Recent comments

  1. In Camellia NSW on “The installation and...” at 1 Grand Avenue Camellia NSW 2142:

    Robert Sassen commented

    ABN: 92 220 641 603
    Suite1, Level 4, 1c Grand Avenue, Rosehill NSW 2142
    PO Box 152, Oatlands NSW 2117
    Telephone: (02) 9684 1500 Facsimile: (02) 9684 1700
    Mobile: 0417 382 007

    18 November 2016

    City of Parramatta
    126 Church St
    Parramatta NSW 2124

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    RE: 1 Grand Avenue, Camellia - DA 923/2016

    We have recently received notification of a proposed Development application for a construction of a concrete batching plant.

    As owners of 1C Grand Avenue, adjoining the proposed development we oppose such a proposal.

    1C Grand Avenue is a commercial building housing various executive tenants, Aldi Grocery Store and a childcare centre. Development of a concrete batching plant is not suitable adjoining a commercial building or childcare centre given consideration of the harmful cement dusts that will impact the health of children and adults alike. Traffic entering and leaving the site will cause serious safety risks for adults and children in the immediate area.

    Furthermore the proposal does not fit with the future visions for the Camellia precinct, in particular the Department of Planning & City of Parramatta Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy – Volume 1, Land Use and Infrastructure Analysis – Volume 2 and Strategic Transport Assessment all of which plan for future residential uses and the elimination of heavy industry on the subject site.

    Clearly a concrete batching plant does not fit with current or future characteristics of the Camellia precent.

    Yours sincerely,
    Sassen Constructions Pty Ltd &
    Sam Sassen & Sons Developments Pty Ltd

    Robert Sassen

  2. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations to ground...” at 11 Arthur Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Rowena Chow commented

    We have no objection on removing the existing fence encroaching the boundary at the back of the new shed and workshop. However, we are concerned with the existing wooden fence to be removed and the brick veneer walls to be built. Will that give our fence of 12-14 Derbyshire Road a visual difference only in this particular part (11 Arthur St) along the boundary where the fence on the other two properties (9 and 13 Arthur St) which also formed part of our fence stay wooden? We request to have the new fence installed using the same material to retain the visual uniformity. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

  3. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of house and...” at 23 Gilderthorpe Avenue Randwick NSW 2031:

    mark Hetherington commented

    As a resident living in close proximity to the proposed development i would like to object on the following grounds on this proposed development

    Parking - parking in our street has become more and more difficult over the past few years and I rarely am able to park in front of my own residence in Gilderthorpe Ave let alone in close proximity. More often than not having to park in adjacent streets or across busy Clovelly Rd near the school
    With this new proposed development I feel an already stretched parking situation , as a result of nearby Cafes and Supermarket will become increasing more difficult

    Statement of Environmental Effects even notes that Parking ratios are not met

    Building - I note rooftop with have a covered communal area , enclosed storage units, clothes line , given these i feel that the building is not 3 floors but rather 4 floors as i would imagine that this roof top space will be often used

    Building - look and feel of building does not sit with current streetscape - looking at photo montage the front of the building looks very obtrusive with what appears to be covered stairs and concrete structure not fitting in with surrounding buildings

  4. In Rockdale NSW on “Construction of a two (2)...” at 24 Oswell Street, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Jessica Stalenberg commented

    Another heritage home gone to ruin. I just had a look at some of the images of this lovely home online. Sandstone features and beautiful windows. When will people realise that its more valuable to keep these old brick homes as they are rather than making fast money through quick developments? I'm sad to see that the new owners don't see the true value of this property.

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

    Andrew Stanley commented

    It is also interesting that the council will approve this when the plans clearly show the front of the building will not be in line with the existing buildings on the street. So much for building codes.

    Parking is the main issue. Cranley street (eastern end) is very busy and has numerous cars parked on it everyday. A multi unit complex will increase car numbers parked on the street. Only one garage for each unit, not very smart. There will be an accident on this street due to the congestion.

    There shouldn't be units built on a street this close to a school when people use this street to get to Centenary Heights High. If anything council should be limiting development surrounding schools to ensure safety on the roads.

