Recent comments

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

    Leisa Benjamin commented

    These buildings are part of the history of Marrickville. They should be honoured and kept as part of the new development, not destroyed. I oppose the demolition I these buildings.

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

    Levi commented

    I'm stunned that this is going ahead, given the recent frequent incidence of high density housing approvals by council, not to mention the historical significance of the site. Look at the example of the Rocks demolition / corporatisation and subsequent loss of culture. Strongly oppose this development.

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

    Tanya Norman commented

    I strongly apose the demolition of these two buildings. How can two buildings that were both heritage listed now be up for demolition? Surely they can somehow be incorporated into the new community hub or library?

  4. In Coburg VIC on “Use and dvelopment of the...” at 81A Bell Street, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Nick Kokkinidis commented

    This application should NOT be approved as the building and its excessive height and density is extremely inappropriate for this area

    Shadowing that will occur if this building went ahead will be wide felt ...It would put most of the Rodda st residents in the dark after 2pm in the winter, depreciating their house values and more importantly their right to the enjoyment of their homes.

    The park, leisure centre and even the state school will have limited morning sunlight.

    The traffic and noise, especially at the proposed LOADING DOCK in Rodda st will also have enormous negative impact on the residents and again the right to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes

    An electricity sub-station has many concerns and can way heavily on neighbouring homes worried about electro radiation

    The council should support the residents and not pander to profit hungry, non Australian companies that do not have the community 'at heart'

    The building height ALLOWANCE.... hastily made by a previous "suspect" Planning Minister should be investigated and made right.
    The council should strive to change building height regulations for inner Cobug to a maximum 5 stories

  5. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of a...” at 23 Lynch Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Steve Anderson commented

    No reduction in car parking should be allowed. Loading bay requirements should not be waived. Lynch St is already overrun with tenants parking, local businesses have no chance for staff or customer parking.

  6. In Mosman NSW on “Camperdown Cellars -...” at 774 Military Rd, Mosman 2088:

    Denis Grant commented

    Mosman residents are well served by liquor stores as there are at least seven packaged liquor outlets already operating in Mosman and many more in the nearby Cremorne and Neutral Bay areas. Therefore there is no need for any more liquor store licenses to be granted in this suburb.

    This comment is in agreement with Sgt. Smith of the Harbourside LAC who commented in the applicant's CIS (1-2680242019-CIS) that ".. there were too many outlets in the area". The police know better than anyone the problems associated with too many liquor outlets in a local area.

    The comment in the applicant's CIS (1-2680242019-CIS) regarding Mosman Council approving the application is irrelevant. Council is not responsible for granting liquor licenses and cannot refuse applications for a change of use when the application was for a benign sounding "fine wine and gourmet food outlet" without significant grounds for doing so such as traffic issues (Mosman Council approval document: 11122014-2629998-113906-1-2hawwwajdq). It is when the applicant subsequently applies for a packaged liquor license that the issues associated with the particular use are brought forward.

    The application for a liquor license at 774 Military Rd Mosman should be refused on the grounds that there are already enough outlets to service the local community.

  7. In Panania NSW on “Remediation of former...” at 35 Anderson Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    D. Haggart commented

    High rise development is not in keeping with the current usage of the area.
    All development should be NO higher than existing 2 storey !
    The location , Marco/Anderson Ave, intersection is a dangerous location NOW.
    The additional 30 units with its 50 plus vehicles will create even greater traffic dramas.
    Say no to current development application.

  8. In Brunswick West VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Wyall Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    James Robert Pollard commented

    I am writing to object to the proposed building of the units at 2 Wyall St, Brunswick West.
    My objections are as follows:
    (i) development is inappropriate for the area
    (ii) development is out of character with the majority of houses in the street (Fowler system)
    (iii) there is not adequate off street parking, all the units are 2 bedroom, if there are two cars per unit the overflow will be in the street. The street is already overparked due to other flats in the area.
    (iv) No thought has been given to the amenity of the area considering that there are several heritage houses in the area. Are these heritage houses to be swallowed up by multistory developments.
    (v) has consideration been given to the adjoining home and the structural integrity of the roof and exposed wall left after demolition
    (vi) site is being over developed
    (vii) already enough flats and units in the area
    (viii) I and my family will have to constantly look at the horrific sight of another poorly designed block of units. There is no architectural significance in the design now or in the future

  9. In Wahroonga NSW on “Commercial Development -...” at 18 Railway Avenue, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Bryn commented

    Really?! Another realestate agent. The wahroonga village has recently taken a positive turn with venues such as the butchers block and the Thai restaurant expanding. To allow yet another realestate agent take up premise in the village is not in keeping with the village feel and does not represent the suburb. I appose this application on the grounds every time a venue closes its replaced by yet another realestate agent and it is therefore impacting the community and village feel.

