Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 26B Third Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    The summary of this applications states it is for the removal of three trees. However, the application form identifies thirteen numbered trees. The application posted on the council website omits essential information including the identification of specific trees or the reason for the proposed removal. We must assume, therefore, that the intention is to remove all thirteen numbered trees. leaving a single, unnumbered, tree on the property.

    I object to this proposal on the grounds that the apparent removal is excessive and no reason for the removal has been indicated.

  2. In Merrylands NSW on “Alterations and fitout of...” at 11 Hilltop Road, Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Leeza B commented

    There are multiple child care centres that are struggling to meet occupancy demands year after year within 5 kms of this Centre. The traffic is also awful around this area and another Centre would add to more congestion. There is no point allowing another Centre that is going to sit empty. Please look into the need of care for the area and stop allowing new centres to be constructed.

  3. In Burpengary East QLD on “Building Works -...” at 109 Creek Road, Burpengary East QLD 4505:

    Donald Campbell commented

    Have we not enough traffic buildup on Creek Road and Bruce Highway Eastern Service Road? With another Village now being built at 46 Creek Road and plans for more, the intersection of Creek and Eastern Service road is already a danger; reducing It is just a matter of time before someone will be killed, taking speed down to 50kph has not slowed traffic one iota, and I have film proof of that; placing police cameras does little to stop speedsters, let alone hoon drivers, especially late at night and on weekends!

    So many aged people have to walk across Eastern Service Road to catch a bus, this needs traffic lights at the miserable crossing that has been provided, let alone coming for example, out of Pacific Palms Village, when a large vehicle is parked on the Eastern side both before and after the gate entrance, visibility to see oncoming traffic is almost zero, it's more like a game of dodgems and I say this from experience. It is just a matter of time before there will be a fatal road accident or an elderly person getting killed; as for Council, the blood is on your hands, you have been told, and one day, this will become public of a time when Council was warned!

  4. In Burrill Lake NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Princess Av South, Burrill Lake, NSW:

    Blake Mckenzie commented

    With the increased approvals of dozens of land subdivisions around the locality in recent years it is amazing to see a new development focusing on providing amenities rather than stress on the local infrastructure.

    Development like this will not only bring tourist dollars into the local economy but also increase hosing prices in the locality and make it a more desirable destination for retirement and relocation, benefiting all locals, not to mention providing new food and beverage establishments for us to frequent.

    If only we had such vision 20 years ago then there would already be the facilities and amenities to cater for the expanding housing developments and we would not be playing catch-up. If developers are willing to put their time, effort and resources behind these plans to improve our community and the amenities which can be enjoyed by all then, thank you.

  5. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Landscaping” at 61 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Near 196 Jones road you/they say. Near an environmental 'hot spot". Good job i picked that among many emails, it mentions being near the "Happy Jack" block which the council have signed off and issued the death warrant. This developer[?] must be treated with great cynicism.The developers, who are they? Landscaping you say. Near to be cleared "Happy Jack" block.[?] We [ mainly Bellbird residents] are opposed to any development in this area. If it walks like a duck , sounds like a duck , looks like a duck ,it probably is a duck. So its No, No, No .

  6. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of two or more...” at 80 Bedford Road, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Liz commented

    CCS queries as to whether this development is actually apartment style, where the seven dwellings are co-joined. We also would like to know how parking is to be accommodated.
    While the parcel of land is quite sizable, we also query what landscape plan is to be required to replace much of the vegetation in particular mature trees, which will be removed.
    If there are to be seven individual blocks, we would object on the basis of so much of the land being taken up with paving for vehicle access. It would definitely be more than 50 % of the land that would be covered by buildings and hardstanding material, causing the land underneath to become anhydrous. This will only serve to stress trees on adjoining properties.
    Some clarification on this large development would be appreciated. Thank You.

  7. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a mixed...” at 9S Wardens Walk, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Michael Ewer commented

    There is too much congestion in the area already. The proposed building is about making money and not about improving the liveability of the area. Affordable family homes are needed. There are already too many 1-2 bedroom apartments being built in the city resulting in an oversupply. Why not make the area better rather than squeezing more and more people into it. Most liveable city?

