Recent comments

  1. In Moorabbin VIC on “See links:...” at 16 Schofield Street, Moorabbin, VIC:

    Adam and Loretta South commented

    We are alarmed by the proposed development of a 3 story apartment block at 16 Scofield Street. We are residents of Dactyl Rd which is local to Scofield street. We do not wish to see a high density housing development like this, go forward. Apart from the loss of the garden suburban character of this area, which is a very real and major concern, increased density living will result in:

    * Loss of open space
    * Loss of vegetation
    * Increased traffic
    * Increased noise
    * Increased congestion
    * Parking issues (while residents may have parking under the building, where do their visitors).

    The above listed concerns are real issues for residents like us who are local to this proposed development. We moved to Moorabbin as it is a quiet, sleepy garden suburb with lots of space and park area and is ideal for a young family like ours. Allowing development of high density living so close to us, destroys all these attributes and will result in our family moving away from Moorabbin.

    Approval of this proposal would clearly indicate that Councils' emphasis is on providing a fast housing option to allow for population growth and that the needs of current residents in this electorate are very secondary, if not unimportant.

    We trust that you will consider our comments, and comments from others like us, and will decide not to go ahead with the development of a 3 storey apartment block on Schofield street Moorabbin.

  2. In Caringbah South NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 60 Telopea Ave Caringbah 2229:

    Margaret Stratford commented

    I would like to object to the planting of flame trees at the back fence boundary of this development. I live in 15 Lynch Ave, Caringbah, which back onto this development and the roots flame trees are notorious for getting into sewer pipes. The main sewer pipe runs through the back of our yard. We will also be loosing a lot of sunlight from our yard when they reach maturity. There are a lot of other trees that could be planted that don't have an impact on the surrounding environment.
    Hopefully common sense will prevail here.

  3. In Reservoir VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 17 Rosenthal Crescent Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Jeanette Laught commented

    To Whom It May Concern
    I object to the building of a Child Care Centre at 17 Rosenthal Crescent Reservoir

    1.. There are adeqate. child minding centres in this area. being Merrilandsl Childrens centre within walking distance and established for at least 40 years, Gellibrand Crescent kindergarten, Kenilworth Street Reservoir Child Care Centre, Koala Child Care Centre and Kookaburra Kindergarten and several more on the other side of the railway line the largest being Oakhill

    2. These Centres the Child Care facilities in particular often have one or two vacancies.

    3. This residents of this area are older, or retired, and most of the children are at school.

    4 The planned site is in a quiet residential area and parking would be at a premium , not to mention traffic noise , and the fact that it is on a bend in the street which could cause congestion as people take their children to the local schools.

    5. There are no employment facilities in the area to demand childcare facilities for their
    staff

    I urge the council to refuse this permit for the aboive reasons

  4. In Reservoir VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 17 Rosenthal Crescent Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Jeanette Laught commented

    To Whom It May Concern
    I object to the building of a Child Care Centre at 17 Rosenthal Crescent Reservoir

    1.. There are adeqate. child minding centres in this area. being Merrilandsl Childrens centre within walking distance and established for at least 40 years, Gellibrand Crescent kindergarten, Kenilworth Street Reservoir Child Care Centre, Koala Child Care Centre and Kookaburra Kindergarten and several more on the other side of the railway line the largest being Oakhill

    2. These Centres the Child Care facilities in particular often have one or two vacancies.

    3. This residents of this area are older, or retired, and most of the children are at school.

    4 The planned site is in a quiet residential area and parking would be at a premium , not to mention traffic noise , and the fact that it is on a bend in the street which could cause congestion as people take their children to the local schools.

