Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 9 x TREE...” at 34 Boronia Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    I strongly object to this application.

    It seems most unlikely that nine trees would suddenly become a hazard at the same time. It also seems strange that the the property is already the subject of a contentious DA to demolish the property and that on the neighbouring site (32 Boronia Ave) to construct a health centre. As this Development Application (DA/769/2018) appears to also include removal of the trees, one has to wonder why this application has been lodged, and why the concern about claimed damage to a property which is vacant and the owners wish to demolish.

  2. In Jandakot WA on “Modification to...” at 6/14 Biscayne Way Jandakot WA 6164:

    neighbouring owner commented

    I am a neighbouring owner of this unit and have not received any advertising about this application.

  3. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of exciting...” at 31 Wansey Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That is 6 in the last 2 months!!. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.
    How about some residential units for semi-permanent residents who can add to the local community as opposed to boarding houses for temporary residents - we have enough of these already?

  4. In Kingsford NSW on “Convert the first floor of...” at 327-329 Anzac Parade Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That is 6 in the last 2 months!!. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  5. In Kensington NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Lorne Avenue Kensington NSW 2033:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That is 6 in the last 2 months!!. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  6. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 38 Canberra Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Michael Wright commented

    ARGH! Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That must be at least 5 this year. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  7. In Randwick NSW on “Modification of the...” at 38 Canberra Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That must be at least 5 this year. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  8. In Kingsford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 80 Botany Street Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That must be at least 5 this year. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  9. In Kingsford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 See Street Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Michael Wright commented

    Yet another boarding house application for Randwick City council. That must be at least 5 this year. The local community does not need these types of facilities targeted to a already overcrowded suburb full of short term temporary student residents.
    Even the current (temporary) PM is aware that the local area is overloaded https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-considers-ideas-to-push-international-students-migrants-to-small-cities
    Please do not approve this application as it will do nothing to improve the amenity of this area and will only add to overcrowding.

  10. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Ben Brady commented

    I live on Magdalene TCE (proximity apartments), and already the noise from this road is so bad I need to close the balcony door 90% of the time.

    I don't need it any worse, I need the noise pollution improved if anything. I am a health care practitioner with rotating shift work.

    Please take the residents needs into consideration. I can't look after my patients if I can't get a few hours sleep.

  11. In Kensington NSW on “Integrated development for...” at 18 Ascot Street Kensington NSW 2033:

    Maritza Tassanyi commented

    I oppose the proposed development 18 Ascot Street Kensington for a number of reasons. Firstly and very importantly the lack of provision of car parking spaces. Only 5 car spaces for the enormous number of rooms is incomprehensible, Many students will have cars as some will have part time jobs all over Sydney and at all times of the day and night, They will all most likely have friends and relatives visiting by car who will need to park also. The situation in Ascot Street is already often chaotic, particularly on race days when it is impossible to negotiate the roundabout and traffic on Doncaster Avenue is at a standstill. Even in the week parking is hard to find and with the proposed bicycle lane on Doncaster Avenue more parking spaces will be lost.
    The only park close by is the handkerchief size Kokoda Memorial park, this park with just a few benches will no longer be pleasant to visit with so many extra people using it.
    The exterior facade of the building is most unattractive and not in keeping with the surrounding houses,

  12. In Kirrawee NSW on “Section 4.55 (2)...” at 26 Marshall Road Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Maria Turner commented

    It is saddening to think this is all it takes. Finally the approved DA plan is displayed on SSC due to this submission. The build is already built and with the significant variations to the approved DA, also not mentioned in this submission. His PCA didnt do his job and disappointingly council is likely to approve this builders submission.
    Was this effort/funding factored in? I guess. Will it happen again elsewhere? Likely.
    Four townhouses in a small space. Privacy depending on the neighbours' trees that are barely attached to the sandstone undergrowth and Sydney Water prefers some of these trees removed. A 'TV room' is advertised as the 3rd bedroom in TH #3 and 4, previously refused by SSC in 1st DA for reasons noted. It has a small internal wall, wall extended in the 'TV Room' that now allows the width of a door. It would not be difficult to remove to adher to one part of the current approved DA.
    It was noted in an SSC alert shortly after this DA was approved that privacy, noise, over population and environmental impact will be noted in future DA submissions. If this submission were to be approved then maybe the SSC alert is not quite the case.

