Recent comments

  1. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 111 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Justin Koke commented

    I agree with the sentiments of D. Ellison. These shopfronts are an important aspect of the area and are slowly being eroded away, they are what makes our area unique and destroying these will detract from our area ... our heritage is important.

    The removal of the curved windows and further to this the shop entrance mosaic floor tiles is historical vandalism. These are aspects of our area the local council should hold in high regard when looking at planning applications, please protect these facades.

  2. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Melissa Genders commented

    I do not support this development.

    Socially, there is no need for further housing in this area of Port Stephens. There are many vacant blocks in Corlette and other areas that are not selling, so why create more land availability when it is not needed? Anna Bay is a small coastal village, with little infrastructure to support this kind of expansion. Furthermore, developments such as this create a glut of housing (from investors) that also does not sell. This development is not a sensible decision for Anna Bay.

    Environmentally, we chose to live in Anna Bay for the natural environment that surrounds us. The area proposed to be developed into the 104 lot will remove important native vegetation and habitat for our native animals and birds. This must be a consideration in the Councils decision for this development.

    Even in cities they maintain green areas for native habitat and animals - and this is a perfect example of a green area that is critical to maintain for long term animal and bird habitat.

    Council should not support this development.

  3. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 111 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Amy commented

    I agree that the facade of these beautiful buildings should be protected.

  4. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 111 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    A variety of beautiful shop fronts with awnings improve pedestrian amenity by providing shelter and interest.

    Opportunities to sit in interesting windows and contemplate the passing parade over a coffee or meal are few and far between.

    Marghanita da Cruz, Annandale

  5. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    John May commented

    Highly inappropriate DA and weak staff assessment, tragic example of system failure.

    This is high value environmental asset, the main attraction of Port Stephens!
    There are plenty of other degraded areas to develop that residents would appreciate.

    So Koala 'Other' veg in proximity surrounding 'Preferred' and 'Supplementary' is not Habitat Buffer that "require the highest level of protection possible"? (5.1 CKPoM)

    The interface of this land "should be of the highest priority for koala habitat restoration projects" (How about Council promoting community bushcare groups instead of disengaging and upsetting residents??) and all the remainder incorporated into the Park.

    Please Councillors, send the message to Urbangrowth, lead by example to landowners and do the right thing!

  6. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 111 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    D. Ellison commented

    The heritage value of the Art Deco shop front deserves to be protected and doing so will not significantly diminish access to the premises. It is the sensitivr repurposing of existing historically distinctive architecture that gives the precinct its character. Without these links to the past (and the creative renovations they inspire) then Enmore road will end up looking like any other relatively anonymous string of shops. Please protect those beautiful curved windows!

  7. In Daleys Point NSW on “Vehicle Shelter” at 30 - 32 Empire Bay Drive, Daleys Point NSW 2257:

    Phil commented

    This property should remain a Child Care Centre. It is a waste of resources demolishing this Long Day Care centre. Please rent this property for the purpose of providing Child Care to this area.

  8. In Mona Vale NSW on “Seniors living development...” at 1 Heath Street Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    Suzanne Jones commented

    Very disappointed and unhappy to note in the development application that there is ONLY a 3 metre distance from the rear single level building to the Southern Boundary which backs onto our property. Whereas our easterly neighbour had to have a 6M distance with his development. I don't understand the irregularities. With only a 3 metre distance to the boundary, this building does impact on our property when looking at the shadow diagrams. Surely when applying to build multiple dwellings on a residential block Council is more sympathetic to existing home owners?

    Sue Jones

  9. In Woollahra NSW on “Scarba House - Mirvac...” at 18-22 Ocean St and 30 Wellington St, Bondi:

    Natalie commented

    I have only just received a letter regarding this and apparently the decision has already been made. No letters were sent as mentioned in the letter we have just received. Absolutely furious. We love our apartment due to the tranquil environment in which it stands and the wildlife that surrounds it. I work from home with a high pressured job that requires peace and quiet.

    I would like to discuss this with someone and completely object to this going ahead. I also don't belove that the company sent any letters informing of Plans to demolish this land.

    Yours sincerely,

    Natalie Levy

  10. In Killara NSW on “Change to a childcare...” at 18-20 Lady Game Drive, Killara, NSW:

    Adrian Jobling commented

    I severely object to the proposed Childcare Centre development at 18-20 Lady Game Drive, Killara.

    Lady Game Drive is fast becoming one of the worst roads in Sydney. It is completely inadequate for the volume demands being placed on it by the Macquarie and North Ryde developments. Peak hour runs from 7am all the way through to at the earliest 9:30am. The traffic can be absolutely horrendous, banking back to the roundabout at Highfield Road going South in morning peak. Adding the extra burden of a business into the middle of this congestion is absurd to say the least. It will increase the real risk of a pedestrian being hit on the nearby crossing as frustrated drivers will lose concentration.

