Recent comments

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

    George Hili commented

    I am very angry that Kogarah City Council accepted DA 227/2015 when the New City Plan has not even been passed or legislated. This development is currently covered by Kogarah LEP 2013 which is zoned B1 neighbourhood centre. The developer of DA 227/2015 wants approximately 6 storeys(19.05 metres )of shops and apartments ,roof top terrace, 2 levels of basement parking which is 101 units and in total for this narrow suburban street.
    Total proposed apartments would be 52 X 1 bedrooms ,40 x 2 bedrooms and 9 X 3 bedrooms. I cannot understand why this DA 227/2015 would have so many 1 bedroom apartments .
    I have since found out that the developers have made a Request For Change in the New City Plan for an even higher building from 15 meters( 4.5 storeys apx .)) to 21 meters(6.3 storeys apx .) without any regard for the residents of Bonney Street or surrounding streets that will be impacted by this monolithic like building.
    Street parking is at an all-time low for residents and it will be made even worse and more dangerous than it already is if DA227/2015 is approved in its current form.
    I am also not happy that this building will overlook my backyard and take away my privacy .I’m sure that the councillors would not approve a development so big if it was overlooking their backyards and I’m sure that the developers would put up a fight to stop this DA if it affected them.
    I have also found out in documents(Statement of Environmental Effects) submitted by the developer of DA 227/2015 that on page 5 “The proposed development has been designed having pre-DA advice from council” and on page 18 of the same document it states” it is understood that council intends moving forward with the New City Plan”. Then why bother even asking residents for their opinions on the New City Plan proposal and wasting ratepayers money on meetings, brochures and newspaper advertisements.
    I am very angry when I look at Kogarah Councils Housing Strategy 2014 and it states in Proposed Zoning of Sans Souci Centre that there will be No changes proposed to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and the R2 Low Density Residential area( page 179)
    This DA will give an undesirable and unacceptable impact on the streetscape of Bonney Street and does not correspond to the desired scale and character of the local area.

  2. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Anthony C commented

    I agree with Frank.
    Any development must have an allowance for visitors parking onsite. Plain and simple.
    Our roads are useless as they are.
    MCC you really need to wake up and take a look at the reality of what's happening in the municipality.

  3. In Hamilton Hill WA on “Multiple Dwelling” at 19 Purvis Street, Hamilton Hill, WA:

    Iain Platts commented

    my parents live next door to this property.
    Since the construction has begun on this property my parents who live on the property next door to this property and the elderly lady who lives on the other side of this property have become increasingly uneasy with the behaviour of the developer of this property and their employees.
    Property lines have been encroached upon by the development and the developer has acted in aggressive and unsafe behaviour towards the adjoining residents to this site.
    Heavy vehicles have been driven on my parents property and several parts of the property including security walls and the private driveway have been damaged by heavy vehicles.
    There is evidence of consumption of alcohol on the site.

    Please act to suspend all activities on this site immediately and carry out a full investigation into breaches of health and safety requirements until the cause of the damage to my parent's property can be thoroughly investigated.

    Should Cockburn City Council fail to act upon the public safety issues caused by the activities of the developer and their employees imediately, legal action will be taken against the council and the developer for public endangerment by act or omission.

    Regards

    Iain Platts

  4. In Hamilton Hill WA on “Multiple Dwelling” at 19 Purvis Street, Hamilton Hill, WA:

    Iain Platts commented

    my parents live next door to this property.
    Since the construction has begun on this property my parents who live on the property next door to this property and the elderly lady who lives on the other side of this property have become increasingly uneasy with the behaviour of the developer of this property and their employees.
    Property lines have been encroached upon by the development and the developer has acted in aggressive and unsafe behaviour towards the adjoining residents to this site.
    Heavy vehicles have been driven on my parents property and several parts of the property including security walls and the private driveway have been damaged by heavy vehicles.
    There is evidence of consumption of alcohol on the site.

    Please act to suspend all activities on this site immediately and carry out a full investigation into breaches of health and safety requirements until the cause of the damage to my parent's property can be thoroughly investigated.

    Should Cockburn City Council fail to act upon the public safety issues caused by the activities of the developer and their employees imediately, legal action will be taken against the council and the developer for public endangerment by act or omission.

