Recent comments

  1. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    S & S Ahern commented

    We object to the proposed increase in height for this site. This overheight proposal was objected to and revised previously, but now this latest proposal seems to be trying to go back to the excessive height. It also seems to be being pushed through far too quickly, with not enough time for resident comment.

    To increase the building height from 28m to 58m is extreme and out of context of the local character of the Hunters Hill Council area. It will also cause massive parking and traffic flow problems in adjoining streets. And where are the infrastructure investments to go alongside the developments?

    This over height development should not go through in its current form, it should be reduced to the previous lower height proposal.

  2. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Sharon Murray commented

    I do not approve of this increase; we do not want our entire suburb to be in the shadow of tall apartment blocks, blocking out the sun! I have lived in the Gladesville area now for over 10 years and do not wish it to become a high-rise neighbourhood. Please do not pass this increase, it would seem to be motivated purely by greed!
    Thank you

  3. In West Ryde NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 9 Farnell St, West Ryde, NSW:

    Maria Meischke commented

    Hi there,

    As a previous owner of this property, I wish it to be known that a large tree along the northern side of the property is a very rare specimen. I don't know the actual name of the tree, but it may be of the redwood or sequoia family. Council's tree people would have to identify it. I feel that this rare specimen should not be removed for this development.

    There is also a very mature macadamia nut tree at the very back of the property bordering which should be considered when planning permission is sought.

    Thank you
    Mary

  4. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Alana Clark commented

    Once again it seems amendments are being made to previously approved developments, with minimal community consultation and consideration. Gladesville residents are not opposed to growth and change in our area, but we do oppose developments that are growing beyond the acceptable scope, especially when it puts unreasonable pressure on our already limited number of schools and the availability to service the growing population in the area with roads, transport and facilities.

    We don’t want to live in the shadows, send our children to out-of-area schools, or schools with no playgrounds, sit in traffic mere metres from our homes because intersections are gridlocked and spend hours commuting to and from the city because of bottlenecks and public transport issues.

    We accept there needs to be progress and change, but please consult with the community about what is fair and reasonable for us already living here.

  5. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Sarita beukes commented

    This is a huge development that will impact negatively on the local amenity of Gladesville. There are currently numerous residential developments along the Victoria road corridor in Gladesville that have much more sensible height restrictions. Without a large scale improvement to local infrastructure, this development application is unfeasible.
    I implore you to reject this development application and instead negotiate for a smaller scale development of the site with more sensible height restrictions that are in keeping with the near by developments occurring.
    Regards

  6. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 6 Amaroo Court, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Rose-Marie Dale-Mehmedoff8 commented

    Just wondering whats been decided re the 16 units. .. it went to council. ..and was rejected ...and then went to v.cat ..
    What has v.cat ...decided ..
    Living next door to it ...and living through the very noisy demolition. ..we would like to know.... what's next? ??
    Thank you ..

  7. In Kellyville NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 133 Samantha Riley Dr, Kellyville, NSW:

    W. commented

    As far as I know it's not an 'adult-only' 'Liquor Store', it's a liquor license for a grocery store. There's no more message being sent here than already exits at every other super market. I bet they'll be selling cigarettes too as they all do, and other adult only things like asparagus and truffle oil. I get everyone's concern but the hyperbole and straw man arguments are misplaced.

  8. In Granville NSW on “Erection of a new roof over...” at Memorial Drive, Granville, Australia:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    This seems to be taking a long time, at least over 12 months.

  9. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Tony Egorov commented

    We just had council elections. And you, the people of Knox have voted back in all the councillors that are in favour of multi story buildings. Starting with real estate agent and ex mayor.... If Friberg ward. Followed by his best mate in Baird ward and their cronies in Dobson, collier and so on. Maybe in 4years you take note to who you vote for. This next 4 Years is going to see Knox be over built with multi story buildings. Sad.

