Recent comments

  1. In Gymea Bay NSW on “S96(1a)Modification to...” at 51 Coonong Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Caroline Grace commented

    Regarding the units due to be built in and around Fauna Place, I am dreading the thought of crowded transport, particularly the trains during peak hours. Has this problem been addressed? Or are the fairies going to solve the problem?

  2. In Erskineville NSW on “Use of community land...” at 65 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    zio ledeux commented

    my concerns are also about extra seats that can easily be added. there needs to be a clear picture of the area that will have the seating in it. how much of an impediment is this to the public in regard to prams, wheelchairs etc. i would like to see more detail thankyou

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

    Lee Fox commented

    Hi everyone, I am the part owner of the block in question. I am 58 years old and will be living in my new home until I retire and beyond that. I moved from Castlemaine to Ocean Grove last year to be closer to my family - grandchildren etc. Prior to this I had traveled back and forth between Castlemaine and Ocean Grove for 18 months, spending one week in each place, before deciding I would like to move to Ocean Grove and be a part of my baby granddaughters', lives and this community. I am currently renting in Collendina. I can assure you that I am not a greedy developer. I have raised five children (all adults now) and I consider myself to be a good neighbour who always aims to get along with everyone and live in peace. I could not have afforded to buy into this area without the help of my daughter and son-in-law, who will own the other dwelling. I am a well-known children's author and I also have a 'day job' but a greedy developer is not who I am and neither are my family. I am happy to meet with anyone in the street who would like to acquaint themselves with me. Feel free to get in touch me via this site.

  4. In Erskineville NSW on “Use of community land...” at 65 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Neil Murray commented

    I am concerned that the proponent frequently exceeds the number of tables and chairs in the area. Each weekend small stools are added and high tables and chairs are also appearing. Patrons are also being served at times on the public seats, thus restricting general access to these seats. Provided the proponent sticks to the approved allocation of space, I have no objection but extra seating being added on occasions should cease.

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

    Alan Fenwick commented

    This is just greed by developers. Ocean Grove Collendina is a coastal town. These developers are just being greedy. 2 properties jammed on land that size.
    Someone needs to protect the character of Ocean Grove.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 459 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gail Sims commented

    This is fine by me and I live directly opposite on Illawarra Rd.

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

    Jennifer Hannam commented

    This section of Lisarow is already under construction and has been for almost a year!
    There is currently a 39 lot subdivision being built right next to this site. The construction noises can be heard from 8am to 6pm five days a week and also on Saturdays from 8am. This once peaceful treed area is being destroyed and local residents who work shift work cannot sleep during the day already. A new 7 lot subdivision will only exacerbate this.

    Additionally, the removal of trees and the bush corridor leading to the mountain is a big concern. They have already removed over 100 trees in the 39 lot subdivision, and the remaining wildlife is struggling. A family of swamp wallabies is already "trapped" in the remaining section of bush adjacent to Cottesloe close and Pemberton Blvd. The area is home to over 50 types of birds including regent bowerbirds, green catbirds, black cockatoos and nocturnal birds including powerful owls, nightjars and many tawny frogmouths. This bush area is also home to flying foxes, micro bats, possums, wallabies as mentioned, sugar gliders, bandicoots, echidnas and lace monitors. Removal of more trees will translate to additional loss of an already vulnerable habitat.

    Lisarow is already a huge bottleneck traffic-wise, and having additional vehicles using the infrastructure (while navigating the upcoming expansion of the pacific highway) will change the character and peacefulness of this community.

  8. In Hurstville NSW on “The planning proposal seeks...” at 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville:

    Susan Huang commented

    Dear sir/madam,

    I brought a unit at the high level of the building located at 18 Woodville St, Hurstville (at the rear) based on existing council approved plan for 29-31 MacMahon St, Hurstville. My balcony is face directly to the site on the proposed building. If the building height is to be increase from 40m to 55m, it blocks my view and creates privacy issues. And it will certainly affect the value of my property. I would like to be compensated in some way if the proposed plan was granted.

