Recent comments

  1. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 5 - 7 Murray Farm Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Great for revenue but what provisions will be made for the additional vehicular traffic this development will bring?

  2. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    David Harris commented

    Look Zoe , The position is that they have no power to reject applications as It is/was
    the planning scheme devised many moons ago. I have it from a very reliable source within council that for instance development is easy. Get a knock back . Submit a another application and away you go. I'm also told that Eugene St is the last "signature case that willl go to the planning court. The council now believe that they will not win a case, and just lose $1000s . This is why Eugene St many years ago was designated as residential site. So the developers have the issue on toast. Happy Jack block. passed by the council. Have they no shame . Watch the clearing stages and be horrified . There is no appeal necessary. Check the street opposite. Have a good look as the duplexes and auxiliary units . Harris street has been given away. The developers are having a field day. The only way to stop this obscene developer is to tqke taze them. It seems that there will be many duplexs. Prepare for what like. Objectors have many reasons cases. As I have said dont waste your time
    Just a NoNoNo is all you need
    This application to clear a and build iwill show everyone what our planning scheme will look like. The Harris sinuous bloc is now covered with D 9s. . This blight on the landscape leaves us residents "droped jaws " Ms Enoch and the Premier Have my request to see them. I'm a patient man. Dont give it. Shine a light not on the Council but on your State MPs

  3. In Ringwood East VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 11 Talofa Avenue, Ringwood East VIC 3135:

    Liz commented

    When viewed from Google Maps the numerous trees on the land at 11 Talofa Avenue, form a linear string of habitat across six properties either on Talofa Ave adjacent or in the rear of properties fronting Shasta Avenue.
    Depending on the number of trees to be removed according to this particular application, there will be an enormous loss of mature canopy trees which will have a significant effect on the ability of that area to remain cool, shaded, protected from wind, and habitat for birds and fauna.
    Croydon Conservation Society requests that this be a serious consideration when looking at the application, in terms of tree loss, increase of hardstanding, the flow on effect of creating heat island effect, from paved area and the cost to the environment for air conditioning as a result of tree loss. We also have great concerns for the opportunity for water to ground opportunities, with increased site cover percentage.

  4. In Scarborough QLD on “Request to Extend the...” at 429 Scarborough Road, Scarborough QLD 4020:

    Louise Hawkins commented

    This proposed development is too high for a residential area and will set a precedent. The planning laws are there for a reason and this, is not a good enough reason to change them.

  5. In Fish Creek VIC on “Quarry & extractive...” at 150 Fish Creek Quarry Road Fish Creek VIC 3959:

    Jack Pearce commented

    Dear SGSC
    What does the proposed change to the quarry mean?

    Will it mean more noise? More dust?
    Different mining technique? Change to waste water? Rock crushing gear? Screening gear?

    I live 1 km away and the extractive process and noise and dust might be an issue.

    If it’s a simple answer just call or text. I don’t need a big formal report (unless it’s a helluva change in purpose.

    Kind regards
    Jack Pearce

  6. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Scott Wilsmore commented

    I would ask that Coffs Harbour Council perform their elected duties for their constituents and reject this proposal for the reasons outlined by many of the residents. I looked at purchasing land in the estate years ago and the beach stone cafe and peaceful community surrounds were an attractive selling point. Whilst I didn’t proceed with purchase I do sympathise with any residents who may now feel dudded by this “bait and switch” approach to development of the area.

  7. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Zoe Shipley commented

    Come on ICC , you've already bent over every which way to give these developers everything they want, despite feedback from the community. Or have you found a way to squeeze one last bribe out of them? Please, enough concessions! Stop approving slums!

  8. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 18-20 Harris Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    S. Bourne commented

    Can someone please explain what the point of having a development plan is if the developer is then going to change everything so the final product look nothing like the approved plans? First they ask for them all to auxiliary units doubling the density of dwellings making it well above what the scheme allows and causing huge parking and traffic issues by not providing enough car spaces.
    Now they want to build to boundary on every property creating an ugly, noisy, fire danger waiting to happen. They claim it is to allow for maximum sized backyards? Well they could actually have bigger backyards if they weren't all auxiliary units - the backyard would be twice as big if there was only one of them. The claim it a minor change is ridiculous, it involves every lot in the development and will change the overall look of development completely. At some point the council is going to have to show some backbone and say no to these developers creating future slums.

  9. In Carrum Downs VIC on “Condition 1 - Use and...” at 1 Hall Road, Carrum Downs 3201, VIC:

    Joanne Fogarty commented

    My house backs on to this future service station site. Why was I not advised of this town planning application? I deserve the right to have been notified. I would like an explanation as to why I was not notified please.

