Recent comments

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

    Christine Anne Young commented

    I do not think this application should be approved. The density of the dwellings, 13 on the block, is inappropriate for the existing neighbourhood. The description in the current real estate advertising of a " a sublime, four-storey lobby atrium" indicates that the height will greatly exceed existing buildings - even if the atrium starts in the basement . The streetscape in the area is uniformly low rise. The development is adjacent to Lake Wendouree, a key Ballarat attraction, and will detract by its size, from the ambience of the lakeside in the area.
    I have made no donations to any councillor or council employee.

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

    Michele Purcell commented

    DA/1774/2013 concerns regarding this development.
    Traffic issues, there is already congestion all the time , worse on school days and weekends.

    Density of the development , not only was it ridiculous to start with but now there are more! The amount of dwellings as well as the height does in now way fit in with the surrounds

    We had an application for a small renovation at the front of our house. No neighbours objected at all. Council made us change it as they said it was not in keeping with the rest of the suburb.If this development goes ahead the way it is , I think there needs to be an inquiry into how this proposal with all the objections was passed especially with the developers recent appearance before ICAC.

    Why would you want to pass such an overdevelopment which would bring nothing but discord and disharmony to Whitebridge.

    Where do the children play ? there are very few parks as it is.

    The temporary path leading to the Fernleigh track is already a death trap , It does nothing for wheelchair and disabled access and is quite frankly disgusting.

    Please explain how our small extension on the front of our house was so objectionable and supposedly did not fit in with the local surrounds and this monstrosity up the road does!

    When is council going to act for the people it represents and stop bending to the developer , who is just in it to make money and leave the local people to deal with the fallout

    Which schools are these people going to attend , have the numbers been looked at ?

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

    Robert Dougall commented

    I support Menai Baptist Church's Application to use the Performing Arts Centre for Sunday worship services.

    The church currently meets in the Inaburra "Media Centre" and simply wants to relocate on that site to the purpose built Performing Arts Centre. The PAC has been designed to minimise noise impacts on its neighbours. The approval of this DA would be a "Win Win" for the church and the neighbours adjacent to the Inaburra complex.

    I am a resident of Menai and a member of Menai Baptist Church.

  4. In Wyee NSW on “Community Facility (Markets)” at Wyee Community Hall, 114 Wyee Road, Wyee NSW 2259:

    Philip and Margot Hammond commented

    As a neighbouring property owner to the site of the proposed development we are concerned that any additional development on this site will further degrade our life style
    for the following reasons.

    I. The council does not maintain this area in relation to rubbish left on the ground, and if not picked up by the local residents (such as my wife and I during our daily walk) it is mown over by the council staff which makes it impossible to pick up, and turns glass bottles and aluminium cans into razor blades, it is worse when this site is used for special events and past markets that have been held on the site.

    2. Parking and traffic, the use of this site for market days, causes people to drive and park on the unsealed access way at the front of the site parallel with Wyee Road directly opposite our property which in a Southerly wind, causes excessive dust to enter
    our house, during the hot summer months, we have to close all windows and doors to prevent this from happening, thus depriving us of any breeze to cool the house.

    3. The leasing of the community hall, by the council, or via a third party, for special events, such as weddings, parties, or such, is not supervised in any form, the excessive
    noise generated from drunken patrons and , result in sleepless nights, regardless of calling for police assistance.

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

    Mrs Robyn Jones commented

    To Launceston City Council
    Re DAO383/2014

    I wish to strongly object to this proposed demolition of the 'cordial factory'.

    I question the assertion that there is no feasible alternative to demolishing this building.

    I tender these examples of preserving and conserving original historical fabric within a modern development as feasible alternatives: 3 Victoria Street, Hobart where the Tasmanian Heritage Council approved plans for the 1820s Macquarie's House to be enclosed within a large office tower block development and Coop's Shot Tower in Melbourne Central.

    Overseas examples include the Clarkson Gordon Building in the Brookfield Place Complex,Toronto, Canada. The heritage property's facade was disassembled stone-by-stone, restored and reconstructed in order to be incorporated as part of a galleria. The National Museum of Singapore has a new building which acts as a glass case enclosing the facade of a heritage building.

    The Heritage Architect states that the heritage values will be largely lost if reconstruction was attempted. How so? I question this broad and unsubstantiated statement as well.

    It is alarming that this building has been allowed to deteriorate over recent months to the extent that it has.

    An agreement is an agreement and should be honoured.

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

    Sandra Lockeridge commented

    I have attended Menai baptist church for over 20 years and as an ex student of innaburra school I have seen the way both the school and church have sort to carry out church and school life with as little impact on surrounding nabours as possible. I feel that this proposal will again assist this, by being allowed to hold Sunday survives in the PAC I feel noise levels from these services will drop due to the PAC being a purpose built building for acoustics.

