Recent comments

  1. In Eumemmerring VIC on “Amendment to Planning...” at 13 Cyprus Street, Eumemmerring, VIC:

    Mark Stewart commented

    I live next door at 11 cyprus St- North facing fence neighbour... My concern with approval with the new plans are that as I have a 100,000 litre in-ground pool in my back yard which is used year round....My issue is privacy and using my pool unhindered from view from my next door neighbours x2 .
    Because of these new plans "a full windows from bedroom number 1 in house 3" will looks straight into my back yard and my privacy is compromised because the two story dwellings butted up against my north wall will looking into my entertaining area of the back yard.

    I don't believe that on submission of these new plans the proper indication of my property was in full detail as the inground pool description has been left out and is a major structure of 11 Cyprus st residence..

    I reject this approval because of the overlooking view into my backyard from this window

  2. In Collingwood VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 86 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Robert Young commented

    There should never a reduction in car parking. How about a reduction in apartments.
    Waste management must be a top priority.

  3. In Black Forest SA on “Erect LED sign” at 647 South Road, Black Forest 5035:

    Alex Russell commented

    I am concerned with another LED sign on South Road, especially at a section that gets very busy. A LED sign will distract motorists and risk accidents occurring.
    It appears the sign will be placed at the Black Forest Vet Clinic which is situated on the corner of Forest Ave and South Road. This is a very busy corner with people turning right from South Road (heading north) onto Forest Ave, drivers turning left from South Rd (heading South) onto Forest Ave, and drivers turning out of Forest Ave onto South Rd. There is not sufficient information in the application - e.g. will the sign be static, rolling or a flashing display? How big will the sign be? When will the sign be illuminated? What are the proposed luminance levels?
    Given there is a pedestrian crossing with lights not far from the corner in front of Black Forest Primary School, will the sign distract motorists from obeying this traffic control device? If the sign is illuminated at a time during the day when there is low light levels (dusk and night), will this reduce visibility for drivers to see the pedestrian crossing?
    There really isn't enough information to make an informed decision regarding this.

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

    Ranbir Benepal commented

    I totally oppose the proposed development on Westmore Drive. A boarding house in my opinion is for problematic or underprivileged persons and there are whole estates that are managed by department of housing around Sydney built for that purpose. Why build a single 'boarding' house in a very family friendly area? It will not stop at one development I know, and I don't want this to become another cheap housing option.

    Firstly, I fear for the general safety and well being of our kids and residents and secondly the negative impact it will have in the house prices.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    If Joe is correct, I also thank him for the information.
    However it is important that Council ensures that any changes to the DA do not compromise the heritage features of the building in any way.
    If the changes are so innocuous, one has to wonder why the features were not a part of the original DA?

  6. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Megan Hicks commented

    Thank you, Joe, for being a more careful reader than me.

  7. In Coburg North VIC on “Construction of six 3...” at 28 Lorensen Avenue, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Raymond VIMBA commented

    Six dwellings with only one car park each in a street that is flooded daily with over flow from the railway station. Really! Does anyone at council leave their office and ever look and the situation that exists.

    Lorensen Av & Delta Av are full on a daily basis and you had to put in some parking signs to allow residents at the northern end of the street access to their own properties.

    This will result in streets full of cars and an increase in theft from and of vehicles and more targets remain on the street at night. Your talking about at least six more vehicles for this development and yes I am sure there are more on the way.

    You are slowly lowering the value of Merlynston Village.

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

    donald fulton macintyre commented

    I am firmly against high density housing in my area, and in particular the application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
    Higher density housing has not been a feature of my area and this would become a precedent, and I fear a tsunami of applications would follow if it was approved..

  9. In Kingsbury VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 943-945 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Emval Pty Ltd commented

    As the owner of 949'Plenty Road and to add to my above comment and objection lodged is that I was informed a permit may have been previously issued for a 2 storey development 2-3 years ago with land at the front being also sold to the owner. We were never notified of the building application or received any notification of land in front of our buildings being for sale by the council. I am dis-satisfied if that was the case and c not being noticed of the appiifation previously as I would have strenuously objected to it should the setback not be in line with other buildings. I would be astounded if the permit had been grNted with a setback not in line with the current buildings and strongly object if that is the case of not being informed and provided with the right to object against

  10. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Windsor Road, Baulkham...” at Rta & Council Road Windsor Road Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    JinfangLin commented

    Can I make appointment for driving test on thuresday 10:00am 10/09/2015?

