Recent comments

  1. In Alexandria NSW on “On northern side of Sydney...” at 410-416 Sydney Park Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Joe ortenzi commented

    Why does the bike path have to be demolished for the provision of a private business? Surely it could be located a few dozen meters to one side, or the bike path could be restored after cometion. I can imagine several parents might also like to drop off and collect their children by bicycle and not just by car.
    Not very well thought out!

  2. In Alexandria NSW on “On northern side of Sydney...” at 410-416 Sydney Park Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Joe Levitt commented

    This bike area provides a vital safety function. There's nowhere else in Sydney where children can learn about traffic lights, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, road signs, etc. in a safe, controlled environment. There are also bike service and safety courses for adults put on in this space. The Westconnex is already trying to devour much of Sydney Park and I agree that this sort of infrastructure should have been taken into account before allowing so much residential building in the area. I think there will be a huge public backlash once this becomes general knowledge and that more people combined with less park is a very bad idea indeed.

  3. In Waterford West QLD on “Commercial - Child Care Centre” at 929-943 Kingston Road Waterford West QLD 4133:

    Kay Bowden commented

    I am in not favour of this ...the pines are about to fall in the next few years .
    2 very busy roads ,pollution ..what are they thinking ....??

  4. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Bob Anesbury commented

    Aldi at Hallett Cove will be very welcome. My experience with them interstate has been very positive with their lines being both good quality and well priced. The sooner the better for me and my wife. Cheers, Bob A, Hallett Cove

  5. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3-9 Eve Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Anthony commented

    What is being done to increase the infrastructure? The trains are crammed, Mitchell Rd can't take any more vehicles, and there's no street parking left as it is. You can't just double the population of the area without this sort of planning.

  6. In Buff Point NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at Castle Rose 54-56 Buff Point Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Jocelyn Woodford commented

    My husband and I have just come back from a wonderful holiday having seen Castle Rose...what a wonderful building? Does it really have to be demolished? Is it up for possible sale? Please advise before they send the bull dozers in maybe we can do something with it!!! It seems such an iconic part of the community's history and I think it if fabulous! Would love to continue the dream!

  7. In Mc Mahons Point NSW on “New four storey residential...” at 34 East Crescent Street Mcmahons Point NSW 2060:

    J. Hamar commented

    This building is the top and highest end of the street. The proposed height will be overpowering and light issues will occur to neighbouring buildings in Middle St and East Crescent st.
    Also this building may restrict views to houses opposite on East crescent street. It will obstruct the wow factor view which everyone who visits loves when you turn into East crescent St approaching Middle St.
    Please consider also the street scape. It is a shame that such a beautiful house is proposed to be exchanged for apartments at this site.
    The current house has character and a sense of beauty.
    To remove the house and redevelop will destroy character to such a prominent part of East Crescent St and Middle St.

  8. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use and Fitout to...” at 2/814-822 Old Illawarra Rd Barden Ridge 2234:

    Grant Parker commented

    TyrePitStop/ TyrePlus
    4/ 814-822 Old Illawarra Road,
    Menai NSW 2234

    I am writing with concern for the proposed Gym in unit 2/ 814-822 Old Illawarra Road,
    Menai NSW 2234. The application for another gym needs to be denied. We are located 2 shops down. Our tyre shop has allot of drive-in/ drive-out customers, this is approximately 40-50 customers a day.

    We have been a tenant since Menai Trade Centre first opened, we have only ever been allocated 2 parking spots, which is a challenge to even get one of the two spots vacant for parking on a daily basis.

    Having another gym in an already highly congested area would be unsafe, inefficient and would create access issues for not only our workshop. There is no parking directly in-front of unit 2. The only parking there is not actual parking.

    This area needs to be clear for couriers and trucks to access. The flow of extra traffic would be hazardous. I have recently had an accident with another vehicle driving in this area, due to there lack of knowledge of the driveway. This was very costly and time consuming which we don't have.
    I have taken some photo's to not support the approval of a GYM.

    Please consider my comments on this application.

  9. In Alexandria NSW on “On northern side of Sydney...” at 410-416 Sydney Park Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Nicolas Francois commented

    I oppose this demolition of a space for public use in order to convert it for private usage.
    What is the proposal of the council to replace this public space?
    With all the new massive developments being built in Erskineville, was it not possible to demand that some of their floor space be dedicated for the provision of childcare service?

  10. In Alexandria NSW on “On northern side of Sydney...” at 410-416 Sydney Park Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Mike Guegan commented

    The cycle tracks are used year round by a huge number of families in the area. They also fulfil a valuable road safety function for children. To remove this facility would mean a huge lose to the public.

