Recent comments

  1. In Turramurra NSW on “Erection of a new 2 storey...” at 8 Laurel Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    Stephen Rennie commented

    We are the adjoining neighbors in 6 Laurel Avenue. Our only concern is if the trees have approval to be removed our privacy will be greatly compromised. Particularly as the new house will face two bedrooms and may also look over our pool area. Can we suggest a 1.8m lap and cap fence be placed between the properties replacing the existing metal fence. I am also not sure why this property is listed as number 8 when it will be the 7th house in the street, not the 8th.

  2. In Trinity Beach QLD on “Operational Works -...” at 108-112 Trinity Beach Road Trinity Beach QLD 4879:

    Tom Pickering commented

    Hello i live in Periwinkle Avenue building works have been going on behind us i would like to know what they are doing

  3. In Launceston TAS on “Transport Depot and...” at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    M McGlinn wrote to local councillor Ted Sands

    All of the above comments are very clear in expressing how the majority of residents feel toward this noisy disruptive business. Then add the constant dust bowl, Russian roulette in even just pulling away from the curb let alone coming out of a drive! Engine brakes intermittently still being used by some drivers just adds to the whole big picture NOT acceptable so close to a residential area..!!

    Photo of Ted Sands
    Ted Sands local councillor for Launceston City Council
    replied to M McGlinn

    Hi Mike , I am aware of the above proposal, and will discuss same further, it is a $20 million development down the track . I will be in touch regards Ted
    From: [] on behalf of M McGlinn []
    Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 1:20 PM
    To: Alderman Ted Sands
    Subject: Planning application at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250

    All of the above comments are very clear in expressing how the majority of residents feel toward this noisy disruptive business. Then add the constant dust bowl, Russian roulette in even just pulling away from the curb let alone coming out of a drive! Engine brakes intermittently still being used by some drivers just adds to the whole big picture NOT acceptable so close to a residential area..!!

    From M McGlinn to local councillor Ted Sands


    M McGlinn posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to M McGlinn and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250

    Description: Transport Depot and Distribution - road and rail freight terminal; extension and refurbishment to existing buildings and construction of new buildings and rail link, new signage and 3-lot subdivision in 11 stages

    Read more and see what others have to say here:

    Best wishes,


    [] [] [] []

    Please consider the environment before printing this, or any other e-mail or document.

  4. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 60 The Boulevarde Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Michael Darby commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society makes very important points and the heritage issues must be addressed and the proposal should not be be approved. The impact on the removal of the heritage features of the inner west are leading to a overdeveloped high density area environment and once gone they can not be brought back.

  5. In West Ryde NSW on “Construction of a...” at 30 Farnell St, West Ryde, NSW:

    John Yuan commented

    Farnell st is very narrow. Low density should mean one house on the original block size. Townhouse is medium density. If one block is allowed for medium density it should be allowed for everyone on the street.

  6. In Parramatta NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 39 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    greg temme commented

    June M Bullivant OAM
    in my opinion you are incorrect about the council having ruined the heratige value of the Lennox bridge. I am very proud to live in Parramatta , i use a wheelchair for mobility. The council have done an exceptional job in respecting the heritage value of the Lennox Bridge while giving access to the whole community to the beautiful Parramatta river foreshore . I use the modification to the Bridge almost every day and can highly recomend to all , go down and have a look , read the heratige information there. It is something we can all be proud to share with new generations and visitors.
    Thanks Parramatta Council

  7. In Stretton QLD on “Domestic Dwelling” at 4 Yorkshire Road Park Ridge QLD 4125:

    Narelle Van Der Hoeven commented

    I can see a 4 Yorkshire Place located in Stretton on the google maps ??
    I can not find 4 Yorkshire Road anywhere sorry.
    Does this application relate to Stretton or Park Ridge?

  8. In Wantirna VIC on “Restaurant and cafe Licence” at 30 Tanderra Cres, Wantirna 3152, VIC:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    Why on earth would any authority consider granting a restaurant and cafe licence to an ordinary home in the middle of a residential area? The streets are too narrow for customers to park, for a start. This is entirely inappropriate use for this area and surely must be a mistake.

  9. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jeff Murphy commented

    Does Padstow really need a third fitness centre? Don't we have enough singlet wearing men on steroids coming to Padstow in noisy cars?
    As a by the by, residents opposite this old picture theatre are already complaining about cars tearing through this part of Padstow at high speed so a speed bump might be considered here.

