Recent comments

  1. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Josh Goulston commented

    Why is the council considering this type of housing in our suburb ? I accept town houses around the Town Centre but around a quiet suburb like ours ?
    Not only is this a money making decision with a blatent disregard for the beliefs of the people in the area, it will destroy a living environment for our native bird species !
    After receiving a letter stating that an increase in rates is on the agenda due to all of these expensive repairs and up keeping of council roads etc, your now going to spend more on the things we as rate payers can't afford !
    Wake up and start realising that people move to the area due to its locality, quietness and the perfect location to bring up our children and not to look at townhouses.

  2. In Warradale SA on “To remove a significant...” at 4 Jeffrey Av Warradale:

    Andrew McInnes commented

    This application should NOT BE APPROVED

    The tree provides shade and is a very great asset to the street scape. I live in a home with an aspect that allows me to see the tree from my lounge and it would be outrageous to remove it for the specious reasons given by the applicant.

    Perhaps the owners at 4 Jeffrey Avenue find that they cannot watch their children skateboarding in the street outside their home but that is not a good enough reason to cut down such a beautiful tree.

  3. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 31-41 Queen Street Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Julia Moran commented

    Beaconsfield is the forgotten Suburb of the City of Sydney Council. They approve of everything that becomes before them for this area, and I have found out that the Planners do not consult with each other, that is why we have a proliferation of 24 hours Gyms within a short distance of each other, and the people DO NOT catch Public Transport as it always mentioned on their applications. There is Absolutely No Room for One More Car in this Area, but the Council just does not care. This used to be a beautiful place to live, now it is almost impossible to go anywhere for fear of not finding somewhere to park when you come back, and also friends and family cannot visit and Tradesmen are reluctant to come here. Even the Parcel Delivery complain about nowhere to park. Are they trying to isolate us? Please take the Parking into consideration for this and all future applications.

  4. In Parrearra QLD on “24 Hour Fitness Centre” at 6 / 26 Nicklin Way, Parrearra, QLD:

    amanda potter commented

    not enough car-parks for a business this size.
    traffic congestion is overly heavy now at Jessica blvd and Nicklin way intersection. in peak times i wait 2 sometimes 3 traffic cycles just to do a right hand turn

  5. In Mitchell Park VIC on “Use of existing building...” at 7 Mentay Way, Mitchell Park:

    John commented

    There is already a Go Kart Venue in Ballarat. Why is there going to be another?

    There is not enough parking at this location. How can a venue of entertainment have so little area to park?

    Noise pollution?

    Tin Shed? How loud will it be in there? db? Exhaust fans? Fuel Storage? Ventilation?
    Will there be any testing of these before this opens up?
    Do they meet all the Australian Standards for this sort of operation?

  6. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Laurie & Rose Scicliuna commented

    We wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development of 60 townhouses at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah.
    Lack of infrastructure, roads are falling apart with the traffic we have now.
    More traffic increases the risk of accidents. We love our walks in the quiet and fresh air.
    Has a home been found for all the fauna?
    What is the for high rise, as we moved from Blacktown where that is all that's going up.

  7. In West Perth WA on “Proposed demolition of...” at 47 Cowle Street, West Perth, WA, 6005:

    Fiona commented

    Demolishing this structurally sound building would degenerate the heritage intergrity of Cowle St. I live around the corner on Carr st, & the demolition of the Victorian house that stood on part of 82 Carr St saddened me immensely. That house did not need to be demolished for the owners to develop as the block is clearly large enough to be sub-divided. I believe the option of sub division should be pushed onto owners that wish to develop their land that has an existing building of heritage value. Protection should not be limited to Heritage listed buildings as every old house on an inner city street brings character & historical integrity to the community as a whole.

    There are many including myself who would desire to live in a house like this one, many are willing to pay above market price for it, there is just not enough properties like this readily available on the market & when something like this does comes up, it gets snapped up. One only needs to look at all the character homes for sale in the area that has an Under Offer or Sold sticker on the sign.

    For whatever financial gain this project may reap, it will never replace the character this house contributes to the street. Don't let another piece of precious history get lost forever.

  8. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Michele Collins commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development of 60 townhouses at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah.

