Recent comments

  1. In Wantirna South VIC on “Extension of time” at 8 White Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    L Slade commented

    Good afternoon , why does this application have to be revised ?.
    Thank you

  2. In Rosebery NSW on “External and internal...” at 663-675 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    J Moran commented

    Whilst it sounds great to have a Vet so close by I am extremely concerned about the 24 hours it plans to be open. We already have enough noise on Botany Road, but we do live here and have adjusted very well but the thought of Barking Dogs 24 hours per day right across the road from where I and many other people live in Houses is to my mind not good. I strongly object to the opening hours.

  3. In Woy Woy NSW on “Rebuild Fire Damaged Townhouse” at 211 Burge Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Isobelle Leong commented

    Good luck with the rebuild, it's been a while for you to wait.

  4. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    Bruce Dyas commented

    I too strongly object to the comments made against this over sized delevopment and the negative impact it WILL have on our already crowded but lovely area .

    B Dyas

  5. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Bruce Dyas commented

    I too am in total agreement with all the comments previously made and that our area has enough develpoment already and reducing outdoor space and more traffic is the last this we need

    B Dyas

  6. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of tennis courts...” at MacCabi Tennis Club 105 Wellington Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Csilla Irwin commented

    I am concerned the compulsory notice which should be placed in public view appears to have been placed in a concealed or less obvious place. Therefore residents in the immediate vicinity of the area under review, may not have been properly notified. Also it appears the compulsory "mailed" notifications to all households in the area might not have been properly delivered; is the law being obstructed in some way if this has not been done?

    One resident already notes: The sign which has been erected to allow people to know about this has been put almost completely out of view for passers by. It also says in the Development Proposal that our address (5/99 Wellington Street, Bondi Beach had been sent some kind of notification on this, however we are yet to receive anything at all, which makes me wonder how many of the 446 supposedly notified properties actually have been notified at all. I know my neighbour has not received anything either.

  7. In Canterbury NSW on “Strata sub-division into...” at 15-15A Charles St, Canterbury, New South Wales, 2193, Australia:

    Pamela Stewart commented

    Wrong map for this alert - it should be Canterbury not Marrickville - crazy developments now in both locations though!

  8. In Redfern NSW on “Use public footway for...” at 133 Regent Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Geoff Mason commented

    The east side of Regent Street is littered with pedestrian hazards and it is out of control, Council do little compliance and when they do, it lasts a week and the crap slowly creeps back onto the footpath.

    Tables, chairs and patrons are no exception and this area has a higher than average older age pedestrians. Yes it might 'look nice' but try telling that to a person in a wheelchair or someone visually impaired. Footpaths are the growth area for public liability insurance claims, ask any litigation lawyer.

    16 chairs and 4 tables is too many.

  9. In Manly NSW on “AMENDED PLANS - Alterations...” at West Esp, Manly, NSW, Australia:

    Brad Pedersen commented

    To the GM Manly Council,

    Dear Sir,
    Could you please ensure this DA includes proper noise limiting equipment. Previously these premises have played loud music that allowed bass noise to echo across Manly Cove. Please impose stringent noise retrictions, especially for bass noise.

    Thanks,
    Brad Pedersen
    33/1 Osborne road, manly

  10. In Redfern NSW on “Use public footway for...” at 133 Regent Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    E H commented

    I support the application. Investment by new or growing small businesses is exactly what this retail precinct needs.

    Street dining and cafe culture should be encouraged as positive development for this retail strip. Street dining will improve the viability of this particular business, but also draw more foot traffic through surrounding small businesses and in turn lead to further positive development.

    The area required is small and manageable, the above comment should be disregarded.

