Recent comments

  1. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Helen Strong commented

    To Whom It May Concern.

    I live at 322 Windermere Rd, and I am very concerned about this 13 Unit development
    and other buildings at 575 Windermere Rd. For this small community, we already have
    enough tourist accommodation here, and anymore will not help the existing business's
    that are currently in operation.

    Windermere Rd is narrow and with no footpaths for the locals who like walking, bike
    riding and horse riding, it is hard enough to avoid and dodge traffic without more cars and buses using this road and creating more traffic problems. We also have quite an
    abundance of wildlife here including echidnas, small wallaby's and other native animals,
    this development will cause more road kill, and as a walker, it is very distressing to have
    to not only see these continuous dead animals on the roadside, but also having to smell their decaying bodies is also upsetting. People who live in Launceston and surrounding
    suburbs, do not have to endure this.

    Passing this application will create more traffic stress on this road which is already not in
    good condition due to the winter flood damage and erosion.
    Tourists generally have little regard for locals when travelling, and usually are unaware of
    the speed limits. This is a 50 km (speed limit on this road) and everyday people exceed this limit, I don't think having more cars on this road will help this community in anyway
    shape or form.

    Yours sincerely

    Helen Strong.

  2. In Melbourne VIC on “Propose development of site...” at 141-149 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Alex N commented

    Strongly doubt this will gain any traction whatsoever. The city has learnt from past mistakes that 'pencil' towers like this are not what is best for Melbourne. The site is only some 430 square metres with substandard road access via Bennetts Lane.

    In regard of the adjoining properties, all are low rise residential blocks that would have their natural light and private open space completely wiped out as a result of this development.

    Would strongly suggest Council interact directly with owners before any development of the historic Jazz Club occurs.

  3. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Daniel Rider commented

    This needs to be approved!! Better competition and choice!!

  4. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of ten...” at 102 Railway Parade, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Thomas Griffin commented

    Please do not cut corners with parking spaces which is already at a premium here in this location. People are observed to park on the nature strip opposite this place making the road viable for one way traffic only. Unless the council has plans to extend and expand the road. There should be mandatory parking spaces on site including for visitors.

  5. In Melbourne VIC on “Propose development of site...” at 141-149 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Bernard chin commented

    I own a low rise two storey townhouse next to the proposed development. Ours is a unique English style courtyard development within the city square and deserve protection. The development next to us will lock us out of sunlight and put us in the path of a wind tunnel created. This will leave us with limited light and significantly reduce our living condition in the most liveable city. The proposal must not go ahead.

  6. In Biggera Waters QLD on “Description: Class:...” at 34 Parr Street Biggera Waters 4216:

    Kathryn Harland commented

    I would like to advise that this house is next door to me and is made of asbestos. I would like to be guaranteed the correct asbestos removal procedures are used and that my neighbours and I be notified before this occurs

  7. In Katoomba NSW on “TEST Application for...” at 2-6 Civic Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    Perry Mowbray commented

    This is a test comment on this test application.

  8. In South Fremantle WA on “Patio addition to existing...” at 12 Little Lefroy Lane South Fremantle WA 6162:

    Manager Statutory Planning commented

    This is a test comment. Please contact Manager Statutory Planning City of Fremantle.

  9. In Woy Woy NSW on “Shed (storage)” at 16 Cogra Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Elizabeth Doyle commented

    *This application proposes to build a shed 500mm from our side fence line, and runs 9metres down our entire main outdoor space; our back yard. The shed will effectively eliminate our outlook to the hills to the north west, and a significant amount of the sky.
    *The area is a flood area, subject to ponding. I cannot find information in the application outlining the measurement above sea level the building is proposed to be built at and whether this is compliant.
    *I also can't find any reference to the purpose of this shed, but must note that as this is a residential zone, the constant noise of power tools post build is most unwelcome and will generate much complaint, as it will make our back yard virtually unusable.
    *The development in size and location of the building is not suited to the overall size of the block, and doesn't appear to comply with current boundary restrictions, which impacts greatly on our outdoor space.
    *I kindly request an inspection from our back garden when considering the impact on neighbouring residences of this proposed development.
    I apologise, but cannot agree that this application should be approved.

  10. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 1215 Main Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    vivienne kempson commented

    Over development of the block, they will be very tightly packed with little or no replanting of anything bigger than an Azalea, very little parking and from the road will look like 11, 2 storey blocks of concrete as the building envelope is only about 2000m2 and is high up the block making it very visable.