    Regards

    Iain Platts

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

    Christopher Clarke commented

    I believe that this development is beneficial to Helensburgh and immediate surrounding suburbs as it offers a vital chance to grow essential infrastructure though extension of vital exhausted resources. This improvement allows for the community to utilize the bus company in the most time efficient and economically responsible manner.

  6. In Matraville NSW on “Proposed New Office...” at 46 McCauley Street Matraville NSW 2036:

    Ian Levitt commented

    Enough is ENOUGH
    When will Council wake up and take responsibility
    My vote get rid of Randwick Council
    Make it Botany
    At least they look after the rate payers
    Vote "No" to application
    IL

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

    pamela chant commented

    I totally object to another mosque being built in the area. I did not move to Narre Warren to have it taken over by mosques. Not only is there enough places to worship for the current population but we do not need muslims moving to the area to worship here. Road congestion is another reason. Changing the demographics is another. We moved here for the rural environment and do not want this to change. We paid a lot more to live here in this rural environment. This can only reduce the value of our property.

  8. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 308-314 Stanmore Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Scott MacArthur, Vice-President Marrickville Heritage Society commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned that important features of the building will be compromised by the proposal to convert the Old Marrickville Fire Station to a hotel. The protection of the heritage values of the building must be given the highest priority as the applicants are proposing to use the 'conservation provisions' of the Marrickville LEP to apply for the change of use to a hotel, on the grounds that the new use will provide for the conservation of the building. The only work in the proposal that could be described as a positive heritage outcome for the building is the proposed reinstatement of the watch tower. This worthwhile proposal must be required work in any approval for development, and its completion must be required before an Occupation Certificate can be issued for the new hotel.

    When the watchtower and chimneys were removed, the original roofing material would have also been removed. As this is an 1880s building it is likely that the original roofing was slate or tiles, and if further research confirms this, than the original roofing and chimney forms should be required to be reinstated as part of the conservation works to the building.

    In regard to the internal works, the proposals to alter the existing room configurations and install new bathrooms and services must be fully reversible. Original interior features and finishes, including the timber stairs and pressed metal ceilings must be retained and restored.

    The addition of new dormer windows to the main facade roof will have a substantial detrimental impact on the visual integrity of the main facade, and should be refused by Council.

    Council must require that there is a substantial link between the provision of a new used for the building, and conservation works to protect its heritage values.

  9. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 92 Burraneer Bay Rd Woolooware 2230:

    Leonie commented

    Answer to B Carson, The development site in Burraneer Bay Rd., is on nos. 92,94 and 96.have a look on Sutherland shire development applications, click on tracking, and you will be able to see what is proposed.

  10. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Concerned Middle Camberwell Resident wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    @ Lucy of Camberwell and @ NS Kassy

    Thank you for acknowledging the surrounding houses (east/west and north) have historical character from the 1920s and 30s. The shops in the strip do too. The icecream shop and the florist are protected by a heritage overlay. The dental surgery has been reported as of individual historical significance.

    We have an existing supermarket, Woolworths, (with permission to develop any time in the future) - why would you want the variety of serivces used by the community removed to put a second supermarket opposite an existing supermarket taking up the whole block? It would make more sense to put in a variety of shops on the subject site. The building detail could definitely be improved upon. The proposal could have canopy trees. Less 'major shopping centre style' illuminated signage.

    If you think the traffic is a nightmare now, wait until this proposal is built. You will definitely go and shop at the Junction because Middle Camberwell will be so congested (212 car parks).. There are no traffic signals proposed for the 4 driveways to Riversdale Rd from the proposed supermarket, so you will have traffic turning from both sides of Riversdale Road east and west - accidents waiting to happen.

    4 driveways across the footpath is not pedestrian friendly - for children, elderly and the rest of the community. Will exiting/entering cars in a hurry give way to pedestrians?

    A little more thought should be given to the surrounding community when considering this ridiculous proposal, those residents who are stuck with it, not just the convenience for 'city workers heading home at night to stop and grab a few things'. The residents who live here will not be driving through and leaving Middle Camberwell. They are stuck with the amenity loss forever.

