Recent comments

  1. In Saint Ives Chase NSW on “Torrens title” at 36-38 Awatea Road, St Ives Chase, NSW:

    philip dolan commented

    Strongly disagree with this subdivision. I believe this landmark property has neither street storm water drainage nor sewerage and drains to the back of the property. Such a character home should not be carved up for the benefit of an overseas buyer and such a development will be vigorously apposed.

    Substantial drainage would have to be installed for multiple properties or significant impact would occur on neighbours.

    Also an arborist has stated that a very old large tree has already been illegally poisoned on this property by owner/developer which poses a serious risk neighbours. Clearly not concerned about the impact on the neighbours or respects regulations. A definite vote of no from the community surrounding this property. There is a reason that this development has been denied year after year. Let's keep it that way.

  2. In West Melbourne VIC on “The construction of four...” at 621-643 King Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Astrid McGinty commented

    I believe that this development is too crowded for the spot, and the loss of the house on the land would be a great shame for West Melbourne. It is a fine example of the period, and there is very few of the arts and crafts movement type houses left in the area.

    4 high rises on this corner will make the space so crowded and a wind tunnel for the traffic and pedestrians, as a current open space there, this would be much better served as a park, and the house could become the Community centre for west Melbourne.

    Please don't develop our town as a new South Bank. West Melbourne might have an industrial past, but it currently has a community feel that is rapidly eroding with each new high rise in the area.

  3. In Como NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Wollun St Como 2226:

    A Glynn commented

    Six townhouses on a double block is not in keeping with the spirit and soul of the Como suburb, which consists of predominately single dwelling houses or smaller duplexes and semi-detached townhouses.
    I have concerns about the negative impact on current residents of Wollun St if this proceeds. There will likely be increasing frustrations over street car parking, impact to immediate neighbour’s privacy and obstruction of view and sunlight.
    I believe this development proposal for six town houses, to replace just one current dwelling, is to the detriment of the Como suburb overall and it sets a bad precedent for future development. I fear we will follow other suburbs in the Shire into over development.
    The proposal should be scaled back to a maximum of four townhouses.

  4. In West Hobart TAS on “House extension/addition” at 2 Ben Street West Hobart 7000:

    Angela Sandeman commented

    I am writing in relation to the proposed extension blocking out a lot of the south easterly view from the existing home on 3 Ben street, West Hobart. I also see there is no shadow reports available for this proposed extension and I feel that a lot of light and warmth will be lost from 3 Ben street due to the overshadowing from this proposed extension.

  5. In Fullarton SA on “Construct single storey...” at 43 Florence Street, Fullarton SA 5063:

    Malcolm Bicknell McInnes, FIEAust. CPEng MESc BE ARMIT Mech Eng MAIE SPE commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Please put a hold on Florence Street subdivision until the sewage and storm water management can safely match the increased demand of extra sewage connections and run-off from increase paving and roofing area.
    On Monday 30 May, the rear of our property and that of our rear neighbour was inundated with raw sewage (excrement and toilet paper) when our connection in Florence Street, which had been blocked, was cleared by SA Water after our plumber called them. Two TV teams arrived and I told them all teams were doing their best to clean up the mess. They took film and we agreed to make contact should there be any problems. SA Water organised an emergency clean-up team and sucker truck. The sewer main is only 150 mm diameter compared with the water main which is 4 times the cross sectional area and 300 mm diameter! We were also on the brink of flooding when only the wooden board along the front fence saved us in a down-pour. My wife and I live at 48 Florence Street, next to the corner house on Fullarton Rd.
    Please let me know what you plan to do to manage this problem. I have engineering and work experience in water and sewage systems.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Malcolm McInnes
    48 Florence St Fullarton, SA 5063 Mob. 0411 705 560

  6. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 0 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Helen Dixon commented

    Why do we need all these high rise apartment blocks? we are constantly being told by planning authorities"we are servicing a need". Whose need? It seems only overseas investors can afford them. There is a new build, 5 bedroom home in North Epping, sold December 2014 (yes, December 2014) to .. according to selling agent .. a resident of Hong Kong. This house remains empty, never had a person stay overnight. I ask again. Whose need are we servicing?
    Fed Up

  7. In West Melbourne VIC on “The construction of four...” at 621-643 King Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Sarah commented

    The Barrister states West Melbourne church Crown grant, land can’t be used for any other purpose whatsoever. https://youtu.be/LXb75szOo48

  8. In Newport NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Queens Parade Newport NSW 2106:

    William McVeigh commented

    This is a total over development of 1 parcel of land which borders 12 other homes. The increase of vehicles would increase greatly the safety of other children attending the Newport Primary school opposite. Mothers and fathers dropping off children, would not take extra care, regardless of thought. The removal of existing trees would have a large impact on the native birds and animals residing in the canopy.

