Recent comments

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

    Matt Costain commented

    I support this 100%. Great business, great people and a Sydney institution.

  2. In Jamberoo NSW on “Dwelling” at 30 Wyalla Rd, Jamberoo, NSW 2533:

    Reg Curnow commented

    this house is within 5 metres of my property- the width of Wyalla rd plus nature strip. it will be interesting whether Council formally advises by letter. I will be very annoyed if they do not and will tell them so. thank you Planning Alerts.

  3. 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:

    I Luft commented

    I oppose the proposed plan to increase the height of this building application.
    Apart from being completely out of character with the built environment of the local area, my main concern, which is more than just the scale of this building, is the massive increase in residents per square metre in the local area, with no improvement to infrastructure. Particulary roads, public transport, schools and other services.

    The additional height means additional people and this again increases the population density. We already have insufficient public transport and clogged roads. This development will just further perpetuate these problems.
    I Luft

  4. 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:

    A Leon commented

    An amendment of such significance should in no way be considered an amendment rather require a new application.

    The existing infrastructure surrounding Cowel St and the remainder of Gladesville in no way can withstand the increase in traffic and population.

    As a local business owner of 16 years, even though an increase of residence might be of benefit to me, it proposes a detrimental and negative effect on our coveted community.

    I implore that the existing local community be taken into consideration prior to any approval and this "amendment" to the application be rejected.

  5. In Lake Conjola NSW on “Staged expansion of caravan...” at 1 Norman St, Lake Conjola, NSW:

    Mr. Kas & Mrs Kathy Zoszak commented

    Unfortunately we have just returned from holidays (in Lake Conjola) and just got our mail.
    The impact of such a huge development cannot be anything other than calamitous for the lake. local residents (including residents of Ulladulla and surrounds) and fellow holiday makers. The lake is already dangerously overcrowded with boats and jet-skiiers all through the summer, as well as on public and school holidays. It is only a question of time before a serious accident, no matter how careful one may be, will claim lives, like off Killarney Beach a few years ago. Activities on the water require a critical mass of space for each individual, and this has already been compromised. A development such as the one proposed could not possibly have put appropriate weight to the safety of adults let alone young children.
    Of equal concern is the impact on lake quality. The 2 week window to lodge an objection is most inadequate to assess any adverse environmental impact, or indeed any impact at all. One must be guided by common sense. The increased waste load, greater water turbulance and erosion, effect on fish stocks, boat fuels seeping into the lake, destruction of bird and foraging animal habitats with tree clearence are inevitable consequences that spring to mind. As it is, the integrity of the channel allowing fresh sea water to flush out the lake is dubious, to say the least. Repeated action by Council has not assured many that the latest dredging will ensure that the lake is cleaned out on a regular basis, and as such any development on such a scale will only work against all efforts to keep the lake clean.
    Our comments barely go beyond initial but serious alarm. We wish we had been aware of this earlier, or the period for objections was commensurate with the impact(s) of this development proposal. We are firm in our conviction that the most beautiful aspects of the lake and what Lake Conjola means to visitors will be forever destroyed should this plan be approved.
    We also note that the Caravan Park recently changed ownership. One cannot but wonder that this expansion proposal is based on commercial driven reasons ignoring people and environemtal impacts with scant regard for the village atmosphere of Lake Conjola. The current golf course provides a corridor of greenary that is much more pleasing to the eye than 119 caravan sites.
    We would welcome any documentation that has been received by Council on studies that have been undertaken to assess the positive impacts of this proposal.
    Sadly, we can only see negative impacts.

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

    Nathan Reed commented

    As a Newtown resident it's important that we have local, late night food options.

    Whether I've been going out or simply working late, the having a close and affordable takeaway option other than Tempe or Stanmore Maccas is a good thing!

    There are many benefits to having late night food retailers on King St and Enmore road:
    * Provides income for local businesses
    * Provides a variety of food options for local residents
    * Provides much needed food to balance out the alcohol consumed by people in the area on weekends
    * Generates foot traffic which minimises anti social behaviour and ensures there is a greater chance of an observer seeing any crime taking place / people being less likely to be on their own late at night due to the trade generated by late night food businesses

  7. In Logan Reserve QLD on “SP287992 Standard Format...” at 136-142 School Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Development Assessment Branch, Logan City Council commented

    If you would like to contact Council to discuss this development application or the Logan Reserve area in more detail, you can do so during business hours (Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm) via the following methods:
    - phone on 07 3412 5269; or
    - in person at the Planning, Plumbing and Building Counter at 150 Wembley Road, Logan Central.

