Recent comments

  1. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sophie T commented

    I also object to the increase in units and the reduction in car spaces. Parking is a real issue in and around this development. Why wasn't this included in the original DA? Surely the developer always knew this. It makes a mockery of the approval process for these larger developments that are dominating Dulwich Hill and a lot of other communities in and around here.

  2. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Glenda Pontes commented

    I object to the reduction of cars paces and increase of residences.
    Parking is already a problem in nearby streets and around the suburb.
    Additional residences should mean increased parking spaces, not the opposite.

  3. In Leichhardt NSW on “Use of the existing...” at 21 Hill Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Neill Francis commented

    No this area is completely unsuitable for this site. These people are very poor corporate citizens. They park their work vehicles on the footparth, leaving little room for pedestrians who are often forced to walk on the street. They cover the street with rubbish. They leave trailer loads of rubbish in the street, often uncovered, some of which appears to be asbestos. They really need to learn a bit of corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship or responsible business), which is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. They also use a yard opposite to their business, as a storage yard. This yard is in a residential area. They treat their neighbours with absolute contempt.

  4. In Granville NSW on “65 - 71 Cowper Street (cnr...” at 65 Cowper Street Granville NSW 2142:

    Sarah skinner commented

    I am deeply concerned with the addition of an extra 25 apartments. Are not more parking spaces then also required? Isn't this development already under construction and if so how can extra parking be accommodated? The area is already so terribly congested and I don't believe this is sustainable in our area esp as there is no parking in the surrounding streets. The intersection and surrounding streets are a major thoroughfare for peak hour travellers. Travelling time in the area has already doubled in just the last year.
    This seems like an exorbitant number to compress into what was already a large number of spaces for the sized construction.

  5. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Ant Straker wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    What the !!!!!!
    Your joking , this cannot be allowed to happen .
    Another icon to disappear .
    Get the press in on it !

    Photo of Amanda Stone
    Amanda Stone local councillor for Yarra City Council
    replied to Ant Straker

    This property is on the Victoria Heritage Register as well as the Yarra heritage database:

    http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/local/search/yarra?page=1&search_type=local&type=user

    It's most unlikely it would be demolished. It would be worth checking the veracity of this report.

  6. In Jamberoo NSW on “Dwelling with secondary...” at 11 O'Mara Pl, Jamberoo, NSW 2533:

    Mr S & Mrs V Baker commented

    We are concerned about the dense housing in O'Mara Place. As we are nearby residents it would have been appropriate and polite to provide us all with details of all the house structures. We have not received and notifications of any of them. 11 O'Mara Place is the first one. They have all impacted on our views and completely ruined the area. St Matthews Church has been engulfed with ugly building providing no privacy for worship and other occasions. There is one house at the end of Downes place with a wooden fence around a scout hall blue structure and it is an eyesore. What once was a beautiful view has now been destroyed.
    The density of the housing is exactly like Albion Park, not like Jamberoo Valley. We object to and further houses especially of a two storey nature being built.
    The community has saved the Kiama Councils jobs, it is up to Kiama Council to save the integrity of the Village and Valley. Thank you.

  7. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy commented

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

  8. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy wrote to local councillor Judith Peters

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Peters. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dolly LEROPOULOS commented

    Is this application a joke ? Surely there is Heritage Listing on this property ?

  10. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Maree Pickens wrote to local councillor John Carey

    44 against vs 0 in favour and I want to make it 45 - we, the Mount Hawthorn community, do not want or need another carwash, we want to make the area safer for our children at the daycare and local primary school and we need to foster a more vibrant, family friendly hub at this end of Scarborough Beach Rd. We value the opportunity to comment and we trust you will hear our concerns and reject this application to change the use of this site. Keep the site as an Eating House and welcome a business that opens its doors to the walkers, bike riders and families who want to support enterprises that strengthen the bonds of our community.

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

  11. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    T. Nottle commented

    A three storey, 10 apartment development in Park Lane, Kew will have a significant negative environmental and social impact on the area.

    The scale of the development does not respond to the predominantly single or double storey dwellings in the area, and is incompatible with the area's character and amenity. Park Lane is too small to support the potential number of residents living at the development: the Lane is only one-vehicle wide and must be shared with pedestrians, and is adjacent to the publicly enjoyed Kellet Reserve. The current waste management system of wheeling bins out to Fitzwilliam Street currently overcrowds the footpath and litters Kellet Reserve and the footpath every Friday morning. An increase of potentially 20 bins lined along Fitzwilliam Street is unsustainable and unsightly.

    The increased vehicular traffic will also compromise sustainable modes of transportation, increase noise and air pollution, and most importantly, pose huge safety risks: children walk, cycle, and scoot to school along Park Lane and the surrounding streets, children play near and in (the unfenced) Kellet Reserve.

    It is obvious that such a huge development would be completely inappropriate for this area and contrary to Boroondara's Residential Design Policy.

