Recent comments

  1. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Daisy Knight commented

    I grew up in this house, 21 years, I also had the privlegde when I was younger of meeting an elderly man who lived there during the 50s, this house was estimated to have of been built around 1850 and is the oldest on the block. It breaks my heart that a house so old with walls lovingly cared and holding such history for so many people for so many years could be just made into soulless money grabbing developments. This is not in the spirit of Enmore. A spirit of treasuring eclectic architecture and history. Please consider the rich history and beauty of this house and help it to house more memories and not end up in a skip.

  2. In Brunswick East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 186-198 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    Lygon street already has a ridiculous amount of high rises approved for such a small area. There is already limited parking for residents, limited public transport and traffic congestion most times of the day. Do not allow lygon street to be in shadow. Do not allow the local business to be pushed out. The character of the landscape has already changed for the worse. Please do not approve this construction.

  3. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of additional...” at 65 Argyll Street, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jennifer Holden commented

    Construction of additional dwelling on a lot within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

    Consideration of flooding/low lying area on The Boulevard side. Drainage can take a while into the storm water drain near this property. I avoid driving through this area after heavy rain because of the narrow winding street and water pooled. It can get quite deep near this property or directly behind it on The Boulevard side. The Argyll St side has no flooding issue.

    The dual occupancy / 2 dwelling construction with a front on Argyll St and a rear dwelling on The Boulevard, 2 blocks down, seems to have turned out quite well. #69 it must be.

    I object to any more than 2 dwellings on a block in this area (Malvern Meadows Estate) given the character of the neighbourhood and hence the residential zone. I am also conscious of height limits, property density, parking and overshadowing.

    Thanks Jennifer Holden

  4. In Wantirna South VIC on “9 Double Storey Dwellings” at 5 Henry Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    5 Henry Road is approx. 1200sqm = less than 150 sqm per allotment = ridiculous. The townhouses next door are approx. 160sqm after reduction for common area/frontage. Someone in planning please consider the people who already live in the area not just the increase in rates which flows on from these subdivisions.

  5. In Leichhardt NSW on “Additions to the existing...” at 81 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Deanna Payne commented

    I have just been made aware of this impending development,where is the parking and why all of a sudden are we seeing so many boarding places,who are they for? Thanks

  6. In Epping NSW on “Pedestrian bridge over...” at Beecroft Road, Epping, NSW:

    Rod commented

    Anything that improves access across (under, over, through) the rail road corridor barrier that divides is to be supported. The existing connection is very limited restricted and not very convenient or safe. I assume the advertising is to help fund the project.

  7. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 2 existing...” at 40 Kiora Rd Miranda 2228:

    Megan commented

    I object to this development as I believe there are already too many units in Miranda. Parking is a real problem and so is traffic esp on this part of Kiora road. The school is right there and at drop off and pick up time there is a lot of congestion and it is very dangerous.

  8. In Toukley NSW on “Community facility” at 5-7 Main Road Toukley NSW 2263:

    Rex & Helen McCormick commented

    I would like to object to the application for the following reasons.

    Noise caused by barking and yapping dogs, seven days per week, all hours of the day.
    6.00am to 6.00pm seven days per week.

    Additional traffic in and out of Viewpoint Drive to Main Road.
    This is already a very dangerous location to access Main Road.

    Parking. There is not enough street parking in Viewpoint Drive now. where will staff park,will they use the few spaces (3 or 4) currently

    Pollution and run off into Tuggerah Lakes from hard surface area washing/hoseing without properly designed drainage and catchment for all waste water.

    Dust Flies and Vermin control, ie, grassed area in summer after the grass has died because of daily use, and dog faces and urine.

    Health Problems, There is no doubt that stress and lack of sleep caused by noise are the cause severe health problems for both young and old.

    Viewpoint Drive is a quite residential area and is not affected by Main Road traffic noise.

    We strongly object to this developement application.

  9. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 281 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077, NSW:

    Anthony smith commented

    Ha if this is the zone. In the future there will be all townhouses along there. This one is the start of something big for the area

  10. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Use and display of signage...” at 1045 Burke Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Kate commented

    Hope everyone is aware that this is the start of the demolition of a heritage home with "significant" status. The case has been through vCAT and Supreme Court but still the developers won and will be able to erect a 4 storey block of flats featuring purple glass! Mmmmm, very heritage!! This is so totally out of character with the area and has some significant issues to do with traffic safety and parking, in my opinion. We also lose yet another old quality home which is totally irreplaceable in the modern context.
    Shame on you VCAT

  11. In Redfern NSW on “Fitout of the former...” at 119 Redfern Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Mike Clay commented

    This sounds like a wonderful plan, provided the Heritage value of the post office is maintained. We need more cafes and small businesses on the main Redfern strip. As a local resident, I am firmly in support of this plan.

