Recent comments

  1. In Coburg VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 47 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Tim Morris commented

    As a local resident I wish to register my opposition to features of proposal # MPS/2014/649

    The proposal for ' 20 dwellings and reduction in parking and waiver of loading bays requirements' is inappropriate.

    47 Sydney rd proposal will have a negative impact on Wolseley St residents access to their homes on Wolseley street as parking on Wolseley street is currently limited.

    The local road infra structure area can not support 20 new dwellings with reductions in private parking nor a waiver of loading bays for commercial businesses on Sydney road.

    Sydney Rd can not accommodate parking for at least 20 vehicles nor a waiver of loading bays
    Allen street can not accommodate parking for at least 20 vehicles nor a waiver of loading bays.
    Wolseley

    Wolseley St is a residential street ( General Residential zone) and should not be used as private and commercial parking for developments on Sydney Rd.

    Wolseley Street residents currently have difficulty parking on the street and sale of 3-9 Wolseley street as a development site will restrict street parking.

    47 Sydney rd proposal will have a negative impact on Wolseley St residents access to their homes on Wolseley street.

    The proposed development must include:
    onsite private parking for 20 vehicles.
    onsite commercial loading bays.

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

    Simon commented

    "Boarding houses" are on the increase because of affordability regulations and requirements. There have to be certain numbers of "dwellings" in an area below a certain price, so if you want to make it cheaper, you have to make it smaller. These are studios on steroids.

    Some of this kind of accomodation is necessary in any urban area but they're certainly not homes and can easily become overpriced anyway. Convenient, but they don't really deliver long term housing as much as accommodation. They're not a foot-in-the-door for first time buyers or owner occupiers.

  3. In Balwyn North VIC on “Removal of a restrictive...” at 27 Reading Avenue Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    David Grant commented

    The property at 27 Reading Avenue is being demolished, but I can not see reference to a building permit request. There is no notice on the fencing around the property and I have not been sent anything in the post. Are you able to advise me what is happening?
    Regards
    David Grant

  4. In Collingwood VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 416-422 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Neil Davison commented

    Dan Murphy's has applied for a liquor licence for this development which means that they will be taking all of the retail tenancies available. Has this been changed on the current plans to show only one tenancy and does it affect the findings of the Traffic management report?

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

    Jan Bryant commented

    The developer has completely misrepresented the neighbouring environment on its application to planning and will drastically reduce the quality of the surrounding area.

    1. This application does not reflect the surrounding area, which is predominately residential but has been marked on the plan as office/retail.

    2. The building will block all light from the rear apartments, and their balconies, of 117 Hardware Street, and the apartments that back onto the current car park from the rear of Lonsdale Street, drastically reducing quality of life.

    3. The building's height will completely overshadow Hardware street, which is an important tourist precinct.

    4. The massive skyscraper will contribute to Little Lonsdale street becoming a dark tunnel with a projected density that far outstrips its capacity for comfortable pedestrian traffic flow. The footpaths in Little Lonsdale street are already completely unsuitable for the amount of foot traffic that it currently has to deal with.

    5. No other small street (of Melbourne Little streets) have been asked to cope with this level of planned height. It is completely unsuited to this kind of development.

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

    Diana Dickens commented

    This increasing provision of boarding houses is of concern. What is the overall plan for this area? Why is there so much sub standard housing being allowed here.?

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 252 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Diana Dickens commented

    This is part of really big development and looks like it will be as ugly as the one up near the corner of Dudley Street. How can these developments have no side windows? Who can live there.? Why is there so much basement development if it is only 5 stories high?

    I think the residents of the larger area need consulting when such ugly and large buildings are being approved. Effectively you are increasing the population of this area 30 or 40 times what was there before.

    Thankyou for reading this and I hope to hear back

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

    Natalie Cheney commented

    I highly recommend this application.
    The markets are a fantastic way to bring life, art, culture, smallbusiness, & community togetherness to the area.
    It saddens me to read so many comments attached to this application in regards to parking.
    As Sydney's population increases, areas close to the city such as these will have a population increase and parking will become more sparse. We might as well enjoy a weekly market while that's happening. walking once a week to get to your car never killed anyone.

