Recent comments

  1. In Mudgeeraba QLD on “Description: 56 X ATTACHED...” at Clover Hill Drive Mudgeeraba 4213:

    Bevan & Jayne Dawes commented

    I strongly object to this planning application. Access to and from Clover Hill Primary School, Summerset School, the early child care centre and existing residential properties is substantially improvised. At present there is only one road in/out to service all of the above requirements.
    During school times, including evenings and weekends where extra curricular activities take place as well as subletting of the Schools for Church services/celebrations, exercise camps etc. the safety of pedestrians and other road users is extensively compromised and use by emergency vehicles is critically hampered. Further, extensive environmental/personal health impact investigation is required to investigate the long term effect of the existing overhead high voltage electrical power lines.

  2. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    It is statistically very unlikely that a development of this size would need so few parking spots. As a victim of Council decisions which have allowed businesses to avoid the usual responsibilities to provide on-site parking on the grounds that we are near a railway station and people will come to work by train, we see our resident parking full of cars associated with the businesses. When large blocks of flats were built at the top of the street, the same argument was used - people won't want cars because they are so close to the station. For people who are supposed to not want cars these residents sure own a lot - far more than can be parked in the spaces provided within the development.

  3. In Stanmore NSW on “Newington college - wyvern...” at 115-125 & 129-133 Cambridge Street Stanmore:

    Keith Hoult commented

    Consideration should be given to ensure the façade facing Cambridge street fits in with the local "Residential" environment. The documents received by Council suggests it looks more like a concrete building with horizontal slotted sections looking somewhat of a bunker which in my opinion isn't appealing at all.

    Understanding the view of modern buildings complimenting heritage, this needs to be designed to ensure it fits well within the existing residential &school environment

    Happy to discuss.

  4. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe commented

    I live nearby and can attest that fewer people live in 2 car households lately and in my own row of terraces, some of us have no cars. I think we should be encouraging the use of public transport and carshare schemes as many people living in the inner city are choosing so in order to live near their work. I can't see many people needing a car as much in these areas, but that is just my opinion, albeit buoyed by some data.

    To the person identified as Phillip-Gladstone Street Resident's Group. Are you suggesting that a comment is from a developer here? People must submit email addresses and postal addresses here so that can be tracked by the council. If that is the case it can be exposed pretty easily and I wouldn't be making that suggestion too lightly.

    I would prefer you to have posted as yourself though, instead of a residents group. It infers you speak for several when that might not be the case and will make no difference to the submission anyway, since they are counted individually.

  5. In St Peters NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Karen Torrisi commented

    As a co- owner of the property 71 Mary Street, the house directly next door to this application, I OBJECT to the application due to the following reasons:
    1. Insufficient Street parking due to Mary Street being a small busy street and resident parking on Mary Street limited for the current residents at present.
    2. Noise concerns: our property on this street and neighboring streets are residential areas. We reserve the right to peace and quiet in our home.
    3. Intoxicated patrons loitering on the street, causing trouble, defacing or destroying private property and loitering around our property after beer tasting.
    4. Rubbish concerns: rubbish being disposed of by patrons on the way from the venue or into our property.
    5. Smell concerns: The constant smell of Yeast and beer Brewing if beer is brewed on the premises.
    6. Industrial waste, chemicals, water waste entering our property. This has happened in the past with other businesses renting spaces in 73 Mary Street property and is an ongoing issue for us.
    7. Public urinating in the surrounding residential area.
    8. The hours of the tasting bar are not appropriate in length.

    I have seen a similar development in Newtown of “Young Henry’s” craft brewery and was not impressed with their tasting bar and how their patrons are not always respectful of the areas residents and their property. Their hours are also only Mon – Sat 10am – 7pm Sun 12-7pm

  6. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Phillip-Gladstone Street Residents Group commented

    In the spirit of honest disclosure, it would be appropriate for the developer (or their agents/employees) to advise they are as such in any comments here.

  7. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt commented

    I completely disagree with Mr Matthew Costain. 11 car spaces is more than adequate for 14 dwellings and a business. I think this is a step forward in developers' understanding of the local parking constraints. I believe this is a lot more than normally necessary for such an application, and I applaud the developers for their forward thinking.

