Recent comments

  1. In Merrylands NSW on “Section 96(1a) modification...” at 242 Woodville Road Merrylands NSW 2160:

    Osman Kabbara commented

    This Gymnasium is located in and around suburban houses, with currently little off street parking. Increasing the Gymnasium to 24 hours will have un-welcomed movement into Lansdowne Street, increasing traffic, and unnecessary noise.

    I would like to request that Parramatta City Council count my note as a "NO" for this proposal.

  2. In Avalon NSW on “Single storey addition to...” at 36 Kevin Avenue Avalon Beach:

    Matthew and Louise Telfer commented

    To : General Manager Pittwater Council
    17 June 2013
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed building application D.A 0145/13 at 36 Kevin Avalon.
    This proposed development does impact our property at 34 Kevin Avenue, below is an outline of our concerns.
    1. The designer of this project has not shown the true location of our windows on any of the plans.
    a. This affects privacy, shadow diagrams and allows them to overlook our property.
    b. How can council assess the DA with incorrect information and make an informed decision.
    2. Shadow diagrams are a concern as we have 5 windows on the western side of the boundary and the design has only show two of them, which are not in the correct location & there are new shadows cast on our house that affect other windows.
    a. An elevation of our western side should be drawn showing all the windows in their correct position so we can see the effect of shadowing on our windows
    3. Setbacks of the proposed development do not comply with Pittwater 21 policy in regards to side setbacks
    a. The required setback is 2.5 metres – the proposal only shows 2 metres
    b. The two rooms (kitchen and dining rooms) are very large and could be cut back so that they comply and still remain generous rooms
    4. Privacy, a solid balustrade 1 metre high on the deck does not allow our privacy.
    a. The deck closest to our house over looks our family room window, deck and swim spa (which is not shown in any documentation)
    b. We believe a 1.8 metre high screen is required to give us our privacy
    c. The dining room window, which is only set back 2 metres, does not have a direct view into our family room but turn 15degrees and you have a view into our main living space.
    d. This window should be moved or obscure to match the kitchen window, and preferably non-louvered
    e. Screening from planting is not sufficient as plants take time to grow, they die and can be removed if the house is sold, and their screening effect relies heavily on correct maintenance (currently a problem with existing hedge at front half of home)
    5. Landscaping on the council application form states that if the development is more than 50 sqr metres that at Landscape Plan is required.
    a. There is more than 90 sqr metres of disturbance so we would like to see a detailed landscaping plan.
    6. The statement of environmental effects states that there should be additional plantings, we need to know
    a. What type of plants will be used and their planting location.
    i. i.e how far from shared boundary / expected height / maintenance plan
    b. At present we have plantings (hedge) on that property that are now high and growing out of control, they are taking away significant sunlight and we do not wish to see any more of this type of planting. This is where a detailed landscape plan would be helpful.
    7. Storm water management; the council application form states that a storm water management plan is required if there is an increase of 50 sqr metres of a built upon area.
    a. The proposal has a built up to an area greater than 90 sqr metres which includes the studio location
    b. To connect the additional roof area to the existing storm water system (if there is one) will not be suitable to our property which is lower than 36 Kevin Ave.
    8. Studio location, there are not sufficient details of the studio location.
    a. Missing are the proposed floor elevations, the finished height of the building and the ground levels around it
    b. The shadow diagram which is meant to be an accurate drawing, showing the true shadows of the studio cannot due to the lack of detail in the proposal

    Kind Regards
    Matthew and Louise Telfer
    Owners 34 Kevin Avenue Avalon 2107 NSW (02 9973 1242)

  3. In St Peters NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 19 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    ..... commented

    The proposal is an appalling overdevelopment which does not provide adequate parking for the proposed residential plus retail density.

    The size of the building is completely out of proportion for the area.

    The proposed laneway is going to increase noise and traffic in Hutchinson Street and serves no useful purpose.

    The only reason this development is possible is because of the corruption of previous ALP and Independent councillors who dumped all the high density development required by the State government in our area, protecting the suburbs where they live.

  4. In Eltham North VIC on “2 lot subdivision of the...” at 130 Progress Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    j Mcnamara commented

    How could the council let this subdivision go through there are no other developments like this and that is why our area is so special . to start to put units in peoples backyards leaving no land around either dwelling if people want to live in a high density area they should move to the inner suburbs. l have lived in this area for the last 26 years or so and if this goes though and sets a president will destroy the wonderful place we live in .

