Recent comments

  1. In Fitzroy VIC on “Demolition, development and...” at 7 Hodgson St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    David McCormack commented

    Developments of this size with NO CAR PARKING incorporated within the development adds to the demise of the areas amenities. It is simply not an option for this area and must be amended.

    Its worth considering that car spaces actually add significantly to the investment potential of apartments in the area to the tune of $50-$80 k.

    This issue needs to be addressed by Council now.

  2. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Veterinary Services” at 37 Godsall Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paul Richardson commented

    I would be abhorred if TRC approved this Development Application, or for that matter, any such DA within Godsall Street.
    This street has a magnificant streetscape, beside Queens Park, with many historical homes, and it would be a sacriledge for it to end up like Margaret Street East where many beautiful homes have been converted to businesses.
    There would also be a problem with providing sufficient off street carparks for this facility and it would create additional safety concerns for Hume Street traffic because of more vehicles turning in and out of Godsall Street.
    There is also the issue of the noise and health risk for adjacent property owners, and a suitable buffer zone could not be provided to prevent this risk.
    I hope that you will consider these concerns, and not approve this DA.

  3. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 16 Boston Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Clare Buckley wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    Tony, Boston Rd is in the General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1). This means that a developer can put as many dwellings on a lot as he can squeeze in with a 3 storey height limit. There was a strong backlash from residents in the surrounding streets- to no avail.
    In contrast, most of Balwyn is in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 which limits development to 2 dwellings per lot and a height limit of 2 storeys ( 8mtrs).
    You have lucked out !!!!
    It makes no sense and will destroy our leafy, lovely neighbourhoods

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Clare Buckley

    Hello Clare,

    I write in response to your message on Planning Alerts regarding the application for 8 townhouses at 16 Boston Road, Balwyn.

    To clarify - the development will be 2 storeys in height above a basement, and will have a maximum building height of 8.7m (the development includes some chimneys that will be higher than this). The maximum permissible height is 9m.

    As you identified, the site is within the General Residential Zone (Schedule 1) where townhouse-style or apartment-style development is allowed, subject to meeting ResCode and Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy.

    Please also note that the application was initially described on Planning Alerts to include a reduction in visitor car parking. This is incorrect - the application will provide a visitor car space which meets the requirements of the planning scheme.

    Council officers will be conducting their assessment within the next few weeks and once the application is ready for public notice, a sign will be erected at the front of the site to notify nearby residents and invite submissions. Notification letters will also be posted to adjoining and opposite landowners and occupiers.

    regards
    Jane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

    City of Boroondara
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466
    Email:
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  4. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Intensive Horticulture” at 101-131 Kenny Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Karren Marshall wrote to local councillor Phil Pidgeon

    There is already at least 5 of these businessess within a few kms of us. My family constantly has trouble with these businesses BURNING RUBBISH at night ie PLASTIC. For a residential area it is unacceptable. Yes I have reported it, but so hard to see the culprits.

    Delivered to local councillor Phil Pidgeon. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Clovelly NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 355 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, NSW:

    Mark commented

    What, exactly, is an "on premises licence"?
    Is this to be a restaurant or another pub? (How many liquor outlets can Clovelly support?)

  6. In Hallam VIC on “Variation of a Restrictive...” at 7 Tolmie Rise Hallam, VIC:

    K Shanahan-Sellars commented

    I will be submitting an objection directly to council along with several other residents on the grounds that this alteration to the existing covenant designed to protect the character of this area will be altered if allowed to go ahead.
    The already restricted space in the street for residents and their visitors will become more constricted and overflow into neighboring streets.
    This alteration will set a precedence for other applicants in the area to do like wise and alter permanently the feel of this neighbourhood for financial gain.
    Upon speaking to the neighbours it was brought to my attention that a neighbouring property plans to do the same if this is permitted.

  7. In Jilliby NSW on “Community Recycling Centre” at Buttonderry Waste Facility 850 Hue Hue Road Jilliby NSW 2259:

    Trish Sewell commented

    Exactly what are they planning to do? There was nothing indicated on the alert.

  8. In Redfern NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 267 Cleveland St, Redfern, NSW:

    Wayne M Burns commented

    This application for 170 patrons is in addition to an allocation lodged last month by the same applicant for a license for 120 patrons for Tenancy 1 at 267 Cleveland Street, Redfern.

