Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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
    63318114

    ATTENTION: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
    OBJECTION - PLANNING APPLICATION 40 HILL STREET
    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

  4. 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 ...

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. In Highett VIC on “On-Premises Licence” at 288-290 Highett Road, Highett 3190, VIC:

    Anne Edwards commented

    This is just what Highett Road needs - as there is a growing market in the general area and very little on offer by way of evening entertainment.

    Therefore, I would like to register my support of this application - as a resident of Highett Road.

  12. In Kellyville NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at Lot 46 Applegum Crescent, Kellyville:

    Amit Ambardar commented

    Dear Councillor,

    It is our sincere request not to approve this proposal as this will put my 7 year old son's life at risk. My son is ventilated and needs access to emergency services. Increased traffic conditions due to increased number of dwellings will introduce risk to speedy access to emergency services.

    Roads connecting to this proposal are already busy and narrow, unless there is approved plans to ensure access to the estate is not compromised this proposal should not be approved as such.

    I am happy to be contacted.

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

    Simon Goldstein commented

    Sounds interesting! Small, artisan businesses should be encouraged in Marrickville; we're garnering a reputation for quality food and drink.

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

    Warren commented

    Not keen on any reductions to parking, Moreland rd's volume of traffic has increased and having more cars parking on the street will lead to problems.

  15. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 121 Waratah St Kirrawee 2232:

    Karen Ezzy commented

    Ridiculous over saturation of child care centres within a very small radius in the Kirrawee/Jannali and Sutherland area....There may be a high need for 0-2 year old spots however there is more than adequate places for 2-5 year olds's and this puts existing non-profit, community based services in jeopardy of remaining viable at the expense of private services and local over-development.

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

    STEVE ROBINSON commented

    1. The plan shows that lot 53 will have the shed, at the rear of the existing property, removed. I am concerned for the fact this is a fibro cement roof and wall shed, therefore I request that the contractors who remove the shed comply with the Asbestos removal regulation and that the neighbouring properties are suitably protected during the removal process. The same applies to the existing house that I believe contains asbestos fibro sheeting.

    2. As the new dwellings will be two storey construction and we are accustomed to living with single storey buildings, it will be intrusive to the neighbours’ privacy with the bedroom windows on the first floor facing into the properties, at the rear of the development.

    Consideration should be given to changing the windows facing the rear properties to prevent direct line of sight from the bedrooms into the adjoining properties.

    3. A suitable fence to be erected behind the property of Lot 53, agreeable to the neighbour located at 27 Parklands Avenue.

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

    Leonie Wilson commented

    This " Secondary Dwelling" is the permanent residence of John and Janet Angus, and has been since they moved in on 24/12/13.
    I know this for a fact, because my husband and I own the property right next door. They have built their home right on our boundary line. Their residential block is under single title and therefore should only have 1 HOUSE on it.
    The daughter and son-in-law of John and Janet Angus, live in the original house, and John and Janet live in the new house. Apparently the second house was approved as a " Studio", this is a joke as the second house is definitely a permanent residence.I could provide photo's if necessary, but it is rather obvious even from the road. They have even installed a second mailbox with their own number on it, is this legal?

    I am curious to know if the Sunshine Coast Regional Council is happy with this approval?

    If so, we would like to build a second dwelling on our property also, would that be approved?
    We may as well build our own second cottage, so we don't have to look at their ugly second house from our deck.
    The whole idea of living on small acreage is to not have neighbours so close. We now have a completely different view to the one we purchased in 2003, through no fault of our own.

  18. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land...” at 368 Burnley St Richmond VIC 3121:

    claire heaney commented

    I notice that applicants are now seeking reductions in bike parking. I thought the idea was that parking requirements could be waived because people were being encouraged to use bikes, walk & use public transport. Developers can't have their cake and eat it too.

  19. In South Yarra VIC on “Multi-storey mixed use...” at 14-16 Wilson Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Paul commented

    I have received a notification in the mail that the planning permit is now under consideration. Any objections to the planning permit for this 10 story building consisting of 33 dwellings and ground level shop (with only 4 car parking spaces) need to be made in writing to council@stonnington.vic.gov.au prior to the 19th December 2014

    Reference 0651/14

  20. In Galston NSW on “Subdivision - one lot into two” at 36 Nancy Place Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I strongly support this application.

