Recent comments

  1. In Millgrove VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 16 Tulloch Street, Millgrove VIC 3799:

    Jenny Holmes commented

    I am concerned at the permit being given to build a dwelling at 16 Tulloch Street, Millgrove. I have lived next door to this property at No. 14 Tulloch street, Millgrove for 13 years. This property is full of natural springs and every time it rains, my property, and the street floods. Prior to any building being commenced, the issue of adequate and proper drainage needs to be addressed.

    Previously, flooding from this property has caused damage to the road at the bottom of Tulloch Street, which had to be repaired by the Shire.

    I have taken photos of the property on 9/9/15 after the heavy rains and this shows a stream which has formed as a result of the rain, on my property. This stream will not stop running until approx. November.

    This property has been sold several times in the past few years and approval has been given to build only at the rear of the property as the springs flow through the centre.

    I have also noticed that many trees on this property have been marked for removal.

  2. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe O commented

    @Jennifer
    It is normal during a build, when you are transforming the theoretical (plans and designs) to the concrete (excuse the pun, but otherwise bringing the designs into reality), you realise improvements that you would not have considered when in the planning and drawing stage. Rightly so, the Developer/Builder should be able to submit those improvements for consideration, and, as I understand it, if it affected the heritage building it would need consideration by the Heritage Dept. But that won't apply in this case because it is to the new façade, not the old one.

    @Neil
    It doesn't sound like you had a look at the plans, Neil, which I understand as it was hard to find the link, but I have added it here for you.
    Please have a look at the plans, and read the other comments already here and you will see that the façade of the current building is not in question, only the façade of the new building.

  3. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of a five...” at 236 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    This area has been flooded with approvals for multi storey developments without consideration for the existing parking or transport needs. There is an excess of unleased retail properties, and the area is struggling for parking. Do not reduce the parking requirements for this building. Every development is doing this putting pressure on the existing residents and creating a dangerous stretch of road between Glenlyon and Victoria streets.

  4. In Sandford TAS on “16 lot subdivision” at 211 School Road, Sandford, TAS:

    Stephen commented

    With the proposed subdivision wouldn't it be appropriate to seal and widen the entire road in that street before going ahead with any approval? 50% of the road running parallel to the proposed site is still unsealed and is used frequently by heavy vehicles carring large loads of rock and gravel.The roar is unlined and half of which is also too narrow to pass other vehicles at all and on top it off it has no lines and signage to notify road users large vehiles will be coming down the hill aand that there is only enough room for one vehicle. Trucks use the unsealed road at a decent speed with limited grip to the road as it is dirt so safety is a major concern here as is the already increasing usage of this road with 0 signs to warn users about it.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Neil Murray commented

    This is total destruction of the exterior of a landmark heritage building.The developer's knew of the heritage listing and should not be allowed to carry out this vast detrimental change to the facade.

  6. In Collingwood VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 86 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Shane Gardner commented

    Why all the reduction in parking, what about existing (exiting) businesses, with all the parking concessions being made the only obvious choice is for the new residents to park on the roads, NOT EVERYONE RIDES BIKES, therefore taking valuable customer parking, hence Collingwood's Rag Trade is almost gone, certainly along Wellington St.

  7. In Rowville VIC on “Development of land for 2...” at 22 Tamboon Drive, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Troy Ruse commented

    Need to ensure minimum setback with privacy for surrounding propertys bedrooms. Its a must that you enforce the parking allocation on site for the units/no off street parking. As drivers have hit cars (parked and reversing) within 50m of this proposed site. And many near misses from people getting out of vehicles from school buses and other drivers.

    Truthfully unless all vehicles owned are contained on site this development should not get the green light. Please use common sense......

  8. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Preety. Duggal commented

    Dear Officer,

    I am writing to express my concerns about the application to construct a boarding house containing 11 rooms under the provisions of SEPP 2009 at 12 Westmore drive, West Pennant Hills.

    I am firmly against high density housing in West Pennant Hills. Carlingford is a nearby suburb that has already had a lot of development in this arena and it has become a very densely populated suburb. There is now an increase in drug activity and alcohol abuse there because of higher density housing. Higher density housing is not in line with the other properties in my area. Approval of this type of construction would lead to more and more applications of this nature and change the landscape of West Pennant Hills. West Pennant Hills is a suburb that is away from busy train stations and I choose to live here for that reason. If this type of construction is approved, council will effectively be allowing more and more applications of this nature throughout the rest of the suburb by setting a precedence.

  9. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 6 Davidson Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Julian commented

    I Object to this development.