  12. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Stephen F commented

    As an owner of a Double fronted cottage in the Marrickville LGA I am disappointed at yet another greedy grab by developers. This house is in fine condition and could easily be brought into the 21st century with a modest refurbishment at the rear of the property. I also note that it is the intention of the developer to demolish all existing trees on the site. This is a cynical reading of the MDCP which allows trees to be removed for new dwellings. These large Eucalyptus are visible from streets away and provide obvious habitat and microclimate controls to both human and animals.

  13. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I don't think if this house was on the Newtown/ Erskineville side of King Street it could be knocked down. Is this because the City Council has different standards? It seems that houses of this character should be preserved if possible if you care about the feel and older character of Enmore. I can see the point of view of those who regard this as an overly precious approach but I wonder if Marrickville Council has got their controls right and if they need to look again at the heritage listings? Why can't the owners come up with a design that retains the original house and renovates and extends at the back like others have done? is the idea of two houses just to make a big killing?

  14. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Nicky Barry commented

    This premises should be retained, it is in good condition and a fine example of a tradition timber house, it's quite rare and getting rarer. The development will impose on the neighbouring properties and de-value them. We need a mix of old and new, but the new should be from places that need replacing. This one doesn't. We like living in the area because of the charm these old houses bring. There are plenty of suburbs that need redevelopment because they have large lots with poorly built sole less houses. They should focus on these. They should not be destroying the fabric of our neighbourhood's with sole less structures. We also need a mix of single story double fronted properties and double. Please do NOT allow this development to go proceed.

  15. In Preston VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 52 Newcastle Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Rose Johnson commented

    The bulk of this development is inappropriate and out of local character.

    The design provides insufficient useable SPOS.

    The reverse-living arrangement appears to be implemented in order to maximise the number of dwellings, but thereby providing only minimal access to sunlight and POS.

    Where are air-conditioning units to be situated?

    There are already more than enough 2 bedroom developments planned for Darebin.

    A reduction of car parking spaces below the prescribed minimum should not be permitted.

  16. In Hornsby NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 281 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077, NSW:

    Hamid FATEMI commented

    This application should not be approved as building of townhouses is not consistent with any of the properties in the area, i.e commercial properties at both sides of the proposed development such as Metro gas station, mechanical repair workshop, Asquith bowling club and story park community centre as well as residential multi unit flats that are under construction along the highway.

    It is prudent that any development in the area, including old berowra rd street up to the story park, should be consistent with the surrounding properties mentioned above. Otherwise, we will end up with a mix of every type of doweling in a smal pocket of lands at and around the cross section of the old berowra rd street and peats ferry rd. Moreover, it is suggested that zoning of the area is revised, accordingly.

  17. In Waterloo NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 233-235 Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    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 in the area, 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. In fact, a quick look along much of Parramatta Rd will give planners the right idea.

    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.

  18. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of a new...” at 2 Trentwood Avenue Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Barbara Simmonds commented

    At last something constructive and of benefit to residents rather than the destruction of beautiful houses by overseas investors for multiply development ...causing overcrowding and a strain on the infrastructure. Boroondara Council have a lot to answer for in destroying the beauty and ambiance of this area

  19. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    There needs to be a balance between preservation and new development. 2 townhouses are not over-development. To disallow development based purely on age is a terrible thing to do and very weak. There needs to be some other set of criteria to oppose development other than that the building is over 100 years old. To limit development based purely on aesthetics is also wrong, as this is very subjective. Many people may consider two townhouses to be more attractive than a weatherboard house.

  20. In Oatlands NSW on “Construction of a twenty...” at 8 Forsyth Place, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    Lea Simpson commented

    Yes, it does SEEM like a good location for a boarding house, but 6 parking spots is hardly acceptable!!! Even if they add an extra 2 parking spots (as I've been told they have) this is still totally unacceptable. 22 rooms - in a building that only has 1 public transport option - plus the fact that there could be up to 40 people residing in those 22 rooms - if everyone has a car..................!!!!!!! Yes, Forsyth Place IS a small street & already quite crowded with cars. There's also NO parking on the nearest streets (Bettington & Kissing Point Rd's). This CANNOT happen, car parking situation is ridiculous, traffic flow will be a nightmare for current 9 houses on the already narrow stretch of council roadway. As it is now, visitors for the current residents find it hard to drive in & out without either having someone run up the back of their car or having to wait for someone else to leave the street or nearly having a head-on with someone who is about to leave the street.

  21. In Coogee NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 2 Wolseley Road Coogee NSW 2034:

    anna roberts commented

    As a visually prime position, the design of all buildings on this site should be exemplary. The buildings should 'address' all aspects well from the north, south, east and west. Can you insist that an internationally recognised prize winning architect be commissioned?

  22. In Copacabana NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 33 Helen Drive, Copacabana NSW 2251:

    Vineet Maini commented

    I am unable to access the plans as per this secondary dwelling. Given that our property is directly behind this property I need to understand what are the changes proposed.

