Recent comments

  1. In Chelsea VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 78 Chelsea Road, Chelsea, VIC:

    Leigh Sabatino commented

    Today our lifestyle dream has been shattered. Our private open space will be taken away, our sunlight will be gone and the feeling of living in an open environment also gone. Had I wanted this lifestyle I would have spent my life paying off a property in Inner city but we bought the large block in Chelsea to expand our family. It's disgusting that duplex are being allowed. What can I do?

  2. In Kenthurst NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 20-22 Annangrove Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Amanda Lynch commented

    Frank,

    I couldn't disagree with you more. The 'hullabaloo' over an Islamic place of worship was nothing but xenophobic hysteria.

    The cemetery application on the otherhand is being opposed by people in the parish community, a large proportion of these are very concerned parents.

    I have 3 children, 1 enrolled at Oakhill and 2 enrolled at St Madeleine's and you really need to do a fact check on your cemetery comparison. Oakhill is a cemetery for brothers - I'll let you estimate how many funerals for this group take place yearly. The students that go to Oakhill are young adults who are a lot better equipped to deal with the concept of death even if it's only once a year.

    The same can not be said for primary school children. I have a 5-year-old and 6-year-old who will both be confronted with death and bereavement each and every day if the cemetery is allowed to proceed.

    And it won't be one funeral a year either - it's 3000 plots. And just a heads up Frank, they are already looking to expand - they have approached neighbouring properties about purchasing. I'm sure there would be a number of residents very concerned with the plans to turn Kenthurst into a 'mini Rookwood' all in the name of making a quick buck.

    And I haven't even started on the traffic issues!

    The thought that anyone could seriously propose hosting 3000 burials just meters from where five-year-olds play is not only disturbing it's reprehensible. Still it's funny what greed will motiviate some people to do.

  3. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 499 Albion Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Jane commented

    Hi there,
    I don't understand why we need so many apartments Albion street is busy enough and we will find that the "reduced parking" will mean parking in local streets.
    Everett St gets enough cars from people cutting thru from Moreland road and this will just increase things.
    Have you seen the apartment block on the corner of Albion & Duggan street that is an example, all the cars are parked on the street.
    Bring back the traditional family home back to restoration not these building & council ideas of small living spaces that increase congestion and traffic flow.
    Let's all live in small can't swing a cat apartments on top of each other, don't get a long, with high body corporate fees so the big conglomerates can make some more money.
    That's my vent.

  4. In Kenthurst NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 20-22 Annangrove Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Frank Sappatutto commented

    I have lived in Kenthurst since 1971. The issue of the Catholic Cemetery DA reminds me of all the hullabaloo about the Muslim Prayer Centre on Annangrove Road about 10 years ago. The truth is the prayer centre did not affect the amenity of the area and did not reduce values, in fact it fits in with the surroundings and you would hardly know it was there. With the cemetery the main concern is that unlike Churches that can be sold and repurposed, a cemetery is there forever (basically) therefore I think that future considerations such as redevelopment of the area should be considered. If it is a tiny cemetery like that at Oakhill College then I have no problem. I am an atheist so don't care either way about the religious aspect. I think before people jump to conclusions they should research the DA. Kenthurst

  5. In Thornleigh NSW on “Other - Demolition - Heritage” at 9 Station Street Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia:

    Kate Whiteoak commented

    This is another example of big developers having sway over Council listed heritage buildings. I believe that they have been offering owners of houses in Eddy Street, Thornleigh huge sums for their houses in the hope that Council will be swayed into rezoning that area for multi storey units. There is a Heritage house there as well, but I'm sure once a precedent has been set it will suffer the same ignominious fate. Thornleigh will have no character at all if this continues and be like so many other suburbs on the train line - a mass of unsightly units with lots of new residents all competing for schools, transport, roads, shopping, parks etc. Once one heritage house is declared able to be removed it will be open slather on any others. I realise Sydney's population is expanding, but at this rate it will resemble Beijing or Hong Kong with masses of high rise and little character or community. Melbourne already has a glut of apartments, and Sydney seems to be coming a close second.

