Recent comments

  1. In Jannali NSW on “Alterations & Additions &...” at 2 Roberts St Jannali 2226:

    WENDY SORBY commented







  2. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 14 Martin Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Kirsti Clark commented

    There are far too many units in this area as it is. You cannot drive down Warwick st Pascoe Vale because of the cars- I don't want my street-Martin st to become like that. Pascoe Vale has some lovely old weatherboard houses with character that are getting pulled down for townhouses that all look the same and bring more people into the area when the infrastructure can't cope . The footpaths are a disgrace, roads have potholes everywhere. Traffic is a nightmare on the minor roads now particularly Cumberland rd and Gaffney st .
    In Martin St we currently already have 3 sets of units, there is an ugly eyesore of units in Derby st that can be seen from Martin st, and there is an 8 townhouse development in Landells rd facing Martin st. Enough is enough- stop development. No More Units!!

  3. In Geelong VIC on “Re-Advertising -...” at 109-113 Corio Street And 4 Bellerine Street, Geelong:

    russsll bartlett commented

    I was hoping to find out if this project is going ahead as I am the sales rep for Middys electrical in the Geelong area and tryng to get a name and contact details of the developer.
    We supply electrical products and it's my job to follow up on projects to see if we can offer our stocks and service to local building sites. Just trying to keep the money being spent in Geelong with an Australian owned family run electrical wholesaler rather than with our oposition which ars mostly foreign owned.

    Regards Russell Bartlett
    Middys Geelong area rep
    Mob 0407-050703

  4. In Jannali NSW on “Alterations & Additions &...” at 2 Roberts St Jannali 2226:

    Margaret Downing commented

    If this dwelling is to be altered to contain a medical General Practice I wish to object.

    There are FOUR existing general practices within a 100 metre radius of 2 Robert St. Jannali - 1 White St., 5 White St., 10 White St. and Railway Cres. There are at least ten GP's servicing this Jannali area

    The area has sufficient General Practitioners and there is no demand for more.

    The property is at the end of Jannali shopping centre and vehicle parking would be difficult.

    The intersection of Box Rd and Robert St is busy with vehicles and buses constantly turning and passing through. Children, elderly and frail patients would be at significant risk from the traffic.

    Would you please take these objections into account when rejecting the request to change the existing dwelling into a residential medical practice

  5. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 471-485 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Alain Trembleau commented

    Aren't the olderfleet buildings heritage protected?

    It would be disgusting if these buildings were knocked down or reduced to a facade.

  6. In Galston NSW on “Residential - single new...” at 24A Nancy Place Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I support this Planning Application.

  7. In Galston NSW on “ALDI Galston - Packaged...” at Shop 1 346 Galston Shopping Centre, Galston Road, Galston 2159:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I strongly support the granting of this liquor licence. At present the only competition for Liquorland in Galston is over the bar sales at the Galston Club (where prices are significantly higher than recommended retail prices) . This has given Liquorland a virtual monopoly in bottle sales in Galston and has allowed it to charge prices which are higher than it's competitors in the greater Sydney market.

  8. In Petersham NSW on “BWS - Beer Wine Spirits...” at 276-282 Stanmore Rd, Petersham 2049:

    Kye Sanderson commented

    The fact a new business may compete against an existing business is a poor basis on which to object.

  9. In Petersham NSW on “BWS - Beer Wine Spirits...” at 276-282 Stanmore Rd, Petersham 2049:

    Glenda Pontes commented

    This proposal should have done its homework and researched local area. There is already a business which provides identical services and the local residents do NOT appreciate big wig corporations moving in on their turf when they already have a trusty small business which caters for all their needs.
    This proposal should not be approved and council needs to pay serious attention to what local residents who are rate payers are saying about this.

  10. In Petersham NSW on “BWS - Beer Wine Spirits...” at 276-282 Stanmore Rd, Petersham 2049:

    Simon Rumble commented

    Nobody who owns a pub license can qualify as a "small business". And last I was in there, the Newington's bottle shop was spectacularly poorly stocked. Bring on some competition.

