Recent comments

  1. In Melbourne VIC on “Buildings and works, and...” at 99 Hornby Street & 254 - 256 High Street, Windsor, VIC:

    cah commented

    this continues the overcrowding of the area where parking is unavailable most times of the evening. the pattern is to amend the planning permit for parking dispensation after having exhausted objectors. no doubt a report has been prepared saying all the residents are going to ride push bikes!!!.

    the question is will the council allow this pattern to continue

  2. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    R Marshall commented

    I oppose this type of development is this area.

    The area is already being over developed and does not have the infrastructure to support such large developments.

    Once again another land owner trying to jump in claiming this is part of the Warnervale town centre.

    This is Woongarrah NOT Warnervale.

  3. In Maroubra NSW on “Install internally...” at Shop 192B Maroubra Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Paul Corbett commented

    I am opposed to this business.

    There is no toilet inside and staff have to go to a disconnected toilet at the back. Customers cannot use the toilet. There is no toilet for customers.

    I became concerned after reading an article in the Sun Herald last Sunday which concerned illegal brothels operating in the Crows Nest area.

    One of these was the "Relax Thai Massage"

    It is clear that some "Thai massage" shops in Sydney have been proven to be illegal brothels.

    The girls working at this shop appear to be young. I understand that in order to advertise as a massage therapist you would need to leave school and get a certificate.

    I believe that the girls are not qualified therapists. Customers cannot get their money back from a health fund.

    On the basis of having no toilet for customers the business should be closed.

    With respect to the qualifications of the girls the council should attend the premises and demand certification and ID


  4. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Anthony Clay commented

    This Development should be allowed.

    Increasing the supply of available land for construction of new homes is a good thing. Construction of new homes on the Coast is important as it creates jobs and gives people the opportunity to own thier own home.

    Families are finding it difficult to afford their own homes and limiting the amount of available land for construction will not solve this problem.

    There are still many open nature areas left on the Coast.

    Has the neighbour who hears frogs determined the species of Frog, if they are endangered etc or do thet just not want more homes built next to them.

  5. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of land for...” at 27 Danin Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Tieri commented

    Main concern is with parking.
    Already many cars parked on both sides of the street causing a hazard when driving up Danin Street.
    Would it be possible to create parking bays by eliminating nature strips??
    This would ease the parking situatuation considerably.

  6. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 73 Mayston Street Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Tim McNeil commented

    32 dwellings on this size of land in a residential street is outrageous. The existing building on this site has 9 dwellings. So going from 9 dwellings to 32 dwellings on this site only means it will be a massive building and will need to be many levels high.

    This causes privacy issues to the homes nearby, as well as futher traffic congestion in the street. Parking is already chaotic with people parking in the street to catch the train to work each day. Having a 32 dwelling building will only add to this problem.

    The rubbish from just the current 9 dwelling on the nature strip was always an issue with furniture and matresses and rubbish always being dumped on the nature strip. I can imagine this issue will only worsen with 32 dwellings.

    I would love to see the plans. This is a real concern and the size of this development on the size (small) of this site is inappropriate.

  7. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Mrs Gulotta commented

    This application should not be approved.
    I can't believe Wyong council would continue to allow these development in an area that can not provide the services people need such as after school care, child care, schools such as a high school so parents don't have to send their kids to already over populated schools. To many families are already finding it hard. I have to look after my nieces kids because she can't get after school care and after trying to find someone she found they charge more than people can afford. Woongarrah and other suburbs around here need more of these services provided for families already living within them. Schools are far and few and with wadalba already overloaded I question the education given to these kids in these overpopulated schools. It won't be long before Woongarrah public school is putting in portable classrooms to accommodate the children already living in Woongarrah let alone new families moving into new housing developments.
    Also Wyong council should take a look at the back of their envelopes which states the cutting down of trees. Residents need approval to cut down a tree yet council can cut down as many as they want, and there are certainly a lot of trees there. Oh I'm sure they will plant more but still by the time they grow those trees will only be cut down to build more houses or shopping centre's, when will it stop.
    Also the loss of habitats for wildlife living within this area. I know there are frogs around this area as I hear them and I also have frogs living in my backyard. Frogs tells us if the environment is in good order. No frogs means the environment is in bad shape. Frogs are under the protected act. Is there really a need to rid our land of all its natural fauna.
    People move here to get away from the city and the noise. An increase in housing means more crime, more noise, is this what council wants.
    Wyong council need to take a stand and start fighting for the way of life, the quality of life the residents of Wyong shire want.

