Recent comments

  1. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Multi-Dwelling Complex-New...” at 7 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Pamela Berry wrote to local councillor Keith Rhoades

    I'm opposed to the application 4 the over 55 residents at 7 Beach Street Woolgoolga.
    The reason I'm objecting to this development is because we are losing the village atmosphere that people want in Woolgoolga Coffs Harbour Council seems to think everybody needs to be multi storey people come to Woolgoolga and love the village because there aren't many seaside villages left. We dont want our village to become over developed and it is absolutely unnecessary, there are other areas in Woolgoolga that can have multi-storey buildings please leave our village alone keep the village at Woolgoolga it is well renowned for it character.

    Delivered to local councillor Keith Rhoades. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Lane Cove NSW on “S4.55 Modification of...” at 296 Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    Ed Gock commented

    Not to sound offensive but this area is starting to slowly turn into a characterless 7 storey concrete jungle. Firstly with so many apartments already built, there is not much green space or parking left in the area. Traffic coming in and out of the intersection is another concern. The height of the building means park is always in darkness more so in winter. There is still a lack of public transport in this area with only route 536 passing through the area. The 252 city bus does not count as it starts from Cope street and some residents have to walk quite far up the hill from here to get to this bus - they may even end up driving up to cope street and take up precious parking spaces there (cope street is already full due to non-residents parking there all day to catch the city bus)!

    So here are a few suggestions:
    * Reduce surface area of development and allow space for something like a community bus to park and make a u-turn. Community bus then makes stops along the way to lane cove shops and back. In addition to this, provide more landscaping and car spaces along the road for the park.
    * Cut down the number of floors to a more appropriate number (say 5-6). This means less units hence less money via having less council rate payers and smaller profit margins for the builder. I'm really sorry for this, but at least the units will be more liveable, the shadow is less obvious and you cut down on traffic congestion as well!

  3. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Jess Chambers wrote to local councillor Catherine Ann McCullough

    Please do not allow this building to be demolished only to build another service station. As a heritage building it seems ludicrous to demolish it before considering restoration of the building, particularly as there are already six different service stations very close to this site, and another one being built right next to Bunnings, also on Great Eastern Highway. I actually live on Blackburn Street and I can say with absolute conviction that we definitely do not need more service stations; anyone in the Midland area can probably find one on their doorstep at this rate. For example, anyone wanting to get fuel can easily do so at the BP on Great Eastern Highway approximately 100m away, or even at the Caltex 200m away. Another service station is hugely unnecessary.

    In addition, the residential area surrounding the Darling Range Hotel is an area with only two entry points, which are already fairly congested, and the intersection of Great Eastern Highway and Horace street is the only way for residents to exit right to travel up the hill. Adding a service station will introduce a lot of traffic to this area and make it extremely difficult for residents to use the Great Eastern Highway & Horace Street intersection, especially at peak hours.

    I feel that with the City of Swan's aims to redevelop Midland, keeping (or even restoring) the Darling Range Hotel promotes a unique identity that could be otherwise lost. The Midland area has a rich history that this hotel is notably part of, and removing it would be a waste. The City of Swan has proven itself to be more than capable of restoring historic places in Midland, so why not go for this option and let Midland be remembered for its many historic areas rather than somewhere with a service station on every corner?

    Photo of Catherine Ann McCullough
    Catherine Ann McCullough local councillor for Swan City Council
    replied to Jess Chambers

    Hi Jess,

    Am following this up with other Councillors also...


    Cate McCullough

    This e-mail message, including any attached files, is private and may contain information that is confidential. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify us promptly.

    We use virus-scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or similar defects in any attachment.

    Please consider the environment before printing this email

  4. In West Perth WA on “Proposed demolition of...” at 486 Newcastle Street, West Perth, WA, 6005:

    Simon commented

    This portion of Newcastle Street should have character protection for the row of Interwar bungalows, Federation and Victorian houses that line the street.

  5. In on “Lot 1 DP 232770 , Lot 2 DP...” at 213 Commercial Road, Vineyard, NSW:

    Peter Inens commented

    Dear Hawkesbury City Council,

    I am concerned about the proposed development of 247 residences adjoining the caravan park in Oakville for the following reasons:
    * Oakville is zoned rural residential and this development in no way is appropriate for this zoning.
    * There will be and increase in vehicular traffic and concurrent noise, pollution and wear and tear on roads only designed for low density population
    * Pedestrians have to walk down Chapman Rd to reach public transport. People are forced to walk on the roadway.There is no footpath and a narrow bridge crossing with poor visibility halfway down. It is already very dangerous for pedestrians, especially at night with no street lighting.
    * this seems to be a backdoor method of getting high density housing in an area that was never zoned for it. If it is to go ahead then that area and surrounding areas of Oakville should be suitably rezoned to ensure the proper services are in place to support this type of development, before it proceeds.