  10. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Peter Shearman commented

    Aaron & Mark, The only way to stop this is for the government to reduce net overseas immigration numbers down to where they were 10 years ago. Currently upwards of 200 new residents are arriving in Melbourne every day. They all need a place to live, jobs, and public transport or car. Knox once awakened to birdsong in the morning now it's chainsaws, wood chippers, demolition machinery and building construction noise. Council are powerless to stop this unsustainable population growth, they can only try to manage it. Talk to your local members of Parliament, they are the only ones who may be able to put pressure on to slow or stop this.

  11. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Leon Concannon commented

    I do not see how this proposed cluster of apartment blocks in Massey/ Flagstaff Sts with heights of up to 58 metres is in anyway in-keeping with the local character of Gladesville area. Out of character especially as ALL the other existing or proposed developments in the Gladesville business district are 5 or 6 storeys maximum! Please understand this Gladesville area was only rezoned as Medium Density by the Premier O'Farrell Government on the premise that the State Government would build a light rail system which would incorporate a Gladesville Station (I still have the colour brochure!). The light rail didn't go ahead unfortunately ...but the Medium Density Rezoning did! . As every survey that has been done to date has indicated that just this one development alone will put a significant strain on Gladesville's inadequate local road system.
    With this in mind I ask that the panel please take into consideration the CUMULATIVE effect the many Gladesville developments (either recently completed ,underway or in the wind!) will have on local infrastructure , the local residents quality of life , local traffic congestion and of course the problems getting these shoppers and residents on and off the congested Victoria Road. There are also major concerns for local residents as all proposals from this development company have insufficient parking for retail staff and for the residents with more than one car.
    If approval of a large development like this is supposed to provide opportunities for the average young local person and young families to buy into the Sydney market.. Then I am sorry but I can confidently predict the average price will be in the $750 000 plus range ! These prices simply do not make it possible for young people to buy into the Sydney market?
    Regards

  12. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Aaron Fitzpatrick commented

    Have to agree with Mark. Takes me ages to get out of my street on to the main road and as it can take that long people are taking risks due to frustration. The number of car accidents at non controlled intersections have been on the increase for years, i guess this goes hand in hand with the increased property numbers due to sub divisions. Appears Knox is just becoming one of those councils that approve sub divisions because it means more rate payers and more money. As i look around the neighbourhood it appears the council must be making money due to reduced costs as things are just not getting done in the community. Simple things like lawn mowing has fallen behind.

  13. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Gabriella Bruno commented

    Once again a development is being "amended" after they received approval for development at a certain height as they knew that if they put forth the proposal for 58m initially, it would have been rejected and there would have been uproar in the community. How can a government who is meant to have the best interests of the local community at heart, consider allowing this to be approved. Let them submit a new application for 58m and see if it goes through. Stop letting developers dictate our area and our way of life. No thought is being put into traffic congestion, infrastructure, schools. For the sake of the area, please consider the people first, before letting the developer in to demolish entire suburbs with no thought to the people already in it

  14. In Charlestown NSW on “Dwelling Alterations &...” at 49 Buwa Street, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Jill martyn wrote to local councillor Barry Johnston

    I have noticed some building/ renovation taking place at this address, as this house is used for a business is the devoplment for residential or business reasons.

    Delivered to local councillor Barry Johnston. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Kellyville NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 133 Samantha Riley Dr, Kellyville, NSW:

    Annali commented

    As someone closely involved with the school, I don't believe it's right to have the selling of alcohol occuring within such a close proximity of where minors are receiving their education. What message is that sending to them and promoting when the goal is to teach them responsible use. You wouldn't set up an adult-only store so close, why would the selling of alcohol, also only for people over 18, be any different?

  16. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Mey Leng commented

    The Knox Council in their wisdom have actually done a great job with rezoning areas and keeping dense developments to the main roads providing opportunities for young families and couples to take advantage of public transport, local shops, and affordable housing. This is a very well thought proposal and it meets Local and State Government Planning Policy Framework regarding growth zone developments. We highly support and encourage such developments specially when such energy efficient architecturally designed townhouses are proposed surrounded by an extensive meaningful landscape design accommodating canopy trees. Furthermore, this site has good access to public transport being located on the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) which is another reason why we are in full support of more townhouses and apartments built along Stud Road. We highly support this development and a big thanks to Knox Council for their support.

