Recent comments

  1. In Dover Heights NSW on “Remove One (1) unknown...” at 92 Liverpool Street Dover Heights NSW 2030:

    Amanda Hendriks commented

    This property has very little vegetation as is evident from the image.
    What is the unknown species that is to be removed. Is it native to the area?
    A property so close to the coastline has a duty to provide shelter and food to small birds, such as the New Holland Honey Eater, that seek refuge in the dense vegetation
    close to coastal areas.
    I propose that more vegetation be planted to encourage the proliferation of vunerable species rather than removing what is already there.

  2. In Umina Beach NSW on “Remove of 1 x Lilly Pilly...” at 18 Nowack Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Matt commented

    PLEASE STOP CHOPPING TREES DOWN! Is no one else noticing the severe lack of vegetation and shade on the Peninsula? The place is going to turn into a dust bowl heat sink.

  3. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Visitor...” at 1 Cheverton Parade, Sandy Bay TAS 7005:

    Sandra Moroney commented

    Change of use to visitor accomodation , 1Cheverton Parade Sandy Bay. Hopefully enough off street parking will be provided . I live in the area , and the amount of vehicles parking in street is beginning to be a problem.

  4. In Research VIC on “Removal of two (2) trees” at 6 Fleming Court, Research VIC 3095:

    Caitlin commented

    Native trees are a part of living in Research. Research is part of the lungs of Melbourne with rich biodiversity of flora and fauna. No native trees should be removed at all as this will directly impact the health of our local bird species and other fauna reliant on urban trees. Removing healthy trees should be illegal given there importance in keeping the air clean, urban areas cool in summer and the high deforestation rate in Australia. Every tree plays a significant role in keeping us healthy. Trees are a part of the urban character of Research and must be protected and retained.

  5. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Multiple Dwelling, Multiple...” at 17 Prospect Tce St Lucia QLD 4067:

    Linda Goldstein commented

    Only half my submission appears on pdonline. This is the rest:
    It would be prudent if council would take into consideration that there are THREE large developments happening on our street which together will impact greatly the amenity of living on this street. There's not enough kerb room for all the bins that need to be picked up on rubbish day, nor enough parking to accomodate the certain overflow of not just guests but residents in this large amount of units which are replacing single dwellings. I would like to see council not limit their decision-making to the individual proposals alone but to consider the impact of all these concurrent developments and the certain devastation of lifestyle, spaciousness and safety of us all.
    thank you,
    ALSO- the development sign was not seen by myself nor my neighbors. It certainly wasn’t up for (the required?) 3 weeks. I have a photo of the sight from mid-May in which I cannot see any sign!

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

    Jochen Eckert commented

    I hereby express my concerns building a boarding house at Ocean Beach Road (its planned location). I do not want to be biased towards future inhabitants and appreciate there is a need to put one up in the peninsular area. However, the risk of unreasonable behaviour of inhabitants is significantly greater than with regular residential developments. Why would anyone want to take that risk in close proximity to a primary school when there could be other (saver) locations. I am asking for reconsideration.
    Many thanks

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

    Jon Treble commented

    I’m only opposed to the location as it’s in the heart of the tourist area for 11 rooms maybe 2 or 3 at the most and way to close to schools, Clubs/pub and as we have all seen at Woy Woy first hand there isn’t anywhere area that we would want people Loitering like they do at the oval in Woy Woy these things need greater planning.

  8. In North Willoughby NSW on “Request to remove one tree...” at 36 Hollywood Crescent North Willoughby NSW 2068.:

    Concerned Resident commented

    As a last resort, tree removal is only option if threatens life. First option is pruning of trees and then next option is removal and replace with similar mature trees. Trees are necessary as they provide; oxygen to live, habitat for wildlife, wildlife promotes cross pollination of flora, this creates food for all life, shade from direct sunlight and beautification of our neighbourhood.

  9. In Chatswood NSW on “Request to remove one...” at 16 Nicholson Street Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Concerned Resident commented

    Jacaranda trees are protected and only options are; removal of trees is permitted if endangering life and replacement with suitable species or pruning of tree within permitted limits. Trees provide ; oxygen, habitat, shade from direct sunlight, promotes cross pollution and beautification to our neighbourhood

  10. In Preston VIC on “ePathway” at 600-606 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Daniel Reed commented

    Shocked and devastated that this lovely old gem will be demolished . Surely this is not the case. Please confirm this with me

  11. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Multiple Dwelling, Multiple...” at 17 Prospect Tce St Lucia QLD 4067:

    Michael Yeates commented

    Absolutely agree in fact driving past on Gailey Road today, I made the same comment.
    It is as if the plans are assessed as if on flat ground with standard width or wider roads whereas pockets such as this are anything but that ..!
    Well said and the same applies to lots of other areas that are apparently "planned" similarly with the result appearing to be to destroy the very character and amenity that is valued, or was.

  12. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 39 Caroline Street South, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Jenny Johnston commented

    No how can this building me pulled down. This is of historical importance. How many iconic building like this one still remain. Stonnington please say no to the demolition of this beautiful building.

