Recent comments

  1. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Mark J commented

    This forum is appropriate for raising traffic concerns in relation to a DA application, such as this one. However it is not an appropriate forum to question council's studies for traffic. Can we please keep notice board focused on 66 Constitution Rd and the impact the proposed DA will have, and question Marrickville Local Government's traffic studies in the relevant area.

  2. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    As someone who takes their dog to Simpson Park on Lackey Street, this type of development seems to be excessive in relation to the surrounds. The street is also one way and already practically impossible to park during the middle of the work week. How will it cope with 63 additional residences, although the Basix certificate actually states there are 94 resident units.

    Either way the 110 residential car spaces and 11 non-residential car spaces are completely insufficient for the number of residents that will invade the area. Possible catastrophic if multiple car owners live in the one unit. The concern also is that the car spaces will need to be purchased separately giving people the option to not purchase a space and be issued with a residential parking permit to park on the surrounding streets. Again, this location does not have the capacity to handle this influx of vehicles.

    Marrickville Council has a responsibility to look after the needs of current residents This development would create gridlock, overlook current residents and cause unnecessary stress and disruption.

  3. In Kingsbury VIC on “Proposed medium density...” at 7 Highland Street Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Michael Grey commented

    This development is not consistent with the character of the area in general and the street in particular.

    Its height will stand out noticeably in a street of single story dwellings, creating an eyesore.

    It will increase parking congestion on a street already congested, and will may cause accidents with the children and older people who live on the street already due to restricted sight lines.

    The increased number of 1 and 2 small bedroom dwellings in the area changes the character of the area of larger, 3 bedroom plus housing, and will cause additional stress to already busy local amenities with not benefit to the community as a whole.

  4. In Condell Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 131 Eldridge Road Condell Park NSW 2200 Australia:

    Wendy C commented

    I am against the development of a public place of worship at this location for the following reasons:

    - Further traffic congestion along Eldridge Road. It currently can take me 20-30 mins something just to pass this intersection. Constructing a building as such here will only exacerbate the traffic problem here;
    - Together with added traffic problem, there will also be additional noise pollution in the neighbourhood. We do not need further noise pollution from impatient and frustrated drivers pressing horns;
    - Thirdly, based on the plans we received previously and structure of the building, we do not need members of the religion to be ringing bells at midnight. We currently have a turbo shop near the area and are constantly hearing engine and tire sounds late at night. These noises can sometimes last past 10pm. We do not need further noise added to this in the area.

    Please consider this very carefully as due to the above factors. We do no need further noise and traffic pollution in the area.

  5. In Caringbah South NSW on “Construction of shop top...” at 493 Port Hacking Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Rob Nixon commented

    No problems with this sort of dwelling going ahead.
    My problem is with all these multi housing developments without up dating the infrastructure. Our house now has had sewerage backing up into our house because of the main blocking up. Not nice to have to clean up & to live with when we all pay decent rates to live in the Shire.

  6. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    John commented

    To Melanie (and others): Your concerns re the proposed crematorium are understandable but needlessly exaggerated. A much greater hazard to health is posed by the constant exhaust fumes from nearby road traffic and from the carcinogenic particulates falling from the large jet aircraft which pass over Buderim and environs at regular intervals. By comparison, the impact of the crematorium will be insignificant.

  7. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    N Hay commented

    In relation to the Dulwich Hill North LATM Study draft report could Council please advise the following:
    (1) Where we can find legible maps of precincts 1, 2 and 3 including street names?
    (2) Table 6.3 suggests that the projected future traffic impacts were based on an additional 155 residences in 'precinct 2'. What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 2 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 1 and 3 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) If the actual number of proposed residences exceeds the forecast number, what impact will that have on vehicle per day estimates? For example, if precinct 2 includes the Arlington development, there are approximately 90 'residences' that have not been included in the projections on my reckoning.
    (4) At page 17, the report states "It is expected that the opening of the Inner West Light Rail extension in 2014 ... will have some impact on journey to work patterns for Dulwich Hill". Did this study take into account the actual impacts of the light rail stop at Arlington?
    (5) Generally the report appears to be based on conditions as they existed before the Arlington DA was finalised. A lot has changed since then. Can Council advise in what respects the analysis is based on data current for 2016?
    It would be good if Council could make this information available in a timely manner so that residents can make an informed response.

