Recent comments

  1. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 442 Parramatta Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Concerned citizen wrote to local councillor Sam Iskandar

    one parking space only - "associated parking" is deceptive. 52 people parking on Charles and Margaret Streets in addition to the residents, TAFE students, Salvation Army events, and pub and bridal shop customers on Parramatta Road. Terrible proposal

    Delivered to local councillor Sam Iskandar. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 4 Carramar Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Camberwell Resident commented

    Dear All,

    Caramarr is in Lynden Ward. Your Ward Councillor is Heinz Kreutz. Please write to him and council's planning department regarding concerns/objections to this development.

    The builder should be guided by the Building Regulations on height, overlooking, overshadowing, etc. You can google the Building Regulations and read up on them. The Building Department, 1st floor, at Camberwell Council has a print out of the relevant parts you can pick up.

    Lynden Ward south of Riversdale Road in this area (unless you have a heritage overlay) has been targetted for (General Residential Zone 1) GRZ 1. Please google your Boroondara Planning Scheme neighbourhood character statement which is 58. This shows the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the area. Here is a little bit from it:

    "Key Characteristics
    • Predominantly interwar houses;
    • Predominantly single storey dwellings;
    • Increasing presence of multi-unit
    villa developments;
    • Pitched, tiled roofs;
    • Moderate lot frontages;
    • Moderate front setbacks;
    • Landscaped front generous;
    • Rear gardens of various sizes;
    • Low to medium high front fencing.
    Preferred Character Statement
    To enhance the consistency and character
    of streetscapes. To maintain the spacious,
    predominantly single storey, suburban feel of
    the area and the garden setting of dwellings.
    This will be achieved by:
    • Encouraging the retention of large trees and
    landscaped gardens;
    • Ensuring sufficient space is retained in front
    and rear gardens to accommodate large
    trees;
    • Ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback
    from front and side boundaries to retain the
    existing streetscape rhythm;
    • Ensuring new developments and additions
    respect the predominant scale and forms of
    the streetscape;
    • Give preference to units set one behind
    the other as opposed to side by side town
    houses.
    • Ensuring car parking structures do not
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Maximising soft landscaping and
    minimising areas of hard surfaces; and
    • Encouraging low or open style front
    boundary treatments.
    Threats/Iss ues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views

    Threats/Issues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views of the dwelling behind;
    • High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of
    the street;
    • Removal/loss of large trees; and
    • Period reproduction building design."

    Here is the relevant part from the Zoning Table from the Boroondara Housing Strategy 2015 to assist you with what development could occur in your neighbourhood

    GRZ 1 = 1 to 2 storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy, and multi unit villa/townhouse developments.

    (NOT) GRZ 2 to 3 = 1 to 3 storey developments comprising a mix of detached dwellings, dual occupancy, multi unit villa/townhouse and apartment buildings (this is not Caramarr)

    Write to the Planning Department at Council if you would rather have NRZ implemented (Neighbourhood Residential Zone).

    Jane Addis is the Maling Ward Councillor.

    Kind regards
    Camberwell resident

  3. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Middle Camberwell resident commented

    Dear All,

    Elaroo is in Lynden Ward. Your Ward Councillor is Heinz Kreutz. Please write to him and council's planning department regarding concerns/objections to this development.

    Lynden Ward south of Riversdale Road in this area (unless you have a heritage overlay) has been targetted for (General Residential Zone 1) GRZ 1. Please google your Boroondara Planning Scheme neighbourhood character statement which is 58. This shows the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the area. Here is a little bit from it:

