Recent comments

  1. In Berwick VIC on “Development of Seven...” at 50-52 Brisbane Street Berwick, VIC:

    Resident of Old Berwick wrote to local councillor Susan Serey

    Changing Brisbane Streets landscape into one of multi unit townhouses and units significantly affects the character of the area. It also creates a city environment in which many people are packed into small areas where few residents know one another. The effect of this development on the landscape of Brisbane Street and Old Berwick (which has already been over developed) needs to be addressed. Drip lines of the magnificent trees that form an important part of the Old Berwick landscape (and are unique to the area) need to be respected as does the ability to maintain a town feel rather than a dense cityscape.

    Delivered to local councillor Susan Serey. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Berwick VIC on “Development of Seven...” at 50-52 Brisbane Street Berwick, VIC:

    Resident commented

    Changing Brisbane Streets landscape into one of multi unit townhouses and units significantly affects the character of the area. It also creates a city environment in which many people are packed into small areas where few residents know one another. The effect of this development on the landscape of Brisbane Street and Old Berwick (which has already been over developed) needs to be addressed. Drip lines of the magnificent trees that form an important part of the Old Berwick landscape (and are unique to the area) need to be respected as does the ability to maintain a town feel rather than a dense cityscape.

  3. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 961a to carry out...” at 610-618 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Martin Keen commented

    Please note my objection to this application.

    It appears to be yet another attempt by a developer to circumvent the process by getting an application approved and then applying to update the proposal to end up being a building that wouldn't have passed the process had it been submitted in the original application.
    This area of New Canterbury Road currently has several apartment blocks (some of dubious architectural merit) being built. As noted by other concerned residents, this significantly increases the population of the area with little regard to infrastructure and amenities.

    I believe that the extra car parking spaces should made mandatory but that the addition of an extra floor should be declined.

  4. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 961a to carry out...” at 610-618 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Kelly Wratten commented

    Why after approval is given are developers permitted to submit for consideration and ultimately approval such major changes? The addition of another floor taking it to 6! The scape of the suburb has already be ruined by such massive concrete blocks. This developer had already sold a high percentage of the units on the existing plan but it is still not enough it seems. Over 200 units in less that 500m on a strip of major roadway that is already choked, no thought or consideration given to increases in infrastructure such as health care and schooling. Given the opportunity to voice an opinion only to ignored by the community. It's disgraceful.

  5. In Parramatta NSW on “Vanilla Hair of Essence” at 65 - 75 Macquarie Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Fatima commented

    The best in the industry, i highly reccomend sonja to everyone.
    So polite and friendly u def will not leave disappointed.
    She had delivered all my expectations f not more.
    10/10 salon x x

  6. In Caringbah South NSW on “S96 (2) modification to...” at 501 Port Hacking Rd Caringbah 2229:

    John Farmer commented

    It is about time that council inspectors ( if there are any left ) had a look at the furniture on the pavement at this cafe and the Laneway cafe in relation to the obstruction of free movement along the pavement particularly for parents with prams and strollers and the disabled. I appreciate that these businesses have increased the vibrancy of the shopping strip...but, each week their furniture is moving out further from each business and into the pedestrian walkway. Some days it's almost impossible to move with a stroller from the pedestrian crossing to the chemist. Would council please paint a line, where the tables should not pass for the safety of the pedestrians.

  7. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application (RL 3...” at 298-304 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Wendy K commented

    Totally agree, I think last time it flooded, Logan Reserve Road was closed for nearly 2 weeks for the road base underneath to dry out. What is also a great concern, is watching kids walk back from the High Schools up Logan Reserve Road, and onto the Rural Bridge. As when I questioned it years ago, I was told it was Rural Road, and didn't need to have pedestrian access.... Someone told me in the next 3 odd years, 8,000 houses for Logan Reserve... Have no idea how true it is.

