Recent comments

  1. In Saint Ives NSW on “Installation and operation...” at 166-172 Mona Vale Road, St Ives, NSW:

    John Forbes commented

    This appears to another band-aid solution applied to the out of date and inadequate St Ives Shopping Village in an attempt to meet the demands of the continually growing population in St Ives.
    There is inadequate parking for both staff and shoppers at the Centre which causes both traffic chaos and parking out of local streets. St Ives Shopping Village infrastructure needs to be updated to meet the population growth caused by the proliferation of high density housing in the area.

  2. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 16...” at 37 Derby Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Max van helden commented

    To Boroondara City Council,

    As a resident of Derby Street kew we are very concerned with the building proposal planned for 37 Derby street. We find it difficult to believe the Shire Council could consider a four storey development on this small site.
    The beauty of living in the area is it's leafy environment and historical homes which is being lost to developers with ugly, over crowded unit developments with no consideration for current home owners already living in the area.
    I addition traffic and parking in Derby Street is already causing problems for residents in the Street and if this development proceeds will further aggravate an already bad situation.
    When we read Boroondara Council brochures about keeping our suburbs beautiful and lifestyle friendly this is totally at odds to this planned development.
    We would expect the concerns of current residents to be taken into account before granting approval.

    Sue and Max van Helden

  3. In Springwood QLD on “Domestic - Demolition of...” at 1 Hawkins Street Springwood QLD 4127:

    Elke Carstens commented

    This is so wrong. This development/change of use is not wanted by the residents. Yet we feel powerless to fight big business and the council. But just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should. There is no going back once residential properties no 1 and no 3 Hawkins Street, Hawkins St are approved/rezoned as part of the shopping centre and certainly no going back once no 1 is demolished. Car park one day McDonalds/WW pettol station the next? Shame on everyone involved in building/approving this.

  4. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 16...” at 37 Derby Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Timothy Hinks commented

    As a resident of Derby Street I object to this proposed development which is out of character with the historic feel of the street, which is out of proportion to the skyline and street view and which, most importantly is far too large for the capacity of the street, particularly in terms of parking. It is already hard to find a parking space, but with 32 further residents and their associated cars this will be a significant difficulty. The street is currently frequently congested by cars turning into a similar, characterless development a few doors up. The lot was originally chosen as the right size for one family, not 16 times that density.

    This city, and this suburb is rightly proud of its historic buildings, but these can rapidly be lost irreplaceably by lax planning decisions leading to short term gains which will be regretted in future generations. The purpose of planning regulations is precisely to protect the character of neighbourhoods and ensure developments are appropriate in scale. We trust that this proposal will receive be thoroughly reviewed and a decision made in line with the concerns and opinions of the residents of this street and neighbourhood.

  5. In Newcastle NSW on “Mixed commercial/residntial...” at 105,109,111,121,137,147,151,153,163 & 169-185 Hunter Street, 22 Newcomen Street, 3 Morgan Street, 66-74 King Street, 98,104,108,& 110 King Street, 14 Thorn Street, 15,21, & 31 Wolfe Street Newcastle:

    Karen Brown commented

    I am totally in support of the redevelopment of this area. However, it is essential that any heritage buildings are adapted appropriately. Newcastle is very lucky as we have quite a number of buildings worth saving. If we wish to be seen as a stand alone unique Australian city it is important to respect our history. Many, many cities in Europe have successfully adapted old with new. We must think of what the city should be like in 50 years or even 100. Thoughtful planning now is vital.

  6. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 16...” at 37 Derby Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Brett Jackson commented

    I strongly object to this application.

    Derby Street is at risk of losing its tradition and its identity to medium density housing and was never designed to accommodate the increased traffic and residents that we are already seeing.

    There are already two box like apartment buildings immediately next to the property subject to this application. The Precinct Character Statement for this area allows for apartments, but they should be spread out and not dominate such a large area of one side of the street. 3 apartment blocks in succession would appear to be against the intent of the Preferred Charater Statement which also says that historical significance and heritage is important to the area. The property has a Victorian period home circa 1890 and should be retained and celebrated, not knocked down for the pursuit of profit at the expense of the residents.

    The Character statement suggests that buildings should integrate in the area and not dominate it.

    We as residents already find it difficult to find parking in the street and cannot see how the street could cope with 16 new apartments that could result in 32 new neighbours along with their visitors.

    There is an early learning centre across the street where mothers with young children need to be able to drop their children off. They do not need the added stress of limited parking and increased traffic.

