Recent comments

  1. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition” at 55 Crowgey Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    F W Rawle commented

    `Please advise what is planned after demolition.

  2. In North Parramatta NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Brickfield Street North Parramatta NSW 2151:

    Dr Andrew Coggins commented

    Dear Council and DA committee,

    I write in regard to proposed development in North Parramatta at 2-6 Brickfield Street. Having closely reviewed the proposal documents (http://eplanning.parracity.nsw.gov.au/pages/xc.track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=384057), I am of the opinion that this development should NOT be approved.

    I am a 33 year old healthcare professional and have recently moved to the Parramatta area. I feel strongly that the new buildings risk damaging the delicate and historical character of the area of the suburb bordering Victoria Road. In particular, this proposal will inevitably lead to the destruction of a beautiful character home (6 Brickfield Street) on the corner of Brickfield and Ross street as well as much of the leafy feel of the area.

    I am exited to see the pace of development occurring in the Greater Parramatta area but it would be unfortunate to see the council approving the demolition of these character homes that could be preserved by not approving these developments. Instead we should aim to preserve the historic houses that have been lost in many parts of Western Sydney and NSW as a whole

    Yours Sincerely

    Dr AR Coggins
    Consultant Physician
    NSW Health

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

    Louise Roddick commented

    I strongly object to this application. As a resident in Philpot Street, I can attest to the already overcrowded street and it's surrounds.
    Despite council road marking, cars park the length of the street, sometimes making it impossible to turn into Philpot from Perry Street. Similarly, the crowded parking along Addison Road makes it dangerous to make a left turn out of Perry onto Addison with low visibility along Addison due to heavy cars parking right up to the corner. With this kind of development, the pressure on this road and parking is unsustainable.
    Secondly, this developers previous property,the villas further back along Philpot is not only unkempt but is commonly a site of high noise levels and police visits. It's not harmonious to the rest of the residential properties surrounding.
    In light of the fact that there is already a backpackers hotel opposite this proposed development on the other side of Addison, and with the close proximity of the Vic hotel, it is a fair assumption that this development will bring more backpackers and transients into the precinct,increasing noise, potentially making the area less safe. If the state of this developer's last build is also any indicator of the outcome, invariably this property will also become unkempt and make what could be a vibrant, community centered part of Marrickville, into a congested, unsafe and uncared for precinct. Of the myriad of development opportunities available , this development has the least to offer in terms of community enhancement and progression, and raises real risks that the area will in fact become a far less livable one.

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

    David commented

    I strongly object to this development application.

    The development is not in keeping with the needs of the community and will place undue stress on already overcrowded streets and parking. Motel guests will inevitably be transient types who will utilise Philpott Street more than Addison Road to access Enmore Road and King Street restaurants and bars.

    The traffic plan that accompanies this application is insufficient in detail and fails to recognise the already over crowded and too narrow Philpott Street and only gives it scant mention.

    It is clear that this is trying to sweeten what is already a bleak picture for the local residents trying to deal with traffic and noise from planes, cars and people in this area.

    We do not need another transient imposition. We do however welcome residential developments to further strengthen the community.

    Residents of this area are seeing large developments begin that will only increase the traffic through this already crowded area.

    The council has provided no over arching plan for managing the development of this precinct. This work should be undertaken before any new major developments are approved.

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

    John Williams commented

    The Council should attempt to address the concerns of residents who are living adjacent to this proposed development related to parking, safety, the standard of the motel and its actual intended clientelle (ie will this be a hostel, or de facto 'boarding house?). From feedback in other submissions presented, there appear to be some well founded fears related to upkeep and management related to other short term accommodation businesses in the area.

    A section of the 'industrial buildings' to be removed facing Addison Road comprises of an earlier (than the 20th century additions present on the site) building that should not be demolished as it adds to the street scape. Windows & doorways have been bricked in but they could be re-opened to create an activated street front to the building. There does not appear to be a reasonable argument to destroy this section of the former 'industrial' buildings (thus destroying a pre 20th century stone and brick building).

    I have reservations about this development in as far as its intended use and ongoing maintenance is concerened. I also oppose it as absolutely no effort is being made to preserve an historic part of Addison Road's streetscape in this development.