  11. In Gordon NSW on “Demolition of all buildings...” at 880 Pacific Highway, Gordon, NSW:

    sunnyland commented

    if apartments are approved there i will be sewing the Council,

  12. In Abbotsford VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 88 Park St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Jan Halkin commented

    88 Park Street is covered by the Charles Street Heritage Overlay. Demolition makes a mockery of the supposed protection the Heritage overlay is meant to afford.

  13. In Petersham NSW on “BWS - Beer Wine Spirits...” at 276-282 Stanmore Rd, Petersham 2049:

    Brad Warren commented

    Bloody big business trying to kill small business again. My local THE NEWINGTON INN hotel is right next door which already has a drive-in bottle shop. How bloody rediculous if this goes ahead.

  14. In North Melbourne VIC on “Use of land as a...” at 119-121 Howard Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Stephen Farrugia commented

    This location has been converted from an office to a cafe in recent years. It's in the middle of a well established residential area. I like to see businesses survive and thrive and this is no exception. Diversity and variety is always interesting.

    However, this should not happen at the expense of the surrounding community.

    I suggest the following conditions be applied to any approval for this application:
    - The removal of a noisy, unapproved exhaust fan from the rear of the property. The noise from this exhaust fan prevents windows from being opened.
    - The rear laneway is not to be used for staff to have a smoke break.
    - The rear laneway is not to be used as a car park for the owner and staff.
    - The rear door of the property is to remain shut except for emergencies.

    The point of the conditions is that the rear laneway activities of this business are impacting my amenity, preventing my family from opening windows due to noise and smoke.

  15. In Surry Hills NSW on “S96(2) application relating...” at 501-501A Elizabeth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    450 Elizabeth Street commented

    As a nearby resident my concern with the extension of this trial is regarding the noise which I can hear quite clearly after 10pm from my apartment. This includes the regular Trivia competitions, seriously untalented "entertainers" - the troubadour who plays bad guitar stands out - "doof doof" music at mid-week one-off events which have necessitated me calling the Surry Hills police to file complaints and the screeching conversation of people sitting outside on Elizabeth Street (regularly more then the number for which the venue is licensed) in addition to drunk female backpackers (who appear to constitute the bulk of this venue's patrons) fighting in the street at closing time. Each time that I have called the venue to ask them to do something about the noise, the phone has rung out - it is obviously too noisy inside the venue for them to hear it. With the number of high end apartments being constructed along this section of Elizabeth Street and the increasing number of permit approvals from Council for late night entertainment venues along this same section of the street, something has to give. What is Council's strategy regarding the development of this part of Elizabeth Street? It can be high end apartments or late night venues but it makes no sense to continue to approve both.

  16. In Coomera QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at 62 Finnegan Way Coomera 4209:

    Alex commented

    Assuming this MCU201400438 is the same as PN136317/123/DA1 as it shows on the sign at the site. I realise the pdf's hyperlinked do not show what it shown on the public sign?

    I am aware development is enivitable but consideration of environment would be ideal

  17. In Coomera QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at 62 Finnegan Way Coomera 4209:

    Alex Cartlidge commented

    I have concern with this development in the way in which the tree clearing and cut and fill will be handled. This is because I have witnessed how developers dealt with this down the road.The destruction of an entire ecosystem on the corner of Finnegan Way and Foxwell drive a few months ago left me wondering if council has any concern what so ever for the environment and only seems to care about money. More trees had been taken out then actually needed, just to be turned into mulch. I do not wish for the same thing to be done at this lot. It is not just a flat bit of land. It is a wetland.

    It concerns me that the bulldozer approach will be taken with this development, as it did just down the road. With the looks from the plan and how developers "develop" the land around here, it seems to me that the wetland will not be treated with the respect it needs to survive past construction phase. I would like to know what measures have been taken into consideration in terms of Land Management and Conservation with this development, so as to not entirely destroy another wetland habitat in the area. I think that by what i can see on this very simple plan view it shows little to no consideration of the natural environment and watercourse of the land and should not be approved.