    Secondly, the FSR proposed to change from FSR 4.5:1 to 6:1, it is considered to be substantial change, it will have a great pressure on the traffic condition on MacMahon St, Hurstville.

    Thank you & anticipation for your kind consideration.

    Kind regards
    Susan

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

    Louise Barry commented

    Question for Lindsay Gray. Hi Lindsay. I went onto the Geelong Council website and looked at all of the documents about the development (application plans, floodmap, planning report and zoning map) and I could not find anything on those documents about this being affordable housing for either the elderly or first home buyers. It is simply two semi detached double storey houses on a standard block of land. I assume they will simply be sold on the open market like other properties in Ocean Grove, and I was wondering where you found information about it being affordable housing for either the elderly or first home buyers. If these are sold at market value, they will certainly go for more than single storey detached properties on somewhere like the Oakdene estate (I'm mentioning the Oakdene estate as it has the cheapest housing in the town at present). Could you please let me know where you came across the information about it being developed to create affordable dwellngs.

  10. In Gymea Bay NSW on “S96(1a)Modification to...” at 51 Coonong Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Leeanne Smith commented

    I fail to understand how these applications can be lodged and then modified to be much more than they were initially planned! This also happened to the new childcare centre on the corner of Avenel and Gymea Bay Rd. I really question their intent when they lodge the initial DA. I do not support this increase in the number of children in this development and I do not think council should either!! It is a small suburban street which is not a through road. The nearby roundabout is already a nightmare for me to get around at school times!
    Where is this all going to stop?

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

    Andrew Franz commented

    Another high-rise, more traffic, no school capacity, insufficient road planning and zero community consultation.

  12. In Canungra QLD on “Boundary Realignment” at 44 Christie Street, Canungra QLD 4275:

    Lynette Smith and David Thomson commented

    If this application is for the purpose of building the new supermarket precinct and adjoining car park then YES PLEASE. Canungra has new building developments which means more people living here. And more jobs for the residents of Canungra. I am fed up of driving 28kms to Beaudesert,Jimboomba ,or Logan village or Nerang for PROPER shops. I've been doing this since 2002 since we bought our home here in the Canungra township. Foodworks is handy and well run but expensive for most items.

  13. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Brendan wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    Dear fellow residents,
    I fully appreciate the frustration demonstrated with the increasing number of developments that continue to impact on the characteristics of our neighbourhood. It is important that we continue to respect the tireless work of our democratically appointed local Councillors. I have personally had dealings with some of our present and past Boroondara Councillors, both commercially and as a vocal local resident in different wards. My most recent dealing involved discussion with Councillor Heinz Kreutz in a commercial development opportunity. I respect the balanced position that Heintz took in considering the impact this woukd have on his constituents and believe he is owed the respect as a long serving and dedicated Councillor who understands and researches all issues put before him. I believe this is true of most, if not all of our Councillors. Let's continue to show our respect and band together with them in seeking their support for the best outcomes for our municipality. Remember, they are there to serve our community and we need their support. Our respect will avoid detracting good people into these important roles into the future.

    Delivered to local councillor Heinz Kreutz. They are yet to respond.

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

    Lindsay gray commented

    I think this is great, development of land to create affordable dwellings for elderly/first home buyers. I wish there was more developments like this

  15. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Foster Street, Parkside:

    Suzi Hutchings commented

    Can you please provide details of why this tree is to be removed. From the pictures it looks very healthy.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Kind regards

    Dr. Suzi Hutchings

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

    Peter Shearman commented

    Another perfectly good brick house with beautiful gardens and open space for native fauna now to be demolished and scoured clean in the name of profit. This continuing densification is further degrading the livability of our once enviable suburb.

  17. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Nawal seferovic commented

    If love to see a mosque built on the site. It will open up the area and make the site look amazing and from that raise the value of the area.

    It's on the main road so noise isn't an issue as KGR is already noisy.

    It's proposed a 3 level carpark so no parking problem

    Great for the community to bring people together and bridge the gap in our current society.