    It seeks to circumvent an application already denied for a license for 300 people for the same premises, and is an attempt by the applicant to obtain licenses for 290 patrons for the basement and ground floor of an apartment building at the end of a could se sac on a residential street, where the is scant parking for residents, never mind 290 patrons.

    As well, there are six licensed hotels within 1km of the the site for this new licence application, as well as myriad small cafes and restaurants with liquor licenses.

    The combined licenses (120 patrons approved, 170 applied for) comprising 290 licensed patrons in total is more apt for a precinct such as Darling Harbour or The Entertainment Quarter at Moore Park, and is unsuitable for an established residential neighbourhood, the amenity of which, and the nature of small and medium reassurances and cafe in the area, would be degraded significantly.

  9. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 16 Boston Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Tony Hardy commented

    Not sure what's going on, I thought the planning laws had changed to limit the number of units to approx. 2 per 1,000sqm. Whereas this is 8 per 1,561sqm ??

    Personally I think approx. 3 per 1,000sqm is about right, not too over-developed but allowing medium density living.

    But finally in saying that this particular house is too beautiful to pull down.

  10. In Fitzroy VIC on “Demolition, development and...” at 7 Hodgson St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Christopher Boutsinis commented

    Not too sure I understand how 7 floors with ZERO car parking is possible in this area?

    While I am pro-development, there must be at least SOME car parking for the building- the pressure will just add to the surrounding area and drop everyone's amenities down for the sake of the developer saving some cash.

    Can you please ensure car parking is added to this development? If not car parking, dare I suggest an installed car-sharing scheme where 2-3 share cars are permanently stationed in / directly near this building?

  11. In West Albury NSW on “Residential - Alterations &...” at 562 Spurrway Drive West Albury NSW 2640:

    James Rainsford commented

    This is only been built over a dispute about them, driving and parking on the nature strip, Even where the requested site is, it will make little to no difference to there view, which they have had for 18 years, so the only other reason for such a screen, it to block my view, which have been found illegal by the courts, in other such applications. So if the structure does go ahead, it will only end up in court, This can be verified, by photos I have sent about the applicant driving on the nature strip, parking on the nature strip, which the council has warmed them before about this, but they still do it to harass an intimidate me.

  12. In Walloon QLD on “Major Utility - Temporary...” at 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road Walloon QLD 4306:

    Leah Corbyn wrote to local councillor David Pahlke

    To Whom it May Concern

    I reside at one of the 4 properties that are closest to 622 Karrabin-Rosewood Rd. I am extremely interested to find out how this will impact my family. I would like to know how this smell will impact us, as well as having a waste water treatment facility so close to the end of the driveway will affect the value of our property. Can you also explain the impact on the environment and local housing if the area floods? We have not been notified of any potential impact this may have on us. I find it disconcerting that the application sign is not being displayed at Karrabin-Rosewood Rd, there appears to be no transparency to the current local residents.

    I would appreciate a prompt response forwarded to acorbyn@bigpond.net.au

    Kind Regards

    Leah Corbyn

    Delivered to local councillor David Pahlke. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Pre-lodge.” at 111 - 113 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lyn commented

    What plans are proposed for this site please?

  14. In Moorabbin VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 57 Matilda Road, Moorabbin, VIC:

    Max commented

    I'm concerned about the two large trees in front of the house and the neighbour character

  15. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Peter & Catherine Boes wrote to local councillor Jack Dempsey

    Up Date on the application for the development of a subdivision at the end of Pleasant Drive Sharon. The application was approved while in caretaker mode on the 1st April. This development was approved by Mr. Michael Ellery (Group Manager Development) and did not go the council.
    A meeting was arranged to meet with Mr. Ellery at the location on the 7th July to explain how this development would work and address our concerns about further subdivision of this very steep water catchment area,( size 99,473m2), in the 2013 flood this land was all but meters under water. Mr Ellery response to our concerns about all aspects of the development was at the best disappointing. In relation to the conditions of which the application was approved Mr Ellery seemed vague to the point of not realizing that he in fact was the one who approved it. When questioned about the possibility of future flooding in that area, his response was ‘well they will know what to expect’. Moreover when questioned about evacuation planning, his response was there will be plenty of warnings for people to get out in time, (Tell that to the residents of North Bundaberg who had little time to get out in the 2013 floods)
    Asked if this application had gone to council would it have been approved, Mr. Ellery’s response was ‘probably’ this begs the question why do we need councilors at all. Mr. Ellery stated that if the application, (which was prepared by paid professionals that pride themselves in ‘unlikely to be refused’) ticked all the boxes there should be no objections.
    Note; later the same day as our meeting with Mr Ellery, Mr Adam Johnston( Senior Development Engineer), sent an approval for operational works (subject to conditions) to be carried out, coincidence or is the application being rushed through. This application for the subdivision of land at the end of Pleasant Drive Sharon should be placed on hold until it meets the requirements set out in reconfiguring of a Lot Code and access because as it stands the application does not meet the requirements. The requirements as stated by Mr Ellery are outlined below
    In relation to your questions about road frontage, I note that the Reconfiguring of a Lot Code provides for reduced frontages for hatchet (rear access) lots. The following is an extract from the current code that outlines the requirements:

