Recent comments

  1. In Rothbury NSW on “Lovedale Long Lunch - Emmas...” at 113 Wilderness Rd, Lovedale 2325 NSW:

    Stephen and Cheryl Sefton commented

    Dear Cessnock City Council,
    We are unable to access any application documentation on the DA Tracker to ascertain whether this application applies to all Lovedale Long Lunch (LLL) event sites. Notwithstanding. we wanted to raise an issue regarding the LLL Traffic Management Plans (TMP)

    The TMP for the Tatler event site, on which the Consent for this Temporary Event is based, was misleading by omission, as it failed to identify neighbouring resident access needs and particularly that a registered easement passes through the event site providing a right of way to 2 landlocked properties, accommodating 4 residences. These residents, including ourselves, have a legal right to full and free access to their properties via this right of way. Residents are being unreasonably impeded from entering their properties, including being redirected into the event public carpark (capacity 800 vehicles) with part of the right of way physically blocked, resulting in an entry to our property being restricted. Residents are forced to manoeuvre their vehicles around event patrons (capacity 5000) who are accessing the right of way on foot between the car park and event space.

    The turn off on Lovedale Road is also impeded by event traffic which adversely affects 2 other residential properties in addition to the 2 landlocked properties - so 4 residential properties (6 residences) in total are adversely affected by the Tatler TMP.

    There is absolutely no provision for resident access in the Tatler TMP or the Temporary Event Consent, including access for resident emergency needs or services. This is a serious omission. Furthermore, as resident access needs have not be identified or addressed, these issues have not been brought to the attention of the Community in the Consent consultation process and ongoing assessment of the Consent.

    Under Cessnock LEP Clause 2.8, as considered in the landmark case, Marshall Rural Pty Limited v Hawkesbury City Council [2015] NSWLEC 197, a Temporary Event cannot cause ANY adverse impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood.

    The impact of the Tatler TMP clearly has an adverse impact on adjoining land and wider neighbouring land. We also trust that members of the Community would consider it unreasonable for local residents to be unable to freely access their homes.

    We will be making a more detailed submission to the Council Traffic Management Committee.

    Thank you

  2. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 53 Beaumont Street Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Mel commented

    This is absolutely infuriating. This street is too narrow for such a development. We already have far too much traffic speeding through this street. Cars are constantly being damaged, but Waverley Council claim to have no record of any accidents.

    There is hardly any parking for residents as the gym at the bottom of the street does not have their own parking facilities and use this street as their personal carpark. Most of these 'over 55's' have two cars, not just one car so where are they going to park their multiple cars?

    On a daily basis we witness Mexican standoffs between cars coming from either direction. It's ridiculous.

    The sheer weight of traffic is becoming a safety issue. How much more traffic do we have to endure before someone gets seriously injured? Waverley Council need to wake up. It's not all about collecting rates. How about Waverley Council doing something for the community instead of the greedy property developers who do not care about the area or the impact of their hideous developments.

  3. In Kew VIC on “Construction of twelve (12)...” at 1209 Burke Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Greg Deakin commented

    If you take a moment to look away from the traffic, Burke Road in Camberwell and Kew still has many fine and distinctive houses, though quite a lot have gone in the past decade to make way for apartments. The State Government's vision is to have higher density dwellings along the main thoroughfares and Boroondara Council has not been able to respond effectively to maintain the neighbourhood character that most of its residents want. The only effective way to protect these distinctive buildings is via a heritage overlay and Council has made mistakes in applying heritage overlays and has left loopholes that developers are able to exploit. 1207 and 1209 Burke Road do not have heritage protection, which is why they have been targeted for development. That section of Burke Road south of Cotham Road is now becoming apartments with some remnant heritage houses.

    Like most such development proposals the application proposes to remove all the mature trees on the site (except one near Burke Road in this case). It is proposed to remove 32/34 established trees on the site and plant 16 new ones. The objective is to place as many units on the block as possible and claim that established trees will be replaced and neighbourhood character will be preserved! What nonsense! The claimed 43% site coverage and 40.7% garden area for the development appear to be overestimates.

