Recent comments

  1. In Lane Cove NSW on “Kuali - Liquor licence...” at 115-117 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove 2066:

    Michael Panzarino commented

    Alistair, Kuali is a restaurant. They are moving their license to a different premises. They aren't a bottle shop..

    You are also mistaken about the population of Lane Cove, it's about to jump dramatically with all the high density apartment blocks going up.

    I see no harm in this application

  2. In Balwyn North VIC on “Transfer Of BYO Permit” at Shop 5 & 6, 70 Doncaster Road, Balwyn North 3104, VIC:

    BS commented

    I don't think that there are any shops where the marker is placed….corner or Balwyn and Doncaster Road ? !

  3. In Lane Cove NSW on “Kuali - Liquor licence...” at 115-117 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove 2066:

    alistair duncan commented

    We do not need yet another liquor store. There are three already and the population of Lane Cove is not increasing by that much.

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

    John Ferguson commented

    Where will visitors park on this extremely busy road that has no parking?
    Except for the shopping centres there is no parking in the vicinity.
    Why are you, my council, following the mistakes of other councils and not enforcing visitor parking?

  5. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 261 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Claire Heaney commented

    There is absolutely inadequate parking included in this application.

  6. In South Tamworth NSW on “Utility Installation -...” at 3 Jean Street South Tamworth NSW 2340:

    Jeff Bartlett commented

    Further to my first submission, Council needs to ask Telstra why they are putting a development application here at 3 Jean Street when they already have a DA approved for another mobile phone tower, within 2 kilometres, that I believe has been approved, that would be in the middle of a rail road corridor, with no houses immediately "just over the fence" and probably solving the problem Telstra are trying to overcome. This tower DA application is at Duri Rd, across from the South Tamworth Vets. On making enquiries to Telstra locally (North West Region) about what was happening to this Duri Rd development, the Telstra officials could not find anything about it in their files and I had to send them their Telstra development notice, they sent out to nearby residents in April 2013 !!!! Could it be locally the Telstra Nth West were not aware of this other approved mobile phone tower DA? I think so because why would you make a DA for a tower upgrade in a heavily populated area, when you already have an approved DA, for the same thing, 2 kilometres away? Doesn't make sense to me and Council need to ask Telstra why they are not going to use the less invasive Duri Rd site.

    Jeff Bartlett

  7. In South Tamworth NSW on “Utility Installation -...” at 3 Jean Street South Tamworth NSW 2340:

    Jeff Bartlett commented

    Your comment: We in South Tamworth from the top of hill in Roberts St, towards Duri Rd, around Jill, John and Nancy St's have a black spot with Telstra. You can always tell when Telstra residents in Nancy St have a mobile phone call, they are standing in their yard with a mobile phone to the ear. And we are how far from the Tamworth Post Office???? The proposed Telstra mobile tower on Duri Rd, near Sth Tamworth vets, is not going to occur, according to information received by me from Telstra (available if required with a very embarrassing story about Telstra to go with it !!! ). If Telstra has decided not to go ahead with the Duri Rd development, the proposed development in Jean St is our life boat!!! This development will help to alleviate this black spot in South Tamworth and benefit South Tamworth residents.

  8. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Residential Flat Building...” at 536 Mowbray Rd, Lane Cove North:

    Albert Babazogli commented

    With all the unit blocks going up on Mowbray Road (not just this one) is there any consideration to traffic flow and management?? I would be interested in hearing about any plans to improve or, at the very least, ensure traffic congestion is not adversely affected due to the additional vehicle movements.

    I have a particular concern with increased traffic congestion on the corner of Mowbray Road and Centennial Ave.

    Any information regarding this topic would be greatly appreciated.

  9. In Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 1F Robinson Avenue, Perth, WA, 6000:

    Darren Bowden commented

    I am opposed to this change to retail use mainly because of the already high volume of traffic in our street and the limited parking availability. There is already a number of existing pharmacies in the immediate location.

  10. In Brunswick East VIC on “Use and development of land...” at 91-93 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    There is already an enormous problem in parking in the inner suburbs. Councils like to pretend we are not a car -orientated society but, although I use public transport whenever I can, the reality is that cars are needed for some journeys. My friends already don't visit me because of parking problems - I do not consider that living in the inner suburbs means you shouldn't have friends being able to visit.

    Developers often ask for a reduction in the parking requirements so they can maximise their already excessive profits at the expense of living conditions for the residents of an area. Too often councils reduce the parking requirements, with long term implications for residents. Parking requirements should be made more stringent not less - councils should consider the needs of residents more than the profits of developers and their future rates (councils are already rolling in cash). By disallowing the required parking requirements of developments, the inner suburbs become less liveable year by year.

    Councillors probably live in the now 'protected' parts of their shires where excessive developments are not allowed at all - shame on Australia for polarizing society into have and have-nots in so many ways.

    Please do NOT disallow any reduction in the parking requirements.