    Also the building of a private use building on a public park is cause for concern. It isn't in keeping with the overall look of the park.

  11. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 204-206 Clarence Street Sydney NSW 2000:

    R. Mark commented

    Hi

    I'm an owner/occupier from an apartment building opposite the restaurant "1896" on Clarence St.

    I am very supportive of having outdoor dining in the street (on the basis that the conditions of approval are met).

    I would like to point out that occasionally buses are parked on the street with engines running, so it might be a good idea to work with Sydney Buses to reduce this impact.

    I hope the new restaurant does well!

    cheers

  12. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Samoa Avenue Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    Graeme McTighe commented

    It's typical of the urban culture we have allowed to grow in Australia. Homes built 30 or 40 years ago with sound structures are demonolished and replaced with tightly packed duplexes that have no room for plants other than synthetic grass and a couple of solar lights placed near the driveways.

    Bankstown in the leafy Picnic Point area is becoming more like the urban developments near Oran Park. Little or no folliage makes for an environment that becomes hotter, children more indrawn because there isn't a space to play/exercise in a yard.

    The council's domestic dwelling ordnance for the area, states that new developments must fit into existing housing environments and not detract from the local residence area. Two storey duplexes next to a single storey property and across the road properties hardly fits in.

    Unfortunately, without proper mechanisms to make all parties compliant, these types of homes go up without being challenged. An application for DA has been put forward without published plans. No one can accurately assess the wholistic impact such a development would have - it must be a complete package. Any amendments must also be published to understand the impact this has on neighbours. More is required before approval.

  13. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use and Fitout to...” at 2/814-822 Old Illawarra Rd Barden Ridge 2234:

    Paul Davis commented

    I am the owner of Specialist IT Solutions in Unit 17, 800 -812 Old Illawarra Road, and have to share a driveway with the complex in question. This shared driveway is already overrun with illegally parked cars often making it hard to get through and into my own parking spot. With the various businesses that are already operating within the 2 complexes, we are quite often left with reserved spots illegally taken and "double parkers" spread throughout the remaining available parking areas. it is a constant issue that appears to have no resolution, but adding yet another Gym and it's patrons will certainly make parking here worse then ever!!
    I hope the right choice is reached here and that the application is decided against..

  14. In Dundas Valley NSW on “Viking Sports Club Limited...” at 35 Quarry Rd, Dundas Valley 2117:

    Liz Ashard commented

    Please explain what "non restricted area authorisation" actually means. As a local resident what changes to my environment and lifestyle will this bring? More explanation required.

  15. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3-9 Eve Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Gregory Stevens commented

    THERE is far much too much pressure placed on EVE and Mcdonald being the only way from the south into the Bourogh. Builders working on Mc Donald street slums are parking in Amy and Knight through lack of parking. These streets are so narrow and supposed to be 2 way but are only single way lanes.
    Remove tree(s) just like that? where we can not get permission to trim an inapropriate over bearing and dangerous tree effecting a block of unit and homein Flora and 3 homes in Amy.

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish buildings 2, 3...” at 313-319 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    Dear Sir
    The Marrickville Heritage Society concerned about this proposal to demolish these buildings and existing trees on the formerror MarRick illegal Hospital site. While the buildings are not of heritage value, the process Council has adopted for demolition is inappropriate and calls into question Council's motives and true intentions for this site.

    The Society notes that it is poor planning practice to approve the demolition of any building without a committment from the proponent as to the repalcement development being included in the same application. Similarly, the removal of existing mature trees should only be permitted when replacement trees are documented within the same proposal. This prevents speculative demolition, and the all to common situation of a poor quality replacement being offered once the demolition is effected. The Society believes that Council must commit to the design and construction of the new Civic Centre development prior to any further demolition on the site.There are also scenarios where these buildingS and trees could be demolished, under the guise of achieving viability of the new development, and that development not proceeding. If for any reason the Civic Centre development did not proceed (Council's financial situation deteriorates or a forced Council merger makes the Civic Centre redundant), then the community has lost these buildings and trees for no return. More ominously, should Council obtain consent for the removal of all of the existing building stock on the Livingstone Road side of the site, it could be lucratively disposed of to a commercial developer, completely unencumbered by pesky buildings and heritage listings.

    Finally, the Society is angered that these important applications for demolition of the buildings and trees on the site, have been released for comment during the Christmas holiday period. This is a typical tactic of any organisation trying to minimise awareness and criticism of a controversial proposal, and surely shows that Council has something to hide.