    Derby Street is a proud and private street with historical significance that must be cebrated and protected. Three apartment blocks in a row have no place in Derby Street, they belong on a Main Street where medium density is the norm.

  7. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 16...” at 37 Derby Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Brad Cain commented

    I object to the application.

    The construction of 16 apartments is an inappropriate development for the site and the area.

    The demolition of a home of its age and character for such development is unacceptable.

    This application along with other recent approved applications at the top of Derby St is having a negative impact on the Early Learning Center.

    Additional approval for inappropriate developments in Derby Street is placing extra strain on the already limited parking for residents in Derby St.

  8. In Reservoir VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 830 Plenty Road Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Fiorinda Koch commented

    I live in the next street not more than 200 meters away from 830 Plenty Road. The average cricketer could throw a ball and hit the site and yet Darebin Council has not sent me any notice of this development. I only became aware of it via the Planning Alerts website. I have spoken to my neighbours and they have received no notices either. I have spoken to the planning department and notices were sent 9th November. I am awaiting a call from planner in charge to 'please explain' . No wonder Darebin Council is in the news for ALL the wrong reasons! It would appear well deserved!

  9. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Develop the land by the...” at 243-247 Queens Pde Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    The size is totally inappropriate and there should be NO reduction in parking requirements. Over development is destroying our community!

  10. In Kew VIC on “Construct three (3)...” at 29 Parkhill Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Michael Adams commented

    Robert, I am offended by your above comment.

    I live in Daracombe Ave Kew, the location for your own proposed development.

    You proudly display a notice in your window stating that you are opposed to inappropriate development, however you are fighting Council in VCAT after they deemed your own development was inappropriate for our street.

    A little hypocritical of you to say the least!

    Soon it will be you digging up our street and your delivery trucks causing us nuisance.

    I also hope that council make a list of people unsuitable to undertake developments and I hope they put your name at the top of the list Robert, or Janet, or Simone or whatever you're calling yourself today.

    Just another two faced greedy developer! RIP integrity.

  11. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 16...” at 37 Derby Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Alison Jackson commented

    Dear City of Boroondara Council

    I am writing to object the above development at 37 Derby street Kew. As a resident of Derby street I feel that this development will have a major affect on the Derby street landscape. Derby street has a treasured history of historic period homes and will lose its character to the construction of yet another apartment building. We need to restore these beautiful home rather than knock them down. If this beautiful Victorian historical home at number 37 is destroyed, we will lose a part of history and the character to which our street and suburb is known for.
    Furthermore, building yet another apartment block (along side two existing apartment buildings) will change the street density. Theses multi-story developments need to be spread out so they don't dominate any particular street. With another multi-level apartment block there will less parking to already inadequate parking options on the street. In addition, there will be increased traffic in the street.

    As one of many parents of young children walking to our local school at Kew Primary along Derby street and up Malmsbury street, I would be very concerned about the safety of walking to school if this construction went ahead. There would be many demolition and excavation trucks moving in and around the street and would impose an immediate danger to the safety of our children particularly those children that ride their bikes to school.

    The city of Boroondara Planning Scheme and Neighbourhood Character Precinct Statements classifies Derby Street as a 'Precinct 9' which would appear to give residents grounds to object the proposed demolition of an existing period home and the construction of the 4 story 16 apartment building based on some of the following points-
    The preferred character statement says '....ensuring design that intergrates with the heritage styles of the precinct' , 'loss of historical buildings and removal/loss of large trees.
    The Design Guidelines says they need to avoid 'large bulky buildings that dominate adjoining dwellings' and 'block-like apartment buildings which have a footprint that is both wide and deep'

    In summary I wish for you to please consider my objections based on Borrondara council's Precinct 9 code for Derby street in both the destruction of our beautiful heritage landscape of Derby street and in Kew area and the building of an unsightly box-like apartment block that will bring further more traffic and less parking to the area.

    Kind regards
    A Jackson
    Owner - Derby street Kew

    (No donation or gift has been made to either Councillor or Coucil employee)

  12. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Maxwell Purcell commented

    I firmly object to the approval of DA0413/15

    To be concise and clear, I have been a recurrent visitor to Merrivale lane for 7 years now and continue to visit regularly as my close friend and his family are residents.
    This lane is built upon the foundations of a quiet suburban neighbourhood and continues to be regarded as such.
    This proposal inhibits intolerable DANGER not only to residents, but to the proposed children that would be introduced to an already congested and narrow lane on a daily basis.
    Totally unsuitable to this lane and immensely impractical, this proposal has clearly been designed by an individual/group with complete ignorance and naivety.