  12. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Sally Wright wrote to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole

    I am very concerned about the location near the primary school. The area is very congested and parking is limited. Also there are many other car wash locations . At least 3 along between the school and Innaloo , 1 at dog swap , 1
    On Cnr Charles and Angove and snother on Charles St. There is no need for another facilty.

    Photo of Emma Michelle Cole
    Emma Michelle Cole local councillor for Vincent City Council
    replied to Sally Wright

    Hi Sally

    Thank you for your email. There has been a very strong community response on planning alerts to this planning application, particularly in relation to traffic impacts, parking and proximity to the Mulberry Tree daycare centre and MHPS. I also take your point on the number of car washes in the vicinity. There has been a rush of car wash applications in the last year, many of which have not been supported by Council due to location and traffic impacts.

    I asked City of Vincent Development Services Director Gabriela Poezyn about the timeframe for this to come to Council. It has been delayed due to the lack of a management plan. It is now expected to go to the August Council meeting. This will mean the agenda is available on the City’s website by Thursday 11 August:
    http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Your_Council/Agenda_Minutes

    It will be discussed (questions and answer format) at the Council Briefing on Tuesday 16 August (6p.m. start with public question time first up) and then determined at the Council meeting of Tuesday 23 August (also an opportunity to speak during public question time after the meeting opens at 6p.m.).

    Please don’t hesitate to call me to discuss the agenda item once released. I am starting back at my “other job” on Thurs 11 and Fri 12 August so probably best to talk over the following weekend or Monday 15 or Tues 16 August. Prior to that time, I am happy to have a general discussion, but won’t have access to the details or Officer Recommendation until the agenda is released.

    I hope you've been having a great time on the school holidays and a nice break from work.

    Best regards,
    Emma

    Emma Cole
    Councillor- North Ward
    City of Vincent 

    Phone: 0407 427 588
    Fax: (08) 9273 6099
    www.vincent.wa.gov.au

  13. In Point Frederick NSW on “Dwelling House (new),...” at 8 A Crawford Street, Point Frederick NSW 2250:

    Jason Atherton commented

    The neighbours in the street are concerned about the height of the building because it will set a precedent for the area. The building height is outside the restrictions set by the Gosford Council.

  14. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Jane Brazenor commented

    This part of the street is already congested and an eating house that locals can walk to is a far better option than a car wash. It's difficult enough to find parking on the occasions when I need to use my car to pick up my kids from MHPS, we don't need more cars directed to this area.

  15. In South Plympton SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 5 Towers Tce South Plympton:

    Jen Vincent wrote to local councillor Tim Pfeiffer

    Re the application to - demolish house ? - three units. No 5 Towers Tce. Towers Tce is getting much busier at all times. Extreme at peak hours. Bus route 7 days a week. Good spot for speeding motorists - there is the twist and turns of road from Cross to further down Towers. Trying to cross the roadway at 3pm a week ago was an actual no go. On scooter. Why now 1 into 3? Have you seen the one unit with 2 'sheds' on either side in Wood St. Honestly the car parking situation is one that council needs to address better.

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

  16. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sarina Kilham commented

    In regards to Selwyn Assafs comment. Selywn, you might redirect your comment to the Council as the individual Councillors have been sacked. I disgaree with you about anti-social behaviour here. Its mostly adults who graffiti in May Lane, & whilst the occasional lout or drug dealer hangs out near the station, I think its the station rather than the warehouses that attract them. Still plenty of louts round Newtown Station. Jennifer Killen has a good point about some public space on the ground floor. What about car share spots or bicycle parking? St Peters station could do with secure bike parking.

  17. In Salamander Bay NSW on “Dual occupancy & Demolish...” at 188 Soldiers Point Rd, Salamander Bay 2317 NSW:

    Peter Collins commented

    Looks very nice.
    I trust the necessary precautions will be made when demolition starts regarding the fibro/asbestos roof.

  18. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Amalia wrote to local councillor John Carey

    I am concerned that there is a proposal for a carwash to operate at this site.
    As with all the previously mentioned concerns, I urge the council to consider what is best use for the site, that will have a positive impact on the area, and ensure the safety of it's residents.
    Another factor, is that there is already carwashes in very close proximity and therefore no need for another one in the area.
    I hope you hear the concerns of the Mount Hawthorn community.

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

  19. In Campsie NSW on “A Section 96 Modification...” at 21-35 Gould Street, Strathfield South, NSW, Australia:

    GaZz commented

    wrong map to address .

  20. 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?

