Recent comments

  1. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Dr A P and Ms C A Reilly commented

    As a long-term resident of Hurlstone Park (since 1995), we strongly object to the demolition of the single storey, Federation residence at 82 Floss Street to make way for 6 townhouses.

    While we believe that, with very good design, contemporary architecture can complement traditional housing stock - and significantly prefer good, contemporary design to "faux heritage." (Note: It is not possible to assess the merits of the proposed design from the documentation available online.)

    However, the proposed development is not consistent with the streetscape and would result in a loss of amenity in the street - which was Council's reason for rejecting our application for a contemporary, architect-designed fence/privacy screen that was higher than the stipulated maximum. Council must take a consistent approach in assessing development applications - and, regardless of style, there are no similar developments in Dunstaffenage Street or surrounding streets west of Dunstaffenage Street. The small number of "low rise" developments that are nearby are either set back (most are not visible from the street), on much bigger blocks and/or are old, Art Deco walk ups (like the apartments in Floss Street between Dunstaffenage and Melford Streets).

    More importantly, allowing 6 townhouses to be packed into a 575 square metre block will represent a significant loss of amenity for its immediate neighbours and create a concerning precedent. It is also inconsistent with Planning NSW's "vision" for the "built form" as set out in its proposal for that area of Hurlstone Park - which is to retain the character of these streets as part of "single dwelling areas."

    We ask Council to refuse the Development Application.

  2. In Telopea NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 Evans Road Telopea NSW 2117:

    Liz Ashard commented

    What does a "mixed use" development mean. Does it mean part residential part commercial therefore shops or offices on a lower level? Or does it mean something else? I would appreciate an explanation.

    Six stories seems excessive for an area that is mainly single level residential. How were they able to take the building to such a height without impinging on surrounding residential privacy and light?

  3. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 423 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Suzanne Evans commented

    I don't agree that it should be 6 storeys. It will overshadow and stand out against the current landscape. If these developments must go ahead then it should be capped to 4 storeys and adequately set back from the road so it doesn't intrude.

    6 storeys with only one car space for each unit will also mean more traffic and parking issues on the surrounding streets which are already at peak capacity.

    Plus now there will more retail tenancies that will sit vacant for years because the developer sets the value on them to high and so no one will want to pay the overpriced rents that will be requested for these making them an eyesore for the suburb. This will make the area look shabby.

  4. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Sarah Maniscalco commented

    As a resident of the suburb, I am saddened to see this is a possibility. Not what I expected to see moving to this area. I would hope the street scape was valued by the council, like the residents.

  5. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Nicholas Buckland commented

    How can a beautiful heritage house be destroyed to make way for crammed in six townhouses? This is wilful destruction of the suburbs' original charm and character. Very sad.

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

    Clare Buckley wrote to local councillor Philip Mallis

    I cannot believe that the Boroondara Council is serious about a planning application for a brothel in Canterbury Road ??
    For obvious reasons, the community must vigorously object to this and commit to fighting against it.
    PLEASE, NOT IN OUR BACK YARD !!!

    Photo of Philip Mallis
    Philip Mallis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Clare Buckley

    Dear Clare,

    Firstly this is an application for a massage parlour and not a brothel. Not all massage parlours are brothels and not all brothels are massage parlours.

    Secondly, no decision has been made. Council has merely received and registered the application as legally required. More information on the process may be found on the Planning Register on Council's website: http://eservices.boroondara.vic.gov.au/EPlanning/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=562039

    Regards,

    Philip Mallis
    Councillor for Maranoa Ward
    Private Bag 1, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    City of Boroondara - Councillors
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7846 | Mobile: 0418 564 410
    Email: philip.mallis@boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Please consider the environment before printing this email

  7. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Ruth Brian commented

    I strongly object to the demolition of this beautiful federation house and any disruption to trees within this garden. Surely there is a heritage listing on this house. This house is on the route of Canterbury council Hurlstone Park heritage walk brochure that Canterbury Council produced.