  10. In Collingwood VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 86 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Peter Martin commented

    I totally agree. The streets are crowded and public transport is almost impossible to get on in the mornings. Less apartments, and low rise to only 3 or 4 stories is enough.
    The expansion must slow as the infrastructure around here just can't cope.

  11. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Carol Knight commented

    I totally oppose this application for a boarding house at Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills, the area is not zoned for multiple dwellings and I feel as though if this is approved, then duplexes and units will follow.

    The traffic congestion is terrible in peak hour on Oakes Road, we do not need anymore traffic in the area.

    We pay a lot of money for properties in this area along with high rates, we do not want a boarding house on Westmore Drive.

  12. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Anjali Abbey commented

    We wish to submit our support of the approval for DA0370/15. As the owners and directors of a child care centre in Lane Cove we are very fortunate to know the owners of DA0370/15 who are such dedicated and passionate people in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care.

    We are all aware of the shortage in child care and it would be a shame to not allow more children and families to access such a wonderful service.

    We are in absolute full support of the DA approval to expand and we hope you are all proud of your efforts. We want you all to know that we are glad to hear of the expansion of a service who will provide the best memories for all of the children, along with the quality of care they will receive.

    We wish the service all the best for the future.

    Warm Regards,

    Anjali Abbey and the team at Lane Cove Montessori

    Director

  13. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Frances Barton commented

    I oppose this application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.

    This residential area can not cope with additional traffic entering Oakes Rd from Eaton Rd from Westmore Drive. The morning and evening peak hour commute is at a standstill due to the bottleneck at Oakes, Aiken and Murray Farm roads.

    We are also experiencing increased road incidents on the Eaton Rd roundabout at Oakes Rd. The footpaths and road crossings are inadequate for pedestrians leaving the area from Westmore Rd/Eaton Road.

    Please consider local residents interests before commercial developers profits.

  14. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Beach Road Hotel - Extended...” at 71 Beach Rd, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Rebecca Hayes commented

    No objection to the game on 18th, but i object to the games on 25/10, 26/10 and 1/11. No concession has been made on Wednesdays band night even when though we're kept awake until 2am. Security discourage patrons from all other directions other than the direction of our place so and have sent abusive and agressive patrons our way and have watched me get death threats while I try and work out whether they've called police already or whether I should. We WILL get the brunt of this and I'm not happy to facilitate this application.

    I acknowledge there's a certain amount of that comes with living next door to a pub, but this venue has not been mindful enough of the residents further down Glenayr Ave.

    My partner and I work from 8:30am and need to be in some sort of functioning state on weekdays and the venue has previously been inconsiderate of our needs.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 115 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    G Thompson commented

    Is this application supposed to say 10am-12AM (not 12pm)? 12pm is midday. It would be terrible if this application was approved and they were forced to shut in the middle of the day.

  16. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “To remove a Regulated tree...” at 2 Wilga St Seacombe Gardens:

    Nicholas Williams commented

    Why remove a perfectly good tree if it is not a danger. ?
    Nice to see the reasons why .

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 115 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Henare Degan commented

    I definitely support this application. It's a great venue that's well run and a very welcome part of our community.

  18. In Eumemmerring VIC on “Amendment to Planning...” at 13 Cyprus Street, Eumemmerring, VIC:

    Mark Stewart commented

    I live next door at 11 cyprus St- North facing fence neighbour... My concern with approval with the new plans are that as I have a 100,000 litre in-ground pool in my back yard which is used year round....My issue is privacy and using my pool unhindered from view from my next door neighbours x2 .
    Because of these new plans "a full windows from bedroom number 1 in house 3" will looks straight into my back yard and my privacy is compromised because the two story dwellings butted up against my north wall will looking into my entertaining area of the back yard.

    I don't believe that on submission of these new plans the proper indication of my property was in full detail as the inground pool description has been left out and is a major structure of 11 Cyprus st residence..

    I reject this approval because of the overlooking view into my backyard from this window

  19. In Collingwood VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 86 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Robert Young commented

    There should never a reduction in car parking. How about a reduction in apartments.
    Waste management must be a top priority.

  20. In Black Forest SA on “Erect LED sign” at 647 South Road, Black Forest 5035:

    Alex Russell commented

    I am concerned with another LED sign on South Road, especially at a section that gets very busy. A LED sign will distract motorists and risk accidents occurring.
    It appears the sign will be placed at the Black Forest Vet Clinic which is situated on the corner of Forest Ave and South Road. This is a very busy corner with people turning right from South Road (heading north) onto Forest Ave, drivers turning left from South Rd (heading South) onto Forest Ave, and drivers turning out of Forest Ave onto South Rd. There is not sufficient information in the application - e.g. will the sign be static, rolling or a flashing display? How big will the sign be? When will the sign be illuminated? What are the proposed luminance levels?
    Given there is a pedestrian crossing with lights not far from the corner in front of Black Forest Primary School, will the sign distract motorists from obeying this traffic control device? If the sign is illuminated at a time during the day when there is low light levels (dusk and night), will this reduce visibility for drivers to see the pedestrian crossing?
    There really isn't enough information to make an informed decision regarding this.

