Recent comments

  1. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Ann-Ann-Marie Donnelly commented

    I'm disappointed to read this construction is still on council''s list of possible approval. There is NO requirement for another child care facility in this close proximity to ALL the other centres struggling to get sufficient patronage. The safety standards of this particular site are practically non existent with NO requirement for a evacuation site near- bye. It sadens me to know council do not have the interest of home buyers at heart- just big business with big dollars. The Shire use to have an unique appeal however we are now looking more & more like Hurstville & Wollie Creek. Please get those over greedy people out of Sutherland Shire Council ( transfer em to Hurstville) & bring in an enlightened clear minded coucil that can balance effectively the way forward with development we need and a vision to keep suburban streets safe for young & old.

  2. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Megan Lloyd commented

    This development is too big and in a location that does not support the size. The streets surrounding this are already narrow and most times of the day from Kiora Road down Animbo and View Street are one way. The roundabout at Animbo,View and Wandella is often at a stand still. It is an extremely dangerous intersection already. Traffic at peak times already banks from President Avenue down Wandella Road an up to Westfields. . How on earth a 141 place child care centre was even considered for this location is unbelievable.

  3. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Nick Patakos commented

    A lot of us neighbours are against this development as it's not suited and will ruin our streets by its monstrosity of size. It is out of character in a small and narrow street that we live in here and would not be able to be so called blend in at all. It will also increase traffic and also affect us in parking as we already suffering from westfields. There are also a number of child care centres within a kilometre of here that also are not full so we don't see how a centre that would hold 141 kids is needed in a small street. Also, this design does not cater for children to be evacuated to a safe place if there is a fire or some other drastic scenario were to happen. There is no close area where 141 kids can be placed in a safe place with staff if anything happens. Think about lives before profit council and owners.

  4. In Kensington VIC on “Proposed increase of...” at 38-44 Barrett Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    Peter Binks wrote to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle

    if extra toilet/s, fully support proposal

    Delivered to local councillor Hon Robert Doyle. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Miranda NSW on “Demolition of 3 dwellings...” at 1 View St Miranda 2228:

    Nick Patakos commented

    A lot of us neighbours are against this development as it's not suited and will ruin our streets by its monstrosity of size. It is out of character in a small and narrow street that we live in here and would not be able to be so called blend in at all. It will also increase traffic and also affect us in parking as we already suffering from westfields. There are also a number of child care centres within a kilometre of here that also are not full so we don't see how a centre that would hold 141 kids is needed in a small street. Also, this design does not cater for children to be evacuated to a safe place if there is a fire or some other drastic scenario were to happen. There is no close area where 141 kids can be placed in a safe place with staff if anything happens. Think about lives before profit council and owners.

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

    Cherie Watson commented

    A recent release stated that this area would not be zoned for unit blocks. I wholeheartedly agree with this as unit blocks in this area will detract from the beautiful character homes that East Toowoomba is well known for. Toowoomba has approved far too many units in recent years and there are multiple units sitting vacant. I don't think it is wise for more units to be built, particularly not in this area as they will be out of place.

  7. In South Guildford WA on “Sale Office (Use not listed)” at Rosehill Country Club 122 West Parade South Guildford WA 6055:

    Poul Kirkebjerg wrote to local councillor Daniel Sebastian Parasiliti

    I firmly believe that number 122 at West Parade in South Guildford, is a Historic Building which deserve to be preserved. I believe that it was originally a Staging Inn. Pleasew make contact with me to discuss.

    Delivered to local councillor Daniel Sebastian Parasiliti. They are yet to respond.

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

    Patrick O'Connor wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    I agree with the previous comments posted to date. This is another example of short term profit wrecking long term heritage values.

    Having removed the significant stand of pines, a landmark on the ridge line, that were along the boundary of this property, this site and the streetscape will be ruined by high density housing. Apart from expected issues with traffic it is highly likely the architecture of what is built will be unsympathetic to the streetscape. High density housing will reduce space for gardens and street plantings thereby adversely affecting local microclimates.

