Recent comments

  1. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Partial Demolition and 16...” at 31 Alexander Street Sandy Bay 7005:

    Joseph Bugden commented

    I write to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the application to construct 16 dwellings on the site at 31 Alexander Street Sandy Bay. This area of Sandy Bay currently includes numerous heritage houses, which have been constructed mainly as single, or in some cases two story residential dwellings, and which, together describe the historical settling of the local area.
    To construct a development that comprises 16 dwellings is, in every way, incongruous to the surrounding area in both architectural design and intention, as well as to the accommodation density of all existing residential dwellings.

    There is no need to construct the proposed building in this area, and doing so would cause extensive loss of and reduction in privacy for numerous residents whose homes would then fall in the shadow of this proposed construction.

    The proposed construction will impede also on the skyline to the east and west, increase shadow on numerous residents for many months of the year.

    The proposed development will also increase the residential density in this area, leading to even more traffic along Alexander Street to what is already a high risk roundabout, as vehicles travelling away from the University of Tasmania along Churchill Ave constantly speed through the Alexander Street roundabout, resulting in many near-misses.

    I encourage Council to reject this application and to ensure that such a development, which is so out of character with its surrounds, and which in no way improves the area or the quality of surrounds, does not proceed.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  2. In Southbank VIC on “Proposed change of use for...” at 141-155 City Road Southbank VIC 3006:

    Carlo Zeccola commented

    This is an excellent location and use of this space. I encourage and support the application.

  3. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Indhra Gare commented

    We have been a residents of Wellington street now for nearly 8 years. During this time we have loved having the tennis courts, providing outdoor opportunities for children and adults alike.
    We know this is not the first time a development application has been submitted for the property and understand it need to be rezoned first and that this has been approved.
    This is disappointing to hear as this area lacks outdoor community areas, considering the amount of families that live close by. We have seen some of our neighbours recently sell their properties and move out of the street and part of their decision to do this was the looming destruction of #105.
    As a young family ourselves, we are concerned at the potential invasion of privacy that a synagogue will bring with it's constant supervision and cctv along with a high level of increased foot traffic outside our bedroom windows. There are plenty of other places of worship in the area and we don't feel another on is justified. We certainly don't see that many churches in Bondi.
    Another disappointment was that the property owners have placed the Development Proposal signage up out of view from the footpath which means I am sure that most of the nearby residents know nothing of it.
    We hope you will keep in mind the tranquility of our area along with the natural fauna and flora which will disappear once construction starts. Isn't the idea to conserve what we have rather than remove it?

  4. In Oaklands Park SA on “Construction of one (1)...” at 11 - 12 Rajah St Oaklands Park:

    Nathan commented

    I do not work for the council, but I think you will find that unless they are going to build on your boundary, no notification is required to be given to anyone re a single storey development in this area. In fact it is illegal under the legislation for the council or relevant authority to do so. Three on a block in your area is probably allowable under the current zoning. If that is correct, then If you present in person to the council you may be allowed to view the plans as a matter of courtesy, but there is no obligation for the council to do so. If it is a complying development then you have no rights of appeal or consultation.

  5. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Partial demolition of...” at 34 Bondi Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Tess Stamell commented

    I totally agree with Linda ..
    This issue is long overdue for correction.

    The left lane of Bondi Road heading east toward Bondi should have a Red traffic light to stop traffic whenever its adjoining right lane has also been stopped. This will assist vehicles turning right from Council Street & Waverley Street into Bondi Road, and which need to access the Left lane in order to turn left into Paul Street .

    At this Major intersection where traffic from Council Street, Waverley Street and Bondi Road meet, the Only lane to Not have a Red light, is the Left lane in Bondi Road ! Whether the pedestrian island is approved or not, I still believe that this matter should be rectified and that all lanes have equal rating .

    There are vehicles needing the left said lane and there are vehicles using the left lane wanting to merge into the right lane with the on coming traffic from above mentioned streets and all within a short space . This is hazardous and needs to be addressed with the simple suggestion put forth .

  6. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Development and use of the...” at 69 Main Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Neville Shade commented

    I would have to agree with several of the points raised by the fellow posters above. As a family who lives and has to access Hyde street on a daily basis I can concur that traffic in and out can be a problem, especially when St John’s have a function or funeral. Cars often park both sides of Hyde and Bage Street making maneuvering in and out of these streets near impossible. It’s not unusual to see cars parked on the nature strip around the bend blocking line of sight. I am greatly concerned that a childcare centre of this size would add to this problem. I can not way in on whether there is or isn’t a need for another childcare facility but I urge council to consider locals with possible increase of traffic congestion.

  7. In Oaklands Park SA on “Construction of one (1)...” at 11 - 12 Rajah St Oaklands Park:

    Grant croft commented

    Hi,

    Just wondering if this application is to be notified? As we are currently overseas for 3 more weeks. If so would it be possible to seek plans to be emailed?

