Recent comments

  1. In Kenthurst NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 20-22 Annangrove Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Erin Smith wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    Dear Councillors,
    We are opposing the submission for a cemetery on Annangrove road due to traffic rthat it can't handle now and the devaluation of surrounding property as many can't sell homes if near a cemetery. People have paid millions of dollars to live in such a prestige suburb and this is not necessary and unacceptable planning by the Church

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Byrne. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Deb Williams commented

    Is there even a need for apartment living in Glenorie. Apartment living goes hand in hand with areas providing transport and shopping - neither of which Glenorie is known for.

    The small rural village will be gone, along with the local shops. Leaving the suburb with only Woolies.

    How on earth can council consider high density living in the centre of a rural community?

  3. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Cathy Bennett commented

    This is an inappropriate application for Glenorie for the following reasons:
    *Design not in keeping with the village atmosphere
    *Buildings too high for the surrounding areas
    *Shadowing on to surrounding houses not fair to those who have lived there for decades.
    *Infrastructure not set up for this density of housing eg traffic, sewerage, drainage.
    *Existing shops will have income affected.
    *Already empty shops here - don't need more shops .

    Please do not approve this application .

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 11 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    The trading hours our excessive and will heavily impact the quality of life for residents. This application should be rejected.

  5. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Michelle Bullen commented

    I am totally against this type of development for a "Semi Rural" area also as was stated above we do not have the infastructure or road capacity to cope with the added population that this will bring we have only just been connected to a pressure sewerage system which is at capacity already and many people are still having issues with their electric pumps not functioning properly also due to the large number of quarry trucks and delivery trucks already using Old
    Northern Road and Post Office Road the ongoing traffic congestion would be a nightmare and make paedestarian access unsafe please please do not let our beautiful Village be ruined by this kind of development.

  6. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Michelle Bullen commented

    I am totally against this type of development for a "Semi Rural" area also as was stated above we do not have the infastructure or road capacity to cope with the added population that this will bring we have only just been connected to a pressure sewerage system which is at capacity already and many people are still having issues with their electric pumps not functioning properly also due to the large number of quarry trucks and delivery trucks already using Old
    Northern Road and Post Office Road the ongoing traffic congestion would be a nightmare and make paedestarian access unsafe please please do not let our beautiful Village be ruined by this kind of development.

  7. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 114 Napoleon Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jodie Bareham commented

    I agree with Lynda Giann's comment. Ample off street parking for both residents and visitors is required on the property. The street is too narrow for street parking.

  8. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/4 Tyner Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse wrote to local councillor Lisa Cooper

    Agree.. Checked out land.vic.gov.au and that site has no record of 1/4 Tyner Road.
    Something sinister is afoot.

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Cooper. They are yet to respond.

  9. In West Perth WA on “Proposed Multi Storey...” at 31 Malcolm Street West Perth WA 6005:

    Connagh Hopkins commented

    Time and again, property with historical significance in Perth prove to be attractions. Inherent value of property is increased because of it. Please consider the development of this property carefully. It has the potential to enhance the commercial value of any development if it is kept intact.

