Recent comments

  1. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 23 Flathead Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Mel Smith commented

    Pleaaaase could you consider some pruning rather than removing the tree. Ettalong is the hottest suburb on the Central Coast because all of the trees have been removed and the amount of development and concrete.
    The trees provide so much relief from the heat and habitat for birds.

  2. In Norwood SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 74 William Street Norwood SA 5067:

    Peter Chalk commented

    If this building is in fact under heritage protection, it should not be demolished.
    This is especially so if the purchaser bought it under protection or pending protection.

  3. In Moorebank NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 226 Newbridge Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Bob Objector commented

    Can I suggest that if anyone wants to object to this development, their objections are based on planning merit, not a count of how many servos are in the area.

    If I was an objector - the lowest hanging fruit would be and objection written to RMS about concerns to the visual sightlines of the new driveway and the risk of vehicle collision based on vehicles slowing down on approach / exit....... I'm sure we have all caused a potential rear ender when slamming our breaks on to enter the fruit market in this location.

    If the Caltex site was being assessed today it would be unlikely they would have approval for the entry so close to the Nuwarra Rd intersection via Newbridge Rd so close to the lights.

    The addition of fast food increases the frequency (the risk of rear end collisions) of vehicle movements in/out of the site and the applicant may need to remove this use to comply with RMS assessment criteria.

    experience: I've had applications refused by RMS for this reason on similar types of developments on Main Roads.

    best of luck.

  4. In Kew VIC on “Construction of twelve (12)...” at 1209 Burke Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Amy Paterson commented

    Far too many dwellings on the two lots.
    8, maybe 10 is more realistic, but the area is starting to look similar to bulleen, doncaster with all these mini housing estates & losing its beautiful character

  5. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Trent Somerville commented

    The placing of an on and off ramp for both north and south bound lanes of the M1 to Newport road will ease through traffic congestion in Morisset, Cooranbong and Dora Creek. This will also aid in the rapidly growing community access to the M1 and availability to use the facilities supplied by the new service centers.
    The current M1 exit to Morisset is overloaded and with the additional homes been built in the area this exit will not be able to handle the traffic. The Watagan Park is growing rapidly with 2500 homes still to be built.
    This service station development is planning for the future so this development should include access to and from Newport road.

  6. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1 Nineteenth Avenue, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Karen Rowles commented

    Wayne Matthews comment above is out of touch with the rest of the Palm Beach Community... in my opinion. These Developments are not selling as the Developers and Newspapers would have you believe. Many are being RENTED OUT to less than desirable tenants as the Developers CAN NOT sell them and are desperate to recoup their money. I have experienced this myself. The Development IS outside the City Plan Guidelines. The Development is welcomed IF it is amended and then adheres to the City Plan. We all know these Developments that are drastically outside the City Plan Guidelines in Density are being submitted to Council as they are along the Light Rail route.
    There are too many developments already in that small area that are drastically outside the City Plan Guidelines.
    The Light Rail will only add to the congestion, therefore causing a nightmare along the GC Highway and around 19th Ave planned Light Rail Station. This Development is unacceptable to our community.

  7. In Barden Ridge NSW on “Construction of a building...” at 67 Barden Road Barden Ridge NSW 2234:

    Lorraine commented

    What religious denomination?
    And will it be single level?

  8. In Moorebank NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 226 Newbridge Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Carol O’Donnell commented

    We definitely do not need another service station, we already have (12) within a radius of 1.5 kilometres of Moorebank Shopping Village. May I add if you travel over Liverpool Bridge petrol is easily obtained up to 49 cents cheaper than Moorebank.
    Here’s the current list.
    1. Caltex Moorebank - Newbridge Road
    2. BP - 8 Heathcote Rd
    3. Caltex Woolworths - cnr Dredge & Stockton Ave
    4. Coles - Heathcote Rd
    5. 7- Eleven Heathcote Rd
    6. Energy Fuels - Stockton Ave
    7. Ampol - 2 Bridges rd
    8. Shell - Wattle Grove
    9. Shell Coles Express - Wattle Grove
    10. Caltex Nuwarra Rd
    11. BP Nuwarra Rd
    12. Woolworths Newbridge Rd, just past GMDrive.

  9. In Boronia VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 6 Stonehaven Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Anthony Searle commented

    Hi Bronwyn Stephen.
    Sorry to see another fellow resident of Boronia upset at the change that is ruining (and continues to do so) our once beautiful suburb of Boronia.This is just another of thousands of suburbs and areas around Australia and the world that is being destoyed in this manner. This is motivated by greed and a lack of thought for others along with people just sitting back and doing nothing about it and just putting it down to "progress". When you have these ingredients this scourge on our society is allowed to run RAMPANT! I am not surprised and along with a tiny amount of residents( some live right near you) joined together to form Appropriate Development For Boronia Group. We had support earlier in the piece but as time went on people just didn't bother and this was when support was really needed. I even ran in the council elections over this issue on two occasions but didn't get the support to really have a go at making a difference. Many of the dedicated members of our group realised how Little people cared as well as myself. What is being complained about now was predicted 10 YEARS ago by us and some other wonderful residents but we were basically ignored by the majority. So there you have it. Do nothing and now reap the rewards and consequences of inaction. The world was nearly taken over in WW2 for this very reason. My commiserations. Anthony Searle.

