Recent comments

  1. In Knoxfield VIC on “Construction and siplay of...” at 1464 Ferntree Gully Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Peter Shearman commented

    What company want's to add signage and how big are the signs. If McDonalds wants any additional signage then I am against further advertising for this company. The fast food outlet is already well enough signed. Large signs will be a further distraction to drivers.

  2. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    S Lam commented

    I object to a liquor store in a residential street in a family oriented neighbourhood such as Croydon Road.

    The location of the liquor store being at the end of Croydon Road and a short walking distance to many homes on the street, while also being in the vicinity of a busy train station will forever alter the amenity of this area.

    Croydon Road and Guildford Road and the areas nearby have always been an area attracting families and the elderly to set up homes. For us, the safety and security of our homes and families are of paramount importance.

    The possibility of having a liquor store in such a short vicinity to our homes, not only will increase foot traffic but may also lead to alcohol induced crime. In fact, it is almost impossible not to associate the liquor store with the possibility of greater grafiti, greater numbers of loiterers and rubbish. I would not feel safe walking on the street after hours in such a situation.

    One must also consider the train station and therefore the possibility of people loitering around due to the easier accessibility to alcohol.

    Secondly, as it is, Croydon Road already has quite a lot of parking restrictions to cope for the traffic that uses it due to the train station. It will not cope with delivery trucks and further car parking traffic as a result of the liquor store.

    Finally, the location of this liquor store can be distinguished from any other applications as it is to be located at the end of a residential street not in a commercial area, but actually at the end of a residential street literally next to family homes. If in my view, if it is possible to have a liquor store at the end of a residential street in Melbourne, prized for its family orientation and the safety of the area, then, you have opened the floodgates for having a liquor store on any street in Melbourne. This is clearly not what VGLRC and harm minimisation is about.

  3. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - single...” at 6 Bushland Grove Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    LM & NB Cameron commented

    We believe as the applicants this should be approved for the reasons as stated.
    We are not using this as a precedent for the new subdivision as not every property has existing large structures on their north-eastern boundary.

    As outlined the adjoining property structures are 5.2 m high 6.1 m (plus) wide and have a setback of 500mm from our north-east boundary.
    The proposed shed's height has been incorrectly stated as it is only 4.1m high.
    (refer to drawing 9)
    This makes the existing structures 1.1m taller.
    As we are situated south west this causes considerable overshadowing of our property.
    refer to to drawing 3 for the orientation of the proposed and adjoining structures

    With this in mind, we have taken into consideration the surrounding buildings and
    properties.
    Our shed should not have to be moved as it does not overshadow any other properties.

    If our shed is to be moved from the the nominated setback this will cause a dark,damp large over shadowed area that will get little or no sunlight.

    I have major concerns for overshadowing of my property.

  4. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Pauline commented

    I object to this application by Liquor Land.

    A liqour outlet is not necessary. Liquor can be purchased within 100 metres and there are at least 3 liquor shops operating within 1km of this application. We do not need another one in a dry area.

    Traffic congestion and parking is already a problem.

    Adding a liquor shop so close to the train station raises concerns for the safety of children or anyone walking to the train station. It would compromise a family friendly area and make the area less attractive.

  5. In West Melbourne VIC on “Change of description of...” at 1-9 Stawell Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Annie commented

    If food and drink premises and produce supply store, means a caffe and a small supermarket, I say YAY!
    This is just what West Melbourne needs.
    A small local alternative to the supermarket in Errol street.

  6. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Allison Heller commented

    This is a great business - it's excellent to see a local small business making good use of this beautiful space - it was empty for so long.

    The uses are appropriate to the neighbourhood and low impact. They make a great contribution to our street and really pleased to see them in there.

    I fully support this application and wish the business every future success.

    I would like to see the Aboriginal artwork on the building preserved for the future and not changed. Could Council protect it please?

    Thank you.

  7. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    A great shop with wonderful people running it with plenty of interesting in being a good member of the local community.
    They have been nothing short of awesome!

