Recent comments

  1. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Michele van der Sander commented

    So now the Dept of Planning has highlighted this area of HP for single dwellings, is the council now going to approve medium density developments in this area so they can can pre-empt the changes and get their slice of the development pie before the state government steps in with its plans for 'value capture'??

  2. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Nat B commented

    Please please please do not approve this development.

    It is criminal to demolish a beautiful period federation house to build these townhouses, there is no requirement for this type of housing in Hurlstone Park. These townhouse do not fit with the feel of the rest of the housing in the suburb.

  3. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Sharon F commented

    I'm completely against this proposal.
    The traffic along Old Canterbury Road going under the Railway line heading towards Leichhardt, and Longport St/Railway Terrace heading up towards Stanmore/Newtown, and that whole area in general is always a disaster.
    There is so much development going up in this area already and no one has considered the effect on residents and the impact on driving in and out of this area.
    This part of Summer Hill/Lewisham is being destroyed by over-development.

  4. In Medowie NSW on “1A Sylvan Ave, Medowie 2318...” at 1 Sylvan Ave, Medowie 2318 NSW:

    Bernadette van de Wijgaart commented

    To Whom It May Concern – Port Stephens Council,
    I am writing in objection to the gross over-development of the site 1 & 1A Sylvan Avenue MEDOWIE. My family lives directly opposite the property and will undoubtedly be affected by the over-development of this site. I have lived in Medowie since 1985 and finally had the opportunity to build our dream home on a lovely big block in Medowie’s finest acreage estate. It was with disbelief that I opened the mail proposing the greedy over-development of the block across the road. It is, without question, not at all in keeping with the character of the estate. There are no multi dwelling housing developments along any part of Sylvan Avenue or South Street or the embedded Closes/Streets etc. It is completely out of character with neighbourhood and not at all in keeping with the original conditions from which this beautiful estate evolved. It will have a depreciating effect on our property, as people don’t want to move to an acreage estate to look over the rooftops of six congested houses and a large shed. This proposal has an aesthetically disgusting aspect for our family home. It’s not what the people who buy into this particular estate are looking for, and it’s certainly not at all necessary given the quantity of tiny lot alignments now available on the golf course itself. Further, it sets a precedent. If over-development of this site is allowed, then it opens the door for future residents to “cash in” on similar development proposals, ruining the estate and devaluing neighbouring properties as they move on, having destroyed the rural acreage landscape in their wake!
    Safety is another big concern. I can’t possibly imagine 12 red/yellow garbage bins fitting in between the extra 2 driveways proposed. What I can predict are the unsafe conditions drivers will be faced with as they try to manoeuvre on the dangerous arcing crest, as it’s blocked by a garbage truck emptying 12 bins! Not to mention the sheer influx of cars to the site. As it stands, this road is double white lines due to the dangerous crest, and we know that parking on the council reserve is illegal. Already there are frequent occasions, meaning daily, where people are parking either partially on the road or on the council reserve. This happens with trades(some with trailers) attending the site office on the corner, residents parked near the bus stopping area, especially on wet days and parents from the Kindy Patch parked everywhere given preschool functions, such as the upcoming Christmas/graduation concert. There is no way that the site is designed for multiple visitors to park. Can you imagine just 2 out of the 6 proposed houses hosting an occasion on the same afternoon/evening?? It would be a dangerous, congested nightmare for residents…with this design guaranteeing visitors are forced to park illegally on the roadside (that’s if the 12 bins aren’t blocking the kerb!) It would affect residents walking their children to the Kindy Patch preschool also. The houses are small designs in comparison to the surrounding acreage properties. It is not hard to imagine, given their size, that the garages would be used for storage and the 2 resident’s vehicles would be parked in their driveways. This would not only prevent a single potential visitor from parking safely, but possibly block the council reserve used by residents to walk to Kindy Patch or the golf course itself. Now, if the future residents had a teenage child and we added a third car to the mix and times that possibility by 6 houses…it’s a recipe for ghetto disaster given the lane way access for at least four of the houses and the caravanning/boat storage shed. God help the poor neighbours adjacent to the side of the laneway…one can easily imagine the lights, noise of cars/motorbikes revving up and the commotions of frequent traffic up the side of their house as their young children try to sleep! I fear the noise problem for us will be bad enough. There is no denying that the cumulative effect of housing residences so closely will create a substantive increase of noise for residents. A congested site is so unappealing to residents who sought the tranquillity of acreage living, and the peace afforded them in making that choice to invest in space!
    Community concern also reflects the watering down of estate ‘rules’. NOBODY signed up to invest in a congested dual occupancy estate!! Particularly the fact that this development is in no way keeping with the original design briefs imposed on residents who have already built. How far away is the furthest house form the roadside water hydrant in front of our property, across the road from this site? It was noted that it was only 15 metres from the “house” on the development application…but which house, there are 6 after all! It is certainly a fire risk being so far away from the water hydrant, coupled with a congested alleyway access point! Further, they have ticked “no” to a plan to have a dedicated water supply for fire fighting purposes. It is congested, money driven, investment. It absolutely DOES NOT fit with existing houses and their ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ is a rather convincing joke. The streetscape character C4.21 is not sympathetic to our residence at all! If this over-development is approved than it will be to the detriment of existing residents. It is ridiculous to consider the building of 6 houses as still complying with an R5 Large Lot Residential area. It does not fit with the character of the neighbourhood/acreage estate. The gift of hindsight is a wonderful thing, had we known that this excessive development were proposed directly across the road from our house, that it would be our ‘picturesque view’, before we invested in building our executive residence, than we would have certainly have looked elsewhere for a block of land. It is completely out-of-character with surrounding estate homes, all situated on large acreage. There is little provision for privacy, as there is little space afforded these lots for substantive gardens and privacy planting. It is simply too much over-development of the site, in keeping with the scope of the neighbourhood.
    What concerns us further, is the usage of the number of houses. Are they to be rented out? Is this a greedy attempt to bend the rules and capitalise on every square inch of the land? Is this a cash cow for the council, who will collect 6 sets of rates instead of 2 or 3? Given the council’s inability to maintain community expectations, as demonstrated by the watering down of what was/is here, our concern is – “Will the rules be further bent to allow for future rezoning in order to sell the excessive number of houses as individual lot alignments when investors move on?” What has happened to Medowie’s rural outlook? Who would want to live in a supposedly ‘acreage estate’, directly across the road from the hideous over-development of this site? If the lots were not rezoned, then their design is to the appeal of future investors, not residents who want to live in this paradise and make it their home. Investors don’t tend to care about much more than money/rental income. Will they care and manicure any potential garden; will they invest in the aesthetic appeal of the properties/neighbourhood? It’s simply not hard to imagine these properties continually changing tenant hands. This over-development creates stress for existing residents.
    It is stressful simply contemplating the unsympathetic proposal for the site. We urge the council to look closely at the concerns of neighbours and scrutinise this over-development within this estate. It’s a far too greedy proposal which is out of touch with existing properties, raises safety concerns, including physical and aesthetic congestion, affects the valuation of surrounding properties built within this supposedly ‘acreage estate’ and is consequently not wanted on the doorstep of existing residences. The council has only sent notification to 3 affected neighbours, yet word spread in disbelief of the proposal! Neighbours were aghast with disappointment. I dare say that if council were to survey all of the residents in this particular area/estate, it would be an almost unanimous call to objection to the over-development of this beautiful area and this particular site. Residents would vote NO to greedy developments of multiple dual residences on once large acreage blocks! Again, we urge you to consider community concern against this proposal and insist developers rethink this design and the impact it has on the neighbours. Build quality NOT quantity!
    Sincerely, R & B van de Wijgaart

