Recent comments

  1. In Kingscliff NSW on “Notified Development -...” at 27 Drift Court Kingscliff NSW 2487:

    Kirk Caldwell commented

    I have an opposing view in that I support the application especially if the intended use is to boost tourism in Kingy. It sounds like the complainant is in the same situation as the potential holiday makers; has a vehicle which adds to the parking problem, is employed suggesting a disposable income which may be used to holiday and has children similar to the typical holiday-maker demographic. As easy as it is to discriminate, I don't believe your [complainant] position can be distinguished from those whom you aim to discourage.

  2. In Ormond VIC on “14 Lot Subdivision” at 7 Ormond Road Ormond VIC 3204:

    Miriam Baxt commented

    Fourteen subdivision is excessive.
    I hope this is not going ahead. It is a destruction of the character of the neighbourhood and amenities. Properties need to have garden spaces retained far better.
    These developments are destroying habitat for birds and other [potected] wildlife [possums].
    Plus the apartments are already in oversupply in the region.

  3. In Kirribilli NSW on “Modify DA 331/17 for...” at 105 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli NSW 2061:

    Philip Newnham commented

    Another beautiful old terrace building to dust no thanks to North Sydney Council. Full Stop.

  4. In Rowville VIC on “The construction of two (2)...” at 16 Police Road, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Daniel Obrien commented

    This development doesn't fit with the street . There is no other 2 story houses . And the cluttered finish wont suit the street . Why are they cutting down native trees ?

  5. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Concerned commented

    There are a lot of comments about boarding houses in Maroubra. Perhaps interested parties could attend the next Maroubra Precinct meeting to ask questions about the overall plan for Maroubra. Is there a plan? How many are enough? Are these developments ever knocked back?
    The next meeting is Mon 26th August at Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club.
    You can contact them on maroubraprecinct@gmail.com

  6. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 371 - 375 North Rocks Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    SORRY:- I forgot; there is another business there as well; the car wash. That makes 5

  7. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Julieann amarasinghe commented

    This does not seem a sensible placement given the age group of residents. Stuart rd intersection will be a recipe for accidents injuries and death. Look at ehat happened with the village glen on eastbourne road rosebud. The elderly drivers can not simply manage a right hand turn into a busy road. Any new development must ensure it will jot negatively affect businesses and services currently operating. Land being opened to housing is notrious for subsequent complaints resulting in expense to council ratepayers and distress to existing community. Example safety beach residents complaining of freeway noise. Cape shanck new residents complaining about existing gun club and bike club noises. Mornington tyabb road is already barely coping with the new freeway. If this goes ahead council must ensure road safety and protection of existing business and service. It must mandate that property purchasers are aware of current airport and train noises so that comlaints can not be made or the buildings must be sound proof and there must be community consultation with public meetings.

  8. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Jennifer Green commented

    I am a long term small acreage, property owner in Tyabb.
    When corporate greed from a developer fails to take the interests of existing communities and the interests of any potential residents into account there can only be a poor outcome. The potential residents would be housed adjacent a heavy freight train line and an airfield. Those are both long term and necessary local services but not conducive to 'Resort style retirement living' as claimed by the developer.
    There are almost no specialist facilities for the medical needs of an additional community of elderly people in Tyabb. With one small GP clinic and waiting lists to become a patient at most clinics in Somerville and Hastings, the health care of potential and existing residents will be at risk.
    In terms of the additional pressure on local roads, the intersection at Mornington-Tyabb Road and Frankston-Flinders Road would not cope with the excpected traffic influx and safety of existing users - many of them school children using the crossings - would be compromised.
    The amenity of Tyabb as it exists currently is a harmonious blend of rural properties, villiage style town area and just a couple of smaller, newer delvelopments.
    People built in Tyabb or relocated to Tyabb to enjoy the peaceful, village and semi rural lifestyle. We love that we can cycle, ride horses and walk along our quiet streets and go to our shops where the owners know our names and how we take our coffee!
    Somerville was once a peaceful community like Tyabb. In just 15 years it has become an outer urban ghetto with escalating crime and a bad reputation. Whilst the likely residents of this development don't fit the demographic that brings a lower tone to an area, approvals for any and all medium and high density housing would further push Tyabb toward an abyss from which there is no return. The existing high property prices in Tyabb reflect the desire of people to move to this area as it is. Peaceful, semi rural with a village atmosphere and a degree of quiet exclusivity. I have no desire to see my property devalued by inappropriate development.
    I object to the application for this development.

