Recent comments

  1. In Heatherbrae NSW on “Exhibition villages x 4...” at 2 Kingston Pde, Heatherbrae 2324 NSW:

    Peter Hutchison commented

    We strongly oppose this development, this is a prestigious estate as the Sale sign states, we were expecting quality homes ie: Brick construction with tiled roofs as the original covenant states, the neighbours are in the process of obtaining a petition against manufactured homes being installed in this neighbourhood.

  2. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Kelly Grimm commented

    This home obviously has significant heritage value which was used as the selling point in the marketing campaign with the home touted as "Bexley's most iconic residence... A Federation masterpiece ". These architectural gems must be preserved particularly in the current 'frenzied development' climate. Once gone the area changes forever and part of Sydney's culture is lost. Please reconsider your decision to approve the demolition of this beautiful part of our limited history.

  3. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mark Matheson commented

    City Council officers have told me these shops are only allowed to occupy 50% of the public pathway.

    If I see shopkeepers occupying more than 50% I move their furniture out of the way!

  4. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Simone Zaia commented

    The loss of heritage associated with the approval of demolishing of this building represents a great travesty and loss to not only St George area but to NSW as a whole - the quality of period features and the craftsmanship apparent here albeit in need of some restoration is rare indeed. This property should be heritage listed and the developer and architects made to incorporate it into the planned development. I recently travelled through UK and the awe and admiration evoked from seeing historic buildings in abundance and the reverence shown to heritage made my experience all that richer. I do not want to see successive generations denied the same experience in what is a relatively young country indigenous culture aside. I do not want them having to look at photographs or google lost heritage. I implore Council and Planning Authorities to revisit and reverse this decision as a matter of urgency.

  5. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Tess Stamell commented

    Developers need to preserve 580 Forest Road Bexley .. as it Should be Heritage listed for its Unique qualities .

    Developers can add, extend, enhance this house whilst keeping the Heritage & Antique features .

    Developers can build on this large site without destroying/demolishing this "Heritage" looking house which stands on the said site .

    Clever architect design can restore the home or enhance it whilst still erecting other or 2 storey dual occupancies as required.

    It will be a travesty to demolish this house which bears history to the area .
    Once destroyed bearing witness to that special era will be lost .

    I live in a Heritage listed semi in a Conversation area and thus I understand the importance of preserving elements of our historic past .

    Thank you .

  6. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Marghanita da Cruz commented

    As an avid pedestrian, footpath occupation is an ongoing bug bear of mine. I think it was during the olympic construction boom, that the Bus drivers finally went on strike over safety concerns of pedestrians who were forced onto the road.

    The standard construction hazard barriers which suddently instruct pedestrians to use the other footpath, often on the other side of a busy street, with no safe crossing point, are completely non-sensical.

    Does the footpath space left comply with disability act for wheelchair access - not to mention the need for Pram access and responsible cyclists?

    City of Sydney should be looking at removing parking spaces, not occupying footpaths, to allow for outdoor dining.

    Are the barriers being used for third party advertising?

  7. In Meadowbrook QLD on “Commercial - Tenancy Fitout...” at 2-8 Edenlea Drive Meadowbrook QLD 4131:

    Makii Rutera commented

    Just wanted to when the KFC in Meadowbrook 4131 will be opened? How I can I apply for a position there? Thank you.

  8. In Melbourne VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 388-396 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, VIC:

    Margaret Rowles commented

    I live near corner of Flinders and Elizabeth street and think there are enough liquor outlets in the city already. I have problems with drunken behaviour in the lanes around Flinders court.please do not agree to any more liquor licences to encourage people to live in the centre of Melbourne.

  9. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe Ortenzi commented

    I did address the DA, Bruno, over several paragraphs, and since Moo Burgers is seeking to continue with their currently approved conditions, I am very happy to support it. I offer no criticism, merely point people towards information available that they may not have noticed. The "previously approved application" detail I mention is at the very top of this page, copied below for you:

    "Use of public footway on King Street in association with the licensed 'Moo Gourmet Burgers', including 2 tables, 4 chairs and 2 barriers. Proposed hours of use are 11:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Sunday inclusive (renewal of previously approved application)."

    This is repeated on the page with more information, provided by the CoS, under the section labelled "Details", which you may choose to review.

    You state the restaurant does not have approval to currently do this, but it has been shown to you this is not the case. This is an extension of a "previously approved application". I think you might wish to review your position in light of this information.

    I reiterate, I fully support this application and welcome local restaurants to make similar modest use of the pavement for seating. As a local resident, I have no problem with this type of use of the street as it adds to the liveliness of what has been a very busy shopping and entertainment area for very many years.

  10. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Chris commented

    No consultation with residents about the furnace being built that I saw. What about the amalgam emissions and health risks to residents? Seems to me that money talks! What kickback did our Councilors get for this approval I wonder.