    As there are vacancies in other local daycare centres, I could only imagine that there will be in increase of traffic from outside the area, putting more strain on current parking and exit to Barrenjoey Rd.

    The residence of 39 and 41 Gladstone street who back onto this development are mostly retired, couple who have downsized to retirement and looking forward to a quite life. With the increase of 92 children, the quite life will be gone.

  9. In Mascot NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at Shop 62/7 Bourke Street, Mascot, NSW:

    Michele Therese Knight commented

    I wholeheartedly support this application. Mascot is an up and coming area, which has become increasingly popular with the smart-casual set. While there are a dearth of pizza joints, Asian take-outs, and tacky 'corner stores', what has been missing for a long time is a smart, eclectic cafe, which can service the busy day trade and the evening trade as well.

    There are also a lot of companies employing large numbers of professional staff. Having a stylish locale to wind down from a hectic day or week, and to be able to enjoy an evening meal as well, would be a welcome retreat.

  10. In Capalaba QLD on “WITHDRAWN - REFER TO...” at 67 Keith Street, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy Glade wrote to local councillor Tracey Huges

    reason for withdrawal of this application?

    Photo of Tracey Huges
    Tracey Huges local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Amy Glade

    Apologies Amy for this slow reply, it is in Division 9 please follow up with your local councillor, I am unsure of correct answer.

    With thanks,

    Cr Tracey Huges
    Councillor for Division 8
    Redland City Council

  11. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Demolition of Existing...” at 370 Oxford Street, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Simon commented

    I don't approve the complete demolition of the existing character building, especially the facade and street facing walls. A more socially and culturally sympathetic solution would be to retain as much of the original character of the existing development as possible.

  12. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 17 Alister Street, Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Helen Oliver-Skuse commented

    It is important that the nature of this area be preserved. Increasingly inroads are being made into the low rise, relatively modest houses that prevail in this area. Original houses, particularly on major roads like Nicholson and St. Georges Roads, are being demolished and replaced by large apartment blocks of dubious quality. The homes in this area may cost a lot to buy but most of them are average sized family dwellings. Many of the original houses were built in the late 20's as humble two to three bedroom timber dwellings with modest sized rooms. The majority have been been renovated to meet contemporary standards but still the existing owners do not aspire to have resource hungry, large, showy residences. Most renovations in the area are discreet. Already the house next to No.17 goes against the prevailing ambience of the area. The sense of community is extremely strong in this area. The character of the area should be preserved by environmentally sensitive design.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “To Torrens title subdivide...” at 134 Lennox Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Patrick Flanagan commented

    I am concerned that no off-street parking has been included in this development. Seven residences have been proposed - adding pressure on existing (and limited) on-street parking.
    Hence I object to this application in it current form.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 0 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Craig Watson commented

    Having visited the council DA tracking site it is not clear what address this relates to.
    One corner is zoned for 17.5 m max height the other is 48m. Given every developers strategy of lodging Sec 96 to push the allowable envelope the assessment of this DA will be seen as a test of the council administrators standards.
    We have to await the publication of the DA documents to see what a 17 storey ice cube tray may look like.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Request under Section 82A...” at 115 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Craig Brown commented

    I oppose, I rent a unit a few blocks up the road, I live on the second floor, all I can see is tree tops and the roofs of residential homes, that's what this street is like, a mix of mainly single story homes and occasional two story units mixed in. 3 stories would just unfairly block out light for everyone, and cram too many people in with inadequate parking.