  13. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Brian Flaherty commented

    I support this proposal providing there is more parking made available nearby. The car park at the rear of the swimming pool should have been extended a couple of years ago. A petition was presented to council requesting to extend this car park out the side to the vacant area at the rear of the pond, our local councillor decided to erect the posts that are there now ignoring and not responding to the petition, this area would be ideal and also assist parents of children when dropping off and picking up children after school.The parking and traffic issues in this area are of our own making.

  14. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    David seda commented

    I support this application as Woolworths have the same conditions. Make it an even playing field

  15. In Umina Beach NSW on “Primary and Secondary...” at 50 Cambridge Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    E Morgan commented

    Please don't remove mature trees - the area needs all the trees it can get/keep

  16. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Subdivision Strata Into 59...” at 49 The Esplanade , Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Emily Morgan commented

    I agree that the over development has the very real potential to destroy the area, if it hasn't already happened.

    The Peninsula was a laid-back beach community of single story dwellings and a real sense of community. I shop in Ettalong Beach to support the small businesses there. Lining the waterfront with high rise buildings is truly ruining the village feel that is already gone from Umina.

    The councillors should be looking at the required infrastructure for the area, not over developing the area and destroying the community.

  17. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 9 x TREE...” at 34 Boronia Avenue Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine commented

    9 trees to be removed
    Totally unacceptable- forcwhat reason ?- not given Us residents are unhappy with any tree removed after four years of development these past approaching five years . Buildings and mature trees murdered without any consultation from residents.
    No no no— reasons for removal not given. Even then it would be completely unacceptable to make a beautiful street with mature trees become a desert and so hot without shade .

  18. In Eastwood NSW on “Multi-dwelling housing...” at 62 Abuklea Rd Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Christine commented

    I am wary of this application- sounds like a “ covered” boarding house complex for many boarders to me.Has Council checked this possibility?
    I live across the rd which what used to be a large double storey house ( now knocked down for a unit complex) and that Chinese owner illegally housed a dozen students for quite a time until it was reported .Seems a lot of housing allowed for one driveway . All very suspicious and not looked closely enough by the planning division of Council in my opinion.

  19. In Highbury SA on “Row Dwellings” at 23 Harold Street Highbury SA 5089:

    JOSEPH BASSETT commented

    I am a resident who has been living in the area for over forty years and we have the only gum tree left in our street and often have visitors spend time in our tree. Developers will always find some devious way to have trees removed well before they demolish the house. I simply ask this question. Why do some councils choose quantity over quality of life, if we want a better vision for the future they need to practice what they preach for the good of the community if we continue down this track with three homes on one block our children, grand children have only our generation to blame. for the bad decisions of the few. Have we not learnt form Campbelltown council and all the problems associated with dense housing or are we just going to close our eyes to what some call progress with three homes on one property our local newspaper explained this well. Once this decision has been authorised there is no going back and then when it is all to late what are you going to tell our children?.
    It's not to late to look to our past to improve our future, we should be leaders on improving the future not followers..
    I object to multiple dwellings on one block we will now have to put up with the it is well documented that garages in these dwellings are too small and used as store rooms gym's etc the dangerous situation of cars parking both sides of the street when is the Teatree gully council going to realize that our future resists the overcrowding which leads to other community problems.
    Please, a row of dwellings will only lead to huge problems for our suburb. learn from problems caused in Campbelltown before it's not to late.

  20. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Alex commented

    I support the idea of a microbrewery.
    We don't need every person to be driving a car and parking it on site. It's about time people start using alternative options for transport , or stop being lazy and walk an extra 50 metres and park across the street.

  21. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Vandra Mellers commented

    I thought we had put this issue to bed! This development is just not in character with this local area. The following are some of the issues concerning this development.

    Traffic:- currently in peak hour, and other busy times traffic just crawls through this area. Add another few hundred dwellings with their accompanying cars and this area will turn into a polluted traffic jam.