  10. In Belrose NSW on “(insert details)” at 169 Forest Way, Belrose NSW 2085:

    Warren Boyd commented

    The proposal to provide entry/egress to/from a site with a development as large as this one form a quiet residential street such as Childs Circuit, is preposterous.

    On any day, there is access for one vehicle ONLY through the centreline of the carriageway, with vehicles parked on either side. If these vehicles are large 4wds, the resultant space is even less.

    During one 20 minute period from 10:15 to 10:35 on Friday April 21st, 23 family vehicles and 2 trucks entered or left Childs Circuit from Perentie Rd. At that time, 2 removalist trucks were occupying space as well at 11 Childs Circuit whilst unloading furniture.

    Considering the size and weight and manoeuvreability of construction vehicles and the affect on the amenity and likely noise levels generated, the day-to-day living conditions would be intolerable. Childs Circuit is a quiet, narrow residential street which was not designed to carry the volume of traffic a proposal such as this would generate. Parking on the street is currently at a premium and the expected number of visiting vehicles would disenfranchise local residents of parking spaces.

    Access to all of the other properties on Forest Way is from Forest Way itself. This should also apply to this current development.

    I have not and would NEVER make a donation or gift to any Councillor or Council Employee and it is insulting to constituents to even include the need for this disclaimer.

  11. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    M McCartney commented

    City of Parramatta Council has received 53 tree removal applications this month and 85 last month. The majority of these applications have noted the species of the trees for removal. This application does not identify the types of trees being removed, whether the trees are near the home or if the trees are diseased. How can the Council make a decision on this application without this information? If the Greater Sydney Commission is serious about the Green Grid then at the very least they need to introduce having arborist's reports for the removal of trees.
    For development applications, if the Council receives 10 objections from not less than 10 individual households then the matter needs to go to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for consideration. I would like to request that the Council includes tree removal in this process. Tree removal needs to be regarded as the loss of a public asset and the environmental value of trees should be seriously considered in the decision making process.
    It appears to me that most tree removal applications are approved so are they just an administrative recording process? The process for getting approval for tree removal needs to be toughened up ASAP. When will the Council protect our communities from this massive loss of trees and the negative environmental repercussions which will result?

  12. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Apply to...” at 112 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121:

    M McCartney commented

    I would like to request for the City of Parramatta Council (Council) to run an education program ASAP on the value of trees and tree management. Firstly there are products which can be put into the drains to remove tree roots from the sewer. This tree removal application does not identify whether this has been trialled before the removal of this mature tree. Secondly children have been playing under trees and climbing trees for 1000's of years. The applicantion does not include an arborist's report to demonstrate that the trees poses a risk. Thirdly on face value this application appears as if the applicant does not like trees near their home. However, Epping is a leafy suburb and having trees in our properties and parks is part of the reason why many choose to live in Epping. I would like to request that the Council provides written notices to the neighbours of this property to see how the removal of these trees will affect the neighbourhood and get the opinion of neighbours. Fourthly they note one tree is too close to the public footpath. Surely the risk this presents to passers by needs to be assessed by Council and not the land owner. I like walking under trees which overhang the footpaths. I am able to assess the risk and do not see the need to have a tree removed just because it might fall on me. Epping cannot sustain the 100s of trees being removed and remain a liveable suburb.

  13. In Launceston TAS on “Transport Depot and...” at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    S Fenton commented

    I agree with all the comments by R Page. I have considering contacting council to find out what if any. noise restrictions are in place for this area. I live on the edge of this district and am regularly awoken by reversing beeps and trucks in the small hours of the night. Not to mention security alarms that constantly go off.
    I would not support and further development of this area if there is any chance of more noise pollution.

  14. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Matt Syron commented

    As an owner of a house in earlwood I strongly oppose this development. I purchased my house not too long ago to live in a low density housing community which I have been around for years. Just look st what the units have done to the Canterbury station area!!!!

  15. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Minor Change (s78) to...” at 659-667 Chambers Flat Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Sue-Ann Dunning commented

    I strongly object to this planning application being approved. There continues to be no future planning for new primary or high schools in this area, already the existing schools are to capacity. Logan Reserve State School is still on bore and tank 2017 how much longer will it take to hook up town water. The school will need new pipes for this to happen and what government funding has been allocated for this?

