Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 13 Power Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Kiersten commented

    Is this a retrospective application, as works commenced months ago?

  2. In on “Eco- Resort Corowa” at 'Warrawidgee' 803 Spring Drive Corowa NSW 2646:

    Andrew Ross Meharry commented

    I am in full agreement with this project to go ahead at Warrawidgee

  3. In Botany NSW on “Demolish existing boarding...” at 16 Ramsgate St, Botany 2019 NSW:

    Jason S commented

    Hopefully everyone got their email from council regarding the meeting on the 23rd April. Very convenient day. I hope people have not organised holidays. Please check your post boxes shortly.

  4. In Teralba NSW on “Medical Centre” at 59 William Street Teralba NSW 2284:

    Michelle Booth commented

    This development will be a good addition to Teralba. With the 600+ new homes being built in the Billy’s Lookout Estate, Teralbas population will double very shortly and having a medical centre for the local residents will be beneficial.

    My grandmother lives in one of Teralbas aged care facilities so it would be good to have a medical centre closer to her residence to take the burden off family members needing to drive her long distances to visit her current GP. There are two aged care facilities currently in Teralba and there is an additional large scale new aged care facility which is in the final stages of development, again adding to Teralbas population and need for more facilities such as a medical centre.

  5. In Epping NSW on “Development Application -...” at 147 Midson Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Resident commented

    Will the street trees be replaced?

  6. In Booker Bay NSW on “New Construction of Dual...” at 29 Murray Street, Booker Bay NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owner keep some of the trees on the back of the block to shade the rear unit from the western sun in summer? Also, when the job is finished, can the owners plant a tree out the front as Murray Street has lost too many trees that have never been replaced by developers.

  7. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing &...” at 3 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners get the builders to work around the lovely brush box tree at the front of the block? Too often, a knock-down-re-build I see every plant demolished on a block and then no replacement tree eventuates.
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees that provide much needed shade in our area from in-fill development. We are now rated as 4 degrees hotter then Pearl Beach from "urban heat island effect" upon our coastal sand plain (same as Stockton).

  8. In Umina Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwellings” at 50 Cambridge Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners leave room around the granny flat to plant a tree for shade?
    There is precious little shade left on the Peninsula from in-fill development such as villas, town houses and granny flats, not to mention Council's habit of approving non-compliant buildings with insufficient set-backs to give room for a tree or even off street parking.
    The Peninsula is now rated as 4 degrees hotter than Pearl Beach from "urban heat island effect" together with Warnervale, Long Jetty and Somersby. Why? There is not enough room left to plant some shade trees, native or exotic.

  9. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “1 into 10” at Black Flagstaff Hill, SA:

    Susanne Laurina Clift commented

    This application cannot be identified from the limited description of the position. ?What lot on Black Road.

  10. In Warradale SA on “Land division, 1 into 3” at 36 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Leanne Houlahan commented

    It makes me so mad. Johanna those 2 storey ones opposite you are an eyesore, ugly as! Yet when the tree got diseased on the strip outside our house Council removed it & told us we couldn’t just plant anything as they had a whole plan for a street scape & yet they are allowing these monstrosities to be built!
    We also have solar panels on the side that is going to be overshadowed by the 2 storey & council said that Solar panels don’t matter & don’t come into it, so another impact to us and the environment as well as you mentioned Johanna the parking, bins & noise etc. I feel for you too Ferna sounds awful being boxed in like that. When we bought in 2010 there was none of this scale of development and as far as I’m concerned it’s not adding to the suburb/neighborhood at all just creating stress with people having to live on top of each other in dog boxes, so much for the desired street scape they are wanting. We feel completely helpless and at the mercy of the developers/builders.

  11. In Vincentia NSW on “Extensions to Medical Centre” at 5 Halloran St, Vincentia, NSW:

    Joumana Nizam commented

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    In reference to DA19/1276, I wish to object to the proposed alterations and additions to the existing medical centre. It is to my belief that expansion of the medical centre will result in an oversupply of services for the area taking into account an existing medical centre and pharmacy within 100m of the proposed area. The existing shopping centre includes a medical centre and a pharmacy and the addition to more services would heavily result in a loss of profitability for these businesses.