  5. In St Peters NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 19 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Scott commented

    The increased retail here is great and I like the idea of increased density for this lot. I am disappointed by the May Street facade though, as it seems an irrational explosion of strong colour has been used to try to cover up an otherwise bland / cheap facade. I think this is a real shame as this site has so much potential and plays an important role in the revitalization on the St Peters triangle. Prehaps varying materials or stepping of the facade might eliminate the need to plaster it with such strong colours. Maybe some more generous windows might also help.

  6. In Surry Hills NSW on “Signage, fitout and use of...” at 314-320 Bourke Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    michelle camilleri commented

    hi i work nearby nearby in surry hills from this da. We get alot of smoke from cooking and smell in the area from restaurant kitchens. Can we get adequate plans of cooking system to be looked properly to stop the smell and smoke from the kitchen then i will be happy for the da to go ahead. i be happy would to stop the smell of cooking and smoke. Can we find any solutions on the behalf on the cooking area?

  7. In Gwynneville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Gwynne Street, Gwynneville NSW 2500:

    Ron & Marianne Samways commented

    15/6/13
    As residences of Gwynne St we oppose the application for construction of a Boarding house at
    6 Gwynne St Gwynneville.
    Our objections are-
    1. traffic at present it is impossible to find a parking space in the street after 8.30am on University . . days.
    with a boarding house with ONLY 6 car spaces this will mean parking spaces will be scarce on weekends and worse during the week stopping parents from going to the Gardens.
    2. Flood isn't this area flood listed?
    3. With a open deck open till 11pm who is going to police this?
    Is this fair to local Residents especially those with children and the aged.
    4. Who will the tenants be? Will there be any restrictions on tenants? There is a preschool 3 blocks away.

    To sum up our objections are-
    Traffic
    property value
    noise
    safety of children
    Flood area

  8. In Erskineville NSW on “Sumthing Pty Ltd - Hotel...” at 77 Erskineville Rd, Erskineville 2043:

    Merryl Lees commented

    I fully endorse all the elements of the previous submission of Nicolas Francois objecting to this DA/Licencing application.

  9. In Malvern East VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 614 Waverley Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    james burke commented

    please ensure no one blocks waverley road during peak hours 8am -9.30 4.30 -6pm. The road is a thoroghfare that chokes up when adding 20 mins

    The blocks have driveways, they can park in that but choose to block one lane of a road that should be a clearway

  10. In St Peters NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 19 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Ringo Ng commented

    Great to see a positive step for adaptive reuse of an existing factory building.

    The only negative point I can see is the North aspect (May St). The empty facade area above the street number 44-56 appear to be a forgotten detail. The designer & owner should consider using it for "New Display Area Public Art" space just like North West aspect for the new lane way connecting May St and Hutchinson St as shown on the elevation drawing.

  11. In Erskineville NSW on “Sumthing Pty Ltd - Hotel...” at 77 Erskineville Rd, Erskineville 2043:

    Nicolas Francois commented

    Dear Sir / Madam

    I am writing with regard to the above application at 77-79 Erskineville Road for a 90-seat bar and restaurant area with footpath seating for 12. I strongly object to the above proposal on the grounds of the liquor license, the size of the establishment, and the proposed hours of operation. This proposal would have a very negative impact on the local community as set out below and should not be approved.

    1. Erskineville village is a small community which is home to a diverse range of age groups including babies, school children (there are two primary schools and a child care centre within 200 metres of the proposed development) and the elderly.

    2. There are already at least 11 licensed venues within the small confines of Erskineville. Seven of them are within a 100 metres radius of the proposed development, including The Rose Hotel, The Hive Bar, The Erskineville Hotel, Bakerman, Kuki Tanuki, and two bottle shops. The Imperial Hotel is only an extra 70 meters further and already has a license until late (6am on Saturdays). In addition to these eight licensed venues, there are three other venues just 400 metres to the east (The Kurrajong Hotel, Bar Nosh and Bitton). Finally, just 500 metres away is the large suburb of Newtown with over 100 licensed venues. There is no need for more.

    3. The area already has to deal with inebriated people in the local parks and green spaces as well as pedestrian noise until very late into the night. This proposal would increase the noise and traffic that would be generated from patrons - not just those on the footpath, but also those coming and going on foot and in cars from an establishment that would be open until midnight Monday to Saturday.

