Recent comments

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

    Diana Bryant wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    I wish to object to this proposal and also agree with the comments of David,Dell,Amanda and Andrew. I have been assisted on a number of occasions by the Council Heritage Adviser re a carport and other renovating issues . Her advice was most helpful and was utilised to maintain the heritage appeal of my house and the character of our area. I am now shocked to hear of this proposed development sitting like a carbuncle between all these gorgeous heritage homes and next to my house!
    Please do not allow this application to proceed. Thanking you for your consideration.

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

  2. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 446 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Mr.Williams commented

    This Gym has already caused so many parking problems in an already overparked area. If I go out I cannot guarantee that I will be able to come home. I know when they first applied for this they suggested that the transport is so good around here that everyone would come by train or Bus. This is not true. I strongly object to it even being here in this already overcrowded area.

  3. In Fitzroy VIC on “Part demolition to allow...” at 119 Rose St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Bronwyn Halpin commented

    We are moving into the Fitzroy area and will be living in a new development next to 119 Rose street. The new townhouse development is at 108 Leicester st, Fitzroy.

    As our structure is going to be 4 levels high with the 4th level being a roof top terrace how does a 5 story building at 119 Rose street affect us by overlooking and by shading? As our view will be obstructed from the roof terrace if this development does go ahead.

    Hoping you will be able to answer my two questions,

    Thanking you.
    Bronwyn.

  4. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 59 Darley Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Frustrated Resident commented

    A complete mess. Another questionable property which was allowed to be developed under such extreme circumstances by Rockdale/Bayside Council..
    First off, this house is too big for its size and also location.
    And secondly it is an enormous eyesore, and insult to surrounding residents.
    A small street isn't appropriate to build these mega McMansions. Again, surrounding environment has been affected and the spot used as a drive way is in a very difficult location so whenever trucks were down there on the side of the street they would block traffic completely.
    Privacy was also not considered an option while this dark monument was being built. We have to deal with looking through their windows until our trees that we planted will grow and block their view. The design is really ugly, and badly thought out. It is unnecessary to have a house this large, in such a small location.

  5. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 77 Darley Road Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Frustrated Resident commented

    How this development was approved by now Bayside Council is beyond me. Not only is this property an eyesore and has had one side been left abandoned for several years, Privacy was not considered at all when it was thought out and the house looks into everybody elses' yard in the street.
    I feel sorry for the poor neighbors of this property who have the back of this house looking down into their back room blocking the sunlight.
    There is little to no back yard, and this property has had a negative effect on the environment (Although, Rockdale/Bayside Council has had a pretty poor environmental track record as of recent, so this explains a lot). And if that's not all, another Duplex is planned to be built on the same property inches away from each other, which will take up even more space with no consideration towards the neighbors privacy or way of life at all

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

    Andrew Wilke wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    Dear Councillor,

    I too wish to object to the proposed development at 63A Curzon.

    Similar to the subdivision on the corner of Mary and Range streets, this is another unconscionable proposal.

    I implore you to help protect the interests of existing residents and the character of the town. Regardless of their compliance with "the code" these developments are patently inappropriate.

    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

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

  7. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Sharon Holmes commented

    I agree with the comments made by Stephanie Roberts. Whilst the current building has not maintained the original appearance, I would prefer to see the developers consider the heritage buildings along this strip and design accordingly. The home being built by Federation Homes is an excellent example of maintaining the character of the area. A little further south on the corner of Rawson and Esplanade, a 2 storey building shows little respect for heritage. After seeing the Quest building on the wharf in Port Adelaide, I have little hope that whatever the developer plans will be rejected. It seems anything can be built if the price is right.

  8. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Stephanie Roberts commented

    How sad to see yet another beautiful old dwelling disappear, changing the streetscape of this "Golden Mile" once again.
    The new property being built by Federation Homes to the north, on the Esplanade, is a genuine example of maintaining the character of the area, if a property MUST be demolished.
    I hope the character of this unique area is being taken into consideration by the developers, but more importantly, insisted upon by the council.

  9. In Winston Hills NSW on “S96 (2) Additional housing...” at 226 Windsor Road Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Arthur Ashley commented

    Great to see this addition to the Willows
    it will allow for residents to have all levels of care at the one place. Plans look good and will fit in with the present buildings and gardens

  10. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Angela O'Grady commented

    I strongly object to this proposal for a number of different reasons. As a local resident I have a vested interest in the community of Gladesville.

