Recent comments

  1. In Greenwich NSW on “Greenwich Baths -License to...” at Albert St, Greenwich:

    Patricia John commented

    This Da was extended until Firstly June 19th as advertise with 2or 3 different dates
    For the closing dates. The 1st date was June 10 th.
    So your statement that it finished 13 days ago is very incorrect.. That was the 1st
    Closing date!! P,ease get these important public facts correct for clarity in these matters.

    Than At GCA meeting on Wednesday June 17 th Michael Mason from LCC came to answer Residents concerns about this application for Alcohol being served.
    Michael said that as there was so much concern he would see that the deadline for this DA would be extended for Submissions to be sent -UNTIL at least the END of JUNE.

    So it is of huge importance that you please re instate ALL the Submissions
    That have been sent and lodged. On 17 th June there were 71 letters posted.
    Then over last 2 days until Friday 19th another 10 at least went in.

    It is important that Residents can look and read these as a matter of
    Public interest.

    You site seems to crash many times during the day??? Is this normal?
    Can this be fixed in interest of Land Cove Council Ratepayers.?


  2. In Petersham NSW on “To carry out demolition of...” at 102 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Lisa Skerl commented

    To the Marrickville Council

    Re: Major Concern for DA201500307

    The above DA reference is to occur in an area of Petersham that is considered a Heritage Zone. These areas must not see demolishing of buildings from the Late Victorian era, Federation or Inter War periods. The heritage trail from Newtown , Enmore through to Petersham and other areas of the Inner West needs to be preserved. Petersham needs to appreciate it's heritage unlike the events occurring in other LEPs with Rockdale , Burwood, Parramatta and Ashfield as examples of negligence in conserving Heritage zones.
    The two retail shops should be refurbished and altered only if to re-beautify the present building and to return them to their previous charm and glory not demolished. Newtown and Enmore are examples of residential and commercial areas that are thriving due to their ability to maintain older style shop fronts alluring people to shop due to the old charm.
    The height of the DA of a five storey building needs also to be reviewed and reduced to 3-4 storeys to maintain the local height of on New Canterbury Rd and in keeping with the look of Late Victorian buildings to both sides of the premise.

    Miss Skerl

  3. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 16/261-263 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Joe loutfy commented

    Parking for the staff and the parents is important at this busy road,specialy in the afternoon, please make sure that this issue is addressed.

  4. In Ravensdale NSW on “Alterations, additions &...” at 201 Ravensdale Road Ravensdale NSW 2259:

    Deborah Leake commented

    I wish to comment on the development which has been undertaken at 201 Ravensdale Road, Ravensdale to raise concerns over density and the flow-on impacts for local residents.

    Increased density
    Over the last 7 years, 2 additional permanent dwellings have been approved taking the number of dwellings along this 300 metre stretch of Ravensdale Road to 5. To add another 3 units and a high density farm stay in the middle of the area significantly impacts the quiet enjoyment of this rural area.

    The development proposal is for 3 units accommodating 2 guests per unit per night. This is in addition to the accommodation offered in the main house, which is advertised as accommodating up to 12 people, taking the total capacity of the property to 18 guests per night. This is significantly higher than implied in the development proposal.

    The listing on Stayz also says “The property is full of beautiful spots to put a purpose built arbour or alter and create your own style of function” indicating the potential for events that could include a large number of day visitors.

    The development (as advertised) significantly increases traffic and noise associated from arrivals and departures, which could occur at any time of the day or night. The high capacity offered appeals to large groups increasing the potential boisterous noise, which could potentially be the case every weekend. Residents having a party from time to time is completely acceptable, but noisy gatherings every weekend will significantly reduce the quiet enjoyment of other residents in the area. As this is a rural valley, even conversations outdoors carry some distance.

    Although the plans suggest there is off road parking, it isn’t sufficient to accommodate up to 6 vehicles, which is not unlikely at capacity, as the shed and garage have been converted to accommodation. Currently, with just the house being rented casually, there are occasions when multiple vehicles have been parked on the road overnight. There are often large animals (kangaroos, wallabies, deer, wombats) traversing the road, especially at night, and having vehicles obstructing vision creates a risk.

