Recent comments

  1. In Guildford NSW on “Change of use for new...” at 527 Woodville Road Guildford NSW 2161:

    Galib Anwar commented

    Property: Lot 190 DP 1060765, 527 Woodville Road, Guildford NSW 2161
    together “Proposed Development”

    This submission is in objection to the Proposed Development. The reasons for our objection is as follows:

    - The Proposed Development will result in a significant increase in the density of residents in a small area. The increased number of residents in the area will result in a corresponding increase in street traffic and an increase requirement of parking on the streets which the current development does not provide for nor is there sufficient infrastructure currently in place to cope with this increased traffic. Further, infrastructure in the area is not in place to handle increased density of population proposed by the development, including street lanes, shops and services.

    - The Proposed Development will impact the socioeconomic factors of the area. It is an up and coming affluent area, which needs residents that can contribute and build local demand in retail and other areas. The Proposed Development will effect this, as the residents of the development cannot afford to contribute to the area in comparison to the alternative residents. This area cannot handle increased population without the accompanying positive contribution;

    - The Proposed Development will negatively impact the land value of our property. Our property is part of a new development, in which capital growth of the property is reliant on increasing demand for the area such as more developments like that of our property, rather than the Proposed Development. Building an affordable rental housing development next to our complex will severely determent the land value of our property that we had bought only 2 years ago. At that time, we had done our due diligence in regards to future developments, and this was not a part of it. The original development would have improved our land value. But if the Proposed Development had been listed at that time, we would not have bought our property.

    - Affordable rental housing sites are associated with significant increase in noise activity at unusual times of the day and will be of significant impact on our property and living quality.

    - Affordable rental housing sites are associated with increased security issues and anti-social behaviour which will impact the safety of our children and elderly.

    Given the above issues which have macro issues impacting the whole neighbourhood as well as our individual property, we strongly urge the Council to reject the Proposed Development.

  2. In Springwood NSW on “A one into two lot subdivision” at 44 Burns Road, Springwood, NSW:

    Christian Hanvey commented

    We would hereby like to publically state objections to the planning development application S/17/2016 with the following comments.

    The building at 44 Burns Road is a character period house and a well-known local landmark in this area of Springwood. Its demolition would be a loss to the cultural history and heritage of this area and we would like to see this property preserved.

    We are in the process of purchasing 46B Burns Road, a property directly adjacent to 44 Burns Road. As immminent neighbours, we are very concerned about the proposed demolition and subdivision of this property. In particular, the potential health hazards the proposed works would present, including: asbestos removal, increased dust, and potential erosion and sedimentation from any earthworks carried out on the property.

    In the event that this application is approved by Council we request the following conditions to be considered for inclusion as part of the complying development and specifically in response to the health concerns regarding the above points:

    - The developer is to notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition
    - Demolition works are restricted to Monday to Friday between the hours of 7am to 6pm
    - No demolition works are to be undertaken on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.
    - All works to ensure neighbouring properties are not directly impacted with increased dust or sedimentation from works

    We note that the development application includes the property to be subdivided into two lots. To maintain the privacy of neighbouring properties, it is requested that future dwellings are restricted to single storey and the building envelope is not extended any further back than the existing dwelling. This will also be in keeping with the neighbouring dwellings on either side of the current property.

    We also note that the property was extensively cleared of trees and vegetation sometime between October 2012 and November 2013 - which can be seen from historical satellite mapping data. This has removed privacy from neighbouring properties and will expose these properties to increased noise and dust levels during works. If approved, it is requested that a condition of the approval be that shielding foliage is re-instated along the property boundaries to provide a screen for neighbouring properties and thereby reduce some of the impacts of the development.

    Yours sincerely,
    Christian & Leanne Hanvey

  3. In Forestdale QLD on “Shed (Combined Size...” at 63-67 Macadamia Street Forestdale QLD 4118:

    Michelle commented

    I don't live in the immediate area and it doesn't affect me directly, but I agree with the other 2 comments. It needs further investigation by the council. If he is trying to run a business from his residential address, this is not appropriate and he should relocate his business to a business location.

  4. In Woongarrah NSW on “Dwelling on Proposed Lot...” at 71 Sparks Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Adel Vera Firth-Mason commented

    My comment for all of the proposed develops at 71 Sparks Road is to keep the buildings' appearances appealing, and include attractive landscaping, as these will be amongst the first visual impressions of Warnervale, Woongarah and Hamlyn Terrace, when leaving the freeway.

