Recent comments

  1. In Camberwell VIC on “Reduction in the standard...” at 277 Camberwell Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Judy Brown wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    Ridiculous. A medical centre with reduction of parking in this location!
    What will it be a drive through medical centre?
    Have any councillors or planners recently attended medical facilities in Cambewell to see how well used the car parks are? By the nature of medical facilities ii is not always the most able bodied in our community using them. Parents with sick children, the elderly, sporting injuries etc cannot hop on a tram to access the centre. Adequate parking for staff and clients coming and going is a necessity. Remember with appointments, you have one person waiting, one person with professional and one person leaving to also add to the impact, this is without considering backlog if an appointment takes longer than allotted time.
    Council parking with restricted times is of no use for medical appointments.
    I am not against all development I am for good planning with adequate infrastructure, such as parking. Almost every development we see come through asks for a reduction in car parking, yet we are not seeing a reduction of cars in our community. We need to provide minimum parking for all new developments to stop the choking of our roads further. Cars propped on major roads waiting for car parks or queuing to get into minimal council car parking at peak times, is only going to get worse. These are MINIMUM requirements that people keep appealing against.

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Judy Brown

    Thanks for your message Judy
    Your comments are noted. If you have any specific questions or comments please email me on jane.addis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    regards

    Jane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

    City of Boroondara
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466
    Email: Jane.Addis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  2. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy Glade commented

    Highly polluting and noisy concrete trucks & other supply carrying vehicles MUST NOT use narrow Aramac Crt giving no peace or clean air to what all residents and ratepayers are entitled to. AMA have confirmed diesel exhaust fumes are carcinogenic and we see these vehicles in parking lots, local roads, every day spewing poison into the air. The rights of local residents need to be protected and no vehicles should use or park on Aramac Crt which should have been closed off with entry/exit to builders of the 271+ apartments using Moreton Bay Rd. ONLY as per RCC's plan. Please comply with the plan and end construction/supply vehicles using local residential streets...i.e. Aramac Crt/Holland Crescent. When apts are occupied, where are the additional vehicles going to park? Most families have at least 2 cars..

  3. In Newstead TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 37 Amy Road Newstead TAS 7250:

    Alex Atwell commented

    I live in 35A Amy Road, next door to the proposed development. Generally speaking, my partner and I don't see an issue with this development and wish it the best of luck. However there are a couple of things I'd like to mention..

    Given that these town houses will be roughly a metre from our boundary line I would like good consideration and focus on addressing privacy between us and the town houses. I don’t want people to easily look into our yard and I’m sure they don’t want us looking over at them. I realise there will be the use of frosted glass and screening on the decks.. is it enough? Also, do the town houses have enough of a sound barrier between our places as I tend to use power tools and tinker with cars occasionally. Our main bedroom doesn't look far from the deck of Town House number 4.

    Also, I request and stress that in the demolition stage that we are fully notified when this will happen and that any asbestos containing materials and lead coated walls etc. are removed professionally and with absolute care (no dust). I am aware of the asbestos cement sheeting in the old sheds which form some parts of the ceiling and some parts of the walls.

    Hope it all goes well. Looks good.

    Thanks, Alex (35A Amy Road, Newstead).

  4. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Jay commented

    John, the council doesn't use the developer contributions in the Epping area but in other parts of the Shire. We have shouldered more than our share of developments in this area already.

  5. In Wahroonga NSW on “MOD for DA0350/13 -...” at 8 Braeside Street, Wahroonga, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    Re "On “MOD for DA0350/13 -...” at 8 Braeside Street, Wahroonga, NSW - it has been noted "What does this mean?" and "I would be interested as to what this new MOD0020/16 really means" by people. The document you may find is actually not readable on the website (or at least has not been so far). So it anyone knows why that is (and/or what the document says) then some further explanation would be desirable. On the Council website, instead of actually having uploaded the document it states to "Contact" Council. I wonder why this is so [especially as most planning documents DO get uploaded nowadays]. However perhaps because that and other Councils are being snowed under right with forced amalgamation worries I have heard of late that trying to contact such might be of little use ... and that in last two months there has apparently been a steep rise in no reply from Councils on matters.

  6. In Glen Iris VIC on “Removal or variation of...” at 179 Glen Iris Road Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    richard rowe-roberts wrote to local councillor Kevin Chow

    The purposes of a covenant are to prevent changes in the future.