    Rear (hatchet) lots
    PO7
    Development provides for rear lots to be created only where:-
    (a) the lots are not likely to prejudice the subsequent development of adjoining land;
    (b) it is not desirable nor practicable for the site to be reconfigured so that all lots have full frontage to a road;
    (c) the siting of buildings on the rear lot is not likely to be detrimental to the use and amenity of the surrounding area;
    (d) uses on surrounding land will not have a detrimental effect on the use and amenity of the rear lot;
    (e) the safety and efficiency of the road from which access is gained is not adversely affected; and
    (f) vehicular access to rear lots does not have a detrimental impact on lots adjoining the access strip due to excessive noise, light, dust, stormwater runoff and the like.
    AO7
    Rear lots are designed such that:-
    (a) the minimum area of the lot, exclusive of any access strip, complies with the minimum lot size specified in Table 9.4.4.3.2 (Minimum lot size and dimensions);
    (b) the gradient of the access strip does not exceed 10%;
    (c) no more than four lots directly adjoin the rear lot, excluding lots that adjoin at one point;
    (d) no more than three lots gain access from the same access handle;
    (e) no more than 10% of lots within a subdivision are accessed from an access handle;
    (f) where two rear lots adjoin each other, a single common driveway and reciprocal access easements are provided;
    (g) no more than two rear lots and/or rear lot access strips directly adjoin each other (excluding lots that directly adjoin each other at a single point e.g. a corner);
    (h) rear lot access strips are located on only one side of a full frontage lot; and
    (i) rear lot access strips and driveways comply with the requirements of Table 9.4.4.3.3 (Access strip requirements for rear lots) and the standards specified in the Planning scheme policy for development works.


    Table 9.4.4.3.3 states:

    Access strip requirements for rear lots

    Column 1 Zone
    Column 2 Minimum width of single access strip (metres)
    Column 3 Minimum width of combined access strips with reciprocal easement (metres)
    Column 4 Minimum driveway width
    (metres)
    Column 5 Maximum driveway length (metres)
    Residential zones
    5
    6 (2x3)
    3.5
    40
    Rural residential zone
    6
    6 (2x3)
    3.5
    60
    Rural zone
    10
    10 (2x5)
    4
    100

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Dempsey. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Annandale NSW on “Change Vergola rood to...” at 266 Nelson Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Sonia Wong commented

    We are increasingly concerned with the extent of this development. Given that the initial understanding was that this was to be a garage with studio above, the recent application for further changes indicates that this structure may service more of a residential purpose/dwelling. The lack of privacy into our home is now a major concern. The addition of doors, terrace and opening windows means that we no longer have privacy in our own home with full view into our main living area, kitchen and yard. This was not the understanding of the initial application and the works have now proven to be more impactful on our privacy than was first explained to us. We would appreciate that changes be made to limit any further loss of privacy into our home.

  17. In Moorabbin VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 57 Matilda Road, Moorabbin, VIC:

    Max commented

    I'm concerned about the two large trees in front of the house and the neighbour character

  18. In Walloon QLD on “Major Utility - Temporary...” at 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road Walloon QLD 4306:

    jamie Rattray wrote to local councillor David Pahlke

    To whom it may concern,

    Is has come to my attention that there has been no safety notice issued nor information disclosed as to what impact the waste water treatment facility will have to the local environment including nearby properties,the Primary school & public park in close proximity. Also to my knowledge no notice has been delivered to the local residents highlighting any potential smell which could also impact the area.