    5. There are no employment facilities in the area to demand childcare facilities for their
    staff

    I urge the council to refuse this permit for the aboive reasons

  5. In Newtown NSW on “Erection of a food kiosk...” at 25-33 Erskineville Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Pete McGee commented

    I have significant concerns about the proposed erection of a food kiosk at the service station on Erskineville Rd. My main concern relate to
    1. the kiosk drawing additional disruptive people (foot-traffic and vehicles) to the area late in the evening when residents are trying to sleep,
    2. Additional vehicles driving through residential streets looking for parking late in the evening,
    3. The potential increase in rubbish discarded by kiosk patrons in surrounding streets,
    4. The potential for the kiosk to be a holding point for noisy patrons late in the evening,
    5. The risks associated with noisy, inebriated patrons of local hotels being violent when attending the kiosk late in the evening.

    It should be recognised that patrons of the kiosk will not just disappear at the proposed closing time of the kiosk, they will remain in the area after the kiosk ceass trading for the evening. The real impact of the proposed kiosk could be several hours after trading ceases.

    The proposed activity is out of keeping with the area it is to be situated. Local residents already have have significant inconvenience foisted upon them with the late trading hours of the Imperial Hotel. To add a food kiosk to the mix would only exacerbate the existing problems for residents and add a new mix of problems.

  6. In Kanwal NSW on “Change of use - Exhibition...” at 600 Pacific Highway Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Adel Firth-Mason commented

    Hi,

    My only comment is that with all these new home developments on the Pacific Highway, that there will be a variety in style and colour, land spacing between each development, and plenty of bush and tree replacements - to keep some pleasant integrity to the area for those passing by, and for the dignity of the district on the whole.

    Regards,
    Adel Firth-Mason

  7. In Gowrie ACT on “PUBLIC WORKS-ROADS-ASHLEY...” at Ashley Drive, Gowrie, ACT:

    Greg commented

    Hi
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised plans for the duplication of Ashley drive (DA: 201527652).

    As a local resident, my comments are as follows:
    - thank you for removing the traffic lights, and including turning lanes in their stead. This was my primary concern.
    - I am concerned the amendments to the angle turning out lanes have made them too sharp. Specifically Baracla Cres and Clive Steel Cres turning northbound onto Ashley Dr. Please ensure the angle the turning out lanes is not too sharp and includes a substantial on ramp to allow a car to gain enough momentum to merge with traffic.
    - thank you for incorporating noise barriers on the eastern side. Please consider incorporating substantial noise barriers along the western side to manage noise pollution due to the increased volume of traffic anticipated along this stretch of road in over coming years facilitated by this development.
    - I am disappointed by the lack of revegetaion. I do not think the number of trees adequately compensated for the number removed, especially since some are mature trees that provide important food sources, refuge and breeding grounds for insects, reptiles, birds, possums, and bats including the nationally listed grey headded flying fox. Please consider including substantial revegetation in the area to compensate. Please choose species that support native wildlife, with the traditional multi level canopy to encourage diversity and a range of species to reduce the spread of tree diseases.
    - Thank you for ensuring the connectivity of paths is maintained.
    I strongly object with the cycle path being included on the road. I know too many people who have nearly been seriously injured. I support dedicated bike paths but plea that they are away from the roads and don't cross turn lanes. We have so much beautiful tranquil open space in Canberra and half the fun of riding is you get to enjoy the commute. Further, by establishing bike paths off the road, you inadvertently encourage new bike riders to join in when roadworks occur in their area!
    - I can't tell by the diagram, so please ensure that the underpasses are wide enough to be spacious and well lit with natural light, without the possibility young women being cornered and threatened/attacked/ambushed.

    Thanks again

  8. In Killara NSW on “New dwelling - demolition...” at 28 Cook Road, Killara, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    This is an old Bakers family house. I have been doing history of that area, including history of people family names of: BAKER, COOK, WOOD, ANSELL. I would very much appreciate hearing from anyone interested in either these families or in the area.
    Thanks. John Byrnes, john.mail@ozemail.com.au

    I think this house should be heritage listed, not demolished. If interested in details why then please contact me.

