Recent comments

  1. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Footway Application for...” at 80 Stanley Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    EVELYN KLOPFER commented

    I am SO supportive of this little restaurant being given the right to tables outside! It is the only one in Stanley Street which does not have them!

    This is also the bus stop and I who live about two blocks away, and have severe emphysema, used to use a little stool to sit on by the bus stop to catch my breath and be able to breathe again after walking.

    But it is a wonderful restaurant, and needs these tables, and I hope you give them permission. It is VERY important for the people that want to use it.

    These tables are not in the way, they do not affect anybody, and would be of great use to those who eat there and to the restaurant as well, as I say, the only one there without OUTSIDE tables, and that makes them lose business against the others.

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

    Roger Westerman commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I am one of the owners of a 24/7 facility that is approximately 400mtrs from the current application for this site. Furthermore there is another 24/7 facility due to open approximately 200 mtrs from this site in the next month or so. I have been an owner operator for many years and also a consultant to the industry in general. The proliferation of 24/7 facilities is placing ever increasing demands on each facility to remain financially viable. I come from a family of Town Planners and have had the advantage to assess the feasibility of each location. Despite the difference in name the model is essentially the same and quite frankly the corridor of population serviced by the existing clubs cannot sustain yet another club particularly in such close proximity. I realise that Council perhaps views this as progress but ultimately all it will do is put more pressure on each existing facility. We now have another centre opening in Brightwater which we have also been servicing previously.

    We are strong supporter of local community businesses and sponsor amongst others the Kawana Surf Club - we also provide free membership to other young sporting representatives. All of which is called into question when every membership is vital given the competition. This is not healthy competition and I strongly object to such an approval for another centre.

  3. In Forster NSW on “Little Lucifer -...” at 4/58 Wharf St, Forster 2428:

    Kristi Fitzpatrick commented

    I look forward to having a quiet drink and a meal in a small and intimate venue in Forster, with out having to go to a pub, or larger restaurant.

  4. In Chippendale NSW on “S96(2) Extend trading hours...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Mrs Wanda Rudowicz commented

    I read with great concern that this bar wishes to open until 2am, 7 days a week. Shepherd St is largely a residential area and this bar is surrounded by residents who would like to go to sleep at night. As it is, it can be quite noisy after 11pm and it concerns me that this noise will continue up until 2am which is totally unfair to residents like me, who have been living in the area for a long time. In buying my house on Shepherd St, I was not expecting to find it difficult to sleep - especially as late as 2am in the morning. Please oppose these extended trading hours in respect for me and the hundreds of other residents in the vicinity. There are plenty of other locations along Broadway where these people can go and drink at night if they so wish. Residents' rights should be protected by council.

  5. In Chippendale NSW on “S96(2) Extend trading hours...” at 21-21A Shepherd Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Jarrod commented


    As a resident of Shepherd Street and owner of two residential houses there, I strongly object to this proposal. Shepherd Street is currently a quiet residential street (with the exception of pubs on intersections with George Street and Cleveland St).

    As it stands, from where I live (in-between 55 and 32 Shepherd St) I can already hear noise from bars up until 10-11pm or so, after which there is usually a flood of patrons leaving the premise and walking directly past my front door (and bedroom). As it stands, I can't get to sleep because of noise until the local bars close.

    The problem with the 2am closing time is that the challenge I experience (inability to sleep until bars close and patrons go home) will now be extended until the early hours of the morning. This is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

    I do not mind development on Shepherd St provided that it does not lead to disturbances until such an early hour. A 10 or 11pm closing is fine but a 2am closing is too extreme.

    This proposal will destroy the mood of what is currently a beautiful residential street. Please do not allow noise after 10 or 11am on a weekday (and perhaps 12 or 1am on a Saturday).

    Kind Regards,


  6. In Pyrmont NSW on “Use of shop 1 as retail...” at 17-21 Pyrmont Bridge Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Mrs Margaret Rose STRINGER commented
    It is vital that Council consider the content of the "SMH" article behind that link, in the context of my earlier post.

