Recent comments

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

    Neil commented

    What a gross overdevelopment in an already increasingly congested area. Not one car space to be provided should already throw this development to the scrap heap.There is already parking congestion in the area and with more jobs being created in the Technology Park, this will only add to an already congested area.

    I am totally opposed to this application. Tidy up the Hotel yes, but the rest of the proposal must be rejected.

  2. In Reservoir VIC on “Medium density development...” at 34 Don Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Michael Grey commented

    The proposed development does not match the street or area's character. It will rise above the surrounding dwellings noticeably.

    The removal of the trees is unnecessary in what is an over development on a small parcel of land.

    The addition of so many dwellings and bedrooms without the necessary off street parking will require standing congestion on the immediate roads surrounding the development.

    The traffic congestion in the area is already an issue and has been brought up several times. Adding so many dwellings will only contribute to this dangerous and growing problem.

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

    Lee Fox commented

    Thank you for your responses, welcomes and opinions. It's good to hear everyone's thoughts and this is a great forum for allowing people to have their say. Again, if anyone would like to speak to me in person about this, I am more than happy to do so. Feel free to contact me via this site.

  4. In Randwick NSW on “New residential flat...” at 87 Frenchmans Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Roy commented

    Council needs to urgently get serious about pedestrian safety in Frenchmans Road if they are to approve further residential development in this area. Currently the only safe crossing of Frenchmans Road is via traffic lights at the junction of Clovelly Road or down at the Carrington Rd traffic lights. There is no safe way for pedestrians to cross Frenchmans Road within the North Randwick shopping/restaurant precinct at all.In recent years there has been at least one known death on Frenchmans Road and several knockdown injuries involving pedestrians vs cars plus many near misses in the immediate area. A lights controlled crosswalk is urgently required if the population is to increase via further apartment living. New apartments also mean families with children. The new works at the intersection of Kemmis and Clovelly Roads are very welcome but the main shopping area needs urgent attention please.

  5. In Camperdown NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 12 Sparkes Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Grisha Podinovsky commented

    No objections to the development
    It will be good for the students, as long as they cross Parramatta Road Camperdown at the traffic lights and are diligent in their studies.

  6. In Reservoir VIC on “Medium density development...” at 34 Don Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by adding 3 X two bedroom flats.
    2. Unit 2 of this proposal has a 3rd bedroom disguised as a "study". This is easily turned into a bedroom making it a three bedroom dwelling without providing the appropriate parking allowance.
    3. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    4. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show any planting of replacement vegetation.
    5. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk especially as there will be added cross-overs which will be directly opposite those of the development across the lane. The development will add four new cross-overs, one very close to the established street tree.
    6. The proposed management of waste collection is inadequate, no bins or bin placement is shown on the plans, and will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    7. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    8. The attempt to squeeze three extra dwellings on the site is an overdevelopment.
    9. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    10. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    11. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    12. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    13. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  7. In Reservoir VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 7 Barry Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 8 one and two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity (ESPECIALY UNITS 4 and 5) with small living spaces.
    4. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show any planting of replacement vegetation.
    5. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    6. The proposed management of waste collection is inadequate (WITH NO BINS FOR UNITS 2, 4, 5, 7) and will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    7. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    8. The waiver for visitor parking will result in a lack of parking for first responders in an emergency.
    9. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application of 8 dwellings is an overdevelopment for this site.
    10. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    11. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    12. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    13. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    14. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

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

    Kelly Wratten commented

    No further high density development applications should be granted until such time as investigation into traffic is conducted. Where is this study? It was promised a long time ago. There is already an over-abundance of high density accommodation available in the immediate vicinity with the Denison, The Grove, Cooperage and GPO - an absolute flood - not to mention the large developments which are now popping up on New Canterbury Road on the border and which have been approved by Canterbury Council. There is lack of provision of parking available with all of these developments. The immediate area is in constant gridlock. It is near impossible to park close to the shops with only two car parks available to service but then again apparently people don't need/use cars now hence the lack of provision of car spaces - so untrue. The heritage of the area is at risk.

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

    Jen Barnett commented

    Is 6 stories in keeping with the vision for Applebee St? 63 dwellings plus is too big for this site. Considering the highway is a clearway every afternoon & Applebee St is a one way street that cannot cope with this volume of potential traffic and resident vehicles...
    ALSO...
    Why, as a resident of Applebee St have we not received ANY information regarding this DA from council. This is a continual problem. No correspondence from council on MAJOR developments that affect our immediate environment.