    "Key Characteristics
    • Predominantly interwar houses;
    • Predominantly single storey dwellings;
    • Increasing presence of multi-unit
    villa developments;
    • Pitched, tiled roofs;
    • Moderate lot frontages;
    • Moderate front setbacks;
    • Landscaped front generous;
    • Rear gardens of various sizes;
    • Low to medium high front fencing.
    Preferred Character Statement
    To enhance the consistency and character
    of streetscapes. To maintain the spacious,
    predominantly single storey, suburban feel of
    the area and the garden setting of dwellings.
    This will be achieved by:
    • Encouraging the retention of large trees and
    landscaped gardens;
    • Ensuring sufficient space is retained in front
    and rear gardens to accommodate large
    trees;
    • Ensuring buildings are sufficiently setback
    from front and side boundaries to retain the
    existing streetscape rhythm;
    • Ensuring new developments and additions
    respect the predominant scale and forms of
    the streetscape;
    • Give preference to units set one behind
    the other as opposed to side by side town
    houses.
    • Ensuring car parking structures do not
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Maximising soft landscaping and
    minimising areas of hard surfaces; and
    • Encouraging low or open style front
    boundary treatments.
    Threats/Iss ues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views

    Threats/Issues
    • Boundary to boundary development;
    • Buildings that appear bulky and ‘box’ like;
    • Two or three storey developments that
    dominate the streetscape;
    • Lack of soft landscaping / vegetation;
    • Car parking structures in front setbacks that
    obscure views of the dwelling behind;
    • High front fences that disrupt the rhythm of
    the street;
    • Removal/loss of large trees; and
    • Period reproduction building design."

    Here is the relevant part from the Zoning Table from the Boroondara Housing Strategy 2015 to assist you with what development could occur in your neighbourhood

    GRZ 1 = 1 to 2 storey, detached dwellings, dual occupancy, and multi unit villa/townhouse developments.

    (NOT) GRZ 2 to 3 = 1 to 3 storey developments comprising a mix of detached dwellings, dual occupancy, multi unit villa/townhouse and apartment buildings (this is not Elaroo)

    Write to the Planning Department at Council if you would rather have NRZ implemented (Neighbourhood Residential Zone).

    Jane Addis is the Maling Ward Councillor.

    Kind regards
    Middle Camberwell resident

  4. In North Perth WA on “Proposed Construction of...” at 145 Raglan Road, North Perth, WA, 6006:

    Barry commented

    why is this already built ?

  5. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Lorne Hyde commented

    Whilst this is not in my street it does raise the Principle of the decision. A political decision was made several yrs ago to encourage alternative energy and many of us laid out the cost in good faith to install solar energy panels (sure there was a financial incentive but that just proves the importance of the policy at the time). Now we have a Liberal/Labor coalition effectively destroying this decision. If Council allows this to proceed it means all of those with Solar Panels are at potential risk of having their alternative source of energy destroyed. It is for this reason I object. Where are the Greens in this decision?

  6. In Paddington NSW on “Alterations to existing...” at 262 Moore Park Road Paddington NSW 2021:

    Mary Maguire commented

    Whilst I am not residing near this property - I feel it's important to ask IF the heritage integrity of the area may be authentically preserved if artistic installations via paintwork are broadly permitted nowmd into the future.

    If the aim is to create an environment that ensures all Homes appear as closely and purely as possible to the era in which they were built - then the answer is no.

    If the primary aim is to conserve architectural integrity then there's room for some creative flair that the next owner may choose to add to, embellish...or remove.

    As this has the potential to deeply affect the character of the area, it's a BIG question.

  7. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 4 Carramar Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    R. Khoo wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    I live next door to the proposed development and would appreciate being kept informed and consulted on the building location, height, privacy considerations and number of on-site car spaces etc.

    Thank you

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

  8. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Christine Armstrong commented

    I strongly object to the proposed Optus tower at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge. The nearness to residential housing ,schools and facilities is frightening to me . ( gyms, dance schools , children's gymnastics, play centre and trampoline park) that are used by the community of young and old . Let's not forget the Fernleigh Track which is a huge environmental and tourist asset to this area. Many families would be affected by not only the size and look of the structure but the unknown health and safety risks . I hope the LMCC takes a good look at the planning of this tower and surely there would be a better location found with no threat to our beautiful environment, our families and our wildlife. Please reconsider this application and say NO to its presence in this area.