  8. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Mary Connole-Bevan wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    To approve, yet another, block of units within an old established neighbourhood with beautiful character and heritage listed homes, would be an abhorrent judgement call by Council.
    Given TRC's recent release of unit zones it appears that units can really pop up anywhere in East Toowoomba and Mount Lofty, and that residents opinions are ignored. These are residents who have elected you as Councillors to represent our opinions.
    The decimation of the stand of pine trees was in itself horrendous but to approve ugly, unsightly (probably brick) units would be a further callous disregard of the rate payers voices.
    People do choose to buy and live in these areas of town because of the larger blocks of land with older homes on and not in what Council seem intent on spreading like vermin through our city.

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Mary Connole-Bevan

    Mary

    Thank you for your comments.

    If you would like to discuss this application please contact the assessing officer, Krys den Hertog, by phoning Council's customer service centre on 131 872.

    Kind regards

    Krys den Hertog
    Planner
    Development Services

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD 4350
    www.tr.qld.gov.au

    Begin forwarded message:
    From: Mary Connole-Bevan <>
    Date: 8 November 2016 at 9:06:00 am AEST
    To: <>
    Subject: Planning application at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350
    To approve, yet another, block of units within an old established neighbourhood with beautiful character and heritage listed homes, would be an abhorrent judgement call by Council.
    Given TRC's recent release of unit zones it appears that units can really pop up anywhere in East Toowoomba and Mount Lofty, and that residents opinions are ignored. These are residents who have elected you as Councillors to represent our opinions.
    The decimation of the stand of pine trees was in itself horrendous but to approve ugly, unsightly (probably brick) units would be a further callous disregard of the rate payers voices.
    People do choose to buy and live in these areas of town because of the larger blocks of land with older homes on and not in what Council seem intent on spreading like vermin through our city.

    From Mary Connole-Bevan to local councillor Carol Taylor

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

    Mary Connole-Bevan 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 Mary Connole-Bevan and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350

    Description: Combined MCU and PSW Multiple Dwelling 3x3 Bedroom Units

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/742336?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ== to report this email as spam.

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    ***************************************

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

  9. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 26 Sandakan Road Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    Warren Reynolds commented

    I would also like to raise the issue with regards to the over development of the Revesby Heights area. I agree with the issues raised by Jason and also believe that the planning team needs to visit the area to experience the difficulties faced by the local residents.

  10. In Glen Waverley VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 5-11 Madeline Street Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    Hari Das commented

    With the mobile tower slap bang in the middle where children will be playing all year round, has a site radiation analysis been conducted to ascertain the suitability of the proposed location of this tower ?? Has the council received this report, reviewed it and given it's approval to proceed ??

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 423 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kristen commented

    The building still exceeds the 20m height limit as per the LEP and the mix of dwelling types is still way out of the required percentages as per the Marrickville DCP. I.e.

    Studio - 5 -20%
    1 bedroom - 10 - 40%
    2 bedroom - 40 - 75%;
    3 bedroom or bigger - 10 - 45%.

    The development proposes:
    4 studios ( 22 %)
    4 one bedroom units (22%)
    9 two bedroom units (50%)
    1 three bedroom unit (6%)

    Please council planners, why have these planning controls in place if council is not going to assure that developers adhere to them?

  12. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 5 Short Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Amasia Arakeli commented

    Hello,

    We are generally fine with the works being planned, and happy for our neighbours, but do have 2 small concerns which we think can be relatively easily addressed via this process.

    1. We are located immediately next door and although are happy for them to add a first floor if they wish, we did not want it to be based on the assumption that the height of our existing roofline would remain as it currently is (given we are currently in the process of planning for a first floor addition also, which our current plans from builder and architect indicate current roofline height would need to be increased somewhat to meet minimum height requirements of a bedroom etc). We say this, given the plans for No. 5 Short st seem to be very focused on letting in more light from the side of building adjacent to our property (which is of course understandable and desirable for any property) but would not want that to cause issues for us down the line if they consider any increase at all to be a problem for the extra light they hope to gain (which it currently is not).

