Recent comments

  1. In Katoomba NSW on “The conversion of the...” at 40 Whitton Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    x commented

    I'm astonished this house does not appear on the heritage listing for Katoomba

  2. In Erskineville NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 70 Macdonald Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Josh commented

    Extra toilet is a good idea whilst maintaining accessible bathroom. In terms of seating - that's about 20 seats less than what the previous owners had set up outside.

  3. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To provide outdoor seating...” at Shop 5/370 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Richard Coutts commented

    Dear Council,

    I write in SUPPORT of the the proposal for outdoor seating for the approved food premises.

    Additional alfresco dining options will further improve the liveliness and amenity of Dulwich Hill village.

    I hope that Council and the developer will provide improved streetscaping in this area to shield diners from busy New Canterbury Road and improve the overall aesthetic and accessibility of this corner at street level.

    Thank you for your consideration,

  4. In South Geelong VIC on “Construction of Twenty...” at 259-263 Bellerine Street, South Geelong:

    Michele Booker commented

    This land should never have been sold by the council. Parking for the South Geelong station is already at a premium. Streets are at capacity and clogged with cars.
    This land should be left vacant to provide expansion and parking for the station . Instead commuters, residents park in the streets around.
    28 units will only cause traffic chaos and those 28 units will have visitors and where will they park? This is a busy intersection (Foster and Bellarine Streets) , with the design of the street and intersection able to cope with traffic 40 years ago. Is the intersection going to be upgraded to cope with the influx of additional traffic?
    Why does the land have to developed just because its vacant ? Planning should be for parking and alleviating the burden of parking at the station and surrounding areas not adding to it by planning 28 units, which is the case of the developer squashing in as many units as possible to make a higher return. If it has to be developed why so many ? 5 would be sufficient .
    Commuters travel from the other side of town to park at South Geelong to try and get a seat , South Geelong Station needs more parking not more traffic and cars to push the limit to a premium which this development will do.
    It’s about the planning department and the council working together. Not just approving developments to obtain more rates but actually respecting current residents who reside in the vicinity . These residents pay premium rates .Maybe their rates should be lowered as their quality of life will be affected by this development.

  5. In Rosebery NSW on “Stage 1 DA envelope scheme...” at 12-22 Rothschild Avenue Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Andrew Greenwell commented

    Hardly a "mixed-use" building. 95% residential with a tack-on retail component. I think they might be pulling one over here.

    Also the density is pretty extreme considering there is limited access to public transport.

    Thirdly, the heritage building requires a buffer and curtilage. The proposed built form builds over the building which i thought would not be very sympathetic.

  6. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Simone wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I received a letter from Boroondara Council this week advising :

    "The fact is that Council is generally only involved with single dwellings where the site:
    - is in a heritage overlay.
    - is subject to flooding, landscape or environmental overlays.
    - has a land area less than 500 sqm.
    The vast majority of residential sites in Boroondara are NOT subject to these controls and no planning approval is required from Council for the demolition of an existing house and / or the construction of a single house.
    ...... the vast majority of building permits for single dwellings are issued by private building surveyors who are not employed by Council and not required to seek Council approval.
    ...... Unlike the state's planning regulations, there is also no requirement in the building regulations for notification to neighbours of any proposed demolition or construction of a new dwelling.
    .... Council shares the community's concerns that the current regulations are deficient and has been investigating ways to address the issue."

    I was not aware of the above and the lack of control Council have over new houses in Boroondara.

    Starting to make sense why house after house are being demolished to make way for McMansions built boundary to boundary.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  7. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    R and K McCarthy commented

    Surely they aren't serious?!

    We hereby submit our strong objection to the incredible proposal to erect a 24 bedroom, four storey boarding house in a clearly R2 zoned area with limited transport.

    Such building types are intended to be only built in inner city high density areas close to both shops and transport.

    We suspect the Applicant might be intending to sell these rooms using a Company Title.

    With the recent large increase in R4 zoning around Epping and Carlingford villages there is clearly no need for such a development in the middle of an R2 area!