  9. In Boronia VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 7 Zeising Court, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Alan Willox commented

    I am concerned about this application regarding the amount of off street parking available.
    The number of cars now parking on the street belonging to tenants of the units at number 11 has made it difficult to manoeuvre especially with cars parking close to the corner and particularly in the bowl of the court.
    Also still concerned about stormwater problems

  10. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 365-367 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Lisa Hendrickson commented

    I object to the planned mosque . This is the foothill and should not be subject to urban development . Please keep Narre Warren North rural and green .

  11. In Anna Bay NSW on “Change of use to Shop...” at 118 Gan Gan Rd, Anna Bay 2316 NSW:

    rnl commented

    The Anna Bay community does NOT need another bottle shop - remember, we already have Anna Bay Bottle Shop and Anna Bay Pub, within a short distance from each other.

    It WILL generate more money for the owners of the IGA store. However, it will ALSO contribute to the existing problem of under-age drinking and unwanted behaviour in our community.

    We have to remember that Nelson Bay Police are under-resourced at peak times (weekends, school holidays and public holidays) run off their feet attending anti-social behaviour as a result of alcohol abuse (the police often have to come out from Raymond Terrace, as the Nelson Bay Police station is not attended).

    This will not be beneficial to the community, and as a sponsor of Little Athletics, is also sending out the wrong message to the younger community.

  12. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 9 Smith Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding four two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development includes reverse living arrangements in three of the five dwellings with poor private open space provision on the ground floor.
    4. Unit five provides has poor internal amenity.
    5. The proposed management of waste collection is inadequate as there are no spaces in the site for garbage bins and this will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    6. The proposed development will remove a significant shade tree.
    7. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    8. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    9. The waiver for visitor parking will result in a lack of parking for first responders in an emergency.
    10. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    11. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    12. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    13. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    14. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    15. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  13. In Reservoir VIC on “Construction of a two (2)...” at 1C MacArtney Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by adding another two bedroom flat.
    2. This is not the ideal site a for human habitation being a narrow spit of land bordered by the five way intersection of Epping train line, High St, Spring St, Cheddar rd, Broadway and the underground pipes from Yan Yean Reservoir.
    3. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    4. The proposed development provides very poor external amenity on tiny balconies and roof top open space in the middle of traffic.
    5. The proposed placement of bins in the garage is inappropriate.
    6. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    7. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    8. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    9. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    10. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    11. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    12. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    13. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  14. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 9 Johnson Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 3 X two bedroom flats.
    2. Units 2 of this proposal have a 3rd bedroom adjacent to a bathroom disguised as a "study". This are easily turned into a bedroom making it a three bedroom dwelling without providing the appropriate parking allowance.
    3. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    4. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with small living spaces and poor direct daylight due to lack of windows.
    5. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    6. The proposed management of waste collection is inadequate and will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    7. The new cross over proposed will mean the removal or endangering of a significant street tree.
    8. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    9. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    10. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    11. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    12. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    13. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  15. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M.Martin wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    Parking will be a HUGE issue. Watch as the buding permit sails through with 'reduced' car parking spaces. It is a nightmare around those streets. Nothing is done, perhaps vote put the councillors who do nothing about our growing concerns as I am tired of writing to them

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to M.Martin

    Hello M Martin
    I would be very happy to discuss your concerns further with you if you would like to contact me.
    regards

    Description: colvert.jpgJane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

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

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

  16. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Rebecca Curran wrote to local councillor Max Phillips

    I object to this development application because of the excessive overshadowing caused by the proposed second storey addition. Their DA plans show no solar panels on the roof of number 23 as per Marrickville LEP and will render these solar panels as obsolete. This second storey addition plus the car port are not sympathetic to the current streetscape.

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

  17. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Rebecca Curran commented

    I object to this development application because of the excessive overshadowing caused by the proposed second storey addition. Their DA plans show no solar panels on the roof of number 23 as per Marrickville LEP and will render these solar panels as obsolete. This second storey addition plus the car port are not sympathetic to the current streetscape.

