Recent comments

  1. In Cleveland QLD on “Commercial Office and...” at 2-16 Wynyard Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Brian Whitelaw wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    Hi Peter,
    Just this part now awaiting your information.
    "Regarding your questions on the property sale, I will also get you a formal response from officers. I do know however that the ratepayer received a great sale price considered at the high end of valuation."
    Brian

    Photo of Peter Mitchell
    Peter Mitchell local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Brian Whitelaw

    Dear Brian,
    Further detail as requested,
    Peter Mitchell

    The land parcel 2-16 Wynyard Street, Cleveland workshopped by Council throughout 2014. This was followed by a Council resolution for the land to be transferred to Council to Redland Investment Corporation (RIC), on 10 December 2014. This site was transferred as it was identified as land that had the potential to generate a positive financial outcome to Council and the community, while providing stimulus for the rejuvenation of the Cleveland CBD Revitalisation Strategy and economic uplift.

    An independent valuation was carried out to determine market value. The property was offered for sale, with three companies expressing and interest and making an offer to purchase. The company, which ended up purchasing the land was a willing buyer prepared to offer above market value to meet the requirement of his business and inject millions into our local economy. The local company that purchased the site, LJ Hooker, plans to establish a new office complex. It will provide the company with the opportunity to generate local employment in our community, while growing their business. This is a reflection of the confidence the company has for the growth in not just Cleveland, but the wider Redland economy

    The company’s move to the new building will free-up car bays within the Cleveland CBD, with additional parking bays to be added at the Redland Performing Arts Centre.

  2. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Max Dunn commented

    I think this license will be fantastic for the community! The Salvage guys are responsible and they are loads of fun! Just what our wonderful little corner of the world needs.

  3. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Ryan fischer commented

    As a local of 5 years, absolutely support sapvage obtaining an onsite license. Hqve been saying for a while that all artarmon is missing is a casual place to catch up with a drink or two

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Ira Ferris commented

    Would be great to have a place on Addison road where you could get a coffee until midnight ... Ash is a lovely community-maker and this will be a really special place for people to come together, enjoy music, have a glass of vine / or a cup of coffee and relax. I fully support this application.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Ira Ferris commented

    Would be great to have a place on Addison road where you could get a coffee until midday ... Ash is a lovely community-maker and this will be a really special place for people to come together, enjoy music, have a glass of vine / or a cup of coffee and relax. I fully support this application.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Helen commented

    This new? DA is virtually identical to the original DA of Janury 2016, which was rejected!

    Why is the name of the applicant blocked out?
    Is the applicant Vince Perry again?

    How has the applicant, in this 'new' application, further addressed how occupiers of the proposed 61 motel rooms can move in and out of nearby Philpott and Perry Streets, as well as Gordon Street, when already residents can't easily access Addison Road safely.

    And Is a motel a desirable type of building adjacent to a residential area?

    Residents in the 'Globe Mills' facing Gordon Street who now overlook single residential dwellings in Gordon Street, will be facing a 4-storey motel, with verandahs lit up at night, and the accompanying noise/partying that 'motel' guests are known to create?

  7. In Coburg VIC on “Development of a six storey...” at 65 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Dr Anita Pisch commented

    This is an overdevelopment of the neighbourhood, which is already congested . Six-story buildings are out of character with the neighbourhood and will directly impinge on backyards in the neighbouring streets. I particularly object to the request for a reduction in the statutory car parking rate and waiver of loading bay facilities. This area is already parked out and residents have difficulty parking after work and on weekends. If there is to be a retail and business component to the development, EXTRA parking facilities and a loading bay are necessary requirements, otherwise this strip of Sydney Road, already in gridlock, will become wholly unnegotiable.

  8. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 29 Chandos Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Dr Anita Pisch commented

    This is an overdevelopment of the neighbourhood and will destroy the character of the street. Double-story buildings are out of character with the neighbourhood and will directly impinge on neighbouring backyards in Chandos Street. This area is already parked out and residents have difficulty parking after work and on weekends.

  9. In Brunswick West VIC on “Development of the land by...” at 392 Moreland Road, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Dr Anita Pisch commented

    This is an overdevelopment of the neighbourhood, which is already congested. This area is already parked out and residents have difficulty parking after work and on weekends. There are too many flats crammed into a small space, and this number of residents and their visitors will only increase the existing gridlock on Moreland Road

  10. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Ross Dickson commented

    This sounds like a great idea
    Good on you guys tho the only issue I have is the bathroom arrangements to go to bathroom you must walk in to kitchen area and also with only one bathroom for everyone...

