Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Nelson commented

    I object the idea of using of artificial plantings. There are a lot of low maintenance plant to choose. Why use artificial instead?

  2. In Box Hill VIC on “Buildings and works for the...” at 20 Graham Place, Box Hill VIC 3128:

    Tuyen Ly commented

    Need an architectural drawing to review, can we have a copy or able to view online??
    Thanks for your attention
    Warm Regards
    Lee Tuyen Ly

  3. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Noelene commented

    Thanks Wendy for the email address for Penrith Council!
    Email sent and received!

  4. In Trigg WA on “Development Assessment...” at 331 West Coast Drive Trigg WA 6029:

    Roy Burton commented

    This proposed development exceeds every limit, but strangely the City of Stirling supports it. Plot ratio is 25% over, overshadowing is nearly 100% in excess, 47% instead own 25%, setbacks are almost non-existent, there is NO parking for the casual customer and no ACROD bay, building height is almost double that of the residence next door. Yet in every aspect except parking the City supports the proposal. There was a huge response to the Public Comments, with 85% of respondants who live within 200 metres, being against the development. All these people seem to have been ignored. It stinks.

  5. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    SMak commented

    They will need real plants to absorb odours coming out from the BBQ restaurant and gym right in front of them.

  6. In Katoomba NSW on “A two storey dwelling,...” at 40 Neale Street Katoomba NSW 2780:

    Robin Shannon commented

    In the previous DA by this applicant (X/212/2020), it was stated that surrounding properties were notified of the DA. As the occupant of 38 Neale Street at the time, I can state that no contact was made. I can only hope that surrounding properties are actually notified this time around.

  7. In Dolls Point NSW on “Installation of split...” at 11 / 19 - 21 Malua Street, Dolls Point NSW 2219:

    Robert J. Wilson commented

    I missed including the term ' haven't ". Please read the previous comment by me above as 'They haven't taken their neighbours opinions into account'. Nobody from that builidng has ever talked to me who lives next door to the subject installation.

  8. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Mrs Lyndy Rastall commented

    We the Residents of KINGSWOOD 100% agree with you Noelene .There is MORE than enough of these boarding houses .Council should look after us local LOYAL long time residents not the Developers . Most of the boarding Houses in KINGSWOOD have vacancies signs , so we DON’T need any more .Its all just greed . You need to put in a submission to Council as these comments DO NOT go to Council .

  9. In Dolls Point NSW on “Installation of split...” at 11 / 19 - 21 Malua Street, Dolls Point NSW 2219:

    Robert J. Wilson commented

    I feel this application should be rejected as the application has no merit and it exposes the immediate neighbours to adverse noise impacts and its not helping the environment by generating more Co2 emissions.

    I know for a fact the owners corporation of the subject building is poorly represented by a extremely biased strata committee who are passively reactive to their duties. They have their neighbours opinions into account.

  10. In North Adelaide SA on “Land division - 1 allotment...” at 195-199 Childers Street, North Adelaide SA 5006:

    Meg Ryan commented

    The proposal to demolish this substantial and historical significant house is abhorrent . Sadly this late Victorian house has not been heritage listed and the flawed process we have in this state for heritage listings needs to change.The plans I have seen appear to be for 4 budget style dwellings completely out of character in the heritage zoned PA1 area. There are now only 3 heritage houses left on that side of the street between Jefcott and Hill St in what's supposed to be a Heritage zoned precinct.That's why it should be classified as a significant local heritage place.Its been there for 130 years and has been immaculately renovated recently and maintained. There is no reason why these plans could not have incorporated townhouses to the back and the facade at least kept.The block I'm sure would be large enough for this to occur. I realise the state government regulations are somewhat to blame but council is the one that approves these plans.Very disappointing

  11. In North Adelaide SA on “Land division - 1 allotment...” at 195-199 Childers Street, North Adelaide SA 5006:

    Meg Ryan commented

    The proposal to demolish this substantial and historical significant house is abhorrent . Sadly this late Victorian house has not been heritage listed and the flawed process we have in this state for heritage listings needs to change.The plans I have seen appear to be for 4 budget style dwellings completely out of character in the heritage zoned PA1 area. There are now only 3 heritage houses left on that side of the street between Jefcott and Hill St in what's supposed to be a Heritage zoned precinct.That's why it should be classified as a significant local heritage place.Its been there for 130 years and has been immaculately renovated recently and maintained. There is no reason why these plans could not have incorporated townhouses to the back and the facade at least kept.The block I'm sure would be large enough for this to occur. I realise the state government regulations are somewhat to blame but council is the one that approves these plans.Very disappointing

  12. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Joseph Auclair commented

    What is wrong with this council. I understand that they have limited ability to stop this kind of development being approved as it is a state government issue, but at some stage they should be advocating to the state government on our behalf to maintain the aesthetics of the area. If the Brisbane City council can do it why can the largest council in Qld do it. No one is saying that all development should be stopped in the area but more oversight on infrastructure and impact to the surrounding character of the residential area. The plans show just another cheap low square metred monstrosity designed for quick sale to investors at the cost of the only true benefits of living in this area as middle income and low socioeconomic residents.
    Who does this council even represent?

