Recent comments

  1. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Ross commented

    I live on Blaxland road in one of the units next to Forest park and I'd love to see where this affordable housing is!? I'd like to meet any young people that can afford a $600,000+ 2 bedroom unit. I went to the launch of some other units at Macquarie Park the other day and it was ALL investors and starting prices in the $700,000 range. If I wanted to buy anything at the moment I'd be looking into the Blue Mountains or up onto the Central Coast for my partner and I and our two kids.

    I know this thread is just for a tree but the development around Epping is out of control and nothing is being done about the infrastructure around the area. Apart from maybe the train line but I'm unsure that's going to ease any issues once all of these new apartments come online.

  2. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Tim commented

    DO NOT BUILD THIS TEMPLE!!!
    It will change the whole demographic of Windsor
    Strongly object!

  3. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 63A Curzon Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Tony Hill commented

    I wish to lodge my objection to this proposed development. It is in no way in keeping with the character of the area. If the council continues to approve unit developments in heritage/character areas, those areas will be ruined. I implore the council to cease approving unit developments in area where they are not complimentary.

    The council wants more people living in the 'nodes'- close to services, schools, parks and transport and yet they approved Bunnings on a site that should have been developed as inner city apartments and stores that would have invigorated the northern end of Ruthven Street. This would have been ideal directly opposite the proposed Railway development, but no, the council allows for a historically significant building (Rowlands Pub) to be torn down and most of the 'inner city' area to be turned into a car park.

    I to have written to councilors in the past regarding concerns pertaining to the desecration of heritage/character areas/building only for the councilor (Chris Tait) to subjugate his responsibility to an underling to reply. You are the elected councilor Mr. Tait, have the decency to reply in future

  4. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    JL commented

    How many more apartments can you squash in this small area. You already have Arlington Grove on one side; there is a request to have a small apartment block across the road on Constitution Rd right near the Light Rail; on one side of the bridge you have Williams Parade apartments of over 1000 people living there; and on the other side of the the bridge are the Constitution Rd apartments with over 300 people living there. How many more apartments, people, cars can you squash in one area???? Constitution Road is already full of traffic and dangerous. You really need to consider the infrastructure here. The small streets and the Constitution Rd bridge is not made to support all these people and cars. Why is the beautiful community of Dulwich Hill being overtaken by greedy developers??

  5. In Sefton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 35 Waldron Road Sefton NSW 2162 Australia:

    colin M commented

    This is a big jump in density and change to landscape and area usage. 30 units seems like a lot.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Petra Jones commented

    Is this an application for a change in purpose from a café to a restaurant? I'm not quite sure why a café would want to open until 11pm? Would appreciate some clarification.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 369B Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sue never n commented

    Why does a cafe need to be open till 11pm. It would appear that it wishes to become a restaurant and have a licence for alcohol in the near future.

  8. In Cleveland QLD on “Combined MCU & OPW Multiple...” at 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD:

    Robert C Pendrey 17 Ostend Court wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    There is no room for on street parking in Sherrin Court or Ostend Court. There are already 8 or more cars parked at night on the street in Ostend Court adjoining this area because of the 8 Units at 19/20 Ostend Court. This on street parking already partially obstructs the intersection at Fitzroy Street. The units in Ostend Court each have one onsite park which has caused the problem. The site is too far from the railway station gain any parking concessions. The proposed units should each have 2 onsite car parks as the site has very limited road frontage.
    On the application: 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD (MCU013880)
    Combined MCU & OPW Multiple Dwellings x 4

    Delivered to local councillor Peter Mitchell. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Cleveland QLD on “Combined MCU & OPW Multiple...” at 1 Sherrin Court, Cleveland, QLD:

    Robert C Pendrey 17 Ostend Court commented

    There is no room for on street parking in Sherrin Court or Ostend Court. There are already 8 or more cars parked at nigh on the street in Ostend Court adjoining this area because of the 8 Units at 19/20 Ostend Court. This on street parking already partially obstructs the intersection at Fitzroy Street. The units in Ostend Court each have one onsite park which has caused the problem. The site is too far from the railway station gain any parking concessions. The proposed units should each have 2 onsite car parks as the site has very limited road frontage.