    Thanks in advance.

    Grant

  8. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Carla Slater commented

    It really saddens me that one of the remaining open spaces in Bondi is at jeopardy of being developed with a synagogue. This does not benefit the greater community of bondi in anyway. When you look at a map of bondi you can see that the Jewish community are very well taken care of with many synagogues and meeting places all within a very close proximity. This very precious space needs to be preserved for something that is of value to the greater and local community of Bondi, which is quickly losing it's identity. Although it now seems inevitable that the lovely relaxing tennis courts of wellington street will no longer remain, please reconsider what takes it's place.I am strongly against this proposal.

  9. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Luke S commented

    As a local resident overlooking this site - I loved nothing more than using the tennis courts, seeing the local community both adults and children playing tennis and seeing the sense of community . I am strongly opposed to this development as it only benefits the Jewish community of Bondi, not the broader community. No one should force their religion into an area especially as densely populated as Bondi. There are already many surrounding places of worship available to the Jewish community, all within walking distance - why allow another one on one of the busiest streets in the area. If the land is now zoned for residential via the gateway decision, then please develop a smaller number of apartments that fit to space without a place of worship as the visitors to the beach and restaurants already take the limited amount of car spaces especially on a Saturday adding a Synagogue will only add to the existing problem. I am strongly against this,

  10. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Susie commented

    To everyone commenting, a friendly reminder to send a letter of objection to Randwick Council by Wednesday 18 May, in order to ensure all of our objections are noted:

    Christopher Gorton
    Randwick City Council
    30 Frances Street
    Randwick NSW 2031

    Email: council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

  11. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Susie commented

    I have serious concerns about such a development and object to this proposal for many reasons and believe the Development Application is misleading on numerous counts.

    It is also worth noting that a child has already been killed on Bond St, near the cnr of Bond St and Duncan St, some 40 plus plus years ago. An elderly resident/neighbour who was here at the time recalls this and also the name of the family. Randwick Council would be able to find record of this if needed.

    As a resident who has lived within 100m of the proposed site for many years, I object to the proposal on the following counts and have elaborated on each point in my letter of objection to Randwick Council:

    1. Parking
    2. Traffic congestion
    3. Noise implications
    4. Number of children and safety
    5. Number of staff
    6. Hours of operation
    7. Layout of centre and waste
    8. Demand for services

    A 'boutique' service offering 43 places will do nothing to assist the demand for services and will only create traffic chaos, parking chaos, noise and disruption to our local area - exacerbated during the summer months when traffic and parking spills up Bond St.

    I think the suggestion posted previously about the option of using the Maroubra Bowling Club site is an excellent one. This option is also underway in Katoomba.

    http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/1902986/new-childcare-centre-planned-for-bowling-site/

    The development of the Maroubra Bowlo into a Child Care Centre with additional community access would be a win/win for our local community and is far more appropriate.

  12. In Mount Colah NSW on “Subdivision - One Lot Into...” at 46 Sprigg Place Mount Colah NSW 2079 Australia:

    Dianne Mattatall commented

    Subdividing and building upon this block will create an unacceptable overcrowding of houses. The 'breathing' space will be diminished, not to mention the additional strain that will be put on the end of the street with extra vehicles and reduced street parking.
    It seems that if this development is permitted then the relaxed, bush environment that residents enjoy will no longer exist. Also of concern is the danger that exists with respect to the rock wall at the top of the block and probable land slip.
    Overall, it would be an unsightly over-development with the added fear factor of land slippage. I believe that it should not proceed. Thank you.

  13. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 11-13 Solent Circuit Baulkham Hills:

    Gordon White commented

    I remember ICE skating as child and the school excursions to the old Blacktown ice rink. That's gone now with a loss to that area and I went to enjoy SIA rink and its people. It's very disappointing to see we are doing the same mistake again in Norwest.

    Please keep a rink in Norwest.
    I'm all for progress, build upwards but please add a Rink some where please.

    The Winter Olympics confirms - ICE sport is recognised and enjoyed by so many people, please have vision consider the importantance of a variety of sport as well as a different type of active healthy recreation.

  14. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Paul Paech commented

    Like most other local residents, I am strongly opposed to this DA, which robs open recreational space from a locality which is already seriously deficient in such amenity.
    Further, anyone who has found themselves caught in traffic blockages along Old South Head Road will be concerned about the implications for traffic movement of this proposal.
    The inclusion of a synagogue on this site also raises serious issues of security and safety for the local residential community: already many sites associated with the Jewish community have installed massive physical barriers (often on public land) in order to protect the facilities against notional attacks. In each instance, the right to freedom of religion thus comes at an obvious cost to the well-being of established communities.
    Additionally, Council should be aware of the possibility of future sale of such facilities and of the modification of the approved use. For example, Waverley Council granted the Hakoah Club in nearby Hall Street significant planning exemptions (height, FSR etc) because the club promised long-term community benefit, only for the club to take the money and run when those exemptions were shortly afterwards sold on to property developers who then maximised these benefits for their own commercial gain - all this at the expense of the local residential community.