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo commented

    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape nor the cadastral patten of properties in the street. This Section of Warren road is of historical, social and architectural interest to the state of NSW. It remains as assessed in the Marrickville heritage study of 1986. For example Joe Cahill ( the Cahill express was named after him) was raised in this street and many contributors to Sydney's public service and business have lived here. Not to mention the historic and heritage church with and parish house nearby.
    The street demographic comprises families, elderly and low cost housing. As one resident said- it is a lovely street with lovely people and should remain as it is.
    The house at number 27 Warren road is a largely intact Italianate building with original features. All through the development application the owner/applicant derided both the street and the house. The signage for publication of the DA was between 30 December 2015 and 26 January 2016, right in the middle of the holiday period and the public notification sign was not visible for days during this period. Many people who live in close proximity to this property also state that they did not get a notification letter so as to respond to this development application and were dismayed.
    All in all it is a shame to increase the congestion and reduce the amenity for this already crowded and busy street, for the local hardworking community that resides here in Warren road.
    As a local resident I am aware that all of the houses remain largely intact inside and out. The street attracts visitors and artists from all walks of life, young renters like the street for its historical charm and there are people who have been here for over 50 years. The development proposed at number 27 is not instep with the NSW state government plan nor local zoning rules,this part of Warren road is meant to be low rise/ low density accommodation. To put 3 three bedroom houses with basement house and carports and paved courtyards on one plot is overcrowding and insensitive to the area and local residents.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 20 George Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo commented

    There are far too many apartment buildings in George street and it would cause much more congestion for residents. The amenity for locals will be reduced and the charm of residential architecture is at risk by this development. The growth and overdevelopment of Marrickville is environmentally and socially unsound and as such I would oppose this development. Families and older persons in the street are at risk from increased congestion and traffic from such a development. These types of developments do nothing for the character of Marrickville and the need for truly affordable accommodations, green spaces and appropriate accommodation for the inner west demographic that includes students, artists, working families, children and the elderly.
    The lack of planned increase in infrastructure also puts pressure on this community, for example parks, transport and public amenities.

  10. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification to existing...” at 13 O'Brien Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    John Adolph Citizen commented

    The proposed changes suggest that the business in planning to operate more like a BAR than a restaurant.... I suggest Council looks closely at this and make sure that the patrons are required to be seated and that they order food. Also the loss of the rear stairs could prose risks for upper floor residents, and the increased intensity of use will inevitably increase residential impacts (patron noise, rubbish, deliveries, mechanical plant, etc).
    As cool as the small bar movement might be, there are real risks for residents that bad management results in irreversible negative impacts. Once the OK is given, it becomes really difficult to control.

  11. In Waitara NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 16-20 Park Avenue Waitara NSW 2077 Australia:

    Concerned Resident commented

    This development has increased by approximately 20 extra apartments from the original DA. The section 96 is a notification of change yet to be approved, however Developcorp are currently advertising the property in the Bushtelegraph as a 90 apartments which are 70% sold.

    It is concerning that Developcorp are misleading the consumer or is there a prearrangement between Hornsby council and Developcorp, that this section 96 is only a formality and that the development will proceed.

    The DA/1001/2013/D is not visible on the site. DA/1001/2013/C is the latest that is shown on the council site.

    There is no report provided on the impact of increase traffic and the management of residents permanently parking on Park Ave.

    How does Hornsby council propose to manage the over crowding of the Park Ave in particular during the winter football season?

    As part of the rezoning of Park Ave and Balmoral street it was required that a green corridor be provided to retain and encourage the local animals to remain.

    How does the changes to this development addressed the provision of the the green corridor?

    How do the changes of this development tie into the overall strategy for providing a green corridor for Park ave and Balmoral street?

    The estimated costs of the development seem excessively low for a 90 block development at an average of just over $200,000 per apartment. In fact in 2013, when the original DA was submitted for 72 units the cost of the development was stated as $19,675,176.00. In 2016 the increase to 90 units the construction cost is stated as the same. Considering this developer is currently selling apartments in Park Ave and Balmoral street averaging at about $800,000. It could possibly be $72 million bonanza for the developer. The additional revenue from the extra apartments may almost cover the cost of the whole development.

    Have the developers quoted the correct amount?

