Recent comments

  1. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Amanda Houge commented

    This house is very small and in a crowded street with busy traffic. I don't think it's suitable for a child care centre with Loombah ave is just few meters away. Can you imagine how Local traffic would be affect from this? It's already been quite busy on tryin rd, a child centre with lots of cars pickup and drop off would be horrific. Not a wise site choice. It's not considerate for other local residents.

  2. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 16-22 Claremont Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Zoe commented

    Hi,

    I am a resident around this proposal.

    This proposal is neighboured by existing residential buildings which range between 15-20 levels, such as Lilli Apartments, Prime Tower, Ella, SXY2 and 50 Claremont Street. And the Lucia apartment (4-10 Daly st) which is just on the eastern side of the proposed building is due for completion. So this proposal which asks for a tower with 31 levels would have a serious impact on the surrounding residents. Please do consider the height of the proposal building and its distance with its close buildings.

    On Claremont St, there are already many constructions have been approved such as Clarement Manor and The Elfin. It seems this area will be full of apartments. So please also consider the population density and the impact of the construction works and noises to local residents when reviewing this proposal.

    Thank you very much for your consideration!

  3. In Reservoir VIC on “Use of the existing...” at 117-121 Edwardes Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Assunta Arthur commented

    I live across the road from 117-121 Edwardes Street Reservoir VIC 3073 and have great concerns regarding the already increasing traffic in this particular part of the street. There are a number of industrial properties next to the address in question, and we have an issue with large trucks and vans pulling in and out of these properties, holding up the flow of traffic both ways, and also and illegally parking over our driveways. There are not enough on-site parking spaces in relation to the amount of children expected to attend the childcare, so the overflow of cars will end up on Edwardes Street, posing a dangerous threat to parents pulling children in and out of cars with so many trucks/vans nearby.

  4. In Erskineville NSW on “Footway application...” at 61-63 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Alex Ozdowski commented

    Hello,

    I am 100% in favour of this application. I live in an apartment next to the restaurant and can see how full this area gets on a nice sunny day so having additional café seating will improve the amenity of the area. The area where they propose to have the seating is wide enough to accommodate more people. The one caveat is that it should be limited to Erskineville road and not Prospect street although that does already appear to be part of the DA.

    Alex

  5. In Alexandria NSW on “Proposed change of use of...” at 199 Lawrence Street Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Hollie Ussher commented

    Requesting trading hours until midnight in an extremely residential area is grounds for objection.

    There is a four story apartment block directly across the road and ALL housing/residential surrounds and this is an incredibly quiet neighbourhood. Parking in this area is very difficult even now. And contrary to the statement of environmental effects, there are NO council carparks, and certainly no metered parking within walking distance of this proposed restaurant.

    Not even the Parkview Hotel which is its closest hospitality venue (500 metres away) is not open after 10pm on a Sunday.

    In the management plan, vendors state in point M that the 'Potting Shed' and 'Vicinity' are 50 metres from this site... Google this.... 900 metres is more precise for both venues, and Vicinity has closed permanently.

    It is wonderful that a restaurant and wine bar is opening in this venue, the pizza was woeful previously but please be mindfully that this neighbourhood is not a Newtown, nor a groovy Redfern, it's not even an Erskineville, and the restaurant will have NIL retail/hospitality/late night neighbours that operate between those 4-12pm trading hours.

  6. In Killara NSW on “New dwelling - demolition...” at 28 Cook Road, Killara, NSW:

    Keith Evans commented

    I lived at "20 " cook road from 1944 until my father died in 1961

    The images I now see on the internet ,together with a drive-by last year have greatly changed ,and in fact ,destroyed the " Federation " images I grew up with.

    The change in bathroom location has removed any semblance of Federation days when the bathroom was located near and central to all [3] bedrooms.

    The kitchen is no longer immediately entered from the outside ,as was necessary for deliveries by the greengrocer ,the grocer ,the iceman---part of Federation life.

    There were no arched doorways in the house.