  8. In Mentone VIC on “Develop The Land For The...” at 165 Nepean Highway, Mentone, VIC:

    Richard commented

    Thrift park is difficult enough to get parking. Any approval should have at least one on site car park per unit and thrift park will have to monitor car parking

  9. In Mentone VIC on “Develop The Land For The...” at 165 Nepean Highway, Mentone, VIC:

    Dominic Godwin commented

    I do not believe this application should be approved. There are far too many apartments which will put stress on parking and local roads.

  10. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matthew Costain commented

    Parking is already at a premium in this area due the high density (and increasingly high desnsity) of residences. Adding a business as well as only 11 cars for 14 dwellings (where the occupants may have more than a vehicle per dwelling) will further put pressure on the area. Would suggest that the development requires a significant amount more car parking for both the business and residents.

  11. In Boronia VIC on “The use and development of...” at 11 Iris Crescent, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Karin Kaufmann commented

    To Planning and Building Dept.,

    RE: 11 Iris Crescent, Boronia

    Two days ago, I was advised that 11 Iris Crescent had been sold to another developer and that a 3 storey, 30 apartment dwelling was going to be erected on subject land.

    I was advised that VCAT had approved the 3 storey, 30 apartment dwelling and there was nothing I , nor Knox City Council could do.

    I was present at the VCAT hearing on 18th June 2013, when VCAT approved a 2 storey, 10 apartment building.

    Would somebody please be able to advise me just what is going to be built at 11 Iris Crescent.

    Thanking you in advance.

    Yours sincerely,

    Karin Kaufmann

  12. In Jannali NSW on “Alterations & Additions &...” at 2 Roberts St Jannali 2226:

    wendy sorby commented

    Further to my previous comment, I would now add

    The vehicle entrance at Box Road is incorporated in a BUS ZONE. What does one do if the bus is at the stop??? Sit and wait in the busy main street of Jannali?

    Turning into the property from the West, one would be on the brink of a hill, having to cross busy oncoming traffic, hence blocking the traffic flow from the shopping centre.

    Existing from the property to travel East - involves crossing busy traffic lane only a short distance from round-about and exit from Service Station.

    Then there is the problem with a patient endeavouring to enter the property, only to find there is no parking space left. Then there is absolutely NOWHERE TO GO. Nearby parking is very difficult.

    The property owner would be comfortable with these conditions, however consideration should be given to the visiting patients, already under stress.

  13. In Mudgeeraba QLD on “Description: 56 X ATTACHED...” at Clover Hill Drive Mudgeeraba 4213:

    Richard James Brown commented

    I would object to this planning application unless access to and from the two schools, pre-school and existing properties is substantially improved. At present there is one road in/out to serve all of the above requirements. During school times (including evening/weekend extra curricular activities) the safety of pedestrians and other road users is extensively compromised and use by emergency vehicles hampered.

  14. In Bolton Point NSW on “Demolition of exsisting...” at 20 Wattle Street, Bolton Point NSW 2283:

    Beryl MacPherson commented

    This seems a little odd as the building is more than half was constructed.
    Also please note our address is 20a and not 14 Wattle Street.

  15. In Jacobs Well QLD on “Description: ATTACHED...” at 8 Pelican Parade Jacobs Well 4208:

    Jenny Signorini commented

    Reducing block sizes and creating medium or high density options to property owners sets a precedent that could envelope the entire area and devalue the lifestyle and impact on the local infrastructure and culture.
    Note, Jacobs well does not have water or sewerage available and as such environmental impacts of this type of estate could effect the local area.
    There has been several local property owners who have had modest owner occupier building applications denied due to the number/location of trees on their property, the block of land in question is native bushland, heavily timbered and I understand also has endangered species of frogs living on it.?
    I am not opposed to development of any site provided it meets with the local cultural ideals and is adding to the long term benefit of the community in an owner occupier capacity, I am not opposed to the selected clearing of the trees wherever is nessessary, I am opposed to medium and high density housing in our area and I am opposed to the local government hypocrisy that does not allow owner occupiers to develop their land freely and yet approves larger scale developments that completely destroy the natural environment displacing all wild life such as what has occurred in areas of Coomera, Pimpama and Ormeau.

