Recent comments

  1. In Turramurra NSW on “4 Houses demolished and...” at 14 Gilroy Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    Joanne commented

    In March and April 2014, the Gilroy Road area was exhibited as a potential Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), based on a recommendation by Sue Jackson-Stepowski and Carste Studios Consultants. I am concerned that DA0522/14 (04/12/2014) for a residential flat building, which involves the demolition of four original homes (numbers 10 - 16 Gilroy Road Turramurra), will have a permanently detrimental effect on the historic integrity of this area, which is the site of the original Gilroy Estate.

  2. In Kensington VIC on “We are seeking the removal...” at 507 MacAulay Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    stuart hyndman commented

    I object to removal of condition 8. This is blatant manipulation of the condition by the earlier removal of the window and should be refused due to same.

  3. In Burnley VIC on “243 new dwellings and...” at 462 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Andrew commented

    Its a tired old street in need of a makeover.

  4. In Mount Warren Park QLD on “Domestic - Patio” at 11 Jay Court Mount Warren Park QLD 4207:

    Karen&Andy Paul commented

    Please can you ensure that the patio structure does not reduce the views we currently love and enjoy from our own property.

    Can consideration be given to the height and shape of the patio roof. We feel a flat roof that slopes downwards from under the house eaves, towards the pool would be the most sensible and fair structure.

    We would appreciate being kept informed of what structure is being proposed and considered, as we currently have no information in respect of such.

    3807 5915 / 0418872654

  5. In Mount Lawley WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 77 Forrest Street, Mount Lawley, WA, 6050:

    Simon commented

    Residential streets in the older inner suburbs of Perth like Mt Lawley are already 'developed'. There is an ideal mix of housing options here, and a diverse range of long term residents and families, with a good balance of flats, terraced houses and family sized homes. We don't want the so called 'redevelopments' that degrade and threaten to destroy what makes the areas so desirable. So called 'developers' and 'investors' looking to build gigantic multi storied flat blocks or McMansions to sell on for profit, should be restricted from building in these areas. They should be encouraged to create infill developments closer to the city centre and in under utilised industrial, 'unused' or 'undeveloped' areas. There is an abundance of space around the city with potential for high density development. These developments do not suit the existing infrastructure of the long established inner suburbs. They put strain on the existing emenities and ruin the character of the area. The local government should protect our character suburbs and prevent these 'developments' from happening here.

  6. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Chris Perry commented

    I do not think the application should be approved.

    The residential back streets near the proposed development are already difficult to negotiate, with little room for existing parked cars and passing traffic.

    I cycle commute along Tindale each way during the morning and afternoon traffic peaks at times that coincide with the proposed increase in usage.

    Travelling the existing cycle route would become far more hazardous if another 85 or 100 traffic movements were added to the area during a sample 1.5 hour period. With a car going in and coming out, that would be an additional car every 30 seconds.

    Consider the existing situation where it is normally necessary for cars travelling the route to have to stop and wait behind parked cars for passing traffic. Add another car every 30 seconds and you'll possibly have grid lock. Not good for me as a cyclist and not good for the local residents who would like to maintain peace and quiet and a viable way of accessing their own properties.

    What happens if there is a tree down, or some other blockage compounding the grid lock? No one will be able to get in or out.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Class 1 Appeal in Land and...” at 2 Dudley Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    how many car parks for 30 dwellings...where is the traffic study/survey..too many flats being erected without proper long term planning

  8. In Sydney NSW on “Wahroonga Rugby Union Club...” at Cliff Oval Cliff Avenue , North Wahroonga 2076:

    Marie Edwards commented

    I am not sure what the licence says for the Wahroonga Rugby Club, but I am just wondering if it permits casual drinking outside of rugby games / seasons.

    Seems there is a group of rugby people who use it as a drink club whenever they choose.

  9. In Redfern NSW on “60-78 Regent Street,...” at 60-78 Regent Street, Redfern, NSW:

    GRANT WHYTE commented

    The 2x 18 story buildings there are already enough! its going to look a total eyesore!
    Start thinking about envoiment this is really going to impacted on the area that is just starting to lift its status student accommodation does nothing to add value or help the CBD of Redfern.
    I have been a long time supporter of Redfern and love living here this really is going to put Redfern back 10 years as it was.
    Not that Like the 2x 18 story buildings but at least working people are looking after them and occupants are spending money in area surely this is one of the most important factors Students spend very little!
    You only need to look at Auckland NZ the downtown is a mess, it used to be very beautiful and now it is ruined with student high raise's everywhere it truley is a disgrace.
    You also are NOT condsidering the 2x 18 story buildings how there light and views are going to be effected!


