Recent comments

  1. In Lane Cove NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    20/9/2014

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Can find no more details except this appears to be a modification of an application for 5 new multi-storey residential buildings to be constructed next to Burns Bay Road above View Street.

    If this is the case, there should be no late modifications which would add additional residences in the buildings. The development is too dense already, and quite out of character with the Lower Burns Bay Road/Linley Point area, in terms of a population
    bombshell and architectural design in a bushland area. Even with the new internal road, there will be traffic problems in Burns Bay Road.

    M A CLINCH
    PO Box 1076,
    Lane Cove, 1595.

  2. In Lane Cove NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW, 2066:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    20/9/2014

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Can find no more details except this appears to be a modification of an application for 5 new multi-storey residential buildings to be constructed next to Burns Bay Road above View Street.

    If this is the case, there should be no late modifications which would add additional residences in the buildings. The development is too dense already, and quite out of character with the Lower Burns Bay Road/Linley Point area, in terms of a population
    bombshell and architectural design in a bushland area. Even with the new internal road, there will be traffic problems in Burns Bay Road.

    M A CLINCH
    PO Box 1076,
    Lane Cove, 1595.

  3. In Summer Hill NSW on “The Temperance Society Bar...” at 122 Smith St, Summer Hill 2130:

    Connie commented

    The small bar is a great addition to any community. Small bars encourage civilised gatherings in a friendly environment. They provide an opportunity for community members and friends to meet and exchange ideas in a more intimate environment. I would be very happy if this new bar was up and running in Summer Hill asap.

  4. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Canberra Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    Suzanne Flannery commented

    Canberra Avenue is a quiet street with no side walk. It is a steep corner where the proposal is. There is already a childcare center a 100 metres away on Bannockburn road, 400 metres away a childcare centre on Pentrecost Avenue. The owners of all Canberra Avenue will protest the proposal with a group petition by the end of this week beginning 19th of September 2014. The sign post for the proposal was erected on site today.

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Andrew Morgan commented

    The NSW Planning Dept has a opportunity to influence the developer to create a development in line with the nature of the suburb. At present the development proposal resembles a ghetto. The development could enhance a village style precinct if done tastefully and to a scale that is in line with best practice with medium scale developments. It should incorporate open space as this is the nature of the area.

    My concerns

    1. The loss of open space. The current area area was used by many people in the area as a dog recreation area, people used to fly model planes and kites and other open space activities. The loss of this is detrimental to the general health of the suburb and I believe the developer should incorporate some open space in the development to maintain the general feel of the area.

    2. Parking in the shopping area. Prior to fencing off many of the shopping centre employees would park on the grass and leave the carpark for customers. This worked well. Now cars are regurlarly paked back over the bridge and down near the day care cnetre. This is a significant safety risk and the area was not designed to cope with the amount of on street parking. The new development will also reduce the available parking in the carpark while adding more shops.

    3. Traffic - the Kopa st intersection is not designed to cope with the amount of extra traffic due to the amount of dwellings in the development. Duirng school hours the place is already gridlocked. The extra traffic will see people making irrational driving practices at a high risk area near the day care centre and where the children walk to school.

    4. Density - the amount and scale of the development is totally out of character with the rest of the suburb. It is even worse than the first one.

  6. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Mell Magill commented

    I am writing to object to the above mentioned development. I do not see the necessity of a 5 story apartment building, the land proposed for development is already at a high point in the suburb.
    The current infrastructure to and from this proposed development is not really suitable for such an influx of the proposed traffic which would be a direct result of such a large development. The area is a high foot traffic area, with a nursing home, Primary and High schools in very close proximity. Also a leash free dog exercising area runs adjacent to the proposed land marked for this development. During the summer season, and surf club activities, this area is already unable to sustain the amount of vehicles needing to park, with traffic spreading over onto Mawson Close, The Esplanade, and Caves Beach Rd. The result is over crowding of the surrounding streets and access and street visibility is a severe problem. Such a high density development would only add to this problem.
    I do not see the necessity for another supermarket, there is a line of shops directly across the road and the two big supermarkets only minutes away.
    The resultant height of such a large development would definitely impact many home owners in Caves Beach, even as far back as Easton Lane, as most of the suburb looks over this area. Not to mention the obvious that it would be a complete eyesore that you would not be able to hide or disguise as the land is, as mentioned, the high point of the surrounding district.