  8. In Port Macquarie NSW on “Change of Use - Dwelling to...” at 24A Granite Street Port Macquarie NSW 2444, Australia:

    Wendy Jensen commented

    I believe this position or particular house wouldn't be appropriate as a medical centre. The off street parking there is already not enough for the residence around the area. And as well this dwelling has no off street parking
    The block and access is not suitable for elderly or disabled and very hard to access. Also the busy road makes it hard with small children. I think this would be more a traffic hazard than anything.

  9. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sophie T wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    With all due respect, is it not a little late for Council to be issuing a draft traffic report? The traffic reports really should have been prepared before the approved developments have added an extra 1000 odd units into a very small area. The residents of Lewisham St were promised this report a few years ago given the narrow street is used as a way to get to Denison and then over to the western side of Dulwich Hill. The residents of Dulwich St were led to believe this report was due before the development at 429-449 New Canterbury Rd was approved. For this local resident it really seems like a waste of time and a very very late box ticking exercise which will only serve to tell us what we already know, that the streets of Dulwich Hill are becoming a car park and that the situation will only get worse ...

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Lilyfield NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 145 Francis Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Rebecca Fesq commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I would like to comment on the following:

    1) As the owner of 149 Francis Street, I am concerned that our building is shown incorrectly in sections and elevations. The proposal shows our highest point adjacent to 145 Francis, however it is actually sloping towards 145 Francis Street; the highest point being adjacent to 151 Francis Street. This shows the bulk incorrectly and therefore shows our building having a larger impact than it does.

    2) The upper bedroom on the Francis Street Elevation has a corner window which looks directly onto the pool in our yard. Due to the nature of my children and their friends using the pool, I would like to request privacy louvres or screens for this issue.

    3) Our extension is currently in construction phase. Our upper floor bedroom on the Francis Street Elevation has been designed to overlook the roofs to 145 and 143 Francis Street and therefore to alleviate any issues with views or privacy to neighbouring properties. We are concerned that the roof proposed at 145 Francis, at its highest point, is currently in line with eyesight level when standing in the corner of the room. We feel this loss of amenity is a waste of our efforts during construction and design to retain this; we are requesting the roof proposed in the application to 145 Francis to drop by 200mm. This will still enable a high and amenable ceiling height to 145 Francis Street whilst maintaining the amenity created at 149 Francis Street.

  11. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Craig Lindsay commented

    I strongly object to the proposed development. The new apartment complex is completely out of character with the neighbouring (former) Alexandria Hotel.

    A seven level building next a hotel? How is that going to work. The height exceeds height restrictions and should be rejected entirely for that reason alone.

    And by their own admission in the traffic report, the 26 Apartments will have NO parking what so ever. The developer seems to justify this by referring to access to "Excellent train and bus services." Clearly they are not regular users of Sydney Public Transport.

    Assuming at least some of the new residents have motor vehicles, where does the developer propose they park? Do they presume all residents of Alexandria live and work locally and can every where they need on the "excellent" bus and train network?

    This development has been rushed with very little thought or consideration of the affects it will have on the area and should not be allowed to proceed.

  12. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Melanie Gosling commented

    We are a young, professional family who have purchased our first home at a premium in October 2014. It is only a stones throw from this development proposal.
    We have not finished having a family either, and to know what crematorium emissions can do to an unborn child has me very concerned.
    We purchased in the area for the natural beauty, family facilities and school catchment. Not to have to resell in a couple of years at a loss, as the worry of stillborn and brain damage for future children is too much of a gamble for us.

  13. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Melissa Brooks commented

    Hello,

    I noticed a few people are looking for more information about the traffic and parking studies being undertaken in Dulwich Hill. Those studies were very recently completed and a draft went to today's traffic committee meeting. You can see the reports under the April heading on this page: http://marrickville.nsw.gov.au/en/community/get-involved/advisory-and-consultative-committees/pedestrian-cyclist-and-traffic-calming-committee/

    They will now be considered by council's Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services Committee on the first Tuesday in May. Residents can speak to the report at that meeting.

    The report will then be put on public exhibition and I would encourage you to make comments. I've only had a brief chance to read the report so far, but it does recommend some traffic calming measures that the community has previously suggested. I am very happy to have a meeting with you and your neighbours about the traffic and parking reports - on a weekend afternoon is the easiest for me. Please let me know if you think this would be useful. I do not inspect development sites except on council site inspections with staff (but as a local resident and your ward councillor I am very familiar with the area).

