Recent comments

  1. In Eltham North VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 130 Progress Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Thomas Napolitano commented

    I dont understand why we are going thought this again l feel that this extra dwelling on a one house block is just not in the character of the the area.I was born and bread in this area and l would hate for our beautiful area to be distroyed, by over using any small space to build unsightly units .The space and trees and wildlife are what makes our area unique

  2. In Eltham North VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 130 Progress Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Mitchell Carol commented

    i would like to object to this development as l walk my dog through the park in allison cres l know this area well this is a special area and is what all of Eltham should be lhad cause to ring the council and was put on hold the recording i was listerning to was talking about unique Eltham discribing what l can only say fits this area please please dont allow this to set a precedent wich dosnt fit the neighbourhood character

  3. In Camberwell VIC on “Part demolition of...” at 20 Moorhouse Street Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Paul Hobson commented

    I wish to object to the proposed works unless appropriate conditions regarding closure of the rear Right of Way are imposed on any permit.

    The rear laneway to the properties at the rear of Moorhouse Street and Kingsley Street is regularly used by the properties on both sides of the laneway to the north of the subject property. All of these properties have garages fronting the laneway and use the laneway at least several times a day.

    The following would be appropriate permit conditions regarding of Right of Way access:
    • The works will not cause any restrictions to traffic along the laneway between the hours of 4pm and 9am; and
    • If it is sought to restrict traffic along the laneway at any time between 9am and 4pm, not less than 36 hours prior written notice must be given to the properties abutting the laneway to the north of the subject land.

  4. In Summer Hill NSW on “The Temperance Society Bar...” at 122 Smith St, Summer Hill 2130:

    Nena commented

    As a long time resident of Summer Hill, who is in their late 20s, I am really looking forward to having a small bar in the neighbourhood. At the moment we have so few choices other than the RSL style Summer Hill Hotel for drinks after work or meeting up with friends who live locally for a drink. I think having a small bar with have positive affects on the community and will definitely make me consider buying property in the area.

  5. In Norwood TAS on “Residential Aged Care...” at 185 Penquite Road Norwood TAS 7250:

    Lyn & Michael Jackson commented

    We would like to register our objection to the proposed development at 177 -185 Penquite Road: Masonic Peace Haven Homes. We reside at 201Penquite Road and have done so for over 34 years. It is becoming increasingly noticeable that this development is taking over the general nature of our residential area. Our concerns regarding the building of further units into the existing areas are many including;
    • These extra units may impinge on our general ambience
    • We are concerned about the extra lighting from these taller and more intrusive buildings
    • There is no plotting of the worst case scenario for how the new buildings would block the sun at its lowest winter point and hence will it impact our residence
    • Windows on the South side overlook the properties thus reducing the privacy on our property
    • Currently we get intrusive noise from the existing buildings air conditioning units and to multiply the needs by 5 we assume will increase this noise and become intolerable
    • Traffic in the small Lenstan St area is addressed by the application and dismissed as a negligible increase however we would like to say that this traffic is already at overload. To live in the street and deal on a daily basis with the added noise and movement from these extras has become untenable. It should never have been allowed to develop to this level and each development is always considered a reasonable increase.
    • Commercial vehicles such as garbage trucks servicing the current business provide a noise hazard when the truck arrives, when it then reverses, when it then picks up the bin and empties it and then when it accelerates up Lenstan Street to depart all done any time after 5.00am but rarely as late as 8.00am. We believe that this currently happens about twice a week. Five times the units will result in a large increase in frequency and we would suggest all before 8.00am on a weekday or 10.00am on a weekend.
    • Other commercial trucks/vehicles also use Lenstan Street to service the business at various times of the day starting from the very early morning which will only increase if this development is approved
    • The design appears to continue to channel all servicing activity for the enlarged development through Lenstan Street

    Over the years we have allowed this development to be built without objection as we are pro development and recognise the need for such developments however it has reached the point where the activity of the Masonic Homes impacts on our sleep and life style on a regular basis. When we sleep with windows open in summer the noise is just amplified. Our quiet street has become a thoroughfare for large vehicles. Please consider the residents that do remain in this area and the fact that they should not have to deal with these increased, building, light and noise intrusions.