    Managing problems arising from high density
    As all the accommodation on the property is available for rent, there is no owner or caretaker on site to assists guests should a problem arise, as it did at Christmas when the septic overflowed and the house had no water. These sorts of incidents are more likely to occur when there are large numbers of people accommodated as the house’s infrastructure was designed for use as a family home.

    Additional agribusiness on site
    As well as the farm stay business, it seems a bee keeping business is also planned for the site. The model proposed is not labour intensive, however there would still be a need for additional traffic and activity as someone tends to the bees, collects honey, moves hives, etc. It’s unclear where the hives will be located, however there are potential impacts of having high density guest accommodation alongside up to 80 bee hives, eg high potential of swarms and location of water points posing risk of stings to guests.

    I have no objection to a farm stay business/beekeeping business at this location per se, my objection is to the density and intensity of usage proposed and its impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of other residents in the area. The other farm stay in Ravensdale Road operates harmoniously, however it accommodates 6 guests significantly less than will be the case should these three additional units be approved.

  5. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Construction of a Six (6)...” at 1 Charles Street, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Murtaza Poonawala commented

    I would like to connect to this builder for Renderings and 3d visualisation of his new development. Kindly assist


  6. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construct buildings and...” at 25 Trent Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Bernadette Cowan commented

    If you would like to send an objection to council about the development of the 92 units at 25 Trent Street, Glen Iris, please send an email to

    I'm happy to send you some information about the development, how traffic congestion, parking issues (particularly streets surrounding Burwood train station), safety to residents and train commuters and the impact on the character and landscape of the surrounding streets are just some of the issues that Council will need to address, and a pre-written letter you can forward directly to Council, or send back to me and we will deliver it to Council on your behalf.

  7. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a 10 storey...” at 11-15 Brunswick Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    I'm extremely disappointed that a 10 storey building is proposed for this area.
    You will destroy the Community feel of the area, the demographic will change. Less families, less affordable houses, more short term residents and a transient population. This will be an eyesore and put pressure on an already struggling public transport system not to mention the terrible traffic congestion in the area.

  8. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 19 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Geoff Wilkins commented

    Dear Rosemary,

    This facility should be approved as there is a large Muslim community in the Banks town LGA and there is a lack of places for us to gather and meet.

    Also the mixed use facility will be used for male and female patrons at the same time. I'm not sure where you are getting the facts that male only people will use the facility.

    The facility is also in a industrial area, away from any houses.

    To be honest if this was a Brothel, Church, Buddhist Temple, or Synagogue I don't think you would be making a fuss about it.

  9. In Morisset NSW on “2 into 33 Lot Subdivision” at 108 Awaba Street, Morisset NSW 2264:

    Paul Sharp commented

    I think council should not approve this application. Council, look at how many more cars etc you are putting on Bridge st. Past Pre school Primary and High school, this street cannot take the extra load without a big improvement .Thanks Paul Sharp

  10. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 4B Finlay Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    David Jennings commented

    Has the additional traffic congestion been considered?

    This is already a very busy area, with the school on one side and a set of units on the other. I would be concerned about increasing the traffic in this location any further.

  11. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of land for...” at 10 Alsace Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Katrina Aspinall commented

    Hello, this is too high a density for this area. No exclusion to car parking as the streets around here are highly competitive for parking currently with older houses with no off street parking.

    Reduced number of residences and full requirements for car parking including visitors should be enforced.

  12. In Tempe NSW on “S96(2)iii” at 55 Lymerston Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    G Symonds commented

    I am confused by this application, as the building is currently housing several residents and does not appear to be used for any kind of business/storage purposes whatsoever. Given the large number of people currently residing there, who do not park in the spaces provided on the property as marked on the attachments (these parking spaces are currently filled with pot plants, clothes horses and outdoor furniture - see Photograph 1 in Annexure 3 in Statement of Environmental Effects_55 Lymerston Street Tempe), several of them are taking up precious parking spots in Lymerston Street. As residents of Unwins Bridge Road are also required to use Lymerston Street for parking, they find themselves often having to park much further away (John Street and Lymerston St as far as William Street). I suspect it it also a fire risk having so many people living in an industrial building.