  10. In Belivah QLD on “1 Lot into 11 Lots and...” at 31 Belivah Road Belivah QLD 4207:

    RF wrote to local councillor Laurie Koranski

    This particular development by Davidson at Belivah is absolutely not in line with any type of normal town planning. Previously, this area has been seen a rural residential with most properties in the area sitting on 1 1/2 acres (both Bannockburn and Rosemount Farm). I find it amazing that the developer can propose block sizes as low as 187sqm and with maximum size sitting around 600sqm (disgusting money grab if you ask me). As someone previously mentioned about Bannockburn Road (19 units on one block), all this is doing is devaluing the suburb as most of these mini blocks will be either owned by investors or housing commission (no owner occupiers anymore). Also, if you have look at the entire proposed development (31 Belivah Road) you will see that where those beautiful gums trees along Beaudesert Beenleigh road now stand, a future park is proposed.. I wonder if the developer will at least retain these magnificent trees?? I recently voted in the new councillor Laurie and am now wondering if she will actually stand up for rural residents in the area and block this development, or as a minimum demand that the minimum block size stay at 500sqm no less. Having said all that, consider.. on the corner of Bannockburn road and Beaudesert Beenleigh road there soon will be, Bannockburn village with Woolworths, a wonderful parking lot, shops and cafes, next to that those 19 units and then opposite.. Davidson at Belivah with its lower socioeconomic design.. My advise folks, sell up and move further out as logan city council and co. is about to impose Yarrabilba style design on our fair suburb.
    Sorry that no-one cares anymore..

    Delivered to local councillor Laurie Koranski. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Telopea NSW on “30 - 32 Marshall Road and...” at 32 Marshall Road Telopea NSW 2117:

    Kerrie commented

    It is difficult driving along Marshall Road now without the addition of more cars,especially if they are parked on road. This development will only result in more congestion. This street needs to be widened as even now you have to pull over to allow another car to pass and especially when the bus is there driving its route.

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 11 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    zio ledeux wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    i agree with all of the above comments

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Epping NSW on “Hornsby Shire Council” at 38 Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I was led to believe this was a heritage building and it would be preserved. It is a great loss to our community to lose this building. It is disappointing that Parramatta City Council does not do more to preserve the heritage of the Epping area. It is unfortunate they are just following what Hornsby Council has already determined.

  14. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 1/4 Tyner Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    L Slade commented

    Hello there must be a mistake there are already two two story town houses there !

  15. In Berry NSW on “New Urban Dwelling - Two...” at 26 Womack Cl, Berry, NSW:

    sandra commented

    What a shame, such a beautiful old residence, not appreciated!

  16. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    A Vanesa thaler commented

    This is becoming ridiculous. There are also 3 large developments happening at 53, 53b and 53c Warriewood road which most neighbours are objecting to (including myself) with no reply received so far.
    Lorikeets grove will be used as an access road to over 50 dwellings, a tiny little one lane road that is not even wide enough to comply with the definition of access road.
    BTW, access roads are supposed to only access 30 dwelling and we are already 18.
    In case of emergency, I am not sure how all these people are going to evacuate.
    Warriewood road has no footpath all the way from Pittwater road until Bramds lane, but who cares, let's bring more people to the area so that we can run over them when we drive at night and they walk in the middle of the road

  17. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Magie Maule commented

    This development ,like many others in the area diminishes the enjoyment of established residents,increases trafic problems and reduces amenities by its excesive size..In general one might very well ask CUI BONO? Only the developer it would seem.Sydney is becoming a much less attractive place to live.More noisy, trafic jammed and stress full.The land and environment court will have a lot to answer for if it continues to support these socially reprehensible D A s

  18. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolish existing...” at Lansdowne Street, Merrylands, Australia:

    peter commented

    Can you please state what is the number of the property.

  19. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Andrew McMillan wrote to local councillor Yvonne Keane

    This development will destroy the village atmosphere Glenorie is know for.
    The current infrastructure will not cope with a development of this size.
    These issues being
    Current stormwater drains can't cope, Old Northern Road Floods, increased catchment area and runoff will increase flooding.
    Pressure sewerage system is already at capacity.
    Current shopping village has many vacant shops no need for more shops.
    A delopment of this nature will bring an undesirable element to the area increasing crime.
    Emergency Services are a long way away.
    Current intersection of Old Northern Road and Post Office Road is dangerous. Increased traffic flow will make an already dangerous situation worse.
    Increased traffic on Old Northern Road causing a bigger bottleneck at Dural.
    Higher traffic flow along the back streets to Cattia Ridge Road increasing the risk of pedestrians especially school children being hit by vehicles.