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

    Jim commented

    Amenaties and Retail should improve on this side of Panania as a result. Good for the Street and Panania. The Mechanic was an eyesore.

  22. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    linda davies commented

    This application should be approved as blind freddie can see that will never be able to be used as a touring caravan park as its very difficult to get to and dangerous as restricted access leading to thin winding roads, nightmare, We all know that it will become a cheap housing like the one at Wildberforce with the tenants having now way to travel as we have no public travel near there. and please don't even think that by magic the buses will appear as for ten years we have been trying to get more buses to Richmond to no affect. This is nothing else but a cheap land grab to dump social housing in our village. DON'T YOU THINK WE HAVE DONE OUR BIT , Jacaranda ponds will be a major disturbance of the village. the school already has to help the children from San Migual and now you want to put this shanty town on the edge of town. Enough is Enough No More

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

    Degang Hu commented

    I don't think this development proposal should be approved. The main concern we have is the safety issue derived from the overloaded traffic for the parents (as the driver), our kids as well as the pedestrian. There has already been so many cars in the morning drop-off time and the afternoon pick-up time, which has already created a safety issue and if this proposal was approved, it can only make the situation look even worse.

    People who submitted this proposal would say the new kindy will provide local kids with more potions and choices. However, they only say this in order to get their proposal approved. They don't really think about or even care about the current situation.

    I trust the council will listen to what we say as this is simply pure truth.

  24. In Moorang QLD on “Impact Assessment:...” at 1939 Tarome Road, Moorang, QLD:

    rod davis commented

    Council decided to make the section of this road a wildlife corridor which is great. Why put this in jeopardy with increased traffic and huge trucks delivering to these sheds. These roads are not equipped to handle such traffic being of gravel construction.I fear an accident.
    Graziers also use this road to frequently move cattle to and from the dip facility located on moorang lane.l feel this area coming in and going out from the proposed sheds to be too sensitive to allow this development.

  25. In Avondale QLD on “Waterway Barrier Works (Gas...” at 80 Mill Rd, Avondale, QLD:

    Dave commented

    What bright sparks is the BRC?
    Who the hell gave permission with the gas pipeline to go ahead with this new development what ever it is they have just done in the past 2 to 3 months?

    Every day 7 days a week the residents of MILL ST /LUND RD /STARKEY ST Now have to live with trucks screaming up and down the what use to be quiet country roads.

    The company have many water trucks watering the DIRT road turning it into a mud slide when riding or driving on it, turning it very dangerous.

    Many of us were woken 30-11-14 by some extreme gas fire with a huge rumbling as the flames shot high in the air for an hour, I / we never asked for this when we moved here, it's bad enough council makes us live without a garbage waste service or a tar road and makes us pay the same rates as those in town with all the services, now we have to live with all this from a gas line with no one telling us what's going on or how dangerous it is..

    BRC should be abolished for allowing such nonsense near the residencies.
    Very Angry that you would let this noise and exhaust pollution interrupt our homes like this.

    Should NOT have been approved!

  26. In Clovelly NSW on “Proposed stuio above new...” at 1 Barry Street Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Geoffrey Lawrence and Natalie Howard commented

    30th November 2014

    Att: Perry Head

    Environmental Planning Officer
    Randwick City Council

    Re: DA/789/2014 (1 Barry Street, Clovelly)

    Dear Perry,

    In response to DA /789/2014 for Ms T T M Nguyen of 1 Barry St, Clovelly we object to the proposed construction of new rear outbuilding with double garage at ground floor level and a secondary dwelling above.

    Our objection to the proposed development is based on and supported by the clauses contained within the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. These are:

    1. The proposed height of the development exceeds the maximum external wall height of 4.5m as stipulated in clause 8.1 of this Control Plan. This clause states, “All ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m. The maximum external wall height is limited to 4.5m.”