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

    Bob Forrester commented

    I understand that the date for submissions opposing the Material Change of Use to be considered has now passed, but after reading the owner’s (Tammy Davies) comments expressing her views I can’t help feeling that she is making a very poor argument when she says ‘My property is extremely unique and is valued way in excess of the majority of properties in Toogoom’ It seems to me to be a case of IFYS make better tenants because they will return a higher rent and could be expected to be longer term tenants than a normal family. The council rates are no doubt substantial due to the size of the land area.
    Her comment ‘If my tenants were to relocate away from my property who will my next tenants be ????) provides a clue to the possibility that “good” long term tenants are hard to come by. A property of that type requires a tenant that would be able to utilise the land area and therefore is prepared to pay a higher rent.
    Her comment that she had over $80,000 worth of property stolen, with no resolution by the police, seems to imply that there are already thieves in the area. Whilst this is possible as it is any other area she may be able to put the record straight, as sometime after that event there was a rumour that the “stolen property” was removed by the then tenants.
    I understand it is hard to get “good” tenants when one is relying on rental managers especially when the owner is not living in the area
    As I said in my earlier letter the property itself is fairly well suited to the proposed use, it is the conduct of the persons living there and the supervision by the organisation (IFYS) that have allowed it to get the reputation that it now has.
    As the property has been in use for the proposed purpose since 2009 would it be true to say that it is only now being made “legal” because of the complaints to police due to the activities of the tenants?

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

    Ross wilkinson commented

    I am a resident nearby.
    I object to the placement of a crematorium so close to our houses.