    Alternatively you can email Council anytime at

  8. 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:

    Kevin Johnson commented

    I object to this proposal for the reasons mentioned in other objection notices - the proposal is far too large for the Gladesville/Hunters Hills area which is already experiencing issues with traffic, parking, public transport and lack of community services to cope with the influx of thousands of new residents expected from this and multiple other nearby developments. Previously the North West Metro was planned to go through Gladesville - now that these plans have been abandoned what is the traffic and public transport plan to cope with the new residents on the Victoria Road route to the city which is already one of the most congested traffic routes in Sydney?

    My main objection is the obscene scale of the proposed development - until recently the highest development in the Gladesville area was 5-6 stories and my understanding is that this is 7 stories under the Ryde Council LEP (I object to the Hunters Hill LEP amendment to a 28 metre height for this development which I believe that this is far too high and out of context with the area). A number of residents recently unsuccessfully objected to the 230 Victoria Road 7-storey development and argued that a 5-storey development was more appropriate for the area. For the Sydney East JRPP to argue for an increase up to 58 metres is outrageous and completely out of context with the area. I have trawled through the documentation relating to the development proposal and have not seen anything to explain why the size of the proposed development is appropriate for the area.

    All comments submitted suggest strong objections from residents to the proposal. I have not heard of a single Gladesville or Hunters Hill resident who supports this development proposal (this applies to both the 28m and 58m heights). It should be noted that the vast majority of objectors are not anti-development and support responsible and appropriate development. My understanding is that Hunters Hills Council also object to this proposal. For the Sydney East JRPP to propose a new development of such scale - especially at a time of uncertainty with Council amalgamations - is irresponsible planning which appears to be completely absent of community consultation. I do not understand how the Sydney East JRPP can recommend a development which grossly exceeds LEP guidelines - is there any point to having a LEP if the JRPP can seemingly easily override it and propose a development which is greater than 2 times LEP height limits? I can assure the Sydney East JRPP that our strong community objections will be directed to our local, state and federal government members - including Rob Stokes the State Planning Minister - to stop this proposal. I would also recommend that we ascertain how the Sydney East JRPP could recommend a development of over 20 storeys? (it would be appreciated if someone can confirm # of storeys proposed) in an area where current guidelines excluding this development are for a 7 storey maximum and where no other buildings exceed 7 storeys.

  9. 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:

    Rob Dalton commented

    Dear Panel Members,

    Please consider the following:
    - Traffic (please refer to the Gladesville Shopping Village Traffic Report)
    - Schools (Gladesville Public School is full - please talk to the head mistress)
    - Tower Height (58 m is totally out of context to the precinct of Gladesville - I'm sure those living to the south of the proposed tower will be affected by the shadow - it's not appreciated and not warranted - imagine this, 58 m is 17 m higher than the Gladesville Bridge at 41 m).

    I do hope common sense prevails.
    Thank You for your time.

  10. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of a two (2)...” at 26 Orpington Street, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Cassandra Burns commented

    How is it possible that the height of the 2 story house is allowed as the shadow drawings show the dwelling next door will have no sunlight what so ever ??
    If the height is 8.5 meters does council take into consideration 26 is already 1 metre higher than their neighbours? Surely this is just wrong .

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

    Eamon Sparks commented

    As a resident of Enmore I fully support Saray's request for extended business hours. This restaurant is part of the community, and access to late night food is 100% required in the Newtown area.

  12. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Alterations to building...” at 95-97 Roscoe Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Eric Shumsky commented

    I mistook the human, moral and spiritual meaning of the Aboriginal mural in Gould Lane, on the corner of Roscoe Street at Bondi Beach. I thought it portrays saints or forebears who gave this country the freedom of spirit and the warmth of heart we so fortunately enjoy. I thought it reflects that vital strand of our way of life that turns borders and races and cultures into the moral air inspiring liberty.

    I had even convinced myself that the Aboriginal mural at Bondi Beach welcomes those who have no home, comforts the estranged, helps mend the broken. Worse still, I had fallen into thinking that to reject it is to dispossess those upon whose shoulders we stand. I had let myself believe that to disfigure it is to befoul those we fear. I had muddied my discernment, saying to myself: "Destroy it, and if we ourselves face ruin, who will come to our defence and sing of our plight?"

    I was sorely mistaken. The Wayside Chapel and its beacon, Reverend Graham Long, have corrected my misconstrual. The Aboriginal mural at Bondi Beach is an economic threat, plaguing the Wayside Chapel at Bondi Beach. The mural constricts redevelopment of the building on the wall of which it features, and drops the monetary value of the building's price, were it sold. Economic activity and financial growth, in the end, are the elemental foundations of everything.