  10. In Gladesville NSW on “To construct a 6-storey...” at 1 Stansell St, Gladesville, NSW Australia:

    Ray Dowsett commented

    This DA fails on a number of issues.
    A six storey residential building is totally out of place with the other 3 storey residential buildings. To have such a tall building on such a small footprint would simply look wrong; as though it were a mini skyscraper in a residential setting

    The building’s proximity to, and the shadow cast on, the neighbouring properties would create a claustrophobic and gloomy existence for the people living nearby. And for the people living in the lower levels of the proposed building.

    Car parking is already a problem in Stansell St & Concord Pl. Overflow parking from the existing units in Stansell St & Concord Pl already impacts on Harvard St. For any building not provide for adequate parking is plainly wrong. Even if parking was provided for each unit plus visitor parking (23 resident + 6 visitor) there would be a significant impact on street parking for often there is more than one car per unit. If the DA were to be approved, expect to see at least another 12 cars on the already overcrowded streets. Those extra cars would have an impact on parking though to Harvard & Cambridge Streets.

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

    Linda Rider commented

    'It's about time we increased housing destiny ....'
    'time to move with the times old fogies....'

    and 'times of having useless backyards are over ....'

    Wow. Just wow.
    Wrong on all points.
    This is Australia, this is a coastal area.
    There are plenty of new developments opening up north of Ocean Grove.
    These comments sound silly, aggressive, and like someone is getting angry that others are disagreeing with what they wish to do.
    Arguments do not end and are not won by using 'bullish' language and behaviour.

  12. In Brunswick East VIC on “Partial demolition of an...” at 280 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    The HUGE increase in multi-storey apartment buildings, often with reduced parking and other amenities, is destroying the inner suburbs. Why doesn't the council demand all new apartment blocks include garden areas and courtyards as well as parking amenities? Flats used to be built with garden areas around them so the area kept some visual amenity and the residents had a green space to sit in or to see when looking out! As for no parking - it's amazing how many councillors who say cars aren't necessary often have one themselves!
    The GREED of developers and councils are destroying our communities.

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

    Kalina Christova commented

    In general, I am a supporter of higher density living and the need for people to adjust their expectations of living in a free standing house once they start a family.

    However, there needs to be balance, thought and proper planning put behind developments and at the moment Dulwich hill and surrounding Lewisham, Hurlstone Park and Canterbury feel like a pure money grab by developers with very little consideration for the local community or the needs of the housing market.

    The space in question is way too small for the size of the proposed development. For 15 apartments to fit there in 6 stories, these are not going to be big apartments. The demography of this area is predominantly young families. How is a tower of small apartments, most without parking, surrounded by a rail line on one side and what is already a busy road in the other, and right next to two massive developments serve this demographic or improve the area.

    There is also the issue of traffic. The section of road between Constitution/Denison roundabout and the Williams Prd roundabout is an accident waiting to happen. The road is already very busy, especially in the mornings and at end of school times. Traffic moves very fast coming over the rail bridge (with little visibility) and in the other direction past the round about and down the hill. There is a no where for people to cross safely. There are also hidden driveways with very little visibility. It's very chaotic.

    There is also the issue of childcare and schools.

    The current rate of developments in the area feels like it's only intended to line the pockets of developers without any consideration for the local community. I feel that the proposed overdevelopment on 66 Constitution rd is taking us one sad little stop towards the destruction of the area. Please protect our community and area!

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

    zio ledeux commented

    terrible idea. we loved the pub just as it was. we dont need another development in this area. please retain some of sydneys history

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

    N Hay commented

    In 2014 during residents' discussions with Council in relation to the Grove St Arlington development, Council promised that an independent traffic study would be carried out. Council also promised that residents would be represented. When is this study going to happen?

  16. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 365-367 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Beverley Davies commented

    I strongly object to a mosque & school being built st 365-367 Belgrave Hallam Road.
    Living off Crawley Road the traffic in this area is already nightmare & too congested with many churches, schools & the new child care centre just opened.
    The road is not equipped to take the extra traffic that this construction will bring to this area & where are all these people coming from?? Certainly not from Narre Warren North. If they are bring bused in let them build one closer to their homes so that our roads will not be unusable & make our day to day lives more of an issue than they already are.
    I would welcome any councillor to come to the end of Crawley Road between 7-9am every morning & try and get out in the traffic.
    We have been here for 17 years and came to the area because it was rural & quiet which it will not be if this is allowed to keep happening.
    Greedy City of Casey wanting rates.
    Are the people who will frequent the new establishment wanting to purchase our properties to be closer to the new construction ????

