Recent comments

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

    Rachel Heywood commented

    I strongly object to the proposal being put forward to erect a 16 storey apartment block next to Blenheim Park.

    Ryde council has unanimously voted to reclaim the land and create more green space which will support the growing community. The residential development of Lachlans line across the road is a perfect example why expanding the versatile green space is the only valid option.

    Ryde has a number of beautiful green spaces but Blenheim Park is a very versatile and community driven space. The community would benefit from increasing this green space, not from further residential development.

    Thank you.

  2. In Chippendale NSW on “Change of use of level 3 of...” at 28 Broadway Chippendale NSW 2008:

    BIKESydney commented

    Given the availability of cycling routes to this proposal from the south and north, the proposed use must provide convenient, evident, covered, accessible and secure bicycle parking. The City should consider conditioning the development to provide more than even the maximum number of bicycle parking spots prescribed by the City of Sydney's DCP given the multiplying benefit to other uses at Central Park (eg, supermarkets, cafes, restaurants). Bike parking is a cost-effective way to increase patronage to these businesses. Please include parking also for cargo bikes.

  3. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    James Talbot commented

    As a former resident of Union St, this is an absurd application. I continue to use this street daily.

    The current operation of this business is already clearly problematic. This development will only make it worse. Even without this business, there is no surplus available parking on this street. The business already creates extensive illegal and unsafe parking by the taxi drivers. It is a noisy operation run 24/7 which has been placed on top of immediately adjacent residential housing. If the history of this operator's previous applications is correct (as mentioned in other comments), that would indicate that compliance with any conditions is unlikely.

    There is no justification for the approval of this application or any variation of it.

  4. In Clovelly NSW on “Alterations and second...” at 379-401 Clovelly Road Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Elizabeth Milligan commented

    As a resident living across the road from a hotel, it would be expected to have some noise and occasional disturbance to put up with. The most important factor is how problems are handled; there should be consideration to local residents. The hotel has an obligation to abide by RSA and ensure clients are considerate when departing the building and area. There has been a steady increase to incidents over the years. We have witnessed fights, public urination, arguments, car vandalism and just silly drunken behaviour and occasionally have to put up with excessive shouting from patrons.
    The Clovelly Hotel is an enormous building. It has a beautiful, well maintained outer facade. We have already endured two major renovations at the hotel. The upper bar with staircase down to the side deck is the worst noise polluter with crowds standing on a small space. Why is there a need for more verandas when there is already a large beer garden?

    There is an enormous TV screen in this garden which shines into our apartment- this is always on.
    I feel if there is greater expansion to the hotel it will have further negative impact.
    If the hotel wishes to change/update internally then that should not be an issue. They have to maintain car park capacity as parking becomes increasingly challenging.
    The building should not be able to expand upwards as it is already too large. It is the best maintained historic Clovelly building and should remain so

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

    Brad Powe commented

    I wish to lodge my objection to the 'unsolicited proposal' currently being considered by the JRRP to erect a completely inapproriate 16-storey residential tower on land adjacent to Blenheim Park in North Ryde.

    This process is occurring even though Ryde Council has unanimously voted to rezone the existing properties, acquire them on just terms, and incorporate them in an expanded park to cater to the huge increase in population that the North Ryde 'activation zone' will soon have.

    Ryde's late mayor Mick Lardelli would have identified this application as "opportunistic spot development". It runs counter to the outcome of the campaign run by our state and federal MPs to protect the nearby Tennis World site from a similar proposal. That proposal would certainly be back on the table if the JRPP was to allow the Blenheim Park one to go forward to exhibition, and the outcome would logically be a continuous string of similarly inappropriate tower blocks along the south side of Epping Road.

  6. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Federica commented

    At the end of union st there is a primarynl school. Pls the street is not wide. It doesn't appear to be good planning to put a 24/7 taxi business. This is a residential area with lots of children walking around. Taxi sometimes park on our st already as there is not enough space for them there. Most of the house on union st use off street parking it will create mor congestion.

