Recent comments

  1. In Castle Hill NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 354-368 Old Northern Road Castle Hill NSW 2154:

    Mark Abela commented

    When will lots be sold?

    Can i be notified when lots will be first listed for sale?



    0437 155 401

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

    Robert commented

    Well done Wyong Council. Once again you ignore the local community and allow this monstrosity to be built on land full of large trees and wildlife.

    I will miss watching the kangaroos pass by in the mornings and afternoons only to be replaced with hideous townhouses and ruin the life syle for which we orginally moved here for 13 years ago.

    The soon Doug Eaton and the rest of this useless council is voted our the better.

  3. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 392 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Tara Ellis commented

    This is an inappropriate development for this residential location. In particular the height and density of this development will disrupt highly valued local amenity. I object to this development

  4. In Dora Creek NSW on “Change of Use from Church...” at 25 Coorumbung Road Dora Creek NSW 2264, NSW:

    Pamela Eileen Johnson commented

    I am very interested in what is to happen with this property as the building has significant historical significance and I would not like it to fall into disrepair to the extent that it may have to be demolished.

    My brother has purchased No.24 directly opposite and in its present condition the building is an eyesore. I have seen many similar old church buildings converted into very attractive dwellings and am hoping this will be the case with No.25.

    I am also a parishioner of All Saints Anglican Church in Morisset and we prayed hard and long for the final sale of the old church so that we could move on with our present building in Bridge Street, Morisset. When this finally came to fruition we were hoping someone would treat the building with tender loving care and improve on it. This does not appear to be about to happen in the near future. All that has happened so far is an ugly fence and builder's shed has been erected and nothing else in the last two years. Surely it does not take that long to approve a Development Application.

  5. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Greg commented

    I support further development of my suburb, however the height of this is block is not sympathetic with the immediate area and should be reduced to no more that 5 stories.

  6. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 205 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    L Hibbert commented

    In August 2013 I wrote to the Council requesting that the "no stopping" zone be reinstated to both sides of Eastern Road opposite the existing Bee Hive pre-school. I had pointed out that the road was too narrow when parents were parking on the opposite side of Eastern Road to the pre-school and next to the existing no stopping zone. This narrowing meant that two cars could not pass each other.

    Furthermore the car parking at the site is insufficient for the number of customers dropping/collecting children and the staff members. The children are so young they cannot be 'kiss/dropped' but must be escorted in and settled. Thus the centre must have enough parking to cater for this and its staff members. Clearly it does not as at peak times the area is very congested.

    The Council's Deva Thevaraja replied as follows:

    Eastern Road is about 7m wide at this location. There is a considerable
    length of 'No Stopping' zone applies on the western side of Eastern Road
    along the full frontage of the child care centre and a bit more towards
    northerly. This facility is providing about 5m road width for vehicles
    to exit the centre car park, which is more than adequate. There is not
    visibility restriction when exiting the centre car park, mainly due to
    the presence of 'No Stopping' restrictions on the centre side. There
    is no need to restrict parking on the opposite side as you suggested.
    It is my understanding that there must have been a temporary "No
    Stopping' zone during construction of a house at No. 203 Eastern Road
    and that this facility must have been removed once the construction is

    There was a subsequent exchange of emails where I disagreed with this view. Primarly because patrons park right at the commencement of the "no stopping" zone obstruct the view of drivers as well as narrow the road so that the full 5 metres width is impossible to be used. This is basic traffing engineering - the zone needs to stretch to the traffic lights at the junction of Eastern/Junction road. Please refer to these emails as I also attached photographs demonstrating that this zone is now dangerous particularly as buses use the road.

    Just to make the existing area safe, the zone on the side of the child care centre needs to be lengthened and a no-stopping zone applied on the opposite side. This would create a useable space for vehicles to simultaneously use both sides of the road without having to stop/give way to oncoming vehicles. Under the current arrangement this is not possible.

    The concept of adding a second child care centre in this narrow stretch of road is adding to the danger to road users and the existing/proposed child care centres' customers. Of course the entire stretch of Eastern Road will now need to be 'no stopping' due to the multiplication effect of this second centre.

