Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

    Joanna Hutchinson commented

    I strongly approve of this application, in fact it would be better if the height limit was increased to 12 storey or more. Situated RIGHT NEXT TO Marrickville Station, which in the coming decade will be transformed to part of a HIGH-FREQUENCY metro line, this prime site should be used for very dense residential and retail/commercial uses. Nimby's should stop objecting these developments if you want Marrickville to continue to be a vibrant shopping destination. Look at the rest of Sydney! There are many 20 storey developments going up everywhere. Marrickville's location, near the Airport, Southern Sydney Employment Area and Sydney CBD gives the right to build very tall buildings. People want to live near their work!

    Given that the state government is preparing preliminary station plans for the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal, Marrickville as a suburb could easily accommodate up to 20 storey buildings. Rundown decades-old flats will be replaced by modern buildings. Not only will Marrickville become denser for the right reasons but there will be more jobs close to frequent and fast public transportation. If Marrickville wants better public transportation, it needs to become denser. 2-18 Station Street original design of a 16 storey building MUST be revisited. Local residents should think for the whole of Sydney and its future.

    The original plans for a 16 storey building on this site runs parallel to the governments Sydenham-Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy so I strongly support those plans. 8 storeys is not enough for the future of Marrickville, the council must consider all these points when approving this DA or any others!

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

    Rod commented

    I'd love to move back to the NSW North Coast Regional location I came from however my family and I are now connected to Sydney socially and through work.
    By what mechanisms do we restrict free people's movements within Australia and tell them where to live. Some sort of internal border controls? Are you happy to be told where to live?
    At the route of all these anti development arguments seems to be rampant NIMBYism and envy. If current landowners hold out and sell their land to developers for huge capital gains without being taxed it's still their perfect legal entitlement. If they were taxed on those windfall gains in the year they occur or prices were somehow capped then development may stop. However to accuse developers alone of greed is grossly hypocritical. The government (us) gets a huge windfall from the stamp duty and GST on each of these new apartment sales. The govt actually charges stamp duty on the GST. A tax on a tax! On a $1.1m sale is $100k GST + $46k Stamp duty. They do that on our behalf and we benefit from it. Billions so far this year.
    Aspirational people want to work so they want to be where the jobs and educational opportunities for themselves and family are. They want to be near friends and community support and be able to get to work and education efficiently. For the environment's sake that should be by public transport.
    Fact! There will be 1 million more people living in Sydney in 10 years. If you don't like that then maybe Sydney or Melbourne shouldn't factor in your long term plans. Fighting appropriate individual developments one at a time won't stop it. I agree that jobs in the regions would be good and it has been unsuccessfully tried many times by govts of different persuasion. Eg Bathurst, Albury etc.
    Sometimes you have to stop the emotion (leafy green) and deal with the facts! High density development is not coming to every part of Epping just those areas close to the public amenity and infrastructure. The people are coming. How do we house them sustainably? Anywhere but Epping?

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

    Hollie Ussher commented

    I strongly object to this development application. This hotel has real significance in the Alexandria community. It is an historic, iconic, and extremely unique venue. Please tell me where in city Sydney I can sit under the stars watching sporting events on a large outdoor theatre screen, or sit by an open fireplace with a friend or two. This venue is accessible to ALL OF US. This future da has no accessibility. Any retail space if indeed used for hospitality will be small and overpriced. There is a flood of apartment blocks going up in the area as it is. Slow down Sydney City Council. Pace yourself and think clearly and into the future of your people. We love the old stuff just as much as the new stuff. Please do not allow this particular application. Keep Alexandria Hotel for our future, so we can look back on its past, not just in a book or online.

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

    Kathy Wilson commented

    I despair of the lack of respect for the many historic buildings in our great city. Money cannot buy back history, we have a duty to preserve it. And as always, it's money hungry developers behind the proposed demolition of this wonderful historic gem in a part of Sydney with such a diverse history. It's a beautiful building, perfectly preserved, one of those places where the saying "if the walls could talk" is highly appropriate. And it's very well patronised - I've rarely been in there and seen it without a decent crowd. Why oh why is it not listed? It should be!

