Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

    Katina Gianninkouris commented

    Just informing everyone, as we starting our petition today many of the residence have yet to receive letter of DA from council and therefore have not had the opportunity to respond with an objection to the development as they had no idea of its planning. Furthermore sign of this development only went up in front of the property last week also not giving residence time to lodge their objection. Many of these residence are elderly and are very unsettled at the thought of this development, please spread the word and have regarding this and have all those concerned to forward their view ASAP.

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

    Katherine commented

    Hello

    I also object to the application primarily in the basis of parking.
    I also note that the notice of development application was late being posted and whilst now posted is not sufficiently fixed (wind blows it so can't see details) and seems incomplete (one page missing). My concern is the relevant stakeholders and neighbors may not be aware, and therefore not voiced their concerns for the above reasons.

    Katherine Williams

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

    Councillor Anthony Andrews commented

    On behalf of concerned local residents, I have protected your interests by calling this development application to a council meeting for deliberation. What this means is your local councillors will have the final day and you will be given an opportunity to address the council meeting of your concerns.

    Regard

    Councillor Anthony Andrews.

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

    Katina Gianninkouris commented

    Hi all
    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.
    We too have sent a letter of objection and will be also forwarding a petition signed by as many residence as we can get to sign today and tomorrow, so please let all your neighbours know to expect us at their door.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mark Mallone commented

    Totally oppose this development for the same reasons noted by all those above and clearly defined by the person named Kristen.

    Before approving this over-development, Marrickville Council needs to consider the impact of a 7 storey building at the crest of a hill where Warren Road and Illawarra Road are at their narrowest.

  8. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Rohan Dunn commented

    As a local property owner I fully support this application. I believe it will be a positive addition to the local community.

  9. In Dundas Valley NSW on “Proposed attached dual...” at 190 Marsden Road Dundas Valley NSW 2117:

    Elizabeth Ashard wrote to local councillor Pierre Esber

    This is of great concern. I would like to be reassured that Council have had inspectors check this property out and report back to the people who have raised concern otherwise you leave the concerned public with no option but to go above Council to seek recourse.
    this is not acceptable behaviour by a developer and MUST be investigated. Failing attention from the appropriate authorities only leaves people with the recourse of going to the media and with the recent issue with Auburn Council and unscrupulous developers this would not look good for Parramatta Council to be seen not doing their job.

    Delivered to local councillor Pierre Esber. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Heather Davie commented

    The height of this building does not comply with the Marrickville LEP and should not exceed 20 metres. It is excessive in height and should comply.
    Building should also comply with Development Control Plan and provide balanced mix of dwellings for diverse family groups. There are too many studios in this and other new developments along Illawarra Rd. Where will families find homes if every building only has studios?
    Parking supply already exceeds demand in this already congested area and more underground parking and several care share spaces should be provided.
    The position of this building, on top of a hill, on a very busy narrow intersection and its proximity to Woolworths needs to be taken into consideration and the DA redeveloped to at least comply with current LEP and Development Controls.
    Sadly our elected Councillors can no longer support residents with these most unsuitable developments.

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sophie T commented

    Again another ill-conceived development that has been proposed by a developer encouraged by the pro-development Council.

    - Warren Rd is very narrow and dangerous close to the intersection of Illawarra Rd. Having the exit from this development onto Warren Rd close to the intersection will only exacerbate these issues. Illawarra Rd is currently a carpark.
    - Funny how the traffic assessment report attached to this DA concludes "minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network". They never seem to conclude otherwise.
    - It is naive to assume that residents without the need for a private vehicle will typically occupy the studio apartments. It is also naive to assume that the lack of on-site parking will encourage residents and visitors to use public transport and car sharing schemes. They will more than likely have a private vehicle and park in surrounding streets.
    - the height of the proposed development is higher than the Council's LEP requirements for this area, not withstanding that this proposal is on the top of the hill and therefore the height issues are exaggerated.
    - the overshadowing and loss of amenity to the in the immediate surrounds is very real

    I urge the Council to think about the impact of this development in conjunction with other approved developments in and around Illawarra Rd.