  18. In Pennant Hills NSW on “Commercial - change of use...” at 108-110 Yarrara Road Pennant Hills NSW 2120, NSW:

    Jolien Deller commented

    I agree, the colour scheme and facade of the building should be sympathetic to its history and heritage.

  19. In Parramatta NSW on “12” at 12 / 180D George Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Kashinath Mallya commented

    Application Number DA/118/2011/A
    Applicants Name :Courtneys Brasserie
    I am only raising my concerns regarding a pub on Charles Street which is too close to residential areas.
    At the moment we already have the Albion Hotel-The Collector Hotel-The Roxy -The Commercial Hotel and numerous other barsand pubs in the vicinity.Every Friday and Saturday Nights it is a nightmare when we have alcohol induced shouting -screaming and laughter on the street which might also lead to voilence.
    Our apartment block which has young families and children have to put up with this every week end.A few weeks ago I had raised concerns with the ouncil about a bottle shop in the same apartment block being allowed to operate until 2200 hours .The council and police looked into the matter and promised more patrols of the areas and the Police have kept their word.
    I am Sure the above premises will have adequate signage requesting patrons to consider the neighbourhood etc when leaving the premises, but what will happen once the patrons are out is beyond the control of the Pub.We definitely do not want to over burden our Police who have far more importan matters to patrol then keeeping an eye on intoxicated young groups of people.
    Keeping in mind Parramatta City council have given develpment approval to a few multi storey apartments in the vicinity where residents could enjoy them selves living in peace , we definitely do not want a Sydney CBD like situation on the week ends.
    In the end I feel it is for Parramatta City Council to reduce fear and anti social behavior within the community and the council does promote it self with its Family friendly policies.
    Kind regards
    Kashinath Mallya

  20. In Pennant Hills NSW on “Commercial - change of use...” at 108-110 Yarrara Road Pennant Hills NSW 2120, NSW:

    John Whittaker commented

    I note this "heritage"building is changing use to a DISCOUNT RETAIL store I would be against it being painted yellow or changing the façade in any way..

    Allready a back wall is painted yellow.


  21. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Karen Clarke commented

    Planning to provide insufficient car parking is short sighted, especially as the city grows in the number of residents and thus number of vehicles on the roads. Less car parking does not reduce the number of cars, it merely pushes the cars onto the street and surrounding streets which then affects traffic flows. This has been seen in numerous other big developments in other areas.

  22. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 471-485 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Astrid McGinty commented

    Some buildings in the cbd should have full protection, and this is one. Even the roof line is beautiful, so I fail to see how a office block will be built that will not ruin this. Collins Street will loose it's charm if these buildings go.

  23. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross, resident of more than 35 years commented

    I agree with John Ferguson exactly - visitor parking must be provided for every property that is not a single dwelling. Knox City Shopping Centre is already a nightmare as far as parking is concerned, and it is private property to boot. That area cannot and should not be relied on at any time for parking for visitors of Knox residents, even if there is no kerbside parking possible in the vicinity.

  24. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 471-485 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Phoebe commented

    Demolishing the Olderfleet buildings? This address must be incorrect! I can't believe the council would even allow this application!

  25. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Robynne & Andrew commented

    We have a few objections.

    How many car spaces are there? The Acoustic plan shows 4 spaces but it looks like there will be only 2 spaces. 4 residential buildings and 1 commercial building will require more than 2 spaces, and there would be a significant impact on on-street parking and traffic in the immediate area where parking is already an issue.

    The arguments stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects are specious at best.
    The SEE states that “the shortfall in parking arises because the dimensions and area of the site are not sufficient for the full provision of parking, and there is a need to have a commercial area which approaches 30% of the ground floor area of the building, to maximise its potential for letting”.

