Recent comments

  1. In Waverley NSW on “New footpath dining for...” at 24 Arden Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Local Resident commented

    Considering this as a long term resident and customer, this application should not be allowed. The Northern corner of Varna St and Arden St already experiences high pedestrian activity, and blind spots for both pedestrians and cars. With the existing tables and chairs on Arden St, the corner is often unusable by pedestrians due to it being occupied by standing customers, seated customers, and customers and staff in transit (staff regularly travel between Arden St and the two entrances to bakery storage areas on Varna St), along with dogs, prams, school children etc (all of which need their own access as well). There are already many movements a day impeding easy and safe pedestrian access. There have been a number of instances where the only space to walk on Arden St has been the road (obviously not safe), and on Varna St, in order to try navigate through all the other users I have tripped and fallen, badly injuring myself. Allowing the tables and chairs on Varna St would only exacerbate these problems for a large number of the public (when only for private use by a very small number of people).

  2. In Burraneer NSW on “To stop bird faeces, leaves...” at 2/136C Woolooware Road Burraneer NSW 2230:

    Carolyn Cryer commented

    This highlights that there are too many duplexes and units being built without enough storage and garage spaces.

  3. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Jason Q commented

    This is becoming a joke.
    People in Government are happy to overcrowd Suburbs that they don't have to live in with little regard for the residents that do have to live there.
    This kind of money grabbing from developers needs to stop.

  4. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Ronald Smith commented

    Great to get a medical facility for a growing population. Hopefully it’s open 24/7

  5. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1 Second Avenue, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Greg Carson commented

    re: 1 second Ave Burleigh Heads - Allure Property Group.
    Interesting that this company doesnt even own the land nor have current Development approval only an option to buy. Selling off the plan with no approved DA with the individual consent of the original apartment owners. Developer greed at its worst.
    If you read GCCC queries and request for additional information on their submitted application, the proposed development has major flaws with regards to
    1. building setback none compliance, 2. reflectivity levels - all glass facade 3. inadequate carparking allowance 4. suspect max height compliance.
    DA architectuarl report talks about built form of a sea shell and connection with the ocean , reckon more like a full glass facade building commonplace in Dubai not our lovely coastline.

  6. In Brighton SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Marlborough Street Brighton SA 5048:

    Jody Styles commented

    We are 39 Marlborough St . An illegal window has been installed in the new building constructed on the other side of us . It over looks our property and despite contacting the council over and over , nothing has been done .
    Why have this planning alert site , when the council will not rectify anything ?

  7. In Kensington NSW on “Integrated Development...” at 172 Anzac Parade Kensington NSW 2033:

    Ursula Riley commented

    This is actually just one of 3 separate but related DAs for huge boarding house tower blocks of 19 stories to be located on the corners of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue. I believe they are all from the same developer which specialises in student housing and has investment from overseas sovereign wealth funds among others. The 3 tower blocks would concentrate something like 1000 students in total in this one small area. The fourth corner is occupied by a 7-11 garage otherwise presumably there would be a DA in for a tower on that one too. The whole scheme is a horrendous prospect for the residents of the area. All 3 proposed buildings are double the height of the tallest buildings in the area. Most of the surrounding buildings are 2 to 4 and at the most 6 stories high so these new buildings would be completely out of keeping. The studio rooms in the towers are clearly intended for rent to students at the UNSW in Kingsford. These 3 related development proposals treat Kensington as a mere dormitory area for that establishment. Please Randwick Council do not allow this massive over-development scheme.

  8. In Sunrise Beach QLD on “Detached House - Short Term...” at 16 Columbia Dr Sunrise Beach QLD 4567:

    Brad commented

    As a neighbour of this property, I strongly agree with what has already been said regarding the affects this property has on our street and our lives. I can no longer enjoy the quiet of my own outdoor living area when guests are staying at 16 Columbia Drive. This is having a negative impact on my wife, my children and myself, not to mention, the affects on all neighbouring properties.
    As a long term resident in this street and local business owner in Noosa, I find it sad and disappointing that our local residential areas are now being subject to STA’s which is completely unnecessary with the amount of holiday accomodation already in Noosa.
    I hope that council doesn’t lose sight of the locals that make up the heart and soul of our community. Because without locals.... there is no community!

  9. In Zetland NSW on “PAN-82524 - Construction of...” at 944-954 Bourke Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Ronald Smith commented

    Great to get a medical facility for a growing population. Hopefully it’s open 24/7

  10. In Botany NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13 Edward Street, Botany NSW 2019:

    Stephanie P commented

    As long as it doesn't interfere with the privacy of units at 27 Dover Rd, Botany, for example, duplex windows don't look into unit windows.

  11. In Sturt SA on “Construction of an...” at 373 Diagonal Rd, Sturt 5047 SA:

    Jenni Ashfield commented

    There are too many service stations around and this is not an appropriate area for another one.
    There are local shops as well as Marion shopping centre that cater to shopping needs and can be reached by foot. A short drive to several service stations if you require fuel, car washes or pet washes. There would be a negative impact on some of the surrounding smaller businesses and more pressure on local side streets where on street parking has increased due to land subdivision for dwellings. Many other uses for this land that would better suit community needs.