    Do not allow for this small residential lane to be completely dismantled into an intolerably busy and dangerous situation.
    STOP THIS PROPOSAL NOW

  13. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 37-49 O'Connor Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Michael Clay commented

    I do my research, Jessica. I suggest you do the same, before you spout semi-racist, ill-informed vitriol. As to whether they're "chasing the regular person out of the area", I'd again suggest you do your research. The site in question is currently a disused industrial warehouse in a semi-demolished state, that is being used as parking for vehicles working on the remaining construction sites on the nearby Carlton United Brewery rejuvenation. This development will add value to the area. It doesn't replace existing residential housing. And even if it did, given the scope and scale of the recent residential developments in the local area (the CentraPark development alone has added huge residential capacity) the effect on local housing availability would be negligible. As to whether the gallery development should "support Australian artists" .... it will. The development includes two residential apartments that will be used as artist residencies on a permanent rotating basis, to support Australian artists in the production of cultural value. How do I know this? Again, I did my research before commenting. I suggest others do the same.

  14. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    William Tapp commented

    I strongly object to the approval of DA0413/15

    As a current resident who has spent my childhood growing up on the street, I am greatly disappointed that a proposal like this could even be considered for such an environment.

    Not only is the street full of families with children who often ride their bikes or play on the street, but the location itself does not in any way make sense for such a COMMERCIAL SIZED PROPOSAL. The street itself would not be able to cope with the increased traffic from cars during peak hours and would ultimately turn the street into a very dangerous environment.

    After reading through some of the above comments, it has come to my attention that a comment by Jonathan Thirroul a 'supposed' resident of the street makes absolutely no sense:

    - I have lived on this street my entire life and have never heard of or met anyone by the name of Jonathan Thirroul

    - His first point about children enjoying the beautiful view. I do not know a single child who would consider the beautiful vistas of a golf course whilst at child care. AND the fact is that the centre would back directly onto a creek, one which is riddled with funnel web spiders, and has had previous sightings of red back spiders and red belly black snakes, all of which would directly impact on the safety of the children.

    - If Jonathan has lived on the street for the past ten years as he says he has, he would know completely well that the street does in no logical manner handle traffic and a quiet suburban street would in no way handle the noise of a COMMERCIAL SIZED PROPOSAL. The unit blocks (not even unit blocks) he speaks of are NOT on the street towards buckra street, but are in fact a few houses down on the same side to the proposal.

    - Once again, if Jonathan had ever lived on the street he would also know that the area is NOT stuck in 1952 and is in fact with the times for a SUBURBAN FAMILY ORIENTATED STREET of the current era
    - His point of adding value to properties has no legitimate claim and adding a COMMERCIAL SIZED PROPOSAL would ultimately draw people away from what families in the area seek. A SUBURBAN FAMILY ORIENTATED STREET.

    Please do not let this COMMERCIAL SIZED PROPOSAL proceed

  15. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 351 Trafalgar Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen air quality and the already terrible congestion in Petersham, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  16. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Angelyn Lo commented

    Strongly Objecting to DA0413/15
    I am taking this moment to write to you as a parent, a mother and most importantly for giving a voice to our children in this neighbourhood to express my concerns about the safety and security of our neighbourhood should you allow this development of 150 childcare centre to go ahead in a small, narrow Merrivale Lane in Turranurra. As you all can appreciate, our children’s safety and security should be paramount. Imagine, how we all would feel should a child was injured from the busy traffic when parents picking and dropping off their kids, when this could have been avoided in the first place. We and you are all decent, rationale people who has the best interest for this community. I like to think that all those who sent their objections like I’m doing now is to fight for the best interest for our community and most of all for the safety and security of our future generation.
    Please do not let the development to proceed.

  17. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 37-49 O'Connor Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Jessica Wayne commented

    I reckon this whole thing is a land grab under the cover and the name of Art.
    The same owner have bought many buildings in Chippendale including the White Rabbit, to name a few, and they are just being greedy and along with the Notre Dame uni, they are chasing the regular person out of the area.
    The White Rabbit is displaying some Rubbish under the name of Chinese art, I went there once and didn't want to go back. What's wrong with displaying Australian Art and supporting the Australian artists.
    I would like to know how Michael Clay know it is the same owner???

  18. In Chippendale NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 37-49 O'Connor Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Michael Clay commented

    This development should definitely be approved. The White Rabbit Gallery has been such a wonderful addition to the local area. I applaud the addition of more creative art spaces in this growing and vibrant community. The design of the building looks distinctive and interesting. This development will be a welcome addition to an exciting and growing area.