  10. In Mosman NSW on “Camperdown Cellars -...” at 774 Military Rd, Mosman 2088:

    Susan Phillips commented

    I wish to object to the application to convert Kidstuff to a liquor outlet. I live at 786 Military Rd and have not received any notification regarding the proposed application. We have numerous liquor retailers and pubs in the area. The recent application by Dan Murphy was declined and I hope this application is also declined.

  11. In Garden Suburb NSW on “Dwelling House, Garage &...” at 59 Cupania Crescent, Garden Suburb NSW 2289:

    Paul Jensen commented


    I was interested in viewing the site plans and elevations to understand what the house may look like.

    Normally I wouldn't however I have noticed some peg outs on the block that seem to be at greater than 50% of the site and close to the path in terms of set back. This appears to make the house way forward of all of the existing houses in the street.

    It may be for other reasons , retaining walls etc however I thought I'd check if possible.


    Paul Jensen

  12. In Hamlyn Terrace NSW on “Subdivision and small lot...” at 690 Pacific Highway Hamlyn Terrace NSW 2259:

    Adel Firth-Mason commented

    My concern with such high density housing is the lack of facilities for gardens and plants in general. This will make the visual appearance of a major highway very sterile if little consideration is made for a natural environment.

    In addition, should this housing involve families, little consideration seems to have been made for safe playing areas for the children, plus a buffer for noise pollution which will affect the residents.

    I think these facts need serious consideration before approving the development.

    Adel Firth-Mason

  13. In Heathcote NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 10 Jacana Gr Heathcote 2233:

    Ben Targett commented

    1. I believe that the proposed design will impact significantly on our privacy as the current plans show a direct line of sight into living/recreation areas. I am concerned regarding the number of windows (# 12, 13, 29 & 30) on the first floor of the Eastern Elevation. I suggest that alternative measures be undertaken such as 1) Reduction of windows 2) Opaque glazing 3) Fixed louver system.

    2. I also am concerned about the removal of the current structures containing asbestos. These should be removed in a manner that complies with Australian guidelines.

    3. A suitable fence to be erected behind the property of Lot 52 & 53 which runs the FULL length of the current existing timber fence located on property 25 Parklands Avenue. The fence to be in agreement by all parties connected to Lot 52 & 53.

  14. In Annandale NSW on “Use of Annandale back hall...” at Annandale Neighbourhood Centre 77-79 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Mrs Bronwyn Crawford commented

    I am a member of Executive Committee of Annandale Playgroup which runs 4 sessions of playgroups for 0-5 year olds providing a quality play environment for this age group and a service to parents at home with children or working part time.

    The Playgroup committee has concerns about the running of an After School service in Annandale Neighbourhood Centre back hall and grounds, the same area as playgroup.

    I think that one thing that really stands out in terms of running an After School Care Centre and this is the fact that the After School Care centre must have storage facilities in order to meet Education and Care Services National Regulations (which govern OOSH centres). Part 4.3 on Physical Environment states " The approved provider of an education and care service must ensure that each child being educated and cared for by the education and care service has access to sufficient furniture and developmentally appropriate equipment suitable for the education and care of that child". eg the service must provide tables and chairs and equipment and these need to be stored. They cannot be carried to the centre!

    Where will this equipment be stored? Presumably a new shed would need to be built. Who will pay for a new storage facility if it needs to be built? How will this fit with ANC's new landscaping plan?

    Also in relation to the existing sandpit - this is not "developmentally appropriate for school age children and should be out of bounds for OOSH service. Also the sandpit is used by 0-3's at playgroup and they put objects in their mouth and may choke. What happens if a school age child drops a coin or tablet in sandpit and a playgroup toddler swallows it?

    In relation to parking, a change to "drop off " short time parking was introduced, this would disadvantage playgroup parents as they could not park in front of ANC. They are unloading babies & prams and supervising toddlers and may have to walk longer distances, possibly in rain and this is difficult with babies & toddlers either walking or in prams. School age children are capable of walking to a car in neighbouring streets and have more road sense.

