Recent comments

  1. In Ashwood VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 8 Parkhill Drive Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Tash Hughes commented

    Re 8 Parkhill Drive, Ashwood
    A redevelopment of this property is against the neighbourhood character of Ashwood as it reduces the amount of land around each domicile and the amount of green coverage along this important street. Being close to the primary school, additional traffic from increasing the number of domiciles is potentially dangerous for local children and increased congestion on roads already struggling to cope. Double stories are not common in Ashwood are this plan would not fit into the streetscape of Parkhill Drive. Ashwood was developed many years ago and the stormwater system and associated services are not sufficient to cope with large increases in the number of residents. It is also not well services by Monash Council so it is not ideal to add more people into this area.

  2. In Cranebrook NSW on “Construction of an Attached...” at 1 Assisi Close Cranebrook NSW 2749:

    B Bell wrote to local councillor Kevin Crameri

    I am against Council disregarding rate payers. Why allow duplexes to be built in a small close without due consideration of other residents and as a consequence devaluing their property. Also hindering access for emergency vehicles & garbage collection!

    Photo of Kevin Crameri
    Kevin Crameri local councillor for Penrith City Council
    replied to B Bell

    I will have a look at this after the election
    Please ring me if I get elected on 0401995825
    I am not familia with the problem you are referring to
    Kevin
    ________________________________
    From: <> on behalf of B Bell <>
    Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2016 8:18:00 PM
    To: Clr Kevin Crameri OAM
    Subject: Planning application at 1 Assisi Close Cranebrook NSW 2749

    I am against Council disregarding rate payers. Why allow duplexes to be built in a small close without due consideration of other residents and as a consequence devaluing their property. Also hindering access for emergency vehicles & garbage collection!

    From B Bell to local councillor Kevin Crameri

    =========================================================================

    B Bell posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to B Bell and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 1 Assisi Close Cranebrook NSW 2749

    Description: Construction of an Attached Dual Occupancy

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/637278?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  3. In Cranebrook NSW on “Attached Dual Occupancy” at 3 Assisi Close Cranebrook NSW 2749:

    Barbara Bell wrote to local councillor Marcus Cornish

    We've just built in Assisi Close, Cranebrook, NSW only to learn recently that the Council has deemed fit to approve 4 duplexes and 2 homes with Granny Annexes all to go up in a narrow cul de sac. Not only am I concerned about the devaluation of my expensive new home but how the garbage trucks and emergency vehicles will cope getting through with vehicles in their way! The duplexes only have single garages? We bought this block with the impression we were not getting Jordan Springs on our door step. It appears we've made a huge mistake with no redress!
    Just a little fish - not important

    Delivered to local councillor Marcus Cornish. They are yet to respond.

  4. In Cardiff NSW on “Multiple Dwellings x 5,...” at 40 Lachlan Road, Cardiff NSW 2285:

    Barbara Petrisic wrote to local councillor Barney Langford

    There seems to be little thought put into existing infrastructure ,last major rain event
    There was sewage over flowing in the street ,also I had flooding through my garage
    This has never happened before, the rubber stamping of applications has to be stopped and genuine research done ,
    Flooding in general has always been a serious problem in our area it seems both hunter water and Lake Macquarie council are not doing there jobs .once capacity has been reached with regards to storm water significant infrastructure has to be constructed,
    As the catch cry of both Hunter water and Lake Macquarie council is "We have no money" perhaps developments need to be put on hold till they can fix the problem!

    Photo of Barney Langford
    Barney Langford local councillor for Lake Macquarie City Council
    replied to Barbara Petrisic

    Hi Barbara,

    As explained at our meeting, if an application conforms to the planning rules then there is little that staff or elected councillors can do. Stormwater management is required to be managed under the terms of any DA.

    Your concerns need to be addressed via a flood management study and plan (currently being undertaken) and/or at a DCP or even LEP level. Hopefully the new council can look into this.

