Recent comments

  1. In Semaphore SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 59-63 Semaphore Rd Semaphore SA 5019:

    Chris Boubouras commented

    Dear Councilors, I believe the destruction of this row of buildings without at least retaining the shopfronts will have a negative impact on the general aesthetics of this area of Semaphore. Particularly due to the proximity of these buildings near the iconic Odeon theatre. I hope a sensible comprise will retain the unique shopfronts whilst still meeting the pragmatic economic requirements the owner is seeking.
    Kind Regards

  2. In Wingham NSW on “2 Lot Subdivision” at 24 Moon Street, Wingham NSW 2429:

    David Summerhill commented

    I have some concerns regarding the 2 lot subdivision
    1- previous 123/2015/DA lodged on 26:9:14 called for the demolishment of the existing garage in which has yet to be completed
    2- I feel that it should be noted in council records that any future development on the subdivided lot be kept to a minimum as the proposed bridge style driveway in my opinion should be a community road if a large scale development is in future plannig , allowing for parking , stormwater , fire service , garbage collection etc.
    3-The contour plan submitted does not show excavated material placed on the block thus directing more stormwater run off through my block .
    I would appreciate some feedback
    Yours sincerely
    David Summerhill 28-10-15

  3. In Redland Bay QLD on “Reconfiguration of Lot 1...” at 81 Main Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Jane Townsend commented

    I am in agreeance with Lucy, we need to maintain the area where we are, and leave it alone. So many new and older areas are getting divided into smaller blocks...let's keep what we have, what makes it special, not just for now but for the future.

  4. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Margaret Goldie commented

    I agree with all the comments that have been made regarding the development application for Merrivale Lane.
    I live at 92 Merrivale Lane , to reverse out of our drive it can be very difficult if there is a car parked opposite, there is also the safety risk as you cannot see oncoming traffic until you have reached the road.
    Merrivale Lane does not have footpaths and there would be a safety issue for children walking along this Lane.
    Parking would be impossible even if there were underground parking, this would not be sufficient for this development when you take into account staff, parents etc.
    Service to the Lane would find it impossible if cars were parked on both sides of the street.
    Emergency vechiles would not be able to pass if there were cars parked on both sides of the street.
    If this development is put forward mainly to obtain the clearance for underground parking this could open many further issues.
    This Lane is not designed for heavy traffic, it is a Lane

  5. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 6 existing...” at 16 Pinnacle St Miranda 2228:

    Megan Lloyd commented

    I object this application. Miranda is full of unit blocks as it is. The parking around Miranda is impossible especially with the new parking at Westfields. No more unit blocks at Miranda.

  6. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Fay Smith commented

    I object due to the impact that extra traffic will generate on Tempe's narrow streets and its residents.

  7. In Kellyville NSW on “Three Lot subdivision,...” at Development Lot, York Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Carl Shin commented

    Dear Council planner,

    This new development may create a severe traffic issue with additional traffic added by new residents of the two four storey flats under construction and multiple town-houses to be built along Lavender ave. As parent of young children, I am very concerned about safety of young students who will be using York road and President road as York road is extended to Kellyville shopping plaza. I hope your assessment process takes these into account.


  8. In Newport NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 46 & 46A Prince Alfred Parade, Newport NSW 2106:

    Alan George Yuille commented

    I am very concerned about the application to expand the RMYC marina with a net increase of 39 berths. I believe this development will increase the congestion of the southern part of the Pittwater waterway, it will affect the water access to the properties fronting Horseshoe Cove. It will also affect the visual amenity of residents overlooking Horseshoe Cove and is likely to generate an increased level of noise affecting these residents.

    I lived for 20 years at Prince Alfred Pde. overlooking Horseshoe Cove. Then it was very peaceful but the intensification of the marinas has reduced this peace.

  9. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Scott liddicoat commented

    This development in its current guise regarding traffic is a absolute joke.
    Whoever thought that directing all traffic including large semi trailers into a narrow residential street then directing all the vehicle traffic back out the same way directly into a narrow residential streets ie Smith and then Union st would be sensible option is beyond me.
    I live in union st and we currently get large trucks entering our street even though it's a 3 tonne limit as it's easier than driving down to the highway to link up to various other routes.
    The traffic flow charts provided in the application are comical as are the hours of operations that have been applied for .
    There are currently three Bunnings stores in close radius . Ie Rockdale Alexandria and mascot with another huge one being built in east gardens .
    Why is one needed and built that has to be serviced by flooding residential streets with traffic all day and weekends with traffic numbers that the very narrow residential streets just can't cope with.
    I disagree with the development as it totally disregards any residents living within the vicinity .

