Recent comments

  1. In Falls Creek NSW on “New Commercial - Micro...” at 28 Gardner Rd, Falls Creek, NSW:

    Susan Walker commented

    I wish to lodge a strong objection to the above development application. The grounds for my objection are as follows:

    The proposal fits the description of a commercial manufactory rather than a 'home industry'. There are several industrial areas in Shoalhaven which could accommodate this proposal.

    The existing lifestyles of neighbours will be negatively impacted by visual pollution, increased traffic, noise, security lighting, odours and effluent run off.

    Gardner Rd. is a narrow, lightly paved road that Council is already unable to keep in repair. The edges are constantly breaking away and for every pothole that Council fills 2 more appear. This has been particularly evident since the opening of the local child care centre. I believe the road has a weight limit.

    During holiday periods it is already very difficult to exit this road due to constant traffic on Jervis Bay Rd. which is regularly backed up half way to Huskisson. Likewise, leaving Gardner Rd. via Mortimer Rd. is almost impossible owing to the volume of traffic traveling south on the Prince's Highway.

    There is no sewer provided to this area and septic tanks with soak-aways are inefficient in the clay soil which prevails in Falls Creek. Runoff will pollute the creek on the property.

    The smell produced by the distilling of alcohol from grain is evident within Kms. of Manildra. Will this be the case here?

    Lastly, the owners/applicant do not live permanently on the property and are not part of our community. They certainly have NOT discussed the proposal with us, Council's letter is the first we have heard if it.

  2. In Eltham VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 26 Pryor Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Diana commented

    I fully support development in eltham. As long as the traffic can be managed it will be good for eltham. Many people who are against it, don't have valid reasons except to say that they don't want development. Economic development and population growth will bring revenue to the council and improve the services to the residents. I welcome more development and please let a few objection voices stop economic development. As a former Manningham resident and soon to be Eltham resident, I hope there will be more progress

  3. In Redfern NSW on “Cake Wine Cellar Door -...” at 16 Eveleigh St, Redfern 2016:

    Simon commented

    i am a local resident and i was not invited to any public meeting regarding this!!!

  4. In Asquith NSW on “Section 96 (2) -...” at 2 Lodge Street Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Carolyn Cannings commented

    The local roads can't cope with current traffic. This block is too far from the station for people to walk there so where will they park? Please ask the developer to improve the roads and parking before proceeding with this plan.

  5. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Partial demolition of...” at 284-286 St Georges Rd Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Helen Oliver-Skuse commented

    Please do not continue to approve more and more reduced parking for residential developments! These premises are in St. George's Road which I think has a clearway in the morning, so where do more permanent cars go? Into the side streets which are populated by single fronted dwellings with no off street parking! I know that there is public transport literally on the doorstep but that does not stop people owning cars. If they work in the city and commute by tram, bike or on foot, their cars have to be parked somewhere.

  6. In Thornlands QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 4...” at 22-24 South Street, Thornlands, QLD:

    Elaine Rogers commented

    I could not agree more. If two houses built in Sharven Ave are any thing to go by, not only are the comments already made relevant but there are also a number of safety issues,such as access to back yards, no access at side of houses. Air conditioner units put in inappropriate places and gas bottles in bad places as well.

  7. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Shirlene Blok commented

    Very sad that planners don't care about neighbour's peace and privacy. 3 story building overlooking your yard. I bet the planners wouldn't like that next to them. Sydney has gone to the dogs - the almighty $$$$ rules. I moved out of Waitara because of the 9 story new building going up across our narrow road. I moved to Qld

  8. In Kew VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 86 Brougham Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Nicole Ward commented

    I object to the development of 86 Brougham St to contain 3 townhouses purely due to the nature of the street - this is a single lane one way street which already struggles to provide adequate parking for the current residents and visitors as parking is restricted to only one side of the street. In addition to this, due to all the retail amenity at the High Street end of the street, this single lane one way street already carries more traffic then it should. I do not believe adding to both the traffic and parking pressure, by over developing this property, is the right decision and so the requested permit should not be granted.

  9. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Judy Brown commented

    Why do we have Heritage Overlays they are to protect the integrity of our city, yet developers constantly leave them in an abandoned state so that they can then say that they will improve the site by demolishing them. Any plans for this site should include preserving this wonderful historic facade.

