Recent comments

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. In Reservoir VIC on “1. Construct a four (4)...” at 748 Plenty Road 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

  8. In Kingsbury VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 60 Browning Street Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    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

  9. 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

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

    Karin Redding commented

    This is the most innaproprite application, ranking up there with Sekisui. Bunnings have already been knocked back twice with good reason. A big box hardware store is not required for Coolum and the surrounding area. We have a most adequate local hardware store and 2 big enough Bunnings at Maroochydore and Noosaville. How is the market going to be better served by another one? Traffic in that area is bad enough at school drop off and pick up times. Is there a plan in place to lessen the traffic problems should this development be approved and even if there is at the end of the day this is one development we do not need.

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

    Rod commented

    I oppose this application
    There is already too much congestion on Burke Road
    There are already 3 medical centres within 100 metres of this location, 2 of them quite large, and as such there is no community need for additional services.
    As a retail shop, it is not suitable for a medical centre
    No on site parking at all

  12. In Kew VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 35 Denmark Street Kew VIC 3101:

    David Quin commented

    With an estimated works cost of $600,000, it is difficult to envisage that many of the property's heritage values will survive.

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

    Mark Durran commented

    I strongly object to a five storey building in this area as it is an overdevelopment when considering the surroundings. A building to this height would be overbearing and significantly change the look, feel and character of the neighbourhood. A considerable number of properties behind the buildings will be potentially overlooked and overshadowed due to the proposed height. There will be a substantial impact on privacy and amenity for these neighbouring properties. The lack of parking would also result in more cars parking in surrounding side streets and Plenty Rd - an area that already has limited parking available. This would increase the risk to safety as well as contribute to a loss of amenity.

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

    Lucy Atkins commented

    What a shame that Redland bay is going to have multi units. We moved to the Redland bay for its unique quality, but that is all disappearing very quickly now.

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

    Adrienne Savage commented

    Dear Council, The proposed Bunnings, Service Station & Retail development at the entrance to Coolum is totally inappropriate. Who wants to be greeted by a huge monstrosity as they enter Coolum Beach, certainly not myself or my family. There is a mega Bunnings just down the road in Maroochydore and another store in Noosa to service the area. If Bunnings are hell bent on having a store in Coolum then the logical site would be the industrial area to divert traffic out of town. The traffic is horrendous enough in that area around school time.

  16. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Attic level additions to...” at 110 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    John Local commented

    These are major objections which Council is urged to consider in relation to the current DA. Some of these clearly relate to the current management of the building, which is not meeting community standards.

    Rather than to oppose the proposal pint blank, a possible compromise might be for Council to suggest to the owner that Council might allow some extension into the attic areas, as seems to be allowed under the zoning, but to ensure that these new areas are actually part of each of the units which are directly underneath them, on the current top floor.

    This would meet the desire of the owner to invest in the property and significantly improve the amenity of the residents of these units, yet without significantly increasing the impact of extra units in the building.

    Just a thought....

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

    Doc Bell commented

    This is NOT in keeping with a low density housing zone!
    Stop degrading our lifestyles and making an ugly mess of our streetscapes!
    Say no to this unnecessary, greedy development. Please wake up and stop ruining the very thing that made Toowoomba attractive in first place!

  18. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Attic level additions to...” at 110 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mr & Mrs Stumbles commented

    We oppose the proposed DA-43/2016 due to a number of factors:

    1. Increased noise & unsavoury behaviour, from proposed additional balconies. The current building & tenants already have a negative impact on our well-being due to late night parties & loitering on the rear staircase facing south-east. We have witnessed nudity & indecent behaviour on a number of occasions. We are greatly concerned that the proposed new balconies will exacerbate the current situation. We have young children who will be directly impacted.

    2. Privacy issues. The proposed plans will completely compromise our privacy, due to their aspect & elevation. We already have current privacy issues with these apartments. The proposed addition will have a negative impact on the resale value of our property. In addition, we would be gravely concerned about the safety of our property & children, given the increased exposure.

    3. Parking in the street. Rickard Ave, Barraclough Ave & Lamrock Ave already have an undersupply of street parking for residents. The proposed additional apartments will only put more pressure on the number of street parking spaces available.

    4. Shadowing from proposed addition. We do not believe that the shadow diagrams in the development plans accurately depict the impact on our property. The North aspect of our rear yard is of high value to our property, & the proposed development would decrease the value of our property significantly.

    5. Architectural landscape issues. The southern side of Lamrock Ave & the Northern side of Rickard Ave consist of residential housing only. 110 Lamrock Ave is the only exception to this. It is also on the high side of the street, which makes it highly visible. This will impact the privacy of a number of properties, including ours. It also does not fit with the current landscape of the area.

    6. Garbage accumulation & volume. The building's tenants currently dispose of a large volume of garbage, illegally. They fill the bins of many surrounding residents with their excess waste. The tenants often host gatherings for a large number of people, who make excessive noise until the early hours of the morning. Additional tenants via this proposal, will only increase these issues.

  19. In Tallwoods Village NSW on “The Bunker Bar & Bistro -...” at Lot 8 The Boulevarde, Tallwoods Village 2430:

    Stop Phoenix Activities commented

    TF Security Services Pty Ltd is insolvent. Why is the liquor licence current?
    This applicant had attempted to transfer the liquor licence to Golf North Pty Ltd in 2014. Golf North Pty Ltd is now insolvent. The applicant is now making attempts to transfer the liquor licence to Tallwoods Employment Services Pty Ltd. Tallwoods Employment Services Pty Ltd is the applicants latest company name. The applicant is phoenixing to avoid creditors debts. There are orders in the Supreme Court and there is mention of him at NSW Parliament.