    I wholeheartedly approve, so long as none of the signage damages the lovely existing mural

  8. In Zetland NSW on “New 16 storey mixed use...” at 105-115 Portman Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Kathryn Calman commented

    Without a proper public transport infrastructure for Sydney, further developments should not be considered as these will add considerably to the existing congestion. Particularly one of this size. Unfortunately, the WestConnex project will only contribute to Sydney's congestion and pollution with no proper transport solution that is urgently needed.

  9. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kirsten commented

    Firstly, I would request longer consultation periods, especially during times of high development interest and activity. It's very disappointing that my comments will not be formally considered.

    I live in Hill St. It is a cul-de-sac. Council and the Joint Regional Planning Panel have already approved 246 units over 4 buildings of 8 storeys in the "Arlington Grove" development between Hill St, Grove St and Constitution Ave. However both the entry and egress to all 246 units is from Hill St alone.

    The proposal for 1A Hill St means traffic for a further 66 units will need to use Hill St alone as its access point.

    That means 312 new dwellings and associated traffic accessing these developments from Hill St, a cul-de-sac.

    It was inevitable that the land on which these 2 developments will be built would be used for higher density residential once the light rail extension was completed. That's reasonable in principle. But I struggle to understand how decision-makers see this kind of traffic increase to be fair or reasonable and I am yet to see any plan to ameliorate it.

  10. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Bernadette & Peter commented

    PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS APPLICATION TO BE APPROVED!!

    Yes I know we are shouting, but we have been residents in Winston Hills for over 22 years now. What attracted us and why we continue to live in Winston Hills as it is one of the very few suburbs that DOES NOT have high density. And because we border Baulkham Hills and the Winston Hills Mall falls within your shire, you are now considering this application.

    Unfortunately Baulkham Hills Council seems to have an agenda of creating chaos buy allowing so much unit development within your zone.

    We lived for 20 years in Olympus Street, only 100 metres from the Winston Hills Mall & now live 2 streets away in Buckleys Road. We were very active in trying to stop the boom gates from going in and sure enough it has caused no amount of traffic congestion over peak periods. Considering we were told at the time (at least 10 years ago) that ALL the other shopping centres were going to install boom gates, they have not yet been installed at Castle Towers or Stockland Mall. At least Stockland Mall & Castle Towers have parking indicators above each parking space. We don’t even have this at Winston Hills Mall!

    So our points below as to why we are so concerned of the impact this development have are as follows:

    1. TRAFFIC – Caroline Chisholm Drive & Langdon Road are only single lane roads. We already have considerable traffic load trying to get into the shopping centre, let alone the impact of 102 dwellings and their possible use of vehicles.
    2. Olympus Street (where we lived for 20 years) has major issues with parking on both sides, creating a situation of only allowing one car thru in either direction.
    3. Winston Heights Primary School is only 100 metres from the Mall, with Model Farms High School 500 metres away. Even though it would be convenient for those living in the high rise, the primary issue again would be the amount of traffic flowing thru this area.
    4. The application for 102 units with 137 car spaces, with the potential of more cars needing to park in surrounding streets, again creating congestion.
    5. Winston Hills (as defined by Parramatta Council) http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/9095/Appendix_4.pdf was objected to having any high density due to the following:
    • lack of infrastructure, public transport, services and facilities, and open space; will change the character of an area and will contribute to loss of neighbourhood cohesion; will create traffic congestion problems; loss of privacy and aesthetic appeal; will create environmental and social problems.
    6. We understand that Baulkham Hills Council changed the zoning laws so that now the owners of the Winston Hills Mall cannot develop the existing roof area for restaurants. We only have the Winston Hills Gardens (Chinese restaurant) and the Winston Hills Hotel as the ONLY dining area in this precinct. We always travel to Bella Vista or Castle Hill to go to a decent restaurant. Why couldn’t the Mall be allowed to build restaurants on the top level?