  11. In Wagga Wagga NSW on “Minor Domestic Additions &...” at 199 Gurwood St Wagga Wagga NSW 2650:

    Simon and Sally Longmore commented

    18 May, 2016
    The General Manager
    Wagga Wagga City Council
    PO Box 20
    Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

    Dear Sir/Madam
    RE: DA16/0212 Change of Use to a Transitional Group Home, New Front Fence and Rear Pergola.
    199 Gurwood Street, Wagga Wagga NSW 2650.
    We are writing to express our concern and opposition of the Development Application to change the current Boarding House in Gurwood Street into a Transitional Group Home. In no way do we object to the provision of such a service in Wagga Wagga, and agree that this is a very necessary part of the rehabilitation of ‘at risk’ members of our community. We do, however, have a number of concerns that we would ask be addressed:
    1. Suitability of location
    • The model that this proposal is based on is a ‘sanctuary’ in Byron Bay, an out of town setting that offers resort style living away from the stresses and temptations of city life.
    • Gurwood Street has a number of temptations including pubs and clubs just a short stroll from the proposed site.

    2. Safety and vulnerability issues-for both parties
    • Gurwood Street is an old, quiet street largely occupied by elderly retirees and young families.
    • This central Wagga area, is also home to many services that may be adversely affected by such a proposal, including two aged care facilities, an early year’s childcare centre and a Public Primary School.
    • The site is adjacent to large open parkland and as mentioned earlier close proximity to public amenities such as pubs, restaurants and clubs.
    • What safeguards are in place to prevent ‘at risk’ individuals and their families and friends from falling victim to such temptations and posing a very real danger to themselves and the residents of this area?
    • Research shows that many individuals require several attempts at rehabilitation, and the road to recovery is a long, and for some never ending, journey, punctuated by positive and negative events. Is it fair for these individuals, their families and friends, and our community, filled as it is with children and elderly folk, to be placed in a setting where they may be adversely affected by such setbacks.

    3. Effect on the community
    • The placement of a service like this in a central part of our city will have a profound effect on ratepayers in this area.
    • Already we have seen potential buyers turn away from the opportunity to buy in a highly sought after area, after notification of the proposed development.
    • We have lived in Gurwood Street for over 20 years and have a young family. We are both home owners and investors in this area and are concerned about the impact of the proposal on our lifestyle and livelihoods.
    o As homeowners we ask: What effect will this establishment have on land values in this area, especially if there are serious incidents as a result of the development?
    o As investors we ask: Will this affect property sale prices, or in fact the availability of tenants wanting to rent in this area?

    Despite some heated opinions being spread widely regarding this proposal, many questions remain unanswered. We would like the opportunity to learn more about the proposal and have our questions answered. Some of the terminology surrounding this proposal is vague and unclear; What exactly does Transitional Home mean? Who does it include? How long/short is temporary? Does the term institution include jail? What does ‘suitably detoxed’ mean?
    We also request information regarding the supervision of these vulnerable individuals and what safeguards and security are in place to protect them and members of the community. Many families in the area go to work and school during the day leaving the temptation for theft and property damage by ‘desperate individuals’, whilst others home alone are elderly and vulnerable. What happens when someone can’t ‘manage’ the distractions and temptations offered by central city living?
    Similar proposals have been opposed successfully in other Wagga Wagga areas for similar reasons, why not this one?
    We seek consideration and discussion around these areas and recommend a public forum to discuss the concerns of many local individuals and families.
    We declare that we have made no political donations of any amount during the previous 2 years, or for that matter, ever.
    Yours sincerely,

    Simon and Sally Longmore

  12. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    Bernadette Hayes commented

    I object to the proposal to amend the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 to increase the maximum building height from 15m to 38m and increase the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 5:1 to allow for the proposed development of 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction.

    Waverley Council has previously rejected the application from the developer as it contravenes the relevant LEP. The maximum building height and floor space ratios of the LEP are entirely appropriate and should be maintained for this part of Bondi Junction.

    The proposed development is totally out of character with the surrounding area, Including the conservation area if mill hill. The western end of Oxford Street, Bondi Junction is consistently low rise which allows for sunlight. It has a community village atmosphere. it is the only part of Bondi Junction where the retail shops are fully leased. This is because of the low rise, sunny, village atmosphere. It is a welcoming and enjoyable place to shop. To change the zoning to allow this proposed development would completely destroy the amenity, vibrancy and retail success of this area.

    Bondi Junction is already over capacity in terms of population, particularly considering the infrastructure, public amenities and traffic issues.

    A proposal to change the 2012 LEP to increase the maximum building height from 15m to 38m and the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 5:1 for this development site is completely unacceptable. This is not a small variation to the LEP, it is a variation that is more than twice the current limits. This should be sufficient to reject the proposal outright.