  21. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Ranbir Benepal commented

    I totally oppose the proposed development on Westmore Drive. A boarding house in my opinion is for problematic or underprivileged persons and there are whole estates that are managed by department of housing around Sydney built for that purpose. Why build a single 'boarding' house in a very family friendly area? It will not stop at one development I know, and I don't want this to become another cheap housing option.

    Firstly, I fear for the general safety and well being of our kids and residents and secondly the negative impact it will have in the house prices.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    If Joe is correct, I also thank him for the information.
    However it is important that Council ensures that any changes to the DA do not compromise the heritage features of the building in any way.
    If the changes are so innocuous, one has to wonder why the features were not a part of the original DA?

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Megan Hicks commented

    Thank you, Joe, for being a more careful reader than me.

  24. In Coburg North VIC on “Construction of six 3...” at 28 Lorensen Avenue, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Raymond VIMBA commented

    Six dwellings with only one car park each in a street that is flooded daily with over flow from the railway station. Really! Does anyone at council leave their office and ever look and the situation that exists.

    Lorensen Av & Delta Av are full on a daily basis and you had to put in some parking signs to allow residents at the northern end of the street access to their own properties.

    This will result in streets full of cars and an increase in theft from and of vehicles and more targets remain on the street at night. Your talking about at least six more vehicles for this development and yes I am sure there are more on the way.

    You are slowly lowering the value of Merlynston Village.

  25. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    donald fulton macintyre commented

    I am firmly against high density housing in my area, and in particular the application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
    Higher density housing has not been a feature of my area and this would become a precedent, and I fear a tsunami of applications would follow if it was approved..

  26. In Kingsbury VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 943-945 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Emval Pty Ltd commented

    As the owner of 949'Plenty Road and to add to my above comment and objection lodged is that I was informed a permit may have been previously issued for a 2 storey development 2-3 years ago with land at the front being also sold to the owner. We were never notified of the building application or received any notification of land in front of our buildings being for sale by the council. I am dis-satisfied if that was the case and c not being noticed of the appiifation previously as I would have strenuously objected to it should the setback not be in line with other buildings. I would be astounded if the permit had been grNted with a setback not in line with the current buildings and strongly object if that is the case of not being informed and provided with the right to object against

  27. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Windsor Road, Baulkham...” at Rta & Council Road Windsor Road Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    JinfangLin commented

    Can I make appointment for driving test on thuresday 10:00am 10/09/2015?

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe Ortenzi commented

    Megan, Jennifer, Gillian.
    I was also upset when I saw the initial notice, but once I followed the link and read the DA amendment in question I discovered that the changes are not to the original, Post Office building, but to the plans for the new building.

    I appreciate your natural assumption that this affects the original building, but reading the lodged DA, with the copious documentation supplied at http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1217249 , will no doubt put your mind at rest.

    Personally, I think the new plans are better as the building now feels more open, and less fortress-like. I look forward to hearing what you think.

  29. In Armadale VIC on “Multi dwelling development...” at 74-76 Wattletree Road, Armadale, VIC:

    James Josephson commented

    To see this go ahead is to see Egerton Rd, like others, further pushed into the dark. Where heritage and culture once allowed a stand alone house, to raise a family with a sunny back yard and the opportunity to have visitors, friends and family to enjoy a drop in is ever so frequently becoming a developers target. This isn't sensible growth development visioned by local business. This is a desperate development showcasing the demise of the leafy street.

  30. In Tweed Heads NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 24 McGregor Crescent Tweed Heads NSW 2485:

    Scott Miner commented

    I am quite concerned about the substantial increase in Floor Space being sought above the permitted FSR:
    "Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio
    The site is mapped with a maximum 1.8:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The proposal provides a floor space ratio of 2.3:1"

    There doesn't seem to be any reason for or justification for the additional (2.3 -1.8) = 0.5 of FSR or (771.4m2 site area x 0.5 FSR) = 385.7m2. The application could easily remove a typical building level (approx. 300m2 of Floor Space) and still be in excess of the permissible FSR.

    I would urge Tweed Shire council to not support such a large increase in FSR given that it is resulting in a built form that is taller (constrained only by a height limit and not an FSR) and with lesser setbacks and articulation (built to minimum setbacks rather than a limiting FSR control) than may have otherwise been the case.

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