  10. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Ian Hudson commented

    I am extremely concerned about the implications on traffic in the local area - the Princes Hwy is already at its peak. When IKEA was in the planning stages there were traffic surveys and studies done - why is none of this being done?
    How will the flow on traffic effect Union Street? Will all the traffic from Smith Street be using Union Street as a rat run to other suburbs? Interesting how Marrickville Council has been so quiet? Perhaps Westfarmers have made a significant contribution to the Council?

  11. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of a three (3)...” at 1 Oak Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Alison De Souza commented

    Could you please explain what a "Waiver of visitor permits" means?
    Have actual plans been submitted to the council for this project? We would like to see the plans so we can further comment on the impact on neighbouring homes.

    The current parking situation in Myrtle St is very difficult. There is not enough street parking for residents with permits. We often have to park in Oak or Elm St. The original homes in this area were often built without off street parking.

    Any multi-unit development should have adequate parking and storage for tenants. This proposed development of 8 apartments should have a minimum of 20 parking spaces plus storage to accommodate the tenants (two per apartment and also some visitor places).

    I would recommend that this development not be issued with any type of resident parking permit, either visitor or specified vehicle permits. This will at least allow the existing Boroondara rate payers without any other options to continue to park in the street.

    Please be aware that 1 Oak St is a family location with many children walking, scootering and riding in the streets. Please take into consideration the impact of increased traffic flow and additional cars parked on the street from the families currently residing here.

  12. In Redland Bay QLD on “Reconfiguration of Lot 1...” at 81 Main Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lucy Atkins commented

    I don't think that 5 lots are suitable in this part of Main street, the other lots around are all large lots and it will impact negatively on the street and the creek behind, which is one of the few areas left for wildlife.

  13. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Lindsay & Frances Forrest commented

    Objection to the DA0413/15 - 150 children Child Care Centre on Merrivale Lane.

    We raise a number of concerns to our councillors in objection to this application.

    1. Merrivale Lane is a fairly narrow "street" (called a Lane for a reason). Having a facility for 150 children is massive and will result in circa 150 parent vehicles plus staff vehicles driving along this lane twice daily with early morning & mid-late afternoon concentrations. This "street" is far too narrow to cope with this added traffic & parking and will result in very serious safety risk to children, their parents/carers, and the residents of Merrivale lane & close by streets who use Merrivale Lane. It also has no pedestrian pathway on either side of the road because of the narrowness of the space. Consequently there are issues regarding parking on the street for, trades & delivery vehicle to ingress & egress &, in particular, access for utilities such as refuse, recycling, street sweeping, communication, power & water services.

    2. We note there will be off street parking provided on the site, however this is far insufficient for the staff numbers plus the number of parent drop-offs/pick-ups. People are lazy by nature so many will park on the street for their drop-offs/pick-ups. The narrowness of the "street" means vehicles parking even temporarily on both sides leaves almost no room for other vehicles using the street, and children will exit their parents vehicles and cross the street coming out from between cars with virtually no visibility. Add to this - there are 3 boats parked in the "street", many residents use gardening firms for their gardening so regularly there are these vehicles also parked often early. And some resident vehicles are parked during the day but particularly overnight meaning also early morning & late afternoon when the "street" would be in high use by parents/carers & staff of this business.

    3. So - "Safety" is one of our key concerns - clearly as mentioned above primarily for children who's parents choose to park on the street. But there is also the entry & exit from the proposed underground carpark for those who use the drop-off parks - having to re-enter the "street" almost impossibly if vehicles are parked on the street risking accident & injury in the process of just trying to exit (then a couple of times they have this difficulty will drive them to park on the street as "easier" exacerbating the risk to children crossing coming out from between vehicles).

    4. Merrivale Lane & surrounding/nearby streets is purely residential and really should stay that way. The infrastructure is not there for a facility on this massive scale. The quiet enjoyment of residents who have invested high $ to live in this amazing, relatively quiet area, may result in loss of this quiet enjoyment and risk loss of value if the street becomes less attractive for future residents.

    Overall we suggest that this is an inappropriate position for a child care centre in any event & we sincerely hope that our councillors take this into account. It is well known that, once the child care centre is developed, the operators will be able to apply for more spaces, increasing the capacity to more than the proposed 150. This would magnify the issue manifold.

    Please do not approve this DA under any circumstances, even with reduced numbers of spaces. The risks noted by us & the many other objections are so significant that any form of common sense by Council should prevail.