  10. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Megan brodhurst commented

    This application does not meet any of the City Planning Criteria’s
    Is it well over the allowed site coverage being allowed 50% this development is 79.9%.

    The design is for 0% set backs for the southern. northern and Gold Coast Hwy. it allows for 4% set back at the rear (Jefferson lane ) which will be the entry access to carpark and car stacker.
    There is no communal open space

    Density is 1 bedroom per 27.5 m2 and the town plan asks for 1 bedroom per 33m2

  11. In Clayton VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 17 Royalty Street Clayton VIC 3168:

    Asad commented

    I fully agree with Poly's comment. The state of cleaningless, or the lack of it, is appalling with overfilled and over flowing bins spilled everywhere. There is isn't a piece of nature strip in all surrounding streets which is litter free.

  12. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Yvette Dempsey commented

    I object to this application because it is excessive in scale and density for the subject site. Its height is also excessive given the proximity and angle of adjoining properties, some of which would lose most of their sunlight. These points have already been made by council officers experienced in town planning who clearly don’t support this development either and, given their experience, should carry extra weight.

    Near-by residents have a right to the continued amenity of their homes and access to sunshine and appropriate space. Through no fault of their own, this is now threatened which is both unfair but also at odds with many aspects of the City Plan.

    Parking is likely to be an additional issue in an area already struggling to deal with limited spaces. This is likely to impact residents of the block itself given that a car stacker system is proposed and these have been found to be unreliable, too small for certain cars and a significant drain on electricity. Insufficient parking for visitors is likely to impact on adjoining dwellings by adding further competition for street level parking.

    It should be possible to design an apartment block that complies with setbacks, height, density etc that takes into consideration the surrounding area and near-by residents. It should also be compliant with the City Plan. Because it does none of these things, it should be rejected.

  13. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1151 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Larelle commented

    This development is ridiculously out of step with both the community expectations and city plan.

    🚫6 Levels on 412m2 is outrageous and is out of character for the area.
    🚫Setbacks (Zero Setbacks on 3 sides) -
    🚫Waste Management
    🚫Visitor Car Spaces
    🚫Open/Communal Space
    🚫No Deep Planting
    🚫Bulky and Intense Design
    🚫Too High for a Small BlocK

  14. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Lisa H commented

    I object to this DA. This is gross overdevelopment of the site. 5 stories is too high and sets a precedent for future developments in the area with inherent issues of overshadowing , increased parking/ traffic issue etc etc

    I agree with previous comments -

  15. In Kew VIC on “In accordance with the...” at 37 Derby Street, Kew VIC 3101:

    Li Chen commented

    Speechless about the proposal.

    The list of objection reasons can go on and on, non-suitable characters, privacy, traffic safety, gardens, daylight penetration, carparking, garbage collection, ect.

  16. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 4 A Montrose Street, Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Li Chen commented

    I don't think a concrete tower, 10 storeys, is suitable the neighbourhood character. My objection to this development due to

    1. A tower building will block the daylight penetration to surrounding properties and street.
    2. Privacy issues.
    3. Carparking issues for the residents, visitors and business occupants within the complex.

  17. In Hawthorn VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 575 - 577 Burwood Road, Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Li Chen commented

    Strongly agree with Amy. I object to the proposal of the carparking reduction as nowhere should be allowed to car parking for the residents, visitors and busness occupants outiste its complex.

  18. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    CM commented

    Good to see the facade is being retained. The building is quite run down now so this looks like an improvement IMO. Would be good if the date featured on the building facade can be retained as well.

  19. In Kew VIC on “Construction of twelve (12)...” at 1209 Burke Road, Kew VIC 3101:

    Li Chen commented

    I am pretty upset about the proposed development, especially so many beautiful trees, over 30 trees, to be knocked-down, which was the No. 1 reason of mine to object this development.

    My objection to this development due to,
    1. About 34 trees to be knocked down which will destroy the existing street view and may reduce the property values of surrounding properties.
    2. The concrete-block looking of the development is not suitable the street characters.
    3. 24 private cars driving in-and-out the site are causing huge safety concerns to local residents, especially the students walking passing the site.
    4. No much green areas are shown on the floor plans to each dwelling, though 980 m2 garden area mentioned in the design file out of 2,400 m2 site area.

    I got questions about this garden area figure, 980 m2. In my understanding the traffic paths, transit routes and carparking cannot count into garden or entertainment area.

  20. In Walkerville SA on “Land Division (One into Two)” at 7 St Andrews Street, Walkerville SA 5081:

    Damien Mugavin Landscape Architect commented

    F Lau is correct. Someone with deep pockets might take on the planning authority in the courts to really protect existing trees; currently trees have zero effective protection in these applications.