    Carpet areas in playgroup would need to be kept clean as babies use this area and are more vulnerable to infections. Who cleans the carpet after each session? Who pays?

    In terms of grassed areas it is inevitable that the grass would die off with 20-30 children using it each afternoon. This is not the case with current usage by Occasional Care and 4 sessions of playgroup - the grass is fine with this amount of use. Who would pay for regrassing and relaying of grass would mean many weeks when outside area is unusable.

  15. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 21 Beatrice Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    John commented

    They are trying to do it again. Just received a development application.

  16. In Melbourne VIC on “Propose development of site...” at 141-149 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Stef J commented

    I am an owner/resident of unit in the residential block in La Trobe Street directly next door to what is currently Bennett’s Lane Jazz Club.

    A building of 52 storeys high would greatly reduce natural light to my home, as well result in a loss of privacy, safety, and increased noise levels. I would need to ensure that my sky lighting and two angled windows are covered to avoid potential voyeurism. This would further reduce access of natural light into my home.

    Access of cars to the new building would further congest Little La Trobe Street; an already congested and very narrow road way.

    Myself and many others currently residing in this area would be greatly disappointed if Melbourne City Council were to discount the quality of the lifestyle of the multiple residents in the surrounding area by the construction of such a tower.

    In other countries, England and Wales, the ‘Right to Light’ is protected by common law so that people's current living standards are not compromised by developer's personal interests at the expense of others. In these countries, once a window has received over 20 years of daylight, it automatically earns itself a 'Right to Light'.

    I am hoping that Melbourne City Council will take into consideration the impact that such a proposal will have on its current residents.

  17. In Northcote VIC on “- Construction of a...” at 470-480 High Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Rachel Trevorrow Dunham commented

    I am Writing to oppose the above development.
    I am a resident of 12 McFarlane Street, Northcote, and believe this development is not in keeping with the atmosphere of the local area, where the majority of residences and businesses are 1-2 stories high.
    There already exist a great deal of new developments on high street that are empty and appear to be without tenants.
    We also have a growing issue in our street with parking and traffic already which I believe would be exacerbated by this development.
    This 7 storey building would cast an overbearing shadow on our quaint quiet street and is not in keeping with the life style many of us have moved here to enjoy.

  18. In Annandale NSW on “Use of Annandale back hall...” at Annandale Neighbourhood Centre 77-79 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    My objections to the Development Application for Out of School Care at the Annandale Neighbourhood Centre (ANC), your reference D/2014/635, are:

    1. Council should be working with the state government and OOSH to address issues that are limiting the number of OOSH places at Annandale's three (3) purpose built and operated primary schools.

    2. No traffic study has been provided - the traffic study on the website is for Balmain Town Hall.

    3. It is unlikely that parents travelling north along Johnston Street, will drive around the block to access Johnston's Lane, or complete an even more complicated manoeuvre to park on Johnston Street, in front of the ANC. They will invariably park across the road and run the traffic gauntlet, as there is no crossing close to the ANC.

    This behavior is demonstrated everyday at child care centres and schools around Annandale (which have crossings) and at the ANC (which does not). There will be an increase of traffic in Johnston's Laneway, Booth and Collins Street impacting St Brendan's children's safety.

    4. Boys and Girls (aged 5-11) would need to use the public toilets at the ANC. This has not been identified as a risk in the assessment report. The toilets within the back hall do not have doors and are designed for pre-school children as is the play area. Also, the centre is used for a variety of public activities and I would expect checking its safety each day will not be practical.

    5. The acoustic assessment states that school age children, who have spent a day in school will make the same level of noise as 0-5 year olds. I can tell you that children at St Brendan's despite their higher fence, regularly call out to passersby to return their balls, which have flown over the fence and onto the road. The fencing at the ANC is much lower and the glass around the back hall is not designed for active sports. Balls running onto Johnston Street, doesn't bear thinking about.

    6. The impact on existing users, in particular the playgroup and occasional care facilities, including cleaning and maintenance of the building and grounds has not been accurately assessed.