    I am all for it, can't wait to hear for the approval

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

    Cameron commented

    So 23 Units to be built but only enough space for 14 car spaces. Where will the other units park their cars? On the streets? Leaving less parking spaces for the Ryde community.

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

    CJO commented

    I object to the construction of this venue. I do not think it will have a positive impact on the community of Casey. It will create congestion and disturb those living nearby. Tax dollars will also have to be spent to upgrade the infrastructure surrounding it.

  20. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Peter Gamble commented

    I object to this development application for several reasons. The excessive overshadowing caused by the proposed second storey addition will render the solar panels of number 23 totally useless. The hard-standing off-street parking space will remove at least 1 parking space from the street, and also have a negative visual impact on the street-scape in what is a row of similar timber cottages. The depth of this proposed hard-standing area is insufficient space for even a small car without overhanging the footpath. The window on the second floor overlooking the rear garden will completely remove any privacy for the adjacent back gardens.

  21. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 308-314 Stanmore Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    James Cox commented

    We are concerned about the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development DA201600108.

    Summary of proposal
    The proposal seeks to redevelop the existing building for the following uses:
    - Boutique hotel with 13 rooms
    - Function rooms
    - Florist
    - Café

    The Traffic Assessment Report states that Schedule 2.10.5 of the Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) requires that a development of this type has parking for seven vehicles (1 for hotel staff, 4 for hotel guests and 2 for the florist, café and function rooms) but notes that the proposed development does not permit any onsite parking (p. 13). It states that there is currently provision for six spaces onsite but that these spaces would be removed as a result of the development. It argues that there is sufficient parking available in surrounding streets to accommodate the parking requirements, and good public transport access, and that this is grounds for a justifiable exception under MDCP 2.10.4.

    The Assessment also notes (p. 18) that MDCP 2.10.6 requires provision of two service vehicle access spaces – one for the hotel and one for the café & florist (none is specified for the function rooms). It proposes a loading zone for services and guest pick-up on Albert St in front of the existing side gates with no net loss of street parking.

    Comments

    The proposed development would require parking for the following uses, sharing the load with access by foot or by public transport:

    Daytime: Café and florist patrons, function participants, hotel and function room staff, service vehicles and guests.

    Nighttime: A larger number of guests’ vehicles, hotel staff, function participants and service vehicles.

    We suggest that the Traffic Assessment Report survey has underestimated the parking impact that this will have on the surrounding area.

    Specific comments:

    1. The report argues (p. 13) that the MDCP parking specification for the combined floorspace of the café, florist and function rooms is two parking spaces. We are concerned that the function rooms in particular would need more parking than this. Dinners and meetings would bring in more people than other uses occupying similar floorspace, and a greater proportion of them would be likely to drive, particularly to a more formal event.

    2. Requirement of only 5 spaces for hotel guests and staff (p. 13) also seems low. Hotel staff, particularly those working nighttime shifts, would require accessible parking. It is readily conceivable that most guests at any time would require parking close to the hotel (on the upper half of Albert St or Hopetoun St).

    3. The parking survey (p. 7), undertaken on one Friday evening between 6 and 10PM, does not reflect the usual availability of parking that we experience as residents. Surveying on Friday evening may have meant that more people were out. Checking the number of spaces later in the evening (around 11.30) we have noted that very few spaces are available on Albert St itself. The addition of at least 7 cars would significantly displace residents, particularly those on Albert St north of James St where few spaces are available. It is likely that patrons and staff would be most likely to park on Albert St, where parking is limited, rather than across the busy Stanmore Rd on Hopetoun St, where more parking spaces are available in the evenings.

    4. Some local parking is not practical for use as overnight parking due to the requirement on Stanmore Rd for morning clearways.

    5. The claim that the historic use of the site as a fire station (p. 14) generated more traffic (p. 14) is not relevant. Use as a fire station ceased in 1991 – 25 years ago – and no meaningful comparison of traffic impact can be made between that time and the present.