  4. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Craig Neyle commented

    The scale and proposed use of this development is completely out of character with the existing residential area. Not so many years ago, local residents successfully lobbied the LCC to change the proposed zoning at the time, thus disallowing medium density housing on Wood Street, directly behind this location. The reasons at that time, including the local residential character, the already-straining peak hour traffic at the Penrose-Burns Bay intersection and the near gridlock traffic conditions on Saturday morning from sporting activities at Blackman Park all remain the same now, arguably worse once overall activity returns to normal after our covid.
    I strongly urge LCC to consider the impact on the local area, existing traffic issues and the inappropriate nature of this development and reject the proposal.

  5. In Werribee VIC on “Development of three (3)...” at 34 Wedge Street South Werribee VIC 3030:

    Jane commented

    I feel it doesn’t matter who
    Or how many object to the over crowding of the centre and surroundings of Werribee
    Obviously council has a major wand and can fix our overcrowding problems that are going to get worse due to the fact they are passing all these applications to enable multiple dwellings .
    Please , no more the centre and just outside the centre of Werribee does have some character and you are destroying it by allowing some and one of the wealthiest councils in Victoria to profit
    The original brief for this area was a single dwelling that means two possibly three cars onto our already busy roads , two possibly 4 children into schools
    Yet three houses would be 12 potential cars , 12 school
    You are not future proofing Wyndham by any means

  6. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Claire Kennedy commented

    We object to the proposed 44 room boarding house, the development is too large for the residential area. It is out of character and over scale for Lane Cove West, this should not be rezoned and allowed to go ahead. Neighbouring R2 areas are limited to 12 rooms Lane Cove West is a residential suburb.

  7. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Lopping of two trees within...” at 1 Harding Street, Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    E. Meredith commented

    The garden at this site was beautifully designed by the Landscape Architect, John Patrick, who was closely aligned with its ongoing upkeep. The application to remove and lop so many trees is a matter of great concern.
    Not only will some of these trees be significant, but loss of trees and private open space in what was once "leafy Surrey Hills" is an ever increasing problem. The neighbourhood character of our immediate area is one of homes with surrounding gardens and trees.

  8. In Norwood SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 74 William Street Norwood SA 5067:

    Chanel commented

    There are 2 buildings on this site. 1 is heratige listed and the other is not. I believe the application for demolition is for the non heritage listed building.

  9. In Windsor QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 19 Bess St Windsor QLD 4030:

    Roslyn Campbell commented

    This house is drastically losing its character with timber being removed virtually leaving just a shell, and thus enabling it to be given a more modern look. It will, like other constructions, not be in keeping with the architecture of other homes in the street. Such a travesty, and in my mind, disgusting.

  10. In Rowville VIC on “Development of a double...” at 26 Tamboon Drive, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Tom Marvolo commented

    Needs to be properly researched; Already have tenants parking on front lawns and nature strips because they have no parking available and you want to add another house on the immediate corner.

    Until you fix on street parking around Rowville this shouldn't be looked at unless there have a driveway and a 2 car garage/carport.

  11. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1 Nineteenth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Tony scott commented

    Karen Rowles, i have followed your passion for the implementation and adherence of City Plan building guidelines for redevelopments on the southern end with great interest for a while.
    It must be like talking to a brick wall.
    I live immediately north of this development and to say the disappointment i feel is catastrophic is an understatement. The developer brags how they will be able to get this plan approved and then later have the height altered to 45 m. Piece of cake according to them. They have bragged to me how objections to their developments are thrown in the bin no matter how much credit they hold.
    My life for the next few years will be hell but i accept progress will occur. The present buildings are an eye sore.
    There must be some clever and dedicated legal minded person out that can help putting a stop to this naughtiness. We all know the shitfight that will result from this and other non confirming developments. Traffic chaos, parking chaos are just the beginning.

  12. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Anna van commented

    I object to this development due to the excessive height of 5 storeys. This development should be capped at maximum 3 storeys high to ensure we do not overdevelop the area and do not set the prescedent for future developments to be 5 storeys high. A development this high will create issues of shadowing for other surrounding properties and the general area, traffic and parking issues in an already challenged area.