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

    Rachel Blazé commented

    Living right across the street from this proposed development, like many others in our suburb, our main concern is off-street parking. Therefore we would like to raise our concerns with our recently elected councillors AND relevant planning authority, because no one seems to have any sense when it comes to urban development in Cheltenham and Mentone and everyone is looking for a quick profit.

    Already a major issue at this end of the street, every single day there is someone parked right up against the end of our driveway, often right up to the actual corner of the service road, along the white painted line. Our house is a corner subdivision & we have a double garage and driveway, and it's already an issue that we frequently find people parking on either side of our driveway and at the end of it on the opposite side of the street, making it nearly impossible to drive out. Twice I have not been able to leave the house because of this & notes left on windscreens have had no effect or discouraged appalling parking etiquette. And that's as it is now, there is another planning permit for a strata or multiple dwelling occupancy at number 32.....

    To further compound the existing problem which exists because in addition to the 3 units opposite our house, there is a block of 8 flats and most of these occupants have 2 cars, so the street is already full of all these extra/excess vehicles. We are extremely concerned that this new development - although we realise it will have to include off-street parking - won't provide enough, or any visitor parking and the situation - already untenable - will become far worse.

    The proposed 30+ apartments on the Latrobe Street corner site that will abut this particular site should surely give council pause for thought here? There is only so much parking in the service road, and only on one side! And in the case of this development and unlike Latrobe Street, Booker Street is a narrow street already over-used as a thorough fare to get to Charman Road.

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

    Victoria Pooley commented

    As a past customer, I fully support Saray's application for extended hours. Definitely a good thing for our neighbourhood.

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

    Kimberley Ryan commented

    As a long-term local resident I completely support this application and see no reason as to why this should be refused.

    Saray is an institution. It's a place that I have frequented over the years for quality late night food, interactions with friendly staff and a spot to meet up with friends. This neighborhood has changed enough over the last couple of years, how about we keep some aspects as they should be?

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

    Kate Mackenzie commented

    I support this application. I live nearby and Saray's has always been a much loved institution serving lovely food in a welcoming environment. Having them open after midnight improves utility and safety for people in the area.

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

    Demitri James commented

    As a resident of the area and a customer of the business for several years, I wholeheartedly support the extension of business hours for Saray. They provide a much needed sanctuary for what's left of sydneys late night revellers and they serve an important function in Sydney unlike Mike Baird.

  18. In Pakenham VIC on “3 Lot subdivision in 2...” at 17 Cameron Way, Pakenham VIC 3810:

    Steve commented

    They would have had to notify the neighbours.... but if the application was before you purchased....its tough luck I am afraid. Check with the council.

    They would have needed a planning permit for both the design&subdivision and a permit for the covenant variation.

  19. In Leichhardt NSW on “Related to D/2006/311. 14.4...” at Lease 7 Darley Road Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Alana Hay commented

    Where is the application and Notification for multiple night works at Charles st for the unwelcome Dan Murphys monster?

    Still waiting on response to my letter to Council. IWC is beyond a joke.

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

    Ash Cooper commented

    This is an excellent family run business that has served the local community for many years. I fully support their application for extended trading hours. I have lived in and around the inner west for over 21 years and have often frequented Saray and have always had very good experience.

    Working on shift work it is always been great to have the opportunity to grab food at a late hour. The family have always served food with a friendly and professional manner.

    Great family, good food. They should definitely be allowed to trade late.

  21. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 Gillman Street, Cheltenham, VIC:

    William Brown commented

    When didn't the yellow planning permit go up for this proposal? Good job we live in a street where the neighbours still for the most part know one another or else we'd never know about this!

    This can't be a serious application from developers for this street. It sounds like development on the run...where the developers have a massive negative impact on the residents of the street who potentially have no say.
    It is totally out of character for Gillman street and the scale is too impactful for what would effectively replace two homes. We would prefer a focus on quality of development than quantity. It is both unsustainable and lacks any regard for the residents of Gillman and surrounding streets to propose this when it is us residents who are left with the impact of this development long after the developers have taken their money and run on to their next project. The planning authority must act to discourage this greedy behavior of developers in zones such as this, that do not fall under a high density planning overlay and to ensure development is in keeping with a sustainable and sensible level.