  18. In Thornbury VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 50 Wales Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing 2 family homes and adding 2 X two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees.
    4. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    5. The proposed management of waste collection is inadequate.
    6. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    7. The waiver for visitor parking will result in a lack of parking for first responders in an emergency.
    8. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    9. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    10. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    11. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    12. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    13. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  19. In Thornbury VIC on “Medium density development...” at 3 Tharratt Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 6 X two bedroom only flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with small living spaces and poor direct daylight due to lack of windows.
    4. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    5. The proposed management of waste collection is not included and use of street for waste storage will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood.
    6. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    7. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    8. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    9. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    10. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    11. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  20. In Newtown NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 228 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Megan Hicks commented

    I have read other's comments and, although I understand the desire of developers to maximize return on an investment, this should not be the only consideration. Urban character, rather than homogenisation and blandness, should be considerations in a precinct as important at Newtown. The development proposal as it stands makes no reference at all to the charming shop (currently disguised by surface renovations) that occupies the site. I maintain there is a case for restoring the original appearance and function of the single-storey shop and utilizing the remainder of the site for development. As others have noted, this is how the Post Office site has been developed and, although humble in comparison, the relict shop at 228 King Street deserves similar treatment, not because it is a grand edifice but because its survival in its almost original form (until a few years ago), and its contribution to the distinctive Newtown streetscape, should be acknowledged. The proposed development, while attractive in appearance, could be anywhere. It is an echo of the vandalising efforts of developers in previous decades who demolished facades and whole buildings in King Street before the value of this unique commercial streetscape was recognised.

  21. In Paddington NSW on “Alterations to existing...” at 262 Moore Park Road Paddington NSW 2021:

    Paul Runyan commented

    I also very much value the fact that the publicly visible features of houses in Paddington have been so well conserved. However, I strongly support this application.

    Changes to the physical fabric of a building's facade may be difficult, expensive or impossible to reverse. So changes to the fabric need to be discouraged because they tend towards a progressive loss of a neighbourhood's historical character.

    But a paint job is ephemeral. Any paint job can easily be overpainted, and in the longer term it inevitably will be. So painting a house anachronistically doesn't result in genuine loss of historical character.

    Choosing how to paint one's house is one of the few ways that one can affect the aesthetics of the outside of one's house without any loss of historical character. So I don't think we should not be discouraging it.

    How grim if historical character is the only type of character that is permitted.

  22. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed three (3) storey...” at 16 Nisbett Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 3 X two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show any planting of replacement vegetation.
    4. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with small living spaces and poor direct daylight due to only a few windows.
    5. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street.
    6. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    7. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    8. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    9. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    10. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    11. The proposed development will not provide affordable accommodation.

  23. In Reservoir VIC on “Construction of a medium...” at 80 Strathmerton Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. Unit 2 of this proposal has a 3rd bedroom disguised as a "retreat". This is easily turned into a bedroom making it a three bedroom dwelling without the appropriate parking allowance.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The internal amenity of unit three is very poor given it is three bedroom at 103 sq metres.
    4. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street.
    5. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    6. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    7. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    8. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    9. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    10. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  24. In Helensburgh NSW on “Clearing Of Land And...” at Lot 2 Wagonga Road, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond commented

    I must add that there is no Wagonga Rd, it is only a paper road.

    It must be re-emphasized that any expansion will be within the Hacking River Catchment Area.

    If it was known then how important this bio-diversity catchment area was, which is the life blood of the Australian National Heritage Listed Area of the Royal National Park, the bus depot and adjacent businesses would not have been allowed. They would have been placed within the proper areas of land for this type of business.

    The Helensburgh area is a limited, landlocked area that has now enough business zones for it's capacity. It is also a car driven area, where the residents, etc use cars to drive the local distances more so than public transport.

    The Helensburgh District is also a proven high bush fire zone. Having a business that relies on fuel, adjacent to one of 2 main roads out of the area, that may possibly cut off that road in a bushfire storm, is not a good idea. No one can guarantee that it can't happen.

