Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. In Randwick NSW on “Outdoor dining for five (5)...” at 57 Frenchmans Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    celia donovan commented

    this stretch of road has become increasingly dangerous for pedestrians due to the increased food and retail - namely the bake bar on one side, bunnings and the QE supermarket on the other. There is no safe means of crossing and traffic is both heavy and fast. there are also blind spots due to the road's curve. There is also a large block of apartments going up. Council have to put in a pedestrian crossing as a matter of urgency as it is clear pedestrians will not walk up to the lights at frenchmans and clovelly road intersection. Please.

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

    A.S commented

    Seven stories is much too high and letting this happen so close to main intersection and shopping centre will then turn Bexley into the ugly mess that Rockdale is starting to turn into, where will these peoples cars go, where will their kids go to school, where will they go to shop, hospital. how many more will be fighting to get on to Forest, Harrow or Bexley Rd each morning peak hour? Stop the over development, three stories is ample, sick of greedy developers who contribute zilch to infrastructure building these monstrosities .
    think of all the locals that will be affected by this, and overshadowing a primary school and art deco block of units, time to say NO for a change

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

    Joel R wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    To Councillors,
    I support this application if done in the right way. 3 town houses on a large block is by no means adding a lot of traffic problems or stresses on the local infrastructure. From reviewing the plans attached to the application there seems to be an attempt to at least use materials that tie into the local surrounding properties.
    East Toowoomba, Mount Lofty and Rangeville are considered "blue chip" real estate in Toowoomba - it is no wonder people want to live here.
    The Council needs to find a balance, 3 townhouses on a block that could fit 7 or 8 two bed units, is probably a good balance.
    The NIMBY attitude is not great in the area but I like living here for the trees, parks, coffee shops and nice houses/new town houses. There is a balance that can be achieved. Look at Paddington/Toowong/Auchenflower in Brisbane.

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Joel R

    Thanks Joel
    Kind regards

    Cr Carol Taylor
    Sent from my iPhone
    0417723948
    Please excuse typographical errors!

    On 12 Nov. 2016, at 9:34 am, Joel R <> wrote:

    To Councillors,
    I support this application if done in the right way. 3 town houses on a large block is by no means adding a lot of traffic problems or stresses on the local infrastructure. From reviewing the plans attached to the application there seems to be an attempt to at least use materials that tie into the local surrounding properties.
    East Toowoomba, Mount Lofty and Rangeville are considered "blue chip" real estate in Toowoomba - it is no wonder people want to live here.
    The Council needs to find a balance, 3 townhouses on a block that could fit 7 or 8 two bed units, is probably a good balance.
    The NIMBY attitude is not great in the area but I like living here for the trees, parks, coffee shops and nice houses/new town houses. There is a balance that can be achieved. Look at Paddington/Toowong/Auchenflower in Brisbane.

    From Joel R to local councillor Carol Taylor

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

    Joel R 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 Joel R and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350

    Description: Combined MCU and PSW Multiple Dwelling 3x3 Bedroom Units

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/742336?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ== to report this email as spam.

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    ***************************************

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

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

    C Man commented

    It will make the place a lot busier and 7 stories is too much it would overshadow everything else.

  14. In Chippendale NSW on “Use of 12sqm of the public...” at 3 Kensington Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Adrian commented

    Before seating is approved which would contribute nicely to the ambience of the street, Council must accept that Kensington St is not being maintained currently with much rubbish to the underside of the plant protectors. The plant protectors are getting hit by delivery trucks as are bike racks next to Andiamo. Multiple bollards have mysteriously disappeared which allows more parking to this street and chefs from Kensington St alley sit on the benches and smoke outside of other businesses.

    These areas of concern need to be addressed prior to external seating being implemented.

  15. In Fitzroy VIC on “One new building, part...” at 229 Smith St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Karen commented

    This property is directly adjacent to residential apartments on its south, west and north sides. Any approval for use as a restaurant or licensed premise should be conditional on appropriate sound proofing - i.e. no roof garden or outdoor courtyard. Otherwise there will be a significant negative impact on the amenity of all surrounding neighbours.

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

    Darryl Hodge wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
    1. The potential impacts are numerous, considerations such as car parking, traffic and acoustic impacts and the overall scale and intensity of the use of the site is questionable.
    2. The proposed lot sizes would not be compatible with existing lots in the immediate locality. I do not believe this development would preserve the heritage residential character of the area.
    3. This development application is likely to be of interest to Council and/or is of a contentious nature.
    The fact that it is possibly fast tracked under a Code Assessment brings into question if all internal and external concerned parties are fully informed of the potential impacts. I believe this application is impact assessable and should receive submissions during public notification. It should be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for determination and hopefully their refusal.
    Considering the questions raised during the initial sub-division regarding the approval without any provision for a driveway to the current house. The fact that money then had to be paid by the new owner (of the corner lot) to Council for approval to remove a single tree for access to his property, however the 100+ year old Norfolk Pines were able to be removed without restriction brings into question the complete lack of transparency the process has.
    Why does this application not have to go through the protocols that other applications throughout Toowoomba have to go through?