    If you dont like the covenant then you should not have bought the property. You have known the Covenant from the start. It doesnt change even if you have had the property 40 years.

    And it should not be changed.

    Does the Council even have the Authority to have opinion?

    We bought in the Summerhill Estate specifically because of the Covenant. When done well the Covenant has value to the community. We would have been plagued by the subdivisions if this hadnt been clearly prevented on the Summerhill estate.

    A covenant is much stronger than the Planning dept which is subject to the current trends - such as "densification"

    Delivered to local councillor Kevin Chow. They are yet to respond.

  7. In Wahroonga NSW on “MOD for DA0350/13 -...” at 8 Braeside Street, Wahroonga, NSW:

    HOWARTH Leslie commented

    Heritage does not mean very much to councils in Sydney, so removal of some conditions originally created in 2013 would probably mean even less today.
    So I would be interested as to what this ne w MOD0020/16 really means. It is in a different name to original DA so what does that add to the story. We [my wife and I] have lived in the direct vicinity for 38 years. we have seen semi-detached dual occupancies, medium density apartments.......now Granny Flats, houses sold and sitting vacant what next, high rise apartments now that Councils are merging????????????????????????????????????

  8. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition and...” at 72 Wollongong Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Peter Blacklock commented

    The church's existing premises already provide parking stress to residents in the surrounding area, and their previous "repurposing" of space after DA approval demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that this alleged "storage room" will likely be used for anything but storage.

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

    sam commented

    roseville chase is quiet family orientetated area with great local school lovely community lovely minded people
    my concern is without a on site manager boarders may be involved in drugs alcohol crime or other unsocial behaviours
    this area is simply not suitable for a 17 room boarding house
    i fear my my children safety

  10. In Surry Hills NSW on “Section 96(2) Modification...” at 481 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Kate Gilroy commented

    We are loosing too many trees in Sydney. Developers need to work around them.

  11. In Charlestown NSW on “One into ten lot...” at 5 Birkwood Close, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Glenn & Dianne Coote commented

    My wife and I would like to make a submission in regards to the proposed development of 5 Birkwood Close Charlestown DA100/2016.
    We would like to state our disappointment in the Council with what seems to be deception in regards to development application.
    In rezoning documentation sent to us it was stated that there would only be 5-7 houses, only selected trees to be removed leaving a Green Buffer Zone between the new houses and the fences of the existing houses.
    In new DA there are 10 houses, with 2 being multi residential and all trees removed.
    Our main bedroom is at rear of house and we fear we will lose privacy and noise will increase when houses are built down near our property.
    The loss of trees will affect the birdlife and animal life that currently live in the area, it will impact on the outlook from our back yard and it will remove what is now a current sound barrier.
    We will also loose the recreation benefits of the bushland and oval that was offered to us and other residents in the area by ST Mary's High School.
    We read in Mr Oscar Aguiar submission letter to this current DA that there was a letter drop and a subsequent meeting involving owners of the properties impacted by this development. Not having received this letter we missed the opportunity to attend this meeting.
    While my wife and I do not completely disagree with some of the development, it would appear that the council has sugar coated the zoning application to have this approved and presented something completely different as a DA.

    Sincerely
    Glenn & Dianne Coote
    66 Kulai Street
    Charlestown

  12. In Camberwell VIC on “To Subdivide the land into...” at 97 Prospect Hill Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Darren wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    That site already has been demolished and two new Metricon homes have been constructed....? Cart before the horse??

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

    Thanks for your message Darren
    Your comments are noted. If you have any specific questions or comments please email me on jane.addis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    regards

    Jane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

    City of Boroondara
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466
    Email: Jane.Addis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  13. In Wahroonga NSW on “MOD for DA0350/13 -...” at 8 Braeside Street, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Shirlene Blok commented

    What does this mean? Deletion of approved conditions - heritage area? I moved because pf the massive redevelopment if my suburb and surrounds in Sydney. Money is the big aim in Sydney, but being an ESL teacher, I found that the money was going out of Australia.

  14. In Surry Hills NSW on “Section 96(2) Modification...” at 481 Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Ben Citizen commented

    I strongly object to the removal of this tree. These trees contribute significantly to the character of the area. There is sufficient space between the tree and the development site and there are plenty of alternatives to removal of the tree - it was here first. surely the developer saw the tree when they bought the site?

