Recent comments

  1. In Alexandria NSW on “Fitout and use of the...” at 88 Bourke Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    BIKESydney commented

    The development application should include parking for cargo-carrying bicycles that is placed near to the main entrance, and internal load-out area. The proposed development is located on a regional cycling route (the Bourke St Cycleway). It is noted that a similar development further south (Bunnings Hardware) presently suffers from saturated vehicle car parking demand which causes vehicle tailbacks onto Bourke Road. Developments in this area need to much better provide for alternative modes of transport.

  2. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 35 Belsize Avenue Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Andrea commented

    4 storeys is inappropriate for this area. One of the reasons we chose Carnegie as our home is because it appeared to have a 2 or 3 storey limit. We just moved from Hawthorn where over time beautiful chartered filled buildings are being replaced by developments just like this one. Oversized for the area and the street and with no thought to how parking, amenities and traffic would adjust. This area is already struggling with these things; i wonder how much more it can take?

  3. In Maroubra NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 27 Duncan Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Gai Hilton commented

    Our thank you to Councillor Anthony Andrews from residents of Duncan Street. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to have our voice heard at the last Council meeting. It is very comforting to know that our Council and Councillors listen to their residents' concerns and act in our best interests. Thank you to Councillors Anthony Andrews and Harry Stavrinos for your support.

  4. In Abbotsford VIC on “Construction of a new...” at 27 Russell St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Fred Allen and Jan Halkin wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    We object because of the excessive height and bulk, inadequate car parking, overshadowing, signage and loss of amenity. Max height should be 10metre. Onsite car parks should be at least one per bedroom. What is the open contribution?

    Delivered to local councillor Amanda Stone. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:


    I am strongly opposed to the cutting down of trees in Forest Grove, having heard that
    the builders want to be rid of them because they are inconvenient. We cannot live
    without trees - their beauty, oxygen producing, shade, softening of a street full of
    concrete buildings, and places for birds to sing and breed.

    Try living without trees, or less trees. The earth feels EMPTY

  6. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a deck...” at 3 / 14 Brinsley Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Philip Stahle commented

    It seems to be a straight forward - no problems addition!
    Clearly not affecting the other residents.
    We hope they enjoy the deck.

  7. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 2-8 Parsons Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Jack Carter commented

    It is a totally inappropriate development in such a dense living zone as Rozelle/Balmain with the increased traffic congestion and parking density, the already easy access to three nearby Bunnings stores within a 10 km radius as well as compromising the business of nearby locally established hardware stores already servicing the area.

    As a local resident I am totally opposed to this development

  8. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 35 Belsize Avenue Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Louise Wignall commented

    As well as the issues relating to traffic management, parking and aesthetics (beautiful house torn down and total deregulation of aesthetics of new propertied being built e.g. cnr Bellsize and Neerim)) I am deeply worried about the extreme extra pressure that these new developments place on water and sewerage infrastructure. Where a block may have housed 5 people it may now house over 60 or more - where is the extra infrastructure into drainage etc? Surely this constant development is not sustainable from a environmental point of view? Carnegie is being completely ruined by chaotic and deregulated development.

  9. In Point Cook VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 70 Greg Norman Drive Point Cook VIC 3030:

    K Kim commented

    Please can you advise if this is a new or revised application and where the original application is at.


  10. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Celia and Des Waldron commented

    We strongly object to another block of units being built at 24 Cranley Street. Already, our narrow street has cars parked either side due to inadequate parking available at the many units already built in this small street.. During the school terms (particularly the last two ,) it is difficult to reverse out of our driveways, due to the parked cars from the High School. Surely common sense must be shown by our Councillors when studying this application.
    When is this 'non-unit area' going to come into practice?. No doubt when Cranley Street is completely full of units. Please please, do not crowd us out any more than you have already.

  11. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 35 Belsize Avenue Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Ray Brown commented

    I dont understand how a building of 4 storeys with 29 dwellings is appropriate for a suburban street. How will this street cope with increased traffic being 8.1 metres wide and having some parking restrictions already in place and the new developement on the corner with Neerim Road not occupied yet. It is also already used as a rat run during peak hour for cars trying to dodge the lights at Neerim and Murrumbeena. How will the local area cope with the increase in the population that is being encouraged by these developments? Who will pay for the increased demand for local amenities and maintaince required? I would hope Glen Eira Council builds a very strong case to take to VCAT when this application gets there.