  9. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    ROlfe Summerhayes commented

    As stated by me before the Airport needs an Environs overlay to prevent such a development as this residential village/caravan park/lifestyle resort... This development flies in the face of state planning directions in relation to Airports or as some like to refer to them as Authorised Landing Areas/Grounds... Further objection is related to how inappropriate it would be to overpopulate Stuart Road with such a number of new tenants. These new residents would if allowed begin to complain about the Airfield noise and generate more community grief. In my mind if the state guidelines prohibit such inappropriate developments surely it will be the Shire and ultimately the Mornington Peninsular Rate payers who foot the bill. In short ruin the town and cost us a fortune. I don’t believe any section 172 or similar document will protect the Shire.
    As for the extra traffic on Stuart road blind Freddy could see that. NO NO NO NO

  10. In Ryde NSW on “Section 8.3 Review of DA...” at 5 Aeolus Ave Ryde NSW 2112:

    Steven Magro commented

    I currently live close to this site and the traffic in the morning and afternoon up and down this street (especially on the corner of North and Aeolus) is heavy before 10am and after 4pm. It is already hard enough to leave our driveway. The addition of the drop off and pick up of children would add to this chaos. This is also a quiet residential area and it is a concern of mine around the associated day time noise with the proposed centre being so close by.

  11. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Luke McGaughey commented

    A village development next to an airfield is absolutely absurd. Have you not learnt anything from past issues with the public in close proximity to air traffic?
    Please use some common sense and reject this application for the sake of the residents and the airfield already in Tyabb.

  12. In Ocean Grove VIC on “Construction of a Dwelling...” at 103 The Parade, Ocean Grove, VIC:

    Robyn Alcock-Roddis commented

    The height is excessive and unreasonably impacts on neighbours all of which are single story except for the double story apartment building and is out of character for the neighbourhood. This will result in intrusive overlooking of private spaces of the neighbouring properties. It is of concern that the substantial trees in the rear corners of the property have been removed despite them being clearly shown as remaining on the plans. These trees and in particular the gum tree provided both visual screening from the only other oversized building and much needed habitat for the endangered Swift Parrot and many were regularly seen there.
    Given the size and siting of the building so close to all but the front boundary it unreasonably impacts on neighbours. The location of ac units and pool pump etc are a consideration for noise impacting on neighbours.

  13. In Girraween NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at 96 Oramzi Road, Girraween NSW 2145:

    Deb A commented

    I am concerned about this development proposal. Please stop changing the basic fabrics of this beautiful suburb.

  14. In Umina Beach NSW on “Demolition Existing Houses...” at 5 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Kreasan Gounden commented

    Same development , Same problems

    I oppose the development of 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina as like 5 Osborn Avenue and 454 Ocean Beach Road

    This will overlook the childcare centre close by and neighbouring residence

    Please consider the community response to both developments for recent development applications for the following applications against the below residential properties; All public submission should be considered due to the similar location and proposed occupancy and similarities of this development.

    • 5 Osborn Ave , Umina https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2018.00055206.001

    • 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2019.00056417.001

    How will the construction address impacts of high residential issues surrounding the following points against 454 and 5 Osborne Avenue

    • Car Park Space
    • Number of Dwellings
    • Noise
    • Privacy
    • Traffic
    • Environment

  15. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction Of A Two (2)...” at 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Kreasan Gounden commented

    Same developement , Same Problems

    I oppose the development of 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina as like 454 Ocean Beach Road.

    https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchProperty.aspx?id=2499

    Please consider the community response to both developments for recent development applications for the following applications against the below residential properties; All public submission should be considered due to the similar location and proposed occupancy and similarities of this development.

    • 5 Osborn Ave , Umina https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2018.00055206.001

    • 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina - https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2019.00056417.001

    How will the construction address impacts of high residential issues surrounding the following points against 454 and 5 Osborne Avenue

    • Car Park Space
    • Number of Dwellings
    • Noise
    • Privacy
    • Traffic
    • Environment

  16. In Umina Beach NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing 8 Units” at 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Kreasan Gounden commented

    I oppose the development of 433 Ocean Beach Road, Umina

    Please consider the community response to both developments for recent development applications for the following applications against the below residential properties; All public submission should be considered due to the similar location and proposed occupancy and similarities of this development.

    • 5 Osborn Ave , Umina https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2018.00055206.001

    • 454 Ocean Beach Road, Umina - https://plan.s.centralcoast.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=011.2019.00056417.001

    We currently live behind the proposed development on 1 Osborn Ave. We have not received notification of this development and neither have other surrounding properties. We oppose the development due to the following concerns which have also been addressed against the development applications listed above.

    Privacy; The rear of our property which will be visible from the rear of the proposed application as all living spaces and Pool of our property currently face the elevation of the back of the proposed dwelling. I have two young children and this possess a privacy and security concern for my family. This would also overlook the childcare centre at the rear of 3 Osborn and our block which would also be visible from the rear of the proposed dwelling.