    The fact that people are living there on a permanent basis has been cleverly disguised/hidden in the photos in Annexure 3, which leads me to believe that they will continue to live there after or regardless of whether this DA is approved.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 177 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    In the interests of public health, any approval for tables on the footpath must prohibit smoking at those tables.

  14. In Fairy Meadow NSW on “Integrated residential...” at 5 Grand Court, Fairy Meadow NSW 2519:

    John Telford commented

    The modification on the initial plan is more than doubled in size. It is advertising the existing neighbourhood as an available asset at the Estates’ disposal (as if the existing Dixon Street and Carters Lane area is uninhabited). It does not reflect transparency and honesty when a building application is radically changed. Its like a foot in the door for the developers who then up the scale by introducing a modification.

  15. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    Paul Macklin commented

    As a resident of Brighton Le Sands who lives within 500 metres of the proposed development I wish to object to the proposed development at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands on the following points:

    1. Kurnell St is a small street which intersects with Crawford Road and is heavily congested already during peak hour. Crawford road is only one lane on each side of the road travelling north and south with a roundabout one block south of Kurnell Street. Already motorists frequently drive through this roundabout at speed, without giving way ,posing a risk to residents and other motorists. The presence of such a large centre near this roundabout increases the risk to pedestrians and motorists alike substantially. It would also be a severe risk to parents dropping children at the day care centre on foot.

    2. There are already three child care centres in the area with two on Crawford Rd and another on England St, all within a block of this proposed child care centre. The local area is already well serviced in this regard. There is no need for another one.

    3. Parking in the near vicinity is already extremely limited as this is a residential area with a high volume of apartment blocks and townhouses. The plan's proposed parking developments won't assist as the size of the local streets are too small to accomodate large traffic volume which means there will be added congestion due to cars waiting to get into the carpark areas. Bearing in mind there is the roundabout, which is located only one block south of Kurnell Street, also making it difficult to see how traffic would not come to a halt in the local area due to persons dropping kids off at the centre as traffic would slow as parents turn left and right into Kurnell Street. Not all parents will do the right thing and park appropriately, as is evidenced outside many primary and high schools during drop off time in the mornings and afternoons.

    5. Currently if there is an incident on Grande Parade, which is a frequent occurrence, the traffic around Crawford Rd, Queens Rd, Wycombe Avenue and Teralba Rd is adversely affected by traffic build up. Because motorists get frustrated as they are trying to get to work, they are frequently seen speeding up these streets to find short cuts between President Avenue and Bay Street to Grande Parade. The commentary within the report regarding traffic is an ideal best scenario description. It is not reflective of the experience of residents who actually live in the area.

    6. There has recently been an apartment block built on the corner of Crawford Road and Bay Street and although this came with its own security parking, it has added noticeably to traffic volume in the area. There has to be a limit to the amount of traffic that can be tolerated on narrow one lane suburban streets. This appears to be a gross overuse of the land and is not in the best interests of the local community due to the associated risks detailed above in this letter.

  16. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    P Macklin commented

    As a resident who has lived in this area for 20 years, this location is NOT a good idea for a child care centre of this size. It is also baffling because there are already two child care centres on Crawford Rd and one on England St, all within a block of this proposed child care centre.

    Kurnell St intersects with Crawford road and is already very congested in peak hour during the morning, especially since it is only one lane on either side of both roads. Most people, including myself, use Kurnell St as a cut through to Bay St for this reason. People also go this way to avoid The Grand Parade as that receives heavy traffic during peak times. I completely disagree with the reports for this proposal. Parking on these streets is already a nightmare and is limited, particularly because this is a residential area with a lot of surrounding unit blocks. The proposed parking spaces aren't going to make a difference to that given the size of the proposed child care centre, all this will do is contribute to the current congestion.

    The proposed car park and access is located right next to a four car drive way for another unit block on Crawford Rd. Having these drive ways and car park areas so close together is a safety risk to pedestrians, particularly because this footpath is used by parents and children going to and from Brighton Le-Sands Public School. This will also add to the congestion on Crawford Road with residents, parents/children and workers trying to access these car parking spaces.