  10. In Glebe NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 79 Ferry Road Glebe NSW 2037:

    Carole Knight commented

    Good luck with that! You'll get it because you are in Ferry road, us poor slobs in Bridge road, who have repeatedly asked for the same have constant refusals.
    The approvals process is just random.

  11. In Boronia VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 217 Dorset Road, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Neville Sanders commented

    It is great to see renewal commencing on this corner where the existing shops are quite old and past their prime. While recognizing that the application seeks to provide less than the “standard” number of car spaces required there are some points worth noting prior to criticizing this reduction. There is still one space per occupancy plus, and importantly, all the owners of the shops on the corner of Dorset and Boronia Roads paid for the construction of the car parking areas at the rear of these shops in the early 1980s. I owned 2 lots on the corner at that time and can confirm this is accurate.
    The off street parking scheme included the car spaces on the east side of the Boronia Progress Hall as well as the spaces on the south of the existing shops. Whilst the land is Council owned, the owners and traders of the day paid for the construction and in return should be able to receive a “credit” for spaces on their own land.

  12. In Bardwell Valley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 52 Lorraine Avenue, Bardwell Valley NSW 2207:

    Frank commented

    Hi I’m the property owner at 54 lorraine ave
    Which is next door and haven’t received any notice or plan
    I happened to stumble across this by the Naighbours
    I’d like to see a detail plan of the proposal

  13. In Karawatha QLD on “Warehouse, Industry,...” at 20 Hashim Pl Karawatha QLD 4117:

    Shamim747 commented

    I have been residing in this area since 1998. The noise level has increased in this area many folds. Is the council doing anything about noise pollution and air pollutant?

  14. In Balmain NSW on “Review of Determination of...” at 9 Gladstone Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Karl commented

    This is a positive. The property is dilapidated and needs to be knocked down and replaced with modern structure

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

    Sue McCrossin commented

    Dear Ms Salat,

    I am writing concern a current application for building on 112 The Esplanade Burleigh Heads.
    I have several concerns regarding this - most significantly the density.

    This development is 3 times the density proscribed in the city plan at 1 bedroom to 10.2sq metres.
    This sets a shocking precedent for developments along the Esplanade. I realise that other developments in the area have been approved at this (and worse), which should never have been approved. Also these buildings are along the Gold Coast Highway. The Esplanade is too small a street - already overcrowded, to warrant such density. The increased traffic on and off The Esplanade will be intolerable. At 1.8 car parks per unit, there will be more permanent parking on the street, thus limiting parking for day visitors even further

    Whilst the building meets height requirements, the scale of it is far too big for a relatively small block.

    Additionally, the increased size of the footprint, over what is currently in place, means that our building’s recreational area will be constantly in shade. This building was designed around what was in place next door at the time - we now lose sun and the back building loses views which will immediately devalue their properties.

    I realise that development is inevitable but all we ask is that developments adhere to the plan and consider local amenity. The Esplanade is already choked, it does not need another building at such density. It is not all about cramming as many people as possible in!!


  16. In Castle Hill NSW on “Demolition 8045500” at 6 Brushford Avenue, Castle Hill NSW 2154:

    Monica Logan commented

    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
    Brushford Avenue is part of the East Excelsior area adjacent to Bidjigal Reserve, one of the largest bushland reserves in the Hills Shire at 300 hectares of Crown Land. This land is managed by a board of trustees including traditional Indigenous owners, Crown Lands Act 1989 (section 114).
    We would like The Hills Shire Council to consider this aspect in relation to proposed developments in this bushland area. In particular, solar access to adjacent properties as piped natural gas is not available in this area and dwellings are entirely reliant on electricity and solar energy. For some existing dwellings, solar panel access is limited due to the existing tree canopies. Solar access can be further impacted by the scale of new developments, when controls are applied at limits without consideration to existing trees and topography of adjacent properties.
    While it will be a shame to see the existing dwelling demolished, we would welcome a future development that relates to the immediate surroundings and adjacent dwellings in the area. A development that maintains the amenity of adjoining neighbours and the environment and respects the site constraints of topography, drainage, landscapes, flora and fauna of our bushland area.

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

    Bruce Barbour commented

    I am writing in relation to my concerns about the above mentioned Development Application. I hope my concerns and those of other residents in our community will be given proper weight and consideration during Council’s approval process.

    I am an owner of a unit in the adjacent apartments, Element, at 106 The Esplanade. My apartment is in the Western Building which sits to the rear of the proposed development.