  6. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Terry Dear wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    This site has been in limbo for so long - I do think the owners should have been held to account for it's deterioration which has gone on for far too many years. It seems that this is a strategy that if you let a building languish for long enough without any attention then it will be deemed to have no heritage value as it is now delelict.
    I am astonished that a building listed on the National Trust is allowed to be demolished.
    It is irreplacable and whatever is proposed to replace it can in no way have more community or civic value than one of the few great facades left on this road. It is also an exemplar facade from this era from well known architects - surely one of the best examples of its kind. This has always been the criteria that is used - the best of the era.
    Are we to keep nothing from our past?
    Is another faceless apartment building with shops at street level and compromised parking really the best outcome from this site?
    The facade must be kept.
    To not keep it is an act of vandalism.

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

  7. In Woongarrah NSW on “128 lot residential...” at 77 Sparks Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Adel Vera Firth-Mason commented

    All I ask, as I have before, is for variety in house designs and park or reserve areas set apart for people to enjoy.

  8. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    John C Templin wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    I can not believe what the council has allowed to happen on Burke Road. This property had a previous permit application to create a boutique hotel. The property has been allowed to decay over the intervening years. Now there is another application to completely demolish the building and create a structure that will most likely be so out of keeping with the street frontage.
    The owners of this property have been allowed to leave it decay, now there is an application for development with a further reduction to parking required has been requested.
    The adjoining business has already expanded with the council granting parking concessions so that the area nearby is further impacted.
    When does the council finally have to answer to the majority of rate payers who live in the area because of the community feel that used to exist

    Photo of Coral Ross
    Coral Ross local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to John C Templin

    Boroondara Council has received a new application for the development of this site, which will be considered following the required public notice period. The application includes both the Sofia's restaurant site and the adjacent State Savings Bank site.
    The application proposes to retain the existing State Savings Bank heritage façade.
    I agree that the current presentation of the State Savings Bank site is disappointing but there is no legislation which gives Council the authority or ability to take action in these circumstances. However, Council has ensured that the façade does not constitute a risk to public safety.

    Key aspects of the current application include:
    Demolition of the existing Sofia's Restaurant building
    Retention of the State Saving Bank façade
    Construction of a nine storey building (which includes three levels of basement parking);
    Ground floor of the building to accommodate a wine bar, café and a restaurant
    The remaining floors contain 59 dwellings including dwellings with 2 and 3 bedrooms, plus a penthouse of four bedrooms;
    Level 6 of the building includes a communal dining room and roof deck;
    There are 3 levels of basement parking with access from the western title boundary. The car park contains 84 car parking spaces.

    Coral Ross
    Gardiner Ward councillor
    City of Boroondara

  9. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    What a truly ugly part of the village this street corner has become. I see nothing in this application that will improve the village aesthetic and arguably will degrade it further by encouraging a business to not seriously consider community desires for the visual appeal of a street-scape.

  10. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Mitchell Stevens commented

    I think this is a good idea. Other F&B events (like the markets) have been run in this area in the past and it fits in well with the neighbourhood. I can't see that it would impinge upon anyone else's enjoyment of the area.

  11. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Jacqui Bell commented

    Objection:
    I object to this development for a number of reasons:
    1. the increased traffic around this already busy intersection will pose a risk to not only motorists using this intersection and accessing the shops, but also to the many pedestrians using these two streets to access the village shops (primarily elderly, families and children)
    2. While technically zoned for 'B1 Neighbourhood' use, this building won't be for community/neighbourhood use, it will be a residential building and used only by those residences. The proposed building is out of character for the suburb compared to other residential buildings (in its style, density and 3 storey appearance) and will not reflect the style (mostly 1-2 storey, single dwelling blocks) of the suburb.
    3. A building such as this sets a precedence for high density, multi storey development in the suburb. While technically 'it doesn't feel right for the suburb' isn't a breach of a specific code it is probably what is at the heart of the matter for many residents. People choose to live in this suburb for the way it looks and feels - it's about the 'village' and the family atmosphere, the local shops, it's about community, and a high density apartment block is not concurrent with the look & feel of the suburb and will greatly change the landscape of our much loved suburb.