  11. In Prahran VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 43 High Street, Prahran, VIC:

    Heather (Leckie) McIntosh commented

    As a previous owner of this house, we had the stair case restored beautifully - it is surely a beautiful heritage piece that should not be removed for a modern fitting.

  12. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Steven Siller commented

    In addendum to the previous comment, the Australasian Cemeteries & Crematoria Association Environmental Guidelines for Crematoria and Cremators suggests a buffer zone of 200m between the cremator stack and residences (see section 8.1.3 with 100 metres being the absolute minimum.

    It would appear that housing in Palmyra Crescent, Forestwood Drive, Tyson Court and Marlock Court all fall within this radius. Indeed, some houses and the sports field are likely within 100 metres of the proposed cremator. This goes against the ACCA guidelines.

  13. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Dr. Steven Siller commented

    Interesting that this cremator was not included in the original crematorium plans (that were approved), but it has now been added after work has started on the site. What a deeply cynical ploy by the developer.

    This application claims that there will be no emissions from the cremator. I find this most implausible. Studies in the US suggest that the average cremation leads to the vaporization and release of 2 to 4 grams of mercury per body as well as carcinogenic dioxins and other toxins. The proposed cremator is close to a sports field, school, and a residential area with a high proportion of families with young children.

    Surely there is a more appropriate industrial location? I too note that our local councilor has been absent from the debate.

  14. In Little River VIC on “Buildings and Works for...” at 85 Bates Road, Little River:

    Alan Stewart commented

    Strange a permit application like this one to amend the sue of the land was not made public and offered to existing neighbours etc for comments.
    Would also like to know what councils thoughts are about the implications on the use of Hughes Road as access to and from the freeway as council, Vic Roads, VCAT and permit holders still have not closed this access off even though residents etc won a VCAT hearing to ensure it was completed and remained shut ?

  15. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    lorraine taylor commented

    I was not aware that property had been stolen from your property. I have been led to believe that residents from your property had in actual fact been caught on ctv footage at neighbours property at night. If this is incorrect, then l apologise, but l do believe it to be true.I do know that residents from your property have been seen roaming at night. One has to wonder about the proper supervision.This is not helpful to the children involved or anyone else.

  16. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Wendy commented

    Just heard about the 'furnace' going into the new Gregson and Weight Funeral development here on Wises Road. Absolutely disgusting to put it right next to a sporting facility where children play, and to put it right at the front where everyone that passes by will see it! Surely you can find a piece of land somewhere away from residential areas!

  17. In Wollongong NSW on “Beast & Bread - On-premises...” at Shop 101 168-218 Crown St, Wollongong 2500:

    Mitchell Nicholson commented

    Over the past six months Beast and Bread has positively contributed to the expansion of Wollongong Central. Introducing a liquor licence would contribute to Wollongong Nightlife by providing locals and visitors with a unique and intimate social venue.

  18. In Wollongong NSW on “Beast & Bread - On-premises...” at Shop 101 168-218 Crown St, Wollongong 2500:

    Oliver Stephens commented

    This would be a welcomed addition to a growing and vibrant Wollongong nightlife. The introduction of Beast and Bread to Crown Lane has added to its gentrification and appeal - a liquor licence would not detract from this, but further build on it.

  19. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement.” at 448 Whitehorse Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Clare J Buckley commented

    How can I find out what is being planned for this site ?

    Is it to be 1, 2, 3 or more dwellings ?

  20. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Joe Ballantyne commented

    Why were the residents in the area not consulted about this application. Would any of the council members accept a crematorium close to their place of residence? Why do we have local councillors? Part of their mandate is to look after the interests of the residents. The same residents who were sucked in to vote them in to office. I am 23 years at this residence and have witnessed Buderim Forest heading steadily towards a forest without trees. The council should hang their collective heads in shame.

  21. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Bruno Jimenez commented

    And Joe Ortenzi, you should limit yourself to make comments about the application, instead of simply criticise other peoples comments. There are ways to comment on things, without criticising others. This platform is to be constructive comments for a happy community decision.

    Back to the DA in review, I do not recall seeing the "Renewal of previously approved application" until now that has been mentioned. Although I did read it all, including the "Read More" section. However I do understand that if this is a "renewal of previously approved seating" now.

    My comments on the DA are :

    I go to Newtown every weekend. I have noticed that this company already has tables, chairs and barriers in this location, blocking pedestrian access.

    They are requesting council for permission to have 2 tables and 4 chairs and 2 barriers, however they already doing this without authorisation. Which means that they will still be obstructing the pathway as there is also not enough space to house both tables there. As soon as someone sits on the road side of any of the tables, the pedestrian access on the pathway is reduced even further than requested. As this company does "serve their customers" when they are seating in such side of their outside table, they are aware of this blockage, and do nothing. I have experienced this myself, and during busy periods, I had to walk onto the road. This company cannot be trusted to manage their seating as to not impact the pedestrians passing by.