  21. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    M. Friedman commented

    We need to save Bondi from all these horrendous development applications. In this time of Covid, and moving forward, we need space not more development!

  22. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Alison Bird commented

    We object to the proposed 44 room boarding house to rezone what is commercial property into a large scale residential development. The proposal is over scale and out of character for Lane Cove West which is predominantly single dwelling residential. Any boarding houses in residential zones should be kept to a maximum of 12 rooms and Lane Cove West is a residential suburb.

  23. In Clayton VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 17 Royalty Street Clayton VIC 3168:

    Poly commented

    Being one of the very few owners in the street, I would like to object to this. There is already a lot of traffic and unsightly homes ( lawns uncut and rubbish bins over filled and are left on the lawn for weeks on end - a lot of hard rubbish when new students come into a property). How are you going to ensure the properties next door are going to get enough light?

  24. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Construction of a 5 storey...” at 148 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mary commented

    Five stories is way to high for Bondi, we don’t want to turn into the Gold Coast. This sets an ugly precedent for more and higher height DAs in future.

  25. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Boarding House, Manager's...” at 47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066:

    Laura Hale commented

    There is already a significant bank up of traffic in the area in the evenings. It takes me and my son 40 minutes to get from one side of lane cove from his daycare to the other in lane cove west and adding another high rise which seems particularly high for the area would increase this concern.

  26. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Leo Fitzpatrick commented

    I've lived in Dora creek since I was born in 1994. The traffic at Dora Creek bridge, the double stop signs, is already banking up around school times
    With the new estate going in, an extra few hundred cars a day split along Freemans drive x Newport turn off (which is congestated already from Cooranbongs new housing estate) and through the horrible double stop signs, will be horrendous. Giving people in Dora creek and cooranbong easy access to the M1 would be awesome for the local community's. Also easy access for Dora Creek and Cooranbong NSW Rural Fire service. For Dora Creek to get onto the freeway, they need either respond to Morisset and access there, or travel to Freemans waterhole. And if there is an incident at busy times, it slows response to incidents. Thanks.

  27. In McCrae VIC on “Two dwellings and variation...” at 4 Banks Street Mccrae VIC 3938:

    Trudy Litt commented

    More time needed to disagree with a covenant seems a bit backwards. Possible restrictions should be the first thing checked.
    Far too many subdivisions and multi house lots appearing in this area.

  28. In Cooranbong NSW on “Demolition (Dwelling House...” at 266 Newport Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Nicole mangone commented

    Morisset, Cooranbong, and Dora Creek will benefit from the placement of both on and off ramps to the M1 to Newport Road, as it will ease congestion particularly on Mandalong Road and Dora Street, Morisset, which gets extremely busy during peak hours.

    Having entry and exit points to the M1 at Newport Road will also have benefits for the rapidly growing community given the large number of new estates in the local area. It will allow the community to use the facilities provided by the new service centres. This is especially since there is limited local facilities to cater for the fast growing community.

    Additionally, the on and off ramps to the M1 at Newport Road will provide an alternative detour for heavy traffic on the M1 when the M1 is closed after accidents.

    The infrastructure is essential given the fast growing community with new estates being frequently established and there is a need to plan for the future. It is cost beneficial to plan now for the future needs of the community and the travelling public. If this is ignored now, it will cost the government a lot more in public funding to put the access points to the M1. This is if the access points could even be put in later once the area is built out with new estates.

    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

  29. In Warradale SA on “Combined planning...” at 96 Lascelles Warradale, SA:

    Neil Morris commented

    Agreed Johanna. Here we are again with the same issues and nothing being done by our elected local and state government representatives. You can't drive down Lascelles already as many blocks have already being overdeveloped, all with ONE car park and the owners' other 2 cars parked on the road, in front of other residence properties. This particular lot along with another opposite, is about to be knocked down is going to add to the congestion. Close to swimming and shopping centre, it is already hazardous turning into Lascelles. What does it take? A child to be killed or hurt as they step out behind a street parked car or injury from head on vehicle accident since it is now effectively a singe lane road before any action is taken?
    Force the development to have dual driveway to ensure 2 vehicles side by side for a 3 bedroom building. Force a street park spot in front. Don't allow row developments with 80% building to land ratio. Review the layouts to suit the infrastructure and minimise the impact of splitting a block.
    Look at the bigger impact COVID has had on higher density areas around the world, Melbourne and UK for example. What hope do we have if you keep allowing this overdevelopment?
    It is a disgrace what has happened to this area. Stand up and put an end to it @Kris Hanna Marion Council and @Corey Wingard DPTI Minister.

  30. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Modification of approved...” at 20-24 Hall Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mr Jean Bousseau commented

    I agree with the above/previous comment, this seems to be developers new tuck, get a DA that will get approved and come back later with amendments that wouldn't get through in the first place while no one is looking at it anymore ?

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