    After reading the displayed sign which i must question as this is registered to 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road, however the application sign is quite well concealed on Rohl road, this would indicate the developer is trying to hide this from the public.

    I would appreciate you proving a full copy of the development proposal by email to myself including the safety / environmental impact information to jrattray87@gmail.com

    Regards
    Jamie Rattray
    Local Resident of the Walloon area

    Photo of David Pahlke
    David Pahlke local councillor for Ipswich City Council
    replied to jamie Rattray

    Jamie what is your home and mobile number pls
    I will call u
    Cr David P

  19. In Walloon QLD on “Major Utility - Temporary...” at 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road Walloon QLD 4306:

    jamie Rattray wrote to local councillor Paul Pisasale

    To whom it may concern,

    Is has come to my attention that there has been no safety notice issued nor information disclosed as to what impact the waste water treatment facility will have to the local environment including nearby properties,the Primary school & public park in close proximity. Also to my knowledge no notice has been delivered to the local residents highlighting any potential smell which could also impact the area.

    After reading the displayed sign which i must question as this is registered to 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road, however the application sign is quite well concealed on Rohl road, this would indicate the developer is trying to hide this from the public.

    I would appreciate you proving a full copy of the development proposal by email to myself including the safety / environmental impact information to jrattray87@gmail.com

    Regards
    Jamie Rattray
    Local Resident of the Walloon area

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Pisasale. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Walloon QLD on “Major Utility - Temporary...” at 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road Walloon QLD 4306:

    jamie Rattray commented

    To whom it may concern,

    Is has come to my attention that there has been no safety notice issued nor information disclosed as to what impact the waste water treatment facility will have to the local environment including nearby properties,the Primary school & public park in close proximity. Also to my knowledge no notice has been delivered to the local residents highlighting any potential smell which could also impact the area.

    After reading the displayed sign which i must question as this is registered to 622 Karrabin Rosewood Road, however the application sign is quite well concealed on Rohl road, this would indicate the developer is trying to hide this from the public.

    I would appreciate you proving a full copy of the development proposal by email to myself including the safety / environmental impact information to [hidden]

    Regards
    Jamie Rattray
    Local Resident of the Walloon area

  21. In Winston Hills NSW on “Shop T37 - fitout and use...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Elizabeth Banyard commented

    I object to the proposal to make shop 37 a sales office for the proposed unit development. This is valuable retail space which should be used for the benefit of local shoppers. Since the proposed units are not welcomed by the community, the sales office will not benefit local shoppers in any way. Shop 37 was previously set up as a specialist chicken shop, which was appropriate in the context of the shopping centre. Making it a sales office is a dramatic departure from this use, requiring dramatic refurbishment, which would then likely have to be reversed at the expense of a future tenant, as the sales office by its very nature would be temporary.

  22. In Redfern NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 267 Cleveland St, Redfern, NSW:

    Vic Branson commented

    This application for an additional license is completely inappropriate for this quiet residential precinct, with many apartments in the same building and nearby streets presently enjoying peaceful living.
    The acoustics of this wonderful street will be destroyed every evening till late at night.

  23. In Redfern NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 267 Cleveland St, Redfern, NSW:

    Margaret Ackland commented

    We will still have a large number of patrons disturbing our quiet, residential street. Parking, noise etc concerns remain exactly the same. How many times must we lodge these complaints before the developers get it. Making these seperate licence applications ( signed by the same person) just shows what cynical disregard this developer has for the those already resident in the street not to mention those about to move into the building.

  24. In Boronia VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 29 Rowson Street, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Concerned Citzien again commented

    Please ensure that there is sufficient parking for the dwellings - say 2 per dwelling as there is a construction already next door to 29 Rowson Street for community housing for disabled and another construction in Grevillea Avenue for more units. So the area is already over crowded without the necessity on turning both Rowson Street, Laurel Avenue and Grevillea Avenue into car parks.