  9. In Kew VIC on “Installation and use of a...” at 99 High Street South Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerry Fairbank commented

    It is difficult to reconcile the signs with road safety. The signs are designed to maximally distract and are potentially dangerous. I am surprised that there are not controls to prohibit signage at this busy intersection. Also, the existing signs surely make the junction one of the most unattractive areas in Boroondara. Additional signs would add to the degradation of the junction as well as distracting motorists.

  10. In Balmain NSW on “Consolidate two exsisting...” at 139-143 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Dr Maria Elena Indelicato commented

    Hi there,

    Today, a colleague of mine and I are conducting a research on children's home in Sydney and we know that two of them used to be in Balmain. Today we passed by the building at 139-143 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041 and we wondered about what you used to be. Do you know anything about?

    Best,
    Marilena

  11. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Susan Clayhills commented

    DA-2014/567 re 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon

    21/12/2014

    To Whom It May Concern

    An energetic campaign of opposition by a significant number of locals residents was lodged about this property about this time last year in regard to the proposed development of a long day care centre in this suburban street.

    Our opposition was regarding several areas of concern which in fact council totally agreed with and which resulted in the rejection of that DA proposal.

    Issues

    Lack of parking in dead end street ie. access to property is on Stafford Road
    Danger of parking on busy Mowbray Road to drop off children
    Impact on neighbouring streets particularly Muttama Road, Tindale Road and Stafford Road
    Access for emergency vehicles
    Increased volume of traffic along Stafford and Tindale Roads - at peak drop off / collection times - investigated in survey
    OHS and other safety issues with young children at drop off and pickup times
    Noise to neighbouring properties
    Lack of space on property to construct designated driveway for vehicles

    Also how is it possible to have car spaces for 21 cars on this property that would be safe to children when staff do shift work and so arrive and leave at varying times ??

    Thank you for your consideration

    Susan Clayhills

  12. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Multi-Dwelling...” at 78 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Ricki Moore commented

    We don't need another place to access alcohol, it is already a social problem in the community. Why build this next to the beach? We like our village and environment and the community enjoys family events like the market and festivals. It will bring more social problems. Building community does not need pubs, it needs more community village appeal. There are enough places for people to access alcohol.

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

    Benjamin Tan commented

    As a pet owner, I would like to see more vet clinics in the area where pet ownership is high - it means more options for us. This is an excellent proposal!

  14. In Kew VIC on “Installation and use of a...” at 99 High Street South Kew VIC 3101:

    Judith Scurfield commented

    I feel that large digital signs such as that already installed on the Kew Hotel are a major traffic hazard, as they distract drivers, in this case, drivers coming through a very busy intersection at Kew Junction. There are already 2 such large signs at the Junction, and that is 2 too many, so I would certainly object to any more being installed.

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

    Min Chan commented

    I whole-heartedly support the application. With high pet ownership in the Surry Hills area, this will be a great convenient addition to the area.

  16. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15, 17 and 19 Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Craig Watson commented

    The proposed changes to traffic and the resulting increase in cars on Essex Street will be further exacerbated by this application. The third to be proposed on Essex St. If they commence roughly at the same time the resultant traffic chaos will further add to the extreme difficulties residents of Nth Epping travelling west to Eastwood and to a degree joining Epping Rd will experience. The construction phase is likely to continue for at least 2 years.
    It is vital that a co ordinated Traffic Management Plan be developed for the construction phase of all of these projects and that the compliance is strictly monitored.

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

    Kaelah Ford commented

    I fully support this application. The veterinary clinic would be a valuable addition to our community and the proposed development suits the character of the area.

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

    Andrew Wentzel commented

    I fully support this great community focused small animal vet clinic in my area.

    As an owner of multiple pets it's important to know that there are great small local vets how went to support and work in my area

  19. In Ultimo NSW on “Use of the first and second...” at 7-9 Hackett Street Ultimo NSW 2007:

    James Connoly commented

    This block is already used as apartments. In fact, both the garages have also been converted to rooms. People have been living in the garages for at least 2 years.

  20. In Mc Mahons Point NSW on “New four storey residential...” at 34 East Crescent Street Mcmahons Point NSW 2060:

    Sally Tribe commented

    The development application has no thought or planning concerning the surrounding area...or buildings... It oversteps the height limit , and is a complete over development of this prominent site.