    Peter and Dianne Innes
    34 Glenidol Rd.,
    Oakville NSW 2765

  6. In East Geelong VIC on “Use of Land to Sell and...” at 21A Ormond Road, East Geelong, VIC:

    Josephine Byrne commented

    It is lovely to see that the Geelong East Village is thriving to the extent that a small cafe which has only been open for a relatively short time, is bustling to the extent that they need to extend the building. Their trading has added some vibrance to the shopping hub.

    We need more of the same in the area!

  7. In West Melbourne VIC on “Proposed partial demolition...” at 172-184 Roden Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Mark O'Halloran wrote to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle


    Reply received from CR Rohan Lepert, waiting on furterh information from Dianne King at teh City of Melbourne as to the status of this project.

    Does anyone else have an update?

    Hi Andrew Zunica,
    Local councillor Rohan Leppert replied to your message about the planning application “Proposed partial demolition of existing buidling, construction of 8 storey residential building with reduction of parking requirements” at 172-184 Roden Street West Melbourne VIC 3003.
    Local councillor Rohan Leppert replied:

    Dear Andrew
    The officers have completed assessment of the application, but did so during Council's caretaker period. As such, the decision has been made to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit; this decision was made under delegation without reference to Councillors, per the caretaker provisions. I found out about this after the decision was made -- a frustration, but inevitable given these election period rules.
    I understand that there are further setbacks being applied to the 7th and 8th storeys. As an objector, you will be sent a letter stating how you can access the terms of the decision (i.e. The conditions applied to the permit) and your options to review the decision.

    All the best
    Cr Rohan Leppert

    Delivered to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Carlingford NSW on “ePathway” at 0 Jenkins Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Anthony commented

    what is a ePathway

  9. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed construction of a...” at 341-353 Dryburgh Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Michael Horscroft wrote to local councillor Cathy Oke

    This is not a renovation. It is a proposal to destroy yet another heritage building in our suburb to be replaced by a dreary plain box without reference or sympathy to the existing streetscape. The demolition should be disallowed most emphatically. Those who buy existing dwellings in our suburb, particularly structures dating from before the second world war, should respect the built form environment we residents have fought to retain and improve since the bad old days of the 50's to 70's.

    Photo of Cathy Oke
    Cathy Oke local councillor for Melbourne City Council
    replied to Michael Horscroft

    Dear Michael,
    Councillors have not been in office due to the Council Election period. However later today Councillors will be sworn in and I will be returning to office after that.
    I have seen your posting and noted your concerns in relation to TP 2016-624 (341-353 Dryburgh Street North Melbourne VIC 3051) and will keep these concerns in mind and continue to track this application.
    I have also forwarded your objection to City of Melbourne Planning Officers.
    Thank you for brining to my attention your concerns. Please feel free to contact me directly via email
    Cathy Oke
    City of Melbourne

  10. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 23 Kennedy Street Picnic Point NSW 2213 Australia:

    Yasmin commented

    As a current parent whose child attends the childcare centre across the road, I am relying on this daycare centre to be built so my daughter can attend next May. I have put my daughter's name down at 2 other centres and have not heard of any places being available. I will be in a very difficult position if this childcare centre is not built.

    I understand residents are concerned about the increased traffic on Kennedy Street. There will not be another 29 families coming to this childcare centre, but mainly existing families having their children at centres across the street from each other. I know of at least 6 families that will be doing this. For my family, it means that we will not be driving around the Revesby/Panania area dropping children off at two different centres.

  11. In Asquith NSW on “Residentail - New Multi...” at 23 Heath Street Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Jonathan G commented

    I plan on buying one of these town houses- the housing market is just way too expensive. Buying a new townhouse in an area such as Asquith is our dream, where it is close to the station (and you don't need to drive) is a way our family can save and be close to the schools. I think the people who complain about these sort of things are selfish and spoilt, living in their luxury homes.