    Regards,

    Barney

    Barney Langford
    Councillor, North Ward
    0417137758
    ________________________________________
    From: [] on behalf of Barbara Petrisic []
    Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2016 3:54 PM
    To: Cr Barney Langford
    Subject: Planning application at 40 Lachlan Road, Cardiff NSW 2285

    There seems to be little thought put into existing infrastructure ,last major rain event
    There was sewage over flowing in the street ,also I had flooding through my garage
    This has never happened before, the rubber stamping of applications has to be stopped and genuine research done ,
    Flooding in general has always been a serious problem in our area it seems both hunter water and Lake Macquarie council are not doing there jobs .once capacity has been reached with regards to storm water significant infrastructure has to be constructed,
    As the catch cry of both Hunter water and Lake Macquarie council is "We have no money" perhaps developments need to be put on hold till they can fix the problem!

    From Barbara Petrisic to local councillor Barney Langford

    =========================================================================

    Barbara Petrisic posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Barbara Petrisic and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 40 Lachlan Road, Cardiff NSW 2285

    Description: Multiple Dwellings x 5, Strata Subdivision & Demolition of Existing Structures

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/678673?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts
    This information is intended for the addressee only. The use, copying or distribution of this message or any information it contains, by anyone other than the addressee is prohibited by the sender.

    Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Council.

    Information provided to Council in correspondence, submissions or requests (verbal, electronic or written), including personal information such as your name and address, may be made publicly available, including via Council website, in accordance with the Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA Act) 2009.

  5. In Erskineville NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 612-622 King Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    SG commented

    As a frequent diner of Molly Coddle Café, I would love to see them open for dinner
    the food & service is always amazing. I personally don't see a problem with the extra seating they require, other cafes on King Street have seats & tables on the foot path, as well as retail stores having their goods for sale on footpath, I personally think that causes far more congestion than the seating Molly Coddle are asking for

    Thanks

  6. In Epping NSW on “5 x Tree Pruning or Removal” at 5 Lewis Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Norman Jessup commented

    I fully endorse Ms MsCartney's comments. Preserving trees is a vital part of maintaining a healthy environment. This will become an increasingly important consideration in view of the unprecedented increase in building and population occurring in Epping.

    Removal of trees is necessary from time to time, such as when trees are diseased or unsafe, but the excessive destruction of trees that seems to be happening at present should be curtailed. This is important not only for the environment of Epping but as part of Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas reduction.

  7. In Cardiff NSW on “Multiple Dwellings x 5,...” at 40 Lachlan Road, Cardiff NSW 2285:

    Paul Feighan wrote to local councillor Barry Johnston

    Lachlan Road Cardiff is being overrun by mid to high density housing. Consideration needs to be given to long term and ageing residents of this area. This type of housing is having a huge impact on current residents mental health, privacy and street parking. Councilors need to start taking a real look at the impact developers are having on quiet residential areas like ours. Just because a block of land is a bit bigger that the norm, it doesn't mean we should automatically approve multiple dwelling housing on it. Think about your own street when making these decisions.

    Delivered to local councillor Barry Johnston. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Parkside SA on “Demolish existing building...” at 40 Stamford Street, Parkside 5063:

    Mel wrote to local councillor Mike Hudson

    Please don't demolish another character home in our suburb, to be replaced with 2 detached dwellings.
    Where is the protection for character homes????

    Photo of Mike Hudson
    Mike Hudson local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Mel

    Mel. Sorry, but the news is bad. As a Council we have almost no control over "development'" if it meets the site size criteria, etc.
    Almost all of our powers have been stripped away by the State Government.
    I share your dismay at the disappearance of our heritage-style items, but the Government
    want us to increase the population of Unley by 5000..

    .From: [] on behalf of Mel []
    Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2016 8:54 AM
    To: Mike Hudson
    Subject: Planning application at 40 Stamford Street, Parkside 5063

    Please don't demolish another character home in our suburb, to be replaced with 2 detached dwellings.
    Where is the protection for character homes????

    From Mel to local councillor Mike Hudson

    =========================================================================

    Mel posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Mel and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 40 Stamford Street, Parkside 5063

    Description: Demolish existing building and construct two (2) double storey semi-detached dwellings with carports on common boundary, new front fencing and removal of one (1) street tree

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/712532?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

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

    Melinda commented

    Dear Chris,

    I've noticed you are more obsessed with the owners, worried about how much monney they will make, and quoting that the council should give market value to their homes, how about council taking your your home, and only give you market value.....im sure you will protest and carry-on like you have been. I think there is a element of jealously and racism here. Don't teach your grandchildren to be worried about other people...teach them compassion, understanding and ways to grow economy....in my opinion i think your greedy and not worried for the future generations and having a housing crisis....yes i agree with you 16 storys is way over but a lovely boutique style apartments with a cafe seems like a fantastic idea rather than those high rise on the other side of Epping road.
    Melinda

