Recent comments

  1. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a 4 storey...” at 88 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Parking in the inner suburbs is so difficult that I can't believe that waivers or reductions of the parking requirements are still being asked for. No new developments should have parking requirements reduced as the whole of the inner city is already drastically short of parking and this problem spreads from one part of the inner city to another. Each waiver or reduction of parking requirements in previous years helped lead to this situation - look ahead to the future.
    Lou Baxter

  2. In Bushland Beach QLD on “Bulk Earthworks associated...” at Mount Low Parkway Bushland Beach QLD 4818:

    Paul Jacob commented

    It is very interesting that this application for bulk fill on this parcel of commercial land is next to a block that the council will not allow change of status residential to commercial No 34 Lionel Turner drv to build a gym. Please investigate. The press must be informed of this decision. To ask the council why it is cherry picking its decisions. I would be grateful for an answer. I currently have a petition to the effect, asking the residents of Bushland Beach for council to reverse its decision of Ordinary Council meeting, the 22nd of January. I currently have nearly 200 signatures. To be presented when it reaches 1000 signatures.

  3. In St Peters NSW on “To carry out demolition of...” at 60 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Phil commented

    As a local resident with a young family, I have a number of objections & concerns relating to the development proposal for your review and consideration. These are listed below:

    1. Impact Due To Proposed Property Density

    The proposed construction includes a four (4) story residential flat building atop two (2) levels of basement parking. This will dramatically increase general noise, traffic, use of on-street parking and impact to local residents on Lackey Street & Hutchinson Street.

    As per the Councils “St Peters Triangle Master Plan” height control diagram on page 45 - the proposed property should be limited to three (3) storey rather than four (4), in order to adhere to the master plan.

    The proposed four (4) storey residential building is considerably taller than the surrounding residential houses along Hutchinson Street and Lackey Street. The current residential properties in Hutchinson are mostly on one ground level, and the properties along Lackey Street are mostly only two storeys. As per the councils Master Plan I concur that “…it is important to carefully relate the proposed development to the surrounding character residential housing that is to be retained”. This is an important consideration given the height of the majority of properties on both Hutchinson and Lackey Street.

    It is therefore suggested that this application should not be approved unless it is amended to a two (2) or three (3) storey residential building, rather than four (4) in keeping with the existing properties in the area. This will decrease the impact to existing residents and comply with the councils’ longer term strategic plans.

    2. Compromised Safety for local residents, park users, families & pets.

    Simpson Park opposite the proposed development runs alongside the majority of Lackey Street. This park is a very popular spot for locals.

    Simpson Park has a covered kids play area, a BBQ and seating area for social events, and open fields for recreational use & dog walking. Local families frequently use this park for kids birthday parties, BBQs and other social gatherings. The park is also used throughout the day and evening by local residents wishing to exercise their dogs.

    Locals frequenting the park will cross at various locations along Lackey Street once they have parked their cars, or when walking dogs by foot along Lackey Street.

    The proposed development car park entry and exit situated as per the plan will dramatically increase traffic flow along Lackey Street, and will increase the potential risk of roadside accidents to pedestrians, park users and dogs.

    3. Impact To Residential Properties on Lackey Street.

    The proposed car park entry and exit will substantially increase the traffic flow and noise on Lackey Street. Considering that Lackey Street has a much higher number of properties used for residential purposes than Hutchinson Street, the car park entrance / exit will have a much bigger impact on local St Peters residents. There will be increased traffic and associated noise.

    4. Impact To Residential On Street Parking

    The addition of a new four story residential property will increase the need for additional street parking for new residents and their visitors. There is already very limited parking available on both Hutchinson and Lackey Street for local residents and commercial workers.

    Lackey Street residents with young families already have issues due to limited parking being available along side their properties. Although Lackey Street residents succeeded in changing the parking along our properties to a two (2) hour limit for non-permit holders, we frequently cannot park near our properties. Throughout the day, local commercial workers use the majority of on-street parking, and there is limited parking for residents. During weekends car parking spaces are often in use by park users and their families as well as commercial workers due to increased permitted weekend operating hours.

    Over the past few years local commercial businesses on Hutchinson Street have been given approval to increase their operating hours. As an outcome, their staff make more use of local street parking spaces on Lackey & Hutchinson Street during the day time, evenings, and weekends.