    A fast track application and it's attendant lack of publicity after the block has been vacant for so long seems odd.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Antonio. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Ashwood VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 87 Ashwood Drive Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Tash Hughes wrote to local councillor Jieh-Yung Lo

    Ashwood Drive is a beautiful street full of established properties with single dwellings - the neighbourhood character is about families and a green environment. Adding multi-storey, multiple dwellings on a single property is totally against the character of the street and suburb. It will also add excessive pressure to the streetscape (ie dangerously narrowing the street for driving and making parking more difficult for existing residents), the storm water system, the sewers and other infrastructure in the area.

    Delivered to local councillor Jieh-Yung Lo. They are yet to respond.

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

    Gai Rollings commented

    Attempting to build 3 units on this piece of land will be unsightly and will have a negative impact on the heritage streetscape. As there will not be enough space for adequate garaging of cars on such a small allotment, cars will be parked on the street. Parking cars on that stretch of Curzon Street will be highly dangerous given the school morning and afternoon traffic along Curzon and Mayes Streets

  11. In Burwood VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 12 Morton Road Burwood VIC 3125:

    T Hughes wrote to local councillor Brian Little

    Morton ST is in an area of single dwelling properties and adding two double story dwellings on the property changes the neighbour character. It will also add pressure to the area for parking, street access, old water and sewerage systems and a reduction in vegetation, green space and porous land, all of which is unnecessary in an older established area like Burwood especially in places away from public transport.

    Delivered to local councillor Brian Little. They are yet to respond.

  12. In Homebush NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 28 Burlington Road, Homebush, NSW, Australia:

    Manjusha Jose commented

    Kindly stop the development at 28 Burlington road. Deeply concerned about the primary school opposite, increased traffic conditions, noise and sound pollution. Also the increase in potential criminal and antisocial behaviour.
    Thank you.

  13. In Ashburton VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 10 Markham Avenue Ashburton VIC 3147:

    A. Walker wrote to local councillor Kevin Chow

    We have received reliable information that plans have been drafted to redevelop the Markham Avenue site which was home to 54 public housing units. The planned development will consist of a cluster of buildings ranging in height from two storey townhouses, three storey, four storey, five storey and six storey apartment buildings to accommodate a total of 252 units of which 62 will be public housing units. The remaining 190 units will be sold-off to private buyers.

    It is my understanding that this application will not be subject to council approval and the application documents will be signed off by the minister for planning after the process of community consultation has been completed. There will be no opportunity to appeal the development through VCAT.

    Many people in the community, particularly those living close to Markham Avenue are very concerned that a high-density, overdevelopment of this size and scale bordering a fragile but significant biodiversity corridor and public space will have a significant impact on the privacy of those living in the surrounding area. Markham Avenue is a narrow street and there are concerns about the volume of traffic. It is of further concern that the development may not have sufficient allocated parking spaces to meet demand as only 31 out of the 62 public housing units will have a carpark on title. This could create a problem with spillover parking onto the neighbouring streets. There are also concerns that cars belonging to people living in the complex who are unable to access a carpark on site will occupy parking spaces set aside for visitors to the playground in Victory Boulevard and the sporting ground that is adjacent to the development.

    Many people in the community are disappointed that they were not consulted about this project during the concept stage before the plans were drawn up as the land could have been utilised for other purposes such as a new primary school to meet the needs of a growing population of primary school age children or even an aged-care facility. '

    I also need to mention that Kevin Chow, Councillor for Solway Ward has stepped down and has been replaced by Garry Thompson.

    Delivered to local councillor Kevin Chow. They are yet to respond.

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

    Diana Bryant wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    I wish to object to this proposal and also agree with the comments of David,Dell,Amanda and Andrew. I have been assisted on a number of occasions by the Council Heritage Adviser re a carport and other renovating issues . Her advice was most helpful and was utilised to maintain the heritage appeal of my house and the character of our area. I am now shocked to hear of this proposed development sitting like a carbuncle between all these gorgeous heritage homes and next to my house!
    Please do not allow this application to proceed. Thanking you for your consideration.