  10. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Gordon Newell commented

    I've been using the quiet back streets of Artarmon for many years to commute to town for work from Pymble as a cyclist. I have chosen Tindale and the cycle path through Artarmon as it offers some respite from the traffic in other areas. while Tindale is relatively quiet, over the years I have seen a trend for rat running where drivers take no care in other users, be it other drivers, pedestrians (including school children) or cyclists. Many travel at speed and flaunt stop and give way signs.

    The streets while wide enough for two way traffic are not when cars park either side, as is the case at the top of Tindale near Mowbray Road and also towards Artarmon station. This applies to all the local roads in the area. While the traffic is not excessive, the peak times are from around 6:30am - 9am and then in the afternoon. I cannot comment for the peak times but around 5:45pm - 6pm when I pass through, there is generally speeding traffic.

    With the inclusion of a child care centre utilising these quiet streets that Council blocked off many years ago to try and curtail the rat runs, now runs a mockery of Council and how they view the residence.

    The development should be rejected for the following reasons:
    * Narrow streets with inability to allow two way traffic due to parking either side of road
    * Narrow streets not having capacity for increased usage and continual increase in cyclist movements
    * Conflict with peak cyclists usage at the same time as peak usage of the day care centre
    * Development not consistent with residential area
    * Poor street lighting which may not meet code requirements for the high usage of vehicles and pedestrians if day care centre is approved

    Gordon Newell

  11. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 28 Terminus Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    James Anderson commented

    The rear veranda is enclosed with asbestos cement sheeting. Bathrooms and laundries were also often lined with asbestos containing material. I didn't see a waste management plan. Is a licensed asbestos removalist going to be used?

  12. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    E & S Samoilenko commented

    We are just one of the very concerned families that live in Clonmeen Cct and that also object to this development. At the beginning of Clonmeen Cct it is already very narrow, having the entry point into this estate here is not safe.

    We have 3 young kids that walk to school (SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY MUST COME FIRST) and in the future will also need to get their own cars. The increase in car ownership and car usage on the surrounding roads will put strain on the network.
    Near misses already occur all the time on the narrow Essington Way.
    Add to this the increase in cars from the new home owners on the new development site.

    Simple math;
    104 lots
    2 cars per family
    = 208 extra cars

    What about the overwhelming numbers of trucks, service equipment, trades vehicles, construction vehicles and machinery that will be needed over a very long period of time until all is finally developed.
    Why put so many lives at risk?
    Why damage this area?

    Anna Bay already lacks infrastructure at the best of times and doesn't even cope outside of school holidays.

    Has anyone consulted with the Aboriginal Land council of Worimi about any possibility that the area might be a sacred site?

    The proposed development area is well and truly loved and utilised in a very positive way by our local community including many families, youth and elders that frequent the area.

    We also think that a major reconsideration of this proposed development would be a good idea.

    Save the koalas!

  13. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Steve Mansfield commented

    There seems to be no regard for other road users in the submission, particularly cyclists who use the cycle paths in the area.

    The developers predict an extra 200 vehicles a day in this area, which is substantial, including staff, delivery and waste vehicles, and likely disadvantageous to the very children the centre is supposed to be caring for.

    You should reject the proposal.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Natasha Hamilton commented

    What a disgrace! This is an historical site and needs to be preserved.

  15. In Mount Lawley WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 77 Forrest Street, Mount Lawley, WA, 6050:

    Daisy Lyle commented

    This huge building is not in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood in any way. This is an area of single and two storey homes that blend well together. This application is for a building that would stick out like a lighthouse and dominate the streetscape from every direction. It flaunts the R-codes in countless ways for scale, bulk and consideration to the feel of the neighbourhood. If Vincent approves this, one would have to ask what is the point of the R-codes, and what will come next? Three storey buildings throughout this residential area? Why stop there?
    If the owners/developers of this land wanted to build a monument to themselves on this scale perhaps they should have bought land in one of the many places where this scale is appropriate, not a beautiful established low rise residential area.

  16. In Katoomba NSW on “Blue Mountains Festival of...” at 70-86 Lurline Street, Katoomba 2780:

    ChrisCaines commented

    The Katoomba RSL club is frequently the subject of noise complaints by local residents to the police regarding the lack of soundproofing or acoustic treatment the club has when presenting live music as part of the business it runs. Bass and drums from the club are often clearly audible in private residences for hundreds of meters in all directions from the club "live room" which consists of temporary partitions and glass doors.

    During 2014 the RSL was sent a warning letter from the Blue Mountains City Council and was investigated by the NSW OLGR regarding noise complaints. It is not clear that the club has done anything in response to these complaints, letters and investigations.

    Here in this application the club is again presenting live music both indoors and outdoors late into the evening without recognising the impact this activity has on local residents. In addition to this, the proposed audience of over 4000 people is provided no parking (the RSL carpark is used as a stage venue) resulting in illegal and hazardous parking on surrounding streets.