    7. Council should support after school activities. They could do this by providing a bus service, promoting and/or discounted rental of facilities to:
    a) community groups (Scouts, PCYC, Music, Junior Sport, Annandale Creative Arts Centre and other clubs)
    b) enviro educator in the Dairy at White's Creek Valley
    c) independent providers of specific activities at the ANC (including the back hall) and the Dairy at White's Creek

  19. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 203 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Owen Birrell commented

    I object to the waiver of car parking requirement. With plans to build additional shop fronts and
    positioned in one of the most congested parts of bridge road, they should be providing more car parking rather than less.

  20. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 203 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Richmond3121 commented

    Is this the Newbridge development they are already selling off the plan?
    I think this could be a change to an existing permit. Will investigate.

  21. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Amanda Harris commented

    As a parent of two, a driver and a resident in the area, I can absolutely vouch for all the comments above. The corner of Avenel and Gymea Bay Road is a nightmare most mornings and evenings, during peak hours and during soccer and netball practise times, which will be the times most parents will be using the new propsosed Kindy. I have seen many accidents on this corner and a lot more near accidents with people taking risks either turning onto avenel or right onto Gymea Bay road. It is a dangerous corner and therefore ludicrous to be putting even more pressure on that corner with another Kindy. Particuarly so close to the corner and right next door to an exsisting Kindy. A lot is already happening in this area (traffic wise) for drivers, pedestrians and young children to watch for. The added safety concerns that another Kindy would put on it isn't worth it. People's/children's lives are so precious.
    This application should NOT be approved.

  22. In Brunswick West VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Wyall Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    LAUREL FRANK commented

    I am concerned about the proposed development at 2 Wyall St., West Brunswick on the following grounds.
    1. I believe there is heritage value in the streetscape and regret the previous decision not to impose a Heritage Restriction on Wyall and Yarrabin Streets. The unique pre-form
    slab construction that was later used in high rise development is worthy of preservation.
    2. Wyall Street and Yarrabin Streets are narrow and the increased density at that end of Wyall will have an adverse affect on the neighbourhood. There is already a problem with congestion as only one car can pass at a time if cars are parked in the street. There have been numerous instances of damage to parked cars from other cars trying to pass.
    3. I think there are other more suitable development opportunities in Brunswick which has many former factory and warehouse sites. To alter neighbourhoods which have been single story family homes seems to me unnecessary. Neighbourhoods like ours, with garden spaces, can be green oasis amongst medium density units and this will be important as climate change takes effect. People in our neighbourhood have vegetable gardens and chicken coups and I think it is important to preserve spaces that support a particular style of living.
    4. I believe that Unit development serves a transient population and is necessary, but it is important to preserve what we have of stable neighbourhoods where households come in contact with each other and become a community.

  23. In West Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 40 Hill Street West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Marcus Wyton commented

    8 December 2014
    Marcus and Janet Wyton
    34 Hill Street, Launceston, TAS 7250

    We object to this proposed development because:
    1. This section of Hill Street has streetscape values that are unique to Launceston and highly relevant to the history of the City. This is evidenced by the large number of heritage listed houses on the street. Furthermore, we understand that this area was to be designated a heritage precinct, in recognition of its cohesive heritage character as outlined [in the Launceston Council website], and in order to protect this character serious consideration needs to be given. This process appears to have been delayed. While the council enacts this policy in the meantime, it is important that planning decisions do not result in an erosion of the area’s special heritage character. Decision’s which will seriously denigrate the future city heritage vision.

    2. The integral quality of the old weatherboard house will be seriously compromised by a large modern deck and carport that will detrimentally affect the streetscape in the sense of introducing an element that is out of keeping and visually compromises the city’s vision. Situated as it is on the apex of Arbour Park it will be visible over a wide area.

    3. The historic bluestone retaining wall that fronts 40 Hill Street is an outstanding element, characteristic of Launceston’s best streetscapes. It is akin to the bluestone kerbing in other parts of the city which have been afforded special heritage protection. The appearance of this historic wall will be destroyed, as a part of the wall will be demolished to build a large driveway if approval is given to the proposed development. This would be an inconsistent decision that contradicts other Council decisions. The houses leading to and from this proposed development feature these walls and those heritage listed are not to be adapted or removed without the express permission of the heritage commission.

    4. Several of the houses adjacent to this proposal are listed as being of either Architectural or cultural significance in the case of 38 Hill Street as a home built by the French family. This is consistent with 44 ,38 34 and 32 Hill Street

    5. Elements of this house, number 38 that caused it to be listed, will be significantly compromised by the driveway that is proposed to run along the shared boundary – this is inconsistent with the listing of 38 Hill Street, as with the afore mentioned homes.

