Recent comments

  1. In Preston VIC on “Proposed construction of a...” at 650-652 Plenty Road Preston VIC 3072:

    Evelyn Grace commented

    Hi,

    I am interested in knowing who the owners are. Is this listed anywhere? As I am starting a business nearby and wish to approach them and hear their thoughts in regards to collaborating / incorporating a community garden before construction begins.

    Thank-You,

    Grace

  2. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Andrew G commented

    Everyone wants sensible, consultative, ethical development. Not overdevelopment. Rezoning should not be permitted. I don't know anyone who wants another "mini-Bondi Junction" in an beautiful, open, green area that is loved by the community.

  3. In Watsons Bay NSW on “Dwelling House:” at 25 Marine Pde, Watsons Bay, NSW:

    C Strang commented

    This gondola house and wall is an iconic landmark on the waterfront of Watsons Bay that hundreds of locals and thousands of visitors have enjoyed for many many years. Why destroy the history, and homogenise the locale, when it is the very history and quirks of the neighbourhood that people come to see? Why not preserve these elements of history for all to enjoy? Inch by inch they are being deleted. The street scape of Watsons Bay is changing even though the DCP for the area is supposed to preserve this for posterity. Please ensure that at least this gondola wall is retained for posterity. Be clever, and incorporate it into the modernisation of the house.

  4. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Deidre Gai Mitchell commented

    There needs to be a maximum number of student accommodatin in this area because the traffic and pedestrian flow will be impacted. There is already Iglu in Regent Street; a proposal for Eveleigh Street of 24 storeys. There are enough student accomm in Abercrombie and Darlington Road and also Central Park. Enough is enough. The community village atmosphere is disappearing and we are Isolating our low socio economic group. Its not always about money but good taste.

  5. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Building Subdivision in...” at 47 - 53 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Mary Flynn commented

    Can you confirm that for the land in question there was a permit to demolish the buildings that belonged to the Russian Choreographic Academy, without their approval, and that the developer then compensated the Academy to acquire it for $800k plus?

  6. In North Bondi NSW on “Construction of hardstand...” at 56 Glenayr Avenue North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Layne Johnston commented

    Re: the Building of a Carpark space in front of this Property.

    I live directly across the road in Unit 2 / #55, owner occupier.
    This house - with a tiny front garden area - is situated just at the start of the bend in Glenayr Avenue. This is a blind corner, with cars and trucks, coming around it at the legal speed , between 40 - 50kmh.

    A driveway built here would be extremely dangerous. Our local part of Glenayr, has an increasing amount of families with small children, older retirees, almost all with dogs.

    I strongly object to this crazy idea being presented to Council. There is no consideration being taken by the non-local Owner ( this property is a Rental Property ) to the likely dangerous consequences of this being built.

    I would request a Council Inspector visit the sight: my concerns will be evident.

    Note: I am going to start a Petition regarding this Application. There will be no local support for this Application, I'm absolutely sure.

    Thanking you,

    Layne

  7. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Raymond Vinton commented

    As a long time resident of Glossodia (since 1973)I would like to take this opportunity to state my comments against the proposed “affordable” low cost dwelling park sited at 66 Wattle Crescent Glossodia.
    As you may appreciate ,living in the area for more than 45 years one should have gained an insight into any issues that may be detrimental to high density growth in an area that is not suitable, I mention high density growth as the proposed new development would be added to the existing Glossodia Hamlet plus the new Jacaranda development which would put an excessive strain on the existing facilities.
    Whilst there is always a need for low cost living one must consider many aspects that the potential new residents must contend with, for example:
    • Is the proposed new site the most suitable in the proposed area or should it be sited on the other side of the Hawkesbury River where it would be closer to emergency needs such as hospitals, specialists and doctors, with the current volume of traffic there are times when the line of traffic to turn onto Windsor bridge may be 500m long and take well over 35 minutes to reach Windsor from Glossodia, this could prove fatal should there be an emergency in the area. This problem will be compounded with all the new areas being developed in the Karrajong area as so much traffic is now taking a short cut from Bells line of Road because of the traffic density in Richmond.
    • Approximately 15 years ago there was a serious bushfire on the ridge behind the proposed new low cost development and Glossodia residents were advised that unless the fire changed its course Glossodia would be lost, lucky for us the fire changed it’s course and the area was saved, but if that change of direction had not happened we were advised that the whole of Wattle Crescent could have been in trouble, what if this event happens again with a park surrounded by forest.
    • Wattle Crescent has no footpaths pedestrian routes are steep and quite narrow, totally unsuitable for people with limited transport and mobility issues.
    • The Glossidia side of the Hawkesbury River has always suffered during the flood times, we have been cut off for anything up to a week, how will this impact on the new proposed inhabitants, how well will they survive if their electricity water and sewerage is cut off for a week or more?
    On a personal note, I live in Glossodia because I enjoy the healthy tree laden area full of Australian wildlife, the area is home to so many varied species of birds that it would be a tragedy to unnecessarily destroy another small forest when there are so many suitable blocks of land, close to Windsor, that have already been stripped bare awaiting similar development.