  17. In Lisarow NSW on “7 Lot Residential...” at Chamberlain Road, Lisarow NSW 2250:

    Paul Metcalf commented

    The area is home to some unique and protected wildlife species. Hundreds of trees have already been removed in the existing project and there has been significant noise and pollution from fumes since Feb 2015. No respect or warning was given to residents in nearby homes and the noise is unbearable from 7am-6pm on weekdays. We were looking forward to the existing project coming to an end.

    Further construction would impact wildlife significantly and also nearby residents who are at their wits end with how long the existing project has taken and constant noise all day. Some nearby residents including myself work shift work or work from homer. suffer illness, disability such as autism which is greatly affected by noise and vibrations from machinery.

    The existing construction came out of the blue and as stated in another objection there are families of Swamp Wallabies, and other wallabies, Ring-tail possums, Sugar Gliders, Brush Tailed Possums, Various Snakes, Frogs, Lizards, Goannas, various Australian Native Owls. Flying Foxes Echidnas and more. The eco system has totally changed for them.

    The Wallabies in particular are trapped in the small area of bush left, where they previously had full access to large areas of bush, but also the freedom to move to the larger bush area towards Wyoming. They are often seen near roads, and in gardens as they are unsure of a path out. No concern was given to the environment or wildlife with the existing project and this additional project will make matters worse as more bush will be removed.

    Some care needs to be given to wildlife in the area, who are currently being monitored by residents and also some thought given to the human residents who have put up with construction noise, vibrations, diesel fumes in their homes for so long making sleep or work, or even relaxation very difficult. It would be an absolute crime if more native animals die due to human greed as many animals in the area are dying due to not having access to their natural habitats.

    Privacy is also a concern as this area was so quiet and private before, now it is possible to gaze into properties inside and out from the existing project site as-well as existing residents being able to freely view any property in the existing and proposed area especially on the hill of the proposed additional project so could pose privacy problems for new residents later on. This may be due to numerous trees being suspiciously removed in complete darkness last year borderline close to the reserve areas.

    I understand the people responsible are only trying to make money but they really should have taken some care of the wildlife. Or at-least do what they can now to preserve existing wildlife and some care for the human residents with this additional project. Sometimes life isn't just about money.

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

    S Catchpole commented

    I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

    1. Six car spaces for fifteen units is simply not enough. With more than 90 units at The Denison, 246 units at Arlington Grove, 66 in Hill St and now more proposed on this site and the corner building opposite, where are all the people going to park? Where will their visitors park? No they will not all be using the light rail - such a short-sighted assumption.

    2. Where is the additional green space for all of these residents? Is boxing people in by concrete really the way forward for our city? Johnson Park is already overused.

    3. Dulwich Hill PS is already at capacity and Lewisham will be full once all of the current developments in the area are finished. Will a new school be built to cater for all the children?

    4. Backing up N Hay's comment above, when will the independent traffic study be done? How are the residents' concerns being represented?

    5. I live right in the firing line of all these developments and things have been unbearable lately - both on foot and traffic-wise. I also have grave concerns for pedestrians who make their way up the hill on foot towards New Canterbury Rd and have seen a number of near misses as cars rush around the roundabout at the corner of Denison and Constitution Rd.

    What traffic calming strategies are in place to protect pedestrians, especially those with small children who cannot move as quickly as a single adult? I note there is a brand new childcare centre being built on Denison Rd - how will parents safely walk their toddlers and babies there with no pedestrian crossings available and no traffic calming devices on Constitution? Also seeing as there is the expectation that few of these new residents will have cars?

    Please consider carefully the amenity of the area and the safety and well-being of all residents, both current and future. I'm not anti-development but there are social aspects to consider that don't seem to be given any thought.

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

    S Catchpole wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

    1. Six car spaces for fifteen units is simply not enough. With more than 90 units at The Denison, 246 units at Arlington Grove, 66 in Hill St and now more proposed on this site and the corner building opposite, where are all the people going to park? Where will their visitors park? No they will not all be using the light rail - such a short-sighted assumption.

    2. Where is the additional green space for all of these residents? Is boxing people in by concrete really the way forward for our city? Johnson Park is already overused.