    As others have mentioned all this proposal is asking is that the church move Sunday services from one building to another which will have no change on traffic and parking. Most attendees of Menai Baptist church make a very conscious effort to respect nabours by parking inside the grounds of inaburra school and not on the surrounding streets.

    Because of this I support this proposal.

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

    Gillian Morris commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

    Re DAO383/2014

    I strongly oppose this application to demolish the 'cordial factory'.

    The 'C H Smith' precinct is of paramount importance to the early history of the European settlement of Launceston and in its entirety should be sympathetically restored, so as to promote and enhance the colonial heritage of our beautiful City.

    Progress with Prudence.

    Gillian Morris

  8. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Wendy Iredale commented

    As a resident living only a few hundred metres from the proposed sewer plant I have concerns regarding its smell, noise and sight. I am not objecting to a system which may environmentally benefit the area by providing houses with grey water for irrigation, but I definitely object to its location being close to existing homes. We do not have the luxury of "not buying" one of the new blocks which may be close to this plant - we already live here, and value the fresh air we currently breathe!

    JPG are obviously "in it for maximum profit" and wish to locate this facility in a spot which will have the least impact on how many housing blocks they will be able to sell. The large parcel of land that they are developing has adequate space to locate this facility in an area that wouldn't impact on any existing or proposed houses - albeit at the expense of a few proposed building blocks. How can they morally so blatantly ignore the standard of living of existing homes.

    No matter what feasibility studies say, the new plant will have smell, noise and chemical impacts on our environment. It needs to be located at a suitable distance to alleviate any of these impacts on current or future residents.

    Why not use the current Hunter Water sewerage facilities at Marconi Road and avoid all of the problems?

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

    Dr Stephanus Van Heerden commented

    Menai Baptist church has met on the site for more than 30 years and moving to a different location on the site is not an unreasonable request. The church wants to be an effective and valuable member of the local community and meeting in the PAC can help to facilitate this vision.

    As a member of the church I support this submission.

  10. In Clovelly NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 263-269 Clovelly Road Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Lee Hubber commented

    Need to stop the traffic travelling up and down Susan Lane, if access to the centre is going to be on Knox. There are at least 10 children living in the adjacent section of the lane and people already speed down there, should be marked No Entry at both ends with access from Clift Lane to access garages (many already do)

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

    Don Morris commented

    Regarding DA0383/2014

    To the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Launceston

    I earnestly request the Council not to approve the demolition of the "cordial factory" as part of the C.H. Smith redevelopment in Canal Street.

    This building, while currently in poor repair, is one of the more significant structures in this important military and wharf precinct of Launceston, dating from the earliest times of the built settlement. It is capable of being preserved and protected in any new development but if the Council allows it to be demolished, it will be lost forever.

    I respectfully request that the Council require the developer to amend their development application so that the fabric of this building is maintained, while it is incorporated into the new development to support the economic development of the City.

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

    Michael Garry Quinlan and Laura Eleanor Bennett commented

    We strongly oppose this application. The CH Smith Building is an early and irreplaceable piece of Launceston's built heritage - and this heritage is the future of the city. Demolishing for short term profit will not aid the city's immediate future but will prevent a more sympathetic redevelopment of the site that retains the building in the future when there will be more tourist demand for visiting places near the river. Further, this sort of industrial heritage represents an important link to Launceston's past as a seaport. We find this application almost unbelievably callous and short-sighted. It demonstrates no real appreciation of the city that its residents have a right to love. Again, the built-heritage is Launceston's major asset re tourism and lifestyle and no further demolition of historic buildings should be permitted.

    Michael Quinlan and Laura Bennett

  13. In Gosford NSW on “Retail & Shop Top Housing...” at Lot:1 Dp: 550047 H124 Erina Street Gosford Lots: 2-5 Dp: 19484 H122 Erina Street East Gosford, 138, 140, 142 Henry Parry Drive Gosford:

    Dione Freeman commented

    Dear Sir / Madam

    I am the owner of a 19/145 Faunce St, Gosford & have been notified of the above development application.

    My property is currently tenanted but in the future I will make this my permanent residence.

    I am currently residing in Sydney, but have been a central coast resident for the past 20 years & will return.

    I have briefly read over the application on Gosford Council website & my main concern is with the heights of the two buildings.

    I understand that development will help with the progress of Gosford City & am pleased for this to happen but I feel the heights of these towers are well outside the standard guidelines for our city & that it is a monumental shift from the surrounding existing infrastructure, potentially opening the door for more developments of this size.