  16. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 0 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    The existing legal allowance for high rise in Epping is 8 storey's why developers think that they are allowed 15 and 17 storey's is baffling.
    Totally against the removal of three beautiful trees which provide a beauty of scape that Epping has always had and is required by law- section 65- green scape allowance.
    Where is the traffic going to go ??when in the future you are not going to be called to drive up Oxford/ Langston place abd turn right into Epping Highway??
    The State Government has given no thought to traffic congestion with the building of endless blocks of units here in Epping which is dangerous for residents.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Request under Section 82A...” at 115 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sophie T commented

    I also object to the s82A application to change the original DA. This seems to be a ploy by the developer to get changes through that surely would have been initially contemplated but for some reason they believe this additional story and 6 rooms would not have been approved by Council. It should be rejected on these grounds alone. The original DA was approved by Council, this submission makes a mockery of that process.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “Request under Section 82A...” at 115 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Margaret commented

    This application should be rejected on the grounds that the original determination should not be altered. There is a trend for developers to seek to increase the size and scope of the project after the initial approval has been obtained. This has occurred recently on New Canterbury Road Hurlstone Park and Hill Street Dulwich Hill, and no doubt other sites I am not aware of.
    There is enough ad hoc development occurring in the district at the moment, and this undermines the integrity of the suburb even before any changes are made to the LEP.

  19. In Camperdown NSW on “Royal Prince Alfred...” at Church Street, Camperdown, NSW:

    David Springett, (Architect #4722) commented

    1. Inappropriate that a hospital should be encouraging car use rather than public transport.
    2. Inappropriate that child care should be replaced with car use, but if so then it should be done in the most efficient use of land.
    3. Optimum site for car park width is approximately 34 metres, site is 29.820 so each of the 8 levels of car parking are missing out on an additional 35 car spaces, x 8 levels i.e. 280 car spaces: the car park could then be 2 levels lower....less overshadowing
    4. Inappropriate that a 2.650 be used floor to floor height, should be 2.850 to allow for flexible use such as office or residential when car parking is superseded.
    5. There are other sites on the hospital car park area, especially the perimeter which would allow for the most efficient car park use.
    6. The selected materials such as perforated metal and spaced brick encourage dirt, dust and loose garbage retention and require maintenance and lighting, open areas to allow wind cleaning and clear vision for security preferred.

  20. In Bellevue Hill NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy” at 152 Victoria Rd, Bellevue Hill, NSW:

    P J Grant commented

    I will be sorry to see a fine old Bellevue Hill residence make way for an ugly over development of a site that will overshadow the adjoining reserve and spoil the streetscape. The suburb is losing too many of its older buildings to make way for money making developments.
    If an ordinary between the wars flat building on Edgecliff Rd (Kurrajong) merits preservation why not a good example of a post WWI residence?

  21. In Manly NSW on “Construction of a two (2)...” at Sydney Rd, Manly, NSW, Australia:

    Michael Peters commented

    I am a retired CPA, a 30 year Balgowlah Heights resident approx 3 kms west of Manly CBD within the boundaries of the former Manly LGA, and immediate past Chair of Balgowlah Heights Precinct.

    Where I live:
    1. I am that much less impacted by any negative and adverse flow-on features than those residing closer to the impact zone of the proposed development
    2. as a consequence I have a number of alternatives available to me which may not be as easily available to those closer to the impact zone and who would be in a better position to comment which I support because if I were in their position I would like to feel that I would have someone further away supporting me – the anti NIMBY approach;
    3. there is, however, one exception - where I am at one with all residents and ratepayers – from the deliberate scant publicly released information, the questionable viability and consequent negative effect on Council resources by the operation of Oval Car Park, and associated “asset recycling” sleight of hand of the Whistler Street site has an erosive effect on the efficient use of our commonly owned public assets
    4. it is a clear demonstration of financial incompetence and its negative flow-on effect on the general finances and public asset base of the Council and/or ability of Council to maintain levels of service.

    My submission is for the JRPP to disapprove DA116/2016, JRPP reference 2016SYE058 DA) on the following grounds:
    1. distorted “community consultation” process in that concerns of Precincts have been ignored, surveys have been selectively designed and based on incomplete information;
    2. inadequate and evasive responses to information requests, taken to the height of an art form particularly financial, in that requests for additional information including GIPA requests and appeals to tribunals were assessed on the basis of the “impartiality” of the author or requester;
    3. systemic aversion and lack of transparency to financial accountability in that I openly defy and challenge anyone to extract the financial viability of the MOCP from the CSP, its risks and underlying assumption which can be tested.
    4. failure to follow Local Government guidelines in that Council meetings were held in contravention of guidelines
    5. the selective compilation of the redacted report to 12/4/2016 (Black Tuesday) Manly Council meeting in that the background information provided, though brief is distorted, incomplete and biased.