    Delivered to local councillor Heinz Kreutz. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Melbourne VIC on “Melbourne planning scheme...” at 611-669 Elizabeth Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Rob Head commented

    This represents another reduction in the heritage ambience around North Melbourne and will increase traffic congestion in an already busy area

  12. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Concerned Middle Camberwell resident commented

    @ Lucy of Camberwell and @ NS Kassy

    Thank you for acknowledging the surrounding houses (east/west and north) have historical character from the 1920s and 30s. The shops in the strip do too. The icecream shop and the florist are protected by a heritage overlay. The dental surgery has been reported as of individual historical significance.

    We have an existing supermarket, Woolworths, (with permission to develop any time in the future) - why would you want the variety of serivces used by the community removed to put a second supermarket opposite an existing supermarket taking up the whole block? It would make more sense to put in a variety of shops on the subject site. The building detail could definitely be improved upon. The proposal could have canopy trees. Less 'major shopping centre style' illuminated signage.

    If you think the traffic is a nightmare now, wait until this proposal is built. You will definitely go and shop at the Junction because Middle Camberwell will be so congested (212 car parks).. There are no traffic signals proposed for the 4 driveways to Riversdale Rd from the proposed supermarket, so you will have traffic turning from both sides of Riversdale Road east and west - accidents waiting to happen.

    4 driveways across the footpath is not pedestrian friendly - for children, elderly and the rest of the community. Will exiting/entering cars in a hurry give way to pedestrians?

    A little more thought should be given to the surrounding community when considering this ridiculous proposal, those residents who are stuck with it, not just the convenience for 'city workers heading home at night to stop and grab a few things'. The residents will not be driving through and leaving Middle Camberwell. They are stuck with the amenity loss forever.

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

    Joe O commented

    Newtown is an inner city precinct and just as they would have done back in 1900, this developer wants to bring this property up to fuller utilisation to match the others in the area. Currently almost half the land of this site is an underutilised yard, in Sydney's longest shopping street. Sydney needs more accommodation of all types, done in as compassionate was as possible, and this proposal does that.

    Because there was once a little shack doesn't mean the best solution is to return the little shack to the very busy and very expensive high street. By that logic we should return the land to underutilised peach farms because before the buildings, that's what we had here. Sydney needs more residences, and some residences are flats and some are houses (I'm not sure what other people think is wrong with flats), some people live in flats too.

    Having looked at the plans, which I hope everyone does before commenting, and noticing the developers and architects both respect the site and are bringing something attractive to the area, like the addition behind the old post office is attractive and respectful, I support the addition of more homes to the area.

  14. In Gladesville NSW on “Mixed use Development...” at 6-8 Western Crescent, Gladesville:

    Damon Jones commented

    The height of the proposed development is out of alignment with the landscape. Reducing the height of the development will soften the aesthetic impact on the area, minimise shadowing and reduce intrusion on neighbouring single dwelling residences on Ross St, Western Crescent and Tyrell St. Consideration must be given to the privacy of existing residents with homes in Low Density Residential directly across the road from the proposed development. Restrictions should be placed so that apartments should not be allowed balconies overlooking low density properties.
    The cumulative effect of large scale development in Gladesville is having a dramatic effect on traffic flow in the area in and around the Gladesville Shopping precinct, affecting access to Gladesville Public School, Christ Church Preschool.
    Ongoing traffic management beyond the construction period is of grave concern for residents accessing the shopping precinct and Victoria Road.

  15. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Victor Tam commented

    It's a no from me, every one above has stated the reason for me already, thanks

  16. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 146 Waterloo Road, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Frank Pirro commented

    its a joke about the applicant to build 16 dwellings with a waiver of visitor car park,surely the moreland council is not going to agree,when at the last rezone meeting Moreland Council said the first priority on the agenda is Car Parking!!!!!!.Good one Council.No wonder The Moreland Council has been named to be the worst Council of Melbourne.Stop the the Developments in Moreland,we have done enough please take the developments somewhere else

  17. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    N S Kassy commented

    I've been properly chastised for being ignorant about the marvels along Riversdale Road. So I deliberately walked along Riversdale Road yesterday and looked long and hard at the architecture and lo behold, my eyes finally opened in wide admiration at the marvellous 'Art Deco' medical clinic, the canary yellow pet warehouse, the sky blue fish and chip shop, the potential heritage award winner of a petrol pump, not to mention the quaint 7-11. Truly, these buildings deserve to have heritage overlays with immediate effect. I cannot for a moment imagine that a modern supermarket will replace such architectural wonders along Riversdale Road. Sigh.