    I refer to the City Plan ( the Plan ) and its provisions. Importantly, the Plan aims to set out an optimal and desirable balancing of community and residents interests with those of future developments. It is clear from the Plan, that density of residential developments is a significant concern and for this reason, clear limits and standards are set. These limits should be consistently applied in the interests of the community to all new developments to ensure the continuing amenity of residential communities is not lost due to over-scale developments.

    The density and scale of the proposed development is significantly in excess of what is permitted in the Plan. In fact, the proposed density of 1 bedroom per 10.2 sqm is 3 times the density that is permitted by the plan.

    Although the proposed height of the development is closer to Plan guidelines , this does not take away from the problems with the scale and density of the development.

    The development as currently submitted will have a devastating effect on this small area of our community. A virtual wall of buildings will exist along this part of The Esplanade . The Esplanade is an important street within the community and for the Gold Coast. It is the link for many to a beautiful stretch of beach and the street is enhanced by the fact that it has not been permitted to be built out like other areas on the Coast. People live here , invest here and are attracted to this location for the very reason that it is not over-developed. To date, there is in place a pleasant and mixed streetscape and level of density that is largely consistent with the Plan.

    The reasons cited by the developer in the application to support departing from the limits set in the plan and in support of this grossly over-scale development are spurious and bunkum. None are persuasive and they can easily be disputed and argued against. In particular, they include reference to 2 other buildings which Council has approved with similar excessive density issues - Boardwalk and Sandbar. The important and obvious distinction with those buildings is that they are both on the Gold Coast Highway and NOT The Esplanade. As expected , these two buildings now offer convenient precedents for developers and are seemingly now used to justify over-development creep. This must not be allowed to happen along The Esplanade.

    If approved , this building will have a significant detrimental impact on our properties. In my building , important view corridors will be reduced or lost given the scale of the building and how far it is set back on the block. It will create wind tunnels from the beach that will considerably exacerbate already existing problems. Our sense of sky and light will be eroded. We will be subject to significant shadowing of our building and the recreational areas and pool area of Element will be overshadowed to an unsatisfactory degree. These impacts will not only lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity for our property but also inevitably and unfairly to a reduction in our property values. These impacts will also be felt by Southern Cross Apartments and the eastern building in Element as well as other neighbouring properties. The street will be far busier with 33 new 3 bed apartments and associated cars . The number of car spaces in the building is insufficient given that the apartments will likely be marketed at a price point to attract wealthier buyers who will have multiple vehicles. Access and exit to the building with one lane and traffic light will lead to congestion on the street as cars wait to go in and out.

    I appreciate Council has a very challenging and unenviable role when considering development applications. However, the interests of its existing community members must be regarded as paramount to the money-making motivations of developers. There is no community need for this development . There is no social need or higher purpose. Let’s be clear , it is about making money for a developer.

    There is very good reason for the limitations placed in the City Plan. They are designed to ensure the ongoing amenity of residential areas for residents and visitors and to support the well being and good health of the community through permitting only reasonably scaled and appropriate developments. The proposed development is clearly over-scale for the site and the area. It is inconsistent with the Plan. Council should not approve it in its current form and should ensure adherence to the City Plan in this important location.

    To approve the proposed development would, in my view, be an abrogation of Council’s responsibility to the Community and a breach of the community’s trust and faith in Council. It would send a clear message - that developers interests are put first and that the City Plan is an irrelevant document. It will create a terrible precedent for the future of The Esplanade and for the residents of Burleigh Heads and the Gold Coast.

  18. In Broadbeach QLD on “Material change of use Code...” at 122 Surf Parade, Broadbeach QLD 4218:

    Yvonne Holt commented

    To whom it may concern
    RE: MCU/2019/386

    I am the owner and permanent resident of an apartment on Level 2 of the front tower at 120 Surf Parade.

    The proposed development at 122-124 Surf Parade specifies a structure of 31 stories including 196 short term accommodation units, 4 multiple dwellings and a food and drink outlet.

    My concern are:

    1. Density
    The sheer density of the proposed structure far exceeds the density of any comparable building in the area. The site where the development is proposed is a mix of permanent owner occupied residences, long term rental and short term holiday rentals - mostly low and medium rise structures. Further, the structure is proposed on a small parcel of land close to the street frontage.

    2. Loss of Privacy
    As a resident of the front tower, my privacy will be significantly compromised.

    3. Reduced Natural Light
    The sheer size of the development will result in a loss of almost all natural sunlight to my apartment during winter and spring.