  11. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Nick Logan commented

    Salvage Specialty Coffee is an award winning Artarmon coffee with a progressive and delicious menu. A liquor license would mean they can serve their excellent food and drinks to Artarmon residents at the end of the day. Artarmon really needs venues like this where residents can meet up for a glass of wine/beer and and some food on the way home.

  12. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a louvred...” at 3/1209 Dandenong Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Sue commented

    The picture and map indicate Belgrave Road and not Dandenong Road. This does not match the address shown in the application. Which one is correct please?

  13. In Terrigal NSW on “Section 96 Amendment...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Nerice Saliba commented

    We are an adjoining neighbour and have not received any plans or notices. The only notification we had was real estate agents wanting to buy our property for this development.

  14. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Sean Spark commented

    I fully support Salvage Specialty Coffee's application for an on-premise PSA liquor licence. Wilkes Avenue is a great community spot in Artarmon which would benefit from having a friendly place where people can relax and catch up over a couple of drinks.

  15. In Ashbury NSW on “Request for Rezoning Review...” at 149-163 Milton Street, Ashbury:

    Brett commented

    The planning authority has the ability to leave their lasting legacy on our suburb...not by way of construction but preservation!

    We need to stop wallpapering over the history of our special suburbs like Ashbury so developers can make a quick buck, ruin a whole suburb and then move onto the next one!

  16. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 22 Edmonds Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Matt Weales commented

    Hi, I am trying to find more information on this proposal and how it would effect the area.
    Any information would be appreciated.

    Regards,

  17. In Bushells Ridge NSW on “Asphalt Plant” at 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259:

    Joanne Cross commented

    17th February 2017

    Mr Rob Noble Chief Executive Officer
    Central Coast Council (Wyong Office) PO BOX 20
    WYONG NSW 2259

    Development Application No. 1511/2016 Asphalt Plant 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259

    I wish to object to Development Application No 1511/2016 on the following grounds listed below.

    1. How can this be economically viable to build a new processing plant at Tooheys Road when the already established plant at Doyalson that could be upgraded at a less cost than building a new plant. The upgrade will cost less at the established plant which can be upgraded to meet the EPA and Environmental standards?

    2. Air Pollution of Poly Hydrocarbons (PAH) will be admitted to the Air from this plant this will entry to the atmosphere. When the winds blow in the direction of a southerly the residential of Bushells Ridge Road, Hue Hue Road, and Tooheys Road will be affected by the PAH emission from this processing plant which will then in turn fall on our roofs of the houses and this will then in turn affect/contaminate our domestic drinking water.

    3.. Residents Tank Water will have PAH in their domestic drinking water. Also Dam water for Stock, water for the native animals will be contaminated and cause deaths to native animals and birds. There has been sightings of Dingo’s in Tooheys Road and also Charmhaven to Wyong areas. These dogs are protected. In the EIS there is only mention of the Koala inhabitant, but there are many other native species in this area that have not been taken into consideration.

    4. On Tooheys Rd and Bushells Ridge Rd and Hue Hue Road there is a Environmental Protection on these properties which was imposed by Council.

    5. On our property there is environmental protection for Glider Squirrels.

    6. There is vast amounts of native animals birds plants which will be affected by Air Quality and the list goes on.

    7. We have great concerns for Creeks and Waterways close to this Proposed Asphalt Plant with run off water, as well as diesel from the tanks that will be placed on this site this will affect marine life in these streams. If there is a diesel spillage on this site where will the run off go to?

    8. Roads infrastructure is inadequate for Bushells Ridge Road and Tooheys Road are a Rural road with five School Buses a day on Bushells Ridge Road some sections two Buses cannot pass one another due to the width of this Road. These roads are not constructed for Heavy Vehicle traffic that will be required for construction of this plant. Previous developments on this road have caused destruction of the Tar Sealing.

    9. The section of Bushells Ridge Rd in front of our house is laid on contaminated Soil. This cannot be disturbed, and if the tar surface breaks up this tar surface has to be replaced immediately to prevent contamination to our home and domestic water. This sealing of this road in front of our home was instructed by the EPA this contaminated foundation for this section of this road was supplied and laid by Wyong Shire Council.

    10. If this industry cannot meet EPA and Environmental standards now at Doyalson where this company has operated for years, how will they meet the EPA and Environmental standards at a new site in Tooheys Road?

    11. How can this plant meet the standards when it stated in EIS that hot asphalt will be placed in trucks already and covered with a tarp? How will a spillage be controlled and how will this affect traffic on the link road or any other roads that will transport this material?

    12. There has been no consideration for the residents of these areas with the EIS stating that the plant will be operating twenty four hours seven days a week. What noise constraints have been considered for the residents of these areas?