    Firstly, what is the point of having planning instruments and guidelines set out in the LEP if developers can breach the height limitations and almost triple the FSR entirely for their own financial benefit?

    The height of the proposed building will cause overshadowing for the surrounding low density residential dwellings and impede on their natural light.

    The scale of the building will not be in keeping with the aesthetics of the area and the scale and bulk completely breech the planning guidelines. The impact from the increased traffic on the local roads has not been considered and the local roads will not withstand this increased high density. Without improving the infrastructure on Victoria Road and consideration be given to alternative modes of transport, the use of cars will continue to dominate the area and therefore the surrounding streets will be impacted.

    The lack of planning for community infrastructure for example no planning provisions for extra primary school or high school classrooms. The current local schools cannot cope with an influx from the current developments currently under development, so I fail to understand the lack of consultation with other planning silos.

    The impact on the environment and the lack of sustainable sensitive planning. We need more green space to counteract the carbon load from the apartments being built and one of this magnitude cannot be offset.

    And finally, the shear lack of community consultation. The community are the major stakeholder in this development site. It is only through sensitive planning with the community that a successful development can be considered. These types of developments require much more consideration other than the immediate FSR and height impacts.

    The heritage significance of Gladesville cannot be disputed. 10 Cowell Street is listed in the Hunters Hill LEP as Local Significance. I strongly disagree with the proposal to move the dwelling as stated in the Heritage Impact Statement commissioned by the developer:

    “10 Cowell Street be either relocated; or the heritage values of 10 Cowell Street should be conserved through interpretation and the incorporation of significant heritage fabric (ie. pressed metal ceilings and walls) into a contemporary structure that would be incorporated into the new development.”

    This is our history and should be preserved. The planners in the 70’s destroyed enough history; please don’t let history repeat itself. This is an opportunity to maintain the character of the area and prevent it turning into an urban jungle.

  11. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Proposed multi unit...” at 11 Caleb Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Barry Lewis commented

    Parking in Caleb St, Browns Rd and Daffodil St is almost impossible to find now.
    With all the development going on now plus 5 more dwellings at 11 Caleb St will make it much worse for the residents already living in these streets.
    NO MORE MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA!!

  12. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 267 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    saen wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    we highly recommend high density along with stud rd. high density development facing busiest road with bus stop is making sense.

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Rochedale South QLD on “Domestic - Dwelling...” at 11A Minerva Street Rochedale South QLD 4123:

    Gary Bruhn wrote to local councillor Lisa Bradley

    I am concerned that the granny flat work seems to have started and the walls will be within 500mm of the boundary fence.

    The existing carport has been disassembled and reassembled under 1500mm from boundary.

    I was of the belief that there had to be 1500mm separation.

    No consultation has been undertaken with this neighbour.

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Bradley. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1318 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Anna Bawden commented

    Actually my error, the traffic counting strips are between 15/16 Gillman...perhaps the contractors couldn't get the stops closer to the top of the street due to so many cars parked in the top end of the street?

  15. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1318 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Anna Bawden commented

    There appears to currently be traffic counting occurring in Gillman street (4/11). However, the flaw in the data being collected is that the strips are set over half way down the street (between 11 & 12 Gillman st), therefore only counting less than half of the traffic in this street! Very odd and clearly problematic if this data is to be used to determine the current level of traffic in this narrow, no-through road!

  16. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Phoebe Morton commented

    I miss having my after work kebab! It's important to have food options when you are drinking and it's late. Let saray stay open

  17. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Eliza Berlage commented

    As a local resident I fully support this application. It is important to have safe, friendly places to congregate and eat in the later hours, especially for shift workers.

  18. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot 3 into...” at 16-18 Simla Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Concerned wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    Mr Antonio, The Toowoomba Ghetto train continues on its merry way - destroying the quiet and dignified ambience of a very historical part of this beautiful city. Surely this heritage part of Toowoomba needs to be rezoned quickly before it is overdeveloped.

