street facades. They are prominent buildings that maintain important and characteristic streetscape near the edge of the City centre, and they represent one of the few large remnants of our early commercial waterfront.
    They are in the same style and comparable date to the much admired and preserved warehouses in Salamanca Place in Hobart. They happen to be built of brick with stucco render and not of stone, but that is the characteristic material of our city.
    Launceston is more admired by its visitors for what it has kept than for what it has allowed to be demolished. In that, it resembles Paris in France and Bath in England, albeit on a much smaller scale. Launceston has had many serious losses since the 1950s, many replaced by unbuilt spaces (mostly car-parks) or by buildings of little character. The more of these we accumulate, the more Launceston will come to resemble every other suburban strip in South-Eastern Australia. It will be of little or no interest to visitors, and no source of pride to its citizens.
    Central Hobart has thoroughly destroyed its historic atmosphere, except for its conserved treasures. Launceston is more intact, despite its losses, and our realistic economic future depends on our past as well as on continuing development.
    Long neglect has become an excuse for demolition of things that we should preserve. It is not beyond the wit of good architects and engineers to maintain these facades and integrate them into a development that will enhance our city. It is up to the firm commissioning the project to recognise this.
    Yours sincerely,
    Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

  29. In Galston NSW on “Residential - single new...” at 4 Gribbenmount Road Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Jane Cattley commented

    My husband (Graham Talmon Cattley) and I (Ingrid Jane Cattley) are the owners of 284 Galston Road Galston and live at that address.
    I strongly support this application.

  30. In Lake Wendouree VIC on “Construction of 13 dwellings” at 203 Wendouree Parade, Lake Wendouree:

    Stuart Kelly commented

    This proposed development is totally out of scale for the area! I appeal to the Council to reject it. The overwhelming majority of buildings around the lake are of one storey - with some two storey homes. To introduce what is in all truth a block of flats to such an area will adversely effect what should be regarded as one of Ballarat's jewels.

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