Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of thirty-two...” at 414 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sara commented

    I object strongly to the reduction in visitor parking visitor bikes and as this affects all the surrounding streets. The developers should have to meet the regulations which are there for a reason and not take short cuts. These buildings will have an impact on the environment for a long time and should be the best they can be.

  2. In Mt Cotton QLD on “Dwelling” at 16 Sunrise Street, Mount Cotton, QLD:

    Carl Porritt commented

    PD229986
    Please take into account the storm water flow onto adjacent properties with any land shape alteration.

  3. In Dundas NSW on “Subdivision one lots into...” at 155 Kirby Street Dundas NSW 2117:

    Lynne Hindes commented

    I have discussed this with my neighbours & we are concerned with the increase in traffic in the area. We already have had a 8 townhouse development the same distance away in the other direction ""approved"" 82-84 Kirby St. These 2 developments plus the increase in dual occupancy is making Kirby St a very busy & dangerous street. The 50k zone is not policed & reguarly broken.

    We have concerns for the safety of the residents of Kirby Street.

  4. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Brian Schultz commented

    To the General Manager,

    I wish to put forward my objection for the proposed muslim cemetery in the Blaxlands Ridge area. Plan 0548/12
    This land is an untouched envir...onmental habitat. I cannot see how it could remain this way or even minimally be affected by 10,000 burial plots.
    Nor can i understand how a cemetery can encourage primary industry enterprises & systems appropriate for the area to promote the conservation & enhancement of local native vegetation including the habitat of threatened species, populations & ecological communities by encouraging development to occur in areas already cleared for vegetation to ensure that development does not detract from the existing rural character or create unreasonable demands for the provision or extension of public amenities & services.
    To ensure that the development retains or enhances existing landscape values including a distinctive agricultural component as i understand the objective of RU1 zoning is meant to do.
    This development will be of no benefit to our already struggling koala population, our native flora & fauna or the local community.
    It is not catering for our local community but for another community out of the area
    Yours faithfully
    Brian Schultz

  5. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of thirty-two...” at 414 Auburn Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    sandy rea commented

    This is far too many dwellings for this size block of land. There should be no reduction in the required number of visitor parking. This affects the general amenity and attractiveness of the surrounding properties and impedes the Residential C quality. This is far too overbuilt and highly objectionable.

  6. In Petersham NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 2-4 Shaw Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Pam Glasscock commented

    A recent development application submitted for premises located at 2 – 4 Shaw street was initially opposed by council.

    The developer appealed and Council principle Solicitor Joe Strati penned a CONFIDENTIAL report .
    As a result of this report council had a change of heart and no longer opposes the development.

    I believe that this decision is flawed this matter must be reconsidered as a matter of priority.

  7. In Coogee NSW on “Formal Recognition of a...” at 18A Carr Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Rebecca Wilkinson-Preece commented

    This is a bad decision and should not be approved. As a person that previously rented the top apartment at 20 Carr Street, I offer the following comments: -

    - The sun will be blocked for 20 Carr Street and will reduce the value of the property
    - Privacy will be reduced for 20 Carr Street - especially the top apartment
    - The top apartment at 18 Carr Street is beautiful as it is and rare that it actually has outdoor space. It would be a crime to take this away, especially as the apartments would have little to no access to outdoor space.
    - By removing this outdoor area, only one remaining apartment in that block will have an outdoor area in the block.
    - Clothes washing/drying facilities will become very difficult for the residents of 18 Carr Street with an additional two apartments requiring use of a small and limited outdoor area downstairs.
    - The block (18 Carr Street) tends to be quite noisy, with the middle floor attracting transients, the increase in noise by having additional people in the block by adding another apartment would not be pleasant.
    - Parking is already and issue on Carr Street, and by adding another apartment, this will only add to the current parking issues with tenant possibly adding a further 2+ vehicles to the street (There is no off-road parking at 18 Carr Street).
    - If the application is successful, the noise and traffic congestion during the works will be distressing for many weeks/months to residents living near the property.

    Please keep this property and it's character as it is. It seems a shame that greed for rent overcomes the basic human needs to have access to the outside and an opportunity to sit outside at your own dwelling.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 128-146 Burren Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Duncan Stephens commented

    I am not sure why so many car parking spaces are needed when this is across the road from Macdonaldtown Station. A better use of the space would be more space for the kids; drop-off area and 1 or 2 disabled parks.

  9. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    tina commented

    this is a totally inappropriate place for a cemetery, muslim or otherwise. The sandstone soils would be near impossible to dig. This is a bushland setting, try putting it in Richmond or Windsor I also don't see the need to pander to a MINORITY group. The catholics and Anglicans share a cemetery so I think the muslims should too

  10. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Amalgamation of 3 lots,...” at 91-93 Riley Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Stephen Thompson commented

    City of Sydney

    The development application for 91 - 93 Riley Street for an apartment tower is totally in appropriate for this place which is of national heritage significance. If this and the new auditorium at Sydney Grammar goes ahead it will permanently destroy what is left of old East Sydney and Little Italy.

