Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Botany NSW on “Torrens title subdivision,...” at 19 Bay Street, Botany NSW 2019:

    Rosslyn critchard commented

    I am the resident of 23 bay st botany, with the completion of the 4 storey building next door 21 Bay Street, I feel that this will be more congestion on this already struggling street. I fear that the parking will be affected due to experience of next door. Only one car parks in the car park and all the rest are taking up already valuable spaces despite numerous requests that they park their cars in their allocated spots. With another 4 storey office being built residents will not be able to even park in the street. I put this forth when the submission for 21 Bay Street was under consideration and was told that the cars would use their allocated spots. I fear that this will happen again. Bay Street is an extremely small street and the congestion will become worse if this was able to go ahead. Could you please consider the residents in this street. Thank you

  2. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Robyn Gai Wylie commented

    MBRC Planners and councillors,
    I have lived in May St, Godwin Beach for three amazing years, probably the best three of my life....why you might ask... Peace, tranquillity, birdlife, quiet streets, lovely Neighbours.
    All of this and more is in jeopardy not only for me, but for everyone who lives at Godwin Beach. I strongly object to the piece of land in question (1 The Espalanade, Godwin Beach) being recoded to Tourism rather than Residential. All of the reasons have been explained numerous times in other People's objections, so I won't repeat but I want you to know that I strongly object for all of the extremely valid reasons that have already been put forward.
    I only hope that the Council actually reads these and considers all of these valid points... especially the ecosystem which is potentially in a lot of danger. I am praying that you will do the RIGHT thing here, for all concerned.

  3. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Jamie Wylie commented

    I strongly object to the proposed development application. Any proposed change to the Code Assessment from Rural Zone needs to be scrutinized closely for the reasons listed below that share many of the sentiments expressed in the comments of other concerned Moreton Bay Region residents.
    There is significant environmental impact, especially on the fauna and flora, by concentrating the proposed 20 campsites and facilities in such a compact area. To include a proposal to play music shows significant ignorance to the environment. To propose this development as Ecotourism seems counter intuitive. The proposal seems to take little recognition of the saying "don't destroy what you came to enjoy".
    The settlement of Godwin Beach has a history of over 50 years and consequently a culture. The culture of Godwin Beach is unique. As expressed in the comments of other concerned residents the function of the proposed development will have negative impacts. In simple terms, these concern health and safety, especially for children.
    The aesthetics of the area will be impacted by increased traffic flow as a form of visual, noise and chemical pollution. Such impacts need to be assessed.
    In summary, the safety and tranquillity of the Godwin Beach community; the living environment of Godwin Beach are under threat by the proposed application.

  4. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Margaret Westbrook commented

    I agree with the comment above and would also add real concern over the 162 room boarding house. The new education precinct is very close by and there is going to be a lot of extra traffic with parents dropping children off to school, I do not think it would be suitable place for a boarding house.

  5. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Jacaranda...” at 27 MacPherson Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    jennifer tuckwell commented

    I agree with the need for an explanation please by Council.
    We don't have enough beauty and I for one always admired this tree

  6. In Griffin QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 287 Brays Road, Griffin QLD 4503:

    Vic and Joan Suosaari commented

    We agree with all comments posted here. We live across from this development and we find the traffic really, really bad. To watch/listen to tv we have to close all doors and windows. Perhaps traffic calming measures would reduce the noise levels.

  7. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 434-442 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    JACKIE COLLINS commented

    can i please have more information on the muslim school that's being built there as they are already advertising places for students online how is this ok .

