Recent comments

  1. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 12-26 Regent Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Withheld (Banana Supermarket associates have a record of violence and access to my building.) commented

    This business is a front for an illegal hostel business, detailed in an ABC 7:30 report and a Telegraph newspaper report, both from July, 2014.

    Both the Banana Supermarket and the absurdly-named "Oh LaLa Restaurant" are operated by a Mr. Amr Hassan to launder the cash rent payments he reaps from backpackers and others paying approximately $150 per week for single bunk beds.

    The ABC 7:30 Report showed one of his former apartment managers detailing as many as 16 such "tenants" per apartment, while the Telegraph's Taylor Auerbach reported staying in a single room apartment in which 14 persons were living.

    Sydney city Council is well aware of Mr. Hassan's activities, as the Health and Building Manager for the Central area, Mr. Andrew McMillan, can attest. The Council has also pressed assault charges against one of Mr. Hassan's known associates, one Danny Masoud, over an attack on a Council inspector.

    Under no circumstances should the Council consider accommodating any of Mr. Hassan's planning applications, as these, if approved, would simply provide cover for his repellent and anti-social activities.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    M. Matheson commented

    I'm not quite sure what the words "Cross Cultural Celebration" mean.

    But Blind Freddy can tell you that they're weasel words meaning that this place is evolving into a Commercial Activity.

    And Commercial Activity on this scale does NOT belong in an area zoned Residential.

  3. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jasmine commented

    As residents of Illawarra Rd, very close to the ARC, we can say that proximity to the ARC and its markets and other events are part of the reason we wanted to move here from an adjoining suburb. However, we seriously underestimated the parking and traffic issues caused by the Sunday markets and are unable to find parking a reasonable distance from our house if we take the car out on a Sunday. With 2 infants in prams, this is a hassle. I have no problem with this new event other than the enlargement of our current weekend traffic and parking issues. The saving grace with the markets is that everyone's gone by 3 pm whereas this event will go on into the evening. In a couple of months, the carwash site at the corner of Illawarra and Addison Rds will become a major construction site while a 4 storey, 30+ apartment development is built. The cumulative impact on residents could well be too much. I don't believe this application should be approved.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon Dalla Pozza commented

    I object to this application as public transport to the weekly event, and adequate parking is almost non-existent.

    I understand and can appreciate the comments about the community changing - but this is where Council has to step in. Even if a few more parking spaces are identified somewhere nearby, it needs to be considered that there will be a large amount of people coming into the area across the entire weekend.

    As everyone has said, I disagree the 500 plus people attending/working at the Saturday event will take public transport. And unlike the markets, they will be taking up parking spaces all day as the event goes from 10 am to 8 pm with staff and equipment arriving and leaving between 7am and 8 pm.

    Wouldn't it be better to split these large community events across two parks instead of having them both in the same park all weekend, for the next two years?

  5. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use and Fitout to...” at 2/814-822 Old Illawarra Rd Barden Ridge 2234:

    christina seru commented

    I am the owner of Musclemania Fitness Store located in the adjoining complex (Menai Services Centre) to the complex in this application (Menai Trade Centre).

    I do NOT support this application!!! I have numerous concerns, as a long term occupier in this direct vicinity and as the public access to these facilities are shared with the complex my store is located in (for the past 15 years). This is already an extremely busy thoroughfare with large trucks, both private and commercial vehicles driving in and out all day and into the evening.
    The parking issues in and around these two complexes have always been a major issue of contention. The parking along Old Illawarra Road is largely taken up by employees of the various companies that work in all commercial complexes located on both sides of this road AND the swimming complex located in the Homemakers Centre.
    THERE IS NO PARKING AVAILABLE FOR ANY MORE FITNESS CENTRES that require parking for 18 plus clientele at one time (and throughout the day and evening)!!!! This will definitely overflow into the dedicated parking areas in each complex (Menai Services Centre and the Menai Trades Centre).

