Recent comments

  1. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    ADAM YEE commented

    As a small business owner who has been based in the immediate area for the past decade, I strongly object to the demolition of the Alexandria Hotel. The need for progress and development in a highly desirable commercial area is understandable. However as the case of the Carriageworks precinct has displayed, it can be done without destroying iconic buildings.
    Alexandria/Redfern is quickly becoming a soulless, vertical suburb with much of its character being scrubbed out of existence. The Alexandria is an oasis that is becoming a beacon for the fast-multiplying population. Rightly so. It has been there since the 1870's and retains its heritage and charm. In addition, its a family friendly venue. To destroy this local icon would be criminal. Once its gone, it is gone for good. Replaced by high-density housing that will create further traffic and congestion in the area.
    I call upon the City Of Sydney to decline this application to demolish The Alexandria Hotel.

  2. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 843 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    LV commented

    I see after refusal, this is going for review again.
    The area already has many empty shops languishing for months and not enough customer parking to support more retail. Also there is a lot of apartment building already happening in the area which will substantially impact the area which has not had corresponding infrastructure improvements.
    The medical Center carpark next door is already misused by visitors to the area, and with shops and residencies planned without extra public parking, this will only get worse denying people with limited mobility from parking at the medical Center.
    The building will block out morning sun to a number of dwellings across the road, block out the city view and therefore reduce the enjoyment of the residents significantly. It also will cause financial harm to those residents.
    Finally the existing property has a distinctive and historic facade which should be preserved if at all possible.

  3. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Jason Hooker commented

    Regarding "Application Number D/2015/772":

    I strongly object to this application because:

    1. I believe the current building has local historical and heritage significance.
    2. The lack of parking provided by the new building will lead to more cars being parked in the already overcrowded local streets.
    3. The local community will lose a popular meeting place.
    4. The suburb is already saturated with soul-less apartment buildings.
    5. The new building provides no affordable housing.
    6. The current building already provides long-term affordable housing that will be lost if demolished.

  4. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Andrew Bailey commented

    I am totally against the proposed development. These are not houses but eyesores that not only destroy the environment but also lower the standard of our beautiful area.
    These so called 'houses' back on to our family home. We will have absolutely no privacy, noise will be unbearable (squashing families in so close together just over our fence) and the northern aspect sun will be blocked out.
    One of the highlights of elermore vale is the beautiful leafy environment we have. I can't believe a development like this could even be considered.
    Traffic and parking will become a major issue and where children would be play is a mystery. This development would cause major social issues.
    Surely less houses of quality with yards and trees left for screening and would be a much better option for all.

  5. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Ludmilla Sneesby commented

    I am strongly against this proposed development for various reasons.
    For a start the proposed buildings are MONSTROSITIES, complete eyesores, an assault on the environment, an assault on our suburb. Environmentally, there are many species of native animals living in the area and this insult is threatening their very existence.

    Its extremely inappropriate to develop high density housing in this area which already has traffic problems, parking issues, garbage collection problems, access to emergency vehicles and so on

    As a resident of Elermore Vale for over 50 years it saddens me to see our beautiful, leafy suburb turn into a concrete jungle. Where are the planners? do they not look into the future and the preservation of our beautiful world for generations to come? Do we as residents have a voice?

  6. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Justin Laughton commented

    I am a resident of Maryborough-Biggenden road who will be directly affected by the proposed Air Park, I wish to advise that following the flight demonstrations held on Saturday 11 and Sunday 12 July, I strongly oppose the development of the Air Park, I found the noise of the aircraft loud with noise recordings exceeding 70dba and was constant and very disruptive to family and pets and livestock, it completely ruins peaceful country style living, I also have concerns for the safety of people and property with these low flying aircraft, there are sure to be accidents with the intended high number of aircraft using the park, this will also increase local vehicle traffic to unwanted levels.