    Car parking:- is at exhaustive levels already on the east side. There just has to be a function on at council or the RSL club, and parking is at a premium.

    Out of character:- the east side of Hornsby is lucky to still retain some of the old charm of yesterday. Fake facades with towering buildings will just not do justice to what remains of old Hornsby.

    Overdevelopment:- I think Hornsby has more than paid for the State governments eye for development. The quiet suburb of Asquith is just full of towers. Our beautiful bushland shire is becoming another casualty of State government planning.

  22. In Bexley North NSW on “Unapproved...” at 53 Oliver Street, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    I’m not sure what the application is for, the home already has a massive secondary dwelling/garage. Is this to be modified or is the entire backyard meant to be turned into a granny flat village?

  23. In Parramatta NSW on “Development Application -...” at 69 George Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Ernie Goulding commented

    The Roxy theatre was part of my history.
    So any development would take away my history along with many other individual's history.
    By all means restoration is not out of the equation, but to develop/change our history is desicration.
    The theater has already been put on Australia's heritage list - does that not stop developers?
    My mother was born in Parramatta, went to school in Parramatta and still lives in Dundas.
    Do not take away our history.

  24. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 8 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Judith Warren commented

    I’m very concerned about the amount of “secondary” /granny flats that are being built in this area without what appears to be any overall planning.
    Has council considered the impact on sewerage and waterways. The amount of dwellings that now use gravel back laneways as their access ways which they clearly were not purposes designed for. The rise in traffic and density of population on the infrastructure in this area.
    With the extra revenue council is raising is there any likelihood of curb and guttering plus paths for the rising population?

  25. In Woy Woy NSW on “New 3 Unit Development &...” at 13 B Farnell Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    K Smith commented

    Replacing 1 dwelling with 3 at this location will serve to increase the congestion on the already very congested Blackwall Rd. Can council please take into account the impact of congestion on local residents when looking at this proposal.

  26. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Wei Hoa Koe commented

    Approving this application will not benefits the community. In fact will increase noise pollution especially during the night when people are sleeping. Even the airport has a restriction of when airplane can fly or land. So approving this application will defy any logic and common sense and in fact will be detrimental to the community

  27. In Ivanhoe VIC on “Development of an apartment...” at 24 & 26 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe, VIC:

    Emily Wright commented

    The proposed development at 24-26 Lower Heidelberg Road is completely out of character with the area, and will detract from the lifestyle that is Ivanhoe.

    Main issues include:
    -separation distances with existing properties requested under offsets are unacceptable, and there will be towering over existing backyards invading privacy and conpromising the skyline
    - monotonous design is an eyesore and not in character with the Ivanhoe facade
    - proposed section at the top for air conditioner units will generate noise pollution and be an eyesore.
    - proposal to move the bus stop is concerning. It currently serves the school and community well having been placed logically for a reason and this should not be compromised, particularly mixing traffic and school children, for the sole benefit of a developer.
    - the increased traffic load (50 apartments v 2 dwellings) will adversely impact traffic flow, particularly given its proximity to Ivanhoe Grammar School. This could also have dangerous consequences mixing student foot traffic with new excessive residential traffic

  28. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Bryan commented

    This will not benefit the community in terms of noise and traffic. Commercial operations within a densely populated area needs to adhere to community standard and not the other way around. That is the cost and obligation to the society that you operate in.

    Please use common sense.

  29. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 8 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Dani commented

    No more please!!! No more development on the peninsula- there is no infrastructure to ensure its safe and liveable

    Please council this has to stop!

    Councillors try walking here at night here and see how many near misses you have with traffic due to poor lighting, no footpaths, no gutters or safe road edges. You have to walk on the street and avoid getting hit by cars that can’t see people.

    Councillors please walk around here and see how many people, and worse children, on push bikes are now narrowly being missed excessive cars on roads with poor visibility and no room on the streets.

    Councillors please stop

  30. In Winston Hills NSW on “Complying Development...” at 28 Ursula Street Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Benjamin Ngo commented

    That’s sound interesting. We’re the special deck and pergola company. Please contact us if you’re interested

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