    The next problem is the reduction of car parking facilities. We are Camberwell residents and Bourke Rd is grid lock most times of the day. Parking for shops, parking for restaurants or cinema of an evening, is at a premium. People drive to Camberwell Station to park to catch the train to the city, parking is at a premium with single fronted properties that have no parking and blocks of flats so why would council allow any further reduction to car parking requirements.

    Burke Rd is also further congested by trams and this developer also wants to reduce loading bay facilities. Do they want to take council parking space of the street and use those as their loading bay spaces.

    Council needs to draw up some more rules regarding developments and how they impact of residents and local communities. In some streets council allows several major works to be undertaken at the same time effectively closing local streets to the community. Developers and builders are making their own road rules and erecting road signs, diversion signs and causing chaos and OHS issues to the community. Some sort of ongoing assessment needs to be made by council.

  10. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 93 Oxford Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    K. Strachan commented

    I oppose the application for a 12 storey apartment building on Oxford St. The building will reach approx 40m in height and will tower above the nearby apartment blocks. The current proposed application places the construction above the height allowance in the LEP which states that zone V2 limit to 38m.

  11. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Fiona Mary Stiff commented

    We believe five storeys next to a heritage listed single dwelling is unreasonable and inappropriate. It will devalue our home massively and impact negatively on our ammenity. At such a height our backyard and pool would be overlooked , currently it is private. We would prefer a single storey next to our home, so we are not completely overlooked and retain some privacy; even the new flats at the shops are not five storeys, so why would you allow single dwellings to be so badly impacted.
    The current considerable traffic difficulties around Wahroonga shops and station will be even worse, which is a worry for the current residents and school children; Abbotsleigh Junior school is nearby.
    Is the timing of this application , two days before Christmas, a deliberate attempt for it to be overlooked by the affected community? This seems fairly contemptuous of council and residents.

  12. In Banksia NSW on “Change of use to car sales...” at 325 Princes Highway, Banksia NSW 2216:

    Chris Kirbas commented

    But this has been done all ready as it's back onto my property

  13. In Worrowing Heights NSW on “Commercial - Sec 96 - to...” at Walter Hood Pde, Worrowing Heights, NSW:

    Cortny Donald-Sharpe commented

    Hi, I was just wondering how many stories high the proposed units will be? Will they be built up close to the boundary fences of the neighbouring houses on Mernie St, Old Erowal Bay or will they have a small yard separating the dwelling from the fence? Will they be independent living or part of the higher dependency aged care?
    Thank you

  14. In Balwyn VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 244 Whitehorse Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Clare J Buckley commented

    How many apartments will be in this development and how many car parks within the property , please ?

  15. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling 3x2...” at 8 Duncraggon Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    L Foster commented

    Development must include sufficient parking for occupants/residents and visitors otherwise the traffic congestion will result in the street becoming one-way. The immediate area is 3 hour parking zone and any development must take into account the impact on the immediate street and surrounding streets and parking requirements. Other subdivisions of house blocks in the area has resulted in residents with large vehicles not able to park in the garage or on the drive way. This has resulted in all the tenants parking on the street. Added to this is the many work vehicles that also park on the street in this area.

  16. In Cleveland QLD on “Apartment Building” at 140 Queen Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Barbara Meaker commented

    I echo the remarks of Wayne M Love former owner of 140 Queen Street Cleveland. I add - As a resident of Cleveland who chose this beautiful seaside area for retirement from the busy city of Sydney, I have been stunned by the over development of the entire Redlands shire. And it continues, like a cancer spreading across every piece of parkland and land which can be developed or redeveloped. The once beautiful streetscapes are rapidly changing. They now remind me of the busy city & urban life I left. Open spaces once farmland now swallowed up by rows & rows of townhouses. Trees once habitat to wildlife chopped down. Increases to traffic without adequate infrastructure planning to support it. It saddens me. The once beautiful downtown Cleveland is nothing but a mass of buildings which I describe as a mess.