  7. In Pyrmont NSW on “Use of shop 1 as retail...” at 17-21 Pyrmont Bridge Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Mrs Margaret Rose STRINGER commented

    I protest absolutely against the application: if I were not elderly and suffering from severe osteoarthritis of the lower back, I would be out carrying a placard of protest against it.
    I live in this RESIDENTIAL building, amongst many other elderly people, and a bottle shop is the last thing that should be put into a building that houses 45 flats. Has anyone thought what it would do to us to have drinkers wandering about until midnight 6 days a week and 10pm Sundays?! Has anyone thought what it would do to us to have the fitout going on for heaven knows how long in a building wherein sound carries like water through every wall?! SOME OF US HAVE TO STAY WITHIN OUR FLATS ALL DAY!!!
    Even more importantly, there are to my certain knowledge no less then SEVEN other bottle shops within two or three blocks of this building. If you approve this application, you will be indicating your utter contempt for everything that the police and the medical profession have been saying for years - that we need to _reduce_ the number of liquor outlets, not increase it.
    There has to be a limit to the sale of alcohol - surely you can see that? There has to come a point where organisations like Council say "No, enough is enough: there is NO NEED for yet another grog shop in Pyrmont!". By doing that you would not only be behaving responsibly and easing a fraction of the burden on the police and the hospitals, but also treating we residents of this building like human beings who deserve consideration and sympathy.

  8. In Balwyn VIC on “Use an existing building as...” at 7 / 346 Belmore Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Hasan Hassan commented


    It is great that a new toilet block is being installed in the Balwyn North Shopping Centre. It is much needed, but it has been installed with the loss of one/two carpark bay's. There is now an application to convert an existing carpark into a Yoga Centre! This building was built with the requirement of providing a certain number of carparks for office workers/shop staff and customers. Where will the Council find the carparks to replace the ones that have been lost? Let alone create badly needed carparks in a shopping centre which is impossible to get parking in at certain times of the day. There will be more cars parking along Belmore Rd and neighboring streets which will badly affect local residents.


  9. In Daisy Hill QLD on “Advertising Device...” at St Edwards Catholic School 104 Chatswood Road Daisy Hill QLD 4127:

    mcfstuart commented

    This freestanding electronic sign is a hindrance to drivers heading up to Daisy Hill Road of an evening. The reason being that the sign shifts from dark screens to white and bright screens which are too bright and distract drivers.
    The light pollution this sign causes is significant in addition to the driving hazard it represents.

  10. In Coogee NSW on “Section 96 (1A) amending...” at 55 Dudley Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Joe commented

    The development at 55 Dudley St, Coogee has been an absolute eyesore from the time construction was supposedly wrapping up. The development has been left unfinished for the last year with very few signs of any continued work besides the very recent bricking up of an entrance to the car park from Asher St. The footpath adjacent to the development remains incomplete and a trip hazard to elderly population. The South facade looks like a prison and while the cost of rental units in the Eastern Suburbs remain exorbitant due to the supposed lack of supply, the 13 residential units complete for the last year remain unused. The approval of this exceedingly ugly building and the inability of Randwick Council to force the completion of the project, or at a minimum, the make good of Asher footpath, stands as a symbol of the disregard for South Coogee, council is exhibiting. We look forward to the hasty resolution of the sorry state of affairs at 55 Dudley St.

  11. In Launceston TAS on “Alterations to facilities...” at Paterson St East Car Park 1-15 Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Graeme Tilley commented

    Dear Council

    On behalf of Inside Cafe (10-14 Paterson Street) I wish to object to the construction of toilets at 1-15 Paterson Street, Launceston.

    Inside Cafe and the co-joined business, Inside Home and Gifts and Inside Boutique is owned and operated by A.W. Birchall and Sons Pty Ltd. Our Company has spent in excess of $500 000 redeveloping the derelict ground floor of this building to make it suitable for our businesses and I believe it has considerably lifted the ambiance and desirability of this part of Paterson Street.

    The grounds for our objection is that the proposed toilets are directly opposite, facing the external windows of the Cafe in full view of our clients, which I do not believe is desirable for a food premise. Our future expansion plans for the Cafe includes on street dining which would make this proposal even worse.

    Although sympathetic to the need for 24 hour toilets in the CBD, we ask that you revise your plans and move the toilets so they are not directly opposite our business.