    Yours faithfully
    Ms J. Cross

  18. In Bushells Ridge NSW on “Asphalt Plant” at 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259:

    B & J Cross commented

    17th February 2017

    Mr Rob Noble Chief Executive Officer
    Central Coast Council (Wyong Office) PO BOX 20
    WYONG NSW 2259

    Development Application No. 1511/2016 Asphalt Plant 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259

    I wish to object to Development Application No 1511/2016 on the following grounds listed below.

    1. Air Pollution of Poly Hydrocarbons (PAH) will be admitted to the Air from this plant this will entry to the atmosphere. When the winds blow in the direction of a southerly the residential of Bushells Ridge Road, Hue Hue Road, and Tooheys Road will be affected by the PAH emission from this processing plant which will then in turn fall on our roofs of the houses and this will then in turn affect/contaminate our domestic drinking water.

    2. Residents Tank Water will have PAH in their domestic drinking water. Also Dam water for Stock, water for the native animals will be contaminated and cause deaths to native animals and birds. There has been sightings of Dingo’s in Tooheys Road and also Charmhaven to Wyong areas. These dogs are protected. In the EIS there is only mention of the Koala inhabitant, but there are many other native species in this area that have not been taken into consideration.

    3. On Tooheys Rd and Bushells Ridge Rd and Hue Hue Road there is a Environmental Protection on these properties which was imposed by Council.

    4. On our property there is environmental protection for Glider Squirrels.

    5. There is vast amounts of native animals birds plants which will be affected by Air Quality and the list goes on.

    6. We have great concerns for Creeks and Waterways close to this Proposed Asphalt Plant with run off water, as well as diesel from the tanks that will be placed on this site this will affect marine life in these streams. If there is a diesel spillage on this site where will the run off go to?

    7. Roads infrastructure is inadequate for Bushells Ridge Road and Tooheys Road are a Rural road with five School Buses a day on Bushells Ridge Road some sections two Buses cannot pass one another due to the width of this Road. These roads are not constructed for Heavy Vehicle traffic that will be required for construction of this plant. Previous developments on this road have caused destruction of the Tar Sealing.

    8. The section of Bushells Ridge Rd in front of our house is laid on contaminated Soil. This cannot be disturbed, and if the tar surface breaks up this tar surface has to be replaced immediately to prevent contamination to our home and domestic water. This sealing of this road in front of our home was instructed by the EPA this contaminated foundation for this section of this road was supplied and laid by Wyong Shire Council.

    9. If this industry cannot meet EPA and Environmental standards now at Doyalson where this company has operated for years, how will they meet the EPA and Environmental standards at a new site in Tooheys Road?

    10. How can this be economically viable to build a new processing plant at Tooheys Road when the already established plant at Doyalson that could be upgraded at a less cost than building a new plant. The upgrade will cost less at the established plant which can be upgraded to meet the EPA and Environmental standards?

    11. How can this plant meet the standards when it stated in EIS that hot asphalt will be placed in trucks already and covered with a tarp? How will a spillage be controlled and how will this affect traffic on the link road or any other roads that will transport this material?

    12. There has been no consideration for the residents of these areas with the EIS stating that the plant will be operating twenty four hours seven days a week. What noise constraints have been considered for the residents of these areas?

    Yours faithfully
    Mr B & Mrs J Cross

  19. In Eltham VIC on “Building and works to...” at 25 Dudley Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    The height limit in Eltham is 4 metres. Also are they providing enough parking on site? Dudley Street is quite narrow and parked cars on the road would inhibit traffic. We cannot sustain many more people in Eltham as the traffic is already bad and and the public transport is insufficient.

  20. In Terrigal NSW on “Section 96 Amendment...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Nicole Perezous commented

    Disputing height increase and as a neighbour have yet received proposed plans. Supposedly, there was some more than 5 years ago, which thereby theoretically should have been resubmitted. Furthermore, nor were we notified of construction before demolition began.

  21. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    Joanne Carr commented

    I have visited this area many times over the last 20 years and believe it would be a very sad decision to allow this development to go ahead. The area is part of the wetlands and therefore provides essential refuge for a wide range of wildlife.
    This is a special area that deserves to be protected

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    I support this application and think it would be an asset to the area. It is somewhere that I would definitely go to regularly if it lives up to the design plans.

    I understand that there are concerns around parking, though the area is well serviced by buses and the DA seems like it is aiming to attract more locals than those that need to drive. I don't think parking should be used as an excuse not to increase either residential or commercial properties in the area. Possibly timed parking with signage should be considered for nearby streets though.

    As the planes overhead make noise until 11pm, maybe this should be the cutoff for outside music? Inside and not disturbing neighbours it should be 12am.

  23. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Katy Macmillan commented

    Yes we support this application for a
    License. This will encourage the revitalisation of Artarmon and add a modern gourmet option for dinner and wine in our local area which is lacking.