    As neighbours we object to the proposal to redevelop areas of the Masonic Homes without a rethink on how these problems can be solved.

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

    Angela Bevitt commented

    This is an unnecessary development and will remove the most visually appealing shop front in the main street of Helensburgh. No more high density dwelling should be approved for this area until a comprehensive and cohesive town plan has been delivered. To do anything less is short-changing the rate payers of the Nothern Illawarra. Town plan - before ANY new major developments.

  7. In Norwood TAS on “Residential Aged Care...” at 185 Penquite Road Norwood TAS 7250:

    Peter Graham and Diana Janet Nesbit commented

    Peter and I reside at 9 Lenstan Street. Our main concern with the intended changes to the Masonic Peacehaven Complex are around parking and traffic congestion. We already have problems in the street with employees of the complex parking in Lenstan Street on a regular basis on both sides of the street several days a week. We regularly have one or two Masonic employee cars parked for their full shift outside No 7 and No 9 Lenstan Street. Also Outreach workers go to their office at 3 Lenstan Street and also when they have their morning meetings the road between Hiawatha
    Street and Penquite Road is full of their cars parked causing major congestion.

    As the Planning Permit requests exception to the number of parking spaces that would normally be required with this extension, and with the above already occurring, we strongly object to any further exceptions to parking requirements being approved.

    We also note dispensation is also being sought for a reduction in the distance from building to boundary. We feel that this is increasing the building density in the local area which will in turn severely devalue the current residential properties on the northern side of Lenstan Street.

    When we purchased our property in 1997, we found that traffic, noise and odours were not a problem to us but as the complex has grown so has the amenity of our property has declined.

    As the current noise pollution from delivery vehicles is already at barely acceptable levels for a residential area and the odours from the kitchen are also likely to increase in length and/or intensity, we are concerned that the extension will lead to greater problems in the future.

  8. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Sue Witham commented

    I support this application on the grounds that it will be of advantage to a lot of church going people if it goes ahead and should not negatively impact any members of the local community.

    Making this move of the primary meeting place from one building to another within the same site:

    - Will not increase the amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic which is already very small compared to school day volumes

    - will allow better access for the elderly members of the congregation and for children who have additional needs

    - will make it easier for visitors and new people to find the church meeting location, and should not make any significant impact on neighboring properties
    Sue Witham

  9. In Roselands NSW on “Residential” at 98 Payten Avenue, Roselands:

    Rabia commented

    Instead of preserving the beauty of Payten Avenue, we (the whole community) find ourselves trying to stop this development in its tracks. We are happy with our neighbourhood, we enjoy the luscious tree lined street that has managed to maintain its natural and original self these past decades. It's not only the location of this development that is infuriating but how many residents are directly affected by the proposal. The land the development intends to build on is not your average parcel of land, it has a lane (off Payten Avenue) leading up to the actual block which directly falls in the middle of 25 residential properties on all four sides. Whatever happened to the white picket fence Australian dream of owning your own house and enjoying the privacy of your own back yard. The one we worked our whole life to pay off.

  10. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Iris Carter commented

    I support the application of the Menai Baptist Church to use the existing Performing Arts Centre within the Inaburra School as a place of public worship for the Menai Baptist Church.

    The Performing Arts Centre was built for the Inaburra School with the condition that the building also be made available for the community's use.

    The Menai Baptist Church is part of the community of the Sutherland Shire

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Iris Carter

  11. In Roselands NSW on “Residential” at 98 Payten Avenue, Roselands:

    Hasan commented

    4 apartment blocks 3 stories high will be towering over a suburban housing environment people will lose all privacy which will have a major effect on residents around the adjoining streets. If it was villas or townhouses wouldn't be a problem , but to stick 4 monstrosities I am against.

