Recent comments

  1. In Kellyville NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 133 Samantha Riley Dr, Kellyville, NSW:

    Annali commented

    As someone closely involved with the school, I don't believe it's right to have the selling of alcohol occuring within such a close proximity of where minors are receiving their education. What message is that sending to them and promoting when the goal is to teach them responsible use. You wouldn't set up an adult-only store so close, why would the selling of alcohol, also only for people over 18, be any different?

  2. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Mey Leng commented

    The Knox Council in their wisdom have actually done a great job with rezoning areas and keeping dense developments to the main roads providing opportunities for young families and couples to take advantage of public transport, local shops, and affordable housing. This is a very well thought proposal and it meets Local and State Government Planning Policy Framework regarding growth zone developments. We highly support and encourage such developments specially when such energy efficient architecturally designed townhouses are proposed surrounded by an extensive meaningful landscape design accommodating canopy trees. Furthermore, this site has good access to public transport being located on the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) which is another reason why we are in full support of more townhouses and apartments built along Stud Road. We highly support this development and a big thanks to Knox Council for their support.

  3. In Loganholme QLD on “Multiple Dwelling (8...” at 85 Timor Avenue Loganholme QLD 4129:

    Colin park commented

    Great I am totally in favour with the development of 85 Timor Ave loganholme

  4. In Forestville NSW on “Tree Application” at 11 - 13 Bernie Avenue, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Kathryn Hill commented

    Dear Council,
    Re: Application Number: DA2016/1110
    We learned with dismay of the planned tree felling at 11-13 Bernie Ave, Forestville, a recent unit block built in our cul de sac. We would like the council to be aware in assessing this application that:
    1) This development felled close to 50 mature trees in its construction.
    2) The size, scale and design of this development was acknowledged at the time of planning application as not being in keeping with the neighbourhood character, style or amenity. We were told that the unit block would ”settle” into the neighbourhood over time due to plantings and the remaining trees. The trees on this lot are the only thing that soften this large box style unit block from the street view and that provide privacy to neighbours.
    3) The trees to remain after the build –their size, scale and proximity to the buildings/drains was clear at time of building and to the strata at the time of buying the units. It is not appropriate to wait until after the build to continue to fell trees due to poor planning.
    4) The large gum tree in the front entrance has already been trimmed twice this year. We have already contacted the council with concerns for this tree and it is now being proposed to be trimmed again.

    We ask that the council acknowledge that the amenity of our neighbourhood has been severely comprised by this development and that the trees left on this block are vital to preserve our streetscape and privacy. As such we ask council to reject this application. We ask that the strata at 11-13 Bernie Ave. work with council experts on the best management of trees that have such a large impact on the neighbourhood amenity instead of cutting them down or pruning them to the point of compromising their survival. Council experts should assess the impact of yet another trim on the health of the gum tree.

    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely
    Kathryn Hill

  5. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 682 Kingsway Miranda 2228:

    Mr Lawler commented

    This development does not meet the DCP aims; at a fundamental level, it leaves 2 properties bordered by the laneway isolated. The development will cause loss of privacy, loss of natural light and sun. The DA is also factually incorrect in that it asserts that the adjoining properties are on the market; they are not and the laneway location continues to hamper a holistic precinct development.

  6. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Fletcher Simpkins commented

    I object to the increase in heights as this is a move to increase the density of people in the space, however, there is no planning for supporting infrastructure to deal with the added congestion. There are several medium rise apartment blocks approaching completion within a 2km radius of the proposal but no work has been undertaken for road widening, additional buses or ferries, additional parking. This development will greatly add to the congestion along Victoria and Pittwater roads.

    I also agree with other submissions that the high rise will not provide any benefit to local residences due to overshadowing and is out of character for the area.

  7. In Holmview QLD on “Dual Occupancy (Against...” at 310 Tallagandra Road Holmview QLD 4207:

    Lincoln Booker wrote to local councillor Stacey McIntosh

    Dual occupancy dwellings should not be approved, the blocks in the Vale are too small. There are already too many of these types of dwellings in the Vale now and is turning our suburb potentially into a slum. I totally disagree with this application and this should not be approved and most of the owner occupiers in the Vale would agree.

    S M
    Stacey McIntosh local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Lincoln Booker

    Thank you for contacting the office of Stacey McIntosh, Logan City Councillor for Division 6.