  8. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Janet Hinds commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096
    MI13 0042_Part3.pdf
    In addition to the previous objections, I would also like to raise the question of the “SEWERAGE RETICULATION PLAN” for the PROPOSED KARANYA STREET DEVELOPMENT. (Refer Page 33 - MI13 0042_Part3.pdf).
    As the plan indicates, the SEWERAGE is also going to be connected in Buchanan Street.
    The question also needs to be asked as to how the sewerage system is going to handle SEWERAGE from 95 extra houses.
    We hope you consider all points we have raised, and any other objections you receive, before approving this new development. We would appreciate a response on all matters raised.
    Janet Hinds

  9. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Janet Hinds commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    MI13 0042_Part3.pdf

    In addition to the previous objections, I would also like to raise the problem of the “WATER RETICULATION PLAN” for the PROPOSED KARANYA STREET DEVELOPMENT. (Refer Page 25 - MI13 0042_Part3.pdf)
    After perusing the map, we noticed the “WATER” for the new development is going to be supplied from one point - which is directly in front of 24 Buchanan Street, our address.
    These plans indicate our footpath will be dug up and we may even loose a couple of the well-established trees.
    In addition, the question needs to be asked as to how our water pressure is going to be affected. With an EXTRA 95 BLOCKS connected to the exiting Mains Water, IS OUR WATER PRESSURE GOING TO DROP.
    Janet Hinds

  10. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Janet Hinds commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096
    The proposed plans for this new development have the properties squashed into this area for maximum profit, with no regard to the surrounding, already established property owners.
    The indifference is very evident as shown in file: MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 71 - Figure 3 - Noise Monitoring Locations. The developer has shown all surveys reflecting the noise levels predicted to affect the new development. In all the Figures and Charts included in the files, there is no consideration regarding noise levels the new development is going to cause established property owners. (i.e. 150 extra cars entering and exiting this new development.)
    The developers are ensuring the new development is protected from traffic noise by building high external barriers along Banfield Drive. There is no consideration for property owners along Buchanan Street and the 7 property owners facing Banfield Drive opposite this new development.
    All Traffic Flow Surveys have centred on Karanya St / Banfield Drive /Hedley Court Intersection, Banfield Drive / Bayswater Road /Brice Court Intersection, and Banfield Drive. I cannot see any Traffic Flow Surveys done for Buchanan Street. There is reference (MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 11) to a survey done 13th March 2012. Since then the traffic has undoubtedly increased on Buchanan Street.
    A high percentage of the traffic servicing Karanya Street / Banfield Drive Intersection, travel along Buchanan Street to avoid the volumes of traffic delayed along Banfield Drive during peak times.
    (MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 77 / 78 - Table 6 & 8). These tables state 800 cars per day travel on Buchanan Street (both ways), with a projection of 1000 cars per day by 2024. With 95 new houses, with an average of 2 cars per household, another 100-150 cars per day, increases the volume of traffic and the noise on Buchanan Street.
    To gauge the correct volume of traffic using Buchanan Street, Traffic counters should be placed on both ends of Buchanan Street before this development is approved. Buchanan Street is not wide enough to accommodate turning vehicles and through traffic at the proposed position. Towards Bayswater Road end of Buchanan Street, if a car is parked on either side of the street, only one car can drive between them, it’s essential for the second car to wait.
    (MI13 0042/ Part 3 - Page 12) The information indicates the primary access to the proposed development will be via a new intersection on Banfield Drive. This may not be the case. Residences will use Buchanan Street, as Banfield Drive will be too busy. Firstly, to turn right from new development into Banfield Drive to drive towards Bayswater Road. Secondly to turn right into the New Development, crossing over Banfield Drive. It will be easier to use Buchanan Street. If the residences are going towards the City or The Strand, they will be more inclined to use Buchanan Street where they don’t have to cross over Banfield Drive with traffic coming from their left.
    In addition, having an “Entry Road” in Buchanan Street connecting through to Banfield Drive may encourage more traffic to use this as a short cut to avoid the Karanya Street Intersection and the Bayswater Road Roundabout. Thus making the streets of the new development a lot busier.
    Please do not pass this road in this position onto Buchanan Street. It would be much safer and more logical to have this road enter Buchanan Street (if necessary) joining one of the existing Courts - Ellis, Legge or Eura Courts.
    Janet Hinds