  13. In Penrith NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 131 Cox Avenue, Penrith NSW 2750:

    Noelene O'Driscoll commented

    OMG PENRITH COUNCIL HOW GREEDY CAN YOU AND GREEDY DEVELOPERS BE?
    ALREADY GOT 49 APARTMENTS BEING BUILT ON MARKHAM AVENUE!
    DO WE REALLY NEED MORE? I even talk to the new owner and THEY WERE LYING WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PULL THE HOUSE DOWN!
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH PLEASE SAY NO! 😵

  14. In Mount Eliza VIC on “14 lot subdivision - spear” at 54-64 Mount Eliza Way Mount Eliza VIC 3930:

    Debra Marshall commented

    This development seems to be dawdling along. There has been almost a year without any work, proving to be an eyesore to the village and probably affecting trading at that end of the shops (noted by increased car parking spots available and not just through COVID times). Locals are mourning the loss of the stepped back facade that created an intimate feel in the street through its character. What is the time line for this development and what has been the delay in construction? I note that there are many planning levels/advice still unattended to.

  15. In Lawnton QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Gardiner Street, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Skye Ricardo commented

    It's a residential area not for highrise

  16. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Integrated Development -...” at 137 A Princes Highway, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Suzanne E commented

    Seriously, how many more high rises does this area need? If there are 8 levels of apartments there is clearly not enough parking with only 2 levels. Why do councils think that no one owns cars anymore? High-rises like these just end up causing parking chaos around them and causes streets to become narrower with all the street parking used. You just need to go a bit further down the road to around the Wolli Creek Woolworths to see how the excessive amount of high rises is causing an increase in street parking and traffic. There is also not enough infrastructure around this area to support the additional people living here.

  17. In Regents Park QLD on “Garage (Reduced Side...” at 98 Haldham Crescent Regents Park QLD 4118:

    Colin Gossip and Alexandra Williams commented

    As immediate resident landowner neighbours adjacent to the proposed shed we object to the location of the proposed garage/machining shed for the following reasons:

    1. Pool access and safety.
    The proximity of the proposal to a pool perimeter enclosure creates increased access opportunities through:

    a) the application for relaxion of the 1.5m side boundary distance that will effectively create a solid wall and 500mm access zone in which someone could brace themselves in such a way as to scale the fence (ie in a 'chimney-climb' style).

    b) the added opportunity of climbing assistance being gained through the storage of moveable materials such as steel reinforcing (as is currently being undertaken by the applicant against the extant garden shed), ladders, machinery or even vehicles which could be parked outside which could be used to aid access as a climbing prop via the vehicle doors, tyres etc if parked close to the fence;

    c) the elevation of the rear of the shed base height by
    900mm effectively reducing the height of the extant common fence by that amount in an area that is not readily visible from either residence for passive surveilance.

    2. Amenity - Noise, Odour, Emissions
    The size and location of any shed in the yard being limited by the sewer easement across the rear of both of our properties should not mean that one neighbour's amenity needs to be impacted unduly by the location, orientation or planned use for a garage/machining shed on one boundary.

    Omitted in the applicant's statement is their history (during approximately 15 years of being neighbours) of using the existing carport immediately adjacent to our dining/living area and in close proximity to our external undercover clothesline/kitchen garden area for:
    - regular running of a very loud vehicle engine (a Chevrolet that is quite loud even while it is idling as well as whrn being reversed up the driveway);
    - undertaking mechanical repairs to the same vehicle and a 4WD vehicle (2 of 3 vehicles kept at that address); and
    - the less regular but still noisy use of welding and metal grinding equipment associated with vehicle repairs by the resident and occassionally for the repair/mechanical work on vehicles of other visiting non-residents.

    With this type and history of 'home activity' usage that has on ocassions felt like we are living in an industrial zone next to a 'chop shop', we expect that activities planned for the proposed shed will be similar in nature and will effectively extend the noise, vibration and particulate/emissions impact from activities currently adjacent to our living area along almost the full extent of our outdoor private space (including our undercover clothesline, kitchen herb garden and outdoor dining/BBQ area, and further towards our pool, deck and garden area at the rear).