  7. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Meredith Coxon commented

    I am writing to object to the development DA/1376/2014 – 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach. Even though our house is not directly affected by this development, I do not think that there is any need for a 5 storey apartment block within Caves Beach. This is not an inner city community, where housing is at a premium. I believe that even 2 storeys on that high block will create enough oceanviews for the residents. Which I consider is what the developer is after - blocking the views of the residents in the unit block that has just been built behind, and making it a focal point for all houses that are placed higher than this development.

    The building of a new small supermarket is also not necessary. We currently have a small line of shops that does the community well enough, and should you need more, Coles and Woolworths are a short walk or drive down into Swansea.

    Having an additional 79 Units occupied will create more traffic – cars already tear along Caves Beach Road now – and this is quite close to the Nursing Home which would be a danger to the elderly residents and their visitors. Currently in the daytime, when cars are parked across from the Nursing Home, a blind spot is created, this would be much worse with more traffic flow. There is only one exit in and out of Caves Beach, which is quite dangerous enough now.

    Our house currently gets a ridiculous amount of runoff water each time it rains, from the development that was built previous to this one. I am really not sure that there is sufficient drainage in this area to accommodate this development. I am particularly concerned that the land that will house these units will be built up before construction, making them much higher than the 2 storeys on the picture. Making them completely overlook the yards of the current owners – much like the imposing houses that are currently being built on the fenceline of the Resort development.

    It is hard to trust this development will not be completely different to what is in the plans – it seems to be completely secret and underhanded with no notice to the community. This should be put in a prominent place so that all residents can have their say – and give them more than the paltry 2 weeks that has been granted with this application.

  8. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jill Cassidy, Honorary Research Associate, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery commented

    I wish to object to the proposal to demolish the old 'cordial factory' in the CH Smith complex. Bricks made in the 1830s were often of poor quality but this building is one of the oldest in Launceston and should be retained if at all possible. It is a reminder of the very early days of settlement when this area was of great importance to the economic and maritime activities of the fast-developing town. The whole CH Smith complex has the potential to be of great interest if developed appropriately so that it could become a most welcome introduction to the city.

  9. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Daniel Degrassi commented

    I support this application on the grounds that it will advantage many and should not negatively impact any members of the local community.

    Moving the primary meeting place from one building to another within the same complex:

    - Will not increase the amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic which are already very small compared to school day volumes

    - will allow better access for the elderly members of the congregation and for children who have additional needs

    - will make it easier for visitors and new people to find the church meeting location, reducing any potential impact on neighbouring properties

  10. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Roger & Elizabeth de Quincey commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

    Re DAO383/2014

    We strongly object to the proposed demolition of the C. H. Smith facade.

    In Kevin Newman's words (Examiner, 12 March, 1992):

    'Our heritage is precious' and 'When times are tough and jobs are scarce it is hard not to let a building be destroyed, because the immediate argument about jobs and new development are very persuasive.' He went on to argue that often a building that appears derelict and beyond redemption can be saved. 'Launceston has a reputation as one of the most authentic 19th century cities in Australia.' The city's character is precious and can be 'regarded as an Australian historical gem and a tourist Mecca.' 'The envy of Australia and indeed the world!'

    Think twice before knocking it down - you can't put it up again.

  11. In Summer Hill NSW on “The Temperance Society Bar...” at 122 Smith St, Summer Hill 2130:

    Liz commented

    Fantastic idea! We need another place for brunch and breakfast in Summer Hill on weekends. Hopefully it will be cosy and prices will be reasonable. Also hope they do great coffee and loose leaf teas!

    Look forward to having a drink after work here too!

    Since moving to Summer Hill from Newtown, we have missed small bars. Hope they get outdoor seating too.