    If the proposed application is approved there will be an increase in residential density in the area and an associated increased demand for on-street car parking, which is already at capacity. Even if sufficient car spaces are provided within the properties basement, new residents and visitors will still want to use on-street parking spots.

    This will limit any further proposed growth by commercial property owners moving forward. Commercial businesses on Hutchinson Street will not be able to increase their operational capacity - as there will not be any additional parking facilities for additional workers with vehicles, especially at weekends.

    Careful consideration needs to be given to the design of the new property, to ensure sufficient car parking spaces are available for new residents - as well as their visitors / guests.

    It is also proposed that in order to reduce the impact to on-street parking facilities, the new property is limited to two (2) or three (3) levels, rather than proposed four (4).

    In summary, I object to the proposed development, based on; its impact to local residents, the safety of local park users, the height and density of the building, and the impact to on-street parking for local residents and commercial owners.

  4. In St Peters NSW on “To carry out demolition of...” at 60 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Louisa Murray commented

    I am a resident of Lackey St. Parking and traffic flow is a considerable problem in this tight little triangle of narrow roads in St Peters. To construct a 4 storey residential property on the corner of Lackey St and Hutchison St is in my view a very bad plan for this area. The increase in residents and their cars will cause more parking problems. Even though the parking is planned within the flats infrastructure, the increase in resident numbers (allowing there are visitors to those residents) will all be looking for parking. Most of the Lackey St residents do not have alloted parking and are forever seeking a parking spot. I have often had to park my car several streets away from my house.
    Another objection I have to this plan is that we do not need 4 storey flats in this area. The flats on the corner of May St and Princes Hwy are a eyesore and they are 4 storey at the back where they back onto Applebee Lane and cause a tunnel of concrete. They are not pretty or in keeping with the area.
    I thought that the Marrickville Council had zoned the St Peters Triangle as an arts precinct for the futute planning of the area. In my view this would be a very good idea as it promotes the re-use of existing structures, maintaining a lower level of building which is in keeping with the small houses and warehouse street scene of the area as it is at the moment.
    I am therefore wholeheartedly against the building of flats in my street.
    This corner is close to a lovely green space and the flats would overtower the feeling of the large trees.
    I also have no wish to experience the constuction stage of this development and it would, with out a doubt, hinder out access to our homes. ie there are enough big trucks running through Lackey St and Hutchison St as there is. thank you

  5. In Granville NSW on “Use of school hall for a...” at 10 Mary Street Granville NSW 2142:

    Sandra Davies commented

    It doesn't state for what days, hours & times for worship?
    Is this the same church that uses an area in The Workers Club Granville?
    If so, their church service can be heard 2 blocks away???
    Not so good for the surrounding residents.
    We have recently had a large development / church opened in Railway Parade, Granville.
    I don't believe that we need so many places of worship in small areas?
    I use to walk 5k's to my church for many years & yet everyone wants theirs at the end of the street.
    Thank you.

  6. In Campsie NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 359 - 365 Beamish Street and 33 - 35 Unara Street, Campsie:

    Adriana Kalantzis commented

    Three residential blocks housing 3 families to be developed into 104 residential units and one commercial tenancy with only 76 onsite parking spaces! What are they thinking?
    That top end of Unara Street has a bend in the road right in front of the development that drivers constantly cut as they drive up Unara to Beamish St making it dangerous to negotiate - how much worse will it be with hundreds of residents driving in and out of this new development.
    Parking is impossible already in Beamish, Unara and Stanley Streets so where do the developers propose the new residents should park?
    The 76 spaces provided are insufficient for such a large development knowing that not all of those will be used for cars as residents use them to store household goods, or some don't like parking in tight underground spaces, and many households have more than one vehicle.
    Traffic congestion in Beamish St is horrendous, banking up to Canterbury Rd all afternoon and the other way in the morning making getting into Beamish from Unara a nightmare.
    This development will unreasonably impact the surrounding streets - Duke, Stanley and two lanes.
    The immediate area is a grid of oddly-shaped streets, narrow back lanes and numerous no-right-turns, and all constrained by Beamish St, Canterbury Rd and the railway line.
    Access to Beamish and Unara driving west on Canterbury Rd can only be gained from the streets between & including Park St & Phillips Ave and these mainly single dwelling blocks will be adversely affected.
    The area surrounding the development is already reasonably high density with many 3-level unit blocks, but to add upward of 300 people into three residential blocks will strain local resources and have a negative effect on the local residents and compound congestion in the area.
    It is an excessive development and should be opposed by council.
    -- i have no problem with my address being revealed as I am local & I object strenuously to the development but am going overseas on Sunday so don't have time to go to council to object in person to the proposal.
    I came across a shop front for this development in Campsie Centre today and went in to find out they were selling 1, 2 & 3 bed units off the plan for 10% down and then found the plans online tonight.
    They had no brochures or paperwork for the development - only a display kitchen & 2 mirror wardrobe doors (ridiculous!) but were encouraging investors to put money on these units.
    I was appalled and wondered at their confidence that the proposal would be accepted - what influence might they have on Council that we residents don't know about?