  12. In Rozelle NSW on “Redevelopment of existing...” at 731-735 Darling Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    M Read commented

    How will the additional traffic and parking requirements for this development be managed, especially with WestConnex to commence tunneling under, and works in, this area from the Iron Cove Bridge to the Rozelle Interchange in the near future?

    I strong recommend that the commercial properties along Balmain Road and Darling Street be reserved as commercial premises. The Rozelle/Lilyfield side of Darling Street should be replenished for the additional residents already brought to the area by several new residential developments. If services are not maintained, enhanced and increased, it will be a different place to live with so many people and so few employment opportunities and services available locally.

  13. In Newstead TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 30 Tudor Avenue Newstead TAS 7250:

    Malcolm Dennis commented

    It is my understanding that there is to be a carport constructed at the front of this property which I strongly object to. This would mean that the carport would be right on the footpath of the front yard which means that this house would have no yard at all. This would be very unsightly and bring down the street appeal of this house and values in this street. The construction of a single dwelling as well on this small block would not be appropriate as there would be no parking for visitors meaning that they would be parking outside the existing houses in this street. The construction of another dwelling on this block would mean that the dwellings would be very close together. The existing house which has become a rental property has become extremely untidy and if the additional dwelling becomes a rental property then I can only assume that this will become very untidy as well.

  14. In Kareela NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at Kareela Shopping Centre Shop UL5 1-13 Freya Street, Kareela, NSW:

    Matthew Rawle commented

    I think that this is fantastic. The new Kareela shopping Center has more than enough parking and nothing will flow onto the streets. Having a liquor licence and capacity of 200 or so doesn't mean that everyone will be driving. This is good.

  15. In Redfern NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 13-17 Cope Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Suzan Bureck commented

    I would like to object to the proposed outdoor seating area. This location is not suitable for a café with outdoor seating.

    The proposed seating area has previously been designated as an access area for emergency vehicles when Cope Street was filled in and access from Regent Street was cut off, therefore it cant now be designated an area for a café.

    There is no café at this location. There is a storage area with garage roller doors that was been converted without council approval. The garage roller doors have been replaced with windows, and the outside wall has been tiled, and large lights installed.

    There will be a large noise impact to the residents above the proposed outdoor seating area which will effect the amenity of the residents.

    There are many cafes in Redfern and many more suitable buildings that can be used as cafes that wont have the impact that this location will have.

    The council should not be approving this development application because of the noise / social impact and the fact that the area already has a purpose and because it does not benefit the community. The only person that will benefit is the owner of the storage area.

  16. In Point Cook VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 70 Greg Norman Drive Point Cook VIC 3030:

    Nick King commented

    We more facilities for the residents, bigger gym, perhaps a small shopping village. The road will be congested and it will take away from the appeal of the lake.

  17. In Hurstbridge VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 3A/850 Heidelberg-Kinglake Road, Hurstbridge VIC 3099:

    Petra Leaford commented

    This space is perfect for this use, the restaurant has been in business in that location for over 25 years, and people naturally want to sit out in this courtyard space and enjoy an afternoon or evening with friends.

  18. In Epping NSW on “Development Application” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    M. McCartney commented

    I would also like to express my concerns at the way in which Epping is losing its Heritage listed buildings. The posters I read at the Greater Sydney Commission's draft District Plans pop up on 29 November 2016 repeatedly noted the importance of keeping the character of suburbs. The information I have read about the District Plans also supports keeping our heritage. I believe the cottage at 48 Oxford Street represents part of the character and heritage of Epping and it would be going against the District Plans for it to be demolished. I would like to commend Amanda Chadwick and the Parramatta City Council for undertaking further reviews of this application, which I believe include exploring the retention of 48 Oxford Street, Epping.

  19. In Kareela NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at Kareela Shopping Centre Shop UL5 1-13 Freya Street, Kareela, NSW:

    Greg & Margaret Knight commented

    We are nearby residents.
    With a maximum of 229 stated patrons i am concerned that the Kareela Village car parking facilities are grossly inadequate for this amount of people and the overflow will spill out into the quiet residential surrounding streets severely affecting the amenity of Kareela residents. Jensens is not the only venue in this complex that will be competing for car parking.
    Kareela is a family orientated residential suburb and has never previously had to cope with a commercial venue of this size.
    229 patrons will mean at least an extra 100 to 200 vehicles and will not be able to be contained within the Kareela Village car park.

