Recent comments

  1. In Idalia QLD on “Indoor Recreation - Multi...” at 6 Gorari Street Idalia QLD 4811:

    Worried resident commented

    Children's dance school in between all mechanical businesses with mechanics test driving and moving cars around and tow trucks dropping cars off in the street. Not safe for parents trying to park and navigate their children inside safely. Surely there is a safer location for children as well as the fact that the men use language at times that is inappropriate for the children.

  2. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 7 Yawung Street Dundas NSW 2117:

    Michelle Linda lagettie commented

    Good morning,
    Do not approve of 2 duplex dwelling on property 7 yawung St
    Dundas
    Such a shame that we are over populating this small area and street!
    Michelle Lagettie

  3. In Zetland NSW on “Fit out of commercial unit...” at 2 Defries Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Sam Samadian commented

    I think with another application which it has been lodged for 2 Defries Avenue for outdoor seating , the number of people seating outside is too high for residential area. near 80 people seating outdoor creating lot of noise, It would be better to reduce the numbers and any application be approved for six month period and then be extended subject to no complain received, Thanks
    by Sam Samadian less than a minute ago

  4. In Zetland NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 23A...” at 2 Defries Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Sam Samadian commented

    I think with another application which it has been lodged for 2 Defries Avenue for outdoor seating , the number of people seating outside is too high for residential area. near 80 people seating outdoor creating lot of noise, It would be better to reduce the numbers and any application be approved for six month period and then be extended subject to no complain received, Thanks

  5. In Ryde NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 13-15 Porter Street, Ryde:

    David Smith commented

    The people and residents of this area seem to be surrounded by construction, noise pollution and constant building approvals that appear to never cease and now another one on the table to be approved.
    Will it never end or will the residents ever get a break from the noise 6 days a week, the dust and increased traffic chaos from trucks, illegal parking of workers and contractors to name just a few.
    I worry that it will never ever end.

  6. In Melbourne VIC on “To display two promotional...” at Melbourne:

    Andrew McRae commented

    I agree with Wayne Coles-Janess. Why must everything, every facility and space no matter how small or innocuous, serve the purposes of business and bulldust?

  7. In Melbourne VIC on “To display two promotional...” at Melbourne:

    Wayne Coles-Janess commented

    ENOUGH Visual Pollution Please. We need more amenities for People not Marketing.

  8. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Natalie commented

    Dear Marrickville Council,

    I am a little confused on how it is that this application to modify the development application has been submitted, when the construction has already commenced on this site.

    I appreciate that there is a demand for housing solutions, however it appears to me that every possible piece of land is being turned into unit complexes with no thought or plan to manage the increase congestion and traffic these units will create.

    Less than 5 kms from this development there are currently 3 other unit complexes being developed and approved by council. Do we really need this many additional unit's - what thought has been given for access to and from New Canterbury Road for the residents of these complexes. There is already more traffic using this road than the road can take and congestion during peak peaks is often.

    Please think about the landscape that we live in before you continue to approve these unit developments.

    Thank you.

  9. In Maroubra NSW on “Section 96 (2) - intenal...” at 3 Severn Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    George commented

    Dear Sir / Madam
    THis building should not be approved as it would creat shadowing and the rear will be way too close to the rear apartments...
    These have been there for over 40 years...and should not be allowed to be allowed as there is not enough visitor parking allocated as at maroubra beach there is a shortage of parking...This development should have at least 4 to 5 visitor parking spots provided..
    As nearly everyone has at least 2 cars...in todays modern society..
    That is the reality..

    It should be also noted that no formal letter was received...as this is the first I have received...

  10. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Ella Svensson commented

    Upon hearing from my partner that the relocation of pole princess Kew to the Hawthorn East studio is running the risk of being rejected I was baffled, and offended that the council would even consider such objections.
    I am a childcare worker, neuroscience student and current resident of Hawthorn East. The proposed new location of Pole Princess is at the end of my street, and I could not be more happy to welcome the business to my area.

    I am not a student of Pole Princess, nor have I ever been, but I am disgusted that a business may be barred from opening under the (false) and purely sexist accusation that anything that may empower women physically and (possibly) sexually is to be frowned upon.

