Recent comments

  1. In Yarrambat VIC on “On-Premises Licence” at 103 Bannons Lane, Yarrambat 3091, VIC:

    Glenda Waldie commented

    We object to the proposal of this license being issued in our semi-rural neighbourhood. This type of licensed establishment/restaurant is unsuitable for this area. Our amenity will be greatly compromised, along with the endangerment to native wildlife, compromise to native flora and fauna, excess noise disturbance, increased volume of traffic, concern for effluent disposal, and the preposterous proposal for extended hours until midnight seven days a week, excluding Christmas Day.

  2. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Mary Daley commented

    The application to vary the conditions of the permit should be dismissed. It has been very wearying for residents who have been seeking to protect and maintain the village amenities. The developers should be required to adhere to all conditions of the permit.

  3. In Naremburn NSW on “Application to remove one...” at 9 Dawson Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Peter Citizen commented

    Addressing Pam Grover's comment - if she clicked on the "read more information" link under the map then clicked on documents she would see the application is for a tree in the back yard that is dropping branches and tripping people. Also, the Jacaranda is in front of the neighbours house...

  4. In Naremburn NSW on “Application to remove one...” at 9 Dawson Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Pam Grover commented

    There is insufficient information as to which tree is being removed but if it is the jacaranda in front of the house (and not on their property) then I strongly oppose its removal as it is an essential component of the streetscape and adds much to the beauty of the street.

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

    D. Morrison commented

    Yes, such an appeal is to be expected and developers view it as just part of the process. This is when the real battle begins. Hopefully residents who so staunchly opposed this development, still have the fire in their bellies to pursue it through VCAT. Hopefully council will join them.

  6. In Mount Colah NSW on “Section 4.55 (2) -...” at 497 Pacific Highway Mount Colah NSW 2079:

    BRAD ARTHUR commented

    PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION AS THE AREA OF MOUNT COLAH IS ALREADY OVERCROWDED AND CANNOT COPE WITH THE NUMBER OF PERSONS (I.E. ELECTRICITY, WATER, ROADS, PUBLIC TRANSPORT, HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, ETC)

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

    Joe Mammolito commented

    The developer is appealing the planning permit rejection - VCAT referene P125/2020.

  8. In Chatswood NSW on “Supply and installation of...” at 799 Pacific Highway Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    Unauthorised works costing $242,000 would seem a significant breach.
    I wish to confirm the longstanding policy of Council to not allow illumination on the west facing frontages of high rises on Pacific Highway will be sustained and am presuming this development application is for the signs already installed and so will be in line with the policy!

  9. In Dernancourt SA on “Dwelling” at 25B Nioka Road Dernancourt SA 5075:

    R Richards commented

    The land slopes to the rear of the block. How will stormwater runoff be managed to ensure that the stormwater flows to the street frontage?

  10. In Dernancourt SA on “Dwelling” at 25A Nioka Road Dernancourt SA 5075:

    R Richards commented

    The land slopes to the rear of the block. How will stormwater runoff be managed to ensure that the stormwater flows to the street frontage?

  11. In Mont Albert VIC on “Removal of protected trees...” at 36 Zetland Road, Mont Albert VIC 3127:

    Clare Buckley commented

    Why are these trees being removed?

  12. In Lilydale VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 9A/64-86 Beresford Road, Lilydale VIC 3140:

    Ian Campbell commented

    Fear of unruly behaviour due to patrons drinking outside the premises and being able to spill onto Beresford Road and into the public park opposite,

  13. In Sandgate QLD on “Extension, Child Care...” at 6 Flinders Pde Sandgate QLD 4017:

    Susie Mogridge commented

    It doesn't seem that the owners of the old heritage baptist church really appreciate the building. It has fallen into disrepair in recent times and is looking very forlorn. If the owners can't be bothered repairing and looking after the building, why would they be given approval to build an unsympathetic adjoining building? Money ought to be spent on the church building to bring it back to a decent standard before anything else is considered.

  14. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 2A Gould Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jacinta Franich commented

    I am not happy with this application for 2a Gould St, North Bondi. It still uses the space in much the same way as the previous application even though it is one residence.