  12. In Wantirna South VIC on “Amendment” at 15 White Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Jane Citizen commented

    The permit is for 3 Storey apartments containing 24 dwellings. We can't even fit 24 cars in our street as it is now. With the introduction of a place of worship in the street recently the parking on the street is just getting worse. The street is filled every weekday around the school pickup time too.

  13. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Stage 1 development -...” at 23 Bennelong Parkway Wentworth Point NSW 2127:

    Chris commented

    There are already too many apartments in Wentworth Point. Why do we need another 273? More rate payers, is that it? The traffic and parking is already a nightmare. For every one bedroom apartment with two inhabitants there will be two cars and only one parking space which will make the streets even worse. Council you are very greedy. Only see dollar signs. Quality of life will sink in this area with another 273 apartments on top of the thousands of others going up. Build some shops, a school, better infrastructure but no more apartments. You're ruining this area with every approval you pass. Wake up.

  14. In North Toowoomba QLD on “CMS Building Format” at 1-3 Alexander Street North Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Belinda Nicholson wrote to local councillor Bill Cahill

    This property features prominently in my family tree with a dozen or so ancestors born in this property. I would like more information in regard to this proposal. I am available on 0417739168 or email

    Delivered to local councillor Bill Cahill. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Burpengary QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 80 Bruce Highway Eastern Service Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Diane Turner wrote to local councillor Peter Flannery

    Hello, Just wondering what type of development is this? Over 55s, low income housing or other? Thank You.

    Photo of Peter Flannery
    Peter Flannery local councillor for Moreton Bay Regional Council
    replied to Diane Turner

    Dear Diane

    Thank you for your email regarding the Development Application for 80 Bruce Highway Eastern Service Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505.
    I have forwarded your email onto to Council’s Senior Manager, Development Services and asked her to contact you to discuss.

    Kind regards
    Erica Ross
    on behalf of Cr Peter Flannery
    Division 2
    Moreton Bay Regional Council
    2 Hasking Street, Caboolture
    Phone: 5433 2959
    Facsimile: 5433 4000

    Division 2 covers Beachmere, Burpengary, Burpengary East, parts of Deception Bay, parts of Caboolture east, parts of Morayfield and parts of Narangba with a population of 34600 approximately and covers an area of 11,165.1 hectares.

  16. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Young Street, Parkside:

    Peter Croft wrote to local councillor John Koumi

    I have read the arborist's report on the Moreton Bay fig tree at 1/71 Young Street Parkside and I understand that the tree is at the end of its life and needs to be removed.

    I support its removal.

    However, I am very keen to ensure that the land on which the tree resides - currently enclosed by the fence of the owner of 1/71 Young Street - remains owned by the City of Unley and is reused for green space. I would like to see consideration of a park bench or small garden for use by the many people who walk along Young Street each day

    Delivered to local councillor John Koumi. They are yet to respond.

  17. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Louise daglish commented

    My home backs onto this site... l surely I should have received notification of this application personally. A five storey construction on this site will over shadow my garden where I grow vegetables and overlook my house, infringing on my privacy. It would mean that a beautiful old gum, one of the few left in the area, will need to be cut down.

    At the very least, they should have to comply with the parking requirements.

  18. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 1424 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Brian Smith commented

    Impossible to park here already. More car parking must be included.

  19. In West Melbourne VIC on “Proposed partial demolition...” at 172-184 Roden Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Matthew Williams wrote to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle

    Thanks Lindy,

    Thanks Lindy,

    Your reply comes both to me and is posted on planning alerts. I did it this way because judging from the thread others might be interested in the answer so it could save repeat work for you! However, the system does not allow ongoing conversations.

    If you would like to send me a reply personally only let me know your email and I can send you an email separately.

    Best regards,

    Matt Williams

    Photo of Hon Robert Doyle
    Hon Robert Doyle local councillor for Melbourne City Council
    replied to Matthew Williams

    Hi Matthew

    It's probably easier to keep track of if you send a personal email. Will that be ok?