    The council should undertake a road survey of users at peak times and during the day to assess the current situation before considering adding over 200 car movements per day to this narrow stretch of road.

  7. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 95 Bardwell Road Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Barry Ryan OAM; Anke Hoeppner-Ryan commented

    Barry Ryan OAM
    Anke Hoeppner-Ryan

    Date: 25/5/2015

    For the attention of the General/Planning Manager/Planning Department
    Application: DA-2015/385
    Address : 95 Bardwell Rd, Bardwell Park, NSW 2207

    To whom it may concern,

    We would like to register our strong objection to the proposed Child Care Centre at 95 Bardwell Rd, Bardwell Park. We understand the necessity for child care facilities but we object to the location.

    1. The corner of Bardwell Rd and Devon Rd is a very busy intersection during morning and afternoon peak travel times, especially when Bardwell Road is used as an alternative thoroughfare during the frequent congestions on the M5. Traffic flow from Devon Rd onto Slade Rd is often impeded, with cars banked up to Bardwell Rd in times of peak travel. The traffic blind spot, created by the steep incline of Devon Rd is already a high risk for parents and children at the infants’ school opposite the park. Commuters getting on and off the bus at the two bus stops directly opposite the proposed Centre are also at risk. On-street parking is already an issue for residents on Bardwell Rd. As there is not adequate parking nor a drop off/pick up zone of adequate size for the proposed structure, we can see the above problems becoming much worse.

    2. The proposed architecture of the child care centre does not fit into the aesthetics of the area which is zoned low density residential. The Lot width, which is less than the 15 m does not meet the minimal requirement for the size of the proposed structure. This building would dwarf the neighbouring properties.

    3. The existing child care centres in Bardwell Park, Bexley, Bexley North, Arncliffe, Earlwood and Kingsgrove all had vacancies when contacted in preparation of this letter.

    4. Bardwell Park is a quiet suburb, and we are concerned that the noise pollution created by the traffic associated with this proposed Child Care Centre would seriously impact on the surrounding residents.

    5. Our major concern would be for the children being dropped off and picked up during the peak traffic times at the second busiest intersection in Bardwell Park.


    Barry Ryan OAM

    Anke Hoeppner-Ryan

  8. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    N Zhou commented

    I can't see any reason why we need another bottle shop in this dry area. There is one on Canterbury road and the other one on Whitehorse road , all in walking distance. I don't think this application should be considered.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 33 South Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Christos Tsimbourlas commented

    I'm writing in relation to the proposed development application and would like to make the following points:

    Council needs to confirm:

    1 Existing brick walls of shed have been built in accordance to building approval process.
    2 Existing slab has been poured and layed in accordance to building approval process.
    3 Proposed new development satisfies Soft to Hard area requirements.
    4 The run off storm water is in accordance with required specificatuions
    5 Proposed development has been identified in the Flood Planning area and meets building requirements.

    Request the applicant provide details of fence to be erected adjoining Number 31 South Street, as we are concerned proposed courtyard will impact on loss of privacy and create additional noise. Require applicant to erect 1.8m paling fence and include 1 metre lattice capping along the whole length of the property to provide screening and privacy.

  10. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 16 Ferndale Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    sue paterson commented

    As the owner of the neighbouring property I have concerns about overlooking, shadowing, bulk & scale of the rear building & also heritage streetscape
    I will be lodging a written objection with council

  11. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    K.W. commented

    10 storeys - this one takes the cake. What is our Council doing? This fails at the first post.

    I am not adverse to development but there appears to be no forward planning or thinking. Our roads are clogged with no way of expansion. Our public transport is already heavily used and there is no mention anywhere in any publication about lobbying for additional services.

    It is fine to say attracting more people for businesses in the area. One of the main problems is accessing those businesses - there is not enough parking. The IGA is the main supermarket which will not be sufficient for the proposed increase in population. This will mean people need to get in their cars and drive to other areas to conduct basic week to week shopping.

