Recent comments

  1. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 3 Lots” at 6 Mary Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Helen Hampton commented

    Why is this map displaying the house next door in Range St with a glimpse of the dividing fence to the Grand Old Lady in Mary St?
    Is the intention to demolish her or squeeze other blocks around her ?

  2. In Coolum Beach QLD on “Showroom, Garden Centre and...” at 39 Barns Lane, Coolum Beach, QLD:

    David Balchin commented

    This application should be approved without hesitation, i get sick and tired of having to go to Maroochydore or Nossa Bunnings, also while i am in those towns i will do other shopping that i could be doing in Coolum.
    Another reason is that the back entrance to coolum off the Motorway is just ugly and makes your first view of Coolum not much at all, i am sure that what Bunnings are proposing will make that look much better and appealing.
    i wish residents in Coolum area would for once get behind some local Development and get Coolum out of the 1950s and 60s and attract more business to the area.

  3. In Oatlands NSW on “Conversion of Dwelling to a...” at 15 Ellis Street, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    Jennifer commented

    I live in the street and I know from experience that it is difficult (dangerous) to enter/exit the driveway when there are many cars parked in the street, just from the volume of cars due to the simple living in the street.

    The narrow street makes it dangerous for people/children crossing between cars and for cars to pass.

    The area is a family friendly environment and the homes have been built to allow the neighbourhood to be safe environment for families.

    The description for the application is for a Boarding House, which is quite vague and does not prevent it from being or becoming a halfway house.... even if it starts as a lower income residential property... there is no monitoring after the application is granted and the residents would have less say then.

    Again the vagueness of the description 'Boarding House' does not allow us to know if there will be deliveries etc that will be like run it like a business.

    Also I only found out by word-of-mouth, The fact that this is a completely different structure to all the properties in the street, I feel it should have been made known to all the residents especially if it is not going to be a problem.

    I also agree with the other comment posted earlier.. the area does not support the facilities that would assist people staying in a boarding house.

  4. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 365-367 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Michael Angear commented

    I strongly object to an additional Mosque being built in this area, already being one on the Hallam/Belgrave road and traffic at times is ridiculous, no need for more Mosques where residents have invested so much time in these homes to create such a beautiful environment only to be spoilt with that of an ugly Mosque and its surrounding buildings, enough is enough.
    I for one would consider moving away from the City of Casey if this were to go ahead.
    So please consider the residents whom have been in the area for decades and reject this approval for a Mosque.

  5. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 19 Dorrington Avenue Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    A number of objectors including myself have been contacted directly via phone and email by the applicant of this planning proposal requesting objections be withdrawn. I consider this to be highly inappropriate. If, as reported, the Darebin Council Planner responsible for assessing the planning application recommended this course of action then to my mind they have also acted inappropriately. Surely it would be better to initiate a community consultation meeting like we used to have in Darebin to allow some discussion of how the application could be improved.

  6. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 19 Dorrington Avenue Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on March 8th 2016 at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org

  7. In Chatswood NSW on “Demolition of structures,...” at 654 Pacific Highway, 666 Pacific Highway, 1 Freeman Road and 2A Oliver Road, Chatswood NSW 2067:

    Aaron Wu commented


    In a recent development proposal for 688-692 Pacific Hwy (page 312, http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=11731)
    the council commissioned an independent architect (Kennedy and Associates) to investigate the proposal. Given both developments are just 150m apart and both located on the same side of Pacific Hwy, the architect's report can serve a good reference for the 654 Pacific Hwy development as well.

    Below is the conclusion from the report (page 312): (page 312, http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=11731):

    "In our opinion, should this planning proposal be supported and approved it will have immediately redefined the urban character of Chatswood for the entire extent of the highway between at least Freeman Road and Railway Street and potentially much further.

    This is the key urban design question raised by this planning proposal.

    It is a strategic issue which only Council can address, but in our opinion, unless Council is prepared to accept a significant change in the urban character of not only CBD but also its immediately adjoining precincts' it would be wise to maintain the status quo and, limit the height of buildings along the western side of the Pacific Highway to something similar to those currently in place.