    Sunlight to the rear elevation of the proposed development will block the sun which would affect our heating, potential solar , and would also block sunlight in to our outdoor living spaces

    Will reduce the valuation of our property in relation to the above concerns as well as neighbouring on micro apartments, boarding housing, which will be cheaply constructed. How will the construction address impacts of high residential issues surrounding the following points ;

    • Car Park Space
    • Number of Dwellings
    • Noise
    • Privacy
    • Traffic
    • Environment

    Thanks

  17. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Julie Anderson-Smoker commented

    To even try and understand what the MPSC are thinking regarding a 180 unit development that is so close to our Air field and the only railway line that caters for the public and industrial cargo. The haulage diesel train goes through around 2am-4am and 12 hrs later, and it's quite noisy. I really don't think alot of consideration has been given to the Tyabb Township, it just does not have the infrastructure to support this development, the intersection at Stuart rd and Mornnington Tyabb rd will become a nightmare and huge hazard, with a bus stop on either side of Mornington Tyabb rd that school children and the public use. When you think about the the amount of vehicles that will use the roads (180 units x 1 or 2 cars per unit= that's up to 270 vehicles) and the trucks whilst building is going on, it doesn't make sense this isn't taken into consideration as well as the residents already living here and the traffic for the Airport. And the 'removal of more than one tree'- we have wildlife that reside there including Black Cockatoos, Ring Tail Possums and Brush Tail Possums. Destroying their habitat as well. This company has already built facilities locally in Hastings and Bittern and we already have a facility in construction in Tyabb on The Crescent. How is this proposed facility going to support and benefit the small Tyabb community. Somerville also has facilities and is a larger community. The Shire need to consider all facets of how this is going to impact Tyabb Township-roads, shops, healthcare, sporting etc. Tyabb is a mix of rural and residential settings and with more of these developments appearing (Frankston Flinders rd. High Density Residential Complex) we are slowly moving away from the rural peninsula feel and into the suburban culture which Tyabb on the Peninsula is not.
    With the Shires past history of abominable Town Planning and seeing as this development is so close to a working (many community based businesses) airport I can only see complaints and more pressure on the PAC from the MPSC. I therefore propose that he State Government be alerted to this planning application, And I OBJECT to the development of 180 unit Residential Village on 59 Stuart Rd Tyabb 3913.

  18. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Frank Deeth commented

    It beggars belief in this day and age that councils would entertain housing developments so close to other important infrastructure, namely the railway and Tyabb Airfield. These are important community assets. Time and again these kinds of community assets play second fiddle to the development dollar and projected rates windfall to council. How often have we see developments ext to airports then those very people who built have the gall to complain. “Let the buyer beware” seems to no longer matter. When it becomes apparent where the new home owners have bought, the buyers remorse kicks in and it’s easier to easier to complain about the infrastructure that is already there and have it moved, than to take personal responsibility. No to this development!

  19. In Newtown NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 36 Hordern Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    John Flint commented

    Commenting on Roger Trumpy's submission on Planning Alert website...

    The 3D solar access diagrams don't have the shadow on the adjoining property clearly displayed. From what I can see the 3D diagrams are not consistent with the 2D diagrams. For instance for the 1pm shadow the fence appears to be overshadowing the legs of the table and chairs whereas in the 2D diagram almost the entire table and chairs are in sunlight.

    On the Shadow Diagrams it states:
    AT LEAST AN AREA 9M2(8M2 REQUIRED ) OF THE POS OF THE ADJOINING PROPRTY STILL RECEIVE DIRECT SOLAR ACCES
    FOR 4 HOURS (PLAN TAKEN @ 1M HIGH FROM THE NGL, ref to section )

    I note from;
    https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/application-guide/application-process/additional-requirements

    The requirement for shadow diagrams is;
    "show the extent of additional overshadowing cast by the proposed development at ground level and the windows of adjoining and surrounding premises."

    The shadow diagrams are showing the shadows cast at 1m above ground level rather than at ground level. This will exaggerate the amount of sunlight. The requirement for 8M2 of sunlight is at ground level.

    I would suggest that the diagrams be redone according to the requirements and the application resubmitted.

    In regard to the studio. It would seem that its likely use will be as a self contained airbnb apartment with private external access. I don't have a view if this would be a good thing or not but it should be called out for what it is and an assessment based on its merits.

  20. In Girraween NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at 96 Oramzi Road, Girraween NSW 2145:

    Sudheer commented

    Hi, I have two young kids and I am really concerned of this development in my backyard.
    Please stop this development.

  21. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 483 President Avenue Kirrawee NSW 2232:

    Warren Price commented

    With the incredible congestion at all hours of the day due to high traffic movement through this intersection, how on earth could common sense allow a development to occur here?
    Access will be impossible and South and North bound traffic will be further bought to a standstill.

  22. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Eric Collier commented

    It is unbelievable that the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council can even consider a retirement village abutting an airport and near a rail line carrying heavy freight (with heavy, noisy trains running in the very early hours of the morning). That would be incredibly poor town planning.

