Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Maybe it's my imagination but it appears as though Marrickville Council is allowing the development of boarding houses and apartments without any foresight on car parking or traffic impacts.

  2. In Burnley VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 429-431 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Erin commented

    This area is a very quiet residential area. There are no high rise apartments along this part of swan st. This development can the potential to set a trend for large scale developments that will overshadow the small terrace houses nearby, irreversibly changing the character of the area.

    The service lane behind the building is also quiet and skinny, and any car parking that would potentially exit out to there there would quickly clog up the road and increase the noise for nearby houses, that have backyards that face onto it.

  3. In Battery Point TAS on “Mobile Food Vendor Zones...” at Battery Square Battery Point 7004:

    Peter Bowen commented

    The toilets in Princes Park should be kept open all the time that the van is present,
    a bond be in place to ensure the proponent keeps the area clean,
    the police agree with the placement,
    that seating be provided by the proponent

  4. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment ot the existing...” at Carpark 399-401 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Luke Jamieson commented

    The developer has not been honest on the planning application. The neighboring building particularly 117 Hardware street will be incredibly and poorly impacted on. Such a building will drastically reduce the quality of living and value of property for 117 Hardware street which is a historic and lovely peace of hardware lanes history.

    - This application shows that the area as office and retail yet the area is predominately residential.

    - The building will block all light from the apartments at the rear and in some instances completely block windows and restrict the ability to open them. The balconies, of 117 Hardware Street will be no longer private sanctuaries but spectacle for the tower not to mention the unacceptable shadowing impacts The tower will completely ruin habitable rooms because of total loss of direct sunlight for much of each day, increased noise and unwanted loss of privacy.

    - Little Lonsdale street is already hard enough to walk down and with recent other skyscrapers this has been amplified. The footpaths in Little Lonsdale street are not built for the amount of foot traffic let alone even more from another eye sore.

  5. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Catherine Li commented

    I am in full support of this application. My immediate area has a local vet clinic but aving more options near-by is very important and helpful to pet owners as well as those thinking of taking care of a pet. This is the kind of development that will make an area more attractive.

  6. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 315 Maroubra Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Irem SHARKEY commented

    I support the redevelopment of the site in principle. However, as part owner in an adjacent building, I do have some concerns about the application in its current state.

    Section 5.4 of the application : There is already a lot of noise from residents at 313 Maroubra rd roof terrace, keeping adjoining residents awake into the late hours of the night - the proposed roof terrace is undesirable from a noise perspective to other residents. These roof top spaces are used, frequently for noisy celebrations with many visitors in attendance as people can't fit into the small units for entertaining. If they are not frequently used as suggested in the application, then why include them?

    It's is not that clear from the drawings, but the new building should not be any taller than buildings next to it (does getting rid of the roof terrace help with reducing height?) nor should it be set any more forward to the curb (including balconies) than the adjacent buildings - the aerial drawings seem to suggest that it does protrude further due to balconies. To allow these things will:
    - dwarf the adjacent buildings;
    - not be in keeping with the streetscape; and
    - block valuable sun light and district views,
    all of which surrounding and adjoining residents rely on to preserve their own property values and quality of living.

    The windows should not look into those of the existing apartments on either side. Again it is not clear from my laman's reading of the plans how these will align with windows of adjacent apartments.

    Please ensure no noisy air conditioning units on the external part of the building.

    Please ensure landscaping doesn't result in the planting of tall trees that will simply further block sunlight and views for adjoining owners.

  7. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Dwelling House,Shed/Garden...” at 22 Paddock Close, Elermore Vale NSW 2287:

    Anecito Mantilla - owner of 24 paddock close, elermore vale commented

    2nd floor window facing on the property of 24 paddock close is facing the pool and to the kids windows...,their second floor has lots of windows either side, please consider privacy of the kids

  8. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment ot the existing...” at Carpark 399-401 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Mr. B. Bradfield commented

    The supporting planning permit amendment documentation which underpins both TPM-2009-23/A and B, clearly omits 115 Hardware Street as one of the easterly ‘key interfaces’ to the proposed development, despite it being directly adjacent. Furthermore, the associated architectural plans mark 115 Hardware Street as ‘shops and offices’, when only the ground-level of this low-density, five-story building is made up of commercial lots (i.e. the remaining fifteen lots on levels one to four are exclusively residential, since 2002). Given its adjacency, I believe that the proposed development would significantly diminish the quality of life for residents living in 115 Hardware Street due to:

    1. unacceptable shadowing impacts to habitable rooms, including a total loss of direct sunlight for much of each day;
    2. inappropriate potential for overlooking into habitable rooms and outdoor spaces facing the proposed development;
    3. a significant loss of visual relief from habitable rooms facing the proposed development, owing to its sheer bulk, height and close proximity;
    4. the creation of extreme down force winds towards and into habitable areas, the force and noise of which will disrupt both short-term and long-term stationary activities inside and outside residential lots (note that some lots at 115 Hardware Street include outdoor/rooftop gardens).