  11. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Janet Hinds commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    After viewing the comments on the web site:, we also agree with Norman Hurle. Consideration should be given, to placing all “Entry / Exist” roads to the new development opposite existing courts or streets, to eliminate difficulties for other residences to “Enter / Exist” their respective properties.

    Below are a list of existing courts and streets:
    1 Galway Court & Banfield Drive
    2 Banora Court & Banfield Drive
    3 Karanya Street & Etheridge Street
    4 Eura Court & Buchanan Street
    5 Legge Court & Buchanan Street.
    6 Ellis Court & Buchanan Street.

    As we too understand the information MI13 0042/ Part 2 - Page 95 - Item - Parking And Access Code - there will be no parking on the western side of Banfield Drive. If this is the case, it’s absurd and very dangerous. There will be difficulties for visitors, trade people, seniors, children, or anyone trying to cross Banfield Drive to enter and exit various premises along Banfield Drive.
    Janet Hinds

  12. In Gateshead NSW on “Change of Use -...” at 17/26 Oakdale Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Jonathon Wenman commented

    My concern with the change of business is related to the current allotment of car spaces within the centre. The development itself would be a great addition to our complex, it would draw a more varied cliental into our premises and help us expand our businesses.

    However, as is noted by the above comment the change of use for these business premisses would place our current car park under increased strain. This would lead to people "inventing" their own car spaces inside our allocated current parking structure which would make the whole place more dangerous. It would also negatively impact on our current business as an inability to find appropriate parking would drive our customer away.

  13. In Gateshead NSW on “Change of Use -...” at 17/26 Oakdale Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    John Reynolds commented

    This application for change of use to a recreational facility from a industrial facility is totally in appropriate for the site. The current allotment of car parks is not adequate for the businesses that exist in the complex and if you change this unit to recreational it will require many more car parks than it already uses. If the unit is zoned industrial it usually needs 1 car park to 100m2 but if it changes to recreational it will need 1 car park for 25 to 33m2. Please check this closely as it will effect all businesses in the complex.

  14. In Mosman NSW on “Modification of a consent...” at 91 Spofforth Street, Mosman, NSW:

    Karla & Scott Wynne commented

    To the General Manager
    Mosman Council

    Ref: 8.2008.18.2 - Extension of Dominos operating hours

    We are writing to strongly object to the application by Dominos Pizza to extend its operating hours.

    The grounds for our objection are as follows:

    1) Extended operating hours will result in further disruption of residents peaceful amenity - we have a right to sleep peacefully in our homes post 10pm without the significant disruption of noise caused by Dominos scooters, delivery cars and patrons.
    2) The increasing commercialisation of Glover St (Dominos Pizza, Audi, LJ Hooker) is seriously impacting the quality of life of residents - increased noise, traffic, litter and vandalism. Furthermore, Glover St is part of a heritage conservation area and extension of Dominos operating hours goes against the historical significance of the street.
    3) Parking for residents is already negatively impacted due to Dominos vehicles. Any extension of hours will further exacerbate parking availability for residents
    4) Fast acceleration of delivery drivers down Glover St, Glover Lane and Lindsay Lane as they race to provide speedy delivery is both a significant safety concern and further contributes to the significant noise impact on residents

    We would suggest that if Dominos wish to operate a late night business that a more suitable location should be sought on a main road ie. not in a residential heritage conservation street.

    Mosman council's failure to notify residents of Glover St beyond 100 Glover St (a mere 10 metres from Dominos shop front) is concerning. Given the long history of resident complaints about the operation of Dominos in this location we feel Mosman council could have provided more adequate notice.