  7. In Annandale NSW on “Tank replacements at...” at 198 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2050:

    Todd commented

    There is no arborist report as indicated in the application.

    The only reason given by the applicant for tree removal is that the trees are declining and could result in potential damage (reasons are too vague to judge). The applicant indicates that there is no impact of trees on the business itself.

    Regardless, damaged trees must be replaced on a one for one basis, with native trees of equivalent maturity (i.e. size) or as close as possible given reasonable consideration of costs.

    These are likely significant, large isolated trees for urban wildlife along a major urban corridor.

    Evidence in the application indicates that council should require the applicant to replace these trees.

  8. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 8 Summit Court, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Gage Rossiter wrote to local councillor Len Cox

    Why is this application not advertised at the address ie no yellow sign? There is a real estate agents sign on site advertising the proposed development. Is the result of the current application a foregone conclusion?

    Photo of Len Cox
    Len Cox local councillor for Yarra Ranges Shire Council
    replied to Gage Rossiter

    I know nothing about this application as it has not been to council as yet. However I will find out what is happening & get back to you.

  9. In Burpengary QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 157-159 Station Road, Burpengary QLD 4505:

    Mable Dunning wrote to local councillor Peter Flannery

    I agree. We live on Station Rd. and make every effort not to leave or return home in school hours. Traffic lights at Aldi /W,worths are not syn'd and so far no council or whoever has bothered to sort this out.. Is this a new gym that wants to start up??? Think we have enough anyway. We also oppose this developement..

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Flannery. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Kellyville NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling and...” at 43 Barry Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Julie Wilson wrote to local councillor Mark Taylor

    I object to these types of dwellings in North Kellyville. There is insufficient off street parking provided and in most existing no off street parking for 2nd dwelling. Landscaping should be designed for minimal maintenance no storage for lawn mower. Provision for storage of waste disposal bins should be screened from road frontage.

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Taylor. They are yet to respond.

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

    Adam commented

    Aspaki:

    On this entry, Ryde Council has mentioned there is no community support for this rezoning. So it looks like community has already spoken and NSW planning (which wants the rezoning to happen) is reviewing the response and see what can be changed.

    I work in the North Ryde business park opposite and now see one vacant building (once occupied by Fujitsu) in the area. There is also one very large undeveloped block of land zoned for commercial offices which has been there for 10+ years (previously leased to Isoft that went into administration). In addition there are the cuts to CSIRO and they have a few offices that aren't being used. And I hear also the large software/tech companies have frozen their hiring. So there is definitely a downturn within this area which NSW planning has ignored.

    Finally traffic along Julius Avenue, Blenheim Road and Pittwater Road has increased exponentially with long queues now common around the peak hours. This is even more so now that cars/trucks are using Julius Avenue as a shortcut/rat run to get to Delhi road and on to Chatswood or to get to Epping road from Delhi Road. So the rezoning will make this worse and does not solve this major traffic bottleneck.

    So the question is why is NSW planning panel still pursuing this when there is almost no case for more? Furthermore, I don't think the planning panel does not have a period of consultation with the community but if I'm wrong let everyone know.

  12. In Burpengary QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 157-159 Station Road, Burpengary QLD 4505:

    Ngaire McLoughlin commented

    The morning & afternoon traffic on Station Road, Burpengary is already difficult, congested and time-consuming. My children attend St Eugene College on Station Road, and this development will only add to our twice-daily woes.

    Added to this is the fact that Burpengary Creek floods Station Road at this location whenever we have significant rain events.

    I oppose this permit on the basis that the traffic will put other road users at risk, and the environmental concerns pose a risk to users of this facility.

