Recent comments

  1. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Catherine Leigh commented

    5 dwellings are just too much for this block. Consider each house having a minimum of 2 vehicles , the street is not capable to have that many additional vehicles.
    I moved to Eltham over 15 years ago for the large blocks and the beautiful green suburb, it’s so sad to see what has happened to Eltham with everything being built on top of each other. We will start to become the next Doncaster or BoxHill. Very very sad.

  2. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Zayra Millan commented

    I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed development at 40 Bishop Street. My reasons are because 1) there is inappropriate road infrastructure for the proposed parking on Jarvie Avenue; 2) the proposal is not aligned to the physical and 3) community character of the streets concerned – Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue, the latter is a Heritage Conservation Area; 4) it will be disruptive to the community due to noise and traffic. These reasons are detailed further below:

    1. The proposal of 40 Bishop street will require entrance to parking via Jarvie Avenue. However, Jarvie Ave LACKS THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE to meet this purpose. It cannot support the increase in demand for parking and increase in vehicle traffic. This is because Jarvie Ave is an unusually narrow s-shaped street where traffic is required to give way to pull aside for oncoming traffic at various points. Jarvie Ave is a small, single-laned street, and has limited parking space for residents. It is not suited for use as a thoroughfare for parking, or for resident/guest parking for a 10 room boarding house. The traffic impact study provided notes that there is limited offstreet parking in the area and that Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are primarily pedestrian streets. These streets are designed to support an increase in vehicle traffic/parking demands.

    2. The proposal is not aligned to the physical character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Jarvie Avenue is a Heritage Conservation Area. This order was raised to protect the “aesthetic significance” of the homes here, homes that are examples of single storey Inter-War bungalows. The proposal for 40 Bishop Street will negatively impact this Conservation Area. This is because it proposes to build a double storey modern-designed building that does not match the heritage of houses surrounding it. The transport impact study also notes that the surrounding area are predominantly single storey residential homes.

    3. The proposal is not aligned to the community character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Both Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are quiet, family-oriented (babies, young children), primarily owner-occupied residential streets. The proposed use of 40 Bishop street is inconsistent with the family-oriented landscape of our streets because it comprises single-occupancy rooms targeted to individual residents.

    4. The proposal is disruptive to the community. It will generate an increase in noise due to increased vehicle, pedestrian, and noise from the outdoor communal space. This will disrupt the day to day living of residents on Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue. Jarvie Ave is ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE to noise. The Inter War character of the homes on Jarvie Ave means that they have minimal setbacks from the street – this means that the front of the homes are very close to the streets and are sensitive to noise.

  3. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Jeff Nestor commented

    An 8 story student accomodation building on the corner of the Murrumbeena shopping strip and opposite the sky rail station will be an absolute blot on the whole local landscape......and an open invitation to wall in Melbourne St. as the shopping strip will just play for the same absurd height.
    Carnegie is already copping these absurd heights that can be seen from a kilometre away as you approach the local shopping precinct. It’s noted that these developments are just walling in neighbourhoods all through Glen Eira and parking is becoming a joke with all the parking facility exemptions......be it Carnegie, Elsternwick or Bentleigh.

    People bought into these neighbourhoods for the amenity and local community life.

    The last thing this corner needs is an 8 story student accomodation project that will be a slum in 10 years time.........look at the corner of Arrawatta and Koornang Rd. behind Carnegie Aldi. A visual blot that looks ready for demolition after less than 7 years. And now with 12(?) stories next to it. Again right opposite the station. All that public space under the sky rail will never see the light of day.....ever.

    Listen to the local community!

  4. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Merv Gillespie commented

    Clearly, the only beneficiaries of this project are the developer and the council.
    The Tyabb township and residents would not benefit, in fact the very village type atmosphere would suffer from the proposed high density development and dramatically increased traffic pressures.
    It’s not hard to foresee a troublesome future when only a small percentage of residents in a 180 unit complex start insisting on quiet enjoyment and begin complaining about nuisance aeroplanes.
    To put this ridiculous application into some context, this proposal is to put over five percent of Tyabb’s current population into that one block of land at 59 Stuart Road along with possibly 250+ cars.
    This proposal is a recipe for future friction, discontent and ongoing conflict that will only cause more division within the community.
    Therefore I strongly oppose granting this development application.

  5. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Dawn Laity commented

    I am appalled at the thought of another high density development in this area. In the areas of Hastings/Bittern there are shops and services to support these developments. I actually live in one. Tyabb on the other hand has a rural and village atmosphere and is unable to support the increased population. I have not even mentioned the airport/train line. Older people with an expectation of a quiet resort style life will not be happy with the noise being so close. It is an entirely unsuitable position for a development of this type. Please have some sense and do not approve this application.

