Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 1127 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Bob Stensholt commented

    Dear Council

    I write on behalf of the Hartwell Association of Residents and Traders as their Secretary. I wish to lodge HART's objection to this proposed development and in particlular its request for a waiver of parking requirements.

    HART is of the view that there is insufficient parking in Hartwell particularly on the northern side where this proposed development is located. The only parking is the unregulated parking on land owned by VicTrack next to the bridge. HART has been asking Council for some years now for action to regulate this area for customer parking.

    Many thanks. Bob Stensholt, 5 Jickell Ave Glen Iris 3146. Ph 98899039

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

    Jade Tang commented

    I am happy with this development. Child care places are very limited in my local area, especially for the area around East Lindfield public School. I had a little boy but could not find a child care place for him in East Lindfield. Then we had to go to other suburb for child care service. New child care centre opening will definitely meet the community’s need.

  4. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96 (2) modification...” at 512 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Costain commented

    I support this proposal. There's a increasing shortage of interesting options and venues later at night, and this place has been a good addition to the neighbourhood. Places like this bring a good amount of diversity to what has become generally a homogenised strip.

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

    Emval Pty Ltd commented

    I am the owner of 949 Plenty rd. The proposed 4 storey development will encroach on all the other businesses with its setback obscuring the other shops and its height obscuring the visability of signage and businesses. The height, setback brought forward will impact the visibility and business viability of all the shops as they will not be seen. The building sizeccharacter is not in style with the other buildings and it will significantly reduce car parking acces to the shops. The application and should the permit be allowed it will destroy the commerci buisineses along side and send current businesses out of business reducing the value and rentability of the shops along side. The permit in its current form is an obstruction to the other shops and their livelihood

  6. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96 (2) modification...” at 512 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Scott commented

    Extending operating hours for licensed premises along this end of King Street has a detrimental affect on the residential communities that exist directly behind the King Street shop frontages. The balance between commercial and residential is a tricky one, but King Street already has plenty of late night venues further up the strip. 10pm closing on weekdays and 11pm on Saturdays is already pretty generous from the residents' perspective, especially those of us with young families.

  7. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 1127 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M. Martin commented

    Dear Sir,

    we wish to object to application PP15/00953 in relation to their application for 'Reduced Car Parking Requirement'.

    Already there is very little parking in this precinct with the addition of a new cafe in George Street (two doors down from this premises). Parking can be made available on site by digging down or adding car stackers, but not by putting additional load on our nearby streets.

    It is noted that there is a tram out the front of these premises however this does not get to you meetings or in the case of a residence and you need to get to say, Ivanhoe and Clayton the occupants each need a vehicle.

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    SILVIA LEVAME commented

    I oppose to this 'development' as it is shortsighted and impractical. One car space is a ridiculous proposition and will only congest and clog the already clogged streets around the area. Parking will be impossible and local businesses will not benefit from the housing development as there will be limited passing trade due to the traffic and parking situation.

    Please do not approve this absurd development which will only benefit the developers and maybe some else who is facilitating the process...

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon Maddison commented

    Hi there,

    1 Car park is incredibly low. I know there is a push for people to use public transport but the reality is - and this cannot be denied - that people still prefer to use cars. The result of having insufficient car parks is that available on street parking for current residents will be hugely effected both by this and what becomes of the entire sight (which is currently also under provisioned in the latest plans). As many of us do not have off street parking I see this as a huge issue and I strongly object.


  10. In Yarrambat VIC on “Amendment - Use and...” at 615-623 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat VIC 3091:

    Fiona E. commented

    As a local resident, I am extremely pleased to see the use of this land for this purpose and support the increase in building size and patron numbers as is still extremely low usage for a land site of this size and will help protect Yarrambat's character and amenity. (I have NO association with the organisation or builders, etc. except for my proximity to the site). It is pleasing to see responsible community-enhancing development rather than development for the sake of greed or gain. Thank you.

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

    Mike Falcon commented

    I object to the proposed changes to remove the terracotta battens from the Wilson Street and Erskineville Road facades to enlarge the windows to the new apartments.

    This building is one of the most historically significant in Newtown. The developers knew the heritage conditions when they purchased the property, and they should be enforced.