    We urge Council to reject this application.

  8. In Cotswold Hills QLD on “Road works Stormwater Water...” at Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350:

    Scott & Tina Browning wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    To TRC,
    I think the council has once again loss touch with what the local community are concerned about with this sub division so close to rural living. My wife and myself have concerns as we wil back straight on to this sub division and if, in the future the buffer zone is removed, which is in place already, It will give us up to 6 house's on our back boundary and that's not why we decided to build and live in Cotswold Hills some 15 years ago. Our views will be taken away and replaced with a sea of roofs. We are also worried about the crime rate going up in the area. This is a peaceful community we live in. I understand that it is a growing community but really the size of the blocks these people and you the council may approve is a discuss. You just have to look at the sub division that is in Nugget Pinch Rd, It has been going on for quite a few years now. Just like to know what will bring people to live in Toowoomba and fill so many house in an estate like this.

    Delivered to local councillor Chris Tait. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Matthew Johnson commented

    The proposal of demolishing such an iconic property is one that cannot be allowed. Brandlesome is a rare occurrence in such a highly subdivided and developed suburb of Sydney. It is highly likely that Brandlesome is one of the last remaining federation houses being designed transversely with a substantial setback from Forrest Road, it is clearly a fine example of its type and retains a substantial amount of its original fabric, including fireplaces, timber joinery and detailing, led light windows and ornate tile flooring.

    The proposed demolition of Brandlesome is entirely unnecessary due to ample space for innovative design on the Northern and Eastern sides of the property including townhouses or semi-detached development. Sympathetic design can not only enhance the heritage significance that this house clearly presents. Rockdale City Council clearly states that it is "concerned about protecting the heritage of the local area."
    This decision will stand as a true testament to the councils promise on retaining the character of the suburb and ensuring that it will be retained for future generations.

  10. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Emma M commented

    I have lived in the St George area my whole life and have driven past Brandlesome House on numerous occasions. It is the only house on that street that has clearly stood out.

    Brandlesome House serves as a glimpse into the past and is undeniably an apt example of federation architecture. Hence, 'this Federation Masterpiece is full of period feature's' to quote the selling agent who even marketed the house on this basis.

    Once it is gone, it is gone forever, so I compel you to consider the necessity of demolishing this beautiful home!

  11. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Takeaway...” at 318 East Derwent Highway, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    The PDF provided is of very poor quality and some sections are largely unreadable. I'm unable to make any informed comment except to comment on the name and imagery as it would appear to conflict with some Trademarks held in NSW

  12. In Warners Bay NSW on “Residential Aged Care Facility” at 64 Warners Bay Road, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Xiaofei Li commented

    my concerns include;
    1. lookout view, from my windows and backyard, might be blocked by the two-floors' building,
    2. noise and dust contamination due to the construction,
    3. After construction, noise (such as car parking) during operating "Residential Aged Care Facility" because it is expected ~150 residents + workers will be there,
    4. light contamination during night because my house neighbors to the proposed car park.

    thanks for your considerations.

  13. In Redland Bay QLD on “Home Business” at 30 Queen Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lynn Adams commented

    Is this application for a 'Home Office' only or does it include access for additional work vehicles onto the property ie work trucks, materials, etc.?

  14. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M. Martin wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    This development should be covered for parking
    Such a narrow street it is already difficult to drive down
    If three bedroom townhouses, then 3 car parking spaces per unit plus one visitors parking space per unit.
    The smart way to do build i
    Maximise land in inner City is to dig-down. Put car parking underneath. But that adds $100K to the cost of the build and 'developers' want to maximise their profit don't they. Council should insist on underground parking. Take the initiative Boroondara!

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to M. Martin

    Thanks for your message M Martin
    Your comments are noted. If you have any specific questions or comments please email me on

    Jane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

    City of Boroondara
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  15. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Clare Buckley commented

    Is this a legitimate massage parlour or is it a brothel ?
    The extremely scantily clad Asian women featured in their advertisement strongly suggests the latter.!!!
    Again I say, not in my back yard.