    3. Dulwich Hill PS is already at capacity and Lewisham will be full once all of the current developments in the area are finished. Will a new school be built to cater for all the children?

    4. Backing up N Hay's comment above, when will the independent traffic study be done? How are the residents' concerns being represented?

    5. I live right in the firing line of all these developments and things have been unbearable lately - both on foot and traffic-wise. I also have grave concerns for pedestrians who make their way up the hill on foot towards New Canterbury Rd and have seen a number of near misses as cars rush around the roundabout at the corner of Denison and Constitution Rd.

    What traffic calming strategies are in place to protect pedestrians, especially those with small children who cannot move as quickly as a single adult? I note there is a brand new childcare centre being built on Denison Rd - how will parents safely walk their toddlers and babies there with no pedestrian crossings available and no traffic calming devices on Constitution? Also seeing as there is the expectation that few of these new residents will have cars?

    Please consider carefully the amenity of the area and the safety and well-being of all residents, both current and future. I'm not anti-development but there are social aspects to consider that don't seem to be given any thought.

    Photo of Melissa Brooks
    Melissa Brooks local councillor for Inner West Council (Marrickville)
    replied to S Catchpole

    Hi Sue,

    Thanks for leaving your comments and also sending them directly to me.

    I understand that parking, traffic and infrastructure are big concerns for residents in Marrickville generally, and in the north part of Dulwich Hill particularly (which is where I have lived for the majority of my council term, also). Council can contribute in some way to new infrastructure, but schools etc. are beyond our powers. I have previously advocated for a more moderate approach to development in the area, particularly the Grove St development and the application for the very large building on the little triangular parcel of land on the hill - particularly in light of constraints on open public space and local schools.

    I've registered an interest in this DA with our planning staff, which means I will get to see a draft report before the determination is made. I will be able to 'call up' the application to have it determined by the full council, if that is not the intent of council officers - although I am assuming give the high level of public interest in this application, that it will likely be determined by the council in any case.

    The independent traffic and parking studies were very recently completed and a draft went to today's traffic committee meeting. It will then 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.

    Like you, I am very concerned about pedestrian safety in particular, especially with extra vehicle movements in the area, and I've had some near misses on foot myself. While I completely agree that development has contributed to this, I do also want to note that increased car dependence is also contributing, and this is something we need to work together to resolve.

    I will be paying close attention to community feedback on this DA. You can contact me directly if you'd like more information at

    Clr Melissa Brooks (Greens) | Burraga (West) Ward
    facebook.com/GreensMelissaBrooks

    Marrickville Council
    2-14 Fisher Street Petersham NSW 2049
    P: 0409 235 802 | E:

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

    Peter Jones commented

    I object to the proposal for a seven storey building behind the hotel. This is far too tall and not in keeping with the local neighbourhood which has at most three story residential blocks and lots of one or two story terrace houses. Please reconsider the height of the proposed building.

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

    Diana A commented

    I can't agree more with the other comments.

    The proposed building is too big for the current location and just adds more issues to the local area, considering the numerous developments happening around surrounding streets.

    In Dulwich, Lewisham, Constitution, Pigott Streets and Denison Road, current residents are quickly losing patience with the road issues. Not only are there so many blind spots with current road 'design', we're running out of on-street parking with so many people double parking, blocking driveways, and parking right on the edge of streets making it difficult and unsafe to turn into a street.

    This local area also doesn't have the amenities to support all of these developments that keep coming up on a daily basis.

    Council, please represent the people in your area and not the developers. Don't patronise us and say we're "scared" of change - we're not, but there needs to be a considered approach, actual planning involved. Right now, it just seems like every development is approved without any thought about future issues down the line.

  22. In Randwick NSW on “New residential flat...” at 87 Frenchmans Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    celia commented

    I agree with Roy - it is very scary to cross the road as cars go fast and the bend in the road makes visibility hard. one idea might be to make a pedestrian crossing between bunnings and Bake Bar which would work a bit like the one on Belmore Road eg make the traffic slow through that section. Another traffic light would not stop people crossing against the lights.

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

    Louise Barry commented

    Lindsay, thank you for responding.

    I made my original comment before one of the owners responded. Secondly I disagree that this leads to cheaper housing. In general older houses on larger blocks in Ocean Grove are selling for less, or at the very least a similar amount, to brand new houses on half blocks.