    While residents of the neighbourhood very much support the Folk Roots & Blues Festival, the impact the activities of the RSL has on local residents needs to be addressed.

  17. In Ashfield NSW on “8 Storey Mixed-use Building” at 7-9 Cavill Avenue & 5 Markham Place, Ashfield:

    Paul and Karen Hooper commented

    As owners of a property in this locality, we oppose the development.

    In the first instance, the site preparation phase would result in the loss of mature trees which attract insects, native birds and flying foxes. The loss of fauna and flora in this heavily built-up locality would detract considerably from the urban environment.

    Access and egress into what is a small pocket of Ashfield wedged in between Liverpool Road and the railway line is very limited. The narrow streets, most of which are only open to traffic in one direction, are heavily used for parking by residents, visitors to the shopping centre, and by delivery vehicles. Egress onto Liverpool Road is problematic, especially at times when queues form across the intersections. Developments in the vicinity of the Ashfield shopping and commercial district will exacerbate the congestion. It also is worth noting that there are significant numbers of pedestrians who filter through this area as they walk to/from Ashfield station, the bus stops, and the schools near the station.

    All of the above results in severe constraints on traffic management in this locality and already there are unacceptable levels of congestion and hazards. The construction phase of the proposed development surely will result in a reduction in the capacity of the roads, in closure of the limited number of footpaths, and the presence of large, heavy vehicles in narrow streets.

    Should the construction be approved and completed, it would generate long-term increases in traffic flow which would be unsustainable. The Ashfield City Council would then have to consider costly and disruptive measures to ensure that the locality is safe for pedestrians, that it is not choked with vehicles, and that it does not give rise to problems at entry/exit points to Liverpool Road and at the end of The Esplanade where there are busy bus stops and where there are heavy flows of pedestrians.

    We submit that this development should not proceed without a thorough study of traffic management, taking into flows on Liverpool Road as well as in this relatively closed-in pocket of Ashfield. Such a study should incorporate the most up-to-date traffic forecasts taking into account current construction and plans to construct commercial and residential properties in and around the Ashfield shopping district. We also request that account is taken of the impact of the development on the urban environment, and particularly the flora and fauna and safety for pedestrians. Such a study should consider very carefully what sort of urban environment will be retained for existing and future residents. Finally, there should be a broader social cost-benefit analysis undertaken to take account of the likely future costs imposed on Council and on residents. Only then can an informed decision be made about such a large development relative to the capacity of this locality.

  18. In Hawthorn VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 23 Lynch Street, Hawthorn 3122, VIC:

    Judith Scurfield commented

    Do we need yet another liquor outlet in this area? There are already several, and neighbours complain about the over- availability of alcohol in and around Glenferrie Road.

  19. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Jenni Woolard commented

    My concerns are that the lots will be of a size that can be legally subdivided, meaning that we could well end up with double the amount of houses.
    Also Anna Bay has known drainage problems, so with any additional housing,the water runoff/curb & guttering etc the whole stormwater/drain system of Anna Bay with be put under enormous strain.................some how I don't think the developer will correct the entire Anna Bay drainage system.
    Bush fires/emergencies are a concern too with only one major ?(fishermans bay rd) entrance and exit .

    I think a major reconsideration of this proposed development would be a good idea.

  20. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Liam Hudson commented

    To Whom It May Concern

    Tindale Road and Stafford Road already have excessive traffic levels from drivers using that route as a shortcut to bypass Mowbray Road (they transit between Artarmon station and the Mowbray Rd/Sydney St intersection). The traffic volume has become excessive in recent years. These are residential roads, not arterial, and are unsuited to high traffic volume due to their being narrow increasing risks of collision. Stafford Road also has visibility issues due to it's many hills/crests. Putting a massive day care center at the end of the street will significantly increase the traffic/risks to residents and their children (and make no mistake, 85 places is ridiculously large for a residential center. Most are 25-50).

    85 places means a lot of cars in peak hours. I think the council should put the safety of residents and their children first and before the commercial interest of the person wanting to put a business in a street unsuited to the traffic it will generate. Then there's the parking issue. Where are the parents of the 85 children going to park exactly? I'd assume many will park their cars on Tindale Rd and catch the train to work. The 10 customer spaces in the DA is clearly inadequate.

    Given there's already a Hubba Bubba daycare center on Stafford Rd (at the intersection of Sydney St) surely an alternative street is more reasonable rather than expecting residents having to contend with the traffic/parking issues caused by having two large centers on their street. I'm not against residential day care facilities. I myself have a child in day care. But it's simply not safe to put any more traffic on Tindale Road and Stafford Road and the safety of children in the neighbourhood should outweigh other factors.

  21. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Leah Bracegirdle commented

    I am finding it really hard to understand how development of large lots of pritine land can even be considered, when there are so, so many environmental issues to consider.

