Recent comments

  1. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Steve and Kate Cavanagh commented

    We would like to object to the application for a wedding ceremony and photographic service at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach.

    Our objections are ;-

    *marked increase in traffic flow up and down Waterview Drive.

    *noise increases from cars and wedding ceremony crowds.

    *dust issues from dirt road access.

    *parking and vehicle activity increases

    *setting of a precedent - other business applications may then occur changing the nature of this residential zone.

    *no guarantee that this application wont be extended to include wedding receptions.

    *decreases in property values will certainly occur if this application is successful.

  2. In Camberwell VIC on “Use an existing building as...” at 184 Through Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Lyn commented

    Have parking issues been dealt with?

  3. In North Melbourne VIC on “Amend the permit preamble...” at 139-145 Chetwynd Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Roger commented

    This is a residential area made up mainly of families. It would be inappropriate to set up a commercial residential operation here as there is insufficient parking and a stable population. The laneway will not handle the increased traffic & there is little to nil street parking
    The local facilities cannot handle this type of operation and there are plenty of local alternatives nearby
    This application should not be approved and is a sneaky way of subverting the approval process

  4. In West Melbourne VIC on “Applying for packaged...” at 456-458 La Trobe Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    margaret rowles commented

    I agree with the above writer i would not go near King Street area at night and even early morning it is a sorry sight with people lining up to go in even as the sun is coming up!
    Too many liquor licences in the city as it is.. Margaret Flinders Court.

  5. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 100 Swanson Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Susan Kennett commented

    I see this 'affordable housing' thing appearing more and more on development applications. What does it mean? Affordable for who?
    Am a bit suspicious. Is this just a catchy phrase developers are picking up on to support their applications?
    Like 'sustainable'. Like 'organic'. Like 'environmentally friendly'
    Are we being hoodwinked?
    Please explain.

    Also, there is no notice of this DA displayed at the front of this property.
    The next door neighbour has no idea this is the plan. I've spoken to him.

    Susan Kennett
    2 Ada Lane
    Erskineville 2043

  6. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 100 Swanson Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Nicole commented

    In reply to Susan's comment - Affordable housing means rental housing for key workers such as childcare workers. Generally it will be managed by a community housing provider. A developer cannot just decide to use the term affordable housing, it needs to be negotiated with the council.
    Its great to see affordable housing in Erskineville.
    Nicole

  7. In Erskineville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 100 Swanson Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Susan Kennett commented

    I see this 'affordable housing' thing appearing more and more on development applications. What does it mean? Affordable for who?
    Am a bit suspicious. Is this just a catchy phrase developers are picking up on to support their applications?
    Like 'sustainable'. Like 'organic'. Like 'environmentally friendly'
    Are we being hoodwinked?
    Please explain.

    Also, there is no notice of this DA displayed at the front of this property.
    The next door neighbour has no idea this is the plan. I've spoken to him.

    Susan Kennett
    2 Ada Lane
    Erskineville 2043

  8. In West Melbourne VIC on “Applying for packaged...” at 456-458 La Trobe Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Anne Robyn Pavey commented

    Dear MCC,

    I wish to ask you to consider the following in regard to allowing this premises to sell packaged liquor. King Street already has a higher than other city streets, violence and drinking and drug taking issue. On a regular basis I have people urinating and vomiting in Phoenix Lane most weekends. I have also had drug taking and theft of copper pipe work. The area in which I reside, over La Trobe and King Streets is largely residential and needs to be kept out of the loop which is the King Street party area. By having a shop supplying liquor it would heighten the problems that already exist. Also parking will be another issue - already a problem with people parking in no standing areas when it was just the shop there, and noise due to people buying and drinking outside the shop or around in the lane to hide from police, I also believe that the homeless who hang out in the Gardens would also use this shop to buy liquor and drink in the Flagstaff Gardens.

    Regards

    Anne Pavey 6 Phoenix Lane, West Melbourne
    annswers@bigpond.com

  9. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Council has received...” at 429 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    Medium and high density urban residential living is only compatible with vastly greater public and active transport capacity than Sydney has at present.

    With the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, the NSW government clearly has no intention for Sydney do go down this alternative path.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed.