    I confirm your email has been received and will be responded to as soon as possible.

    Warmest regards,

    Stacey

    [2016 Cr Stacey McIntosh Email SignatureNEW]

    *********************************************************************
    This email, including any attachment, is confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be privileged and may be subject to copyright. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the email. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived. Neither the Council nor the sender warrant that this email does not contain any viruses or other unsolicited items.

    This email is an informal Council communication. The Council only accepts responsibility for information sent under official letterhead and duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Chief Executive Officer.

    Privacy Collection Notice
    Logan City Council may collect your personal information e.g. name, residential address, phone number etc, in order to conduct its business and/or meet its statutory obligations. The information may be accessed by and/or transferred to business partners, contractors, employees and/or Councillors of Logan City Council and other government agencies for Council business related activities. Your information will be handled in accordance with the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and may be released to other parties where we are required or authorised by law to do so.

  8. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of two (2)...” at 32 Bardwell Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Cameron Hons commented

    It's just going to be another eyesore, in an area that is completely unfit for these structures.

  9. In Westmead NSW on “Development Application” at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and 2a Darcy Road Westmead NSW 2145:

    Erica Koch commented

    This development is for a proposed 556 units. On the assumption that there are two adults in each unit, that means over 1,000 more people waiting at Westmead station for the already crowded trains.

    When travelling along the Western line towards Penrith, I have seen many enormous unit developments. How are all these people going to get to work? How am I going to get a seat on the train when all these additional people are fighting for a seat?

    Sydney does not have the infrastructure and particularly the trains to cope with this additional influx of people to our railway stations. The trains stopping at Westmead do not have the capacity for another 1,000 people.

  10. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Nicholas Lea commented

    The increase in the proposed building height from 28m to 58m is well and truly out of keeping with the Cowell St local area. This will cast long and deep shadows over much of the surrounding area. To my mind, this is certainly not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville. We are not Top Ryde!

  11. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Jeff Hayes commented

    To more than double the height of allowable developments clearly goes against the surrounding area and will impact significantly on existing local residents. We are no strangers to developers who live out of the region attempting to place massively out of context buildings in the Gladesville/Hunters Hill area but this is change to the existing environmental plan allows for something that will be too large.

    Slowly but surely we are becoming the new Chatswood - but we don't have a rail line. So where are the infrastructure investments to go alongside the developments?

    Again, I object to this environmental plan amendment to increase allowable heights due to impacts on surrounding residents, car parking and congestion issues that will result from a major development and that overall it is not in line with the surrounding region.

  12. In Marsden QLD on “Commerical - Office” at Marsden Depot 181-191 Chambers Flat Road Marsden QLD 4132:

    Jordan commented

    Hello my name is jordan packer i just wanted to know if i can work with yours i love fixing trucks ride ons and im a hands on person

  13. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Mark Barrile commented

    Enough is enough for this estate. We have seen endless sub-division and expansion of property in the Anne Rd area and as yet still have no controlled intersections to get is and out of our suburban streets. Waiting 10 to 15 minutes to get out of our pwn streets is not a quality lifestyle. Add to the issue of traffic, now council is adding height? Why? I think I know the answer, to reduce neighboring values and alow easier pick up by the same developers. This is spreading like a cancer across Knox its time to say enough!

  14. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Kirsten Schumann commented

    Dear Sir,
    To increase the building height from 28m to 58m is extreme and out of context of the area. Clearly this is to encourage skyscraper towers to be built along the Cowell Street area, causing shadow and ghetto like areas with tiny lanes for car access and little to no parking. This is not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville.I object to this building height incease proposal and add again that there is very limited car access to this area that is clearly being positioned for massive development.

  15. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 367 Cotham Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Aliya Porter wrote to local councillor Judith Voce

    I am extremely concerned abut the proposed development at 367 Cotham Rd, Kew on the corner of Bradford Ave, opposite the Traffic School. (PP16/00548)

    The building, consisting of 31 units over 4 storeys plus 2 levels of underground parking is too high at 12.64 metres. With its visual bulk it would be an unwanted addition to the streetscape at the highest point in Kew. It would set a precedent for new 4 storey development along Cotham Rd.

    The development should be reduced to 3 storeys and the third storey should be stepped back further so that it appears less bulky. This would also reduce overlooking for the several properties that abutt the development.