  12. In Newnham TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 8 Camira Street Newnham TAS 7248:

    Anthony Gordon Walsh commented

    Several years ago this address was the subject of a multiple residential proposal (2 or 3 units I think) and it was subject to adverse responses by the nearby neighbours, including me. It was dropped by the then owner and the land was sold to the current owner who then built a single residence on it. The land is supposedly large enough in area to support a second dwelling, but the end result would be very similar in amenity terms to the original proposal.

    I am not able to look at what is being proposed now, because either your system or mine will not allow me to download it. My nearby neighbour who lives at number 6 (Graeme Bowkett) has told me the development extends to within 1.4m to his side boundary and that there is an elevated deck and an overall roof height of 4.7m. If this is the case then he has every reason to think his backyard privacy will be compromised and especially adversely affect his seriously disabled wife who spends much time there, and who the home was specially built for her by Graeme to accommodate her needs.

    If the planning scheme allows discretion in this area, then maybe a good compromise decision could be to allow the development, but to require it all to be on one level - with floor and deck level at close to natural ground level at the boundary between numbers 6 and 8. This would require some excavation and possibly a concrete floor, but it would alleviate some of Graeme's concerns (and also reduce the impact on the streetscape, and also it must be conceded reduce the development's capacity to acquire a river view - the intent of the developer I would suspect).

    I am not personally affected by this application, but I like living here and I like my neighbours, including those at number 8. I would be sad if the Bowketts were forced to move because of this application as it is proposed now.

    I would like to be invited to any mediation meeting that may be arranged.

  13. In Newnham TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 8 Camira Street Newnham TAS 7248:

    Anthony Gordon Walsh commented

    Several years ago this address was the subject of a multiple residential proposal (2 or 3 units I think) and it was subject to adverse responses by the nearby neighbours, including me. It was dropped by the then owner and the land was sold to the current owner who then built a single residence on it. The land is supposedly large enough in area to support a second dwelling, but the end result would be very similar in amenity terms to the original proposal.

    I am not able to look at what is being proposed now, because either your system or mine will not allow me to download it. My nearby neighbour who lives at number 6 (Graeme Bowkett) has told me the development extends to within 1.4m to his side boundary and that there is an elevated deck and an overall roof height of 4.7m. If this is the case then he has every reason to think his backyard privacy will be compromised and especially adversely affect his seriously disabled wife who spends much time there, and who the home was specially built for her by Graeme to accommodate her needs.

    If the planning scheme allows discretion in this area, then maybe a good compromise decision could be to allow the development, but to require it all to be on one level - with floor and deck level at close to natural ground level at the boundary between numbers 6 and 8. This would require some excavation and possibly a concrete floor, but it would alleviate some of Graeme's concerns (and also reduce the impact on the streetscape, and also it must be conceded reduce the development's capacity to acquire a river view - the intent of the developer I would suspect).

    I am not personally affected by this application, but I like living here and I like my neighbours, including those at number 8. I would be sad if the Bowketts were forced to move because of this application as it is proposed now.

    I would like to be invited to any mediation meeting that may be arranged.

  14. In Mona Vale NSW on “Aged Care Facility” at 2-4 Jenkins Street & 1679 Pittwater Road, Mona Vale:

    Jane Govier commented

    I am concerned that such a large development is not compatible with a residential area. The size of the proposed development will dominate Jenkins street and will be quite out of keeping with the houses round about.

    Has there been a traffic and parking report done for this proposed development?

    Jenkins Street is already quite dangerous enough with large trucks coming and going from Shaws. Turning into Jenkins from Pittwater is quite perilous at times with delivery trucks at the current nursing home, cars parked and even backing in and out of the driveway at the nursing home. Where will all the staff and visitors to the home park? There is not enough space for parking now, let alone with a much larger facility.

    I feel that for the above stated reasons this proposed development is quite unsuitable and will be very detrimental to the surrounding area.