    Bottom Line is that we do not want to see high rise on this side of the M2. Keep it over your side please!!!!!

  11. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 6 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Alex Cullen commented

    Having read through the application for this property, it is disappointing the way in which it glosses over significant issues in relation to the impact of the development on the area. In particular I want to draw your attention to the traffic impact assessment. There are a raft of issues with this survey and the supposed marginal impact that adding over 140 units and 150 car parking spaces.

    Firstly, the assessment only considers the impact on the immediate intersection and glibly suggests that being close to main roads was in and of itself good enough to handle any traffic and distribute it away from epping. It fails to take into account that Carlingford Rd already suffers from significant delays on the approach to the Beecroft Road intersection during the AM peak period and even at times outside of this period. The beecroft road bridge is the first non tolled means for through traffic to cross the railway line since pennant hills and as such draws traffic from a range of areas west and north west of epping. Additionally the M2 also suffers heavy traffic during peak periods even with its high toll deterring some users, Either way, users are required to either travel via carlingford road or attempt to use increasingly congested back roads like Ray Rd and Midson Rd to get across the railway line. The biggest problem with the carlingford rd approach is the combination of the 3 sets of traffic lights between cliff road and blaxland/epping road results in significant congestion and queues and even with the lights providing a favourable phase there can still be long delays for other traffic coming from carlingford rd.

    Secondly the traffic assessment can only point to a 2nd right hand turn lane from beecroft southbound into carlingford rd as any tangible example of road improvements in the area. A 2nd right hand turn lane not only wont do any good at the rawson/ray rd intersection lights limit the capacity of cars that can turn right as they meet a red light. Nor does it address the traffic problem of Rawson St/Ray Roads nor Carlingford rd -> Epping road.

    Thirdly many of the public transport options such as the 288/290/295/546/549/630 services are rather limited in their operation, with the many of these services being limited in peak and even more infrequent off peak. Likewise a service like the 630 doesnt even run on weekend and the 546/549/M54 and 630 all impacted by the congestion around Beecroft,Carlingford Rds and Ray Rd/Rawson St. Likewise the Northern Line at Epping station already is straining to handle existing capacity and the shutdown of the epping chatswood line for upgrades will further deter people from public transport use.

    Finally the report fails to consider the impact of multiple developments as both part of the urban activation precinct or even further beyond that. Carlingford Road at the Carlingford end has already seen many new multi tenant buildings in and around that end of the street much traffic of which is being added to the increasing congestion at epping.

    In conclusion the DA submission for this development is extremely narrow in its focus and fails to realistically identify the actual impacts of adding in over 140 extra apartments on the transport and traffic facilities of the region and without actual significant changes to the road infrastructure in the region and without further upgrades to the public transport infrastructure, this and any other development should not be approved until such time as the area is better equipped to handle the expected growth, let alone the current levels of development.

  12. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Shayne Hannah commented

    My Family & I are residents & property owners in Winston Hills. My Wife's Family moved into Winston Hills in 1966 when the suburb was known as 'Model Farms' so we have some attachment & history in the area.
    We DO NOT agree with this proposal. We believe it will unjustly stress the the existing infrastructure which is ageing limited. There is no regard for maintaining the current lifestyle for which people moved into the area.
    If we do some approximate calculations based on the proposed number of additional 102 residences there would be a minimum of :
    200-400 additional people,
    50-250 school pupils,
    120-220 additional motor vehicles,
    1000 kWHs p.a of energy required,
    30 Megalitres p.a. of water required,
    equivalent sewerage disposal required,

    The current infrastructure will likely not support this without significant upgrading the cost of which will be likely largely bourne by the current residents in additional rates, etc.
    The developer has no apparent offset in the proposal for any of this.

    It would be a major blunder to allow this proposal to proceed.

  13. In Zetland NSW on “New 16 storey mixed use...” at 105-115 Portman Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area.

    But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already hideous congestion in the Green Square area, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development.

