Recent comments

  1. In Richmond VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 172 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish Robinson commented

    An excessively large number of dwellings for the size of the site which will further exacerbate parking issues in Lennox street. I assume given the number of dwellings this will likely cause significant overlooking down Lennox street and Rowena Parade.

  2. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of four...” at 20 Kennedy Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Yvonne Dickenson commented

    Test to see where this goes

  3. In Neutral Bay NSW on “Modification of Consent...” at 145 Wycombe Rd Neutral Bay, NSW:

    Jeanette Coulson commented

    In reference to the letter written 21 February 2013 received this week.

    I will be happy to see the gum tree at the back of 145 Wycombe Road Neutral Bay removed.

    My husband and I walk up the Rangers Lane to the shops and feel very threatened by this tree as it has large branches which are dead hanging over the lane. When the winds are blowing we walk up Wycombe Road. as sticks and twigs drop from a great height.

    We think this application should be approved

    Jeanette Coulson
    unit 8 103/107 Wycombe Road Neutral Bay nsw 2089

  4. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Dina Ding commented

    if community values, residents concern and rights do matter to council, this plan wouldn't get approved. if council is only interested in money, then it will get a way. Alcohol saturation, with associated violence and crime in our 24/7society is already a serious and growing problem. I hope councillor could check the map or have a look around here, more than FIVE bottle shops within TWO kilometres radiue. Do you call these undersupply or oversupply??? The last thing we need here is more cheap booze.

  5. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Harold Moellmer commented

    As a hawkesbury resident and rate payer for the past 27 years I am mortified that someone would even suggest putting a cemetery in such a pristine area.To me the issue is not about religion but more to do with the rear of 288 Packer Rd being less than 200 m from Roberts creek .900m downstream it flows into a swampy wetland area ,home to many types of birds and wildlife. 700m further it flows under West portland Rd and into our great Hawkesbury River.Three klm down stream there is quiet little hamlet called Cumberland reach,where I moved with my family 14 years ago because of our love for the River and the pristine environment.If there is even a remote chance that some sort of pathogen could end up in our great Hawkesbury where my children swim I urge the council to put a stop to this lunacy.

  6. In Richmond VIC on “Commercial - 2 New...” at 54 Hunter St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Julian Lenehan commented

    This application should be declined on the reduction of parking Firstly as residents cannot park now after 7pm as all parks are taken
    Secondly building a 3 storey building in that block lord / hunter street will be out of scale with existing buildings

  7. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Kirsti Clark commented

    Let's face it - Moreland Council will give a building permit to anyone who asks-as long as it means they will get more money from rates. You only have to look at how they approve endless developments in this suburb. Single houses are numbered. It is the same for shops-if they are not two or three storeys high with room for multiple apartments-then their days are numbered.

  8. In Wahroonga NSW on “A 4&6 storey building-130...” at 185 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga:

    Claire Williams commented

    This is too large a building on top of the school the SDA church is already placing on Fox Valley - Road - the traffic cannot cope and due to hospital parking Fox Valley Road is a single laned Road - there are now too many buildings holding too many people on Fox Valley road which is a residential road, apart from the hospital. Already it takes 20mins in the morning to go down the road towards the Comenarra.
    There is a reserve with endangered plants and Coups creek next to this development - the Pacific highway corridor is the place for this building - not Fox Valley Road.
    This development will create chaos - there is not the roads, public transport and infrastructure to support it.

  9. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Peter Fuggle commented

    Development of this tired shopping strip is long over due and I support this application. I would like to have a bottle shop within closer walking distance of my home than Merlynston. Yes, there are significant social problems resulting from alcohol abuse in particular under age and binge drinking. But these problems will not be solved or even marginally impacted by restricting the availability of packaged alcohol. Frankly I am sick of having my rights and legal behaviour impinged upon due to restrictions aimed at the lowest common denominator. We need to bring vibrant businesses into this area, not drive them away.

  10. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Jason commented

    Do we need another liquor outlet in Pascoe Vale? NO NO NO. Large numbers of bottle shops are linked to higher rates of violence.

    1. This premise is only 200 metres from Pascoe Vale North Primary School gate. If you kids are in this school, what would you say to a new bottle shop? I bet you would say NO. Having a bottle shop 200 metres away from the school would expose students to drunken behaviour and contribute to increased injury, violence, accident and assault rates in Pascoe Vale.