    God knows there are enough soulless apartment complexes being built around the historic inner city. We don't need another one - especially at the cost of such a beautiful piece of Sydney's history. Please see sense and DON'T DO THIS.

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

    Jo commented

    Regional Areas desperately need migrants to keep them growing and vibrant. They could keep beautiful suburbs with old homes and trees intact and make all migrants move there. Many areas in regional Australia are actively looking to attract skilled and business migrants.

  8. In South Yarra VIC on “Removal of Easement” at 19 Avoca Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Anthony Thomas commented

    The easement is there for good reason. The property was sold subject to it.

    I would have bought the property myself if that easement had not been in place. We need planning consistency.

    I object to its removal.

    Anthony Thomas
    Caroline Street
    South Yarra Vic 3141
    0412 397 950

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

    Rod commented

    Well that's the needs of you and yours described and I note you think you know the needs and desires of everyone else in the market. But that clearly differs from reality as the new units are selling and quickly. At about 2-3 people per dwelling we need about 25-30,000 new dwellings a year in Sydney to cater for the population increase. Not all in Epping obviously but we need new housing for older people and younger people alike. Not everyone wants a big house on a big block. For years that number of new dwellings hasn't been built so it's catch up. It's not perfect because it is catch up but logic says put the people near public transport and other infrastructure. You may have noticed Epping has had a fair bit of new public transport infrastructure and roads (M2 upgrade) provided recently.
    It's still not clear from your comments exactly where the increased population would be best housed since they do want to live in Sydney. Anywhere but Epping?

  10. In Buff Point NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at Castle Rose 54-56 Buff Point Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Lees commented

    Surely council could have kept this iconic piece of local history, especially after Alison Farm burnt down. There is not much history in the Northern Coast, yet they are happy to demolish the most beautiful building in Buff Point. Surely an investor would have been interested in preserving it?????

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

    Tony Arnold commented

    I object to the demolition of the Alexandria Hotel on two grounds. Firstly, the building is irreplaceable due to it's heritage value. Secondly,  there are already thousands of new apartments being built in Alexandria which will increase the demand for pubs like this. It would be a shame to lose this pub right when it is in highest demand.

  12. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Removal of Light and Air...” at 348 Canterbury Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lynette commented

    Why is the removal of the light and air easement being considered? What has been changed to incorporate this elsewhere in the plans? Exactly where in the plans is this to be removed?
    Both light and air are essential features which should be a minimum requirement in all planning schemes and plans.

  13. In Southbank VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 22-24 Wells Place Southbank VIC 3006:

    D. Cassar commented

    The proposed building will completly box-in the two existing apartment buildings on this block. I strongly object to this proposal. I am an owner of an apartment in one of the Elm apartment block.

    If this development proceeds, the new building will have a pleasant view of the park and the city for about a quarter of it's residents on the higher levels of the North and West facing sides. However, the remaining residents will have an unpleasant view across to other apartments and more importantly, HUNDREDS of residents of Guilfoyle and Elm will now also have a view across to other apartments.

    To approve this plan would be a very bad outcome for many hundreds of resident of the City of Melbourne, and a good outcome for a small handful of the new building occupants, and of course the developers.

    Please do the right thing and act in the best interest of the residents. There is no shortage of units in South Melbourne.

  14. In Malvern VIC on “Remove of a single dwelling...” at 12 Haverbrack Avenue, Malvern, VIC:

    Wendy john commented

    So sad to see the demise of haverbrack ave and many of the surrounding streets in Malvern , Armadale and Prahran East.
    Development gone mad and the Malvern we knew disappearing fast.

    It's not that I am anti development but the green spaces and trees we are losing are irreplaceable .