  6. In Thornleigh NSW on “Residential - New Second...” at 11 Alma Court Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia:

    Kate Whiteoak commented

    Please ignore the above comment. It was intended for 9 Station Street, Thornleigh and was posted erroneously on this development.

  7. In Thornleigh NSW on “Residential - New Second...” at 11 Alma Court Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia:

    Kate Whiteoak commented

    This is another example of big developers having sway over Council listed heritage buildings. I believe that they have been offering owners of houses in Eddy Street, Thornleigh huge sums for their houses in the hope that Council will be swayed into rezoning that area for multi storey units. There is a Heritage house there as well, but I'm sure once a precedent has been set it will suffer the same ignominious fate. Thornleigh will have no character at all if this continues and be like so many other suburbs on the train line - a mass of unsightly units with lots of new residents all competing for schools, transport, roads, shopping, parks etc. Once one heritage house is declared able to be removed it will be open slather on any others. I realise Sydney's population is expanding, but at this rate it will resemble Beijing or Hong Kong with masses of high rise and little character or community. Melbourne already has a glut of apartments, and Sydney seems to be coming a close second.

  8. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 4 storey...” at 96-104 Commercial Road South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Lina Caneva commented

    Objection to Application to Amend Planning Permit
    Reference Number: TP-1992-810/A

    The Owners Corporation of Park Lane Manors, 21 Park Lane South Yarra, herewith objects to the planning application number TP-1992-810/A on the grounds that it will affect the safety and security of the surrounding properties.

    The changes to the amendments would see a Melbourne City Council- sanctioned public car park operating out of a private apartment block that would affect the security and safety of surrounding private properties.

    In terms of security, this amendment would seriously impact our neighbouring property. In 2015 the OC of Park Lane Manors introduced a registered rule to prevent owners or tenants from renting, for a fee or for free, their allotted car spaces to people living outside the building.

    Special Rule 5:

    As part of the overall building security and with regard to allotted parking spaces, lot owners and tenants (occupiers) are not permitted to provide for free or lease or rent their car spaces to any persons not associated with the property.
    Owners or tenants who are absent from their properties for more than one month must inform the Owners Corporation Committee and Manager of the name and address of any person taking temporary possession of security keys or garage remote controls.

    (Special Rule above was adopted by the Owners Corporation and registered on 19th June 2015.)

    This rule change was in response to a tenant, without the owner’s knowledge, renting his car space to a series of shift workers at the Alfred Hospital. This resulted in the car space renters having access to our main security key and garage remotes at any time of the day or night. During this period residents reported an increase in thefts from the car park and in one case a car beside the rented car space was broken into and robbed. The resulting damage was more than $6000. (A Police report can be provided).

    Apart from the security issue there is also the safety and traffic flow issues in an already crowded roadway. Additional cars turning into the car park from across and off Commercial Rd at the start and end of the working day during peak traffic time would impact traffic flow and also the pedestrian traffic on the footpath leading to Fawkner Park, including hospital staff and school children - plus those alighting from the tram on corner of Punt Rd.

    Obviously the owners of the additional parking spaces at No 96 Commercial Road have been acting outside their existing OC rules. A change to the planning rules as they exist will only sanction their mistaken use of the car spaces over 20 years.

    Owners Corporation Committee
    Park Lane Manors SP25326

  9. In Scoresby VIC on “Multi Unit Development -...” at 13 Wattleview Rise, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Cr Nicole Seymour wrote to local councillor Nicole Seymour

    Worried citizen could you please make contact with me. My name is Nicole Seymour and I am your local Councillor.
    I would like to hear your concerns on this application please.
    Kind regards
    Cr Nicole Seymour
    0427 245 834

    Delivered to local councillor Nicole Seymour. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Cronulla NSW on “Extension of an approved...” at 31-39 Sturt Road & 2-4 Locksley Street Cronulla:

    Clive Fisher commented

    Large commercial enterprise in an R2 residential area. Insufficient onsite parking generating extreme hardship to facing Sturt Rd residents with congestion, noise as well as ingress and egress difficulties whilst under construction (with more construction to come) and visitor parking when completed. Broken undertakings to surrounding owners relating to representations made later negated by amendments to plans presented. Loss of aspect and general enjoyment of area. No notification to Sturt Rd properties as to application before Council.