    It is essential that no variation is made to the 2012 LEP for this proposed development.

  13. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Gai Hilton commented

    A large commercial business such as thus proposed 43 or 44 place child care centre in a residential street, that already experiences considerable traffic and parking problems on a daily basis will have a devasting impact on the quality of life, and the enjoyment of their homes for every resident along the entire length of Duncan Street, Bond Street, First Avenue, Sackville Street and The Corso. All these streets already experience problematic parking and traffic problems and to restrict parking in Duncan Street will push this problem further into out these streets.

    It should be pointed that a commercial business of this size will have a very negative impact on the quality of life for local residents forever.

  14. In Matraville NSW on “The proposal seeks to make...” at 1T Romani Way, Matraville:

    Ms Glae commented

    Object to this application as the height is out of character for the surrounding area, most buildings are only 2 stories in height.

  15. In Windsor Gardens SA on “Single storey dwelling” at 42 McLauchlan Rd Windsor Gardens SA 5087:

    Jude commented

    The Area is rapidly developing with quality houses. So as the general public we will expect quality house will build in this land with good land scaping to match with the rest of the other properties around the area.

  16. In Glendale NSW on “Child Care Centre” at 15 Alfred Street, Glendale NSW 2285:

    Jean McPherson commented

    I have only just become aware of this application, and am concerned that it is inappropriate for the site and will also have adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. Alfred St has a very poor visibility junction with Lowry St, and Lowry St already has a high traffic load, being used by many as a short cut between Jubilee St and Main Rd Cardiff. I gather that there are also plans to block Alfred St at its intersection with Glendale Drive. These plans are of huge concern in their own right, but the combination of that western blockage with increased local traffic in Alfred St would greatly magnify what is already a hazardous local traffic situation. It is unavoidable that Bancroft St would also carry part of the increased traffic load and its intersection with Lowry St is also less than optimal. A site with such constrained and hazardous access is not suitable for a facility of this type.

  17. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Modification to dwelling...” at 43 Llandaff Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Russell Dunn commented

    Windows on the east and west should not be of great concern, apart from privacy. Sadly, the real issues were the approval for an upper floor addition with front gables that are awkwardly close, but clearly not matching, the slope of the existing gables; and the use of truncated front windows/balcony elements that are incongruous on a pristine inter-war house within a Heritage Conservation Area. The damage has been done to the streetscape, so we should not be concerned about the side elevations. We do however, need to value Bondi Junction's heritage much more highly. Once its gone, it has gone forever.

  18. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Lyn commented

    @Katina. Please get in contact with me re: petition as I'd like to sign it. I can be a pivot point for myself and my immediate neighbours in getting them to sign. My name is Lyn and email is beanbass@gmail.com

  19. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    K. Strachan commented

    I completely agree with the above comments.

    Waverley Council had already rejected the developers proposal. Why would increase the height and floor space ratio to allow such an inappropriate and out of character buildings to be developed??
    We need to value and appreciate the heritage and character of the western end of Bondi Junction. Not to mention the impact a change could have on Centennial Park and the already congested traffic. If we don't do it now, we'll end with an over populated suburb with roads that can't cope.

    This proposal is not a small variation to the LEP, it is a variation that is more than twice the current limits. This should be immediately rejected. Waverley council you need to listen to your residents.

  20. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    Angela McLaughlin commented

    I completely agree with April Campbell and Eric Scott. The BJ infrastructure cannot cope with these high rises proposed, plus it will be a complete eyesore for those entering the Waverley Council area.

  21. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    April Campbell commented

    The proposal to amend the Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 to increase the maximum building height from 15m to 38m and increase the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 5:1 to allow for the proposed development of 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction has been lodged by the developer after the developer's application to do so was rejected by Waverley Council.

    Waverley Council rejected the application for good reason. The relevant LEP was enacted only 4 years ago following appropriate consideration by the Council and consultation with the local community. The maximum building height and floor space ratios are entirely appropriate and should be maintained for this part of Bondi Junction.