  20. In Edwardstown SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 37 Castle St Edwardstown:

    Jennifer Vincent wrote to local councillor Tim Pfeiffer

    Castle Street is one of oldest and has a lot of history attached. The streets around this area of Edwardstown are character homes. Other parts of Edwardstown less so. Wish a councillor or employee lived in the area.
    Squeeze more onto less property whatever the cost. My concern besides all the destruction of history and characters etc is the parking. I read that 1-2 bedrooms must have 1 parking spot. 2-3 - 2 spots. You honestly think this is right for these times? Two bedrooms - eg parents and child. 3 cars. If students, a car each. Families who have extended family living with them. Add another car.
    Length of space for car parking, as it appears that most people do not use garage for cars. eg car parked on driveway with nose of car about 2 inches from garage door. Rear of vehicle 30 plus cms onto footpath. Large/longer vehicles. This is not a one off - it happens a lot. Three or more cars and at least one has part on footpath. This small block - facing the beautiful Castle St on a corner - so parking will be along Theodore I guess.
    I also agree that if there are rules for building that should/must be adhered to. You cannot allow builders/property developers to sway decisions because 'near enough is good enough' - it is not. Nor should council allow decisions to continually be okayed because measurements etc are 'close enough'.

    Delivered to local councillor Tim Pfeiffer. They are yet to respond.

  21. In West Melbourne VIC on “Proposed partial demolition...” at 172-184 Roden Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Huw Davies commented

    Every indicator for the proposed development is negative: it is exceeds planning restrictions in height, will place a burden on parking and other community resources, imposes adverse consequences on current residences, and irrevocably alters the human and built landscape of West Melbourne.

    Development for development's sake in the form of crammed multi-apartment precincts does nothing for the community. The only apparent benefit is to bottom line of developers. Any student of the current and projected realestate market should be aware of the predicted over-supply of so-called cookie-cutter low standard developments. I believe Melbourne will have a surplus of close to 15,000 unoccupied apartment dwellings in the next decade, if not earlier. This scale of over-development is insane.

    For non-elected Council staff to usurp the powers of Councillors and approve such a development as 'caretakers' is extraordinary and reprehensible. No decisions of this scale and precedent setting should be taken under these circumstances. I would seriously questioning n its legality.

    This decision should be struck out and rescinded until such time as full community consultation has taken place and Councillors are made aware of the preferences of the real owners of the City of Melbourne, the residents, not developers or un-elected employees of the Council. Council does not exist solely for the purpose of maximising rate income or facilitating profiteering by developers.

    If this is what is seen as acceptable we might as well do away with Councillors entirely. Maybe that's not such a bad idea if the current situation represents the Council's level of involvement or concern on the part of residents. At least we would know without any question who the enemy is.

  22. In Sydney NSW on “Change boundaries of...” at 109-111 Liverpool St, Sydney, NSW:

    John Ainsley commented

    Could I please get a better understanding of what boundary is being changed on the liquor licence

    Thank you
    World Square Centre Management

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out the...” at 313-319 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    I strongly object to the size of the residential towers of 9, 10, 11 stories. This is not in keeping with the aesthetic of Marrickville and will begin the process of turning Marrickville into a high rise development similar to Rockdale. The number of affordable housing is also way too low. Can the Council advise what the impact will be of the increased traffic due to the additional cars that result from the 221 apartments. The roads simply cannot sustain the increase.
    In addition, there is a proposal to add an 11 story residential tower as part of the Victoria Road Precinct - again, the roads cannot sustain the increase in traffic.

  24. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Katharine Seyler commented

    I object to the waiver for visitor parking as this area is already often at capacity and it will increase pressure and potentially safety concerns in an area involving children

  25. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 1424 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    richard rowe-roberts commented

    There are some attractive buildings in this location. A new building of this size must complement these buildings, not detract. Particularly the materials and finishes.

    There is already significant congestion in this location. A reduction in the car parking is not acceptable.

  26. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M. Martin commented

    Good luck , try lobbying the councillors, it doesn't work they have no powers, try VCAT, doesn't work they side with developers. Tragic.

  27. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Alicia commented

    I object strongly to this waiver as parking is already at its limit and it will be impossible to park there. It is already a crowded space.

  28. In Plumpton NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens...” at 360 Rooty Hill Road North Plumpton NSW 2761:

    WANDA TEKIELA commented

    Can you please advise me as to why I have not been notified of this application when I live next door at 362 Rooty Hill Road North, Plumpton 2761. We only attended a meeting with Blacktown Council on 12.10.2016 about rejection of proposal for a transition home and now I find out that an application for a different type of dwelling was submitted to Blacktown Council over a month ago. why is it not known to me and why was a meeting called when council already knew of the new application.

    Please advise me as to what is going on

    kind regards
    wanda Tekiela

  29. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Deb Gunning commented

    Parking is already at its limit around the school and the Kinder - this will make it impossible to park even if you live there

  30. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Kokaribb Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Wendy Mcmillan commented

    I object to the waiver as it will put undue pressure on parking in an already busy area near a local school

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