    Lindsay & Frances Forrest

  14. In Empire Bay NSW on “Additional Sites &...” at 7 Pomona Road, Empire Bay NSW 2257:

    M & J S commented

    Apologies that we missed the cut-off date but we were unaware of this proposed development and would like the following to be considered:
    1. The application does not comply with 7 [c2] zoning as it would no longer be a buffer between residential and protected bushland.
    2. The proposal is a commercial venture in the guise of affordable housing and does not fit with the residential guidelines for Pomona Road.
    3. There is insufficient infrastructure for this supposed affordable housing.
    4. There are already traffic concerns due to the narrow road which would be exacerbated if there were bush fires or floods requiring speedy evacuation.
    5. The current use of 7 Pomona Road is a storage yard for caravans, boats and a variety of shipping containers. It is an eyesore and completely at odds with a residential area.
    6. The current Bayside Caravan Park business operates from a different street address as a Caravan Park and should not be allowed to extend into Pomona Road as a Mobile Home Village.
    7. The proposal notes that cabins will be constructed 3m off the boundary which would cause noise issue for the direct neighbouring properties. Apart from the fact that 3m would not be permissible in normal building applications.
    For these reasons we would respectfully ask council to dismiss the proposed development application.

  15. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 14 Garfield Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Karen de Groot commented

    I strongly object to a two storey dwelling being constructed at 14 Garfield St in addition to the current dwelling that already exists. I feel that the parking issues in the area are already a problem and another dwelling will only exacerbate the difficulties of residents parking in the area. The overshadowing and loss of vista and amenities will impact on our lifestyle. We will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy of our own back garden and the increased density will create a higher population in the area thus creating greater noise levels and reducing the enjoyment in/of the existing area and amenities.

  16. In Chippendale NSW on “Temporary use of tenancies...” at 2-12 Kensington Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Mrs Kerry Coelho commented

    Why do the people of Chippendale have to put up with pop up bars????

    The trouble starts after the venue closes.

    This brings in people who don't have any consideration for the residents or the area.
    They stay in the street drinking. making lots of noise, swearing, they destroy anything in there way...
    Saturday 24th Oct @12:20 am after leaving the Abercrombie hotel 12 people pulled the fence of the apartment wall put it in the middle of the street stopped traffic 3 times pulled down there pants showed there bums, then laying on the road nearly getting hit by the cars, trying to pass by the fence on the road.
    Redfern Police was called..

  17. In Terrigal NSW on “Steel Framed Garage/Shed” at 145 Serpentine Road, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Tony Johnston commented

    What size will the steel framed garage/shed be?

  18. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Robert Nelson commented

    I live in Brisbane Avenue and have a child who attends LEPS.

    During the week, at the start and end of the school day the amount of traffic - pedestrian and motor vehicle - is massive in the area where the proposed 36 place Child Care Centre would be located.

    I believe this centre would be a serious disruption for the local residents who live in the immediate vicinity. I can't think of a worse location for a child care centre. I know it is near the local primary school...... but that is the problem.

    The congestion would strangle that part of East Lindfield.There is within a 100 or so metres a Dr's Surgery, shops, bus stop, local primary school.......I honestly can't think of a worse spot. If we need more Child Care spots - think about another part of East Lindfield.

  19. In Forresters Beach NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling” at 8 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach NSW 2260:

    Sandra Reis commented

    As owners of Lot 4, 10 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach, we strongly object to the planting of an 8 metre tree with a 5 metre spread on our shared boundary with Lot 3. We refer you to 'Landscape Plan DA48636 L3 DP1202617 H8 Sandcastle Cl Forresters Beach Part 1", which indicates that along the Lot 3/Lot 4 boundary fence line that an 8 metre tree (Coastal Banksia) with a 5 metre spread is included in the Planting Schedule.

    We object to the planting of this tree for the following reasons:

    1) This tree's spread will be significant and will encroach onto our property as per Lot 3's initial plan, and would encroach further as the tree ages.

    2) The root system of this large tree may impede the drainage capabilities of the Atlantis cells which would effect the clearance of storm water. We are also concerned that the root system may weaken our retaining wall and our proposed house structure (reference DA48444).

    3) We are concerned about the sheer height of this tree and its tendency to drop flammable leaf litter into our proposed roof gutters (reference DA48444). We object to the increased fire risk in a BAL29 rated area.

    4) This large tree will significantly shadow our property, most notably our solar panels. While this tree, as planted, will be 8 metres in height now, it is noted that this species of tree have the potential to grow up to 15 metres in height.