    The front and side veranda has been embellished with the addition of half panels.
    The front had only singular vertical posts--5 maybe 6.
    Down the Redbank Rd side,the posts continued for about 3/4 of the way .Then a shingle panel wall about 4 ft high was topped with frosted glass, took over and continued across the back to a set of steps up from the yard and outside toilet.
    It was sewered prior to 1944 ,but this room was original serviced by a night service.

    I note the addition of an extra area across the back of the house

    Where is the wisteria and grape vine covered fern house which was so complimentary to federation days ? Now a swimming pool !!

    I do NOT think the property should be approved as Federation. It is too far removed into the 21st century

  7. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Joyce Warnock commented

    I am opposed to the development of a boarding house at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
    A development like this is not in keeping with the overall character and family orientated area. Such a development will affect the properties in the surrounding areas and is more than likely set a precedent for future developers looking to profit out of similar developments/projects.

  8. In Glenroy VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 151 Melbourne Avenue, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Clare Clifton commented

    If I were the previous owner/s I would be suing Moreland Council!
    This was home to Anzac hero William Murrell!

  9. In Zetland NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 2 Portman Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    alex willis commented

    This is a great idea. Love this little cafe in our neighbourhood :)

  10. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Richard Lau commented

    The proposed childcare centre is located at the section of Tryon Road between Melbourne Rd and Archbold Rd. This part of Tryon Road is very busy because of Lindfield East Primary School. Also many residents of East Lindfield frequently use Tryon Road to cross Archbold Road because the traffic light at the Archbold Road interception. Adding a large childcare centre (for 36 children) would cause even more traffic chaos during peak hours on Tryon Road. There are many parents, children and students often walk passing the driveway of this property along Tryon Road before and after school. So it would increase the risk for pedestrians to be knocked down if there are cars frequently entering and leaving this childcare centre for children pick up and drop off.

    Another concern is the loud noise generated by many young children playing at the backyard from this large childcare centre. All surrounding neighbours will be disturbed by such noise. There are quite a number of retired senior residents living near this proposed childcare centre and they are at home during daytime. With the constant loud noise from children playing at this childcare centre, the neighboring residents no longer can enjoy the peaceful and quite time even from their own backyard. Such noise would reduce their quality of life and have negative impact on their health. Moreover there are also people working from home in the neigbouring properties. The noise will have a significant impact on the quality of their work.

    Therefore, such large childcare centre development proposal should be rejected since it has adverse impact on local residents.

  11. In Malvern East VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 207-213 Waverley Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Greg Broadley commented

    As residents living in the Grange we believe a 5 storey redevelopment would be unfair and unreasonable to all of the residents in Waverly Road and the neighbouring streets.
    This would not only impact on the view of many houses in the area but also the value of their homes.
    Parking in The Grange is already difficult for visitors as we only have unrestricted available on one side of the street and these are always snapped up before 7am Monday to Friday, reducing the available parking to residents and visitors would increase the day to day stresses and make this impossible to live with.

    We ask the Council to please consider all of the homes and the many families of all ages that would be effected by this should it proceed.

    Thank You
    Regards
    Greg and Jenny Broadley

  12. In Boronia VIC on “Development of a three...” at 11 Tulip Crescent, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Elizabeth Serritelli commented

    Sent this to the Real estate advertising the property....Dirt, thick dry mud and rubbish all over the road and was I told today by the driver of the semitrailer delivering to 11 Tulip Cres, 'that if you live in Boronia what do you expect'. He then went on to tell me that he lives in a nice suburb so it wouldn't happen to him. He does not know me, who I know or who is related to me. I may be someone connected to or even be interested in living in or buying an apartment similar to what is being built. I may also be someone planning to sell a large block in the area. I will be advising any person I see looking at the development for purchase, not to buy it because the developers seem to rude, disrespectful, insulting and untrustworthy, they seem to not care or take pride in the area, Boronia. The mess needs to be cleaned up and any person who comes in contact with me who is anyway affiliated with the development needs to be respectful and polite. I expect an apology forth coming. A complaint has been placed with the council. Any further bullying will be reported.

    I am angry not only because this recent incident, but when the the flats were built behind us last year. I was often blocked in, trucks covering my drive way. I was late to work twice. Never was apologised to rubbish and wood left on my side of the fence. Rubbish left all over the nature strip. I was abused by the people on the site and they always blamed each other. I complained to the council but nothing ever was done. Now similar situation. This is not exactly next to my property but still is disrespectful.