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

  19. In Hawthorn VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 768 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Nick Bailey commented

    This is clearly over development of the site. Too tall and no provision for parking despite a potential requirement to provide 35 spaces. Parking is currently very tight in the area already especially when Swinburne is in its teaching period. Waste collection will also be an issue potentially blocking the rear lane with bins.

  20. In Smeaton Grange NSW on “Galvanising Plant” at 42A Bluett Drive, Smeaton Grange:

    Ray Morgan commented

    DA 1122/2015
    I, as a resident, am opposed to this proposed development. Firstly, I apologise for the late notification, I have sent a response to Camden Council but now believe this to have been the best avenue to place my objections. The area surrounding this proposal has a healthy environmental status. To build this galvanising plant will place it at significant risk. The opposition I have to this application can be listed as;
    1. Chemicals transported, stored and used are hazardous to health and environment; are deemed corrosive and dangerous. These chemicals will be stored in close proximity to Kenny Creek which runs into the Nepean River. An accidental spillage into the environment when containment is breached will have a lifelong impact on the environment and the surrounding community.
    2. Pollution and air quality are a concern with this proposal. My residence is near the proposed plant and places my family and the surrounding community at risk of increased air pollution. I have a self-sustaining vegetable garden and pride myself and family on being healthy because of it. The residue from increased air pollution settling on the garden places the health of the garden, my family and friends that I provide fresh produce to at risk.
    3. Noise Pollution associated to 24/7 operation. As a shift worker, I understand the difficulties in getting quality sleep. A proposal such as this involving 24hr operation and handling of metals, will provide sudden and elevated noise levels that will impact on the surrounding community and disturb its sleep patterns.
    4. Traffic caused by the trucks operating along residential roads with small roundabouts, sharp turns and narrow roads with cars parked on either side pose a significant risk to personal property and individuals getting out of cars.
    5. The proposed building height exceeds the limit of 11 m for light industrial as defined by the Local Environmental Plans.
    6. The proposed galvanising plant is not suitable for and does not align with current factories within the Smeaton Grange industrial estate. The estate currently consists of smaller factories, operating within normal business hours, that meet the proposed height limit of 11 m for light industry and do not pose a significant threat to environment and community health as this proposal does.
    My family and myself have lived in Currans Hill for 11 years and in the district all our lives. If this proposal was available when we first looked at buying in Currans Hill, you can be assured we would not have purchased this beautiful home in this magnificent suburb. If this proposal goes forward, my family will move from our current residence, as I will not expose my family to this risk and we are not alone.
    I believe this proposal is not reasonable and will not be accepted in any format. A galvanising plant is unacceptable in the Smeaton Grange industrial estate and within close proximity to my residence.

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

    Amanda Lehane wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    To the TRC department in charge of this application. Please advise what action needs to be taken by residents in this neighbourhood to ensure this application for multiple dwellings on this site does not get approval. I agree, 100%, with the above comments from Della Arrowsmith, but more importantly what plans are in place to provide off street parking for residents and visitors for the size of the project at this location?

    Photo of Chris Tait
    Chris Tait local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Amanda Lehane

    Amanda,

    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 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: Amanda Lehane <>
    Date: 4 November 2016 at 12:24:00 AM GMT+3
    To: <>
    Subject: Planning application at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350
    To the TRC department in charge of this application. Please advise what action needs to be taken by residents in this neighbourhood to ensure this application for multiple dwellings on this site does not get approval. I agree, 100%, with the above comments from Della Arrowsmith, but more importantly what plans are in place to provide off street parking for residents and visitors for the size of the project at this location?

    From Amanda Lehane to local councillor Chris Tait

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

    Amanda Lehane 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 Amanda Lehane 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
    ***************************************

  22. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    R Lim commented

    No, thank you.

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

    amanda Lehane wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    Is this on a vacant block or does it rquire the removal of an existing house?

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to amanda Lehane

    Hi Amanda,

    Cr Taylor has asked me to contact you. I recognise your concerns with respect to the application.

    I have provided the following dotpoints with respect to the application process.

    · The application is for 3 units.

    · The application is being assessed by Krys den Hertog. He is currently out of office until Tuesday.

    · The application is subject to Code assessment, meaning that it will not be subject to public notification ie letters to adjoining owners, sign on property, notice in the Chronicle.