  11. In Rozelle NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 43 Crescent Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Michael helliar commented

    I object to the above application due to the history and heritage of this residence. Details can be supplied if needed

  12. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Alex commented

    ALDI welcomed
    More competition (better quality, lower price) for Woolies and Coles

  13. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Alex commented

    ALDI welcomed
    More competition (better quality, lower price) for Woolies and Coles

  14. In Roselands NSW on “Residential” at 98 Payten Avenue, Roselands:

    Raj commented

    Few reasons why 60 odd apartments should not be allowed.

    1) Payten Avenue as such has been transit lane for many commuters which avoids Cantebury Road. Adding more apartments would create more traffic during peak hrs.
    2) Already buses coming from Voilet street and going towards Mount Ave slows down traffic.
    3) Also most of the traffic for centro roselands pass from Payten avenue.
    4) adding 60 apartments would add another 100 odd cars.
    5) have no objection for few townhouses or duplex.
    6) please support existing community.

  15. In Fawkner VIC on “Development of the land...” at 17 Derby Street, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    DAVID MOLLISON commented

    Where is the justification for reduced car parking? Public transport arguments are not sustainable without demonstrably more and improved transport systems and infrastructure in place. Also recent new developments i.e. Kodak site (Coburg Hill) with small streets are piling up with cars that people are not fitting into there garages with more cars for the big houses that do not have adequate off street capacity and people using the garages for storage and not the car.
    This also impacts on adequate and relevant public and private open space.

  16. In North Melbourne VIC on “Proposed demolition and...” at 65-67 Flemington Road North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Ann Tregear commented

    I am the co-owner of 65-67 Flemington Road, North Melbourne, two, two storey terrace houses with rear carparking.This picture is not correctly numbered. The property here is the corner of High Street and Flemington Road.

    I have no intention of demolishing this property which is currently used as two restaurants.

    I believe that 69-73 Flemington Road North Melbourne has a planning application in for a 15 level apartment level.This property is at the corner of Villiers and Flemington Road and abuts what I understand is a historical dwelling in Villiers STreet..

    A couple of years ago I believe a permit was granted for a 9 level building. TP-2011-160 on this site to which I objected due to bulk, overshadowing and lack of privacy and car parking amongst other reasons.

    I have received no notification of a new planning application for 69-73 Flemington Road North Melbourne. (TP-2014-596) . This application if approved would certainly negate my property in all aspects.

  17. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Part demolition, 1 new...” at 64 Holden St Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    Parking in the inner city is already a nightmare. There should be no reduction in car parking requirements as, over time, parking 'spots' are needed even if this is just for visiting friends.
    I am sick and tired of the way short-term developer greed is replacing long-term liveability in the community. Although I agree with better public transport and less car use, developments still need car parking places when you consider long-term use.

  18. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Rodney (Tom) Dart commented

    While not against development as such I am very concerned as to the impact of a multi-unit facility on the current infrastructure in the area. As a resident of 20 years and regular walker and driver on Windermere Road I feel the increase in traffic is of great concern and would suggest upgrading of the road, including safe footpaths, is required to cope with such an increase. Anecdotally the longer term plans for 575 Windermere Rd are for more than 50 units which, if correct, would have an exponential impact.

    I would presume the increased demands on the ageing water supply and electricity network, along with sewerage disposal, are being considered by Council.

    I would also be very interested to understand the reasoning behind allowing a multi dwelling tourist retreat development when sub-division/construction of residential lots has previously not been allowed by council. The impact on both infrastructure and neighbourhood lifestyle are surely similar?

  19. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Patricia Hollier commented

    I would like to add my concerns about the development at 575 Windermere Road .I have been a resident of 238 Windermere for over 25 years and have seen this area grow. The infrastructure of the area has not grown at the same rate. We have no footpaths and in some areas there are quite significant drops in levels which makes walking a hazard. I fear that the extra traffic which a development of this size will cause residents added stress when walking by themselves or with their dogs. Drivers unfamiliar with our narrow, winding road tend not to drive to the conditions.
    Another concern is water pressure, which at times is almost non existent. I have had to install a tank to collect mains water. Will the extra 12 or more residences impact even more on this water pressure?

    Yours Sincerely
    Patricia Hollier

  20. In Urunga NSW on “Urunga Contaminated Site -...” at Hillside Drive, Urunga, NSW:

    JOHN commented

    If any soil is disturbed by this development it will have a disastrous impact on the whole river and lagoon system in south Urunga and probably the Kalang & Bellinger river systems..The first big storm will wash it all down to the lagoon..Please do not allow this to happen..Once you allow this poison into the water system, YOU CAN NOT FIX IT THEN..Please don't let this happen..This is not an environmental remedy, it is a commercial one..Any commercial benefit from this development will be at the cost of the environment..Thank you

  21. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Graeme Pitt commented

    To whom it may concern.