    Also this is such a beautiful property with many mature native trees .
    Narre Warren has hardly any mature trees left please dont let them cut down the trees they plan on getting rid of 28 trees that is way too many and that block was purchased with the trees why remove them now? and also that only the first stage of the development can only wonder really how many they will destroy

    The site is located on a crazy busy intersection and can't cope as is please reject this application and let the site remain beautiful with the mature trees intact

  8. In Potts Point NSW on “Re-notification -...” at 6-8 Orwell Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Gilles V commented

    I am completely agreeing, supporting and expressing the same concerns that Anne U and Alice Vitucci have already submitted to the city of Sydney regarding the development proposal Ref number : D/2020/65 by Tricon Management Group Pty Ltd .
    It is a shame and extremely disturbing to see developments like that are constantly submitted without considering the historic heritage of that unique part Sydney and its local residents .This is clearly and other development that doesn't take any consideration about the negative impact that this potential development could have over this historic area with a very low importance to overshadowing, site studies, privacy issues, historic values of this unique part of Sydney .
    Not to mention the lack of parking that it is already a major issues for the residents and of course the noise level that will increase substantially .

    To also support Anne U's concerns , are those new units for long term residents or short term accommodation? What will be the By Laws regarding noise, rubbish, expected behaviour, etc?

    In conclusion:
    I am against this development like many other Potts Point residents regarding the development proposal Ref number : D/2020/65 by Tricon Management Group Pty Ltd.That absolutely DO NOT take into consideration heritage character of the area by doubling the height of buildings in this area overshadowing, loss of privacy for some of its resident and most of all noise and parking issues in an already overdeveloped and congested area of Sydney but importantly the long term impact it will have on the existing residents in the immediate area.

  9. In Fairfield VIC on “Proposed construction of...” at 167 Station Street Fairfield VIC 3078:

    Yuki commented

    There is a very limited number of parking spots in Station St, Gillies St, Mitchell St and Arthur St. There is already a high demand for parking by people going to the Station Street shops and lawn bowls on Gillies St. Insufficient parking at Fairfield train station means commuters are parking on nearby streets. As such, there is already a significant parking problem which should not be exacerbated by the waiving of the requirement for visitor parking in the development of 167 Station St Fairfield. I do not support the waiving of visitor parking, and the onus should be on the developer to include visitor parking on this site.

  10. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Jacaranda...” at 27 MacPherson Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    John S. Batts commented

    I should like to endorse the views of several responders about the DA-planned destruction of trees in Waverley, especially mature trees, and particularly the jacaranda.

  11. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 48 Lakeside Road Eastwood NSW 2122:

    M.McCartney commented

    I also agree the heritage of this home within the Heritage Conservation Area needs to be maintained.

  12. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michael Vanin commented

    For the record I have been a resident of Rowville for over 30 years and make my comments as a resident and rate payer.

  13. In Potts Point NSW on “Re-notification -...” at 6-8 Orwell Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Alice Vitucci commented

    Rising a 3 storey to a 6 storey without keeping into consideration the historic character of the site and the long/short term impact on the all area is against any good architecture principle.
    The amendments to the original DA submission deleting the rooftop and stepping back 3 mt. from Orwell Street is still not sufficient due to the bulky block that has been proposed which gives very low importance to overshadowing, site studies, privacy issues, historic value of the area and even elevations and finishes.

    This is an already congested part of Sydney. The character of the area will be changed making living more stressful to the existing residents.Some like me have just a tiny studio where to live and to deal with the parking and noise is already a terrible issue.

    The change in height its equal to double up the levels of the existing building.
    This is a necessary air pocket for this area and especially for 10 Orwell Street, as the rooftop is the only access to the outdoor that 19 sqm studios like mine have.
    If the development go ahead as proposed, we are going to loose the full rooftop area where our outdoor spaces are located(19 sqm studio with no terrace or garage cannot even fit a washing machine, so rooftop becomes vital for such small flats for functions as laundry, drying etc).
    Suddenly our building which has been there since 1930s will be buried by an oppressive high rise development and our only relieving outdoor spaces will be in shade facing a dark wall double of our height.

    The amount of natural light and ventilation will be affected by a 6 storey building with the result of humidity and poor air circulation in our building which is already dealing with all the common issues of heritage.