    Conclusion

    We do not oppose the conversion of this much loved landmark building into a boutique hotel. It is a creative re-use of the site. However we are concerned that establishing four separate business activities (hotel, function rooms, café and florist) at the expense of all of the existing parking on the site will impose too large a burden on current parking in the area, especially at night. An alternative would be to scale back some of the proposed ground floor development to allow for at least 4 parking spaces onsite. Being able to park within the firestation – where the fire trucks were housed – could itself be a distinctive feature of the hotel.

    We note the commitment stated in the proposal to retain the hotel’s heritage façade, and support the desire expressed in several other submissions to maintain the heritage character of the building.

  22. In Mc Mahons Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3 East Crescent Street Mcmahons Point NSW 2060:

    Jack Standing commented

    Looks amazing!!!

  23. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 442 Parramatta Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Concerned citizen wrote to local councillor Sam Iskandar

    one parking space only - "associated parking" is deceptive. 52 people parking on Charles and Margaret Streets in addition to the residents, TAFE students, Salvation Army events, and pub and bridal shop customers on Parramatta Road. Terrible proposal

    Delivered to local councillor Sam Iskandar. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 4 Carramar Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Camberwell Resident commented

    Dear All,

    Caramarr is in Lynden Ward. Your Ward Councillor is Heinz Kreutz. Please write to him and council's planning department regarding concerns/objections to this development.

    The builder should be guided by the Building Regulations on height, overlooking, overshadowing, etc. You can google the Building Regulations and read up on them. The Building Department, 1st floor, at Camberwell Council has a print out of the relevant parts you can pick up.

    Lynden Ward south of Riversdale Road in this area (unless you have a heritage overlay) has been targetted for (General Residential Zone 1) GRZ 1. Please google your Boroondara Planning Scheme neighbourhood character statement which is 58. This shows the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the area. Here is a little bit from it:

    "Key Characteristics
    • Predominantly interwar houses;
    • Predominantly single storey dwellings;
    • Increasing presence of multi-unit
    villa developments;
    • Pitched, tiled roofs;
    • Moderate lot frontages;
    • Moderate front setbacks;
    • Landscaped front generous;
    • Rear gardens of various sizes;
    • Low to medium high front fencing.
    Preferred Character Statement
    To enhance the consistency and character
    of streetscapes. To maintain the spacious,
    predominantly single storey, suburban feel of
    the area and the garden setting of dwellings.
    This will be achieved by:
    • Encouraging the retention of large trees and
    landscaped gardens;
    • Ensuring sufficient space is retained in front
    and rear gardens to accommodate large
    trees;
    • Ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback
    from front and side boundaries to retain the
    existing streetscape rhythm;
    • Ensuring new developments and additions
    respect the predominant scale and forms of
    the streetscape;
    • Give preference to units set one behind
    the other as opposed to side by side town
    houses.
    • Ensuring car parking structures do not
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Maximising soft landscaping and
    minimising areas of hard surfaces; and
    • Encouraging low or open style front
    boundary treatments.
    Threats/Iss ues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views

    Threats/Issues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views of the dwelling behind;
    • High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of
    the street;
    • Removal/loss of large trees; and
    • Period reproduction building design."

    Here is the relevant part from the Zoning Table from the Boroondara Housing Strategy 2015 to assist you with what development could occur in your neighbourhood

    GRZ 1 = 1 to 2 storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy, and multi unit villa/townhouse developments.

    (NOT) GRZ 2 to 3 = 1 to 3 storey developments comprising a mix of detached dwellings, dual occupancy, multi unit villa/townhouse and apartment buildings (this is not Caramarr)

    Write to the Planning Department at Council if you would rather have NRZ implemented (Neighbourhood Residential Zone).

    Jane Addis is the Maling Ward Councillor.

    Kind regards
    Camberwell resident

  25. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Middle Camberwell resident commented

    Dear All,

    Elaroo is in Lynden Ward. Your Ward Councillor is Heinz Kreutz. Please write to him and council's planning department regarding concerns/objections to this development.

