Recent comments

  1. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Murray Crescent resident wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    For this to be approved would be a contradiction of the Knox housing strategies claims that the important aspects of Knox should be enhanced and retained.
    This would ruin the character of this street, increase traffic congestion and does not enhance the area, it would ruin it.
    These dwellings are not appropriate or wanted by the residents of this area.

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Epping NSW on “35 Oxford Street, EPPING...” at 35 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    I can't find the previous DA, which I believe has been approved, but this application appears to be seeking an increase the height of rooms, which I assume means an increase in the overall building height. The height in the new application appears to exceed the allowed height for the location.

    If my suspicions are correct then this application should be rejected. There appears to be a growing practice of using one design to get approval and then seek modifications that possibly would not have been approved if part of the initial application.

    If the developer wishes to change his plan, then the previous application and it's consent should be withdrawn so the new design can be properly evaluated. There does not appear to be an Environmental Statement associated with the new application, for example, so it's not possible to properly understand it;s significance.

  3. In Brunswick West VIC on “Buildings and works for the...” at 9-13 Duggan Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Toby Corkindale commented

    I object to the reduction in car parking.
    We desperately need MORE car parking in this area, not less!
    It's getting hard to find car parks in the area at peak times.


  4. In Bannockburn QLD on “Multiple Dwelling (96...” at 25 Bannockburn Road Bannockburn QLD 4207:

    Michael commented

    I also agree with the above and the amount of problems that have started since the garage has open on the corner of Bannock burn and Beenleigh Re hoon,s and noise extra should speak for its self. This is a quiet family area suited for housing and acreage not units.

  5. In Brunswick VIC on “Development & use of the...” at 61 Blair Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Stephen Franklin commented

    The document attached to this application ( MPS/1998/602/A) at

    are for 21 Eva Buhlert Close Brunswick

  6. In Eveleigh NSW on “Change of use of Suites G03...” at 1 Central Avenue Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    BIKESydney commented

    This development should be conditioned to provide more than the basic quantum of bike parking prescribed in the DCP (Section 3.11.3 Bike parking and associated facilities) given the adjacent uses, which include other educational facilities, the CSIRO, cafes and the Transport Management Centre. The limited existing bike parking at this location is already heavily used.

    Further, Australian Technology Park (ATP) is a site that is, and in its future conception, shall remain, heavily over-serviced for cars. The existing ATP site is unacceptably biased to transport by car. This, with Redfern Stn barely a 5min walk away.

    The ATP precinct is in grave need of modern master planning. The absence of modern transport planning for the site will materially constrain developments such as the subject application, in that ready, easy and obvious modes such as walking and cycling will be undermined by the over-reliance on mobility by car.

    The development sits within a highly walkable and rideable precinct and has terrific access to public transport. Accordingly, developments such as this one should be required to over-service walking and cycling.

    Provisioning of bike parking (including visitor parking) and end-of-trip facilities within and surrounding this development beyond the quanta mandated in the DCP will return the land use and the precinct high utility - particularly given the proximity of Redfern Stn and the proposed future active transport bridge over the railway corridor proposed by UrbanGrowth NSW.

  7. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Sarah wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    This type of development breeds traffic congestion and overspill of cars onto the streets. We have a lovely suburban, family feel to Rowville which will quickly disintegrate with the development of multiple dwellings and high rise developments. I would hate to see what is happening in Boronia happen in Rowville. Keep our family, suburban neighborhoods the way they are. This is why we bought here and this is why we love Rowville.

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Vanessa commented

    This is getting beyond a joke! This is way to excessive for this suburban area with the amenities to support such a development. I find this hard to believe this when you turn down to even submit a 2 house development on over 1200sq block?? I find that very conflicting if that goes ahead yet you wont allow the latter! People have bought in Rowville for its suburban feel and not for excessive townhouse/unit developments.

  9. In Rockdale NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 19 The Seven Ways, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Melody smith commented

    There are far too many boarding houses in this location. I own property on Frederick Street next to an existing boarding house where there are consistent alcohol and noise related problems. There are enough boarding houses in this street and the addition of more will further damage the character of the neighbourhood and undermine council's attempt to elevate the profile of the suburb and Rockdale town centre. I am dismayed that on my street 2 federation semis have recently been demolished for a boarding house and I hope that council will not continue to make such poor decisions. There is ample affordable housing in this street already.

