Recent comments

  1. In Diddillibah QLD on “Change to Approval for...” at 64 Clarkes Rd, Diddillibah, QLD:

    Mark commented


  2. In Woy Woy NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling And...” at 231 Burge Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Kay Johnston commented

    I live in a property which backs onto the intended building site in Burge Rd. I only wish to ensure that my peaceful and happy existence continues. I hope that the inclusion of a secondary building on the site isn’t too close to the fence and doesn't increase the noise level as it backs up to my bedroom window and that of the Unit above me. Appropriate consideration needs to be given to floor coverings, windows and slamming back doors. I only comment because the previous dwelling on the site had a granny flat or some such dwelling that caused some really serious noise and disturbance issues. I am aware that the secondary building is for an elderly parent but frequently given the passing of time circumstances change and the introduction of arbitrary renters causes intolerable disturbances. I hope consideration into this is taken, as frequently concerns are given primarily to neighbors on either side but not so much to those of us whose main living area faces the rear of the property. An example of this is another property in Burge Rd, whose backyard backs up against our living areas, has installed a trampoline right up against the back fence and the noise from overexcited screaming children is unbearable. I have met Ms Bailey who appears to be a lovely and considerate lady and I look forward to having her as a neighbor. I am writing to ensure that I am protected against future unforeseen disturbances. Kind regards.

  3. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Tom commented

    This is not zoned for units, it is a LZN-B1 - B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning - shops only.

    Council please review.

  4. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Concerned commented

    The zoning for this side of Lambeth St is not approved for high density housing. Please review as it is opposite a school and near a bowling club. limited on street parking, building work and residence parking on road permanently will obstruct school zone making it dangerous for children.

  5. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Elizabeth commented

    I think that this is, unfortunately, another example of over development in the area, I am not sure how 12 units with residents, visitors and cars will fit in here. Is there any information about the type of commercial development? I wish the Council would listen to residents and not developers. It is a nice quiet area and the current hairdresser is amazing.

  6. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 18 Baldwin Avenue Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Mr Cyril Li commented

    I concur with all of the above, in addition all of the new development in Asquith is unsightly, unnecessary and causing terrible traffic congestion problems before during and after construction, not to mention the existing units currently under construction in Asquith are not even completely sold (showing a strong lack of demand for such properties in the area) Please do not add to the already strained infrastructure, roads, Doctors, Schools and shops in the area by allowing even more development. Protect our BUSHLAND Shire and our local suburbs.

  7. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Terri commented

    Too many units for this location. Not enough street parking. Will stick out like a sore thumb.

  8. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Hinkler Ave Caringbah 2229:

    Greg Bamford wrote to local councillor Peter W Scaysbrook

    Clearly our shire in regard to development is out of control and no-one in authority appears to be concerned or supportive of community disgust. I do not trust those in authority to at least consider the rate payers. You only have to look at the recent ICAC report regarding developers and decision makers to see it can be so open to corruption. Meanwhile the stakeholders, that is the community are being abandoned.

    Delivered to local councillor Peter W Scaysbrook. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Rebecca commented

    Not a fan of so many units going up. Especially with a primary school across the road and so many little kids. Traffic is bad enough as it is with drop off and pick up and will be dangerous if the u it's go up.

  10. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Karina commented

    Not a fan of units going up
    In our neighbourhood
    It just creates more traffic
    More congestion

    Look at Strathfield with there insane unit structures
    It's ridiculous it's like so confined and messy

  11. In South Plympton SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 32 Gurney St South Plympton:

    Kym Beard wrote to local councillor Kris Hanna

    Hi Kris,
    I'm still perplexed as to how this subdivision went ahead when the Northern Policy Area 13 document implies that row dwellings need to meet a minimum of 250m2 and I have been advised/measured these blocks to be 242.8m2 each???
    I hope that the buildings actually meet the minimum policy stipulations and don't cause any safety issues for neighbouring houses when reversing onto Chitral Tce.
    I understand the State Development policies had changed a while back, but that doesn't mean the the governing council doesn't have the right to reject these land divisions that don't meet minimum sizes.

    Photo of Kris Hanna
    Kris Hanna local councillor for City of Marion
    replied to Kym Beard

    Dear Kym,

    Thank you for your enquiry.

    I appreciate that on face value, dwellings on land less than the minimum site area should not be supported.

    The Development Plan, however, comprises only guidelines for development. I acknowledge there is a popular misconception that the DP is a set of rules. On the contrary, State legislation guides planning authorities toward approving proposals, even those falling short of quite specific "requirements" of the DP so long as they are not at significant variance from the Plan. Thus each guiding principle of the DP is not a 'hard and fast' rule; rather, for most applications, if the weight of the complying features outweigh the deficient features, the application will gain Planning Consent!

    This regime leads to many disappointed residents, but there you have it - we are bound by State law.

    I have been advised that in this particular case the shortfall in site area was considered relatively minor, and the design of the dwellings met a majority of applicable design criteria. In this regard, the merits of the proposal were such that Development Plan approval was warranted.