  12. In Beecroft NSW on “Proposed Redevelopment...” at 87-91 & 95 Beecroft Road and 16-24 Hannah Street, Beecroft:

    rick commented

    Do not become like a paramatta council and keep approving developments around beecroft. stop destruction of beecroft. There are more than 350 units that are going approved to be built around beecroft . Has anyone thought of the insufficient surrounding infrastructure, seniors , families living in this area.Do you know about the accident that killed someone at the corner of beecroft road and hannah street. Yes council will become rich with increased council rates but this will come at the expense of safety,people losing sleep due to freight noise, sickness due to cutting of trees etc.

  13. In Ballina NSW on “New Dwelling - Single...” at 2 / 49 Bentinck Street Ballina NSW 2478:

    russell shepherd commented

    would like to see a copy of application as my property backs onto this property would like to know if it is two story re. shade angles e.t.c

  14. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Eric Vaughan Ralph Ratcliff commented

    I also object to any proposal to demolish the Canal Street building, a characterful relic of our early waterfront that can be made a prominent landmark at one of the gateways to the City centre. It can enhance the interest of any adjacent development, making it less of an object to drive past and not take notice of.
    The disputed site has a number of buildings worthy of conservation - Plain Colonial, Early Victorian/Regency, Art Deco and Edwardian (Federation).
    Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

  15. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Eric Vaughan Ralph Ratcliff commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of Launceston,

    I strongly object to the application to demolish the Charles Street facades. They are prominent buildings that maintain important and characteristic streetscape near the edge of the City centre, and they represent one of the few large remnants of our early commercial waterfront.
    They are in the same style and comparable date to the much admired and preserved warehouses in Salamanca Place in Hobart. They happen to be built of brick with stucco render and not of stone, but that is the characteristic material of our city.
    Launceston is more admired by its visitors for what it has kept than for what it has allowed to be demolished. In that, it resembles Paris in France and Bath in England, albeit on a much smaller scale. Launceston has had many serious losses since the 1950s, many replaced by unbuilt spaces (mostly car-parks) or by buildings of little character. The more of these we accumulate, the more Launceston will come to resemble every other suburban strip in South-Eastern Australia. It will be of little or no interest to visitors, and no source of pride to its citizens.
    Central Hobart has thoroughly destroyed its historic atmosphere, except for its conserved treasures. Launceston is more intact, despite its losses, and our realistic economic future depends on our past as well as on continuing development.
    Long neglect has become an excuse for demolition of things that we should preserve. It is not beyond the wit of good architects and engineers to maintain these facades and integrate them into a development that will enhance our city. It is up to the firm commissioning the project to recognise this.
    Yours sincerely,
    Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

  16. In Galston NSW on “Residential - single new...” at 4 Gribbenmount Road Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Jane Cattley commented

    My husband (Graham Talmon Cattley) and I (Ingrid Jane Cattley) are the owners of 284 Galston Road Galston and live at that address.
    I strongly support this application.

  17. In Lake Wendouree VIC on “Construction of 13 dwellings” at 203 Wendouree Parade, Lake Wendouree:

    Stuart Kelly commented

    This proposed development is totally out of scale for the area! I appeal to the Council to reject it. The overwhelming majority of buildings around the lake are of one storey - with some two storey homes. To introduce what is in all truth a block of flats to such an area will adversely effect what should be regarded as one of Ballarat's jewels.

  18. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Bulk Earthworks - Karanya...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Robyn Barcello commented

    Please advise of the Traffic Management Plan that will be in place for the main arterial road - Banfield Drive and the intersection of Hedley Court and Banfield Drive.
    Thank you

  19. In Lake Wendouree VIC on “Construction of 13 dwellings” at 203 Wendouree Parade, Lake Wendouree:

    Christine Anne Young commented

    I do not think this application should be approved. The density of the dwellings, 13 on the block, is inappropriate for the existing neighbourhood. The description in the current real estate advertising of a " a sublime, four-storey lobby atrium" indicates that the height will greatly exceed existing buildings - even if the atrium starts in the basement . The streetscape in the area is uniformly low rise. The development is adjacent to Lake Wendouree, a key Ballarat attraction, and will detract by its size, from the ambience of the lakeside in the area.
    I have made no donations to any councillor or council employee.