    This section of Brighton Le-Sands is a residential area and i believe this proposed child care centre would de-value the surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proposed opening and closing times would cause disruptions to local residents.

  17. In West Hobart TAS on “Alterations” at 219 Warwick Street West Hobart 7000:

    Ian Stanley commented

    It is too big

  18. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Jessica commented

    Dear city council,

    My unit is in the corner and next to 410 pitt street. The new high rise hotel will defenitely block the daylight for 398 pitt street , 412 Pitt street and the building behind 410 Pitt street.

    The draft plan of 410 Pitt street only mentioned the daylight of itself. However, the plan did not consider the daylight of neighboring buildings. The 398 Pitt street miramar building is a residential apartment and with more than 76 windows open in the south aspect of this building. The new budget hotel will block the daylight for these 76 windows!!! Turns the window into the wall!!!

    The budget hotel may bring more backpackers, teenagers and drunk people in the night time. This will put the neibouring residential buildings in a noisy and unsafe environment.

    It does not mentioned the compulsory setback to the neibouring building In the draft plan of 410 Pitt street.

    Please consider the residents, the kids , the whole environment of the city ?the high rise hotel in such a narrow place will cause troubles!

    Kinds Regards,


  19. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Bill Wang commented

    My first thought when hearing about this DA is "you must be kidding me". It is a silly idea. The proposed building will be very very close to 398 Pitt Street. There will be no privacy for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street, there will be no natural light for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street, and there will be potential danger for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street as criminals can break into the apartments of 398 Pitt Street through windows.

    More importantly!!! If there is any fire emergency in either of these two buildings, it will put residents in both buildings in danger as they are so close to each other!!! By then, who is going to be reponsible for the loss? I believe the people who have approved this DA should be!!!

    We must be reasonale people and do reasonable things. This kind of silly idea should never be approved. I feel angry when someone just pursues the profits but does not care about the lives of others.

  20. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I also support the application so long as the mural are preserved. The help create an identity for Newtown and are valued by many residents and visitors

  21. In Bundeena NSW on “Coastal Classic Fun Run...” at 75 Loftus St, Bundeena 2230:

    Helen Vogt commented

    There is no date shown for this event.

  22. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construct buildings and...” at 25 Trent Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Judy commented

    The proposal for 92 units in this location is completely against all the discussion in recent years for increased housing density close to railway stations, but having DUE CONSIDERATION to the local character and amenity of the surrounding suburb.

    As has been stated already, cars are parked in surrounding streets at pretty much capacity now, and the added traffic would be impossible to absorb without major disruption.

    For a good example of the sort of development that ENHANCES the area, look at the very attractive units in Glen Iris Road opposite Ferndale Park. I don't know how many dwellings there are there, but they are modern yet fit in with the housing in the suburb.

    Another example of extra housing density that is sensible and attractive is in Laurel St. opposite the Alamein Station, where a former Housing Commission house has been replaced by TWO dwellings with a common wall. This is the sort of housing common in Britain and Europe. It is still suburban homes with space for gardens and trees, but housing twice as many people without having high buildings a la Hong Kong or the Gold Coast.

    The proposal for 92 units is totally inappropriate and I strongly object to it.

  23. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Daniel Wu commented

    It is good to have new building in city. But never, never and never at this location. It is so close to the Building at 398 Pitt Street and 412 Pitt Street. The high building will block the daylight to the existing buildings, and it will also cause higher volume of traffic, people and problem. Pitt street is very narrow, how can it digest more traffic? People who think of building a high rise here are crazy, they are profit-hunters and do not care about the negative impact on the neighbourhood.

    We are fans of City Council. But if the Council approves this DA, I am 100% sure that all of us influeced by this decision will never vote for it again.

  24. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    John commented

    I strongly object to granting a(nother) packaged liquor licence in this area, on the corner of a street which is otherwise almost totally residential with considerable amenity for local residents. The proximity to the Surrey Hills train station poses the risk of consumption of alcohol near the station, where measures have recently been taken to address rising violence in the area. There is no link between additional provision of alcohol and reduction of violence in Melbourne.