    The materials are not in keeping with other buildings , nor even pleasant environmentally nor architecturally.....

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon Goldstein commented

    I object to the demolishing of these buildings because of their heritage value and appeal to the community.

  22. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 299 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Mark Simpson commented

    More soulless, poorly placed and overly tall units with empty shopfronts along Lygon Street, just what we need. God forbid we maintain any sense of the existing street front or as is the case here, we maintain an existing and functional piece of housing. I understand everyone wants to turn old factories and the like into development cash cows, but why must we destroy existing housing in the area, especially when it's part of the existing character of the suburb? Combined with the neighbouring property, I would have thought that these sort of buildings should be maintained, not consistently bulldozed.

    The proposed landscape does not in any way fit into the current landscape of the street surrounding it. You've allowed other similarly out of place developments in the area recently but a terrible precedent does not mean that we should then allow it to re-occur. I find it strange that we have no heritage overlays whatsoever in this area, I have no doubt that we'll look back in not many years and wonder why there was no care given at all to the overall appearance of our suburb. Of course this is a repeating pattern and also supported by some terrible state government planning so I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. Just annoyed.

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

    Luke Marinovich commented

    I am a resident of Addison Road, and wish to object to this DA. I support and enjoy the Sunday markets, but consider that an additional event every Saturday for two years would be an unreasonable inconvenience to local residents. I take issue with several statements in the DA:

    1. Contrary to the DA’s statements downplaying this issue, the proposed event would have an adverse impact on traffic and parking around the Community Centre, and this is a significant burden for the community.
    2. The Community Centre is serviced by only one bus route, and in the words of the application, “two train stations, Newtown and Stanmore, are a half hour walk away”. The DA does not reflect the reality that public transport options are not utilised by most people travelling to the centre, hence the abundance of cars on Sundays.
    3. Our home is by no means the closest to the Centre, but we can clearly hear performances from the Hall when they occur. I believe that the application underestimates the acoustic impact on local residents.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Melissa Ridley commented

    It saddens me that these buildings have heritage listing so at one stage were obviously considered worthy of keeping and of significance to now have that cast aside like this. I thought heritage orders were to provide protection and ensure buildings of historical significance remain and can contribute to an area. In this vein I would like to see them incorporated into the design for the community hub and not erased from the site.

  25. In Annandale NSW on “Increase extent of...” at 61 Parramatta Road Annandale NSW 2038:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    More consideration needs to be given to the impact on Pedestrian amenity by the increased traffic across the footpath.

    Consideration needs to be given to providing awnings and trees to provide shade and shelter from rain.

    See City of Sydney Awning Policy
    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/120371/CoSAwningsPolicy2000.pdf

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

    Andrew Roberts commented

    I too disagree with such a development.

    5 stories is completely out of character, traffic at that corner morning add night is very bad and a reduction in the car parking requirement seems to ignore the fact that cars will be parked in surrounding streets with attendant congestion and inevitable accidents.

    This development is very poorly considered.

    There will be significant overshadowing to the South East of the premises during summer months and also significant overlooking of nearby premises.

    Not to mention the significant burden on refuse collection and location of receptacles for collection.

  27. In Saint Leonards VIC on “Vary Restriction AC043689Y...” at 30-32 Seachange Way, St Leonards:

    Anna commented

    Please advise on what the owner proposes to build on this block. We are in the same estate and have been bound by the covenants...

  28. In Galston NSW on “Residential - single new...” at 1B Pine Valley Road Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I strongly support this application.

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Anna Keohan commented

    I would like to lodge my objection to the demolition of ANY heritage buildings on the old Marrickville Hospital site. It is unfortunate that the site has fallen into disrepair due to neglect over the past couple of decades, but at the very least the external fabric of the buildings could be retained and restored - and incorporated in to a sensitive design for the new library, community hub and residential housing. These buildings are part of the heritage, history and character of our suburb and have been previously valued by council as being of heritage significance - it is not acceptable to remove that protection in order to make more space for a developer to build on.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Both buildings and trees should be retained as an important part of our heritage. The buildings and their gardens should be appropriately restored.
    The buildings are an irreplaceable part of our heritage.

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