  20. In Lilyfield NSW on “Use of the ground floor...” at 5/77-79 Lilyfield Road Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Dr Booth commented

    What exactly will they be worshipping. Which religious order is using it?

  21. In Whitebridge NSW on “Dual Occupancy and 1 Into 2...” at 7 Eleonora Close, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Douglas Walton commented

    I support reasonable development on this site and on the whole I believe the development would have a positive impact on our street. However my major concern is the area of curb side that will be available for weekly bin and council bulk waste collections. If this development is given the all clear, there will be six dwellings vying for a small parcel of land to place bins/bulk waste. Council should consider options for alternate means of bin and bulk waste collection should this development proceed.

  22. In Hurstbridge VIC on “Use of the land for a...” at 3A/850 Heidelberg-Kinglake Road, Hurstbridge VIC 3099:

    Carole Anne Stubley and Brian Robert Stubley commented

    Happy for this application to be approved...great social spot for Wattle Festival and Summer evenings. Or weekends. Do not think this would create a social problem.

  23. In Woodford QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2372-2378 D'Aguilar Highway, Woodford QLD 4514:

    tyna faddy commented

    bring it on....if woodford is to plow on with tourist trade,festival and not to mention our local farmers and workers,we need this!!!

  24. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at 73 Foster Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Dinah McClelland commented

    It is difficult to tell from the architectural plans how many car spaces have been provided. I would like to ensure that there is adequate parking for each unit as it is currently difficult to find a parking spot in Foster St and any further pressure on parking affects all the surrounding streets.

  25. In Epping NSW on “Development Application” at 44-48 Oxford Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    J Haynes commented

    The house at 48 Oxford Street Epping is HERITAGE listed.......... This home was Built and lived in by my family till a few years ago! What is to become of the property..... We are losing heritage and history! What is Sydney becoming?!? Developers and money are ruling and destroying Sydney and suburbs!

  26. In Cleveland QLD on “Combined MCU & OPW Multiple...” at 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD:

    Lansing Hawkins wrote to local councillor Paul Golle

    Dear Cr Mitchell --

    Although I appreciate your taking your valuable time to reply, it appears that your reply does not address Mr Pendrey's concern that:
    There is inadequate on-site parking to be allocated on the developed property.

    Cr Mitchell's answer: He is "sure that all normal parking laws need to be adhered to."

    Cr Mitchell's reply skirts the issue at hand.

    Summary: If the existing laws/regulations are inadequate, they should be changed and not used as excuses to "legitimize" their inadequacy.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Golle. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 437 Camberwell Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Kerrie Knott commented

    There is no way any Boroondara ratepayer should support car parking reduction. I support Claire Miles comments 100%. Car parkung is at a premium now!!!

  28. In Gerringong NSW on “Modified - mixed...” at 128 Belinda St, Gerringong, NSW 2534:

    Raewyn Thomson commented

    Thank you Ray Duffy for voicing what most people in Gerringong discuss but don't put pen to paper, to make their point of view to the Council. The beauty that attracts the tourists is fast being over developed not only by outside developers but by some of our own who you would hope could even out their greed with a little empathy for our environment,

  29. In Rowville VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Troy Ruse commented

    Knox City Council act now before this cannot be undone. You have created a trend on lakeview side of stud rd that seems to not be about usability of local streets.

    Dear councilors and planning authority. You work here in Knox for Knox residents. Treat it like your own backyard not your local tip.....

  30. In Carnegie VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 35 Belsize Avenue Carnegie VIC 3163:

    Eleanor Newcombe commented

    I was horrified to see this proposal. I notice that a lovely Edwardian house is to be knocked down for yet another apartment building with no character. Does no one care about this once beautiful suburb? Does no one care that all our history is going down the tube? All we see now are one after another of flats and other apartment buildings, bringing more and more people with more and more cars.
    The whole demographic will change in our area and what was once a family area will become one of business people and students.
    Six years ago we almost bought a lovely house right opposite this proposed new development in Belsize Ave, but lost out at auction. Thank God we did!

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