Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Patrick Brewis commented

    Margaret McCartney>
    I understand your concerns, however Epping being a crucial strategic location in a city that is rapidly growing, needs further development to accommodate this growth. I believe maintaining anti development stance would be extremely unfair to those young people who cannot get a foothold in the housing market. We need to open minded and really question whether sitting on quarter acre blocks is sustainable in a city where space is fast running out.

  2. In Clovelly NSW on “Producer/wholesaler licence...” at U 5 3 Lowe St, Clovelly, NSW:

    Alan Treisman commented

    APP-0002308343 (allows wine tastings, 10AM-midnight Mon-Sat and 10AM-10PM on Sun)

    Our property is situated directly across the road from the applicant's.
    The license requested includes permission for the licensee to run wine-tastings from the premises until mid-night every day except Sunday. The business premises are situated in a unit block in a very quiet residential area, and we find this inappropriate. Also, the storage of large quantities of wine in a unit block must be a fire hazard, that would require special consideration for a non-commercial area.
    The wine tasting activities will cause a lot of noise and foot and car traffic of couriers picking up alcohol for delivery. I understand from a second submission that the applicant will be selling over the internet, however the hours of trade indicate that business will be conducted to the fullest extent and does not preclude the options available on the licenses under consideration.
    Furthermore, no Public Consultation has taken place and there is no Site Notice at the street level of the property

  3. In Launceston TAS on “Bulky Goods Sales - solar...” at 145-147A Wellington Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Dr Gloria Karagianis commented

    Dear LCC Planning Authority,

    I wish to provide the following comments in relation to this application.

    1. Document Set ID: 3384573 v1, page 1 paragraph 1 states "An existing shed at the rear of the property will be used as a workshop". Letter dated 9 November 2016 by Pitt & Sherry states the shed will used for the "assembly and repair of solar panels, solar hot water systems and related products".

    With regards to the above statements, what measures will be put in place to reduce or eliminate noise generated by the workshop? What impact will the noise generated by the workshop activities have on the quite enjoyment of the adjoining private residences? What measures will be in place for waste removal, that is, Council waste collection system or commercial contractor and what time and day will this occur?

    2. Page 8, paragraph 1 states "low key use which generates minimal traffic". What evidence and statistics are there to prove this claim? Where are the access ways to enter and exit the site located, this doesn't seem to be clearly marked on any diagram? Are there any other access ways available or permitted by staff and customers to use?

    3. Appendix 2 Title Information Diagram 28809 is marked with a " Right of Way" but does not clearly indicated the entrance and exit points of it. Is this Right of Way associated with the Titles for Dunaldon Cottages on Wellington St and Dunaldon Terraces at 98-102 Balfour St and townhouses at 96 & 94 Balfour St? What measures will be put in place to ensure residential and commercial vehicles enter and exit the Right of Way safely?

    Thank-you for the opportunity to comment.

  4. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 67 Essex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    I strongly object to the proposal of 8 double storey on the named site (will they be boxes which are out of character of the area .And no reduction of standard car parking requirements .There is already a big problem with car parking in the area ,and with cars parked on the street it makes it very hard for vehicles driving along the streets

  5. In Plumpton NSW on “Dual Occupancy (2...” at 360 Rooty Hill Road North Plumpton NSW 2761:

    Wanda Tekiela commented

    Could council be kind enough so send me a "FOI' form so I can have details of the DA for the development DA-16-05005).
    thankyou

    wanda

  6. In Plumpton NSW on “Dual Occupancy (2...” at 360 Rooty Hill Road North Plumpton NSW 2761:

    Wanda Tekiela commented

    Thankyou Joseph, thats a great idea

  7. In Narangba QLD on “Material Change of Use –...” at 23 Young Road, Narangba QLD 4504:

    Larry Kling wrote to local councillor Brooke Savige

    Just wanting to know the name of the company who will be at this site as I may wish to gain employment?

