Recent comments

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

    N peterson commented

    Agree strongly. Yes our beautiful suburbs are soon to be a story. My grandchildren wont see the ecidna brush turkeys we feed every day by hand or the three possums that sit with me at night on my verandah whilst i feed them fruit. These little things r why my children luv our area and have a love and care of nature. No trees means no possums or other wildlife. My daughter at 10 asked why those mean people bulldoze down the old pretty houses? I just cried.

  2. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Section 96 modification to...” at 36 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    What does this mean , how is the street tree involved please ?

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

    Concerned resident wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    What exactly have the Boroondara councillors been doing all this time? 2 brothels operating right under their noses. Pretty sure there are several more lurking around.

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

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

    Concerned resident wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    What exactly have the Boroondara councillors being doing all this time? 2 brothels operating right under their noses. Pretty sure there are several more lurking around.

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

  5. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Sherie Barton commented

    This is typical behaviour of developers. They get the first part approved and then gradually add more. There should be a law against it.

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

    Maree wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I went for a walk today to confirm the brothel is operating from 241 Canterbury Road, Canterbury, discovered another asian massage centre at 197 Canterbury Road, Canterbury, also is advertising on Locanto with the message "different asian young girls every day fresh". I suspect this is also a brothel, directly across the road from the childcare centre in Canterbury gardens.

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

  7. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    karen oliver commented

    Living in very close proximity to this development I am concerned about the extra traffic flow, carparking issues as well as the crime it may bring to this area. Upgraded traffic calming works have begun. I hope that there will still be the 'left in left out' onto Mt cotton road from this complex. Construction vehicles were also meant to soley enter/exit from Moreton Bay Rd. This did not happen as we had all day concrete trucks often. I just hope this development does not ruin the area.

  8. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    Ryde Community Alliance requests that the application to vary the approved development be refused. The provision of a Community Centre as part of this development is a clever manipulation of the existing development consent to benefit the developer far more than the local community by providing additional floorspace for the community centre presumably as an "in-kind" contribution in lieu of s94 developer contributions.

    While a community centre is a valued community asset, the redevelopment of Meadowbank is characterized by the imposition of approvals way in excess of the local development standards without strategic land-use planning to address the future needs of the residents.

    The re-development of the Crowle Home and the P& O Totalizator Building, both heritage listed; offerred opportunities for the integration of a range of facilties to serve the local community, such as a community centre, while retaining the cultural heritage and providing an attractive community focus. Consideration of the social needs of the people in the area is essential to avoid building a massive housing estate with little amenity.

    The Alliance believes that the application for amendment of the approved development to gain additional floorspace and primarily benefit the developer should be refused and contributions be required as provided under the existing s94 plan. Noting also that the S94 Contributions Plan is in urgent need of revision to make it relevant to the massive population increase arising from the existing part 3A, concept approvals, and increased densities now permissable under the Ryde local environmental plan. No upper limit for the population of Ryde has been contemplated by the council or the NSW Government while the approvals have been rapidly rolled out in a totally ad-hoc manner.

  9. In Waterloo NSW on “Application for the...” at 171B Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Geoff Mason commented

    Good to see another ugly grubby industrial complex gone in Waterloo. A boot manufacturing plant that spews out toxic emissions via an enormous extraction fan next to the pedestrian walkway on Botany Road.

    The replacement development is attractive and well thought out and offers Defence Personnel a nice place to live. Easy cycling distance to Garden Island and the new Metro station in Waterloo up the road in 8 years time (?). We welcome you to the neighbourhood.

    "The Waterloo metro station would also allow further development and expansion of the Global Economic Corridor between the Sydney CBD and Green Square" - Transport for NSW.

  10. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 98 Bible Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeremy Livingston commented

    Test check only - no objection to application

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

    Nita K wrote to local councillor Philip Mallis

    Dear Mr Mallis,
    I refer to your response to Claire that the application Boroondara City Council, reference PP16/00043 claiming that the application may not necessarily be for a brothel. Perhaps the link to their brazen advertisement provided by Petra Morris should open all the elected councillors eyes a bit to see what is going on right under their collective noses. Leaves little to the imagination about what services they provide, no?

    Just in case the massage brothel decides to remove their advert while we debate this issue, I've uploaded some screen shots here:
    http://imgur.com/a/dsBgZ

    To summarise:
    This parlour is literally opposite a park/Canterbury gardens frequented by little children and teens; a few metres from the church; 1.4 kms to Canterbury Primary School.

    From the advertisement I am rather aghast to learn that this brothel has been operating right under your noses as an ongoing business/concern. So what exactly have council been doing all this time? We residents have been paying ever increasing rates to Boroondara council and funding fat-cat salaries for what? I sincerely request the elected councillors to act on the concerns of all your rate paying residents and shut down the brothel immediately.

    Kind regards,
    Nita K

    Delivered to local councillor Philip Mallis. They are yet to respond.