    Based on this lack of respect to the community, I would not trust this company. And the additional use of the pathway by using chairs on the table side closest to the road, means that the pedestrians, specially on busy days such as weekends, would heavily block the pathway thus I strongly suggest council to reject the plan.

    So, Joe Ortenzi, you should now retract your comments about having to retract my "this company cannot be trusted" as you obviously do not know what you are talking about

  22. In Dural NSW on “Rezoning of 488-494 Old...” at 488-494 Old Northern Road Dural NSW 2158:

    Stephen Thorne commented

    This will spoil the country existence of Dural. Don't turn it into baulkham Hills and congest the area.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe Ortenzi commented

    Well done Luke for looking up the details, and discovering the facts before speaking.

    Bruno, as you can see if you read the complete paragraph, this is a "renewal of previously approved application", so perhaps you would consider withdrawing your assertion the restaurant can't be trusted. They merely want to use the same amount of the pavement as before.

    Jennifer, although very good points, there's no mention of outdoor heaters.

    If access to the pavement is an issue it is the same issue for all restaurants, not just one. So if one venue has pavement seating there is no reason to refuse seating in another venue if their seating area provides the same amount of remaining pavement as all the others. I have lived just off King st for over 8 years and never has there been an issue for wheelchair access and neither the City of Sydney nor Marrickville Council would allow outdoor seating to block safe wheelchair passage.

    Yes, King st is busy, always was, always will be, but I'd happily see people outside enjoying the buzz. It will probably help keep the cyclists off the pavement too.

  24. In Melbourne VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 388-396 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne 3000, VIC:

    Shuo Wang commented

    It has potential risk to enhance the crime rate as so many shops around there sell liquor. And with large amount of local residents live around , it is not good idea to open more liquor shops which will encourage people drink more and produce more noise around these apartments near by.

    I am live around there, I can hear many noise from drunk people at night especially at weekend.

    Most important , it is also close to RMIT which means a lot of students live near by, and it may be a not good idea to see more drunk people around school and international students.

  25. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Kieran Wong commented

    We also bought in Winston Hills 7 years ago and have our children attending the local catholic school. Our suburb is green and lush, well kept and with little to no crime. The pub is enough when you live on Caroline Chisholm Drive. We do not want these ugly concrete jungles in our suburb. We are not zoned for this and there is little to no public transport, there is a reason for this. The stores will suffer and then the residents so please developer take your units else where.

    By the way you should not be selling off apartments before the proposal is approved and I note that the advertisement for the units went up on line well before approval process commenced. I always thought buying off the plans only took place once a development was approved. Your development is not approved and now you have to make changes and appeal. The residents of Winston Hills will continue to block this development. We all have years to keep this going.

  26. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Tammy Davies commented

    Bob and Lorraine, I have known you both for many tenants were approved and recommend to me by TOOGOOM BEACH REAL ESTATE and spent years at my property without ANY issues being raised. As for the value of my property I was responding to other comments made on here that "MY PROPERTY" was devaluing Toogoom. I whole heartedly support my tenants. As for the Police well they were not interested in over $80,000 of property being stolen from my property WELL BEFORE my current tenants even resided in Toogoom!!! I am still interested to know WHO is responsible for this! But unfortunately no body knows anything, especially the Police!

  27. In Epping NSW on “Shop top housing development” at 35 Oxford Street Epping:

    Carol Jarvis commented

    This is overdevelopment on a large scale. The tower is out of keeping with its environment. Where will visitors park ? Where is the green space?

  28. In Kellyville NSW on “Subdivision creating 12...” at 39-57 Jupiter Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Lisa eaton commented

    What an absolute shame it would be to demolish that beautiful property and put 12 houses there. This is a blue ribbon pocket of kellyville and this would reduce that appeal for the nearby residents.

  29. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    lorraine Taylor commented

    I am still outraged by Ms Davies comments re being "Un Australian" and " not in my backyard". If her concern is for the welfare of these residents of her property, and not merely a monetary concern for herself, perhaps she could make arrangements for them in "her backyard". I don't think this will happen.I wonder if she has taken the trouble to contact Howard Police to ascertain what has been happening in our area, concerning these "residents" she is so concerned about. Is it "unAustralian" for residents in our area to be concerned about their own welfare and property ?.You are obviously concerned about your property being rented out for monetary gain.We are concerned for our welfare and safety of our property.You mention the "high value" of your property. This is completely irrelevant to the issue.I might add, that l am NOT embarrassed to be Australian, a Toogoom resident, or, a Fraser Coast rate payer.I imagine that l pay about the same as you do for rates.

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Luke Bacon commented

    I just noticed that this is not an application for new seating, but a renewal of an existing approval.

    If you look at this store on Google Street view, you can clearly see the existing seating and that there is heaps of space for pedestrians to pass. This should definitely be approved in my opinion.

    Here’s the view of the store:,151.1816198,3a,41.1y,140.48h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGQIFEUAxLwdJv8vS5lYRQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

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