    Furthermore, the north side of 6-8 Orwell St will have to relate to a line of terrace houses that are two storeys high facing Hughes St and back on to Hughes Place.

    Increasing the height of the building to 6 storeys will affect the back gardens of these small terraces 1-11 Hughes St ie in Hughes Place and more windows will take away more privacy of the backyard gardens. Also the building will be oppressively high, keeping light away from our only outdoor area and the rooms in the terraces facing south.

    Nevertheless, the construction works will make it impossible to live in the adjacent building - noise, dust, traffic problems 5 days a week.

    In the long term there will be a terrible acoustic impact through rubbish collection, more activity and noise at night along Orwell Street and nearly tiny alleys.

    Orwell Street, Hughes Lane and Hughes Place will be dominated by a 6 storey poorly designed block, it will make the adjacent alleys darker and increase the already existing safety issue for people on foot.

    In conclusion:
    I am against the development which doesn't take into consideration heritage, character of the area, site studies and adjacent buildings issues as safety, overshadowing, loss of privacy and most of all noise and parking issues in an already overdeveloped area of Sydney.

  14. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 11 Olinda Crescent Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian Borjeson commented

    These type of property developments are great for Council rate revenue but not for the actual community. Also the vehicular traffic in this area is totally congested NOW; bringing in additional people through the division and multi-building on existing properties will only further cause additional congestion. This and all other development applications like this, should not be approved until the Council build the infrastructure necessary.

  15. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Isabel commented

    Can we ensure real estate agents declare their interest before making comments. thank you Stephen for pointing this out.
    The only thing that is developing in Rowville is units developments, the roads, car parks, street parking nothing else has developed.
    So yes, Rowville its is a developing suburb Michael but only for a few people a benefiting from this. Its not adding to the amenity or the liveability of the suburb.

  16. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Huw Edwards commented

    I strongly oppose this development. There is no capacity for existing infrastructure to absorb this and no ability to scale to meet the need given the constraints of the site and suburb and the education precinct next door.

    While I support affordable housing, I also question the location of a large boarding house next to the education precinct.

    Please listen to the existing residents for once and block this type of development. That space could be redeveloped into a much more appropriate medium density residential and commercial mix and still be profitable.

  17. In Narre Warren South VIC on “Four Lot Subdivision and...” at 338-340 Pound Road Narre Warren South, VIC:

    Vicky boulton commented

    I would like to no what is being built on this property it is obviously not a normal residence it looks like 4 to 5 seperate building being built .

  18. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Stephen Mead commented

    Three things
    1 - Is the previous poster the same Michael Vanin of Stamford Real Estate Services Pty Ltd - and if so - does he have any connection to this development?

    2. Murray Cres is one of the last 'havens' in Rowville for decent sized family blocks - it's no where near a shopping centre or railway station or other commercial areas - like the units opposite Stud Park - it's in a quiet family street.

    3. Given that there is proposed to have 6 dwellings and the average number of cars in 2016 in Rowville was 2.2 (I suspect it's more now). What steps will be taken to ensure that the - MINIMUM number of cars of 14 will be kept off the street?

  19. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Suzi commented

    The development Moreland approves is disgusting compared to other councils. Our streets have become hazards and our comfort, privacy and safety has been compromised. It is purely in the favour of builders at all times for their own purpose of Making money! Write to your local members which is what I have been doing to make it known that enough is enough

  20. In Gerroa NSW on “Two (2) lot torrens title...” at 21 Burke Pde, Gerroa, NSW 2534:

    ROY Schmidt commented

    DA 10.2020.66.1 - 21 BURKE PDE
    Our concerns relate to the Stormwater Concept Plan, prepared by SET Consultants.
    The plans show the stormwater pipes etc running from the top of the newly created 21 Stafford block down the easter boundary line of that block & 21 Burke Pde, to an existing pit outside 21 Burke, & across to Crooked River via an existing SWP.
    We question why all stormwater from '21 Stafford' should not be required to be diverted to Stafford St, as is generall required for similar placed developments on the southern side of Stafford St.
    The proposed positioning of the eventual new house on the new block ie high on the block, suits the flow of most stormwater to Stafford St.
    Also, the existing SWP outside 21 Burke is currently only utilised by 21 Burke. However it could be expected to be used in the future re the recently approved development at 19 Burke, plus future developments at 23 Burke (at which time 25 Burke would also link into the same SWP).