    In terms of safety for reversing vehicles, I am advised that each dwelling now faces Chitral Terrace, which means it is highly likely the existing fencing along the Chitral Street frontage of the property will be removed. Combined with the removal of the galvanised shed which is adjacent to your property sightlines may improve looking north along Chitral Terrace when you are reversing out of your property. I have been advised that with respect to fencing between your properties, the location, height, length and costs are civil matters that are not the jurisdiction of Council (unless the fence exceeds 2.1 metres in height). You may wish to raise your concerns regarding safety with the property owner when the time comes to discussing any new/replacement fencing.
    Tania Baldock
    Executive Assistant to the CEO and the Mayor | City of Marion

    P 08 8375 6878 | F 08 8375 6834
    E | W

    PO Box 21 Oaklands Park SA 5046
    245 Sturt Road Sturt SA 5047

    We acknowledge we are part of Kaurna land and recognise the Kaurna people as the traditional and continuing custodians of the land.

    Cove Civic Centre – find out about our newest library, enterprise and community facility.

  12. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Extend hours of operation...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Paul Paech commented

    As long-term local resident with knowledge of this area and of the business, I urge steadfast refusal of this extension, citing the same reasons for Councillors' refusal of a similar application in August 2012:
    1. Proximity to adjacent residential areas (which has only increased since 2012)
    2. History of non compliance (eg, noise from the business continues to boom through the public areas)
    3. Not in the public interest as defined by the residents in the immediate neighbourhood
    4. Findings from Police Services studies show a correlation between late night opening venues in close proximity to alcohol outlets and the potential of anti social alcohol related behavior (licenses pending for an additional outlet on corner of Beach Road and Campbell Parade).

  13. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Scott commented

    16 storeys would represent bad planning guidelines for this location. The development would stick out like a sore thumb and in no way would represent what urban planning is all about. Develop the houses into a reasonable apartment building that provides amenity and does not overshadow the adjacent parklands. Just like Parramatta square, people look to the parks for sports and recreation both during the week and on weekends. It is hardly beneficial to the land when you have a high rise development blocking the sun during the colder winter months. 4-6 Storeys would be more reasonable for this location, nothing more.

  14. In Epping NSW on “3 x tree removal or pruning” at 1 / 110 Midson Road Epping NSW 2121:

    N paterson commented

    Thank you Christine for writing exactly what real residents want to say. If these nee comers to Epping and durrounding suburbs didlike our trees and nagural surround there are more than enough places to move to. Please council respect our suburbs. The trees etc r the radon we have quality residents and over development is pushing out the respectful residents.

  15. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Hinkler Ave Caringbah 2229:

    CRW commented

    As a resident of Hinkler Ave Caringbah, I am very concerned about this development & all the approved developments in the surrounding area. What will this mean for residents during demolition & building. We will experience noise pollution, traffic congestion, dust & debris & unbearable living conditions during the building of these apartments. I am concerned about my family's health & loosing privacy that this development of 6 stories high will cause. Hinkler Ave is already a one car only street where exiting & entering the premises is often a danger in itself, due to parking issues. The wealthy developers focus on their PROFIT only & have little regard for those who will be directly affected by these developments. This includes a disregard for the environmental destruction already caused & will continue to cause by further developing the area.

  16. In Epping NSW on “Request for a Pre-Gateway...” at – Land at 2-18 Epping Road, 2-4 Forest Grove and 725 Blaxland Road, Epping.:

    Brian Berry commented

    At one point just prior to the developers current proposal the chief town planner at Hornsby Shire Council suggested that since there would be no direct access on to Epping Road from this development that 10 storey blocks of home units would be reasonable. . I support that opinion and also suggest that all the former Bowling Club land be re-zoned as open space. The developer could then re -submit his ORIGINAL plans with the only change being the units fronting Epping Road being 10 storeys instead of 8. The construction of swimming pools, gymnasium, and associated works on the former Bowling Club land would ultimately be within walking distance for thousands of future residents and close to the railway station. Lets develop a vision for the future of Epping beyond the number of home units.that can be created..

  17. In Epping NSW on “3 x tree removal or pruning” at 1 / 110 Midson Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    Are you aware Parramatta council that you have already given the approval for 71 removal of trees with these alerts just in the last few months????
    Week after week property owners do not want to keep the beauty of our rural scape historically of Epping. Why are you allowing this??where have these people come from - why do they dislike trees so much?We have always loved and values our rural scape.
    Where is your consideration of the environment of trees as stated above - now even Forest Park is at critical risk- the people's park is in threat with the present proposal now taken to Gateway without local people's knowledge or say. Where is there merit in planning a roadway inside Forest Park itself
    Where else is the traffic from the outrageous Austino proposal going other than through the Park and on to a small surburban road of Forest Grove already crippled with local traffic and will be more so once urban development in Forest Grove of 650 car spaces is completed.
    --- no planning for traffic
    ---- no green scape - Epping's beauty historically.
    ---- total " over development"
    We are suffocating under concrete and no trees allowed to cleanse our air.Shame Parramatta Council.
    Help !!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. In Sebastopol VIC on “Development of four dwellings” at 101 Beverin Street, Sebastopol:

    Ray Bladier commented

    As previous owners, we question as to how this plan is possible. There is a very deep easement running through the back yard, with two inspection pits. Approximately, the first inspection pit would be under bedroom 2 of unit 3, and the other pit would be under bedroom 2 of unit 4.The Central Highland Water Board plan shows the easement, but the title does not.