    Graeme Tillley
    Managing Director - Birchalls

  12. In Wollongong NSW on “Liquorland - Packaged...” at Tenancy LGW003A Cnr Crown & Keira St, Wollongong 2500:

    Anna David commented

    The address (cnr Crown & Keira St) does not match the map, nor the photo. Which is correct?

    Anna David
    15/23 Market St, Wollongong 2500.

  13. In Pyrmont NSW on “Use of part of the Harris...” at 152-156 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    M.R. Stringer commented

    EIGHT tables is a very larger number to put on the footpath outside this pub: there are already a great many tables and chairs there in the immediate area.
    How does Council propose to ensure that the footpath is sufficiently clear for pedestrians and shopping-trolleys?

  14. In Sydney NSW on “Use a portion of the Maddox...” at 274 Mitchell Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Brett Randall commented

    Close to the roundabout - may need bollards installed for pedestrian and diner safety.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson - Primary...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Shane Anthoney commented

    I whole heartedly support this application.
    The Henson is a well run, respectable and welcomed asset to the area.

  16. In Bateau Bay NSW on “The Entrance Rugby Club...” at Sir Joseph Banks Oval Sir Joseph Banks Ave, Bateau Bay 2261:

    gifts for men commented

    I think this is a real great article post.Much thanks again. Want more. gifts for men

  17. In Hawthorn VIC on “Subdivision of the land...” at 33 Lisson Grove Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Patrick Moore commented

    We are happy with this permit and agree to its approval

  18. In Ormeau QLD on “Description: CHILD CARE...” at 2 Jacobs Ridge Road Ormeau 4208:

    Tony Matheson commented

    To whom this may concern

    Our property backs onto the lot at 2 Jacobs Ridge Road, Ormeau, QLD.

    We would like to officially object to this development going ahead at this location for the following reasons:

    1. The Child Care Centre will be located directly opposite a major roundabout on Eggersdorf Road and Jacobs Ridge road. Both roads are extremely busy and present a genuine hazard to young children.

    2. The extra traffic created by the Child Care Centre will bottleneck traffic, particularly at peak times and will impact greatly in terms of noise and extra vehicles on the road in what is essentially a suburban area.

    3. The Childcare Centre will be an unsightly and ugly addition to the area. We believe the lot is unsuitable for this type of development and should be left in it's current state as a natural buffer.

    4. The extra noise that will inevitably be made by occupants of the Child Care Centre and extra vehicles coming and going from the Centre.

    5. The lowering of the value of neighbouring properties.

    6. Our property backs onto the proposed development and therefore our privacy will be compromised, especially in terms of the use of our back yard.

  19. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 6 Dummett Cres Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Planning Application PL05/0996 at 10-12 Dummett Crescent

    I object to any reduction in car parking requirements. Many of the inner city's parking problems (and they are many) have been greatly exacerbated by ongoing and continual reductions in the parking requirements of successive developments over time.

    Parking problems tend to flow from one part of the inner city to another. Overall parking problems in the inner city have greatly reduced the quality of life for residents, despite adding to council revenue from inflated parking fees.

    Lou Baxter
    12 Bundara St
    Nth Fitzroy 3068

  20. In Ormeau QLD on “Description: CHILD CARE...” at 2 Jacobs Ridge Road Ormeau 4208:

    Peter commented


    I live adjacent to proposed development site 2 Jacobs Ridge Road, Ormeau, Qld.

    There is no signage displayed on this site indicating this proposed development. Why?

    I wish to object against the development for the following reasons:

    1. A major traffic roundabout connecting the entire Jacobs Ridge Estate and commercial route to surrounding areas is adjacent to this lot.

    Has the applicant done a impact study of this site with regards to this major intersection and the
    the added traffic activity to this connecting roundabout?

    2. What consideration has been given to the aesthetics of park land and well established trees on this site which acts as a noise barrier to traffic at this intersection? Has a wild life study been conducted to the impact of their habitat?

    3. A single lane rail bridge crossing connects this roundabout to the Freeway and Shopping Centre
    This is an existing bottleneck and this development will compound the problem.

