Recent comments

  1. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of 6 dwellings...” at 50 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Upset resident commented

    Oh this is getting beyond a joke! This is destroying Rowville and for what we bought in the area for. This is way too many dwellings for this area and should be stopped now!

  2. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Donald Lindsay wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    Furthermore to Councillor Dwyer's response to Mike, it appears only wealthy people who can afford beachfront properties and or penthouses in new developments are entitled to views.
    And that I am obviously an unreasonable person for voicing my opposition to this development and believing that the Sunshine Coast planning scheme actually meant anything.

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Donald Lindsay

    Dear Donald,
    You will note that my comment was "guarantee a view by being absolute beachfront".
    Please note there are many, many residents that are not wealthy, nor beachfront, but do have ocean views. However when not absolute beachfront those many, many people might reasonably conclude that their view is not guaranteed for life.
    Council is cognisant of view lines, amongst other things, when considering planning matters and settlement patterns.
    Thank you Donald. Tim.

    Regards
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Councillor ? Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council

    Ph: 07 5420 8965
    Mob: 0418 348 896
    Email:
    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

    On 13 Jan 2017, at 00:16, Donald Lindsay <> wrote:

    Furthermore to Councillor Dwyer's response to Mike, it appears only wealthy people who can afford beachfront properties and or penthouses in new developments are entitled to views.
    And that I am obviously an unreasonable person for voicing my opposition to this development and believing that the Sunshine Coast planning scheme actually meant anything.

    From Donald Lindsay to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    =========================================================================

    Donald Lindsay posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

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

    Planning Application for 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD

    Description: Multiple Dwelling Units x 35 - Rise Projects Services

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/745840?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  3. In Greenacre NSW on “Demolition of old SES...” at 103 Chiswick Road Greenacre NSW 2190 Australia:

    Taghred commented

    Hi
    We live on Rawson road Greenacre, which is sitting right behind the SES building.

    We have seen rats, mice and spiders coming from the SES building and we fear that once the structure is demolished our properties will be invaded. So we ask that your department spray the premised so to prevent the rats invading our homes.

  4. In Werribee VIC on “Two Proposed Town Houses to...” at 39 Tamarind Crescent Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    Your comment: I live in Manorvale area, some distance away but find this high density development is changing the character of the older areas of Werribee, detracting from the suburbs amenity.

    More traffic movements, noise and pollution and benefits are to the person sub-dividing a large block whereas their neighbours receive no benefit only impaired amenity and loss of privacy, or even security.

    Social fabric is also disrupted from the egalitarian norm that attracted me to Werribee in first instance more than 13 years ago. I suggest the new areas of Tarneit, Wyndham Vale etc are the places where Council should encourage development, close to new high speed rail, where developer levies are able to contribute to council costs in a rate-capped environment

  5. In Werribee VIC on “Construction of a Second...” at 10 Kite Court Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    I live in Manorvale area, some distance away but find this high density development is changing the character of the older areas of Werribee, detracting from the suburbs amenity.

    More traffic movements, noise and pollution and benefits are to the person sub-dividing a large block whereas their neighbours receive no benefit only impaired amenity and loss of privacy, or even security. Social fabric is also disrupted from the egalitarian norm that attracted me Werribee in first instance.

    I suggest the new areas of Tarneit, Wyndham Vale etc are the places where Council should encourage development, close to new high speed rail, where developer levies are able to contribute to council costs in a rate-capped environment

  6. In Werribee VIC on “Construction of a single...” at 17 Duke Street Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    I live in Wattamolla Ave with family in Elizabeth St and find this high density development is changing the character of the area, detracting from its amenity.

    More traffic movements, noise and pollution.

    I suggest the new areas of Tarneit, Wyndham Vale etc are the places where Council should encourage development, close to new high speed rail, where developer levies are able to contribute to council costs in a rate-capped environment,

  7. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Mike Trikilis wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    Dear Tim,

    Thank-you so much for your very prompt and informative reply.

    We currently live in the Gold Coast Hinterland, and have watched the Gold Coast develop with horror as the skyscrapers each continue to unreasonably impact on the views and amenity of previous developments. There is no end in sight to this, and my hope was to consider a move to Sunshine Coast where we believe the council to be more community focused, and less developer driven.