  19. In Forresters Beach NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling” at 8 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach NSW 2260:

    Bronwyn McCutcheon commented

    As owners of Lot 5, 12 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach, we strongly object to the planting of an 8 metre tree with a 5 metre spread on Lot 3 (or any of the lots). We refer you to 'Landscape Plan DA48636 L3 DP1202617 H8 Sandcastle Cl Forresters Beach Part 1", which indicates that along the Lot 3/Lot 4 boundary fence line that an 8 metre tree (Coastal Banksia) with a 5 metre spread is included in the Planting Schedule.

    We object to the planting of this tree for the following reason:

    The root system of this large tree may affect the drainage capabilities of the Atlantis cells which could impact the capacity of clearance of storm water. This large root system also has the potential to cause damage to or negatively impact the whole subdivsion's drainage.

    As owners of Lot 5, whilst we have no wish to negatively impact our Lot 3 neighbours planting requests, but we do feel that this particular tree planting signifcantly and negatively impacts upon the integrity of the subdivsions drainage and therefore impacting our Lot 5 and approval should not be granted.

  20. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of twelve (12)...” at 474 Whitehorse Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Clare J Buckley commented

    Although I live on the other side of Whitehorse Road, I fully endorse the comments made by the residents who stand to lose so much with this GRZ5 zoning.
    There was no rationale for the rezoning-it was a case of "drive-by" selection when the previous planning minister Matthew Guy told the Boroondara Council to increase the areas to be zoned for moderate growth.

    All of us within a kilometre radius and indeed all those wishing to drive along Whitehorse Road will be adversely affected by this population densification and increased traffic and parking.

    I hope that the opportunity next year to vote for our ward representatives will enable us to vote in fresh blood - councillors who will listen and work for their constituents and not for the council. We need a return to democracy , consultation and accountability in Boroondara.

  21. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    David Cuthill commented

    The signage for the MCU was erected on the Fence late October; yet the MCU was submitted Late September. Are you not supposed to submit a photo of the signage on the fence along with the MCU?
    Regarding the somewhat bizarre and misleading statement about zero emissions. I trust Councillors are not going to take that at face value, as clearly that is a crock. Imagine how many COAL-FIRED Power plants would be interested in Zero Emissions technology. Burning dead bodies in Maroochydore would certainly be a new source of Green Energy? Sorry, but I hope the point is taken.

  22. In Whittington VIC on “Development of the Land for...” at 51 Regent Street, Whittington:

    Anne-Rita le Riche commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would like more information on exactly what building developments is taking place at: 51 Regent Street, Whittington, Geelong.

    Thank you & kind regards
    Ms A le Riche
    Whittington

  23. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Cameron Herbert commented

    This DA should not be approved. Merrivale Lane is only about 7m wide and struggles to handle 2 way traffic along its entire length at present. To allow this DA would add approx. 150-200 (or more) extra vehicles on Merrivale Lane at peak times. Not only would this create an horrendous traffic situation along Merrivale Lane but the resulting backlog of cars could spread onto Pentecost Avenue causing traffic issues in both directions between Mona Vale Road and Bobbin Head Road.

    Merrivale Lane is a quiet residential lane and should remain so.

  24. In Balmain NSW on “1. Removal of 1 Camphor...” at 128 Beattie Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    When I initially read this application I assumed the tree was on private property. However, as it is on public property and an asset for the wider community I would like to lodge an objection to its removal. The removal of this tree would be a degradation for the whole street. It is a lovely tree that has served many generations not only by it shade but also its aesthetic value as a beautiful tree much appreciated and admired by the local community. It is important that it be retained as it is home to birds as well and I hope that this tree remains an asset for the whole community as the trees in Beattie Street are loved by many.

    Thank you.

  25. In West Perth WA on “Retention Of One (1)...” at 48 Cowle Street, West Perth, WA, 6005:

    Simon commented

    The decline of Cowle street due to the long term abandoned and neglected properties 'owned' by investor/developers, and subsequent loss of character due to the demolition and controlled dilapidation of houses on this street, is a shame and shows the need for greater character protection for the historic streets in the inner suburbs of Perth. The heritage and future potential for this street has been lost unfortunately, all that can be done now is to preserve what is left and try to redeem the rest with higher degree of quality control through sensible regulation and planning for future 'developments'.

  26. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition works” at 30-40 George Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Joel Courtney commented

    There are currently no documents relating to this application.

