Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments

  1. In Noosa Heads QLD on “Assessment of Demolition Bond” at 16 Grant St Noosa Heads QLD 4567:

    Alan Thompson commented

    Hi,
    My property 18 Grant Street is next door. Tree removal and partial demolition has caused damage to and the collapse of the dividing fence resulting in an unsafe environment for persons living at 18 Grant Street.
    This requires and adequate temporary barrier fence to be installed before injury occurs.

  2. In Carlingford NSW on “Development Application -...” at 11 Olinda Crescent Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Dawne Zotz commented

    We have not be given any notification of the proposed Duplex for No. 11 Olinda and are thoroughly disappointed.
    We have lived at 5 Olinda Crescent since 1983. The reason we purchased No 5 Olinda was because we wanted privacy and did not want people overlooking our property.
    The proposed Duplex for No. 11 with 9 bedrooms, we find totally inappropriate for this quiet street.
    The owner of the property wants to live in one Duplex and his son in the other. Now that is a laugh. As soon as his application is approved and the Duplex built, he will sell off the property at a profit.
    He is making his move now before the law is changed.
    The building should be that of a house.
    Can you please reconsider and NOT allow the submission of the Duplex to go ahead.
    Thank you,
    Dawne and Thomas Zotz

  3. In Smithfield SA on “Partial change of use to an...” at 18-20 Charlotte Street, Smithfield SA 5114:

    George Andrianakis commented

    Have major concerns about dance school. Many children in car park and near road, just a matter of time before pedestrian accident with many cars coming in and out well into evening and so many children about. Not enough parking space so cars parked all down the street. Noise, music, stomping from dance until late.
    Last night there were power tools being used in the evening, building some kind of structure at the back of one of the units (veranda or shelter?).
    Don't think the site is suitable for this kind of school and it's a hazard.

  4. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Rob Abraham commented

    Hi I'm Rob and lived on Esplanade for 4.5 year. I have been and done Eco-camping and can appreciate it's need in our country's environment. I feel that a lot of research and consultation needs to be done before any change of zoning is considered. My thought is that the area nominated is to close to suburbia to be a good eco area. I oppose this re-zoning very strongly.

  5. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Michael Vanin commented

    I think the proposed development is very comprehensive and provides the right level of sensitivity to the local environment given the adjoining properties are substantial 2000m2 and 4000m2 land allotments.

    I cant see where the local amenity is adversely affected. Rowville is a developing Suburb and there are many examples of properties that have been developed with greater adverse amenity.

  6. In Burwood NSW on “Boarding House” at 11A Ethel Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    MT commented

    The development of the proposed boarding houses will significantly degrade the architectural history and charm of Ethel st which is known as a landmark and premier street in Burwood. The street features a number of heritage homes including those of grand Victorian and Federation style that contribute to the heritage, culture and history that Burwood can be proud of.
    Subsequently the addition of such a development will devalue each of our homes on Ethel street, not to mention Burwood as a suburb in general.
    The development of such a densely populated boarding house will lead to the street becoming significantly more congested with increased cars parked on the street and through traffic.

    Currently, the round-about at each end of Ethel street at the corners of Burwood road and Weldon street are very congested at peak times as Ethel street is a major thoroughfare between various surrounding roads including Liverpool road, the Boulevarde, Parramatta road and the roads leading to Croydon.
    As residents we already have difficultly getting in and out of our own driveways in the morning and afternoons due to traffic build up and congestion leading up to these roundabouts. It will become significantly worse with such a development proposal which will only add to the congestion due to over-population.

    I believe that the proposal is non compliant with regards to the number of dwellings, the number of rooms and occupants which is too dense for our low density residential zone. The proposal will effectively double the entire population of the street and potentially allow nearly a hundred more cars on the the street of each person owns their own car.
    In addition, the number of garbage bins required for the number of occupants in the development will degrade the facade and impact on the hygiene of the street.

    Burwood council needs to consider that this development proposal is a gross and unnessessary oversupply of housing which only serves to benefit the developer and their desire to maximise profits in their use of this prime land.

  7. In Yarramalong NSW on “Function Centre and use of...” at 1376 Yarramalong Road Wyong Creek NSW 2259:

    Rebecca commented

    Would be interested to know more about this considering we paid a large sum of money to have our wedding in the early up barn. We were promised lots of things by Ms Cooney including the barn and surrounding areas being completed in time which it was not. At no point were we advised the structure was not DA approved, in fact we were told the opposite. Would we be entitled to compensation of some form since she was not a legal wedding venue?

  8. In Goodwood SA on “Land Division - Torrens...” at 2 Mansfield Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Isabel Fforde commented

    More trees to go? Can this development not be done without the loss of trees? This proposal will reduce the "green" space as it is, by having 3 dwellings where there were 2 (although looking at the map there seems to be only one dwelling). Why the need to cut down two street trees?