  7. In Kew VIC on “Construction of 34...” at 145 Cotham Road Kew VIC 3101:

    William Paul Healy commented

    The proposed development at 145 Cotham Road Kew goes against the Council's own Design Guidelines for Precinct 11 because it

    (1) has a huge number of proposed Units (34) that creates a building that is bulky and 'box' like.

    (2) creates a boundary to boundary development.

    (3) has a lack of soft landscaping / vegetation

    (4) does not respect the predominant building scale and forms of the streetscape.

    (5) does not avoid a basement that covers the extent of the site

    (6) does not avoid flat or curved roofs

    (7) is a dwelling that is set too far forward.

    In my opinion, the site should be developed with a maximum of 8 Units to comply with the Council's own Design Guidelines for Precinct 11.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Not sure if they checked but it looks to me that the people at no 17 will be losing all their sunlight from this development. Were they consulted at the pre-DA stage?
    My understanding is that their yard must be allowed to retain the amount of sunlight to a minimum amount.

  9. In Gaven QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at 17 Glade Drive Gaven 4211:

    Bill Edgar commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    The below letter was sent on the 31 October 2012 in reference to MCU201200491, Can you please advise the outcome of this proposal by the land owner and please state if the land owner is still entitled to continue with his panel beating business which has continued and is continuing this day?


    31 October 2012

    William Edgar

    7 Allardyce Crescent

    Pacific Pines

    Qld 4210

    Ph: 07 55 294847

    Mob: 0412 848 242

    To whom this may concern:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would like to submit my opposition to the following:

    Application Number: MCU201200491
    Description: INDUSTRY - TRUCK PARKING
    Code: MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE
    Class: IMPACT
    Lodged: 29/08/2012

    As long term residents of the adjoining premises we note that there are many factors to consider in relation to this application, in no particular order we submit the following:

    This area is residential with the pathway leading from Allardyce Crescent to Glade Drive used by many pedestrians to commute to and from Westfield Shopping centre as well as for recreational and fitness activities such as visiting the Glade Drive Swim School next door to the applicant.
    There is no footpath along this part of Glade Drive so the small stretch of service road is used by cyclists and pedestrians which run directly along the front of the applicant.
    Noise, fumes and unsightly items which are more common in Industrial estates should not encroach on residential areas and will see this area diminish in looks, value and may become potentially dangerous conditions.
    Native wild life has been seen frequenting this area as it is surrounded by native bush land etc.
    The applicant has been running a small panel beating business for some time and has been asked to desist with noise and emanating fumes from the property in question, the future noise and fumes should this application be granted could increase dramatically causing sickness or poor health.
    Residents of the adjoining area are committed to seeing their homes be a retreat from their work and work like environments thus will stand united to see that this application is denied on the basis of those items listed above along with other residents concerns to be formally submitted.

    Kindest Regards

    William Edgar

    0412 848 242

  10. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Susan commented

    I agree. The lack of parking in this area will become critical very soon. I cannot believe that there are only 3 spaces for 14 apartments. The minimum should be one space for each apartment. Not everybody rides bicycles although we know that Clover would prefer they do. It's just not going to happen.

