Recent comments

  1. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Modification to extend...” at 4 Magdalene Terrace, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    David Foxe commented

    Extending ALDI's operating hours from 6am till midnight will result in an increase in heavy truck noise during these hours. Magdalene Terrace, Mount Olympus Boulevard and surrounding streets are densely surrounded by residential dwellings. Approval of this application will be detrimental to the Wolli Creek community.

  2. In Noosa Heads QLD on “27 Atunga Heights Nosa...” at 27 Attunga Hts Noosa Heads QLD 4567:

    Marilynne Cahn commented

    I understand this site is a wildlife corridor and know that koalas have been spotted while walking up the public pathway. The area is also home to some very old pine trees that are protected. Any development interfering with this protection and the detriment of wildlife and residents is not part of the Noosa philosophy. You can see from new properties at this end, that native trees have been removed, detracting from the leafiness of the area. I understand that residential planning is in place but isn't it just good enough to replace or improve the property that already exisits there? We need to observe that Noosa is a biosphere - development can be limited to areas that are already dense - there isn't a satisfactory reason for wanting large scale development here. Locals and visitors using this path will be impacted greatly by the disruption of the planned development. Twelve units plus would bring significant traffic to this quiet corner of Noosa Hill - for the residents it will be unpleasant.

  3. In Winston Hills NSW on “Building Certificate -...” at 38 Tennyson Street Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Neal & Susan Martyn commented

    While we have no issue with the Applicant, Council really needs to tighten it's acceptance and tacit approval of applications for Building Certificates aka "get out of gaol free cards".
    Owners, and more importantly tradespeople should not be permitted to perform unapproved building works, and then for the payment of a fee to Council that's offset by avoiding the normal costs of preparing plans and specifications, have illegal works that otherwise comply with the building codes retrospectively approved.

    We're personally aware of one such Application in Winston Hills where unapproved works did NOT comply with the building codes, and yet they were still given the okey-dokey by Council, and a Building Certificate issued; erroneously!!

    Changing the name of the Certificate as has been recently done by the State Government does nothing. The whole process needs an urgent review!!

  4. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Remove ot prune one Avocado...” at 6-8 Botany Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    virginia milson commented

    I agree with earlier comments. Avocados provide a food source and also do provide shade and shelter.Sensitively pruned would be alright but removed is opposed .There are too many applications for the removal of trees in this Municipality in recent times.

  5. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Melissa Collins commented

    I support the proposal of using this land as a microbrewery. It will bring more jobs to the area which is great. However, I do agree with the others that measures to improve parking facilities need to be carried out to ensure the community isn't impacted by congestion and lack of parking around the railway station.

  6. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    David Corry commented

    I agree with Rebecca Monkton

  7. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 28 Waterloo Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Juliet Sheen commented

    The application for the driveway takes away 2 parking spaces from a street which has very limited parking for residents and their visitors. I am also concerned that the driveway on the application appears to slope across the footpath in a way makes pedestrian passage up and down the street obstructive to prams and anyone of uncertain footing like myself with a walking stick. Unevenness is the characteristic of footpaths in this area, but a sideways tilt on and off a driveway should absolutely be minimised to prevent pedestrian falls.

  8. In Coogee NSW on “Change of content from...” at 157T Dolphin Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    L Pace commented

    I was not notified of the original application for the signage. Had I have been made aware I would have objected to that, just as I am objecting to this application.

    The reason being the changing advertising signs create undue noise. This is particularly noticeable at night, all night when the street is quiet except for the constant loud swooshing sound of the advertising signs rolling from one to the other.

    Please make the signage silent. If this is not possible then I request that the hours of operation be restricted so the noise does not go on all night, every night.

    Thank you

  9. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Nathan Panzer commented

    I support the idea of developing this land and using it for the requested purpose. My concern is the lack of parking in the plans and would put a large burden on the pool car park and surrounds it would also make it hard to navigate down Elizabeth street on the weekends if cars parked along the length of the road. I note the parking assessment done by the applicant was when the pool was closed. I would think if Elizabeth st could be upgraded to have the parking bays built into the road reserve leaving the road free for traffic to flow may fix the issue.