  13. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Dwelling House, Demolition” at 18 Prospect Tce St Lucia QLD 4067:

    Julie Huberman commented

    This is a pre-1946 dwelling and should not be demolished. Aside from not being allowed under the current planning scheme, demolition this house would further compromise the character of the neighbourhood, which is already suffering from a few new developments in the area that have managed to do away with older dwellings.

  14. In Neutral Bay NSW on “To modify Consent No 331/18...” at 74 Merlin Street, Neutral Bay NSW 2089:

    Christopher Brown commented

    Further information on application search was not available: "Your search - 74 Merlin Street, Neutral Bay NSW 2089 - did not find any applications." Please advise how to access this information.

    Notwithstanding the consideration of such detailed information concerning this DA; in general, I am opposed to such major developments which have negative impacts to surrounding neighbourhoods: negative impact on the distinctive character, cultural/heritage of the area; the health and wellbeing of affected neighbours by such a major project (noise, dust, nuisance); the proposed elevated building which will impact on privacy of surrounding neighbours.

  15. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Multiple Dwelling, Multiple...” at 17 Prospect Tce St Lucia QLD 4067:

    Linda B Goldstein commented

    The proposed development is too large and too high. The density will present multiple problems affecting all residents of Prospect Terrace and especially the house below it on the western side.
    Clearly, THERE IS NO MORE PARKING available on our street and there's a huge development going in across the street, as well as one on the corner of Gailey Road. Allowing this massive increase in population is unbalanced and ill-considered for the future amenity of us all. It is not compatible with assurances by council that you wish to maintain the leafy, relaxed appearance of our neighbourhoods. It has already been recognised by the BCC that cookie-cutter townhouses and the like are inappropriate for low density neighbourhoods. Although we are low to medium density, this approval of over twenty new apartments on this site alone is a jump of over 10 times the amount of people and cars here previously. Driving is already risky and congested.
    It would be prudent if council would take into consideration that there are THREE large developments happening on our street which together will impact greatly the amenity of living on this street. There's not enough kerb room for all the bins that need to be picked up on rubbish day, nor enough parking to accomodate the certain overflow of not just guests but residents in this large amount of units which are replacing single dwellings. I would like to see council not limit their decision-making to the individual proposals alone but to consider the impact of all these concurrent developments and the certain devastation of lifestyle, spaciousness and safety of us all.
    thank you,

  16. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Remove one (1) Norfolk...” at 21 Hastings Parade Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Lina Gallo commented

    I saw this ex Chrismas tree being planted over 20 yrs ago - it is in a very small tight area not suited for a tree - the skinny tree now has an extreme height which is close to a 3 storey building - this makes it stressful and scary to live here - it looks like the tree will topple onto our heads any day.

  17. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 731-735 Darling Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Gabrielle Coltrona commented

    This application was approved in the Land and Environment Court last month

  18. In Bentleigh VIC on “Removal of restrictive...” at 2 Rose Street Bentleigh VIC 3204:

    Geoff Tittensor commented

    Like many houses in the Bentleigh area, if not all, have a restrictive covenant requiring that only brick dwellings can be constructed. These covenants were conceived in the 1950's when weatherboard was seen as the cheap and nasty option. With the subdivisions taking place today that mean a double storey house is being built, a two storey brick house can be very expensive and unnecessary with modern building materials, such as hebel, a manufactured masonry material.
    I cannot understand why the local government has not lobbied the state planning authority to override this outdated and now unnecessary restriction, all it does it add anxiety and unwanted costs to the planning process, which is complicated enough and expensive enough already..

  19. In Potts Point NSW on “Alterations to the existing...” at 32-34 Orwell Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    LIz commented

    I'm also a resident of neighbouring Gowrie Gate and concur with the above comment. This is a predominantly residential area where noise reverberates easily, whether from small bars or otherwise.

    The management at The Roosevelt currently ignore my phonecalls to have noisy patrons exiting their venue moved on. There is nothing to suggest that this will change. This concerns me greatly as I get up at 6AM every morning and any disruption to my sleep will impact my quality of life.

    Given The Metro has just changed hands and has the potential to turn into a commercial space, the combination of these two venues would entirely change the make up of Orwell St, and the noise for residents.

    Lastly, as voiced in the above comment, the community around the Wayside Chapel are likely to be the most affected by this change, and the least able to have a voice and be consulted.

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

    Peter Sinclair commented

    A more suitable location needs to be found closer facilities to support the intended clientele. Umina Beach is suffering already from over development and pressure straining from a lacking infrastructure.
    In addition to the proximity to primary schools, community organisations and surf clubs is a major concern,
    people in boarding homes don't want to waste what precious money they have on transport costs. An excellent location would be GOSFORD CITY. Hospitals, Government agencies, shops, housing, transport and entertainment all in one area. If it's not going to look out of sight in the Umina Beach location, then it will definitely be suitable for GOSFORD CITY.

    You could even link it into the Tiny Homes Scheme!