  17. In Thornlands QLD on “Standard Format - 1 into 4...” at 22-24 South Street, Thornlands, QLD:

    Lansing R Hawkins commented

    REF: (Source: Redland City Council, reference APS000450)
    Property Number: 30379
    Legal Description: Lot 1 RP 135744

    This application should NOT be approved. The reasons include:

    Subdividing the current property and building four (4) homes on it would:
    1. Create new properties in a very crowded space and of a lower quality than the surrounding properties, and
    2. Be inconsistent with the adjacent and nearby established homes, leading to the lowering of current owners' property values. If the application were approved, adjacent and nearby property owners would be justly entitled to compensation from Council for any and all damages.
    3. Additionally, any approval of this application would be in conflict with zoning laws which restrict the total number of dwellings on the lot to no more than two dwellings (see 32.03).

    I respectfully request that this application on the referenced Lot, be DISAPPROVED.

    Thank you

  18. In Buderim QLD on “112 Burnett Street BUDERIM...” at 112 Burnett St, Buderim, QLD:

    Christine Lambooy commented

    Dear Sir/Madam
    I am extremely concerned that the service entrance for this development from Pine Street wills have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residential area. I believe the current traffic flow report for this development does not address this issue.
    This is a large aged care facility with at least 30 staff on site at all times. Volunteers, trades persons, patient transport vehicles and other support staff will also probably use this entrance.
    I am not aware of shift change times however these are likely to be at 6-7am, 2-3pm and 10-11pm for a 3 shift day and 6-8am and 6-8pm for a 2 shift day.
    As well there will be numerous large delivery trucks for laundry, catering and medical supplies using this entrance. This additional traffic flow will occur 24 hours per day/7 days per week.
    The impact of this extra traffic flow through this quiet residential area with narrow winding streets will be substantial, particularly with respect to noise levels and road safety (especially for children playing and commuting to school).
    This facility would be better placed in a less dense residential / non residential area.
    This valuable site is within walking distance to Buderim shops and primary school and would be better utilised for small block housing housing or single storey retirement village development, more in keeping with the planning scheme for this area. A well planned residential development on this site would allow more families and individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in our wonderfull village.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Yours sincerely
    Chris Lambooy

  19. In Marks Point NSW on “Emergency Services Facility” at 860A Pacific Highway, Marks Point NSW 2280:

    Chris Osborne commented

    The addition of the Westpac Rescue Helicopter service to the airport is a great asset for East Lake Macquarie. The construction of the facilities will provide jobs plus there will be ongoing jobs after completion. The helicopter base will house 1 doctor a up to 4 paramedics 24 hour per day providing the local community with a medical emergency service on their doorstep. Any noise generated by the helicopters taking off in the early hours of the morning every so often is a small price to pay knowing that the service is helping our fellow citizens who are in need of this vital emergency service that is saving lives. The re-opening of the airport last year has been overwhelmingly accepted by the majority of the local community.

  20. In South Launceston TAS on “Business and Professional...” at 34-40 Howick Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Susan Wright commented

    I have concerns about the provision of only 4 car parking spaces for this medical clinic. For 2 medical practitioners it is determined there should be 8 spaces.
    I don't think that the 'possible embarrassment ' of a client having their parked car seen outside the clinic should be enough of a reason to vary the available parking.
    Excavation work nearby could provide enough space for parking.
    Are the parking spots for the use of clients or staff?
    The clinic has a receptionist/counsellor/nurse practitioner and a doctor. If all the employees utilise the parking there will be none left for patients so where are they to park?
    If the parking is reserved for patients, where are the staff to park?
    I am a resident of nearby French street where there are already major issues with parked cars of hospital/dental clinic and hotel staff. Adding a clinic to this area without proper parking provision is going to cause more angst and loss of amenity for the residents.

  21. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Use of the land for 356...” at 33 - 37 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Raymond and Rosemary Clarke commented

    The following sets out our grounds and concerns for opposing the proposed development in its current form.
    1. The proposed building height does not reflect the surrounding building heights and is not in line with current limits for the area precincts.
    2. The setback combined with the proposed building height creates more negative issues. The proposed building setback in our view is not acceptable and will produce crowding in the adjacent streets affecting the residential interface by overlooking adjacent private properties.
    3. Traffic and pedestrian safety issues. In our view the proposed development will intensify the traffic movement in this area.
    4. The proposed development will intensify the already high traffic congestion and parking in the area.
    5. Along with increased traffic, service vehicles and pedestrian activity comes increased noise and urban disturbance.
    6. The proposed development’s visual bulk also doesn’t sit well or fit in with the surrounding environment. The bulk of the proposed building taking into consideration the increased height and setbacks can only infringe upon the privacy of the existing surrounding residential homes. In fact there will be very invasive overlooking.
    We ask that the concerns as outlined above be given fair and due consideration during the assessment process of this application.