    The only thing preventing the provision of required parking is the desire of the developer to maximise profits. Surely the proposed design should comply with the regulations, even if the potential profits are less. Developers' profits should not drive policy and should not be the most important factor in approvals of developments that impact on the local area.

    The SEE also states that the shortfall in parking would be acceptable because there is public transport nearby. Does this mean that people would only be permitted to buy the units if they did not own a car? Of course not. People who use public transport most likely own cars and need somewhere to park them. As Sydenham Railway Station is a hub, and commuters travel by car from other suburbs to start their journey here, this will increase pressure on the barely satisfactory amount of parking available for residents.

    The SEE blithely states that “customers would likely be visiting one at a time”, and “visitor parking will be distributed in the neighbouring streets”. Whoever wrote that has obviously never tried to park in the area.

    This area is affected by the MDCP Section 2.22 Flood Management. The ground floor looks to be below the permitted levels. The SEE states that flood-free access is not available from the street during flooding but there is no risk to life from flooding because residences are located above flood level. Does this mean that all commercial buildings do not have to comply with the restrictions on floor levels?

    The design is obviously constrained by low cost (the proposed building cost of $950,000 for 4 residences and a commercial building suggests cheap construction), with an unappealing frontage where the ground floor has a very low entrance, so that the front door looks the same height as the ceiling. The commercial area looks to be inadequate for anything other than a 7-Eleven or similar shop. It would be better to use this area to give the residential areas more space and provide the regulated amount of parking.

    The rooms are too small, with balconies looking straight into neighbours' balconies, with only suggesting 'plantings' giving privacy. Would this sort of construction be approved in the 'leafy suburbs'? Does Council intend to allow this area to become a ghetto of low quality, crammed accommodation where the greed of developers has more influence than the amenity of the area?

    The SEE states in the 'Social and Economic Effects of the Development' that the area is changing from the original small-cottage and corner shop to a new pattern of blocks of units. This may be what developers would like but the majority of Council DAs in this area are for applications by local residents to extend and renovate existing small dwellings, to a maximum of 2 stories rather than 4, and would prefer living in these to living in cheaply constructed tiny boxes.

  26. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed demolition and...” at 65-67 Flemington Road North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Andrew McRae commented

    This stretch of Flemington Rd from Wreckyn St to Harcourt St is being turned into Lego Land. All buildings of character and heritage are being demolished to make way for characterless high-rise packing crates full of shoe boxes. There will soon be nothing left of the charm, character and elegance. The commercial/light industrial aspects of North Melbourne will soon be gone for ever. A few older buildings remain squashed between developers' monstrosities, no doubt to be sold off as small business and even domestic life becomes impossible in the canyons. The building in question has a facade of character which fits in well with the buildings immediately to the west of it. It should not be turned into the same ghastly type of apartment block which has turned Vale Street behind it and Wreckyn St into a wasteland.

  27. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Please refer to my issues as predicted in DA201400097. I told you there would be a glut of applications and his would be the next property to make a multi storied development application.

    When will you stop crowding us in?

    My little terrace is going to become crowded in and it will become hideous to live here.

    Stop the overdevelopment of Sydenham. Don't you have urban planners who can inform your decisions to make it comfortable for everyone, not just the developers pockets?

  28. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the premises...” at 264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    There are too many of these low storied buildings going up. I'm starting to feel hemmed in. Is it not enough to leave it at height it is? Stop over developing and making parking impossible.

    This is exactly as I predicted. I'll be writing to council again saying this is exactly what ai knew would happen and it needs to be stopped.

  29. In Canterbury NSW on “Pazar Food Collective -...” at 325 Canterbury Rd, Canterbury 2193:

    Stephen Jackson-Vaughan commented

    A great addition

  30. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 45 Glenfarne Street Bexley NSW 2207:

    Kay Roberts commented

    The land is too narrow for this application, plus a lot of water pipes underneath the land and house. This property is best for rental.

    Regards Kay

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