    To not give this a priority when approving the developments could jeopardise the future value of this area, and high opinions of potential future residents.

  5. In Guildford NSW on “Change of use for new...” at 527 Woodville Road Guildford NSW 2161:

    Lina MA commented

    This property will be absurd to have 34 rooms which only few metres away from the property next door (531 woodville rd). No privacy, no security..We as residents sometimes find it difficult for our visitors to find parking as there are limited, almost none space to park along woodville Road. I don't imagine how these 34 households can park which may jeopardize our lifestyle. Our privacy is severely impacted as No. 527 can easily have a clear view of our property without any aid of any instrument. As the mother of a young boy aged 2 years old I'm deeply concerned about the crime rate neighbourhood if the proposal were to be approved. The common wall we share with No. 527 is short enough for anyone to jump or climb over. We stongly oppose this proposal.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at Ground Floor 300 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville, NSW:

    M Skinner commented

    We support this application. Based on the information we have received; that there will be a focus on boutique locally brewed products & the trading hours are reasonable.
    Marrickville is becoming quite well known for the small craft breweries and this store will complement that.
    It will be a good addition to the strip which is currently mainly just Vietnamese restaurants with small bar Titus Jones across the road.
    The shop has sat vacant for some time and occupied shops are far preferable to vacant shops.

  7. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Helen commented

    I really don't understand the well meaning comments from the above residents. I go to Warriewood regularly to visit the new rocket playground (another great facility paid for by Pittwater council) and to visit the nursery last Sunday in the same street. Warriewood traffic always seems extremely quiet. Admittedly I'm not there during peak hour but that would be the same anywhere. There are plenty of regular buses services intersecting the suburb and of course major bus services down Pittwater road and even a park and ride. There are lots of protected green spaces, the wetlands, recreational facilities and new playgrounds which are the envy of neighbouring suburbs, as well as the new and improved shopping centre with additional parking bring built. I actually think the opposite, that Warriewood is eminently well placed to handle more residents, which is why I want to live there with my family. I see no evidence of infrastructure problems at all! I would understand if residents had concerns about a lot of high density housing estates going up and their impact, but all the developments I've been looking at are only low and medium density family housing which is completely consistent with other housing in the area. People do have to live somewhere, there is nowhere else much with available land for developments on the beaches and with the ongoing investment into the area will bring benefits that all residents can share. I wonder whether these residents are being very objective and it is just a case of "not in my back yard". I hope that is not the case as it would seem to be quite selfish, I can have my nice house in a nice community with good facilities near the beach but we don't want to share it with anyone else? I hope that it's not your predictable response.

  8. In Caringbah South NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 14 Binney St Caringbah 2229:

    Brett Flower commented

    I must agree with Roslyn. It is a real concern that Sutherland council are approving so many dual occupancy dwellings with no thought for existing over stretched infrastructure 2 x four bedroom dwellings mean 4 cars minimum, 6 garbage bins, 4 bathrooms and four toilets using infrastructure designed for a 3 bed and 1 bath house 60 years ago...

    Streets in Caringbah are overloaded with cars as it is and just have a look what happens on garbage night. No room for both bins and cars...It is a mess and needs to be addressed. Developers need to have at least room for off street parking for 2 cars and a visitor per house and have some form of waste management on EACH site.

  9. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Scott Fryer commented

    I agree with both comments above. The traffic situation is becoming an absolute nightmare in this pocket of the northern beaches, and in an area that is already lacking in transport infrastructure. It is disappointing that these developments are being approved without any consideration for traffic management.

  10. In Glen Waverley VIC on “Development of two (2)...” at 608 Waverley Road Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    JO LUCAS commented

    This development should only be allowed if adequate car parking is available. That means the same number of car parks as there is bedrooms. People parking on Waverly road is dangerous as others living on that road cant see oncoming traffic to get out of their driveways.

  11. In Gladesville NSW on “Mixed use Development...” at 6-8 Western Crescent, Gladesville:

    Colleen Butt commented

    I cannot understand why the school is complaining, especially when they had development work going on right behind their school, even giving them some land while the development was going on.
    As for the other people complaining have they ever heard of progress??