  9. In Goodwood SA on “Removal of two regulated trees” at 20 Gilbert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Isabel Fforde commented

    Why do these trees need removing? How can someone apply to have trees removed from their neighbour's property? Why classify trees as significant or restricted, if they can actually be chopped down? The trees certainly do look to be significant in size. Why must we lose them?
    Does Unley Council keep an accurate tally of lost trees?

  10. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Jacaranda...” at 27 MacPherson Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Manuel Santos and Nieves Santos commented

    We are local residents who walk by each day and the mature jacaranda tree has been there for many years and especially when November arrives, it provides beautiful flowers....we cannot allow these trees to be cut down. The developers were aware that the tree is there and they should accommodate their plans to allow for the trees. We can't keep cutting down trees just because they request to get rid of them and allow to do so. We are very much against cutting down these trees.

  11. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 30 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Warren Griffin commented

    14 June 2020 - this development is up for approval again -

    Approval for a proposed 4 x 2 Storey + 2 I Storey development (as proposed 3 years ago) is in contradiction to the Knox housing strategy which claims that the important aspects of Knox should be enhanced and retained.

    This development would ruin the character of Murray Crescent, substantially increase traffic congestion on an already crowded bend and certainly does not enhance the "crescent" and will definitely ruin it.

    This type of development is not appropriate, nor is it wanted by the residents of this area.

  12. In Goodwood SA on “Removal of two regulated trees” at 20 Gilbert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Cathy Chua commented

    It is hard to understand why people who want to live in non-green environments can't move to non-green suburbs instead of degreening ones that are already doing the right thing.

    And if the answer is 'we love green, as long as it's other people's' then understand how anti-social and against the community that is. We are all in this together. It's a thing we share. This person's 'improvement' is a great loss for all of us.

    In this case, it appears you can not only cut down your own trees with impunity, but also cut down your neighbour's? Rather odd.

  13. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Paul Gillmore commented

    Paul & Barbara - 37 May Street
    MBRC Planners and Councillors
    We totally oppose the proposed development of 1 The Esplanade Godwin Beach and are extremely angry that local residents have not been consulted. We fear that the "temporary" status applied to this development is a ruse and that once the developer has committed environmental vandalism and destroyed animal, bird and mangrove habitat further development will be proposed and approved - all too late. Godwin Beach is completely unsuitable for this type of "Eco"? tourism. There is one road in and out of this small and quiet community. These roads have been designed and built for small amounts of local traffic only. The influx of transients will have a serious negative effect. There is great fear in the community about the potential variety of people who may choose a camping holiday - particularly with its proximity to the Sandstone Point Tavern. Goodwin Beach community comprises largely of elderly people and young families. Groups of young children are free and safe to ride their bikes, skate and play on the beach and on the streets. The elderly are seen daily on their walkers taking exercise on the narrow streets. We all know each other here and watch out for the safety of young and old alike. We are mindful of our speed and the proximity of the vulnerable. We are concerned that the security of properties and the peace and quiet afforded by the area which will be threatened by people who have no stake in maintaining what the residents love about Godwin Beach and why they have chosen to make it their homes. The elderly are particularly concerned about home invasion and the young families are concerned about the safety and welfare of young children. The working families are concerned about break and enter events. We are concerned that to make this a viable commercial venture for the developer - with only 20 sites - the comings and goings from the site would have to be numerous. The last remaining kangaroos and wallabies in the area graze feed and rest on the 5 acre block of the proposal. We have seen over the years the carnage on the roads in the local area where development has occurred. Once Sandstone Point was alive with kangaroos and wallabies - all now gone or killed. Where are these animals supposed to go? Each day at low tide thousands of migratory birds can be observed - resting on their mammoth journey from as far as Mongolia, China, Siberia, Russia and Alaska. These birds roost at night in the trees that will be felled and destroyed by this proposal. The mangroves which were once so fiercely protected by MBRC are now expendable. These precious fish nurseries seem now to be considered as collateral damage. Much of 37 acre block is tidal. Therefore to make it useable for heavy 4WD vehicles, boats and caravans it would require a great deal of fill to raise it above the tidal flow, which would change the hydrology of the property with potential negative impacts on adjoining and nearby properties. If at that end of Godwin Beach houses are required to be built 2.4 metres above ground level because of future innudation fears, then it stands to reason that much of this development would also have to be 2.4 metres above ground level. This is hardly an "eco" development, when the developer would have to clear fell the block, bring in massive amounts of fill, destroy wildlife, bird and fish habitat, create a carpark from a kangaroo grazing area and place a massive extra load on the amenities of the area with a greater number of people. The current zoning is rural and this should not be changed. Respect for the local community view points, concerns and opinions must be paramount.

