Recent comments

  1. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Brian Nagle commented

    Brian Nagle
    As a local resident I object to the inconvenience of having Lennox Road restricted or closed to local traffic of the period of the Burgerpalooza 'Festival'. Not only will our access to homes, schools and business be disrupted but the impact on adjacent streets will also be felt.
    Let not this be a precedent to further commercial use of public land. It is of no advantage to community at large or immediate residents in particular. Visitors to such events as the Newtown Fair are predominantly outside of the local area and there is every chance Burgerpalooza patrons will likewise not be locals. The use of Camperdown Memorial park and its nearby streets are for a broader patronage than those who may buy that right from council. It is a disgrace that council would ever consider such a proposal and have residents called upon to express an opinion.
    Marrickville Council (or is it Inner West Council?) don't let this DA pass.

  2. In Engadine NSW on “Use of land as community...” at 1034-1036 Old Princes Hwy Engadine 2233:

    Keith Batty commented

    Totally support this application - positive community use of the proposed area

  3. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 674 Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Barry Lewis commented

    This is the first I have seen about any modification to the plans for this .
    There has been construction going on at this site for over 12 months now.
    No notification of an application for an amendment has been placed on the site.
    Could someone please let me know what this application was for?

  4. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 636-638 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Lauren Wright commented

    I object to this development proposal. This end of New Canterbury Rd, particularly on the southerly side has already been inundated by several multi story apartment block developments, all of which are being built at the same time. As I live on New Canterbury Rd, the peace and quite of this neighborhood is constantly disrupted by the noise of the construction (which will go until 12am on some nights, why should the construction workers mind the neighbors in the area!), the traffic on the road is congested by the trucks and stoppages in traffic, the street is filthy with dust and rubbish and the gutters are full of thick green slime from the constant running water from these building sites.
    Along with the disruption to daily life, all of these apartment complexes are built cheaply with the only intention of making as much money as possible for these developers, they can be described as nothing less than concrete monstrosities that stand foreboding over the other houses in the neighborhood. These apartments use as much of the land as possible so they can squeeze every last dollar out of them, there is no attempt to create livable housing that is in visual sympathy to the surrounding houses or adds to this multicultural and diverse community in any way. I can only imagine the planned design is identical to the building next door? Why not impose some mandatory building requirements such as wider street setbacks, landscaping, maximum amount of units per square metre, privacy considerations between units and other neighbors and perhaps a diverse use of building materials to break up the monotony of these grey concrete structures? The most disparaging thing about these proposals, is that in 20, 30, 40 years time these buildings will be run down, old and out of date, dilapidated, surely to only be pulled down again and rebuilt. The councils website states they are promote sustainability in the community, how can these ideas been exemplified by condoning unsustainable building practices? It is not sustainable to build things not made to last. They are built only with the objective of making as much money as possible, they are not made to last and this is planned obsolescence which is the greatest problem effecting sustainability. The council should consider putting these ideas and values into practice with greater considerations to building developments which at this point seems to be a free reign for developers to build whatever they want.
    Every time an old building is knocked down on this road, the history, character and uniqueness of the area is lost. The demolitions along this road which have already occurred of buildings which should have been protected for historical significance is abominable. Is it too much to expect that some of the original buildings in this area at least be retained?
    This area already has several apartment buildings, it does not need more and certainly not one that is seven stories tall. Please consider this objection and do not approve this application.

  5. In Glen Huntly VIC on “Proposed construction of a...” at 7 Manchester Grove Glen Huntly VIC 3163:

    Ray Brown commented

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 ABS data showing that motor vehicle ownership grew by 2.5% in Australia from 2015 to 2016 with the largest increase in Victoria

  6. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    Al R commented

    My family and I (we have 3 young children) enjoy the Roseville Chase security, safety and family feeling of this neighborhood. We love this neighborhood as a safe place to bring up children. For us and many young families in this neighborhood, safety is our first priority, and it should be the primary concern of Ku-ring-gai council and elected council members.
    The development proposes a non onsite managed boarding house of 39 Babbage Road poses a significant threat to the safety of the neighborhood and should be halted. Without a supervisor/manager onsite the background, and in coming and out goings the boarders are unmanaged. Furthermore due to privacy laws we do not know who will be boarding there. It could be ex-criminals that have committed heinous crimes against society and not to mention children.
    Do you as a council want to allow the safety of the very children we try to protect be compromised? We appeal to your sense security and righteousness for the sake our childrens' safety and well being to please put a halt the proposed development of this boarding house in our neighborhood.