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

    Robert C Pendrey wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    Re: Overflow on-street parking in this area.
    Unless there is a sign saying that you can, you are not allowed to park, stop or leave your vehicle within 10 metres of: either side of an intersection without traffic lights.
    This means that the proposal can have no on-street parking as it is within 10 metres of the Fitzroy Street intersection.

    Photo of Peter Mitchell
    Peter Mitchell local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Robert C Pendrey

    Hi Robert,
    I am sure all normal parking laws need to be adhered to.
    Interestingly, RCC has a new compliance vehicle with dash cam technology to assist in identifying illegal and unsafe parking.
    If you have a specific suggestion such as line marking or signage for a particular street or location I can always have officers assess it for you.
    Thanks for getting in touch.

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

    Robert C Pendrey commented

    Re: Overflow on-street parking in this area.
    Unless there is a sign saying that you can, you are not allowed to park, stop or leave your vehicle within 10 metres of: either side of an intersection without traffic lights.
    This means that the proposal can have no on-street parking as it is within 10 metres of the Fitzroy Street intersection.

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

    Heath Knox commented

    The TRC has identified this area to be a "non unit area" in the recent Where We Live forum and pending changes to the planning scheme.

    This area should also be included in the neighborhood character area for obvious reasons. Just like the proposed change to neighborhood character between Geddes and Hume Streets.

    More ill designed units in such a picturesque community will be a blight on surrounding residents.

    For sanity, resident quality of life and commonsense, please apply the COTY principle in areas of obvious character significance.

  9. In Townsville City QLD on “Preliminary Approval under...” at 10 The Strand Townsville City QLD 4810:

    Marcelle Graham commented

    I think it will be a loss to Townsville if this heritage hotel is removed. It is in a location that could be considered a heritage presinct and has obvious heritage value. In time to come it will be lamented if demolished now. It can't be replaced only preserved. Please show some foresight on this one. The image of Townsville benefits from character buildings which only become more appreciated and precious over time.

  10. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    CathyB wrote to local councillor Samantha Ratnam

    This is a thin street, where car parking and congestion is already a problem. While the Moreland approach to urban density along main transport corridors sounds excellent in theory, thought must be given to liveability. People will continue to own cars in this area - the public transport and bike paths simply aren't good enough, or safe enough, to do without. This means that congestion and parking will become a huge issue as developments like this continue to be approved at such an incredible rate. Developers who have made, and are making, such incredible profit from our neighbourhoods, communities and homes should be required to add to the amenity, rather than bit by bit, destroying it.

    Delivered to local councillor Samantha Ratnam. They are yet to respond.

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

    Kris Pryosusilo commented

    I find it very odd that TRC town planners will still accept proposals for unit development on a street soon to be zoned a "unit free zone" as per my understanding of Council's own planning scheme!

    Apart from that there are several more reasons why I think this is a bad idea, not the least that;

    1. As previous comments have already noted, parking congestion is going to be a nightmare for residents and visitors alike. Spillover kerb parking on a narrow 2 way street is not ideal to say the least.

    2. Neighborhood crowding is going to affect the quality of life and residents will suffer in the long term considering the number of units already in the street.

    3. I'm afraid that this will diminish real estate value in the area (though I'm sure some pre-hashed glib vested interest marketing hyperbole will be trotted out to say otherwise); but it appears this is not a concern for the developer, nor does it appear to be concerning town planners because WHY are Council still accepting development proposals?

    My impression is that this is a decision ill thought out and driven more by a concern for speedy profit than it is for the welfare of the *voting* Toowoomba citizenry who live in the area. If it can happen in Cranley St, it can happen anywhere in Toowoomba.

    Finaly TRC, why bother zoning the area as a unit free zone AFTER it's chock a block choking with units? It just doesn't make sense!

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

    William Kelly commented

    I really think there should be a royal commission into the Toowoomba council. I would like to know who changed the law to allow all the dog boxes of dwellings to be built. I would also like to know if any of the councillors have a vested interest in any of the blocks of land that have had these dog boxes built on them. Have any of the councillors subdivided their own block of land. The streets of Toowoomba are choking with traffic. Most of the units and townhouses have only one car garages. The dwelling are so small, people are using their garage as a storage area and park their car on the road. The town planners should be sacked. No use shutting the gate now, The horse is half way to Roma by now. There is not much land left in Toowoomba. Total greed. I spent a week at my daughters place in Cranley st. There was a gem expo at the school. The street was jammed with cars. Luckily I was parked on her property because I certainly wouldn't have gotten a park on the street. When these places are built, they must have room for at least 2 car spaces per dwelling.