  14. In Croydon VIC on “Remove 11 trees” at 18 Northcott Avenue, Croydon VIC 3136:

    Sally Woodward commented

    I object to the removal of 11 trees. We are losing an extraordinary amount of habitat and 11 trees for one block is excessive. I'm noticing changes to the types of birds in my area. I see fewer and fewer crimson rosellas and I believe loss of habitat is driving them out.

  15. In Goodwood SA on “Removal of two regulated trees” at 20 Gilbert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Fran Smith commented

    I have said it before and will now say it again. Why is the operative word. Why is this considered necessary? Has anyone with tree expertise assessed the trees in question? Why are we removing our green cover throughout Unley and not insisting that vegetation thus removed is not replaced? Do we really wish to go on creating heat islands in our suburbs?

  16. In Eastwood NSW on “Development Application -...” at 48 Lakeside Road Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Concerned long time local area resident. commented

    What a shame that a significant home in original architectural condition has a proposal for a modern extension and garage with no matching roof lines in terms of pitch and type, no gables, and that roof materials (colorbond metal sheeting) and brick colour (Old colonial red) will not match the existing. The brick colour can be easily matched here: https://australbricks.com.au/nsw/product/bowral-dry-pressed/ (e.g. Shorthorn mix a good match)

    Given this is a corner block, the differences in architecture and building materials will be visible and very obvious.

    When is council going to insist that we embrace and respect our history in out local area?

    I object to this application based upon the above reasons given the heritage significance of the property and those in the surrounding area.

  17. In Shoalhaven Heads NSW on “Commercial Additions-...” at 40 Shoalhaven Heads Rd, Shoalhaven Heads, NSW:

    Sandy barnes commented

    I object to this DA, for the following reasons. Rubbish collection, Rosella st is only 4m wide it is not wide enough for the truck to come in. The poor maintenance man empty the large bins by hand which is discusting it shows the level of concern for safety this company has especially during the covid-19 pandemic. Flooding, during the floods I sat in horror and watched the only staff member that was around ( the then manager, please note we have not had a manager for months) try and move all the boats and caravans from down the back due to the rapidly rising flood waters. He was not successful and some floated away. I also could not exit the caravan park as the only exit was also flooded, it was quite scary. Noise, as there are people who have brought these permanent homes who are under 50 years old with the homes being so high the noise travels and keeps me awake at night. Car parking, you are only allowed 1 vehicle per site and there are only 4 available car spots in the car park I was told to park on Shoalhaven heads rd. Sometimes it's full and I have to park on Jerry Bailey rd. Fire, when the fires hit the Shoalhaven I was fearful that if the adjacent bushland caught alight we would be in trouble especially as the fire trucks would have trouble accessing this street because of the width of the rd. The two permanent residents on the street are elderly and have lived here for years for them to lose there little homes would be very un Australian of council. So for these reasons and for the safety of new and current residents of the caravan park I strongly oppose this DA.

  18. In Umina Beach NSW on “Section 4.55 Amendment -...” at 303 Ocean Beach Road, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the developer add plenty of shade trees as this site will allow for the 'increased landscape area"? Council has a list of suitable trees that are not the big rangy eucalypts, but melaleuca (paper bard that once covered our coastal sand plain only 70 years ago), tuckeroo, golden penda, brush box and many more.

  19. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 29 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners/developer plant a tree or two on this project, expecially onthe western boundary? Barranjoey Rd has not much in the way of shade left and any addition of trees would help sell/increase the price of these units to new owners/tenants.
    All too often, contractors clear-fell every last thing on these old blocks when with a bit of thought, trees can be planned for and added.
    The Peninsula and Umina in particular, is now rated by Council's land-heat survey as one of the hottest areas on the Central Coast by 4 degrees aided by the coastal sand plain, in-fill housing, more tin fences, more hard surfaces (driveways & rooves) and taking down of too many trees.

  20. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Secondary Dwelling” at 29 Barrenjoey Road, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners/developer plant a tree on the western boundary laneway and the front yard of this project? Barranjoey Rd has not much left in the way of shade and any adding of new trees would help sell/increase the price of these 2 units to the next owners/tenants.
    All too often, contractors clear-fell every last thing on these old blocks when with a bit of thought, trees can be planned for and added.
    The Peninsula and Ettalong in particular, is now rated by Council's land-heat survey as one of the hottest areas on the Central Coast by 4 degrees aided by in-fill housing, more tin fences, more hard surfaces (driveways & rooves) and taking down of too many trees.

  21. In Umina Beach NSW on “Town Houses x 3 &...” at 82 Cambridge Street, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the owners/developer work around the existing mature trees on this project? Cambridge has not much in the way of shade left and any retention of trees would help sell/increase the price of these units to new owners.
    All too often, contractors clear-fell every last thing on these old blocks when with a bit of thought, trees can be preserved.
    Can Council ensure, if trees are taken down, the replanting two for one happens?
    The Peninsula and Umina in particular, is now rated by Council's land-heat survey as one of the hottest areas on the Central Coast by 4 degrees aided by in-fill housing, more tin fences, more hard surfaces (driveways & rooves) and taking down of too many trees.