  10. In Brunswick VIC on “Development & use of the...” at 61 Blair Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Mark wrote to local councillor Helen Davidson

    Is the Council selling the public park for this inappropriate development? How many families will be affected by the loss of this park?

    Where will the children play now? On Blair street? Which is basically a rat run with vehicles traveling at more than 40kph?

    Delivered to local councillor Helen Davidson. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 308-314 Stanmore Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Brent commented

    I love the idea and I live across the road.
    Anything that promotes or enhances the area is a good idea in my mind.
    The Crystal Street end of Stanmore road is a bit run down in parts, (although getting better), and needs a boost. 4 new businesses can only be a good thing.
    The plans look sound and the end result looks great.

    Traffic impact and parking impact? Really? you can't be serious.
    Its a great building,this will only make it better, at the same time giving everyone in the community the opportunity to utilise it - you should be applauding and promoting the idea!

    It may even prompt the council for a new "safe" crossing over to the park.

    Nothing to complain about in my mind.

  12. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Concerned resident wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    Completely inappropriate for a suburban street - where will all the extra cars park? Knox city council you are way out of line if this goes ahead!! Our elected councilors need to step up and work for what the people of the area want!

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Camberwell VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 585 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Coral Ross wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    Thanks for contacting me about this Jill

    Just to give some details: the application is for the construction of a four storey building containing 52 dwellings and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1. The site is zoned General Residential Zone 5.

    The application is currently being advertised.

    The building comprises four (4) levels with two (2) levels of basement. The four storey height is towards the centre of the site.

    All plans and documents can now be viewed from the following link

    People can lodge a formal objection using our online objection form at

    People can also get information about the planning application process here

    Jake Matthews is the planner who has been allocated this application. Jake would be happy to assist residents with any queries they might have about the planning details.

    I am also very happy to speak to residents.
    My details are 0438 005 225 or
    Coral Ross, Gardiner Ward councillor

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

  14. In The Entrance NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 2 Norberta Street The Entrance NSW 2261:

    Rose gray commented

    Is this more Public Housing in our area ....we are being swamped and so evident with the down and out people that are just wandering the streets during the day...... we are losing our wonderful identity as a great holiday destination and only drawing undesirables!

  15. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead wrote to local councillor Darren Pearce

    Knox Council don't seem to care about the amenity of Rowville. The majority of Councillors are effectively advocating for high rise everywhere - including Upper FTG opposite the National Park.

    Delivered to local councillor Darren Pearce. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Proposed change of use of...” at 1 Donovan Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    Mark commented

    Traffic levels in Revesby Heights have increased in recent years to near capacity as a result of the high level of construction of dual occupancies. The replacement of single dwellings to dual occupancies has doubled and tripled the amount of vehicles on the road and the double driveways halves the available street parking. Revesby Heights has narrow roads and when vehicles are parked on opposing curb sides it reduces the roads to single lanes. Everyday drivers have to pull over to let oncoming traffic through. I have witnessed the local bus driver having to stop to fold back car mirrors before entering streets. There are many further developments planned coupled with a multiply storey residential development that will add further increase congestion.
    When the Hero’s Hill club operated the suburb was mainly single dwelling housing. Most patrons walked to the club, especially the war veterans who lived in war service homes in the surrounding streets.
    The demographic that will use the community hall does not match the local community and therefore there will be a significant increase in traffic in a small suburb that does not have any through roads.
    The previous club was generally quiet (hence it closed), and on the odd occasion when it hosted a populate event, like ANZAC day, the streets were mayhem, even before the recent increase in development.
    I oppose the DA for a community hall due to the inadequate traffic infrastructure in Revesby Heights to cope with any further increases in traffic.

  17. In Drummoyne NSW on “Development Application -...” at 29 Bowman Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia:

    Sandra Spencer commented

    Sorry. Comment above should have been in relation to the development in Millar Street Drummoyne.

  18. In Drummoyne NSW on “Partial demolition and...” at 17 Millar Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia:

    Sandra Spencer commented

    Unfortunately I made a comment on the wrong development. Please apply my comment on Bowman Street to this development.