  24. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Eva Wiland commented

    I totally support an on-premise license for Salvage Coffee. It is already a popular coffee spot - Artarmon desperately needs a place for residents to relax and meet over a drink.

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

    Debbie B commented

    Joel I read your comments and I agree with them. It is concerning that Kings Beach is rapidly losing its limited parking especially in holiday times. It is an area that is known to be family friendly, but if families can't get a carpark with their little children then it becomes another place that they are locked out of. Shame on the Council if this happens.
    Maintaining street parking by not having it taken up with high rise owners/tenants allows Kings Beach to keep its appeal for all.
    I am an owner/resident and I walk to the beach...but I don't own the beach. There are plenty of other places, like Aura where developers can use space without affecting others.
    If the building of large high rises without sufficient parking on site to cater for residents and their visitors is not being enforced as a requirement by Council, then Kings Beach residents may have to do what Coolum residents have done, and take a more vocal stand until they listen.
    I hope those in Planning who are allowing developers to dictate terms and in doing so reduce easy parking access to this public beach amenity will have the guts to protect it, before it is too late.
    It is not their monopoly.

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    S.Watts commented

    While I support local venues, consideration to residents should be paramount. It should be indoor and sound proofed and 10 pm closing. We have recently experienced the problems with noise where we felt trapped inside our home due to loud people, loud mobile phones users and smokers, making it impossible to use our backyard and have windows and doors open. It also make it hard to carry on with daily activities and have undistured sleep. Any kind of new venue will be an impost on residents particularly when like us, there has not been this kind of establishment before.

  27. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Sally kelly commented

    I think this will be great for the areas with alfresco, courtyard dining

  28. In Launceston TAS on “Passive Recreation - public...” at Town Hall 18-28 St John Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    The arborist's report is unavailable for download or viewing to see whether there's supporting evidence for removing mature, shade-giving trees.

  29. In Launceston TAS on “Passive Recreation - public...” at Town Hall 18-28 St John Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden wrote to local councillor Karina Stojansek

    As a user of the civic square during events and on a week lying basis with my daughter we find it an enjoyable and amenable area.
    We look forward to the area being updated and it's changed use that will make it a more enjoyable.
    I wish to make a representation against the removal of mature trees. Despite an artist's impression showing the retention of the gumtrees on the north east corner of Henty House, in the plan the trees are to be removed.
    The trees are healthy and shade giving, softening the brutalist design of the monolithic Henty House.
    Whilst I understand the plan wanting to update the infrastructure and paving, I strongly resent that shade giving and mature plants are to be removed.
    The trees on the left, front east area around the library entrance and the trees on the north east area of St Andrews Church are all slated to be removed. Trees which have all matured beautifully over many years. It is difficult to comment on the proposed design by Aspect Studios of Adelaide due to the convoluted and poor documents that are very difficult to read for a lay person as they are so complicated with many overlays of different colours and ideas.
    My objection to this plan is that perfectly good seating, gardens and much-loved areas are also being removed and it's difficult to see what's being replaced.
    I look forward to the public having further consultations so that we can have a better idea of what our beloved Civic square will look like in the future if the plan is continued with.

    Delivered to local councillor Karina Stojansek. They are yet to respond.

  30. In Belgrave VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1592 Burwood Highway, Belgrave VIC 3160:

    N. Delmas commented

    Given this application is yet to be advertised for public review and submissions prior feedback comments and this comment should be considered prior to preliminary assessment and advertising.

    Council should ensure this application is sent to Referral Authority (VICRoads) due to location on a Category 1 road (Burwood Highway).

    This site entry is problematic from Burwood Highway traveling East (towards Belgrave from Tecoma) requiring a right turn across painted traffic island on a blind turn in variable speed limited zone.
    Undertaking vehicles passing a vehicle attempting entry in such a manner must use bike lane to do so. Notwithstanding such an attempted entry is not legal this does occur due to no easily viable means of executing a U turn along this section of road - only safe viable location is at Burwood Highway / Belgrave Hallum Road / Monbulk Road roundabout in Belgrave shopping precinct that is subject to congestion.

    Current use of this site creates traffic issues and it would appear previous applications were not sent to VICRoads. If previous applications had been sent and no objections subject to conditions, then either appropriate Permit conditions were not applied by Council or compliance to such conditions have not been complied with.

    This application should be used as an opportunity to address this long standing traffic issue AND the sub-standard car parking area on this Lot that does NOT comply to all Clause 52.06 provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.
    This and other car parking areas of similar built form in applications currently yet to be determined by Council will be contested if Council deems such standards to be 'satisfactory'. Such deeming of sub-standard car parking areas is viewed by this respondent as being an unreasonable concession afforded to proponents of no merit to the general public.

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