  12. In Coburg North VIC on “Buildings and works to the...” at 98 Gaffney Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Michael Guest commented

    In addition to my last comment, to exacerbate the problem I have with the stated permit application even further, is the fact that I will be expanding my business in the near future, which will require me to employ extra workers. This, in turn, means that there will be even more people vying for car spaces

  13. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Multi Unit Development 12...” at 1145 Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Jacqueline commented

    How can this not be zoned a high fire danger zone? The Black Saturday fires were along this actual strip of land. This should NOT be approved.

  14. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 221 Elswick Street North Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Jason commented

    I also agree with Christina of 278 Elswick st.
    I am owner / resident nearby which looks over the back of 221 Elswick Street. There are a lot developments currently in the area, where a plot is overly subdivided to a point where there would have to be FSR beyond 100%. Large multi storey houses crammed next to each other with 6 inches between the each property's walls, and bordering on no backyards. The facades are all 'new' and characterless and with high and impersonal frontages discouraging neighbourly interaction and community. We should also be mindful of disappearing flora and fauna in the neighbourhood.
    Leichhardt should be proud of the rich history and character of the dwellings and protect that where possible.


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

    joe ortenzi commented

    I think there were relatively few complaints of the original DA as it was keeping the lovely building and making good use of the ugly bits round the back.
    This, however is too far in that it now seeks to significantly alter the look of the original building.
    Where is the heritage study??
    I couldn't find any at the documents listing at:

  16. In Northbridge WA on “Karaoke Bar/Restaurant $0” at "point 88" 88 James Street Northbridge WA 6003:

    Wayne Tjhung commented

    Perth CBD and Northbridge areas is missing a higher end level of entertainment suitable for Corporate that offers controlled and safe environment for the executives to unwind with colleagues and clients, to hold small private gathering instead of public bars amongst loud and brash patrons.
    The burgeoning small bars and lounges does cater for the masses and does not require much financial investment.
    A professionally operated high end Karaoke Bar and Restaurant trains and employs teams of professional service providers in the catering hospitality industry from the kitchen to the customer services and customer management, which may also benefit the local economy.
    This application should be encouraged as it may elevate the level of entertainment offered in Perth to the Asian tourists who are very familiar with this level of entertainment.

  17. In Youngtown TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 379 Hobart Road Youngtown TAS 7249:

    Darren ross commented

    my major concern is the flow of traffic out of one driveway,as my driveway is next door and the amount of traffic coming out of Glenara lakes my concern is congestion in this intersection People coming out of 379 hobart rd and turning right will have the added trouble of the turning right lane into Glenara lakes,so they have two lanes to compete with before they reach their lane.i would like to have an on site meeting to discuss this as to me it is a major concern




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

    Gillian Browne commented

    I object to this alteration. This is one of the most beautiful buildings on King street. Changing the battens on any side of the building will diminish its appearance and heritage value. Developers need to realise the value of the property is in these heritage features, not in larger windows.

  19. In Yarrambat VIC on “Amendment - Use and...” at 615-623 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat VIC 3091:

    Maria Rodriguez commented

    Fantastic idea. Everyone needs a place to worship and hold cultural events.

  20. In Carlingford NSW on “Construction of Residential...” at Common Property, 11 Boundary Road, Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Danielle Spurr commented

    I do not think this should be approved. How is the transport in the area going to cope? It is already too congested. I really worry about the number of cars per person. The traffic had significantly increased. A high percentage of these properties are bought by overseas investors. I tried to purchase at both 'The Carl' and the Dyldam units that are going up on Adderton Road and Jenkins Road - however most are sold before they are built. Very hard for residents to break into the market. I live on Adderton Road and even coming out of my driveway is dangerous, sometimes it takes 10 minutes for a break in traffic.

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

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Outrageous! this building is part of our shared heritage. Bad enough that the interior is being destroyed but profiteers should not be allowed to vandalise the exterior like this.

  22. In South Launceston TAS on “Natural and Cultural Values...” at 123 Westbury Road South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Bill and Sally Campbell-Smith commented

    I would like to remind councillors that this land was gifted to the people of Launceston by the late Gilbert McKinley for a park reserve.
    Council on sold the land but should not allow this iconic city backdrop to be destroyed.
    Is there a plan to revegetate the area when the trees are removed.