  8. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of Use from Bar...” at 313-315 Flinders Lane Melbourne 3000:

    Michelle Marlan commented

    I reside in Flinders Lane and fully object to this application. The area has a high number of residents, including children living in the immediate vicinity. The building in question, particularly the basement, is not fit for purpose for a venue as being applied for. The building is old and the is zero acoustic absorption/protection for any of the surrounding buildings/residents. Most recently there have been two bars operating out of the basement of 313 Flinders Lane, being the Randy Dragon and currently, the Miranda Bar. Both show zero consideration for any of the residents in the area and the noise generated from both patrons inside the basement, together with the overflow of patrons into Mill Place where noise reverberates through and off the surrounding concrete building walls, which is considerable. The bar allows patrons to exit the building and drink/smoke in Mill Place which further impacts both the noise as well as mess left each Friday/Saturday/Sunday morning.
    The owners of the basement would need to take on considerable upgrades to the fit out of the basement before it would be appropriate to continue as a venue playing music. The windows are all single glazed, there is zero sound protection/isolation, there have been a number of incidents where the Fire Brigade have been called due to smoking patrons inside the bar setting off the building fire alarm which is a waste of time and money to such a critical community service provider.
    Further, there have been number noise complaints to the Police due to illegal consumption of alcohol in Mill Place, together with complaints to Melbourne City Council however no one seems to be doing anything about it. If a nightclub was to be granted permission in the basement of 313 Flinders Lane, these types of issues would only escalate and who is responsible? I can imagine it would have to be Melbourne City Council, based on the ability to either approve or deny such applications, together with the ownership of laneway management, which is becoming an increasing issue in the central business area as more and more people choose to reside in the city.
    If Melbourne City Council wishes to continue to collect premium rates from residents, a serious evaluation of noise and laneway management needs to occur.

  9. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Josh Harrington commented

    This is a horrible idea. The pollution and environmental impact on the area would be damaging to not only current residents but also future generations.

    Please don't build in our town.

  10. In East Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 494-500 Albert Street East Melbourne 3002:

    Dolores Leropoulos commented

    I strongly object to this planning application. This building should remain as it is. It is a beautiful structure and should be preserved. Surely there is heritage protection for this building. There are too many of these buildings being demolished and replaced with insignificant looking buildings

  11. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of Use from Bar...” at 313-315 Flinders Lane Melbourne 3000:

    Damien Mulvihill commented

    I am a resident of Flinders Lane and I object to the introduction of Live Music and continuation of the late night licence for this venue, without an acoustic audit and acoustic upgrade of this premises. This venue operates without any acoustic barrier or closed doors to the street and has several single glazed windows facing directly onto Mill Place. The noise bleed from this venue, especially the windows, is already considerable with the sound reverberating up the narrow laneways to the residents above. Three of the buildings on the Corner of Flinders Lane and Mill Place/Bligh Place are predominately or partially residential and the noise from both the music and patrons can be very loud on the weekends. There is limited or no crowd control by managment of guests leavng and no control over the noise made by patrons smoking in the laneways before returning to the club.

  12. In Kingscliff NSW on “Amendment to Development...” at 74 - 76 Pearl Street, Kingscliff NSW 2487:

    Debra Maclean commented

    What is the amendment please.

  13. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 94 Stoney Creek Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    I feel that it is getting a bit ridiculous with these boarding homes. Firstly, how can this be zoned for 3 stories when the only nearby buildings with 3 levels have either one level below ground or an attic which has compromised head room as it is built into a pitched roof.
    I have never met or heard of anyone who uses boarding houses and I have met thousands of people. I don't get why there is even a need for such a thing in Bexley. If anything this would be a suitable site to build 2 or 3 townhouses not a boarding house.