  12. In Marion SA on “Two storey detached...” at 48 Abbeville Tce, Marion 5043 SA:

    Anne Phillips commented

    We are concerned as a neighbour re the impact of this property on our solar panels. We contacted council re our concern but heard nothing.
    I see it has been approved. A bit disappointed no one gave us a courtesy call re how this will affect us and gave us a chance to discuss.

  13. In Lutwyche QLD on “Carry Out Building Work;...” at 20 Windsor Ave Lutwyche QLD 4030:

    James Arneil commented

    I would like to make comment of the inadequate parking outlined in the design drawings.
    I understand the DA extension is only permissible if it stands up against current city and community plans.

    The 2018 Lutwyche corridor plan calls for increased parking per dwelling. The design drawings do not meet the requirements.

    The parking requirements were upgraded for a reason, Given this is the 3rd time extension on this DA, I believe it should be held against the current standards.

    Thank you for taking my thoughts into account and taking the time to hear these concerns.

  14. In Kings Beach QLD on “Change to Development...” at 5 Ormonde Tce Kings Beach:

    Linda O'Connor commented

    Our worry is the safety of Children and adults accessing the beach on Ormonde Terrace. There does not appear to be enough parking for the beach and residences at present and the added traffic/parking will impact the area greatly.

    There appears to be sufficient shops/restaurants etc for the area and anymore will definitely impact the current parking and more importantly the livlihood of the businesses that are presently in place.

    As mentioned in previous notices, this was advertised as a block of 8 luxury units, no shops were in the original design/plans.

  15. In North Hobart TAS on “Change of Use to Visitor...” at 308 Murray Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Robert Morris commented

    This application should only be approved if there is adequate off-street parking to accommodate all visitors' cars. The immediate area is predominantly residential and few, if any, street parking spaces are available especially during business hours. Any increased demand for street parking will detract from the amenity of the area for existing residents.

  16. In Lutwyche QLD on “Carry Out Building Work;...” at 20 Windsor Ave Lutwyche QLD 4030:

    Lorraine Monforte and Bart Guy commented

    We would like to voice our strong objection to this development.

    There is an oversupply of units in Lutwyche. Colton Avenue is flooded with them, and there is obviously nowhere near enough parking spaces available in those apartments because those residents all park on Windsor Avenue. I don't ever remember a time when i could freely park in front of my own house due to Colton Avenue residents using the street for parking. This means my children or visitors need to park on another street just to get to our home. What assurances will residents of Windsor Avenue get that this problem will not get worse with yet another development in close proximity?

    The beautiful, character homes on Windsor Avenue, and the families that reside in them, live in constant fear that yet another development will destroy the quiet charm and beauty of this cul-de-sac. Surely this street could be protected from further developments that already surround us.

    20 Windsor Avenue itself is a beautiful old Queenslander. How sad to see another one demolished. I have no doubt a family would happily restore the old girl to its former glory if given the chance.

    What will happen to the heritage Poinciana tree in front of 20 Windsor Avenue? This beautiful old tree must be protected as it welcomes residents home every day as it arches over the entrance to the street.

    Thank you for listening to our concerns.

  17. In Northcote VIC on “Forty (40) Lot Subdivision...” at 231 St Georges Road Northcote VIC 3070:

    Victor commented

    Council must not continue to offer dispensation with reduced car spaces for medium to high density developments. It's commonly known many of residents in these dwellings have cars. A lack of on-site car spaces place vehicles on street parking, and causing challenges to existing residents and businesses.

    Council must not support un-sustainable warehouse conversions where high vehicular and pedestrian traffic pose hazards and disruptions to already congested areas where previously zoned Industrial Areas now become Commercial Zones. There are now already 3 gyms in the 179 Beavers Road pocket and Council is supporting a fourth to the angst of business operators and residents in this area.

  18. In Coburg North VIC on “Development of the land to...” at 58 Trade Place, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Jack Miller commented

    Not sure if I am missing something in the application pack, but it appears in ADV1 - Proposed Development Plans, that large native trees within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) on the Merri Creek border are still marked for removal (in red). This goes against the VCAT ruling requiring redesign due to the impact on adjacent trees not on the subject site. This should be clarified in order to ensure it is clear which trees are being removed as part of this application.

    If the trees bordering Merri Creek are still to be removed, there will be clear objections from the community. Removal of large native trees on a the creek border within a Tree Protection Zone is simply not acceptable.