    Email is the best way to get in touch with me - mbrooks@marrickville.nsw.gov.au

    Best wishes,
    Clr Melissa Brooks (Burraga West Ward)

  14. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I strongly object to this development.
    1. the notion of a "live-work" dwelling is ill-defined and open to exploitation which adversely affects the amenity of neighbours.
    2. The size and scale of the building is inappropriate - the existence of neighbouring monstrosities such as Larry & Barry Towers on the corner of May St and the highway does not justify another.
    3. Until the state government improves our local public transport, public education and public health infrastructure we cannot afford to bring more people into the area just to profit developers and investors reliant on negative-gearing.
    4. For all the above reasons, it is not in the public interest.

  15. In Minto Heights NSW on “Commercial” at 49 Hansens Road, Minto Heights, NSW:

    Irene Roy commented

    Campbelltown City Council (Source: Campbelltown, reference558/2016/DA-C)
    Isn't this parcel of land on the Georges River Reserve Belt
    We don't need the run off from a commercial venture like this to run into the creeks and Georges River, we can't swim in Georges River now with out getting a earache or worse
    It's very sad how the river and the creeks are, the river bottom is slime, once upon a time it was clear, you could see the crayfish, fish, eels, the reeds growing from under the rocks in the water, the clean sand, it was beautiful and you could swim in the river, drink the water, you would die if you drank it now, you could camp in the bush and hear the night animals moving around at night, there were always plenty of native animals you could see, lots of wild birds to hear
    Now someone wants to cage the animals, the land doesn't look big enough, my thinking is, if you want to see native animals and birds, put some shoes on and go for a hike, we have some beautiful bushwalks in the whole Campbelltown area, get out and breath the fresh air, see the animals or their tracks
    Please leave The Georges River Reserve Belt as is "Natural" :)

  16. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Douglas Walton commented

    I note that I have missed the deadline for submissions to the council on the above matter. However, I feel that this comment is important enough to consider as part of the determination of the application from Visionstream.

    I've taken the time to read the proposal from Visionstream carefully and I believe there is a rather large omission from their Environmental Impact statement. According to Schedule 3A of the ISEPP, the proposal does not appear to be permissible as the lot they claim is a natural barrier (119 Bulls Garden Road - Lot 2052 DP 823719) to the residential zone to the north is actually zoned R2. Under the code it states "If the tower is located on land in Zone IN1, IN2 or IN3 or an equivalent land use zone, the tower must not:
    (a) be located within 100 metres of a Zone R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 or RU5 or equivalent land use zone boundary".

    I know of at least one occasion that this lot was attempted to be sold to developers since I've been a resident of this estate. Under these guidelines I believe the council has no other option but to reject this application outright.

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “2nd two storey additions...” at 100 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Linda Martin commented

    This is my great aunts house, built 1912 by my great grandfather .102 was built for my Grandmother who lived there her whole life . The streetscape should remain the same .I would be ok with the current owners adding a contemporary addition to the rear.

  18. In Bondi NSW on “Modification to extend the...” at 30 Wellington Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Bella commented

    Please upload the application with details of the modifications to the DA page. There are no details on what Mirvac have asked for been made available publically. Thanks Bella

  19. In Kew VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 86 Brougham Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Anne Rini commented

    - If approved, this will be a precedent on the street - this will be the first block of land of a smaller size, approx 700 sqm with a 3 storey building on it. The only other 3 storey buildings on Brougham St are of a much larger in size. 3 storey buildings on a 700 sqm block will stand out on Brougham St and look like a tower. This is also true because the land is towards the end of the first block of Brougham St which is already elevated compared to the Kew Junction end.
    - Small houses around this property will also make these 3 storey dwellings look even higher in scale.
    - We already often have to park outside of the street because how packed the street gets on the weekend and evenings, this will make it even worse.
    - A building this tall will shadow and effect the lighting of properties all around, even across the road because the street is so narrow the houses are close together.
    - This is a tightly packed street, adding a 3 dwellings with 3 stories will make it feel worse.

  20. In Ocean Grove VIC on “Construction of Two (2)...” at 6 Aquilae Street, Ocean Grove, VIC:

    Paul Sherry commented

    Thanks to the Statutory Planning Officer who directed me to the application details on the City of Greater Geelong website (I should have looked harder to find this). I see from the planning application and the attached title document that there was indeed an application made to the Supreme Court last year to have the wording of the covenant changed to allow two dwellings to be constructed on this property. This answers my previous question.