  21. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    Peter Boes commented

    Peter & Catherine Boes
    69 Pleasant Drive
    Sharon
    Bundaberg
    4670
    0471559036

    To all Councilors and the Chief Executive Officer
    We are writing this letter to have on record that we strongly oppose the development of a subdivision being constructed at the end of Pleasant Drive
    Currently this is a no through road, Cul-de-Sac Head.
    This is also a water catchment area with most of the runoff from Pleasant Drive being diverted to the Burnett River.
    This is a know flood area, even in a minor rain event, this area is in flood with erosion.
    Given that this area was completely under meters of water during the recent floods it would be irresponsible on the part of the Council to approve a subdivision in this catchment area
    This is an area that is currently quite with very little traffic and a great out look over the water catchment area, this would change if a subdivision was approved.
    We understand that our developer wishes to subdivide land in a know catchment area, with access through Pleasant Drive, this is not part of the original subdivision of Burnett Downs and is a already a tight Cul-de-sac head .
    Other considerations are services, like power, water and septic, how would this be achieved in a know flood area.
    These are just some of our concerns, we have spoken to roads, and planning dep with no one able to give us any straight answers as to the possibility of this access road being approved or not.
    The approval of a subdivision will greatly reduce the value of our property and take away the current beauty and peace and quiet of the property which is why we bought it in the first place all those years ago.
    Note at no time, have we been informed by council that changes to planning & development would result in changes that would directly affect our property.

    Sincerely Peter & Catherine Boes

  22. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sue Paterson commented

    I object to this proposed development. Its too large & breaches a number of development controls.

    I also disagree with selwyn assaf - this area is a hot spot of creative industries! these "bastions of roughneck behaviour" are our art spaces, our business locations & our livelihood.

    Pushing out the industry that is already here so people can live in cookie cutter apartments & buy organic artisan made pizza with their coffee is killing the vibe of the inner west

  23. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Ian commented

    Makes far more sense to be fitting with the community and stay as is
    The car wash and associated traffic would be a hazard for the school across the road

  24. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    P. Fletcher commented

    This is one of the problems associated with the agenda of high-density and infill housing, the occupants often do not even have a parking bay, let alone a tap, hose and space to wash their car at home. The car wash application is just a reaction to the poor planning approvals that create the need for such a facility, and no doubt the applicant can see a profit in it.

  25. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Robynne Hayward commented

    I agree with the comments by Claire Bowdler, Sarina Kilham, Katherine Mackenzie, Susan O'Keefe and all the others who oppose this development.
    Please do not approve this development.

  26. In Bellevue Hill NSW on “Section 4.55 Modification...” at 7 Banksia Road Bellevue Hill NSW 2023:

    D. Farr commented

    There are already too many apartment buildings in the area. There is not enough parking and traffic congestion and air pollution will get even worse.

    D Farr

  27. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Louise Terry commented

    Hi
    I agree with the previous comments. This is located opposite a school which caters for over 800 students and daycare. Parking is already a problem in the area. A business which involves cars driving through frequently will make the problems we already have more difficult.

  28. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Fiona Bolger commented

    I oppose the development of a car wash for the many reasons stated above by other community members. Primarily the proximity to MHPS (and a child care facility) along with the proposal being in conflict with Mt Hawthorn's aspirations of a developing urban cafe/dining community.
    There are 3 car wash facilities within a 2.5km radius (Charles St) of the proposed site so surely our community is better placed with a different development which will best serve the locals.
    Thanks for your consideration.

  29. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Jonson commented

    I am also opposed to a car wash, or similar business, in this location. Such an enterprise does not fit with the family-friendly characteristics of Mount Hawthorn. The variety of drink/eat options that can be created in such a location is significant and will make a valuable contribution to the local area. Mount Hawthorn is a strong family community with a vibrant primary school, wonderful collection of shops, and local amenities that serve the needs of families. A business in that location should add value to this community, particularly to that section of Scarborough Beach Road.

    A car wash is limited in the value it can add to the community of Mount Hawthorn, it is limited in its variety of services to the community, has the potential to contribute to reduced traffic flow in the area (daycare centre and large primary school within 100m). Further, there are already multiple options for car washes nearby, as indicated in other comments.

    Installing a car wash in that location would be to the detriment of the area, and would not be commensurate with the community of Mount Hawthorn.

  30. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Lisa Gleeson commented

    Thank you for making this opportunity to comment available.
    As a resident of 20 years, who encourages my children to walk to school, I too oppose the Scarborough Beach Rd site becoming a soulless, industrial business.
    We, as a community, have worked hard to calm our local streets and remind non-locals to take care. Why then encourage more cars into the area with a car wash?
    Within a radius of 1-2 blocks from this proposed site we currently have:
    -speed humps on Scarbrorough Beach, Matlock, Egina, Federation and Tasman Sts
    -a 40km school zone
    -a signposted blackspot area on cnr Egina&Berriman
    -hundreds of children encouraged to walk and cycle to and from school
    -heavy traffic and parking problems around the school and daycare across the road
    -a designated bike lane encouraging cycling
    -a local deli kids frequent after school (requiring them to cross the site in question!)
    -and a whole lot of locals who all seem to be in agreement that a car washing business does not belong in our neighbourhood.
    Please do not approve anything that would potentially threaten the safety and community feel we are blessed with in "The Hawthorn Hub".

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