  20. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Michele Purcell commented

    DA/1774/2013 concerns regarding this development.
    Traffic issues, there is already congestion all the time , worse on school days and weekends.

    Density of the development , not only was it ridiculous to start with but now there are more! The amount of dwellings as well as the height does in now way fit in with the surrounds

    We had an application for a small renovation at the front of our house. No neighbours objected at all. Council made us change it as they said it was not in keeping with the rest of the suburb.If this development goes ahead the way it is , I think there needs to be an inquiry into how this proposal with all the objections was passed especially with the developers recent appearance before ICAC.

    Why would you want to pass such an overdevelopment which would bring nothing but discord and disharmony to Whitebridge.

    Where do the children play ? there are very few parks as it is.

    The temporary path leading to the Fernleigh track is already a death trap , It does nothing for wheelchair and disabled access and is quite frankly disgusting.

    Please explain how our small extension on the front of our house was so objectionable and supposedly did not fit in with the local surrounds and this monstrosity up the road does!

    When is council going to act for the people it represents and stop bending to the developer , who is just in it to make money and leave the local people to deal with the fallout

    Which schools are these people going to attend , have the numbers been looked at ?

  21. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Robert Dougall commented

    I support Menai Baptist Church's Application to use the Performing Arts Centre for Sunday worship services.

    The church currently meets in the Inaburra "Media Centre" and simply wants to relocate on that site to the purpose built Performing Arts Centre. The PAC has been designed to minimise noise impacts on its neighbours. The approval of this DA would be a "Win Win" for the church and the neighbours adjacent to the Inaburra complex.

    I am a resident of Menai and a member of Menai Baptist Church.

  22. In Wyee NSW on “Community Facility (Markets)” at Wyee Community Hall, 114 Wyee Road, Wyee NSW 2259:

    Philip and Margot Hammond commented

    As a neighbouring property owner to the site of the proposed development we are concerned that any additional development on this site will further degrade our life style
    for the following reasons.

    I. The council does not maintain this area in relation to rubbish left on the ground, and if not picked up by the local residents (such as my wife and I during our daily walk) it is mown over by the council staff which makes it impossible to pick up, and turns glass bottles and aluminium cans into razor blades, it is worse when this site is used for special events and past markets that have been held on the site.

    2. Parking and traffic, the use of this site for market days, causes people to drive and park on the unsealed access way at the front of the site parallel with Wyee Road directly opposite our property which in a Southerly wind, causes excessive dust to enter
    our house, during the hot summer months, we have to close all windows and doors to prevent this from happening, thus depriving us of any breeze to cool the house.

    3. The leasing of the community hall, by the council, or via a third party, for special events, such as weddings, parties, or such, is not supervised in any form, the excessive
    noise generated from drunken patrons and , result in sleepless nights, regardless of calling for police assistance.

  23. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Mrs Robyn Jones commented

    To Launceston City Council
    Re DAO383/2014

    I wish to strongly object to this proposed demolition of the 'cordial factory'.

    I question the assertion that there is no feasible alternative to demolishing this building.

    I tender these examples of preserving and conserving original historical fabric within a modern development as feasible alternatives: 3 Victoria Street, Hobart where the Tasmanian Heritage Council approved plans for the 1820s Macquarie's House to be enclosed within a large office tower block development and Coop's Shot Tower in Melbourne Central.

    Overseas examples include the Clarkson Gordon Building in the Brookfield Place Complex,Toronto, Canada. The heritage property's facade was disassembled stone-by-stone, restored and reconstructed in order to be incorporated as part of a galleria. The National Museum of Singapore has a new building which acts as a glass case enclosing the facade of a heritage building.

    The Heritage Architect states that the heritage values will be largely lost if reconstruction was attempted. How so? I question this broad and unsubstantiated statement as well.

    It is alarming that this building has been allowed to deteriorate over recent months to the extent that it has.

    An agreement is an agreement and should be honoured.