    That is why I was trying to decode the 2014 Sunshine Coast planning scheme "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ..." it certainly sounds nice, but it seems that in the real world, it does not have much meaning, and no real teeth.

    You are 100% correct when you point out that the 1st development of a unit complex which impacted surrounding properties started a precedent that means future development can not be reasonably objected based on a loss of amenity/views... however why bother putting this in the planning scheme at all since the only way anyone could object successfully is if the development is somehow in breach of other planning rules that are not directly related to the loss of surrounding properties amenities/views.

    I really hope the people who will be impacted on this development are able to get some compromise from the developer... good luck guys.

    Due Diligence is most important, however even that is not enough to predict how close to a front/side/real boundary a unit complex is allowed to build up beyond 1 level.

    As I correct to assume that we could approach someone in the council and ask what would be allowed in a block adjacent to a unit complex as far as how close to the boundaries a future building would be allowed to be built up ? A unit we were considering has a house next door which, obviously, will be developed one day, but views will only be impacted if they build close to the side and/or rear boundary.

    Regards,
    Mike

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Mike Trikilis

    Dear Mike,
    I can certainly help organise a discussion between yourself and a senior officer from the Planning Department.
    The officer can work through the process they follow when considering all the relevant matters, for example, bulk and scale(relates to setbacks-front/side/rear, site cover).
    In regard to the word "unreasonable", the officer will provide the context of it's use in the Scheme as it relates to the various levels of assessment.(Exempt/Self Assessable/Code Assessable/Impact Assessable). The officer will also be able to give guidance on how different sections of the Scheme must be read in a 'collaborative manner' to provide a full comprehension of the Scheme's intent for a specific location/planning zone.
    Many people rely on advice from a real estate agent as part of their due diligence for the purchase of a property. This advice should always be balanced by engaging a planning professional and/or a planning officer from the relevant local government.

    Please call my office on 54208965 when you're ready and speak with Sharon or I to get something sorted out.

    Thanks Mike. Tim.

    Regards
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Councillor ? Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council

    Ph: 07 5420 8965
    Mob: 0418 348 896
    Email:
    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

    On 12 Jan 2017, at 20:36, Mike Trikilis <> wrote:

    Dear Tim,

    Thank-you so much for your very prompt and informative reply.

    We currently live in the Gold Coast Hinterland, and have watched the Gold Coast develop with horror as the skyscrapers each continue to unreasonably impact on the views and amenity of previous developments. There is no end in sight to this, and my hope was to consider a move to Sunshine Coast where we believe the council to be more community focused, and less developer driven.

    That is why I was trying to decode the 2014 Sunshine Coast planning scheme "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ..." it certainly sounds nice, but it seems that in the real world, it does not have much meaning, and no real teeth.

    You are 100% correct when you point out that the 1st development of a unit complex which impacted surrounding properties started a precedent that means future development can not be reasonably objected based on a loss of amenity/views... however why bother putting this in the planning scheme at all since the only way anyone could object successfully is if the development is somehow in breach of other planning rules that are not directly related to the loss of surrounding properties amenities/views.

    I really hope the people who will be impacted on this development are able to get some compromise from the developer... good luck guys.

    Due Diligence is most important, however even that is not enough to predict how close to a front/side/real boundary a unit complex is allowed to build up beyond 1 level.

    As I correct to assume that we could approach someone in the council and ask what would be allowed in a block adjacent to a unit complex as far as how close to the boundaries a future building would be allowed to be built up ? A unit we were considering has a house next door which, obviously, will be developed one day, but views will only be impacted if they build close to the side and/or rear boundary.

    Regards,
    Mike

    From Mike Trikilis to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    =========================================================================

    Mike Trikilis posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

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

    Planning Application for 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD

    Description: Multiple Dwelling Units x 35 - Rise Projects Services

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/745840?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 412 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Louise Heslop commented

    Like many of the others I have concerns about parking (and hope there is sufficient parking mandated in the development) however I am in support of this plan and other development along the rail corridor.

    Also like many others I am concerned about the look of these units (although this image looks decent to me) however Marrickville South is already full of ugly, poorly constructed buildings (hot in summer, freezing in winter) and it would be a shame to see the new developments build on that piece of poor planning. More development on Illawarra Road hopefully means we will have less need to meet the increasing population with the demolition of some of the houses in the area which unlike the bulk of shopping district contain character and charm.

