Recent comments

  1. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 174 The Comenarra Parkway, Wahroonga, NSW:

    George Gleeson commented

    This suggested development application, which covers 3 housing blocks 172, 174 and 176, would only add to the already chaotic traffic around the intersection of The Comenerra Parkway and Fox Valley Road. The traffic problems are already horrendous and cars are trying to find parking in Fox Valley Road, Seymour Close and the adjoin Broadway with little success. This is no place for a child care centre!!!

  2. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 20 Sadlier Crescent Petersham NSW 2049:

    Sharon Fajou commented

    In addition to all the sensible points already stated..
    Traffic on this intersection is appalling and you want to put a five storey apartment block there?
    Seems unreasonable and not thought through very well.

  3. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    K Dunn commented

    I object against this proposal based on the following:

    - it is an overdevelopment for the site

    - reduce the car parking requirements associated with dwelling visitors should not be allowed

    - Waiver of the loading and unloading facilities requirements associated with shops should not be allowed.

    The current and future residents amenities should be considered. Allowing such a high number of apartments to be built is a great concern for all.

  4. In Meringandan West QLD on “Telecommunication Facility” at Goombungee-Meringandan Road Meringandan West QLD 4352:

    Graeme Leonard commented

    This is great news. Customers of Optus and Mobile Companies carried by Optus experience very poor signal in this area which has more or less given Telstra a monopoly on mobile services if you require reasonably reliable reception.
    An Optus tower will enable the residents of this rapidly growing township to choose a mobile phone and/or internet provider to suit their needs which in most cases will lead to a significant monetary saving.
    I wrote to Optus complaining about poor coverage in 2004 , they replied saying they would look into it. It is very pleasing to see that it is now on their agenda.
    I fully support this application and hope that it will be approved without delay.

  5. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of part two...” at 84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Nicky commented

    This is a concern for the area, that's currently a family based neighbourhood with low denisity R2 houses surrounded with lots of trees and parks. People love this area becouse we do not look like high denisity living. We have major issues currently with Bexley Rd congestion, not to mention the number of accidents that have occurred in the last 6 months. We have children walking to the local public school and high school students walking to the train. Has council considered any of these issues, not to mention the negivitive impact on the local residents. Parking is going to be a nightmare and cars will be parking on the streets, which already at times can be difficult. The privacy of local residents is going to be impacted due to the preposturous height and this development would alter the image of the area dramatically by plonking a high rise in the middle of low housing. I ask that council reconsider this application. Thanks

  6. In Montmorency VIC on “Construction of two...” at 130 Sherbourne Road, Montmorency, VIC:

    Erin Burrows commented

    I oppose the removal of protected native vegetation firstly for the reason to protect fauna habitats in an area increasingly being cleared of substantial trees, and secondly in order to sustain neighbourhood character of a bordering green wedge suburb that is rapidly changing in appearance due to loss of foliage and increased density.

  7. In West Ryde NSW on “Construction of new 24 room...” at 100 Station St, West Ryde, NSW:

    Jennie Minifie for Ryde Community Alliance wrote to local councillor Justin Li

    1. The development should not be approved unless a thorough and proper assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts is first carried out and adequate provision is made by the imposition of conditions of consent to address or remove those impacts.
    2. Charity Creek must surely be identified in a Green Corridors Program for ongoing funding,restoration and management within the Greater Sydney Commission's District Plan.If not, then Ryde Council should identify it and other creekline catchments across the local government area as a high priority in the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan.
    3.The proposed development must be required to exclude land along the creek as it is a floodway, and is also critical to the mitigation of recurrent extreme weather events, such as flooding and heat.
    4. Existing vegetation.should be retained on the site; for residential amenity, social benefits, habitat values and amelioration of heat island effects.
    5. Boarding houses require analysis of the extra demands on local facilities and support services provided by Ryde Council.. This proposal is one of several new boarding houses for which the Council will be responsible for providing many services. Can the demands be met? If not. then the application should be refused.
    6. Ryde Council has placed many of it's existing land parcels and community facilities in a "Property Investment Portfolio" for disposal and re-development. These properties are community assets and should be retained to meet the future demand for open space, recreation, community facilities and local services. The new Boarding House residents will have demands that need to be met to support them.
    7. The cumulative demand for services and facilities in Ryde LGA arising from State Government planning interventions and the Council's extreme pro-development stance must be determined and addressed to ensure that the whole population of Ryde can access the community facilities and services that are required. This information must also be made public.
    Ryde Community Alliance.