    The building design and materials both need to respect the neighbourhood character of 1 and 2 storey period homes. Black fluted concrete is not in keeping with this area.

    Our local amenity is under threat.

    I have found useful information about objecting to this development on a flyer. Email
    Oppose367Cotham@gmail.com for a flyer or further information.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Voce. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot 1 into...” at 6 Mary Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    Another disgrace about to happen with this council that has no idea of planning

  17. In Bayswater VIC on “Construction of 19...” at 639 Mountain Highway, Bayswater VIC 3153:

    Jane Bowman commented

    As a local home owner and resident of area, I was just wondering if a asbestos inspection has being done on this property??. Given the era of the house and sheds to be demolished it is likely to have asbestos on the property.

    Thanks

  18. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a...” at 1306 Malvern Road, Malvern, VIC:

    The Colonel commented

    Another disgraceful act of vandalism in the recent demolition of this building (1306 Malvern Road).....Malvern Road alone is littered with demolitions...makes us all realise what it must be like living in Syria and the city of Mosul...the really sick thing is we don't have a war here...we just voluntarily destroy our heritage! (with the assistance of various local and international property speculators) .....thank god they don't let this sort of pathetic behaviour manifest in cities like Paris, Budapest and Vienna.

  19. In Roseville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Maclaurin Parade, Roseville, NSW:

    Giles Haynes commented

    You have got to be joking. What about access? It's bad enough as it is and this will only make things worse.

  20. In Warners Bay NSW on “Proposed 1 into 2 Lot...” at 270 Hillsborough Road, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Heather Cleary wrote to local councillor Kay Fraser

    I am extremely concerned about the high density nature of this development, affecting the residential topography of this area. Not only is this area a wildlife corridor sheltering sugar gliders, extremely rare black cockatoos, possums and other native animals at risk, but the development will seriously affect drainage, shade, and create noise issues in what is a quiet residential street. The close proximity of 72 units housed in two story buildings within three metres of our fence line is unacceptable, as it will seriously impact both our properties, our privacy and our quality of life.

    It is unfortunate that when one of our neighbours made enquiries she was kindly told that she had nothing to worry about. It was the neighbours at the other end of the street who have the problem. As one of those neighbours at the other end of Myles Avenue, I object on these grounds:

    1. High density development in a previously low density residential area, resulting in increased noise seven days a week, 24 hours a day
    2. The two storey buildings will compromise privacy
    3. An impact on water run off and drainage in an area with a storm water drain and existing water issues
    4. Shadow impact upon my property due to two storey buildings
    5. Vulnerable wildlife will be unable to co-exist within the current plan. This will not be complementary to Council's very laudable attempts to encourage wildlife in backyards
    6. The fact that the development is only three metres from my fence line, rather than the ten metres on the opposite side which would solve many of these issues.

    Photo of Kay Fraser
    Kay Fraser local councillor for Lake Macquarie City Council
    replied to Heather Cleary

    Dear Heather
    Thank you for your email and I have forwarded your concerns onto the assessing officer to be included as part of the assessment.
    Kind regards
    Kay
    Cr Kay Fraser
    Mayor
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    126-138 Main Road Speers Point NSW 2284
    Box 1906 HRMC NSW 2310
    www.facebook.com/CrKayFraser
    twitter.com/MayorKayFraser

  21. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 48 Commodore Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Dorothy Pellarini commented

    I wish to object to the above application on the basis of :

    1. Privacy:
    The proposed two storey building will extend to approximately three metres from the back boundary line. The side of the first floor facing my property will have a fixed glass window with a privacy screen of 1500mm from the floor, this height is not adequate to block the view into my backyard. Also the proposed balcony on the first floor will look directly into my backyard.
    2. Street Appeal
    The proposed modern building will be seen from the street which I believe is not in keeping with existing properties in Commodore St.

  22. In Redland Bay QLD on “Shop, Drive Through...” at 75 Boundary Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Aj wrote to local councillor Mark Edwards

    We need more shops around the redland bay area. Booming population new estates comming up. It would be nice to see this type of development on collins st redland bay where there is a large new estate comming up, or even near serpentine creek rd near cleveland redland bay road

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Edwards. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Grace R commented

    This development is not on a main road, close town center, university or hospital where boarding houses are usually located. Who would be their residents? It is almost reality to turn this building into AirBNB property, which is against the principle behind the affordable housing for Australians!