    2. DA Plans indicate a decking and outdoor kitchen/BBQ is intended for the adjacent fence area (there is currently a small tree which provides good privacy for that small section of fence). Fence height is already very low currently (and privacy between yards, and into open plan section of house would be further impacted if tree was removed to make way for outdoor kitchen), in an already 'tight' setup between the properties/yards. Regardless of tree being removed or not, we request if fence height could be increased by at least 30-40cm (happy to discuss style so we, as neighbours can all come to an agreement that everyone is happy with).

  13. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 26 Sandakan Road Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    Jason Galer commented

    Off street parking.
    Please consider the impact the number of cars being shoehorned in to this street.
    In particular the corner just preceeding this proposed development has become dangerous due to cars parked on the road forcing on coming vehicles on to the wrong side of the road on a blind corner. There have already been incidents throughout the street.

    Single driveways are simply not sufficient. Regardless of the ability to park vehicles in tandem, the reality is that one car is parked on the road so the owners dont have to shuffle cars, irrespective of the danger or inconvenience to other residents. As a result the road is severely congested. It is now unsafe to drive at the posted speed limit for fear of an accident, or worse, a child stepping out from behind parked cars.

    I know resident after resident has highlighted this issue but please consider that once built these duplexes cannot be changed to fix the parking issue.
    I strongly encourage the planning team to visit this, and surrounding streets, at varing times of the day to see the impact this is having on the area. Further, having lived abroad, I recommend the team look to the UK to see how bad this issue can get. Fringe suburbs with streets lined with parked cars where there is no passing for oncoming traffic. Its an extreme example but the opportunity to avoid it is now.

    I hope you consider the impact the residents are calling out. I would have duplex houses built as the exception in Revesby heights, not the norm, but I will settle for a sensible approach to parking.
    Best regards,
    Jason

  14. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    I attended meeting with planning members of TRC and came away quite pleased at the apparent progress that was being made. However, the change (if it occurs) will not happen until the new town plan is adopted. Therefore, we see developers getting in at the detriment of older, character neighborhoods that will attract residents because of what they are to the dismay of those of us who bought, developed our older homes to keep this lovely area. The Council has the power to not approve developments but, would sooner leave it up to the poor working stiffs within Council to make the decisions and the Councillors can do a "Pontius Pilate" and wash their hands of any responsibility.

    Delivered to local councillor Chris Tait. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Jill Newman commented

    Consider plan totally inappropriate for the location. Traffic already a problem at roundabout on Wandella Rd and delivery of large number of children by car each day would only increase volume and problems with proposed entry in Wandella Rd and exit in View St. Building size and design out of character with surrounding residential area and if approved demolition and construction would cause major problems in both View and Animbo Streets which are already have high traffic flow. Seems to be insufficient parking spaces in building allocated for staff which would cause problems with parking in View and Animbo and adjoining streets.
    Two storey building with 141 children would impose on adjoining houses, reducing privacy and increasing noise levels.

  16. In Silverwater NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 56 Asquith Street Silverwater NSW 2128:

    Stuart Medbury commented

    The proprosed development is very attractive and will improve the streetscape.Quality medium density residential housing is a positive proposition for Silverwater. As a resident of Silverwater, I support this application.

  17. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Joanne commented

    I can't believe this project is still in their list despite streets capacity issues are deemed unsatisfactory for the development. The roads are busy enough and is causing extreme danger even with the amount of traffic we have now. I personally already find it very hard to cross the road at the moment due to the large amount of traffic passing through to get to/leave Westfield and additional traffic would just make it even harder for us to get across. There are in fact lots of child care center in the area and a lot are still advertising to take in children. This shows there are always availability in the area, and with decreasing birth rate, there are no requirement for an addition child care center. On the other hand, we were just told by the council that there are such demand and we were not given any justification as to why this is required. The council is just always in favor for big business and neglect local residence because in my opinion, they can get more money out of helping big business. They neglect not only our thoughts, but also our safety etc. I was wondering what I have paid my council fee for. Are they just use to fund a group of people who can then run the council to work and plan and putting our lives at threat and disturbance, and possibly to earn more money for themselves and for big businesses? Know your role council, you would regret by the time when more accidents are occurring and people will start suing you for non compliant roads and town planning.