  13. In Wellington Point QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 3...” at 90-100 Main Road, Wellington Point, QLD:

    Peter Crane wrote to local councillor Wendy Boglary

    Darn. Three more two storey 'lego' houses soon to front Main Road. The middle one won't have a driveway either! I'm surprised it isn't being broken into four @ 366m2 with 8.8m frontages! It would have made 2 rather nice blocks at 733m2.
    Sadly it's probably acceptable.

    Delivered to local councillor Wendy Boglary. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Annandale NSW on “Tank replacements at...” at 198 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2050:

    zio ledeux commented

    we should be planting more trees not removing them

  15. In Norah Head NSW on “Shop fitout - Wood fire...” at 7 Mitchell Street Norah Head NSW 2263:

    Terry and Margaret Bishop directors of Simoteg Pty Ltd commented

    The Planning Officer
    Wyong Shire Council
    Hely Street
    WYONG. NSW 2249

    Dear Sir,
    I refer to the proposed opening hours of Wood Pizza at 7 Mitchell Street, Norah Head.
    I find it disturbing that the DA application for this proposed business has now been amended to request longer opening hours until 12.00pm.
    The area surrounding the Wood Pizza is predominantly residential. My unit, 3/69 Bungary Road, Norah Head, which is in the laneway behind the business, is approximately 20 metres from the site with bedrooms facing the laneway. There is a café below my unit with opening hours 8.00am to 5.00pm, there is a restaurant, with a business name Shorethyme located next door to Wood Pizza with closing hours at 10.00pm. Any disturbance is generally quite low and acceptable.
    It would seem to me that allowing extended hours will cause disturbance issues as the laneway would provide an area for groups to congregate way past 12.00pm which is not an uncommon event noting other commercial areas.
    As mentioned above as the area is basically residential and longer hours will affect normal sleeping arrangements as sound is magnified during night time.
    While the Wood Pizza is advantageous for our area and is encouraged the extended opening hours may cause unnecessary friction between residents and the Wood Pizza patrons. If the balance is right between residents and business then the area should prosper. I believe the opening hours should be aligned with Shorethyme.
    T and M Bishop

  16. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    David commented

    People the very same operators failed to get approval in 33 burrows rd , then at 9/2 burrows rd Sth they applied for 18 cabs and were knocked back even when they reapplied for 6 cabs but had a combined 60 cabs plus operating
    they had to move and just expect to be approved but the rms doesn't check council approvals to grant taxi accreditations they are required to have off street parking for each and every plate they operate .
    Marrickville council was lied to numerously when they tried to operate out of burrows rd Sth so stand up against these thugs who think they can take all our street parking and destroyed 2 commercial businesses who relied on large truck deliveries but we're always unable to enter driveways due to drivers parking into the driveway leaving space for motor cars to fit through only

  17. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    David commented

    People the very same operators failed to get approval in 33 burrows rd , then at 9/2 burrows rd Sth they applied for 18 cabs and were knocked back even when they reapplied for 6 cabs but had a combined 60 cabs plus operating not now they had to move and just expect to be approved but the rms doesn't check approvals to grant accreditations they are required to have off street parking for each and every plate they operate . Marrickville council was lied to numerously when they tried to operate out of burrows rd Sth so stand up against these thugs who think they can take all our street parking and destroyed 2 commercial businesses who relied on large truck deliveries but we're always unable to enter driveways due to drivers parking into the driveway leaving space for motor car to fit through only

  18. In Granville NSW on “Section 96(1A) application...” at South Street, Granville, Australia:

    Melanie Bourke commented

    5am to 1am is not reasonable opening hours. There are many residences around that area,and this would increase traffic and pedestrian noise unreasonably during unreasonable hours.
    I think it would be fair to open from 7am till midnight, but not 1am, and not to then reopen 4 hours later at 5am.

  19. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of building...” at 719 - 721 Burwood Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    John Fricke commented

    This is another developer applying for reduced car parks. It has already been identified that there is a shortage of on street parks. If the reduction in car parking is approved for these applications the area will be a congested space with poor access reducing living enjoyment for inhabitants and visitors as well as shoppers.