  12. In Gateshead NSW on “Garage” at 21 Alder Crescent, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Beth Lane commented

    When the illegal development on this property began early in 2015 excavation was carried out on the boundary line of our adjoining downhill sloping land. The "retaining wall" that they then constructed was not even built up to the same height as it previously was, I have photographs of the exposed fence posts they uncovered in their excavation. Consequently my land and fence is collapsing into the void that is left where there used to be land. I think this should be rectified before consideration of approving the illegal works to continue. I didn't think people were allowed to excavate on boundary lines, especially without even consulting the owner of the adjoining land or considering the effects that the excavating had regarding collapsing the neighbours land.

  13. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Max Davies commented

    Not a bad idea. Looks like a good place for some meat and beers with the boys!

  14. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Katie Chrystal commented

    Such a great spot! Would be amazing if it was licensed so we could have a couple of casual drinks with our friends and family.

  15. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Phillip Bourne commented

    I'm unsure of the motivation of the developers , but I suspect it's not for the amenity of local residences.
    Whilst there is a need for some urban consolidation, the height of this development is completely out of step with other developments along the rail corridor of Ku-ring-gai Council.
    Given the topography of the location, 5 storey development would have an overwhelming impact on heritage homes in that area. Recent developments in Coonabarabran Rd near the Post office seemed much more in-tune with the amenity of the area.
    Additionally, traffic and parking in and around the particular area is congested enough at present without significant additional load this represents.
    I have lived within 2kms of this site for over 40 Years and I'm opposed to the giddy pursuit of profit corrupting what is a quite and peaceful village community.
    I believe this should be rejected by council and a more sympathetic development requested.

  16. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Mixed Residential &...” at 218 Memorial Avenue, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    K. Sutton commented

    Can only be good for the area. I really don't see that it will take anything away from the site. We need to create jobs and income to stop shops and local businesses from failing locally. We have to move with the times.
    Hopefully the local infrastructure needs will be addressed by council, considering the large contribution I imagine they will get from a development of this size.

  17. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “Change of use to a...” at 33 Station Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Marlene Jones commented

    Interested in receiving more information on this please.

  18. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 123 Bowden St, Meadowbank, NSW Australia:

    Huw Edwards commented

    This is just more over development without any consideration for infrastructure or amenity of existing residents. The area is already struggling with the number of people and the total developments planned for the area are not even half done.

    The quality of developments has also dropped with recent building been very poorly finished and not fitting into any sort of overall look for the area. It means the whole suburb is turning into a messy eyesore.

    Frankly the council fought against over development for the major foreshore works when it did not have control of the decision making process but it seems to be happy for it to occur provided it gives the approval.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Costello commented

    I endorse this application. Congratulations to marrickville council for encouraging low cost and affordable housing in an area close to where jobs are located.

  20. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of eighteen...” at 4 Heath Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    I am totally against Triple story dwellings in a not suitable area as there is not next to a main road,removable of Vegetation what?no privacy for other established dwellings.Problems will be created,open space disappearing,parking problems,Pollution.I hope that the project does not get approved,but then again only the moreland council can create problems by setting a precedent for Pascoe Vale (new name Unit Vale ) to approve the project create problems because they (councillers dont live in the area)so dont worry you love creating a Developer`s Paradise.You collect extra Rates and we long established ratepayers Choke.Well done Moreland Council .

  21. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    This garish establishment really detracts from the otherwise attractive renovation of the Lindisfarne village streetscape. This opportunity should be taken to require the proprietors to tone down their colour scheme, or at least vastly reduce the external area of 'Lemon Yellow'.

  22. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    John Maidment commented

    This is a very significant bank facade designed by the noted architects Sydney Smith & Ogg in Romanesque revival style. With the former ES&A Bank (now the Meat and Wine Company) this is the most important architectural heritage item in the Burke Road shopping precinct. The firm also designed other bank buildings in Swan Street, Richmond, Yarraville, commercial buildings and hotels but this is the major example of its work in Boroondara. It is unthinkable that it should be demolished and could be sensitively retained within a development of the site.