    I would love to have some clarity on the "community concerns" some individuals have stated. I would like to think the sense of community is built on the mixed demographic and racial groups that live in this area. As far as I know no public housing has been demolished for this (or so far others) proposal and therefore I would think increased units in the area would increase the chances of Marrickville remaining a mixed income and mixed demographic area. I would think the ongoing housing affordability crisis would do more damage to the Marrickville community and social cohesion than an increased number of units.

    Although I am in support of this development the rumour mill does claim that the entire side of the block is likely to be developed, if this is the case I would love it to be done as one project and not piece meal. Surely one development would increase the standard of the development, allow for a more uniform appearance to the units, and be more cost effective.

    While I don't at all dismiss concerns for the community or social cohesion I also look forward to the changes more people will bring. I have loved the changes in Marrickville that have come in the five plus years I have lived here. I love that in addition to the great dinner options that were here when I arrived I now have a multitude of brunch options, a wine bar, live music, and perhaps most importantly gelato options. I look forward to more people bringing more variety and activities to the area and perhaps I am being optimistic but more people paying rates hopefully means better council facilities too.

  9. In Knoxfield VIC on “Remove seven trees and...” at 16 Valetta Crescent, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Peter Smith commented

    Any clearing or subdivision/additional dwelling permits for this site should be considered under the provisions of the "bush suburban" classification in the recent planning scheme amendment.

  10. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Donald Lindsay wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    What is the point of having a Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme when it means absolutely nothing. The council are obviously only interested in the BIG developers, not the small people trying to enjoy life on the Sunshine Coast.
    I purchased my property as an investment to help me in my approaching retirement years. I couldn't afford to buy in a brand new development,so l purchased an older apartment and yes it's on the top floor and yes it's on one of the highest points in Kings Beach, but that's not going to stop me losing my entire view if this development goes ahead in it's current form. The only view l will have is that of a big cement building, and that goes for all the apartments in "The Cascades"
    Obviously development has to happen, but all l ask is for some consideration by the council and the councillors to people who already live or own properties on the Sunshine Coast and not just to money hungry developers who obviously don't give a toss about us.

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

  11. In Carnegie VIC on “Change of use from butcher...” at 121 Koornang Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Katrina Bullard commented

    Not another restaurant surely we have enough food venues in Koornag rd.

  12. In Darlington NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 267-269 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Adam Russell commented

    We feel it is important that these units are not visible or heard from the public domain. Perched atop the roof line is probably not an ideal location.

  13. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Debbie commented

    Why so many units in the one complex?
    What about limited parking already in the area on the surrounding streets that spill over onto Council strips.
    Where will they park?
    How much car space is included in the land allotment?
    There's no room for people to park on streets at busy times now.
    What size will each of the 35 units be?
    2-3 bedrooms with only 1 car space (if you're lucky) creates parking issues in the entire area (already)
    As I understand it, are there not height limits that have to fit in with already established height limits in the area (4-6 stories high for example)
    and isn't there a limit on how much can be placed on a sq block?
    35 seems alot for that space.
    Both in size and in increased car parking needs, let alone taking over an already established business views. Common courtesy would require consultation by the developer with those directly affected to share prime views.

  14. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of 6 dwellings...” at 50 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Concerned resident commented

    Wow squeeze more houses on the block and reduce parking. Doesn't sound to good does it? How about build something more suitable like 4 instead of going for pure building profits while de valuing surrounding property's.
    Most houses have min 2 cars if not more and we don't even have a train line in Rowville yet so building a development based on public transport expectations isn't realistic. Look at the mess on the other side of stud road now it takes people 30min just to get out of the estate in the mornings

  15. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of 6 dwellings...” at 50 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Murray Crescent Resident commented

    As a resident of Murray Crescent, I will be opposing in every ounce of my capacity to keep this the quiet "exclusive" street we all purchased here for!

    What is happening???

    48 Murray Cresent wanting to develop 6 townhouse now 50 Murray Crescebt too?!

    So disappointing.....

  16. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Murray Crescent Resident commented

    Can't wait to receive our letter in the post tomorrow from Council alerting us to this development.

    Will be opposing in every ounce of my capacity to keep this the quiet "exclusive" street we all purchased here for!