    There could be money that the council is missing out on. Money that can be used to look after our beautiful bush shire. Money that can be used instead of increasing the rates of the local residents to cover the costs of additional works to upgrade streets required to cope with the additional traffic and parking. Fixing up of streets damaged by the heavy trucks and machinery using the streets. Providing additional parks and playgrounds for the extra residents.

    In 2015 a tree on this site fell and damaged the road in Park lane. 2016 and the road is still not repaired. Developcorp have still not repaired the road and made it safe for cars and pedestrians. They have not filled the hole properly. They have left debris laying about on the edge of the road. The flimsy wire mesh fence is precariously placed on the uneven and unstable surface.

    Is there a reason why the developer hasn't repaired the road and made it safe for cars and pedestrians? It is impossible for cars to pass and it is dangerous for pedestrians to walk. In this time the same developer has completed 3 large developments and is in the process of starting another 2 large projects in Park ave and Balmoral street but they are unable to repair and make safe the streets that are used by community.

    Park Lane is a major thoroughfare for school children and residents going to local schools and the station. Developcorp have already commenced work on the site with a deep excavation at least 10-15m deep. Such a dangerous site should be completely secure with no possible access for the public to enter the site. However the site has numerous points in its perimeter fencing with holes large enough for adults to easily pass through. There would be no effort for a young inquisitive child to easily gain access to the site and get injured or even fall to their death.

    Developcorp show no responsibility or duty of care for the local community. It is concerning the Hornsby Council rangers, who constantly monitor the surrounding area, have not picked this up. Even if Developcorp are using a private certifier to monitor the development, it should be the councils concern that the local community is kept safe at all times. Should a person or child be seriously injured or killed before Delevlopcorp are made to take responsibility of their works.

    It is a major requirement of any development or building works that the developer, builder or owner is responsible to provide and maintain sediment control barriers. Developcorp have not provided sufficient sediment control barriers to the existing storm water drain in front of the site. They have only provide 2 small damaged sand bags that do not collect or filter debris coming from the site. It is concerning that this lack of site maintenance will lead to the storm water drain getting blocked. Similar to the storm water drain in front of the recently completed development at 40-42a Park Avenue which is another development by Developcorp.

    Other areas that Developcorp have failed on their requirements of properly managing their site and construction works.

    The site fencing located on Park Ave encroaches on the footpath, making the path narrow and making it difficult to walk on. The footpath is badly damage with serious trip hazards which pedestrians being of serious risk of being injured. The grass verge is not maintained, with grass shin high and littered with rubbish from the site and empty food and drink containers making it dangerous to walk, in particular at night in the dimply lit street.

    The council should close down the site as it is unsafe and poses a serious risk to the local community. As there are serious issues with site safety, these concerns and issues will be forwarded on to other appropriate authorities to look into the issues from the site.

  12. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Strata subdivision...” at 7-11 Consett Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Local resident commented

    Dear Waverley Council,
    From the three documents available on Council's web site relating to this DA, it is difficult (perhaps even impossible) to work out what changes are being sought in this DA.
    The DA description suggests that the DA is for a change in "strata subdivision including re-allocation of garage lots," and the two-paragraph SEE states only that the "proposed development will have negligible, in any, environmental effects." The only other document is what appears to be the proposed strata plan, but there is no indication of how this differs from the current plan.
    In the absence of the current strata plan, there is no indication of what areas are to be changed or how they are being changed. Are certain areas of common property involved? If so, there may be implications for planning provisions regarding outdoor space, and this will have implications for other residents in the building.
    Can I ask that Council consider whether the on-line documents sufficiently describe the proposal, and if possible, provide the community with the information is needs in order to evaluate this application, especially as it appears already to have been allocated for "fast-track" processing?
    Yours sincerely, etc

  13. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Dual Occupancy” at 100-102 Water Street South South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Damien wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    More money grabbing by developers and even more more rates grabbing by the greedy council. 400sq blocks, how degrading for a city this large. What an absolute joke.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Antonio. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Thornbury VIC on “Construct a multi level...” at 354A St Georges Road Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Lauren Moloney commented

    This building will have a direct impact on my privacy and enjoyment of my property. I live two houses down and am concerned about what a building of this size will do to the surrounding properties and the additional traffic congestion it will result in.
    A building of this height will block natural light into my property and provide visibility directly into my backyard infringing in on my privacy and rights to enjoy my property. I vehemently object.

