Recent comments

  1. In Magill SA on “To demolish the existing...” at 5 Koongarra Avenue Magill SA 5072:

    Mark Allan commented

    Hi , The builder Metricon homes who have built a 2 story house on 5 koongarra ave magill have not removed the ajoining fence with 3 koongarra mag I’ll as they had initially indicated that they would do . Instead they have built a fence 200 mm further onto their property . As this is a sloping property there is 700 mm of retaining wall required and this has now made the old fence a retaining wall for the massive property they have built. This is quite unsatisfactory and dangerous the old existing fence would not be able to support the force and if removed latter on would cause subsidence from the higher ground. Total height of the fence +what should be a retaining wall is 2500 mm. Can this be looked at by an inspector ASAP as the property is near completion and all attempts to ask the builder to do the right thing have been ignored.
    Thanks
    Mark Allan

  2. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application - 2...” at 31 Post Office Street Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Dani Spurr commented

    Will the car park be able to provide enough parking for 144 families to drop off their children and pick them up each morning and afternoon. On street parking is becoming more of a problem in this heavily built up area.

  3. In Bondi NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwelling...” at 26 Edward Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Chris Maltby commented

    This application has been appealed to the Land and Environment Court on a "deemed refusal". The next step is a hearing on-site at 9.30am on 12 October 2020.

    Details below from an email from Council.

    LAND & ENVIRONMENT COURT PROCEEDINGS No. 43146/2020
    PROPERTY: 22-26 EDWARD STREET, BONDI NSW 2026
    Applicant: WAINIDIVA PTY LTD (ACN 114 240 943)

    Waverley Council has been notified of the lodgement of an appeal in the Land & Environment Court in relation to the following application:

    This matter has been listed for a conciliation conference under section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 commencing on-site at 9.30am on 12 October 2020. This is a standard procedure of the Court in these types of appeals.

    At the conciliation conference, a Commissioner of the Court will meet with the parties, their legal representatives and any experts which the parties are relying upon to ascertain whether the matter is capable of resolution or whether issues can be reduced.

  4. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 103 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Sarah commented

    If you were the parent of a child who almost died from the branch of one of these trees, then I am sure you would have a different opinion. To all those who feel so terribly for the trees (and you should I get it) but how about you use your time to make a positive impact i.e by planting new safer varieties throughout the streets, that won’t actually kill pedestrians, maybe even get out on a weekly basis and water the trees so they don’t have heat stress. Stop whinging and start acting! Words are easy, action is what truly makes a difference!

  5. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Nicole McAleer commented

    I object to this development as there is no need to have a service station right next to a school where traffic is already very busy and not a lot of parking spaces. There is a good local service station just up the road so it's certainly not needed.

  6. In Stepney SA on “Staged application...” at 18-32 Nelson Street, Adelaide SA 5000:

    Susan Jones commented

    Is this Nelson St Adelaide or Nelson St Stepney - your map is wrong I think. It’s getting us worried in Stepney!

  7. In Wattle Grove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Oatlands Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173, Australia:

    Paul commented

    As a resident and home owner in the surrounding area of 2 Oatland Court, Wattle Grove, and would be so much disadvantaged from this project, I am writing today to express my objection to the development application DA-615/2018 regarding the address DP 825138 Cnr Lot 8040 at 2 Oatlands Court, Wattle Grove 2173 for construction of 2 storey child care centre.

    My objection is based on few reasons as follows:

    - The proposed child care project is located at the only and only entry/exit servicing over 60 properties and 100+ cars in Oatland court, Cliveden Court and Farnborough Court, which would be very inconvenient, taking in consideration the narrow street and the street island which will cause a bottleneck.

    - On daily basis, there are around 5 or 6 cars that always accumulate around the property in both directions which makes it challenging to get in and out of the street, only one car can pass through!

    - I understand that there will be basement parking but I am worried that a “2 story childcare” staff members’ cars would occupy most of the basement parking slots, which will not leave enough space for customers cars and they will park on the street during peak hours to drop off / pickup their kids which will create a big chaos and extreme disadvantages to all residents of the 60 surrounding properties who commute every morning/afternoon.
    Technically, it will be very challenging entering to /exiting from the basement car park into a very narrow street which will create difficulties due to traffic congestion and will also increase risk and dangers for all involved.