  7. In Saint Kilda VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 16 Fitzroy Street, St Kilda 3182, VIC:

    Geoff Rogers commented

    Please ensure the new licensee is responsible and that hours of operation are not extended beyond existing

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    David Ellison commented

    It would be one thing if this was a fund raising exercise tied to a specific campaign, but this offers nothing to the community. For-profit ventures can't seek to limit their overheads by alienating public land - to allow such a thing would be unfair, as well as setting a worrying precedent.

  9. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Use of part of the site for...” at 538 Whitehorse Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Russell Gray wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    This is a ridiculous application as there is already a existing large bottle shop right across the road from the site of this applicant on the corner of Union Road and Whitehorse Road. So it will fail commercially. There are already too many bottle shops in this area with Coles LiquorLand opening soon in Union Road close by the large existing one on the corner of Union and Canterbury Road!!
    So I am totally against this application for the sale and consumption of liquor (bottle shop) 538 Whitehorse Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127.

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Russell Gray

    Hello Russell

    Thanks for your feedback. I will forward your concerns onto the officer assessing the application.

    While I agree with you that the area does not need another bottle shop, the questions of need, competition or financial viability are not factors that can be used to guide Council in assessing an application. As strange as this may sound, there is a long list of Tribunal decisions that state that Council must assess every application on its merits despite the existence of other similar uses nearby.

    Also Council is unable to choose which application it receives. Council is obligated under the Planning and Environment Act to accept every application it receives and assess it in accordance with any State and Local policies that may apply and make a decision. Any party aggrieved by Council's decision (objector or applicant) can appeal to VCAT should they wish to. My advice at this stage in the process is for you to lodge an objection to the application and participate in the decision making process.

    Regards

    Jane Addis
    Councillor - Maling Ward

    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    City of Boroondara
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Mobile: 0409 267 902

    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  10. In Glen Huntly VIC on “Proposed construction of a...” at 7 Manchester Grove Glen Huntly VIC 3163:

    Jeanette Krasnowski commented

    Manchester Grove is a street that is already heavily congested with vehicles due to lack of adequate parking within properties. The lack of adequate additional owner and visitor parking on site in all the recent developments in Glen Eira is unconscionable.
    The Woolworths car park adjacent to the proposed development is for shoppers and customers, not residents and visitors unable to find parking in the street and wishing to park there, which will happen. If it is used the immediate local residents and visitors, the local shoppers will be disadvantaged.
    Manchester Grove is already a difficult street to get through with the delivery vehicles, the local residents and shoppers parking on the street. People cutting through from Glenhuntly Road to Neerim Road and visa versa. With extra cars exiting Manchester Grove onto Glenhuntly Road the added traffic will only compound the already long delays in turning left and right, then taking into consideration the traffic lights, the level crossing (that seems will not be removed) the delays will be extended.
    If developers would only provide more than enough parking for all residents and their visitors?

  11. In Mount Lawley WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 26A Vincent Street, Mount Lawley, WA, 6050:

    Mary commented

    We missed commenting but support this development.
    The design is practical and suitable for the block and our community. More people should consider the neighbours and impact. Good luck.

  12. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Simone Crozier commented

    I object to this application. The park is a community space. I love the local Newtown Festival, it does cause major disruption to the local residences around the Camperdown Memorial Park in terms of noise, inability to park anywhere close to home on that day, our bins used for public rubbish, people drinking excessively etc. But in saying this it is becoming more family orientated and is a fun day celebrating community and all things Inner West. A commercial event is just not in keeping with the area, which is a highly dense residential area unlike Moore Park, Sydney Park or the myriad of other 'entertainment' suitable venue options in Sydney.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Loz local commented

    As a long term resident (just recently moved) and continuing to work in the area on the parks surrounds, I can vouch for the massive disruption that a 2 day event (which will actually be more like 4 days with set up and pack up) like this would cause. The rubbish left in the park for Council to clean up after every night (but more so on the weekends) is seriously quite enough for the residents to deal with and pay for through council rates.

    As it is a commercial event it should stay in commercial function areas such as Carriageworks, being much more appropriate.

    The 1 day event of Newtown Festival itself can be painful for residents especially at night, year after year, but at least the money being made is for the benefit of the local community. What will come from a festival like this? No benefit to the community at all, but in fact increased parking problems, more disrupted nights, extra Council clean up and also disruption to normal day-to-day routines for walking dogs and family picnics etc. And extra police, who pays for these extra public services when it's a commercial venture, not a community event?

    The demographic of Newtown is changing and has become more family orientated and therefore events such as these need to be looked at more carefully and considered as to how they will actually affect and benefit the local community hosting them.