  11. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Scott Blasdall commented

    What is the idea of providing no car spaces in your place of residence any more? I do not understand the point!
    The designers of these fabulous inner city apartments and I am sure the councilors of city and Sydney all have a car and am also sure they have a car space or even an off the street house for their car/s.
    Please explain the issue upfront before Wyndham Street becomes a bottle neck every single morning as we try and get to work every single day as you design these little tiny one bedroom apartments in these little tiny areas with no car spaces for them.

  12. In Alexandria NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 9 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Simon Milner commented

    Only three parking spaces in a new development of 14 apartments? Owing to the new developments already underway or recently completed with minimal to no parking (Cargo Lane on Brennan Street, Axis Apartments on Brennan Street and the row of new 3 and 4 bedroom terraces on Power Avenue (between Wyndham and Brennan Street) this block has rapidly degenerated into a bun-fight of residents contesting each other for limited on-street parking.

  13. In Belconnen ACT on “MIXED USE-NEW BUILDING....” at Eastern Valley Way, Belconnen, ACT:

    Tiffany Bonasera commented

    Good evening,

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.

    Given the scope and nature of the development, I would like to express my strong (extremely strong, in fact) objection to this proposal.

    Please find below the reasons a development of this nature would detract from the positive future development of Belconnen Town Centre / and the wider Belconnen community.

    1) The sheer size and scope of this development does not complement the existing streetscapes or community in any way. While I understand the Territory Plan has stipulated the "densification" of town centres like Belconnen, this type of "densification" is at odds with the general characteristics of the local community. Such highrises may be appropriate in major cities, but they do not have a place in what is proudly, the Bush Capital.

    2) The impact of a construction / development of this size is not fair or equitable to the people who reside in and around the Town Centre, and surrounding suburbs. Existing and future residents should not be subjected to increased noise pollution from additional vehicles, shadows created by the development, the works, long hotel operating hours etc. This, again, is not consistent with the Territory Plan's objectives of maintaining our bush-setting appeal.

    3) Belconnen is not the place to have a highrise building of this nature. The local residents enjoy the outdoor spaces, such as around the Lake, as well as the local skate park. These outdoor areas may not directly be affected by a development of this nature, but again, it detracts from the overall enjoyment local people have when interacting with their environment.

    By allowing a development like this to go ahead, it sets a terrible precedent - and one that will ultimately damage the reputation of this area in the long term.

    Thank you for considering my objections. I welcome being contacted to discuss this further.

    Kind regards, Tiffany Bonasera (local resident)

  14. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Kim Skildum-Reid commented

    Although I am probably the one that created this hullabulu by posting the question "what kind of massage parlour is this going to be?" on a community forum, I support this application. The statement of environmental impact had been missing from the DA, so the type of parlour was unclear. When the question was asked of Council, the statement was posted, thus making it clear that this is a THERAPEUTIC massage place. I believe that it will be a positive impact on the local area and that anyone who took the time to read the statement of environmental impact and look at the plans would concur.

  15. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Alex van Vucht commented

    Okay, probably unlike the three other people who've responded, I've taken the time to read the application. This business provides Thai therapy massage, and there is strictly no sexual activity. It's a lot healthier than the fast food business that was there.

    This will provide a new activity that residents can enjoy and thus spend more time in the neighbourhood, thus improving the area in general.

    I support this application.

  16. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 22 Archibald Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Ken Amoore commented

    Further to our comments which were sent in the mai, l we would ask that consideration be given to retaining at least some of the existing trees, in particular the Liquid Amber tree near the front fence and the Pittosporum near the northern fence.

  17. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Hayley commented

    Tempe/Sydenham is full of families & children we do not need a massage pal-our of any sort to bring our community down. Why do people think they can just turn our neighborhood into trash! Come on people get behind your suburb and stop trash coming in. Kids are our future and we don't want our kids walking the streets and seeing rubbish and thinking its ok.

  18. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Diana commented

    Massage Parlour is not needed in sydenham... I object..

  19. In Sydenham NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 268 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Denyse McLean commented

    We need cafes and chemists, NOT massage parlours in the local area. I object to this application.

  20. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Modification of consent” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram commented

    Hi,

    I hope this will be approved as over 25 families are waiting after depositing around 10% each on properties for over 1.5years now.

    I am one of them.

  21. In Rooty Hill NSW on “” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram Riaz commented

    Hi,

    There are 25 families waiting for this property to be build since 1 and half year now.
    Would request to please process the work as soon as possible.