    The local buses are mainly for school children and some locals to go to and from work. Barely any bus services during the day with none at Stanwell Tops during the off period.

    However, as pointed out it is quite possible that the bus depot could be suitably located elsewhere within the precinct if they desire to continue operation in the area.

    However, the Premier Transport Group that bought the company in February 2015 and now own the buses, are based at Thirroul and this would be more suitable for all buses to come from this centralised hub.

  25. In Paddington NSW on “Alterations to existing...” at 262 Moore Park Road Paddington NSW 2021:

    H P Walters commented

    As an owner of a property on Moore park road for 30 odd years I have been very impressed with the focus, direction and sensitivity local council has taken when balancing the unique heritage of paddington and the need to embrace modern living and residents rights to live in a dwelling of their choice - but a mural of fish cascading down the front steps of a Victorian Terrace is completely inappropriate! I totally object. Mrs Helen Walters

  26. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of 3 existing...” at 9 Livingstone Avenue, Pymble, NSW:

    Dr Jun Bai commented

    Re: DA0115/16 - I am the owner of 17 Livingstone Ave. Too many windows face my backyard. This will invade our privacy too much and will devalue my property dramatically. It's totally unacceptable.

  27. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 36 Burgundy Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Carolyn commented

    Re: 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park
    Shame, Moreland Council, shame. It's bad enough that we're seeing far too many two storey developments on what used to be normal housing blocks. But to see 16 dwellings on what used to be a normal house block with no visitor parking is abhorrent. Locals already know that on Waterloo Road there are parking restrictions on the road because of train commuter parking demands. So where are visitors going to park if they visit residents of 146 Waterloo Road? As it is with the excessive development in Oak Park and Pascoe Vale, we're seeing more cars parked on the street but that also means more issues/problems allowing room for garbage bins. I've seen some development blocks using witches hats on their street front stopping vehicles from parking so that their bins can be emptied. When is this excessive development in the Moreland Council area going to stop? The local rate payers do not want to see their local suburbs end up as slums with excessive development.

  28. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of three new...” at 16 Elaroo Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Bruce Woodhouse commented

    Bruce Woodhouse
    I live next door to the proposed development and concur with Maxine Farrar's comments. Would appreciate being kept informed and consulted on any proposed development, particularly location, heights of dwellings, number of on-site car spaces.

    I believe any development needs to be in keeping with the leafy, family friendly Camberwell area that existing residents value.

    Elaroo Avenue is a narrow street which currently has difficulty coping with traffic and parking, primarily due to activities at the local Chinese Methodist Church. The Council needs be mindful of this when approving developments.

  29. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of a five...” at 350 Moreland Road, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Scott Perri commented

    Glad to see after 25+yrs of vacant land (formerly a Shell service station) that someone is doing something with this property. As a resident of Brunswick west, I fully support this. The street lacks shops as it is, so any additional commercial enterprise will be great for the area. You will always get those who appose change & I can understand this, we also must remember not all occupiers will have a car, the public transport system will be a huge benefit to this development.

  30. In Sans Souci NSW on “365-377 Rocky Point Road,...” at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci:

    LINDA O'BRIEN commented

    I have many concerns regarding the proposed development. Firstly, Sans Souci is NOT on a railway line so the only way residents can commute is by road. As commuter, i experience clogged congedted roadson a daily basis, 7 days a week. Adding 105 units where there once stood four residences speaks for itself. Sans Souci Public School and St Finbar's are already at capacity so how will children residing in the proposed units be schooled? If the Jameson units are used as a model, then, where were the dozens of trees uprooted, replaced by developers when that block of houses were demolished? In this very shortsighted planning there is absolutely no thought given to landscaping. This is evident because every new unit block along Rocky Point rd is built butted up to the footpath with no shade trees or landscaping . Every example is an eyesore, built cheaply and not to last. They are shabby and ugly. The infrastructure in this suburb CANNOT support this proposed development. Please reconsider the size and impact of this DA.

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