    In the context of the immediate vicinity, the existing capacity for pedestrian traffic, most notably along Little Lonsdale Street, is already severely stretched, such that pedestrians can regularly be seen making their way along the road instead of the footpaths. The existing congestion would become even more problematic should such a high-density skyscraper be constructed without appropriate capacity planning.

  9. In Turramurra NSW on “4 Houses demolished and...” at 14 Gilroy Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    Matt commented

    In regards to application DA0522/14 for the development of a unit complex in Gilroy road. I fear that it will damage the overall charm and character of the street. It's also a shame that it will also aesthetically damage the look and feel of the new park development that currently sounds so promising, and unlike the park really won't contribute much benefit to the community.

  10. In Coburg VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 47 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Tim Morris commented

    As a local resident I wish to register my opposition to features of proposal # MPS/2014/649

    The proposal for ' 20 dwellings and reduction in parking and waiver of loading bays requirements' is inappropriate.

    47 Sydney rd proposal will have a negative impact on Wolseley St residents access to their homes on Wolseley street as parking on Wolseley street is currently limited.

    The local road infra structure area can not support 20 new dwellings with reductions in private parking nor a waiver of loading bays for commercial businesses on Sydney road.

    Sydney Rd can not accommodate parking for at least 20 vehicles nor a waiver of loading bays
    Allen street can not accommodate parking for at least 20 vehicles nor a waiver of loading bays.
    Wolseley

    Wolseley St is a residential street ( General Residential zone) and should not be used as private and commercial parking for developments on Sydney Rd.

    Wolseley Street residents currently have difficulty parking on the street and sale of 3-9 Wolseley street as a development site will restrict street parking.

    47 Sydney rd proposal will have a negative impact on Wolseley St residents access to their homes on Wolseley street.

    The proposed development must include:
    onsite private parking for 20 vehicles.
    onsite commercial loading bays.

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon commented

    "Boarding houses" are on the increase because of affordability regulations and requirements. There have to be certain numbers of "dwellings" in an area below a certain price, so if you want to make it cheaper, you have to make it smaller. These are studios on steroids.

    Some of this kind of accomodation is necessary in any urban area but they're certainly not homes and can easily become overpriced anyway. Convenient, but they don't really deliver long term housing as much as accommodation. They're not a foot-in-the-door for first time buyers or owner occupiers.

  12. In Balwyn North VIC on “Removal of a restrictive...” at 27 Reading Avenue Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    David Grant commented

    The property at 27 Reading Avenue is being demolished, but I can not see reference to a building permit request. There is no notice on the fencing around the property and I have not been sent anything in the post. Are you able to advise me what is happening?
    Regards
    David Grant

  13. In Collingwood VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 416-422 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Neil Davison commented

    Dan Murphy's has applied for a liquor licence for this development which means that they will be taking all of the retail tenancies available. Has this been changed on the current plans to show only one tenancy and does it affect the findings of the Traffic management report?

  14. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment ot the existing...” at Carpark 399-401 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Jan Bryant commented

    The developer has completely misrepresented the neighbouring environment on its application to planning and will drastically reduce the quality of the surrounding area.

    1. This application does not reflect the surrounding area, which is predominately residential but has been marked on the plan as office/retail.

    2. The building will block all light from the rear apartments, and their balconies, of 117 Hardware Street, and the apartments that back onto the current car park from the rear of Lonsdale Street, drastically reducing quality of life.

    3. The building's height will completely overshadow Hardware street, which is an important tourist precinct.

    4. The massive skyscraper will contribute to Little Lonsdale street becoming a dark tunnel with a projected density that far outstrips its capacity for comfortable pedestrian traffic flow. The footpaths in Little Lonsdale street are already completely unsuitable for the amount of foot traffic that it currently has to deal with.

    5. No other small street (of Melbourne Little streets) have been asked to cope with this level of planned height. It is completely unsuited to this kind of development.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Diana Dickens commented

    This increasing provision of boarding houses is of concern. What is the overall plan for this area? Why is there so much sub standard housing being allowed here.?

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 252 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Diana Dickens commented

    This is part of really big development and looks like it will be as ugly as the one up near the corner of Dudley Street. How can these developments have no side windows? Who can live there.? Why is there so much basement development if it is only 5 stories high?

    I think the residents of the larger area need consulting when such ugly and large buildings are being approved. Effectively you are increasing the population of this area 30 or 40 times what was there before.

    Thankyou for reading this and I hope to hear back

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To hold a cross cultural...” at 142 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Natalie Cheney commented

    I highly recommend this application.
    The markets are a fantastic way to bring life, art, culture, smallbusiness, & community togetherness to the area.
    It saddens me to read so many comments attached to this application in regards to parking.
    As Sydney's population increases, areas close to the city such as these will have a population increase and parking will become more sparse. We might as well enjoy a weekly market while that's happening. walking once a week to get to your car never killed anyone.

