Recent comments

  1. In Chatswood NSW on “L 1 - 'Babylon display...” at 409 Victoria Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Simon Conway commented

    Concourse is for people and especially patents snd kids ... the open space , library, big screen etc. NOT short term real estate front rooms that do nothing for the rate payers or visitors to Chatswood.

  2. In South Yarra VIC on “Use of land for a function...” at 241-257 Toorak Road & 625 Chapel Street, South Yarra VIC 3141:

    Ant commented

    With the reduction of car parking requirements, just where are they , the patrons for the function centre expected to park .
    On the already crowded Toorak rd or equally crowded chapel ?. Or do once again the residents in nearby streets suffer from no parking and late night noise associated with little or no extra provided parking . ?? And don’t say we should move or get used to it !
    And NO not every one travels by public transport like the owners of there venues would like you to believe . !

  3. In Mile End SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 4/6 Ebor Avenue, Mile End SA 5031:

    Margaret Allen commented

    The proposed building is very much out of keeping with the neighbourhood. It will tower over and overshadow the adjacent and nearby dwellings. While it is a good idea to have some higher density in suburban areas, this proposal is poorly conceived and will be a blot upon the neighbourhood like the Tribeca building nearby. It will contribute to the degradation of the West Torrens environment.

  4. In Lawnton QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 142 Francis Road, Lawnton QLD 4501:

    Owen batchelor commented

    You can see by the huge mounds of mulch just how many mature trees were removed on this site. MBRC should be ashamed of this. Make them put back in a dedicated area wide master planned wildlife corridor than must be linked to every future development nearby. Koalas may not come back but there are hundreds of other species that need homes. Birds, bees, frogs, possums, gliders etc. turn this around. I’m sick of seeing tiny houses jacked in together like sardines, ghettos of the future in the making.

  5. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Tracy & John REID commented



  6. In Burleigh Heads QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 112 The Esplanade, Burleigh Heads QLD 4220:

    Tracy & John REID commented


    Tuesday 21st January 2020 at Currumbin RSL.
    Have you say on proposed changed to the City.
    A Town Hall meeting has been arranged to voice concerns especially those of:
    48 The Esplanade
    112 The Esplanade
    264 The Esplanade
    Please all attend who object to these 3 Giant Developments planned for the Esplanade

  7. In South Brisbane QLD on “Short Term Accommodation” at U 6 River Plaza 21 Dock St South Brisbane QLD 4101:

    Lynda Misso commented

    What about car parking issues and the fire services regulations that have been an issue since this STL started illegally. these need to be addressed. car parking and security to building has been an increased issue to the existing live in owners.

  8. In Long Jetty NSW on “Monthly Market (along the...” at Long Jetty Foreshore Reserve 210CR Tuggerah Parade Long Jetty NSW 2261:

    michelle sandrin commented

    Sounds great! What a wonderful place to hold it!

  9. In Rowville VIC on “The development of the land...” at 5 Helena Court, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Jody Hooton commented

    I would like to object to this dwelling being built as it will shade my backyard and also overlook my entertaining area. It will also overlook my pool area and I will have no privacy in my back yard. It will also be to close to my backyard. The original house already gives off too much shade and causes floods in my backyard and this will make it worse.

  10. In Millswood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 9 Malcolm Street, Millswood SA 5034:

    Julienne Lenain commented

    I agree with the above comments.
    Unless the tree is unhealthy or dangerous in some way, it should NOT be removed!
    There needs be clear statements as to why trees are to be removed, together with certified aborist reports.

  11. In Caringbah South NSW on “The tree at the rear of my...” at 9A Wentworth Street Caringbah South NSW 2229:

    R. Greenrod commented

    If the tree is healthy it should not be removed.
    Council needs to become more proactive in protecting our native trees.
    Has this tree been properly maintained with regular trimming and dead wood removal?
    The recent dry weather will cause trees to drop more branches, this shouldn't mean every applicant is given permission to remove a tree.

  12. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Steven commented

    Most people have no objection to wood heaters, they remind us of the country and why we moved down, I wouldn't be concerned about a few greens having their usual complaining.