    Photo of Brooke Savige
    Brooke Savige local councillor for Moreton Bay Regional Council
    replied to Larry Kling

    Good afternoon Larry,
    At this point we don't have a lot of information. We know the development applications were lodged by the Castalia Group and they have advised they expect to be operational by December 2017. They may send through details of someone who can deal with employment opportunities in the near future. If I do get this information I will be sure to forward it on.
    Thanks
    Brooke

    Kind Regards,
    Brooke Savige
    Councillor - Division 1
    Mobile 0491 222 149
    Office 5433 2958
    Moreton Bay Regional Council
    PO Box 159, Caboolture 4510
    www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au

    On 14 Nov. 2016, at 1:48 pm, Larry Kling <> wrote:

    Just wanting to know the name of the company who will be at this site as I may wish to gain employment?

    From Larry Kling to local councillor Brooke Savige

    =========================================================================

    Larry Kling posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Larry Kling and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 23 Young Road, Narangba QLD 4504

    Description: Material Change of Use – Development Permit for Special Care Facility (91 Beds) and Reconfiguring a Lot – Development Permit (2 into 2 Lots)

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/539598?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts
    ________________________________
    MORETON BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (MBRC) PRIVILEGED PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL - The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may attract legal privilege. It is only intended for the named recipient/s. If you are not a named recipient any use of this information including copying, distribution and publication is prohibited. Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived or lost as a result of mistaken or erroneous delivery. If you are not a named recipient, please delete all copies immediately and contact the sender to advise of the error.
    It is recommended that you scan this email and any attachment before opening. MBRC does not accept any responsibility or liability for loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from opening this email, opening any attachments or any communication errors.
    The views expressed in this email and any attachments are the personal views of the sender unless otherwise stated.

  8. In Camberwell VIC on “Redevelopment of Camberwell...” at 35 Fairholm Grove Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Margaret Bickell commented

    Does this application also cover the council property at 33 Fairholm Grove? This is currently the Camberwell Community Centre, which I understand is being redeveloped.

  9. In South Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 197 Kissing Point Road, South Turramurra, NSW:

    John & Mary Loo Briggs commented

    This proposal will require constructive thinking to avoid further expansion of existing traffic flows, parking and human safety. Parking restrictions in KPRoad are regularly ignored and Canoon Road is already a single lane road when parking is utilized on either side.The corner, some 75 metres south of proposed development is already an accident known hotspot with many instances of vehicles mounting nature strips and entering properties,

  10. In Wahroonga NSW on “MOD for DA0060/15 - Staged...” at 35 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Bryn commented

    With the current works that are underway there have been some traffic problems with tradesmen parked directly in front of the property, which, when car(s) are turning right into Roland Ave during the morning peak means cars can't pass on the left and grid lock can occur.
    I'd strongly recommend that a condition be placed on the DA to have temporary "no stopping" signs placed opposite Roland Ave in front of the development property to alleviate this problem

  11. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Tanya Harper commented

    This proposal doesnt fit with the surrounding neighbourhood on many levels. Firstly the size of it is as big as some of the small schools around the area, this is a residential street and having 141 childcare centre is too large for the street. Where will all these children go in the event of an emergency, it is located on the corner of a very busy and dangerous round a bout, there is no park or open space close by the locate the children if the centre needed to be evacuated, like other child care centres around the area. View St is a narrow st that already has numerous car accidents ranging from mirrors being knocked off our cars if we park out the front to cars colliding with power poles from speeding down our street to collisions with other cars. the amount of additional traffic that will be generated at already busy times of the day for View and Wandella St is going to cause the roads to be further clogged. There has been no consideration for the neighbours whose houses will devalue as no one will want to live next to such a big centre of 141 children. there will be more cars parked on the street from the centre as there is not enough parking underneath for all the staff and parents, View St will become even more of a rat run for traffic.

  12. In South Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 197 Kissing Point Road, South Turramurra, NSW:

    PETA Stewart commented

    This is an ill advised use of this property. Adding up to an additional 52 cars seeking parking for morning and afternoon drop off in this area will create a traffic nightmare. There is no legal parking on either street frontage to this property or to the opposite sides. The corner preceding This property is an ALready known Black spot for traffic accidents, adding small children and distracted parents will only compound this.
    Car regularly park illegally on this stretch of road to service the Villas at (199) mostly outpatients of Lady Davidson Hospital reducing residents visibly and access to their own properties .