    The Society calls on Council to reject this application for demolition of selected buildings and trees on the site, until such time as Council has demonstrated that they are committed to a high quality civic development on the site, that is appropriately respectfull of the heritage and landscape values on the site.

    Scott MacArthur
    Marrickville Heritage Society

  17. In Abbotsford VIC on “Demolition and one new...” at 187 Vere St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Jan Halkin commented

    The house at 187 Vere Street was built in the late 1800's and was lived in before it was sold in 2014. It is supposedly covered by an heritage overlay and therefore the purchases should have been aware of this and the implication that this meant the house was to be restored and that any alterations must be sympathetic to its past and the street scape.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Scott James MacArthur commented

    Dear Sir
    The Marrickville Heritage Society is appalled by the proposal to demolish the 3 heritage listed Victorian villas on the former Marrickville Hospital site. The proposal is completely at odds with previous committements from Council given to the Society and the community about the fate of these buildings.The previous Masterplan, supported by a Conservation Management Plan, identified these buildings as being of HIGH heritage significance, and they were to be retained and adaptively re-used. In fact, CMP Policy 6.7.5, specifically requires that these buildings are retained.

    It appears that since these documents were prepared, and endorsed by Council on behalf of the community, two devious bureaucratic manouevres have been propounded by Council to facilitate the demolition of the villas. Firstly, the Masterplan is being changed to require the demolition of the 3 villas to guarantee the commercial viability of the whole project. Secondly, the individual heritage listing of the villas under the LEP has been removed, and they are now part of the group of heritage items within the Marrickville hospital listing. The heritage Impact Statement that accompanies the application for the demolition of the villas can now make the risible claim that the demolition is supportable as it only "represents partial demolition of the overall listed heritage item" and " is required [by the new Masterplan] to generate sufficient revenue to ensure that the conservation of the retained Hospital buildings (Buildings 1 and 4)".

    It is extraordinary that Council has requested consent for demolition when this new Masterplan has not yet been endorsed by Council, and is indeed still out for public comment. The Society notes that the new Masterplan still requires that the management of the heritage items within the site "is to be generally in accordance with the CMP". Demolition of the three villas, in contravention of Policy 6.7.5, is demonstrably not in accordance with the CMP.

    The Society notes that it is poor planning practice to approve demolition of any building, and particularly a heritage building, without a committment from the proponent as to the repalcement development being included in the same application. This prevents speculative demolition, and the all to common situation of a poor quality replacement being offered once the demolition is effected. The HIS helpfully offers that any replacement building on the site "is expected to be of a high quality design". The Society believes that Council must commit to the design and construction of the new development prior to any further demolition on the site.There are also scenarios where these building could be demolished, under the guise of achieving viability of the new development, and that development not proceeding. If for any reason the Civic Centre development did not proceed (Council's financial situation deteriorates or a forced Council merger makes the Civic Centre redundant), then the community has lost these heritage buildings for no return. More ominously, should Council obtain consent for the removal of all of the existing building stock on the Livingstone Road side of the site, it could be lucratively disposed of to a commercial developer, completely unencumbered by pesky buildings and heritage listings.

    Finally, the Society is angered that these important applications for demolition of the buildings on the site, and the changes to the Masterplan have been released for comment during the Christmas holiday period. This is a typical tactic of any organisation trying to minimise awareness and criticism of a controversial proposal, and surely shows that Council has something to hide.

    The Society calls on Council to retain the three Victorian villas in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan and existing Masterplan, and reject this application for their demolition.

    Scott MacArthur,
    Marrickville Heritage Society

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 3 Roach Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Henare Degan commented

    I have some objections to this application:

    The type of dwellings in this application are designed to maximise profit from the development, not to provide appropriate and useful housing in this area. Small studio apartments are not what's needed in the area, it's larger housing for couples and young families being pushed out of other Inner-West suburbs like Newtown and Erskineville by impossible property prices.

    The increased density that this development would create on this block is out of character with properties in this area. The current development at 3 Roach Street and many of its neighbours have generous open space on their block. This creates a positive sense of space in the neighbourhood that this development would impinge on (and is neatly illustrated in the shadow diagrams). We don't want Marrickville to have the crowded, imposing feeling of the city.

    The very modern external design and materials are also out of character with the area and especially nearby buildings, including the existing structure that will be retained. It really looks like a tacked-on transplant to the existing building. A much more compassionate design would be appropriate so that the proposed development integrates into the existing built environment.