  21. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Gary Speechley commented

    In an amazing sleight-of-hand, the developer claims that this development satisfies a floor-to-space ratio of 2.5 to 1.

    From the DA documents, we read that the site area of the LAND, including the Alex, is 913.4 square metres (sqm), and the built area of the proposed 'development' is 2,283 sqm.

    That built area of 2,283 sqm includes 255 sqm for the ground floor of the Alex and 230 sqm for the first floor of the Alex.

    Do the sums - 2.5:1. Sounds fine....

    BUT!! The proponent wants to subdivide the site into two lots - one lot for the Alex hotel and western beer garden; one for the seven storey development - which then puts the FSR for that lot up to 5 to 1 or more!!

    Sneaky, eh?

    Further, the site of the current beer garden to the north is directly over the easement to the railway line between Erskineville and Redfern. Different piling options such as down to bedrock and other options are rejected in the proponent's own documents, with a raft slab approach seemed to be favoured. BUT, there's nothing supporting such a technique as having been considered or approved by Transport for NSW, with the statement that, basically, it will be sorted AFTER development approval has been granted.

    As for height restrictions (of 12 metres) the proponent looks to exceed this to 24 metres, citing building heights at adjoining properties in Australian Technology Park (ATP).

    Now, ATP is (or at least was) State-owned land and City of Sydney Council has no say over development proposals. Mirvac / CBA are looking to a State-significant development of ATP with some buildings to exceed 35% of the current ATP controls.

    The Alex site, however, is NOT part of ATP and so any development MUST comply with the development controls currently in place and administered by the City of Sydney.

    To me, the proponent didn't know that they were buying a heritage-listed pub and a railway easement. Either due-diligence was not carried out, or the findings ignored.

    It is NOT the role of councils to underwrite or guarantee a profit to developers. It is not the lot of residents to be subjected to the unholy abominations that developers leave behind in their quest for a fast buck.

    Please get your objections in to the City as soon as you can.

  22. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I live nearby in Canterbury LGA, however, I frequently drive though the area for social reasons, commute daily to CBD by car along Canterbury Road, and shop regularly in Dulwich Hill. Since late 2015 especially I have observed a marked increase in vehicle traffic - such that I allow 10-15 minutes extra for the commute. And the traffic issues are not in locations closer to the city. A lot of drivers use Constitution as a "rat run" connecting New and Old Canterbury Roads. The oval and cafés near the proposed development means there are always pedestrians in and around the vicinit (and young children especially). It would be dangerous to increase traffic flows further in such a confined area - and it is a complete nonsense to suggest that people will use public transport. The light rail is too slow to make it a viable alternative unless you were travelling only 2-3 stops and buses along Canterbury Road will invariably be impacted by increased traffic volume mentioned earlier. Dulwich Hill is rapidly losing it's reputation as a heritage destination and family friendly place to live. It is disturbing that Marrickville Council (and my own LGA) are failing to take a long-term view of how these developments will affect quality of life for future residents. Equally disturbing is the "if you build it they will come" mentality that does not appear to be backed by accurate population growth forecasts. Either "they" will come and our local suburbs will become more unliveable, but perhaps "they" won't and we'll end up surrounded by under-occupied white elephants. How many local Councillors actually live anywhere near these or other unit developments, ie are any of you prepared to have a unit block (or more) spring up in your street?

  23. In Cleveland QLD on “Operational Works - ROL 1...” at 2 Danielle Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Kerri Langridge commented

    I will assume me disputing the subdivision is a waste of time, but I strongly urge you to take great consideration as to where the driveways are positioned in relation to people turning into Danielle Street. The amount of cars Danielle street residents are subjected to on a Sunday or any other day the Baptist church has a gathering is ridiculous. These cars park on both sides of Danielle Street & often, more than half way down the street. Baptist church do have car parking available but these people choose not to use it. No parking signs already adorn Danielle Street & are blatantly ignored by church users. I firmly believe 3 more driveways in that location of Danielle Street is not a good idea.

  24. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Camilla Duggan commented

    I strongly object to the size and scale of this development. I cannot see how this small, one way street can cope with yet more traffic for potentially 63 apartments.