    -

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Daniel Mulhern commented

    I object this proposal, that corner is highly congested as it stands with the Woolworth's dock across the road. The traffic is a nightmare, and now it's proposed to increase the local population and street parking requirement substantially on an already squeezed road.

    Daily it is a traffic tetris nightmare as cars and trucks battle the tiny warren road. Warren road needs to be dealt with first prior to increase the number of residents within the vicinity.

    The height of the building is also far to extreme compared to current surroundings, current new developments are already overshadowing the area.

    Please push back on this development to be more inline with the area and cater properly for residents needs.

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

    Rebecca Flett commented

    This development should not go ahead. Lowry Street is dangerous enough as it is and the intersections of Bancroft St and Lowry St and Alfred St and Lowry St have already seen MANY accidents and MANY MANY near misses. This type of development is not suitable for this area as the infrastructure of roads cannot support it safely. The plans to block Alfred St at the western end will only make the above intersections and Lowry St more dangerous. Please reconsider.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kristen commented

    Further to my above comments, I have one further point to raise in opposition to the proposed development
    The proposed development does not adhere to the Marrickville Development Control Plan (2011) Residential Flat Buildings, General Controls (Section 4.2.3 of the DCP), see below:
    "C1 New developments with six or more dwellings must provide the following mix of dwelling types:
    i. Studio 5 – 20%
    ii. 1 bedroom 10 – 40%;
    iii. 2 bedroom 40 – 75%; and
    iv. 3 bedroom or bigger 10 – 45%."

    The proposed development proposes to provide the below mix of dwelling types (units):
    12 x Studio = 63%
    4 x 2 bedroom = 21%
    3 x 3 bedroom = 16%

    The proposal includes an excessively high percentage of studio apartments, and the percentage of 2 bedroom units is below the acceptable proportion for the development type, based on the Marrickville DCP guidelines, As a result, the proposed development does not adhere to council's new residential development planning controls.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kristen commented

    I object to the proposed development as it as it exceeds the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 Height of Building requirements as per the B2 land zone. The maximum building height within this land zone should be 20 metres. This building would exceed the height limit by 2 metres (by 10%) of the maximum building height limit for this zone. The proposed development which is planned to be 22 metres at it's tallest point. The site is also located at the crest of a hill, which means it would overshadow any nearby buildings, including the heritage-listed church opposite . As such the development height does not comply with council's planning controls.

    I also object to the proposed development due to insufficient car parking provision.The 9 car spaces proposed for the development does not comply with Marrickville's Development Control Plan 2011 (DCP). The development should provide at least 12 spaces based the proposed number and type of residential units and commercial space. Given that 4 of the apartments are accessible (adaptable), and 1 space per adaptable unit is required as per the DCP in this parking area; the number of car spaces provided should be around 15 spaces with at least 4 of these being mobility/ accessible car spaces.

    It is irresponsible of council not to take in account and consider the cumulative negative traffic and parking impact and associated traffic congestion, population overcrowding and overshadowing effect that the multiple large residential developments (both proposed and already approved) along Illawarra Road, between Marrickville Station and Warren Road, will place on the existing community and infrastructure.

    Overall, I'm extremely disappointed that Marrickville Council continues to grant development consent for the multiple high rise, high-density residential developments along this section of Illawarra Road . These buildings do not compliment the existing character of the area, as the commercial premises in new developments have generally remained untenanted post-construction, and modern, bland design does not fit with existing low-rise buildings. These over-sized developments also negatively impact social amenity through increased traffic, overcrowding and diminish solar access for the existing surrounding properties.

  16. In Alexandria NSW on “Change of use of first...” at 23 Buckland Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    ken green commented

    I definitely do not think we need a tattoo parlour in Buckland St ,this will lead to more traffic in the area ,already crying out for more parking spots ,congestion in the street is already at capacity without adding to the problem .