  9. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 29 Mangarra Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    K Dangerfield commented

    This application has now been lodged with SPEAR so all objections must now be put through them I assume. The problem is that I cant access it to object. Is there a reason that the section for making objections hasn't been made available on their website for this property? At this point in time no objections are being shown for this property although there a quite a few responses on this site. Can Council explain this?

  10. In Newtown NSW on “Erection of a food kiosk...” at 25-33 Erskineville Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    julie moffat commented

    This is a very busy petrol station on Erskineville Rd. I think most locals identify it's location as Erskineville rather than Newtown. The use of this site for a temporary food kiosk is impractical and for the proposed hours is not fair to the surrounding predominantly residential neighbourhood. The tankers deliver regularly, and use this driveway on Union St for access, but it is proposed to be blocked. The 4metre no smoking laws will push the smokers 4 metres from the doorways of the Imperial Hotel which is opposite, and 4 metres from any food kiosk to where? In front of resident's homes and nearer petrol pumps? The proposed "seating" will be in the area of the fire hose, and the air hose, so you have to block the driveway access off Erskineville Road to put air in tyres? Is it correct, my understanding of Road Rules is that you cannot cross double lines, so if you cannot exit via Union St to turn right, then you have to exit from Erskineville Road driveways and cross the double lines if you want to turn right?

  11. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 29 Mangarra Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Catherine Senior commented

    Call Steve Barclay at Boroondara council. We need to be heard - enough is enough!
    The demolition permit has not been lodged yet. Could we get an overlay put on the house??

  12. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish improvements...” at 27 Railway Terrace Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Tory Loudon commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: 27 Railway Terrace, Lewisham DA201500333

    I am resident of Lewisham, living in the area for nearly 10 years. We have owned a local business for many years and have a 10 year old daughter at the local school.

    We were attracted to Lewisham for the sense of community and village atmosphere.

    I object to this development for the reasons already given regarding traffic congestion.

    I also object to the look of the building as it is not in keeping with the street scape and presents an ugly red brick facade onto the street without any appeal. Balconies, greenery and some more space would make a huge difference rather than building right to the edge of the block.

    I am worried abut the position of the garage slowing traffic further down - it is already banked up.

    Finally - the height of the building will affect sunlight for those living across the road.

    I wouldn't mind if the building was less of a concrete block and added value to the street yet we are giving up a lot for no gain. A less aggressive design with more community space and greenery would be much more appealing. Finally - we are also worried that the shops will become derelict as it seems there will be a glut of shops in the area. Maybe some of this area could be other types of community space rather than shops - common garden, music rooms for people to practice in, dance floors, meeting rooms? These type of activities would enhance the sense of living in a village and build community.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Tory Loudon

  13. In Meadowbank NSW on “Amended plans have been...” at 139 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Gary Lin commented

    Dear Ryde Council,

    I am writing in relation to development application No. LDA2014/0211 (Amended plans as at 13/07/2015). We are the owners of the property opposite this development at 141 Bowden St. We are against this development for the following reasons:

    1) The 2 buildings opposite our unit directly covers all sunlight to one of our main bedrooms. The height of these 2 towers will completely block all sunlight for the entire day. We will no longer have sunlight coming into the room. The sunlight map you provided to us also supports this view.

    2) The proposed development also will have sun light issues. The 2 towers, in particular the mid to lower floors will not have any sunlight to any of the rooms. I believe this goes against your planning rules?

    3) The proposed development is constructed too close to our property. I can see there are possible Air ventilation issues for our tower and the development.

    4) The development has a majority of the resident car parking in another building? Clearly this land is being over developed.

    I really hope that this development can be reconsidered as we are strongly against this development due to the fact it does not cater for sunlight or air ventilation and it appears the developer is trying to over-develop this piece of land by covering required car parking spaces across another building.

    Kind regards,

    Gary Lin.

  14. In Thornbury VIC on “Proposed construction of 5...” at 86 Normanby Avenue Thornbury VIC 3071:

    M. thornley commented

    having a family backyard facing this, will my privacy be invaded by over-high units?And will there be dedicated car parks on site?