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Darryl Hodge

    Dear Darryl
    Thank you for your email
    I have referred it to our Planning councillor and general manager
    Kind regards

    Cr Carol Taylor
    Sent from my iPhone
    0417723948
    Please excuse typographical errors!

    On 11 Nov. 2016, at 4:42 pm, Darryl Hodge <> wrote:

    I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
    1. The potential impacts are numerous, considerations such as car parking, traffic and acoustic impacts and the overall scale and intensity of the use of the site is questionable.
    2. The proposed lot sizes would not be compatible with existing lots in the immediate locality. I do not believe this development would preserve the heritage residential character of the area.
    3. This development application is likely to be of interest to Council and/or is of a contentious nature.
    The fact that it is possibly fast tracked under a Code Assessment brings into question if all internal and external concerned parties are fully informed of the potential impacts. I believe this application is impact assessable and should receive submissions during public notification. It should be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for determination and hopefully their refusal.
    Considering the questions raised during the initial sub-division regarding the approval without any provision for a driveway to the current house. The fact that money then had to be paid by the new owner (of the corner lot) to Council for approval to remove a single tree for access to his property, however the 100+ year old Norfolk Pines were able to be removed without restriction brings into question the complete lack of transparency the process has.
    Why does this application not have to go through the protocols that other applications throughout Toowoomba have to go through?

    From Darryl Hodge to local councillor Carol Taylor

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

    Darryl Hodge 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 Darryl Hodge and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350

    Description: Combined MCU and PSW Multiple Dwelling 3x3 Bedroom Units

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/742336?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ== to report this email as spam.

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    ***************************************

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Darryl Hodge

    Darryl,

    Thank you for your comments.

    If you would like to discuss this application please contact the assessing officer, Krys den Hertog, by phoning Council's customer service centre on 131 872.

    Kind regards

    Krys den Hertog
    Planner
    Development Services

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021 Toowoomba QLD 4350
    www.tr.qld.gov.au

    Begin forwarded message:
    From: Darryl Hodge <>
    Date: 11 November 2016 at 4:42:00 pm AEST
    To: <>
    Subject: Planning application at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350
    I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
    1. The potential impacts are numerous, considerations such as car parking, traffic and acoustic impacts and the overall scale and intensity of the use of the site is questionable.
    2. The proposed lot sizes would not be compatible with existing lots in the immediate locality. I do not believe this development would preserve the heritage residential character of the area.
    3. This development application is likely to be of interest to Council and/or is of a contentious nature.
    The fact that it is possibly fast tracked under a Code Assessment brings into question if all internal and external concerned parties are fully informed of the potential impacts. I believe this application is impact assessable and should receive submissions during public notification. It should be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for determination and hopefully their refusal.
    Considering the questions raised during the initial sub-division regarding the approval without any provision for a driveway to the current house. The fact that money then had to be paid by the new owner (of the corner lot) to Council for approval to remove a single tree for access to his property, however the 100+ year old Norfolk Pines were able to be removed without restriction brings into question the complete lack of transparency the process has.
    Why does this application not have to go through the protocols that other applications throughout Toowoomba have to go through?

    From Darryl Hodge to local councillor Carol Taylor

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

    Darryl Hodge 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 Darryl Hodge and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350

    Description: Combined MCU and PSW Multiple Dwelling 3x3 Bedroom Units

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/742336?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/MZbqvYs5QwJvpeaetUwhCQ== to report this email as spam.

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    ***************************************

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

  17. In Kellyville NSW on “Proposed Residential Flat...” at 2B Hector Court, Kellyville:

    Vicki Arcuri commented

    I think we need a small shopping centre here. Bella Vista is always so crowded, there are already a number of shopping centres being built in North Kellyville, what about us?

  18. In Bateau Bay NSW on “Change of use from...” at Youth & Community Centre 12 Debra Anne Dr Bateau Bay NSW 2261:

    Lauren Bailey commented

    I am a resident in the area and the youth around Debra Ann Drive need a youth center to feel wanted and learn new skills. Please don't give up hope for the youth around here. Build more housing on that site. Going private I will fight.
    Lauren Bailey

  19. In Stockleigh QLD on “Telecommunications Facility” at 104-118 Neville Road Stockleigh QLD 4280:

    Claus Grimm commented

    Dear Madam, Sir,

    Any news contributing to improve the quality of net speed in my area is very much welcome.
    Because FTN or FTTP is not considered, the fixed wireless solution is likely the most economical and workable solution. I'm looking forward to to be part of some progress in this area when it comes to a faster working internet and therefore support the application.

    Regards,
    Claus Grimm

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

    S Mak commented

    7 storeys would be a lot taller than surrounding buildings. Has the town planning changed?

    Who would want to live right at this busy road junction anyway? And, beware the residents' cars wanting to turn right from Forest Road travelling north. No amount of double white lines would discourage them.

  21. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 961a to carry out...” at 610-618 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Kenny Tsang commented

    This is not the first time this developer has tried to increase the height of this development to make some extra dollar.