  17. In Loganholme QLD on “Multiple Dwelling (8...” at 85 Timor Avenue Loganholme QLD 4129:

    Colin park commented

    Great I am totally in favour with the development of 85 Timor Ave loganholme

  18. In Forestville NSW on “Tree Application” at 11 - 13 Bernie Avenue, Forestville NSW 2087:

    Kathryn Hill commented

    Dear Council,
    Re: Application Number: DA2016/1110
    We learned with dismay of the planned tree felling at 11-13 Bernie Ave, Forestville, a recent unit block built in our cul de sac. We would like the council to be aware in assessing this application that:
    1) This development felled close to 50 mature trees in its construction.
    2) The size, scale and design of this development was acknowledged at the time of planning application as not being in keeping with the neighbourhood character, style or amenity. We were told that the unit block would ”settle” into the neighbourhood over time due to plantings and the remaining trees. The trees on this lot are the only thing that soften this large box style unit block from the street view and that provide privacy to neighbours.
    3) The trees to remain after the build –their size, scale and proximity to the buildings/drains was clear at time of building and to the strata at the time of buying the units. It is not appropriate to wait until after the build to continue to fell trees due to poor planning.
    4) The large gum tree in the front entrance has already been trimmed twice this year. We have already contacted the council with concerns for this tree and it is now being proposed to be trimmed again.

    We ask that the council acknowledge that the amenity of our neighbourhood has been severely comprised by this development and that the trees left on this block are vital to preserve our streetscape and privacy. As such we ask council to reject this application. We ask that the strata at 11-13 Bernie Ave. work with council experts on the best management of trees that have such a large impact on the neighbourhood amenity instead of cutting them down or pruning them to the point of compromising their survival. Council experts should assess the impact of yet another trim on the health of the gum tree.

    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely
    Kathryn Hill

  19. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 682 Kingsway Miranda 2228:

    Mr Lawler commented

    This development does not meet the DCP aims; at a fundamental level, it leaves 2 properties bordered by the laneway isolated. The development will cause loss of privacy, loss of natural light and sun. The DA is also factually incorrect in that it asserts that the adjoining properties are on the market; they are not and the laneway location continues to hamper a holistic precinct development.

  20. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Fletcher Simpkins commented

    I object to the increase in heights as this is a move to increase the density of people in the space, however, there is no planning for supporting infrastructure to deal with the added congestion. There are several medium rise apartment blocks approaching completion within a 2km radius of the proposal but no work has been undertaken for road widening, additional buses or ferries, additional parking. This development will greatly add to the congestion along Victoria and Pittwater roads.

    I also agree with other submissions that the high rise will not provide any benefit to local residences due to overshadowing and is out of character for the area.

  21. In Holmview QLD on “Dual Occupancy (Against...” at 310 Tallagandra Road Holmview QLD 4207:

    Lincoln Booker wrote to local councillor Stacey McIntosh

    Dual occupancy dwellings should not be approved, the blocks in the Vale are too small. There are already too many of these types of dwellings in the Vale now and is turning our suburb potentially into a slum. I totally disagree with this application and this should not be approved and most of the owner occupiers in the Vale would agree.

    S M
    Stacey McIntosh local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Lincoln Booker

    Thank you for contacting the office of Stacey McIntosh, Logan City Councillor for Division 6.

    I confirm your email has been received and will be responded to as soon as possible.

    Warmest regards,

    Stacey

    [2016 Cr Stacey McIntosh Email SignatureNEW]

    *********************************************************************
    This email, including any attachment, is confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be privileged and may be subject to copyright. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the email. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived. Neither the Council nor the sender warrant that this email does not contain any viruses or other unsolicited items.

    This email is an informal Council communication. The Council only accepts responsibility for information sent under official letterhead and duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Chief Executive Officer.

    Privacy Collection Notice
    Logan City Council may collect your personal information e.g. name, residential address, phone number etc, in order to conduct its business and/or meet its statutory obligations. The information may be accessed by and/or transferred to business partners, contractors, employees and/or Councillors of Logan City Council and other government agencies for Council business related activities. Your information will be handled in accordance with the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and may be released to other parties where we are required or authorised by law to do so.