    Certainly the priorities of the WestConnex Delivery Authority and the developer are in conflict here.

  10. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    Medium and high density urban residential living is only compatible with vastly greater public and active transport capacity than Sydney has at present.

    With the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, the NSW government clearly has no intention for Sydney do go down this alternative path.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed.

    Certainly the priorities of the WestConnex Delivery Authority and the developer are in conflict here.

  11. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 33 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    If the future WestConnex motorway is to function properly, the exiting traffic coming into the area should not be hindered by extra cars clogging local roads. To ease the traffic flow, on the contrary, density and activity in this area should be minimised. This development will undoubtedly create many additional car trips travelling across and counter to the general WestConnex streams of traffic. This could generate delays and gridlock.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed.

    Certainly the priorities of the WestConnex Delivery Authority and Woolloomooloo Properties are in conflict here.

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

    Warren commented

    I couldn't agree more with CK , no privacy, more traffic, parking issues & listening to the hum of airconditioner's, sounds a lot like New Delhi to me, time to leave this council, just a grab for more revenue.

  13. In Crows Nest NSW on “Demolish existing boarding...” at 171 West Street Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Amanda Smith commented

    What type of boarding house is this ? Is it going to be licensed boarding house ?

  14. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Council has received...” at 429 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sharon F. commented

    I don't understand why council are allowing all these high-rise developments to be built in Dulwich Hill. Traffic congestion and parking problems are becoming worse every day. Population growth without consideration of infrastructure is not sustainable.
    Marrickville Council - is the money from developers really worth trashing our lovely suburb for? I will be putting a formal submission in as I strongly object to the size and the height of this development.

  15. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of a five...” at 16 Dods Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    jh commented

    Not to be approved

    A 5 storey development in a suburban back street is just not acceptable

    All new developments be as close to as possible at least off street car park per apartment, street parking is already tight and this development will cause big parking and traffic problems

    36 apartment over two small blocks is a huge squeeze.

    36 apartment over two small street in a very short dead end street is just to tight for living

    Dods street is only accessible by vehicle via a council car park or the very narrow and tight Charles street

    The council already struggles to provides service to the street, for example maintaining street rubbish, gutters, weeds, poor quality footpath, over grown street frontage not allowing use of footpaths, badly maintained street trees and road cut outs for trees

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

    C.K commented

    As a long time resident of Brunswick we are pushed aside in the name of development,without any consideration to our concerns. When it gets to the stage of over thirty balconies looking into our back properties it does become a major concern ,there is no privacy for the existing buildings and the mass and height of the building is to overwhelming for a corner street which is basically one lane street at times with the high volume traffic,which passes through at the moment.
    Balconies associated with these buildings have air conditioning/heating units on them so are we going to be burdened with the constant humming of the condensers .The pattern that seems to be happening with the Moreland precinct is find an empty block build as high as possible and as dense as possible without any consideration to the surrounding area.
    C.K.

  17. In Chippendale NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 141 Regent Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Thais Jacobs commented

    I live on 139a Regent St, the building directly behind 141 Regent St. I speak on behalf of many of my neighbours when I say we are quite worried about this development.

    As the council would be aware of, we already have a half way house beside our property, and that provide us with enough noise, police visits and unpleasant events. We fear that having another house for low income families, would just exhacerbate our situation.

    Our building also owns the driveway that will be used by this development to access their bike and motorcycle parking and garbage room. They have the right of carriageway, but we, however own the electric gate on it. We worry about the amount of extra use the gate we maintain will get from another 8 families using it.

    We also worry about the amount of extra commotion we will have on our communal area, being that 8 families will have to leave in such small dwellings, they will surely look for open spaces to gather, and we fear that it might be our own backyard. We aren't happy either about the garbage room that will face our property.

    We hope you reconsider this DA, as it would really affect all of our 8 apartments immensily.