  15. In Figtree NSW on “Residential - multi...” at 21 Terrie Avenue, Figtree NSW 2525:

    Sacha Wojewodka commented

    To Whom it May Concern,

    I wish to advise I DO NOT approve of this application for the erection of Mutli Dwelling Housing on Lot 301 (DP 1123222) 21 Terrie Ave Figtree NSW.

    This area is a quite family environment. All home in the surrounding are single dwelling. We have many families living in the area with young children - especially in Terrie Ave. Terrie Ave is a quite street and has only single dwelling home and I would like to kept that way.

    I have spoken with my neighbour and they all strongly agree.

    If this dwelling goes ahead, the traffic will increase, parking will also become an issues, as there is not enough room for parking resident in proposed dwelling. Residents and visitors will then have to park on the road. Where the proposed dwelling is going it is situated near a sharp bend in the road. The cars will have park on the bend which will make it very difficult to drive around. This will be a very serious hazard not only for the drivers but also the children that play outside.

    In summary, I have no objection to a single dwelling home as this is what is in keeping with the current family orientated landscape. There are many other areas in Wollongong where Multi Dwelling homes are build, I would suggest they build their house in these areas and we keep this area just for families who wish to not live in NON multi dwelling area.

    Thankyou
    Sacha

  16. In Wentworthville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 34 Lane Street Wentworthville NSW 2145:

    Brent Franich commented

    When will the house be taken down

  17. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Christopher Hodges commented

    The Alexandria Hotel is a wonderful building and a wonderful community amenity. As a local resident I witness the diverse users of the Alexandria who enjoy its social amenity and hospitality.

    The architecture is unquestionably a superb example of its era and the only example in our area that remains intact inside and out.

    It has been operated responsibly for the community for many years with no gambling, no disturbance on the local environment and no problem with drunken behaviour or violence.

    There is a broad community use of the venue for meetings and social events and of course sporting events.

    The building is an icon of the community, links well into technology park and the oval behind and sits proudly in excellent condition for its years.

    It would be impossible to replace and doubtful a new building will have the architectural integrity classic example of its era. It is a working building too, a useful asset too good to demolish.

  18. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Dan Kra commented

    I object to the demolition of the Alexandria Hotel building for the following reasons.

    1: the council zoning of this site allows for a maximum of 2 stories and a maximum height of 9 metres. The application is for 4 stories and up to 17 metres at the highest point! This is a massive increase over the allowance.
    2: the significant heritage value of the hotel. The development application’s Heritage Impact Statement mentions 6 other similar hotels in Sydney, all of which are heritage listed. I believe that it is an oversight that the Alexandria Hotel isn’t already listed and are requesting council grant an interim heritage order to stop any damage being done to the hotel while a formal application is undertaken.
    3: the enormous social & community importance of the hotel as an open meeting space in an increasingly population-dense area.
    4: the complete lack of parking included for new residents.

  19. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 29 Mangarra Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    PHILIP & JUNE STAHLE commented

    IT IS MORE THAN APPROPRIATE TO ENSURE WE LEAVE THIS PIECE OF OUR HERITAGE ALONE!!!! . . . IT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED!!!!
    WE SUPPORT THIS BUILDING'S RETENTION AS IT IS AN IMPORTANT INTEGRAL PART OF THE LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THAT AREA!!!

  20. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Nathan Hage commented

    I object to this planning application on a number of points.
    1) Loss of amenity – a social hub that has been in the area for 80 years
    2) Loss of Community
    3) Loss of heritage and history in a cultural sensitive area.
    4) Too much density of small apartments
    5) Not enough ratio of different size apartments.

  21. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Katie Hage commented

    I object to the demolition of a historically significant building in this important region of Sydney's inner city.

  22. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Vikki Hanson commented

    I believe that there is enough units going up in this area that the planned block of units is not going to make a significant gain to the community where as leaving this wonderful place of gathering will.

  23. In Waterloo NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Polina Oussova commented

    I strongly object to the demolition of this building.