  10. In Montmorency VIC on “Multi-dwelling...” at 207 Rattray Road, Montmorency, VIC:

    Carol Sheehan commented

    Banyule Council really donot give a cuss what the people think, there is hardly any parking in the street now and they want to add more bloody units, so instead of 2 cars we will not get 8+ cars. I am so opposed to these units going up. Sophie Kerss is right we need footpaths but I have been asking for 30 years on that. The council needs to look at the people who live around this development, I have been living in Rattray Road since 1983, and I NEVER NEVER HAD TO WAIT UP TO 5 MINUTES TO GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. Banyule Council please say NO.

  11. In Booragul NSW on “One into Two Lot...” at 10 Marmong Street Booragul NSW 2284:

    G Smith commented

    I do not support this application as it appears to be an over-development of the site and is out of character for the area.

    The proposed house at 479.2m sq (the property would be 620.4 m sq ) would be larger than the whole property with the existing house as the property would be reduced to 373.4m sq.

    I note that in the DA Assessment Report for Sub-Division in the Summary to the question

    (c) the suitability of the site for the development the response is:

    "Site is not considered suitable for development proposed"

    I support that view.

  12. In East Gosford NSW on “Construction of Donated...” at 28 Albert Street, East Gosford NSW 2250:

    Thanjon Michniewicz commented

    As a local resident I object to the construction proposal. Green space is an indispensable part of any community that should be celebrated as an asset and not seen simply as potential land to be developed. Such areas of green space as these are integral to both the local flora and fauna, including the nocturnal bioluminescent algae that illuminate the foreshore at nighttime, waterbirds that wander during the day, and especially the families and communities that already utilise this space for gatherings, recreation, meetings, and relaxation.
    As both a doctor and public health researcher, I emplore the council and local representatives to maintain as much green space as possible - it represents a great asset to the landscape and local community.

  13. In Toukley NSW on “Residential flat building...” at 6 Dunleigh Street Toukley NSW 2263:

    Allan Anderson commented

    Toukley Community Action Group is on Facebook.... Follow current situation

  14. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 28 Waterloo Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Jan Cuke commented

    The application for the driveway will take away two parking spaces which will limit already very limited parking spaces in waterloo street. This needs to be carefully considered as parking in the whole of this part of rozelle is already stressed.

  15. In Glenelg North SA on “Two Storey Dwelling” at 1/55 North Esplanade Glenelg North SA 5045:

    Braut and Co P/L commented

    Many townhouse properties next door at 53 North Esplanade, Glenelg North, currently have sea views that will be affected by this two story dwelling to be built and have not been notified of this development.

  16. In Turrella NSW on “14-18 Loftus Street,...” at 14 Loftus Street, Turrella NSW 2205:

    Katherine Hartzenberg commented

    I understand that the ATMF is a religious organisation. I have concerns regarding noise pollution from the site as our apartment is across the road and facing that direction. The area surrounding is very quiet and I’d like confirmation that any religious announcements and prayers be kept to a minimum volume (I.e not over loud speaker). Apart from that, I don’t have any other concerns with the interim use of the site

  17. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    Richard Holloway commented

    I take objection to Georges' comments that this development will be attended by doosh bags. Im over 60 and like this sought of place and I am definitely not a doosh bag. Development of Jannali is a great idea. You know maybe it will attract other developments to lift Jannali and fill the vacant shops.

  18. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Subdivision Strata Into 59...” at 49 The Esplanade , Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Janice McDougall commented

    I am so disappointed to see another monstrous development going to council. Councillors you are ruining everything about the peninsula the beautiful lifestyle everyone loves and has loved for years The roads are shockingly packed with traffic and parking is almost gone. Storm water and flooding in our streets when it rains happens all the time. Councillors stop all these developers ruing everything. Residents are really getting angry with you now which is so awful to see.

  19. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    Mary Mead commented

    The renovation or whatever it is to the shop on the corner prev. the Coffee Box is an eyesore - bunches of wires hanging down and windows covered in fading newspaper does nothing for Jannali Village..
    It is one of the first things that you see when you arrive by train from the City at Jannali.

  20. In Morphettville SA on “Pair of two storey...” at 22 Cobham Av Morphettville:

    Victor Deutrom wrote to local councillor Jason Veliskou

    Dear Jason. We reside at 20a Cobham and this two story development if granted will completely block off the morning sun from most of our dining and living room area.The fact that we have this beautiful sunlight streaming into the room was a deciding factor in us purchasing this home. We don't have any objections to a single story home but will strongly ogject to the current plan. Could you please assist us in this matter. Yours sincerely. Victor.