    Stephen Thompson
    Surry Hills NSW 2010

  11. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Sue Guymer commented

    1/ The site proposed for this 10,000 burial plots is a sandstone region and an inappropriate site for any cemetery of this huge size. 2/ I believe allowing this development will bring about social and cultural changes to the Hawkesbury Region that will greatly impact on the very reasons I choose to live in the Hawkesbury. This will just be the start of a New
    Hawkesbury that will resemble the changes that have taken place in Blacktown, Auburn, Lakemba, Bankstown etc. This is not what I want, wish or desired for my home region of the Hawkesbury. If you feel the same and wish to protect the Hawkesbury from these types of social and cultural changes, then you need to stand up now and say it

  12. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Ted Nassif commented

    The Hawkesbury does not want this cemetery to go ahead! We do not want the beautiful Hawkesbury to be end up like Lakemba / Bankstown / Auburn! The cemetery is just the start, if this is approved, more of them will move into the area and the next thing in council will be a mosque for development! WE DON'T WANT THIS!!!!

  13. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Cheryl Evans commented

    Destroying our bushland fauna, removal of sandstone the impact of the wildlife do the residents have to spell it our for you.
    NO WAY DONT DESTROY THE HAWKESBURY

  14. In Lower Mt Walker QLD on “Impact Assessment:...” at Rosewood-Warrill View Road, Lower Mount Walker, QLD:

    Maxine Ellison commented

    My name is Maxine Ellison and I live at 903 Rosewood- Warrill view road.
    I very strongly object to the poultry farm been put near to my place as this would destroy the life style because of the smell and all the extra traffic it would create. I work from home and breed and train horses, and as i have experienced the smell of poultry farms before i can tell I will not be happy about this. I will tell everyone I know to object to it.
    It was only through a letter I found in my mail box that I found out about this.

  15. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram commented

    There are 25 families waiting for this development. All are renting and going through lots of pain as no idea how long will it take to complete.
    They can't get refund as they have made 10% of the deposit.
    Please please blacktown council please work on it and get it approved as soon as you can.

    Regards,

  16. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 191 Pitt Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    The owner / developer of 191 Pitt Street Redfern (the former Somerset Pub on he corner of Pitt Street and Phillip ) wants to build a 13 unit boardinghouse and estimate the cost to be $400 000!

    When did anyone build 13 units for 400K, let alone on a heritage listed site?

    The floor space ratio (if approved) will be 54% greater then what is allowed in the planning controls and 63% greater in regards to the height using South Sydney LEP.

    That is building 9.75 meters high where a 6 meter restriction is in the planning control.

    That is is 167 M2 extra on a 309 M2 site.

    That is 24 occupants on a 309 m2 site.

    Privacy and peacefulness for all us neighbours all gone.

    This is the second Development application in the same amount of years.

    Please have a look at the plans here and raise your voice to stop this overdevelopment;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1057606

  17. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    @SWR

    Your comments awakes our greatest fears!

    How far outside the controls were the development at 2 - 20 Botany Road?

    We have Clover Moore's assurance that it is the council's obligation to ensure that the controls are adhered to unless the circumstances are such that the benefit of a development justify it being slightly outside the controls.

    This is development is well beyond that and the architect has got serious form.

    Not sure why anyone would use him as his developments frequently become unstuck trying to push everything well outside the controls.

  18. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    Correction: This site is in fact 309 M2, all other numbers are correct but fell free to double check the drawings and details here;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1057606

  19. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    SWR commented

    Yeah well good luck with any objections. We along with 16 other people objected to a development at 2-20 Botany Road. Not one objection was taken into consideration. By the time it got to the Council vote it was a done deal. The development breaches many guidelines but Council had a way of justifying everything. Redfern will be ruined.

  20. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    I will give you another example;

    @ 191 Pitt Street Redfern (the former Somerset Pub on he corner of Pitt Street and Phillip) wants to build a 13 unit boardinghouse and estimate the cost to be $400 000!

    When did anyone build 13 units for 400K, let alone on a heritage listed site?

    The floor space ratio (if approved) will be 54% greater then what is allowed in the planning controls and 63% greater in regards to the height.

    That is building 9.75 meters high where a 6 meter restriction is in the planning control.

    That is is 167 M2 extra on a 270 M2 site.

    That is 24 occupants on a 270 m2 site

    Privacy and peacefulness for all us neighbours all gone.