    Housing crisis - sure providing more housing but it is not affordable. $600K for a one bedroom unit, hardly affordable.

  12. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Joe Ziller commented

    As a nearby resident of the Knox Street Bar I would like to see this application approved. The Knox Street Bar has been a enjoyable addition the street while operating in a manner that has been respectful of the nearby neighbourhood.

  13. In Alexandria NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 138-196 Bourke Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Council acknowledges that Unrestricted consent may affect the environmental amenity of the area and would not be in the public interest. The same applies to consent where hours of operation are antisocial.

    No matter how careful patron are leaving, there will inevitiable be some noise which willl disturb neighbours. Those driving cars will disturb more distant neighbours - and there is little or no public transport at these antisocial hours.

    The operator claims the extension of hours can be achieved "without causing any undue adverse impacts" - however this is from their perspective not that of residents. Starting at 6am is very different to 7am and midnight is even later than the airport curfew. This business does not operate an essential service and does not need these hours

    How will the young staff (as young as 15 working until midnight?) travel home safely?

  14. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Richard Coutts commented

    Heights must be in keeping with the the surrounds.

    While I support ongoing development and densification of the area I am strongly concerned about building heights being increased in a manner not in keeping with the local environment. The surrounding streets are predominantly single storey detached dwellings and there is a significant risk that oversized developments will not be in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhoods and will be a significant eyesore, a risk of overshadowing and a blight on the urban landscape.

    In regards to this development 10 storeys is far in excess of surrounding developments. 4-5 storeys would seem reasonable.

    I implore Marrickville Council to ensure that all developments are of the highest quality in terms of architecture and design and effectively integrate with and enhance the surrounding urban environment.

    Let us not forget about the terrible urban vandalism inflicted by recent multi-storey developments near Dulwich Hill train station. Let us hope Marrickville councillors have and Council as a whole has the integrity to prevent outscale and downright ugly abominations like this ever happening again.

  15. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Alberto Quizon commented

    I have been a Chippendale resident for over 5 years and have seen the neighbourhood grow and change even over this short time period. When I first moved into the area the streets were still considered a little unsafe. Now with the rich diversity of galleries, small bars, cafes and offices the neighbourhood has become a much more vibrant, diverse and safe place to live. Bars like Knox St make a positive contribution to the local area and to the local community. Later operating hours provides benefits to street safety by ensuring active use and eyes on the street at later hours. It also provides a controlled venue for people who wish to party without disturbing their immediate neighbours.

    As a young person and a frequent nightlife patron I firmly believe that supporting local small bars is a significant step towards ensuring a safe, diverse and vibrant nightlife. Decentralising nighttime entertainment away from the Kings Cross model will require small bars like Knox St to operate at later hours to suit Sydney's night time culture and draw patrons away from concentrated precincts, which has been well known to cause a number of social issues as has been highlighted in recent media. I strongly urge City of Sydney to support the extension of all small bar operating hours to allow them to compete and draw patrons away from the larger, centralised night time precincts.

    Knox St is also a unique venue in that it has become an unofficial community hub for many residents in the area. Its unique and diverse cultural offerings, from movie nights, cabaret, acoustic music, crab nights and speed dating nights, as well as its affordable food and beverage offerings has meant that it is now the go-to place for local residents of all age groups to meet. Knox St serves as an exemplary benchmark for small bars as it provides an excellent food and beverage offering in parallel to serving as a night time culture and arts space. Since Knox St bar has opened I have spent more time there than any other bar in Sydney. It is a socially aware, community focused and vibrant cultural offering and benefits the neighbourhood greatly.

  16. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Andrew M Potts commented

    I do not have a problem with this development providing it keeps in mind existing residents' privacy needs. More residents in the area would be good for local businesses and attract a greater mix of businesses to local retail strips. Sydney has a housing crisis and developments like this will be part of solving that.