    To give an example - the released KPMG financial justification is conditional on the combination of assumptions that:
    1. there will be wholesale move of all current users of Whistler Street and those displaced by road restrictions to MOCP, and
    2. 16% (ie 21,000 of 425,000 parkers pa) of those who previously parked for free will now have to pay between them a 14% increase in the average fee per stay (from $12.28 to $14.00) which translates to an additional $423K pa or 31% increase on current Whistler Street revenue (from $1.383M to $1.806M)
    3. both from day 1 of the commencement of OCP operation
    The conclusion of this vital and pivotal piece of information? - an optimistic, unrealistic, set of assumptions so critical to success.
    Based on the above assumptions, with revenue of $1,810K pa, estimated expenses of $800K pa and replacement of Whistler St clear net income (and currently being spent on services) of $1,020K pa this proposal carries considerable risk and is marginal at the very best even by ignoring standard expectations of a modicum return on capital invested.
    Being a community asset project is no excuse in not applying generally accepted project evaluation criteria – if anything, there should be even greater diligence.
    Further, the funding of its construction by way of “asset recycling” is of no comfort at all as ANY shortfall of the completed OCP (vis a vis current Whistler $1.02M clear net profit) means either asset reduction, long term loans, or reduced services – all impacting adversely on all residents/ratepayers.
    The high risk that this project will not break-even is the concern of this objection.
    Residents have formed the conclusion that there is insufficient vital information with which to make an informed decision are fighting with hands tied behind their backs – this is not by accident or ignorance – this is deliberate, conniving and it smells - it is neither a fair nor transparent contest as financial justification is are kept hidden.
    The crux of my objection is:
    how can any responsible public body conduct “community consultation” (seeking resident/ratepayer approval) for the MOCP without a comprehensive financial risk assessment and analysis being included so that residents and ratepayers can respond to the consultation in an informed, personal responsible manner – at the end of the day, will the proposed public investment coupled with the public “asset recycling” leave the community financially better or worse off before agreeing to its go ahead – it is the residents/ratepayers who are the mortgagors of this project and they should have an informed say.
    I urge the JRPP to reject this DA.

  22. In Manly NSW on “Construction of a two (2)...” at Sydney Rd, Manly, NSW, Australia:

    Michael Peters wrote to local councillor Barbara Aird

    I am a retired CPA, a 30 year Balgowlah Heights resident approx 3 kms west of Manly CBD within the boundaries of the former Manly LGA, and immediate past Chair of Balgowlah Heights Precinct.

    Where I live:
    1. I am that much less impacted by any negative and adverse flow-on features than those residing closer to the impact zone of the proposed development
    2. as a consequence I have a number of alternatives available to me which may not be as easily available to those closer to the impact zone and who would be in a better position to comment which I support because if I were in their position I would like to feel that I would have someone further away supporting me – the anti NIMBY approach;
    3. there is, however, one exception - where I am at one with all residents and ratepayers – from the deliberate scant publicly released information, the questionable viability and consequent negative effect on Council resources by the operation of Oval Car Park, and associated “asset recycling” sleight of hand of the Whistler Street site has an erosive effect on the efficient use of our commonly owned public assets
    4. it is a clear demonstration of financial incompetence and its negative flow-on effect on the general finances and public asset base of the Council and/or ability of Council to maintain levels of service.

    My submission is for the JRPP to disapprove DA116/2016, JRPP reference 2016SYE058 DA) on the following grounds:
    1. distorted “community consultation” process in that concerns of Precincts have been ignored, surveys have been selectively designed and based on incomplete information;
    2. inadequate and evasive responses to information requests, taken to the height of an art form particularly financial, in that requests for additional information including GIPA requests and appeals to tribunals were assessed on the basis of the “impartiality” of the author or requester;
    3. systemic aversion and lack of transparency to financial accountability in that I openly defy and challenge anyone to extract the financial viability of the MOCP from the CSP, its risks and underlying assumption which can be tested.
    4. failure to follow Local Government guidelines in that Council meetings were held in contravention of guidelines
    5. the selective compilation of the redacted report to 12/4/2016 (Black Tuesday) Manly Council meeting in that the background information provided, though brief is distorted, incomplete and biased.