  12. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    martin kunz commented

    Dear Assessor and Councillors,
    I wish to object to the centre for the following reasons;
    -Traffic
    From 0700 to 1745 weekdays and open on week ends is to much disturbance for neighbours in a residential area
    -Noise
    45 kids on this small block of land with this small building is not acceptable
    -Size of centre is inappropriate for suburban setting
    Please compare the size and location with Maroubra early learning centre on Maroubra road. Duncan St is not a commercial area for a centre of this size
    -General disruption
    Daily dangerous traffic situations and parking issues are already unacceptable

  13. In Russell Island QLD on “Combined - Caretaker...” at 8-10 Paradise Avenue, Russell Island, QLD:

    Kaylene Higgs commented

    I support this development.
    As a long time resident of Sandy Beach, I am looking forward to this development. It will provide employment, and opportunity to locals. The Southern end of the island is 7km from existing infrastructure, this development will enhance the area through providing long overdue facilities for Sandy beach which is rapidly expanding.

  14. In Waverley NSW on “Modifications including...” at 9 Kent Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Orel Lea, 11 Kent Street Waverley. wrote to local councillor Sally Betts

    This plan further reduces the amenity of my property adjoining on their east. When the plan was passed by the DBU, the side set- back was described as "nil to 2.5"..It appears that we will have nil set back the entire fence- line! The "concrete courtyard" should not be an entertaining area, as it is just 1.5 from my 2 bedrooms. Council should not allow a fence to become a wall (2.53mm high). If access to this "light well" is from the bedroom only, of #9 Kent Street, and used passively, then there is no need for a high wall. The door from their dining room should be a window only. Then we can share the light and air between our 3 bedrooms.... and no need for acoustic or visual privacy!
    I see that the rear yard is to be raised over a water tank and a deck (with screen) elevated and enlarged from this living space on the southern end of the living room. This will probably take the last hope of any summer afternoon sun from my yard (forget the winter!).

    Delivered to local councillor Sally Betts. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Canterbury NSW on “Extend ninth floor level on...” at 2 Charles Street, Canterbury NSW:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I do not agree with the proposal to increase the number of units in this development.

    Exact number not specified in planning alert.

    First of all, the developer(s) should have been able to determine how many units would provide an adequate return on their investment when the DA was originally lodged. One must therefore assume they are either poor planners or are simply trying to capitalise on increasing property values.

    Will there be a reduction in floor area of individual units and/ or openings to natural light and air to accommodate the extra units. If not, unacceptable.

    Is there sufficient on-site parking to cater for the extra units? If not, unacceptable.

    Is there actually a shortage of new unit stock locally that would warrant changes to this building. A quick walk around the block in this location would suggest not. Current or recent building projects abound.

    Will the extra units add to the amenity of the building or surrounding area. Probably not.

    I am now leaving for work earlier and having to drive a different route just to get from my home out onto Canterbury Road to travel to the city because for work. This is due to increased LOCAL traffic congestion in peak times. This has became a significant problem since the beginnbg of 2016 when more of the new unit developments came on line around here and further out. It is exacerbated by movement of large trucks accessing various construction sites along the way.

    With every new unit development that is occupied, it will get worse.

    When (if) work starts on the Bankstown-Sydenham metro line, it will get worse.

    So, no extra units at this development.

  16. In Wollongong NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Flinders Street, Wollongong NSW 2500:

    K Miller commented

    Where is the parking on the street?! Problem here already.
    Why is there a DA of this kind when the other DA on Flinders St not built yet? It not allowing for B6 zone variance of activity and council are looking very prone to developers money again!
    The building is TOO BIG for this street and locks out other B6 buildings of this type. Why are you letting a developer cash in on Wollongong and lock out the local owners of other B6 properties!?
    Setbacks are still against LEP! NO VARIATIONS please. Good for one, good for all,.
    Building too high and shadow on sth side blocks out signage to the north viewers and competes with any other building in the area. Too much, too high and obtrusive! 9 storey's, should be more like 6 max.
    B6 zoning states that must not compete with economic center, but you are entertaining more retail space in substitute for the B6 business types definition's!
    This will remove a long standing business's and replace with more retail/office space. Not needed here really! No contracts for office space been released which means I am correct in three businesses leaving flinders st and NOT replaced! B6 definition reduced.
    You are reducing the view corridors from my Edward st. playing with my home value by blocking out mount keira feature!!!
    Most reports given are word play, written to sound like compliance is achieved all while isolating other properties on street. e.g. "designed for future vision of street" yet "satisfies the culture of the street". HOW CAN THEY BE THE SAME!!!??? Its verbal B.S made to fool.
    How about having some proper sustainability build into the building? Such as Solar panels on roof to add to the grid? How about large water tanks for common water use? They do not future proof this building, they just do the BARE MINIMUM to pass the DA tests, for profit, dont be fooled WCC.