  7. In Canterbury NSW on “Section 96 Modification...” at Nos. 242, 246– 248, 250-252, 254-256 and 258 Canterbury Road, Canterbury and Nos. 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-13 Close Street, Canterbury.:

    Mark J commented

    This amendment to an existing DA wants to change the layout completely, and add more floors to some of the buildings.

    Canterbury Council - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - say no.

    I understand this goes against your current practice of approving and reapproving anything that in the area surrounding high density buildings. But this is not what your constituents want. LISTEN to the community for a change. We do not want more. I know the money you make out of these must be appealing, but stop selling out your community.

    PLEASE!

  8. In Warriewood NSW on “8 Forest Road, Warriewood” at 8 Forest Road, Warriewood:

    Kelly Hammond commented

    The address for this development is listed as 8 Forest Road, although the submission has no entry or exit for this development via Forest Road. The developer plans to use the existing access over Warriewood Grove’s narrow single lane bridge which cannot accommodate 170 additional vehicles if an emergency was to arise (85 dwellings x 2 cars = 170 cars).
    I believe this development will put all residents lives at risk, as the single access over our bridge would make it impossible if an evacuation was needed due to the area being a bush fire area.
    The residents of Bert Close already find it difficult to leave at certain times of the day due to the industrial estate’s traffic which congests Jubilee Ave, another matter that urgently needs to be addressed, as the existing infrastructure here is also not coping with the traffic.
    This development will be putting lives at risk and should not be allowed to go ahead if they don’t use Forest Road as an access point.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 303 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Peter O'Neill commented

    I object to the reduction of trees planned for 303 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204. There was not enough trees planned for the site originally and there should be no reduction in the trees planned for it now.

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

    NAN WANG commented

    We strongly DISAGREE this DA project, as Tryon Rd is narrow, and too busy in the morning and afternoon, if cars come in and out from the proposed centre, it wil block the whole traffic.
    It will increase the risk of causing a accident, and especially when kids cross the drive way.

  11. In Carlingford NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 85 Felton Road, Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Stephen Batey commented

    This house is a Lend Lease Demonstration home and one of what was at the time, the largest demonstration village in the Southern Hemisphere. There are approximately 20 other Lend Lease demonstration homes still existing in the vicinity of this house. The house is in substantially original condition, having only limited alterations and additions. It is the 'Californian' model from 1971 and as such is very near to the end of Lend Lease Homes venture and one of the last homes designed while Nino Sydney was chief Architect. It is a very rare model. I have only found one other in existence in Sydney so far. It should not be demolished, but rather preserved for its historical value.

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

    Bruno Jimenez commented

    Joe Ortenzi... 1st, you only realised that it was "previous approved DA", because you saw it in Luke's comments and as you stated "Well done Luke for looking up the details, and discovering the facts before speaking", then you went onto a rampage here. Joe, WRONG PLATFORM TO VENT OFF. This is a site for DA comments. Not for you to comment on others input. So refrain from directing yourself to me in this site, and I will stop directing myself to you. Yes I missed the comment about "Previous approved DA" but you did not see it either until someone else did. Even on this you are not even original, need to piggyback on someone else's research. This company "ALLOWS" for their customers to sit on the closest road side when on their tables, exceeding their "Previously approved DA" agreed space. So this company does not care for pedestrians, Wheel chairs, disabled persons, etc.... No, this company cannot be trusted that they will stay within their agreed "Previously approved DA" allotted area, and will directly impact pedestrians.

  13. In Arncliffe NSW on “Alteration to rear bakery...” at 51 Station Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Ben Talman commented

    Was there an approval for the original bakery? If there was no approval for the original bakery, would this be classifed as a 'Change of Use' of a premises and how would this comply? Being a Food Preparation Area, does this or did the previous 'bakery' comply to the Australian Standard in its design for Food Preparation? Was the original bakery subject to regular inspection by council officers for such a premises, as all other similar premises are subject to, for compliance to the Food Act of NSW and council regulations, ie School Canteens, Take-Away Food shops etc? Given that this will be used for Food Preparation, what are its 'Hours of Use' as per council approval, as determined for other similar commercial operations?
    Will these premises be subject to regular inspection by council for compliance?
    If 'No' is the answer to any these questions, it is a matter of serious concern to the local community and needs to be suitably addressed with transparency and due diligence

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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!

  17. 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.

  18. 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 .

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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. http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DASearch/Detail.aspx?id=1223763.

    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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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 http://accaweb.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Environmental-Guidelines-for-Crematoria-and-Cremators.pdf) 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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 ?

  28. 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.

  29. 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!

  30. 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.

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