  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:

    Liesl Bailey commented

    The Development Control Plan for the Gladesville Town Centre speaks of development that is in keeping with the local area and which seeks to enhance and strengthen the local community. While it is understandable that with Sydneys population pressures that higher density living is inevitable, this should not be done at a cost to current neighbourhoods. The Gladesville/Hunters Hill precinct is not a mini city like Parramatta and should not be developed in a manner which is not in keeping with the areas character and amenity. What has been proposed is a sky scraper which is inconsistent with other developments in the area and in considering this, the governing authorities are dismissing the essence of our local community, the plan which was put in place to control the appropriate development of our area, as well as significant resulting over- shadowing and loss of privacy to one of our areas main primary schools. The council has furthermore not behaved with integrity in trying to amend local zoning in this area. There has been little to no fair, reasonable or transparent communication, putting the Council at substantial risk of a community disengaged and openly at arms against this development. Further, with other planned, existing and proposed developments in the area, how can we as local residents have any faith that due consideration is being given to crime prevention, waste control, the increased burden on already stretched schools and public transport. We are a residential neighbourhood of quiet streets and families with young children. There is not the infrastructure, the justification nor the community support for this development. Listen to your constituents!

  23. 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:

    Rebecca Hansen commented

    To double the height of buildings is clearly not in keeping with the surrounding area. There is no train or transmission infrastructure for the people who inhabit such structures to commute. The surrounding streets are narrow and difficult to access. This area is already a traffic snarl. Please use some common sense and dismiss this application.

  24. 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:

    Lisa cipriani commented

    Our family objects to this development proposal! This new development will ruin the atmosphere of Gladesville and will turn it into a mini Rhodes with high rise apartments. We do not have the public transport or villiage facilities -enough strip malls and amenities to support this growth.

    It will also ruin the natural bushy landscape in the surrounding streets near Morrison road, glades bay park etc.

    Our roads are already congested enough and the increase in cars will be horrendous for our streets, neighbours and wildlife that exists in the area.

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

    Terry Swan wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    I don't think anyone that had commented earlier has indicated that they oppose higher density residential development. Simply that it should be done in a way that maintains residential amenity for everyone -existing and new residents. One does not need to see plans in order to respond to concerns about the car parking dispensation that is sought, having seen some of the poor outcomes for everyone (including repeated theft from vehicle incidents affecting new residents forced to park in the street for want of on-site facilities). I support sensitive higher density development, affordable housing and a range of housing where we can all live with good amenity -this should not require me to relocate (as David seems to suggest I must) for wanting to wake up and listen to birds and be surrounded by trees!! My comments are made purely in the context of planning considerations. Who the developers are, local or otherwise is absolutely immaterial.

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

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

    joe ortenzi commented

    there should be 2-3 food places open at least as late for each and every late opening bar. the worst thing for an area with late bars is not having food around.
    saray has great food with very friendly staff and i wholeheartedly support this application. Inner west council should encourage more in the area to do so in order to encourage a more varied nightlife.

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

    James Turner commented

    Saray have provided me with dinner for the past year and a half, and have had amazing service the entire time. The night it closed at midnight I had finished work at 1am leaving me with only oportos as my option. As we all know, you don't get oportos if saray is open because Saray is the bomb. Please allow me to eat there after work or I'll get seriously sad and have to boycott oportos. Plus I'll get stupid fat if I'm forced to eat oportos. Give the people what they want, look after your drunken locals leading to reduced violence, and give the staff back their jobs. Hammering local business helps no one and it was a really bad move in the first place. I love you Saray!!!

  28. In Pakenham VIC on “3 Lot subdivision in 2...” at 17 Cameron Way, Pakenham VIC 3810:

    Mark Lovrecic commented

    Ive only just seen this but i am not impressed that they didnt have to provide notice to neighbors about building and have just found out that from the builders that they are double story and shall have windows looking directly into my backyard so now i have no privacy in my own backyard in the house i purchased 2 years ago

  29. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Alterations to building...” at 95-97 Roscoe Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Dr Ben-Zion Weiss wrote to local councillor Miriam Guttman-Jones

    I'm deeply concerned about the intention to damage the Aboriginal Mural on the side to the building. This has become an icon for Bondi residents like myself and is an important step towards Aboriginal reconciliation in the area. It's also been used by local schools to teach Aboriginal history. The mural should be heritage listed and preserved.

    Delivered to local councillor Miriam Guttman-Jones. They are yet to respond.

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

    Jane Wright commented

    This is a great business and I fully support their application. It is one of the few nice places to get late night food at and closing early is doing a diservice to the local community who rely on this place to get late night food. Oporto's is a poor alternative when you can get fresh family run food that really hits the spot. This place is a Newtown institution and should be allowed to trade later hours. It has done so without any problems for countless years and should be allowed to for countless more. Late night food trading is part of the fabric of Newtown's makeup and I fear losing institutions like this is really a decline in the culture of Newtown.

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