Recent comments

  1. In Kingsbury VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 943-945 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    George Issa commented

    I am the owner of the building next door (937-941 Plenty Road, a Kingsbury). A feature survey and re-establish survey I have recently completed noted that the building at 943 Plenty Rd, Kingsbury encroaches into our boundary. I would like the side set backs enforced strictly to ensure the new development does not encroach or oversee my property.

    I also have concerns regarding the number of car spots the development is providing to their tenants. I currently have s real issue with the public parking within my car park due to the lack of available car park in the area. I believe this problem will now be perpetuated with lack of necessary car spaced proposed by the new development.

    Thanks in advance.

    George Issa

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

    Rick Putra commented

    How many worshippers are there in Hawkesbury area and how many will come from other areas? How big is this proposed Mosque and how many is it supposed to accommodate. Is it going in as a place of worship or as a Community hall to be used as a place of worship. There are so many applications going in all over Sydney I wonder where all these worshippers are to come from. This information should be made public to ALL residents and to Council so as to be fairly considered. Will Council carry out a social impact study or will it merely tick imaginary DA boxes.

  3. In Kingsbury VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 943-945 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    George Issa commented

    I am the owner of the building next door (937-941 Plenty Road, a Kingsbury). A feature survey and re-establish survey I have recently completed noted that the building at 943 Plenty Rd, Kingsbury encroaches into our boundary. I would like the side set backs enforced strictly to ensure the new development does not encroach or oversee my property.

    Thanks in advance.

    George Issa

  4. In Ashwood VIC on “The construction of three...” at 30 Ashwood Drive Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Gerald Brown commented

    This is a highly inappropriate development for this local environment!

    a) 3 two story units on a standard block is overly dense
    b) It is ugly and out of character for the street
    c) The high density will increase the parking problems on Ashwood drive - where will their children safely park their cars? I think suburban streets like ours should be safe for adults and kids to cycle on - but lots of cars parked on the street (that inevitably will follow more high density development) stops this being viable. - Especially on a street like Ashwood drive with its bends and undulations greatly reducing visibility.
    Inevitably much undercover car storage space become non car storage and perhaps 3 or more cars will need to be parked outside the garages. The shared driveways prevents the use of driveway for parking -so we will likely have 3 or more cars parked on the road -until their kids have cars and perhaps then we will have 9 cars from this site parked along the street!!!
    d) The greatly reduced vegetation is not consistent with the neighbourhood character and aspiration to be greener rather than "concrete (ier)...”.
    e) The low permeability makes flooding of downhill properties more probable (after flooding the underground parking first)
    f) This development seems to have no regard for the requirements of the creek environs planning scheme - I could catalogue those many faults but I shall leave that to others..
    g) The site permeability calculation appears not to include one carport area and would appear to be non-compliant
    h) it’s hard to take seriously - It is so ridiculously unsuitable that surely it must be an ambit claim softening us up to accept 2 units?
    i) why does the vCHMP specify that the vCHMP is only valid for up to 2 units on this site when this is a 3 unit development?

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

    Alyce commented

    Despite the fact this area almost flooded less than 12 months ago, the impact on traffic in the area for not only to local residents of McGraths Hill but also the surrounding areas which use Pitt Town Road and Windsor Road as their main access to their areas.

    This will also affect access to Windsor, Oakville, Pitt Town etc.

    I cannot believe that council have already gone through the preliminary process without flagging the potential impacts it will have.

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

    Penny Hartley-Gretton commented

    There is plenty of open land available for building these large structures that won't impact the surrounding community. Please vote NO to this application.

  7. In Ashwood VIC on “The construction of three...” at 30 Ashwood Drive Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Luke Garrick commented

    RE: Objection to planning application TPA/44171 – Construction of three (3) double storey dwellings with car parking and landscaping at 30 Ashwood Drive, Ashwood.