  15. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    JohnC commented

    The NIMBYism here is truely astounding. Epping used to have pasture lands, orchards, fruit and vegetable growers. This made way for houses, which is now making way for high density living. As the population increases we need to house, feed and provide jobs for these people. You expect everything to stay the same in Epping yet society constantly progresses, evolves and changes as the population grows.

    There is a national park close to Epping. Boronia and West Epping parks are both getting upgrades. The primary schools have also re-zoned their boundaries to accommodate for the increase in population. Several established trees have been saved by the council if you read the DAs and even look at the amount of trees sectioned off around cliff road.

    Epping will become a major transport hub once the NWRL is done. The Carlingford line is also going to be changed to light rail in the future, with plans to extend it to Macquarie park via Epping.

    So with all this happening you expect Epping to remain the same! As long as the council uses the developers contributions for the people of Epping these developments will be fine. People here need to see that this is not the end of the world.

  16. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Lynette commented

    @John..... You are off topic. Find another forum for your views!

    @ Boroondara Council, in particular Cr. Jane Addis. Please stand up for the residents of Maling Ward against this issue and any other Brothel ('Massage Parlour' in disguise) operating in our residential neighbourhood. The 'Massage Parlour' ads (comments and photos) are sleazy and already suggest 1 / 241 Canterbury Road, Canterbury VIC 3126 is operating (presumably without the approved permit).
    The premises is opposite Canterbury Gardens which has a children's Play Group/Toy Library; a Maternal & Child Health Centre; also adjoins Interchange Inner East (a respite service for children and young adults) and Burke & Beyond Centre (a Day Service and Education centre for young adults with a disability). It is also within 200 metres of Aged residents living in BASS Care Independent Living Units @ 6 Rochester Rd. and elderly/aged residents who attend the Canterbury Centre, 2 Rochester Road, Canterbury which is open 7 days a week for meals and recreational activities.
    A 'Massage Parlour' would be totally inappropriate in the area for the reasons stated above.

  17. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Section 96 modification to...” at 36 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Lenore Kulakauskas commented

    The driveway that was approved for this private off-street carparking space was deemed adequate in the original DA. There is NO REASON to widen it now that the tree has been removed.

    Even though there is still space for a (small) car, not everyone drives small cars (note the number of 4WD's in this Waverley LGA), plus with more and more motor bikes in the area, any extra parking width is a welcome addition.

    There is no reason why another tree will not be planted here and the residents will ask council to do so.

    With this private driveway and the one currently being installed at 32 Sir Thomas Mitchell Rd, residents (most of whom do NOT have off-street parking), visitors to the area, beach-goers, diners, tradies etc have lost 2 essential public car spaces. Council needs to bear in mind the opposition to this policy of allowing private driveways in such a congested area.

  18. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Kylie johnston commented

    Living in very close proximity to this development I am concerned about the extra traffic flow, carparking issues as well as the crime it may bring to this area. Construction vehicles were also meant to soley enter/exit from Moreton Bay Rd. This did not happen as we constantly had construction workers vehicles plus concrete trucks go up and down local streets especially holland Cresent and Armac Court. Which is mainly affected with extra cars parking in this street making it hard for residence to park in there own street let alone being able to exit there driveways safely with the exiting of concrete trucks etc.
    I just hope that council will look at these concerns when making a decision for approval for the other stages of this development.

  19. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    N peterson commented

    Agree strongly. Yes our beautiful suburbs are soon to be a story. My grandchildren wont see the ecidna brush turkeys we feed every day by hand or the three possums that sit with me at night on my verandah whilst i feed them fruit. These little things r why my children luv our area and have a love and care of nature. No trees means no possums or other wildlife. My daughter at 10 asked why those mean people bulldoze down the old pretty houses? I just cried.

  20. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Section 96 modification to...” at 36 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    What does this mean , how is the street tree involved please ?

  21. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Concerned resident wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    What exactly have the Boroondara councillors been doing all this time? 2 brothels operating right under their noses. Pretty sure there are several more lurking around.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Concerned resident wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    What exactly have the Boroondara councillors being doing all this time? 2 brothels operating right under their noses. Pretty sure there are several more lurking around.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Sherie Barton commented

    This is typical behaviour of developers. They get the first part approved and then gradually add more. There should be a law against it.