    This application should not be approved due to the infrastructure particularly roads and schools will not be able to cope with a population increase expected with development of density this size. Mataram Rd is already a busy link road used not only by residents but heavy vehicles utilising a short cut from Charmhaven (Arizona Rd) to Sparks Rd. This poses additional threat to the expected child population increase as they access the local school, preschools, parks and ovals.

  9. In Elanora Heights NSW on “Elanora Heights IGA -...” at 61 Kalang Rd, Elanora Heights 2101:

    G Hawkings commented

    To whom it may concern,

    Alcohol is available at BWS in the same shopping centre. Under age drinking is a real problem on the Northern beaches not to mention the horrible accidents that are often fuelled by same.IGA often hires young teenage staff and I feel the inclusion of alcohol as a sale item would not set a good example.

    Yours sincerely,

    G. Hawkings

  10. In Parrearra QLD on “24 Hour Fitness Centre” at 6 / 26 Nicklin Way, Parrearra, QLD:

    Daryll Leabourn commented

    I have been involved in the 24 hours gym industry for the past 5 years, during that time I have worked in these facilities in various capacities, one of which was Floor manager. In this role I learnt a lot about the mechanics of the 24-hour model. The rule of thumb for any 24-hour Franchise is to aim for 3.5 to 4 members per square metre.

    For a gym of 576 m2 the best possible economic result would be to have capacity membership which in this case would be around 2020 or so members. 24 hour facilities also work very hard to get to their break even membership numbers in the first few months of presales and opening the gym doors, typically a gym of size 576 m2 the break even membership would be around half of the capacity membership, which in this case would around the 1000 membership mark.

    On the data that Anytime has produced to support their application they have modeled a gym in Victoria that has membership numbers of 750, stating an average door check in rate of 111 per day. On a break-even membership level the average check ins using Anytime’s data would be closer to 150 check ins, however as the membership base grows, this will increase and most likely double.

    Anytime’s Fitness gym model also runs Fitness classes morning and afternoons (typically these classes are run in the mornings to enable people with school age children to attend after school drop off and before midday and in the afternoons when most people are knocking off from their day job), this floor plan has rooms available for such classes, this would mean at peak traffic times on the Nicklin way 10 to 20 people will be looking for parking to attend these classes, as well as the other members who just use the gym facilities.

    In brief, my opinion is that in the event of vehicles waiting for car spaces to become available within the centre, it would only take a matter of two or three vehicles to back up and block the entrance to the site. With delivery trucks also utilising the car park, the situation is compounded. As these vehicles back up onto the Nicklin Way, the shoulder of the roadway is not wide enough for those other vehicles behind to manoeuvre out of the flow of traffic coming from behind on the corner of this stretch of the Nicklin Way. Another factor to this is vehicles attempting to either negotiate a park on the shoulder of the road, or enter back onto the Nicklin way from those car parks. Being that the speed limit is 70km/hr. further exacerbates the situation. This would certainly cause further congestion on the Nicklin way and quite likely regular accidents. The shoulder of the road here is only one car width and not wide enough to angle out to enable a better view of traffic.
    In the event of these members not being able to get a park they will then try to re-enter the traffic and maneuver across to the centre of the Nicklin way to be able to perform a U turn, at the Jessica Boulevard intersection (which in the current traffic situation is almost impossible), so they can park in the car parks opposite, which then carries the added concern of these vehicles waiting at the driveway and banking up the traffic behind them to re-enter the traffic to travel across 3 lanes to perform the U turn, and when finding car parking in the Private car parks opposite then trying to cross 6 lanes of Traffic to get the gym.

    As Council does take some responsibility in relation to traffic management with sites that have some impact on traffic safety, it would seem that this situation also warrants the same attention. “

  11. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    David Collins commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development of 60 townhouses at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah.

    This application should not be approved as:
    - Townhouses are totally out of character for this area, being predominantly 2A zoning comprising family homes.
    - The infrastructure particularly roads and schools is not able to cope with a population increase expected with development of density this size.
    -There are limited wildlife corridors left in Woongarrah and this would completely obliterate the abundant Kangaroos wallabies and natural bushland; lost forever
    - Mataram Rd is already a busy link road used not only by residents but heavy vehicles utilising a short cut from the Charmhaven (Arizona Rd) to Spark Rd. This poses additional threat to the expected child population increase who will be forced to play onto the road due to lack of back yards like the rest of the area

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 27 George Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Glenda Pontes commented

    This is unsympathetic to existing architecture and is high density unlike the surrounding properties.