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michelle commented

    I fully support this application. Marrickville will benefit from an additional night time eating and meeting establishment.

    There is a growing need for more varied options now, especially given the fact that Council have recently approved more applications for apartment blocks in the area.

  14. In Brunswick VIC on “Use of land for motor...” at 24-26 Edward Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Jodie Miners commented

    Please don't allow reduced Carparking on this site. There is already a number of commercial vehicles parked outside, and if this is a Motor Vehicle Repair shop they will need a lot of carparking on site.

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

    Jessica Kelly commented

    I have just been informed by one of my neighbours of this proposal - I live directly next door to 24 Cranley St.

    We have just spent thousands of dollars painting the entire house from top to bottom, only to potentially have all of that go down the drain with the drop in value this development will bring to our house.

    Another major concern I have is the lack of privacy that will be created. The units will have a full view of my house and yard, which will affect the enjoyment we have of our own backyard greatly.

    Not to mention the mess and noise we will have to endure while the house is demolished and units are being constructed.

    As other residents have written, Cranley St is FAR too busy and congested for even more dwellings to be constructed. The units in the street do not cater for the amount of cars the people living in them have ie. a single garaged unit occupied by a family who owns two cars. Guess where the second car ends up? On the street!

    You already have to weave around the cars lining the streets at all hours of the day. Some of them don't even belong to residents - the school and church create a lot of excess congestion.

    I am absolutely appalled that this proposal is even being considered. There is no regard for the home-owners in the street, who are slowly watching a quite, peaceful street get eaten up by greed.

  16. In Dakabin QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 205 Old Gympie Road, Dakabin QLD 4503:

    Keryn See commented

    I strongly object to this development. There had been a huge increase in car and pedestrian traffic since the opening of 7 eleven on this lot. To build more shops etc here would cause many problems. There has been two car accidents in this area as well. It is a fairly small lot; couldn't some trees and various plants be put here to create a green space to replace all the trees that we have lost in the area.

  17. In Sydney NSW on “Sandstone Precinct -...” at Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW:

    Eric Kok commented

    By building hotels here you need to provide lots of parking and public transport. Otherwise you will be putting lots of pressure on existing and future infrastructure. Yes there is already talk of metro services etc... but do they stack up against future growth??? Our services are already over capacity by a large margin.

    The design of the glass "box" addition also does not look right. Does not integrate well with the heritage elements of the building. It is too large and this "modern" "boxy" look cheapens and overpowers the building. Maybe it should be pitched instead and made shorter? But then it is profit margins over quality that rules in the end. Such a shame NSW.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kevin Brown commented

    Very supportive of any new bars, cafes, restaurants as well any extensions to trading hours of existing businesses or new liquor licenses. Fully support this application.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    M Skinner commented

    Very excited at more options for evening dining in Marrickville. I support this application and wish them the best of luck.

  20. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of seven...” at 481 Albion Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Andrew Harris commented

    Albion Street is at the point of not coping with traffic. Reality is that even if the occupants use the limited bus service, or the tram, they will own a car, possibly two. They'll also expect visitors, many of whom will drive. Continuing to ignore this growing problem will lead to serious problems for residents in the area. There is a school crossing just a few metres from this site, and a popular restaurant across the street. Any fool can see that problems are rapidly accumulating. What may seem a reasonable relaxation of rules on an individual application, quickly becomes untenable when repeated over many. Provision must be made on the site for car parking, as well as some visitor parking and traffic management. If the site doesn't have room for these things AND seven dwellings, then the number of dwellings should be reduced until there is room. It's not that hard to work out. This is an example of unsustainable development.

  21. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Andrew Harris commented

    Completely inappropriate level of development. This is surely an 'ambit claim'. Too high, too dense. The streets already struggle to cope. The main exits to Moreland and Melville roads will quickly reach problem levels for congestion and safety.
    Amenity of the dwellings will be severely compromised through lack of space, and neighbouring properties will suffer significant impositions on their space and quality.