    The proposed entrance directly opposite the intersection with Bowes Avenue is also not a sensible proposal as Lady Game Drive is a single lane road at this point. You cannot create a commercial property entrance at an already compromised intersection. Is Council going to widen the road to accommodate people coming from the North waiting for a break in the Northbound traffic to turn into the premises?

    The Traffic and Parking Report provided by the developer uses outdated data from 2005 and then a 5 day period in the month of December 2014 (note that Macquarie University has finished for the year) which is not a typical time of the year to choose. Then the spreading of when they “believe” that cars will be entering and exiting the premises is just a made up assumption to minimise the supposed lack of impact.

    Additionally, there was a new childcare centre opened on Fiddens Wharf Road recently, one now being built on Manning Road (which was denied by Council but then over-ruled by the Land and Environment Court!), and now someone else wants to cash in on the lucrative business on Lady Game Drive. Including the other established centres in the area, we will have upwards of 5 childcare centres in 1 square kilometre! This is surely not right.

    Why are our residential streets (Fiddens Wharf Road, Manning Road and now Lady Game Drive) being turned into commercial business areas? They are areas for families to live in, not for people who do NOT live in the area to come and make money!!

  11. In Killara NSW on “Change to a childcare...” at 18-20 Lady Game Drive, Killara, NSW:

    Michael Johnson commented

    This proposal is unbelievable and unworkable. We live in a residential area ...this proposal is a commercial business and the area would have to be rezoned I presume to accommodate this application. Why....just another grab for money? for Council and the business...so forget the residents who have to negotiate even now the traffic hazards and snarls at Bowes Avenue entrance to Lady Game Drive.....never mind the children walking to Killara School as well with the pedestrian crossing to just make life even harder still!

    Please wake up everyone!....we do not need this business here , there is already one in Fiddens Wharf Road which should not have been allowed in the first place..

    Kuringai Council is here to serve the residents not business.....make sure that they do the right thing by refusing this application....otherwise we will lose trees....landscape amenities and worse than that add to the dreadful traffic chaos that Bowes Avenue entrance causes . I live in Gleneagles Avenue....and guess what? this will turn Gleneagles Avenue into a thoroughfare to get to Pacific Hyway.. This has to be stopped now!

    Kuringai Council are you listen to the residents who you serve?????

    Michael Johnson

  12. In Killara NSW on “Change to a childcare...” at 18-20 Lady Game Drive, Killara, NSW:

    Xiaolei Zheng commented

    Hi,
    as a local resident. One of the biggest problem of our area is the traffic on lady games drive as it is the only way out if you want to go west or north. it is already a big headache in the peak hour.

    I understand 15 additional cars per 30 mins add to 400 car traffic is not a big deal. But what if there is a car driving on the southbound right turn into Child Care centre, which need to give away to the forth coming traffic and block all the traffic behind. And additional pedestrian will stop the cars from both direction.

    I have 2 young kids which will benefit from the new child care centre but for the long term, it doesn't feel like it is good for the local resident. there is an additional child care centre is under construction probably 500 metres away (Little Zak Academy) which i believe it will help the local resident with child care problem anyway.

    Just my 2 cents.

    regards,
    Kevin

  13. In Killara NSW on “Change to a childcare...” at 18-20 Lady Game Drive, Killara, NSW:

    Jennifer Johnson commented

    I am totally against the proposal for such a development on Lady Game Drive as this road is a major thoroughfare, already being very narrow for such a busy road. Cars park below the pedestrian crossing adding confusion to the single lane road.

    During weekday mornings and afternoons the bank-up of traffic is appalling - extending from the traffic lights on Ryde Road and back past the round-about on Fiddens Wharf Road. Sometimes it is impossible to exit from Bowes Avenue due to the bank-up of traffic necessitating turning around and going back up Gleneagles Avenue. As for making the right-hand turn into Bowes Avenue from Lady Game Drive (right opposite the proposed development), this at present can create havoc but if another one hundred or so cars are entering and exiting a child care centre, there will be an even greater backlog.

    I would assume the little road running parallel to Lady Game Drive will also be used as a car park (as at present) for parents dropping off and collecting children from the school. This will add another hundred or so pedestrians holding up the traffic as they cross the already exceptionally busy road.

    The inadequate pedestrian crossing creates a mammoth problem with not only school children and parents who already use the crossing but the addition of another hundred or so parents using the crossing during already busy peak hour periods.

    I would imagine the only way to control traffic would be to block off Bowes Avenue for entry and exit on Lady Game Drive.

    This is a residential area whereas the proposal is for a business.

    The landscape and other residential facilities must be affected and undergo changes if this development was to be approved.

    I am totally against this proposal and so should Council/Councillors who are our representatives.