  13. In Wayville SA on “Remove significant Corymbia...” at 39A Davenport Terrace, Wayville 5034, SA:

    Bruen Holman-Bates commented

    The tree is way too big for a small suburban block. Gums are messy & dangerous in their shedding of leaves & branches. This tree would have been planted by an owner, I very much doubt it would be s natural occurrence. I have no issue with it being removed but the Council should ensure that it is replaced with at least 2 small trees in keeping with the scale of the house & surrounding properties. Additionally all Adelaide councils should ensure that streets in suburbs & the city are tree lined to green them as well as islands on main roads like Greenhill Rd etc. This would ensure green coverage, cooling, shade, visual amenity & aesthetics & protection & corridors for animals, birds & insects.

  14. In Flagstaff Hill SA on “Removal of significant tree...” at 26 Craigburn Drive, Flagstaff Hill SA 5159:

    Susanne Clift commented

    There appears to be no reason given in the application for the removal of the tree. Has it been assessed as diseased or is the property owner concerned that it overhangs either the road or the property?
    It concerns me that we may be removing trees unnecessarily, when the whole area is enhanced by the trees which are part of the neighbourhood. We need to have good reasons to remove trees of this age.

  15. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Terri Wilson commented

    This is simply over development.
    Yes develop but not to this extent. You cannot get on the light rail at peak times. As for more cars and yes people will gave cars, this will cause more traffic woes in the area.

  16. In Chatswood NSW on “L 1 - 'Babylon display...” at 409 Victoria Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Jan Miley commented

    Very disappointed the Chatswood community has had it’s restaurants and cafes gutted in the Chatswood Concourse and replaced by enterprises such as Babylon, flogging real estate, principally apartments. So there are not enough apartments in Chatswood already? Where will the residents of these apartments go to eat, relax and watch their children play on the grass? Apparently, not in the Chatswood Concourse which was designed for community, not for more shops.

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “Residential redevelopment...” at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Noeleen Liapis commented

    I would like to agree with all comments made by others. How much parking is to be allocated for each apartment and their visitors? Will there be off street parking for deliveries? Will there be extra public transport options made for the huge influx of people into an area already bursting at the seams. Are there enough school places for an overnight addition of school age children? I believe there needs to be a lot more information about the proposed development before it is approved.

  18. In Regents Park QLD on “Residential Development” at Estramina House 10-14 Estramina Road Regents Park QLD 4118:

    Ricky Punculis commented

    Hi everyone i hope all are well . I was just wanting to enquire about the idea of starting a community garden at Estramina house , any help on this topic would be much appreciated . Kind regards. Ricky Punculis.

  19. In Millswood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 9 Malcolm Street, Millswood SA 5034:

    Anne Wharton commented

    I wish to add my great concern about the application to remove this magnificent tree. To add insult to injury, the tree is on the Unley Council's Significant Tree List. The tree is close to the front fence and not in a position which would hinder building if the owners are wanting to do renovations. I sincerely hope that Council staff refuse this application.

  20. In Box Hill VIC on “Use for accommodation,...” at 26-28 Prospect Street, Box Hill VIC 3128:

    Hasan commented

    With the number of high rise development's along Prospect Rd increasing so will the number of cars in the area as well as the demand for the limited numbers of on street parking which will result in more cars being parked in the surrounding local streets. If this applicant wants to develop this site they should bare the costs instead of trying to transfer them onto local residents and the already over stretched local shopping centre car parks.

    Therefore no reduction in statutory car parking requirement's should be granted for this development.

  21. In Milperra NSW on “Procedural paper...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Mark C commented

    Surely any future development of this area would be in a flood plain.

  22. In Milperra NSW on “Procedural paper...” at 56 Prescott Parade, Milperra NSW 2214:

    Jodie Lavin commented

    We are totally against this development. The area will not cope with the additional traffic created by the extra cars, the additional schooling requirements, and additional parking needed. I have seen traffic monitoring wires across surrounding roads, these were put down at very quiet times of the year (no schools, no uni) so unrealistic studies have been done that do not reflect the amount of traffic that we currently have in the area. The development does not reflect current housing that exists in the area. The land sizes are extremely small with no allowances for additional vehicles, caravans, trailers or boats. These will be stored in existing streets creating greater traffic hazards. If the development is passed the amount of houses needs to be greatly reduced, land size increased per house, roads widened, visitor parking increased, access to the M5 greatly improved. The lights at Poziers WILL NOT cope with any traffic increases, they cannot cope now. So much more needs to be done with infrastructure before any of these developments are even looked at. We totally oppose the Riverlands development.