  15. In Earlwood NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 46 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Gavin Costello commented

    While I support the enhancement of the area and the addition of more homes, I'm hoping that the development consent includes a requirement for good site management.
    I write this in the context of recent safe access issues along the footpath during the recent development a little further up the street and at the current development across the road on the roundabout.
    To be clear, I believe it should be a requirement for alternative, safe walking spaces for people to be provided if construction blocks footpaths or makes them unsafe. And this should not be simply a sign that says "use other footpath" when there's no safe crossing provided on a busy road.

  16. In Plympton Park SA on “Demolition of two attached...” at 61 Tarranna Av Plympton Park:

    Violet C. commented

    These old semi-detached dwellings one was sold July 2015 as it was a owner occupied house. But the other dwellings was owned by the government. How can the other one demolished as well? Did the buyer of 61 Tarranna Avenue buy the other half from government? How about the people live there?

  17. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 47 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jen Barnett commented

    I strongly OPPOSE this development not only because of its negative impact on traffic, people and parking in the immediate neighbourhood of Applebee, Lackey, Hutchison, Short and May Streets but also because there is AN EVEN BIGGER PROPOSAL FOR THE SITE DIRECTLY NEXT TO THIS ONE... The combined total of this amount of residents will be catastrophic for this area and totally out of context with infrastructure surrounding us. How does this fit in with the masterplan for St Peters Triangle?

  18. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    alex pearson commented

    I object to this development application. The developer has shown no respect or concern for people who live in the area or listened to any previous objections. A 7 storey residential apartment building is neither wanted or needed on this site. Places to eat, drink and connect with other people in our community are needed. Please retain some history and personality in our "village".

  19. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Kat Clarke commented

    I believe the proposal being put forward, should it be approved will benefit only a certain segment of the community and unjustifiably impact the remaining residents.
    The building and their use are not going to enhance the environment rather increase pressures on congestion.
    It's of importantance the community is saved from over development.

  20. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Kat Clarke commented

    I believe the proposal being put forward, should it be approved will benefit only a certain segment of the community and unjustifiably impact the remaining residents.
    The building and their use are not going to enhance the environment rather increase pressures on congestion.
    It's of importantance the community is saved from over development.

  21. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Hayden Bartello wrote to local councillor Sally Betts

    Hello,

    I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well as I have used the tennis court facilities frequently. I object to the development of such a large block of units in this location, with an inadequate number of car parking spaces. My objection is primarily because removing one of the local community's few remaining open-space, public-use sports facilities (ie, the tennis courts) will permanently be deleterious to the area.

    Bondi Beach is already a heavily developed area, with numerous places of worship within a short walking distance from this location. Removing one of the rare open-air sports facilities that ALL residents can use, for the proposed use by only a small section of the community would be an example of extremely poor urban planning. There are numerous places of religious worship for the Jewish community less than a few minutes walk from here. Why does the area need another one in such close proximity to existing facilities? What benefit does it bring for the broader overall Bondi community?

    This section of Wellington St is a residential street comprised mostly of semi-detached houses and this proposed development would negatively impact the character and amenity of the street. The scale of the development - two three-storey apartment blocks versus mostly one and two storey buildings on the street - will overwhelm the visual characteristics of the neighbourhood as well as hinder neighbours’ sunlight, privacy and outlooks. These impacts will affect most nearby neighbours.

    Traffic congestion, and lack of car parking, is already a considerable issue in this section of Wellington street (it is frequently impossible to find an available street car park after 6pm). This development will create further extreme pressure on car parking given the low number of new car spaces proposed. It is simply not a sensible or appropriate location for such a development.

    The negatives of this development resoundingly outweigh the positives. I hope Waverley Council considers the broad local community when assessing this development and does not approve it.

    Photo of Sally Betts
    Sally Betts local councillor for Waverley Council
    replied to Hayden Bartello

    Many thanks. Sure you known how hard we fought against this rezoning. Will make sure your submission is registered. I will be making my own submission.

    Take care

    Sally Betts

  22. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Csilla Irwin wrote to local councillor Dominic Wy Kanak

    It is concerning that once again one of the few remaining open spaces for sporting activities in this area is targetted for high density living. Bondi is already a very densely populated suburb.

    Delivered to local councillor Dominic Wy Kanak. They are yet to respond.

  23. In South Coogee NSW on “New car stand on either...” at 69 Malabar Road South Coogee NSW 2034:

    Ray Zammit commented

    Great initiative, need to get as many cars off the road as possible.