    PLEASE NOTE!!! We already have 3 Fitness Centres, 3 Physio Centres doing classes, various Dancing Schools, Boxing and Martial Arts Studios, a large Swimming Centre and ANOTHER Personal Training Studio application as well as this one currently at Council......all in this direct vicinity and on this road.

    It would actually be a safety hazard to have people trying to park and/or walk into this extremely busy and cramped area, that has trucks, commercial vehicles and cars for service at the Mechanics, Auto Electricians, Tyre Repairs, Motor Bikes, Marine etc using this same area from early in the morning to late in the evening.

    I do hope Council will review this application closely and decide against any such use of this industrial unit.

  6. In Southbank VIC on “Planning Permit Application...” at 68-70 Dorcas Street Southbank VIC 3006:

    Christine Savides commented

    Please check the shadows along Dorcas st - not Dodd st. The shadow diagrams do not accurately reflect the overshadowing which this building creates - the photographs are taken from the north facing side of the building.

    Please keep some setback from the road at Dorcas st and dodds st to create some ambience rather than just a wall of buildings right up to the edge.

  7. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 39 Barwon Park Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer commented

    Thank you Mark. I know St Peters Public School is not full yet but this will change as many schools in the inner west are so full that principals refuse to accept out-of-area enrolments, even if siblings are already at the school, and insist that parents produce several pieces of original identification with a current address before a child is enrolled.
    In Marrickville, especially St Peters the baby boom is a couple of years behind suburbs like Leichhardt and Annandale. However we wiill soon find ourselves in the same situation they do.

    There are still the issues of a hospital for Marrickville, the proximity of Westconnex, of parking and traffic.

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Steven Cardwell commented

    I fully support this application.

    As Sydney has grown into a dynamic, multi-cultural hub it has seen and will continue to see, an obvious increase in demand on public infra-structure gradually spreading outwards from the CBD. One thing which will help to drive our local councils to improve transportation corridors and transportation services is increased utilization of our community services, shopping complexes, sports and recreation facilities.

    Whilst I can understand and appreciate the concerns of the people who park in the area around Addison Road, we all also need to understand that further development of this area is potentially just around the corner and the demand for increased parking unfortunately will not subside.

    I would much prefer that we as a community continue to enrich Marrickville with culturally diverse initiatives such as the Saturday cross cultural celebration, rather than bow to the ever present motor vehicle as our cultural regulator.

  9. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 39 Barwon Park Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Mark commented

    Jennifer, the nearest public school is St Peters Public School in Church Street. It is a very good school but it currently has less than 100 students and is well below capacity. Adjacent to the public school is St Peters Community Pre School, it is also below capacity and looking for new enrollments.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gillian Browne commented

    I am a Marrickville resident and I object to this application. Like most other commenters I agree the Sunday markets are a great part of living in the area. It does however put a stress on the parking. I don’t live on Addison Road but there is spillover all the way up my street and into the surrounding streets including Agar Street, North Street, Middle Street and Newington Road – I know this because this is where I go circling for parking. Residents often have to double park (to bring inside their shopping/groceries/children) as parking gets impossible. As this one day out of the two-day weekend it is something I am more than happy to support. However the introduction of an all-day event on Saturday is unreasonable inconvenience to residents. I disagree with the DA that attendees of the Saturday event will take public transport, as they are not doing this for the Sunday markets. The train station are a 30min walk away, and there is also only one bus route that services Addison road which is why everyone drives to the markets, and will drive the the Saturday event. The Saturday event should be held in a different location to the Sunday markets as to not impact the same residents.

  11. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 39 Barwon Park Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer commented

    How is this building affected by the plans for the Westconnex road? Will additional soundproofing be needed to protect residents from traffic noise? Should a residential building be approved so close to a motorway?
    Is it wise to continue to approve more and more dwellings in this area when the state government has plans neither for more public schools nor to replace our hospital closed years ago?