  13. In East Melbourne VIC on “Conversion of the existing...” at 1-9 Powlett Street East Melbourne VIC 3002:

    Bretan Clifford commented

    THIS APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR ILLUMINATED ADVERTISING PANELS

    I recognise the need to increase tram accessibility and efficiency through the development of the new superstop. While a significant number of East Melbourne residents suffer minor disadvantage by the elimination of the other stops I believe the gross community advantage is justified. However........

    I have very strong objection to turning public space where there is currently minimal advertising into an illuminated advertising circus.

    Two electronic and six static internally illuminated advertising panels changes the whole character of the proposal.

    I can understand some, say two to four, Yarra Trams self-promotional panels on the new Evo 8 metre double parallel double-roof tram shelters.

    If any non-Yarra Tram internally illuminated advertising panels are a specific requirement of the proposed modification of the East Melbourne tram stops I call on the Future Melbourne Committee to reject the planning proposal.

  14. In Newtown NSW on “To continue to conduct a...” at 1 Bedford Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe oryenzi commented

    This is an excellent use of space and a pleasure every weekend to see it there. Long may it continue!

  15. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 16 Alister Street, Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Jenny M commented

    There should most definitely not be a reduction in carparking. The street is quite narrow and it is already quite difficult to navigate especially on a weekend and during the football season, when the park is in full swing. There will be 2x the residences so twice as many cars and visitors' cars as at present.. This would make Alister St even more hazardous to pass through.

  16. In Indented Head VIC on “Construction of Three (3)...” at 325 The Esplanade, Indented Head:

    Judith Brown commented

    Point 2.1 of Councils Indented Head Structure Plan
    Indented Head is not a location designated for extensive residential or rural residential growth within Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement
    3.1 Vision
    “The peace and quiet of Indented Head is the most valued aspect of the township. The small and cohesive community is its most important and valued resource. Our vision for this small and idyllic hamlet is to improve the environment, to ensure better amentities for community and visitors, while retaing our most valued small community and peaceful way of life”

    The Structure plan goes on to address key issues such as storm water, infrastructure, varying lot sizes and development sympathetic to the area. All of these things have been consistently ignored by the planning department.

    Sub dividing housing lots along this section of The Esplanade will be another major end to the character of Indented Head. The approach and outlook of this part of Indented Head has always been special with the low slung homes set back on large blocks. We do not want a change to the Portarlington style of Esplanade with homes wedged in with double storey properties with no trees making the place look like a Melbourne suburban beach side area. This was supposed to be maintained as something a bit different from St Leonards, Portarlington, Ocean Grove etc. It was not a designated growth area, however this seems to have been thrown out the window as more and more land is carved up and more suburban houses are built with covenants that in fact encourage suburbanism rather than a coastal, holiday village lifestyle which was the aim of the Structure Plan.

    New developments have been allowed to barrel a dam and natural spring which has led to flooding of the road during wet weather and left if as a quagmire in the following days.

    Infrastructure is a key point to all developments and one of the drivers here was that it was to be left as a secondary town with developments directed into areas where amenities were already in place. This is not happening and it is becoming a little heartless dormitory suburb where people sleep and you will have a continuing divide between the suburban development drive and the coastal village that was always seen as the focus for this town.

    The whole attraction of this area apart from its location has been its village style, laid back family friendly holiday area. It is not the Gold Coast it is not Geelong, nor Barwon Heads, Ocean Grove or any other coastal place. It has a unique feel of it's own please stay with the Structure Plan and do not sell out to even further subdivision of existing blocks and bulldozing of the style of housing that made this place what it has always been.

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    clancy m commented

    33 boarding rooms With only one car space must be an error.
    Where will the people living in the building park? On the already clogged streets?
    I oppose this, provide more parking or don't build so many rooms!

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “To retain the existing...” at 326-330 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Henare Degan commented

    Nice to see the façade retained. It's great that the apartments are set back from the street-front as this makes the street feel less crowded.