  13. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Hazel R French commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development of 60 townhouses at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah.

    I have just moved here in Feb. 2013. we bought in this area due to the quiet location and the lack of extreme traffic. This development will increase traffic flow and impact on residents for years to come , not to mention noise and dust and heavy vehicles while these eyesores are being built. I feel this development will have undue impact on the native wildlife in the surrounding area etc.( native birdlife, doves, owls & wood ducks). Woongarrah public school, plus a pre school are also on Mataram Road and I feel this type of high density development and increase in traffic will pose a danger to children at these facilities..
    This type of development will definitely look out of place with the surrounding homes.
    It will also devalue the homes that rates payers have already built in the area.

    Mataram Road feeds traffic from the pacific highway to Lake Haven Shopping Centre and also on to Sparks Road, at certain times in the morings and afternoon there is already congestion of traffic trying to enter and exit the area.

  14. In Pyrmont NSW on “Use of speakers for...” at 20-80 Pyrmont Street Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    M.R. Stringer commented

    I can only hope that this amplified music is not going to make miserable the lives of all living within cooee of the casino.
    Why it is considered necessary is beyond me.

  15. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Trish Mckensey commented

    I oppose this development. Townhouses are not appropriate for this area, it is wildlife corridor and roads in this area are not meeting needs now.

  16. In Orange NSW on “The Wine Taster -...” at 87 Hill Street, Orange 2800:

    Lynda Koch commented

    I am writing on behalf of my elderly parents who live in the house next door to the proposed wine tasting facility at 87 Hill Street, Orange. (Unable to access computer)

    1. Could you please explain the 6 hour closure time does this refer to lots of noise until 2am everyday of the week? As apparently trading hours will be 10.00am to 8.00pm.

    2. There is no mention (that I am aware of) that discloses how many patrons will be allowed on this premise at any one time. This is an extremely small heritage building with no yard and just walking room only up the sides. What plans have been put in place for fire (keep in mind patrons will be under the influence of alcohol).

    3. Smoking, What policy has been put into place for the designated smoking area! My father has cancer and could suffer from further medical problem if the smoking is next to his backyard.

    4. Noise what policy has been put into place to ensure that all the nearby residents are not effected by chatting noisey patrons congregating out the front of the premises and any loud music playing.

    5. Security! What policy has been put into place to control any intoxicated patrons and what is the contact phone number for the person in charge in the event of unruly behaviour happening.

    6. Parking is going to be a major problem. These premises do not have any access to the rear of the property. Who is contactable if patron park over my dads driveway.

  17. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construct fourteen (14)...” at 32 - 32 Rathmines Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Bob and Helenjane Norton-Baker commented

    Dear Planning Officer,
    Re: Planning Permit Application PP13/00488: 32-32a Rathmines Road ('The Application')

    As background we are the owner occupiers of 3 Station Street that is located to the south-west of 32-32a Rathmines Road. Our property is bound to the north by a private laneway that we have maintained with our neighbors agreement (that is the owner/occupiers of those properties directly adjoining the north side of this private laneway) since November 1989. Our maintenance has included routine mowing and weeding as well as fencing and building retaining walls, all at our expense. We have been very active in obtaining assistance from the Council in replacing/maintaining a locked bollard at the east end of this private laneway to restrict use by unauthorized vehicles; even drivers of Council vehicles wanting access to the Victoria Reserve use alternate access routes and by-pass using this private laneway altogether. Thus we have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of this private laneway.