    The style of new homes and apartment blocks takes no heed of the lovely older buildings left.

    The increased traffic and street parking is an ever growing problem

    It is not necessarily this application I am against it is just a symbol of the loss of beauty in these areas

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 2 Arthur Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Henare Degan commented

    Sigh. I'm very disappointed I missed the chance to have my say about this development application.

    It's yet another proposal that's about twice the size of what it should be. The nearby buildings rarely reach over 4 stories.

    Please don't ruin Marrickville. I hope this application is not approved in its current form.

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

    Henare Degan commented

    I strongly object to this application in its current form. While I've got no problem with the idea of developing this block into an apartment building it's about twice the size it should be.

    This size is not in keeping with the local area. You only need to look across the road about how the Revolution apartments stick out.

    I dearly hope that Marrickville does not share Dulwich Hill's fate with heaps of completely out of place, massive, soulless concrete nightmares.

    Please do not approve this application.

  17. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 3-5 Chambers Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Brigid James commented

    We are owner/occupiers in 20 Chambers St and strongly oppose this proposal. A four-storey development on a small block without adequate parking for both residents and visitors on the site is unacceptable. Traffic congestion is already a major problem in Chambers, Bond and Oxford streets and this development would only exacerbate the problem.

    We ask that the council rejects the proposal and addresses the parking problems proactively to ensure that there is proper support for both commercial and residential drivers.

    Brigid and Andrew James
    1/20 Chambers St
    South Yarra 3141

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

    Cheryl Hayward commented

    My main objection to the complete overdevelopment of our little garden suburbs on railway lines is this. The overdeveloment is simply greed feeding on the current situation. This is not long term planning, unless it is planning for future slums. I know my children would not buy into, or even live in these towers of boxes, and even if they did, it would only be until they could afford a real home. The degradation of our suburbs is about greed. And dare I say that those who will be living in these boxes will not be travelling into the City to work, so the public transport won't figure into their calculations. And the more supply, the cheaper the rent, the worse tenants we will get. Walk around Chatswood, Hurstville, Liverpool, where this type of development has already occurred. Why would we want Epping and Beecroft to descend into the blocks of overcrowded boxes, graffitied towers of concrete, petty criminal activity and complete lack of any family-friendly amenities? It's never too late to stop until the bulldozers move in, but the degradation of our suburb is well underway, and I for one will be very sad to see Epping in particular, turn into a suburb of transients, with everything that this term implies.

  19. In Pokolbin NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision” at 972 Hermitage Road Pokolbin NSW 2320:

    Dennis Carl Eldridge commented

    I have studied the site and read the proposal including the Statement of Environmental Effects. I believe this proposal is based on sound planning principles; is practical; and economically sound.It also complies with the principles of the Hermitage Road Planning Study.

    Dennis C. Eldridge M.Bus. HDA FAPI F.Fin.

    Registered Valuer and Rural Finance Consultant
    Registration No. 274
    Certified Practising Valuer
    Certified Practising Valuer (Bus)
    Certified Property Practitioner (Fin)

  20. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 2-4 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    1. The development is too large given the already great number of multilevel developments in the area. The population of the area has already , or is about to, increase rapidly so that amenities like open space per resident have been drastically lowered.
    2. NO REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING - the area already has many parking problems.

  21. In Fitzroy North VIC on “35 New Dwellings, Reduction...” at 20 Rushall Cres Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    There should be NO reduction in car parking requirements - the area is difficult enough to park in already.

  22. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 32 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    NO reduction in parking requirements - the area is too difficult to park in already

  23. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 60 Clauscen St Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    I live nearby and parking is already a problem. NO reduction in parking requirements please - particularly given the increasing number of large constructions of units etc in the area, often without adequate parking.

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

    L Baxter commented

    I object to any reduction in the parking requirements as I have seen the effect on communities of ever-reduced parking spaces.