  14. In Armidale NSW on “Subdivision - Residential...” at 6 Campbell Parade, Armidale, NSW 2350:

    G. Mulvey commented

    I have grave concerns that this subdivision will have a major impact on traffic flow and capacity on Holmfield Drive. Holmfield Drive was not constructed to cope with the current traffic flow due to its width and travel path from the New England Highway to Link Road let alone adding additional traffic to transverse it’s course. The Foothills has not been a well planned Subdivision with no public open spaces or amenities created over the 5 years of its existence. Not such a great legacy for the Yeomans Family who are now wanting to create more local traffic via a small arterial road-one massive rabbit warren!

  15. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    I object on the basis that Setbacks have been disregarded.
    The design of the building is not in keeping with the amenity of the area.
    Inadequate on site Parking.
    There are already too many high rises in such a small area.
    We don’t want the character of Palm Beach destroyed.

  16. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Gow Lane Balmain NSW 2041:

    Michael commented

    Why do the trees need to be removed?
    Balmain has lost a quarter of its tree canopy area in less than 20 years.
    Please require a 1 for 1 replacement of trees, with a requirement that the new trees be nurtured to maturity.
    thank you

  17. In Kingston TAS on “PSA-2015-1 - Amendment to...” at 27 Spring Farm Road and 34 Maddocks Road, Kingston, TAS:

    Alex Wolfert commented

    Are there any plans available to look at?

  18. In Kosciuszko National Park NSW on “Black Bear Inn -...” at 30 Diggings Terrace, Thredbo,:

    Richard and Sally Gallimore commented

    Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627
    Dear Sir
    of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627

    Dear Sir

    DA 10064 Proposed Redevelopment of Black Bear Inn

    I refer to the above matter, the further material provided by the proponent on 6 November 2019, and our submission in relation to the Development Application during the initial Exhibition period.

    We submit that nothing in the developer’s response addresses the concerns we raised in our original objection submission.

    We have read the follow up submissions made by Ray Temperley and Lynne McDonald and by Grant Kleeman, all from Squatters Run apartments. Rather than repeat the arguments set out in those two submissions we agree and adopt each of the Points in those submissions as our own.

    In addition, we submit that the developer’s response in relation to concerns about the access from the village square to the new development, are unsatisfactory.

    The stairway

    The developer suggests that screening plants will ameliorate the privacy issue in relation to the proximity to the bedroom window of apartment 17 Squatters Run. This response is unacceptable because it is well known that plants in the alpine area will take a very long time to grow to a sufficient height and density to provide any sort of screen. Further, the plants will do little or nothing to reduce the noise on the stairway both from voices and footfalls. Further, plants in the alpine area have a high mortality rate. The proposal is silent on the responsibility of Black Bear owners to replace plants when necessary and to undertake routine maintenance.

    The developer remains silent about the type of material to be used to construct the stairway. We submit that any form of steel stair tread will be excessively noisy and should not be approved. The developer remains silent on the issue of the safety hazard arising from the use of the stairs in icy or snowy weather. In particular, there is nothing in the DA to ameliorate our concerns about snow clearing, maintenance and assumption of legal liability by the owners of Black Bear.

    The developer remains silent on the question of how the stairs are to be lit. Given the proximity to the bedroom window of Apartment 17 and the living space windows of Apartments 27 and 32, strict conditions need to be imposed to ensure that lighting does not allow light spillage above waist height and the lighting be strictly confined to the stairs themselves.

    Having said that, we are opposed to the construction of the stairs in any form. The original DA from 2011 proposed stairs which would only be used by resident guests in Black Bear as the access to the restaurant was via Diggings Terrace. In that regard the original DA was misleading and should not be relied upon in relation to a development which is so substantially different from the original proposal. In other words, any consent from neighbours in relation to the stairway proposal in the original DA should be considered to be withdrawn as the proposal upon which neighbours might have been consulted bears little or no resemblance to the current proposal.

    The best solution is for the restaurant to be relocated to the upper levels of the building as in the current Black Bear with access from Diggings Terrace. Should the stairs go ahead then the lower doors should be secured by key pad to restrict access to resident guests.

    In the event that the restaurant remains in its proposed low level position it should not be visible from the village square by the use of hard screening, thereby minimising foot traffic from the square.