    This is the 2nd D/A attempt and the same amount of years.

    Please have a look at the plans here and raise your voice;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Datasource/DANotifications/1057606_025.pdf

  21. In Kensington NSW on “Amalgamation of 3 lots,...” at 2 Goodwood Street Kensington NSW 2033:

    Ms Jan Nicholas commented

    I very strongly disagree to the construction of such a large scale building on this small space of land. Kokoda Memorial Park, which adjoins this proposed developmental site, is a family friendly park with sunlight from early morning until almost sunset. It is a delight to see many children play there throughout the day, but particularly after school hours where they run, cycle, and generally enjoy this beautiful, unique, green area of Kensington. This Park is highly utilised daily by all age groups.

    The proposed development will cause major overshadowing and result in a loss of sunlight by early afternoon. Users of the Park, both children and adults, will be observed by people living in the proposed development housing which will look directly on to the Park. This development will incur a major loss of privacy for park users.

    Parking in this area is a major concern. As a local resident with no access off street parking, it is now difficult to find a place to park my car, except on Sunday, when most of the shops in the area are closed. The proposed development will generate much more traffic in the area, with visitors to those proposed apartments also trying to find places to park in Goodwood and surrounding streets.

    Overdevelopment is ruining this lovely Kensington neighbourhood. As Cat Stevens would say: "where will the children play?"

  22. In Helensburgh NSW on “Helensburgh Community...” at Helensburgh Hotel, 112 Parkes Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Angela Bevitt commented

    The twilight markets should be approved without delay.
    this is an excellent thing for the local economy and the community.

  23. In Millswood SA on “Construct two storey...” at 39 Lynton Avenue, Millswood 5034:

    Mark Wittervan commented

    Although this building is not considered part of the Millswood page estate heritage value buildings a two story house in this area would not fit with the characteristics. It should meet the standards set out in policy area 4 of the City of Unley Development Plan. IE roof height no greater than 5.6m

  24. In Bushland Beach QLD on “Bushland Beach Stage 3 -...” at Mount Low Parkway Bushland Beach QLD 4818:

    Paul Jacob commented

    Could I please have more information on the exact location of this proposal. According to the map indicated the lot shown will not accommodate 20 lots and three balance lots. if it is the large lot next to the hotel on Livistonia Pd I wish to raise the objection that the lots would be extremely small and not fit into the character of the area. Could you give me the average lot sizes.

    Thanks

  25. In Leichhardt NSW on “Change of use of shop 17...” at 281-285 Parramatta Road Glebe NSW:

    Scott Morris commented

    Looks like this entry has its address confused. The Council link takes you to an application on Glebe Pt Road

  26. In Richmond VIC on “Re-advertising of the...” at 174 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish Robinson commented

    Excessively large number of dwellings for the size of the site. Unless it is going to be much higher than any other building in the area which will then significantly overshadow neighbouring buildings and change the nature of the street in a negative way. Unnecessary given already high density of the street.

  27. In Malvern East VIC on “Alteration to existing...” at 809 - 823 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    Hi, I was wondering what the changes to to liquor licence may be and how I would find out. In principle I have no objections to the operation of a business so long as it can be assured that the adjacent streets will no suffer adverse noise affects. This request in merely a note of consideration rather than an objection. Thankyou.

  28. In Fitzroy VIC on “Part demolition to allow...” at 119 Rose St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Alex Bean commented

    I'm a local resident and have seen that this application is for a 5 storey apartment block and a reduction in the the associated car parking requirement.

    It's a relatively compact area. 5 storeys seems way too high for the area. The nearest buildings dont go above 3 stoeys, so 5 will be very imposing on local residents.

    In additional, there is already limited parking availability around this area and it seems to me unfair to apply for less parking than is already required.

    There are loads of new apartment blocks going up around the area and there's much less parking availability generally for residents and people coming to the area for shopping.

  29. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    A Byrnes commented

    There is absolutely no way this work will cost only $19,000. Why does Council accept these ridiculously low estimates by persons trying to avoid Council fees (that are based on percentage of costs)? How is this different than tax evasion?

  30. In Darlington NSW on “Demolition of St Michael's...” at 150 City Road Darlington NSW 2008:

    Henare Degan commented

    I do not support this application.

    The proposed development is is at least twice and often three times the height other buildings in the vicinity. A 14 storey building on this main road will significantly alter the character of the area in a negative way, bringing the dehumanising feel of CBD skyscrapers to Darlington.

    I also reject the applicant's assertion that the "physical loss of St Michael’s College building will have no heritage impact". A sympathetic redevelopment of the site, incorporating reuse of the existing building as has been done to a number of other local sites recently, would retain the heritage aspects of the building and be more in keeping with the area.

    Thanks for considering my submission.

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