  6. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 140 Bolton Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Arun Parmar commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I live at 3 Walsh Street, Eltham VIC 3095. We are sharing the fence with 140 Bolton Street, Eltham VIC 3095 (140 Bolton Street). I have asked the owner of 140 Bolton Street to replace the fence more than a year ago and he was agreed to do so but he never replaces it. I believe he knows that he is going to upgrade the property and intentionally wasn't doing so. My concern is to have a new fence before the construction work. The current fence is too old and it can fall down at any time which I have told to the owner of 140 Bolton Street already. I hope this matter will be taken into consideration.
    I am a bit concern with my privacy. I have two kids and want to live secure with my privacy. If there are any windows facing my property I want them to use privacy windows so that I retain my privacy.

    Kind regards,
    Arun

  7. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 23 Harold Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    David W commented

    I support this application as It’s great to see Parramatta becoming a City we need more investors willing to develop and enhance our city into a modern metropolis

  8. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    K Crute commented

    I agree with the above comments regarding lack of infrastructure, lack of facilities, the site being so close to the airfield and the railway. Given that council are making things very difficult for local business and community organisations I don’t see how a development of this size should be allowed to go ahead.

  9. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Meaghan Clark commented

    Not happy about this proposal so it’s a massive NO from me. Nuwarra road is completely shadowed by the latest appartments and I agree with other comments that they are not aesthetically pleasing nor fitting in with the area. You allowed George’s Fair to develop 5-10 years ago as a housing estate and then you approve these cheap alternatives to get people in the area only to overcrowd and devalued it. The people of moorebank are not impressed with the choices you are making for the community you serve. Enough is enough.

  10. In Hornsby NSW on “Section 4.55 (2) -...” at 42 Nursery Street Hornsby NSW 2077:

    Alison Rodger commented

    The current building work has already wrecked the footpath on Frederick St making it dangerous to walk on especially in the dark. I note some patching has been done but it hasn't resolved the issue. I hope this additional work won't make it any worse.

  11. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Tim Bedding commented

    We object to the proposal on the grounds that the planned 10-room boarding house is not in keeping with the character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Those of us who bought into this area have come to appreciate the quiet enviroment and famkly-friendly atmosphere. Our house is directly across the street from the rear of 40 Bishop Street and our bedrooms, which are at the front of our proprety, face directly onto the rear of the proposed development. As such, we are particularly concerned about noise from the outdoor space at the rear of the proposed development, as well as from the outdoor balcony. If the project goes ahead, we request that the use of the outdoor areas be restricted to times between 8am and 10pm.

  12. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    ANDREW commented

    RE DA 382 2019

    I must say that I was utterley stunned when I received this planning alert . As far as I knew , the only area around here that would be approved for dwellings of 3 or more stories would be Anzac Parade . This development would be completely out of character in the proposed location on Robey Street . In the winter months an enormous shadow is going to be cast on properties to the south of 41 Robey Street . As well as that , as many others have already referred to , if this development goes ahead street parking will become an utter nightmare for those without off street parking allocation . Then there is the privacy issue . There will be three properties ; and two in particular where all sense of privacy is going to be completely lost . Where previously there was only a single story property behind a 2 metre fence , there may now be as many as 31 units having a free view into these properties . This is outrageous to say the least ; whereby you have privacy then suddenly it is all lost . I cannot beleive that the council is even considering approving this development as it is completely wrong . Thank you .

  13. In Edithvale VIC on “General Licence” at 264 Nepean Hwy, Edithvale 3196, VIC:

    Liz Klar & Geoff Eicke commented

    Re liquor applications 66265A01 (general licence) and 02 (Permanent Underage Authority) for THE CROWDED HOUR BAR, EDITHVALE 3196. This started up portraying itself as a daylight, limited hours coffee shop feeding tradies and others, which we fully support as it provides choice. The original applicant Bo Gurks (applicant aka MUFFIN HOLDINGS PTY LTD since complaints started?) boast at
    http://picdeer.com/bogurks : "It's a long road. One step at a time. Australian craft liquor boutique on the beach is the destination."
    The true agenda is booze on the beach and the story of Bo Gurks is laid bare on their web pages. e.g. asking for support to fight locals' objections to liquor at Edithvale on https://tiktogram.com/user/bogurks and https://www.instazu.com/tag/bogurksaustraliancraftliquorboutique .
    Edithvale is a quiet village currently tolerating a lot of noisy redevelopment. If Bo Gurks gets its liquor licence, it is almost certain to ask to extend its hours to dinner time and beyond as an outlet for it's craft liquor. This is not in keeping with the quiet village feel of Edithvale, nor would kids be safe around such an environment - the massage parlours are bad enough. BYO licence might be different.