    - Added to that, there is a school in Australis Avenue, already creating heavy traffic during rush hours in the roundabout in Australis Avenue and Conroy road. This Child Care development would made the situation get much worse. We need a relief to the school's traffic problem congestion, not an addition to traffic!

    - Our neighborhood is a quiet family friendly neighborhood, this development would change it to be a busy, noisy and screaming children with the indoor/outdoor childcare programs.
    This is a quiet area, with kids of all ages riding their bikes, walking to and from school, increasing the traffic flow on such a street will increases the risks and dangers in an otherwise safe environment. Our kids walk and ride their bikes safely in the area, they will be deprived from safe environment if this development took place.

    - Further to the above, the community does not really need this extra child care as there are about 5 other childcare centres located around Village way, Light House parade and Heathcote Road, all ranging from 5 to 10 min drive away, such development is not needed for the surrounding residents.The disadvantages are more than the advantages.

    Accordingly, I am strongly objecting to this development project and seeking your assistance to not approve it.

  8. In Mount Evelyn VIC on “Development of service...” at 41 Monbulk Road, Mount Evelyn VIC 3796:

    Adele Sutters commented

    As a local resident and parent at the school this will be almost next door to, I 100% object to this application, that block is 2 doors up from a primary school where the traffic, both car and foot is already congested and extremly busy. Putting a service station there is a disaster waiting to happen. It is also not required with there already being one 300mts up the road.

  9. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Eucalyptus...” at 39 Wiley Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Rodney Scherer commented

    I do agree about the loss of habitat, without knowing what the species is it is difficult to say if it could be successfully pruned or coppiced. It is very tall and gangly and probably drops branches! It's a shame as it is the only decent tree in that location. Please try to prune it a bit at a time and see if it can be saved. There are no such things a transplantable mature native tree the best that could be done is a Grevilia Robusta. Good for birds, Screening and when mature and needs to go can provide a beautiful timber. Why more are not grown? (probably because they drop dead flowers, birds pick them off and bird droppings can be a tad messy in that regard!) An exotic which I love and can be transplanted as decent size tree is Liriodendron tulipifera. Deciduous, great shade, and fabulous green and orange flowers. The Tulip tree can be pruned and provide beautiful cool shade in the blistering heat.

  10. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 13 Kingston Av, Seacombe Gardens 5047 SA:

    Joyce Senior commented

    I am concerned about 2 story dwellings as I live next door at #11.
    I would like to keep my privacy and not have others with visual access to my yard and home..having 4 to 5 dwelling will create considerable congestion so close to a corner, which already is very busy and hard to get around with parked cars near the corners.
    I also think it will cause congestion at the premises of 13 Kingston ave..disruption to others living near by.

  11. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 103 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Jo commented

    I'm gutted. These trees are being cut down right now.

  12. In Wattle Grove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Oatlands Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173, Australia:

    TIMOTHY FLYNN commented

    I am writing to voice my concerns over the latest amended application DA-615/2018. Whilst the direct ramp access to parking and front entrance door is located in Oatlands court this has an inherent desgin failure and risk given the proposed clientel of the child care facility.

    Given the limited vision, design and flora narture of the intersection the extremely limited access points for users and human nature being what it is I can only imagine parents, workers and visitors parking on Oatlands court, (a narrow and often dangerous interesection due to the number of illegally parked motor vehicles, as depicted in the actualk revised applications) exiting into dangerous traffic conditions, whilst traffic speed would be slow, the relative trauma and resultant impact on a young children at speeds less than 5-15KPH is well documented.

    My concern is that any design which suggests offsite parking to be located in Oatlands court will be extremely dangerous and may lead to a fatality. When compared to traffic flows in Wattle Grove more generally we can see that similar centres are either designed with access points on a main road or located further away from a intersection if located in a suburban street. Local schools and residents have an on-going battle with parents regarding parking and I note that Liverpool City Council has attended these locations on a regular basis to enforce parking regulations.