  10. In Victoria Point QLD on “Survey Plan -Standard...” at 5 Pelican Street, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Andrew wrote to local councillor Lance Hewlett

    The house was removed weeks ago and one block has a sold sign on it with the other block going to auction. This alert seems to have arrived well after the horse has bolted.

    Photo of Lance Hewlett
    Lance Hewlett local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Andrew

    Hi Andrew,

    I'm uncertain why the planning alert was late however the application you are referring to was a code assessable development which met with the requirements of the current planning scheme.
    Hope that helps. Let me know if I can assist in any other way.

    Kind Regards,

    Cr Lance Hewlett [cid:]
    Councillor, Division 4
    Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island
    Redland City Council |
    Cnr Middle and Bloomfield Streets, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    PO Box 21, Cleveland QLD 4163 |
    Phone: (07) 3829-8603 | Mobile: 0421 880 371 |
    Email: | Web: www.redland.qld.gov.au
    [cid:]https://www.facebook.com/lance.hewlett

    On 21 Nov. 2016, at 5:46 am, Andrew <> wrote:

    The house was removed weeks ago and one block has a sold sign on it with the other block going to auction. This alert seems to have arrived well after the horse has bolted.

    From Andrew to local councillor Lance Hewlett

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

    Andrew 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 Andrew and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 5 Pelican Street, Victoria Point, QLD

    Description: Survey Plan -Standard Format 1 into 2

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/750214?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  11. In Redland Bay QLD on “Building Format Multiple...” at 21-43 Salisbury Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jane Townsend wrote to local councillor Julie Talty

    I too very much hope that the parkland isn't going. With so many smaller housing units, villas etc going in around Salisbury street we need our local parkland for local community members to access. The streets (if you can even call them a proper street in these new developments are so small...certainly not suitable for children to play games etc. C'mon Redland City Council....what are you thinking? And when are you going to do the much needed (and also overdue infrastructure upgrades) such as the roads that lead into Redland Bay???? Would love to hear a reply from our Council representatives...but in the local newsletters I received in the mail, there was very little talk of real action as to what is happening?

    Delivered to local councillor Julie Talty. They are yet to respond.

  12. In Artarmon NSW on “DA for fitout and use for...” at 102 Hampden Road, Artarmon NSW 2064:

    Timothy Neville commented

    There's really no problem with another takeaway shop in the area.

    The council should however consider its impact on the three other sushi retailers in the area.

    Not positive for their sales, as a takeaway sushi shop will significantly undercut and be anti-competitive for the area. There isn't the foot traffic or population in Artarmon to support another food provider, we have already seen the closure of two food suppliers in the area. With Development Applications in Willoughby and Artarmon for medium density apartment blocks e.g. Channel 9 and the Hampden shops, constantly being declined and knocked back by Council there is nothing that would suppose their are more people to be moving to Artarmon in the short-term and the Hampden road closures are going to make business not only difficult for the existing businesses but even more so for a new face.

  13. In Bexley NSW on “356 & 358-368 Forest Road...” at 356 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    V Mac commented

    Residents bought in this area knowing that there were height restrictions. It is unfair for those buyers to have to be overshadowed by this building. And they cannot afford to buy air rights like wealthy developers. Parking is also an issue as this entire corner is no stopping and no parking. Where would the extra cars these tenants will have be parked? Relatives and visitors, too? Too many apartments for such a small block. And on a dangerous corner. There's a bus stop where the driveway is supposed to go. Red-light speed cameras, electricity wires and poles. This development needs to rethought.

  14. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Designated/Integrated...” at 2 B Occupation Road, Kyeemagh NSW 2216:

    Ann commented

    Really!!!!! how much more over-development is going to happen, It's getting ridiculous trying to get to and from work, and even shop at local centres. This is supposed to be crown open land, not selling off to highest bidder. Stop wrecking my home environment. This is downright wrong!!!!