    Having reviewed The Application we wish to submit the following objection:
    1. Through out The Application there is reference to the private laneway that runs along the northern boundary of our property (3 Station Street) as being a "Right of Way, South West of Site" (refer to proposed perspectives 24 of 27). This is an incorrect label as this is a private laneway and is NOT for use by vehicles other than those of owner/occupiers of adjoining properties of which 32-32a Rathmines Road is NOT one. The Council has indeed install a bollard to stop public vehicles using this private laneway. Council Bye-Law Officers will be contacted should this occur.
    2. No permission will be given for the use of this private laneway by construction vehicles or private vehicles used by construction staff should this application proceed. Previous attempts to use this private laneway by large vehicles has resulted in damage to our property fence line and shed. Council Bye-Law Officers will be contacted should this occur.
    3. No permission will be given for the use of this private laneway for the storage and/or delivery of any construction materials. Council Bye-Law Officers will be contacted should this occur.
    4. No undertaking should be made or inferred either in writing or stated verbally by the owners or agents of 32-32a Rathmines Road that future tenants/owner occupiers of the new dwellings at 32-32a Rathmines Road have any right of way for any form of vehicle of this private laneway other than for reasonable and orderly pedestrian traffic. Council Bye-Law Officers will be contacted should this be breached.

    We reserve the right to submit further concerns and objections to The Application should they be identified.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 27 George Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Christina Redshaw commented

    This development is completely out of scale and character with the Enfield Street frontage and surrounding properties which are overwhelmingly single storey residential dwellings.

    What may be appropriate for George Street (still questionnable at 5 storeys) is not remotely appropriate for Enfield Street, and the consolidation of the two blocks and suggested development of 35 dwellings should not be approved.

    If you're concerned about your neighbourhood in Marrickville changing dramatically, I suggest you review this proposal and make appropriate comments on such developments. Urban consolidation by all means, but within sensible boundaries.

  19. In West Perth WA on “Proposed demolition of...” at 47 Cowle Street, West Perth, WA, 6005:

    Simon commented

    Cowle St in West Perth is one of the most preserved streets in inner city Perth with houses dating form mid-late victorian to 1940s, there are only one or two exceptions. Although some of the houses on this street have been long term low cost rentals which have not been maintained, and some have been abandoned for some time and not on the market for sale, the houses all appear to be structurally fine, and the general trend on the street is towards gentrification with a majority of houses being renovated and restored.

    The house at 47 Cowle St has been maintained fairly well, and the house presents well also. It keeps in with the character of the other houses on the street and it dates from about the early 1940s. To remove this house would be of a heritage concern. Although the house has no great heritage importance as a single house unto itself, it has importance in the general story of the street, in preserving the character of the street and sense of place.

    There is no reason in demolishing a house that has stood perfectly fine for 70 years and shows no sign of structural degradation. High density does not explain the cause either, as the block could be subdivided, the potential for medium density can be utilised while still preserving the character and the potential family friendly orientation of the street.

    Vacant land in the inner city should be the first priority in development, rather than to bulldoze established homes to create more vacant land for development. More attention should be paid to the heritage concerns and the lessons that can be learnt from precedents which have had a negative impact in this regard.

    Please consider saving this house from demolition and encourage the developer to consider another more, sensitive, sensible and pragmatic approach to developing this land.

    Thank you,
    Simon

  20. In Coochiemudlo Island QLD on “Telecommunications Facility” at 43 Elizabeth Street, Coochiemudlo Island, QLD:

    Keith Stebbins commented

    this application should be approved as the mobile services on the island are very poor.

  21. In Naremburn NSW on “Renovation & extension to...” at 6 Waters Road, Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Stephanie Rickard (nee Wadsworth) commented

    I would like to complain about the above newly built dwelling. We live just behind/side of the building at 8 Talus St Naremburn. Our concern is that windows have been put into the upper storey dwelling which look straight into our living area and back garden. Although the plans denote that the windows would be higher than head height, my husband took a look upstairs (who is 6 foot) and was able to see clearly into our own property.

    I have rung the council to complain and been told 'there is nothing we can do as this was planned under a CDC'.

    My complaint is that:
    1. it is ABSOLUTELY the council's responsibility - otherwise, who else can we look to?
    2. the house is huge and ugly - how can the CDC permit the building of something twice the size (at least) of the existing dwelling.
    3. how can a CDC permit windows to look straight into our property, thereby devaluing.

    I understand that the builders will put frosting in the windows but this has not happened yet. We request that the windows be completely removed and replaced with sky lights overhead.