    Thank you.

  12. In Teralba NSW on “Medical Centre” at 59 William Street Teralba NSW 2284:

    Barbara paddock commented

    It is not the place for a medical centre.
    So close to homes and the school.
    What is wrong with it being put in the Main Street?

  13. In Kellyville NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy and...” at 99 Garrawilla Avenue, North Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Julie Wilson commented

    We have enough dual occupancy dwellings in North Kellyville. They have numerous cars attached to these dwellings all parked in the street because the dwelling does not provide off street parking for the number of residents.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Claire Croumbie-Brown commented

    This proposal is appalling. It states it will range from 6 to 14 storeys in height. There is absolutely NOTHING if that height in the area. It will be an appalling eyesore.
    The proposed retail space is ridiculous given the number of empty shops already in Marrickville. The proposed retail shops would just sit empty.
    When will the report on the proposals impact on traffic become available. The roads can not cope with the current level of traffic.

  15. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - 1 x Tree” at 8 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Resident commented

    Sounds very reasonable

  16. In Campsie NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) - to...” at 9 Elizabeth Street, Campsie NSW:

    Natalie Cain commented

    Residing in Elizabeth Street for more than 20 years, I have been able to experience first-hand the lack of disrespect that Marco Polo Foods at No.9 Elizabeth Street has for compliance, Council and the local community.
    Previous complaints to council include:
    • accessing the property at all hours 24/7
    • ongoing noise issues from containers accessing the property
    • no response from Council with regards to receipting deliveries prior to 7am
    • painting yellow markings on the road without Roads & Maritime Service or Council permission
    These complaints have been made in person at the Campsie Customer Service Centre, over the phone and via email. Unfortunately follow-up has been inconsistent or non-existent. When personally following up on a complaint I have been told that there is no record of the original complaint, and/or the staff member who took the original complaint no longer works there. Even when advised I will receive a call back from a Liaison Officer, Ranger, or Environmental Health Officer, no call eventuated.
    My main concern with allowing a change to operating hours is the disruption to the street community. Huge trucks hauling shipping containers are already a regular feature during the night, disturbing myself, children and neighbours. Not in the last 10 years have we had one night of uninterrupted sleep. It is so bad of late that we have had visits from residents in neighbouring Chelmsford Avenue requesting information as to the source of the noise so they could make their own complaints.
    The noise begins as soon as a truck enters the street, some even remain double parked in the street for some time before deciding to undertake the long reversal into the No.9 loading dock. Once within the property is can take a truck between 10-20 minutes for a container to be completely unloaded. Even though my house is not directly opposite the property the reverberations can be felt throughout my house. The ground shakes under the sheer weight of the container crashing to the ground. To add insult to injury the truck drivers usually rev their engines for some time before making an extremely noisy and hasty exit.
    In changing the operating hours to 5am – 6pm Monday to Friday, you are simply creating a greater window of compliance for Marco Polo Foods, you are not granting them permission to operate within those hours as they will NEVER operate within the hours. They will never listen to Council and they will never respect their residential neighbours.

  17. In Teralba NSW on “Medical Centre” at 59 William Street Teralba NSW 2284:

    Kylie Morley-Davies commented

    Placing a medical centre at locate would cause constant congestion on William Street. The becomes very narrow when there are 2 cars parked on either side. The street has restricted parking areas - due to the school zone. This is amongst residential housing.
    We have children that play within our area, having a medical centre raises the risk of children getting run over - due to the increased volume of traffic associated with a medical centre.
    We have a main street that would be a better-suited location for the development.