    · Council officers are required to assess the application against the provisions of the Toowoomba Regional Planning Scheme. If the development is considered to comply with the scheme, it will be recommended for approval. If it is not, it will be recommended for refusal.

    · Where there are issues with the application that has been lodged, Council will issue an information request to enable the applicant to address those issues and bring the development into greater conformity with the planning scheme. If those changes cannot be addressed satisfactorily, Council may refuse the application.

    This is a quick précis of the process. If you wish to discuss further, I would suggest contacting Krys on Tuesday.

    Kind regards

    Mark Westaway
    Senior Planner
    Planning and Development

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD 4350
    P 07 4688 6839 F 07 4631 9292

    www.tr.qld.gov.au

    ***************************************
    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
    ***************************************

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

    Della Arrowsmith commented

    With regard to this application we would like to express our utmost disapproval for the proposed multiple dwellings on the ‘so-called’ 63A Curzon Street. In recent times the TRC has stated its intention to slow or stop the growth of units in non-appropriate areas within the city (ie: heritage areas). This is one of the few remaining areas that has heritage appeal. To want to destroy such a lovely area with unsightly units is a purely profit-based decision with no regard to the heritage or the area, both past and future. The ‘Toowoomba unit plague’ does nothing to beautify our city. Residents have chosen areas such as these to live in because of their beauty and heritage appeal. Approving this application is another step forward to taking this away.
    We are hoping the council stands by their policy to cut back on the number of units allowed in heritage areas.

    Greed is not always good.

    Also, please note that the online picture attached to this application does not depict the property in question - the application for 63A Curzon Street is a vacant piece of land. The picture is of the neighbouring property – number 63.

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

    Della Arrowsmith wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    With regard to this application we would like to express our utmost disapproval for the proposed multiple dwellings on the ‘so-called’ 63A Curzon Street. In recent times the TRC has stated its intention to slow or stop the growth of units in non-appropriate areas within the city (ie: heritage areas). This is one of the few remaining areas that has heritage appeal. To want to destroy such a lovely area with unsightly units is a purely profit-based decision with no regard to the heritage or the area, both past and future. The ‘Toowoomba unit plague’ does nothing to beautify our city. Residents have chosen areas such as these to live in because of their beauty and heritage appeal. Approving this application is another step forward to taking this away.
    We are hoping the council stands by their policy to cut back on the number of units allowed in heritage areas.

    Greed is not always good.

    Also, please note that the online picture attached to this application does not depict the property in question - the application for 63A Curzon Street is a vacant piece of land. The picture is of the neighbouring property – number 63.

    David & Della

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

  26. In Maroochy River QLD on “Bli Bli Rd MAROOCHY RIVER -...” at 433 Yandina-Bli Bli Rd, Maroochy River, QLD:

    Liane Jacobs wrote to local councillor Christian Dickson

    We are concerned about this industrial business in our area an in our sight.
    The area is rural residential and we really want it to remain that way.
    The amount of trucks at the site of 433 Bli Bli Road is also a concern and the bright lights all hours of the night.

    We are also concerned that beautiful land is being used for industrial ventures when there are more than enough industrial estates within minutes.

    Delivered to local councillor Christian Dickson. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Adrian commented

    Obviously you are a Developer or Similar May Leng, What Public transport network?
    Are you talking about the Busses that run up and down Stud Rd Because thats all the public transport we have.

    The development in Knox is actually past any reasonable level, but this is definitely a State wide issue, Our Real estate ex Mayor is only along for the ride with his mates.

  28. In Cleveland QLD on “Commercial Office and...” at 2-16 Wynyard Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Brian Whitelaw wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    Hi Peter,
    Thanks for the offset information although the scheme seems more at saving developers the task of protecting mature trees. Could you please tell me how much a developer has to contribute for each mature tree they cut down? Additionally, where and how soon will replacements/offsets be planted?
    I also look forward to hearing the formal response you sought from council officers regarding the valuation and sale of the land.
    Thanks again.
    Brian

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Mitchell. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Stuart ireland commented

    As a local resident I strongly object to this proposal. I am sad to say council will probably have little influence on this decision. The Baird government are throwing up high rise apartments around every arterial road into city without future proofing infrastructure. Stand up for your community against Baird or it will disappear.

  30. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Luka Krivacic commented

    Appallingly out of context and scale for the area.

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