    2. Visual Privacy - The dormer projection windows are north facing which will look directly onto the lane and will impact the privacy of the existing dwellings opposite in Clift Lane. The areas in the dwellings opposite this proposed development that will be impacted are bedrooms and living areas.

    3. View Sharing – As stipulated in this plan “The concept of view sharing relates to the equitable distribution of views between development and neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. View sharing control aims to achieve a balance between facilitating quality development and preserving an equitable amount of views for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable and reasonable. “ With this proposed development we will lose ocean and district views from our downstairs internal and external living areas.

    4. There is a 100 year old Morton Bay Figtree in the property of 38 Knox St Clovelly. This tree is located in the rear of the property and overhangs into Barry Lane. The canopy of this tree currently overhangs in Barry lane and this proposed development will resulted in many of the branches being removed, which could result in destruction of this beautiful icon. We believe that this development is in breach of Clause Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces, stipulated as “To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.”

    We believe that this tree maybe potentially heritage protected due to its local significance.

    5. Dual Occupancy Detached – The property of 1 Barry Street, Clovelly is currently a rental property and has been since the new owners took possession. The proposed development application is for a secondary dwelling (detached) at the rear of the property. As this property is zoned as Low Density we believe that this proposed DA is in breach of “Dual occupancies (detached) are only permissible in R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zones.”

    Based on the objections above we strongly oppose the proposed DA for 1 Barry Street Clovelly.

    Kind regards,

    Geoff Lawrence and Natalie Howard
    24 Greville Street
    Clovelly 2031

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

    Jack Roach commented

    Preliminary objection pending availability of documents :
    There must be no reduction of car parking - all too often Council has allowed such reductions with the result that parking is now at a premium in our shopping strips.
    BRAG

  28. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 46 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine commented

    Such a disgrace for council to do this to Toowoomba, have a look also at 68 Bridge/29 Cavell. 2 storey development overpowering the old charm of original Toowoomba. Brisbane developers cashing in on irresponsible decisions made by council, playing with the livelihoods of locals. We have in todays current market lost 15% off the value of our properties. wish our mortgage can also drop 15%. yeah I know life's not fare but we work hard and support our councillors to support us, and then get a slap in the face!

  29. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Boundary Realignment 5 Into...” at 4 Arthur Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine commented

    Such a worry to See Toowoomba going down hill. We live in Toowoomba for the "charm" and the heritage of the area. Tourists come to Toowoomba for exactly the same reason. To see 100 year old trees cut down is a crime and a dam disgrace to the council for allowing this to happen. Once an approval has been given to one watch out! Others will definitely follow as they are following precedent.
    Im not sure who to complain to as we are told to complain/voice our opinions to our council representative.... but have found out that the councillor who has been listening to us is also planning her/his own development... talk about double standards. Do we have anyone in council who can take on our fight.
    Im heading off to the doctors this week as Im turning into a blubbering mess, council cant play with our lives this way and develop rental properties on the mass through out Toowoomba. The council decreases our properties by 15 percent in today market, that's a huge chunk that we are paying our mortgage for with no return, not to mention the rates (what a joke, bet they wont be decreased!)
    Im listening to the birds and enjoying the sunshine and the open sky, enjoy while I CAN!

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

    kayleen riekie commented

    please consider the safety of the children and families that live in this area and are frequently using this area at the busy times of day....looking at the average drop off time at a day care centre, it is within the half hour before and after the school start time and same goes for the afternoon . with this being said , now think of the added traffic that will be added to an already very very busy section of gymea bay road where the school is , at this time of day , if you approve a 40 plus place centre that will also be struggling to find parking and use this road at the busy times. when you think about it , there is no way the centre is going to provide enough parking for families at the busy times...leaving families to park on the street, possibly on the opposite side and cross the busy road, also pedestrian accses across the busy driveway that would be in use by the centre ultimately endangering childrens lives due to the fact that unfortunately many drivers are in a hurry at these busy times and caution can go by the wayside. please please dont make it any more chaotic on this stretch of road at busy times...it cant take it.

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