    2. There are a quiet few liquor outlets in this area. The closest one is 600 meters away. why open another one? Bottle shop density links to
    a: consumption and drinking patterns,
    b: drink-driving and traffic accidents,
    c: assault, homicide and other violent crimes,
    d: child abuse and neglect,
    e: sexually transmitted diseases,
    f: drunkenness and neighbourhood disturbances,
    g: property damage and vandalism, and
    h: personal injury

  11. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Pei commented

    We certainly don’t need another liquor store. It’s a shame a good retail space like this can’t be used for something unique.

    More than five bottle shops in one suburb are not enough?? Who in their right mind would even want to open another outlet with all the competition in the vicinity. Compared to service stations, green grocers, churches, butchers, do we need this much supply of alcohol, who is going to buy and drink all this alcohol ?

    Another bottle shop in the area will only add to the problem of young people buying large quantities of cheap alcohol and wandering around the street. I hope the council have the sense to see whats going on here and put a stop to it before we say 'I told you so'.

  12. In Newport NSW on “Seniors Housing Apartments...” at 5 Trevor Road Newport:

    Stephen Smith commented

    This application should not be approved because of the situation of the property in relation to Barrenjoey Road, the increase of traffic and also on street parking that shall be generated if the application is approved. Trevor Road at the point adjacent to the site is inclined and quite a narrow road and at the present time vehicles parked outside the subject site and across the road from the site create a dangerous situation for both pedestrians and motor vehicles alike.
    Trevor Road is less able to cope with passing traffic when vehicles are parked on the side of the road than other streets such as Queens Parade East and Walworth Avenue and even these streets, though wider than Trevor road, are becoming dangerous to drive upon when oncoming traffic is encountered.
    The street is already overcrowded with several medium density developments existing between the subject property and Hollywood Road, quite a short distance.
    I remain concerned for the many children, mothers with babes in prams, walkers, joggers, cyclists and other road and footpath users, bearing in mind that for several reasons in this particular area pedestrians have no choice but to walk on the road, due to the lack of adequate footpaths, lighting and the risk of walking in dog droppings at night time when walking on the footpath.

  13. In Rosny Park TAS on “Carpark and office additions” at 30 Gordons Hill Road Rosny Park, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    This proposal should not be approved in its current location. The area of the proposed car park is currently attractively landscaped, with numerous shrubs, hedges and medium-sized trees that have been omitted from the plans presented. This area is one of the most visible, highly trafficked (both foot and vehicle) streetscapes in the city of Clarence. For it to be replaced by bitumen and an 'unobtrusive cyclone fence' (an oxymoronic concept, 2m setback or otherwise notwithstanding) with a large, heavy security gate would be a major reduction to the amenity of the area.

    This gate also poses potential traffic issues for Bligh St, as returning vehicles will have to wait in the road and/or across the footpath for the gate to open (unlike the similar gate further down Bligh St at the police station, which has a substantial off-street driveway leading to it).

  14. In Newport NSW on “Construction of a shop-top...” at 316 Barrenjoey Road Newport:

    Rhonda Keen commented

    I strongly oppose this development. It is not in keeping with the Master Plan. It has no aesthetics and presents itself in this location as the gateway to Newport. It is too high, too bulky and if Council is representing its constituents it must not permit such a monstrosity.

  15. In Kurri Kurri NSW on “Liquorland - Liquor licence...” at 259 Lang St, Kurri Kurri 2327:

    Stephen McGrath commented

    When is Aldi, Kurri Kurri going to get their licence ?

  16. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 77 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117:

    Alan & Janice Noy commented

    Not appropriate for this area. Will impact on lane way to surrounding properties.
    Too close to public school!
    Dangerous road at the best of times. (Kissing Point Road).
    Disapprove of this application.

  17. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Nicole commented

    RE: Concerns for 10k plot Muslim Cemetary. (Not knowing of it's exact proposed location when I wrote the below extract) Same issues are still relevant & apply to Blaxland.

    Approximately 3-5 weeks ago l read an alarming article in the 'Gazette' that the muslim community will submit a D.A this year, 2013, to establish a ten thousand plot cemetery in the Hawkesbury.

    I moved to the Hawkesbury 3 years ago, from Parklea/Quakers Hill, to remove myself from the indoctrination. I wanted to be closer to my heritage, the safety of my own community. I now have serious safety concerns if this D.A is to be approved. To allow this will draw Significant islamic crowds to a European, Christian settlement.
    The community as it stands will be destroyed. Their culture is far from discrete or polite, their general presence is frightening.