  7. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Construction of a five...” at 117-119 Flinders Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Josh Patience commented

    This ill considered and myopic development should

    1. The proposed development does not recongnise the storey height of the adjacent historical buildings
    2. The proposed development does not recognise the setback patterns alignment with adjacent buildings (front and rear)
    3. Solar access into Hutchinson Street apartments will be significantly reduced in breach of minimum impacts and and shadow impact diagrams in the development have not been carried out on an hourly basis by developer
    4. The development has been built beyond maximum allowable height of 18m and thermal gain to Hutchinson St apartments will be impacted
    5. Visual privacy will be reduced with windows facing directly into Hutchinson St apartments with minimal (less than 7 metres) of distance; privacy of children is a concern with views directly into bedrooms (given floorplans of Hutchinson St apartments);
    6. Proximity of development will also impact acoustic privacy and industrial components (traffic / waste management) will take place within the 7 metre proximity zone mentioned in point 5

    In summary, existing property holder rights are being unfairly impinged by this development - the disregard of setback requirements, height and proximity will adversely impact the quality of life for property owners and their children in the adjacent streets.

    All property holders agree that a smaller and more sincerely thought out development is required and are willing to lobby vocally should our council not understand its ratespayers' interests in this regard.


  8. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    josie bailey commented

    We are formally objecting to the development proposal for the construction of 25 two story dwellings at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore Vale. I am a resident of Robina Close Elermore Vale (which backs onto the development) and I strongly object to this new proposal. On the council website it outlines the reasons for objections and we feel the proposal does in fact breech all the areas outlined including:

    1. Obstruction of Views, Privacy, Noise and Sun issues
    My back fence will be only a few metres from these new dwellings (with absolutely no trees left in between). This will totally destroy the aspect we now have. We of course knew there was the possibility of buildings going up in this area but always thought council would ensure the homes would be aesthetically in line with current properties and with integrity for the environment. These do not even look like homes but more like ‘storage boxes.’ We are also outranged by the number of dwellings planned in such a small area and the fact they will be double storey- basically peering over our back fence, into the back of my home (which is all glass) and blocking the northerly sun. Our privacy will be greatly invaded and noise a major issue with so many houses so close together and adjacent to the back of my home.

    Looking at other local developments (around the corner at Paddock Close for example) many trees have been left as screening and for wildlife, between existing homes and new dwellings. I would have expected the same considerations for this development. Also all homes being built locally are quality homes fitting in with the integrity and character of our area.

    2. Environmental Issues
    I am also devastated at the prospects of the impact on the beautiful environment, home to many types of wildlife including the rare eastern bandicoot and black cockatoos. We also have an abundance of other native birds as well as lizards, goannas and possums. I am also concerned about the size of the development in such a confined space to
    accommodate so many residents.

    3. Parking Issues
    There is lack lack of adequate garaging and parking. Two/Three-bedroom housing with only a single garage is going to lead to parking problems in local streets. Most families these days have at least 2 cars or in many cases they don't garage the car and use it for storage. In addition, if this housing is rented and there are three or more people sharing a house, then there could be up to 3 cars. This could potentially lead to 1‐2 cars per dwelling parked on the neighbouring streets.

    4. Traffic Issues
    With the proposed development adjoining onto Nerigai Close, this will created more traffic in an already congested street, without an added 50 extra car movements. I suggest council look in peak hours to assess what the traffic is like before approving this development. Council really need to re-think where the access road comes from as Nerigai Close and Melinda Avenue are already overloaded with cars.

    5. Development Damage
    We are also very concerned at the potential damage caused by the development with large machinery so close to our home. I have already had two large windows broken during initial clearing for recent surveying. My son sitting next to one of the windows was very lucky not to be seriously hurt.

    I am also very disappointed at the lack of community consultation regarding this development to residents in Robina Close and Nerigai Close and surrounding streets is appealing considering how the proposed development would impact on this community significantly. From our family point of view it would be totally unacceptable to continue living in this area if the proposal is to go ahead. We would appreciate any consideration in this matter and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the development at a forum with you.