  19. In Kings Beach QLD on “Change to Development...” at 5 Ormonde Tce Kings Beach:

    Anne Frederick commented

    I also recall the advertisement of only units on the billboard so it is a surprise to see the shops are approved in this location.
    It would be curious to know if the application and approval by council to permit (assumed) substitution of apartments for shops was made prior to the sale of any unit?
    It would seem unusual to amend after a contract of sale occurs as it may affect perceived value and quality of amenity to any purchaser as shops , dependent on use can be noisy at inconvenient times, crowded , brightly illuminated and may require additional rubbish collections.
    Approval does not seem to consider needs of existing restaurants, convenient stores and cafes , that appear sufficient in number for the location and holiday makers.
    Approval doesn't appear to consider traffic flow or increased potential for accidents or the impact of future redevelopment of club house for surf lifesavers.

  20. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 27 Park Avenue, Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Mathew commented

    Time to put more boarding houses in the suburbs of our real estate, councillors and developers. Just to show good will. About 20 or more in the neighborhood of each should do it.

    Penrith seems to have all of the increasing disadvantages of a city with fewer and fewer of the benefits.

    Equitable burdens, healthier results, seems reasonable.

  21. In Werribee VIC on “Change of Use - Medical Centre” at 1 Pine Avenue Werribee VIC 3030:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    I do not consider this to be a good neighbour-friendly development, unless there was an implausible restriction on the number of patients and practitioners using the facility.

    The street is alread narrow, given the high volume of vehicles and people visiting the fast-food premises.

    There would be additional excessive movements of people in what was once a quiet dead-end street.

    Will council and VCAT consider the irony of having a Medical Centre close to this type of "food" outlet?

    There is a certain symbiotic relationship between Medical and fast-food industries but is this something Council should encourage?

  22. In Kingsford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 87 Middle Street Kingsford NSW 2032:

    Peter commented

    Not another one, that means there will be three boarding house buildings Within 500 metres of each other
    One on Botany street opposite 161 Botany street
    One on the corner of middle and Botany street
    One at 88 middle street
    Just don’t need these buildings as they need to share ammenities that can cause another spike in Covid-19 and many other pandemic cases in the future.
    No to students
    No to massive buildings
    No to masses of extra people in our area
    No to parties
    No to high traffic volume
    Disgrace in many ways
    Petition time guys

  23. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Bill Bourke commented

    The town plan is a joke any applicant can get a 50% uplift approved even if they don’t meet the criteria. The whole thing is a joke just to raise high density to justify the light rail.

  24. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 488-492 The Esplanade, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    H Goodman commented

    How can 3 visitor cars parks be sufficient for 21 apartments?

    There is very little street parking on 27th Ave and there will be 4 apartment blocks, one on each corner, that required visitor street parking. There is also very little street parking on the Gold Coast Highway available.

  25. In Runaway Bay QLD on “Other Change Application...” at 13 Canal Avenue, Runaway Bay QLD 4216:

    David Lynch commented

    I am a resisident of Canal Ave, the street has many units and not enough on street parking already for existing unit owners and their visitors. Cars are often illegally parked blocking access for delivery drivers etc, making it dangerous for Residents, their children and vehicles coming and leaving apartments.
    Also I believe that there is another at least 3 similar proposals for the street.
    All proposed developments would have to have substantial visitors parking to offset these issues.
    Hope you have some recommendations to aleviate these problems.

    Thank you.

  26. In Redbank QLD on “Earthworks” at 150 Weedman Street, Redbank QLD 4301:

    S C commented

    Hi ICC - Could you please confirm that a comprehensive environmental impact study has been done relating to the conservation of the wetlands and pond at 150 Weedman St

  27. In Cronulla NSW on “Prune large dead limb from...” at 20 Flinders Road Cronulla NSW 2230:

    Marilyn Urch commented

    Cannot understand why the poor home owner has to go through this process to get a dead limb lopped off a gigantic tree. Of course it should be approved and quickly! North Cronulla Precinct Committee

  28. In Chipping Norton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3/ 5 Longstaff Avenue Chipping Norton NSW 2170:

    Brian Last commented

    I totally agree with Mr Brown.. when is this overdevelopment going to stop .. LCC are allowing the metamorphisis of what was a dormitory suburb into an overcrowded Concrete ghetto. apart from the lack of parking local services (Schools ,Churches , shops etc will be severely effected.)

  29. In Runaway Bay QLD on “Other Change Application...” at 13 Canal Avenue, Runaway Bay QLD 4216:

    Tracy Wearing commented

    As a resident of Canal Avenue, we currently have enormous street parking g issues.
    The street is very narrow. There are a number of apartment blocks in the street and insufficient parking within the confines of the current apartment blocks. This is causing illegal parking, including parking within yellow ‘no parking’ areas, illegal parking in visitor car spaces in other buildings, parking on footpaths etc.
    Further multi dwelling developments in this street will make it almost impossible for all residents to safely and legally park.
    I have serious safety concerns regarding a potential increase in traffic and illegal parking, as well as navigating through heavy equipment, construction vehicles during any potential construction.

  30. In Miami QLD on “Material Change of Use...” at 264 The Esplanade, Miami QLD 4220:

    Mary Fletcher commented

    Joy, unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any rules anymore. The Town Plan appears to be a joke as it’s circumvented so many times that it’s no longer relevant.

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