    And what a joke you think these townhouses will be affordable to your kids?!?! I'm in real estate and unless your kids can afford a mere $700k+, you may want to get your facts right resident!

  17. In Maroochy River QLD on “Bli Bli Rd MAROOCHY RIVER -...” at 433 Yandina-Bli Bli Rd, Maroochy River, QLD:

    Donna Higgins wrote to local councillor Greg Rogerson

    Following up on our recent complaints on this property in 2016 the council assured us this matter would have been dealt with by now. This large scale business needs to be moved immediately to an industrial estate and stop operations on rural land.
    1: Visual Impact
    2: Security Lighting
    3: 40 plus cars and trucks entering and exiting daily
    4: Safety issues on one lane bridge, Yandina-Bli Bli road
    5: Vehicle headlights an issue early morning

    Delivered to local councillor Greg Rogerson. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Mike Trikilis wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    Dear councillor Dwyer,

    Nice to see you respond to Mr Lindsay's concern.

    I am considering buying a unit on the Sunshine Coast but am a little unsure of the strength of the wording in the 2014 Planning Scheme (6.2.3.2 Purpose and overall outcomes ).

    Specifically the part that Mr Lindsay has cited..
    "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ..."

    I am wondering just what is considered reasonable or unreasonable if we purchase a unit with nice ocean views, and someone decides to develop the block right in front, or beside us that removes much of our views.

    Are there examples where a single (or a few) unit holders have managed to hold back a multistory development with their objection ?

    Regards,
    Mike

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Mike Trikilis

    Dear Mike,
    Thank you for your email. I have done a basic search on the 35 Saltair St application as the officer responsible for the assessment is away until next week.
    *Saltair St falls within the "High Density Residential Zone"(HDRZ) in the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme.
    *The application is "Code Assessable" as the applicant has not applied for any development rights outside of the planning code for the location that would elevate the application to a more stringent level of assessment.
    *As it is a Code Assessable application there are no formal 3rd party submissions that can be formally lodged in regard to the application.
    *The application is currently at the "Information Request" stage as officers need further information from the applicant to enable them to properly assess the application.
    *The height limit for the location is 21M, as is the case for the rest of Saltair St. There are also setback requirements from each boundary as set out in the Planning Scheme Codes for this HDRZ. These requirements along with site cover are used to determine appropriate bulk and scale of a development.

    In regard to your question, "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ...", I would think that if the application meets the intent of the scheme and is in general accord with the relevant Codes, then it would be hard to mount a legal argument that the proposed development is unreasonable.
    By that I mean any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that a development that aligns with the Planning Scheme should be expected, hence not a surprise.
    Using scenic amenity(view lines) as an example, the only way to ensure a person would not lose their view would be to buy an absolute beachfront property, where no other development could build you out. Or you might buy the top floor unit in a development located on the town's highest point.
    I believe the subject address currently has a house on it, so it would be obvious to anyone that has made themselves aware of the Planning Scheme and had done their due diligence, that a building of up to 21M will impact on surrounding properties.
    Using history as an example, when the first multi-unit complex was constructed in/around the subject address, it no doubt impacted on surrounding properties. So it goes that each time there is subsequent development there will be further impact to adjacent properties.
    From the experience I've gained as a councillor over the past 16 years, it would probably be deemed unreasonable for a person to object to a Code Assessable development generally compliant with the Scheme, when the objector is living in a development that followed a similar development path. In saying that, I certainly respect the right of any person to voice their opinion, whether that be an objection or support.
    Privacy and overlooking are also considered by the assessing officer, however when considering development in HDRZ's there is no way to avoid seeing the development next door. Council officers work with an applicant to ensure the placement/location of balconies, privacy screens, floor plans and apartment configurations, and other relevant elements are designed to respond to the characteristics of neighbouring development.

    In response to you final question below, it is usually only where an application is "Impact Assessable" rather than "Code Assessable" where objectors have the ability to stop, delay or hold back development. So whilst Mr Lindsay, whom you mention below, has emailed his concern/objection , the council officer assessing the application does not have a responsibility under the State Govt's Planning Act to give any formal consideration to it. The officer must respond to the development codes and intent of the Scheme when doing the assessment and this in itself is the way that the concerns raised by Mr Lindsay will be addressed to the extent possible under the Planning Scheme.