    4. Increased traffic
    120 Surf Parade is already impacted by increased traffic particularly during the holiday season. The proposed development of a hotel on this site will significantly increase traffic congestion with the high frequency of customers arriving and departing.

    I respectfully request that this application be rejected in its current form.

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

    Andrew Cox commented

    I am an owner in an adjacent property to this development [Key Largo Apartments]. I have serious concerns with this development for the following reasons.
    1. Insufficient parking for the number of rooms, should be at least 2 per apartment + Visitors. This is a significant failure of planning rules that is causing significant parking issues already
    2. Significant reduction is separation between towers, there is already a funneling effect from the existing building which affect our property, creating a narrower gap and an effective wall will significantly increase the issue.
    3. A height increase above the regulations
    4. Having a large number of occupants and a single direction access will cause disruption to the traffic flow on the esplanade while people wait to get into their carpark.
    5. Noise and the impact on Holiday Rental business operated at our property during the construction

  20. In Mount Colah NSW on “Section 4.55 (1a) -...” at 503 Pacific Highway Mount Colah NSW 2079:

    Angela Ratcliffe commented

    Not sure if anyone is listening to residents of Asquith and Hornsby as we live with increasing traffic congestion, streets full of parked cars, overflowing schools and a train station full of commuters.

    Whilst it appears we cannot stop development can Hornsby Council please look at developing the Asquith Shops. This is a third world shopping precinct that is dirty , unattractive and uninviting and unchanged from the 1950s. If we are focussing on the future please provide the community with a suitable and inviting shopping experience that serves the needs of the community from both a leisure and service prospective.

  21. In Botany NSW on “Modification to increase...” at 1497 Botany Road, Botany NSW 2019:

    Paul commented

    To General Manager of Bayside Council: regarding DA-2001/10382/B:

    Residential properties and light industry can cohabitate without greatly impacting on one another, if a balance is maintained.

    Converting the hours of operation to 5.30am to 6.00pm (12 ½ hours per day) Monday to Friday and 7am to 4.00pm (9 hours) Saturday or 71 ½ hours per week under the current development application “will impact” all residents within the surrounding area by destroying said balance. The number of Bayside residents impacted is not limited to those living opposite or next to said site. Residents will experience increased noise, increased trucking movements through Bayside with deliveries occurring in the early hours of the morning, the loading and unloading of said trucks, garbage collections, the reversing warning beeping of trucks and forklifts and the opening and closing of roller stutters etc. All of these activities should not commence until after 7.00am.

    Due to the close proximity to residential properties, all industrial sites hours of operations should be amended to the earliest starting time as 7.00 am to finish at 4.30pm (9 ½ hours) Monday to Friday and 7.30am to 12.30pm Saturday (4 hours) which converts to a 51 ½ hours per week, thus maintaining a balance for between Bayside residents and light industry.

    Based on the impact the increased hours of operations of Frank’s Fencing will have to local Bayside residents quality of life council should "reject" all aspects of this DA application.

  22. In Old Reynella SA on “Bulky goods development...” at 38-44 Panalatinga Road, Old Reynella SA 5161:

    Patricia Rowe commented

    How can significant trees be removed
    What about green space around this development.

  23. In Palm Cove QLD on “Operational Works...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Di commented

    To all correspondents on the 33 cedar road planning alert page - a standardised submission is now available on the following face book sites - cairns combined beaches association, palm cove/ northern beaches, cairns northern beaches - please feel free to print off a copy - add full name, full address, signature and date and drop it into Clifton post office - we can get them delivered to council

  24. In Redcliffe QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at Uniting Church in Australia 1 Richens Street, Redcliffe QLD 4020:

    John Brydon commented

    To Whom It Concerns
    I would recommend that the MBRC & Redcliffe Uniting Church give serious thought to the implementation of a safety traffic island at the intersection of Richens St & Williams St Redcliffe. Turning movements from driveways and intersections must be considered in this planning as well as pedestrians and the two child care centers at the end of Williams St. In recent years Williams St has become a short cut for the Ashmole Rd & Anzac Av intersection lights when RED. Vehicles cutting the corner of Richens St with speed and dangerous driving. Also vehicles speeding from one end of Williams St to the Houghton Ave intersection or from the Houghton Ave end the other way.
    I would appreciate your consideration with safety in mind for all.