  22. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of two (2)...” at 32 Bardwell Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Cameron Hons commented

    It's just going to be another eyesore, in an area that is completely unfit for these structures.

  23. In Westmead NSW on “Development Application” at 158-164 Hawkesbury Road and 2a Darcy Road Westmead NSW 2145:

    Erica Koch commented

    This development is for a proposed 556 units. On the assumption that there are two adults in each unit, that means over 1,000 more people waiting at Westmead station for the already crowded trains.

    When travelling along the Western line towards Penrith, I have seen many enormous unit developments. How are all these people going to get to work? How am I going to get a seat on the train when all these additional people are fighting for a seat?

    Sydney does not have the infrastructure and particularly the trains to cope with this additional influx of people to our railway stations. The trains stopping at Westmead do not have the capacity for another 1,000 people.

  24. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Nicholas Lea commented

    The increase in the proposed building height from 28m to 58m is well and truly out of keeping with the Cowell St local area. This will cast long and deep shadows over much of the surrounding area. To my mind, this is certainly not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville. We are not Top Ryde!

  25. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Jeff Hayes commented

    To more than double the height of allowable developments clearly goes against the surrounding area and will impact significantly on existing local residents. We are no strangers to developers who live out of the region attempting to place massively out of context buildings in the Gladesville/Hunters Hill area but this is change to the existing environmental plan allows for something that will be too large.

    Slowly but surely we are becoming the new Chatswood - but we don't have a rail line. So where are the infrastructure investments to go alongside the developments?

    Again, I object to this environmental plan amendment to increase allowable heights due to impacts on surrounding residents, car parking and congestion issues that will result from a major development and that overall it is not in line with the surrounding region.

  26. In Marsden QLD on “Commerical - Office” at Marsden Depot 181-191 Chambers Flat Road Marsden QLD 4132:

    Jordan commented

    Hello my name is jordan packer i just wanted to know if i can work with yours i love fixing trucks ride ons and im a hands on person

  27. In Scoresby VIC on “The construction of 3...” at 711 Stud Road, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Mark Barrile commented

    Enough is enough for this estate. We have seen endless sub-division and expansion of property in the Anne Rd area and as yet still have no controlled intersections to get is and out of our suburban streets. Waiting 10 to 15 minutes to get out of our pwn streets is not a quality lifestyle. Add to the issue of traffic, now council is adding height? Why? I think I know the answer, to reduce neighboring values and alow easier pick up by the same developers. This is spreading like a cancer across Knox its time to say enough!

  28. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Kirsten Schumann commented

    Dear Sir,
    To increase the building height from 28m to 58m is extreme and out of context of the area. Clearly this is to encourage skyscraper towers to be built along the Cowell Street area, causing shadow and ghetto like areas with tiny lanes for car access and little to no parking. This is not in keeping with the style of buildings in Hunters Hill and Gladesville.I object to this building height incease proposal and add again that there is very limited car access to this area that is clearly being positioned for massive development.

  29. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 367 Cotham Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Aliya Porter wrote to local councillor Judith Voce

    I am extremely concerned abut the proposed development at 367 Cotham Rd, Kew on the corner of Bradford Ave, opposite the Traffic School. (PP16/00548)

    The building, consisting of 31 units over 4 storeys plus 2 levels of underground parking is too high at 12.64 metres. With its visual bulk it would be an unwanted addition to the streetscape at the highest point in Kew. It would set a precedent for new 4 storey development along Cotham Rd.

    The development should be reduced to 3 storeys and the third storey should be stepped back further so that it appears less bulky. This would also reduce overlooking for the several properties that abutt the development.

    The building design and materials both need to respect the neighbourhood character of 1 and 2 storey period homes. Black fluted concrete is not in keeping with this area.

    Our local amenity is under threat.

    I have found useful information about objecting to this development on a flyer. Email
    Oppose367Cotham@gmail.com for a flyer or further information.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Voce. They are yet to respond.

  30. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot 1 into...” at 6 Mary Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    Another disgrace about to happen with this council that has no idea of planning

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