    We doubt that such activities will be undertaken inside the shed with the roller doors closed and see no reference to any noise abatement measures being incorporated either within or exterior to the shed as part of this application.

    3. Shade/Solar access.
    This is also partly related to amenity, through the potential for increased shading on the western side of our unheated inground pool and surrounds during late Autumn/Winter/early Spring. This may cause the possible reduction in the use of the pool by us as residents and our visitors (ie a relative regularly uses the pool in the warmer months for post cardio therapy).

    While the impact of regular noise of conversations may be more subjective to asses than lines-of-sight for privacy, the clear lack of a solar/shade diagram in the application does not substantiate the assertion in the application that the proposed shed will not create any shading impacts on the neighbouring property. In fact, we consider C. Jensen's statrment to be based on erroneous assumptions and not fact.

    The southern side of our rear deck awning already casts winter afternoon shade over much of the lower pool deck and in summer the vegetation comprising mostly Strelitzia nicolai (Giant Bird of Paradise palms amongst other palms and shrubs) to our west provides welcome broken shade to the pool area from the mid-afternoon.

    The Strelitzia also provides a steady nectar supply to a variety of honeyeaters, fruit bats and possums, particularly when there are few other native species flowering in the nearby Scrubby Creek reserve. We are planning to remove the small cubby house pool structure and do a gradual trimming/thinning and replacement planting with a mixture of fruit trees that would continue to provide for sumner shading from the west and food for ourselves and nectar-feeding birds and wildlife.

    However it would be difficult to achieve a suitable sapling growing environment in deep afternoon shade due to the close proximity of a shed that is:
    1.61m higher than a 1.8m pool fence at the front; and extending up to
    2.36m higher than the fence at the rear
    (3.26m above the 0.9m built up ground level at the rear less 1.8m fence. *Calculations based on design measurements provided in application.]

    We have taken a photograph of the shadow we already have at approx. 12:30pm on 21 June 2020.
    A mid-afternoon site inspection (while winter shadows are at their full extent) is invited.

    We have requested of the applicant that the timing of a fence upgrade to colourbond (Primrose Wavelock profile) to match the rest of the common fence ooccur BEFORE the construction of the shed (if that is approved) as access to the fenceline after any structure is built, particularly if within 500mm of the boundary, would necessitate removal of much of the vegetation to facilitate access from our side of the property. We are aware of 2 large palm trees and a lillypilly that will meed to be removed for the construction, this has also been omitted in tathepplication.

    If approved as is, we would appreciate a condition to the development requiring the fenceline being constructed along the length to a height that ensures the required pool fence safety height is created for AFTER the shed's construction. We are prepared to contribute 50% of the material cost and our labour for a 1.8m fence. It would be reasonable to expect that any additional material costs to ensure compliance re additional height conditions created by tbe proposed structure should be met fully by the applicant.

    In summary, unless the applicant is willing to consider any or a combination of:
    1. relocation of the structure away from our common boundary;
    2. a shed of smaller size;
    3. reorientation of the opening away from our private space, or a design that facilitates stacked parking eg with a right hand turn from the proposed driveway extension and shed location towards the middle or at the western side of the applicant's property;
    or
    4. construction of a more solid ie masonry boundary wall to a height that achieves both pool safety and noise mitigation measures (at the applicant's expense),
    we respectfully request this application be refused on the grounds that it does not comply, particularly with regards to the Logan Planning Scheme (2005) objectives re 6.2.5.2 - 2c, 3a i), ii) & iii) and 3b for the reasons provided above.

  18. In Tweed Heads NSW on “Temporary installation of...” at 60 Boundary Street, Tweed Heads NSW 2485:

    Robyn foldi commented

    No thanks. Leave Jack Evans Boat Harbour alone . No one needs an observation wheel cluttering up the few open spaces left in Tweed heads

  19. In Doreen VIC on “Subdivision of land Two lot...” at 13-15 Laurimar Hill Drive Doreen VIC 3754:

    Matt Keys commented

    I think this is a positive for the area.
    With little to no land left to purchase in laurimar this gives more opportunity for people to purchase within the laurimar community.

    Approval may influence others with un used land to consider subdivision to further expand a great community that is becoming harder to be apart of.

  20. In Denham Court NSW on “Additions and alterations...” at 12-14 Zouch Road Denham Court NSW 2565:

    Julian Evans commented

    This planning approval will be reported to the Australian Royal commission. This high control group is hiding assets so as to avoid paying victims of abuse.