  18. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Ann-Ann-Marie Donnelly commented

    I'm disappointed to read this construction is still on council''s list of possible approval. There is NO requirement for another child care facility in this close proximity to ALL the other centres struggling to get sufficient patronage. The safety standards of this particular site are practically non existent with NO requirement for a evacuation site near- bye. It sadens me to know council do not have the interest of home buyers at heart- just big business with big dollars. The Shire use to have an unique appeal however we are now looking more & more like Hurstville & Wollie Creek. Please get those over greedy people out of Sutherland Shire Council ( transfer em to Hurstville) & bring in an enlightened clear minded coucil that can balance effectively the way forward with development we need and a vision to keep suburban streets safe for young & old.

  19. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Megan Lloyd commented

    This development is too big and in a location that does not support the size. The streets surrounding this are already narrow and most times of the day from Kiora Road down Animbo and View Street are one way. The roundabout at Animbo,View and Wandella is often at a stand still. It is an extremely dangerous intersection already. Traffic at peak times already banks from President Avenue down Wandella Road an up to Westfields. . How on earth a 141 place child care centre was even considered for this location is unbelievable.

  20. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Nick Patakos commented

    A lot of us neighbours are against this development as it's not suited and will ruin our streets by its monstrosity of size. It is out of character in a small and narrow street that we live in here and would not be able to be so called blend in at all. It will also increase traffic and also affect us in parking as we already suffering from westfields. There are also a number of child care centres within a kilometre of here that also are not full so we don't see how a centre that would hold 141 kids is needed in a small street. Also, this design does not cater for children to be evacuated to a safe place if there is a fire or some other drastic scenario were to happen. There is no close area where 141 kids can be placed in a safe place with staff if anything happens. Think about lives before profit council and owners.

  21. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed increase of...” at 38-44 Barrett Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    Peter Binks wrote to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle

    if extra toilet/s, fully support proposal

    Delivered to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Nick Patakos commented

    A lot of us neighbours are against this development as it's not suited and will ruin our streets by its monstrosity of size. It is out of character in a small and narrow street that we live in here and would not be able to be so called blend in at all. It will also increase traffic and also affect us in parking as we already suffering from westfields. There are also a number of child care centres within a kilometre of here that also are not full so we don't see how a centre that would hold 141 kids is needed in a small street. Also, this design does not cater for children to be evacuated to a safe place if there is a fire or some other drastic scenario were to happen. There is no close area where 141 kids can be placed in a safe place with staff if anything happens. Think about lives before profit council and owners.

  23. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Cherie Watson commented

    A recent release stated that this area would not be zoned for unit blocks. I wholeheartedly agree with this as unit blocks in this area will detract from the beautiful character homes that East Toowoomba is well known for. Toowoomba has approved far too many units in recent years and there are multiple units sitting vacant. I don't think it is wise for more units to be built, particularly not in this area as they will be out of place.

  24. In South Guildford WA on “Sale Office (Use not listed)” at Rosehill Country Club 122 West Parade South Guildford WA 6055:

    Poul Kirkebjerg wrote to local councillor Daniel Sebastian Parasiliti

    I firmly believe that number 122 at West Parade in South Guildford, is a Historic Building which deserve to be preserved. I believe that it was originally a Staging Inn. Pleasew make contact with me to discuss.

    Delivered to local councillor Daniel Sebastian Parasiliti. They are yet to respond.

  25. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Patrick O'Connor wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    I agree with the previous comments posted to date. This is another example of short term profit wrecking long term heritage values.