  9. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Nicola Perry commented

    I absolutely object to this proposal. As urban areas undergo renewal, it's vital to keep the balance between the amenity needs of the population and the diverse cultural heritage of the area, as represented in its buildings and their functions. This is a historic building that allows for people to come together in a way that is different from other places and is special. The Alexandria Hotel is about local people, local community, local jobs and local history. It's an important place and an important structure.

    On a more economic note, the preservation of the Alexandria Hotel is vital in maintaining the sort of vibe that attracts people to the area to live, work, play and spend their money. Demolishing it would be demolishing an irreplaceable asset.

    The negative effects of approving this development proposal would be much greater, both socially and economically, than any gain yet another block of apartments could possibly bring to the area.

  10. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 29 Mangarra Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    KDangerfield commented

    This permit should NOT be approved.

    As this dwelling is in a Heritage Overlay area is it not protected from demolition?

    Has a permit for demolition been applied for? Dividing the the property into three lots would require demolition to be done. How can it be divided without demolition?

    I feel that this 110 year old building which has been immaculately maintained with period features which contribute to the overall area should be protected by the Heritage Overlay Laws of Victoria.

    "The primary purpose of the Heritage Overlay is to protect the heritage significance of a building, place or area. If the heritage place is significant, or if it contributes to the significance of an area, a permit for demolition may be refused".

    A sub-division of this property would be an insult to the significance of this area.

  11. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Laughton family commented

    I have concerns about the increase in traffic in the area entering and leaving watsons rd if this project were to go ahead. Being a close neighbour not only will the continued noise be frustrating, but so will the constant and increased number of vehicles to and from the park. The planners have underestimated the noise to local residents from both planes and traffic. Watkins road is cal so access to state forestry where our family walks, horse rides, mountain bikes and increased traffic will increase the dangers and affect our quality of lifestyle. I strongly oppose the development.

  12. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Sonia Tourany commented

    I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:
    This is a historic building with orinigal features that cannot be replicated.
    It is a gathering place for the community where people come to meet and socialise.
    There is already enough residential development being constructed or already constructed in a 2km radius.
    Units which are normally developed on small corner sites like this one are normally built so quickly and are so visually diaspealing, they are normally housed by renters which tend to change every six months and leave their rubbish on the street when they move. AND the buildings look so UGLY in 5 years because of the lack of quality in the building process as the developers just build them so quickly to make a quick profit.

  13. In Yengarie QLD on “Combined Impact Assessment...” at 45 Watson Road, Yengarie, QLD:

    Kate laughton commented

    I live directly across the road from this proposed air park development and listened to the test flights run on Saturday to demonstrate how loud the noise would be to neighbours. I moved here 7 years ago and run a business from home. I have horses. The noise on Saturday reached over 70decibals and spooked my horses whilst I was working with them. I strongly oppose this development as I do not want to listen to planes constantly circling around my property, and although their proposal stated they would not fly over properties, they flew over my home and horse paddocks. There was a constant annoying noise whilst they flew and it destroyed the peace and tranquility that was why I purchased my property. I do not support their application and want to be kept informed of any further progress of this application.

  14. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Russell mason commented

    As the saying goes the whole is made up of many parts. By destroying a significant part of Alexandria you take away a place that is not only bricks and mortar but heart and soul.

    I strongly object to the proposed demolition of the Alexandria Hotel. I believe the City of Sydney should do it's utmost to ensure the Alexandria Hotel remains as a pulsating, living, heritage, community oasis in this vibrant area of Sydney.

  15. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Steve Harris commented

    The news that the Alexandria Hotel could be demolished and replaced with an apartment block is very sad indeed. Heritage listing of this historic hotel building should be the priority of City of Sydney. This building has served the local community and others as a meeting place for many generations now. If this piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever.
    Please stop this application from going ahead City of Sydney.
    You have the power to veto!

  16. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Steve Harris commented

    The news that the Alexandria Hotel could be demolished and replaced with an apartment block is very sad indeed. Heritage listing of this historic hotel building should be the priority of City of Sydney. This building has served the local community and others as a meeting place for many generations now. If this piece of history is destroyed, it is lost forever.
    Please stop this application from going ahead City of Sydney.
    You have the power to veto!