  21. In Denham Court NSW on “Additions and alterations...” at 12-14 Zouch Road Denham Court NSW 2565:

    Julian Evans commented

    This planning approval will be reported to the Australian Royal commission. This high control group is hiding assets so as to avoid paying victims of abuse.

  22. In Tweed Heads NSW on “Temporary installation of...” at 60 Boundary Street, Tweed Heads NSW 2485:

    Gary Griffiths commented

    This is bad idea. Local businesses are having trouble keeping afloat, don't bring ousider businesses in that will take money from the local sources.
    Crime, littering, vandalism and vagrancy are rife and uncontrolled in Tweed Heads townsite now and this will only add to the problem.
    Until the Tweed Shire learn to manage the townsite and surrounding areas they should not venture into areas they cannot manage.
    Look at the difference from one side of boundary to the other (Qld vs NSW) Ask Gold Coast Council how to do it so well if you get a chance.

  23. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 45 Orchard Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Graeme Williams commented

    We continue to see applications for tree removals, seemingly unabated, in our beautiful suburb. Not one of these applications provides any detail as to why the trees are being targeted for removal and whether there is any commitment or requirement for the applicant to plant replacement trees to offset their loss. We choose to live in Beecroft because it is a leafy suburb and for that description to be maintained we must keep trees wherever we can or replace them if they have to be removed.

  24. In Eastwood NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) to modify...” at 13 Glen St Eastwood NSW 2122:

    M.McCartney commented

    The Modification 2020/0118 for LDA2017/0007 records there is no need for notification. I would like to request that there is a notification and exhibition period for this DA Modification. Surely this is a requirement for a modification such as this.
    The request to substitute the stamped approved Landscaping Plan for the real plantings with artificial plants should be rejected. The live plantings have been chosen to ensure there is replacement of the trees and vegetation removed from the site. Real plants are also to enhance the environment for the benefit of the community and wildlife.
    We wouldn't substitute real food with artificial food so the same should apply to plants.

  25. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Joan Elizabeth Nimmo commented

    MBRC Planners and Councillors,

    I am a resident of Godwin Beach. I wish to object the Material Change of Use application for 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach on the following planning grounds:

    1. The proposed use is not supported under the current planning scheme.
    2. Insufficient detail is provided by the proponent in relation to traffic management.
    3. The proponent provide insufficient detail in relation to the developments impact on infrastructure such as stormwater and sewer management. In particular, the impact of hard stand to nearby mangroves.
    4. The application provides no or insufficient detail in relation to the environmental impact of their application. In particular, the impact on migrating birds, rare and endangered wildlife located in an import nursery habitat.
    5. The proposed application provides insufficient setback to waterway and adjoining properties.
    6. The proposed change of use is not in keeping with adjoining residential and rural land use.
    7. The proposal provides insufficient provision for refuse management and collection.

    While I am a strong supporter of development in this region, this proposal fails the test of good development and is far from being Eco friendly.

  26. In Ultimo NSW on “Fit out and use of part of...” at 47-53 Jones Street Ultimo NSW 2007:

    Mark Hansen commented

    Very supportive, we critically need more childcare in Pyrmont.

  27. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 45 Orchard Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Bill Rankine commented

    Why are the trees being removed?
    There are no documents to view and no reason given for the tree removals.

  28. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Construction of a mixed-use...” at 36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park:

    John commented

    Our property adjoins, i was not notified AFAIK of anything in May, 2020...

    Only here now because of 'new'??? DA...

    Gobsmacked.

  29. In Pearl Beach NSW on “Ree 1 - Livistona australis...” at 51 Crystal Avenue, Pearl Beach NSW 2256:

    Stephen Parsons commented

    Euc. Botryoides is one of the signature trees of Pearl Beach. They should not be wantonly destroyed. The proposal should be rejected. The cumulative effect of such individual selfish actions is to greatly erode the amenity and environment of Pearl Beach.

  30. In Para Hills SA on “Three single storey dwelling” at 3 Cynthia Street , Para Hills SA 5096:

    Anthony Firtzpatrick commented

    I am absolutely against a 3 dwelling application for this site. This will result in semi permanent to permanent car parking on the street around the clock restricting ease of access for through traffic. Furthermore consider the people opposite this proposed development and the major inconvenience to them as they enter and leave their home. A 3 dwelling development will cause congestion, put any children at risk as traffice is delayed and the risk of people taking risks increase. Do not approve a 3 dwelling construction. Put a restriction on the buyers as to parking on the street. Public streets are for the public, not for people to buy cheaper housing and then use our street as a permanent car park.

This week