    I would ask that council planners please review this application with the view of requesting further amendments to remove access from Oatlands court or if this is not possible then decline the applcation in its current form. Residents are concerned of the risks to young children, increased trafficc flow/parking and intersection congestion.

    Given council has already written to residents in this and surrounds regarding parking issues already I would ask that planners consider what if any benefits are achieved here? Is the risk to health minimised by proper design? Will this applcation add or diminsh to an already well documneted traffic issues file? Does this project fit within the broader Liverpool City Council amenities vision and planning for child care and other like purpose designed centres?

    I would be happy to discuss these concerns in more detail if council so wishes.

  13. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    E Quigley commented

    Totally agree with Ed Neff - this small stretch of road has lost a lot of character - the council really needs to do more to ensure some sympathetic developments are enforced - it would not cost any extra to replicate the original facade and would retain so much value in the street.

  14. In Templestowe VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 58-60 Smiths Road Templestowe VIC 3106:

    Katina Stefanidis commented

    The entry and exits seem to be on Smiths Rd. This road is already very narrow. Increased traffic, double parked cars, u-turns on Reynolds rd and backed up traffic on Reynolds road as well as increased traffic on Smiths Rd and Serpells Rd is what will definitely occur. This is not a suitable location for such a business. The council needs to do we what is right for the community and the council needs to take note of the residents.

  15. In Umina Beach NSW on “Invalid Document” at 102 Priestman Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    If there are shade trees in the back yard, can the owners retain them, prune them rather than take them out or plant something new?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to retain their trees?

  16. In Booker Bay NSW on “Dwelling Addition and...” at 56 Murray Street, Booker Bay NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    If there are trees in the back yard, can the owners retain them, or prune them rather than take them out?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to retain their trees?

  17. In Umina Beach NSW on “.Approval was granted for:...” at 166 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    What tree will the owners replace in the back yard or prune them rather than take the magnolia grandiflora out?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to retain their trees?

  18. In Umina Beach NSW on “3 Lot Subdivision Strata” at 117 Bourke Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners retain the trees or prune them rather than take them out?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C. The new residents of these three units would greatly appreciate creative landscaping to reduce their air-conditioning costs and property value.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to plant new or retain their trees?

  19. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “New Dwelling & Secondary...” at 53 Uligandi Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    While it is good to see housing renewal, can the owners plant some shade trees when the project is finished?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to plant new and retain their trees?

  20. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Swimming Pool & Associated...” at 40 Palm Street, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    If there are shade trees in the back yard, can the owners retain them, or prune them rather than take them out?
    The Peninsula has lost too many trees (shade or otherwise) in the last 20 years resulting in heat-island effect lifting our average temperature by 4 degrees C.
    Can Council be more observant of it's own Green Canopy & climate change commitments and support more residents to retain their trees?

  21. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 267-271 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145:

    Ed Neff commented

    This property has been the subject of much anguish and comment since 2010 following some negligence in building leading to a forced demolition.
    The understanding was always that the historic facade would be rebuilt to match the original.
    Any application to use alternative materials in the facade should be rejected.
    The delay of 10 years for this rebuild remains a constant eyesore to our neighbourhood.

  22. In Caulfield East VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 15 Leamington Crescent Caulfield East VIC 3145:

    Cathy Anderson commented

    I also wholeheartedly agree with Nalesch and Jo Randi. As a Carnegie resident of over 20 years I am totally devastated with the massive changes to our suburbs. We bought our house in a no through road to enjoy the lifestyle that went with it.
    We now have ten two-storey townhouses proposed to be built next door in a small street with excavation for two levels of basement parking plus the demolition of a near new two storey house to contend with to make way for the construction. This is greed beyond all reasoning destroying the way of life we expected to maintain for which we have paid our rates to Glen Eira council.