    In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. In fact, a quick look along much of Parramatta Rd will give planners the right idea.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  14. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 456 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Mrs C. Fuller commented

    I do not believe reduced car parking should be approved. Already there are too many parked cars belonging to residents and visitors on the road outside these properties. If there is insufficient room on the allotment for 2 parks per owner, obviously there are too many apartments/units per building site. How long before we start seeing more traffic problems, slower movement around these parked cars, constant obstacles for Council vehicles and difficulty for maintenance and tradesmen to access their designated job.
    Stop the developers making all their profit without contributing to the community. They are buying up land at reasonable prices without returning any benefit.
    Wish we could demand a ratio of so much public housing per ten residences/town houses sold.

    I do not believe this application should be approved until more guaranteed parking is made available per owner, on the proposed site.

  15. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 456 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    This application should be refused point blank. It does not fit in the City of Knox - it fits in Melbourne City. We moved to Wantirna for the green wide open spaces, we do not want our suburbs turned into skyscraper city. How can this possibly be approved when the new laws prohibit exactly this kind of project.
    That white domino on the corner of Stud Road already wrecks the views of the
    Dandenongs, do not allow any more horrible configurations to wreck our suburb.
    Two storey anything was supposed to be the limit.

  16. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Esther Anderson commented

    I object to the application by Liquorland and I do not think the application should be approved. There is a liquor outlet literally metres away on Union & Canterbury Rds, and in addition the area is well serviced with liquor outlets very close by on the corner of Union & Whitehorse roads, in Hamilton St Mont Albert and several large outlets in Whitehorse Rd Balwyn.
    Furthermore the area already suffers from significant traffic congestion and adding the delivery vehicles to this quiet residential precinct would compound the problems.
    There are many young families in this area and the excessive promotion of alcohol consumption is concerning in an era where the evidence of the damage that drinking alcohol can cause.
    A recent study reported in the Australian and The Age see http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-ambulance-callouts-in-areas-near-big-bottle-shops-report-20150526-gha2o2.html found there were more ambulance callouts in areas near bottleshops related to falls, and another study found a link between the rise in licenced premises and the alarming rise in alcohol-related ambulance callouts.

  17. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Mary Helen Farrell commented

    I believe a Liquorland outlet in Union Road is totally unnecessary as there are outlets within a few kms of the proposed site. The Union Road/ Surrey Hills Village will be changed totally and for what, bringing alcohol sales into what is termed a "dry area"!
    I have been a resident of Surrey Hills and within close proximity to Union Road for 30 years and definitely do not want this application to be granted, as do so many others.

  18. In Oatlands NSW on “Construction of a twenty...” at 8 Forsyth Place, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    Hans van de Ven commented

    How did I miss this one... As Holly Usher pointed out, 6 parking spots for effectively 23 residences in an area with very limited public transport makes no sense. Forsyth pl is a small street and already quite crowded with cars. There's also no parking on the nearest streets (Bettington and Kissing Point Rds). If this is to happen, the car parking situation needs to be addressed.

  19. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - single...” at 6 Bushland Grove Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    Barry West commented

    Although the existing shed on the adjoining property to the rear of the proposed development may be closer to the boundary than the set back required under current regulations, it must be remembered that the Regulations were changed to protect all adjoining properties. I am not affected by this current application but I am concerned that should this current application be approved in it's current format, it sets a dangerous precedent for future developments and anyone buying adjoining properties in the area would tend to use this precedent to support future developments in the area and it could be that all adjoining properties would be permitted to build outside the regulated building envelop thus voiding the effectiveness of the recent changes to building regulations. My reason for commenting on this is that my premises was affected by a "shed" built under the old regulations that is a monstrosity approximately 9 meters high that totally blocks my view of Launceston and cast shadow over most of another residential yard. If this development is permitted I suggest that it also have a restriction that no minor protrusions on the roof surface of any kind be permitted as minor protrusions can be in excess of 1 meter higher than the roof surface. I ask that council consider the height of the protrusions on the shed at 6 Waveney Street, South Launceston when deciding on this current application.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 18 Lawson Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Megan commented

    It seems to me that Heritage Impact Statements accompanying development applications are frequently farcical. Too often they are prepared by people with a vested interest in the development such as, for instance, the architect of the proposed alterations or some friend of the party seeking to make the alterations. Such people have sham qualifications for writing Heritage Impact Statements and are, in any case, doing their best to see that the development is approved.