  16. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Takeaway...” at 318 East Derwent Highway, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Chiko Rolls are not 'Gormet'. commented

    Suggest the proprietors choose a better name than Fishbone. Songs very unappetizing.

    e.g - Fish & Chips Plus, 5 Star Fish & Chips, 5 Star Takeaway, Crispy Fish & Chips ... options are endless :)

  17. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construct Multi Dwellings -...” at 265 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    Hi DT, Stud Road intersects with Burwood Hwy, it actually continues south between George St and High St Road. If you agree with the above proposal then you are agreeing to allow more projects along Stud Rd that could appear between George St and High St Road.
    I agree with this project only because I wouldn't want people having to live further out from the city

  18. In Prahran VIC on “Multi unit development with...” at 519 - 531A High Street, Prahran, VIC:

    John McCausland commented

    I would hope that Council requires parking for any approved development in this site. Surrounding roads are already massively congested and Council officers are not helping by advising new businesses etc to park in local 'side streets'.

  19. In East Gosford NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 46 Webb Street, East Gosford NSW 2250:

    Jodi Carter commented

    I think this would not work on this block and would like to see a lesser number of dwellings placed here also I noticed that the demo of the previous dwelling was not correctly done I live next door and questioned the workmen on day 1 about the removal of asbestos and was told that they were not worried about it as there are no health risk that have been proved from asbestos and was all a big scam by one person the next day two workman had white coveralls one wore a facemask and just continued to demo the house i did not see any warning signs or was told about being in the proximity or did I see them take any other safety precautions like putting the asbestos in bags etc and disposing of correctly after that they did not continue to remove with masks or coveralls a excavator was bought in on thursday the 11th of feb 2016 there was still asbestos walls on the house when it demolished the house I could see white fibres in the air and a smell from this the only precaution was the man hosed his excavator after the walls where placed in a container and picked up early the next morning. I would like a investigation into this I have video and photos to use as evidence.

  20. In Ascot Park SA on “Four Single Storey Group...” at 8 Hazel St Ascot Park:

    Urban Planning Consultant commented

    In accordance with the requirements of City of Marion Medium Density Policy Area 12 the proposal will provide all the mandated car parking both under the main roof in garages and for visitors that is required for a application of this type.

    In consideration of the comments; the writer has identified the main issues in the vicinity ,being congestion and limited on street car parking but as they point out this is as a consequence of commuters using the train , adjoining businesses their staff and their customers and restricted access off Daws Road therefore this is a council policy issue concerning the locality not issues specifically related to the redevelopment of this site.

    The redevelopment of this site when approved with be in accordance with the City of Marion development plan medium Density Policy Area 12 requirements , there will be no overlooking or privacy issues associated with this site as the development is single storey only .

    I also make reference to the observations of Judge Bowering in the ERD Court in the matter of Gray v City of Holdfast Bay which concerned the Liberty Towers proposal on Colley Terrace, Glenelg. His Honour Judge Bowering who presided in that matter said on that occasion :

    Realisation of the full development potential envisaged by the Development Plan … would, of necessity, bring such development conflict with certain provisions of the Development Plan.

    The Court then referenced certain DP provisions relating to the protection of amenity and the like. The Court then continued :

    Notwithstanding that conflict, we are of the view that questions of internal inconsistency in the Development Plan should be resolved in favour of the more detailed policy measures involved.

    In the case of the subject land, there is conflict between the twelve storey development envisaged by the Plan and other built form policies which are intended to have application over a considerably wider area. To circumscribe the development potential ascribed to Policy Area 4 in order to achieve conformity with the Development Plan provisions referred to above would be to make a nonsense of the 12 storey height when applied to that Policy Area.

    Put another way, when the Development Plan envisages a higher density form of development - and that is clearly the case in respect of the Zoning and the Policy Area that applies to the land - that there will necessarily be impacts on nearby land. However, issues of bulk, scale, mass, height, overlooking, overshadowing etc are all part and parcel of a higher density sought by the specific zone provisions, a concept clearly understood and recognised by Judge Bowering in the Gray case.