    Pole dancing attracts mainly middle/upper class (due to high class fees) women. This demographic contributes the least of any, to overall crime, and therefore the accusation that a pole dancing business attracts undesirable people is not only offensive, but completely inaccurate.

    I believe that if the council were to reject this application it would reflect badly on the character of those in charge, and would not represent the overall sentiment of residents in the area. I wholeheartedly support this application.

  11. In Macquarie Hills NSW on “1 into 2 lot subdivision -...” at 59 Fitzwilliam Circuit, Macquarie Hills NSW 2285:

    Roman Jaremus commented

    After speaking to neighbours we were told about the development of the block of land at 59 Fitzwilliam Circuit, and that the proposal was a dual occupancy residence. When we bought our block of land approx 40 metres away from number 59 we were ABSOLUTELY assured by the developer in this prestige estate there would only be single occupancy dwellings.
    The dwelling does not comply with size regulations and would devalue our homes and the estate itself. Neighbours of this block will lose their views and lose sunlight on their block due to the size and placement of these dwellings. This proposal should be rejected due to none compliance in more than one area.

  12. In Melbourne VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 1-5 Queen Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    P Wijsman commented

    It probably needs to be clear that this is the old Fletcher Jones building on the corner of Flinders Street and Queens Street. The image and map are very incorrectly positioned.

  13. In Bundall QLD on “Description: Class: PUBLIC...” at 6 Waterford Court Bundall 4217:

    joanna commented

    how do we look at these appliactions etc. can not seem to open

  14. In Perth WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 1F Robinson Avenue, Perth, WA, 6000:

    Myra Robinson commented

    This is a one-way street with limited parking that isn't appropriate for retail. 1f is located too far from other parking on William st for the short stops people make to a pharmacy.
    Extra signage required for a pharmacy would be unattractive on this street corner. I would also suggest that this isolated location, amongst a number of one-way streets will not be a commercially viable location for a retail business.

  15. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Margarita S. commented

    I'm not a student of Pole Princess Kew currently, but I went there for aerial silks and acrobatics classes about a year ago.

    I would like to add a couple of facts from my experience.

    1. I am doing a PhD in Engineering. Other women I met in the studio either study at university or have some kind of professional career.

    2. Dressing recommendations are based on the activity/apparatus and its requirements. In particular, I was recommended to cover legs (full length leggings or similar) and at least upper arms. Aerial tissues can cause irritation and even burns if protective clothes are not worn during training. Shorts and top/tank are required for pole fitness classes because skin grips on the brass, and fabric slides. This is not an aesthetic preference, but just the technical grip requirement.

    I also think that any business onsite (including consulting) brings some traffic. Fit girls generally do not mind to park at some distance and walk to the car. Not sure about "more respectable" (and likely less fit) clients of some other enterprise taking the spot. Also I would like to mention that most of the classes run after hours (from memory 6.30pm+). This would allow relocating some traffic from the busy business hours to the time after the pick hour, comparing to some other business possibly occupying the same space and attracting the traffic during usual business hours.

    I support the pole studio application.

  16. In Hunters Hill NSW on “Comedy Dinner & Dance -...” at 3 Reiby Rd, Hunters Hill 2110:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing, I note the application for a single event liquor licence at 3 Reiby Road, Hunters Hill, 2110. This address is in the middle of a very quiet residential area, and is also close to the waters of Sydney Harbour, and the grounds of Hunters Hill High School. The 'Comedy' aspect adds to the risk. Because of this there is a danger of hazards occurring as a result of possible drunken behaviour. In addition the venue is well away from any police station, which would make any necessary response delayed. Consequently, I believe it unwise that even a single event liquor licence be issued. It would also offer the possibility of a precedent for other events.

  17. In Richmond VIC on “Develop the land by the...” at 141 Somerset St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Mark Blackburn commented

    I object to another development with inadequate parking on this street. Parking is already severely limited and another building without adequate parking will impact residents even more.

  18. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 115-117 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Mark Blackburn commented

    I object in the strongest terms to a building of this size with a reduced loading and parking requirement.

    There is already inadequate parking in this area and this development will make things much worse.

  19. In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 45-49 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Gary commented

    I hope that the Council takes into consideration that the W Hotel across the road has been recently knocked back for attempting a similar height.