    4. The appeal of Erskineville lies in its small, friendly, community/village atmosphere. Approving this development application would have a disastrous impact on the village and its community. It is not in the interests of Erskineville to have yet another licensed premises and all that would entail. Erskineville needs to preserve its beloved character and village feel, and this proposed development would put that in jeopardy.

    5. Erskineville is not, and needs to guard against becoming, a smaller version of Newtown. We already have a Newtown, and it's just 500 metres away for those that want the nightlife Newtown offers. Erskineville should stay Erskineville, but another 100-person licensed venue open until midnight most days would change that. Newtown's nightlife, as vibrant as it is, of course has a downside. It is a clear example of the impact of large licensed venues as there is never a Friday or Saturday night that goes by without licensed venues having to evict patrons, often with Police presence. Erskineville has no interest in introducing such problems, and as a result, I urge that this application be declined.

    Yours sincerely

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson - Liquor licence...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Jasmine Andrews commented

    I live near this venue and support this application. I believe the proprietors are sensitive to the needs of the surrounding community. We are in need of a local venue that is family friendly - there are very few places that I can go out and bring my daughter where she is allowed, welcomed, and safe.

    The previous owners of this venue held a similar licence without issue.

  13. In Chippendale NSW on “Chinatown Cellars - Liquor...” at Rb 04, Block 2 Lower Ground Floor 1 Central Park Ave, Chippendale 2008:

    Michelle Perry commented

    Please do not approve extended trading hours in this area. With the application be Frasers to introduce another 900 students to the area this is a recipe for disaster. There is an established link between alcohol and violence with large crowds of young people and turning Chippendale into a mini Kings Cross will destroy the amenity of the area for residents who are already feeling threatened and beleaguered by the scale and type of developments in the area.

    Already, large groups of young people gather in Central Park drinking and making noise and creating a mess. Attracting more people to the area to party will only exacerbate the existing problems.

  14. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Northcote Street, Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Maria commented

    I am against this development and feel that the determination should be postponed. My reasons being:

    -the channel 9 redevelopment along with other developments taking place in nearby suburbs will/may produce a large influx of people in the area and this will reduce the quality of life of current residents as they compete for sporting,recreational facilities, schooling, bus seats, trains etc.

    -Disturbances and pollution, including dust from the construction

    -Potentially too much construction occurring at the same time

    -The potential for traffic problems in nearby streets that currently enjoy little traffic

    - The 'closing in' of Naremburn by the structures built around it. As more developments creep around the edges, this has the potential to reduce air quality in low lying areas due to the freeway that passes through and the high rise wall that is St Leonard's

  15. In Marian QLD on “Service Station” at 219 Anzac Avenue Marian QLD 4753 247 Anzac Avenue Marian QLD 4753:

    PD@HF DUDLEY. Caltex Marian commented

    Dear sir,
    Concerning the application for another service station in Marian we would like to formally object to this application .In the original application for a shopping centre/service station in Anzac av. the applicant stated that there was no Service station in Marian, however there has been one here since 1962 and has been upgraded over the last ten years.We are freehold and are supplied by Caltex, we do not get any help for discounting from the oil company at all and can not compete with Woolworths service stations. Originally the applicants plan for the servo was being built at the rear of the block, similar to racecourse , now they want to build it on the highway. The danger here is to school children, is there red lights for them.? The population of the Pioneer Valley is not enough to supply two service stations, we still are growing and it will be several years before we aquire full growth.. Most of the people in the valley work in Mackay daily and if they need discounted fuel they can get it at three Woolworth/ Caltex sites and three Shell /.Coles sites. however to put in a Woolworth site in Marian with a limited population living in the Valley this would most likely effectely wipe out most fuel outlets if not ALL in the area .Major bread companys will not deliver bread to the Valley any more because of lack of sales . We employ ten staff and know from experience that at least half of them will be laid off due to lack of sales, we would prefer to keep our staff and not Woolworth shareholders.

  16. In Ravenswood TAS on “Change of use to bottleshop...” at 9/2 Prossers Forest Road Ravenswood TAS 7250:

    Tim Rundle commented

    As a business owner I do not want to stifle business development in this area. However, much public reaction from customers who frequent this shopping area aligns with my belief regarding the possible antisocial behaviour that may result from this proposal.

    Further, business premises in this centre are routinely subject to out of hours vandalism. This proposal is likely to exacerbate such acts.