    Their previous application was rejected, so God knows why they are trying again.

    This request so late into this project not only affects local planning but is very unfair to the purchasers who were sold on a particular building and layout.

    I agree with the above comments that if they had the room to build additional parking, it should be made mandatory for visitors or the commercial lots as local parking has become quite scarce in the area.

  22. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 961a to carry out...” at 610-618 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I object to the proposed amendment. Either the developer didn't do their sums at the outset or it's a cash grab. As a daily commuter along Canterbury Road, I have observed increasing instances of drivers attempting to turn into basement driveways or the side streets that provide access to these new units (and vice versa). And it only takes one car in peak hour to cause delays. I don't believe planners or developers have considered the domino effect on traffic as each new unit block comes on line. Oddly enough, it can be worse on weekends when traffic volumes are still quite high and the clearway is not in force, ie one lane operating in either direction - and more opportunity to block traffic. I could go on about the impact on visual amenity, but that horse has bolted. We're obviously not deemed worthy of "owner-occupier" standard developments that might include thoughtful landscaping, increased set backs or a variety of building materials. Instead we are expected to accept "investor-standard" buildings (ie cheap, quick and nasty) and painted in the ubiquitous shades of grey. Wonder how they'll look in a couple of years when the buildings have started to settle?

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

    Dal Ouna commented

    These kind of overdevelopmens continue to exacerbate existing traffic jams and hygiene issues with the flow of dirty stormwater onto local neighbouring properties.
    The is no space for such developments so please reduce number of units developed.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 423 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mike commented

    @Suzanne: The council also consistently refuses to acknowledge that building developments generates neighbourhood parking issues from the moment that building starts work. Count on months (or a year+) of trucks, builders' utes, skips and clear-ways removing dozens of car spots. The builders block you in, or take up multiple spots or leave their vehicles over the weekend. Garbage trucks miss pickups again and again because they can't get access.

    This is why the Council needs to provide remedial parking measures BEFORE allowing development to go ahead.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 423 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Yvette commented

    Please refer to Kirsten's comments above -- why do we have Planning Controls in place if Developers aren't required to work within these controls? Why is this? What is the point of them?

    Please also consider the fact that, as Suzanne rightly states, it is unreasonable to *presume* residents will utilise public transport without the need for car ownership.

    The people who will live in this block *will* use a car (or cars, or many cars). This is a fact. Where will they park?

    Please answer these queries and please, do not simply file them away.

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 423 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Suzanne commented

    I can't understand why they can consider adding all those units and retail spaces and then say there will only be a minor impact on parking in the area.

    Parking in the area is already a nightmare and I think in this day and age it's unreasonable to think that people in the units may only have one or no cars. Shared living generally creates 2 people with one car each therefore someone will have to park on the street increasing congestion. There is a large development next door which will also be adding more cars onto the streets to park.

  27. In Glen Waverley VIC on “Buildings and works...” at 5-11 Madeline Street Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    John Rivis commented

    To whom it may concern. I totally agree with Hari Das about the issues raised.
    Not only the serious concern but it will be a bot on the landscape. This nature reserve should not be ruined by this development. Enough is enough. Surely the Monash Council is not going to risk the health of residents and children for a small financial gain.

  28. In Berwick VIC on “Development of Seven...” at 50-52 Brisbane Street Berwick, VIC:

    Resident of Old Berwick wrote to local councillor Susan Serey

    Changing Brisbane Streets landscape into one of multi unit townhouses and units significantly affects the character of the area. It also creates a city environment in which many people are packed into small areas where few residents know one another. The effect of this development on the landscape of Brisbane Street and Old Berwick (which has already been over developed) needs to be addressed. Drip lines of the magnificent trees that form an important part of the Old Berwick landscape (and are unique to the area) need to be respected as does the ability to maintain a town feel rather than a dense cityscape.

    Delivered to local councillor Susan Serey. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Berwick VIC on “Development of Seven...” at 50-52 Brisbane Street Berwick, VIC:

    Resident commented

    Changing Brisbane Streets landscape into one of multi unit townhouses and units significantly affects the character of the area. It also creates a city environment in which many people are packed into small areas where few residents know one another. The effect of this development on the landscape of Brisbane Street and Old Berwick (which has already been over developed) needs to be addressed. Drip lines of the magnificent trees that form an important part of the Old Berwick landscape (and are unique to the area) need to be respected as does the ability to maintain a town feel rather than a dense cityscape.

  30. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 961a to carry out...” at 610-618 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Martin Keen commented

    Please note my objection to this application.

    It appears to be yet another attempt by a developer to circumvent the process by getting an application approved and then applying to update the proposal to end up being a building that wouldn't have passed the process had it been submitted in the original application.
    This area of New Canterbury Road currently has several apartment blocks (some of dubious architectural merit) being built. As noted by other concerned residents, this significantly increases the population of the area with little regard to infrastructure and amenities.

    I believe that the extra car parking spaces should made mandatory but that the addition of an extra floor should be declined.

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