  11. In North Haven SA on “The construction of 18...” at 14-15/46-56 Osborne Rd North Haven SA 5018:

    David Hunter wrote to local councillor Peter Jamieson

    This is the North Haven Shopping centre address, does this mean we will lose the shopping centre?

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

  12. In Scoresby VIC on “Multi Unit Development -...” at 13 Wattleview Rise, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Worried citizen wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    Did this development gain approval? I had asked a simple question of the lady that owned the house , this was welcomed with a tirade of abuse, she was quite threatening and although a very small person was quite aggressive towards me in front of my children. I am not sure if she is a stable person, nobody should be chased down the street for objecting to something. Had my car not been close by I have no idea what would have happened.

    i object to our neighbourhood going back down the drain. Scoresby has come so far.

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

  13. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “Removal of two...” at 4 Gorda Pl Seacombe Gardens:

    Nicholas Williams commented

    Hello,
    Comparing this tree to the tree on Reid St, western side between Limbert Ave and Shearer Ave, I do not understand the process for removal and replacement in a different location.

  14. In Epping NSW on “Request for a Pre-Gateway...” at – Land at 2-18 Epping Road, 2-4 Forest Grove and 725 Blaxland Road, Epping.:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I agree with the comments made by Craig Watson and Sue Simmonds. A number of local residents sent submissions to Hornsby Council against this planning proposal and were happy when Hornsby Council knocked it back. This development will bring an additional 654 dwellings, 1,635 new residents and 860 car spaces to this parcel of land. The main driveway access for the development will be in Forest Grove which will result in major traffic flow problems for this quiet back street which is not designed for this level of traffic. Street parking is already at capacity in Forest Grove so it is unclear where residents who do not have garages will park. Concerns were also raised about the high rise buildings (20, 22, 18 storeys) proposed blocking sunlight to Forest Park. I hope the NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel will review all these matters thoroughly and consult with local residents about why this development will diminish our qualify of life and why we oppose it going ahead. That is not to mention it also represents loss of open recreational space adjacent to Forest Park and demolition of the beautiful classic unit block on Epping Road. Local residents are also concerned about what the developer's proposal means by 'embellishment' to Forest Park. Does this represent further felling of trees? I hope the Gateway process, in this instance, is not a 'rubber stamp' exercise for the developer to get their rezoning approved. Does anyone know if the Gateway process ever results in the rejection of an application? When will sanity be restored to Sydney's urban planning and development processes?

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Good grief. Just what Addison Road needs: more overdevelopment. Please, please reconsider. has any town planning actually been done to ensure the community as well as the privacy and lifestyle of residents who have paid a premium to live here is protected and not sold off to the highest bidder.

  16. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Susan & Tim Parry wrote to local councillor Yvonne Keane

    For the already stated reasons we agree that this is an inappropriate development for this area and council must reject it.

    Delivered to local councillor Yvonne Keane. They are yet to respond.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Luka Milisa commented

    The scale and size of the development is not in keeping and negatively impacts the neighbours.

  18. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Veterinary Services” at 37 Godsall Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Pixie roediger wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    Why has this application for a Veterinary surgery at 37 Godsall street continued?When the required conditions for this venture can not be met.
    The one point five meters between our boundaries , is impossible on the Northern side . There is only about thirty centre meters between our boundary and the proposed venues surgery and recovery rooms, which also have leaky wooden windows.A two meter Buffer Zone around the proposed parking area would leave little or no room for the recommended five car parks plus one Van. There is no room to construct a five meter Buffer along the Northern boundary. This would not comply with streetscape requirements.
    Not only would our way of life,be greatly affected,by noise from barking dogs and similar activities and noises. But our lives would be compromised. There is solid proof that diseases are transmitted from animals and bird,to humans.These serious ailments can kill humans especially the elderly and young.
    Approval of this application would make a absolute mockery of Council requirements. Any further developments could also expect similar exemptions with their applications.
    We are afraid that the required conditions will be wavered or watered down ,leaving us with little or no protection. If this application is approved ,it would give him a substantial increase in value to his property.This would be at the expense of the people who reside in the close vicinity. concerned residents Brian and Pixie Roediger

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

  19. In Chelsea VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 78 Chelsea Road, Chelsea, VIC:

    Mike Eising commented

    This block is less than 900 sq meters thus isn't large enough to develop into 3 properties let alone 4 as requested by yet another greedy developer. Development plan as per request represnts gross overdevelopment of the site in question.