  23. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    bernadette black commented

    Please consider the effect of wood heaters on our air quality. It really is time to discontinue this form of house heating.

  24. In West Lakes SA on “Removal of a Regulated Tree...” at 10 Grenada Court West Lakes SA 5021:

    Vanessa Bush commented

    No the tree should not be allowed to be removed.

  25. In Gerroa NSW on “Dwelling, shed, swimming...” at 16 Crooked River Rd, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    Patricia Dunn commented

    Once again, please allow no more wood heaters to be installed.There are plenty of adequate, less polluting methods available for heating a home.

  26. In Howrah TAS on “Visitor Accommodation (10...” at 15 Howrah Road, Howrah, TAS:

    Katherine Denney commented

    While Tasmania is desperate for new residences and first-time buyers find it so hard to get onto the property ladder, I feel such a development should be for residential accommodation, not visitor accommodation. Why can't property development be 'for people, not profit' for a change?

  27. In Millswood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 9 Malcolm Street, Millswood SA 5034:

    Isabel Fforde commented

    I wish to add my voice to Emma’s very well said comments. I totally endorse everything she has said - these consultations do not feel particularly genuine and I have never heard back re an outcome. The whole process needs improvement. Please reject this application or explain why it is necessary to remove the tree.

  28. In Wayville SA on “Remove significant Corymbia...” at 39A Davenport Terrace, Wayville 5034, SA:

    Isabel Fforde commented

    I too agree with the comments from Emma,Sylvia, and Wendy. I live in this section of Wayville and the trees are a valuable asset for wildlife, environment and people. What is the reason for this tree to be removed? It does not look diseased. Is it to facilitate a future subdivision or is it simply inconvenient? Please consider this carefully and turn down the application. This seems even more ridiculous on a 40+ degree day - we need more trees not less.

  29. In Sunnybank QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 73 Fairbank St Sunnybank QLD 4109:

    paul commented

    To whom it may concern,

    This proposed subdivision will not be in character with the neighbourhood by bringing in something that is out of scale, it will reduce visual privacy, increasing potential noise sources, cut off views, intruding on the skyline and reduce the number of trees and shrubs, as this large block is currently home to a wide variety of plant and native animals that live in the vegetation.

    Fairbank Street is already a main thoroughfare for parents driving their children to and from the local primary school and with this development having insufficient space for onsite parking due to the proposed narrow block, this will created additional vehicles permanently parked on the road and will in turn congest an already suffocating road.

    The proposed narrow blocks lowering property values may potentially providing temporary accommodation for either the rental market or used for tourism (Airbnb) or may even left unoccupied by wealthy (foreign) buyers. This will Ignore families values and targeted at small households e.g. singles and couples without dependents.

    This will only benefit developers and investors, by produce ugly, unsafe, “dog boxes” of poor build quality, and designed to meet the needs of investors ahead of occupants, much less local residents.

  30. In Millswood SA on “Remove significant tree -...” at 9 Malcolm Street, Millswood SA 5034:

    Emma Mller commented

    Why must this tree be removed? If it is merely for the convenience of the owners or the developers then I absolutely reject this application. Why even have ‘Significant’ tree status if all it takes to overcome this designation is a make believe ‘consultation’ process in which the the unsupported request is made public and comments from the public are completely ignored. I am aware that trees don’t live forever, and sometimes it is necessary to remove them for safety reasons. This rationale should be published (with reference to an authorised arborist report) along with a plan to replace the tree with a younger sapling as part of the consultation process. I am also aware that trees are slaughtered merely for the convenience of developers and/or renovators, even sometimes to prevent shading on solar panels. These rationales should also be published including the absence of any plan to replace the tree.

    There should also be some feedback loop that advises people what the outcome of the consultation process was and what was the basis of the final decision. What we actually have here, is a sham consultation process, where no rationale is provided and all objections are ignored.

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