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

    Paul Collier commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    My Family and I moved to Glossodia approximately 2 years ago and love it. My wife and I have been born and breed in the Hawkesbury and have lived here all our lives. The area is one of semi-rural charm and Glossodia is a big part of that. Whoever in there right mind thinks that we have a need for a caravan park in this exact location obviously thinks nothing of this. There is no reason that I can think that putting a "caravan park", which even in its' own admission has provision for 150 Permanent Cabins which no doubt will become home for many undesirable persons (read: Just out of John Moroney Prison type persons). Glossodia has a low crime rate and a 'safe' feel about it, that I am sure will change should this DA go ahead. The bridge at Windsor and surrounding roads barely cope as it is now and adding the extra traffic due to this development will cause even further problems. Why you would want to put this type of development here is beyond me, there is nothing here but residences, no forms of tourist attractions at all, and I am sure that it will stay that way for a long time. I fear that this development will also have a negative effect on housing prices in not only Glossodia but also nearby suburbs.

    Please take the time to review both the DA and the letters submitted and make the correct decision.

    REJECT THIS DA.

    Paul Collier

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

    Mark Logie commented

    My family and I moved to Glossy nearly 6 years ago, I was attracted by the rural aspect, decided it would be a good place live and bring up my children. Great community, quiet and safe.

    My Wife and I strongly disapprove and disagree with the development of a Caravan Park in Glossodia.

    Items of concern for are;
    * The threat of implementing this type of low cost living - will attract undesirable people into our close community. Increase in crime and safety of our children.

    * The lowering of property values - less attractive to potential buyers and people moving into the area.

    * The contrast from our traditional low density living to high density living - A caravan park in a residential street?

    * Insufficient infrastructure to support this development - increased congestion and traffic along transport routes e.g. Bridges an local roads.

    Please take into account our concerns.

  17. In Bayswater VIC on “3 Dwellings” at 4 Edinburgh Road, Bayswater VIC 3153:

    Karina commented

    I strongly object to this subdivision. The property next door has already been subdivided and there will already be an increase in cars parked along the street. As is it can be a busy little street come peak hour as cars often cut through to avoid the traffic that banks over the hill. 3 properties on this block is crazy. I have lived in this street for 16 years. Thanks

  18. In Delacombe VIC on “Two lot subdivision” at 6 Banyule Drive, Delacombe:

    Ray Suttie commented

    Having lived in the Area for 30 years I had the understanding that this area of Delacombe had restrictions on the size of the Blocks and the type of dwelling that can be built on that land. This was one of the reasons that we purchased a house in that area.
    It seems that this may not have been correct or maybe the Ballarat Planning Laws have changed.
    I see this subdivision as the start of further similar subdivisions in this area and as such I appose it.

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

    Kelly McNamara commented

    I do not agree with the demolition. These shops are part of the town and very functional. There isnt a need for more apartments in this exact area. More appartments will be making the historical area look less. Please consider the shop owners as well of 12 walker street.

  20. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Gavin Favelle commented

    I support this application.

    I am a member of Menai Baptist Church, currently live in the Barden Ridge and have previously lived within 500m of Inaburra School for over 20 years.

    The current application is for the church to use the PAC, a building which is on the same site the church currently uses for worship services.

    The PAC is a building with better internal acoustics, better external sound insulation intended to reduce noise to surrounding residents, better disability access and with no intended additional burden on parking requirements.

    The use of this building ought not to further impact the local residents and will provide better facilities to this community organisation.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 23 Epping Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    J Wang commented

    We believe the additional apartments to be build in this two lots will create more traffic congestions to the existing tight traffic condition as Epping road is always stuck during the peak hours. also there won't be enough street parking due to the increase of populations, and the current existing amenity is not capable for there additions populations. Lots of children walk cross the street to go to Library, child care and schools, additional passenger foot bridge should be build on top of Epping road for people crossing, otherwise no safety at all.