  14. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Chris and Lea McKiernan commented

    The proposed development should immediately be included in the National Park - for the community, wildlife, tourism and future generations.

    What possible reason could be used to approve this development? There is none.

    Communities and forward thinking councils have fought development before with spectacular results. When urban development threatened the National Park at Noosa for example, intelligent people - with foresight -stopped it. The park has even been extended over the years with a solid management plan. The outcome of this for the residents, flora/fauna and tourists cannot be understated.

    For all of the previously documented reasons by the community, this mindless development should never be approved.

  15. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use to place of...” at 9 Gatwood Close Padstow NSW 2211:

    Virginia commented

    Need more information such as how many this will cater for? Car spaces specific to this?

  16. In Leichhardt NSW on “This is an A-Frame design...” at 19 MacKenzie Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    A.R. Jones commented

    Quote (description on application)
    This is an A-Frame design 600mm wide x 400mm wide. Will not be on footpath and will be 2.5m and 4.5m on grass away from footpaths.

    I think we need a review of the measurements and description here.
    measurements indicate that whatever this is it is smaller than a dishwasher (could it be a dog kennel?) with a pointy top?????
    What is it????

  17. In Kellyville NSW on “Residential Flat Development” at 28 Fairway Drive Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Krystyna Krol commented

    Dear Sir/ Madam
    Could you please provide me with information how 28 Fairway Drive Kellyville High Voltage Power Line will be incorporated into new development as that line is running just acros that property.
    Could you also let me know when that development will take place.
    Kind regards
    Krystyna Krok

  18. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 402 Kingsgrove Road Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    David Hammond commented

    Completely unacceptable for a child care centre to be developed on a busy arterial road such as Kingsgrove Rd, particularly considering the number or accidents and traffic during school pickup times.

  19. In Yarrambat VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 4 Schichmann Court, Yarrambat VIC 3091:

    Fiona Ewings commented

    I strenuously oppose the development of this land for TWO dwellings. The Yarrambat area was and is well known for large lots (ie. 2.5acres minimum) and already these lots at 1 acre each have moved away from being in keeping with the rural residential flavour of Yarrambat. At 1 acre these lots will already be impacting negatively on the local environment in relation to water/waste runoff, destruction of habitats, and pollution. Access issues off Kurrak Road is also impacted. To allow two residences on one lot is doubling these already negative effects of development - environmental (pollution, flora, fauna, dust, water flow, air quality issues from heating methods which should NEVER be allowed to be polluting wood heating), resources (overtaxing water supply, more trenching for services, impact on sewerage), liveability (density, number of vehicles, noise, dust, views). These lots sit in the environmentally sensitive and significant river catchment area and must have the utmost done by Council to preserve the environment for all users. The expectation in Yarrambat is for 1 home under one roofline per acreage site (usually 2.5 - 5 or 10 acres) and existing residents built and live under this. This is what Yarrambat is and must remain. To allow 2 residences on already-too-chopped-up 1 acre lots reduces the value of nearby properties and also sets a possible precedent down the slippery-slide of over-development and developer greed. My NO for this proposal of 2 dwellings at Schichmann Court is emphatic and I would be horrified if Council further allowed the undermining of the area with such over-development not suited to the area.
    reference 536/2014/03P

  20. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Donna Hucker commented

    I object to this proposal for many reasons with the main reason being the negative environmental impact on the proposed site effecting the native flora and fauna.

    Two visual studies of the site were performed by myself and by others. During these surveys of the site's biodiversity from the outside perimetre, we could identify the Phascolarctos cinereus (koala) almost immediately on a tree tagged for removal #631 (photo proof was taken). Many other species were also visually and audibly identified including the Feathertail Glider, the Ringtail Possum and the Green and Golden Bell Frog. The site also contains a number Eucalyptus Parramattensis trees that I believe are a protected native species for the sole purpose of providing food source for the Port Stephens koala.

    This leads me to the other negative impact of this development to the native wildlife. If the development goes through, for the few surviving koalas there will be many more road deaths when you consider an extra 104 houses in this small concentrated area built on the edge of the bush. The local native rescue group deal with approximately 30 koala road deaths every year so this will certainly increase these numbers.

    Even if the development were to be approved there would have to be major changes made to the application to consider the native wildlife and the negative consequences. There is no mention of koala crossings, 40kph speed limits, no dogs or cat policy, fauna nest boxes or signage.

    Lastly, the people who live and work in Port Stephens live and work here for a reason and that is to enjoy the beautiful area with all it has to offer and that is including the bush and its creatures. We dont want to be just another area with 'suburbs'... we want to keep Port Stephens beautiful and special.

  21. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Richard Petronio commented

    Dear councilors,the fact that this development should not go ahead is quite obvious,as many have already explained to you and forwarde countless letters to you,my main concern amongst others is that the proposed area IS A KOALA HABITAT, as we all know this precious Aussie creature is endangered,the council need to do an INDEPENDENT enviourmental impact study which is up to date. You cannot put a price on such a precious creature whose numbers are dwindling. Thank you.