    It is important that as the community grows and population grows that the primary focus shift from trying to cram more people into the suburb, and rather providing a neighbourhood and community for the residents to enjoy. We cannot tear down every pub and venue to cram in more apartments, this is short-sighted.

  24. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Justine commented

    I think small compacted homes in this area will cause massive issues with car spaces and traffic in and out if the area.
    Justine Harris

  25. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Nicholas Langley commented

    Firstly, I will disclose that I've made no gifts or donations to any Councilor or Council Employee any time in the past. Now on to the main event:

    Creating medium to high density residences makes total sense in a highly desirable location, close to the centre of one of the world's most fancied and livable cities - this is no secret. What seems to slip through the Cracks of Consideration is that all of the inhabitants of these newly built developments need amenities and infrastructure surrounding them. These people are going to find themselves without carparks, congested by both foot and vehicular traffic, and few places to shop or enjoy the outdoors. Most importantly for the average Australian, these people will find themselves without a reputable drinking hole, where their innumerable burning woes, conceived by the aforementioned lack of supportive infrastructure, can be dulled to an alcohol-assisted ache.

    The Alexandria Hotel is a beautiful space, both from the inside and out, steeped with history of a time well before any of ours. It fosters community, belonging, and the great game of Australian Rules Football. Having seen the proposed plans for the residential development, the residence will be soulless and squashed. The developer isn't interested in community or belonging. That's not lefty rhetoric, as I'm happy to acknowledge that plenty of residential developments are well considered for their inhabitants and are contextually appropriate to their environments. This is not one of those developments.

    City of Sydney, you've been championing the community - the little guys who just need a bone thrown at them - and I beseech (1870's speak) you to continue to do so. Surely you can see the graveyard that will be the proposed development doesn't need any more bones.

  26. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Kennie Ward commented

    This precinct is one that is developing rapidly and although the there may be a need for housing to meet this growth, it is so often the case that construction takes place quickly before much forethought is given to the future of the community, in terms of its use, it's design and what will make it an interesting and valuable part of our city going forward.
    Alexandria/Redfern is already a cultural hub with a sense of diversity and history, with a close proximity to the city - this is part of what makes it so attractive to visitors and residents. It would be a shame to fill the area with new developments if these come at the cost of losing historic buildings. Any precinct can be developed with the new - but there are few that have the ability to preserve a sense of history, while remaining current. By all means allow the area to grow, but I ask that we do this by integrating old and new. We need to plan ahead to keep this area a vibrant and interesting one, for the future of our city and its visitors, or it will become just another over-developed suburb.

  27. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Dave commented

    I object for the same reasons everyone has written above.

  28. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Jon commented

    I object, you greedy people. Stop raping and pillaging the city's heritage architecture/facilities all for the financial gain of a few greedy ones.

  29. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Rosie commented

    I object to the demolition of this beautiful hotel. Please do not allow this wonderful building and yet another piece of Sydney's history be replaced by yet another concrete complex. It is visited by patrons from near and far and a great meeting place because of it's historic charm. Should be preserved forever and anything else that is built around it should have to blend in ! This one building being demolished will not solve the housing shortfall and the area will lose one of it's last charms.

  30. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 29 Mangarra Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Joanne Marchese commented

    I agree. What is the point of having heritage overlays if they are so effortlessly overturned and challenged?

    If the City of Boroondara is not going to visibly fight harder to maintain the integrity and history of the streets and heritage housing which it has inherited then what will the council or its resident have in 10 to 20 years time? Nothing.

    None of it's character and history that it currently has which contributes in making Boroondara such a sought after, liveable area and one in which the council is so proud. Pockets throughout Boroondara might be more suitable to subdivide, but there is no need in such a historic street as Mangarra Road.

    Come on council... lend some serious support in assisting the maintenance and protection of our historical housing in Boroondara, and stop putting it back on the residents to carry the load in the fighting this constant development.

    This subdivision should 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