    The proposed development site is the western end of Bondi Junction adjacent to, and overlooking, Centennial Park. This site is also adjacent to Mill Hill Conservation Area of Bondi Junction where the dwellings are subject to development restrictions to maintain the conservation value of the area. The proposed development is totally out of character with this.

    Bondi Junction is already over capacity in terms of traffic. There is a continuous stream of traffic along Oxford Street and York Roads, Bondi Junction as well as from Syd Enfield Drive onto Oxford Street. The intersections of York Road and Oxford Street and Nelson and Oxford Streets are over capacity. There is a constant stream of bicycle riders along Oxford Street. The proposed development site is opposite Waverley Bus Depot which has numerous bus movements in and out of the depot onto Oxford Street and it is adjacent to and opposite bus stops where the buses lay over while carrying out bus driver changes. It would be impossible for Oxford Street, Nelson Street, York Road and the surrounding streets to cope with the additional traffic that would be generated by a development of this size. The movement of buses around the depot must not be detrimentally affected by this development.

    The western end of Oxford Street, Bondi Junction is consistently low rise which allows for sunlight. It has a community village atmosphere. it is the only part of Bondi Junction where the retail shops are fully leased. This is because of the low rise, sunny, village atmosphere. It is a welcoming and enjoyable place to shop. To change the zoning to allow this proposed development would completely destroy the amenity, vibrancy and retail success of this area.

    Bondi Junction is already over capacity in terms of population, particularly considering the infrastructure, public amenities and traffic issues. At present, there are multiple storey commercial/residential buildings being constructed along Oxford Street between Bondi Road and Waverley Mall and about to be constructed between Newland Street and Denison Street. These additional developments are negatively impacting the area and will create shadowing and wind tunnel effects.

    A proposal to change the 2012 LEP to increase the maximum building height from 15m to 38m and the floor space ratio from 1.5:1 to 5:1 for this development site is completely unacceptable. This is not a small variation to the LEP, it is a variation that is more than twice the current limits. This should be sufficient to reject the proposal outright.

    If the proposed change is made to the 2012 LEP, this will also create a precedent for the surrounding area which cannot be allowed to happen.

    It is essential that no variation is made to the 2012 LEP for this proposed development.

  22. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 43 Boundary Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Wendy Lycett commented

    As indicated when the first development application was lodged, this application will impact on our light and privacy. We have been living in our house for over 20 years and have developed a beautiful garden sanctuary. If our light is reduced and more probably taken, this will be destroyed. Mould will grow over our tiles and our garden will die! Our sunny sanctuary will be destroyed. My husband has recently suffered a devastating neurological illness and will be unable to work. His therapy will be gardening. If he has no light and no garden it will be a life affecting event.
    Also, as previously advised, any windows on a rear addition will overlook our house and garden and will seriously impact on our privacy. These windows will look directly into the master bedroom!
    Also as mentioned in the original application, the construction of a rumpus room will by definition mean noise pollution.

    It seems the previous application has been resubmitted, with perhaps minor changes, hoping that we will overlook the problems.

    This will seriously impact our established living situation if passed. Please take our comments into consideration.

    Thank you
    Wendy Lycett

  23. In Edithvale VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 67 Rae Avenue, Edithvale, VIC:

    Jeff McLachlan wrote to local councillor Ron Brownlees

    I think it is starting to get ridiculous in this part of Edithvale now. 4 units on a block is over the top. Every week-end there are 40-50 cars parked in Keith & Rae Ave's making driving difficult to drive. We will get another 80 or so cars when the RSL site is developed, maybe another 8 when the corner block on Rae & Kinross is developed, we get traffic going up and down our streets because cars are trying to miss parts of Edithvale road, and Lochiel has chicanes. I hope the council has some positive views of the local residents concerns before Edithvale becomes unbearable.

    Delivered to local councillor Ron Brownlees. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Macquarie Hills NSW on “Dwelling House & Retaining...” at 6 Lucilla Ridge, Macquarie Hills NSW 2285:

    Subhash ramachandran commented

    I have a concern regarding the stand alone tree in this property which is on the north side of the block. This particular tree is dangerous to our property in case of a severe storm and always had been having broken branches falling off towards our property and this could cause potential injury when Someone is in the back yard especially kids. This tree has also started to show its age and a slight movement from the previous storm is also evident in the visual inspection.

