Recent comments

  1. In Rozelle NSW on “Removal of 3 Lilly Pilly...” at 165 Mullens Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Ben commented

    Tree removal approval is a joke, yet to see one tree replaced by anything other than a bush.
    The Urban Forrest Policy has obviously never been sighted by the planning dept who appear to have nil interest in trees, bio diversity or greening our suburb

  2. In Newtown NSW on “Fifth storey addition to...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I'm opposed to adding a fifth floor if that is what is being proposed. Why is this necessary? It destroys the scale and also heritage qualities of Newtown. I also question why there needs to be 7 one bedroom apartments. Newtown needs a mixed community not just single people who can afford these apartments. I am getting the feel that everywhere developers are just grabbing for more quick profits - we need proper social planning to retain the character and community strength of Newtown.

  3. In Newtown NSW on “Fifth storey addition to...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    katarina maric commented

    No. Don't ruin Newtown with these boxy apartments being put up everywhere

  4. In Newtown NSW on “Fifth storey addition to...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Johnny commented

    Bad Idea, Newtown is already full and they are putting in more apartments?. What about the respect for a heritage listed building as well?.

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Pet Shelter” at 5 Vivienne Street, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    Dear Sir,

    A correction to my earlier letter. The date the clearing happened was Jan 2014 not 2013. I can give you the name of the community member who rang and the council officer who provided the information stated above re illegal clearing on request.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  6. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 16-22 Claremont Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    James Swan commented

    Hi,

    I am seriously concerned about the proposed height of the 16-22 Claremont street Proposal. I am also concerned on the impact on the future residents at 4-10 Daly Street.

    When reviewing this proposal please consider the impact on this development

    James

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Pet Shelter” at 5 Vivienne Street, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    The General Manager
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre, NSW 2310
    RE: DA 1257/2015
    At: 5 Vivienne St Whitebridge

    Dear Sir,

    Along with many others, I believe council should consider all development applications which are to occur on E2 conservation land along the Fernleigh Track more critically than they appear to have done hitherto for the sake of the natural environment. Any incursion into E2 conservation land along the Fernleigh Track should be assessed on the assumption that it is habitat supporting threatened species. LMCC’s Environmental Review during the rezoning of this land argued for the likelihood of threatened species along the length of the track. Confirmation of this was offered by Dr John Clulow [an expert in Environmental & Conservation Biology, at the University of Newcastle] at the HCC JRPP meeting on July 23rd 2015, and in his written submissions in response to DA 1774/2013 relating to a threatened specie’s reliance on land along the Fernleigh Track at Whitebridge and surrounds. It is my understanding that current research data has detected squirrel gliders in this location.

    OBJECTIVES OF ZONE E2
    _ to protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic values.
    _ to prevent development that could destroy, damage or otherwise have an adverse effect on
    those values.
    _ to conserve, enhance and manage corridors to facilitate species movement, dispersal, and
    interchange of genetic material.
    _ to encourage activities that meet conservation objectives.
    _ to enhance and manage areas affected by coastal processes.

    The treatment of E2 land abutting the track, and whose status as significant to environmental conservation and biodiversity maintenance is reflected in LMCC Flora and Fauna Corridor maps, should reflect the importance of this land as conservation land. The Hunter Eco Ecology Report submitted with this application [written prior to LEP2014, and when the E2 zone was classified as 7(2)] wrongfully asserts at 3.2 and 4.2 that the conservation land is not home nor habitat for any threatened species.

    This declaration is based on assumption and generic ‘testing’. The more rigorous, independent analyses cited above state the opposite. If any assumptions are to be made, these should reflect the presence of threatened species in conservation land abutting the Fernleigh Track, as that is where the evidence is pointing. Compromising the viability of the fauna corridor between three significant environmental zones – Glenrock State Conservation Area, Belmont Wetlands and the Awabakal nature reserve- is a worrying outcome otherwise.

    Land in the E2 zone [at 50 Lonus Ave – site of the land in question] has been illegally cleared in the past. A community member spoke to LMCC about this in April 2014. He was told the land was cleared illegally by the developers. The council officer advised that the clearing took place in Jan 2013 and LMCC were aware of the clearing, and stated there would be a non-compliance certificate issued to the developers until the land was remediated. As you will appreciate, this is cold comfort as the damage is done and the rehabilitation, if it occurs, will be slow. Compliance notes are easy to write but hard to enforce it seems. All the more reason for protecting the remaining conservation land for its primary purpose and to mitigate against adverse effects.