    I also strongly object to the VCGLR overriding the Dry Area designation without conducting a poll. What benefits are going to the Boroondara Council and Victorian Govt coffers as a result of granting this application, versus the detriment to the amenity (including increased traffic congestion and difficulty parking) for the local community?

  25. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    william young commented

    I object to a Liquorland or any other bottle shop opening in this particular area of Union Road Surrey Hills because of traffic congestion, narrow side streets already full of parked cars, and the fact there are a number of bottle shops already close by.


  26. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Luke Bacon commented

    I absolutely support the submissions of Allison Heller and Joe Ortenzi that any alterations should not impact the murals on the exterior walls.

    I've been in Newtown for 25 years and can't remember that corner not having these paintings. They are definitely local heritage.

    Best wishes

  27. In Newtown NSW on “Proposed extended trading...” at 197 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I hope that Council will take care to ensure this is not approved unless the owners are paying at least minimum wages in accordance with Australian law. Many convenience stores are in breach of the law by paying as little as $10 per hour. While wages are not directly the responsibility of Council, it is not in the public interest to approve businesses which do not adhere to community standards. Public interest is something council must consider before a development application is approved.

  28. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Cecilia commented

    I shudder at the thought of defacing the elegant vibe of the Union road shopping/cafe strip with large obscene posters in garish colours offering liquor. I drink wine and buy alcohol and in order to do so have a great many options from which to buy. Some within walking distance of Guildford Road where I live.

  29. In Riverview QLD on “One (1) lot into Two (2) lots” at 36 Ipswich Street Riverview QLD 4303:

    Robert Winkler commented

    This proposal should only proceed after these issues have been addressed and once adequate safeguards are made to prevent adverse consequences for the community in the vicinity of this site.

    1. Contamination of land with potentially toxic materials. The application states that “there are no site contamination issues affecting the subject land nor has the site been used for any notifiable activities”. However, over several years a previous owner of this property dumped large volumes of construction waste on the site, some of which was probably in excess of one meter above natural ground level. The waste contained a wide range of construction debris and there is every possibility that toxic materials, such as asbestos, were in it. A complaint made to Council at the time revealed that no approvals had been obtained. In recent works to clear the site, hard waste was excavated and removed. As there is a strong possibility that dust or seepage from the site could contaminate the surrounding area, investigations should be carried out to determine if there is any toxic material present and, if so, it should be removed.

    2. Additional stormwater volumes. The site plan in the application shows stormwater from the back allotment being discharged in Ipswich St and, although not stated explicitly, the intent is that stormwater from the front allotment will also discharge in Ipswich St. This stormwater will flow into an open drain that passes directly through our property and others downstream. The additional stormwater will be channelled into a stormwater system that is poorly designed and fails to meet acceptable, modern design approaches to stormwater management. The system is also inadequate for the flows seen in recent extreme weather events with large volumes of overflow occurring. Concerns about this infrastructure have been raised with Council previously, because the open drain is a health and safety hazard for us and the public. In full flow the drain is highly dangerous and the drain adversely affects the amenity of our property. Recent heavy rains also caused considerable scouring of the land in Small Family Park. Therefore, additional stormwater loads should not be permitted until full investigations are carried out by hydrologists and a planned implementation of upgrades to the system made.

    3. House construction has already commenced. Despite the fact that the application was only notified by Council on 9 June 2015, construction of the house on the back allotment has commenced and is at an advanced stage already. This seems to assume approval of the application and presents significant problems in carrying out further investigations of the issues raised.

    We ask that Council defer any approval of the application until these issues are thoroughly investigated and appropriate solutions implemented. We look forward to your further advice in due course.

  30. In Knoxfield VIC on “Construction and siplay of...” at 1464 Ferntree Gully Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Peter Shearman commented

    What company want's to add signage and how big are the signs. If McDonalds wants any additional signage then I am against further advertising for this company. The fast food outlet is already well enough signed. Large signs will be a further distraction to drivers.

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