  13. In South Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 197 Kissing Point Road, South Turramurra, NSW:

    Cathy Black commented

    Multiple Public access, by car & foot, to this property would be dangerous particularly as the small section of KP rd from the bend at 205 (on same side as development proposal) & 212 (opp side) is a known black-spot for speeding cars, cars cutting the corner then mounting curbs, crashing into resident fences & being a threat to pedestrians using existing footpaths.
    Long time residents on KP rd already have issues with access to/from our own properties particularly during netball season & school times with bumper to bumper traffic & congested pedestrian traffic on footpaths & blind-sided parking on the street - we don't need more congestion!

  14. In Bexley NSW on “356 & 358-368 Forest Road...” at 356 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Melody commented

    What a ridiculous proposal at a congested and dangerous location which already has serious problems with parking and traffic safety. 7 storeys is absurd please reduce the size of the development. It's is completely out of scale with the surrounding buildings and there is not enough public transport to cope with this amount of units.

  15. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 73 Gale Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    John Papayianakis commented

    To whom it may concern,

    My name is John Papayianakis and I live at 88 mason street maroubra 2036 with my wife Georgina Papayianakis. We are long time residents of this address of 20 years. I am writing to you regarding the building application submitted for 73 gale road maroubra. I am opposing the proposed application as I feel the building is too high and too large for the given block and placement of the block in the street.

    My individual concerns regarding my property and the proposed application of 73 gale road, is that there will be 4 balconies facing into my backyard with a possible two more at ground level facing directly on to the rear of my house, windows and doors etc. The concerns that I am facing are privacy infringements, noise infringement and an eyesore from my vantage point.

    I feel that I will no longer be comfortable using my own backyard. My wife and I take great pleasure in using the backyard. I urge you to please consider the serious impact that this huge dwelling will have on my property/ lifestyle and surrounding existing properties.

    Regards
    John Papayianakis

  16. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 73 Gale Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    John Papayianakis commented

    To whom it may concern,

    My name is John Papayianakis and I live at 88 mason street maroubra 2036 with my wife Georgina Papayianakis. We are long time residents of this address of 20 years. I am writing to you regarding the building application submitted for 73 gale road maroubra. I am opposing the proposed application as I feel the building is too high and too large for the given block and placement of the block in the street.

    My individual concerns regarding my property and the proposed application of 73 gale road, is that there will be 4 balconies facing into my backyard with a possible two more at ground level facing directly on to the rear of my house, windows and doors etc. The concerns that I am facing are privacy infringements, noise infringement and an eyesore from my vantage point.

    I feel that I will no longer be comfortable using my own backyard. My wife and I take great pleasure in using the backyard. I urge you to please consider the serious impact that this huge dwelling will have on my property/ lifestyle and surrounding existing properties.

    Regards
    John Papayianakis

  17. In Morisset NSW on “Telecommunications Facility” at 40 Ourimbah Street, Morisset NSW 2264:

    Douglas Lawrence wrote to local councillor Jodie Harrison

    I think it is inappropriate to have a communications tower this close to a residential area, as the jury is still out as to the heath effects of exposure to these high strength signals. We don't want this to be the next asbestos so it should be located well away from residential areas.

    Delivered to local councillor Jodie Harrison. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I would like to know which tree this application is applying to remove from 7 Forest Grove, Epping as there are very few trees remaining on this development site. I hope this does not mean the only reasonably sized tree on the nature strip near this property is now to be removed. To remove this tree from our street is unacceptable as it is picturesque, shady and cannot be replaced. We need to keep as many trees as we possibly can in the street. A large gum tree was recently removed from 19 Forest Grove, Epping, due to electrical caballing, and the street is now very hot. We residents are also very upset. I believe to remove another tree from our street would be detrimental to the environment and should not be allowed.