  14. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Andrew Goodyear commented

    I object to this application. The park is a public space to be enjoyed by all - not to be closed to a private business for profit making purposes. This is a local community park.

  15. In Kew VIC on “Use an existing building as...” at 124 Edgevale Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Lauren Walden commented

    I do not agree that the mentioned site is suitable for use as a medical centre. Edgevale road is already beyond capacity with parking. It is an extremely busy thoroughfare between barkers and cotham and between the multiple local schools. The use of this site as a medical centre will only put even more increased congestion on the street.
    Edgevale road is an iconic residential Kew location, recognised by many for its character. I believe the use of the site as a medical centre will detract significantly from this.

  16. In Highgate WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 360 Stirling Street, Highgate, WA, 6003:

    Mary commented

    We suppprt the additional operating hours. Great addition to the area and good for the true locals.

  17. In Kew VIC on “Use an existing building as...” at 124 Edgevale Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Luke Richards commented

    I strongly oppose this application as I think it will negatively impact the neighbourhood.

    As a resident of Edgevale Rd, I am concerned about the increased congestion that would result. Parking is already at a premium and will only become a greater source of frustration with increased commercial activity. Additionally, I'm unclear on the reality/intention to 'reduce the standard car parking requirement'...

    I also feel that that the introduction of a medical centre will detract from the character of the street - as a business with high customer turnover, such as a medical centre, would erode the goodwill and community spirit that is shared by residents.

  18. In Hallam VIC on “Use and Development of an...” at 111-119 Belgrave-HallamRoad Hallam, VIC:

    Alicia G commented

    There are already two aged care facilities in close proximity to this planned development. Located on 8 young road and 47-49 Belgrave Hallam road. Both cause street blockages due to limited parking at facilities. Due to increasing townhouse developments in this location here shouldn't be any further aged care facilities approved in this proximinity within this residential area.

  19. In Moorebank NSW on “Construction Certificate...” at 41 Lucas Avenue Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia:

    Steven Money commented

    I, a resident of Moorebank who has lived here for 18 years, strongly appose this development as our property backs onto this. There has been no notification in regards to this matter.There is enough development happening in this area, eg. R4 zoning creating more apartments in the area. In the past we have received from Liverpool Council a letter for any neighbouring additions to their home as a ratepayer we should have been informed, not finding out ourselves.

  20. In Werribee VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at Shop 3, 102-104 Watton Street, Werribee 3030, VIC:

    geoff commented

    Please ensure the new licensee is responsible and that hours of operation are not extended beyond existing

  21. In Bondi NSW on “Additional two levels to...” at 48-50 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Bel Thomas commented

    I oppose this development. The building is already 7 stories high. Another 2 stories would exceed height limits and make it the highest in the street. There are too many apartments in the area, no parking, no improvement to infrastructure and way too many building sites. The Developers have absolutely no regard for existing residents with noise, blocking Street parking overnight and dust. Enough is enough!

  22. In Swansea NSW on “Mixed Use Boarding House/...” at 1 Josephson Street, Swansea NSW 2281:

    Jan Fairclough commented

    To whom it may concern

    Lake Macquarie Council asked on their Facebook page “If you could make Lake Mac an even better place to live and play, where would you start?” My Answer: “I would start by not put a 3 story mixed use boarding house on the lakes edge in the heart of Swansea”.

    I believe this 3 story boarding house development does not fit with the family friendly seaside village environment of Swansea. Among our residents we have young families and the elderly who came here because they feel this is a safe community.

    I understand that there is a huge need for housing accommodation and I fully support aged and low income accommodation but only ground level or 2 story at the most.

    We do not have an abundance of employment for the people who already live here so this development would only create social problems that come with unemployment.

    Swansea is the gateway to lake Macquarie and Newcastle and should a welcoming showpiece to the lake yet it is the forgotten area, money should be spent to beautify and market this lovely place as a beautiful seaside village for people come here to holiday and live a beautiful life at the lake and great beaches surrounding us, in doing so create employment in the area.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Davie Apesmont commented

    I don't understand why so many people aren't objecting this proposal. It's black and white to me.

    I have been an inner west resident for several years and I am in no way associated with the organisers. Here are my views on the situation:

    - it only takes up a small fraction of the park, the majority of the park is free for children and dogs etc.
    - events like this pump much needed money into our councils
    - this is a reputable, professional events company - they are working within council guidelines

    I do think they should integrate Newtown culture and restaurants (and possibly charities) with the festival. But other than that, as long as they pay the fees and ensure the park is safe and clean then why not give them a chance??