  12. In West Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 3 Denison Grove West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Paul commented

    Firstly it will be an eyesore like the tin goat shed next door at number 1 Denison grove and the 3 further up Denison road which look like prison buildings often shown on t.v. Secondly the houses directly behind loose most of their view of which they originally invested their money and thoughts around. Thirdly why was it ever considered by the governing bodies in the first place, it should only be a maximum half another story of the height it is at the moment. A normal house built into the hill as elsewhere along the street would have sufficed, and all the wasted space filled in to support the hideous eyesore that is there now could have been avoided and used more effectively. This eyesore is just a rental money grab by all involved and no consideration given to those whom live near and around it. If such an obstruction is allowed then why not 10 plus story buildings like casinos and giant supermarkets and the like, ''won't be long!'' And lastly as previously stated it should be designed to blend in with the existing houses that have been here for 50 plus years, just imagine if most of the houses along the bottom side of Denison grove were 1 and 2 levels above the road, might as well live in New York and commit suicide one day by jumping off one of the buildings that would get anybody so depressed being surrounded by concrete and steel (in this case; "TIN") Oh that's right we chose to not live in such man made jungles, but looks like the jungle has allowed to be overgrown by poor decision makers in the governing departments, whom have probably never been to the street an surrounding neighborhood. GOOD BYE WEST LAUNCESTON AND HELLO TO THE CITY OF BOX BUILDINGS OF TIN, STEEL AND CONCRETE.....

  13. In Hunchy QLD on “Secondary Dwelling - John &...” at 110 Hunchy Rd, Hunchy, QLD:

    keisha wilson commented

    I believe this application should be denied.

    From the perspective of a neighbouring property, 110's dwelling fails to comply with Dwelling House Code P05 & P012.

    Before this dwelling was built, neighbours had a view from their deck of an open natural landscape, along with an avocado orchard, which concealed the primary house from view and reinforced the rural character of the neighborhood.

    A neighbouring pool and family's outdoor living area's privacy has been impacted by the current daily usage of this dwelling, where dwellers are seen frequenting the washing line and have a window in view of the outdoor living area and pool.

    The location and current useage of this dwelling impacts the nature of the useage and enjoyment of the neighbours' own outdoor amenities.

  14. In Waitara NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 32 Park Avenue Waitara NSW 2077, NSW:

    Amanda Smith commented

    Park Ave has been completely ruined ! What's next , units on Waitara Oval ?!

  15. In Waitara NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 32 Park Avenue Waitara NSW 2077, NSW:

    Felice Carlino commented

    Dear Hornsby Council

    This is a mistake. As the owner of this property, no consent has been given by us for this development.

    Could you please advise who had submitted the DA application.


    Felice Carlino

    Owner of 32 Park Ave Waitara.

  16. In Princes Hill VIC on “Construction of a first...” at 30 Garton St Princes Hill VIC 3054:

    Mario Caruso commented

    I have never seen application ,and I have never been notified, I have lived next door to 30 garton st for 7 years and have never received any letters,emails from council or owner off 30 Garton st, Ma

  17. In Padstow NSW on “Demolish all existing...” at 16 Meager Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Kim Williams commented


    I am closely watching over development in the Padstow area.

    I notice this application seeks to increase the building height. If this is the case, it surely does not comply with the current policies. I would like to comment that if it cannot comply due to being in a flood zone, it does not meet the criteria and cannot be developed in the proposed manner. To increase the building height to try and comply with flood risk is not acceptable. It means the streetscape for this street will have buildings with are much higher than those in the street present.

    I would also like to request the Council do not allow a reduction in the ratio of land as per the plan. The proposed plan does not meet the current standards and the number of units will need to be reduced to meet the standard.

    It also looks like it is single garaging. In reality, unless storage sheds have been provided, the cars will not be parked in the garages, and if you have multiple cars for each address, the off street parking will not be sufficient. If you have a minimum of 2 cars per unit, you will potentially have 6 cars trying to park outside what was 2 houses, taking the street parking from the existing residents.

    I notice they quote about the proposed development rules, this is totally irrelevant, as not the current rules.