  11. In Eltham VIC on “Construction of a...” at 804 Main Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    JK commented

    There is way too much overcrowding and traffic in Eltham this will make it worse, Eltham is (soon to be was) high class living area due to its natural landscape and trees, we don't need apartments, its an ugly look and degrades the look of the town.

  12. In Lindisfarne TAS on “8 Lot Subdivision resulting...” at 163 Gordons Hill Road Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Tony Jeffrey commented

    163 Gordon's hill rd
    I can't believe that you people can approve such a dense development, Gordon's hill rd is hard enough to live on now our beautiful 100 yr old home will be feted by another disgracefully designed housing estate. Obviously you council members don't have a block of units next door to you $ $ $ $ that's all you guys think about whilst declining the value of property in the surroundings in the process. I wake up this morning to find a street light pole in my kitchen window. So this development needs it own street lights, my goodness lets just turn the area in to one big housing commission project area because they work really well, so thanks again for your lack of care and forward thinking. There's a reason families are selling up in Gordon's hill road, have a look in the mirror, to find the answer.

  13. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Camilla Lloyd Jones commented

    Another place for those awful woman with there 4x4s,screaming kids,iPhones,gym gear/skin tights YUK. and take away latte's to hang out.I'm all for it if it gets the trash of our streets in Hawthorn.

  14. In Burnley VIC on “Minor demolition and...” at 52 Madden Gr Burnley VIC 3121:

    Rebecca Saint commented

    I support the works and Cafe. However please improve the parking in front of the houses 148 to 158 Stawell St. Residents have been petitioning Council for 18 mths with still no response. Paperwork with support of all residents was lodged over 12 mths ago. The cafe will put even further pressure on this parking.

  15. In Currumbin QLD on “Description: Class: HOUSE...” at 15 Pall Mall Avenue Currumbin 4223:

    Nigel Dowling commented

    I am the next door neighbour (17 Pall Mall Avenue) to this property. We have just been shown the building plans today which indicate the owner intends to build right to the boundary line that we share. The owner also admitted that this was the case to us. If this is approved it will severely impact our privacy and enjoyment of our property. It will also have an adverse effect on natural light entering our property in the afternoon. According to council regulation I was under the impression that the maximum limit to build next to a boundary line was 1.5 metres, and that is with a council relaxation. The plans we were shown today are in clear violation of this.

  16. In Balmain NSW on “Removal of 1 x Tree” at 29 Gow Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Jeanette Milne commented

    I received a Notice of Development Application for 29 Gow Street (D/2014/304)

    I wish to object to the removal of the tree.

    - it is the major tree in a small cluster used by birds. Even small clusters of trees in urban areas are used by migrating birds.

    - it is healthy, showing new growth

    - it is aesthtically beautiful

    - it is one of the few remaining mature trees in Gow Street. Any replacement would take decades to reach comparable maturity

    - it is one of the tallest trees in Gow Street. Any replacement would take decades to reach the same height.

    - this tree provides habitat for wildlife, improves air quality, and helps reduce water runoff and erosion

  17. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of sixteen...” at 248 Riversdale Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Sandy Rea commented

    It is untenable to have reduced car parking spaces. It is already a mixed area with private home residential (single dwelling) and unit development. There is little facility to accommodate extra parking. The number of units developed on this site should strictly match the number of car spaces that can be provided. council needs to be very mindful of ambience of the area, congestion and the evolving character of the area where single dwellings are demolished and replaced with density living.

  18. In Helensburgh NSW on “Mixed use development -...” at 12 Walker Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Gaetane commented

    Is it necessary to destroy the front shop, it is the only remaining historical building in this most visited area. Only the pub and the post office have any appeal, most of the other new buildings are just 'functional' but pretty bland.....
    I'm not opposed to development, but Helensburgh is loosing any esthetical appeal. New building recently built seem to date from the 80 and give the impression of rushed development projects with not a care in the world for the long term, the design, the art, architecture, heritage or landscaping.
    Helensburgh is becoming a functional hub but forget to reflect its very own community and history.

  19. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition, 10 new...” at 11 Goodwood St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dominic Green commented

    Parking must be provided onsite. This site is opposite a kindergarten, and any more traffic on that already busy street will increase the risk of an accident during peak times.

  20. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Lee commented

    Our family go past this establishment at least 6 times every day I cringe every time I see the provocative image on the window. We have two children who should not be exposed to this inappropriate imagery, especially in a suburban area.

    This is sending the wrong message to young boys and girls. No product or service should resort to advertising using a semi naked female, no matter what they are attempting to promote!!

    I have no objection to pole dancing itself and do not care what they do inside but the advertising is totally unnecessary.

    Get rid of it... sick of looking at it!


  21. In Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 1F Robinson Avenue, Perth, WA, 6000:

    Erica & Jeff Jago commented

    We are opposed to this change from Office use to Retail use for a pharmacy for several reasons.
    Firstly, Robinson Avenue is a one way street with very limited parking.
    Secondly, there are 2 pharmacies within 3 minutes of this location (1 x cnr Newcastle & Beaufort Sts & 1 x Brisbane St).
    Thirdly, increased noise for residents with retail hours applying to a pharmacy.