    Worst case, is they don't do a good job they will never be invited back again.

    I agree with Sandra in saying this is a typical case of NIMBYism. So many opponents cite weak excuses of 'not being able to walk the dog'. These people have NOT even glanced at the proposal.

    Please give festivals like this a chance. These revenue streams should be explored by the inner west council.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jeanette commented

    I object to the use of the park (as public space) for a large scale commercial event. The EIS also prompts a number of questions:

    1. Shows that 6 - 8,000 people are anticipated over two days at $15 entry fee. As a comparison, the budget (in the EIS) assumes 4,666 people (not including children that are free).

    These figures compare to 10K attending last years event - with 16K interested. Refer FB. Given the numbers are important in terms of assessing the impact the event will have on the local community, and also the wider area in terms of traffic management, can council clarify what are the nos, and how the patron numbers will be managed.

    2. The EIS includes a budget. This shows that the total costs are are $197K, with revenue being $203K, to achieve $7.5K profit. This assumes ticket sales of $70K and $90K in sponsorship.

    While council is not responsible for assessing the event viability, given the budget, it is assumed that the patron numbers are higher.

    3. The expenses for venue hire are shown as $8,516 with cleaning and waste management shown as $7K.

    If the waste management and cleaning costs are provided by Council, then the net gain to council would be negible.

    4. The no of patrons has the potential to impact the turf and trees.

    5. Last years event was held in a licensed premises. While a Special Event License is held by the event organiser, how will Council ensure the organiser has experience holding a large scale outdoor event.

  25. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    David Urquhart commented

    I object to this application.
    "to use Camperdown Memorial Park for the Burgapalooza Festival on 25 March 2017 and 26 March 2017 with ‘bump in’ on Friday 24 March 2017 and ‘bump out’ on Monday 27 March 2017"
    If it was to be only a one day commercial event I would object. However, it will, according to the application (extract above), effectively require access to our community park for FOUR days.
    One person supporting the application claims that the park is not used much on weekends. This is not true. It is so popular on weekends, especially in warm weather, that I refer to the park as Newtown Beach.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I strongly object.
    It is not in the public interest.

  27. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Sandra G. commented

    NIMBYISM at its best. This festival will bring vibrancy to the area. The community benefit is the increased activity brought to the park and the many thousands in fees they will pay the Council to hold it in the park. As for the person complaining that 'organisers haven't reached out to the public' that is Council's job via public notification. People complain about Mr Baird and the lock out laws yet want to strangle anything new and different. And no, I am in no way associated with the project and won't even go but I hate entitled NIMBYs - so we will be making damn sure we show our support for this project.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Gemma E commented

    So a private person/group is wanting to close off a public park and charge members of the public to enter public land? I'm so appalled by this proposal I really have no words.

  29. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 6 Bell Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Nicholas Hardy commented

    I consider this application to detract from the Victorian Working Cottage character of Bell Street and those adjacent. I appreciate the utility of the design but feel strongly that more could be done to maintain the character of the street setting. The proposed design sets a precedent (another precedent) that shall be detrimental to the architectural harmony of the street and we risk losing the heritage of the area - something I consider central to the wider wellbeing of the community.

  30. In Coogee NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 178 Coogee Bay Road Coogee NSW 2034:

    C. Parsons commented

    I would object strongly to any further development at 178 Coogee Bay Road, particularly increasing their capacity for guests at a hotel. Living backing onto the property for 15 years, the residents of our building have been consistently troubled by the noise coming from the property. Acting, as it does, as backpackers' accommodation it draws a younger crowd who regularly get together at the property for loud gatherings, not to mention parties and people coming back to the property after many of the pubs in the area close or don't allow anyone in. Therefore there is often noise in the early hours of the morning. Repeated calls to the property and attempts to contact the owner have not diminished the noise very much. There is also no point talking to the residents and complaining as they are often drunk and can be abusive. This continues despite a notice that no one is to be outdoors after 9 pm which they often are. Also the noise is heard equally loudly from people inside with the windows open.
    This continued noise for more than 15 years and complete disregard by the owner has angered many other ratepayers and drastically reduced our quality of life and right to a peaceful life in the area.
    Secondly, and importantly in a construction sense, there is a tree on the property which is severely affecting the retaining wall to our property. Despite repeated requests from the Owners' Corporation about this to the owner through the council, nothing has been done to repair this issue. It has been cordoned off on our side as a hazardous area and no residents can go there. Considering this complete disregard by the owner for a safety issue, I do not consider it would be appropriate to grant any kind of development application.

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