  23. In Camperdown NSW on “Subdivision” at 44-50 Australia Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    S.Claassens commented

    The Marrickville Council website does not have any information on this application. It does not even say how many lots this site is going to be divided into. I suspect each lot is going to be sold separately if this subdivision is granted. We have been living in the same street for over 20 years and consider this building to be one of the local icons. This building itself should be conserved and any DA on this site, including this application for subdivision, should only be approved on conditions that the facade of this building or its height, especially the parapet at front and the circular windows, will not be altered by any of the lot owners or developers.

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

    Megan Hicks commented

    No. No. No. No. The terracotta trim is an intrinsic feature of the Post Office building's beautiful 1890s architectural style. Whatever is being allowed to happen to this building internally, the exterior should remain as close to the original as is possible. To 'enlarge the windows' is not sufficient reason to interfere with the original exterior decoration. Why is enlargement of windows being addressed at this stage of the redevelopment? Was removal of terracotta battens to make larger windows already intended in the (unsubmitted) original plans but not mentioned so that the submitted plans would be approved? What reasonable justification is there for units in this location to have larger windows?

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 58 Ewart Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Chris Berrie commented

    Increased parking problems is the main issue that I see this development will cause. Furthermore I am not sure whether that block of land can comfortably fit a unit/borading house development. It is actually a 'normal housing block' and not a multiple dwelling block.

  26. In Brunswick VIC on “Redevelopment of Jewel...” at 15A Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    s hyde commented

    I strongly object this redevelopment on this space for this proposal
    Reconsider other options which will not impact on pedestrian street safety, road use congestion, drainage/sewerage increase, historic appeal and to protect the already deminishing natural sun light to this space from skyscape developement, this is something Morleland City Council have no concept to protect for existing and future residents in their plot

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mark J commented

    A 7 storey building with one car space? Right next to the train station too.
    Well it will certainly fit in with the other monstrosities that have gone up in that section of Dulwich Hill so council should have no problems approving this proposed eye sore.
    I do not understand how offering 33 boarding rooms is really tackling the housing issues that our state government has raised but no doubt they will be profitable for the developers so that's all good.

  28. In Enmore NSW on “Doughbox Diner -...” at 137 Enmore Rd, Enmore 2042:

    Julie commented

    We went to Doughbox Diner for a family meal and they charged us extra to use a credit card. I found it unexpected and offputting, and the person serving us was apologetic. Is this allowed, adding extra for using a credit card, for a premise with a liquor license?

  29. In Brunswick VIC on “Redevelopment of Jewel...” at 15A Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Andrew Harris commented

    Totally inappropriate development for the space.

    The public spaces around Jewell station are already heavily used by commuters, from the trains, on bicycles, and on foot. Although the existing spaces are technically preserved, the developments will create significantly increased pressure. This will lead to increased conflicts between users of the the car parking at the station, the karate club next door to the south building, commuters (hundreds of students from RMIT and Brunswick Secondary College), and cyclists on one of Melbourne's busiest cycle routes.

    The height of the developments will create unattractive canyons, catching and funnelling high winds, and impacting severely on the amenity of the public spaces. The overshadowing will rob the surrounding spaces of light and warmth. They should be no more than the four and five levels of the apartments further along Union street, and graded back so that they don't impose so severely on the public spaces.

    The south building particularly dominates the eastern aspect of the historic, and beautiful station building, significantly diminishing its architectural value. It should be set back significantly to be more sympathetic to the surrounds.

    As always, there is the request for a reduction in car parking requirements. Public spaces cannot be expected to continually take up the slack where developers are unable, or unwilling to design compliant structures. There should be no reduction in car parking. Rather, the size of the development should be scaled down to whatever car parking can be accommodated.

  30. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    R. J. Scott commented

    I have read quite a few comments related to this DA and I am inclined to agree with all of those that do not approve. The is clearly insufficient infrastructure to cater for an influx of people to be housed in that many dwellings. There is no consideration about the impact on wildlife corridors, no consideration about the impact on the quality of life in the area and absolutely no thought given to what the residents of Whitebridge and surrounds actually want.
    In my view it should be stopped immediately and if the area is to be developed, a more logical and less environmentally destructive alternative proposed.
    R. J. Scott

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