  13. In Pakenham VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 20 Storey Drive, Pakenham, VIC:

    Cristian Cocos commented

    Hi. This development will have a negative impact on the whole estate, not only on the surrounding properties. If this development will impact the price of my property I will expect to be compensated accordingly.
    It is not the right place for such a big development.

  14. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Carole Wilson commented

    I am very concerned about the number of rooms in this establishment. 44 rooms is a very large number of rooms making it a large complex. I would have thought 15- 20 rooms would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood and the surrounding R2 planning area.

    Lane Cove West is getting more than its fair share of high density housing, retirement villages and now a boarding house with very little in the way of added amenities and infrastructure to support. them. More is being done to us and very little for us.

  15. In Hawthorn VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 575 - 577 Burwood Road, Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kenneth HD Williams commented

    Residents in Edlington Street, even with Parking Permits have a hard enough time finding parking in the street. Shop Owners in surrounding streets over stay the permitted parking times and we have to keep on phoning the Parking Officers to bring this problem to their attention.

  16. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Catherine Osborne commented

    I object to this application on a 412 m2 block when it fails to meet the City plan guidelines - The size, bulk and site coverage of this building on a block of such small meterage without question will impact heavily on open space amenity, contribute to additional strain on current infrastructure, impact heavily on availability of parking, cast shadows and contribute to loss of privacy for surrounding residents and character for the area. With the continual disregard for the City plan guidelines , here again is a fine example where poor planning is directly contributing to the making of tomorrows ghetto alley for not only Palm Beach but neighbouring coastal communitites. Smarter sensible planning today for tomorrows future generations to enjoy must be a priority over developer profits. If it does not meet city plan, then rejected it in the interest of a better city to live in and uphold your responsibility to community to ensure all interests are considered.

  17. In Oyster Bay NSW on “Removal of a large tree...” at 114 Oyster Bay Road Oyster Bay NSW 2225:

    Susan Gardiner commented

    Perhaps the tree should be pruned to maintain a more compact shape especially if there is nothing wrong with the tree. It is a beautiful tree that is in character with the surrounding environmental landscape.

  18. In Norwood SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 74 William Street Norwood SA 5067:

    LYNETTE ARDEN commented

    If the building is heritage listed it needs to be restored, not demolished.

  19. In Portarlington VIC on “Development of a Multi...” at 49 Newcombe Street, Portarlington, VIC:

    Wayne Johnson commented

    Personally I think that side of the road should be reserved for the people, pull down the old buildings ugly as they are and restore it to parkland with view

  20. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 23 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Jo commented

    Can I also add, trees add value in more ways than one. Not only do they provide shade and reduce heat, they also provide habitat, and also they add $. value to the area and property values. Please consider keeping the trees and pruning them if required.

  21. In Morayfield QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 26 Rangeview Road, Morayfield QLD 4506:

    Mrs Jennifer Hirst commented

    This development proposal should be rejected as it is not a true representation of what the developer intends to do to the area it is only a first stage.
    Other properties bordering these ones are in negotiation which will extend the proposed road through these two properties in Rangeview Road.
    This area does not have the infrastructure of roads or drainage mitigation to handle this increase.
    In a recent meeting with council representatives including Councillor Tony Latter a number of residents including myself was informed that the current flooding issues in the area would not be addressed by council due to cost.
    This developer has intentions of extending through a much greater area than proposed and will be impacting an already overloaded area.
    Council would be wise to review the subdivision overlay for this area unless a major amount of money is allocated to address this.
    As a resident here for over 20 years I am deeply concerned for what is happening to the extensive clearing of large native trees and further fragmenting of wildlife corridors.

    It is eroding the lifestyle of the existing residents and putting a massive strain on the Wildlife especially the vulnerable and protected species of Koalas and Platypus .

  22. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Karen Tam commented

    The site in question is situated opposite R2 zoning to the south and west of it (Penrose and Wood St). The height and scale of this development of the development is too big, and not consistent with the feel and environmental heritage and residential character of the R2 neighbourhood (a reserve nearby which adjoins Blackman Park). The density proposed of 44 rooms for that zone, is too big from allowed density of boarding houses in R2 zones (R2 zones are neighboring) at 12 rooms. Project is not in keeping with the environmental heritage and residential character of the area and offers virtually no green areas (trees, shrubs, lawn). I object to this development.