    Alternatively, if the council are prepared to support a change in the use and height of the western side of Pacific Highway then it would be imperative for council to look at the entire strip in one single exercise and establish a new hierarchy of heights, including for the subject site."

    In the architect's report it has reservation on the proposal to increase height of buildings on the western side of Pacific Hwy as it will create Island effect and would significantly change the urban character in the area.

    The report was done few months after the council accepted proposal and rezoned the 654 Pacific Hwy property to allow the building height to increase from original 18m to 36m. This is very concerning as the council made a significant change without consulting an independent architect advice.

    The development will create island effect if the building is allowed as it is surrounded by relatively new buildings which offer no possibility of redevelopment for a long period of time. For a building in that height it will be an island on the western side of pacific Hwy.

    I strongly urge the panel to engage an independent architect to review the 654 Pacific Hwy development proposal and the entire strip in one single exercise to establish a new hierarchy of heights as suggested by the architect.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Aaron Wu

  8. In Preston VIC on “A five (5) storey building...” at 466 High Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Nerissa Murphy commented

    Thanks Maria. Do you know if this is the same application that went up previously and was rubber stamped by Darebin Council a few years ago. We objected at the time. Are you aware if the applicant has changed their application?
    Thanks
    Nerissa

  9. In Coolum Beach QLD on “Showroom, Garden Centre and...” at 39 Barns Lane, Coolum Beach, QLD:

    Donna Higgins commented

    This application should never have been considered at all . Firstly, the congestion is already at a maximum for the roads around the school. Secondly, the children's safety and health would be at a very high risk with more traffic around the school area. Thirdly, what happens to the 2 well equipped, experienced hardware stores and numerous other businesses who are already in the Coolum area? The Bunnings north and south of Coolum are close enough for our size population. Most people think that Bunnings is cheaper. Well I know from experience that is NOT always the case. Fourthly, What an eyesore to welcome national and international visitors to our small coastal village (apparently).
    Please remember, we are the Sunshine Coast, not the Gold Coast. And that is why most of us chose to live here in the first place.

  10. In Leichhardt NSW on “Tenant complaining of bat...” at Tirrawarra Apartments 69 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Deanna Payne commented

    I have also written letter to Dept OfHousing, no response in 3 weeks will ring,thus tree is growing so low over Marion Street,was almost hit by a branch which a bus collected a few weeks ago,we need Council on our side to help us get the dept of housing to act,the roots are actually destroying no 67 Marion Street,something needs to be done about this tree and soon ,

  11. In Chippendale NSW on “S96 (2) - Modifications to...” at 4-12 Buckland Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Barbara Hilliard commented

    The ironwork fencing and sandstone base of the Blackfriars preschool are part of the last remaining charming heritage structures left in Buckland Street. We protest strongly.

  12. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    Dee commented

    As a resident of Roseville Chase with a young family I oppose this development. The site is close to a children's playground and primary school. I fear for the safety of my child due to the types of people being attracted to low cost housing in a family centred suburb.

  13. In North Sydney NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 144-154 Pacific Highway and 18 Berry Street North Sydney:

    B. Zhou commented

    Subject to: 144-154 Pacific Highway and 18 Berry Street North Sydney

    Really concerned about this new development has its west-facing-wall too close to No.12-16 Berry St building which has east-facing windows from level 5 up.

  14. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 648 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Dorothy Roach commented

    Area already well serviced by medical clinics.
    Patients attending clinic have no parking and many will be unable to walk any distance to clinic. Cars and taxis dropping patients at entrance will make the area very congested.
    Staff will require parking spaces too - especially doctors who need quick access to clinic. Further traffic congestion in Burke Road.
    Highly unsuitable location for this type of business.

  15. In Rural View QLD on “Home Based Business...” at 29 Bjelke Circuit Rural View QLD 4740:

    Sally Pots commented

    I would like to discuss the conditions of this application.

  16. In Rural View QLD on “Home Based Business...” at 29 Bjelke Circuit Rural View QLD 4740:

    Sally Pots commented

    I would like to discuss the conditions of this application.

  17. In Kensington NSW on “Section 96 (1A): To include...” at 11 Houston Road Kensington NSW 2033:

    Lisa Walpole commented

    To whom it may concern,

    This boarding house is in breach on 2 accounts.