  20. In Burraneer NSW on “Construction of a Detached...” at 46 Burraneer Bay Rd Cronulla 2230:

    Gordon Geering commented

    I have a concern about the lack of onsite (property) parking, as well as parking issues during construction. There is a traffic control hump on the road which strictly speaking people should not park on. When people do park on the hump (parking is further restricted by street trees closer to Burraneer Bay Road) it makes it very difficult to enter or leave my drive way (4 Gunnamatta Road) and effectively reduces the street to a one way road.
    I request that at least another parking space is required on the development site. I further request that Council place parking controls around the development site during construction to reduce the likely congestion and road safety issues

  21. In North Melbourne VIC on “Partial demolition and...” at 440 Victoria Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Joanne Manenti commented

    Could you please inform me of exactly what will these four dwellings be.??
    Is this yet to be another back packers residence.??

  22. In Nerang QLD on “Description: Class: TREE...” at 13 Koola Drive Nerang 4211:

    Gary Green commented

    It would be very sad to see the magnificent gums trees removed. The application is for the removal of three trees but the plan shows four trees.

  23. In Brunswick VIC on “The development of the land...” at 145-147 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    steve hyde commented

    I strongly object to the reduction of the standard car parking requirement for this planning application, a minimum of two car spaces per dwelling on site to be designed into the construction. If this is not agreed to it will just increase the existing Street scape conjestion & even worsen the public safety together increasing local council liability

  24. In Burnley VIC on “Reduction in car parking...” at 69 Type St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Colin P commented

    Hi, ignore previous comment, I can now see it is the 68-89 site. Will the development retain the old building red brick facade, (I think it should)? Will overall height be less than 9m / 3 storeys? There should be at least one carpark per dwelling plus a couple of visitors spots. Can you please email me rendered drawing and elevations. Thanks

  25. In Burnley VIC on “Reduction in car parking...” at 69 Type St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Colin P commented

    Are you sure this is 69 Type st and not 89? 69 is a little cottage - how can 10 dwellings fit?

  26. In Bundall QLD on “Description: Class: MULTI...” at 6 Waterford Court Bundall 4217:

    peter darbyshire commented

    can you please advise what this one is about , i am unable to see what application is for?

    if its about traffic , we are already having major conjestion problems with this development with them parking on grass verges and blocking road at times.

    is it about sewerage line that they purposly concreted so that they could build over area and move sewerage out onto foot path area ?? dont they have to stick to the rules like everyone else with a 3 meter access - does this mean we could have our sewerage lines moved so we can build in the access areas within our complex.

    seems to be one set of rules for them and another for others.

  27. In Marsden QLD on “Commercial - 10 Townhouses...” at 54-56 Second Avenue Marsden QLD 4132:

    R J Gillman commented

    Enough of these townhouse developments between Second and Fifth Avenue. There are far to many of these townhouse developments popping up in a close proximity to one another in Marsden. This is negatively impacting the socioeconomics of the immediate area. Many residents have recently made significant investments buying new homes in housing estates in the Marsden area with the view that the area and it's value is improving. Local government has a duty to meet the expectations of residents and keep the area balanced and sustainable in all aspects. To help keep a balance this development application should be rejected and the area should be zoned for freestanding dwellings in a non gated, non strata community.

  28. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 28 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved.

    This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process. This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > Rydalmere Public School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit. There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties.

    Given the residential and community nature of this area, town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in the Dundas/Rydalmere area.

    I implore the council to reject this application once again, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

  29. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 2 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved.

    This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process. This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > Rydalmere Public School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit. There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties.

    Given the residential and community nature of this area, town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in the Dundas/Rydalmere area.

    I implore the council to reject this application once again, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

  30. In Glenwood NSW on “Demolition of dwellings and...” at 92 Meurants Lane Glenwood 2768, NSW:

    J. Bevitt commented

    These homes are central to Glenwood and provide a real sense of openness and wellbeing in the area. Replacement of these homes with modern homes on standard blocks will alter the open nature of Meurants Lane, the main thoroughfare through the suburb. Their demolition will be a tragic loss of iconic homes and pre-"Glenwood" suburban history.

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