    If this proposal is to be accepted by Council then hours of operation must be tightly controlled so that people do not congregate in the area after businesses close.

  17. In Punchbowl NSW on “Battle axe subdivision,...” at 21 Wattle Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196:

    Riley R commented

    I object.

    I don't like dual occupancy developments.

    I don't like additional cars using the street.

    I like to complain.

  18. In Raymond Terrace NSW on “53 Lot Subdivision - TT” at 2 Halloran Way Raymond Terrace NSW 2324:

    Antony Manion commented

    This development approval is a good thing for the Port Stephens Area.
    Mr McKenzie is getting un warranted flack from the media and a small number of fools. Further development and increased infrastructure is necessary for the future of Port Stephens.
    There is adequate land in the area for future sub division. Future sub divisions need only note that the land will be noise affected. The council need only to insert a clause in the approval and the 149 certs that the land is affected by noise and the purchase of such will negate any current or future claim against the council for damages of any kind.
    Provision for noise attenuation should be included in all house and land packages. A fact of life! If you wish to buy land or a house at a reasonable price near an airport or a pub or a sporting complex then that will reflect on the total price of your investment.
    Every weekend houses change hands in Mascot Sydney and the purchaser is well aware of the position of the airport. Hence the inconvenience is reflected in the price.
    The RAAF has already stated that the base has a `natural limit` to the amount of commercial traffic that could use the strip.
    Lets not stifle the growth of Port Stephens. Now is the time to look forward. Lets even contemplate giving families a choice of the age old dream of a quarter acre block!
    A house with a back yard for the family imagine that!.

  19. In Eltham VIC on “5 lot subdivision of the...” at 8 Afton Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Wendy Kilcullen commented

    I oppose this degree of subdivision for this site.

    To fit 5 lots on this site would require each lot to be much smaller than those around it, which I estimate to vary from about 800m2 to 4000m2. This is not keeping in the character of the neighborhood and sets a precedent.

    An additional 5 lots on this site increases potential residences on Afton Street from 9 to 13, an increase of 45%. Afton street is a rural road not suited to large volumes of traffic.

    Removal of vegetation will potentially be great in order to fit a potential 4 - 5 dwellings on this site. Removal of vegetation is not in the character of the area and detrimental to our wildlife.

  20. In Invermay TAS on “Construction of a building...” at 1 Taylor Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Jan Yaxley commented

    I object to the building of another storage shed at Rossetto Tiling, in Taylor Street Invermay.
    I live directly opposite Rossetto, and already experience enough noise and traffic congestion from the business. In the planning submission, it was noted that , there would be less noise from the forklift as the new storage shed would buffet this. This would not be the case. The forlift takes tiles from the trucks parked on the street or in the carpark to the existing shed on a daily basis. Also Trucks already bring in container loads of tiles at very early hours of the morning, sometimes as early as 4am. If the proposed storage shed goes ahead, I believe there would be an increase in containers and trucks. More noise and more congestion in this little street.

    Concerned Resident
    Jan Yaxley.

  21. In West Launceston TAS on “Construction of extensions...” at 20 Denison Grove West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Vyvyan Allchin commented

    This building application relates to a change in the building structure of 20 Denison Gr that has been approved during a previous ownership of 22 Denison Gr. The approvals to this point have provided for structural alternations including additions that allow the upper floor level (20 Denison Gr) to be some 4 meters above and on the boundary of the two properties.
    On the upper level of 20 Denison Grove, the plan shows a balustrade and infill on the Western side with a mixture of glassed and brick elements. To allow for some limited privacy in the back yard of 22 Denison Gr the building permit applicant has agreed that this balustrade should be made of a material and structure providing more privacy for 22 Denison Gr residents. The suggestion has been of horizontal timbers strips of >75mm vertical depth with a separation of < 20mm. The balustrade shall be of a minimum height to meet Australian Standards. If the material is to be timber the maintenance of this shall be complex and shall require access from 22 Denison Gr.
    On the lower level, the veranda shown on the plan for 20 Denison Grove is on the boundary of the two properties and above the garden of 22 Denison Gr by about 1.2 meters. The proposal in this application is to have a horizontally slotted timber balustrade with infill as described for the upper level at to a height of 1.5meters. This provides very limited privacy for the residence of 22 Denison Gr. The permit applicant has agreed to increase the height of this balustrade to 1.7 meters. If the material is to be timber the maintenance of this shall require access from 22 Denison Gr.