  20. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6-8 Baywater Drive, Wentworth Point NSW 2127, Australia:

    Gab oneil commented

    This application should be rejected as there isn't the infrastructure to support more residential housing. The was a future planned for the area and to have a maximum population and Corrupt council has since allowed developers pretty much do what they like ahead of the people and made the population projection five-fold. There is insufficient public transport, insufficient facilities including public areas, parking and parkland. In the time I have been living here I have seen nothing positive from Council.

  21. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Attic level additions to...” at 110 Lamrock Avenue Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Sierra commented

    The new balconies look out over everyone’s backyard and will create noise and privacy issues.

    The existing balconies already cause amenity impacts to surrounding residents as they allow people to congregate, talk loudly until early hours of the morning and smoke on the balconies. These existing balconies have already caused significant annoyance to the long term residents along Lamrock Avenue.

    The building has a high turnover of tenants from a younger demographic. It has been difficult and repetitive having to approach every new tenant about their late night noise.

    Would prefer any new balconies to be facing Barracluff Avenue. Please request that balconies are relocated to the Barracluff Avenue side.

    The Statement of Environmental Effects does not address the proposed floor space ratio or the requirements of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

    The application does not provide enough open space.

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

    Gaynor Morris commented

    I object to a Mosque operating from 365-367 Belgrave Hallam Road :
    Firstly the Mosque and Church at the other end if Belgrave Hallam road have caused and continue to cause traffic issues as when you turn right at lights into Belgrave Hallam Rd I have had cars exit out if their drives directly in front of traffic, also cars parked on both sides of road on nature strips and it is congested and a traffic hazard. The same would occur for this new mosque which us situated directly down from intersection of Hilton Court and cause further noise, traffic congestion in a RESIDENTIAL area not COMMERCIAL! They alteady illegally tried to operate a mosque and gathering when they first bought the property and there was a stream of cars exiting the property on to Belgrave Hallam Rd until residents reported this activity to the Council and it was ceased as a mosque.
    I strongly object to any activity other than the purpose of residential in our lovely rural area whereby tge residents have invested in owning homes.

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

    Paul Hurley commented

    I stood in a room and listened as an application by a developer was denied and was grateful for the sincerity and commitment of the people that made this decision ,
    SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED COUNCILLORS , WHERE HAS THE CARE GONE.
    TIME TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE NOT THE DEVELOPERS
    MOST OF WHOM EMPLOY WORKERS FROM BRISBANE AND THE COASTS.
    SADLY DISAPPOINTED

  24. In North Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 97 Stuart Street North Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paul Hurley commented

    I stood in a room and listened as an application by a developer was denied and was grateful for the sincerity and commitment of the people that made this decision ,
    SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED COUNCILLORS , WHERE HAS THE CARE GONE.
    TIME TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE NOT THE DEVELOPERS
    MOST OF WHOM EMPLOY WORKERS FROM BRISBANE AND THE COASTS.
    SADLY DISAPPOINTED

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

    Ian Morris commented

    I object to the above mentioned plan for a mosque. I object to the traffic and noise especially very early in the morning. I see the traffic for the mosque down the other end of Belgrave Hallam rd and fear this will lead to even more congestion along Belgrave Hallam rd.

  26. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6-8 Baywater Drive, Wentworth Point NSW 2127, Australia:

    William Dieu commented

    We in Wentworth point already have to put up with limited parking spaces for ourselves let alone our guests and visitors. Adding high rises certainly doesn't help the situation. What's your plan for existing residents council?

  27. In North Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 97 Stuart Street North Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Doc Bell commented

    Hi there,

    The approval of this development fails to take into account the existence of 18 units within close proximity to this development.
    Five of these units were only recently approved and built.
    As someone whose backyard will now be overlooked by a new house "jammed" onto a small, newly created lot (379m² not including "access handle"), I am very unhappy with this approval.
    This development will negatively affect the sale price of my property, degrade the private enjoyment of my back yard, and add further density to a block already at saturation point.
    I would also like to comment that the absence of a defined "minimum lot size" for low-medium density housing areas is ridiculous and encourages this type of ugly, greedy subdivision and subsequent degradation of our lifestyles. Please fix this situation!
    I would appreciate a review of this development application and subsequent approval. It truly does seem fishy.
    Thank you

  28. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6-8 Baywater Drive, Wentworth Point NSW 2127, Australia:

    Kenji commented

    I'm gonna pretend that our comments do work in some way on this. Plus lot 8's 4-5 high rise buildings and the already approved ones, just exactly how many high rises does the govertment actually plan for this peninsula?

  29. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6-8 Baywater Drive, Wentworth Point NSW 2127, Australia:

    imraz Khan commented

    The masterplan for the suburb restricts building heights to 8 levels on the southern end of the peninsula. If the plan persists the 16 level portion should be on the other side of the site to reduce the overshadowing and keep it to the proposee site. The number of proposed parking spots is grossly restrictive for a building of that size with only 1.1 spots per unit.

  30. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6-8 Baywater Drive, Wentworth Point NSW 2127, Australia:

    Fiona Gordon commented

    A 16 storey building is out of character with the surrounding buildings. I'd prefer it to less obstructive to the surrounding properties.

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