  23. In Dundas Valley NSW on “Development Application -...” at 7 Dobson Crescent Dundas Valley NSW 2117:

    Pauline MULHEARN commented

    Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to lodge an applicattion against this proposal on the grounds there are vastly inadequate provisions for off street parking for both staff and parents picking up and dropping off their kids. Dobson Crescent is a narrow street so this will lead to both parking difficulties leading to a lot of traffic congestion in and out of the street. Likely many parents will choose to park in Carson or Miller and use the walkway between the two streets. This will lead to congested and possibly illegal parking. As spaces are limited. Carson and Miller have only one point of egress and we already have a lot of problems getting in and out of our street.
    Therefore I strongly urge you to reject this proposal in the name of common sense.
    Yours faithfully, Pauline Mulhearn

  24. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Jade commented

    Access to both North and south bound on/off ramps would be beneficial to not only the local community as it would provide access to the be built service station and ammenities that includes that we do not have access too in the town but for all those who use the freeway as well, offering alternate routes and removing congestion on the freeway, in morisset and dora creek. Currently during peak periods in morisset I am waiting at Morisset round about for approximately 5 minutes to get through.

  25. In Norwood SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 74 William Street Norwood SA 5067:

    Jo O’Leary commented

    This property was clearly bought under the knowledge that it was heritage listed. Therefore it must not to be demolished but restored.

  26. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Charlotte moore commented

    This is a suburban residential area and not suited to a development this large.

  27. In Kew VIC on “Construction of twelve (12)...” at 1209 Burke Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Pam Edward commented

    Kew and Balwyn are losing the very characteristics that they were valued for - peaceful, beautiful green suburbs. The streets and infrastructure were not built to accomodate multiple dwellings on one site. Where there was one house, we now see a plethora of tall units, with multiple cars, and no trees.

    Burke Road is a nightmare to travel through: I live off Burke Road, and avoid using it as much as possible, using the side streets instead.

    So very, very disappointed with the way Kew and Balwyn have changed over the last few decades, and the continued and ongoing demolition of beautiful homes and gardens to make way for concrete building block units.

  28. In Leura NSW on “A hotel including an...” at Hillcrest Coachman 117-129 Leura Mall Leura NSW 2780:


    This is the third multi story hotel that has been dumped on Leura in the last few months, two of which will occupy sites that have existing buildings classified as heritage, even the railway station is heritage, all unfortunately local and not state. I have lived here for nearly 30 years, there has been never been any planning for Leura and a traffic plan has never been completed. I have no objection to increased tourism, however this is not the place for this type of occupancy. The community has been thrown under the bus, fortunately, the bus is not moving as it is caught up in the bottleneck of Leura. My road was never meant to carry the traffic it now carries, we risk our lives for a carton of milk and a loaf of bread. Leura is contained within the strategic hub of Katoomba, which generates 100% funding and it is my view Leura and Katoomba should be considered a single entity and planning and implementation taken over by the state government, due to the high volumes of tourism in both towns. There are no pedestrian crossings between the shops at the northern end or from the railway station, the verbal answer always has been if vehicles are slowed it will inconvenience motorists, perhaps a greater inconvenience would be a pedestrian lying dead or dying in the street. I am fed up with the independent traffic reports that always state, that there is spare capacity or traffic will not be impacted, of course traffic flows will be impacted with service and tourist vehicles, perhaps coaches, I doubt if anyone will be seen toddling down to the supermarket with a shopping bag to supply the kitchens of these developments.
    This application should be refused along with the application next to Leura fire station, there also should be a moratorium on all applications of this nature until proper state and federal reviews can be carried out. I have always told my children if you do not know what to do, ask for help.

  29. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 20-24 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Vicki Kelly commented

    I agree with all of the above. 2 storey is the height level in Bondi. The developer's need to adhere to the Bondi resident's decisions and not their individual need for greed at the expense of the community.

  30. In Bondi NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 251 Old South Head Road Bondi NSW 2026:

    Hayden commented

    At a cost of only $440,000? Yet another developer doing dodgy things in Bondi - They should be made to submit realistic coatings as we all know this would exceed the development cost requiring to submit a more in-depth DA.

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