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

    Megan Hicks commented

    It was inevitable that this building would be targeted for demolition after being severely tampered with in recent years. It should already have a heritage order on it. Behind the tacked-on cladding is a little single-storey timber shop, probably pre-dating the grand Victorian shops of King Street. There would be few examples left - if any - of such humble timber shops in Sydney. How lucky we are to have one right in the middle of Newtown. It would be preferable for the building to be restored to its former appearance as it has only been seriously 'modernized' in recent years (and by 'modernized' I mean given its bland appearance) . If people think the existing building 'has nothing going for it', it is because they don't know what is behind that cladding and glass. Demolish it and there goes another part of Newtown's character in the name of homogenisation. I do not support this development application.

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

    Henare Degan commented

    I was pretty alarmed to see a proposal for a 5 storey building on King Street but after looking at the plans this doesn't look too bad. The existing building has nothing going for it and the proposed new development isn't higher than the existing buildings either side.

    I support this development application.

  20. In North Sydney NSW on “Signage content upgrade....” at 165 Walker Street North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Elsa Snape commented

    6/171 Walker Street
    Century Plaza
    North Sydney

    Re: Building Identification sign at 165 Walker Street, North Sydney

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I refer to the application lodged for the above proposal.
    I wish to lodge an objection to this proposal for the following reasons:

    I have concerns regarding the placement of the sign
    * that it may face directly in front of the Century Plaza building
    and shine in front of my apartment windows.

    If the signage is considered for approvel, I seek clarification that because of the illumination factor this will not be an issue.

    Submitted for your consideration.

    Elsa Snape
    1st April 2016

  21. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Lucy of Camberwell commented

    I am a little confused by the talk of the 1920/30's character of the shopping strip.

    Whilst the surrounding houses may have this character, the northern side of Riversdale Road where they propose to build the supermarket is about as ugly and dysfunctional as it gets. Would be great to see this eyesore improved. Trying to park on that side of the road is a nightmare, the parking spots at the front of the pet shop don't even match up with crossovers.

    Even the southern side is not that attractive and the shops aren't very inspiring. Maybe the local elderly use them but I personally only generally go to the supermarket as Camberwell Junction is so much better.

    A supermarket on that side of the road would make it easy for city workers heading home at night to stop in a grab a few things (would be awkward to pull out of Safeway carpark and do a righthand turn in peak traffic.

    But we don't like change do we......lol

  22. In Largs Bay SA on “29.5m high...” at Railway Tce Largs Bay SA 5016:

    John Daniels commented

    don't want a tower, already have one cancer and don't particularly want another one, will reduce house prices, look ugly and will emit electrodes, shove it somewhere you cannot see it, how about adjacent largs north golf course where the old railway yards are

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

    Catherine Gordon commented

    The Council, at the time Mills Park was developed, promised that land within the park would be made available as parking. They have not kept this promise and the top end of Baldwin Ave is dangerously congested on weekends. The park has been developed for the benefit of sports groups (soccer and cricket) but not for the benefit of family groups who may want to picnic. During the week the traffic around Sherbrook Rd/ Baldwin Ave is heavy. The area clearly can't sustain large scale development. However, our Councillors and town planner are clearly strong supporters of developers at the expense of community (note increased scale of buildings now allowed on the West side of Hornsby - from 9 stories to over 20; sale of childcare and community centre to enable sale of $12mill development; destruction of heritage CWA building to provide a road for developers to have ease of access for large scale development now planned - which Council said was about the pool. They over-ride Development Controls by simply changing the rules (by majority votes within council meetings) to suit the requirements of the developers. There is no debate in council meetings in relation to development as the councillors vote in accord. While clearly having a development that is not townhouses, as per the planning controls; that has 43 units; that does not protect the privacy of surrounding houses; that does not take disability into account; that increases traffic flow around a school, that plans tree planting inappropriately should not go forward I have no doubt this Council will approve it. I am putting forward this objection to the scale of the development for the area with little expectation of change until we change our Council and Town Planner.