  19. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Leon Wreyford commented

    This Hotel is a well known historic landmark and is in need of a makeover but not demolition. It has served the locals for over a century - and continues to do so.
    We are not in need of another service station just 30 seconds from the B.P (which is often quiet and has ample pumps for a much larger population). There is also a mega
    Caltex across the road. What is the point in destroying our local Heritage and a perfectly functioning well patronized popular Pub and Restaurant? How does this serve the local community ... Tripling up on identical services located in the same 500 sq metre block ?

  20. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 88 Empress Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Rena wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    Although within a Heritage Overlay, it looks like the property itself is classified (rightly or wrongly) as non-contributory. The council guidelines for the demolition of non-contributory houses within a heritage overlay are as follows.

    New buildings, additions and alterations to non-contributory places in a Heritage Overlay - ensure proposals are respectful of the existing scale, massing, form and siting of 'significant' or 'contributory' places in the heritage precinct, as these places are viewed from the street
    -ensure proposals are respectful of the context of adjacent 'significant' or 'contributory' places, the immediate streetscape and the heritage precinct as a whole
    - encourage good quality contemporary design and discourage the replication of historic forms and detailing.

    I guess the best we can hope for is that these guidelines will ensure a respectful and considered redevelopment of this property.

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Rena

    Hello Rena
    I am happy to discuss this matter further with you if you would like to contact me - email or phone.
    regards
    Jane Addis
    Councillor - Maling Ward
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    City of Boroondara
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Mobile: 0409 2670 902
    Email:
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity|Collaboration|Accountability|Innovation|Respect
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Rena
    Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 5:20 PM
    To: Jane Addis <>
    Subject: Planning application at 88 Empress Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127

    Although within a Heritage Overlay, it looks like the property itself is classified (rightly or wrongly) as non-contributory. The council guidelines for the demolition of non-contributory houses within a heritage overlay are as follows.

    New buildings, additions and alterations to non-contributory places in a Heritage Overlay - ensure proposals are respectful of the existing scale, massing, form and siting of 'significant' or 'contributory' places in the heritage precinct, as these places are viewed from the street -ensure proposals are respectful of the context of adjacent 'significant' or 'contributory' places, the immediate streetscape and the heritage precinct as a whole
    - encourage good quality contemporary design and discourage the replication of historic forms and detailing.

    I guess the best we can hope for is that these guidelines will ensure a respectful and considered redevelopment of this property.

    From Rena to local councillor Jane Addis

    =========================================================================

    Rena posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Rena and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 88 Empress Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127

    Description: Demolition of an existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling in a Heritage Overlay

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/746817?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  21. In Plumpton NSW on “Dual Occupancy (2...” at 360 Rooty Hill Road North Plumpton NSW 2761:

    Joseph Bajada commented

    Wanda
    Why don't you submit a "Freedom of information " form to council asking for detail on the DA for the development.
    Joe

  22. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 23...” at 4-10 Prospect Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    Over development of site:23 units are too many.
    Out of character for neighbourhood Triple storey....most dwellings inthe area are Single.
    Triple storey is out of character for street and neighbourhood not acceptable.
    Reduction of Parking for the site is a No No prospect street parking already a huge Problem;Jack and Daisies Cafe,summer pool Parking,and other existing units corner cumberland rd. prospect street etc.
    Dangerous Traffic Congestion when turning from prospect street into Cumberland road,many accidents and near misses have occurred ,view is obscured because of parking in cumberland road Right and left.
    Privacyof neighbouring properties.already overdevelopment is destroying area character.