  25. In Bondi Junction NSW on “This proposal seeks to...” at 194-214 Oxford Street and 2 Nelson Street, Bondi Junction:

    Eric Scott commented

    This proposal will destroy the heritage value of the area and create traffic chaos

    The height proposed is totally unacceptable and flies in the face of community opinion, good urban design, heritage values and consistency with the immediate vicinity which includes streets in Woollahra Council area. It will be visual pollution, impact on many residences and cast shadows over Centennial Park from where it will be a highly visible eyesore. Any development approved must be within the 2012 LEP height limits.

    It should not destroy the terraces which have stood there as evidence of what the area used to look like. Any development, as well as being of lower height, should incorporate and maintain at least the frontages of these terraces.

    Nelson Street should not be changed simply to accommodate the development as this will have traffic impacts on Grafton Street and Leswell Street with flow-on effects on Mill Hill Road and Ruthven Street. Nelson street with traffic lights at Oxford Street is the current and most efficient route for vehicles travelling to and from Oxford Street.

    The traffic impact at York Road will be severe and negative. The development should not impact land which is currently a public road and should not change the traffic access from York Road the Oxford Street and Ocean Street. There is no sound traffic management reason to do this and it will create bottlenecks and additional traffic into residential streets.

    In summary there can be no reason for this proposal other than financial gain for the developer, with which Council and the State government must not be complicit. The solution is simply the status quo of the height limits in the 2012 LEP and the developer should be invited to submit an application consistent therewith.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 39 Phillip Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Costain commented

    The change in this amended DA fundamentally further highlights the the fact that there are 11 car spaces for 14 residences and now the additional retail. It is extremely difficult to park a car in this neighbourhood at the best of times due to local and visiting vehicles. The lack of adequate car spaces in this development further exacerbates the issue, and I object to the application until there is adequate on site parking.

  27. In Glengowrie SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 14 Harding St Glengowrie:

    Jane C. commented

    I called council and asked if this land can be subdivided when the house was in market. Council told me, the semi detached won't be approved, unless the slow down point outside the property can be removed to other houses, which you need get the approval from other house owners. I think there is no way other house owners will accept this slow down point moving theirs. Council did say the hammer head is the only option. They won't approve semi detached for this kind of allotment, even it is two storey, due to slow down point.

  28. In Glengowrie SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 70 Bells Rd Glengowrie:

    Jane Citzen commented

    This is practise fraud if it gest approved. Where is the restriction of 9m frontage to build semi detached? This frontage is around 2M short!! 2M SHORT! People buy these kinds of house off market price, as most people think they can't be subdivided. If it gets approved, the council's development rule will get changed completely. People are going to redevelop a lot of sites under size or under frontage as they have 'relationship' with some one in council?? RULE IS RULE, that is why WE HAVE OUR RULE!

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Katina Gianninkouris commented

    Duncan Street is a very busy residential street with a high traffic flow. This is because of its proximity to Maroubra Beach, and as well as the of the amount of residential flat buildings on the street. The proposal is 15 metres away from two T intersections, i.e. First Avenue & Duncan Street, and Bond Street & Duncan Street. As it currently stands, it is hard to navigate to and around these streets due to their narrowness and cars parked on the street, see image below for reference. Furthermore, the poor sight lines at both these T intersections is very dangerous. The proposal will increase traffic flow and congestion, and with having children about, it is not safe at all.
    A petition will be going around for signatures today/tonight so please spread the word.

  30. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Katina Gianninkouris commented

    Duncan Street is a very busy residential street with a high traffic flow. This is because of its proximity to Maroubra Beach, and as well as the of the amount of residential flat buildings on the street. The proposal is 15 metres away from two T intersections, i.e. First Avenue & Duncan Street, and Bond Street & Duncan Street. As it currently stands, it is hard to navigate to and around these streets due to their narrowness and cars parked on the street, see image below for reference. Furthermore, the poor sight lines at both these T intersections is very dangerous. The proposal will increase traffic flow and congestion, and with having children about, it is not safe at all.
    A petition will be going around for signatures today/tonight so please spread the word.

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