  22. In Horsfield Bay NSW on “New Single Dwelling &...” at 38 Horsfield Road, Horsfield Bay NSW 2256:

    Lynelle Pollock commented

    I live at number 40 , next door to the empty block. I have concerns that the water may come onto my property.

    There is shared access for 4 properties down one drive way , I have big concerns about my access to my property. There is very little off street parking, where are the builders going to park.

    I haven't been notified about this application , I just got concerned where building stuff was dropped off on to the property.

    I believe there are flood and fire restrictions on these properties .

    There is major access problem to these property, the council needs to visit neighbors and see the logistics of the shared access .

  23. In Blacktown NSW on “” at 295 Flushcombe Road Blacktown 2148, NSW:

    Donna commented

    I wonder if the traffic from this development will have an inpact on the residents of Prospect. The representative for the Traffic company said there would be NO impact from the Myrtle Street development hmmm add this one and the one across the road and we will no have hope of getting out of our estate.

    Shame Blacktown Council and the JRPP for allowing this to happen to our tree lined streets and previously 2 storey only community.

  24. In White Gum Valley WA on “Front limestone wall and...” at 236 South Street White Gum Valley WA 6162:

    Dale Glenny commented

    Metal, fibro cement or Colourbond fences are completely out of place within the wider Fremantle council boundaries, given that the majority of the housing is either on the heritage inventory or adjacent to buildings that are.
    Although, in this instance, there will be new buildings on one of the blocks adjoining the boundary, the other isn't, and a jarrah picket fence would be considerably more appropriate.

    Therefore, I object to the proposed materials of the boundary fence in favour of more sympathetic material of jarrah pickets. Or perhaps a continuation of the limestone theme.

  25. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    K Springford commented

    I don't welcome Aldi to Hallett Cove. They supply limited products, shutting local producers out of the market. I'll remain at Foodland, where I can find my favourite South Australian brands, thanks.

  26. In Ballarat VIC on “Removal of fifty-seven (57)...” at 1 Lake Wendouree Foreshore, Lake Wendouree:

    Lesa Bell commented

    Could you please ensure that the 'Read More Information' location above takes me to More INFORMATION and not to the eservices Home Page. Yesterday the 'Read More Information' took me to another screen were I could select the Planning Reference number but then could not view the relevant information. This is not a very good look for a very obvious BCC plan to remove 57 trees. Please correct the problem ASAP so we can all view what exactly the removal of 57 trees means. Thank You- Lea Bell

  27. In Burnley VIC on “243 new dwellings and...” at 462 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Local resident (not a developer) commented

    This area of swan street Richmond needs improvement. There is no 'heritage value'. It largely consists of unattractive industrial and commercial buildings. The left-leaning members of our local community need to acknowledge it makes sense to increase density, close to transport. The promotion of public transport is central to much of the rhetoric we hear in the often awkward and desperate objections to logical and sensible development proposals. There is no 'over supply' of apartments in Richmond, particularly the southern area of the suburb. Appropriate development, in close proximity to main roads and transport should be supported. If you choose not to, don't complain about traffic congestion and the unsustainable house prices you are creating for your children.

  28. In Whitebridge NSW on “Modular Unisex Toilet &...” at Station Street, Station Street, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Maree Turner commented

    I have a few concerns about the proposed toilets on Station Street.

    As a local resident I already witness the car park being used for teenagers to park and drink alcohol in the area late at night. I don't feel this area is lit up appropriately and feel that this development would encourage disruptive adolescent behaviour including graffiti, drug use etc. Would the toilets be locked at night and cleaned daily?

    I understand the need for toilets along the track but with local shops less than 200m away, why can't the toilets be placed up there where there is more foot traffic, more light, more need and can also encourage supporting local business's.

  29. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construction of a...” at 1655-1657 Malvern Road, Glen Iris, VIC:

    Michael Jackson commented

    Car parking needs to be considered as part of this approval. I am a resident on Malvern Road and during business hours there is no car parking available on the street. Too many people catching the train and working at nearby offices are parking in this section of Malvern Road. It should be a permit area, or timed parking for 2 hours etc.

  30. In Burnley VIC on “243 new dwellings and...” at 462 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Tiji commented

    I also agree the street needs a makeover, but I believe 243 apartments is far too many for this site. Richmond is already experiencing an oversupply of new apartments as evidence by the difficulty owners are having selling new apartments, and you only need to try to board a tram during the week or drive around on a Saturday to see the infrastructure cannot cope with continued growth at this rate. What's more, the beautiful heritage landscape of Richmond is getting swallowed by towering cement blocks which also block natural light from reaching neighbouring streets and homes. To whomever it may concern, please consider this carefully.

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