    How is Council supposed to take into account any Heritage Impact Statements when so many of them are biased and often untruthful?

  21. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - single...” at 6 Bushland Grove Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    L M & N B Cameron commented

    In response to your comment,

    As to your proposed condition that the shed blend in with the natural environment, I believe it would be unfair for the Council to agree to such a proposal as it was a condition of the sale of the land that any outbuildings are to blend in with the colour scheme of the dwelling.

    As you have stated 12.4.2 p3 part (c) I must take into consideration the setback of surrounding buildings.As your shed is directly behind where our proposed shed is,
    and as there is no fence between our boundary and your shed the setback and height was
    considered.
    After measuring your shed it has a setback of 500 mm from the boundary.The width is 6.1 metres and height from the top of unexcavated ground to the peak of the roof is 5.2 metres. An additional cladded structure attached to the side measures 1.8 metres wide and 2.4 metres high.
    The roofing of these structures is a colorbond green and I believe the reflective comparison
    between matt monument is very similar to the green.
    Even though your shed roof is taller at 5.2 m than our proposed shed being 4.7m, I
    am willing to repitch the roof to 17.5 degrees and not 22.5 as proposed. This will reduce the height thus obscuring your view of our proposed shed behind your existing outbuildings.

    I hope this proposal meets with your approval.

  22. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 2 Little Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Denise Moss commented

    I oppose this. Vehemently. I wouldn't want to live next door to a boarding house with 39 tenants. I truly cant think of anything worse. I feel sorry for the neighbors if this gets the go ahead.

  23. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Denis & Jillian Hennessy commented

    We agree wholeheartedly with previous comments made by our neighbours. Especially after receiving a copy of the "Residential Projects" issued on line by TGC, requesting would be buyers to register their interest, in the purchase of the proposed residential development.
    We definitely say NO to such a project.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 8 Cowper Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    sue paterson commented

    This development is vasty different to what was approved & does not comply on many grounds
    Of significant concern to local residents is that in some parts it will be 3m higher than originally approved & the dwelling configuration will result in more parking issues in local streets.

  25. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Billy A commented

    As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

  26. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Billy A commented

    As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

  27. In Canterbury VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 2 Chatham Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Lyn commented

    Are the approved building works associated with extensions to the family home? Or are they for commercial use?

  28. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of the land...” at 80 Tyler Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    I am in agreement with Stewart Midgley's summery of the features of this development application.

    The more than 50% inclusion of three and four bedroom dwellings will help redress the current loss of family housing in Darebin.

    The level of density, internal and external amenity provides adequately for occupant livability.

    Public and private open space should be oriented to allow food production for the future food security of residents.

    For such a large development a small reduction in parking provision seems reasonable.

    Given not all of the accompanying reports are accessable online it is difficult to determine if the proposal adequately meets ESD requirements or provides social and low cost housing for our community. These provisions should be considered in all development proposals in Darebin.

  29. In Padstow NSW on “Sec 96 Increase first floor...” at 45 Ronald Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jamie Moss commented

    We live next door at 43 Ronald Street Padstow. The demolision crew have damaged our brand new colourfence fence. They somewhat repaired it but its still badly damaged.

    Please advise to the owner of 45 Ronald Street that he is to repair the colourbond fence when he has completed the dweilling.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 6 Bourne Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Hugh reilly commented

    We don't agree with the development being 2 levels tall,
    There are no other 2 level house on the street front and it would not fit in with the heritage of the street.

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