  24. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Sandra Lockeridge commented

    I have attended Menai baptist church for over 20 years and as an ex student of innaburra school I have seen the way both the school and church have sort to carry out church and school life with as little impact on surrounding nabours as possible. I feel that this proposal will again assist this, by being allowed to hold Sunday survives in the PAC I feel noise levels from these services will drop due to the PAC being a purpose built building for acoustics.

    As others have mentioned all this proposal is asking is that the church move Sunday services from one building to another which will have no change on traffic and parking. Most attendees of Menai Baptist church make a very conscious effort to respect nabours by parking inside the grounds of inaburra school and not on the surrounding streets.

    Because of this I support this proposal.

  25. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Gillian Morris commented

    To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

    Re DAO383/2014

    I strongly oppose this application to demolish the 'cordial factory'.

    The 'C H Smith' precinct is of paramount importance to the early history of the European settlement of Launceston and in its entirety should be sympathetically restored, so as to promote and enhance the colonial heritage of our beautiful City.

    Progress with Prudence.

    Gillian Morris

  26. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Installation” at 617 Freemans Drive, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Wendy Iredale commented

    As a resident living only a few hundred metres from the proposed sewer plant I have concerns regarding its smell, noise and sight. I am not objecting to a system which may environmentally benefit the area by providing houses with grey water for irrigation, but I definitely object to its location being close to existing homes. We do not have the luxury of "not buying" one of the new blocks which may be close to this plant - we already live here, and value the fresh air we currently breathe!

    JPG are obviously "in it for maximum profit" and wish to locate this facility in a spot which will have the least impact on how many housing blocks they will be able to sell. The large parcel of land that they are developing has adequate space to locate this facility in an area that wouldn't impact on any existing or proposed houses - albeit at the expense of a few proposed building blocks. How can they morally so blatantly ignore the standard of living of existing homes.

    No matter what feasibility studies say, the new plant will have smell, noise and chemical impacts on our environment. It needs to be located at a suitable distance to alleviate any of these impacts on current or future residents.

    Why not use the current Hunter Water sewerage facilities at Marconi Road and avoid all of the problems?

  27. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Dr Stephanus Van Heerden commented

    Menai Baptist church has met on the site for more than 30 years and moving to a different location on the site is not an unreasonable request. The church wants to be an effective and valuable member of the local community and meeting in the PAC can help to facilitate this vision.

    As a member of the church I support this submission.

  28. In Clovelly NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 263-269 Clovelly Road Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Lee Hubber commented

    Need to stop the traffic travelling up and down Susan Lane, if access to the centre is going to be on Knox. There are at least 10 children living in the adjacent section of the lane and people already speed down there, should be marked No Entry at both ends with access from Clift Lane to access garages (many already do)

  29. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Don Morris commented

    Regarding DA0383/2014

    To the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Launceston

    I earnestly request the Council not to approve the demolition of the "cordial factory" as part of the C.H. Smith redevelopment in Canal Street.

    This building, while currently in poor repair, is one of the more significant structures in this important military and wharf precinct of Launceston, dating from the earliest times of the built settlement. It is capable of being preserved and protected in any new development but if the Council allows it to be demolished, it will be lost forever.

    I respectfully request that the Council require the developer to amend their development application so that the fabric of this building is maintained, while it is incorporated into the new development to support the economic development of the City.

  30. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods - showroom;...” at 16-24 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Michael Garry Quinlan and Laura Eleanor Bennett commented

    We strongly oppose this application. The CH Smith Building is an early and irreplaceable piece of Launceston's built heritage - and this heritage is the future of the city. Demolishing for short term profit will not aid the city's immediate future but will prevent a more sympathetic redevelopment of the site that retains the building in the future when there will be more tourist demand for visiting places near the river. Further, this sort of industrial heritage represents an important link to Launceston's past as a seaport. We find this application almost unbelievably callous and short-sighted. It demonstrates no real appreciation of the city that its residents have a right to love. Again, the built-heritage is Launceston's major asset re tourism and lifestyle and no further demolition of historic buildings should be permitted.

    Michael Quinlan and Laura Bennett

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