    To give an example - the released KPMG financial justification is conditional on the combination of assumptions that:
    1. there will be wholesale move of all current users of Whistler Street and those displaced by road restrictions to MOCP, and
    2. 16% (ie 21,000 of 425,000 parkers pa) of those who previously parked for free will now have to pay between them a 14% increase in the average fee per stay (from $12.28 to $14.00) which translates to an additional $423K pa or 31% increase on current Whistler Street revenue (from $1.383M to $1.806M)
    3. both from day 1 of the commencement of OCP operation
    The conclusion of this vital and pivotal piece of information? - an optimistic, unrealistic, set of assumptions so critical to success.
    Based on the above assumptions, with revenue of $1,810K pa, estimated expenses of $800K pa and replacement of Whistler St clear net income (and currently being spent on services) of $1,020K pa this proposal carries considerable risk and is marginal at the very best even by ignoring standard expectations of a modicum return on capital invested.
    Being a community asset project is no excuse in not applying generally accepted project evaluation criteria – if anything, there should be even greater diligence.
    Further, the funding of its construction by way of “asset recycling” is of no comfort at all as ANY shortfall of the completed OCP (vis a vis current Whistler $1.02M clear net profit) means either asset reduction, long term loans, or reduced services – all impacting adversely on all residents/ratepayers.
    The high risk that this project will not break-even is the concern of this objection.
    Residents have formed the conclusion that there is insufficient vital information with which to make an informed decision are fighting with hands tied behind their backs – this is not by accident or ignorance – this is deliberate, conniving and it smells - it is neither a fair nor transparent contest as financial justification is are kept hidden.
    The crux of my objection is:
    how can any responsible public body conduct “community consultation” (seeking resident/ratepayer approval) for the MOCP without a comprehensive financial risk assessment and analysis being included so that residents and ratepayers can respond to the consultation in an informed, personal responsible manner – at the end of the day, will the proposed public investment coupled with the public “asset recycling” leave the community financially better or worse off before agreeing to its go ahead – it is the residents/ratepayers who are the mortgagors of this project and they should have an informed say.
    I urge the JRPP to reject this DA.

    Delivered to local councillor Barbara Aird. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Drummoyne NSW on “Modification Application -...” at 17 Millar Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia:

    Sandra Spencer commented

    Can we please be advised of amendments so that we may comment?

  24. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “1A Hill Street, Dulwich Hill” at 1A Hill Street, Dulwich Hill:

    N.W. commented

    Another day, another amendment. The Committee can not allow an increase of the number of units from 64 to 68 and reduce the number of car parking spaces from 81 to 76. Too many developments in the area are reducing their car parking spaces and causing additional stress on local residents. The area is already suffering from over development with no additional support or infrastructure for local residents. Public transport, childcare, schools etc are at capacity. How can we sustain more units (ie residents) and less parking?

  25. In Hawthorn VIC on “Building and works to...” at 319 Burwood Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Julie Wakefield commented

    My concern is the reduced car parking - if the proposed building is to house dwellings and mixed business - adequate number of car parks need to be made available. Minimum of 1 car space per apartment plus spaces for visitors. Would also apply car spaces need to be made available for the mixed use - assuming businesses. There were no details on line in regards to the easement - which would be a concern.

  26. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Chantal Giles commented

    I think this is a great development. I live near 4 doors down and I would love to see more open shops in the area with personality to increase the village feeling and the personality of Randwick. So many of the shops are in poor condition and closed it would be so nice to add to the community feel. I live 4 doors down and we have two cars, and come home from work between 5 & 7 and I never have any problems finding parking. I have never had to go further then Earl street for a carpark. I would love to have a local restaurant that knows my name, is happy to have my kids there and feed us.

  27. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    It has always been a councils responsibility to restore it and maintain it so so so. With the skate park your forcing on residents surely similar funds can be found to repair the council neglected heritage building?

    The skate park, additional basketball court and community garden will mean that additional toilets will be required. A kiosk and other stores could be housed there as well as an art gallery and dog friendly cafe as it backs on to the new, but as yet unfenced and I sufficiently amenitied, dog park. It could actually be a useful and practical community resource. More so that a skate park that targets very few residents.

  28. In Redland Bay QLD on “Dwelling House - Overlay...” at 33 Pyrus Place, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lynn Adams commented

    To what does the Overlay Assessment relate? How does MCU013765 dated 14 June 2016 differ from PD234285 lodged 1 June 2016?

  29. In Mascot NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 9 Picton Street Mascot NSW 2020:

    Michael Gibson commented

    I didn't realise sub division was allowed in Picton st? We are in Hicks Avenue, hoping it doesn't open up a can of worms for other streets

  30. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Mike Alan wrote to local councillor Sam Iskandar

    It should be sold to a willing community organisation like a church or a mosque rather than demolishing a masterpiece of history of the area!

    Delivered to local councillor Sam Iskandar. They are yet to respond.

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