    However 6 storeys is out of keeping with the rest of the area. There are apartments across the road at the corner of Petersham Rd and Marrickville Rd and these are only 4 storey and, despite not being the most attractive, don't stick out due to their size.

    Another issue is the mix of apartments. The proposal is for 18x 1 bedroom and 21x 2 bedroom apartments. Marrickville doesn't need housing for single people - young couples and small families are the type of people moving into the area and that's the housing we need. There should be less 1 bedroom and more 3 bedroom apartments in this proposal.

    It's worth pointing out that both my objections above are even noted in the Statement of Environmental Effects as not complying with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011. The comments in the proposal suggesting that they should be able to proceed despite not complying are laughable and should be rejected.

    If the number of storeys was reduced and the mix of apartments was rethought then this would be a good development. However in its current form I do not think it should be approved.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    michele commented

    Is it just me or do the numbers seem strange. Only 33 boarding rooms over 7 storeys?
    Even allowing that the ground floor is commercial that is an avg of 5.5 room per floor. Must be large rooms?

  20. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 16-22 Claremont Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Evon commented

    Hi

    I am the future owner of the apartment in 4-10 Daly street

    I am seriously concerned about the impact on my lot. My 2 bedrooms are both facing the west ,which means if this project permit once been approved, I will get no sunlights for the whole day.

    Please sincerely consider the living environment for the residents in 4-10 Daly street

    Many thanks

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    sharon commented

    Surely that must be an error.. Seven storey building with 33 boarding rooms and one car space? Are the architects 5 year olds who don't understand how people and society works?!
    Will there be a rule that only bike owners can buy or live there?
    What a novel idea!
    No one could possibly think this is a good idea!

  22. In Canterbury NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 364-374 Canterbury Road, Canterbury:

    Alfred commented

    Poor design outcomes of this building contribute to a bulky design that doesn't properly articulate and break up the mass. Rather than just brick and paint, the buildings should incorporate different materials for the base (1st-2nd floors, middle (3rd-4th floors) and upper elements of the building. This will effectively provide good visual outcomes to the streetscape. The balconies fronting Canterbury Road should be treated with aesthetics that articulates the presentation whilst providing better privacy for future occupants. Vertical blades are highly encouraged to complementary the horizontal building mass of this development.

    Also the building envelope is too rigid and rectangular. It is also highly recommended that curves are used. Greenery and plantation provide better amenities. Breaking up the mass is preferred over a symmetrical (Canterbury Road elevation) design approach.

  23. In Gosford NSW on “Change Of Use From Offices...” at 42 - 48 Mann Street, Gosford NSW 2250:

    Sally Bursill commented

    If the council is trying to lift the standard of the Gosford CBD then this is not the place to have a boarding house - especially opposite the central coast conservatorium where a lot of children and students are coming and going at all hours of the day and evening. Boarding houses tend to attract drunks, drug users and other seedy characters. Definitely not an appropriate location to place a boarding house. The current use as offices is more appropriate for the location, especially considering the residential and commercial development already planned for the vicinity.

  24. In Brunswick West VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 166-168 Melville Road, Brunswick West 3055, VIC:

    Cameron Lohse commented

    Where or to whom is the licence going to be transferred to?

  25. In Parkville VIC on “1. Extend ground floor...” at 116 Gatehouse Street Parkville VIC 3052:

    David and Madonna McGregor commented

    We are the owners and residents at 114 Gatehouse Street, Parkville. We object in the strongest possible terms to the addition of a studio over the Garage of property at 116 Gatehouse Street as it will severely impact the liveability of our courtyard by altering the sense of openness . Our block is approx 250 sq metres. Gatehouse Street has become an extremely busy street carrying in excess of twelve thousand vehicles a day. Our very small garden at the rear of our house is our refuge. Any height alteration to the existing garage at 116 Gatehouse Street will negatively impact this space.

    Our property is unique in that it backs onto an historic double story building in Ivers Reserve which is currently the club rooms of the Vintage Automobile Club of Victoria. This building already partially blocks in our courtyard and obscures our visual to the reserve. To have the other side of the courtyard also blocked in would critically impact our amenity and sense of wellbeing.