  25. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    K S commented

    The commercial premises should cater to an appropriate business that will remain viable. A childcare centre with a kiosk may be the best alternate use for this space. Food and beverages would still be available and could be consumed in the public park.
    Would a stand alone café be viable/profitable in this space? Have previous tenancies and business owners been profitable? It is nice to have a café but if a café doesn't generate sufficient profit to remain solvent then other business types need to be considered.
    I purchased land and built in North Sapphire Estate. My decision would have been no different if Beachstone was a childcare centre with a kiosk and adjoining public park. I don't feel it would change traffic conditions or parking much at all.

  26. In Palm Cove QLD on “Operational Works...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Tracey Vince commented

    The not of development application signage at the block on Cedar Road is not clear. I've been made aware today the application includes two 7 storey towers as well as the one 8 storey and three large water tanks, which is not clear from the signs erected. It's impossible for people to make accurate objections without knowing all of the facts.

    Approval of this project will set a dangerous precedent for high rise development in the area. Could I invite council members to walk to the end of the Palm Cove jetty and look back at the beach? All you will see are palm trees and no buildings. We'd like to keep it that and not jeopardise the tourism industry in Palm Cove.

    Please reject this proposal and review the previous approvals given for mass density housing. I believe that many years ago this land was offered to council to purchase, and it was rejected as not being in the public interest. I think it's definitely in the public interest and ask that you pursue this avenue.

  27. In on “Use and Development of the...” at 4 Poplar Drive Romsey VIC 3434:

    Geoff Rayner commented

    This development is not in the right location. This is a RESIDENTIAL ESTATE
    and this development even goes against the councils own Geenfield Policy.

    We are currently building a home located within the Autumn Views Estate where the development has been proposed to be located. We chose the location of Autumn Views for it's quiet atmosphere and family orientated feel, located in a small country town. When purchasing the block of land, we had no knowledge of the possibility of a child care center and/or medial center being considered as a possible development within the estate. We were told that the 4 Blocks in question were reserved for Display Homes. Now that we have heard of the proposed development we are regretting our purchase of land at this location and would have chosen another location to invest our money into.

    A facility that includes a 53 space car park and facility that will be in operation from 6:30am to 10pm at night will cause issues to the emotional well being and physical safety of local residents. The increased traffic flow will create unnecessary noise and safety risks to residents. The streets within the Estate were not built to accommodate such an amount of traffic and will also cause added congestion to the already congested Melbourne-Lancfield Road, especially during peek hour times. The increased traffic will destroy the infrastructure put in place resulting in further costs for the council and rate payers of the community. Many future residents of the estate have chosen this location for the quite atmosphere that will allow them to raise children in a safe environment. With the increased traffic flow (some 200 odd movements per hour) from a 53 space car park in this location is an accident waiting to happen.

    The Autumn Views Estate currently consists of less than 100 blocks that are located within a Greenfield zone. The building restrictions for land located in a Greenfield zone involves significant setbacks for each lot. the proposed development would not be abiding by the requirements of the zoning which have been enforces for those currently building within the estate, such as myself. From my understanding the purpose of land being allocated as Greenfield is for it to be a residential area that takes into account the key environmental elements of the town and the traditional characteristics of Romsey. The Greenfield policy intention statement states that it is to
    "Ensure the future subdivision of the greenfield area provides a form of development that reflects valued features of adjoining residential areas and creates a new neighbourhood character which consists of low scale single storey dwellings set within a landscaped setting."
    The proposed development does not align with the planning for the future of Romsey and the Greenfield area as stated within the Macedon Ranges Shire Council own Romsey Residential Character Study Design Guidelines.

    There are many alternative locations within the Romsey community that this development would be more welcomed by residents. The center of town is allocated as a medium density area and would be much more suited to a structure of this proportion. The infrastructure within the medium density area would also better support the increased traffic and general requirements of this facility.

    It is clear from the current conversations occurring amongst residents of the estate and many other residents of Romsey that this development has no support in this location.
    Put a stop to this development or seek an alternative location

  28. In Palm Cove QLD on “#MCU Multiple dwelling and...” at 33-41 Cedar Road Palm Cove QLD 4879:

    Colin Hardiman commented

    Apart from the complete eye sore and the degradation to the standards of all the locals this complex will create, has any consideration been given to all the wildlife that inhabit this area at present, in particular the large colony of flying foxes that are a great attraction to tourism

  29. In Naremburn NSW on “Removal of 1 Jacaranda and...” at 71 Park Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Amanda Smith commented

    I object to removal of the trees. The landscape of our surburb is being destroyed. We're going from leafy environment to concrete jungle. Trees provide shade and shelter.

  30. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Stacy Heywood commented

    I oppose this application. It is too close to homes and where families spend their time outdoors. I don’t want our air to be polluted anymore than it already is!

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