  23. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Two lot subdivision...” at 30 Joan Avenue, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    margaret roedecker commented

    Thanks for this notification.
    Should this application be for a house extension, we would have no issue.
    However, we would definitely not want to set a precedent for a subdivision of this or surrounding blocks in order to put up a small house or flat / flats.
    This area should definitely stay "Green".
    Kind regards

  24. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Eucalyptus...” at 39 Wiley Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    B Hayes commented

    There appear to be no justification for removing this native tree. This is a beautiful native eucalyptus tree that provide essential habitat and shade. It should not be removed unless it is dangerous due to disease. If it is removed it should be replaced by another mature native tree.

  25. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 2 Mawarra Street, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Neil Greensmith commented

    Absolutely disagree with proposed amendments. The overdeveloped in Palm Beach is in no way in the interests of current residents. You will lose my vote for sure

  26. In Carwoola NSW on “2 Lot Subdivision” at 33 Widgiewa Road Carwoola NSW 2620:

    Neil Willis commented

    Hi,
    There does not appear to be any supporting documents attached to this DA.
    I would like to request more information be made available and time allowed for the information to be viewed and assessed for comment prior to approval.
    Plans showing building entitlement, access and lot boundaries as well as the bushfire and ecological reports.
    Thank you.

  27. In Caulfield East VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 15 Leamington Crescent Caulfield East VIC 3145:

    Nalesch commented

    Wholeheartedly agree with Jo Randis comment. Caulfield from top to bottom is losing its character entirely. City of Glen Eira should take greater care to preserve the heritage homes in the area and not rush to give excessive development the go ahead in hopes of collecting more rates from more dwellings. The suburb is so busy and congested as is. Enough already. Greedy developers and hungry council will see this suburb turn into a dump.

  28. In Manly NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 19 Marshall Street, Manly NSW 2095:

    Pieter Stroethoff commented

    Dear Sir /Madam ,
    I am responding yet again to the issue of the development application at 19 Marshall Street, Manly, and the ongoing issues with loss of privacy and noise that affect our property at 61 Wood St Manly ( which is 1.2 metres away from the dwelling over the side fence, not 1.5 m as quoted in the 2019 assessment). We are concerned about the potential misuse of the property for short term accommodation use, parking issues and light pollution, and most importantly the non compliance with setback standards. Please consult our file on this issue which stretches back many years, involving different owners and includes numerous development infringements, including trespass on our property. There are numerous photos of unapproved building works that have somehow managed to slip through the net, only to be approved retrospectively
    The assessment in 2019 DA 2019/0356 stated categorically
    "Short-term holiday accommodation:
    Concerns have been raised that the tenants occupying the proposed secondary dwelling will be unregulated, as it will be used for short-term holiday accommodation purpose's.
    Comment:The proposal seeks consent for changing the use of the existing outbuilding to a secondary dwelling. Nothing within this consent will permit the structure to be used for tourist and visitor accommodation purpose's. Imposed conditions, will ensure that any variation to the approved land use will require the submission to Council of a new development application."

    Also noted in the last assessment

    " It is acknowledged, that the outbuilding structure has been altered since the original approval, that is why the applicant has lodged a building certificate (BC2019/0068) in conjunction with this application, to seek a retrospective approval for alterations and additions to the detached outbuilding."

    The rulings made in the 2019 assessment must be adhered to in the current development application.

  29. In Wattle Grove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Oatlands Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173, Australia:

    Andrew Kokic commented

    I am writing on behalf of my elderly parents who I visit daily in Farnborough Court. The corner of Conroy Crt and Oatlands Crt is already a major bottle neck on my journey to their home. The road is not wide and there are many cars already parked on the side of the road making the ONLY entry to these streets already congested and difficult to exit and enter. I find it extraordinary that there could be a childcare centre in this area. It will be even more of an imposition to access to homes and I would be astonished if most residents didn't agree. I would ask Council to seriously reconsider this development.

  30. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 2 Mawarra Street, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jarrett commented

    This is over my back fence, we are now Jammed between this and magnolia. We are a single story complex on the southern side of an 8 story building. Good bye sun and grass. Can we just split the GCCC? No one south of Tally creek want any of this rubbish and we’re so sick of it.

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