    Delivered to local councillor Chris Tait. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 446 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Mr.Williams commented

    This Gym has already caused so many parking problems in an already overparked area. If I go out I cannot guarantee that I will be able to come home. I know when they first applied for this they suggested that the transport is so good around here that everyone would come by train or Bus. This is not true. I strongly object to it even being here in this already overcrowded area.

  16. In Fitzroy VIC on “Part demolition to allow...” at 119 Rose St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Bronwyn Halpin commented

    We are moving into the Fitzroy area and will be living in a new development next to 119 Rose street. The new townhouse development is at 108 Leicester st, Fitzroy.

    As our structure is going to be 4 levels high with the 4th level being a roof top terrace how does a 5 story building at 119 Rose street affect us by overlooking and by shading? As our view will be obstructed from the roof terrace if this development does go ahead.

    Hoping you will be able to answer my two questions,

    Thanking you.
    Bronwyn.

  17. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 59 Darley Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Frustrated Resident commented

    A complete mess. Another questionable property which was allowed to be developed under such extreme circumstances by Rockdale/Bayside Council..
    First off, this house is too big for its size and also location.
    And secondly it is an enormous eyesore, and insult to surrounding residents.
    A small street isn't appropriate to build these mega McMansions. Again, surrounding environment has been affected and the spot used as a drive way is in a very difficult location so whenever trucks were down there on the side of the street they would block traffic completely.
    Privacy was also not considered an option while this dark monument was being built. We have to deal with looking through their windows until our trees that we planted will grow and block their view. The design is really ugly, and badly thought out. It is unnecessary to have a house this large, in such a small location.

  18. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Development Application -...” at 77 Darley Road Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Frustrated Resident commented

    How this development was approved by now Bayside Council is beyond me. Not only is this property an eyesore and has had one side been left abandoned for several years, Privacy was not considered at all when it was thought out and the house looks into everybody elses' yard in the street.
    I feel sorry for the poor neighbors of this property who have the back of this house looking down into their back room blocking the sunlight.
    There is little to no back yard, and this property has had a negative effect on the environment (Although, Rockdale/Bayside Council has had a pretty poor environmental track record as of recent, so this explains a lot). And if that's not all, another Duplex is planned to be built on the same property inches away from each other, which will take up even more space with no consideration towards the neighbors privacy or way of life at all

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

    Andrew Wilke wrote to local councillor Paul Antonio

    Dear Councillor,

    I too wish to object to the proposed development at 63A Curzon.

    Similar to the subdivision on the corner of Mary and Range streets, this is another unconscionable proposal.

    I implore you to help protect the interests of existing residents and the character of the town. Regardless of their compliance with "the code" these developments are patently inappropriate.

    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

    Delivered to local councillor Paul Antonio. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Sharon Holmes commented

    I agree with the comments made by Stephanie Roberts. Whilst the current building has not maintained the original appearance, I would prefer to see the developers consider the heritage buildings along this strip and design accordingly. The home being built by Federation Homes is an excellent example of maintaining the character of the area. A little further south on the corner of Rawson and Esplanade, a 2 storey building shows little respect for heritage. After seeing the Quest building on the wharf in Port Adelaide, I have little hope that whatever the developer plans will be rejected. It seems anything can be built if the price is right.

  21. In Semaphore SA on “Two 2 storey dwellings with...” at 104 Esplanade Semaphore SA 5019:

    Stephanie Roberts commented

    How sad to see yet another beautiful old dwelling disappear, changing the streetscape of this "Golden Mile" once again.
    The new property being built by Federation Homes to the north, on the Esplanade, is a genuine example of maintaining the character of the area, if a property MUST be demolished.
    I hope the character of this unique area is being taken into consideration by the developers, but more importantly, insisted upon by the council.