    Mike, I will send this email to the council officer responsible for the assessment and allow her to make any corrections to the information I have provided above. Should you need me to provide further information or clarify anything, please let me know. At this time I have not read the 35 Saltair application as it is still at the Information Request stage, so my comments above are about the principles of planning for the street, rather than any judgement.

    Thanks again Mike. Tim.

    Regards,
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council
    (07) 5420 8965  office
    (07) 5420 8986  fax
    0418 348 896    mobile

    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail:       Locked Bag 72 Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560
         
    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author

  19. In Stanmore NSW on “To construct a secondary...” at 80 Railway Avenue Stanmore NSW 2048:

    Rob commented

    I strongly object to this development. This is not in keeping with the aesthetic of the street and has privacy implications and overshadow for the neighbouring residents.

  20. In Curtin ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR 5 STOREY MIXED...” at 41 Curtin Place, Curtin, ACT:

    Brian and Florette Horan commented

    We feel that a re-think of the scale of the Curtin Square Development is needed. We have been Curtin residents for more then 30 years. Curtin Square and shopping facilities have changed over that time in keeping with social changes and community needs. The sunny open space enabled locals to meet, support each other and fundraise for community projects; it allowed art, aged, disabled and sporting groups to confront health and economic difference. This current development proposal is over-development impinging on the open, sunny space needed for community health and welfare. The height change creates a sunless windy square that mirrors the cold, unused Square at Woden. There is an over supply of apartments in Woden negating the need for another 50 over the shops. Parking is a major problem now before another 50 plus residents are added. Curtin Shopping Centre should remain mainly a social centre rather than becoming a residential area. It is a place for school children to gather in safety.

  21. In Bulli NSW on “Woolworths - demolition of...” at 269 Princes Highway, Bulli NSW 2516:

    Kirsten Hitchins commented

    Dear Councillor,

    As a local resident, I am firmly against the building of a KFC on the main street of Bulli. Not only is it an unnecessary addition to the town's shops, it promotes unhealthy eating habits to local children. While I agree local kids need jobs, instead, let's work towards supporting struggling small businesses in the area.

    Our streets are congested enough already, please deny this application for a multi-national conglomerate to move into our town.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 318 Edgeware Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Petra Jones commented

    I strongly object to this development. This is not in keeping with the aesthetic of the street and has privacy implications for the neighboring residents.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 412 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Illawarra Road has enough medium and high rise developments. To approve further developments of this nature will further foresee the demise of a once beautiful suburb. It is now becoming another Rockdale with no aesthetic beauty or soul. In addition, the traffic congestion has already become absolutely unbearable. I fully support Kristens comments.

  24. In Essendon VIC on “Restaurant and cafe Licence” at L 1, 13 Rose St, Essendon 3040, VIC:

    Peter McIver commented

    All in favour of another nice café / restaurant in the area.

  25. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Wendy Frew commented

    If this development is allowed to go ahead it will add a significant number of people and cars to an already heavily developed couple of blocks in North Dulwich Hill. In the past year or so, taking into account completed developments and those under way (68 apartments at The Cooperage, 462 New Canterbury Rd; 249 apartments at Grove St; 70 apartments at the GPO complex on corner of Lewisham St and New Canterbury Rd) combined with another proposed development on Constitution Rd of 15 dwellings), 473 apartments have been added to this very small area bounded by New Canterbury Rd, Constitution Rd, Grove St and Hill St and Lewisham St. Parking is already at a premium on these streets because few people have off-street parking. Public transport is already at capacity. The trams are nearly full by the time they get to the nearest Light Rail stop, Arlington, by 8am in the morning - and that is just the third stop from the beginning of the line at Dulwich Hill! The heavy rail at Lewisham is also running at capacity - you can't get a seat on the train in morning peak hour. Denison Rd is a rat run, full of parents taking their sons to the Christian Bros school further down Denison Rd, and used as an alternative to New Canterbury Rd for drivers going to the city and using the City West Link. I am not exaggerating when I say it is difficult to cross the road during peak hour and there are no lights or pedestrian crossings at this end of the road. On top of that, we have the massive congestion represented by the huge developments down at Lewisham. Please don't let this development go ahead without devising and imposing some major restrictions on traffic, such as lights, pedestrian crossings or major road calming structures.
    Thank you

  26. In Millers Point NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 81 Kent Street Millers Point NSW 2000:

    Chris Hinkley commented

    Dear Sir/Ms.,

    I most vehemently oppose this development as it commercialises what is an important historic residential area. The heritage of this area is constantly under threat and needs to be preserved.