    Developers are only required to meet minimum requirements to carve up our rural land and do not provide the necessary local facilities to provide for community living. Suburban precincts soon become areas of low income owners with no bus services, local shops to support the community.
    The once beautiful trees and local shrubs just disappear in one clearing and we are supposed to except this environmental disaster.

  16. In Chipping Norton NSW on “Development Application -...” at 21 Balanada Avenue Chipping Norton NSW 2170, Australia:

    keith howdin commented

    I totally agree with the above comments. Liverpool Council has already acknowledged a traffic issue by installing the current traffic controlling mechanisms. I also agree that Balanada Avenue cannot currently sustain existing traffic, let alone the additional 13 Townhouses already approved at 22 Balanada and now an additional 13 at 21-23 Balanada The properties at 21-23 also have at least 12 large gum trees that are popular habitats for bird live. Bird live in this area is quiet abundant.

  17. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Barney Allen commented

    I couldn't agree more with the previous correspondents. I am well and truly 'over' witnessing the destruction of these once beautiful green suburbs all in the name of development. The new developments, in my opinion are destroying the once beautiful ambience of our suburbs. I spent thirty years working in south western Sydney where mature trees were often non existent. The resulting effect was that many of those areas were hot, dry and ugly. Trees provide homes to native wild life, filter the air, provide oxygen and shade, and lower the temperature at ground level. Developments must only be approved around the existing vegetation (trees) not over the top of it. If this means that the structures being built have to be smaller, then so be it. Developers seems to only driven by profit. It's time the local planners and politicians started respecting the environment, the wishes of long term residents and restore some respect for our previously beautiful green suburbs. If they can't find this respect, I suggest they move to south western Sydney and find more sympathetic suburbs.

  18. In Parramatta NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 39 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Susan E. Russell. commented

    Susan E Russell J.P..
    June M Bullivant OAM has said all there is to say. There is someone out there who could restore this building to it's original glory it is in a prime position for everyone to see. It is a shame it has been neglected. Preserve some of Parramatta's fast disappearing grand history please.

  19. In Launceston TAS on “Transport Depot and...” at 35 Dowling Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    R.Page commented

    Given the close proximity of the "Light Industrial" Zoning to residential properties, major shopping centre, schools and college the upgrade of an already too busy and noise polluting business that disrupts traffic through the CBD and inner business precinct and residential streets. The business has no regards for normal business operating hours like all of the other businesses in the same "Light Industrial" area. Forklift reversing beepers and B-Double prime movers operating at 1am, 3am on weekends or week days waking sleeping children is causing this business to effect the nearby neighborhood. The flood lighting of the premises already impacts on nearby buildings as well. This is making the residential properties less desirable and devaluing properties with 5 minutes walk to the City Park and CBD. There is already an issue of this Transport business effecting the flow of traffic in the suburb, the unrestricted noise and light pollution is already unacceptable, so why make this worse? It is already unacceptable and disappointing that the Council will not impose restrictions on this already very busy business, that the Council will not act upon when questioned to reasonable operation hours. Imagine if we mowed the lawn at 1am the number of complaints would be huge and the action taken by the Council would be swift and decisive, but because it is a business why should this be acceptable? And now they want to make more noise with more truck AND Trains too!
    This is not the Launceston that we would choose to live or invest in.

  20. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    It's disheartening to hear that developers seek to remove mature native trees simply because it does not assist with their preferred routing of power lines.

    This raises two more general issues:

    (1) There has been noticeable tendency for developers to "overlook" certain environmental aspects of their projects when submitting their plans. If removal of a tree was not part of the initial Environmental Impact Statement then it should not be allowed as a follow-up application - the developer and architect would know full well from the outset that power was needed for their project, and would have considered how this was to be achieved.