  14. In Burpengary East QLD on “Request to Change (Minor) -...” at 49 Creek Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Donald Campbell commented

    This land was cleared over 3 years ago and we are having to clean all the dust from the empty block from our house, roof, and solar system; residents Pacific Palms Village feel vulnerable from the outside elements!

    It would have been better for the land to be left alone as we had so much flora and fauna, many would have been killed, including a Koala, when I wrote to the council, their lack of interest was horrific. It's time something was done with that land once and for all; I think it is time for the council to be investigating.

  15. In Edithvale VIC on “Permanent Underage...” at 264 Nepean Hwy, Edithvale 3196, VIC:

    Liz Klar & Geoff Eicke commented

    Re liquor applications 66265A01 (general licence) and 02 (Permanent Underage Authority) for THE CROWDED HOUR BAR, EDITHVALE 3196. This started up portraying itself as a daylight, limited hours coffee shop feeding tradies and others, which we fully support as it provides choice. The original applicant Bo Gurks (applicant aka MUFFIN HOLDINGS PTY LTD since complaints started?) boast at
    http://picdeer.com/bogurks : "It's a long road. One step at a time. Australian craft liquor boutique on the beach is the destination."
    The true agenda is booze on the beach and the story of Bo Gurks is laid bare on their web pages. e.g. asking for support to fight locals' objections to liquor at Edithvale on https://tiktogram.com/user/bogurks and https://www.instazu.com/tag/bogurksaustraliancraftliquorboutique .
    Edithvale is a quiet village currently tolerating a lot of noisy redevelopment. If Bo Gurks gets its liqour licence, it is almost certain to ask to extend it's hours to dinner time and beyond as an outlet for it's craft liquor. This is not in keeping with the quiet village feel of Edithvale, nor would kids be safe around such an environment - the massage parlours are bad enough. BYO licence might be different.
    Any doubt that Bo Gurks owns the Crowded Hour Bar? See https://australia247.info/explore/victoria/kingston_city/edithvale/bo_gurks.html

  16. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Anonymous commented

    We approve this DA, and plenty more Boarding House DA's for Maroubra. It's good for business so guys just stop whinging and start investing! Don't knock it til you try it!

    If not, there are plenty of other places to live. And btw, Council are doing a great job, pls keep it up. We love your support.

  17. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 23 Harold Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Pamela T commented

    We wish to object to the proposal, although unfortunately any feedback to date on previous developments appears to have no impact on decision making when money is generated for stakeholders even at the expense of a lowered standard of living for those in the area. The development is far too high in relation to comparative buildings in the immediate area. Neighbouring properties behind only 3 stories, will be overshadowed. The parking already saturated in Parramatta (and ever worse on the days the new stadium has events) is extremely insufficient for the prospective number of residents. We already have people parking in visitors (who aren't associated to the building or parking over driveways for lack of places. The traffic, outside of 2-3 hours a day means locals sit in heavy congestion and so many new excessive high rise concentrates the problem. Every few months in the years of traveling to and living in the area, there is a marked difference in traffic, parking and services due insufficient infrastructure to handle the quick growth. With high density there have been serious and long term noise issues that is also a cause of concern when allowing so many high density buildings in a small space with insufficient police and council attention to manage associated issues.

  18. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Malinda commented

    I strongly object to this proposal.
    It is way too big for such a small and very quiet street. Allowing this 10 room boarding house will create extra noise, lack of parking, overcrowding and lots more rubbish in the area.
    There are already too many boarding houses in Petersham.
    This proposal is not for a small side street and beautiful homes surrounding it.

  19. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 37 Smith Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    M.L.W. Properties P/L (Mary Webb) commented

    This application should not be accepted as an application by council as this company as the owner of Lot 3 SP18880 does not consent to the application.

    We do not want the building demolished or a hotel built in our rooms.

    The applicant will have told you it will succeed in a strata renewal process but in our view there is a high likelihood the Land and Environment Court will refuse the application, among other reasons, because approving it would not be just and equitable in all the circumstances.

    It would be a waste of council's resources to entertain this application unless the court has given consent to a strata renewal plan and that will take well over a year and probably two to be decided.

  20. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Siobhan Moon commented

    Im in agreement with other people that have commented. Tyabb does not have the infrastructure for this development. Nor would anyone looking to retire want to live next door to an active airport and a civil and commercial railway. Simply put we just dont need it!