    As a long term resident of Gould St, I have noticed many developments around the area. Most have been in keeping with the style of the area, rather than this style of big, square homes which take up as much space as possible.

    I have two main concerns - parking availability and shadows across our house.

    The house currently has 2 garages on Murriverie Rd which could be used in any development, rather than take up valuable car parks on Gould St, particularly given those garages also have room for cars on the driveways - giving 4 possible car parks.

    The shadows across our house are significant. From memory I think this is worse than the previous development application.

    Finally I am very unhappy with the garage having a door coming off the side. THis seems unnecessary and could impact on noise levels and privacy for our house.

    I hope you will consider these implications in your decision.

  15. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Julie Gill commented

    I object due to the fact that traffic at school drop off and pickup is already congested. Adding any extra traffic will make matters worse. The fabulous school crossing people don’t need to direct any more traffic than they currently do.

  16. In Beaumaris VIC on “Community Facility - New...” at 88 Reserve Road Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    This again is not acceptable for the council to call a climate emergency and who allegedly enforces the VPO3 and yet persist in removing ‘protected’ vegetation for a sporting pavilion. Lead by example BCC!

  17. In Beaumaris VIC on “2 New Dwellings and VPO3 -...” at 37 Oak Street Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I object to the removal of vegetation in a VPO3 zone and as such should be built around and protected. I also encourage the council to enforce added protection zones that thoroughly protect the extensive root zone system of the nature strip tree to the north of this property as it’s girth is significant.

  18. In Beaumaris VIC on “2 New Dwellings and Removal...” at 29 Cloris Avenue Beaumaris VIC 3193:

    Titia Huggard commented

    I object to the vegetation removal as this sits clearly in a VPO3 zone and is therefore ‘protected’

    Please design AROUND the vegetation

  19. In North Bondi NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 2A Gould Street North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Tim Catley commented

    This application seems to have many of the same issues as the previous application for this space. The development is large, out of keeping with 2 storey, semi detached character of the street and reduces available parking in an area where parking is becoming increasingly difficult. Specifically this development:

    1. removes a parking space from Gould Street, potentially impacting a mature tree root system. It isn't clear how Cars will fit under the tree without some tree surgery being required. This property also retains the two driveways on Murriverie road effectively providing 4 spaces for the dwelling while removing one for the rest of the community.

    2. The property has a side door opening onto the boundary from the garage. Given that the boundary has been substantially reduced by this new development is seems an unnecessary addition that impacts on the privacy and noise of the adjoining property and unnecessary as residents can exit through the garage or other exits on the property.

    3. The new development would appear to cast a substantial shadow over the adjoining property, this has been exacerbated over the prior application due to the reduction in boundary between the two properties and the lack of pitch on the proposed new roof. This impact is particularly substantial during winter where the north-facing side of 4 Gould will receive very little winter sun.

    4. The boxy design of the property with a flat iron roof is largely out of step with the two storey semis that are prevalent on this side and section of Gould street. This style of semi has recently been preserved by good quality and sympathetic renovations in both Knowles Avenue and Middleton Avenue where contemporary renovations have enhanced the character rather than destroying it.

    5. The small windows on the property also provide a boxy, soviet style of architecture long since abandoned in Australia.

  20. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 103 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Chris commented

    If safety is an issue then what happened to prune, cut back, chop branches where needed?
    Never heard of people cutting down a tree simply because they can’t be bothered to prune.
    Shame on you.

  21. In Sandgate QLD on “Extension, Child Care...” at 6 Flinders Pde Sandgate QLD 4017:

    T Hamlyn commented

    The exterior appearance of this building does not fit in with the older queenslander style of the Sandgate area and surrounding dwellings. I agree the child care requires development but the building appearance should fit with the adjacent old church and other dwellings on Flinders Pde and Cliff st. While the proposed building is asthetically pleasing, it does not suit Sandgate. think the height should be dropped to 8 m.