  22. In Cranbourne VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 130 Sladen Street, Cranbourne, VIC:

    Rebecca McDonnell commented

    To all that this concerns; I have lived in this property for over two years now. The property is far more than just a building that was built in 1980, although that is impressive in itself. It also includes many beautiful creatures. For example, the family of possums that my family observe every other night that come out from the roof at night. The two kookaburra’s that like to perch on top of the old cut down tree in the back yard. The large flock of white cockatoo’s that visit in the summer. On top of this, you have the home itself. Spacious, and original! With a kitchen still original from the 1980’s with bench seating at the heart. Wooden walls in the entrance way, living area and family dining area. Original ceiling medallions and decorated cornices in the master bedroom and living area. I know this application is part of a 4 property application. And I can’t speak of the other 3, but please consider that if this property gets approved, Cranbourne as a town will lose a little bit of itself. Wild life will be affected, history will be demolished, and in a town that is so rightly expanding, how much is too much when it comes to wiping its history?
    Thank you for considering my comment.

  23. In Goodwood SA on “Removal of two regulated trees” at 20 Gilbert Street, Goodwood SA 5034:

    Wendy Bevan commented

    We need more information about this. Are these mature trees providing habitat for native birds and other animals? Why are they planned to be removed? Goodwood has lost too many of its trees for no good reason.

  24. In Preston VIC on “Application lodged in error” at 1/2 Josephine Grove Preston VIC 3072:

    Chris Erlandsen commented

    This line of native gum trees are an important part of the neighbourhood and should be retained, for a bit of urban forest that they provide. Their good health and maturity means that they have all reached the status of being significant trees and Council should be doing every thing they can, to protect them. With an increasing reduction of large canopy trees in the locality, through more and more subdivisions, there is less and less likelihood that trees like these magnificent species will be planted in future.

  25. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Gaby commented

    MBRC Planners and Councillors,

    We have been residents of Godwin Beach for nearly 5 years, we were initially seeking a more tranquil and less stressful and less congested lifestyle, particularly while battling a concerning health condition. We agree to all the above concerns from our neighbours, and we wish to highlight our concern that the residents were not invited to comment to the proposed work, by the Moreton Bay Regional Council. Also we wish to add that we are concerned as to the environmental impact the development will have. We wonder if 'sustainability' is being considered for this development. The restricted access for the increased traffic is also of great concern, (particularly in case of emergency). If this initial plan is approved, what future plans does the developer have and will the residents be informed of further development on this site and will this development and future development, meet the zoning restrictions? We believe that the Moreton Bay Regional Council are not being transparent when considering this development and we are extremely disappointed.

    We are hopeful that the Moreton Bay Regional Council will take the ratepayers and residents of Godwin Beach, concerns, seriously.

  26. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Margaret DEVENISH Meares commented

    I live in Pine street and we can hear music from Sandstone point hotel how much worse is it going to be just across the road so to speak. OUR area has not a lot of room for vehicles as it is without bring in more ,our rubbish trucks cannot even turn around in our street it has to reverse out of our dead end street. The bird habitat is not something you Would really like to see destroyed and the mangroves would also be impacted by people wandering about. I really think that the residents of Godwin beach should have been notified about this, not just stumble upon it.

  27. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Railway Rd Meadowbank NSW 2114:

    Honey Davies commented

    Definitely NOT... There is way too much over development as it is in the area with little or no upgrade to services or green spaces. The addition of this nightmare at that location will only add to an already further congested traffic for the area. The roads are already becoming a rat run. I do not support this development.

  28. In Waverley NSW on “Remove one (1) Jacaranda...” at 27 MacPherson Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Karin commented

    In the "fabulous" CG image of the approved development the trees are retained. Why is there now a DA to remove them. Can only agree to the above comments.

  29. In Brunswick East VIC on “Limited Licence - Renewable” at Administration Office, Part Of 249 Lygon Street, Brunswick East 3057, VIC:

    Glenda Lasslett commented

    I am not sure about the hours for the permit but urge that hours are limited and certainly not beyond 11 pm.

  30. In Godwin Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 1 Esplanade, Godwin Beach QLD 4511:

    Pat Spice commented

    To MBRC Councillors and Planners

    Please listen to the local residents for a change. I agree with the objections of T Corbett and all others who have objected to this proposed development which is not wanted and will be of no benefit to the local community. The quiet and peaceful lifestyle we enjoy here will be gone forever. We feel we were misled and misinformed by the whole Sandstone Point Hotel debacle and we don't want to be in that situation ever again. Just for once, let's not let the big money developers override the resident's wishes.

This week