    4. Back yard privacy to all adjacent properties will be compromised by such a development
    I seriously want to object to such compromise and obvious devaluation to these properties.

    5. The noise of the child care centre occupants will affect the neighboring properties status quo.

  21. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 18 Gannon Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Concerned Mum commented

    DA201300309 should not be approved.

    We are a residential family community and we want to stay that way.

    Boarding house tenants are high turnover short term residents not interested in their neighbours, surrounds or community.

    They also contribute to high volume dumping of unwanted goods - furniture, electronics etc on our residential streets. Why don't we learn from our earlier mistakes of the 2 boarding houses on Griffiths street opposite the Tempe train station.

    Why destroy a beautiful character home across the road from a Children's Creche.

  22. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 18 Gannon Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Paul Davies commented

    This is not what Gannon St needs. As it is there is no parking due to the Bus station employees. How is building a 19 room boarding house helping. We also have one drug house in the street and the types of tenants that are generally attracted to these cheap multi room places would only encourage more of this.

  23. In Artarmon NSW on “Mixed use development and...” at 98 Hampden Road, Artarmon NSW 2064.:

    Lisa Parker commented

    Hampden Road is one of the few suburban focal centres that still feels like a small village, with local, independent shops and reasonable prices. Larger developments like this will change the feel of the place, driving up prices to cover the higher rents, and morphing the shopping strip into yet another standardised set of global corporations.
    I would urge councillors to resist this change, and to allow the shopping area to retain its historic charm for future generations.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Fit-out and use of level 1...” at 324A King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe commented

    Glad to see someone finally moving in! I wish them luck!

  25. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construction of residential...” at 1483-1487 Malvern Road, Glen Iris, VIC:

    Brightman Pty Ltd is the owner of 30 Staunton Lane. I, John Allen Brent, am a director commented

    Ref : Planning Application 0314/13 1483 -1487 Malvern Road, Glen Iris

    I object to this proposal on several grounds but firstly point out that the notice advising this application was only attached to the rear of the building ( Staunton Lane ) on Friday July 12. I have been told by a neighbour that the notice had been found face down on the ground and presumably attached at some time before. I consider this grounds for an extension to the deadline for objections.

    Staunton Lane is a narrow traditional Melbourne ROW and was never designed to take the traffic that it now has to carry. It services several business premises plus a number of more recent residential developments. We are the owner of 30 Staunton Lane , situated at the end, adjacent to the panel beater and Indian restaurant, plus a number of other businesses, shops. There is an existing problem with waste disposal that obviously Stonnington Council has never worried about. All bins from Staunton Lane are taken to the end of the lane where it joins Creswick Street on Wednsday evening where they remain for collection on Thursday morning. Where are the 60 odd bins from this proposed development going to be left ????? The cafe ( Mr Fox ) already has an objection to the current practice as having a dozen or so bins left at their back door creates an unsightly look, are smelly in hot weather and congest this area. What's it going to be like when it's 70 or so bins ? Just a small thing you might say, but of importance to local residents.
    The height of this proposal is 5 levels above ground which is higher than the other recent residential buildings situated nearby ( Creswick Street and around the corner into Malvern Road ) which are 4 levels.

    Traffic up and down the lane is already heavy and there are existing delays whilst trucks unload behind the shops ( hardware store as an example ). This lane was not designed to take the extra traffic from 30 or so apartments, plus the three shops proposed. Car stackers are a last resort option for cities like New York, Tokyo, Taipei not a suburb such as Glen Iris. How can one waiting space service this number of car stackers where it would take approximately 5 minutes to change cars. Not enough car spaces have been provided for the number of apartments , plus the three shops, proposed. Is it really realistic to presume that 32 people will have bikes as their prime form of transportation ? The area where Staunton Lane joins Creswick Street is potentially dangerous to pedestrians as the lane has almost no side vision to Creswick Street at this junction. A normal street as set backs so that a driver can see either side before they enter an intersection - not the case at Staunton Lane. If this proposal proceeds , Staunton Lane will carry as much traffic as many wider, better planned suburban streets. It will only be a matter of time before a pedestrian is hit by a car entering Creswick Street from Staunton Lane and increasing the traffic by 100 % or so just increases the risk.