  22. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Mr Anon commented

    Pretty sure this place was a servo 30 years ago

  23. In The Basin VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 3 Frances Street, The Basin VIC 3154:

    Roland Gesthuizen commented

    Disappointing to see any high density development plans this close to the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges and national park, we must rethink this and activity around The Basin Triangle. Worsening climate change predictions will pose a fire threat. The current lower housing mix and pedestrian activity around The Basin Triangle is an active buffer that protects residents in the nearby ravine and alongside Chandler Hill. Memories of the 1990's fire that raced up the slope, killing people sheltering in their home near one-tree-hill come to mind. This subdivision poses a clear threat, especially when there are better places to target this development in Mountain Gate, Boronia, Bayswater, Wantirna etc.

  24. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Amy Jonnes commented

    In regards to the application for a service station at 41 Monbulk rd Mount Evelyn, I believe the traffic in this area is already congested due to the school and kinder including a service roads, several carparks, pick up and drop off zone, children crossing roads and cars exiting and entering the carpark as well as performing uturns at the school crossing. Having people attempt to be exiting and entering a service station on top of this would create more havoc, not to mention the requirement of more trucks to enter the area for under ground refueling of the service station creating risk for children. It shouldn't go ahead.

    Kind regards,

    Amy Jonnes

  25. In Magill SA on “To demolish the existing...” at 5 Koongarra Avenue Magill SA 5072:

    Mark Allan commented

    Hi , The builder Metricon homes who have built a 2 story house on 5 koongarra ave magill have not removed the ajoining fence with 3 koongarra mag I’ll as they had initially indicated that they would do . Instead they have built a fence 200 mm further onto their property . As this is a sloping property there is 700 mm of retaining wall required and this has now made the old fence a retaining wall for the massive property they have built. This is quite unsatisfactory and dangerous the old existing fence would not be able to support the force and if removed latter on would cause subsidence from the higher ground. Total height of the fence +what should be a retaining wall is 2500 mm. Can this be looked at by an inspector ASAP as the property is near completion and all attempts to ask the builder to do the right thing have been ignored.
    Thanks
    Mark Allan

  26. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application - 2...” at 31 Post Office Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Dani Spurr commented

    Will the car park be able to provide enough parking for 144 families to drop off their children and pick them up each morning and afternoon. On street parking is becoming more of a problem in this heavily built up area.

  27. In Bondi NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 26 Edward Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Chris Maltby commented

    This application has been appealed to the Land and Environment Court on a "deemed refusal". The next step is a hearing on-site at 9.30am on 12 October 2020.

    Details below from an email from Council.

    LAND & ENVIRONMENT COURT PROCEEDINGS No. 43146/2020
    PROPERTY: 22-26 EDWARD STREET, BONDI NSW 2026
    Applicant: WAINIDIVA PTY LTD (ACN 114 240 943)

    Waverley Council has been notified of the lodgement of an appeal in the Land & Environment Court in relation to the following application:

    This matter has been listed for a conciliation conference under section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 commencing on-site at 9.30am on 12 October 2020. This is a standard procedure of the Court in these types of appeals.

    At the conciliation conference, a Commissioner of the Court will meet with the parties, their legal representatives and any experts which the parties are relying upon to ascertain whether the matter is capable of resolution or whether issues can be reduced.

  28. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 103 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Sarah commented

    If you were the parent of a child who almost died from the branch of one of these trees, then I am sure you would have a different opinion. To all those who feel so terribly for the trees (and you should I get it) but how about you use your time to make a positive impact i.e by planting new safer varieties throughout the streets, that won’t actually kill pedestrians, maybe even get out on a weekly basis and water the trees so they don’t have heat stress. Stop whinging and start acting! Words are easy, action is what truly makes a difference!

  29. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Nicole McAleer commented

    I object to this development as there is no need to have a service station right next to a school where traffic is already very busy and not a lot of parking spaces. There is a good local service station just up the road so it's certainly not needed.

  30. In Stepney SA on “Staged application...” at 18-32 Nelson Street, Adelaide SA 5000:

    Susan Jones commented

    Is this Nelson St Adelaide or Nelson St Stepney - your map is wrong I think. It’s getting us worried in Stepney!

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