  24. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Maree wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I went for a walk today to confirm the brothel is operating from 241 Canterbury Road, Canterbury, discovered another asian massage centre at 197 Canterbury Road, Canterbury, also is advertising on Locanto with the message "different asian young girls every day fresh". I suspect this is also a brothel, directly across the road from the childcare centre in Canterbury gardens.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    karen oliver commented

    Living in very close proximity to this development I am concerned about the extra traffic flow, carparking issues as well as the crime it may bring to this area. Upgraded traffic calming works have begun. I hope that there will still be the 'left in left out' onto Mt cotton road from this complex. Construction vehicles were also meant to soley enter/exit from Moreton Bay Rd. This did not happen as we had all day concrete trucks often. I just hope this development does not ruin the area.

  26. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    Ryde Community Alliance requests that the application to vary the approved development be refused. The provision of a Community Centre as part of this development is a clever manipulation of the existing development consent to benefit the developer far more than the local community by providing additional floorspace for the community centre presumably as an "in-kind" contribution in lieu of s94 developer contributions.

    While a community centre is a valued community asset, the redevelopment of Meadowbank is characterized by the imposition of approvals way in excess of the local development standards without strategic land-use planning to address the future needs of the residents.

    The re-development of the Crowle Home and the P& O Totalizator Building, both heritage listed; offerred opportunities for the integration of a range of facilties to serve the local community, such as a community centre, while retaining the cultural heritage and providing an attractive community focus. Consideration of the social needs of the people in the area is essential to avoid building a massive housing estate with little amenity.

    The Alliance believes that the application for amendment of the approved development to gain additional floorspace and primarily benefit the developer should be refused and contributions be required as provided under the existing s94 plan. Noting also that the S94 Contributions Plan is in urgent need of revision to make it relevant to the massive population increase arising from the existing part 3A, concept approvals, and increased densities now permissable under the Ryde local environmental plan. No upper limit for the population of Ryde has been contemplated by the council or the NSW Government while the approvals have been rapidly rolled out in a totally ad-hoc manner.

  27. In Waterloo NSW on “Application for the...” at 171B Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Geoff Mason commented

    Good to see another ugly grubby industrial complex gone in Waterloo. A boot manufacturing plant that spews out toxic emissions via an enormous extraction fan next to the pedestrian walkway on Botany Road.

    The replacement development is attractive and well thought out and offers Defence Personnel a nice place to live. Easy cycling distance to Garden Island and the new Metro station in Waterloo up the road in 8 years time (?). We welcome you to the neighbourhood.

    "The Waterloo metro station would also allow further development and expansion of the Global Economic Corridor between the Sydney CBD and Green Square" - Transport for NSW.

  28. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 98 Bible Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Jeremy Livingston commented

    Test check only - no objection to application

  29. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Nita K wrote to local councillor Philip Mallis

    Dear Mr Mallis,
    I refer to your response to Claire that the application Boroondara City Council, reference PP16/00043 claiming that the application may not necessarily be for a brothel. Perhaps the link to their brazen advertisement provided by Petra Morris should open all the elected councillors eyes a bit to see what is going on right under their collective noses. Leaves little to the imagination about what services they provide, no?

    Just in case the massage brothel decides to remove their advert while we debate this issue, I've uploaded some screen shots here:
    http://imgur.com/a/dsBgZ

    To summarise:
    This parlour is literally opposite a park/Canterbury gardens frequented by little children and teens; a few metres from the church; 1.4 kms to Canterbury Primary School.

    From the advertisement I am rather aghast to learn that this brothel has been operating right under your noses as an ongoing business/concern. So what exactly have council been doing all this time? We residents have been paying ever increasing rates to Boroondara council and funding fat-cat salaries for what? I sincerely request the elected councillors to act on the concerns of all your rate paying residents and shut down the brothel immediately.

    Kind regards,
    Nita K

    Delivered to local councillor Philip Mallis. They are yet to respond.

  30. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Petra Morris wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    The pics in their advertisement on Locanto are an obvious indication that there is more than massage on offer.
    Go to this link before it is deleted:

    http://m.locanto.com.au/vic/ID_602699248/Canterbury-Asian-Massage.html

    Boroondara council is not protecting rate payers, not enforcing bylaws and subsequently allowing the exploitation of these young women. Firstly the operation is not offering a standard massage service. It's clearly offering sexual services to 'Guys'. And secondly its operating in any case without a permit approved.

    You need to act now Councillor and stop being bureaucratic. This is wrong. Shut it down.

    Delivered to local councillor Jane Addis. They are yet to respond.

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