    As owners of Lot 4, whilst we have no wish to negatively impact our Lot 3 neighbours planting requests, we feel that this particular tree planting signifcantly and negatively impacts upon Lot 4 and approval should not be granted.

  20. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Susie Bardwell commented

    I do not support this development as Merrivale Lane is not a suitable road on which to build the proposed childcare centre. Access would be extremely difficult on this narrow laneway esp in the morning and afternoons.

  21. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Neville and Diane Turner commented

    Need for a Child Care Centre in this location.

    There are alleged to be 12 or more Child Care Centres within about 2 kms of Merrivale Lane. The total capacity of these Centres is unknown, but it seems likely that it is more than adequate for the very young children of THIS neighbourhood. That being so, the capture area of the proposed Centre is likely to be more distant. Logically it should be built where the demand is, not on a lane which has a significant driving hazard at its junction with Pentecost Avenue.

    Future of the Proposed Child Care Centre

    The proposed building, together with its 38 car parking spaces, is of a significant capacity and particular design. This is not a local neighbourhood venture using basic facilities and largely volunteer staff. It is a large commercial business with no altruistic motives and it is debatable whether it could prove to be a commercial success. Whilst that is entirely a problem for the developer we are concerned at what might follow on in that location if the project fails. Once built it is unlikely that any owner of the property will wish to demolish it and reinstate ordinary housing.

    Dropping off and collecting children.

    The dropping off process will involve a considerable number of vehicles parking in Merrivale Lane for far more than the few seconds it usually takes to drop off Primary School students who can quickly disembark from a vehicle and walk into school on their own. In most cases the parent will have to park, take the child into the Centre and discuss any dietary or health issues with a staff member before returning to drive away. Collection will involve a similar lengthy process.

    Driving routes to and from the Centre

    The Traffic and Parking Assessment by VARGA does not go far enough in its research and concentrates only on Merrivale Lane, the east end of Buckra Street and Pentecost Avenue.

    In the morning peak period traveling from the east it is difficult to turn from Pentecost Avenue into Merrivale Lane due to the west/east traffic flow and the partially blind corner. The safer route is from Pentecost Avenue into Charlton Avenue, thence Buckra Street and Merrivale Lane and reverse. The evening peak period is less difficult.

    In both the morning and evening peak periods there is a "rat run" from Bobbin Head Road via Bannockburn, Murdoch and Adams Avenue and reverse. The local bus service also uses this route at a frequency of about 20 minutes. This traffic will conflict with any large volume of traffic turning right from Charlton Avenue to the eastern end of Buckra Street. Perhaps the local police force could examine the issue and offer advice?

    We live on the Charlton Avenue/ Buckra Street junction so have a personal interest in this route and the increase in traffic generated by the proposed Centre.

  22. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 7-8...” at 230 Toorak Road, South Yarra, VIC:

    Harry Williscroft commented

    As the Owners of no 13 38 Chambers St South Yarra, Being on the top level, we wish to submit our opposition to the proposed development proposal adjacent to our property.
    The only natural light in two Bedrooms is via the Light Well at the rear of our Property. With the proposed adjacent building Height we will virtually loose this essential light source. In addition the two Bathrooms have only Skylights to provide natural lighting once again these will be in virtual perpetual shade.
    Others have detailed objections regarding the traffic, road width and parking, we support these objections also.
    Harry Williscroft

  23. In Castlecrag NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 13 Cheyne Walk, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Farrah chew commented

    Dear officer , could you please send me the DA drawing?

  24. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Judith Fry commented

    DA 0413/15.
    I have been a resident of Merrivale Lane for 30 years and am alarmed at the possibility of serious consequences relating to safety issues should this application for a Commercial, 150 place Child Care Centre proceed.
    A serious accident occurred some time ago at the intersection of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Ave whereby a car collided with a pedestrian resulting in permanent brain damage to the pedestrian. Local residents are aware of the restricted sight line for vehicles entering Merrivale Lane in an easterly direction from Pentecost Ave and the need for extreme caution. Customers of the 150 place Child Care Centre, should Council approve the application, may not be aware of this danger and I am alarmed at the prospect of injury or death to children or parents as a consequence of this.
    A recent house fire in Merrivale Lane required seven fire trucks to control the blaze. The current level of resident street parking allowed the trucks access and the blaze was brought under control and no one was injured. In many such fires in a residential street, adjoining houses often need to be evacuated. In a Commercial Child Care Centre of 150 children, evacuating 40 children under 2 years, and 110 children 2 to 6 years would require extremely large numbers of parents/staff and vehicles. Combine these numbers with the need for access for a number of Emergency Vehicles and it is clear that there is the potential for disaster.
    The Bush Fire Map indicates that on the eastern side of Merrivale Lane, both ends of Merrivale Lane are designated as being in a Red Zone. This indicated that the authorities are aware of the potential for a bush fire in the native bushland at the rear of Merrivale Lane. In the event of such a fire and as already noted above, there may be the need to evacuate 150 under 6 year olds, as well as the residents of the Lane, some of whom are elderly, resulting in extraordinary congestion in the Lane.
    We urge the Council, as the approving authority, to consider that the safety of the children may not be assured.
    Given the safety issues outlined above, a large, Commercial Child Care Centre catering for 150 children is not appropriate. We trust that the staff and Councillors of Ku-ring-gai Council, after due consideration, will agree that because of the potential danger to children, parents, staff and residents, this Development Application should not proceed.
    Sincerely, Judith Fry