    Further to this, the size of the animal shelter suggests it is for cattle or horses. This use doesn’t appear to be a listed use for E2 or R2 zoning. I appreciate that formerly large animals were kept on the site, this would have started under earlier, different zoning. I would appreciate some clarification on this as grazing would seem to be at odds with E2 objectives, especially as Council and the community understands the environmental significance of the intended conservation purposes of this land.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  8. In Warburton VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 3391 Warburton Highway, Warburton 3799, VIC:

    Deborah Leanne Curtis commented

    Since I moved to Warburton 7 years ago we have regularly been bombarded by the intrusive music noise from the above property Wild Thyme Cafe. Out the back of the premises under a tarpaulin which is not enclosed the business would operate amplified music Friday night's ,Saturday night's and Sunday night's.

    Over the seven years I have had to contact the Police and have complained about the noise.

    I am concerned that under the re issue of the Licence that this will happen again. The noise had been so impacting that my daughter had to wear headphones to block out the noise so she could study for her VCE.

    If you need evidence I Amy only too happy to send you this.Deborah Curtis.

    Call me on 0425 755713

    Kind Regards
    Deborah Curtis

  9. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 7...” at 16 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    fab sorbello commented

    Hi i cant see how 7 dwellings are approved if it is in a Erosion Management Overlay zone .

  10. In Newtown NSW on “Fifth storey addition to...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Luke Bacon commented

    The allocation of "7 x 1 bedroom apartments" feels like profit maximisation while ignoring the needs of Newtown. Who is meant to buy/live in these apartments? Rich single people?

    This area needs housing to support a wider range of people and the council should require a greater diversity of accommodation types within this building, including affordable housing.

    Best wishes,

    Luke

  11. In Killara NSW on “New dwelling - demolition...” at 28 Cook Road, Killara, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    It has now been learned that a heritage nomination form has been filled out on this property. This was done by "Friends of Glen Brae", and includes a photo of the house taken by Janet Price. After three visits in person to Ku-ring-gai Council over a period or months - and several email letters - still nobody at all at the Council could be found who knew about the matter or had even heard about it until I described the case to them. By now over a hundred people have been contacted over this matter, including via doorknocking gathering of local history. And of that number only four have known of the place and that there was any threat to it. Those very few who were aware of the demolition threat to it that I found all indicated that they did not favour demolition loss of this old house. If you have any information please contact me at PO Box 121 BURWOOD 1805 or at john.mail at ozemail.com.au

  12. In Killara NSW on “New dwelling - demolition...” at 28 Cook Road, Killara, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    It has now been learned that a heritage nomination form has been filled out on this property. This was done by "Friends of Glen Brae", and includes a photo of the house taken by Janet Price. After three visits in person to Ku-ring-gai Council over a period or months - and several email letters - still nobody at all at the Council could be found who knew about the matter or had even heard about it until I described the case to them. By now over a hundred people have been contacted over this matter, including via doorknocking gathering of local history. And of that number only four have known of the place and that there was any threat to it. Those very few who were aware of the demolition threat to it that I found all indicated that they did not favour demolition loss of this old house. If you have any information please contact me at PO Box 121 BURWOOD 1805 or at john.mail at ozemail.com.au

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 44 Frampton Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michael White commented

    Given the block width and rear lane access I'd like to see 4 undercover car spots allocated for workers, there is enough pressure on parking on the street. On that point, I'd recommend 2x spots directly out the street front 15minute parking 7-9am and 4-6pm.

    Can we please make a front safety fence that fits the heritage and front facade (a pool fence will be an eyesore)

    I'd like to see acoustic measures on windows, doors and insulation given proximity to flight path and kids sleeping and playing through the day.

    The signage needs to more appealing yet conspicuous, hanging from front balcony for example?

    Waste removal is guaranteed to be above councils committed bins?

    Can we ensure the rear lane is not used as a drop off or entry points for parents and kids with potential for 'no standing zones' for example? It's too narrow to navigate past cars parked

  14. In Glen Iris VIC on “Vest the Reserve in Council...” at 2 Jesse Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Michael commented

    Do whatever it takes to sell the land at not less than current market prices to the 4 adjacent owners.