  10. In Epping NSW on “5 x Tree Pruning or Removal” at 5 Lewis Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    This is yet another of the approximately 70 trees removed in the Parramatta City Council area each month. The loss of this tree will make Epping a much less desirable suburb in which to live. The loss of all these trees is bad for the environment as well as ruining the appearance of the suburb. There is no report attached to show there has been a review to ensure these 5 trees are not native species to the area. From what I have read the trees are not diseased and there is no valid reason given for them to require removal. Epping is a leafy suburb and we need to preserve these trees for the enjoyment of future generations as well as providing habitat for our wildlife.

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

    Dave commented

    It is not zoned for this type of development. Parking at Panania Public School is becoming more difficult as more duplexes are built. If this type of development is allowed parking will become impossible. Developers are becoming too greedy!

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

    Patrick Leahy commented

    I agree with these comments,there are several corner blocks near me that are newly built. These are are very small with 3 shoe Boxes on them,with many cars causing traffic and parking problems. Cheers Patrick

  13. In Petersham NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 102 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Max Broodryk commented

    I support the changes and parking is not a concern. We have four kids and do not own a car. There are numerous public transport options to Petersham (including train and multiple bus routes) and the area is high density. We rely on public transport, walking, cycling and (occasionally) Uber or the GoGet share car service. This is increasingly the trend amongst our friends in the local area and future development needs to take this into account with more protected cycle ways, and less car parking which is a hugely inefficient and wasteful use of what could potentially be public space. In fact, traffic on New Canterbury road should be slowed with traffic calming features and closure of one lane, which would allow more cafes and shops to revitalise the area (like Summer Hill and in contrast to Canterbury and Parramatta Road).

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

    Deb Gallagher commented

    I grew up in Lambeth St please stop over crowding our roads n sewer systems can't cope. They say one of the biggest soul destroying things is lack of space please don't take that away from us

  15. In Mount Waverley VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 51 Jubilee Street Mount Waverley VIC 3149:

    Vasanthi Kandiah wrote to local councillor Brian Little

    I thought that the Monash Council was cracking down of twin houses being built on land that held only one property. Jubilee Street is a very narrow street with many new double units on previously single dwelling propping up all the time. There is limited garage spaces for these types of units and many cars are parked on this narrow road. To permit a 3 double storey dwelling on this small land which held only one property begs belief. The entire road from High Street (through Park road to Jubilee Road) to Highbury road is all turning in to a multi 2 to 3 unit dwellings where there was only one property in each land making it a very densely populated stretch of road.

    Delivered to local councillor Brian Little. They are yet to respond.

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

    David commented

    I think the whole area bounded by Epping Rd, Wicks Rd, Cox's Rd and Blenheim Rd/Pittwater Rd should be rezoned for increased density. It was an opportunity missed by both Council and State Government did not consider this when the current North Ryde Station was being proposed. i have lived in the area since 1990 and thought the area should be rezoned when I first heard of the station going in. Unfortunately, some people have decided in the past 5 years that the current housing stock in the area is not up to modern living, and due to both governments short sightedness have knocked down their predominantly Asbestos riddled homes and rebuilt. This should not be a hindrance to redeveloping the whole area to give other people the ability to live close to jobs, rather than continually pushing housing to the fringes and destroying either good productive land or pristine bush. The roads are clogged as people have to live a long way from Macquarie Park and have to use cars to get there. They should have the opportunity to live closer and catch public transport.

    I think Macquarie Hosptal should be utilised for State Primary and High School use. with some area designated for medium density to fund the Education infrastructure.

    16 storeys is probably a bit high and would recomend a maximum of 10 storey and reducing heights as move towards Cox's Rd to 3-4 storey., with additional small parks within the area designated.

  17. In Petersham NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 102 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Petra Jones commented

    The Inner West is suffering from developments being approved without parking. It is an absurd assumption that people will walk, ride a bike or utilize public transport. People are unable to park on their own streets and it's just getting worse and worse. Please reject this and enforce the parking spaces as originally approved.

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

    Mark commented

    ....

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. 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.
    Regards

    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 www.marion.sa.gov.au

    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.

  29. 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).

  30. 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.

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