    Delivered to local councillor Justin Li. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Tempe NSW on “To extend the hours of...” at 634-726 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Absolutely not. Give residents a break! Who is going to need to run out and buy sporting goods at 3am? Seriously this is just ridiculous. I'm sick of Park Road being a thoroughfare as it is.

  9. In Milton NSW on “New Commercial -...” at Princes Hwy, Milton, NSW:

    Nick and Christine Alexander commented

    We feel that as the highway is on overload as it is , the entrance / exit should be on the western side e.g. Windward Way to Wilfords Lane so that traffic would then exit onto Croobyar Road and lights , already in place , onto Princes Highway .

  10. In Balwyn North VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 1086 Burke Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Ben Dawson commented

    Another one in the same spot,
    wanting the same car park reduction. This part of Burke rd is already over congested and has poor public transport. On road parking jams the road on a daily basis. Stop it now. If this continues, please rezone the area to stop any further attempts.

  11. In Tempe NSW on “To extend the hours of...” at 634-726 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Darren Partridge commented

    I don't believe this will cause any issues in the area. It's great to have a new major retailer in the area.

  12. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    Honestly where does this demolition and desecration of our neihborhood end?
    Agree with other comment by Kate Dear but add the following:
    Reduced car parking?
    Reduced loading bays associated with shops?
    Where to park?
    How do pedestrians cross the road safely?
    When the first accident occurs as a result of this decision, who will feel responsible?
    Authorities ask yourself this question.
    Every aspect of this request is laughable in this neighborhood.

  13. In Bellbird Park QLD on “One (1) lot into three (3)...” at 78 Fiona Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Therese Bernard commented

    The proposed development for this site for multiple dwellings would be extremely unsafe, due to the fact it is situated on a blind corner, in which there is an island, not enough stopping distance to avoid collisions due to people entering and exiting the driveway of proposed site.
    My concerns are that the road is Not wide or safe enough for multiple dwellings only One House Block. From experience, at the moment I have had cars coming across the line markings near the corner.
    The additional traffic

  14. In Hawthorn VIC on “Post RequestConstruction of...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kate dear commented

    You've got to be joking. Has any actually tried to drive around there? Ruining to amenity one more time. Are the drains going to be upgraded? How does rubbish get collected without impacting on neighbours? How does the local school cope with additional numbers like this? The public transport that this relies on is already overloaded at peak times - this many more residents ontop of all the other flats will make it unlivable.

  15. In Eastgardens NSW on “Installation and operation...” at 152 Bunnerong Rd, Eastgardens 2036 NSW:

    Ian Levitt commented

    Keep in mind that ticketless parking takes a photo of your front number plate
    If you leave the complex then return soon after,
    That additional time is added to the previous time parked/ trying to get out.
    So please note-
    you will be charged/ fined if the total time is over the free 2, 3 or 4 hours that they allocate.

  16. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 5 Maida Road Epping NSW 2121:

    A. McDonald commented

    I agree with all comments above. Please don't kill this beautiful healthy tree!! Any tree, anywhere has the potential to fall, its just not necessary to chop them down just in case!!

  17. In Eastern Creek NSW on “Warehouse & Distribution...” at 22 & 24 Wonderland Drive, Eastern Creek:

    Hidden by site administrators
  18. In Montmorency VIC on “Construction of two...” at 130 Sherbourne Road, Montmorency, VIC:

    Amelia Sinclair A.Nutr commented

    If it is 'protected native vegetation', then it should not be removed!
    Native vegetation is the appeal around this area, and developers need to be forced to follow the protections in place at the very least.
    Property values are better for tree canopy and greenery; not for concrete, plaster, ashphalt, bricks, etc.

  19. In Eastern Creek NSW on “Warehouse & Distribution...” at 22 & 24 Wonderland Drive, Eastern Creek:

    Hidden by site administrators
  20. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 89 Fitzroy Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Marie commented

    I'm not in favour of this type of development. I question if this is an adequate size site for what's intended here. It looks like one big ugly car park & workshop for run down looking vehicles. I use to pass Balmain rentals when it was located off Johnston st, it always looked like an eye sore. Can more trees be planted to totally screen it better if plans are past? Balmain rentals customers currently seem to park on Fitzroy st as is and that leaves residents on Fitzroy st parking on Edinburgh road, this effects us as residence of Edinburgh road. What parking restrictions can be put into place to protect local residence of Fitzroy st & Edinburgh rd if the plans are approved? The increase noisy truck traffic it will generate is also a concern, I've experienced this since they have come to the area. What are intended hours of operation? The signage proposed looks pretty dated and ugly.