    Please email the details.

    regards, Vineet

  23. In Ashburton VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 62 Fakenham Road Ashburton VIC 3147:

    Graeme Blow & Susan Blow commented

    This is the first objection we have made in over 20 years as residents of Ashburton. The reasons are as follows in bullet form;
    1. Dramatic change in the nature of this part of the street and suburb from independent dwellings. Number 62 with a 2x2 storey, follows 64, plus the property diagonally over the back and pending development at 101, my direct neighbour. We will incur future loss from a significantly lower re-sale value as most buyers will not wish to buy an independent dwelling (original nature of the street) surrounded mostly by denser 2x2 development. Who will compensate us for this future loss due to further development?

    2. Change in street scape with same impact as per 1. No. 64 is an example where a chocolate brown fence has been constructed, completely out of character with the rest of the street. Dwellings of this dense 2x2 nature add to the mish mash of eras, colours and styles further denigrating existing residents' value, particularly in an area that has been dominated by single one storey dwellings.

    3. Increase in traffic disruption and street parking. This end of the street is impacted by the funeral home, increasing through traffic from Warrigal Rd to Ashburton station and primary school and now continuing with more residential dwellings.

    4. Native fauna. Magpies have lessened, not to mention honey eaters, possums etc. This will accelerate with the greater density of buildings and fewer trees.

    5. Health and well being. We bought into this street due to it being quiet, open and not too built out with well set back single dwellings. Now noise and traffic will inevitably increase with the greater density and new 2x2 dwellings being much closer to the street. This has another impact with privacy being lessened with many taller structures looking into neighbouring properties.

    6. Direct impact on nature strip. During the construction at No.64, a utility provider dug up part of our nature strip, part of the street and has not brought it back to original condition. This has made the front of our property look untidy. Tradesmen have also parked and driven on and damaged the nature strip. There is a lack of control on this sort of disruption impacting surrounding neighbours during construction. There needs to be site specific requirements to avoid OHS issues and damage to other property with increased vehicles using and parking in the street during construction.

  24. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Kye Sanderson commented

    Marrickville Council has an extensive set of heritage planning controls incorporated into the Marrickville LEP 2011 and accompanying DCP. There are many individual listed heritage items and heritage conservation areas apply to significant portions of the Council area. These measures put in place by council will ensure heritage characteristics valued by the community will be protected into the future. The fact that this site is not identified as having heritage significance in the LEP indicates it is suitable for some form of redevelopment as proposed.

    The demolition of a single house and construction of two townhouses in this location cannot be considered an overdevelopment of the site by any stretch. The surrounding area is characterised by cottages on small narrow lots, terrace houses and medium scale walk-up unit blocks. The proposed development would fit appropriately within this context and would add much needed and highly sought after supply of modern townhouse accommodation for the area.

  25. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Trevor Keown commented

    This graceful property with its double frontage and period construction is very prominent and it significantly contributes to the heritage streetscape of Belmore Street.
    Examples of period weatherboard dwellings in this area are rare and need to be conserved at all costs. Demolition of this building and the proposed overbuilding of two modern townhouse structures would be a significant loss to the heritage of the area.

    If Council approve this application every and any double frontage property in the area regardless of heritage value will be subject to demolition and become yet another source of a quick buck for developers. This application needs to be refused to send a firm message to developers that heritage is valued by the community and is not for sale.

  26. In Coogee NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Glenwood Avenue Coogee NSW 2034:

    Ann Roberts commented

    Well, having seem the proposed design, I think it is horribly unsympathetic to the otherwise intact Art Deco feel of the original buildings.

    Whilst I can see that the site could benefit from some improvements, that design is terrible.

  27. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 122 Lennox Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Stephen F commented

    This is an unsympathetic first floor addition which protrudes much further south than the current neighbours buildings. It will cause overshadowing, interrupt neighbours district views and the elevated deck and rear wall of glass will overlook the adjoining properties and laneway. The bulk of the extension could easily be pushed further north into the existing roof space as per councils current guidelines MDCP 2011 regarding single storey buildings and similar to the adjoining property at 120 Lennox street. The only landscaping will be the small 4m2 at the front of the property that already exists.

  28. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Jenk commented

    City planning should be able preserve old characteristics as well as be open to new developments... If councils start letting these old buildings such as this one slide into structures with no history, we will be living in cities with no soul.... I am sure no one in Newtown wants to live in a "New Town" ! People want to live here because of its age, it's history and most importantly it's character...

  29. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    Rebecca sheret commented

    J : Please research before making comments. The house in question is definitely NOT beyond repair.

    It is a lovely house full of character, charm and history. Why on earth did the buyers choose this house to buy if they just wanted to knock it down? Very sad news indeed. Is there any way to get it heritage listed and therefore prevent demolition?
    R (born and bred inner westie)

  30. In Enmore NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 34 Belmore Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    J commented

    100+ year old houses that should be preserved - I don't agree! If they are beyond repair and need too much work I'm all for it. Have bought and living in one now, will reno, reno reno and demolish where necessary!

    J of Camperdown

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