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

    Petra Morris wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    The pics in their advertisement on Locanto are an obvious indication that there is more than massage on offer.
    Go to this link before it is deleted:

    http://m.locanto.com.au/vic/ID_602699248/Canterbury-Asian-Massage.html

    Boroondara council is not protecting rate payers, not enforcing bylaws and subsequently allowing the exploitation of these young women. Firstly the operation is not offering a standard massage service. It's clearly offering sexual services to 'Guys'. And secondly its operating in any case without a permit approved.

    You need to act now Councillor and stop being bureaucratic. This is wrong. Shut it down.

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

  13. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    John greenwood commented

    Can you please advise how a build can ask for a boarding house with 17 rooms ,and only include 5 car spaces on Babbage road .will the other members of the boarding house park on the road , were there is only a very narrow feeder road out side this site?

  14. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    Gaby commented

    This is an area where a boarding house would not be appreciated. We have many young families and a playground close to the above property. My first concern is the type of residents who would be attracted to low cost boarding. My second concern is the removal of trees, too many trees have been unlawfully removed in the Roseville Chase area. We would like to keep the status quo of a peaceful, leafy family suburb and a low cost boarding house does not fit the demographic of this area.

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

    Schtang commented

    The greed creep by the State NSW government and their developer mates are destroying the essence of Sydney. We live in Sydney, not high density unitville of Bejing or Singapore. The heritage aesthetic of federation, and jewel in the grown bushland setting of Sydney sets it apart from any other city in the world. We need to protect this. HSC and the Baird government's myopic attitude to creating a Bairdtopia and treating a community as a commodity is quite disgraceful.

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo wrote to local councillor Morris Hanna

    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape nor the cadastral patten of properties in the street. This Section of Warren road is of historical, social and architectural interest to the state of NSW. It remains as assessed in the Marrickville heritage study of 1986. For example Joe Cahill ( the Cahill express was named after him) was raised in this street and many contributors to Sydney's public service and business have lived here. Not to mention the historic and heritage church with and parish house nearby.
    The street demographic comprises families, elderly and low cost housing. As one resident said- it is a lovely street with lovely people and should remain as it is.
    The house at number 27 Warren road is a largely intact Italianate building with original features. All through the development application the owner/applicant derided both the street and the house. The signage for publication of the DA was between 30 December 2015 and 26 January 2016, right in the middle of the holiday period and the public notification sign was not visible for days during this period. Many people who live in close proximity to this property also state that they did not get a notification letter so as to respond to this development application and were dismayed.
    All in all it is a shame to increase the congestion and reduce the amenity for this already crowded and busy street, for the local hardworking community that resides here in Warren road.
    As a local resident I am aware that all of the houses remain largely intact inside and out. The street attracts visitors and artists from all walks of life, young renters like the street for its historical charm and there are people who have been here for over 50 years. The development proposed at number 27 is not instep with the NSW state government plan nor local zoning rules,this part of Warren road is meant to be low rise/ low density accommodation. To put 3 three bedroom houses with basement house and carports and paved courtyards on one plot is overcrowding and insensitive to the area and local residents.
    This house is now being renovated for the purposes of a boarding house and it is clear that there has been no development application for such a purpose. Council needs to look into the actions of the developer. If the house is ruined from the inside will this affect councils assessment of this property because the applicant had stated incorrectly that there were little or no original features to this Italianate property?

    Delivered to local councillor Morris Hanna. They are yet to respond.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo wrote to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore

    Additionally, the owner of number 27 Warren road is now doing renovations and states he intends to make the house into a boarding house. This is before the original DA has been assessed. There has been no planning permission sought for a boarding house in the initial DA. A reference to low cost accommodation in the DA is not the same as a boarding house DA.
    I was dismayed to see workman come to the house on 9 February with sledge hammers, parking illegally on the street and doing some kind of renovation.
    The owner if he is to make a boarding house of this property needs to make another DA.
    Warren road between Illawarra and Livingstone roads has upwards of 4 rooming and boarding houses at present maybe more- as well as other low cost housing and apartments. The accommodation at number 27 Warren road requires major renovations to comply with a boarding house development. Council should investigate the developers intentions and actions.

    Delivered to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Thornbury VIC on “Medium density housing...” at 121 Hutton Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  19. In Waterloo NSW on “Application for the...” at 171B Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Sally commented

    This development would integrate more into the existing community and is more in keeping with the marketed diversity agenda of Waterloo than a previous application (https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/547711). However the number of residents using bicycles over cars is optimistic -- where does the City of Sydney Council expect the residents to park, and how does it expect the area to resource the parkland, entertainment, recreation, etc. amenities required by this and related high density developments endorsed for the area?

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

    Maree commented

    I found the advertisement for the brothel on Locanto, it gives the impression the business is already operating from this address. Pictures of four Asian girls, one is nude and two are flashing their underwear, 100% convinced they are hookers. Boroondara council tell the truth. As a resident of Boroondara I do not want brothels in the area, especially ones that are likely to be involved in human trafficking!