  11. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe Ortenzi commented

    Megan, Jennifer, Gillian.
    I was also upset when I saw the initial notice, but once I followed the link and read the DA amendment in question I discovered that the changes are not to the original, Post Office building, but to the plans for the new building.

    I appreciate your natural assumption that this affects the original building, but reading the lodged DA, with the copious documentation supplied at http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1217249 , will no doubt put your mind at rest.

    Personally, I think the new plans are better as the building now feels more open, and less fortress-like. I look forward to hearing what you think.

  12. In Armadale VIC on “Multi dwelling development...” at 74-76 Wattletree Road, Armadale, VIC:

    James Josephson commented

    To see this go ahead is to see Egerton Rd, like others, further pushed into the dark. Where heritage and culture once allowed a stand alone house, to raise a family with a sunny back yard and the opportunity to have visitors, friends and family to enjoy a drop in is ever so frequently becoming a developers target. This isn't sensible growth development visioned by local business. This is a desperate development showcasing the demise of the leafy street.

  13. In Tweed Heads NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 24 McGregor Crescent Tweed Heads NSW 2485:

    Scott Miner commented

    I am quite concerned about the substantial increase in Floor Space being sought above the permitted FSR:
    "Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio
    The site is mapped with a maximum 1.8:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The proposal provides a floor space ratio of 2.3:1"

    There doesn't seem to be any reason for or justification for the additional (2.3 -1.8) = 0.5 of FSR or (771.4m2 site area x 0.5 FSR) = 385.7m2. The application could easily remove a typical building level (approx. 300m2 of Floor Space) and still be in excess of the permissible FSR.

    I would urge Tweed Shire council to not support such a large increase in FSR given that it is resulting in a built form that is taller (constrained only by a height limit and not an FSR) and with lesser setbacks and articulation (built to minimum setbacks rather than a limiting FSR control) than may have otherwise been the case.

  14. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 1127 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Bob Stensholt commented

    Dear Council

    I write on behalf of the Hartwell Association of Residents and Traders as their Secretary. I wish to lodge HART's objection to this proposed development and in particlular its request for a waiver of parking requirements.

    HART is of the view that there is insufficient parking in Hartwell particularly on the northern side where this proposed development is located. The only parking is the unregulated parking on land owned by VicTrack next to the bridge. HART has been asking Council for some years now for action to regulate this area for customer parking.

    Many thanks. Bob Stensholt, 5 Jickell Ave Glen Iris 3146. Ph 98899039

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

    Jade Tang commented

    I am happy with this development. Child care places are very limited in my local area, especially for the area around East Lindfield public School. I had a little boy but could not find a child care place for him in East Lindfield. Then we had to go to other suburb for child care service. New child care centre opening will definitely meet the community’s need.

  16. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96 (2) modification...” at 512 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Costain commented

    I support this proposal. There's a increasing shortage of interesting options and venues later at night, and this place has been a good addition to the neighbourhood. Places like this bring a good amount of diversity to what has become generally a homogenised strip.

  17. In Kingsbury VIC on “Mixed use development...” at 943-945 Plenty Road Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Emval Pty Ltd commented

    I am the owner of 949 Plenty rd. The proposed 4 storey development will encroach on all the other businesses with its setback obscuring the other shops and its height obscuring the visability of signage and businesses. The height, setback brought forward will impact the visibility and business viability of all the shops as they will not be seen. The building sizeccharacter is not in style with the other buildings and it will significantly reduce car parking acces to the shops. The application and should the permit be allowed it will destroy the commerci buisineses along side and send current businesses out of business reducing the value and rentability of the shops along side. The permit in its current form is an obstruction to the other shops and their livelihood

  18. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96 (2) modification...” at 512 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Scott commented

    Extending operating hours for licensed premises along this end of King Street has a detrimental affect on the residential communities that exist directly behind the King Street shop frontages. The balance between commercial and residential is a tricky one, but King Street already has plenty of late night venues further up the strip. 10pm closing on weekdays and 11pm on Saturdays is already pretty generous from the residents' perspective, especially those of us with young families.

  19. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 1127 Toorak Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    M. Martin commented

    Dear Sir,

    we wish to object to application PP15/00953 in relation to their application for 'Reduced Car Parking Requirement'.

    Already there is very little parking in this precinct with the addition of a new cafe in George Street (two doors down from this premises). Parking can be made available on site by digging down or adding car stackers, but not by putting additional load on our nearby streets.

    It is noted that there is a tram out the front of these premises however this does not get to you meetings or in the case of a residence and you need to get to say, Ivanhoe and Clayton the occupants each need a vehicle.