  25. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    H Morgan-Harris commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I hope you can help. I am the director of Tortuga Studios in St Peters. We are a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, artist-run initiative that has been in operation for over eight years in the old brick factory at 31 Princes Highway.

    We are a platform for over 40 artists and makers, we offer studio space to 15 artists and manage a gallery that shows regular eclectic and well-attended exhibitions and we are considered a vibrant heart to the arts quarter of St Peters. We provide a rich cultural capital to this area and are well loved both by local residents, the arts scene, emergent and established artists and makers, the wider LGA, as well as being well-supported by Council.

    We have yet to receive anything in the post regarding the DA listed above. We are situated next door to this proposed development and would be so badly affected we would have to cease operation as we share both an internal and external wall, and roof with #63 Princes Highway.

    Can you please advise the processes required by Council for this situation? We were under the understanding that all local business and residents would be notified, and that the proposed DA would be displayed (it is not).

    Naturally, we are all extremely concerned about this and need to know as soon as possible what is going on. I understand none of our neighbours have been notified either.

    Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

    H Morgan-Harris

  26. In Ocean Grove VIC on “Construction of Two (2)...” at 6 Aquilae Street, Ocean Grove, VIC:

    Paul Sherry commented

    My partner and I looked at a property across the road from this one two years ago. We found there was a covenant on the title that restricted what could be done with the property, specifically that only one 'dwelling' could be built on the land, effectively meaning it could not be subdivided. Is there a similar covenant on this property and is the application including a request to remove it if there is?

  27. In Clifton Hill VIC on “Construction of six,...” at 14 Yambla St Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    deena beutel commented

    with parking already an issue in this street and surrounding streets in the area for residents this will not help the problem

  28. In Coogee NSW on “Construct new double...” at 20 Hamilton Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Richard Salmon commented

    Hello
    I find that the construction of this garage is fine, but the footpath will be rendered useless as has already has happened with the properties to the south. It is very hard to go up and down all the steps three times as you walk on the west side on the footpath. The same thing has happened on the north side of Alison road on the same block before you get to Brook St. The footpath is not for the exclusive use of one household!

    I know we cannot stop it of course.

  29. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Vince Polito commented

    I'm concerned about this proposal. Another large apartment complex in this area seems to contrary to the Council's plans for the St Peters Triangle: http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Global/Development/Planning%20controls/Public%20Domain%20Study/PDCDReport9.pdf

    In particular those plans emphasise improving pedestrian access and maintaining the character of the area. A large complex, with associated vehicle traffic will not help meet those aims. Those plans also seem to indicate that the proposed location is zoned for business use, not for heavy residential use.

    I have two major concerns about this proposal:
    First, these new buildings will be built very close to existing cultural and artistic spaces. This new development could have a serious negative impact on these. Council's masterplan is very clear about the need to maintain and enhance the create character of the area (sections 4.3-4.5). It is not appropriate to build such concentrated residential developments in areas that are likely to clash with existing tenants over issues such as noise.

    Second, to my knowledge none of the recent residential developments in the area have included any allowance for affordable housing. The current development also makes no obvious mention of this. I do not believe the current plans for this project should be approved, but if some iteration of this project is allowed in the future, it is critical to increase affordable housing in the area and that should be a requirement of the development.

  30. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    H Morgan-Harris wrote to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore

    Dear Sylvie,

    I hope you can help. I am the director of Tortuga Studios in St Peters. We are a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, artist-run initiative that has been in operation for over eight years in the old brick factory at 31 Princes Highway.

    We are a platform for over 40 artists and makers, we offer studio space to 15 artists and manage a gallery that shows regular eclectic and well-attended exhibitions and we are considered a vibrant heart to the arts quarter of St Peters. We provide a rich cultural capital to this area and are well loved both by local residents, the arts scene, emergent and established artists and makers, the wider LGA, as well as being well-supported by Council.

    We have yet to receive anything in the post regarding the DA listed above. We are situated next door to this proposed development and would be so badly affected we would have to cease operation as we share both an internal and external wall with #63 Princes Highway.

    Can you please advise the processes required by Council for this situation? We were under the understanding that all local business and residents would be notified, and that the proposed DA would be displayed (it is not).

    Naturally, we are all extremely concerned about this and need to know as soon as possible what is going on. I understand none of our neighbours have been notified either.

    Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

    H Morgan-Harris

    Delivered to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore. 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