    I feel passionate about this as it is happening all over by developers who are simply attempting to buy up land, over develop the area and then move on to their next project. They rarely live in the area and are not concerned about the effects in the streets with over crowding, increased noise levels and insufficient parking for the real number of cars that will reside in the villas, creating parking issues for all existing residents who will no longer have street parking due to the approval of developments which do not provide sufficient off street parking.

    To summarise, I would request that the Council do not allow developers to breach the current rules in regard to height or the number allowable on a piece of land based on the fact that the developers are trying to fit one more on the land to sell. We have rules and I believe they should be adhered to, for all the reasons outlined above.

    Simply put, if it cannot be built to the current rules, it should not be built. The rules are in place for a reason. I only live one street over and do not want to see over development in our area, especially when the plan does not meet the rules for 2 reasons.

    Thank you.

    Kim Williams.

  18. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Dwelling House,Shed/Garden...” at 22 Paddock Close, Elermore Vale NSW 2287:

    Mr Mantilla commented

    Just a concern, visit my lot today... confused with the boundary line. looking at my plans with dewitt survey.. the location of the trees, PIT and the curve of the access road... > Could we please review? so that we can minimize any more construction/expense and changes that needs to be adjusted with lot 7 (22 paddock close)...
    Nobody would like to have their land shortened as well as to destroy things (another expense) because we went over the boundary...

  19. In Blue Haven NSW on “Residential flat...” at 5 Dunlop Road Blue Haven NSW 2262:

    Vic Davis commented

    Not in keeping with current development in Blue Haven. There is not enough car parking space in this street as it is without adding to the problem.

  20. In Collingwood VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 107 Cambridge St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Alex commented

    Surely we have enough development in this area! The roads are already blocked up, and this is prior to a few major developments being completed, as well the tram down smith st always being full.

  21. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 1 new dwelling...” at 14A Princess St Richmond VIC 3121:

    claire heaney commented

    Just wondering if the reduction in carparking means the occupants will have adequate parking?. I understand they are not building two townhouses & therefore won't be caught up in the post 2003 requirements. However, I would have thought there was very little on street parking on Princess St & Brougham St. So where will they park if they do not make provision for parking?

  22. In Shoal Bay NSW on “Storage Shed ancillary to...” at 1C Shoal Bay Road Shoal Bay NSW 2315:

    Roslyn Welsh commented

    Attention Mayor McKenzie
    Would you please provide additional information relating to this proposed storage shed.
    Without any consulation with local residence there already has been build quite an ugly wire compound in the area in question. Any additional solid storage shed would not be fitting with the area, which has recently been beautified for all to enjoy. Regards, Roz Welsh

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Maybe it's my imagination but it appears as though Marrickville Council is allowing the development of boarding houses and apartments without any foresight on car parking or traffic impacts.

  24. In Burnley VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 429-431 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Erin commented

    This area is a very quiet residential area. There are no high rise apartments along this part of swan st. This development can the potential to set a trend for large scale developments that will overshadow the small terrace houses nearby, irreversibly changing the character of the area.

    The service lane behind the building is also quiet and skinny, and any car parking that would potentially exit out to there there would quickly clog up the road and increase the noise for nearby houses, that have backyards that face onto it.

  25. In Battery Point TAS on “Mobile Food Vendor Zones...” at Battery Square Battery Point 7004:

    Peter Bowen commented

    The toilets in Princes Park should be kept open all the time that the van is present,
    a bond be in place to ensure the proponent keeps the area clean,
    the police agree with the placement,
    that seating be provided by the proponent

  26. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment ot the existing...” at Carpark 399-401 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Luke Jamieson commented

    The developer has not been honest on the planning application. The neighboring building particularly 117 Hardware street will be incredibly and poorly impacted on. Such a building will drastically reduce the quality of living and value of property for 117 Hardware street which is a historic and lovely peace of hardware lanes history.

    - This application shows that the area as office and retail yet the area is predominately residential.