    Council should be the PCA instead of any other private certifier to assess this Development Application. and there have been more development sites around this area, next to Epping road, cross Essex street, roughly more than 200 hundred apartments will be build within 500 meters of this site, we wish council to consider impact of number of development sites to the whole community not only this single development. More infrastructures are needed to support these additional apartments.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 23 Epping Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    J Wang commented

    We believe the additional apartments to be build in this two lots will create more traffic congestions to the existing tight traffic condition as Epping road is always stuck during the peak hours. also there won't be enough street parking due to the increase of populations, and the current existing amenity is not capable for there additions populations. Lots of children walk cross the street to go to Library, child care and schools, additional passenger foot bridge should be build on top of Epping road for people crossing, otherwise no safety at all.

    Council should be the PCA instead of any other private certifier to assess this Development Application. and there have been more development sites around this area, next to Epping road, cross Essex street, roughly more than 200 hundred apartments will be build within 500 meters of this site, we wish council to consider impact of number of development sites to the whole community not only this single development. More infrastructures are needed to support these additional apartments.

  23. In Epping NSW on “Two, five storey...” at 17-25 Epping Road Epping:

    J Wang commented

    We believe the additional apartments to be build in this lots will create more traffic congestions to the existing tight traffic condition as Epping road is always stuck during the peak hours. also there won't be enough street parking due to the increase of populations, and the current existing amenity is not capable for there additions populations. Lots of children walk cross the street to go to Library, child care and schools, additional passenger foot bridge should be build on top of Epping road for people crossing, otherwise no safety at all.

    Council should be the PCA instead of any other private certifier to assess this Development Application. and there have been more development sites around this area, next to Epping road, cross Essex street, roughly more than 200 hundred apartments will be build within 500 meters of this site, we wish council to consider impact of number of development sites to the whole community not only this single development. More infrastructures are needed to support these additional apartments.

  24. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 32 Essex Street Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    J Wang commented

    We believe the additional apartments to be build in this two lots will create more traffic congestions to the existing tight traffic condition as Epping road is always stuck during the peak hours. also there won't be enough street parking due to the increase of populations, and the current existing amenity is not capable for there additions populations. Lots of children walk cross the street to go to Library, child care and schools, additional passenger foot bridge should be build on top of Epping road for people crossing, otherwise no safety at all.

    Council should be the PCA instead of any other private certifier to assess this Development Application. and there have been more development sites around this area, next to Epping road, cross Essex street, roughly more than 200 hundred apartments will be build within 500 metres of this site, we wish council to consider impact of number of development sites to the whole community not only this single development. More infrastructures are needed to support these additional apartments.

  25. In Erina NSW on “Establishment Of Use - Dog...” at 22 Barralong Road, Erina NSW 2250:

    Bob Haysmith commented

    This DA should not proceed in it's current form. The proposal requires amendment:

    Noise.
    - The structure of the unit is not appropriate for the purpose proposed. Metal warehouses amplify & exasperate the noise produced. It is not good enough to suggest that closing the doors will be enough - it will not. The sound amplifies and bounces around and will be heard by everyone in the area. Proper sound proofing needs installing.

    The issue of 'trouble maker dogs' being excluded is not really the issue. As anyone who has been to a dog park knows, the vast majority of dogs make intermittent noise during play . These dogs will not be excluded but contribute to the nose levels. For 12 hours a day I will be forced to listen to various high pitched barking dogs. Proper sound proofing needs installing.

    Climate Control
    There are no climate control methods proposed. Those metal warehouse get really hot, even moderately warm days. I anticipate that staff will simply open up the doors for comfort, and the noise levels would further increase. Guarantees need to be made that the doors will remain shut.

    For hot 34oC+ days and no climate control the health of staff and dogs running around is at risk. Proper climate control needs installing.