  19. In Harris Park NSW on “Egg Zone” at 67 Marion Street Harris Park NSW 2150:

    Eustathia Mats commented

    regarding D/A application for 67 Marion Street
    Could you please explain what is "egg zone"

  20. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Daniel commented

    I have lived in Ryde for many years and I support this development proposal.
    To the people complaining about traffic, as George mentioned above this is a State planning issue and across Sydney there are atrocious traffic jams. Developments like these being close to train stations will reduce road congestion long term and Bus/Rail providers will increase services to meet demand (They will be profiting out of this).

  21. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Hinkler Ave Caringbah 2229:

    Craig Leonard commented

    Well said Rob Nixon

    And a six storey development half way down such a narrow street where there is not enough room for 2 cars to pass let alone a fire truck!

    What about accessibility to and from this area including Taren Road, Flide Street and Gardere Street??

    And what happens when building starts and trucks have to move in and out?

    The street is full of Hospital Workers now that do not park on the hospital grounds. These cars will move where?

    Get the infrastructure put in before these continual monstrosities ruin whatever life that is left in Caringbah.

    Such a shame

  22. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Chris Turner commented

    To Michael, who obects to families being put out of their homes if council buys those derelict houses. What do you expect to happen to them when the developer pulls the houses down to build his tower?

    To Raymond Azizi, Council has put their plans forward to the JRPP and probably when they see the sense of the Council proposal as against the non-sense of the Tower proposal, I have no doubt you will be offered market price for those houses. You stand to win either way! Just a great deal more if the developer gets his way.

  23. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Hinkler Ave Caringbah 2229:

    rob nixon wrote to local councillor Carol Provan

    Once again,
    What about infrastructure , roads & access , electricity & sewerage can our supply handle all these developments . Parks & sporting facilities & street parking . Council is already making huge profits on an overloaded problem because residents don't use their garages therefore people can't find sufficient parking.
    In the last 15years we lost from Caringbah 1 primary school & 1 high school, these areas to development.
    Yes progress must go ahead BUT !!! when will we have the right to say Enough is Enough . The developers don't have to worry as the money they are raking in means they can live wherever they choose .
    I am certain if you put all this out for the community to have a vote people will agree & listen to what people are trying to say.

    Delivered to local councillor Carol Provan. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Jamilie commented

    I support this proposal. Being a resident of Ryde for 50 years I would be happy for my daughter to live in a complex like this close to parks, University and Macquarie shopping centre and public transport.

    Building on this location is ideal as it has so many amenities at its doorstep. This is what urban planning is all about.

  25. In Bellevue Hill NSW on “Residential Flat Bldg 4 or...” at Unit 3 75 Birriga Rd, 75 Birriga Rd, Bellevue Hill, NSW:

    D Farr commented

    There is already too many residential flat buildings and new developments in this area. This has resulted in increased traffic congestion and pollution.

  26. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Raymond Azizi commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am the owner of one of the properties in this planning proposal. Council have never made any attempts to negotiate with me and the other stakeholders. It has been over 4 months and I have had no formal communication or offer from them. They have shown no transparency to me and failed in their duty under the Local government Act 1993.
    The planning proposal that incorporates a retail arm on the ground floor and residential units above is the only legal proposal on the table and it has planning merit. I hope you support our updated planning proposal before you today.

    Kind Regards


  27. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Matt Cann commented

    I currently rent and work in North Ryde and Macquarie Park one, and love living here, everything is at my door step, and so convenient, as such I do not own a car. I support this development as it will ensure that there are future rental properties for me to live in.

  28. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Ned Munro commented

    As an almost daily visitor to this park I find it absurd that a development of that scale is being considered. Low rise fine but not 16 stories on a block of land that currently fits 3 decrepit houses.
    No one needs Cafes or shops there- and they won't be included in the plans because there will be many of them built across the road at the station. There is no need for high rise residential at this site.
    It is an extremely well frequented park with facilities for families and dog owners. Let's not destroy the familial feel of north Ryde for the sake of the greedy developer family and their friends above. I challenge whether any of the supporters above have ever been to the park or live in the area. None of my local north Ryde neighbours are in favour.

  29. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Cat commented

    I strongly believe this is a great idea we need extra space and it increases more people to the park.
    I am a new worker at Macquarie and we need extra units as the demand to live in this area is high.

  30. In Lane Cove NSW on “The proposal seeks to...” at 86 Blenheim Road and 12-14 Epping Road North Ryde:

    Jess commented

    I have lived in Ryde for almost 40 years, and I support this proposal and the opportunity to live so close to work, open space and great transport. I believe if we get good developments, like this, close to transport, then traffic will be reduced.

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