  22. In Cleveland QLD on “Apartment Building” at 140 Queen Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Wayne M. Love commented

    To whom it concern,
    An apartment block of the size proposed in this location is completely out of character with the area.
    As a resident of this street for 53 year I realize that change is enviable and I have seen quite a bit. I fact I actually owned this house. When the sale was forced upon me it was with the understanding that it was to be a 2 storey executive retirement village. A structure of this type would not have attracted any adverse reaction. People from all over Australia and indeed the world have moved to this area to get away from this multi story environment. Why should they, and indeed I be forced to sell because of the greed of a few people. When Cleveland is built up it will be too late to realize what has been lost. If you want to live in a high rise move to Brisbane or the Gold Coast leave us alone!

  23. In Kingsford NSW on “Seven (7) storey (with...” at 22 Gardeners Road Kingsford NSW 2032:

    george cotis commented

    The site is desperately close to the roundabout. The area is presently dangerously congested.

    To add to the danger and the congestion would be almost suicidal.

    And even worse, the new trams may be terminating at the roundabout, thus causing more chaos in the entire roundabout area

    I have not made a donation to this area or any other area in my neighbourhood

  24. In Mascot NSW on “Amended Drawings seeking...” at 27 Church Avenue Mascot NSW 2020:

    Veronica Baker commented

    Good morning

    Surely, it would be better for the builder to put the lower building in the front to enable more people to enjoy the city views which, in turn, would bring better unit prices? Please could you explain why the lower building is at the back.

    Thank you.


  25. In Redfern NSW on “Cake Wine Cellar Door -...” at 16 Eveleigh St, Redfern 2016:

    Simon commented

    Do we really want or need another bar? Let us learn from our neighbors in darlinghurst and Surry hills. These venues are not what I want near my home. Drunk young people linger around the surrounding areas long after the bars and venues close and the locals are left to clean up their mess!!

  26. In Oakleigh VIC on “The development and use of...” at 89-93 Atherton Road Oakleigh VIC 3166:

    Georgia and Glen Skelton commented

    This is totally inappropriate for this area. We have just moved in to this area and renovated respecting the character of the area . To discover that our sky line may change completely is devastating. Please do not proceed.

  27. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Jennifer Nancy Litchfield commented

    Can you please advise what this telecommunications development is needed for? The first time I heard about this was when I saw the signs posted recently at the park. I thought everyone's mobiles and internet communications were all working well these days. I personally do not want this development to go ahead. I love to get away from my work on the computer and just go for a quiet healthy walk in the fresh air at the park.

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

    Sally Lo commented

    I am opposed to proposed construction of the mosque at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville for the following reasons:

    1) The proposed development does not agree to the area’s demography and it does not service the needs of the local residents of our community as a whole.

    2) King Georges Road is busy road no matter what time of the day it is, building a mosque in a residential area not only will it create traffic chaos, parking issues but also increase the noise level in the area, hence, another health concern for the local community especially those elderly people living in the retirement village across the road, who also need CLEAR access for emergencies and ambulance.

    3) Building a mosque in a residential area will bring worshippers outside the areas which is a security concerns to the local community.

    4) The mosque operating hours is disruptive to nearby residents. The expected operating hours will be from 3:30 am to 10:30 pm in summer and 5:00 am to 9:30 pm in winter.

  29. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Jennifer Nancy Litchfield commented

    Can you please advise what this telecommunications development is needed for? The first time I heard about this was when I saw the signs posted recently at the park. I thought everyone's mobiles and internet communications were all working well these days. I personally do not want this development to go ahead. I love to get away from my work on the computer and just go for a quiet healthy walk in the fresh air at the park.

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

    David commented

    We live in a vibrant and growing city which is enhanced by facilities like the one proposed and we should understand that if we live within a kilometre of the CBD heavy footpath traffic will be implied. If we do not accept this as normal daily inner city life we should perhaps move to the countryside. More tables and less smokers.

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