  15. In Lilydale VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at 589 Hull Road, Lilydale VIC 3140:

    Michael and Janis Dakic commented

    We oppose this subdivision as the council disallowed our application.Two other properties have been allowed to subdivide and two have had their applications denied.We feel we should all be allowed to subdivide.If you deny one application you should deny all.We do not want to be surrounded by subdivided blocks.Our property will be devalued.We only tried to subdivide because other properties on Hull rd had been approved and we wanted to recoup the money that our property has devalued.The country feel of our street has been destroyed.
    I have tried to find out why council is approving applications from some properties but not others without success

  16. In Dilston TAS on “Residential - single...” at 371 John Lees Drive Dilston TAS 7252:

    philip whitehead commented

    The marker shown is nowhere near 371 John Lees drive, Yr marker is at least 500m too far north and shown on the wrong side of the road for this number.

  17. In Henley Brook WA on “Change of Use from Grouped...” at 1-3/157 Park Street Henley Brook WA 6055 ,:

    Kelli Rix commented

    I think it would be an absolute tragedy to force Shalom House to close. Please consider who is this facility is really hurting compared to the amount of people it is helping and it saves lives. Isn't it about time as a community we started to get some things right? Also what might surprise you is that this actually brings business to cafes, restaurants and shops in your council.

  18. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 45 Wandella Rd Miranda 2228:

    nick commented

    how many houses is this council going to let go on building dual occupancy properties on lands that are made for single houses? talk about trying to make double the council rates from one property. what a corrupt council has sutherland council become. they should all go back to their houses in bankstown, lakemba and so forth and build them there. not here in our shire. you guys are a disgrace.

  19. In Caringbah South NSW on “Addition of a townhouse to...” at 37 Cecil St Caringbah 2229:

    Lorette Tipping commented

    The sharp bend of the road near this site, and the narrow road itself at the site are already dangerous, exacerbated by parked vehicles. To include another townhouse would in all probability lead to more vehicles parked kerbside. Creation of such further congestion would be dangerous, and show no consideration or regard to existing residents, and would not be in the best interest of occupants to the already approved townhouses. When is "enough is enough" in adding congestion to this residential area, and to this already congested dangerous roadway. Increased occupancy leads to increased pedestrian numbers, therefore there is also an issue of safety in this regard. Developments such as this one, provide minimal allowable parking, and do not provide parking for all vehicles owned by residents. More kerbside parked vehicles cause a danger to parked vehicles, moving vehicles and pedestrians'. It is not uncommon for vehicles in the area to be damaged by passing vehicles. Lets put the local property owners and residents ' interests ahead of developers' profits and NOT grant another townhouse in this development please.

  20. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 120 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Karen holmes commented

    I am very concerned about this proposed development D/2015/389 and the proposed pressure it puts on parking in the area and not to mention the 3 level structure does not fit in with the surroundings.

    Karen Holmes
    Edith street,
    Leichhardt

  21. In Arncliffe NSW on “Construction of part six...” at 17 - 37 Wollongong Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Gerard Foley commented

    The development should take into account the extra traffic and pressure put on infrastructure.

    How is the developer contributing to public amenity with the hundreds of extra people / cars in what is already a high density area?

    If there is no substantial contribution (I.e public space, amenity etc) then it should not be approved.

  22. In Stanmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 80 Parramatta Road Stanmore NSW 2048:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area.

    But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already terrible congestion on Parramatta Rd, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development.

    In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  23. In Swan Bay TAS on “Residential - single...” at 16 Ardea Drive Swan Bay TAS 7252:

    Dr Pullen commented

    As a resident of Meika Court I have no objections to this application BUT I would like the council to carefully look at land and roofing run-off from ALL properties and road surfaces in the Estate. The Swan Bay Estate has deforested a large area of land which has increased surface water run-off which would have normally been adequately absorbed by the areas flora and natural soil drainage and over time leaching into Little Salty Creek. The volume of water entering Little Salty Creek has increased since this Estates development and further into the Estate the course of the creek is being altered due to removal of vegetation right up to the creek itself and soil is being removed so the topography of the area is being significantly altered.
    Whilst relevant housing applications are being pursued does this Estate's development need to comply with the following Acts given that deforestation is occurring and waterways are being affected?
    State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997
    Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
    Forest Practices Act 1985

    Or does the council have a Wetlands and Waterways Schedule that covers my concerns re an alteration of water source and water quality issues which are impacting on those residents which have Little Salty Creek flowing through their properties.

  24. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 120 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Deanna Payne commented

    I also have concerns about proposed development (D/2015/389),where is the parking?i'm very concerned about this development and others in Marion street make no allowances as I said for parking,why,it is far to large,havnt we learnt lessons from Norton Street

  25. In Glen Iris VIC on “Demolition and construction...” at 7 Harold Avenue, Glen Iris, VIC:

    M commented

    We have recently purchased a property in a neighbouring street for the same reasons as given by Graham and Anne Pullen, to be protected by an heritage overly.