    Having removed the significant stand of pines, a landmark on the ridge line, that were along the boundary of this property, this site and the streetscape will be ruined by high density housing. Apart from expected issues with traffic it is highly likely the architecture of what is built will be unsympathetic to the streetscape. High density housing will reduce space for gardens and street plantings thereby adversely affecting local microclimates.

    A fast track application and it's attendant lack of publicity after the block has been vacant for so long seems odd.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Antonio. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Ashwood VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 87 Ashwood Drive Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Tash Hughes wrote to local councillor Jieh-Yung Lo

    Ashwood Drive is a beautiful street full of established properties with single dwellings - the neighbourhood character is about families and a green environment. Adding multi-storey, multiple dwellings on a single property is totally against the character of the street and suburb. It will also add excessive pressure to the streetscape (ie dangerously narrowing the street for driving and making parking more difficult for existing residents), the storm water system, the sewers and other infrastructure in the area.

    Delivered to local councillor Jieh-Yung Lo. They are yet to respond.

  27. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Gai Rollings commented

    Attempting to build 3 units on this piece of land will be unsightly and will have a negative impact on the heritage streetscape. As there will not be enough space for adequate garaging of cars on such a small allotment, cars will be parked on the street. Parking cars on that stretch of Curzon Street will be highly dangerous given the school morning and afternoon traffic along Curzon and Mayes Streets

  28. In Burwood VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 12 Morton Road Burwood VIC 3125:

    T Hughes wrote to local councillor Brian Little

    Morton ST is in an area of single dwelling properties and adding two double story dwellings on the property changes the neighbour character. It will also add pressure to the area for parking, street access, old water and sewerage systems and a reduction in vegetation, green space and porous land, all of which is unnecessary in an older established area like Burwood especially in places away from public transport.

    Delivered to local councillor Brian Little. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Homebush NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 28 Burlington Road, Homebush, NSW, Australia:

    Manjusha Jose commented

    Kindly stop the development at 28 Burlington road. Deeply concerned about the primary school opposite, increased traffic conditions, noise and sound pollution. Also the increase in potential criminal and antisocial behaviour.
    Thank you.

  30. In Ashburton VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 10 Markham Avenue Ashburton VIC 3147:

    A. Walker wrote to local councillor Kevin Chow

    We have received reliable information that plans have been drafted to redevelop the Markham Avenue site which was home to 54 public housing units. The planned development will consist of a cluster of buildings ranging in height from two storey townhouses, three storey, four storey, five storey and six storey apartment buildings to accommodate a total of 252 units of which 62 will be public housing units. The remaining 190 units will be sold-off to private buyers.

    It is my understanding that this application will not be subject to council approval and the application documents will be signed off by the minister for planning after the process of community consultation has been completed. There will be no opportunity to appeal the development through VCAT.

    Many people in the community, particularly those living close to Markham Avenue are very concerned that a high-density, overdevelopment of this size and scale bordering a fragile but significant biodiversity corridor and public space will have a significant impact on the privacy of those living in the surrounding area. Markham Avenue is a narrow street and there are concerns about the volume of traffic. It is of further concern that the development may not have sufficient allocated parking spaces to meet demand as only 31 out of the 62 public housing units will have a carpark on title. This could create a problem with spillover parking onto the neighbouring streets. There are also concerns that cars belonging to people living in the complex who are unable to access a carpark on site will occupy parking spaces set aside for visitors to the playground in Victory Boulevard and the sporting ground that is adjacent to the development.

    Many people in the community are disappointed that they were not consulted about this project during the concept stage before the plans were drawn up as the land could have been utilised for other purposes such as a new primary school to meet the needs of a growing population of primary school age children or even an aged-care facility. '

    I also need to mention that Kevin Chow, Councillor for Solway Ward has stepped down and has been replaced by Garry Thompson.

    Delivered to local councillor Kevin Chow. 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