  17. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Luke Barbuto commented

    I wish to further add my voice to the objection of the development proposal. All the reasons are detailed very thoroughly across the comments here. This is a completely unnecessary development and damaging to the character and history of the local area. It needs to be put to an end, and the developer should sell the land, cut their loses, and allow a new publican to take over and bring this important community watering hole back to life.

  18. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    James Baber commented

    I strongly object to this development proposal to erect an imposing apartment block immediately adjacent to the heritage listed Alexandria hotel and urge the council to reject the proposal for the following reasons:

    1. The building height is not consistent with current controls, and there is no rationale to create a new precedent or allow an exception for this development
    2. The apartment tower is completely out of character with the 1930s building (the Alexandria Hotel) that will be retained in the development - the tower would completely dominate the Alexandria hotel and create unacceptable shadowing
    3. There will be no parking for residents, who will be forced to park the cars they will inevitably own on surrounding streets, adding to congestion. I see residents will only be allocated a single bike space for each apartment - not very useful for a couple...
    4. This is a truly unappealing design, it is quite frankly an eyesore

    Please do not allow this development to occur, it must be rejected. There are already many developments in the surrounding suburbs, which are needed to continue to house people in this expanding city, however we must not accept developments that are inappropriate, trash our heritage buildings, and set dangerous precedents for future development.

  19. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Meika Heidi commented

    Are you serious!!!
    As I former Mayors Granddaughter I'm disgusted and infuriated.
    The council wants to fine Darren & Dee Jolly for demolishing that awful house in Kew &
    Those crooks at Sophia's can happily and willingly poison people in the community via their deplorable food practices & I will add have been charged numerous times, can sell illegal drugs, also charged and now demolish protected buildings.....
    What's going on???

  20. In Russell Island QLD on “Combined - Caretaker...” at 8-10 Paradise Avenue, Russell Island, QLD:

    JohnTighe commented

    Great idea in support of small business with potential for more jobs on Russell Island.

  21. In Caringbah South NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 14 Binney St Caringbah 2229:

    Roslyn Hall commented

    I would like to oppose this development proposed for the following reasons:
    • The design is not at all compatible with the surrounding properties. The top front balcony design is visually intrusive and the overall development, which is to be between two single level dwellings, is overpowering and would overwhelm the street. It would look like a great white monolith in the middle of a very small and narrow street.

    • As Binney Street is a short and narrow street with a lot of narrow fronted properties on the west side of the street, street parking spaces are limited. Given this development is providing only two car spaces for 2 x 4 bedroom units, this could create a lot of extra vehicles parking within the street.

    Also as a similar sized property is proposed for number 6 Binney Street, the combination effect would have a large impact on street parking and flow through traffic.

    • The excessive runoff on such a large property would also have an impact on the current overloaded drainage system which exists in this part of Caringbah South. Tanks that are only used for a small “waterwise” garden and for a small pool top up, would quickly fill in a storm and would therefore serve no purpose.

  22. In South Wentworthville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 26 Brotherton Street South Wentworthville NSW 2145:

    chuong pham commented

    Having investigated rules on building duplex and lived in a duplex before myself, I think the gap contributing to a-lot-of-car on the narrow street problem is the rule on mandating a large "green" space in the front of the property which takes away the space for parking. This forces the occupants of the duplex to park somewhere else (practically, there is only one car space for each house. Parking another car in front of the single garage is generally avoided due to the inconvenience of having to move the outside car for the inside car to get out).

    Parking in front of the duplex is not available due to the fact that there are two drive ways.

    To address this problem while still allowing higher density housing for narrow streets, relaxing the "green space" rule to allow more parking in the front yard may be a good compromise, at least for the narrow streets.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out upgrade works...” at 94 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    zio ledeux wrote to local councillor Chris Woods

    so does this mean even more traffic in an area that cant cope with what is there already?? no thanks

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

  24. In Fern Bay NSW on “Childcare...” at 43 Seaside Bvd, Fern Bay 2295 NSW:

    Jenny Barker commented

    I think Fern Bay in a growing community. And these proposed shops, childcare rooms ect would be a good idea. But more suited to a location not so directly around the surrounding houses. Maybe in a bigger space around a bigger area for potentially more shops. NOT SO DIRECTLY AROUND THE SURROUNDING SUBURBAN HOUSES. It would be a shame I have all these new lovely homes, then to start putting shops everywhere will take away from the lovely surroundings. Although I do think having these shop would be good, but not in that exact location.

