Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 144 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    M. Matheson wrote to local councillor Jo Haylen

    This looks like a two-storey rack of dog kennels to me.

    Ghazi Al Ali might like this.

    But I don't know how human beings are expected to have any quality of life while being cooped up in these sad, skulking, low-ceilinged dog-boxes.

    Delivered to local councillor Jo Haylen. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 144 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Steven Bliim wrote to local councillor Victor Macri

    I am disappointed that developers continue to take advantage of the planning concessions available for the creation of affordable housing when all that is really being created are stuffy apartment blocks leased under the guise of affordable housing.

    This property currently constitutes a single dwelling lot, yet the developer hopes to convert this into a property consisting of 15 separate dwellings. The developer has defined no plan on how the impact of the increase of residents in the area will be alleviated.

    It is also further disappointing that the character of the Marrickville Council area is going to continue to be defined by the rise of these high-density developments, which offer no sympathy for the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood and contribute little to the surrounding community in the same capacity that it contributes to the coffers of the council treasury and ultimately the developer's pockets.

    I strongly oppose the development of this boarding house on the following grounds:
    - it detracts from the character of the neighborhood and is not in keeping with the style and scope of neighbouring properties.
    - the property is an over-development and no plans to alleviate the impact of an additional 14 dwellings in the same locality have been provided by the developer.

    Delivered to local councillor Victor Macri. They are yet to respond.

  3. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Mark Citizen commented

    This project will bring down Kogarah Council and the nearby suburbs' profile & drag down the property prices. We don't wish to see a congregation of strange people with not clear intentions.

    No one wish to see South Sydney become like Bankstown or Lakemba.
    Council already rejected their plans a few times, there should be a limit put on this on-going application again & again, wasting time & resources

  4. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Sarah commented

    I'm fully against this development coz this sort of building will increase congestion of a crowded area & make all the peace loving residents feel offended due to what happened around the world & in parramatta. We won't feel secure living in the beautiful south.

  5. In Oakleigh East VIC on “Construct three dwellings...” at 5 Mercer Street Oakleigh East VIC 3166:

    Takuya Katsu commented

    Hi, we are the next door neighbours and have a few concerns regarding this development which we hope will be addressed for its approval.

    1. Parking.
    We have no driveway or garage on our property and rely on off-street parking. Currently, we are usually able to park our 2 cars in front of our house, but on weekends and holidays, the extra influx of visitors often creates a parking problem for us. With the additional units, there will be additional cars per household and including visitors, we may struggle to find parking along our street.

    2. Overshadowing
    We are worried that 2 storey units will cause significant overshadowing over our house. At the moment, we do not get as much light from our living room windows because No. 5 is built slightly higher than our house, but we do enjoy a bright backyard. With the additional dwellings, our backyard will be overshadowed by the taller town houses.

    3. Privacy
    Our 2 year old enjoys playing in the backyard so we spent lots of time there as a family. We are concerned about our privacy if there are overlooking windows, even if they are frosted or opaque.

    4. Security
    Our side entry door is not very wide and it is currently attached to the fence. Already due to the age of the fence, it has already leaned over to our side, so the door doesn't close so well. We are a little concerned about the security of our property if the fence moves even further during the building process.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Andrew commented

    I strongly object to this application.
    - Although the application meets the carspace requirements for the LEP, it does not take into consideration the current parking situation on the surrounding streets, where it is almost impossible to find a park at all times of the week.
    - The 'development is complementary to the surrounding developments, etc.' [P.13 Statement of Environmental Effects]. This is a complete joke if the aim of the development is to match the surrounding buildings industrial buildings which are tin sheds and run down warehouses. More common sense should be used in this design.
    - Complete lack of landscaping with the exception of a fenced in 12x5m patch of grass.
    - No common areas for guests, with the exception of the 'Gallery'/ramp which has about the same amount of merit as the patch of grass outside.
    - Bedroom 2 of the managers apartment would have almost no natural lighting
    - The ground levels should be kept for shopfronts/commercial given the close proximity to King St and other commercial areas.

    This type of accommodation is not suitable for this site (it is a prime residential site which should accommodate for professionals and families). The proposal lacks any design consideration and consists only of hard surfaces and industrial finishes, similar to that of a prison or industrial complex. I feel for the neighboring residential houses, as ironically the previous warehouses (which have already been demolished) were far more complimentary to the surrounding streetscape.

  7. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    hanish commented

    I am NOT in favor of this plan because it will bring lots of issues including but not limited to public traffic, noise and security.

  8. In Canterbury VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement.” at 233 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Lyn commented

    What is the planned use for this building?