    (2) It's not clear if the example Christine Beasley mentions involves overhead or buried cables, but these new developments should all be required to use only sub-ground cabling. This would go at least a small way to offset the environmental damage being done to our suburb. Besides the aesthetic aspect, underground cables are less prone to storm damage and reduce the hazards for road traffic. Any planning authority concerned with achieving a liveable suburb will recognise this

    It's not difficult to route underground cables around significant assets, such as mature trees.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 28 Victoria Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    I totally support Michael and his most pertinent relevant points.
    Why would Council even consider getting rid of a tree-for what reason? I live across the road from "urban development " where individual homes have been knocked down before my own eyes as well as all of the garden trees shrubs grass flowers "massacred"-in one specific swipe. Clearly there had been no planning of garden or nature strip with the State Government or Council- why not.A specific example is at 19 Forest Grove Epping, a mature and healthy lemon scented gum tree bludgeoned slowly to death because a construction site-9-11 and now 15-17 said it got in the way of their power lines for their new 5 story block of units????As well as its environmental beauty it provided our street benefiting the day to day health of our residents walking past it or just standing and appreciating it's incredible beauty and fragrance. Gone-murdered-care of a certain Electricity company being employed by the State Government.
    Who are these(new?) residents who are wanting our green community stripped of its historical and environmental beauty. These trees have taken so many years to grow. When I moved to Epping back in 1991 Hornsby Council had very strict rules about not removing any tree on public space and you had to even get permission to cut down a tress on your own property. Where has that rule gone? I say "NO' to any tree being removed in Epping or surrounding areas such as Eastwood.
    It simply is not good enough for Council to turn our once green and proud Community suburb into a concrete jungle.
    Michael also mentioned the new cargo line train line. Before before it was built there was possibly one cargo train at around 1.00am-I can hear the trains very clearly from every train from my address. Since this new line has been installed and now full functional -very long cargo trains -each running in their length for around three minutes and now run regularly all from that 11.00 pm ALL THROUGH the night. My sleep is non existent as a result. Thus plus "urban development "across the road six days a week for two years now and another two to go at least. Council seriously needs to consider their " Duty of Care" for us residents in Epping and Eastwood and certainly stop allowing threes to be cut together with State Rail "sound proofing" the consistent noise disturbance" for us residents from these long noisy cargo trains running all night long seven nights a week ASAP.

  22. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    John commented

    How can this be even seriously considered given the current traffic issues in the immediate vecinity. The roads around there would have to be blocked for many months and given the ridiculous time you need to drive through there it is not practable as Hartill Law rd is a major artery through there. Wow Earlwood may start to look as embarrassing as Canterbury soon. Council should stop feeding off these developments and start looking after the community that vote them in before their pockets.

  23. In Lane Cove NSW on “Development of 9 Townhouses” at 175A Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    Margaret Clinch commented 10 days ago
    I oppose the development of 9 town houses in this part of Burns Bay Road.

    If densification proceeds in Sydney at the rate it has been happening, there will be nothing left of its character. This applies even more in the case of Lane Cove. The character of Lane Cove is being destroyed by too much development denser than free standing family homes.

    Lane Cove is a suburb where people have come to live to invest and enjoy its natural and leafy environment, and raise their families. It is a'modest suburb and not highly commercialised - a contrast with the character of Chatswood and North Sydney.

    Some years ago, there appears to have been medium densification on the upper strip of Burns Bay Road with a whole series of town houses along its way. These are quite spacious in layout compared with modern standard with setbacks and room for shared gardens. Nevertheless, these well established town house situations cause parking problems.

    This particular part of Burns Bay Road is near the dangerous intersection between Burns Bay Road and Centennial Avenue. Parking is also difficult there because of the nearly shops, a bus route, and a narrower section of the road.



    delivered to the planning authority report comment

    Fourteen days is a very short time in which to make a comment.


  24. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Anna Le Masurier commented

    I oppose this proposed development for a number of reasons, not least because its scale will exacerbate what is already a very congested location.
    - Re traffic: The intersection at which the development is proposed is already a bottleneck during weekday morning and evening peaks and weekends, made worse since traffic lights were recently installed at nearby Slade Rd.
    - Re pedestrians: the church, senior citizens and library opposite this site and the primary school 100 metres away mean there is a great deal of foot traffic around this site. I have witnessed cars going through red lights at this intersection multiple times, which particularly endangers younger and older members of our community. (I have reported red light infringements to the RMS but heard nothing back.)
    - Re parking and visitor access: Richard Ave is a narrow (one-way in parts) street, with limited parking already. In busy periods, people park on both sides of the street, making it hazardous to drive down. If there were increased development, this existing problem would worsen.
    - Re construction: the scale and location of this proposed development also pose problems for the build phase. I would anticipate that if it is approved, Richard Ave, Ibex Place and Sunset Rd residents will have limited access to their streets as there is not enough room to park dump trucks/utes etc. Is there a proposal to mitigate this?
    Finally, I have lived on Richard Ave for more than 10 years and have seen the traffic congestion, litter and parking availability worsen considerably around the area over this time. I am not a NIMBY but believe residential development should complement the neighbourhood, not degrade it. I was pessimistic when Council sold the narrow strip of parkland at the top of Hartill-Law a while back (which was a lovely piece of greenery and had aesthetic, well-kept flower beds which were a pleasure to sit amongst) and now unfortunately my fears have been realised upon seeing these plans. I believe Council should reject this DA as it will not enhance one of our suburb's main hub areas.