    We, Vanessa Cowley and Luke Garrick, of 65 Ashwood Drive, Ashwood wish to lodge an objection to the above planning application for the reasons outlined below:

    1. The proposed development of 3 residences on this site is in no way in keeping with the current streetscape of Ashwood drive which consists almost entirely of single dwellings. There is no precedent for the construction of three large double storey dwellings on similar sized lots in the local area and therefore it is detrimental to the existing neighbourhood character. Three dwellings on such a sized block is excessive and unacceptable development for this area. Further, the extent of the building across the site does not provide adequate areas of private open space for recreation purposes, in addition to no allowing planting of canopy trees on site. This does not therefore complement or enhance the Garden City Character of the City of Monash.

    2. Our property is on the opposite side of the street, immediately to the west from the proposed development. The large visual bulk will be clearly visible from the front of our property and poses an unacceptable change to the streetscape, which again is out of character with the rest of the neighbourhood, and we feel represents significant overdevelopment. The large imposing visual mass, which from the plans seems to be set far further forward than other dwellings on the street, has a significant and negative effect on the outlook from our home, and will be an anomaly in the street.

    3. We are very concerned that there will be a significant impact regarding established vegetation removal. The plans indicate that the only tree to be retained is the tree located within the north west corner of the front yard. There are also discrepancies between the plans with the ‘Design Response’ plan showing the retention of two trees located in the north east corner of the rear part of the site while other plans indicate that these trees are to be removed. Given the position of the proposed buildings, it seems impossible that these established trees will be able to be retained. As such, this represents an unacceptable loss of existing and established vegetation – ie 1 of 9 trees to be retained, and is inconsistent with the Garden City character the City of Monash aims to achieve.

    Additionally, the planned driveway extends almost the entire length of the south side boundary and will prevent the planting of any canopy trees to help screen the considerable building bulk when viewed from the south, which detrimentally impacts us directly and considerably.

    4. Finally, referring to your Reformed Residential Zones for Victoria March 2013 update, this block will fall under Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), where it is outlined that the sort of housing that can be expected is:
    “Single dwellings and dual occupancies under some circumstances”

    The proposed development of 3 dwellings is therefore well out of step with the new reforms proposed for residential zones in the City of Monash. Further, this block of land will become designated “Creek Environs” under the proposed “Amendment C125” of the Monash Housing Strategy which aims to further protect and enhance the garden city character of Monash. This development is not in line with such aspiration.

    We attended the council meeting regarding these proposed reforms (June 2015) and we were informed that these proposed planning restrictions would be taken into account for all applications even though the amendment has not yet been passed. We sincerely hope this is the case with this application as we believe it represents a gross overdevelopment in an area that has been flagged by council as needing to be protected from overdevelopment, and in particular, this development does not satisfy the objectives of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme (ResCode) in terms of neighbourhood character and landscaping.

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Judy Gray commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a resident of Whitebridge I am writing to object to DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge.
    I have previously twice submitted my concerns about this development and wish to state that those concerns continue to have not been addressed.
    I understand this land has been zoned ‘medium density’ and as such a certain number of dwellings are required to be built. The current number of residential plus commercial properties is an excessive number for such a small community. The zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer properties.
    Development needs to be “integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development” (Section 5.3.3. Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 strategy). This development proposes wall to wall structures 2 – 3 storeys high, which would completely ‘separate’ the existing surrounding development as this type of structure is non-existent in the local area.
    The local amenities are already strained coping with the current population. Roads are extremely busy and dangerous, the Fernleigh track is often crowded and parking is insufficient. A development of this many units would exasperate these already existing problems.
    The social impact of such high density living in a small area would be disastrous. Residents would have little or no personal space, a lack of amenities and public transport to cope with their needs, extreme heat due to lack of greenery and poor building design, and extremely busy roads.
    These buildings need to be planned to integrate with the existing community, provide personal and communal green space, space in between dwellings for trees and privacy and ideally contribute to the local community, e.g. building of a park, new pathways, extra parking, upgrading of roads, etc.
    Further, I am concerned about the lack of compliance by the developers to the conditions raised by the JRPP on 23rd July. It would be a travesty for this revised plan to be accepted in the face of this non compliance to the conditions.

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

    Jeanine Vaticano commented

    I feel this will have a negative impact on our beautiful community we do not need the extra traffic flow especially in the weekend when we have more traffic flow. We also do not need the controversy that goes along with it.