  17. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Nicole McGee commented

    I object tot the demolition of the Alexandria Hotel. Removal of the hotel significantly impacts on the community use areas within the area. Increasing the density of housing / apartments will lead to further traffic congestion, noise and pollution.

    The Alexandria hotel is an historic icon and should remain as such in what is fast becoming an over- developed area.

  18. In Northcote VIC on “Partial demolition of the...” at 10 Langwells Parade Northcote VIC 3070:

    Adam commented

    I also object to the reduction in parking requirements. I've noticed this as a recent trend: developers getting through a certain stage in the planning process then requesting reductions in parking requirements. This should not be allowed and council must be firm and stick to the guidelines they set for these kinds of projects.

  19. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    claudio parinetto commented

    I object l have had a business directly opposite the alex for 30 years this building has so much history being part of alexandria .the other problem is parking its hard enough parking now

  20. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    J Clark commented

    If an iconic pub is to be destroyed, at least turn it into something that benefits the public rather than lining the pockets of another opportunistic developer.

    Whilst I would prefer to see the hotel retained and heritage listed, it would make more sense for the council to deny the DA, lobby the government for a Waterloo metro rail station, and for the government to buy the site and make it into an accessible station on the proposed metro line.

  21. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Simon Teong commented

    I strongly object to the demolition of such a historic pub that is family friendly and community orientated.

  22. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Rod commented

    Thanks Craig.

    I support the proposed development.
    It will provide a variety of much needed new housing near to the well established and serviced centre of Epping.
    Epping has readily available modern public transport providing good access for future residents to nearby employment centres at Macquarie Park and North Ryde.

    The application is consistent with modern sustainable planning initiatives that support densities and the growth of the city near good public transport. I think it should be approved ASAP.

  23. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    alex willis commented

    As a long term resident it makes me so sad and angry to think that The Alexandria Hotel could be demolished for yet another bland and ugly apartment block.

    We've seen many changes in our area in the last decade and many beautiful old buildings have been torn down in the name of progress....I'm all for progress, but we need to have a balance with retaining history too. The Alex has been lovingly improved by it's current tenant and it's such a great place to visit whether you're a single person, with friends or as a family. When I had a baby a few years ago my local mothers group even used it as a meeting place when it was too cold to go to the parks. The staff could not have been more welcoming to a bunch of new mums who only ever ordered coffee and hot chocolates.

    Please take the objections from people who live in the area seriously. We don;t want to lose this pub, there are far too few in the area anyway. As you pump more people into the area, you need to give them somewhere to meet, eat and socialise.

  24. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Craig Watson commented

    Please be focussed on the purpose of Planning Alerts. It is not a forum for diatribes on planning matters. Submissions specific to a DA are forwarded to Council. You either object or support with accompanying reasons.

  25. In Erskineville NSW on “Imperial Hotel -...” at 35-39 Erskineville Rd, Erskineville 2043:

    Alex Ozdowski commented

    Based on recent performance and clear disrespect for local neighbours conditions should be placed on the liquor licence to ensure appropriate community standards are met.

  26. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Alicia szoboszlay commented

    As a resident if Winston Hills for over 6 years, I am saddened and disappointed in the proposed units.
    I support refurbishment of the mall, however, hints above the mall will change the vibe and community of this unique and very welcoming area.
    Only kilometers away from Sydney's next CBD busy parramatta, Winston hills is a haven, a friendly, slower paced, green and flourishing suburb.
    Why you would want to detract. Winston hills strengths by doing this is beyond me, and many other residents.
    Already I find it difficult to find a park at the mall on some weekends especially nearing public holidays. Also as my two children will be attending Winston heights p.s. In a couple of years, the danger of the excess traffic and vehicles parked outside the school concerns me greatly-enough that I'm researching other school alternatives. A shame as we've been excited about it since before we moved here.
    Please, refurbish or add a shop or two. Not apartments.
    You will lose great, quality community members that make this suburb the welcoming place it is today.
    This will ruin everything we are proud of.
    Alicia szoboszlay