  25. In Redfern NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 267 Cleveland St, Redfern, NSW:

    Alexa Wyatt commented

    This history of this site is a failed application for licenced premises seating 440 people; then downgraded to 330 which residents in the area vociferously protested as far too large a scale for the end of a quiet residential street, especially when no parking is provided by the premises and there is a perpetual battle with commuters (regardless of time limits which are not policed daily and plentiful public transport options) for residents to park in their own street. New applications were then submitted for one tenancy of 120 patrons , which was passed last month; and now this one. Given both applications are signed by the same person it is a cunning but blatant attempt to gain licence for the number of patrons that residents previously protested about. Two licenced premises on this scale are inappropriate for the area. The applicant may well cite other restaurants of a similar scale in the area but 1. They are not side by side, 2. They are on busy commercial street frontages but significantly are NOT on the corner of a long residential street which patrons would perceive as offering parking availability. Small businesses catering to the local population are welcome but a business on this scale is clearly designed to attract large crowds from elsewhere to be financially viable. The impact on our residential amenity will be enormous and for this reason the application should be rejected, not least for the underhand methods attempted to achieve the original patronage sought by the applicant.

  26. In Mount Clear VIC on “Development of an aged care...” at 112-114 Whitehorse Road, Mount Clear:

    Jeffrey Woolf wrote to local councillor Des Hudson

    I wish to view the plans for this facility and how it will effect me as I live close to and overlook the properties eg height , size , visual impact , traffic and parking .

    I cannot access any information free of charge on line at this stage .

    Photo of Des Hudson
    Des Hudson local councillor for Ballarat City Council
    replied to Jeffrey Woolf

    Thanks Jeffrey,
    I'll have a look at this on Monday for you. Have the yellow planning permit signs only gone up recently??

    Regards and Thanks,

    Cr Des Hudson
    Mayor - City of Ballarat.
    Ph - 0409865093

    Attention: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.

    Photo of Des Hudson
    Des Hudson local councillor for Ballarat City Council
    replied to Jeffrey Woolf

    Thanks Jeffrey,
    I'll have a look at this on Monday for you. Have the yellow planning permit signs only gone up recently??

    Regards and Thanks,

    Cr Des Hudson
    Mayor - City of Ballarat.
    Ph - 0409865093

    Attention: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.

    Photo of Des Hudson
    Des Hudson local councillor for Ballarat City Council
    replied to Jeffrey Woolf

    Thanks Jeffrey,
    I'll have a look at this on Monday for you. Have the yellow planning permit signs only gone up recently??

    Regards and Thanks,

    Cr Des Hudson
    Mayor - City of Ballarat.
    Ph - 0409865093

    Attention: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author.

  27. In Leichhardt NSW on “Removal of Eucalyptus Gum...” at 33 Emma Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Neill Francis commented

    I agree that this tree is dangerous and should be removed. Everytime we have a significant amount of rain and strong winds, I live in anxiety that it is likely to fall and crush my house. A similar tree fell a few years back, fortunately it fell across a number of backyards and no one was injured and the only property damaged were a few fences. It is a magnificent tree, but is growing in the wrong place. A tree of this size should never have been planted in a small, inner city backyard. Council should be more vigilant in educating residents of the problems of planting "unsuitable" trees in small backyards. No tree which grows in excess of 5 m. should be allowed to be planted and Council should draw up a list of trees, which are unsuitable to grow in the municipality (e.g. noxious, sewer damaging, too tall, cause allergies, invasive, etc.).

  28. In Redfern NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 267 Cleveland St, Redfern, NSW:

    Alicia Dow commented

    This application just is a sideways attempt to reach the same numbers as the original application that was turned down. 'Tenancy 1' was granted a liquor licence for 120 patrons last month.
    This application for a liquor licence for 'Tenancy 2' (signed by the same person as for Tenancy 1) for 170 patrons brings it to just 10 short of the 300 patrons for which the original licence was correctly deemed inappropriate for the neighbourhood. 2 liquor serving establishments of that magnitude side by side are out of character for the area. They would be better suited for Barangaroo.

  29. In Scoresby VIC on “Construction of (6) six...” at 649 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Peter Shearman commented

    Sounds like Mey Leng has a strong financial interest in developing these type of blocks. Six 'barby box' units where once there was one perfectly good house, garden, lawn, and trees. Three story units will need very fit residents, no good for older people or those with disabilities. How would you feel if they decided to build six three story houses next to your house? They have to squeeze all these extra people coming in somewhere. The block beside your house could be next.

  30. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfiguring 1 into 3 Lots...” at 100 Mary Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    And the disaster keeps going on for this once beautiful area for Toowoomba, am seriously thinking of returning to the Coast, at least the council down there are putting people before
    the money grabbing council up here

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