  22. In Invermay TAS on “Construction of a building...” at 1 Taylor Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Kim commented

    My husband and i would like to object to the building of a larger storage shed on the grounds that we feel it will de value our home, impacting on our vie. we don't wish to see a huge shed when looking out our bedroom windows as we are situated directly opposite the entrance of Rossetto tiles. also there will be a greater impact from the extra delivery trucks servicing the store, with more tiles.

  23. In South Wentworthville NSW on “Restoration of heritage...” at 245-247 Great Western Highway, South Wentworthville:

    Hazel E. Magann OAM, FBDHS commented

    I am a historian in Blacktown City and have for over 40 years admired the grand homestead "The Wattles" DA 2013/147/1 I feel that access to the proposed site located on the Great Western Highway would cause unlimited congestion.

    It would caused traffic danger to those with the need to attend the Westmead Rehabilitation Centre located on Coleman Street which is already a busy location.

    I have travelled the Great Western Highway many times and even now approaching that section of the road can see the strain any extra traffic would cause.

    I hope that the proposed application is given thorough notice and all veiws are given consideration.

    Hazel E. Magann OAM, FBDHS

  24. In Collingwood VIC on “The development of the land...” at 350-352 Wellington St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Planning Department City of Yarra

    Re_ Planning Application PL04/0631: 350-352 Wellington St Collingwood VIC 3066

    I object to any reduction in car parking requirements as many of the current parking difficulties in the inner city are due to the continual reductions or waivers of car parking that have occurred in the past. Any further reductions shall simply exacerbate current parking problems.

  25. In South Wentworthville NSW on “Restoration of heritage...” at 245-247 Great Western Highway, South Wentworthville:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    The heritage Building "The Wattles" is locally significant as it was the house of William Fullagar, an early settler of Holroyd. The proposed application is completly out of character with the item. We are against the DA 2013/147/1 due to the fact that access to the proposed site is on the Great Western Highway and one of the most congested parts of the area.

    The noise and traffic will have an impost on the Westmead Rehabilition Centre which is on Coleman Street. The traffic and danger to the people using that facility will put lives at risk.

    Being a resident of Holroyd for over fifty years we object to the proposal on these grounds.

  26. In Ravenswood TAS on “Change of use to bottleshop...” at 9/2 Prossers Forest Road Ravenswood TAS 7250:

    Luke Scott commented

    With news that the Sunny Hill Pub will be reopening residents will have direct access to this and the Over 50s Club to purchase alcohol. I believe that additional access to alcohol purchasing will further worsen anti social issues that are already problem in this area.

    We also have vandalism issue in the shopping complex that the proposed bottle shop would go into and I think with the added alcohol this will only compound this issue.

    I am not opposed to business development in the area and would like for all the shops in this complex to be leased and have successful operations but I think a bottle shop is unnecessary.

  27. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of land for two...” at 7A Parkview Avenue, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Planning Officer
    City of Moreland

    Re Planning application for 7A Parkview Av Brunswick East, ref MPS/2013/343

    I strongly object to any reduction in car parking requirements, as current parking problems in the inner city have been greatly exacerbated by previous reductions in car parking requirements. If any reduction in car parking requirements is made, it will greatly increase future car parking problems in the area. Parking problems spread from one area to another in the inner city, as availability is lessened overall.

    I am also somewhat concerned about the removal of the easement.

    Lou Baxter

  28. In Forest Lodge NSW on “Stage 2 DA for Precinct 3...” at 74 Ross Street Forest Lodge NSW 2037:

    K Comino commented

    Factual error in your alert

    This building appears has frontage to Minogue Crescent NOT The Crescent. Minogue Crescent starts at the fork of Ross and Charles St near Forest Lodge Public School. The Crescent starts further down Minogue Crescent at the Glebe PCYC and continues around to the CityWestLink. Minogue Crescent ends at the intersection of Wigram Rd near Booth St.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Fit-out and use of retail...” at 324A King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mike Falcon commented

    The inclusion of footpath seating should not be approved. This is a busy footpath area, particularly due to its proximity to Newtown Station and adjoining bus stop. The area is often highly congested when a train arrives, or when large groups of people are waiting for buses.

  30. In Leichhardt NSW on “Removal of one tree.” at 19 MacAuley Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    peter hutchinson commented

    thats a good idear

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