    Good planning surely must be pivotal in achieving the very best outcome for not only the ratepayers in the community, but most importantly the conservation of pristine, virgin bushland for native birds and koalas to live as they try to do without human destruction of their habitats.

    So, what do the Town Planners of community do for us ~

    * Do they listen to the concerns of ratepayers?????
    * Do they visit the planned development sites and actually see for themselves the areas that are considered suitable for urban development or do they do their planning from a map of the area??????
    * Do they have any input into the final outcome and assessment when the final draft is before the Joint Regional Planning Panel???

    This Development application is to be presented to the Joint Regional planning Panel on 5 February 2015 and I have many concerns regarding the Fishermans Bay Development and feel that more time needs to be available for the ratepayers of Port Stephens to have their concerns not only heard, but also to BE ACKNOWLEDGED by a council representative.

  22. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    Annette Simms commented

    We find it amazing that our Council & the State Government would even consider establishing a 104 lot estate in a village the size of Anna Bay without consideration of the already poor roads, lack of parking & shops, the impact it will have on our school & medical centre & most of all the destruction of our flora & fauna that is so much a part of our town. Corlette is not yet finished so why the need to build more houses when the demand really is not needed at this point in time?

  23. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use and Fitout to...” at 2/814-822 Old Illawarra Rd Barden Ridge 2234:

    CLAYTON DAVIS commented

    My name is Clayton Davis and I own and operate Sydney Martial Arts Centre located at Unit 6 Menai Services Centre, directly adjacent to the Menai Trade Centre, 814-822 Old Illawarra Road, where the application to open another gym is located. I do not approve of this application to Council and thoroughly agree with all the other comments from neighbouring business tenants, both from the Trade Centre and the Services Centre, that this will cause major issues with parking and safety. As noted in other letters to Council against this application, there is only 2 allocated parking spots for this unit (which is located in a tight laneway behind the existing Church premises!). Therefore, customers would inevitably come into the adjacent Menai Services Centre where my business and many other (already established businesses) are located and take our customers parking.

    Being located in the Services Centre, my fitness centre along with Club Vulcan fitness centre and the classes run by the Physio upstairs, are far enough away from traffic and the surrounding Trade businesses (mechanics, auto-electricians etc) in the Trade Centre, that we do not interfere with them in any way, or they with us. It is my opinion, that to put a gym in the unit in question, between all the busy trade businesses, with no safe walking access is ridiculous. I hope council will strongly oppose this application.

  24. In Melbourne VIC on “Variation of Licence” at Ground Floor, 30 Guildford Lane, Melbourne 3000, VIC:

    Kyle Weise commented

    Hi Peter, I write in response to your comment to provide some further information. There were two art galleries at 30 Guildford Lane, each with a separate licence (one on each floor). One of the galleries has closed, and has forfeited its licence. As such the remaining gallery is applying to extend their licence into the area (the 1st floor) previously occupied by the other gallery. As with the previous licence, it is limited to Thursday 6-9pm and Saturday 3-6pm only.

  25. In Hawthorn VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 115 Church Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Glenys Thomson commented

    This apartment building is almost complete - why is the planning permit showing now?

  26. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Change of use and reduction...” at 577-579 Brunswick St Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Parking in this area is often already difficult. There should be no reduction in parking.

  27. In Fishermans Bay NSW on “104 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 21 Fishermans Bay Road Fishermans Bay NSW 2316:

    christine mitchell commented

    i have a real concern about fire and the safety plan for so many residents with such narrow roads and only 2 exits.
    Fire trucks trying to get into the estate and people trying to get out - WHAT A DISASTER !
    Clonmeen Crt can't be altered and would be a disaster in a emergency which only leaves Fishermans bay Rd to be widened ???? this would mean only one exit in an emergency and the one least used.

  28. In Avalon NSW on “Various alterations and...” at 65 Riviera Avenue Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Rhonda Payne commented

    As stated in our DA application under Documents headed Statement of Effect
    Section B3.6
    The removal of the Super 6 Asbestos roofing shall be disposed of according to NSW regulations and Workcover. The area will be fenced off with statutory Signage, all notification to Goveremnt Authorities and immediate neighbours, as well as supplying an independent certifer for a clearance certificate shall be put in place.

  29. In Melbourne VIC on “Variation of Licence” at Ground Floor, 30 Guildford Lane, Melbourne 3000, VIC:

    Peter Aitken commented

    Could I please find out more information about the requested change as I am a resident at 16-18 Guildford Lane, Melbourne

  30. In Narara NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 45 Yeo Street, Narara NSW 2250:

    Ms bevan commented

    This house is a rental property, the property is all ways been used day and night, to add a second dealing to this property , this would cause more noise within the street, it's bad enough with them now.

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