  19. In Drummoyne NSW on “Development Application -...” at 29 Bowman Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia:

    Sandra Spencer commented

    There have been numerous submissions regarding this development outlining the concerns of surrounding residents. The development proposals put forward over the past year have caused us increasing concern. The four story complex with increased Windows and verandas is seriously compromising our privacy. The ceremonial drive in Mary street will increase traffic flow and danger to children and elderly residents. Trees have been removed which could have reduced the effect of a large scale development in a residential area. The regular waste disposal plan and location will cause increased noise and truck movements in our narrow streets. At the very least the proposed disposal area should be contained well inside the complex. The proposed sign in Mary Street, if illuminated will cause excessive light in our front bedrooms. I support the concerns raised by other residents in previous submissions and can't understand how a construction certificate can be granted to such a development contrary to codes which restrict an aged care facility of such size in a residential area. I have not made a donation or gift to a Counsillor or council employee.

  20. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Peter commented

    completely inappropriate proposed development for this area, How can this even be a consideration by the Developer.... All 3 + multi unit development must be keep to Lakeview side of Stud Road. This must not accepted at all... Just purchased in April 2016 for 1.5MIL Knox City Council do not let this go any further....

  21. In Tempe NSW on “To remove 261 parking...” at 634-726 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Kate commented

    Hasn't Tempe suffered enough? Do we really need more development stuffed into this location? Was the provision of this parking part of the conditions of Ikea's DA? - if so, it needs to be retained. Ikea is chockers 7 days a week, reducing parking is not a great idea and could just put more pressure back onto local streets.

  22. In Braeside VIC on “USe the land for a Personal...” at 2 20 Canterbury Road, Braeside, VIC:

    Pete Boardman wrote to local councillor Tamsin Bearsley

    I Pete Boardman clearly object to the granting of this permit.
    The business is currently trading obviously without a permit.
    The classes currently consist of more than 3 people.
    The property has only 3 car parks and as such the clientele use other car parks allocated to other factory owners.
    The music being played while people are working is played so loud that the walls vibrate.
    The owners have little or no regard for the other property owners that have to put up with the issues raised above.

    Delivered to local councillor Tamsin Bearsley. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Mascot NSW on “Demolition 5 construction...” at 19 Robey St, Mascot 2020 NSW:

    Tess commented

    Wow - talk about overdevelopment in a residential street. 5 storeys!!!!!! This can't get approved

  24. In Tempe NSW on “To remove 261 parking...” at 634-726 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Scott Williams commented

    I agree with the previous comment. With all the new developments around IKEA the issue of traffic and parking impact to Park Road needs to be addressed.

  25. In Gladesville NSW on “To construct a 6-storey...” at 1 Stansell St, Gladesville, NSW Australia:

    Andrew Franz commented

    The oversupply of units in Sydney is about to implode.
    Please ensure that the developers provide a deposit upfront, to clean up the mess in case they run out of money when the project is only halfway.

    Previous commentator is an Estate Agen and not resident in this area.

  26. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed use and...” at The Quiet Man Hotel 265-271 Racecourse Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Mark Aistrope commented

    Multilevel apartment building means more traffic when we cannot cope with the amount of traffic using Racecourse Rd already. Kensington is a great suburb but it's village feel will be eroded if more apartments are built.

  27. In Gladesville NSW on “To construct a 6-storey...” at 1 Stansell St, Gladesville, NSW Australia:

    Chris Razmovski commented

    I am in favour of this development as it provides more housing opportunities in our area.

  28. In Sylvania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13 Crystal St Sylvania 2224:

    Luke Ashworth commented

    Working on Sunday
    Then made comments that you don't know who u dealing with
    Felt thereten

  29. In Tempe NSW on “To remove 261 parking...” at 634-726 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    IKEA has already added significant traffic accessing Park Road which is entirely residential. People already use it to avoid 3 sets of traffic lights between Unwins Bridge Road and the Princes Highway. It's practically impossible to park anymore.

    There is already Bunnings and Good Guys stores that being built next to IKEA so what is being done to safeguard residents from having to contend with even more traffic filtering into the street. Especially those in Park Road who did not benefit from access changes as other streets did when IKEA opened.

  30. In Sydenham NSW on “To fit-out and use the...” at 262 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    I've no problem with this development as long as it is a legitimate remedial massage business and not a brothel like the "massage" place around the corner.

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