    We can only conclude that council took this approach because the original DA approving Dominos operation is at the address 91 Spofforth St, and perhaps residents on Spofforth St were notified instead?

    A review of the map attached to this application clearly shows Dominos does not operate its shopfront nor deliveries from 91 Spofforth St, instead operating from 108 Glover St with sole street access for patrons and deliveries via a heritage conservation, residential street, Glover St. The notice in the Mosman daily was for address 91 Spofforth St - this is misleading and has led to many residents being unaware of this application.

    We would urge Mosman Council to conduct a review of the legitimacy of Dominos operation from this Glover St location as it would appear the original DA was approved for a shop fronting, and access via, Spofforth St.

    We trust that council will take appropriate action to reject this application and furthermore to conduct a review to confirm that the criteria of the original DA are valid.

    Residents and rate payers of residential Glover St have a right to peacefully sleep at night without the noise of frequent Dominos deliveries into the early hours.

    Karla & Scott Wynne

  15. In Wamberal NSW on “120 Place Child Care Centre...” at 1 Reads Rd, Wamberal, NSW:

    Peter White commented

    Reads Rd Development.

    I believe that the size and function of this proposal is not in keeping with its location. The development seems excessive for its purpose and raises questions as to whether there is any other long term intention for the Centre's use.

  16. In Kembla Grange NSW on “Macedonian Orthodox...” at Lot 11 Wyllie Road, Kembla Grange 2526:

    adam blackwell commented

    i support this development being the next door neigbour at 50 wyllie road

  17. In Pyrmont NSW on “Chambers Cellars - Packaged...” at 1 17-21 Pyrmont Bridge Rd, Pyrmont 2009:

    Mrs Margaret Rose STRINGER commented

    I find this extremely confusing.
    I have long since responded to this Planning Alert; I am unsure as to why I am offered the opportunity of commenting again; my opinion can easily be found in the files.
    This is easily the most thoughtless DA ever to be perpetrated upon helpless old people - tenants of A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY BUILDING.
    That we will now be approaching our homes and seeing only signage everywhere of a grog shop plastered all over our building is appalling.
    That the Council has seen fit to approve another grog shop when there are no less than seven within a block in various directions is even more appalling; and says everything about Council's attitude to Pyrmont.
    You all disgust me.

  18. In Wamberal NSW on “120 Place Child Care Centre...” at 1 Reads Rd, Wamberal, NSW:

    Jeff Rimes commented

    the size and scale of the development does not suit this residential area.

    the impact of noise pollution (neighbours)

    traffic congestion at the junction of Reads Rd and the Central Coast Hwy
    parents of kids this age tend to drop them off / pick them up
    (not upgrades to intersection has been shown, this would be needed)

    inappropriate type and scale of development in this restricted zoning

  19. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 28 Clara Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Nicolas Francois commented

    I urge the council to put conditions on this application as follows:

    "Condition to remove the request for new front carparking space to no. 28"

    This is not acceptable as this request is in effect privatizing a parking space that is currently available to the public.
    The owners of no. 28 do not own the street, this is a public space.

    There is already a lot of pressure on finding carparking space in the neighbourhood and this request will accentuate the lack of parking.
    This is clearly a selfish request.

    Buying a private carparking spot can cost up to $60,000. Are the owners of no. 28 thinking of distributing this amount to the rest of the owners in Clara st.?

    In any case the street is a public space and this request for privatization should be denied.

    Thank you for the consideration

  20. In Wamberal NSW on “120 Place Child Care Centre...” at 1 Reads Rd, Wamberal, NSW:

    heather tucker commented

    based on current childcare ratios, such a centre as proposed will require around 24 to 40 staff members, depending on their client age mix. most staff will travel by car. most children will be dropped off and collected by car. so on weekday mornings, one could expect anything from 120 to 160 vehicles entering Reads Road, and up to 120 exiting; in the afternoons, up to 120 entering, and 160 leaving. given the size and location of the street, just off the "Central Coast Highway", together with the need to proceed further along and either use Pitt Street, or the Tumbi Road roundabout to travel in other than a northerly direction away from Reads Road, the traffic consequences of such a large development are adverse.
    i also concur with Mr Roberts' comments re zone usage and other aspects of amenity.