    Delivered to local councillor Yvonne Keane. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 114 Napoleon Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Lynda giann commented

    Napoleon Street is a narrow private no through road for residents use . All of the current residents do not park on the road as everyone has ample off street parking. Whenever there are vehicles parked, driving along the road is very difficult. A few years back, an ambulance could not get thru to a residence as two cars were parked opposite each other blocking the road.
    The current application to build two dwellings at 114 Napoleon must provide ample off street parking for both residents and visitors to the address . I do not want the street blocked because of increased cars parked in the street. It would affect my quality of life and concern me that ambulance and fire trucks could not get thru.

  21. In Kenthurst NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 20-22 Annangrove Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Leesa Scavera commented

    I have only just by chance found out about this proposal today 8/8/16 even though I am
    a local resident and i have children at Marian college. I am concerned about the lack of parking at the school already. There are many students who have to park out on Annangrove road as car park is not big enough. This causes more confusion and added
    traffic trying to enter and exit the school. The stress on parents and year 11 and 12 kids trying to find parking at the moment is bad enough. I drop off and pick up my kids every day so I experience this daily. Also there has been no information given out about this proposal to enable parents of the school a chance to voice any concerns.

  22. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Shaun Munro commented

    I am a rate paying resident of more than 20 years and a liberal voter. I will not vote liberal at the next election if you pass this monstrosity.
    The proposed development is far far too high for this side of Epping Road. It is out of character with the residential suburb of North Ryde. It will be an eyesore and totally unnecessary for our suburb given the amount of development on the Delhi & Epping Road sites.

  23. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Cynthia commented

    As a regular visitor of blenheim park. I am in strong opposition to this development. It is a highly utalised park by all different cross sections of the community. The impact this development will have on the gracious park can only be conceived as negative. With the intrusion of the extra traffic of tennants entering and leaving the building and parking which is at present extremely limited for those trying to utalise the current facilities. The disruption to the park its facilities and the neighbourhood during the construction of such a development would clearly pose a danger to visitors of the park namely the young children that the park is geared towards. The massive developments on the other side of epping road are surely sufficent so as not to have to sacrifice this precious parcel of green space. It only makes sense to expamd this lovely oasis of calm in the hetic city, this area is fast becoming.
    There are numerous more reasons i could furnish you with to object to this development but do we really need to have to keep stating the obvious positives to saving greenspace. Just the fact that we are still after all this time, fighting to protect this parkland invokes feelings of a money grubbing government.
    Please put more concern to protecting our greenspace /parklands while we still have them to protect.

  24. In Newnham TAS on “Community Meeting and...” at 42-44 Alanvale Road Newnham TAS 7248:

    Lee Parish commented

    What community group is applying for the application ?
    and who do they represent ?

  25. In Campsie NSW on “Sec 96 (2) to modify the...” at 87 Fifth Avenue, Campsie NSW:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    Since the original DA indicates 60 units were proposed for this site, and it's now down to 56, why the need to modify internal floor heights and internal floor to ceiling heights? Unless the intention is to claw back space to add back extra units?

    To meet the definition "habitable room" the Building Code of Australia used to specify a minimum 2.4m internal ceiling height (excluding kitchens, stairwells etc). Assuming that's still the case, reducing ceiling heights therefore renders the space "uninhabitable".

    Presumably the Code is intended to protect people from living in pokey, low ceiling boxes.

    Of course, the proposed amendments might mean a cheaper build and the words "affordable housing" may be a clue.

    Council should reject the proposed amendments.

  26. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    M. Donald commented

    I live across the road from this new development. Traffic has already become an issue from other existing developments, especially during peak times and school times. I am also experiencing overcrowding from cars parked in the general area, there is simply not enough room for them. Even in my own estate it's causing issues where people are parking their cars outside someone else's house preventing them from parking. The car overcrowding is causing the main problems.