    Photo of Jason Veliskou
    Jason Veliskou local councillor for City of Marion
    replied to Victor Deutrom

    Dear Victor,

    Thank you for your getting in touch.

    Can you please contact me directly from your email to my email so we can further discuss this issue?

    Kind regards

    Jason

  21. In Narara NSW on “Section 96 Amendment -...” at 7 Maliwa Road, Narara NSW 2250:

    Nicole King commented

    Work (loud noise of either chain saw or cement grinding) commenced onsite before 7am this morning.

    I still have had no response from council regarding the attempted removal of a large Blue Gum and other trees. More trees have recently been removed near Lot 20 onsite which is the drainage reserve.

  22. In Rozelle NSW on “Conversion of existing...” at 50-58 Evans Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Ray Stevens (Architect) commented

    Council's role in assessing applications like this falls back to the provisions of the LEP that allows such development. It is not Council's role to dictate to owners of property what they are to use their land for if it complies to the Zoning uses in the LEP. The site is zoned residential but there is existing use rights as commercial. Council have in the past followed a strong policy in protecting industrial uses from the many developers that want to develop industrial zoned land which provides employment opportunities to residential areas and protects the services providers such as suppliers, car repairers etc that we all use...... and rightly so.

    However Council has neglected to protect commercial spaces like this one and there is a strong push to convert such buildings away from commercial uses which also provides employment opportunities. This is occurring also in the commercial high streets of the municipality as well as in the residential areas. These sites should have been zoned industrial or commercial years ago even when nestled in residential areas but Council neglected to do so. By not doing Council have flagged the desired long term use is residential use not their historic uses. This is planning failure in my view and could have been foreseen when the LEP 2000 was framed and the multiple updates to it. I brought this issue to Council's attention at the time but to no avail. This should be addressed in the upcoming review of all planning instruments for the IWC I would argue.

    In regard to this application being the demise of the last hardware shop on the peninsula, I would suggest all those that are worried about this should have supported the Bunnings proposal, but how many did? Some of the objectors here also objected to the Bunnings proposal. This makes no logical sense to me. The Bunnings site has been unoccupied or undersized for twenty years and is an appropriate use in an industrial area for a larger more competitive hardware store.

    In regard to parking and traffic, the intensity of use for 50 Evans Street as residential will be far less than it is currently. The design is a sensitive adaptation of an industrial building. There is very little change to the building fabric externally and its industrial character and contribution to the Conservation Area and the history of Balmain which we all appreciate, will remain. I support the proposal overall but like those that don't want to get in the car and drive 20 minutes to another suburb to buy a bag of screws have some remorse.

    However, this situation is of our own and Council's making. The pre-DA was being assessed for the conversion of 50 Evans Street to residential at the same time as Bunnings was being assessed. This is the short coming in Council's processing, each application is done in a silo, deliberately!! As a community are we so dumb we can't join dots together!!! I fear so......

    So my objection is not so much to this application but a very strong objection and condemnation of Council's opposition to the Bunnings proposal that is in the Land & Environment Court.

  23. In Mosman NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 - 6A Ourimbah Road, Mosman, NSW:

    Kirsty Freyer commented

    Aveo have an obligation and a legal deed with the owners of Heydon Grove and the upholding of this deed should become part of the councils approval of the DA

  24. In Montmorency VIC on “Multi-dwelling...” at 207 Rattray Road, Montmorency, VIC:

    Sophie Kerss commented

    I am opposed to the proposal of 4 dwellings at 207 Rattray road. This part of Rattray road is hazardous regarding parked cars close to a blind corner and traffic build up at peak hour from that position down to the Sherbourne road roundabout. That section of Rattray road is in dire need of proper footpaths. I propose council tends to that issue rather than the contingent coveting of revenue through rates on tiny houses on tiny blocks that are inconsistent with the Monty feel.

  25. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Use of the land for a micro...” at 25 Station Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Sarah Le Page commented

    I consider this proposal inappropriate as the Diamond Creek Hotel is in the same street and the car parking in this area is insufficient as it stands. With a primary school and train station with bus stops almost immediately across the road, it is necessary to consider that we don’t want to increase parking in this specific area as it creates dangerous conditions for those trying to get in and out from any of these locations or pedestrians crossing. This is a particularly poor visibility corner and more customers in vehicles is not a good choice.