  21. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Construction of a six (6)...” at 4 Innesdale Road, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    suzanna szabo commented

    This is not a six storey boarding house- it is an apartment block and as such needs to be applied for as such.

  22. In Capalaba QLD on “Advertising Device” at 20 Loraine Street, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy E Glade commented

    What is being advertised...and what is meant by 'device'?
    Just wondering.

  23. In Redland Bay QLD on “Home Business” at 30 Queen Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Peter Hoare commented

    Will this home business have an impact on Queen Street traffic. Queen Street is a trunk collector or main arterial road though Redland Bay

  24. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construct Multi Dwellings -...” at 265 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Trinh commented

    I am all for this development if it stops development in the other parts of Wantirna South such as between George St and High St. Lets try to concentrate developments within Burwood Hwy and Stud Road ONLY!!!

  25. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Maxine Farrar commented

    Please ensure adequate notice is given to the surrounding residents and that all necessary permission and notification have been displayed correctly. I live next door and would be very grateful to receive plenty of advice and information pertaining to any developments on this site. Thank you

  26. In Glen Iris VIC on “Removal or variation of...” at 179 Glen Iris Road Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Ben commented

    Single dwelling covenants are obviously the most important part of these covenants but some other aspects are equally important, incl. setbacks and building materials (e.g. brick). I think Richard is well within his rights to ask questions about this proposal. If not terracotta tiles, then what?

  27. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Pam commented

    The upgrade to Essex at will do nothing to help the traffic flow, instead it will just cause more angst to drivers. The extra lane ON the bridge will not be built for many years after the upgrade .The extra lane on Epping rd heading towards the bridge and Parramatta will be a left turn only down Blaxland rd at Epping rd/ Blaxland rd intersection, minimal traffic takes this route to Blaxland rd, they mainly cut down Essex st.
    However, as most people know, the extra lane will be used by people to race up the outside and cut back in just before the bridge, so we will have traffic going from 2 to 3 back to 2 lanes to go over the bridge in the space of 500m. Doesn't help traffic flow at all.
    Likewise ALL traffic from North Epping will be forced to come through Essex st to go over the bridge. With units being built in this section of Essex st too and the third lane only being about 30 m long, traffic will be back to the round about in Pembroke st if not through it.
    More units, more people,more cars and not enough forethought for infrastructure and the residents already living in Epping, and of course NO parking provided for station me adds up to a big mess.

  28. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construct Multi Dwellings -...” at 265 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Paul Rogers commented

    I support this development. This has a sensible ratio of concrete to non-concrete area to allow proper drainage.

    It is close to public transport, meaning that the number of carparks is sufficient.

  29. In Glen Iris VIC on “Removal or variation of...” at 179 Glen Iris Road Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Ross Olney commented

    The variation being sought to the restrictive covenant is documented at Council as being for a "metal roof on a rear extension". This information will become generally available once advertising starts. As the Secretary of the Glen Iris Heights Estate Residents Group (GIHERG) I can confirm that our organisation does not object to this variation. It was originally applied to the Estate to prevent people from building and living in 'tin sheds'. It has no relevance today as Council would not allow this type of occupation. If you are interested in the GIHERG you can go to the web site . I trust this sheds some clarity ob the issue.

  30. In Geelong VIC on “Change of Use to Education...” at 155 Kilgour Street, Geelong:

    Michael Puche commented

    My wife and I live at 162 Kilgour street Geelong ( for 34 years) on the corner of Swanston street. We enjoyed a reasonable standard of cars parked around our property for 32 years. We now find with opening the Kilgour cafe and grocery at 164 Kilgour street the parking has increased out of control. We struggle to park in the area,and now with the new hairdressing school wanting to open at 155 Kilgour street I cannot imagine how many additional cars will be trying to park near our house. Cars park all day in vacant spots by people who work at the hospital or the C.B.D. We would ask that the permit be cancelled and the school does not go ahead.

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