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

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I hope the City will not allow this small piece of our heritage to be demolished, let alone approve a completely out-of-place 5 storey block of flats and shops - the greedy developer may refer to them as "dwellings" but they are just flats.
    While the existing shop is not a grand Victorian building, it is part of our history and should be retained.

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

    Jessica Vaughan commented

    I am strongly opposed to DA 227/2015 at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci (Corner of Bonney street) for the following reasons:

    1. Traffic flow- Sans Souci is an area where there are lots of commuters on the road, and with that comes the effects of traffic congestion. The extent of the effects heavy traffic congestion can have are huge e.g. It can have a tremendous impact on your personal life, career, future and even safety. Adding more traffic congestion is not creating a quality of life for the people of Sans Souci. It will cause more delays, more fuel consumption and more road rage consequently allowing for unhappy residents.

    2. Parking- Parking causes safety problems therefore if you increase the amount of cars that need parking it is not safe for children/families e.g. there will be reduced visibility between children and oncoming traffic, safety problems for cars e.g. reducing sight lines between approaching traffic, access of emergency services which will be made difficult where the useable road is limited by parked cars and trucks may refuse collections, again resulting in dissatisfied residents.

    I believe this development should not go ahead.

  26. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 92 Burraneer Bay Rd Woolooware 2230:

    B Carson commented

    Is 92 Burraneer Bay Road being consolidated with another property ?

    I can't see such a development of this size being approved on the the land of 92 alone.

    Can someone explain please ?

  27. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Canterbury Girl commented

    @ Michael and @ N S Kassy
    The only 'eyesore' will be the blinding red and white illuminated 6m, 5m, etc. long multiple signs on the bland steel, glass and concrete box like development if it goes ahead. Small business will be driven from Middle Camberwell and traffic will be horrendous on Riversdale Road and within local residential streets impacting on amenity. This development will be the demise of the identity and character of the shopping strip. You can use your buzz words of 'vibrancy/' etc, but all a development such as this will create is 'chaos'. There is absolutely NO NEED for two supermarkets opposite each other in this strip. Take it to a strip with no existing supermarket. We have no problem with new development appropriate to the strip offering a diverse range of services to complement the existing. The medical centre needs to be returned to Middle Camberwell as a necessity.

  28. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Middle Camberwell Shoppers commented

    @ N S Kassy We are most certainly NOT from Woolworths management. Your comments reek of ignorance. I wonder if you even live near the proposal or will you drive through and back to your amenity. Have you bothered looking at the plans yet? Have a long hard look at them. I wouldn't call an art deco shopping strip 'ugly'. It is part of the history of the area. What will be ugly will be the proposal ... if it goes ahead. It is a long box without character and pretty pointless putting another large supermarket opposite Woolworths, removing services, like the medical clinic, etc needed in the community. That is not planning for the future. This is not 'vibrant'. If you bothered to look, you will see this section of Riversdale Road has many 'lovely period homes' both east and west of the shopping strip. If you need a 'big shopping complex' you could visit Camberwell Junction, Box Hill or even Chadstone. FYI this is not a 'big shopping complex' it is just a big supermarket, bottleshop and car park taking up the whole block.

  29. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 92 Burraneer Bay Rd Woolooware 2230:

    J.A.M. commented

    Everything you say is true Leonie. More of these cheap, ugly developments are happening everywhere around the Cronulla Area. (next door to me too) Society is also changing around Cronulla. There are a lot of "oldies" wanting & needing to down size and stay here. These ugly inappropriate two story dwellings and multi story developments will keep you poor with their extortionate strata levies. Most inappropriate. I'd like to know where the 'over 55' single level dwellings are being built these days, ...like, nowhere in Cronulla!

  30. In Logan Reserve QLD on “1 into 49 lots” at 296-304 Chambers Flat Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Panagiotis Aronis commented

    C/ Mr. John Merrick. We are Panagiotis Aronis and Anastasia Aronis that we sold our land next to this with address 306 Chambers Flat Rd. Logan Reserve 4133 and with application number RL-99/2014 .The whole project is been sold to LEDA developers.As we have kept an interest on the land regarding the parcel of land containing the Telstra tower with the leases with Telstra,we would be grateful if you kindly let us know how this project is progressing.Thank you, P. Aronis

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