    Car parking is already a problem in this area , due to proximity to several businesses, recent additions to residential units and a lack of parking for the railway station. To presume that most residents of this proposal will ride a bike to work or catch the tram is not realistic and parking will become even more of a problem.

    Have I been polite, as requested ? If so, I don't think that the developer has shown any politeness or concern for the existing residents or users of the already congested and over used narrow, one way only at a time Staunton Lane or has any understanding of existing conditions within this area.

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

    Debbie Hansen commented

    I have lived in the Eltham North area for 22 years and have walked these streets on a regular basis. I find it difficult to understand how such a plan can be approved for what is proposed for 130 Progress Road, given the size of the land and the character of the neighbourhood. Further, I imagine erecting the proposed dwelling on this block would impact greatly on properties backing onto this block, situated in Allison Crescent, Eltham North, an area that is very treed and very Eltham. Surely such development does not belong in these streets and would be more suited to streets closer to the town centre. I appeal to the better judgement of Councillors to reject this proposal.

  27. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 79 Renwick Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    DARREN MASON commented

    I have just purchased the property next door 77 renwick street.
    And trying to obtain information the the building boundary and if the free standing gap will still be maintained with teh new construction.Or if the plans are to but up against the wall of my property.

  28. In Matraville NSW on “Section 96(2) Extension of...” at 1890 Botany Road Port Botany NSW 2036:

    Jamie Laurendet commented

    To Who it may concern,

    I have summarised my main objection points below. I think it needs to be noted how loud the noise disturbance is given that this affects me given that I am probably the furthest away from the ports and the next suburb over (about 2 kms)

    • 16 Noise Complaints made to NSW Ports over the past 6 weeks by myself..
    • 2 Official Complaints made to the EPA. The EPA send back generic responses and advises that that everyone is working on a Noise Abatement Strategy and that it is difficult as there are so many parties involved. Not good enough as we live in a Residential Area and not an Industrial or Commercial Area.
    • No timeframe given for the “Strategy” or measures to reduce the noise.
    • Loud bangs from containers being loaded/unloaded/dropped
    • Loud beeping from the reversing alarms of the Shipping Container Transporters
    • Horns (Beep Beep) from the Shipping Container Transporters


    Jamie and Catrina Laurendet
    0435 928 428

  29. In Belmont VIC on “Partial Demolition of...” at 18 Scott Street, Belmont:

    Aaron Shirfield commented


    As to the 'Extension to Existing Dwelling', exactly what nature, are they going up, digging down, sidewards; in keeping within existing widths and heights of neighbouring and adjacent structures?

    The reasons for the 'Demolition of Front Fence and Construction of New Front Fence'?

    And the purpose, any business activities likely to be taking place?

    Where can I view the file and reference number please?

    Many thanks


    0406 309 322

  30. In Newport NSW on “Housing for the aged” at 5 Trevor Road Newport:

    Stephen Smith commented

    This application should not be approved because of the situation of the property in relation to Barrenjoey Road, the increase of traffic and also on street parking that shall be generated if the application is approved. Trevor Road at the point adjacent to the site is inclined and quite a narrow road and at the present time vehicles parked outside the subject site and across the road from the site create a dangerous situation for both pedestrians and motor vehicles alike.
    Trevor Road is less able to cope with passing traffic when vehicles are parked on the side of the road than other streets such as Queens Parade East and Walworth Avenue and even these streets, though wider than Trevor road, are becoming dangerous to drive upon when oncoming traffic is encountered.
    The street is already overcrowded with several medium density developments existing between the subject property and Hollywood Road, quite a short distance.
    I remain concerned for the many children, mothers with babes in prams, walkers, joggers, cyclists and other road and footpath users, bearing in mind that for several reasons in this particular area pedestrians have no choice but to walk on the road, due to the lack of adequate footpaths, lighting and the risk of walking in dog droppings at night time when walking on the footpath.

    I might add that my objection was initially lodged in response to DA7/2013. I believe that it is incumbent upon Pittwater Council to consider my objection and also all earlier objections lodged (and there were several such objections) in connection with DA7/2013 when considering this application 173/2013.

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