    Yours Sincerely

  18. In Rozelle NSW on “Sydney Super Yacht Marina,...” at James Craig Road, Rozelle Bay, NSW:

    Julie Rigg commented

    While outdoor dining and socialising spaces this side of the harbour ( Rozelle White Bay etc ) this "consolidated " marina is way too big, and threatens to lock out local residents from yet more of the foreshore. The new passenger berth for cruise ships has already stopped many present and future residents from accessing the foreshore. This " consolidation" of separate marinas is a defacto extension of scale driving greater density/ traffic congestion/ noise and pollution.
    Where I live, in Balmain East, a block up from the foreshore the fireworks from Darling Harbour and its associated entertainments occurr nightly at around 9.30 pm. The dog goes crazy and rushes from one end of the house to another .Add to this the music and loudspeakers associated with large outdoor entertament spaces, already disturbing from the Darling Harbour/ city side, extended through this proposed development, and we have a recipe for a very abrasive environment.
    Don't get me wrong: I support a "living city". I support reasonable foreshore development around this side of the inner harbour . But yachties playgrounds and mass spectacle entertainment should not extend across the water .

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sarina Kilham commented

    This development appears oversize for the area.

    There are smaller factory spaces that are being used for local business here, such as the children's gymnastics centre on corner of Edinburgh Rd and Sydney Steel Rd. It is already necessary to park on street and walk kids into their gymnastics class - an increase in traffic would be detrimental to this strip.

    I would prefer to see business that encourages walking, especially given proximity to Metro and Enmore Park rather than business that encourages car use in this area.

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

    Joe commented

    As a long time resident/owner in this part of Brunswick West, I'm glad to see development finally occurring on Moreland Road. For too long, the area has been run down and neglected. Well considered medium density development along this strip would really rejuvenate the area . We have already seen this on the Southern and Western sides of Brunswick West where numerous high quality food/retail businesses have popped up to service the areas.

    That said, I trust the council will carefully review the application and, in particular, any reductions in parking.

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    sue commented

    I don't believe this development will add anything to the local community, apart from extra traffic & noise.
    There are already many hardware warehouses in close proximity - do we really need another?

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    If the future WestConnex motorway is to function properly, the exiting traffic coming into the area should not be hindered by extra cars clogging local roads. To ease the traffic flow, on the contrary, density and activity in this area should be minimised. This hardware store will undoubtedly create many additional car and utility vehicle trips travelling across and counter to the general WestConnex streams of traffic. This could generate delays and gridlock streaming back into the M5 east extension and create a dangerous situation inside the tunnel.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Certainly the interests of the WestConnex and Woolworths Ltd are in conflict here.

  23. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 17-21 Ryedale Road, West Ryde:

    Rafal commented

    I am also a resident at 947-949 Victoria Rd. Apart from the concerns raised above, I am also concerned about the type of residents this 'boarding house' might have, and the fact that anyone staying in the back half of the new building would have a direct view of the walkway from our unit to the lift and from the lift to the building exit. As one of several new parents in the building, my concern is that a number of random 'transient' strangers staying in a boarding house could have a clear view of the day-to-day comings-and-goings of vulnerable young mothers with their babies.

    So I am against this development proposal, not just because of the loss of sunlight to the building during the day, but also from a safety/privacy/security standpoint.

  24. In Byron Bay NSW on “ALDI Byron Bay - Packaged...” at Fletcher Street, Byron Bay 2481:

    Darren Pearson commented

    In the rejection letter for the Taree ALDI licence application ILGA stated:

    "in the Authority’s view there will be adverse consequences from introducing a new discount retailer into a community with prevailing high levels of alcohol related crime”

    and

    "In the Authority’s view any downward pressure on prices at the discount or cheaper end of the retail packaged liquor market will, as contended by Police, further enable problem drinkers (who the Authority is satisfied will be of limited means) to acquire liquor in greater quantities and greater frequencies than may otherwise be the case.”

    ALDI states in their own CIS;

    "ALDI acknowledges that many of the concerns expressed by those opposing the application have validity. For example, rates of alcohol-related assault remain high in Byron Bay, despite a discernible recent downward trend.”

    and

    "Simply put, these statistics do give rise to some concern and would give pause for thought to any liquor regulator or any responsible liquor provider, such as ALDI."