  26. In Balmain East NSW on “-Alterations & Additions to...” at 22 Nicholson Street Balmain East NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    I object to the request and approval to remove a Sydney Blue Gum tree Eucalyptus Saigna as this tree is classify by Hornsby Council as "Critically Endangered at both State and Federal levels. Much of the former range of this tree has been extensively cleared, the balance is highly threatened by weed invasion and highly altered ecological processes."

    There are even less Sydney Blue Gum trees in the Leichhardt Council area so this should be seen with alarm. Also, this tree can live to 200 years

    Hornsby Council also found it "is an important species for hollow dependant fauna. When in flower the tree provides nectar resources for a diverse range of birds as well as
    flying foxes."

    The Balmain area cannot afford to lose more tree and it is important to keep this tree for the survival of local birdlife.

    I would request that this approval be reviewed as as far as I know it was not listed on Planning Alerts planningalerts.org giving others the chance to lodge an objection in time.

  27. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Tash Wark wrote to local councillor Natalie Abboud

    The proposed development is too high density and without precedent in the local area. There are no other triple storey dwellings or buildings in the vicinity. This changes the inherent nature of the area, where even two stories aren’t common.
    The density of the development will add strain on roads, parking and local infrastructure.

    Photo of Natalie Abboud
    Natalie Abboud local councillor for Moreland City Council
    replied to Tash Wark

    Thanks Tash,

    I will make sure it reaches the planning dept.

    Cr Natalie Abboud
    Mayor
    North East Ward I Moreland City Council
    90 Bell Street,
    Coburg. 3058
    MOB +61 499 807 166

    [X]

    Moreland City Council acknowledges Moreland as being on the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri people. Council pays its respects to the Wurundjeri people and their Elders, past and present and emerging.

    On 4 Dec 2018, at 10:00 am, Tash Wark <> wrote:

    The proposed development is too high density and without precedent in the local area. There are no other triple storey dwellings or buildings in the vicinity. This changes the inherent nature of the area, where even two stories aren’t common.
    The density of the development will add strain on roads, parking and local infrastructure.

    From Tash Wark to local councillor Natalie Abboud

    =========================================================================

    Tash Wark posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Tash Wark and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060

    Description: Construction of five triple storey dwellings

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1112406?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  28. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Mixed use development” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Rebecca commented

    Is it possible to consider the additional traffic along Duntroon Street with the addition of all the new apartments at the top of the street? Cars are already speeding along the street at ridiculous speed.Some speed humps or something along the street should slow down the traffic and make it a much safer street for all.
    And hopefully the retail premises will be just that, and won't be yet another tax agent/mortgage broker which does not add to the community at all.

  29. In Portarlington VIC on “Buildings and Works...” at 8 Fisher Street, Portarlington, VIC:

    Ned Hoskin commented

    My partner and I own the property at 7 Fisher St. Portarlington. The plans which I have viewed on your website do not show the trees which have been removed on the northern side of the building. Furthermore, there appears to be only one new tree to replace the old gums on the northern side of the building.
    There are NO new shrubs planned for the northern side. ( ? )
    There is ONE only new tree planned for the northern side. ( ? )
    ALL planned planting works appear to be on the southern and western side of the building.
    I have complained about the beautiful old trees which have come down on the northern side ( despite appearing on the plans as to be retained) and the resultant uninterrupted view of the new CFA building from this, the northern side. Is the CFA trying to retain a water view from their offices? So, yes, on the basis of the plans I have viewed I object to the lack of replacement trees and shrubs on the northern side of that building. Conversations I have had with both the CFA and Bellarine Bayside assured me that the northern side would be adequately replenished with new trees but this is not reflected in the plans on your website. I would appreciate an explanation for this.

  30. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of the land by...” at 21 Northumberland Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Vince commented

    To the developers, we the people of this area are sick of you only thinking about the $$$$$$ and not the people of the area ! We will put a stop to you ! We will not tolerate you destroying our area ! We will fight you all the way ! Enough is enouth it’s time for the government and council to listen to us ! Daniel andrews time to act now or next election you will be voted out !

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