  25. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Jan Jones commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    With regard to Ref: no: 1561/2016/ HA I wish my objection be noted and given due consideration.

    It is proposed that Shop 37 Winston Hills Shopping Mall (formerly Lenard’s Chicken) be amended from a food outlet into a sales office for marketing of residential apartments (a matter which residents seek consultation to overturn the L & E C decision).

    Shop 37 is in an area primarily surrounded by fresh food outlets i.e. Coles Supermarket; De Costi Seafood’s, Bush’s Meats and a bakery all within close proximity, as too is the food court; therefore it would be considered the ideal location to attract a replacement tenant to provide the same or similar product, that being fresh poultry products. If Centre Management are invested in providing local residents with the best possible selection of retail outlets it would seem irrational that they would consider removing this option from its current position as it would be highly unlikely that a new business would be attracted to the centre if they were also expected to incur additional costs to fit out a shop in another location. It would seem a very costly exercise and an unnecessary burden for a small business franchisee.

    Additionally in the event the proposed residential development is to proceed, it would be unlikely that the said sales office would require an on-going lease once all apartments have been sold?

    I am a long time resident of Winston Hills and have found Winston Malls a convenient location for weekly food shopping, however if services are not available I am unlikely to continue supporting a centre which does not offer a full selection of fresh food outlets. I am also aware that most recently the Winston Gardens Chinese Restaurant closed and one cannot help but wonder what Centre Management have proposed for this; and indeed will there be any retail outlets left.

    In my opinion Centre Management at Winston Hills Mall are negligent in their duty of care as has been witnessed by those who shop there regularly; how many times has the lighting malfunctioned in the basement car park leaving shoppers to find their cars in the dark and how long before someone falls foul as a consequence of this? Centre Management's inability to address such issues within a timely manner is simply not good enough, 24 hours for such matters rather than 7-14 days; as too the issue with broken pipes leaking and flooding areas of the car park. These are not “one off” occurrences rather they are ongoing issues which need to be addressed. In any place of business today Occupational Health and Safety compliance is a priority so surely this should be reflected in the centre for workers and shoppers alike.

  26. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Anne Cannon commented

    I completely agree with Stacey Mitchell. 84 new dwellings seems too many on that amount of land and will certainly impact on the infrastructure and traffic chaos already present.

  27. In Fremantle WA on “Rooftop bar and function...” at National Hotel 98 High Street Fremantle WA 6160:

    Rick Brook commented

    Regarding DA0156/16 Rooftop bar at the refurbished National Hotel in Fremantle 98 High Street: I have visited a couple of rooftop bars in other cities and one in Perth. They seem to be a very popular amenity and add a cosmopolitan feel to the precinct in which they occur. I like the quality of work undertaken on the National Hotel to date and I fully support the application. I am a resident of Cockburn and I work in the City of Fremantle.

  28. In Canterbury NSW on “Modification to reduce...” at 274-276 Canterbury Road, Canterbury NSW:

    Sarah Jones commented

    Assuming approval of the original DA was approved with a requisite number of parking spaces, on what basis is the DA being amended? What does this mean in terms of parking spaces for the occupants of this development? Will parking spaces for occupants be reduced? If so, what impact will reduced parking spaces in this development have on traffic and parking congestion in the surrounding streets?

    Thank you.

  29. In Avoca Beach NSW on “Proposed Secondary Dwelling...” at 59 A The Round Drive, Avoca Beach NSW 2251:

    Concerned resident Avoca commented

    1. Too many households already serviced by one driveway. Currently there are 4 households. This new development would make it 5 households. Then there is the associated congestion of an extra household e.g. car parking for the possibility of multiple tenants/visitors (no space for additional off street parking and there is no on street parking on the Round Drive).

    2. Proximity to neighbours too close.

    3. Environmental concerns to coastal lagoon ecosystem

    4. Disturbance to neighbours from demolition and construction.

    5. Potential for damage to shared driveway by heavy vehicles during construction

  30. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Cara Fuchen commented

    I hold I objection to the proposed closure of the chicken shop to a sales unit. The chicken shop is under utilised. I have shopped in the mall for many years (usually at Coles) and rarely see customers using this shop. There are opportunities to buy fresh poultry at 3 other outlets in the same shopping centre, namely Coles, Woolworths and Aldi. Using this unit as a sales office for the units that are soon to be built above the shops is an ideal use of the space. There are many other tenants within the mall who will benefit enormously from the additional residents. if the chicks shop was so popular logic dictates that another, less populated shop would have had their lease renewal refused.

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