  20. In Eastwood NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 48 Midson Road Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Jingyu yu commented

    1) Why the application is for 2009. The regulation has been changed. He should get a new application for 2016.
    (2) The land size is not enough to build a duplex according to the new regulation. If council allow the applicant to do it, you should allow others to do it.

  21. In Granville NSW on “Limited licence - single...” at 10 Carlton St, Granville, NSW:

    Sarah skinner commented

    My family home is behind the Town Hall. I have no objection to alcohol being served just so long as the function finishes punctually by 11.59, guests leave our neighbourhood tidy, and exit the function in a quiet and orderly manner without disturbing residents.
    Congratulations and best wishes for the future!!

  22. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 4 storey...” at 96-104 Commercial Road South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ross Lazarus commented

    I am writing to object to the council approving TP-1992-810/A.

    My objection is motivated by my experience living next door for the past 4 years, and my lifelong experience of growing up in and near the entire affected area.

    In my view, making the car spaces available for public use will lead to substantially increased motor vehicle traffic in and out of the basement car park, particularly during times of existing congestion at the start and end of working days. I fear that this will have the following undesirable consequences:

    1. Increased traffic in and out of the driveway crossing the Commercial road footpath outside that building will expose the existing heavy pedestrian and bicycle traffic along that part of Commercial Rd to increased risk of accidents involving motor vehicles entering and leaving the basement across their Commercial road ramp. Leasing of spaces by local employees will mean that this extra traffic will be concentrated during peak hours at the start and end of each working day which is precisely when traffic around the area is highest. It is only a matter of time before a fatality occurs and in my view there is no reason to allow the already existing risk to increase by encouraging more vehicles to cross that pedestrian thoroughfare during the morning and afternoon peak hours of activity.

    2. Increased traffic on that driveway during peak hours will lead to even more motor vehicle congestion for vehicles heading east along Commercial road. This will adversely affect our use of the next door driveway by making it even harder for us to exit onto commercial road. The exit is already frequently subject to routine blockage by vehicles unlawfully entering the space when there is no room to proceed because traffic going east on commercial road is extremely heavy at peak hours and drivers are already impatient and unwilling to leave any space for vehicles exiting the two adjacent building car parks.

    3. Public use of that previously restricted space will by definition increase the number of non-resident individuals using the space, potentially worsening the already existing problem of theft and vandalism in our next door car park since non-residents will have access to the previously restricted space next door, making it much harder for us to distinguish our neighbors from random miscreants and I fear that this will increase the risk of theft and damage to vehicles in our private parking space next door.

  23. In Goodwood SA on “Carry out alterations and...” at 41 Devon Street (South), Goodwood SA 5034:

    Anne Wharton wrote to local councillor Don Palmer

    I went today to look at this tree. From the street, it is a lovely tree and looks pretty healthy. Can you advise why the owners have requested this tree be chopped down please?

    Photo of Don Palmer
    Don Palmer local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Anne Wharton

    As I am no longer a member of our Development Assessment Pane I can investigate on your behalf. This I will do by liaising with our Planning Staff.

    What I can already tell you is I have found that it is part of an application for redeveloping that site. The application is a Cat 2 application which means it must go out to public notification to those neighbours next door and those within 60 m on the other side of the street. Each of these people to provide a representation.

    It has been in our system since April and it has only just now gone out to consultation (on the 15th). It appears our staff have had a number of concerns that needed the applicant to respond to, hence the delay in reaching this stage.

    If there remains unresolved representations it will be seen by the Panel.

    Have a Great Day!