    Living in an area of glen Iris Stonnington that does not share these restrictions we have felt the full force of intensive development, oversized houses and appartment blocks that neither share nor complement existing street attributes. This has occurred to such a degree that it has degraded our street and our outlook until we felt there was no other option but to live elsewhere.

    If this inappropriate development is allowed to seep into streets that are supposedly protected there is no hope for the preservation of some of Melbournes most beautiful suburbs and no choice any longer for residents who intentionally seek streets that are not a "free for all".

    In recent planning Stonnington has created new and clearly designated areas for residential growth and areas considered more appropriate for new development. Anyone wishing to demolish should consult these very public guidelines and procure property/land within these environs. To this end we completely concur and share the concerns of neighbours with regard to the demolition and construction of a dwelling at 7 Harold Street, Glen Iris. Quite simply this contravenes all guidelines put in place by Council and will set a dangerous precedent. If council do not scrupulously uphold their own planning criteria our suburb will be irrevocably changed. We need these streets to counterbalance the large developments happening on Malvern rd, high street, Burke rd and continual new build on streets such as Erica, Netherlee and Clyde.

  26. In Roseville NSW on “Additions and alterations...” at 32 Marjorie Street, Roseville, NSW:

    Tony Skinner commented

    We request council to seriously review the proposed development plans at 32 Marjorie Street Roseville, principally on the grounds that this development does not cater for adequate onsite garaged parking and a safe driveway. This is of great concern to all surrounding neighbours as we continue to witness the un-policed clutter of parked cars, trailers, caravans and boats on our streets!

    Particularly as this house faces the park, it is of greater significance that the architect provide better visual amenity for all with a well designed driveway and concealed car-port or garage at the rear of the property. Possibly under the planned house extension at the rear of the property.

    In addition the existing single driveway is a pedestrian hazard and there is no provisions allowed for its improvement. We have personally witnessed young children who are racing off to the park having nearly collided with vehicles using this driveway. The architect expects the home owners to park their 2 cars back-to-back on their existing driveway, which is an unrealistic expectation as they do not do this presently. In addition how can this architect expect to cater for their growing family of 4 children as it does not allow for any additional driveway parking space. Currently we have only witnessed the owners park their vehicles on the street and they will continue to do so if there is no encouragement from council to plan appropriately for this. Let us be realistic, as it stands, residents do not like to park 2 cars back-to-back let alone any more.

    Also we are all aware from available statistics that many children are tending not to leave their parent's home to much later in life. So we can expect and should appropriately plan for a future with many more cars per household than the standard 2 parental cars. In the future we could quite easily expect this household to have their 6 cars parked on the street which will seriously affect visual amenity and a serious risk to young children and adults walking to the park.

    So please ensure these plans provide for visual amenity and critical pedestrian safety with adequate car parking facilities. As council will be liable if inadequate car parking in this development leads to serious injury to anyone accessing the park.

  27. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 120 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Phil Beresford commented

    To whom this concerns
    As a concerned resident I would like to object to the proposed development (D/2015/389). The increased density and lack of car parking in this development will put pressure on the already very limited on-street spaces currently available. The proposed 3 level structure is not in keeping with the street and surrounding area.

    Regards
    Phil Beresford
    56 Edith St
    Leichhardt

  28. In Erskineville NSW on “Stage 1 DA Concept Plan for...” at 57 Ashmore Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    A Cooper commented

    Council needs to consider these below points before approval is provided.

    • Heritage Curtilage of the substation is to be imposed. Sympathetic built form integration is required.

    • Mature Significant Trees are to be retained (in particular the ones on corner of Ashmore St and Mitchell St)

    • Landscape and building setback required for pedestrian link running parallel to Metters street

    • Green Travel Plan is required to reduce traffic congestion around the precinct

    • Reduce height to comply with the building height in the DCP

    • 10% bonus is only to be award if a ‘genuine’ design competition in excellence is undertaken for each building block.

    • Reduce overshadowing on surrounding residential houses and internal park

    Thanks

  29. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    M. Matheson commented

    Where are the plans and elevations for this proposed building?

    Where is the traffic management plan to ensure Bunnings' customers don't enter into narrow South Street?

  30. In Mascot NSW on “Integrated Development...” at 6 Miles Street Mascot NSW 2020:

    Robert Aurisch commented

    There is no provision for parking. This is the bigest problem in Miles street.

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