    Will you help fight this D. A? I want to have children but not in this community if Muslims are drawn out here to the dead. They will claim racism out here and will cry that we change local law so no Men Can go down the river when Islamic females are around, halal foods, noisy cars, barbaric males, drunk and disorderly after funerals, loud funerals and the likelihood they will damage heritage property because of the simple fact it's European.

    furthermore they will want mosques and schools nearby otherwise they will claim racism. Then, where would our rights have gone? our rights to this community... a small community,our rights to quite Streets, our rights to be safe against Violent men and racist taunts from Islamic females and males.

    You can't let this happen. I feel ill just writing about it

    please help because to approve this D.A is only the top layer, a very short sighted & shallow decision.

    Warm Regards
    Nicole

  18. In Enmore NSW on “Shenanigans Brewing -...” at 66 Marian St, Enmore 2042:

    Sam Haldane commented

    This application is for a wholesaler license only. The business will be a contract brewing business, meaning that the beer will be brewed at an established brewery, and then sold on to pubs and bars. No beer will be produced on the premises and then sold.

    The license needs to be attached to a premises, in this case my house, and means that the paperwork associated with the business must be done on the premises, nothing more.

    Unfortunately the planning alert doesn't reflect the nature of the business.

  19. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Garry Adams commented

    I object to the application for a 10,000 plot Muslim only cemetery as submitted in DA0548/12

    If the council panders to this out of area minority group about a totally unwarranted secular cemetery , then what comes next, a mosque, a religious school and perhaps a Muslim only housing enclave, all things that the Hawkesbury can do without.

    This is basically a Christian area and has no ties whatsoever to the Muslim religion. No thought should be given to catering to such a divisive religious group, this plan offers absolutely nothing to the residents of the Hawkesbury area and should be avoided at all costs.

    Yours sincerely,

    Garry Adams

  20. In Watson ACT on “COMMERCIAL...” at 150 Aspinall Street, Watson, ACT:

    Hamilton Dwight Walker commented

    These are a great addition to the Carotel and I recommend them. They are top quality and just use old powered sites to operate in. I am glad Carotel is so enterprising.

  21. In Enmore NSW on “Shenanigans Brewing -...” at 66 Marian St, Enmore 2042:

    Mike Falcon commented

    How on Earth can this be permissible under Marrickville Council planning controls? This is zoned a low density residential area, not a light commercial/industrial area appropriate for brewing and wholesaling.
    As it is an inappropriate land use for this area this application should not be approved.

  22. In Forest Lodge NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 70A Ross Street Forest Lodge NSW 2037:

    Henare Degan commented

    I support this development application. The speakers are always at a low volume so do not impact the neighbours but are good for people in the courtyard.

    Thanks for considering my submission.

  23. In Matraville NSW on “Fitout and use of retail...” at 495-503 Bunnerong Road Matraville NSW 2036:

    Duncan commented

    Err, i think there is one about 100m from that location, and another three bottle shops (at least) in matraville.

  24. In Geelong West VIC on “Partial Demolition and...” at 89 Weller Street, Geelong West:

    Helen Rickards commented

    Found this site and interested to see how the comment got sent through to the planning department so testing this.

  25. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Sideways Deli Café -...” at U 1 37 Constitution Rd, Dulwich Hill 2203:

    Richard Coutts commented

    I am a local resident living near the proposed licenced premises and I thoughly SUPPORT this application. I feel that the proposal will contribute to the social and cultural amenity of the locale. As a regular patron of the business in its current form as a cafe I am sure the proprietors will ensure this is an exceptionally well managed establishment that is sensitive to the needs of the surrounding community.

  26. In Matraville NSW on “Fitout and use of retail...” at 495-503 Bunnerong Road Matraville NSW 2036:

    Gayle Dower commented

    We definitely need a liquor store in Matraville, as we don't have one anymore. This will benefit the community.

  27. In Matraville NSW on “Proposed expansion of...” at 7 O'Connell Avenue Matraville NSW 2036:

    Joseph Antoon commented

    This application should not be approved :

    1- For safety reasons. O'Connell avenue is very narrow with heavy traffic the children may be run over. Randwick Council may be responsible for approving this application if some one is hurt or killed.
    2- Please check your records. All the residents signed a rejection petition for this child care centre when was first created few years ago for about 20 children. How you think they feel now for 83 children? does the council care about residence?. I wonder if there is any bribes involved to approve this application.
    3- The tranquility of the area will disappear with the kids play in the backyard including crying, screaming and talking.
    4- It will reduce parking area in this narrow and dangerous O'Connell avenue.
    Already some parents some times park in my drive way.
    5- There will be more fallen rubbish in the avenue as there is no one at the centre in the week end to collect the rubbish bins and collect the fallen rubbish from the bins in the avenue.
    6- All windows and doors has iron bars. In case of fire the children will be burnt.
    Randwick Council is responsible for the death of children because the iron bars have been approved by the council.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Proposed demolition of...” at 536A King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    J Kinkade commented