  18. In Mount Colah NSW on “Community Facility -...” at 2A Berowra Road Mount Colah NSW 2079 Australia:

    B S commented

    We like this area for quiet surrounds and lovely residents in the area.
    Development of such a big commercial scale childcare centre close to our property will not only impact the overall outlook of the street but also make the traffic in the area much worse than it already is. It takes minutes to turn on to the bridge road and at peak hours this is even worse.
    This proposal will have a major influence on our enjoyment of our home.
    Our specific comments and objections relating to this planning application are as follows:
    Appearance
    This DA proposal is appears to be a commercial scale development in an area that is zoned as residential. The size of the development is out of place with the streetscape and character of Berowra Road.
    The proposed development is surrounded by existing residential homes, the majority of which are
    small to medium sized single storey dwellings on spacious blocks.
    The façade does not suit the existing character and appearance of the neighbourhood. The
    proposed building would be much better suited to a commercial or industrial area. This special purpose commercial building is certainly not suited to an area zoned “R2 Low density residential”
    and with potential for up to 73 persons to be in the property on most days, this is anything but low
    density.

    Noise and Traffic
    There is not enough public transport to the area and with small children most people prefer to travel in a car anyway. Considering this an addition of almost 80 cars each in the morning and evening to this property will make the already bad traffic worse. It takes lot of time to turn on to the bridge road and this situation is even worse in the morning and in the afternoon.
    We believe that the this proposal is a gross overdevelopment of a relatively small site, in an architectural style and manner completely inappropriate to its surroundings, and with insufficient account taken of important considerations such as transport issues and existing residents.

    We personally believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. We are happy to discuss this matter with the representative of the planning department.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “Other Das” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Veronica commented

    Please can someone at council explain why DA's are put up online with 'Other Das' and then interested parties have to remember to go back and check details in a week (or longer). I would like to know what the DA for the Addison Road Centre is for please.

  20. In Redland Bay QLD on “Building Format Multiple...” at 21-43 Salisbury Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jarrod graue commented

    So what is planned for this park, as it is a PARK. It must stay a park as the surrounding area has been flooded with housing lots with no backyards! Speak up councillors as you have known about this for 2 years!?!!!

  21. In Chatswood NSW on “Addition of staircase and...” at 17 Edgar Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    The home remains unfinished and is a very large two storey structure.
    The addition appears to be an unacceptable over-development of an already very large structure.
    The addition will affect significantly and negatively the appearance of the front of the home from the street, detracting from the original design for which approval was granted.

  22. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - alterations to...” at 28 Fern St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Alma Macpherson commented

    I would to ask if parking provisions are being made for the alterations for a new function hall reference 010 2016 00000281.004.
    Visitors to such a venue would require parking spaces and there are already a lack of them being provided resulting in a constant overflow of vehicles using the adjacent Arthur Campbell Reserve. The Arthur Campbell reserve does have a sign excluding cars and it is presently being developed as a picnic and childres play area in conjunction with Kiama council.

  23. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 22 Harvey Avenue Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Juliet Gibbons commented

    We already have units going up in these skinny streets. The streets are to small for all this development and now a huge 78 place child care centre....place it somewhere else in Moorebank where there is room for parking. For anybody who doesn't know the council letters for complaints and objections has been sent out and the cutoff date to submit your objections is 26th April. We live 3 doors down and we didn't get a letter. Funny that. DA-174/2019. If enough people complain council will have to look closer at the development.

  24. In Redland Bay QLD on “Building Format Multiple...” at 21-43 Salisbury Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    Redland bay as a suburb has been changed forever from what we came for. Small blocks with lack of green space are not beneficial to residents wellbeing. I'm not sure where all these new residents will work, and with Redland bay road increasing 23% in traffic last year, infrastructure will not cope.
    Redland bay was a beautiful suburb with large block sizes and green spaces. What it is becoming is just another densley built suburb. Shame that money is more important than conserving lifestyle for those already living there.

  25. In Warradale SA on “Land division, 1 into 3” at 36 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Ferna Harris commented

    Sorry to hear Sean. It begs the question just who is being "unethical" here! I live in this area too and have had to put up with three two storey townhouses on my western boundary where previously there was one single storey house. Also on my eastern side there will be two two storey homes built where previously there was one single storey home. At least here, we have had a reprieve as the home is being rented by a beautiful girl and she tells us she will be there for another year. Can you imagine what my little house will look like all boxed in.