  9. In Lilyfield NSW on “Demolition of sheds and...” at 12 May Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Catherine Booth commented

    I have owned a property in this street for 20 years and my understanding of the recently purchased property at number 12, was that the sheds at the rear of the double block were heritage stables. If you walk down the lane you will observe the old stone work.
    Number 12 is a 500m2 block and the old home has been recently completely gutted and stripped by a cast of thousands in the past few months. Unfortunately it is a real tart up job not worthy of the once grand home. The old rusting roof has been painted over not replaced and structural work is questionable.
    The sheds are most probably being removed to make way for a second new development. The construction of additional residences in May Street is going to cause problems for a small street with one wheel on the pavement parking. Council will have to address the parking in this street with the recent sale of two double blocks and the addition of two new residences under complying development. We already have residents from Balmain Road parking extra cars in May Street. I have off street parking for two cars because I haven't built on every m2 of my land but it does not stop cars parking across the driveway, making entry/exists difficult. Council lost the war with NSW complying development but they can do something about resident parking in May Street.

  10. In Grovedale VIC on “Change of Use to a Shop” at 131-133 Marshalltown Road, Grovedale:

    M. Regal commented

    Comment - the Request to Amend Doc's - PP, lists two different times for produce delivery.
    On p2 in hand writing the Applicant says "delivery of stock will be after 7am M-F..."
    Then on a typed page further along, it says deliveries will be at 6.30am.
    COGG should follow up on this.

  11. In Kensington VIC on “Use of land for the purpose...” at 64-68 Stubbs Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    Burnip commented

    This property is on a main truck diversion road, with high industrial traffic and currently not suitable for parking for drop off and pick up for children in and around the intersection. I will submit a formal cimpliant on this application as we are local business with no interest in traffic connection for a childcare facility.

  12. In Lindfield NSW on “Renovation and extension of...” at 29 Grosvenor Road, Lindfield, NSW:

    Jason Ellis commented

    I think it's a good location. As parents we had to drop off one child at childcare then the other at school. Given the area lost a childcare centre with the UTS development and it was not easy to find another placement due to the amount of kids in the area now with all the extra units that have been constructed over the last few years.

    Good to see some extra services being built rather than another apartment block with no consideration on the effect on local residents.

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 144 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    3 applications for boarding houses in the area? Is this how Marrickville Council is going to raise money? By stacking people on top of one another? Invading the privacy of their neighbours? Increasing the number of cars needing to park on the street because the buildings do not come with parking or insufficient parking capacity?

    It is Councils responsibility to maintain the the type of suburb and area that people have invested their hard earn dollars to purchase property. Development for revenue or development sake doesn't make sense. That's not to say that development doesn't have it's benefits but it needs to be considered in conjunction with the reason people chose to live here in the first place. Do not approve this development. Consider your current citizens and constituents.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    3 applications for boarding houses in the area? Is this how Marrickville Council is going to raise money? By stacking people on top of one another? Invading the privacy of their neighbours? Increasing the number of cars needing to park on the street because the buildings do not come with parking or insufficient parking capacity?

    It is Councils responsibility to maintain the the type of suburb and area that people have invested their hard earn dollars to purchase property. Development for revenue or development sake doesn't make sense. That's not to say that development doesn't have it's benefits but it needs to be considered in conjunction with the reason people chose to live here in the first place. Do not approve this development. Consider your current citizens and constituents.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    3 applications for boarding houses in the area? Is this how Marrickville Council is going to raise money? By stacking people on top of one another? Invading the privacy of their neighbours? Increasing the number of cars needing to park on the street because the buildings do not come with parking or insufficient parking capacity?

    It is Councils responsibility to maintain the the type of suburb and area that people have invested their hard earn dollars to purchase property. Development for revenue or development sake doesn't make sense. That's not to say that development doesn't have it's benefits but it needs to be considered in conjunction with the reason people chose to live here in the first place. Do not approve this development. Consider your current citizens and constituents.

  16. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 306-308 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Joel coming commented

    The development is completely over scaled for the historic barely gardens pricinct.
    The other side of swan street could cope with a building of this mass.
    To request a reduction in parking numbers should not be permitted as space for existing residents is already at a premimium.
    To let this building be built would set another bad precident for our lovely pocket of Richmond

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Lynne Jackson commented

    I strongly object to this application. As an owner occupier of an apartment on Perry Street I know that parking in this area is already at a premium. This just isn't sustainable.

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Brett commented

    A motel is a low cost hotel for motorists, yet the plan has only enough parking for 27 cars, compared with 61 rooms. This area is already under pressure with street parking, and the apartment blocks going up (8 Cowper, 31 Addison, 23 Addison) all have many more apartments than car park spots, further increasing the number of cars on the road.