  22. In Winston Hills NSW on “S96 (2) Additional housing...” at 226 Windsor Road Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Arthur Ashley commented

    Great to see this addition to the Willows
    it will allow for residents to have all levels of care at the one place. Plans look good and will fit in with the present buildings and gardens

  23. 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:

    Angela O'Grady commented

    I strongly object to this proposal for a number of different reasons. As a local resident I have a vested interest in the community of Gladesville.

    Firstly, what is the point of having planning instruments and guidelines set out in the LEP if developers can breach the height limitations and almost triple the FSR entirely for their own financial benefit?

    The height of the proposed building will cause overshadowing for the surrounding low density residential dwellings and impede on their natural light.

    The scale of the building will not be in keeping with the aesthetics of the area and the scale and bulk completely breech the planning guidelines. The impact from the increased traffic on the local roads has not been considered and the local roads will not withstand this increased high density. Without improving the infrastructure on Victoria Road and consideration be given to alternative modes of transport, the use of cars will continue to dominate the area and therefore the surrounding streets will be impacted.

    The lack of planning for community infrastructure for example no planning provisions for extra primary school or high school classrooms. The current local schools cannot cope with an influx from the current developments currently under development, so I fail to understand the lack of consultation with other planning silos.

    The impact on the environment and the lack of sustainable sensitive planning. We need more green space to counteract the carbon load from the apartments being built and one of this magnitude cannot be offset.

    And finally, the shear lack of community consultation. The community are the major stakeholder in this development site. It is only through sensitive planning with the community that a successful development can be considered. These types of developments require much more consideration other than the immediate FSR and height impacts.

    The heritage significance of Gladesville cannot be disputed. 10 Cowell Street is listed in the Hunters Hill LEP as Local Significance. I strongly disagree with the proposal to move the dwelling as stated in the Heritage Impact Statement commissioned by the developer:

    “10 Cowell Street be either relocated; or the heritage values of 10 Cowell Street should be conserved through interpretation and the incorporation of significant heritage fabric (ie. pressed metal ceilings and walls) into a contemporary structure that would be incorporated into the new development.”

    This is our history and should be preserved. The planners in the 70’s destroyed enough history; please don’t let history repeat itself. This is an opportunity to maintain the character of the area and prevent it turning into an urban jungle.

  24. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Proposed multi unit...” at 11 Caleb Street Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Barry Lewis commented

    Parking in Caleb St, Browns Rd and Daffodil St is almost impossible to find now.
    With all the development going on now plus 5 more dwellings at 11 Caleb St will make it much worse for the residents already living in these streets.
    NO MORE MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA!!

  25. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 267 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    saen wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    we highly recommend high density along with stud rd. high density development facing busiest road with bus stop is making sense.

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Rochedale South QLD on “Domestic - Dwelling...” at 11A Minerva Street Rochedale South QLD 4123:

    Gary Bruhn wrote to local councillor Lisa Bradley

    I am concerned that the granny flat work seems to have started and the walls will be within 500mm of the boundary fence.

    The existing carport has been disassembled and reassembled under 1500mm from boundary.

    I was of the belief that there had to be 1500mm separation.

    No consultation has been undertaken with this neighbour.

    Delivered to local councillor Lisa Bradley. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1318 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Anna Bawden commented

    Actually my error, the traffic counting strips are between 15/16 Gillman...perhaps the contractors couldn't get the stops closer to the top of the street due to so many cars parked in the top end of the street?

  28. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1318 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Anna Bawden commented

    There appears to currently be traffic counting occurring in Gillman street (4/11). However, the flaw in the data being collected is that the strips are set over half way down the street (between 11 & 12 Gillman st), therefore only counting less than half of the traffic in this street! Very odd and clearly problematic if this data is to be used to determine the current level of traffic in this narrow, no-through road!

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Phoebe Morton commented

    I miss having my after work kebab! It's important to have food options when you are drinking and it's late. Let saray stay open

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Eliza Berlage commented

    As a local resident I fully support this application. It is important to have safe, friendly places to congregate and eat in the later hours, especially for shift workers.

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