    I oppose the DA in its current form however with some adjustments I beleive it would be a worthy addition to the King St landscape. The proposed development greatly overshadows the rear of the Newtown Garden Market and there is a risk that this will impinge on their ability to use the rear of their site to maintain and grow plants which could result in the business having to relocate. Newtown Garden Market provides a much needed visual respite on King St with plants decorating the double frontage instead of the never ending row of identical shopfronts and cafes. In addition, its the only garden store selling plants and garden supplies in the vicintiy of Newtown, Enmore, Petersham, St Peters, Tempe etc. There are many florists but no garden centres.

    However, I do believe the removal of site access from King St is an improvement to pedestrian safety as I have often seen drivers unsure of how they should approach the property and threatening pedestrians trying to cross Angel St. Having the driveway off Angel St instead will resolve this.

  29. In Bensville NSW on “Six (6) Lot Subdivision” at 535 Empire Bay Dr, Bensville, NSW:

    Giancarlo Aymonod commented

    I object strongly to any new road whether battle-axe style driveways or private roads, built behind mine and our neighbours back fence. This would mean that our house would unfairly be effected by having a road in front and behind house and in direct impact on our Private Open Space areas and backyards. Myself and all my neighbours along the adjoining land area in Kildare Street will be effected unfairly with privacy and noise/acoustic issues and possible extra street lighting.

    Please note the Gosford Planning Building Code referring to developments need to be sensitive to neighbours and adjoining properties and not be detrimental to the environment, bush fire prone areas and flood prone areas. The application area at 535 Empire Bay Road has concerns for me and my neighbours on all these points, including, flood impact, bush fire, environment and privacy and noise issues.

    Please note the Gosford Planning Building Code copied below which address privacy directly:

    Clause 8 : Site Occupancy for Dwellings and Ancillary Structures 8.1 Objectives

    The objectives of this section are as follows:
    a To provide adequate private open space on each developed site.
    b To provide adequate separation between dwellings on separate lots to ensure privacy is retained, fire safety issues are satisfied and adequate light and ventilation is available.

    RE: DRIVEWAY PROPOSED RUNNING BEHIND ALL OUR ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND ON FLOOD PRONE LAND OBJECTION

    Please note that there is an alternative and existing driveway/road from Empire Bay drive which if used for this development/subdivision would solve the privacy issues I and my neighbours have and also solve the problem of traffic into Kildare St. and cutting down of protected tress and distroying habitat.

    Please note that the proposed road/driveway is on and near the highest level of the flood prone area behind our property and according to NSW building codes no building or roads should be built directly on or close to these areas due to danger of road flooding and no access to get out, and the
    impact of storm water flows, nutrients into sensitive wetland, loss of existing ground absorption factors which can effect the adjoining properties causing flooding and erosion to to the land of adjoining properties including houses and backyards.

    Please note the Gosford Council's own Building Code on driveways and building

    9.3.2 Siting

    The buildings, driveways and other ancillary works are to be sited to AVOID ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS such as visually exposed ridgelines and locations where extensive cut, fill, or removal of native vegetation would be necessary.

    a THE REMOVAL OF PROTECTED TREES IS TO BE MINIMIZED and the requirements of Council’s Tree Preservation Order must be followed where removal of any of the specified vegetation included in the Order is sought.

    b Earthworks are to be minimised by appropriate siting of the development. It is essential that measures are carried out to prevent scouring and siltation of land and drainage routes. The Council’s specific requirements are set out in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Code of Practice.

    c All applications will be assessed in respect to the level of bushfire hazard to the site and the requirements set out in AS 3959-1999 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas.

    d No stormwater absorption trenches are to be placed within 30 metres of a lagoon, watercourse or body of water or where the soil horizon is less than 0.6 metres in depth. Direct piping of water is not permitted without Council approval.

    e Under Interim Development Order No. 122, dwelling houses or any other structure in the 7(a) Conservation zone, are not to be erected within 50 metres of any ridgeline or prominent visible brow.

  30. In Orange NSW on “Lue Hotel 09/02/2013 -...” at Hill Street, Orange 2800:

    Hamilton Dwight Walker commented

    What is the exact address of Lue Hotel? Hill Street is not specific enough.

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