  20. In Granville NSW on “Section 96(1A) application...” at South Street, Granville, Australia:

    Sarah Skinner commented

    This is an unreasonable request. There are many family homes within the vicinity of this business district and I do not believe this is fair to the residents to have traffic both pedestrian and vehicular coming and going at these hours.

  21. In Invermay TAS on “Community Meeting and...” at 217B Invermay Road Invermay TAS 7248:

    Phoebe Nimanis commented

    This would be a really exciting and welcome development on the struggling business strip of Invermay - one I'm certain will have a positive flow-on effect for an area in need of more diverse and community- and arts-focused enterprise. It would be fantastic to see this historical building reclaimed and restored for its original purpose. It makes sense to develop arts infrastructure in this area of Launceston, considering the active arts community that is positioned nearby at UTAS in Inveresk.

  22. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Ian Hudson wrote to local councillor Chris Woods

    This is an outrage! Why is the council planning application only going through now? They have been there for over 2 months....the extra cars parked on Union Street are unwelcome as is the late night noise coming from the facility. Vacuuming and playing soccer at 3am is not allowed when next to a residential area!! Last week I saw one of their guys driving the wrong way down our one way street. Go away!

    Delivered to local councillor Chris Woods. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Knoxfield VIC on “The construction of three...” at 41 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Over it resident wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    Well the accident happened just near pejaro crt on kathryn rd,two cars written off,one person taken to hospital two others injured....

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  24. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 667-669 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Martin commented

    Could council please clarify what changes will happen if this application is approved. The site is already being operated as a 24/7 taxi facility. Or is it just a retrospective application and approval process?

  25. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 13 Willoughby Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    Does this application include tree removal given this property appears to have mature trees and is part of a leafy street? If this is the case I oppose this application. It will be good if the demolition of the existing dwelling does not include the loss of the trees. Within the Parramatta Council area 53 tree removal applications have been received this month and 71 were received last month. If we lose an average of 70 trees each month this adds up to the loss of 840 trees each year in the Parramatta Council area. This is not contributing to creating a desirable city in which to live. Most of the trees removed were mature trees, providing habitat for our wildlife, and they will never be replaced.

  26. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Construction of 4 double...” at 8 Brooks Crescent, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Katie commented

    Building more double story townhouses in this already busy street will loose the beautiful old diamond Creek country feel. All the stunning trees and ambience. That corner is caos for traffic now. The house is not run down it's been not long been fully renovated.
    Thank you Katie
    Diamond Creek resident

  27. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Construction of 4 double...” at 8 Brooks Crescent, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Katie commented

    Building more double story townhouses in this already busy street will loose the beautiful old diamond Creek country feel. All the stunning trees and ambience. That corner is caos for traffic now. The house is not run down it's been not long been fully renovated.
    Thank you Katie
    Diamond Creek resident

  28. In Sutherland NSW on “Construction of 101 Apartments” at 29-41 The Grand Parade & 48 Vermont Street, Sutherland:

    Kaiser Khan commented

    Both Vermont Street (two way) & The Grand Parade (one way) are very narrow streets & many people parked their cars because both streets are close to Sutherland station. It is already really hard to find parking for the guests. Also two vehicles can't pass at the same time when cars parked one both sides of vermont street. So sometimes residents of vermont street have to wait for the other direction car to pass away. Now with proposed 101 units (almost 150 cars) the parking & traffic situation will be worst. Also the height of proposed four new building will block view & airflow of this area & other residents nearby. Please also consider people's density & other considerable matters of the area (e.g Noise, Children's play area, use of footpath etc ) if this proposal is approved.