  23. In Plumpton NSW on “Dual Occupancy (2...” at 360 Rooty Hill Road North Plumpton NSW 2761:

    Wanda Tekiela commented

    please provide us at 362 Rooty Hill Road North, Plumpton 2761 with full details as to what the application is for. as previous application was for a group home (transition home) We would like to see the plans submitted so that we have time to read over the proposal.
    thankyou

    kind regards

    wanda

  24. In Camberwell VIC on “Redevelopment of Camberwell...” at 35 Fairholm Grove Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M Martin wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    I hope you are not going to pull this building down

    Delivered to local councillor Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 88 Empress Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lynette (another exasperated local resident) commented

    Can you explain to me (and other residents) what the point is of a Heritage Overlay when an old heritage weatherboard house can be demolished

  26. In Bexley NSW on “356 & 358-368 Forest Road...” at 356 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Freda Macrozonaris commented

    And another thing, how can Melissa Rodrigues, the Town Planner, think the height won't impact anyone. Look around. It's easy to see how it will. This height is just unbelievable. Think again. She really needs to think, again.

  27. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    Oppose 15 Park Lane commented

    RE: 15 Park Lane, Kew​​
    VCAT Ref: P2270/2016

    The council refused the above application for planning permit.

    The developer has applied to VCAT for a review of the refusal.

    You have the right to have your opinion considered by VCAT even if you did not previously object to Council. It is important that you act swiftly as all documents need to be lodged with VCAT, Council and Ratio Consultants by 28th November 2016. Considering mail now takes up to a week, we will be hand delivering our documents on the 28th November. To assist, we are happy to hand deliver other objectors documents at the same time. Please contact us to arrange collection.

    Residents are encouraged to submit a Statement of Grounds at this crucial stage. The more objections that are received by VCAT, the greater weight that the local community concerns will carry. Attending and speaking at the hearing will further strengthen the case.

    If you have any expertise in this area, or are willing to help us fight this inappropriate development, please contact us as soon as possible.

    We also intend to have a meeting before the VCAT hearing to discuss strategies. If you are interested in attending, please provide us your contact details.

    Your immediate options are:

    1. Lodge a statement of grounds and elect not to attend the hearing. NO CHARGE
    You may submit an objection or resubmit your previous objections. If you do not have a copy we can assist you to obtain one from council.

    2. Lodge a statement of grounds and attend the hearing, but elect not to speak at the hearing. NO CHARGE
    You will be able to attend and listen to all arguments at the hearing. Although you are not able to speak, you can discuss your concerns with other objectors who have elected to speak.

    3. PREFERRED OPTION
    Lodge a statement of grounds and request to speak at the hearing.
    FEE $19.50
    You will be able to present your case and question the developer and their representatives.

    Important dates:
    Deadline for Lodgement of Statement of Grounds
    28th November 2016

    Final VCAT Hearing Date
    26th April to 28th April 2017

    If you have any further questions, or need help accessing and/or filling out forms, please make contact via the email below

    Email: oppose15parklane@gmail.com

    The statement of Grounds form can be found at the below link:

    https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/resources/statement-of-grounds-planning-and-environment-list

  28. In Bexley NSW on “356 & 358-368 Forest Road...” at 356 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Freda Macrozonaris commented

    Way to high. revamo yes. But keep height as it is. It's way too crowded. Whoever approved this, please reconsider see. As you can see by comments. No one is happy about this. And we pay rates so we have a say.

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

    amanda Lehane commented

    Joel R .....its not about not in my backyard attitude. Please correct me if I am wrong on the following facts as I understand them. The full property (now 3 sites) were purchased with intention to remove existing house to enable multiple unit development. Council rejected the application, hence the house remains. This house was sold and is now rented. Units were planned for curzon st but entry and exit were via Arthur St. However, this small block was divided up and sold. I am concerned with parking (residents and visitors) along a very busy street. I would also like to know if the driveway on Curzon St for the house on Arthur St referred to had council approval as I didnt see it come up on planning alert.

  30. In East Killara NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 21 Larchmont Avenue, East Killara, NSW:

    D. Carter commented

    This houses should be listed as a heritage listing it is one of the original houses built by architects Spain and Cosh. Sydney architects that built substantial buildings in Sydney and a modernist era. It was an example of a modernist era and also is one of the few remaining in east Killara.
    It is untouched since built in 1958 and has significant period features ie fireplace and also layout of the plan. This firm was responsible or great buildings and their houses should not be forgotten.
    This houses also was sold with the original plans and was significant to the era.

    The areas history is being lost Again.

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