  19. In Lindfield NSW on “Renovation and extension of...” at 29 Grosvenor Road, Lindfield, NSW:

    Mark Randall commented

    I am amazed that anyone would consider this a good idea given the additional traffic congestion it will cause on a semi main road in Lindfield.

    Also, given there is another childcare centre being proposed for the library site, again, why do we need this centre.

    It is bad enough on a regular school day morning with Lindfield public school parents parking in ridiculous places putting themselves and their children at risk. This proposed centre will only compound the issue.

    I would ask that someone seriously consider the implications of such a development.

  20. In Waitara NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 53A Balmoral Street Waitara NSW 2077 Australia:

    J preston commented

    More shopping trolleys to litter Hornsby.

  21. In Wareemba NSW on “Change of use and fitout of...” at 310 Great North Road Wareemba NSW 2046 Australia:

    Sam commented

    They are already two established pharmacies in the same shopping strip. This new planned pharmacy will adversely impact on these existant pharmcies. This should be taken into account when approving this application to open an additional pharmacy!

  22. In Saint Ives NSW on “Installation and operation...” at 166-172 Mona Vale Road, St Ives, NSW:

    John Byrnes commented

    I guess Michael's "Shopping centre parking restrictions are unfortunately inevitable and necessary" is right .. sooner or later we see it everywhere. I was just curious about the supposed use of St. Ives shopping centre by "communters" being what necessitates this at the moment. Consider that the big shopping centre at Gordon (the Gordon Centre) has no boom gates at all (and no charges). They all have restricted parking hours (generally a three hour limit). What is the difference? Has Gordon been policing the matter and St. Ives not? The Gordon Centre is right near a railway station but St. Ives is not -- so one might imagine Gordon shopping centre as more attractive to commuters?

  23. In Chippendale NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 166-170 Broadway Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Leslie commented

    There are sufficient existing outdoor tables at the Broadway Crow. The venue currently does not display much consideration for neighbouring properties and it's existence definitely does not 'enhance' our 'vibrant and growing city'. I am not 'anti bar' but I would prefer to support proposals for an additional smaller venue with more consideration for the communities in which they are situated, rather than increasing the patronage of an already heavily frequented noisy venue such as the Broadway Crow.

  24. In Eltham VIC on “Re-development of the...” at 40 Brougham Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Christine D. commented

    Car park reduction is crazy! People park all over the nature strip area when the car park is at capacity AND there is a basketball game on. You cannot reduce the car parking.

  25. In Saint Ives NSW on “Installation and operation...” at 166-172 Mona Vale Road, St Ives, NSW:

    Michael Daniels (Blog 2073) commented

    Shopping centre parking restrictions are unfortunately inevitable and necessary when you have high density unit developments nearby. I dont think the centre really has any other option. Whether those developments are appropriate is an entirely different argument. None of us want unit residents and their visitors using the shopping centre for all day parking. If the first 3 hours are free, and staff have an appropriate parking allocation, I can only see this being of benefit to shoppers.

  26. In Eltham VIC on “Re-development of the...” at 40 Brougham Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Sarah Le Page commented

    I do not believe that there is any justification in reducing car parking requirements for this centre. Doing so will increase parking pressure in surrounding streets.

  27. In Brunswick West VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 1-5 Olive York Way, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Toby Corkindale commented

    I oppose the reduction in car parking for this application.
    After the other nearby apartments went up, and new cafes opened, the car parking nearby has become very busy and often full. Despite what developers claim, it turns out that many people who buy units or apartments around here still decide to own cars, and people visiting shops and cafes often drive there.

    In part this might be due to the woeful public transport along Albion street, or just the distance from Olive York Way to the often-overcrowded 55 tram.

  28. In Woolooware NSW on “Section 96(2) Application...” at 21 Ocean View St Woolooware 2230:

    Nick de Guingand commented

    I was very disappointed to see this application for a DA which was already very dense.
    I note that he must have just realised that double garages on the property may be a good idea!
    To put this through as a variation is completely inappropriate as it is a core part of the design of the development. It has the effect of increasing the density from what was already quite heavily built.

    Please do not approve this variation.

  29. In North Ryde NSW on “Construction of end of trip...” at 2 Julius Ave, North Ryde, NSW Australia:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    Would Council please explain what an end of trip facility is please?
    Jennie Minifie for Ryde Community Alliance

  30. In Epping NSW on “Building certificate for...” at 6 Melrose Street Epping NSW 2121:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    Please explain the details of the unauthorized works so I can comment.
    regards
    Jennie

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