    - The building will block all light from the apartments at the rear and in some instances completely block windows and restrict the ability to open them. The balconies, of 117 Hardware Street will be no longer private sanctuaries but spectacle for the tower not to mention the unacceptable shadowing impacts The tower will completely ruin habitable rooms because of total loss of direct sunlight for much of each day, increased noise and unwanted loss of privacy.

    - Little Lonsdale street is already hard enough to walk down and with recent other skyscrapers this has been amplified. The footpaths in Little Lonsdale street are not built for the amount of foot traffic let alone even more from another eye sore.

  27. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Catherine Li commented

    I am in full support of this application. My immediate area has a local vet clinic but aving more options near-by is very important and helpful to pet owners as well as those thinking of taking care of a pet. This is the kind of development that will make an area more attractive.

  28. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 315 Maroubra Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Irem SHARKEY commented

    I support the redevelopment of the site in principle. However, as part owner in an adjacent building, I do have some concerns about the application in its current state.

    Section 5.4 of the application : There is already a lot of noise from residents at 313 Maroubra rd roof terrace, keeping adjoining residents awake into the late hours of the night - the proposed roof terrace is undesirable from a noise perspective to other residents. These roof top spaces are used, frequently for noisy celebrations with many visitors in attendance as people can't fit into the small units for entertaining. If they are not frequently used as suggested in the application, then why include them?

    It's is not that clear from the drawings, but the new building should not be any taller than buildings next to it (does getting rid of the roof terrace help with reducing height?) nor should it be set any more forward to the curb (including balconies) than the adjacent buildings - the aerial drawings seem to suggest that it does protrude further due to balconies. To allow these things will:
    - dwarf the adjacent buildings;
    - not be in keeping with the streetscape; and
    - block valuable sun light and district views,
    all of which surrounding and adjoining residents rely on to preserve their own property values and quality of living.

    The windows should not look into those of the existing apartments on either side. Again it is not clear from my laman's reading of the plans how these will align with windows of adjacent apartments.

    Please ensure no noisy air conditioning units on the external part of the building.

    Please ensure landscaping doesn't result in the planting of tall trees that will simply further block sunlight and views for adjoining owners.

  29. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Dwelling House,Shed/Garden...” at 22 Paddock Close, Elermore Vale NSW 2287:

    Anecito Mantilla - owner of 24 paddock close, elermore vale commented

    2nd floor window facing on the property of 24 paddock close is facing the pool and to the kids windows...,their second floor has lots of windows either side, please consider privacy of the kids

  30. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment ot the existing...” at Carpark 399-401 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Mr. B. Bradfield commented

    The supporting planning permit amendment documentation which underpins both TPM-2009-23/A and B, clearly omits 115 Hardware Street as one of the easterly ‘key interfaces’ to the proposed development, despite it being directly adjacent. Furthermore, the associated architectural plans mark 115 Hardware Street as ‘shops and offices’, when only the ground-level of this low-density, five-story building is made up of commercial lots (i.e. the remaining fifteen lots on levels one to four are exclusively residential, since 2002). Given its adjacency, I believe that the proposed development would significantly diminish the quality of life for residents living in 115 Hardware Street due to:

    1. unacceptable shadowing impacts to habitable rooms, including a total loss of direct sunlight for much of each day;
    2. inappropriate potential for overlooking into habitable rooms and outdoor spaces facing the proposed development;
    3. a significant loss of visual relief from habitable rooms facing the proposed development, owing to its sheer bulk, height and close proximity;
    4. the creation of extreme down force winds towards and into habitable areas, the force and noise of which will disrupt both short-term and long-term stationary activities inside and outside residential lots (note that some lots at 115 Hardware Street include outdoor/rooftop gardens).

    In the context of the immediate vicinity, the existing capacity for pedestrian traffic, most notably along Little Lonsdale Street, is already severely stretched, such that pedestrians can regularly be seen making their way along the road instead of the footpaths. The existing congestion would become even more problematic should such a high-density skyscraper be constructed without appropriate capacity planning.

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