  21. In Diamond Creek VIC on “5 lot subdivision” at 64-188 Phipps Crescent, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Michael Jenkins commented

    As I live across the road from this proposed development I cannot help but be concerned about the current infrastructure to support these new installations.

    My primary concern relates to the local telecommunication infrastructure that is already at a point where it is beginning to fail (evident by my own and my neighbours calls to our phone providers and internet service providers).
    If more houses are to be installed I would recommend infrastructure to support future development and stability be put in place, to this end I request that fibre optic cables be installed underground in preparation for future developments in the rest of the suburb, future proofing this segment will save a large cost in the long run.

    In addition to this I have health concerns relating to the increased traffic that will be on the road. To resolve this I request that the segment of road be paved as it is already becoming a thoroughfare through to research.

    Both of these requests can be completed as a single work which will further reduce the total cost associated with the cumulative installation.

    Thank you for your time.
    - Michael Jenkins

  22. In Highfields QLD on “Community Use” at 73 Wirraglen Road Highfields QLD 4352:

    Karen Royal commented

    As a neighbour whose property backs onto the PV and their laneway, could you please provide further information / details regarding what change of material use this application is referring too? I couldn't seem to find any further details on the planning alert website. Thanks.

  23. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Norman Hurle commented

    Objections to proposed development to vacant land Bordered By Buchanan Street, Karanya Street, & Banfield Drive. 2 Karanya Street; LOT 743 on EP1456

    You’re Ref: MEN001-Lo1-Sec
    Council Ref – M113/0042 & RC 13/0096

    Dated 24th October 2013
    Item – 4 Parking and access Code

    Dear Sir;
    My Concerns: Item – 4, Parking & Access Code.
    As I reside at 35 Banfield Drive Mount Louisa 4814, I see by your Preliminary sketch plan showing available on-street parking on the eastern side Banfield Drive.
    As I have lived at this address since December 1976 I have noticed an increase in traffic volume over the years.
    I find that my family and I may have difficulty entering and exiting our premises which appears to be directly opposite the entrance to the new estate. This will be a bigger problem as “my family are experiencing this problem now at peak hour traffic morning and afternoon/evening”.

    Is the existing dual shared parking for “motor vehicles and bicycles” going to be retained along the western side of Banfield Drive to service all 7 homes? I find the existing preliminary drawing men 001 dated 24/10/13 is a little bit confusing.

    “if not I strongly object”, to sharing the eastern side of Banfield Drive as parking bays for my residence with the other the 6 houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    There will be difficulties for visitors, trade people, senior’s, children or anyone trying to cross Banfield Drive to enter and exit various premises along Banfield Drive.
    Relating to other entry and exit roads.

    Consideration should be given to placing all entry/exit roads to the new estate opposite existing courts or streets to elevate difficulties, for other residences to enter and exit their respective properties.
    List of existing courts and streets
    1. Galway court & Banfield Drive
    2. Banora Court & Banfield Drive
    3. Karanya Street & Etheridge Street
    4. Eura Court & Buchanan Street
    5. Legge Court & Buchanan Street.
    6. Ellis Court & Buchanan Street.

    I would be pleased to have a representative from your organisation visit and explain your Preliminary diagram to me to elevate my concerns to the matters as mentioned in the above correspondence.

    Norman Hurle

  24. In Naremburn NSW on “DA for ground & first floor...” at 21A Olympia Road, Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Susan Howard commented

    I do not understand why this new DA has been allowed to be admitted to Council and refer you to the rejection by Council of the previous DA based on the same criteria on 21 August 2013.

    Please advise my neighbours and me how the owners of 21a have been permitted to submit another DA when the earlier one was refused - Council sent us 27 pages of explanation of this refusal which we all understood and agreed with, and I do not understand why another DA on the same matter has been submitted now!

    Please explain.