    Other buildings

    The developer points to other large scale buildings recently constructed in the village and suggests that this permits a further building of the scale proposed. In relation to the Peak and Elevation apartments we say that the bulk of the building sits below the road level so the bulk of the building is not apparent. In other words, the streetscape of the village is preserved. The Black Bear façade is completely inconsistent with the general streetscape in Thredbo and impacts adversely on the view of the mountain presented to a visitor arriving in the village from the Alpine Way.

    The Mittabar apartments are well recognised in Thredbo as being totally inappropriate and should not have been permitted. The size, bulk and proximity to the roadway of those apartments have no doubt been a significant factor in the general community’s objections to the Black Bear proposal.

    A right to a view

    We submit that no developer should have the right to intentionally devalue other properties and businesses for their own personal gain. Access to beautiful views and privacy add significantly both to the monetary value and the enjoyment of existing buildings. Not only will the proposed building decrease the capital value of other buildings, but it will also negatively impact on the businesses which are based in these properties.

    The impact upon the view available to guests of High Noon in particular has to be described as beyond significant to the scale of devastating.

    It is our submission that the redevelopment of Black Bear be confined to the size, bulk and current height of the existing Black Bear, the access to the village square be restricted to the greatest extent possible, hard screening be installed to protect the privacy of Apartment 17 and subdued lighting be a feature of any stairway, should our submission that the stairway not be built is not accepted.

    Richard and Sally Gallimore
    Apartment 17
    Squatters Run

    PO Box 200 Thredbo 2625.

  19. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead commented

    No point in appealing Knox council will rubber stamp this - they have no interest in community amenity in Knox - only the rates that can be collected....

  20. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Robyn Ross commented

    I thought that this site was not zoned as residential seeing as it was a milk bar. Years ago I paid $10,000 to seal the road outside of my house along the service road. Since 3 units were built next door there is not one spare space for myself or any of my visitors to park along the front of my property or further down. Even though I paid very dearly for the privilege of having a sealed road I do not have any rights at all according to the council when I asked for a permited space to cater for my disabled friends as well as for myself who also has a disability. Units being built with double gararges mean nothing for most people use this space as a storage area and park out on the road. Now the council is deciding to tick the box on another complex of three double storey townhouses. Council should realize that existing houses have young drivers who need somewhere to park their cars and one would think that an already ratepaying household should hold some sway over a blow in, only looking in the end at the profit to be made and after they are sold couldn't give a hoot at what the rest of us have to put up with. Our whole estate is being turned into one double storey complex of townhouses. The council should "pull up its socks and put a stop to this overdevelopment.

  21. In Maudsland QLD on “Description: PRE-REQUEST TO...” at 64 Gaven Arterial Road Maudsland 4210 QLD:

    Sanchia Kerr commented

    I am concerned about the amount of dirt at this site. If we get a few rainy days there is nothing stopping a landslide to the road (which is vital to get to schools, shops and doctors) and houses nearby with men, women and children.

  22. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Landscaping” at 61 Jones Road Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Landscaping. I know it may be a forlorn hope,but it would be most informative to have the developers name.Seems most unusual , landscaping for what? I referred to a suggestion by the council that the developers would like to talk.Well no time like the present. For example Avid started the destruction of Brentwood";Forest" before they passed it on to some other developer . :"By their deeds shall ye know them". Can't see any responsible developer[?]with this. Why is it being landscaped and by whom. Jones road is being ripped apart, So landscaping may be a ephremism. So sorry who ever you are , i must object to this suss application.. Questions like are those forlorn trees part of the application? Who, what, when and where ? Can't be too careful with any such application amidst the clearing of our suburb.

  23. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Dawson Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Larry Gardner commented

    I fully support Andrew Harris review of the planning proposal. Overlooking the baths, cars crossing the footpath, cold dark shaded pathways and living spaces in the depth of winter are already overlooked issues on a great many of Moreland's approved high rise buildings. Let us learn from those errors.