  21. In Langwarrin VIC on “Extension of time - The...” at 50 Aqueduct Road, Langwarrin 3910, VIC:

    Yvonne Court Resident commented

    The construction of nine dwellings is still problematic for neighbours and users of Aquaduct Rd. This is due to the additional residents vehicle either being kept on the premises, or on the street, plus any visitors to the new dwellings. Aquaduct Road is a narrrow road already, so much so it doesn't require centre line markings. Additional levels of traffic in this small, quiet street will impact existing residents, and possibly prove to be a traffic hazard, with increased risk of accidents.
    Please reconsider this application.

  22. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    David Schoch commented

    MBRC Planners and Councillors,
    My wife and I are residents on Esplanade, Godwin Beach. We were surprised and dismayed to receive notification via a non-government website that an application had been received by MBRC for “Material Change of Use – Development Permit for Nature Based Tourism”, ie a Caravan Park at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach. Please record our strong objection to this proposal.
    We reside in a very small seaside community with no local commercial enterprises and restricted access in and out. Any such commercial development will have a major, and possibly negative impact on our quiet and relatively isolated environment.
    Apparently, the proposed development is subject to Code Assessment and as such public notification does not need to be carried out, but as a matter of concern for and courtesy to the small local community a survey of local residents to assess their concern/support or otherwise for this proposal should be undertaken by the MBRC (through our local Councillor or Council representative) before this application is assessed.
    While acknowledging and agreeing with all the points raised in previous comments we would like to add the following.
    We have read all the documents submitted with this application, all of which have been prepared and paid for by the proposed developer to support the application. As individuals with limited knowledge of government rules and regulations it is difficult to argue against their findings but I would suggest the MRBC assessors closely check particularly Appendix A - Engineering Report and Appendix C – Ecological Assessment as the results warrant further confirmation. The Ecological assessment in particular admits it is a “desktop report” which “…. only represents a ’snapshot’ in time and may not provide a true indication of presence or absence of flora and fauna species within the study.” This is certainly true as kangaroos, reptiles and a multitude of both local and migratory birds frequent this area.
    Under the MBRC Planning Scheme, the proposed development is defined as Nature Based Tourism. The applicant’s own DA Form 1 defines Nature Based Tourism as “The use of land or premises for a tourism activity, including tourist and visitor short-term accommodation, that is intended for the conservation, interpretation and appreciation of areas of environmental, cultural or heritage value, local ecosystem and attributes of the natural environment.” In other words, this proposal is attempting to be sold as a nature-based, eco-tourism project. Interesting that this terminology has been applied at this time to a campground which contains none of the characteristics referenced above (apart from the accommodation aspect}. The Queensland Government Department of Environment and Science states “Ecotourism encompasses nature-based activities that increase visitor appreciation and understanding of natural and cultural values. They are experiences that are managed to ensure they are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable, contributing to the wellbeing and conservation of the natural areas and local communities where they operate.” The World Tourism Organisation defines ecotourism as “… nature-based forms of tourism in which the main motivation of the tourists is the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas an experience/activity that contains educational and interpretation features”. Again, none of these characteristics are covered in the applicant’s proposal and the development certainly does not contribute to the wellbeing and conservation of the local community.
    We are concerned that this application may be “development by stealth” as the project is proposed to be staged ie, Stages 1 and 2 have been defined but how many other stages will follow? This entire proposal reminds me of the Joni Mitchell song, Big Yellow Taxi:

    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    'Til it's gone
    They paved paradise
    Put up a parking lot

  23. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Jacaranda...” at 27 MacPherson Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Mark Paskal commented

    Perhaps Council can provide a justification for the removal of these trees? Some Councils take pains to preserve mature trees, for obvious reasons. There are thousands of people who benefit from the retention of these trees. Obviously, developers want them destroyed for the benefit of a very few.