  23. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 37 Fauna Pl Kirrawee 2232:

    Mr Aitken commented

    My main concern is how is something of this stature, going to create good traffic flow. I live in the street and am guttered that such a beautiful place is going to turn into a catastrophic eye sore filled with people who dont care about the place.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Stephan commented

    Boarding House? Can we have more explanation on who will be in the boarding house ,ie students facility or non-income earners.
    Am particular concerned as who will be placed within the planned development having recently purchased a street away.

    Also agree with above can you also confirm the amount of car spaces that will be available within this complex.

  25. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Michael McAuliffe commented

    Ku-ring-gai council has done a good job in preserving heritage properties and conservation areas further down the north shore.
    It is important to ensure that the heritage houses are not overwhelmed by inappropriate development.
    Five story flats immediately adjacent to heritage properties is completely inappropriate.
    I'm concerned that we are allowing heritage areas to be overwhelmed in the same way that Hornsby council has allowed.
    Wahroonga traffic is already atrocious. I think we need some real town planning here.

  26. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Andrew C Stiff commented

    I have received notification from you regarding application DA 611/15, regarding 14-18 Neringah Ave Sth.
    I reside at 10 Warwilla Ave, in a heritage listed home, one of three such in a line. I have lived here for 17 years and spent considerable time, money and effort in restoring and maintaining my home, ( circa 1880-90 )
    This is a family friendly area, with backyards which provide space for children to grow and play.
    Previous development in this vicinity has been limited to two and three storeys ; the proposed five storeys is not consistent with the area . The recently built flats at Wahroonga shops are not five storeys in a location where no single dwellings are affected, and it is unreasonable to allow this next to my house.
    This proposal would be a massive overdevelopment of the site, which will dwarf my home and overlook my backyard which is currently private.
    It will also add a great number of extra vehicle movements to an area that experiences considerable congestion, at peak times it is gridlocked.
    Parking is at a premium here because of our location near the train station ,Abbotsleigh Junior School and Neringah hospital; adding more vehicles will worsen the traffic problems and heighten safety concerns; there are lots of children moving to and fro the school, commuters accessing the station., and residents using the village shops.
    In conclusion this is an inappropriate development which is bad for our neighbourhood ,residents and community, and only benefits the developer. I urge you to not allow this.

  27. In Invermay TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 87 Lindsay Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Julie Lawson commented

    I write regarding DA0660/2015, and wish to express my concerns about the visual impact of this development on the area. I have a house in Invermay which is currently tenanted, but which I intend to live in in the future.

    The bulk and scale of this development seems to be out of proportion with the area. Whilst the silos are quite tall, the building increases the size of them and additionally adds bulk to the building envelope. It is an overdevelopment of a site, and is not suitable for the area, given that pretty much the whole of Launceston faces towards this building.

    I have no problems with the traffic and parking matters, which seems to have occupied most of the development application paperwork.

    While it would be beneficial to have new accommodation and business function options in Launceston, this can be achieved on a more low-rise scale than what is proposed.

    Please don't let Launceston become overdeveloped like Sydney.

    Thank you for your time.

  28. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Suzy Klabbers commented

    So granny flats popping up everywhere in Sara,Davo and Yatta are OK,but this isn't ????,get real !!!

  29. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11A John Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Desmond O'Gorman commented

    Just a quick note with the link which I forgot to include in my comment above. See here for the parking study: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxmcmllbmRzb2ZlcnNraW5ldmlsbGV8Z3g6MWVhN2E4ZjBiZGU2YWUyNA

  30. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11A John Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Desmond O'Gorman commented

    My worry is that this development will likely exacerbate an already difficult parking situation on Charles street and the adjacent streets. It currently is frequently difficult to find a spot. I refer you to a parking study carried out in Erskineville in 2012, that suggests the mosque is at least partly responsible for the difficulty.
    I would object also to the scale and context of the development in that a sizeable 3 story non residential building that fronts onto the pathway is not the precedent that I would like to see set in what is otherwise a 1-2 story, quiet residential street.
    Thank you

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