  21. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Petrea Fellows commented

    I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed development of 40 Bishop Street, Petersham- DA201900247. As a resident of 28 Morgan Street Petersham for some 12 years, I know that this development is most unsuited to the specific area proposed. It will have a negative effect on already crowded parking, which suffers from the effects of units built on adjacent Duchros Street. The trickle down effect of this parking shortage impacts Morgan Street and Bishop Street. Furthermore the amenities, increased population and noise will greatly effect the lifestyle of existing residents in this area. The proposed additional storey will also look in on many properties in this built up residential area and greatly infringe on the privacy of residents. Finally it should be noted that Bishop Street and neighbouring Jarvie Avenue are exceptionally narrow streets and already require cars driving down the street to pull over to allow oncoming traffic to pass. This new development will dramatically increase traffic to this area and effect the family friendly quiet pocket characteristic of this neighbourhood.

    .

  22. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Tammy Whitham commented

    How many new childcare centres do we need in the area? The ones that are currently in existence aren’t full so I have to wonder what kind of scam is going on.

  23. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Tim Mellor commented

    I totally support ALL the comments / submissions AGAINST this proposed development In particular those as posted by Jeremy West and Jennifer Green .
    SAVE Tyabb village and the Airfield ! SCRAP the proposed and totally inappropriate retirement village and stop greedy developers destroying all that is good about living on the Peninsula

  24. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    For heavens sake! How much more subdivision is going to be allowed ? Yet more clearance of native vegetation Eltham’s population is going to double at this rate. Enough is enough

  25. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Theshia Kent commented

    I object to the permit of & development of the proposed retirement on the basis of t hge above arguments and the detrimental effect it is ALREADY having on community events and community stakeholders.
    I object to the application of this development.

  26. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Cathy O’Malley commented

    Hello,our home is close to the proposed
    substation.I have 2 young daughters and am
    concerned about its proximity to our house.
    There have been studies done about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on one’s health
    (especially children)
    With so much land available why does it have to be located near houses.There must be other options that are not as close.

  27. In North Hobart TAS on “Subdivision (One Additional...” at 21 Carr Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Jodi Harrison commented

    Wyvenhoe was the home of the one of the earliest political leaders of Tasmania and should not be cut up and changed. Many aspects of the garden are quite historic and it would be lovely to see it restored to it's former glory rather than dissected for greed.

  28. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Vivienne du Toit commented

    To Whom it May Concern

    As a neighbouring resident, I would like to bring to your attention that I am concerned about the location of the AUSGRID SUBSTATION proposed on the development of 12 Chase Avenue.

    We purchases our property, 5 Chase Avenue because of the location and wanting to be away from the likes of substations.

    Substations emit low-frequencyelectromagnetic radiation (EMR) which creates an electromagnetic field (EMF).
    EMF have two components, an electric field and a magnetic field.
    The magnetic field radiation emitted by all sub-stations, even though non-ionising, are nevertheless dangerous to health.

    Another issue I am concerned about is the growing awareness of potential EMF hazard from substations among the general population and the effects this could have on the value of our property if it is in close proximity to a substation.
    It is a know fact that properties closer to substations tend to put off potential buyers, reducing demand for the property.
    When selling a property near a substation, you can expect that MOST buyers these days WILL notice the substation, at some stage during the buying process – or have it drawn to their attention in the property survey report.
    Even if buyers tend to overestimate the EMF affect of a nearby substation on a proposed property. This has a detrimental effect on the sales price and demand of a property.

    I'm not sure of what the visual impact will be, but potentially this could also be an issue for me.

    Based on the above I am not happy about the location of the substation and would like to voice objection to its proposed location that has just been brought to our attention, via the "MODIFICATION TO LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVAL 11291 of 2007 (DA1461/05) PROPOSAL "

    Regards
    Vivienne du Toit

  29. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Melvy du Toit commented

    Dear Sir/Madam.
    Countless scientific studies have shown that substations emit dangerous (as in cancer causing) EMF rays may extend to about 15 metres and beyond.

    As a resident who lives within 15 meters of this proposed substation we strongly object to its placement so close to residential homes. Why can the substation be placed further down the new private road further away from the houses at the end of Chase Ave and the homes above in Cardigan Rd?

    We bought our home in the bush to get away from substations and other cancer causing structures so will be using all the legal facilities at our disposal not to have this built so close to our homes. It will devalue our homes as well as being an eyesore to an otherwise pristine bush environment.

    Yours in strong opposition
    Melvyn Francois du Toit

  30. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 483 President Avenue Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Jonathan commented

    1. The EIS notes 4.5 visitor parking spaces as a requirements, yet the development will only provide 4 spaces. Given the development is on President Avenue, with no on street parking, this figure should be rounded up instead of down to provide 5 parking spaces.

    2. Why is the notification plan just a set of more drawings? This does not detail anything about notification.

    3. The CMP, even while preliminary, does not describe how traffic will be managed in and out of the site against foot traffic, given that pathway is used extensively from those travelling from Sutherland to Kirawee and vice versa.

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