    To overdevelop could destroy the opportunity for Gosford to be a beautiful city.

    I would like to hope that Council will stand by their guidelines & keep the buildings below 30m. Guidelines are put in place for a reason.

    Regards

    Dione Freeman

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

    Dom Valastro commented

    I support this application.

    Menai Baptist church has consisted of a committed community of individuals for well over 30 years and has always existed to serve the residents of the Sutherland shire. Over the last few years it has demonstrated it's respect for local residents by modifying its parking habits, ensuring car lights do not shine into their properties and keeping noise to a minimum. In more recent times it has been supporting local community groups such Bangor Football club and offers many services to Inaburra school and serves its 650 families.

    To conduct worship services within the Performing Arts Centre will have negligible effect on traffic and noise in the local area relative sporting groups and other churches. I believe the church's submission, even as a mere community body, is a reasonable one.

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

    Annabel Tyson commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen
    Launceston City Council
    -----------------------------

    I wish to voice my objection to the demolition of the cordial factory building at the C H Smith site at Canal Street.

    Whilst the site has been allowed to deteriorate over the years the Council has made no effort to my knowledge to encourage the preservation and stabilisation of the building site. What a wonderful heritage site it could be if developed. Or Art Colony for example.

    Look around our city and see the wonderful buildings and the preservation and development ... this site should be preserved for posterity like Macquarie House, the Glasgow / Jacksons buildings, our wonderful post office and tower and many other buildings.
    please give this careful consideration for the future generations to see.
    ANNABEL TYSON

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

    Sean Hambridge commented

    I support this application.

    As a resident of Billa Road and a member of Menai Baptist Church I would like to confirm that the approval of this application will have the sole purpose of allowing church attendees to join services in a modern, sound-proofed and accessible environment.

    Our attendees are from all age groups with differing needs in terms of ability and mobility. That means if, for example, the elevator to the media centre malfunctions it is very difficult for a number of people to either enter or leave.

    I'd like to re-iterate the fact that the only thing being sought under this application is to move our primary meeting place from one building to another.

    Yours Sincerely
    Sean Hambridge

  17. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 16 Myrtle Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved. This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process. This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > St Mary's School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit.
    There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties.
    Given the residential and community nature of this area, and that there are a number of RFBs being built in more appropriate locations in the district (not including the impending development of the Ermington Putt Putt site), town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in this location. I implore the council to reject this application, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

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

    Geoff McLean commented

    I am lodging an objection to the proposed demolition of the 1830s warehouse on the C.H. Smith site. The building is one of only a few remaining from that period and as such represents a significant piece of colonial heritage. To destroy the building would be to demolish a piece of living history. No doubt the building is greatly degraded and needs substantial work but rather than seeking to destroy it all avenues of restoration should be followed.

    Regards
    Geoff McLean

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

    mark bentley commented

    This development is all about the greed of this company run by Hilton Grugeon, who has shown his true colours as being a corrupt business person, perhaps he should develop land at Berrypark on his door step.
    None of the issues from the previous application have been addressed. Only complete contempt has been shown with an even worse proposal.
    I thought we lived in a democratic society where the majority ruled, it appears we live in a society where the dollar rules.
    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 on what the majority of people wanted now its up to you to do your job as the majority of the people voted you in to do.
    A subdivision of house blocks would be appropriate or best of all leave it as parkland.

  20. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition, 6 new...” at 2A Waltham St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Owen Birrell commented

    Waiver of car parking should not granted. Parking is already difficult for existing residents. If the property developer wants to turn a profit by putting 6 units on the site, this should not be done at the expense if the existing neighbouring residents. Appropriate provision for car parking should be included on site.

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

    Kate commented

    I am really looking forward to having a quiet affordable local place to meet friends for my book club every month...bonus it's where we can walk home safely. There's nothing like it in the area.

    This place looks like it will be great. Hurry up, I'm a bit sick of going to Lazy Bones in Marrickvilke every month!

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

    Nathan croal commented

    This development should be stopped not approved because:-
    1. Developer is guilty of donating to a political party in the area that this development is in.
    2. The area should remain parkland for the community and a green corridor along the cycleway.
    3. The type of buildings the developer wants are out of character with the surrounding houses.
    4. This type of development will degrade the community and the current way of life for locals.
    5. Why should everyone else suffer for greedy developers this needs to stop.
    6. Traffic is already congested at whitebridge roundabout this will make it worse.
    7. The developement is way to high density
    8. The council should by the land back and leave it park land with the already increasing population in the area u need to provide more open spaces for lifestyle and happiness in community.
    Finally please don't approve this developement we all no it is wrong the community has spoken its time to stand up for what is right.