    Sue Howard
    1/19 Olympia Road

  25. In Leichhardt NSW on “Removal of 1 tree.” at Tirrawarra Apartments 69 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Craig Lloyd commented

    Why an application is needed to remove this tree is beyond me.
    Perhaps council need to take a good long hard look at their preference for trees over the possible loss of human lives caused by such large onerus trees that clearly have no place in an urban environment.

  26. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 60-62 Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Anita Travia commented

    I don't think this will work for the local businesses. People will choose to shop elsewhere ( as not everyone goes to the IGA when they use that car park) and before long, shops will be closing down and that stretch of Scarborough Beach Rd will lose its village appeal. Not what we need to for such a dynamic and vibrant community.

  27. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Janet Hinds commented

    I would like to lodge an OBJECTION to the position of the road from BUCHANAN STREET to the new development at the above address.
    We live at 24 Buchanan Street, Mt Louisa. We strongly OPPOSE the position of the road “Entering / Exiting” this new housing development into BUCHANAN STREET as THIS PROPOSED ROAD IS DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH OUR DRIVEWAY.
    It’s going to be VERY DANGEROUS TO REVERSE OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY. After living here for 35 years not having to worry about traffic behind us, reversing out is going to be a nightmare. We will not only need to watch more traffic left and right, but also will need to be able to see directly behind us as cars come out of this new proposed road. Watching directly behind us as we reverse out of our driveway is going to be impossible - THE POSITION OF THIS ROAD IS GOING TO BE DISASTROUS. An accident waiting to happen.
    There are only three houses facing this vacant block on Buchanan Street, this new road will affect all three. The position of this road will affect us at 24 Buchanan Street more significantly. If there has to be an “Entry / Exit” Road onto Buchanan Street, make it further up the street, where all houses are facing Eura, Legge or Ellis Courts and not facing Buchanan Street. Furthermore, all “Entering / Existing” roads should be directed onto BANFIELD DRIVE, as it is a much wider road to accommodate turning traffic, and the INCREASED volume of traffic the 96 dwellings are going to generate in our area.
    Having this new street enter from Buchanan Street will add a greater burden on our street, which is quite busy already. Buchanan Street services Karanya Street, Etheridge Street, Coates Street, and Pankina Street and it is very narrow as well. It’s not built for a large volume of traffic. In addition, the noise level will increase dramatically, with cars slowing down and accelerating around the corner. There is no additional room for going around vehicles waiting to turn into this new proposed road. How do our visitors park safely in front of our house with such a proposed hazard?
    With an earlier development at the other end of this proposed area, there are no “Entry / Exit” Road onto Buchanan Street, two “Entry / Exit” Road (Corella Court) onto Banfield Drive.
    We strongly OPPOSE the position of the road “Entering / Exiting” this new housing development into BUCHANAN STREET.

  28. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    chris keeley commented

    I ask that no entry on Buchannan st be inline with other houses or driveways, please consider aligning the entry to an already existing side road, street or major road. currently the plan has the road on to Buchanan street, would have residents reversing out of their driveways onto the intersection proposed! this needs to be stopped.

    thank you

    Chris Keeley

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Installation of...” at 192-220 Storey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Marine PESTEL commented

    Telecommunication towers are known to generate negative effect on people and especially children health. Risk of developing cancer is the biggest concern and with the addition of a second tower nearby an existing one this would generate an unprecedented higher risk. Council should document this as it would probably double the existing risk of developing cancer for people who live in this neighbourhood . We live nearby Storey street and our 2 young children attend a local school. We disapprove the development of this tower in the area.

  30. In Annandale NSW on “Alterations to front of...” at 59 Annandale Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Grisha Podinovsky commented

    Leichhardt Municipal Council
    Wetherill Street Leichhardt
    Planning Department

    Dear Sir

    I think this is a great idea to improve the streetscape appeal and restore this terrace to its original façade. It will also enhance the character of the adjacent iconic corner café. I consider this proposal to be a worthwhile improvement and to be on a par with the similar sympathetic façade restoration of 63 Albion Street, Annandale, nearby, which is going ahead as a result of your wise D/A approval recently.

    Grisha Podinovsky.
    Allan Dale Real Estate
    155 - 157 Parramatta Road Annandale

    Licenced real estate agent in Annandale since 1983
    Registered valuer

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