    6. A further unique quality of Hill Street is the number of particularly large blocks that create a green belt. This will be destroyed by continued division and development if allowed. It is important to understand that the precedent set by this decision could further impact on both the street scape , listed houses and the Arbour Park Precinct.

    7. There is a rare tree in the garden of 40 Hill Street, a mature Norfolk Island pine. There are very few Norfolk Island Pines in Launceston. This tree will be destroyed if the development is allowed as planned. When emphasis is given to protecting palm trees and other scenic trees that are more plentiful in Launceston, it is inconsistent to allow this tree to be destroyed. The council should also seek to evaluate both its heritage but its place as a vital skyline tree.

    8. I would also draw the council’s attention to the location of a masked owl that is present within the vicinity of the property, a fact I believe given its protection status deserves further investigation prior to development. Local and State government has publically expressed it as being crucial to protect the habitat of these rare owls.

    9. The proposed development significantly compromises the privacy of neighbours and private use and enjoyment of our land. Impacting on both 36 and the listed 34 Hill street building.

    It may be appropriate for the development application to be refused, or at the very least reconfigured and submitted to satisfy both the property owner and the adjacent landholders

    Marcus Wyton
    Janet Wyton

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Poor Toms' Gin Hall -...” at 6 Chalder Ave, Marrickville 2204:

    Jayson Tracey commented

    I agree with the previous coment... Marrickville needs more of these venues ... Great for the area I whole heartedly support this application ...

  25. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 203 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dominic Green commented

    There is parking congestion in the nearby streets, and this, being one of many new high density developments on Bridge Road, will have an adverse impact on the already bad situation. There can be no waiver of the parking requirement. All required parking needs to be provided on site at the developers cost.

    A 10 storey tower overshadowing the Bridge Road strip on the north side will cast a large shadow also. This will affect any hospitality/cafe trade on the south side of Bridge Road of a morning between Autumn and Spring. Surely a reasonable height limit in line with existing developments would allow for an even skyline/profile ie 6 stories if right on the Bridge road street frontage, maybe 7 stories if set back down the hill. Otherwise it will just make it an even gloomier retail corridor.

  26. In Annandale NSW on “Use of Annandale back hall...” at Annandale Neighbourhood Centre 77-79 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Mrs Bronwyn Crawford commented

    As Executive committee member I would like to clarify a concern I raised about the storage of equipment for an After School Age centre at Annandale Neighbourhood centre. I raised a concern that there would need to be a storage facility at ANC.

    The DA states that existing tables and chairs at ANC will be used. However these are adult height not child size and are developmentally inappropriate for children and thus do not meet Education and Care National Regulations requirements. The concept of a mobile service appears flawed in as much as it would not meet the regulations and could not provide a quality service with limited equipment that needs to be transported.
    Hence the need for a storage shed.

  27. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition works,...” at 756 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Ray Clarke commented

    Preliminary objection, the details provided, do not show the bulk of the development and how it will impact on the surrounding premises.

    There must not be any reduction in car parking spaces also the access lane is only one way, will this be retained ?. The waiver of loading / unloading facility requirements can only create more traffic and noise chaos.

    Ray Clarke

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

    James commented

    I'm all for development in the area, but parking congestion in Brunswick is already dire. Every application I see asks for parking reductions, and there seems no reason in a development of this size why the developer/builder shouldn't have to provide sufficient parking onsite for the residents. Seems like a cost limiting exercise for the developer, with no commensurate benefit for the area.

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

    Lucy commented

    As a resident of Addison Road I would object strongly to this application. While I accept and support many events at the community centre I believe an event this often (attracting 500 people every Saturday for close to two years) will put an unreasonable strain on the traffic flow and parking in the area. Local residents already cannot find a parking spot and are faced with large amounts of traffic every Sunday for the markets. Adding a weekly event on Saturday going all day is really unfair.

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

    Joshua Henry commented

    This proposed development would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the area. The proposed size is out of proportion to the quiet residential neighbourhoods which surround it. At five stories it will hulk over the surrounding houses on Cornwall Street and the double and single story businesses to the West and North on Moreland Road. There is insufficient space for car parking and the addition of 72 residences will only exacerbate congestion in the area.

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