    1. Garbage bin room is not big enough to house the allocated number of bins.

    6.2.1 Waste bins
    Council will provide the following receptacles to medium-rise
    developments:
    One 240L MGB for garbage, on a ratio of one bin per two dwellings;
    One 240L MGB for recycling, on a ratio of one bin per two dwellings.

    Where will the other bins go? On the street? Or will there just be less bins so the excess rubbish ends up on the street. This is a common problem around the Kingsford area costing the council thousands for extra rubbish removal of dumped rubbish.

    2. Unit no1 is too large to be accepted under the "Planning provisions for boarding houses" http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Policy-and-Legislation/Housing/~/media/D7796C1818794D238F49F77F2D792365.ashx

    Room size: 12m² for single boarding rooms and 16m² for doubles.
    Maximum room size: 25m².
    Maximum room occupancy: Two adult lodgers.

  18. In Strathfield NSW on “Further plans have been...” at 2-4 Mintaro Avenue, Strathfield, NSW, Australia:

    Tonia Kisliakov commented

    I strongly oppose this building application as it will spoil a significant residential area. To build flats/units in a residential area should be opposed. More and more developers are putting more people into crammed small units. This will increase traffic and spoil the area
    There is no reason that this area should be spoiled. Developers only want their money for greedy purposes

  19. In Preston VIC on “Development of a five (5)...” at 305 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    George Kiriakidis commented

    5 Storeys is just too high for this area.
    This is what I call modern slum, ugly concrete buildings.
    Overshadowing, no privacy for peoples backyards.
    Parking and traffic issues.

  20. In Preston VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 90 Spring Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  21. In Oatlands NSW on “Conversion of Dwelling to a...” at 15 Ellis Street, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    Sarah Gatehouse commented

    I believe that this is inappropriate area for a boarding house. Please see my concerns below -

    It is not close to the attractions of Parramatta city.

    The street is narrow and would not accommodate large motor homes or numerous vehicles being parked on the street, when you drive in the street, you already have to be careful without parked vehicles.

    It is a quiet residential area

    There is no similar accommodation nearby such as hotels etc

    There are no facilities close by to accommodate the needs of people staying at the boarding house. The local shops don't stay open late.

  22. In Coolum Beach QLD on “Showroom, Garden Centre and...” at 39 Barns Lane, Coolum Beach, QLD:

    Chloe stokes commented

    Dear council.

    If bunnings was needed in coolum it should be built in the industrial estate where big sheds go that sell building materials- there are nice big roads with pleanty of other trade specific business that are all out there to so bunnings can face the business they will be shutting down.

    There is also a petrol station in the industrial area that services all sorts of vehicles 24/7.

    Bunnings is only located 15 minutes north or south in both directions which seems silly as to why we need another oversized hardware right in town.

    They will need to build roads which will cause more traffic jams on our one road into town.

    Increased traffic to the area near the school will put our tiney kids at more risk to traffic dangers, people dangers, and pollution from all the increased activities - there fresh lungs dont want to be smelling car fumes and petrol fumes while they are trying to learn and play.

    Be realistic we dont need it.

    It will only force our local mitre 10, paint shops, nurserys, hot food shop, corner stores and most of other little business we have clinging on as it is.

    Please take into consideration all these points and really connect with the community to see what we want in our community not what big multi million dollar business want cause we all now they stuff everything up.

    Support the local business and your community after all we are they ones that live here. :)

  23. In Redland Bay QLD on “Combined Apartment...” at 152-158 Broadwater Terrace, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jonathan Gill commented

    Another high density (by Bayside standards) application allowed by the council as a money grab. The Council can try to blame this on the State Government planning legislation all they like but Redland Bay barely has the infrastructure to support it's current population, let alone approving shameful developments of this density.

  24. In Preston VIC on “A five (5) storey building...” at 466 High Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  25. In Reservoir VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 55 Barry Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  26. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 26 Cool Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  27. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 10 Dennis Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  28. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed four (4) double...” at 65 Dundee Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  29. In Thornbury VIC on “Medium density housing...” at 59 Normanby Avenue Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  30. In Preston VIC on “Development of a five (5)...” at 305 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

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