  26. In South Hobart TAS on “Proposed Ancillary Dwelling” at 340 Strickland Avenue South Hobart Tas 7004:

    Michael Berry commented

    We express concern that the building proposed is unable to meet the regulations of building in a bushfire prone area and that it will increase the risk of fire-spread to other properties. We object to the proposal on these grounds.

    - According to definitions in TFS’ ‘Guidelines for development in Bushfire prone areas of Tasmania’:

    - The area clearly meets the definition of bushfire prone area (houses were burnt/lost in the same area in 1967): Dense areas of contiguous forest (not zoned residential) within 100m;

    - The slope angle is steep (>15/20%) and the slope aspect (NE) presents as vulnerable to winds associated with dangerous fire conditions;

    - The area is highly forested and vegetated, with a huge fire fuel load, making fuel travel through the canopy and crown fires very likely;

    - Not possible to create the required Building Protection Zone stipulated by TFS (given the above conditions) within property boundaries;

    - Not possible to create the required Fuel-Modified Buffer Zone stipulated by TFS (given the above conditions) within property boundaries.

    Increased fire risk by spread from building to building is a serious concern.

    The proposed building would be unable to meet the requirements for an adequate Bushfire Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) as defined by TFS.

    There is a demonstrable increase in dangerous bushfire conditions in Tasmania in recent years. This year there were catastrophic conditions resulting in large scale, devastating bushfires threatening homes and communities in close proximity to forested areas. The bushfire season is increasing in duration. Given these conditions, the approval of this proposed new dwelling in a, quite frankly, obviously dangerous location in terms of fire-risk, would be irresponsible, and set a very dangerous precedent.

  27. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolish existing shop,...” at 599 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Bruce Kluk commented

    The problem bus the council and the state government not spending money on the infrastructure, namely roads. Old south head road is a disgrace and need me to be upgrade and widened to cope with the traffic and people who live in the area. We have been ignored for too long.

  28. In Warradale SA on “Land division, 1 into 3” at 36 Gardiner Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Johanna den Dekker commented

    Sean Houlahan I feel for you. We are in Struan Ave near Addison Rd. They are just completing 7 units on 2 blocks diagonally across the road from us and 2 blocks directly across from us being redeveloped and another 6 townhouses being built there. I am astonished that these 'dog kennels' are allowed to be built. Separate driveways for most of them. Single garages and where are all the bins going to be kept? We have complained about all the rubbish floating down the street. EPA told us to complain to Council. As usual no response. We all feel helpless.

  29. In Botany NSW on “Demolish existing boarding...” at 16 Ramsgate St, Botany 2019 NSW:

    Edwin Ellard commented

    In response to Brad Humphrie's final comment and in the interest of full transparency:

    Vince Hansimikali was a founding member (director) of NGPV Investments Pty Ltd (company registered 30.09.2016). NGPV Investments Pty Ltd is the applicant for the boarding house project @ 16 Ramsgate St.

    I believe that Vince Hansimikali should have disclosed this important bit of information when he made hist post in favor of the project.

  30. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1038 Anzac Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Joseph Budnik commented

    I object to the construction of 40 unit boarding house at 1038-1040 Anzac Parade. 
    I sincerely urge Randwick Council to refuse this DA Proposal DA/144/2019) on the below grounds:

    1) The proposal is not within the public or community interest: 
    Surrounding areas has been a mix of private homes, duplex developments, apartments and town houses which can best be described as low to medium density. The existing homes all compliment the demographic mix of the precinct – families, single professionals and retirees. The proposed development does not fit this mix or enhance it and will be detrimental to the area.

    2) The Maroubra community are AGAINST boarding house style accommodation: 
    There are no authorised boarding houses in the proximity of 1038-1040 Anzac Pde. The direct opposite property at 1001 Anzac Pde has been refused DA for 10 boarding room, 2-storey house (let alone 40) for similar reasons and community concerns.
    Regards.
    Joseph Budnik

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