  23. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Subdivide the land into...” at 2 A Campbell Grove Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Sandy Rea commented

    This is an overdevelopment of residential land

  24. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition, 6 new...” at 2A Waltham St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dominic Green commented

    Waltham St is already suffers significant parking congestion, particularly on weekends and weeknights due the proximity to shops, gyms and cafes/ restaurants on Bridge Rd and the MCG during the AFL season. This will only serve to worsen the situation. Parking provisions need to be made within the development/on the site.

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

    Cheryl commented

    Will be a great addition to Summer Hill

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

    Natalie Bentley commented

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

    Over development is still a major concern and this application has increased the number of dwellings and residents. Overshadowing is another concern that has been snubbed by increasing the height of the proposed structure from previous. This application has not changed the impact the development would have on traffic congestion, parking insufficiency and pedestrian safety and definitely does not fit in with the surroundings.

    I would like to see a development that would fit in with the suburbs character and not detract from the strong appeal it currently holds. A development of half this size would be much more appropriate.

  27. In Galston NSW on “Residential - alterations &...” at 87 Knights Road Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I live near this proposed development.
    My husband and I own our home at 284 Galston Rd Galston.
    I strongly support this development.

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

    Karina Currington commented

    Dear General Manager,
    I wish to express my objection of the updated proposal at Whitebridge, DA1774/2013. Although I am not a current resident myself, my parents house is one of the eleven that back onto the site in question.

    I feel the company in charge of this development has been completely unprofessional in the entire process, from the secretive purchase of the land initially, to the casual letterbox drop involving only the few houses directly affected, and not the wider Whitebridge community, to the farcical billboard installed on site and designed to antagonise an already enraged suburb, and then to find the DA plans were so badly flawed that they wouldn't make it past the application process.

    I feel that zero consideration has been given to any of the residents in light of this matter. They have asked for a less dense development, and the developer has upped the dwellings in response. They have asked if the infrastructure will be adjusted to suit the increase in vehicles. Yet again, no. To be even more insulting, the developers have increased the height of the buildings to 4 storeys. This type of building does not fit in with the Whitebridge landscape. It's not what the community wants. They were not consulted about renaming the main road "Whitebridge Square" which sounds like a spin off of Charlestown Square. Again, why is this now part of the DA and why do they feel the need to take it upon themselves to alter what exists now?

    On conclusion, I know this has been an emotional based objection, after all, I don't have all the technical skills of property development but I'm leaving this in your hands. You Sir, are employed by government, to look after your constituents, in regards to putting the community FIRST when assessing a DA like this. Hopefully you will take all reasons of objections into consideration when looking at this particular development.

  29. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Use of the land for the...” at 140 - 148 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    W & S Newell commented

    The Surrey Hills Union Road shopping strip is a relatively small, neighbourhood centre, in close proximity to the Surrey Hills Railway Station. It services the family friendly residential streets that adjoin it,

    There are a number of reasons why the Liquorland application should be rejected.
    1/ firstly, the proposed store is simply unnecessary. There are two other liquor stores in Union Road (one merely 200m away). Three liquor stores within two blocks on the same street in a family neighbourhood is clearly excessive.
    2/ secondly, the proposed store is directly opposite the station and station car park, which will make the station, car park, the neighbourhood centre and surrounding streets a likely target for groups congregating at night to drink.
    3/ thirdly, the location of the proposed store is in direct conflict with the stated requirements of the Victorian govt solicitor in assessing such applications, given the loss of amenity that would be suffered by the area and potential for increased antisocial behaviour.
    4/ a commercial development like Liquorland is totally out of character with the village.
    5/ finally the proposed opening hours (open until 11pm) are totally unwarranted for the area it will be servicing and will clearly exacerbate the above mentioned risks of antisocial behaviour in the area at night.
    An application like this - for a large, late night liquor store in a family shopping strip across the road from a train station - should be rejected.

  30. In Beecroft NSW on “Mixed - comprising 1...” at 87-91 Beecroft Road Beecroft NSW 2119, NSW:

    rick commented

    Hannah street, Wongala crescent are already badly congested with traffic. With so many aged care homes , seniors housing and a primary school, Beecroft's development should be properly planned and ensured that safety is not compromised. No one has bothered to provide lifts at beecroft station, roundabout at the corner of hannah and wongala etc.Hornsby council will get plenty of funds from council fees,parking charges etc while we will be suffering and suffocated with over 300 units surrounding chapman, wongala , beecroft road and hannah.SOMEONE SHOULD THINK ABOUT FAMILIES , KIDS, SENIORS , INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE APPROVING ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND BEECROFT.

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