  17. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sharon F. commented

    Are you kidding?!
    Another block of high-rise developments when the one around the corner from this has upset so many residents in this area.
    Council members - have you tried to find parking in this area, have you tried driving along Canterbury Rd or Old Canterbury Rd during peak hour?
    Do you know how bad traffic and roads are in this area?
    What makes anyone think that over-populating such a small area is in any way going to be good for Dulwich Hill?
    This will not be a community any more if Marrickville council allow all these high-rises to take over the landscape and the skyline.
    Council are being irresponsible if they allow these high-rise developments to go ahead.
    You say our streets need to be sustainable?
    How do you plan on achieving this when the streets are not coping at the present.
    Tomorrow's Dulwich Hill? Let's just call us the next Alexandria. Without the multi-lane streets required to cope with the increase in traffic.
    You ask about the impact of heat? With all these high-rises no one will even see the sun anymore, is that your solution?
    Very disappointed that another high-rise development application has even been allowed to be submitted.
    And knowing Council, the opinions of local residents will have no say on the final decision.

  18. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Laura Zavros commented

    I think a bottle shop on Union Road is completely unnecessary. We have so many available within a small radius - there is Duncan's just on the corner with Canterbury Rd and Purvis Cellars on the corner with Whitehorse. Let alone First Choice Liquor, Safeway Balwyn and the IGA Mont Albert. There are probably others I can't even think of! While I am not opposed to a modernisation of our little strip of shops to bring it into this century I think a 'bottle shop' does not fit with the aesthetic of Union Road or the family friendly area. Also, being so close to a train line would cause traffic congestion - the parking struggles as it is and the train crossing can become quite backed up both ways.

  19. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 205 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Kate Fernie commented

    There is already a childcare centre directly opposite 205 Eastern Road. This is a very narrow street which rises up as you come up towards the current centre - particularly if you are travelling in a northerly direction there is no vision of any oncoming traffic, even if it is the Shorelink Eastern Road bus approaching. On a daily basis every driver must just take a guess that the road ahead is clear and hope no-one is approaching. Although there are some 'No Stopping' zones on either side of the current centre it is a very common occurrence to come over the hill and find some-one parked in one of the zones - in which case I have narrowly avoided many collisions.

    In the mornings, travelling south past the existing centre it can be even more dangerous as parents pull into park on the left hand side of the road then take their children from the car onto the roadway (as there is no pathed footpath on the left hand side). I can only assume they have no idea that any vehicle coming up and over the hill has no vision at all of them & their child in the road. I have had to stop very sharply a number of times and have spoken both to the parents and to the management of the centre about this issue. It scares me that there will be a collision and a child/parent injured.

    My daughter arrived home a couple of weeks ago, shaking in fear as she drives a small car and when approaching the existing centre had a large 4 wheel drive just pull out of the centre's driveway in front of her. Luckily she managed to brake fast enough to avoid a collision but I'm not sure if they can see clearly in either direction when exiting the existing car park.

    Please don't even consider adding another centre into this already very dangerous traffic mix. The staff working in the existing centre already park on the eastern side of Eastern Road blocking vision all day for anyone trying to exit towards the traffic lights. Another centre directly opposite is unthinkable.

    Please come out and visit the site around 9am or 3pm at the worst times of the day and the mess will be evident but a drive over this blind hill at any time of the day will illustrate as described above.

  20. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 205 Eastern Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Kate Wightman commented

    This is an unsuitable location for a childcare centre. There is already a childcare centre right opposite this site. The current centre already causes traffic chaos on this narrow street. The street also has a hill at this point which makes it impossible for those driving north past the preschool to see what is approaching southbound. Traffic is forced to blindly drive on the wrong side of the road to pass parked cars and is extremely dangerous. The current childcare centre has its own car park but this does not stop numerous parents from parking in Eastern Road to load and unload small children. Please don't add another childcare centre to the current dangerous mess.

  21. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Sean Foley commented

    As as an owner and resident on Shepherd st for 10 years I have never been happier to live in this community. Knox st bar not only brings people together but provides safety benefits from their friendly security guard and friendly faces. It is an amazing asset to the community, and extension of their hours to midnight will be very welcome. If anything, aligning the hours of Knox St to those of the nearby stoned crow, rose hotel and duck inn will align the precinct to ensure that patrons heading home all do so at the same, sensible hour. I have not had any issues with noise, rubbish or otherwise. I think this is in no small part due to Bjorn's strong involvement with and for the community.