  16. In Palm Beach QLD on “Description: Class:...” at 139 Jefferson Lane Palm Beach 4221:

    debra commented

    Hi,
    Could you please advise what is going to be built on these allotments that are being demolished at 139 & 141 Jefferson Lane?
    Thank you

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 22 Garners Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Veronica Coves commented

    I am also concerned about car parking in Garners Avenue. We already have to deal with all of the resident and visitor parking for the unit blocks in the street and most nights it is hard to find a park. We have a problem in that one resident owns a truck, 2 vans and a car and takes up all of the available space. There is no limit to how many vehicles a resident can have, so some people are taking up all of the space and making it impossible for everyone else to get a park on Garners Avenue. This development will add to the problem.

  18. In Minto NSW on “Commercial” at Al-Faisal College, Campbelltown Campus, 10 Benham Road, Minto, NSW:

    Benz commented

    Wow, so really the school was doing all this with anyone's knowledge.
    Well I think the authorities know what is best for the community and children of this school. Breaching a law is unlawful I suppose. Let's see how lawful or unlawful is it for big businesses.

  19. In Kensington VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 507 MacAulay Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Stuart Hyndman commented

    This should not be approved in regard to the reduction in car spaces requirement. I am a local resident and oppose the development unless provision is made for workers and residents to have adequate parking included. MacAulay Street and local side streets are already overburdened due to lack of parking.

  20. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 169 Cumberland Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Kirsti Clark commented

    How many units are you going to give planning permission for?? Do any of the councillors have developments in their streets or are they development free? There needs to be a cap on the number of units in one street. Cumberland Rd is a very busy street as it is. It does not need any more traffic. It has already more than 12 sets of units/townhouses, soon there will be no more normal one house to a block . Enough is enough Mr Mayor.

  21. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Stefanie Johnstone commented

    Pole Dancing classes are a great way to keep fit and have fun. I have no issue with such an establishment opening in our area. In fact, there are many people I know who would enjoy and benefit from these classes.

  22. In Heathcote NSW on “John Paul Village” at 15 The Avenue Heathcote:

    ross handley commented

    I hope that they widen the roads nearby and put in a wider bridge over the train line. The local roads and bridge cannot cope now with all the schools and sports traffic in this area.

  23. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 2 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Laurice B commented

    This proposed construction is fantastic and should definitely be APPROVED! It will create affordable housing for single mum's like myself, and for many other people such as newly wed couples, elderly people, singles, etc. The housing market continues to rise and it is making it impossible for people like myself to purchase my own house therefore I need to purchase something more affordable such as a unit. This proposal will also greatly assist with the lack of housing available for the current population, there is not enough supply for the current demand so unit developments are required to assist our growing population.

    I believe this proposal should be approved as it will carry many benefits to the current market and assist a lot of people. There are many developments like this happening at the moment so I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be approved like the rest. It is not fair to only consider neighbouring properties as Grant has mentioned above, as there are a lot of less fortunate people like myself so developments like this will in fact assist a lot of people, I appreciate the work these developers are doing to assist our community and help put roof's over everyone's heads at an affordable price.

    It will be merely impossible for myself amongst many others to be able to afford a house within this area, which I wish to live in due to school choices for my kids, so having more developments like this will give me a greater opportunity to be able to send my kids to the school of choice and be able to live in a great area for my kids to grow up in. Townhouses are also still out of my budget as they are dearer then Units hence I would be very grateful if the council will approve this application as it will greatly assist myself and many others, as I will be looking at purchasing a unit off the plans if I have the opportunity.