  27. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunications Tower” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    T Judd commented

    I strongly object to the proposed Optus/Vodafone tower at 120 Bullsgarden Road Gateshead. The initial DA was withdrawn and the amendments in the new DA such as the planting of vegetation does nothing to address the ongoing concerns myself and others have about the location of the tower. I myself do not live in the housing estate off Bullsgarden road, but I do live in the suburb of Whitebridge. I actually live closer to the tower in Dudley that was in recent years extended, which is proof that these towers once in place can be added to with no need for further approval. I accept the tower in Dudley as I moved into the area after it was constructed however I think it is outrageous that a new tower can be placed so close to an existing residential area with little regard to the health, quality of life and concerns of the existing residents. I believe Lilli Pilli trees, whilst lovely, have no chance of hiding a 37.25 metre tower and so aesthetically the area is also going to be affected. Surely there are other, more suitable areas that the tower can be placed?

  28. In Macquarie Hills NSW on “Dwelling House and...” at 59 Fitzwilliam Circuit, Macquarie Hills NSW 2285:

    paul dipper commented

    why don't you remove and re locate and not obstruct footpath

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 11 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Natasha Marcus-Taylor commented

    To The General Manager, to the attention of Laura Perry Re DA2002200921.02

    I rent a house on Shepherd Street Marrickville, I have lived in our house since 2010 with my partner and now our two young children.

    The DA seeks to modify the operation hours of 11 Rich Street (our rear boundary) to operate between the hours of 6AM and 12 Midnight 7 days /week.

    Obviously this will have an effect on our family and I object on the following grounds:

    1. The operation of this business has not been at capacity since I moved here in 2010. The business has infrequent hours of operation with the business sometimes commencing operation at 4AM.

    2. I live in a residential property joined by to the DA site by Wicks Lane. The use of a marble cutter, forklift and other heavy machinery before the hours of 7AM and after the hours of 6PM will cause noise and marble dust issues for my family and adversely affect my quality of life. I believe the hours should be restricted to 0700 to 1900. Mon-Sat.

    3. The proposed hours of operation will cause light pollution in my backyard and effect my quality of life. I believe that flood lighting should be turned off after 9 PM. Use of sensor lights for security purposes obviously should be permitted.

    4. The use of CCTV by the operator is understandable but currently it overlooks my backyard and interferes with my privacy.

  30. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Marilla Dann commented

    I am writing to you to voice my intense disappointment that Consideration has been filed re the development of the residential site on the corner of Epping and Blenheim road adjacent to Blenheim Park.
    As a rate-paying local resident I am totally against 16 story apartments being built on this site.
    North Ryde is bearing more than its fair share of state development and residential expansion with the many towers and units currently being built adjacent to Delhi road train station.
    At no time has a 16 story building been allowed on the southern side of Epping road and it would set a very dangerous precedent if allowed to go ahead.
    I am not anti development, and would support a reasonably sized unit development built on the site. No more than 3 stories in keeping with the low to medium density housing on this side of Epping road. The current owners are no doubt disappointed the council voted to amalgamate the land into the much need Blenheim park facility. But like all gambles there are no guarantees of a win in real estate prospecting.
    Our local north Ryde roads cannot cope with the current peak hour demands on Blenheim, Pittwater or Epping roads. How on earth would they support an additional 16 story residential development? The buses to the city and Epping are already full by the time they reach this destination also. How would public transport and infrastructure be increased to cope with the extra demand?
    You are our state representatives and I ask you to seriously consider the lack of merit in over-developing north Ryde on the quieter side of Epping road. You are responsible for enabling sufficient parkland and open space to cope for future increases in residential numbers, which will occur in the very near future with the completion of the towers at Delhi road.
    I am opposed to any residential development of this scale at Blenheim park. As my state representatives you have a duty of care to look after the majority of residents needs, not for greedy real estate prospectors who will do very well out of the sale of the 3 blocks to council to convert to green space. You can see from the dilapidated state of the 3 houses that the owners have no interest in maintaining the properties and are only after a quick and easy monetary win from the outgoing Ryde council.

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