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

    Ryan Walbank - 15 commented

    With an ever evolving culture and society in Australia, the absence of religious building will only do GOOD in subsiding the issues and conflicts generate through opposing view points. It's detrimental to keep such a small community alive with its character and its lack of religious persuasion.

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

    Sophie Douglas commented

    I don't think this is appropriate to be built in Mcgraths hill! This will cause extensive traffic in an already busy road and busy area!

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

    John Harris commented

    Please do not build this structure.
    It will only have a negative effect on the traffic and the happiness of the local community.

    Mcgraths hill is not the place for this

  13. In Toorak VIC on “Construction of an...” at 663 663A 665 667 669 & 691 Malvern Road, Toorak, VIC:

    March commented

    The Architectural and Heritage Holocaust continues in Melbourne unabated. More appalling 'box' apartments bereft of any aesthetic/artistic value and just a global cookie cutter property developer look. We inherited a once proud city that was built and designed perfectly, yet now we are allowing its inner city to be destroyed with great gusto. The great Australian property ponzi juggernaut rolls on....

  14. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Karina Currington commented

    To whom it may concern, RE : DA 1774/2013

    I would like to resubmit all my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    I would also like to add that the JRPP have asked the developer for specific issues to be addressed and corrected. The most recent plan by SNL has not identified and corrected all the issues. It does not meet the requirements, conditions or specifications as determined by the JRPP. Therefore on this basis alone, the DA should be rejected.

    There have been other issues not taken into account, the environmental impact for one was completely glossed over at the JRPP public meeting held on July 23rd, and quite frankly showed disrespect for the people who are leaders in their field of expertise, to not be acknowledged for the studies pertaining to negative and detrimental impacts on native flora and fauna should this DA be approved in current form. Another issue is the statement "the desired future character of Whitebridge" that has been thrown around quite often by the developers team. This is an affront to current residents. It's akin to saying that what is built here now is sub-standard and not acceptable for the future of Whitebridge. This suburb is filled with many proud residents and I find this statement offensive and unhelpful in finding a compromise between residents and the developer.

    Wade Morris, town planner for SNL stated to the Newcastle Herald on July 2nd 2015, quote "the Whitebridge plan was ‘‘a bit of a test case’’... and Mr Sean Brown, Whitebridge Community Alliance spokesman, said it would ‘‘set a precedent.’’end quote. If this is the case, the Whitebridge community at large were inadequately notified of the ramifications when this parcel of public land was rezoned in 2010 and privately sold, resulting in this benchmark development. The Councillors responsible at the time were either not aware of the implications of the rezone, and given poor advice, or it shows incompetence on their part, hence their failure to support the current proposal. This is grossly unfair for the people of Whitebridge to endure a seemingly endless campaign against this monstrosity, which could have been avoided altogether if the land was correctly zoned in the first instance by the elected members.

    After many failed attempts at granting this DA for approval, I really see no choice here but to go back to Council, rezone the land APPROPRIATELY and ON JUST TERMS with adequate community consultation so the land owners can implement a suitable development that will be acceptable to the current residents and future members of Whitebridge.

    Regards,

    Karina Currington

  15. In Chippendale NSW on “Use of ground floor retail...” at 58-64 Abercrombie Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Bruno Jimenez Alcazar commented

    I object to the approval of Development Application Number: D/2015/1116 for 58-64 Abercrombie Street CHIPPENDALE NSW 2008

    The address of the property is in the border with residential houses and apartments on both Abercrombie Street and O'Connor Street.

    The immediate area is a quiet residential neighborhood, and not an entertainment area.

    I understand that the area in which the proposed development is located is being rejuvenated, and this may include the addition of bars in the area. However there needs to be a consideration for the owners and residents of the area, and review the opening hours for the proposed bar.

    The West side of O'Connor street is a very quiet street. The Terrace lined street has all main bedrooms facing the street on the first floor.

    With the premises closing at 3am, every day of the week, the chance of patrons going to their parked cars, in high spirits is very likely, and it is expected to have a high impact on the currently quiet streets.