  27. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Internal alterations to...” at 81-83 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Paul Paech commented

    This DA is evidence of intensification of commercial activity in the Hall Street Town Center area, which extends along Hall Street and Into Glenayr Avenue. It has been accellerated by the approval by the State Government of the Adina retail, hotel and residential complex between Hall. O'Brien & Roscoe Streets.
    This has impacted negatively on the residential amenity of Hall and other surrounding streets, with increased traffic and pressure for parking, noise from commercial premises (often licensed), etc.
    Many businesses in the area (particularly hospitality based) are now seeking to extend their operations in the backyards of the properties where they have street frontages, whether by use of these spaces as storage areas, for accessing toilet facilities, or, as in this case, by allowing patrons of the business to use these areas as if they belonged to the business and were part of the floor space of the building. This is not acceptable to residents.
    The main trouble is that almost all of the properties operate in a mixed-use zoning, specifically this means that there is always residential accommodation above the premises, and usually directly adjacent to the outdoor areas attached to the commercial operations.
    This inevitably creates a situation of significant conflict: the peace and quite properly demanded by residents is quickly sacrificed by the eagerness of the business owners for larger operations.
    Council has a very clear legal obligation under the LEP to ensure that all DA's meet the requirement for uses of property to be "compatible", and it is difficult to argue that the proposed use would be in any way at all compatible with the interests of residents.
    I also understand that the DCP requires Council, in a potential conflict between residential and commercial uses, to support the interests of the residents.
    The current application would provide the applicant with considerable benefits, but there is no way of preventing these benefits from coming at considerable expense to the amenity local residents.
    Council is therefore urged to reject the current application.

  28. In Moorang QLD on “Impact Assessment:...” at 1939 Tarome Road, Moorang, QLD:

    Julie lamont commented

    The wildlife using this corridor need some protection from increased traffic. There are numerous species of wallaby and kangaroo, carpet pythons, phasigales, koalas, echidnas, goannas, ducks, scrub turkeys, bandicoots and bearded dragons. I check the pouches of dead roos looking for surviving joeys, and am shocked by the carnage. An increase in traffic [particularly semis and double b's which cannot easily brake on a road that already has many sharp corners and blind spots] will impact on the wildlife even more. Also, returning the Moorang corridor sign to the Calemondah end of the road where the gravel begins would be welcomed. The graziers also feed and move their cattle along this road. With increased traffic, the risk of serious accidents become a very real concern. There would not be a member of the local community who, at some stage, has not come around a bend to face an oncoming vehicle face on. It is quite frightening with neither driver being at fault due to the poor conditions of the road. With trucks and double B's working to time rosters and reknowned for their cutting of corners and [speed], travelling on this road would create a higher potential for serious accidents.

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “To consolidate existing...” at 236 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Yvette Beaumont commented

    I'm just wondering why this needs to be another big, grey, bland looking block?

    Add this one to the very-unfinished-looking 'Revolution' development (Grey / no greenery), the big, concrete development on Illawarra Road, down near Steel Park (Grey / no greenery), the development currently being built on Illawarra Rd near the Yerros Shop (I'll take a guess...grey & no greenery) ...

    I'm not against development, we need more stock, (preferably for folk who work in Essential Services, but that's for another discussion) - - my question is: why must these developments end up looking so unfinished, grey & free-of-any-greenery? Will this development be yet another cheap-looking, grey 'block' that starts peeling & disintegrating within months? Will the shops at the base sit vacant, like the 'retail Revolution' underneath the Revoloution block? Who polices this stuff?

    At the very least, is there no way that some permanent foliage can be incorporated into these designs? I don't know... *something* to add or retain some of the character of Marrickville's streets??

    These developments may be gorgeous & well-built on the inside - I hope for the residents' sake that they are well built - but, on the outside, well...I lothe to think what Marrickville's streets will look like in years to come.

  30. In Balmain NSW on “1. Removal of 1 Camphor...” at 128 Beattie Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Janie Page commented

    With respect for the application to remove the camphor laurel tree at the back of 128 Beattie St, I would like to lodge an objection to its removal. I live at 130 Beattie St and this tree was a part of our decision to purchase this property 12 months ago. It provides the central backdrop to our home as well as a serene, shady aspect. We believe it contributes very much to the village like feel of Balmain. From our windows I often see the birds resting in its boughs. It would be sad to see a beautiful, old tree sacrificed especially when it poses no real risk to the surrounding properties.
    Please consider my objection
    Kind regards
    Janie Page

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