    Don Palmer

    Councillor, Clarence Park Ward

    City of Unley

    Phone: 0414 820 773

    Email Address:

    Web Address: http://www.donpalmer.org/

    Photo of Don Palmer
    Don Palmer local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Anne Wharton

    I have some further information Anne with apologies for the delay. I had hoped to have something more before now.

    The application is for alterations to the existing single storey dwelling (single storey extension to the rear and en-suite to the side) and removal of a regulated tree to allow this development. The applicant has provided an arborist report indicating that the tree represents a material risk to safety and is causing damage to three buildings.

    I am advised that public notification has just concluded and we have received one representation. At this stage its likely to be heading to DAP.

    Let me know if you need more information.

    Have a Great Day!

    Don Palmer

    Councillor, Clarence Park Ward

    City of Unley

    Phone: 0414 820 773

    Email Address:

    Web Address: http://www.donpalmer.org/

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kate W commented

    This proposed development is totally wrong for this site and in no way shape or form considers the existing neighbours. To overshadow and overlook at least 8 neighbours leaving them feeling burdened by a massive development behind and beside them is not only unfair but surely illegal. Whoever bought this site should have been more aware of what was suitable for the site considering this is purely a residential zone and paid accordingly. Why should existing residential owners suffer because some overpaid for the site and is now trying to overdevelop to recoup their money or make a profit. Think carefully inner west council, otherwise you may have a total uproar and extensive publicity around this.

  25. In Canterbury NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 2a Charles Street, Canterbury, NSW:

    Dayna Williams commented

    I support this application. The current liquor outlets within walking distance are very limited in variety. Aldi is o.k for $3 cooking wine, but what if you want something nice? Or it's after 8pm? I hope it will be like the BWS in Erskineville. They have a good selection for such a small shop. There will be many more people moving into the area. More retail is needed. This shop will be one of eight in the building(plus woolies) so there will be a variety of offerings. The location is great! Being right next to the station means people can pop in when they get off the train- reducing the need for car travel. Many people will be drawn to the area for the great public transport links, and will be car-free. It is important to provide shops in the Charles St area to cater for the new residents and reduce trips made by car.

  26. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 71-91 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    BIKESydney commented

    ...to wit
    not 48 hours after sending the alert for a safer intersection ...a road fatality. Sad.
    At what point do we take the TowardZero seriously in our urban planning? We can't rely on the (always silent) RMS. At what point do we say "enough"?

    https://www.facebook.com/Alexandria.Sydney.NSW.2015/photos/pcb.650656181755842/650656091755851/?type=3&theater

  27. In Glenorie NSW on “A Mixed Use Development” at Glenorie Shopping Centre, 930 Old Northern Road, Glenorie NSW 2157:

    Shane Parry commented

    I feel it is completly inappropriate for a high density developement such as this to even be considered in a rural area. If the subdivision of 5 and 25 acre properties is still deemed unsuitable, then why would a DA for a "block of flats" even see the light of day?
    I strongly urge council to respect the rights of Glenories residents, and decline this Developement Application.

  28. In Wamberal NSW on “Boarding House” at 100 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal NSW 2260:

    Betty Hancock commented

    A boarding house on this land is well out of order. This corner and main road is danderous enough without adding more traffic. Why do we have to spoil this area. We have lived in this area for over 50 years and loved every moment BUT we are being crowded out. Thank you for listening.

  29. In Wamberal NSW on “Boarding House” at 100 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal NSW 2260:

    Betty Hancock commented

    A boarding house on this land is well out of order. This corner and main road is danderous enough without adding more traffic. Why do we have to spoil this area. We have lived in this area for over 50 years and loved every moment BUT we are being crowded out. Thank you for listening.

  30. In Thornleigh NSW on “Other - Demolition - Heritage” at 9 Station Street Thornleigh NSW 2120 Australia:

    Richard Morgan commented

    I am disturbed and disappointed that the demolition of this piece of local history is being considered. Progress will take place but along the way let us please preserve some recognition of our very valuable beginnings. There is a place for a select, few, significant residences to be retained. No. 9 Station St. has considerable cultural and historic value.

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