    Thanks with Regards,

  22. In Swan Bay TAS on “Subdivide the balance lot...” at 456 Los Angelos Road Swan Bay TAS 7252:

    Jeanette Zelesco commented

    Refer to TPC. We have been living in the Swan Bay area for now 6yrs, we enjoy the peace & tranquility it has to offer that is why we chose to live rural. We are concerned about the proposed development. Apart from the effect it will have on the following, road needs major upgrading!!!! During peak school season the school bus travels around LosAngelos Road, it is not anywhere near wide enough for both car & bus to pass safely, i always have to pull over to the side to let it pass, very dangerous!!! The impact it will have on wildlife etc. Again this can all be referred to TPC Report. Dont get me wrong we are not against development & moving forward, but it concerns us of the amount & size of the blocks also!!!! Please take our thoughts into consideration!

    Regards, Jeanette Zelesco Robert Morosini

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Justin Koke commented

    I am actually wondering if this application is actually a retro-active application since this business is already placing tables and chairs on the footpath!

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Liz commented

    Footpath seating is great for the community vibe. But it's bikes on King St that is often dangerous and there's not much space for safety when bikes are driving through groups of people and kids and prams and dogs. Especially when there is a dedicated bike path on Wilson St.

  25. In NSW on “...” at council@campbelltown.nsw.gov.au, NSW:

    Karenn Solomon commented

    This is concerning the proposed development in Fluorite Place, I am appaulled that the council would consider such a development in such a built up area. We have lived happily here for 30 years now, taking pride in our street. And for Endeavour to come along and distroy the entrance to a highly reguarded and one of the best streets in Eaglevale, well I dont' know what to say. Years ago we saw notification of a substation being built near Eaglevale Pond. The vast vacant area around the pond would not impact on any one and could be hidden by screening plants. But our street the homes would only be a street width away. What are they thinking.??? This isn't even taking into consideration of the resale values in our lovely, well kept street. And the poor people over the road from it, my goodness. All the young families that have recently bought into this street now have to worry about health issues, as do all of us. But the children. I am so in a state of shock at Campbelltown Council for allowing this to take place.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Shane Turner commented

    I strongly approve the proposal for the outdoor seating at 278 King St
    Looking at the plans there is still 2500 that would be open space for pedestrians.

    I feel that the placement of the 2 small tables and the stools is in keeping with the area's cosmopolitan feel.

    I took a walk along King Street to look at other businesses that have tables and chairs on the footpath and I see no difference from thier locations to 278 King Street.

    King Street is a very busy thoroughfare for cars/trucks and pedestrians the more people that are sitting around at the restaurants and coffee shops etc. softens the area thus making it a more enjoyable place to live and work.

  27. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mark Kelly commented

    The current situation on the footpath in this part of King St is that there is already insufficient room for the pedestrians already using it during the hours and on the days stipulated in the application. There is no question in my mind that if that application is approved it will produce a significant bottleneck for pedestrians on King St, damaging the amenity for locals and other businesses. Much as I would like to see more outside seating in Newtown, there is simply no space for it at this location. This is a busoness which, moreover, is already one of the few that already boasts outdoor seating, and our scarce spatial resources should not be squandered on expanding that.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Tim commented

    Its hard enough to walk down the busy street as it is without more tables and chairs on it. The other ice cream shop up the street proves this. Pedestrians need to come first and shops really need to trade within their boundaries.
    Newtown already has plenty of character and doesn't need another pretentious gelato, Mexican or Thai to improve what is already a great neighbourhood.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Footway usage application...” at 278 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Best gelato this side of the harbour, probably this side of the country!
    Definitely support their use of the sidewalk as it brings real style and character to the neighbourhood.

  30. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East, VIC:

    Maria Sau-king Wong commented

    Dear Sir,

    A contractor called Joe Robb used this address 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East 3145 as his office when putting up my retaining walls at my property. It is now cracking. He refuses to come back to look at it.

    I have to go for VCAT to dispute his work done but I need his address to serve him the notice. Do you have the owner's address of this property's application? Where are they now? They are not honest tradesmen. They use this address on their business card but I am not sure they are the tenants. Their business name called Advanced Paving on their card

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