  25. In Rozelle NSW on “Sydney Super Yacht Marina,...” at James Craig Road, Rozelle Bay, NSW:

    Neill Francis commented

    No.
    "Super" is a good word to use to describe this development. Increasing the number of "super" sized motor yachts from 24 to 43 will increase traffic in this area with trucks supplying all these "super" sized motor yachts, as well as maintenance traffic and the people sailing/motoring on these yachts. Why not share the burden and build a "super" yacht marina in the eastern basin of the Harbour? With all these "super" motor yachts moored in Rozelle Bay will one see the water?

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sue anderson commented

    This is an unwanted and complety unnecessary development. There are 2 huge Bunnings stores in Alexandria , there is absolutely no need for a duplicate money-grabbing venture here. The roads are already jam-packed, Marrickville is incredibly short of green space, and this sort of ugly strip mall type of development contributes nothing to the local environment. It will sell disposable crap from China and put small businesses out of operation. Do not let this monstrosity go ahead.

  27. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Council has received...” at 429 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    ST commented

    Th fact that this DA is back before Council for approval without any major changes is astounding. The development still does not meet Council' basic criteria in respect of its height and FSR which I would have thought was essential.

    Marrickville's DCP also states on Dulwich Hill Commercial Precinct 38 (section 9.38.2) that the desired future character for this precinct is ‘to ensure new development at rear upper levels is a maximum of four storeys in appearance and is design to be subservient to retained portions of contributory buildings or infill development to the street building front’. The proposed development will definitely not be subservient on not only its height but its scale.

    It also states that the desired future character for this precinct is ‘to ensure the design of higher density development protects the residential amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties’. The height of the proposed development is entirely inconsistent with the surrounding properties and will certainly be a substantial loss of amenity and privacy of those surrounding residential properties in Dulwich and Lewisham Street.

    The traffic report submitted with the DA says that the 'moderate additional traffic movements are not expected to present capacity issue at the adjacent road network. I find this hard to believe. Moderate??? In a beautiful ideal world we all travel to and from work on public transport. In reality this is definitely not the case.

    In summary, this development is completely inappropriate and not keeping in character or context as outlined by Council in their Development Control Plan 2011, nor it doesn't meet many of the Council's other criteria also in their DCP. Therefore it should be rejected for a second time.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 74 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Aiden Macreadie commented

    It it not acknowledged that roads are already full during the afternoon peak. Is it not acknowledged that there are homes right across the development which would be affected by noise, is it not acknowledged that there is a driveway right in front of the traffic lights. I find it completely ludicrous to construct such a large car generating building on a small suburban street which is already at capacity even without the metro expansion.

  29. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Council has received...” at 429 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    K.W. commented

    This proposed development exceeds the height restriction of 17.1m - coming in at 21.25m. The FSR proposed of 2.9:1 exceeds the allowable FSR, the exit and entry directly being opposite the bus terminus turning area which surely is dangerous and doesnt really meet Council's Generic Parking provisions (section C10 in their DCP), the dangerous position of the driveway being very close to the lights, the already huge shortage of parking in surrounding streets, the impact of a 6 storey building towering over residential houses and the resulting loss of privacy, shadowing of those properies, the worsening rat-run of traffic up and down Dulwich and Lewisham Sts which would only be made worse by this development. There is the overriding issue is the lack of compliance by Council to their DCP and LEP's and the impact of all the over-development on the current transport and infrastructure in the suburb. Trains, buses and light rail are already not coping. Provision for storage of 50+ bicycles - great, next there will be a bike path proposed. The village feel of the suburb is why we all live in DH but this is being ruined by Council at the hands of the developers. People are still driving to work, and still driving and parking in residential streets to use the light rail and trains. There needs to be far more planning at both the local and State Council levels before any more development is approved.

  30. In Hornsby NSW on “Hornsby Westside Apartments...” at 240-260 Peats Ferry Road, Hornsby NSW 2077:

    Cyril commented

    If you have read the hornsby advocate today you would realize that I am not alone when I say that this kind of monster is not welcome on the west side, council need to stop $eeing dollar $igns and stop putting developers in their pocket, it is time for your architecture mates and developer buddies to go elsewhere and stop turning the "bush shire" into a concrete jungle full of crime and congestion. Hornsby and surrounds have more high rises than the inner city and it is not right

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