  29. In Clovelly NSW on “Alterations and second...” at 379-401 Clovelly Road Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Debby Paskal commented

    Under no circumstances should The Clovelly Hotel be allowed to alter the heritage-listed facade.
    In addition, further expansion, more bars, in an already enlarged drinking area, ie. the beer garden, will only add to the existing intolerable noise levels (P A systems blasting sporting events such as cage fighting outside), seemingly unlimited intake of patrons and traffic congestion. How will this mega-pub reduce alcohol fuelled anti-social behaviour spilling out onto our streets?
    The hotel refuses to acknowledge that it exists in a neighbourhood and must respect its neighbour's rights to a quality of residence. Randwick Council needs to stand up for the rights of the people in our community and should be exercising some control rather than this becoming an ever growing problem.

  30. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 51-55 Westbury Road South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Kate Nixon commented

    I am writing to object to the proposed development at 51-55 Westbury Rd, Launceston (DA0618/2015)

    I am very unhappy with the proposed height, which is strangely outside of council guidelines, and will impact upon privacy, sunshine of other neighbors, and aesthetic appeal of the area. I purchased my property due to the unencumbered outlook and privacy of my backyard. This proposed building will have balconies that look into my yard and afford views into several rooms of my house. I feel that such a tall and imposing structure looking into my yard may adversely affect future buyers from choosing to purchase my property, and with a reduced aesthetic appeal and multiple dwellings increasing both human and traffic noise it will likely detract from the value of my property. I know that I myself would not have purchased this property had such a structure already being built in that position.

    It is well know that high density living situations often increase neighborhood disputes, and encourage transient neighbors, which does not promote a cohesive and peaceful lifestyle for the other existing residents.
    I have already experienced issues with flats in the area, and have seen the police involved and heard screaming and evidence of domestic violence, so it worries me that more multiple high density style units with close access and shared driveways are proposed. I am a mother, who chose this peaceful street to create a safe home to bring up my children, and I would never purchase a property knowing that a multiple and towering block of units would be constructed overlooking our back yard.

    I am extremely concerned about land slip risk also. I have experienced cracking and movement in my previous residence after autobarn was constructed, and I have noticed in the recent wet weather that my Merivale st property has multiple new cracks in both the plaster and brick work. The external windowsill on the northern side of my house is suddenly now obviously very misaligned since I purchased the premises. If wet weather has already caused such damage, what will excavation and construction pressure below my premises cause? Having to repair further issues would financially ruin me and result in me losing money on selling my property.

    I have experienced flooding downstairs in my property recently also, and took note that the drainage between number 6 and number 8 is insufficient, with a small sinkhole from erosion already having started due to the two separate property heights and drainage issues. I am very concerned that the areas storm water and drains already seem insufficient, and so if multiple large infilled dwellings are sited below the existing problem the issues may multiply and threaten the structural integrity of the surrounding properties.

    In recent months there were workman stating they were from a "leak detection" company wanting to put dye down my down pipes to investigate a leak towards
    Westbury rd. I am unsure who instructed this, or what the result was after their few days investigating. I am not confident in the drainage of the area being able to cope with multiple extra residences and hard surfaces, as we have days where it is slow to ease on both the ground and in storm water systems. How will the stated reticulated system have room for construction being so awfully close the the existing neighbors boundaries?

    I feel that the proposed overly high structure also is placed too close to existing residents on the western sides fences, this causes an invasion of privacy which can cause ongoing distress and psychological impacts upon individuals who were previously happy with the properties they had chosen to make their homes in. The risk of escalating disputes due to forcing such close proximity upon people who would expressly choose not to live that way is highly likely. Washing, noise and rubbish will likely become issues causing tension in such circumstances.

    I feel that the residents of our street, especially those in close proximity to this proposal which is outside of regulations would be negatively impacted if such an imposing structure be built so close to fence lines. This is a quiet and private street, and we choose to buy and live here due to that, and for the beautiful outlook afforded by purchasing a property on a hill which improves values and mental well-being.

    Thank you for reading my submission, and I hope that the relevant issues raised by the local residents are listened to during the decision making process. We are happy to live in this street, in a peaceful and cohesive neighborhood community where cooperation is valued.

    Kind regards,

    Kate Nixon.

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