  21. In Rosebery NSW on “S96 (2) modification of...” at 85-113 Dunning Avenue Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Erica Pezzutti commented

    I could not be more pleased to support this application! Archie Rose is a fantastic bar and distillery. Having better operating hours will suit me and my partner very well.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 5 Maida Road Epping NSW 2121:

    L Ashton commented

    Resident, Blaxland Rd
    I second every comment made above by the residents concerned. Sadly, our beautiful Epping is becoming a concrete jungle instead of the beautiful tree-lined suburb I have lived in over many, many years.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 76 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Marie commented

    I like the proposed plan, it's good to see this site utilised, the only comment I have as a resident on Edinburgh rd, is about the potential parking issues so this comment is more directed towards council. When parking capacity is reached in this building complex, the knock on effect is visitors to the complex parking in the surrounding streets. This will happen. We've already had this happen with recent neighbouring developments. This is an area of progressive change so I would like the council to strongly consider the issue of parking in the more residential part of Edinburgh rd, between Victoria road and Fitzroy street on both sides of the road. A restrictive parking zone for non residents. Potentially considering angle parking on this stretch of the road and making it a one way system to deal with future traffic issues. When all these sites have been developed & westconnex comes into play, traffic & parking will be a real issue.

  24. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Sue Simmonds commented

    This is most disappointing in a family-oriented community. I feel very sorry for the near neighbours who will have to cope with increased noise, traffic and parking difficulties. Now that there is DA approval for 16 rooms plus one for a manager and only four parking spaces, the owner is selling purely for capital gain and is obviously not interested in providing affordable housing. What is the point of a D2 zone? Why bother having zoning if anyone can apply for and obtain an exemption? This week's local real estate magazine inside the Northern District Times states that 70% of the market in Epping "want to buy a property they can make money out of" in contrast to the "sentimental" buyers who want to buy a home to live in. Enough is enough! 70% of a community being transient will soon not really be a community at all. Please councillors, consider your constituents and help keep Epping a family community, a safe environment for children and a pleasant garden suburb to live in.

  25. In South Turramurra NSW on “Substantial alterations to...” at 218 Kissing Point Road, South Turramurra, NSW:

    M. Gautan commented

    I firmly beleive that from Risk Mitigation perspective, sensitive constructions (Danger/ Fire Hazzard) like this should n't be this close to the petrol pump.

    Please note there are mobile towers in the vicinity which adds to this issue.

    I am assuming that for these facilities one of the main objective is to provide a safe environment for development of children. Not sure how they will provide that with these 2 major concerns.

    I beleive this will encourage all future similar developments around petrol pump.

  26. In Mc Kinnon VIC on “Construction of a four (4)...” at 219 Tucker Road Mckinnon VIC 3204:

    Linda Lindsay commented

    This proposed building is adding on yet more traffic chaos to an area that is struggling to cope. This area is busy with school drop off and pick up and with people accessing the 7 eleven. We are starting to drive alternate routes to avoid this busy area, and can not imagine what a four storey building would do to traffic flow. This would be yet another eye sore on the community, destroying the small shopping strips. The shops are not being filled ( see Tucker Road shops near Patterson Rd) and after apartments are built, the shops are being left empty.

  27. In West Ryde NSW on “Construction of new 24 room...” at 100 Station St, West Ryde, NSW:

    Jane Citizen wrote to local councillor Jerome Laxale

    The boarding house sounds hideous

    Delivered to local councillor Jerome Laxale. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Eastgardens NSW on “Installation and operation...” at 152 Bunnerong Rd, Eastgardens 2036 NSW:

    Anna Poslinsky commented

    Very disappointing news!!!
    When I spend money in the shopping centre on on so many different services and in shops, the last thing I want is to be charged to do so .
    Having children & elderly in tow is hard & slow.
    Councils should be aware of such implications for communities ,when approving new large residential projects like Meriton apartments & demand more parking from developers , rather than limit them, is they care at all about locals.
    I'll be shopping elsewhere & more online, & if more people do that , what will become of these centres ? More one dollar shops ? More discount chemists ? That's hardly upmarket ! These centres will die in time.
    Paid parking is wrong & unjustified for such a busy shopping centre & the reason I don't shop in Bondi Westfield.

  29. In Erskineville NSW on “Operate a weekly farmers...” at 13 Swanson Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Susan commented

    Great idea, bring it on

  30. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Norman Jessup commented

    I agree with Vanessa W. it's appears that the present owner has no interest in actually building the develpment, but is only interested in exploiting Epping by obtains planning approval for a development not permitted by the current zoning. This was done in the face of substantial opposition from the people who live here and their local M.P.

    Now we find the site for sale with the DA approval being touted as the major selling point.

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