  25. In North Perth WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 12 Hunter Street, North Perth, WA, 6006:

    Naomi Leonard commented

    To Whom it may concern

    I am an adjoining neighbour to this property and the plans have never been seen or received by me regarding the current building submission.
    We have had excavation diggers turn up on the property today - Saturday 22nd April and this was our alert to look for the plans.

    The council has made no effort to inform any neighbours about the plans etc.

    This will be followed up at the council.


  26. In Moorabbin VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 Horsmunden Road, Moorabbin, VIC:

    Michael Engeman commented

    I object to this application for a lack of safety...

    1. Traffic congestion exceeding safe capacity limits:
    The proposed development will have a significant, unpalatable impact on traffic congestion to Clay Street and Horsmunden Road. These two are already struggling to cope with the existing traffic load (which far exceeds normal residential traffic loads, due to the close proximity of the Moorabbin Oval, Holmesglen Institute, adjacent dog park and not to mention an alternative route to Chapel Road.

    The corners of Clay and Horsmunden are tight and narrow and it's often very difficult to safely navigate them as there are multiple cars parked on the street leaving only a single lane to drive. Our streets cannot cope with any further increase in traffic and/or parking levels. Likewise, exiting Horsmunden Road onto Clay Street is also fraught with danger, due to the significant congestion created by parked cars and existing traffic.

    2. Unsustainable impact on street parking:
    The rising cost of home ownership has resulted in many existing nearby residents having older children living at home into their twenties, resulting in many residents parking cars on the street as they have more cars than their driveways can fill. The demographic profile of existing residents suggests this problem will only worsen over time.

    The area cannot cope with a further reduction in parking spaces which will ensue from having 3 x 3/4 bedroom dwellings, which will require additional street parking for both residents and visitors.

    "Roy Morgan Research reported the average Aussie Achiever household has 2.27 cars at home, while 11.6 per cent of Achievers have the means to own four or more vehicles".

  27. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 82A Review -...” at 364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Christina Karakiozis commented

    Please don't go ahead with another concrete jungle building clogging up our already contested roads and uglyfying such a beautiful suburb. This needs to stop!!! We need more green to deal with the concrete jungle already erected at KFC!!! Please think of the next generation, what are they going to be breathing???? Into air tanks at this rate!!!!

  28. In Crows Nest NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 160 Willoughby Road Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Charlotte Hunter commented

    Public transport to Crows Nest is not great so people from surrounding suburbs do need to drive. The shops want people to be able to purchase items and residents will want visitors. Of course this development should have as much parking as possible. Meters, 1P and 2P parking and only two public car parks in Crows Nest mean that all developments should comply. Unfortunately our society will not be car free anytime soon. A large development that does not comply will negatively impact other residents and businesses it has to be fair for all.

  29. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Ell Dee commented

    Ian and Trudi your comments are true and the discussion of many.
    I work 1 km away from my home and need to take my car. In the past it took me 4 mins to get there, it know takes 15 mins and Im having to take risks most days just to get out onto Stud rd.

  30. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of property for...” at 48 Rickards Avenue, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Ian Simpson commented

    Trudi we argued for traffic lights in council but it is a Vic Roads responsibility and they won't install lights unless 4 people are killed at the intersection over four years. No intersection qualifies in the Knoxfield estate. Knoxfield is the only estate that does not have traffic lights to control exits at any exit street.
    For every development we lose a couple of trees. Whatever happened to the leafy image of Knox. New residents only want to remove trees. We need more Gardens for Wildlife.

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