    And lastly, the proposed development seeks to remove a number of really beautiful and clearly quite old trees. These include a fruiting avocado tree (therefore much older than the 7 years it takes these trees to fruit). It would be a great loss to have these trees destroyed by the proposed development so it would be great if the design could be modified to include retaining these great trees.

    Thank you for considering my comments.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Christine Kilpatrick commented

    As a local resident I strongly object to the demolishing of these buildings. These buildings are unique and add irreplaceable historic value to the suburb of Marrickville. These buildings should be retained and appropriately conserved rather then demolished.

  21. In The Entrance NSW on “Residential flat...” at 2 Norberta Street The Entrance NSW 2261:

    Atlanta Camilleri commented

    I strongly oppose the DA application for 2 Norberta St The Entrance.I think the development of 2 Norberta St for 46 units is excessive and will totally change the local traffic. Norberta st is a no through road with a lot of children living on it.

    It is currently a quiet suburban st that consists of 11 residential houses. Adding 46 Units at the end of the road will double the amount of people in the street at least and make this a heavier trafficked area with a huge increase in vehicle usage and noise. We all know that traffic congestion increases with density. Construction of a large development of that scale will also create heavy traffic and noise to the street.

    Has current road traffic been measured and what is the proposed increase in traffic considered? What parking provisions has been made for visitor parking of 46 units?

    I bought my house in Norbert St as it is a quiet area but the addition of 46 Units will drastically change this and the reasonable enjoyment of my property.

  22. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use and Fitout to...” at 2/814-822 Old Illawarra Rd Barden Ridge 2234:

    NATHAN FITZGERALD commented

    Lack of parking is already a major issue in this complex, with Menai Car Repairs already taking up the majority of available spots. During school holidays the problem is worse with excess traffic from the Urban Life Church

    The area simply cannot accommodate another 20-30 cars a day, as these spots simply dont exist

  23. In Lilydale VIC on “Three lot subdivision,...” at 587 Hull Road, Lilydale VIC 3140:

    Henry parzatka commented

    I object to the subdivision. It will encourage further developments in the areas & will cheapen the estate.

  24. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 18 Prospect Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Duncan collins commented

    I made comments on no 16 prospect st, so my comments would be the same on 18 prospect, around parking pressure and further disruption on our street when there are 20000 flats with inadequate parking going in about 500m away at the bottom of the road. Constructively is it worth making the street permit only and giving those who live here a fighting chance of parking, with a fairly tight permit area.

  25. In Redfern NSW on “Section 96 (2) modification...” at 92 Redfern Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Lisa Anthony commented

    This family-run restaurant has become a integral part of Redfern Community and redevelopment. The family and staff all work really hard to produce great food at good prices. Their charming, lo-key restaurant has become a place where locals meet. I support this application.

  26. In Erskineville NSW on “Application seeking to use...” at 59A Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Luke Bacon commented

    A new dentist has just opened 50m up the road. I think the community is already well served in this area and the space should be allocated redundantly.

  27. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Sally commented

    I welcome a NEW Bunnings. Consider Home Hardware are owned by Woolworths. Competition is great.

  28. In Cronulla NSW on “Wanda Surf Life Saving Club...” at 2 Marine Esp, Cronulla 2230:

    Robyn Woolfrey commented

    I am a full time carer for my 91 yr old Mother and below us in our duplex at 27/27a Mitchell Rd lives a family with 2 children under 4 yrs of age.

    I have experienced in the past parties with loud music at Wanda Beach Surf Club and although not able to sleep until they were over ,the management were always considerate finishing at a reasonable time and policing the traffic leaving the premises.
    Our bedrooms face the surf club and sound does travel up the hill quite dramatically.

    Whatever ever the outcome at the club we do hope that the same consideration to neighbours carries on.

    Robyn and Val Woolfrey

  29. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 16 Prospect Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Duncan Collins commented

    I live across the street in 19 Prospect St. Can you confirm there is adequate off street parking provided underground given the expansion of the number of dwellings, as currently Prospect St is overfull with on street parking, and I'm concerned that yet more pressure on this will be detrimental to both my house value and also my ability to park outside my own property.

    Can we also confirm the length of the development given that presumably there will be work vehicles in Prospect as a result.

    thanks
    Duncan Collins

  30. In Woongarrah NSW on “2 lot subdivision and...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Adel Firth-Mason commented

    My one concern is the large increase in the population with high density housing. Along with this is whether the local infrastructure including shops, schools, TAFE and uni, medical, roads, and open unbuilt spaces such as parks and nature reserves, is being 100% considered and not being compromised.

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