  22. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 213 Riversdale Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Camilla Lloyd Jones commented

    What are the proposed works at this building,I'm concerned re traffic flow up and down the laneway

  23. In Richmond VIC on “42 new dwellings, reduction...” at 619-623 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Mark Blackburn commented

    Dear Sir

    I object to the building on 619-623 Bridge Road, Richmond on the grounds that it is requesting reduced car parking and a waiver of a loading bay.

    This area is already severely congested and cannot cope with any additional on street parking.

    Provision must be made for required amount of tenant and visitor parking.

  24. In Gymea NSW on “Fitout and Change of Use...” at 87 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea 2227:

    Robyn Smith commented

    I do not think that it is fair to approve this application as Gymea is already well serviced by both the Fresh Fruit Market and the Superbarn Grocery store. Both of these businesses have a positive impact on the Gymea Village and I would hate to lose the valuable service that they operate. Gymea Village has an upmarket classy image, one that I would like to see. I don't want another Sutherland shopping centre model replicated in the Shire. Please don't undo the work you have done in beautifying the village of Gymea shopping centre.

  25. In Denham Court NSW on “Residential...” at 42 Denham Court Road, Denham Court, NSW:

    SusanLauric commented

    Re; DA 609/2014/DA-AL
    This development is close to my home and i have previously objected to it (over the last 8 years in all its forms) so why wasn't i notified there was yet another DA.

  26. In Gymea NSW on “Fitout and Change of Use...” at 87 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea 2227:

    Mark Formica commented

    We believe this application should NOT be approved.

    Gymea Fresh Fruit Market is located 5 doors only from the proposed site on yet another Fruit Market and directly across the road from the existing Superbarn Grocery store which also retails fruit & vegetables. As you can imagine this will impact both established businesses.

    We believe yet another Fruit, Vegetable & Grocery store in such close proximity would NOT be the best choice of business for the Council to promote our Shopping Village. Any other business would be more beneficial to our community.

    We believe the proposed proprietor has grossly underestimated the fit out cost to avoid higher council fees.

    We believe the proposal has not considered the noise output from the Cool-room machined proposed to be located in the fit out. Residential impact has not been considered in their Statement of Environmental Effects. This also would relate to deliveries being compliant to your specific council requirements and time restrictions so as not to impact residences adversely.

    We believe the hours of operation ,as stated on the Development Application section4.2, of 5am to 9pm Monday-Sunday detailed as the "present operating times" are NOT the current Tenants hours of operation but have been altered to suit the applicant and benefit the proposed business. These hours are not in sync with existing businesses and our "village" shopping feel.

    Once again we believe the applicant has misled the council. The statement of Environmental Effects states waste removal will "continue as it is at present". Currently there is no waste removal available for the current tenant and their business. Waste will be substantially increased due to the nature of the proposed business and as matter will be also be perishable. this will also impact residents and Council Waste removal.

    As a family owned business supporting two families of local residents and also employing 20 local residents we believe our Council has a Duty of Care to not only support its rate payers and voters but also assist their community. We support local charities ( Babe babes , Relay for Life ) local schools, local sporting teams, local sporting clubs just to name a small portion of our reach in the community. We would hope that our Council would want this type of business to continue and thrive and not be strangled by an influx of inferior product & service.

  27. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 2 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved. This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process.
    This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > Rydalmere Public School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit.
    There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties. Given the residential and community nature of this area, town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in the Dundas/Rydalmere area.
    I implore the council to reject this application once again, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

  28. In South Coogee NSW on “Removal of rear shed,...” at 363 Arden Street South Coogee NSW 2034:

    Nina McDonnell commented

    Hi there

    reference DA-236/2014 - for 363 Arden St, Coogee

    I was hoping to find out more information about the above planning application and wondered whether the plans were rejected? The house is currently on the market again and if we were to buy it we would seek to develop in a similar way. Obviously we would not wish to purchase if this proposal has already been rejected.

    Thanks so much, I appreciate your feedback on this.

    Kind regards
    Nina 0415 563 350

  29. In Idalia QLD on “Indoor Recreation - Multi...” at 6 Gorari Street Idalia QLD 4811:

    Worried resident commented

    Children's dance school in between all mechanical businesses with mechanics test driving and moving cars around and tow trucks dropping cars off in the street. Not safe for parents trying to park and navigate their children inside safely. Surely there is a safer location for children as well as the fact that the men use language at times that is inappropriate for the children.

  30. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 7 Yawung Street Dundas NSW 2117:

    Michelle Linda lagettie commented

    Good morning,
    Do not approve of 2 duplex dwelling on property 7 yawung St
    Such a shame that we are over populating this small area and street!
    Michelle Lagettie

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