  15. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I'll preface my objection with a request that Council (ie Government appointed Administrator), Land and Environment, and developers read these two articles (and I'm not affiliated with either of the authors or the companies):

    http://www.durackarchitects.com/2016/11/11/the-value-of-housing-density/

    http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-must-learn-planning-lessons-as-knock-down-and-redevelop-no-longer-works-20161119-gsq6fp/

    Going up is not the answer and, as the Domain piece points out, once you build to the boundary line with a succession of these monstrosities, it locks us out of flexible re-use at a later stage. In saying that, we also need to avoid a repetition of the ubiquitous blonde brick villas of the 80s.

    Turning now to the architectural merits of this building, there are none and approval sets the tone for more of the same. Removing common space to make a buck on extra units is either poor arithmetic by the developer from the get go or just a cash grab. The plans appear silent on passive solar or water collection, energy saving strategies or anything more than a token attempt at "landscaping" (ie planter boxes).

    I live down the way in Canterbury where equally appealing eyesores are popping up with abandon. Drive down Charles Street and see how Dulwich Hill can be similarly "beautified". I'm protesting in solidarity because it's a creeping tide of rubbish development that threatens all of Sydney (with the possible exception of Point Piper).

    Unfortunately, as experienced in other suburbs, some developers will just keep bringing it back to Land and Environment until local objections are worn down or worn out - end result often being worse than the original proposal.

    Increasingly, my personal "vision for Sydney" may be the one in the rear vision mirror of my car as I depart for good.

  16. In Epping NSW on “ePathway” at 7 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121:

    Margaret McCartney commented

    I am not anti development as falsely accused. I am, however, against the pointless destruction and removal of trees and I do have a problem with overdevelopment. Please look at the demolition work underway in 4 Forest Grove, Epping and you will see how they are placing rubbish around the base of the trees on the boundary with Forest Park. These trees belong to the Park so they are not in the way of any development. I am against the way I continually see contractor's complete disregard for the trees (not to mention nature strips, local roads and public foot paths) but it is a missinterpretation to say I am against development.

  17. In Epping NSW on “20-28 Cambridge Street,...” at 0 Cambridge Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Christine Beasley commented

    With such a huge building proposed where is the traffic from at lease five hundred car spaces going?
    Traffic will be jam packed at the intersection of Cambridge and Oxfords Sts day in day out as a result of this 23 storey building going ahead.
    Once again here is an example of no traffic planning by the State government.

  18. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Stage 2: Structure and...” at 1 - 15 Chisholm Street, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    William Zappa commented

    This area is turning into a mini city. How much planning assessment has gone into the area? It's all very well allowing development but what consideration is given to the existing residents? Our inner city growth seems to take no account of supportive infrastructure or the 'nature' and 'character' of existing or nearby communities. This area has become a bloodsucker on the road and rail system that service it and a honey pot for a large supermarket and liquor outlet and an ever increasing eyesore on the skyline.

  19. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of seven...” at 481 Albion Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Ben Zagami wrote to local councillor Michael Teti

    Frank i'm interested to know what your definition of "not well served" is in terms of public transport as the site for this development is directly adjacent to a bus stop and under 200m from a tram stop. Did you actually mean to say that you use a car to get around and therefore you assume most other people do as well?

    Delivered to local councillor Michael Teti. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Thornlands QLD on “Standard Format : 1 into 2” at 35-51 Kinross Road, Thornlands, QLD:

    Beverley Read commented

    Good afternoon.

    As this area is going to be developed and sewered is there a possibility that home owners in Milner Place can link up to the sewerage?
    Milner Place is all septic and after 33 years it would be very nice to be linked up to sewerage at last!
    I look forward to hearing back from you.

  21. In Rose Bay NSW on “Demolition of dwelling and...” at 553 Old South Head Road Rose Bay NSW 2029:

    Jonathan Rosenblitt commented

    Your FTP server has a problem and will not display the associated documents.

    Do the plans provide a minimum of 12 off street parking places?

  22. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of seven...” at 481 Albion Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Toby Corkindale commented

    Again with the reduction in car parking! Enough is enough -- the reality is that just about everyone seems to own a car around here, and parking in side streets off Albion is getting ridiculous.