    The suggested late hour closing for this premises will impact onto the residents sleep in a very strong way.

    The area is very restricted in parking, thus the surrounding residential neighborhood area will be searched for parking.

    The streets are a Victorian period streets, where they are 2 way streets, and also very narrow, which means that even being 2 way streets, only one car can travel across them at any one time.

    Residents do take care of other parked cars, and respect the traffic in the area. However with the addition to the parking area of people not accustomed to it, it will increase the noise pollution, due to people using their horns when trying to travel in one direction while cars are coming towards them, as well as increase of accidental scratches to the parked cars as the increased traffic is not accustomed to the narrow small and zigzaging streets.

    The area is not an night live area. Adding businesses closing their doors to patrons at 3am will cause the area to loose its residential feel.

    The cleaning after the patrons leave, will also add additional noise to the residential area, taking rubbish out and getting the commercial rubbish trucks collecting the rubbish.

    I hope the City of Sydney considers the above issues, and reviews the closing time of the bar to no later than midnight, and assists the owners and residents of Chippendale to keep the "City of Villages" feel we were offered, and implemented in the area.

    Thank you

    Bruno Jimenez

  16. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Grand Hotel - Change liquor...” at 89 Ebley St, Bondi Junction 2022:

    Gayle Walker commented

    I oppose this application to vary the license conditions. Security patrol measures were put in place to protect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

    As security checks were part of the approval process, any request to delete or modify is an unreasonable one. If this is revoked, then I believe that the subsequent approved development applications should then be revoked or reviewed, as the patrols were part of the approval process.

    These conditions were established as a means to proactively manage the establishment, which has been the cause of many late night disturbances over two decades. Please do not consider the retraction of a security patrol condition of consent.

  17. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    mark commented

    Lets just remember that this development is all about greed, yes the the pure greed of developers, they have no concern for the suburb the environment or its residents, they care only about their pockets. In this real estate market they would have no problem getting $400k to $500k per block for normal residential homes but apparently that's not enough, how much money do these greedy developers need, haven't you got enough money yet Mr Greugen. It would be nice for once that the council and the government bodies do the right thing for the people and not for the greed of developers.

  18. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of use of an...” at 58-66 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Jason Kotchoff commented

    Not a fan of this at all. Can't see why the council would consider establishing a new nightclub area in the city. Especially in this location which is completely surrounded by residential buildings. Given all the violence and arrests that clubs attract in other parts of town, this would make me extremely uneasy about the safety of my family leaving the home after hours.

  19. In Majors Creek NSW on “Dargues Reef Mine -...” at Majors Creek Road, Majors Creek, 13 km south of Braidwood, Southern Tablelands, Majors Creek, NSW:

    Bernie Du-Field commented

    The original development application may have deliberately omitted the use of cyanide on site to increase the likelihood of approval. To modify the application now is a cynical manipulation of the planning process.
    My understanding is that the tailings storage facilities (TSF) of the type proposed 'have a track record of leaks and some catastrophic failures that lead to discharge of large masses of cyanide to the environment'.
    I live in Moruya and my drinking water is drawn from the Deua river which we live adjacent to & our children play in.
    It is simply not worth the risk.

  20. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of use of an...” at 58-66 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Karin Dixon commented

    This is an unacceptable development in a highly residential area, including families with young children. There is already a karaoke bar next door that creates loud noise late at night and early morning as patrons leave premises. Another nightclub will only exacerbate this problem.

  21. In Brunswick East VIC on “Use of land for a licensed...” at 175 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Keith commented

    My only problem with this is the reduction in car parking requirements that all these applications seem to have. Parking is a nightmare for residents lately and is only going to get worse this summer. There needs to be more private parking provided, and/or more residents-only parking before this clause is even allowed to be added to an application.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “Fifth storey addition to...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Andrew commented

    I have to agree with Peter Davies and Johhnys comments,

    The extra floor will be an impairment to the original Dutch Renaissance zwieble tower. This is an important landscape marker for Newtown and is currently able to be seen from a distance especially from the east and south where the impact will be greatest.The skyline of King St will change forever and will impact on the heratige listing of the King St buildings.