    Sean Foley
    42 Shepherd St, Chippendale

  22. In Clovelly NSW on “Fitout and use of the...” at 311 Clovelly Road Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Mark Paskal commented

    I wish to object to the creation of yet another liquor outlet on Clovelly Road, Clovelly. There is already a liquor store on Clovelly Road, as well as two pubs, and a number of liquor outlets within walking distances in Coogee and Bronte. Having a liquor outlet so close to the popular Clovelly Hotel would be disastrous for our neighbourhood, which is mostly residential and young family oriented. Already we see the affects of excessive alcohol consumption in the Clovelly neighbourhood with bottles strewn in yards and footpaths, inebriated mostly young drinkers urinating on our garage door and in the park adjacent to Clovelly ocean pool and the noise of drunks exiting the pub late at night. Recently we had the police riot squad called to Clovelly Road to quell a violent disturbance.
    Does anyone think that the creation of yet another outlet to purchase alcohol will curb drunkenness in our community?
    The residents of Clovelly do not want the growing and alarming problem of underage drinking and young adult binge drinking imported into our family-friendly neighbour. The Clovelly Surf Club carpark is increasingly becoming a place for youth to Pre-load before going to the Clovelly Hotel- and yet another outlet will only exacerbate this problem.
    As stated above, there are already ample liquor purchasing options and Clovelly residents do not deserve or want another one.

  23. In North Sydney NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 52 McLaren Street North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Amanda commented

    Has there been a comprehensive study regarding the necessity of removing the trees ? North Sydney is characterised by its trees . Removing established trees will eventually turn the area into a concrete jungle .

  24. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Lyn commented

    There are at least two Liquor shops operating within 1km of this application, there doesn't seem to be a need for another one in our 'Dry Area'.
    If this application for a Liquor Licence, is still to be considered, the premises should only able to open until 9pm.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 2 Arthur Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Denise Moss commented

    This is a ridiculously tall building for the space and the street.
    What a huge disappointment! I'm totally against this.

  26. In Prahran VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 36 Pridham Street, Prahran, VIC:

    Tom Armour commented

    Where do I find out information about the building plans for this application?

  27. In Rangeville QLD on “Earthworks” at 19 Crown Street Rangeville QLD 4350:

    andrew mchugh commented

    A total insult to everyone who lives in this street - an abomination of a design - tCC should really be ashamed of allowing this development to have proceeded at all and now at the end of the building a new application is made for earthworks ? Why was this not taken into account at the beginning of the slum development ?

  28. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 2 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    steve hyde commented

    I am writing to object to the proposed building of the units at 2 Union St Brunswick West.
    My objections are as follows:
    (i) development is inappropriate for the area , 4 storey will shadow cast, suggest no more than 2 storey with u/g car parking
    (ii) development is out of character with the majority of houses in the street (Fowler system)
    (iii) there is not adequate off street parking, for units of 2 bedroom, if there are two cars per unit the overflow will be in the street. The street is already overparked due to other flats in the area.
    (iv) No thought has been given to the amenity of the area considering that there are several heritage houses in the area. Are these heritage houses to be swallowed up by multistory developments.
    (v) is there consideration presented for a suitable fascade to compliment the heritage of the street?
    (vi) suggest the site be purchased by Moreland city and turned into parkland

  29. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Aaron Ballentyne commented

    It is so good to see the area of Chippendale progressing and livening up. Knox St Bar is one example of this. It is a amazing bar with great service and community driven intentions. It is so good to see a variety of regulars at this bar from young to old this is a bar for everyone.
    I am all for this Bar extending their hours and think would benefit the community

  30. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Pete AVARD commented

    As a resident of the area I spend a lot of time enjoying Knox St Bar from movie nights, comedy shows and of course listening to the smooth sounds of vinyl records. This bar has a great vibe with great staff and it would be so good to see the approval of the application put forth to extend their hours.

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