  23. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Dale Thomas commented

    Dear Stuart,
    It appears that we may have been cut from the same cloth, word for word reminds me of what i myself would write.

    In regards to the development, if this goes ahead it will only serve to confirm what we all already know - the Land & Environmental court are inadequate, out of touch and can be bought.
    They have no regard for the community, the preservation of the historical aesthetic or the next generation of young residents.
    This, if approved, only proves that money drives the court decision, not common sense.

    Like mr. Hickson, i too strongly object to this POS.

  24. In Lane Cove NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 258 Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    STEVE WEINGARTH commented

    What do you mean by multi dwelling housing development?Not another block of units I hope. There are too many now.Look at the new ones on the left before Linley Point,south of Cope St.,with another block soon to be built near the traffic lights just south of Cope St.There are too many now meaning MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,MORE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR PARKING AT THE LANE COVE VILLAGE SHOPS-NO MORE DEVELOPMENTS OF UNITS/APARTMENTS PLEASE.LANE COVE HAS ENOUGH!

  25. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Ck commented

    Unfortunately this is starting to become one of the most congested streets in Brunswick .This is not for the benefit of the street but for the developer.Unfortunatly we have a council that is not interested in its residents interests or concerns.This area is ear marked for triple stories I was having that discussion with a vcat judge when I was there to get the best deal for a dense development in the adjacent street.This street has no room and this council needs to informs its residents on the benefits and disadvantages and more than anything the future aspects of these developments that are happening and how they are also going to accomodate for the ones that have not been approved yet.End sight residents need to be informed on how this is going to affect them.Just around the corner there is 55 apartment block that is 300 meters away from that block to be built

  26. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 62 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Stuart Hickson commented

    These people are clearly taking the piss. After having their original huge over-development rejected they now want to have that same ugly monstrosity reinstated via the back door, as so many crass, greedy developers do these days, with help from Mike Baird's government in sacking local councils and a compliant Land and Environment Court and 'sate significant' BS used as a catch all to destroy local amenity.

    This development is already too big and totally gross. It's ugly and out of character with its surrounds. Now they want no internal communal open space - are the kids going to play on the light rail lines or on the road? More height, more bulk, more ugly. This should be roundly rejected. But I just know it won't be as our Baird appointed overlords are working for the rapacious developers, not the rate paying community.

    I strongly object to this POS.

  27. In Blackwall NSW on “The Removal OF Two...” at 502 Orange Grove Road, Blackwall NSW 2256:

    Marie Priest commented

    WHY?

  28. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 24 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Leanne Kratzmann commented

    Cranley St will require one way access only if council continues to approve unit developments that do not have adequate parking for residents or adequate access to garage spaces. Current unit formats are creating slums of the future. It seems ironic that the council bothered to seek feedback from residents about suggested changes to development processes whilst not placing a moratorium on current ineffective practices.

  29. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of nine (9)...” at 14 Irvine Crescent, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Anna commented

    Three stories on this street is clearly out of character with the existing area. Two storied is in line with the existing character. There should not be a reduction in car parking as there is insufficient space to park in the street. Car parking in Brunswick is a significant problem. Reducing car parking would harm the amenity of other residents in the area as well as future residents of the development. The development is also very dense - it would be the most apartments on a block on the street - and may compromise the liveability of the future apartments. The application would be improved by a reduction in the number of apartments.

  30. In Southbank VIC on “Proposed 20 storey...” at 83-89 Coventry Street Southbank VIC 3006:

    Jim Davidson commented

    We live in Dorcas Street and will overlook any development on the proposed site. We are extremely disappointed with the footprints and density of the appartments that have already been approved, and will be built, in Kings Domain, next door. The enclave around the site in question has a low-rise feel and we urge planners to maintain this pocket of low-rise in a surrounding environment of high-rise apartment buildings.

    There is no doubt that wind velocities have increased significantly as a result of high-rise "tunnelling" in the area and we don't want this to be further exacerbated.

    We also see that car parking congestion is increasing. The proposed development will only increase this parking pressure.

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