    The Shire has historically proven itself quite incapable of managing town planning in the vicinity of an airport, and consideration of this planning application should be called in by the State Government.

    Further, the road infrastructure in the area would require a significant upgrade to handle the extra traffic. The intersection of Stuart Rd and Mornington-Tyabb Rd will require special treatment (roundabout or traffic lights) to prevent long lines of traffic banking up in Stuart Rd - and the developer should be required to pay for that, because the Shire ratepayers should not be expected to subsidise developers.

    The proposed development will change the village character of Tyabb, and is totally unsuited to this area. The proposal must therefore be rejected.

  23. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 371 - 375 North Rocks Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    There being 4 other businesses there, BP service station:- Motor Mechanic:- Lawn Mower Repairs and Bottle & can refund collection:- Has consideration been given to off street parking? Entering and Exiting North Rocks Road?

  24. In Ropes Crossing NSW on “Adaptive re-use of the...” at Seymour Street Ropes Crossing NSW 2760:

    Joshua Rena commented

    This is wonderful for the area. A real growing vibrant community! Western Sydney is booming. We love it.

  25. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    belinda poole commented

    Student housing to me says “shoe box style” appartments. We have now supplied enough of this accommodation in this area. Please think of the families and homes that reside around this development. It’s so unfair!! 8 stories is to high. No more inappropriate development! We don’t need it. Listen to the community

  26. In Dover Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 48 Hardy Street Dover Heights NSW 2030:

    Katrina Skinner commented

    It’s important to replace the trees, local native trees will do best in the windy sea air. I understand that certain trees may be removed during a renovation, but Waverley Council area is losing its birds because we are not planting trees or planting trees which don’t support our birds. Please consider the planting of replacement trees.

  27. In North Bondi NSW on “Remove five (5) trees. Two...” at 118 Murriverie Road North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Katrina Skinner commented

    Will the trees be replaced? This is important and the residents should be advised as to native trees which would be good replacements.
    We have replaced trees on our property planting a water gum, a blueberry ash, two coastal banksias, grevilleas and corymbia.
    Bondi needs more trees not less.

  28. In Queenscliff NSW on “Demolition Works,...” at 71 Queenscliff Road, Queenscliff NSW 2096:

    David & Jennifer Steindl commented

    We wish to lodge an objection with regard to the proposed development Application DA2109/0730
    It breaches Council Height Restrictions > currently there are a large number of unit blocks that are 3 storeys tall we do not understand that an application has been lodged for a five storey development given that the Queenscliif Rd Envelope is 3 storeys how is this application even considered? Clearly if allowed it will breach set back provisions on the easter & Western Boundaries and open space requirements as well. Approval would create an unwelcome precedent.
    Our greatest concern is parking, Queenscliff rd is already at maximum capacity and council would be very aware of the parking issues because of YOUR previous studies and submissions from residents. There are a number of unit blocks in this street that have garages that are too small to take todays vehicles adding to the overcrowding.There are also a number of properties with 4 vehicles in the immediate vicinity of this proposal so an average of 28 car spots for 15 units and 3 visitor spots is insufficient and will only add to the problem. Please do not allow this to happen. Council also knows from a previous study that providing parking stickers to residents would not work as there are not enough car spaces, this just confirms the lack of available car spaces currently in Queenscliff Rd, this development will only exacerbate the problem.
    As our representatives we are looking to Council to provide some leadership and vision with regard to this application.

  29. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Brenda C commented

    This is really a worrying trend we’re seeing here. Developers are getting in Maroubra, and based on the countless number of approvals, it looks like they’re getting their way with Randwick Council too.

    Local residents complaining on these and other social platforms is not enough it seems to put this madness to an end.

    Just returned from holidays to find out from our neighbour that 3 Chester Ave DA was approved...30 something shoebox like Boarding Rooms. Packing in humans like they are fish, deepening the pockets of Developers (and who knows who else?)

    Council should be ashamed of themselves for approving these Boarding House DA’s, but I feel us Residents are to blame for voting them in the first place.

    For an area that has so much public housing, what chance is there to make Maroubra a better place to live.

    Think Council, THINK. This madness has to end, for the sake of broader community.

  30. In Tyabb VIC on “Development of a...” at 59 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Jeff Bailey commented

    Have to agree with Jeremy West comments of two days ago regarding lack of infrastructure to handle the increase in traffic and population. The intersection of Stuart road and Mornington - Tyabb road will become a major hazard. It will have to handle all the vehicles from the lifestyle development as well as the existing homes and airport traffic.
    Who in their right mind would develop a high density housing complex in between an airport run way and a rail line.
    The new residents will be complaining about the activities at the airport in no time and add to the pressure being brought down on the PAC from the MPSC even further.

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