    As a resident at 495 Windermere Road I would like to add my objection to the development application for 575 Windermere Road.(App ref No DA0442/2014).
    Rather than write a similar objection could I support the comments written by Mr Jon Hosford, which I have read,that are being delivered to you today (14/11/2014).
    I would also like to be able to add my concerns at the Council meeting when this proposal is being considered.

    Graeme Pitt

    495 Windermere Road

  22. In Redfern NSW on “Use of the footway on...” at 180 Redfern Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Michael B commented

    As long as late night music is not an issue with current residents. Noise is already bothering local residents after hours from establishments surrounding this proposal. Approve this yes .... but let's not create an area that promotes drinking and loud noise at all hours.

  23. In Glendale NSW on “Earthworks” at McDonalds Quarry, 106 Reservoir Road, Glendale NSW 2285:

    Ben Murray commented

    Please provide the details of this development application to number 7 amber way Glendale pleAse.

  24. In The Basin VIC on “Tree removal” at 1294 Mountain Highway, The Basin VIC 3154:

    Rohan Dummett commented

    This property is already an eyesore, instead of removing trees they should give it a good paint job to make it fit in with the surroundings.
    I don't want The Basin to start looking like a concrete jungle.
    If they are approved to remove trees, there needs to be a compromise of paint to make it fit in with the surroundings.

  25. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 1215 Main Road, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Sami commented

    Interesting. 1215 Main Road is mostly a flood zone, with just ~2000m2 outside UFZ, so those will be tightly packed units.

  26. In North Bondi NSW on “Shuk - On-premises licence...” at 2 Mitchell St, North Bondi 2026:

    Therese Svensson commented

    I am very angry I was not sent a letter by Waverley Council informing us of this application.
    This new on-premises licence application is for Shuk a cafe in a residential area at 2 Mitchell Street North Bondi.
    The cafe opens at 6am each day and now will have a liquor licence.
    Most of the seating for Shuk is outside and my bedroom is almost opposite.
    I have no objection to people enjoying a drink with their meal but I hope there will be a 10pm limit to liquor sales.
    Thank you

  27. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Melanie Smith commented

    I would like to raise my concerns about the proposed development. I personally am a horse rider and dog walker and use the road each day for this purpose. This application is going to have a huge impact on my lifestyle and safety. It will also impact many of my fellow residents and I am especially concerned about the elderly resident s who walk along Windermere Road several times a day either by themselves or with their pets. This is also on a school bus route and will cause concern for many parents like myself. I feel this road is currently a safe place for my child to walk or ride his bike to the local cafe or jetty.
    The construction trucks travelling along this road I am sure will have a huge impact on use all, like me the elderly will feel intimidated by this. It would be a terrible shame if they felt they could not go for their daily walk as this would have a huge affect on their mental and physical well being. This is a winding and poorly sealed road with many drainage issues that have recently been brought to the attention of Council. There is still currently a dangerous stretch of road that has not been fixed since the floods in July this year. And since then the road has sunk down further. The infrastructure of the road is substandard and barely copes with the traffic now. I am concerned mostly about the compromise to residents in this peaceful village that we have chosen to invest in for our lifestyle that a 40% traffic increase will cause.
    Yours Sincerely
    Melanie Smith

  28. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of land to...” at 66 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    s hyde commented

    This application should not be approved..I strongly object to the reduction of the standard car parking requirement for this planning application, a minimum of two car spaces per dwelling on site to be designed into the construction. If this is not agreed to it will just increase the existing Street scape conjestion & even worsen the public safety together increasing local council liability

  29. In Sydney NSW on “Stage 1 Development...” at 130-134 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000:

    Ken Flook commented

    What is the process that Council will follow to allow the construction of this building.

  30. In Windermere TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 575 Windermere Road Windermere TAS 7252:

    Petrina Lowther commented

    To whom it may concern, I am deeply concerned by the prospect of the proposed development of twelve units etc . I and many of my neighbours moved to Windermere purely because of its relaxed, peaceful and quiet surroundings. I enjoy walking along the road everyday as do many of my neighbours. I also enjoy taking my horse riding along the road, relaxed with the knowledge that the local traffic always drive at a leisurely pace and with care to pedestrians, and people on push bikes. i worry to think what kind of increase in traffic there will be if the proposed development of twelve units etc is granted. Not only that but the condition of the road is hardly able to tolerate an increased volume of traffic and there are no existing footpaths to allow people to walk on so they have no choice but to walk on the road. yours Sincerely Petrina Lowther

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