  24. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Young Street, Parkside:

    Jeremy Glaros commented

    I own 9/71 Young Street and am also firmly against the removal of this magnificent tree. I believe it will materially and detrimentally alter the character of the street. For this reason, I also ask that a second opinion should be sought.

    Also, can you please send the arborist's report to me?

    Regards,
    Jeremy

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out the...” at 313-319 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Dean Summers commented

    Apparently I'm too late for my comments to officially matter however the three key issues must be addressed.
    11, 10 and 9 stories of Mvrac is completely out of character with Marrickville and far exceeds the existing the height of area.
    The token percentage of affordable housing is disgraceful and again out of step with community standards in the area.
    The impact of traffic from the three apartment towers will cause further traffic gridlock at critical times around school pick up and drop off.

  26. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Lauren Kim commented

    I strongly object to the development proposal of boarding house on 123 Ray road Epping.
    Their application is in clear violation of the R2 zoning of the area and will have detrimental effect to the family friendly neighbourhood of Epping.
    I strongly urge the council to consider needs of the present residents of the area and to take into consideration the traffic congestion and limited transport ability to handle such dramatic increase in the local population in a limited area.

    Please do not allow such clearly illegal development proposal to be passed.

  27. In Belmont North NSW on “Child Care Centre” at 200 Pacific Highway, Belmont North NSW 2280:

    Ave commented

    The existing infrastructure around this area is totally unsuitable for centres that will bring increased traffic. They are single track roads with Housing at each side and parking on a busy road to get children out of cars is an accident waiting to happen. There is a childcare centre in Valentine that has a tiny car park but the majority of parents park on the road often unloading when moving traffic is flying past to work etc.

  28. In Lane Cove NSW on “S4.55 Modification of...” at 296 Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    P. Bailey-Smith commented

    I have a unit in Burns Bay Road close to no 296 and have been astounded to observe the development in this area in the past 3 years. The infrastructure has not kept pace with the development. I share the concerns of the other respondents regarding traffic flow, parking, green space and public transport. I agree with the comment that this previously attractive area is beginning to resemble a rabbit warren. The proposal to build a shop and child care centre is positive but I urge Lane Cove Councillors and Planning Authority members to visit the site and seriously question if we need more units. A recent Citibank report specifically mentions Lane Cove as being at risk of an oversupply of units by 2017.

  29. In Belmont North NSW on “Child Care Centre” at 200 Pacific Highway, Belmont North NSW 2280:

    Mitchell Adams commented

    This is not suitable for this corner property, it will be to close the Highway and those poor children will subjected to carcinogenic fumes from trucks and cars. Violet Town Rd. is a race track and the traffic report says that south bound traffic will use the Floraville Rd intersection to go south AT SCHOOL HOURS, the traffic around Floraville public school was not taken into consideration and please note that most traffic takes a short cut down Camberwarra Dr and then across to Floraville Rd via Nyanda Ave, this will increase traffic through suburbia and pass another preschool.
    The traffic report also stated that there was 40kmh zone already in the area, these are the ones that are supposed to be observed when a bus is stopped and flashing its 40kmh lights which NO ONE observes, so you have traffic doing 80kmh and above right next to the proposed child car centre, I wouldn't let my child go there even if it was the last one around. If cars are going to exit the car park and turn right they will not be able to see the cars coming off the highway from north or south until it is to late. If this is approved it will be a disaster waiting to happen with possible motor vehicle accidents or even worse a child getting cancer from the fumes. I think an air quality study should be done over a period of at least 4 weeks to see how much they will be exposed to.

  30. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 367 Cotham Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Jasper Coghlan wrote to local councillor Judith Voce

    This development at 367 Cotham Rd, Kew on the corner of Bradford Ave, near the Traffic School is an overdevelopment of the site (31 apartments, 6 levels including 2 underground).

    The building is too high (12.6 metres) and the 4th storey makes the building too bulky and dominant on the crest of a hill that is the highest point in Kew. The design and materials used are not sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character. With 75 car spaces there will be additional traffic jams adjacent to a busy pedestrian crossing.

    The 4th storey needs to be eliminated and the number of units reduced. The exterior needs to be better articulated and the materials changed, e.g., no black cladding.

    I am happy to provide more details and additional concerns as well as other suggested changes. I can be contacted via the Bradford Ave Resident Group via email at Oppose367Cotham@gmail.com

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Voce. They are yet to respond.

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