  21. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 16 Fawkner Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Nicole commented

    Surely there is a limit to the number of previously single now multi dwelling properties within a small residential zone. Even though it’s a growth zone when will it end? The increase in population without corresponding infrastructure enhancements needs to stop.

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

    Dave commented

    This is the letter I sent to council before it's close of submissions:
    STOP THE UMINA BEACH BOARDING HOUSE
    A so called 'boarding house' of this size and situated in this particular area, notwithstanding the current zoning in place, is setting a precedent and an invitation to disturbing the general residential area that has been in place and nurtured for decades, and meshed into what has now become such an attractive proposition for people to want to live in and contribute to an established society supporting the local community through, besides shopping and spending money, volunteering and support of community and council ideals .
    To also allow the proposed development to include a general kitchen and entertainment area for the residents, as well as resident's individual kitchens, is inviting regular ongoing people and traffic noise and anti-social activities to take place, despite the statement of a residential manager being placed near the complex; even allowing for Air BnBs, extra 'room mates' and a high turnover of visitors due to its proximity to the beach, shopping centre and licensed venues, and entertainment precincts.
    Based on my personal experience, having lived in these type of residentials, these
    comments are made being mindful of what this type of development this can be - one
    allowing a high number of transient persons wanting a cheaper place to stay other than
    places with more stringent and stronger regulations, and an easy to get to holiday period stay.
    lf council insists that such a facility must be built in its area, t believe it is best placed in a vicinity that is underdeveloped and not near homes of long-term owners/ratepayers who have for many years supported the local area and ensured its appealing attractiveness remains.

  23. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 731-735 Darling Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Ben Rushton commented

    I object to this development based on the design drawings submitted. The proposed development is massively out of scale with the gracious building presently at that location. The use of brutal concrete and gun metal grey aluminium materials rising from behind this quaint and pretty Victorian Darling St facade, is as opposite as anyone could get from keeping with the heritage stylings of the present structure. Nor does this proposal in any way complement the present building. The proposed new structure at Cambridge St side would dwarf the present building to the extent that it would become an odd adjunct when it should in actual fact be the "hero" of the site. Materials used for any additions to the present structure should enhance, not detract from the present building. The plans submitted for this development would indeed be a gross detraction for that end of Darling St.

  24. In Arncliffe NSW on “134-136 Forest Road,...” at 136 Forest Road, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Kirstin Benade commented

    Thanks for the update James.
    Glad to hear it.

  25. In South Yarra VIC on “S72 Amendment to approved...” at 39 Caroline Street South, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Lucy Redpath commented

    This beautiful building is far too historical surely to pave the way for 4 storeys
    Devastated
    I’ve been looking at this building for years now with the hope of buying for my salon one day

  26. In Cardiff NSW on “20 Unit Residential Flat...” at 38 Newcastle Street Cardiff NSW 2285:

    Dave Byrnes commented

    Twenty Units here?
    I hope access is via the side street not Newcastle Road. The visibility is bad for traffic coming down the hill north bound. And from a intersection that is now totally at odds with all normal traffic laws due to unannounced LMCC changes.
    Regards
    Dave Byrnes

  27. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 31 Livingstone Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    Livingstone/Avenue is already impassable. There should not be any more subdivision. Certainly no more clearing of native vegetation

  28. In Potts Point NSW on “Alterations to the existing...” at 32-34 Orwell Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Anonymous (name upon council request) commented

    As a resident living in the building opposite The Roosevelt, I STRONGLY oppose this application.

    I have lived in Gowrie Gate for 4 years, and have already had to move apartments in my building once due to noise issues when another late-trading bar opened a few years back ('Dear Saint Eloise').

    While The Roosevelt is often noisy, with management NEVER bothering to move on their intoxicated patrons that linger outside and drunkenly shout, I have never complained because I don't want to be a grump. Besides, it's not quite at the level of noise as Dear Saint Eloise.

    However, with the addition of music and extended hours for the restaurant, I believe this would change the dynamic entirely and it would be incredibly disruptive for myself and my neighbours (not to mention the homeless people who sleep there because it's close to the Wayside Chapel).

    I understand the need for small bars and late-night trading. But we're not talking about Kings Cross here. This is the other side of the Cross, where a highly-dense residential area begins. Why should we have to have to cop this?

  29. In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of part two...” at 84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Noah Faber commented

    What is the status of this development? Surely they cant build something like this here. No one wants this

  30. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Amended Complying...” at 81 Staples Street, Kingsgrove NSW 2208:

    Noah commented

    I do quite like the design of these "triplexes" but if large homes like this on staples street continue to be subdivided into three super skinny, Balmain sized lots then I worry the appeal to our neighbourhood will be lost and it will become Kellyville with a hint of Paddington. I think the zoning of staples and wolli st needs to be toned down to prevent overcrowding and an oversupply of almost identical houses.
    I worry that the zoning will become like this in surrounding streets including those streets in the Bayside council area. If this happens, st george will lose all of its character and uniqueness/variety of different style homes.

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