  25. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    Jo Lucas commented

    I agree with John Rivis. Plus; overall there is too much development going on with generic ''cookie cutter'' beige rendered townhouses. These are not obviously not architecturally designed. They are bland and boring. Overall these ''fast buck'' developments will bring down the suburb of Mount Waverley and also of Glen Waverley. This will be both in terms of price and desirability as there is no scarcity in these types of dwellings and if council keeps allowing them the suburb will take on the appearance of a housing development project. Meanwhile council is trying to impose a green overlay. I think that what council should be concerned with is the quality and uniqueness of the dwellings and the number of dwellings per block. That will take care of the green aspect of the suburb.

  26. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Lloyd Turner commented

    This development looks absolutely awful.

    I was just getting serious about purchasing 22 Robinia, but with this possibility just over the back fence, there is no way i would consider going ahead. I have no problem with a back fence neighbour, but this proposal is for a back fence ghetto.

  27. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Angie Burns commented

    Dear Ku-ring-gai Council,

    I strongly object to the proposed development of a 150 place Child Care Centre (DA0413/15) in Merrivale Lane for all the reasons my neighbours have outlined in the previous letters. We have lived in Charlton Avenue for the past 7 years and the repercussions for our street if the proposal goes ahead will completely change the nature and character of our neighbourhood!
    Building another Child Care facility in our area, especially one so huge, is totally unnecessary. The typical operating hours for centre-based “long day care” child centres are from 7am to 6pm on weekdays, even longer for some centres, and on weekends too, 48 weeks a year!
    The car parking solutions for the proposed development are clearly inadequate to accommodate the comings and goings of the parents and carers of 150 children, plus upwards of 30 to 40 staff and support staff, and will severely compromise amenities and the original density advantages of living in an R2 designated Low Density Residential area!
    We deliberately chose to live in a Low Density Residential area for good reason, because we wanted our 4 children to grow up in a safe and quiet environment.
    The inevitable massive increase in the volume of traffic travelling at speed down our street, particularly at peak pick up and drop off times, is of huge concern for me on a personal level, as our youngest son has autism. Our property is open to the road at the front, in keeping with the character of the street, and I am really afraid for the safety of my son with the increased number of cars rushing past our driveway to pick up their children. One of his greatest pleasures is to walk his dogs to the local park after school every day with me, and because there are no footpaths we have to walk on the road! We also have a steep driveway and a blind spot to the south of Charlton Avenue, which could be potentially dangerous for us reversing out of our driveway if cars come round the corner too quickly.
    Please do not allow this development to go ahead and change our wonderful neighbourhood! It is completely the wrong location for a child care centre!

  28. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 2 Shearing St Oaklands Park:

    rosemary ranford commented

    Just wonder whether the grass will be cut for summer. Wall of garage is part of my fence what will happen to my fence. I have a secure backyard and dont want this changed. Thank you.

  29. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    John Rivis commented

    The application for four (4) double storey dwellings is an over development of the site.
    The size of each dwelling would be very small: the rooms would be like dog boxes.

    To be consistent with the area,two (2) double storey 3 bedroom dwellings would be more appropriate. eg 10 & 13 Hunter Street. These properties are in close proximity to 2 Shirley Avenue and are of a high standard of construction and appearance.

    Three (3) double storey dwellings would be more appropriate than four (4) dwellings as they will have larger rooms. eg .Refer to 18 Hunter Street and 17 Edith Street as typical examples. Each dwelling is very small and to have four (4) dwellings without gardens on 2 Shirley Avenue the rooms would be even smaller.

  30. In Burnley VIC on “Construction of 2 new dwellngs” at 30 Manton St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dolores leropoulis commented

    Will this house be completely demolished as part of the planning application ?

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