  27. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Rod commented

    Again you are just laying down more emotional NIMBY stuff. Read back over your earlier NIMBY ramblings which could have come straight out of a sensational tabloid newspaper! No facts or serious alternatives or solutions / suggestions! I think you might actually have a grip on something yourself!
    No I'm not a planner. But what if I was? Relevance?
    But I have thought about it quite a bit! I'm not dreaming, wishing and hoping like others!
    Like you my housing needs are already met in the area. I'm concerned for the future housing needs of my family. If housing supply is restricted in the way you and others emotionally and dreamily suggest here it will be the bush for our kids but still put prices up even further here. Hello! Supply and demand also works in Epping. We can't quarantine it from Epping unless you really are advocating some totalitarian anti migration system. That's another debate and not to be fought on the Epping battlefront.
    Again you fail to say specifically where these 1million new residents of Sydney will live!
    Anywhere but Epping is what I hear? Send 'em to the bush is the only bit I got.
    Think woman! It's time for thinking not wishing and dreaming! Have a go at me but how does that help the logic of your position? Broaden your reading material I suggest! Get in the car or on the train and have a look at some of the higher density areas of Sydney that work. Eastern Suburbs. The Inner City. Young people are clambering to get in there as renters or buyers. They love it. It can work! But get off the bandwagon and think for yourself rather than regurgitating this mindless tabloid hysteria! No one is picking on Epping. It's everywhere. Hey! We may not all like your dreamy / blurry vision of the future for Epping and in any event I haven't seen a credible plan or how to deliver it.

  28. In Lakemba NSW on “Part demolition of existing...” at 78 Quigg Street South, Lakemba NSW:

    Alfred commented

    Canterbury Council area does not need more boarding houses. We have approved more than enough. 3 storey buildings will be in the history books of Lakemba as the construction of Sydney Metro to Bankstown will mean the government will dramatically increase height restrictions and FSR. I do not support a 3 storey boarding house. Council should act now, rezone critical land near Lakemba station to support better land-uses, much higher height and FSR limits before every piece of land is developed.

    I do not support this at all, there will be an oversupply of boarding houses in this area.

  29. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Cheryl Hayward commented

    Jeez Rod, get a grip. Are you a "town planner" by any chance. You certainly seem to have taken my comments very personally. But I actually don't care for myself and family, as we already have somewhere else to live, when we decide to leave Sydney, and will be fortunate enough to still have a home here. I feel very sorry for the those who have no choice but to live in and/or beside these developments. There is no quality of life - we've experienced it for ourselves. Eventually, if not immediately, these towers will be full of renters, and will become ugly, neglected slums. But time will very definitely tell. Just one other thing - I note a bit of a nasty tone regarding Epping - it's degradation is merely following the likes of Strathfield and Chatswood, once beautiful garden suburbs too, so I get a bit cranky when I pick up the envious tone in your comments. Don't fret, Epping as a desirous, leafy northern suburb, great for families, is as good as gone.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 2 Station Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Joanna Hutchinson commented

    Adding onto my previous comments, the design is arguably so embarrassing and insufficient. The proposed building will actually look like a large mass of concrete with next to nothing offered in terms of architectural elements. No curved, vertical or any other impressive elements, I support the approval of the height and density proposed but object the design. Privacy screens are also not offered. The facade is poorly treated. This design is appalling and will not benefit the local community.

    On the other hand, the original plans for a 16 storey development shows a much better approach to the design. The facade is well-treated and the building looks iconic. It's not just better external design but the internal design provides better amenities for future occupants. Council has repeatedly approved embarrassing designs, Dulwich Hill in particular was the major victim with large masses of bricks or concrete without any consideration into design elements that enhance the facade or amenities of those slums.

    Overall I support high-density residential/commercial/retail uses (in favour of 16 storey building the most) however i strongly object to the proposed design of a block of concrete.

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