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

    Charles Edwards commented

    Please do not allow this wonderful piece of working Sydney's history be replaced by yet another soulless apartment complex. Once it is gone it is forever. Think about all those buildings that have been lost already. At the very least incorporate the facade into an attractive fusion of old and new, but do not destroy this classic building.

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

    James Baber commented

    I would like to add to the many voices who strongly object to the development proposal (DA D/2015/772) to demolish the historic Alexandria Hotel and replace it with a generic apartment block. I am not against development, and the addition of well designed accommodation in appropriate areas is important, but not at the expense of the heritage and amenity of our community. There are already many developments in this area to support future housing needs such as the new developments on Mitchell Road nearby, and of course the Ashmore precinct. Alexandria needs to retain it's heritage or it risks becoming a community without a soul. I dispute the argument that because there are a handful of other pubs in existence designed by the same architects that the Alexandria Hotel is not unique or worth saving. This is precisely why it is worth saving - it should be heritage listed.

    Please do not allow the destruction of a valuable piece of Sydney's history, a classic hotel that means so much to the community.

  27. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 49 Anglo Road, Campsie NSW:

    Alfred commented

    Being only metres away from Campsie Station, I cannot believe how this valuable land is wasted on a 4 storey flat. Surely Canterbury Council and its Development Team must revisit its LEP. Sydenham to Bankstown Priority Precinct Strategy will be made in the near future to uplift residential scale to provide higher density developments that are close to great public transportation. 4 storeys is not enough, but rather at least 20 storeys should be investigated. Nearby Campsie RSL is currently forming plans to create a 16 storey landmark. I see no reason why 49 Anglo Rd, Campsie which is located in the priority precinct cannot build 20 storey buildings. Amalgamation is necessary to allow that but 4 storeys is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, nearby single storey and 3 storey flats will be heavily affected by a 20 storey tower, but they will eventually go and built into taller buildings anyway. We should think about the future by addressing affordability issues in Sydney. Denser and taller buildings will help but 4 storeys won't!

  28. In Campsie NSW on “Construction of an...” at 538-546 Canterbury Road, Campsie NSW:

    Alfred Peterson commented

    I support the plans to add an additional 2 floors. Although the council has already approved the original DA, this building is bulky and sets an undesirable environment with its poor design and building envelope. The facade is so poorly treated that I wonder how could this development be approved in the first place. Bulky with no visual relief or appropriate design elements, this development will not benefit the community.

  29. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 77 Second Avenue, Campsie NSW:

    Alfred Peterson commented

    I do not support 3 storey residential flat development on this site. Parallel to the upcoming Sydenham to Bankstown Priority Precinct Strategy, Canterbury Council should uplift density and height limits now. This site could easily achieve more than triple the height limit as the whole area is slated for urban renewal. Within walking distance to Campsie Station, this site is fit for higher buildings. How would Canterbury Council achieve the 200,000 population target they set themselves in the Improvement Plan as the submission for 'Fit for the Future.'

    Also, the design of this development is not adequate to improve and maximise benefits such as sunlight. The facade is poorly treated and of sub-standard quality. The roof should be flat instead of multiple pitches so as a result the building creates an undesirable environment.

  30. In Campsie NSW on “Construction of a new three...” at 13 Seventh Avenue, Campsie NSW:

    Alfred Peterson commented

    Are you kidding me! More 3 storey flats? With the Sydneham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal, Campsie needs to accommodate 20+ storey towers to keep up with other town centres. Campsie is the retail and commercial heart of the City of Canterbury and yet, the council has no plans no upscale the whole area (800m radius from the station). Look at the maximum height limit in Campsie compared to neighbouring town centres. Campsie is obviously lagging behind with a maximum of 8 storey buildings in tiny and specific locations. This DA has poor results in urban design and architecturally impressing buildings. Amalgamation with neighbours to create 3000+ sqm sites are essential to improve building envelopes and design. The facade is poorly treated, while residential amenities are not of a good standard.

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