  15. In Peregian Springs QLD on “12 Dwelling Houses -...” at Peregian Springs Dr, Peregian Springs, QLD:

    Kathrine Ursin commented

    Why do you have to build on every piece of green space we have .
    Please leave some so we can still breathe .

  16. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 132 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    worn out by it all commented

    No-one cares mate - I live opposite high rise apartments, with another lot behind me. No corner of my house or yard is private any longer (apparently not even from a apartment dweller with binoculars) - political donations rule the day and councils only care about increased rates not communities.
    Fixed building regulations were replaced by guidelines, VCAT, and Queen's Counsel - you tell me how the' ambience of the area' means a high rise can be built opposite a row of Californian bungalows! Heritage overlays simply mean big developers can make their fortunes whilst single families pay more to fit in with regulations that are designed to keep the inner suburbs just liveable in whilst those big profits are made.
    Some apartment buildings have flats smaller that those allowed in Singapore and Hong Kong and sub-standard building abounds. Councillors pretend that cars aren't necessary yet many of them run one themselves.
    Welcome to the land of greed, moral corruption and entrepreneurialism.

  17. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Sebastian westbrook commented

    We would strongly object to the demolishing of a period federation style house to be replaced by a 2 storey development with 6 x townhouses. This development adjacent to the surrounding federation houses is totally out of keeping with Hurlstone Park.

  18. In Ramsgate NSW on “Amended Construction...” at 4 Dillon Street, Ramsgate NSW 2217:

    Greg Rostron commented

    This will only add to the increasing over development of the Ramsgate area. Single and two storey dwellings being replaced by 4, no 5 storey apartment blocks. More cars on the streets, more cars on the roads.
    I encourage the council to reject the submission and let common sense and not profits prevail.

  19. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 132 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Mark Simpson commented

    Five triple storey dwellings on this block? A much larger block at 164 Nicholson Street only has three on it and it seems crowded. In fact all of the recent developments in this area are only three squished onto the block. How is five deemed a reasonable use of this land? How are we to deal with the increased traffic flow that will come from five associated car parks, especially when the road here has recently been decimated by the new tram stop? I can't see how any planner would consider this a reasonable proposal. That of course is outside of the fact that this is yet another example of our local heritage being wiped out in this part of East Brunswick; or that this perfectly usable and recently renovated home that would suit a young family is being bulldozed to build some overpriced dog boxes that suit only developers pockets.

  20. In Birkdale QLD on “Demolition of Dwelling” at 24 Rossinton Street, Birkdale, QLD:

    Amy Glade commented

    I receive complaints from many residents on advice of demolition of a dwelling. Unfortunately by the time we receive your email, the demolition has already taken place and too late for any comment... would you agree?

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mike wrote to local councillor Max Phillips

    As a long-time resident abutting Fahey Lane which will suffer some of the immediate brunt of this development, I am simultaneously shocked and unsurprised that Marrickville Council did not notify me of this DA. It appears that it only notified 3 properties within 5m of the development, rather than the larger range of residents who will be affected daily by this development. It also snuck the comment period into the middle of the country's main vacation period just to make review less possible.

    Even the small development at the other end of Fahey Lane has already cost residents three street parking spots. That's not taking into account many more lost during the year or so of construction due to builders' vehicles on-site during the day, and left on Perry St on the weekends.

    We already have a situation where new developments have increased the local parking burden, yet Marrickville Council repeatedly rejects requests to implement parking schemes. Even the simple option of making the eastern side of Perry St between Brown St and Addison Rd rear to kerb parking as it is between Brown and Cowper is too much for the Council to contemplate. With the other developments on Addison Road and Cowper St, the population of this area of Marrickville is set to DOUBLE in a couple of years. The council should be engaging with residents IN ADVANCE of this rather than dribbling out uncontestable developments in a small radius.

    Any development abutting Fahey Lane has shown that it blocks resident access to their garages, and makes garbage collection almost impossible. I am increasing having to call the council to reattempt collection because construction fencing or vehicles blocked the lane. I've also witnessed Marrickville Council garbage trucks backing at great speed down the Lane (knocking over bins everywhere) because through transit is not possible. The Lane is narrow enough as it is that I've had my vehicle damaged by a garbage truck and have essentially given up after a year of contacting a very evasive council to pay costs.