    Many thanks Stephanie Rickard (nee Wadsworth) 0413 45 00 55

  22. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a five...” at 85 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Re: Planning application Reference MPS/2013/603)

    I object to any reduction in parking requirements, due to the permanent and cumulative effects such reductions make to the inner suburbs. Parking difficulties simply flow on from one part of the inner suburbs to other areas. There are enough parking problems already without more high density living developments disregarding the current requirements.

    Lou Baxter
    12 Bundara St
    Nth Fitzroy 3068

  23. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 40 Nicholson Street, Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Re: Planning Application reference MPS/2013/625)

    I object to any reduction in parking requirements, due to the permanent and cumulative effects such reductions make to the inner suburbs. Parking difficulties simply flow on from one part of the inner suburbs to other areas. There are enough parking problems already without more high density living developments disregarding the current requirements.

    Lou Baxter
    12 Bundara St
    Nth Fitzroy 3068

  24. In Rowville VIC on “Second Dwelling to the rear...” at 1 Mersey Close, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Maria Isabel Machuca commented

    I live a across the road from this property, its a small narrow court, with lots of small children. We don't get much traffic as its off the main roads, its a very narrow street with barely enough room for two cars to pass next to each other, let alone the limited street parking for residents let alone guests. We certainly don't need/want more traffic, beside the safety concerns and limitations on space issues. Almost every house in the court has small children who walk to school which is only a couple of blocks away.My drive way is opposite this house , having this property subdivided is completely unprecedented in this area, all blocks in the court and surrounding properties are family blocks and all have yards and save access. Adding more traffic and congestion is not necessary and unsafe . There are lots of larger and more accessible properties which could be subdivided, a small residential block in a small quiet narrow court is not appropriate and is nonsensical.

  25. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Nerilee Marshall commented

    This application should not be approved. There is so much wildlife there such as kangaroos, birdlife , and the natural bush is lovelly, we need to keep this greenery in our area. Aside from the ecological and environmental impact this would have , Townhouses are not appropriate for this area. The roads are not suitable to cope with all the additional traffic this would cause as well.

    I am fully oppossed to this application.

  26. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Robert Marshall commented

    I disapprove of this application.This part of Mataram Road Woongarrah, is a wildlife corridor.
    I often sit out the front of my house and watch the Wallabies and kangaroos and their young feeding, not to mention the bird life that lives and depends upon this widlife corridor.
    Mataram road is already becoming an over crowded road and adding another 60 plus cars on to it will only make it even more dangerous for the local school children and families.

  27. In Woongarrah NSW on “Residential strata flats...” at 147-169 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Barbara Matthews commented

    I oppose this application. This part of Mataram Road is a wildlife corrider with families of wallabies kangaroos and a huge amount of wildlife including falcons, eagles, owls, wood ducks, kookaburra's gallahs to name a few. Please stop this development and save the animals.

  28. In Rooty Hill NSW on “” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Jeev commented

    Hi Khurram,

    I spoke to one of the sales guy and they said the ground work has been started and waiting on one document from the council. Once it's approved they will start I guess.

    Regards,
    Jeev

  29. In Rooty Hill NSW on “” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram Riaz commented

    Hi,

    Another half a year gone, any good news for us (the buyers)?
    Builder doesn't have any info how long it will take.

    Blacktown Council please approve it if possible

    regards,
    Khurram

  30. In Granville NSW on “Demolition, tree removal...” at 2-8 East Street Granville:

    john ayoub commented

    The development application for this 19 storey complex is well needed for the suburb of Granville and i have to say that i grew up in Granville and the building near Granville station was built over 30 years ago and nothing since then has been constructed to a similar height. The area around East street and Cowper street should all be residential and may be commercial suites. Parking is going to be an issue but that is why i agree with this development they have also allowed basement parking. The area at the moment is mixed with factory units and some small residential buildings and there is always a problem for car parking. I actually own a property in Cowper street and i find it difficult to lease because of the limited parking on the street. When couriers drop off parcels they are actually double parking on the street because there is no where for them to park.
    It is a good time now for town planners to have a look at this area and put something together for developers so that the area can be well designed and use up all the benefits being so close to Granville station. Merrylands is also an area which is looking at the same type of developments being constructed but i do not think it is suitable as much as it is in Granville for many reasons such as the train station and services. I hope that my input has helped in making the right decision for Granville and its 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