  17. In Strathfield NSW on “Change liquor licence...” at 26 The Boulevarde, Strathfield, NSW:

    Antonina Kisliakov commented

    Put a park there instead Strathfield doesnt have many parks especially on the Bouevarde

  18. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Angus commented

    I support this application - providing a more varied retail option in the area and greater amenity for the local community

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Costello commented

    The inner west is currently over served by low density shoe box houses - just look at the streets around this development. It's about time we agreed that we live a large city and density in certain areas needs to increase. This development is within easy access to a major shopping and entertainment area, a five minute walk from a major train station and with buses passing. Aside from the ongoing consideration of retail units, accepted by Inner West Council, being built and allowed to be empty rather than signed up tenants being a condition of approval, more of these sort of developments should be encourage in this are.

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

    Meridith Jefferson commented

    16 Chairs & 4 tables ? Why not move the whole cafe on to the footpath ? Far too many pedestrian obstacles on Regent Street already, most unapproved and Council never does any enforcement.

    Yes, this grubby noisy strip needs improving, but balance it with nearby residents living above the shops.

    The application is excessive and 3 tables and 6 chairs is more appropriate for this busy stretch of footpath.

  21. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    P Morgan commented

    I support this application. These markets bring new people to the area who may then visit other local businesses while there are here. I feel they are a positive activity for the local community and a support for local business that is genuinely needed.

  22. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    The plan for managing parking and traffic is not adequate. This will make life extremely difficult for both residential and business neighbours.

  23. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I do not support the application. The markets are not "a pleasing local attraction" or "a positive addition to the community." Rather they are a commercial venture which may benefit certain individuals or businesses at the expense of the amenity neighbours curently enjoy. We are quite capable of finding the studios of the artists and craftsmen of Precinct 75 and visiting them if we wish. We do not need the additional noise, traffic and parking which will be generated by this venture. The markets are not in the public interest.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mel Painter commented

    I agree with all the above comments... Increased traffic to an already congested area, a 7 story block of units that isn't keeping with the current area building height and a lack of parking will only be a few problems that this will bring. I really hope this development doesn't go through... Please keep Marrickville the beautiful suburb it already is!

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Chantal Cordey commented

    I totally object to more tasteless 7 storey prison like buildings going up on Illawara road . This will potentially be the 6th one going up between Woolworth and the old RSL site if all proposals go ahead , I would like to also point out that those kind of commercial spaces seem to lay empty as with the RSL site building. Development at its worth.
    Very sad at the lack of vision for a neighbourhood friendly future.
    Illawara road will become just another no go zone ghetto

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

    N.N commented

    How can this land divide into 2 allotments? The frontage is ONLY 16.43m. Let us wait and see.

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sue Evans commented

    I oppose this development as 7 stories are not keeping within the current area building height. It will be an enormous eyesore on the neighbourhood. Not to mention the shadowing it will cause on adjacent properties.

    There will also be an impact on traffic on narrow and already crowded streets as there only seems to be 9 car spaces that may or may not be for the units themselves. With 2 and 3 bedroom units there is a potential of 2 - 3 cars per unit with nowhere to park on site.

    The small commercial spaces will rental will most likely be high thus leaving empty commercial properties vacant for 12+ months. There are already starting to get too many of them in the area.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “To partially demolish...” at 392 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Tanya C commented

    This is not a good idea
    It will cause problems that include - lack of parking, traffic, loss of amenities, community and there isn't sufficient public transport to support this.
    All of these ridiculous planning approvals are clearly just to fund politicians pockets and have no consideration for the community.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “To hold a Newtown Food Fair...” at Eliza Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jake T commented

    This is a great event, and seems to be drawing more attention and positive feedback each year. As a local, and a business operator, this is great day for the community.

  30. In Saint Peters NSW on “To hold weekend markets on...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Camilla Duggan commented

    I am in support of this application. I think it would be a positive addition to the community.

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