    I have nothing negative to say about Lee Fox, I'm sure she'll be a great addition to the area, but the fact that she is about to retire still doesn't mean this land is being developed specifically to create affordable housing for the elderly or first home buyers.

    I just asked you to respond because your original comment seemed to suggest that you knew that it was specifically being developed as cheap housing for people who can't afford market value in the area.That doesn't appear to be the case. It is simply two owners building for themselves to live in.

    You also made your original comment before Lee responded and said she was a semi retiree, so I'm still curious why you thought it was being developed specifically for the elderly or first home buyers?

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

    Sophie T commented

    With so many other units that are and will be soon available in the surrounding area I am unsure of why we need more in a suburb that has been noted as having a community village feel. We already have the new GPO at the top of Dulwich St (70 units), the Cooperage (68 units), the Grove development around the corner (250+ units), the extra ones at Hill St, and lets not forget the soon to be multiple urban ghetto developments on Old Canterbury Rd near Railway Terrace. Is this new development proposal absolutely necessary? Why would the Council not leave the zoning for those few residential houses in Constitution up to Grove St as zone R1 (general development)? Just lazy and no regard for the heritage of the area I guess! And what about the residents in 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Rd being dwarfed by the 17m over development to their north east?

    Light rail at the bottom of the street does no constitute infrastructure. Where are the planners and what exactly are they doing? Does State Government not speak to Local Government and visa versa? Hospitals? Child care facilities? The roads on the weekends are a carpark currently with this only to get worse.

  25. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Construction of swimming...” at 136 Coonong Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Franzie Cummings commented

    The Swimming Pool development on the above property is located at the rear of the property and will more than likely be constructed from the rear on the property from Molong Road.
    As a long time resident of Molong Road and a resident who campaigned to Council for over 25 years to have the unmade portion of Molong Road landscaped I am concerned that during the construction phase of the development of the pool at 136 Coonong Road that trucks, backhoes and then concrete pump appliances will disturb the landscaping, native grasses and tree planting that Council, at great expense to rate payers, completed in 2012. I have taken a large number of photographs of the area and request that Council keep an eye on this area and after completion of the development, take action to ensure that the Western Bank of Molong Road be restored to the present condition of native grasses and trees of a similar size to those at present on the bank.

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

    Lorraine commented

    Welcome to your new town! We are a community of newcomers. When we built 32 years ago Collendina was lonely place. It still can be but with more people living in each street instead of empty blocks we grow into a more vibrant place. The affordability of housing is such an issue that high density living is fact of life. I would much prefer to have occupied units than absent landlords or million dollar holiday mansions blocking views.

  27. In Carlingford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 4 Marook Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    N paterson commented

    Can council advise if all this development is allowed why a new lane was not planned added to Carlingford road? Even now the traffic is terrible especially near carl court Really. I wonder where the councils brain is. Oh probably looking at the money for more land taxes but not planning for the people and their need for roafs and infracstructure Another big dissapointment.

  28. In Reservoir VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 49 Shand Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding a two bedroom flat.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. Unit three has a third bedroom labeled as a study.
    4. Internal amenity is poor.
    5. The new cross over proposed will have a detrimental effect on the street tree which currently provided excellent canopy cover.
    6. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show adequate planting of replacement canopy trees.
    7. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The extra car space for unit three is effectively unusable and therefore will see extra parking on the street.
    8. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    9. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    10. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    11. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    12. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    13. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  29. In Thornbury VIC on “Development of six (6)...” at 4 Strettle Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    2. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity.
    3. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees.
    4. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    5. The waiver for visitor parking will result in a lack of parking for first responders in an emergency.
    6. Bin storage in garage space is inappropriate and will lead to smelly bins being left in random outside spaces.
    7. Tandem parking consumes what should be backyard private open space for unit s 2,3,4 and 5.
    8. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    9. The extra crossover needed for vehicle access to for all but one unit will create an extra traffic hazard in the street for pedestrians and other vehicles.
    10. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    11. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    12. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    13. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    14. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  30. In Knoxfield VIC on “The construction of three...” at 41 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Trudi commented

    This street is already overcrowded with additional cars on the road. Kathryn road is a bus route for #753 (Glen Waverley - Bayswater) & #758 (Knoxfield - Knox City). Who will be at fault if there is an accident between a bus and car, let alone a pedestrian. Which bus route will be redirected or cancelled from the over development of this area.

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