  24. In Montrose VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 1 Montrose Road, Montrose VIC 3765:

    Samantha Ryan Eastwood commented

    Why have 2 service stations in MONTROSE? So close to each other
    The MONTROSE roundabout already causes huge headaches and accidents
    MONTROSE is too small for 2 Servos
    Not only that you are tuning heritage with the beautiful house on the corner
    Keep the heritage
    This servo will ruin MONTROSE
    Do our house values go down?
    Where’s the traffic going to go?
    Down MONTROSE rd like a highway?
    Have you considered the school crossing on MONTROSE rd? At approximately 5 MONTROSE Rd?

  25. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Suzette Hetherington commented

    I would like to add my very STRONG objection to this development and give my support wholeheartedly to those comments detailed above. I am in my 70's and bought my home here in 2016 purely and solely because of the quiet and the reassurance of being surrounded by "Reserve" land - how could this possibly be considered without consultation with the residents.
    I strongly agree with the comments outlined above by my wonderful neighbours - PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY OUR AMAZING LITTLE COMMUNITY.

  26. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 48 Lakeside Road Eastwood NSW 2122:

    local resident commented

    I agree that the heritage of the area is being lost - it is important to try to retain what we can, and in this case, there are certainly changes that should be made.

  27. In Cartwrights Hill NSW on “Recreation Facility (Major)...” at Wagga Wagga Harness Racing Association 92 Cooramin St Cartwrights Hill NSW 2650:

    Joanne punch commented

    The south west & Riverina harness racing association support the application to extend the number of race meetings and the extension of opening hour for the riverina pacewayand Wagga harness racing club. Clubs from a wide area of nsw travel to Wagga regularly to compete at this wonderful venue. This will bring more revenue into the Wagga region

  28. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of 10 double...” at 66 Austin Crescent, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Sarah commented

    Austin crescent has become an overpopulated and overcrowded street.
    There are too many cars already parking in the street. When people visit us, they can never get a carpark out the front of our house anymore. A lot of the townhouse residents park on the street now, as there is not enough parking in their own developments. It is dangerous to even reverse out of your driveway with the amount of cars and traffic in the street already.
    Our neighbours had a fire truck called out last year for an incident, and they even had issues getting down the street with so many cars parked along it and in the way.
    Town planning and the councillors need to really consider allowing any more dense developments being built in Austin crescent.
    10 more double storey dwellings in such a small, confined space puts extra strain on our already overcrowded street.
    That equals another 30 bins put out on the street on some Wednesdays (taking up 30+ metres of street space) and potentially at least another 10+ cars parked on the street each day and night.
    Please reconsider the number of dwellings allowed to be built.

  29. In North Adelaide SA on “Alteration and additions to...” at 306 Ward Street, North Adelaide SA 5006:

    Alan Roberts commented

    Decision to demolish this house (for carpark !) reflects badly on Calvary Hospital administrators' blatant disregard for North Adelaide Heritage, also if approved ACC's lack of aesthetic judgement for city's historical heritage.......& poor planning

    Will not go unnoticed in the next election for city councilors.

  30. In Goodwood SA on “Removal of two regulated trees” at 20 Gilbert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Bob Schnell commented

    It’s just so sad. It’s disappointing that Unley Council has allowed this to happen. Unley Mayor Mike Hewitson made it his election platform to stop the loss of our trees (especially on private land) and to increase the green canopy.
    And what has been done? Nothing but talk and yet another Tree Strategy Plan.
    I’m just so disappointed.

This week