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

    Vanessa commented

    Not all of Epping's residents are against change. Believe it or not we need to accommodate for the increasing population and NIMBY attitudes don't help. Epping is no different to the rest of Sydney, which is undergoing high density transformations.

    Anyway, I do agree with Norman that school and local infrastructure upgrades are essential to accommodate for the increase in population around Epping.

  22. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Kate Mai commented

    Hi,

    I WOULD LIKE TO SAY "NO" WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT

    We have moved in Winston Hills for about 1 year and the main reason for us to choose this suburb is because there is no high rise department, which makes it a charm, peaceful area. The infrastructure is not designed for high density as all roads just have one lane. Childcare centers are overcrowded as I could not find a place for my daughter so I have to send her to a far away childcare center. Primary schools are also suffer as my son is going to kindy this year and teachers said they have to open one more class, with the same staffing, which create much pressure for them.

    My husband takes bus to work everyday and said the buses are heavy load, sometimes no seat. I drive my kids to school everyday and there is often no parking near the school. Imagine what happen when we have few hundreds new comers.

    In short, the suburb is only attractive as it is now. If you allow to build a high rise department, both old and new residents will not feel happy living here as they will have to compete hardly for very limited infrastructure and service resources. The only happy party is the developer with a full pocket of money.

    So, please be thoughtful about this, your decision will affect so many people and their families.

    Best regards,
    Kate

  23. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Alastair Agnew commented

    I concur 100% with the submission of Huw Edwards on this matter. That the planning authority should even countenance such ad hoc, post-approval variations does seem to make a mockery of the entire planning process. It seems a deliberate, pre-planned and strategic approach by developers, whereby the initial application is little more than a starting point in terms of how the development will look when completed.

    The role of the planning authority in this process is disheartening. Rarely are these variations ever denied. Thus this submission carries no expectation of having any effect on the outcome.

    As local residents, we respect the need for an increase in the housing stock as per local zoning. However the effect of these cynically rolled out additions, with the inevitable sharp degradation of overall amenity (as noted, placing even further stress on the already chaotic present day transformation of Bowden St) is to completely remove any residual confidence in the fairness and validity of the planning process.

  24. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy Glade commented

    look forward to viewing completed landscaping as there appears to be limited space to work with. Many people wonder where additional cars will park when project complete since most families have two cars and what will amenity & wellbeing be like for locals residing in narrow Aramac Crt surrounds cnr Redland Bay/Mt Cotton Rds when 271 apts occupied? Lately, I'm finding it harder to find a car space under Capalaba Park shops car parking across from site & can't help wondering...what will it be like when the 271+ apartments are occupied? I've shopped at Coles for past 30 years and would like to keep on shopping there, if possible.

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

    Norman commented

    It's difficult to believe that the supportive comments don't come from people wih a vested interest like developers and real-estate agents. I hope HSC are not swayed by anonymous comments by people who, for all we know, don't even live in Epping.

    As a long-time Epping resident, I'm appalled that these sorts of developments are being approved without any apparent consideration being given to the impact they will have on demand for local services such as schools, as well as traffic and parking.

  26. In Fitzroy VIC on “(a) the demolition of...” at 142-144 Johnston St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Kim Monaghan commented

    Is seven stories for private apartment building and given the many current developments in progress appropriate for Fitzroy? Single and double storey houses, warehouses and factories, and retail buildings are being swamped by multi-storey developments. Fitzroy is rapidly becoming a suburb of short term residents living in singularly occupied, high density accommodation. The sense of community diminishes with each and every multi-storey development.

  27. 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.

  28. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Huw Edwards commented

    I oppose this development on the basis that it has already gone through an exhaustive approval process which dealt with the issues and loss of amenity resulting from this project in great detail.

    If there was a requirement for the community center it should of been included in the existing development application and not added on after the fact, along with the additional parking which will exit directly onto the already stressed Bowden street.

    In the last two weeks the developer has requested 65 additional parking spaces across two applications alone. It is foreseeable that we are talking about hundreds of additional parkings spaces on top of those approved by the time all developments are done.

    The developer needs to respect the decisions taken by the planning authority and councils and stop continuously coming back with substantial changes to their development, mostly driven by the desire to increase their profits.

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

    Vanessa commented

    Eight houses are being demolished, not one. These developments along the Cliff/Kent/Carlingford roads are limited to 5 levels which is not that bad considering places like Wolli Creek are building much higher in a smaller area.

    As long as the local schools can accommodate the increase it should be ok. With regards to parking, the Cliff/Kent street areas are used by many people who need to park their cars in order to catch the train at Epping station. Generally parking around this area has been untimed and free for the whole day. What is going to happen to street parking once residents start moving in to these developments? Although these developments have basement parking, potentially hundreds of residents and non-residents will be competing for a limited amount of street parking.

  30. In Hawthorn VIC on “Subdivision of the land...” at 124 - 130 Burwood Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Glen Thomson commented

    This building is already under construction - why is planning permission being sought at this stage?

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