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

    H. Wilson commented

    Cranley Street represents what TRC belives is what most of Toowoomba should look like twenty years from now.

    No gardens required for the Garden City.

    Streets full of cars since the revamped bus service we are threatened with is just as badly designed as the current one.

    No bird insect or small animal life to be seen or heard, apart from a rise of uncontrolled cats let loose from units all day.

    Well done Planners. A new Utopia.

  23. In Annandale NSW on “Application to place...” at Multiple Occupancy 107 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    Removing the JC Decaux Advertising Panel and "shelter", and then extending the awning around the building at 107 Johnston St into Booth Street would improve the attractiveness and amenity of the area immensely.

    See photographs of how busy the bus stop is at:

  24. In Victoria Point QLD on “Survey Plan -Standard...” at 5 Pelican Street, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Russell wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    This house would have been demolished without proper asbestos protection procedures yet again if not for vigilant residents alerting council and WHS Qld of impending works. Counci must be pro active in protecting rate payers health as these demolitions continue to multiply.

    Delivered to local councillor Lance Hewlett. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Costello commented

    Big supporter of this, a diverse range of nightlife is going to be required as new development increase around the train station and a broader demographic moves into this area. It's woefully underserved in evening entertainment at the moment

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Denise Moss commented

    Marrickville seriously lacks any diversity in night time dining. I'm an emphatic supporter of any restaurant wishing to extend their hours into nighttime dining. Let's hope they apply for a liquor license also. Keep them coming.

  27. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of the land...” at 80 Tyler Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Simon Djordjevic commented

    As a local community member I am pleased the majority of residents will be townhouses.
    Only 55% total land area being covered in buildings is also pleasing.
    Hopefully green space will be well designed to aid in establishment of privacy and value add to the development, and to the local community

  28. In Kallangur QLD on “Request to be Assessed...” at 176 Old Gympie Road, Kallangur QLD 4503:

    Keryn See commented

    To build more units/ townhouses when there are over 50 already built around the corner in Whitehorse Road and then more to be built further down Whitehorse Road, is this really needed.
    This property is also opposite a busy intersection with a 70 speed limit. Traffic issues will need be considered as well.

  29. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition of external...” at 146 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117. Demolition of external structures, tree removal, construction of 5 town houses with attics and basement carparking pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009:

    Susan Yang commented

    I live next door on a neighboring property. I have lived in the duplex with my family of six people for 5 years now.
    I am writing because I haven't found further details about the proposed development, only seen notification in the post for development of 5 town houses.
    Without having seen the plans, I want to share my dismay to see such a proposal on land that could comfortably fit two -three townhouses, but five townhouses in excessive for the land size.
    I am concerned about :
    1. Traffic - I have witnessed an incident where a driver turning at high speeds on a Saturday (not peak traffic) from Adderton Road to Kissing Point Road, skid onto the foot path outside my property damaging turf along the side of the road.
    I have also witnessed two identitical accidents occurred a year apart, a car flipped over on 148 neighbour's driveway. I can see rail fence are being built to prevent cars from opposite side of the road travelling at high speeds fly over the road.
    I am afraid the new rail fence will have the effect of bouncing cars back to my driveway in case of freaky accidents.
    I fear for future where the occupants of 146 Kissing Point Road will be exiting and returning to driveways along the same section on 3 properties on Kissing Point Road, 140-142 (7 townhouses), 144 (duplex) and 146 (proposed 5 townhouses) will cause traffic incidents and slow traffic as cars drive at speeds of 70km/h, vehicles turning onto Kissing Point Road.
    I fear for my family especially young children's safety at the front yard.

    2. Neighboring residential character -This section on Kissing Point Road is loosing character.
    There are inconsistent dwelling sizes relevant to land size; view in sequence from 138 Kissing Point Road there is a house, 7 townhouses, duplex, proposed 5 townhouses, a house, house on the corner of Kissing Point Road and Burke St.
    I would recommend a duplex style on the property for the land size it occupies.
    I sincerely ask you consider the points above and safety of residents over developers ambition.
    I look forward to reviewing plans for the property for further comments.
    p.s I have not made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  30. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Desley Mundell commented

    Not to mention the mayhem that will be the story of Simla Street when three buildings are erected on a block of land that now has one house and NO parking in the street already.

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