  18. In Kew VIC on “Installation and use of a...” at 99 High Street South Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerry Fairbank commented

    It is difficult to reconcile the signs with road safety. The signs are designed to maximally distract and are potentially dangerous. I am surprised that there are not controls to prohibit signage at this busy intersection. Also, the existing signs surely make the junction one of the most unattractive areas in Boroondara. Additional signs would add to the degradation of the junction as well as distracting motorists.

  19. In Balmain NSW on “Consolidate two exsisting...” at 139-143 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Dr Maria Elena Indelicato commented

    Hi there,

    Today, a colleague of mine and I are conducting a research on children's home in Sydney and we know that two of them used to be in Balmain. Today we passed by the building at 139-143 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041 and we wondered about what you used to be. Do you know anything about?

    Best,
    Marilena

  20. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for alts/adds to...” at 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Susan Clayhills commented

    DA-2014/567 re 290 Mowbray Road, Artarmon

    21/12/2014

    To Whom It May Concern

    An energetic campaign of opposition by a significant number of locals residents was lodged about this property about this time last year in regard to the proposed development of a long day care centre in this suburban street.

    Our opposition was regarding several areas of concern which in fact council totally agreed with and which resulted in the rejection of that DA proposal.

    Issues

    Lack of parking in dead end street ie. access to property is on Stafford Road
    Danger of parking on busy Mowbray Road to drop off children
    Impact on neighbouring streets particularly Muttama Road, Tindale Road and Stafford Road
    Access for emergency vehicles
    Increased volume of traffic along Stafford and Tindale Roads - at peak drop off / collection times - investigated in survey
    OHS and other safety issues with young children at drop off and pickup times
    Noise to neighbouring properties
    Lack of space on property to construct designated driveway for vehicles

    Also how is it possible to have car spaces for 21 cars on this property that would be safe to children when staff do shift work and so arrive and leave at varying times ??

    Thank you for your consideration

    Susan Clayhills

  21. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Multi-Dwelling...” at 78 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Ricki Moore commented

    We don't need another place to access alcohol, it is already a social problem in the community. Why build this next to the beach? We like our village and environment and the community enjoys family events like the market and festivals. It will bring more social problems. Building community does not need pubs, it needs more community village appeal. There are enough places for people to access alcohol.

  22. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Benjamin Tan commented

    As a pet owner, I would like to see more vet clinics in the area where pet ownership is high - it means more options for us. This is an excellent proposal!

  23. In Kew VIC on “Installation and use of a...” at 99 High Street South Kew VIC 3101:

    Judith Scurfield commented

    I feel that large digital signs such as that already installed on the Kew Hotel are a major traffic hazard, as they distract drivers, in this case, drivers coming through a very busy intersection at Kew Junction. There are already 2 such large signs at the Junction, and that is 2 too many, so I would certainly object to any more being installed.

  24. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Min Chan commented

    I whole-heartedly support the application. With high pet ownership in the Surry Hills area, this will be a great convenient addition to the area.

  25. In Epping NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15, 17 and 19 Essex Street, Epping NSW 2121:

    Craig Watson commented

    The proposed changes to traffic and the resulting increase in cars on Essex Street will be further exacerbated by this application. The third to be proposed on Essex St. If they commence roughly at the same time the resultant traffic chaos will further add to the extreme difficulties residents of Nth Epping travelling west to Eastwood and to a degree joining Epping Rd will experience. The construction phase is likely to continue for at least 2 years.
    It is vital that a co ordinated Traffic Management Plan be developed for the construction phase of all of these projects and that the compliance is strictly monitored.

  26. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Kaelah Ford commented

    I fully support this application. The veterinary clinic would be a valuable addition to our community and the proposed development suits the character of the area.

  27. In Surry Hills NSW on “Change of use of ground...” at 1 Brumby Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Andrew Wentzel commented

    I fully support this great community focused small animal vet clinic in my area.

    As an owner of multiple pets it's important to know that there are great small local vets how went to support and work in my area

  28. In Ultimo NSW on “Use of the first and second...” at 7-9 Hackett Street Ultimo NSW 2007:

    James Connoly commented

    This block is already used as apartments. In fact, both the garages have also been converted to rooms. People have been living in the garages for at least 2 years.

  29. In Mc Mahons Point NSW on “New four storey residential...” at 34 East Crescent Street Mcmahons Point NSW 2060:

    Sally Tribe commented

    The development application has no thought or planning concerning the surrounding area...or buildings... It oversteps the height limit , and is a complete over development of this prominent site.

    The materials are not in keeping with other buildings , nor even pleasant environmentally nor architecturally.....

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish building 8, 9...” at 182-186 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Simon Goldstein commented

    I object to the demolishing of these buildings because of their heritage value and appeal to the community.

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