    Lynden Ward south of Riversdale Road in this area (unless you have a heritage overlay) has been targetted for (General Residential Zone 1) GRZ 1. Please google your Boroondara Planning Scheme neighbourhood character statement which is 58. This shows the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the area. Here is a little bit from it:

    "Key Characteristics
    • Predominantly interwar houses;
    • Predominantly single storey dwellings;
    • Increasing presence of multi-unit
    villa developments;
    • Pitched, tiled roofs;
    • Moderate lot frontages;
    • Moderate front setbacks;
    • Landscaped front generous;
    • Rear gardens of various sizes;
    • Low to medium high front fencing.
    Preferred Character Statement
    To enhance the consistency and character
    of streetscapes. To maintain the spacious,
    predominantly single storey, suburban feel of
    the area and the garden setting of dwellings.
    This will be achieved by:
    • Encouraging the retention of large trees and
    landscaped gardens;
    • Ensuring sufficient space is retained in front
    and rear gardens to accommodate large
    trees;
    • Ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback
    from front and side boundaries to retain the
    existing streetscape rhythm;
    • Ensuring new developments and additions
    respect the predominant scale and forms of
    the streetscape;
    • Give preference to units set one behind
    the other as opposed to side by side town
    houses.
    • Ensuring car parking structures do not
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Maximising soft landscaping and
    minimising areas of hard surfaces; and
    • Encouraging low or open style front
    boundary treatments.
    Threats/Iss ues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views

    Threats/Issues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views of the dwelling behind;
    • High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of
    the street;
    • Removal/loss of large trees; and
    • Period reproduction building design."

    Here is the relevant part from the Zoning Table from the Boroondara Housing Strategy 2015 to assist you with what development could occur in your neighbourhood

    GRZ 1 = 1 to 2 storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy, and multi unit villa/townhouse developments.

    (NOT) GRZ 2 to 3 = 1 to 3 storey developments comprising a mix of detached dwellings, dual occupancy, multi unit villa/townhouse and apartment buildings (this is not Elaroo)

    Write to the Planning Department at Council if you would rather have NRZ implemented (Neighbourhood Residential Zone).

    Jane Addis is the Maling Ward Councillor.

    Kind regards
    Middle Camberwell resident

  26. In North Perth WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 145 Raglan Road, North Perth, WA, 6006:

    Barry commented

    why is this already built ?

  27. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Lorne Hyde commented

    Whilst this is not in my street it does raise the Principle of the decision. A political decision was made several yrs ago to encourage alternative energy and many of us laid out the cost in good faith to install solar energy panels (sure there was a financial incentive but that just proves the importance of the policy at the time). Now we have a Liberal/Labor coalition effectively destroying this decision. If Council allows this to proceed it means all of those with Solar Panels are at potential risk of having their alternative source of energy destroyed. It is for this reason I object. Where are the Greens in this decision?

  28. In Paddington NSW on “Alterations to existing...” at 262 Moore Park Road Paddington NSW 2021:

    Mary Maguire commented

    Whilst I am not residing near this property - I feel it's important to ask IF the heritage integrity of the area may be authentically preserved if artistic installations via paintwork are broadly permitted nowmd into the future.

    If the aim is to create an environment that ensures all Homes appear as closely and purely as possible to the era in which they were built - then the answer is no.

    If the primary aim is to conserve architectural integrity then there's room for some creative flair that the next owner may choose to add to, embellish...or remove.

    As this has the potential to deeply affect the character of the area, it's a BIG question.

  29. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 4 Carramar Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    R. Khoo wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I live next door to the proposed development and would appreciate being kept informed and consulted on the building location, height, privacy considerations and number of on-site car spaces etc.

    Thank you

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

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

    Christine Armstrong commented

    I strongly object to the proposed Optus tower at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge. The nearness to residential housing ,schools and facilities is frightening to me . ( gyms, dance schools , children's gymnastics, play centre and trampoline park) that are used by the community of young and old . Let's not forget the Fernleigh Track which is a huge environmental and tourist asset to this area. Many families would be affected by not only the size and look of the structure but the unknown health and safety risks . I hope the LMCC takes a good look at the planning of this tower and surely there would be a better location found with no threat to our beautiful environment, our families and our wildlife. Please reconsider this application and say NO to its presence in 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