  24. In Ringwood VIC on “Construction of two or more...” at 80 Bedford Road, Ringwood VIC 3134:

    Margaret H commented

    Bedford Road is already a nightmare at times especially during school times and with the train crossing & traffic lights causing bank ups -to have more density in such a small area with a development across the road from Ringwood Secondary Collage approved by VCAT now this proposed development and the possibility of another larger scale development up the road going ahead if unsuccessful at the upcoming VCAT hearing.

    This is going to make life very difficult not just for the locals [rate payers] who live in the side streets but also the students and parents who drop off or attend events at the collage which has developed with multi usage & the community centre just a short distance up the road.
    We need to look after all not just developers as they build and then walk away leaving the consequences for the locals to deal with after they have gone.

  25. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor accommodation -...” at 142 Bathurst Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Garry Stannus commented

    Yes, Councillors:

    keep on destroying community. You've already shown your willingness to jump to the wishes of the 'big money' (one Councillor excepted).

    Long term landlords v short term landlords?

    How about a municipality where home ownership is a priority, where homes are not targets for investors and where homes are not to be viewed as 'rentals' to be defended from the attacks of short term rentors and AirB&Bers?

    Home ownership.

  26. In Forster NSW on “Cemetery, Chapel and Tea...” at 85 The Lakes Way, Forster NSW 2428:

    David Mills commented

    David Mills
    Why do we have to have a funeral home in the centre of town across from a major shopping centre of Forster. This type of Bussiness would be better suited to a industrial area

  27. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1370 Stud Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michelle Wingrave commented

    More, can’t get parking in the service Rd now

  28. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1388 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Sandra Dobson commented

    I object to this proposed development - 1388 Gold Coast Highway Palm Beach - for the following reasons:

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for site coverage - 62% vs 50%

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for density - 1 bed/20.33m2 vs 1 bed/33m2

    - Proposed development exceeds acceptable outcomes for setbacks - there needs to be space to breathe between these developments

    - No allowance for deep soil planting or communal open space at ground level for residents

    - Design feels sterile and more suited to an inner city block than a sleepy beachside community, not in keeping with the local character of Palm Beach

    - 1 x visitor carpark to accommodate 9 x "villas" with the extreme lack of on street parking already apparent is not acceptable

    - There is already a 9 storey development approved on this very small, narrow street, and many others in the immediate vicinity including Canopy - grossly oversized and in breech of many acceptable town planning outcomes including density, setbacks, and design ;Pacific - zero setbacks, excessive height, excessive shadowing, offensive design that does not complement the character of our area; Magnoli apartments + villas - excessive density, excessive height; Siarn; 27th Avenue beachfront; the site currently occupied by Avvia restaurant; Periscope apartments.

    Please insist that the plans are reworked to comply with the acceptable outcomes for site coverage, density, and setbacks. Please insist on deep soil planting and appropriate parking provisions for the comfort & enjoyment of future residents.

  29. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 6 - 8 Moseley Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Great for rate revenue, but what is proposed to help with the vehicular traffic congestion that already exists within the area and adding more housed, re people = cars , will just increase further. It took me 5 sets of lights to do a right hand turn from Oaks Road into North Rocks Road, and eight minutes (sometimes longer) to get from Oaks/Jenkins Road, to cross Pennant Hills Road in the mornings.

  30. In Lobethal SA on “Storage building &...” at 4 Brettig Road, Lobethal SA 5241:

    Dianne Barrett commented

    I would appreciate a detailed plan of the continuing works at GE Hughes Constructions, 4 Brettig Rd, Lobethal, as I am their adjacent neighbour at 20 Kenton Valley Rd, Lobethal and have not been informed of any of the works which have been going on in the next paddock. The topography of the land has changed considerably due to earthworks which has sent a lot of topsoil blowing over my property.
    I have contacted council some time ago about a 'truck wash' also being put on ther property, alas, I have not received any further information of this either. On that matter, I am concerned for any potential polluted run-off water. I did contact the EPA over this matter. My property is considered to be a water catchment zone.
    I hope when they (GE Hughes Constructions) have finished all their earth moving that they will plant trees to make the view from my property more aesthetically pleasing.

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