    Bad Idea, Newtown is already full and they are putting in more apartments?. What about the respect for a heritage listed building as well?.

  23. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Full demolition and...” at 359 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    I strongly object to any reduction in the parking requirements. I live in the immediate area and parking is already a problem that creates dissent and unpleasantness among neighbours. My friends sometimes even refuse to visit me because parking can be such a problem. They demand I visit them instead, citing parking hassles.

    Furthermore I am sick and tired of the lack of respect for the inner suburbs as already existent communities. All too often these days the inner suburbs are seen merely as the means for property developers to make massive mega-bucks, or as throughways for people living further out. The density of people living in the area has far outstripped resources such as open spaces (these are also regarded as more important for bike commuters than for locals, as Council's recent Rushall Reserve decision shows).

    Moreover the mass of all these new high-rise apartment blocks is altering the whole sense of living in the area - one is being constantly loomed over and the human scale is lacking. It is time the impact of development was looked at over the whole area, rather than on a one-by-one basis for each development. The mass and size of new developments should be scaled down.

  24. In Balmain East NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 134 Darling Street Balmain East NSW 2041:

    Marion Hare commented

    Being a Balmain resident for 27 years, I was absolutely stunned to see a development application to destroy a lovely old home of substance at 134 Darling Street, East Balmain.

    I walk past this property daily and have always admired its grace of design and solid and attractive streetscape.

    To submit an application to demolish same and build a 3 storied "monster" is an absolute scandal. In the first place I think it a disgrace that an owner would submit a proposal for its demise and I strongly object to even thinking about it.

  25. In Canterbury VIC on “Subdivision of land into...” at 7 Byron Street Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Tony Hardy commented

    I'm ok with development in general, as Melbourne grows we need to house more people without sending them to Koo Wee Rup but...

    Houses such as this have great local character and should be protected.

  26. In Northbridge WA on “Temporary change of use to...” at "roe St Carpark" 68A Roe Street Northbridge WA 6003:

    Alan Wolfe commented

    Fantastic to see carparks used for innovative purposes such as this.

  27. In Balmain NSW on “Increase length of approved...” at 6 Colgate Avenue Balmain NSW 2041:

    Marion Hare commented

    A friend in another street, has very kindly forwarded this planning alert to me which she receives. However I live straight opposite this proposed half built "Balcony" and object to any change in its size. This building work has been a complete disaster with it sitting as an eyesore for over 12 months as previous builders were sacked from the job and now the owners apparently wish to increase its size. I have not received any notification from Leichhardt Council of a proposed change in its size and object to same.

    I think if it is eventually built to a proper safe standard, the current size is quite appropriate but design has to be improved.

  28. In Leichhardt NSW on “Remove 1 tree situated on...” at 20 James Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Mike Brooke commented

    Having read this application for removing this red gum we would like to request that all alternatives be explored by Council and the owners before approving this application. This is a particularly beautiful tree that our family has greatly enjoyed looking at for some years in an otherwise very urban skyline of roof profiles. It is well known and admired by many of our friends and neighbours, also residing in Francis St. It harbours a very attractive range of native birds - something we have again enjoyed watching each evening as they all fly around, then congregate in this beautiful tree to roost.

    I sympathise with the problems described but again, request that alternative options be considered before any final removal decision is approved.

  29. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Boundary Realignment 3 Lots” at 48 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    Here we go again. I know that the front house is a modern looking brick veneer. Which, I believe was built after a fire quite some years ago. But, that isn't a good reason to hack up a block to put another house on the back end. I and my family moved here to live in an area of charming older styles dwellings on reasonably sized lots.
    That apparently is not be. The TRC no doubt will approve a change and someone will be living on a postage sized lot with no yard and the neighbours looking over their shoulder. Progress...No.

  30. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Use and development of home...” at 71 Croydon Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    R O'Donnell commented

    I object to the permanent display of commercial signage in a residential zone.

    It detracts from the visual amenity of the neighbourhood enjoyed by residents and sets a troubling precedent.

    The commercial signage was put up prior to this application for a permit.

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