    To underline comments above, even the building period removes substantial access and parking opportunities in this area. So if the council is waiting 1-2 years for development to complete to sort things out then it is waaaay too late. We still haven't caught up on the issues caused by the last 3 developments. The local real estate agent has up to five vehicles taking up street parking (often one vehicle taking two spaces) all the time. We are also seeing people leave their cars here all day (or for a couple of weeks) to get a shorter bus commute to the city or taxi to airport.

    I've gone from being able to park quite close to my house to having to hunt through surrounding streets. Unfortunately I'm much older and my back is less up to carrying shopping that far, so the council may be forcing a disabled zone outside my house.

    In respect of the building, it is of a completely inappropriate architectural character for the area. This is a vibrant historical precinct which could be developed into a mixed residential/retail/production area with greater sympathy for the surrounds (which I welcome) than dropping an ugly business park monolith into the streetscape. The height of the building will not only have shadowing effects on Addison Road, but noise from low aeroplanes bounces around off taller buildings in this area. The fact that it sits adjacent to single-storey residences makes me wonder if someone is trying to put the Pixar movie "Up" into reality.

    In respect of the property purpose, I agree with the above comments that any short-term residential development of this nature from this particular developer is not to be trusted. The noise disturbances and vandalism generated by his backpacker residents has long been an issue for people living near these properties. Marrickville Police will testify to this.

    Lastly the traffic added to this intersection is not sustainable. Exiting to Addison Road from side streets is extremely difficult due to poor visibility. Addison Road is frequently gridlocked on weekends due to short traffic lights at Stanmore Road/Enmore Road intersection which causes traffic to back up past Enmore Park heading south, and west to Illawarra Rd on Addison. The increasing popularity of the Addison Road markets compounds this issue: parallel-parking with no marked bays on side streets means there is no maximum utilisation of space, and this encourages double-parking, parking across home garage entrances etc.

    (All of this is adding up to very good reasons to support Marrickville Council being amalgamated into a hopefully more professional and responsive larger organisation. It has proved ineffective in being either on these issues for years now.)

    Delivered to local councillor Max Phillips. They are yet to respond.

  22. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 15 Steane Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday February 9th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  23. In Preston VIC on “1. Construction of a medium...” at 122 Tyler Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday February 9th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  24. In Preston VIC on “Development of a three (3)...” at 283-291 Gilbert Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday February 9th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  25. In Thornbury VIC on “Construct a multi level...” at 354A St Georges Road Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday February 9th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  26. In Preston VIC on “Medium density development...” at 12 McNamara Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    • If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday February 9th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  27. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed multi-dwelling...” at 10 Fordham Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Jenni Sanders commented

    Stop allowing developers to reduce the number of car parks that are a statutory requirement. This only pushes cars onto the street for parking causing further overcongestion on our already congested streets due to all the development that is being allowed. They are only doing this to fit more buildings into smaller spaces. If they want to develop then they should have to meet the minimum requirements for both resident and visitor parking. Enough is enough, Reservoir is losing it's community and family background and all because of greedy developers trying to squeeze maximum profits out of their property investments , they don't care when you can't drive safely down a street due to all the cars parked there.

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

    Concerned resident commented

    I am opposed to this application - massage parlours are just a front for brothels.

  29. In Annandale NSW on “Proposed Sex Services Premises” at 235 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2038:

    Deanna Payne commented

    If Leichhardt Council approves of men or women selling their bodies for sex this will go ahead,I was u der the impression Parramatta. Rd was going to be beautified ! This won't help,I wonder who would want to build high rise along there knowing that underneath them is a place like this? Thanks

  30. In Annandale NSW on “Proposed Sex Services Premises” at 235 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2038:

    Deanna Payne commented

    If Leichhardt Council approves of men or women selling their bodies for sex this will go ahead,I was u der the impression Parramatta. Rd was going to be beautified ! This won't help,I wonder who would want to build high rise along there knowing that underneath them is a place like this? Thanks

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