  27. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Craig commented

    Im not against a development. The owner of this land that sold it to developers was and fought to stop the then block of land next to them to be developed from 6 residence then to 4 before 2 were finally approved but the developer decided it wasn't worth it and sold the land. Yesterday a notice sign was seen at 48 but was later taking down. The sign stated 8 residence. Be realistic with the development and the area people on that street have payed good money for the property's because it is what it is

  28. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations to the approved...” at 201 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael Tatam commented

    This application should be refused.
    Commercial units provide a much greater sense of space and openness. Residential units remove that sense, as privacy is sought for the internal spaces thereby decreasing the amenity to the public.
    This site has already been massivly over developed for residential purposes and the conversion of two retail units to residential use will exacerbate the already over stretched availability of parking as commercial use parking happens at a different time of the day to residents parking.
    Finally, the local residents are absolutely at their wits end with the ongoing inconvenience this development, or should I say overdevelopment, has caused and enough is enough.

  29. In Carnegie VIC on “Change of use from butcher...” at 121 Koornang Road Carnegie VIC 3163:

    James commented

    Please NO MORE cheap Asian style restaurants. The strip is already over subscribed with these style of food outlets. It has completely changed our shopping strip and is no longer balanced to meet our local community needs and forcing residents to drive further to shop rather than walk locally for essential supplies.

  30. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Donald Lindsay wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    I would like to place a STRONG objection to this proposed development.
    I own an apartment directly behind this proposed development. My apartment is run as an airbnb, it has a rooftop balcony with views across to Moreton Island. This proposed development will obscure the WHOLE view, thus affecting my ability to run it as a profitable business. The proposal also has windows which face directly onto the balcony and into the apartment reducing any privacy.
    The proposed development seems to contradict The Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014
    6.2.3.2 Purpose and overall outcomes
    (f) development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises having regard to:-
    (i) microclimate impacts, including the extent and duration of any overshadowing;
    (ii) privacy and overlooking impacts;
    (iii) impacts upon views and vistas; and
    (iv) building massing and scale relative to its surroundings;
    The developer has obviously not taken any of this into account.
    I strongly object to this proposed development as it will have a negative effect on the value of my property and the other apartments in the building. I am not a wealthy developer, just an average person trying to make a living with this business.
    I hope my objection will be taken into consideration when a decision is made on this development.

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Donald Lindsay

    Dear Donald,
    Thank you for your email. I have read and noted the content, and appreciate you taking the time to inform council of your position on the application.
    I will forward your email to council's Development Assessment Branch for their information and consideration.
    Council officers will consider your comments as per the requirements of the Planning Act as it relates to the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme.

    Regards
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Councillor ? Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council

    Ph: 07 5420 8965
    Mob: 0418 348 896
    Email:
    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

    On 12 Jan 2017, at 05:08, Donald Lindsay <> wrote:

    I would like to place a STRONG objection to this proposed development.
    I own an apartment directly behind this proposed development. My apartment is run as an airbnb, it has a rooftop balcony with views across to Moreton Island. This proposed development will obscure the WHOLE view, thus affecting my ability to run it as a profitable business. The proposal also has windows which face directly onto the balcony and into the apartment reducing any privacy.
    The proposed development seems to contradict The Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014
    6.2.3.2 Purpose and overall outcomes
    (f) development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises having regard to:-
    (i) microclimate impacts, including the extent and duration of any overshadowing;
    (ii) privacy and overlooking impacts;
    (iii) impacts upon views and vistas; and
    (iv) building massing and scale relative to its surroundings;
    The developer has obviously not taken any of this into account.
    I strongly object to this proposed development as it will have a negative effect on the value of my property and the other apartments in the building. I am not a wealthy developer, just an average person trying to make a living with this business.
    I hope my objection will be taken into consideration when a decision is made on this development.

    From Donald Lindsay to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    =========================================================================

    Donald Lindsay posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

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

    Planning Application for 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD

    Description: Multiple Dwelling Units x 35 - Rise Projects Services

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/745840?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

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