    In addition, any extension to the house at 116 Gatehouse Street, much of which is currently built on our boundary, will have the potential to impact our property and we will need an opportunity to view the plans in detail to better understand what is proposed for the extension to ground floor living and kitchen areas.

  26. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Heaven forbid I should say anything in support of this Council but the property has been on offer to people/companies to restore and use for some time. No one has wanted to take it on. It's not just in need of TLC it needs serious and costly help. It should never have been allowed to get into such disrepair.

    Is it actually heritage listed? If it is then I believe council and business in the area should fund its restoration. If not, then it should go. It has a very interesting history but it's so far beyond repair that it's just dangerous.

  27. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Isobel Deane commented

    I would like to know why this building is not heritage listed and why it can't be used for community purpose?
    I don't think this building demolition should be approved.

  28. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    SILVIA LEVAME commented

    Please do not demolish this building. It may be abandoned, but still a representative of the architectural history of the area. Once you demolish, it does not come back. Whereas if you restore, you will always keep a piece of history in the suburb.

    Please, do not demolish! Reconsider other options. There are other options and they can bring concrete benefits to the community and the municipality.

  29. In Canterbury NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 364-374 Canterbury Road, Canterbury:

    Garo Benkowics commented

    Hi,
    This mail also adopts the Objections pursuant to the Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 and Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012.

    Please note, Notification letters to all neighbouring residence in apartment block of thirty four residence were not sent until of recent due to action of one owner which leaves Canterbury Council questionable to their failings of guide lines.

    I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505-2014.

    The following Objections for Residential Neighbourhoods (CDCP 2012) are within the notion of being breached.
    Objection 2: “…space between buildings for household activities and landscaping.”
    Objection 3: “…privacy and general amenity is available to occupiers…”

    Additionally, section 2.1.9 ‘Building Separation’ (CDCP 2012) is in the motion of being breached.
    Objection 1: “..privacy is available to residents in new buildings and residents in existing buildings.”
    Objection 2: “Taller buildings require greater separation to buildings on adjoining land to provide spatial relationships which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

    I dispute that there is an inadequate level of separation to the rear of the property (five or six story development) and that the concept of ‘reasonableness’ is being abused. For this reason, I submit that the repercussions of this development will ultimately breach the objections stated.


    Moreover, I submit that reasonable privacy, general amenity and a special relationship is neglected in the development of this building as it is not available to residents at rear of existing buildings adjacent to the rear development site. Furthermore, section 2.1.3 ‘Height’ (CDCP 2012) refers to the initial objective, which states: “New buildings have a scale that is visually compatible with adjacent buildings, and the intended character of the zone.”

    To this objection, I submit that the height of the building is not visually compatible, and to this effect, consequently minimises the direct looking of property. Also, increases the view from the development property into private rooms and personal open spaces.

    Evidently, the CDCP requires, in terms of visual privacy that:

    - “Reasonable levels of visual privacy are available for residents, inside a building and outside within the property, during the day and at night.”

    - “Visual privacy is not compromised…”

    - “Provide adequate building separation, and rear and side setbacks,”

    - “…avoid directly overlooking neighbouring residential properties”

    - “Provide privacy to the principal area of private open space”

    Thus, the complexities of failing to compromise with the Canterbury Councils LEP Controls (five or six stories at least 18m between windows and or balconies), and part two of the CDCP, fuel my further submissions. These include:

    - Low level of visual privacy during the day and night, due to the failure of degree of separation;

    - Levels of visual privacy to adjacent neighbouring residence are not met;

    - Reasonable separation of the two buildings are not met with Canterbury Councils LEP controls;

    - Plan metric findings are 10m or less between the two separation points of buildings, and

    - Greater separation of the two buildings on adjoining and boundary land is required to provide greater spatial relationships between the two which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

    Ultimately, I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505.


    Regards,


    Garo Benkowics

    Please fwd my email add to Michael Anderson

  30. In South Launceston TAS on “Natural and Cultural Values...” at 123 Westbury Road South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Simon lionetti commented

    My understanding is that the last proposal (less than 2 years ago) was declined as the trees are a part of the city sky line and therefore cannot be removed. Has this changed since then? I would also like to know if there are plans for re vegetation as the birds migrate there each year.

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