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

    SILVIA LEVAME commented

    I oppose to this 'development' as it is shortsighted and impractical. One car space is a ridiculous proposition and will only congest and clog the already clogged streets around the area. Parking will be impossible and local businesses will not benefit from the housing development as there will be limited passing trade due to the traffic and parking situation.

    Please do not approve this absurd development which will only benefit the developers and maybe some else who is facilitating the process...

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

    Simon Maddison commented

    Hi there,

    1 Car park is incredibly low. I know there is a push for people to use public transport but the reality is - and this cannot be denied - that people still prefer to use cars. The result of having insufficient car parks is that available on street parking for current residents will be hugely effected both by this and what becomes of the entire sight (which is currently also under provisioned in the latest plans). As many of us do not have off street parking I see this as a huge issue and I strongly object.

    Regards

  22. In Yarrambat VIC on “Amendment - Use and...” at 615-623 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat VIC 3091:

    Fiona E. commented

    As a local resident, I am extremely pleased to see the use of this land for this purpose and support the increase in building size and patron numbers as is still extremely low usage for a land site of this size and will help protect Yarrambat's character and amenity. (I have NO association with the organisation or builders, etc. except for my proximity to the site). It is pleasing to see responsible community-enhancing development rather than development for the sake of greed or gain. Thank you.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mike Falcon commented

    I object to the proposed changes to remove the terracotta battens from the Wilson Street and Erskineville Road facades to enlarge the windows to the new apartments.

    This building is one of the most historically significant in Newtown. The developers knew the heritage conditions when they purchased the property, and they should be enforced.

  24. In Coburg North VIC on “Buildings and works to the...” at 98 Gaffney Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Michael Guest commented

    In addition to my last comment, to exacerbate the problem I have with the stated permit application even further, is the fact that I will be expanding my business in the near future, which will require me to employ extra workers. This, in turn, means that there will be even more people vying for car spaces

  25. In Ferntree Gully VIC on “Multi Unit Development 12...” at 1145 Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Jacqueline commented

    How can this not be zoned a high fire danger zone? The Black Saturday fires were along this actual strip of land. This should NOT be approved.

  26. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 221 Elswick Street North Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Jason commented

    I also agree with Christina of 278 Elswick st.
    I am owner / resident nearby which looks over the back of 221 Elswick Street. There are a lot developments currently in the area, where a plot is overly subdivided to a point where there would have to be FSR beyond 100%. Large multi storey houses crammed next to each other with 6 inches between the each property's walls, and bordering on no backyards. The facades are all 'new' and characterless and with high and impersonal frontages discouraging neighbourly interaction and community. We should also be mindful of disappearing flora and fauna in the neighbourhood.
    Leichhardt should be proud of the rich history and character of the dwellings and protect that where possible.

    Regards
    Jason

  27. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    I think there were relatively few complaints of the original DA as it was keeping the lovely building and making good use of the ugly bits round the back.
    This, however is too far in that it now seeks to significantly alter the look of the original building.
    Where is the heritage study??
    I couldn't find any at the documents listing at: http://development.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1217249

  28. In Northbridge WA on “Karaoke Bar/Restaurant $0” at "point 88" 88 James Street Northbridge WA 6003:

    Wayne Tjhung commented

    Perth CBD and Northbridge areas is missing a higher end level of entertainment suitable for Corporate that offers controlled and safe environment for the executives to unwind with colleagues and clients, to hold small private gathering instead of public bars amongst loud and brash patrons.
    The burgeoning small bars and lounges does cater for the masses and does not require much financial investment.
    A professionally operated high end Karaoke Bar and Restaurant trains and employs teams of professional service providers in the catering hospitality industry from the kitchen to the customer services and customer management, which may also benefit the local economy.
    This application should be encouraged as it may elevate the level of entertainment offered in Perth to the Asian tourists who are very familiar with this level of entertainment.

  29. In Youngtown TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 379 Hobart Road Youngtown TAS 7249:

    Darren ross commented

    my major concern is the flow of traffic out of one driveway,as my driveway is next door and the amount of traffic coming out of Glenara lakes my concern is congestion in this intersection People coming out of 379 hobart rd and turning right will have the added trouble of the turning right lane into Glenara lakes,so they have two lanes to compete with before they reach their lane.i would like to have an on site meeting to discuss this as to me it is a major concern

    thankyou

    Darren

    0417306256

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Gillian Browne commented

    I object to this alteration. This is one of the most beautiful buildings on King street. Changing the battens on any side of the building will diminish its appearance and heritage value. Developers need to realise the value of the property is in these heritage features, not in larger windows.

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