  24. In Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 77-79 Molle Street Hobart 7000:

    Clive Hubert Taylor commented

    Dear Sir,I wish to comment on the application,77-79 Molle Street.At the moment parking is very difficult, I own the shop on the corner, and provide a parking spot for my clients, this new development provides none, although there is a garage door to an area underneath that would easily take 5 cars.If a penthouse can be built on top, surely the entrance can be enlarged to garage some cars from this large apartment building.This area is referred to as communal garden & with the existing shed to be demolished, even more room.The businesses in the area all require short term parking(from 5 minutes to 2 hours) including the PCYC gym & exercise area.The short term parking that was available has been built on,and what was available is full by 8.30 every day.I know the area is light industrial, but the council must look at the parking problem before it's too late to change anything.There also appears to be no fire escapes on the plan, the stair well is very narrow???Is this normal?

  25. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Rebecca commented

    In part 3.2 it states there will be no more than 43 children aged 0-2, the aplication then states no more than 44 children aged 3-5. Which is the correct age of children that this centre will cater for? There appears to be conflicting information in this aplication. If the age is 0-2 then the stated ratio of 1 staff member to 11 children does not comply to national quality standards.

    There are never any available car spaces between 0630-0830 and 1700-1900 as it is for current residents in this street. Taking away parking from existing residents will impact residents in the streets surrounding the area.

  26. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Umberto Mancinelli commented

    Dear sir or madam,
    I would like to express my serious concern and opposition regarding the gross overdevelopment of the site and the fact that the local and council area would lose valuable and rare open space. As council already knows, parking is at a premium and most garages in the area are used for storage or rented out rather than parking. The outlook from Hall St properties bordering with the development site will lose their outlook and peaceful enjoyment of quiet. I also oppose the construction of a Synagogue because there are already many such places of worship within a very short walk of the site location. This development will bring social and environmental problems which will be deleterious to the area and it's residents.

  27. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed medium density...” at 81 Cuthbert Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin. This development adds to the oversupply by removing a family home and adding 1 X two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show adequate space for the planting of replacement vegetation.
    3. The tandem parking proposed will result in on street parking which will increase congestion and pose extra risk to pedestrians.
    4. The development proposal includes two new cross-overs which will increase risk for pedestrians and conflict with the street tree on the long boundary.
    5. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    6. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    7. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    8. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    9. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    10. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    11. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  28. In Preston VIC on “- Construction of a four...” at 672 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more-bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 2 X two bedroom flats and 1 x1 bedroom flat.
    2. There is an issue of overshadowing of neighboring properties private open space due to the topography of this site, which this development fails to address.
    3. The development is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme in regards to residential policy, residential character, height, side, and rear setbacks, walls on boundaries, ESD measures, solar access and dwelling diversity.
    4. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with small living spaces poor direct daylight via due to lack of windows and reverse living arrangements with private open space only provided on a balcony, unventilated bathrooms.
    5. C137 recommends 3 storey for Tyler Street area with 30 degree set back, the proposed development fails to meet this objective as 4 storey on east side of Tyler Street and not 30-degree setback.
    6. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue, as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion entering/exiting the laneway will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many school children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    7. The development is contrary to Clause 22.06 (Multi residential and mixed-use development) in regards to materials, set-backs, visual bulk, ESD measures and equitable development.
    8. Lack of a waste management plan accompany the application and storage of bins. The plans show rubbish bins are to be stored inside the premises.
    9. The proposal is inconsistent with Clauses 55.03-3 B8 site coverage, 55.03-4 B9 permeability, 55.0401 B17 side rear setbacks, 55.04-2 B18 Walls on boundaries and 55.05-6 B30 storage.
    10. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    11. Taking into account the predominant single and double story, freestanding houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    12. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    13. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    14. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    15. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    16. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    17. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  29. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 47 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Darren Simpkins commented

    I strongly oppose this application based on the traffic increase this development will create around the St Peters triangle, particularly Lackey Street, Applebee Street and Short Street. The density of the apartments with the lack of parking will only exasperate an already overcrowded parking and traffic situation. I am particularly impressed with the assumption that only 10 residents per day will be driving in and out a development that has 58 apartments during peak hours! Are these the same calculations used for Westconnex usage?? And the fact that there is less than one car park space per unit will not affect the existing parking availability??
    The height of the development is also not in keeping with the surrounding area, and will not only affect sunlight and quality of life, but also the unique character of the area, which is slowly being eroded by the approval of similar developments. The people of teh Inner West chose to live in this area for its character and charm, if we wanted to live in apartments we would all have moved to Wolli Creek.
    Please do not approve this development to further destroy the Inner West, which our State Government are so keen on trying to achieve, as a local elected politician please keep the Inner West character and charm.

  30. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 65 Croydondale Drive, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    john commented

    i hope this multi dwelling applications will ease the high demand of double story town houses.

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