    If you can take my situation into consideration, amongst others, it will be greatly appreciated. The community needs to give back to the less fortunate, otherwise the rich will get richer and poor will get poorer which is not fair as everyone is trying to make a living and if people like Grant try continue to shut this down for us then we will never be able to provide a bright future for our kids.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  24. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 2 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Laurice B commented

    This proposed construction is fantastic and should definitely be APPROVED! It will create affordable housing for single mum's like myself, and for many other people such as newly wed couples, elderly people, singles, etc. The housing market continues to rise and it is making it impossible for people like myself to purchase my own house therefore I need to purchase something more affordable such as a unit. This proposal will also greatly assist with the lack of housing available for the current population, there is not enough supply for the current demand so unit developments are required to assist our growing population.

    I believe this proposal should be approved as it will carry many benefits to the current market and assist a lot of people. There are many developments like this happening at the moment so I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be approved like the rest. It is not fair to only consider neighbouring properties as Grant has mentioned above, as there are a lot of less fortunate people like myself so developments like this will in fact assist a lot of people, I appreciate the work these developers are doing to assist our community and help put roof's over everyone's heads at an affordable price.

    It will be merely impossible for myself amongst many others to be able to afford a house within this area, which I wish to live in due to school choices for my kids, so having more developments like this will give me a greater opportunity to be able to send my kids to the school of choice and be able to live in a great area for my kids to grow up in. Townhouses are also still out of my budget as they are dearer then Units hence I would be very grateful if the council will approve this application as it will greatly assist myself and many others, as I will be looking at purchasing a unit off the plans if I have the opportunity.

    If you can take my situation into consideration, amongst others, it will be greatly appreciated. The community needs to give back to the less fortunate, otherwise the rich will get richer and poor will get poorer which is not fair as everyone is trying to make a living and if people like Grant try continue to shut this down for us then we will never be able to provide a bright future for our kids.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  25. In Kirrawee NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 22 Wylie St Kirrawee 2232:

    Ruth & Stephen Holt commented

    I would like to contest the following 2 aspects of the building proposal at 22 Wylie street, Kirrawee, 2232.

    1. The proposed garage construction associated with dwelling A will severely impact on the available sunlight at the front of our residence. It will permanently shade the front of our house and garden in its proposed position. The impact of the proposed garage construction may be reduced if it were located next to the adjoining carport at 24 Wylie street, next door. The roof height of the proposed garage is also of concern.

    2. The construction of a new dwelling on this land and the creation of dual occupancy with two lot strata title subdivision will negatively impact on our neighbouring property, (24 Wylie street) . We will have decreased sunlight on our leafy back garden, decreased greenery, hampered views and increase noise from dual occupancy. Having reviewed the proposed plans the location of the second story will increase shade on our property. It will increase traffic on a quiet, child friendly cul-de-sac.

  26. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Change of use, part...” at 370 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    I live in the immediate area and I strongly object to any reduction in parking requirements as the area is already so difficult to park in.
    Furthermore this site is in a block of shops and I consider that any change of use shall act deleteriously upon the local area.
    Consequently I object to the proposal as described.

  27. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 3 double...” at 55 Kent Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Kirsti Clark commented

    Kent Rd is a very busy rd without adding any more cars to it. More development means more cars on the roads. Pascoe Vale is becoming over developed. Does the council ever say no to developers? I don't think so. Isn't it time that you stopped and listened to residents. Kent rd has a shopping precinct and also a school- it does not need more cars passing through. More development means more traffic, less room on trains, we do not need any more development.

  28. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 21-27 Brunswick Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    The constant demands by developers to reduce car parking requirements so they can maximise their already excessive profits is destroying the inner suburbs, when acceded to by Councils.
    I object to the scale of the development and any reduction of car parking requirements.

  29. In Collingwood VIC on “Part demolition, reduction...” at 424-426 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Lou Baxter commented

    There are many parking problems in the inner city, not helped by Council reducing the already limited parking requirements on new developments.
    Living in the inner city should not mean you cannot park your own car, let alone be visited by friends.
    I object to ANY reduction in the parking requirements.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 22 Garners Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    I am concerned that the current dwelling has room for three cars. The new proposal only has plans for one car. Parking is extremely limited in Garners avenue and approval of this development will place additional burden on the residents who do not have driveways.
    I also need to ensure that the light from my windows (side of house) not adversely impacted by the erection of the double story (plus atic) dwellings and that privacy in my courtyard is maintained.

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