    Odour control & ventilation Control
    There are no odour control & ventilation methods presented. Proper ventilation is required to prevent the build up of noxious odour as the smell of urine and wet dogs becomes unbearable for all of us (knocking water bowls and running in the mopped areas). 1) I dont want to work next to such a smell. 2) I think the business owner will find it overwhelming and open the doors - further making noise an issue. Proper odour control & ventilation methods needs installing.

    Parking.
    There is simply not enough car parking space to accommodate the business requirement. Currently, the side driveway and back of the building are full of cars from other businesses. I encourage Council to visit and take photos during a typical busy day - there is rarely more than 1 available space. When you add in the proposed Taxi Van and a Skip to the situation, where are customers supposed to go - 10-15 cars suddenly spilling onto local roads? A better parking management program needs presenting.

    The proposal also doesn't take into consideration that will be an influx of customers arriving at the same time during 5.15pm-5.45pm time-frame - and the business space is not designed to accommodate and extra 10-15 cars all arriving at once. The business owner has suggested they park on the road - but isnt this against regulations - with a business profiting from the access of public roads? The adjoining roads are already congested with heavy parking. (Again, I encourage Council to take photos). A better parking management program needs presenting.

    In summary:
    - Please install proper sound proofing.
    - Please ensure that sound levels are measured and maintained to appropriate levels, and measures are taken if not.
    - Please either install climate control or provide guarantees that the doors will not be opened.
    - Please install odour control & ventilation methods.
    - Please present a viable and realistic parking solution

  26. In Docklands VIC on “Installation of temporary...” at 85-93 Lorimer Street Docklands VIC 3008:

    ... commented

    Do not approve this application, it contradicts State Govt planning guidelines for the new precinct, it's twice the height of any other building, and the area is not geared for this many additional residences.
    Yours sincerely
    A very concerned owner
    S Young, 2307/70 Lorimer St, Docklands.

  27. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    John Lochens commented

    I support the application for the use of the performing arts center of the Innabura Complex for the use of Menai Baptist for the purpose of a meeting place and for the support of youth in the area.

    John Lochens

  28. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Graeme and Gloria Tree commented

    As members of Menai Baptist Church and residents of the 2234 area we strongly support the Development application by Menai Baptist Church to use the Inaburra Junior School Performing Arts Centre for worship services. We support this application on the following basis:

    1/ Menai Baptist Church have provided service to the local community from this site for over 30 years.

    2/ The church in using any building on the site will not make any additional impact to the amenity of the community.

    3/ The Performing Arts Centre is a purpose built building which is acoustically superior to any other building on the site and will minimise impact to the amenity of the community

    4/ Use of the performing Arts Centre will not have any impact on current parking arrangements as there is adequate parking to meet the churches need on site now and in to the future

  29. In Richmond VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 40 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Owen birrell commented

    I object to the waiver of car parking requirements. Neighboring streets are already way too congested and it is impacting the amenity of the residents. If the council requirements provide for car parking then this should be enforced.

  30. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Mary Polyblank commented

    As a residents of Menai for 30 years, I strongly support the application of the church to use the Performing Arts Centre for its services.

    The Performing Arts Centre was partly funded by a Federal Government Grant as part of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program on the basis that it be available for community use. MBC is a community that would be elegible to use this facility. It has been a provider of services to the whole community for over 30 years from the very young to the very old.

    MBC already meets on the Inaburra site and a move to a purpose built building with soundproofing and disable facilities would not only be a better situation for the congregation but the community in general as there would be a noise reduction and the opportunity for disable people to easily attend church without having to negotiate stairs. The congregation has been mindful not to park in the street and this will not change as there is plenty of off street parking.

    Giving MBC the opportunity to meet in The Performing Arts Centre would be in the spirit of the BER funding, to deny it would be to discriminate against the disable and elderly. To reject this proposal on the basis of its impact on the neighbourhood would cause one to think that MBC is being singled out from the rest of the community. Other community organization who use sporting facilities, clubs and other places of worship have far more impact on neighbours in terms of noise and traffic than this proposal will have.

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