    Ray & Maree Vinton

  8. In Lewisham NSW on “***secpp***” at 2B West Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    anne mcdougall commented

    I object to the proposed redevelopment due to its size and height. It is out of keeping with all low rise development in and around Petersham Park. The redevelopment will cause overshadowing to the single stores properties that surround the site as well as to the park. The increase in traffic will overwhelm already congested streets and impact greatly on already congested light rail and heavy rail services.

  9. In Austinmer NSW on “Residential - demolition of...” at 19 Toxteth Avenue, Austinmer NSW 2515:

    Jane Chapman commented

    Please note: You may add your comments to this public forum but this is not a submission to Wollongong Council and they will not review it. If you do wish to comment to the council assessing the DA, then you must go to their website and open the DA 2019/25 and email a submission.

    My concerns include but are not limited to:
    1. The precedent set in this area by intent to have a dual occupancy development on a small residential block too small for a dual occupancy development, and then to circumvent minimum WLEP requirements by subdividing the block after construction.
    2. The suitability of this residential site for this type of development, in part related to inadequate width at 12.86 m. As the minimum requirement is 15 m it is not possible to build 2 dwellings of this size without causing overshadowing, markedly reduced solar access and invading privacy to the neighbours.
    3. The dominating and bulky appearance of the structure on the streetscape is without precedence in our suburb, at 9 m height (maximum permitted), occupying the width of the block at double storey height, with the non-complying excessive width of the garages and solid masonry fence and removal of the mature avenue trees on the nature strip
    4. The lack of character, where dwellings are generally being built or renovated to relate to the coastal environment, and sympathetic to the existing architecture and heritage of the northern suburbs of Wollongong.
    5. The number of non-complying features, for which the developer has requested WDCP 2009 planning controls to be varied. I understand Council can give scope for variations as long as other controls are met, but controls have not been met in terms of Minimum Site Width, Solar Access & Privacy.
    6. The effect on the amenity of the Glastonbury Gardens to all those who come to the park, with this large and prominent dwelling protruding into the main access point of the park.
    7. Increased traffic congestion (more cars, less kerb-side parking due to driveways); during summer months the parking situation is already dire, with people visiting the beach and the ocean pools parking in Toxteth Avenue.
    8. The effect on the natural environment, with an Arborist's Report suggesting every tree on the site, both the street trees and even a tree in the neighbouring Glastonbury Gardens can be removed. Considering the current appearance of the block, this is a significant visual disturbance and detriment to the park and street.

  10. In Chatswood West NSW on “Request to remove 2x trees...” at 120A Fullers Road Chatswood West NSW 2067.:

    David Grover commented

    These mature trees are intrinsic to the landscape of West Chatswood and should be retained. Pruning will remove any threat to eaves and roofing. They contribute significantly to the interface between the urban streetscape and the Lane Cove National Park environment. They are vital for the significant birdlife enjoyed west of the Pacific Highway.

  11. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    John & Daphne Paul commented

    We have resided in Glossodia since 1974 and have seen the area progress first with tar roads, then street lights and curb and guttering, town water and then eventually sewerage. Although most of these developments have improved the amenity of the area, we have noticed over the years of our residence that traffic density has increased dramatically. The increased traffic has meant that we now suffer from sometime lengthy delays getting across the Windsor or North Richmond bridges and we believe this will only get worse unless there is another bridge or an increase in the number of traffic lanes.
    We are very concerned that the proposed "high density" development being proposed in wattle crescent will add substantially more traffic to an already very busy residential area. We presume that the proposed development would require many trees on the site to be removed and this will adversely impact on wildlife activity. We particularly fond of the local birdlife which utilise all of the bush in our area to live and breed.
    In the past when we had septic pump out there were significant health issue with overflows from septic systems being commonplace during heavy rain. The sewerage system has removed this problem, but our understanding is that the proposed development in Wattle Crescent would need to utilise a pump out system given that the sewerage system was never designed to cater for a "high density" residential development. This would surely lead to problems in terms of increased frequency of heavy truck movements to cart the septic pump out on a roadway already suffering from increased traffic density. There may also be problems caused by overflow in times of heavy rain and this would result in pollution of the creek adjoining the property.

    We are also aware that most people in Glossodia have their own vehicles to allow easy access to Windsor/Richmond and we are not sure that there would be sufficient room for adequate car parking in the proposed development. Many Glossodia homes have at least 2 or more vehicles.
    If the proposed development is meant to cater for low cost residential dwellings, how can someone already struggling to afford housing afford the transport costs of travelling to Windsor/Richmond not to mention accessing employment which mostly is on the Windsor/Richmond side of the river.

    We have attended meetings when this applicant previously tried to get approval for a much higher density development several years ago. We were very concerned about that proposal and are still very concerned that someone should be trying to impose a "high density" residential development in a relatively quiet rural hamlet like Glossodia.

    We sincerely hope that this latest development proposal is rejected because it is entirely unsuitable for the Glossodia area.

    John & Daphne Paul

  12. In Birchgrove NSW on “Request to change 6 metres...” at 233 Rowntree Street Birchgrove NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    There is a steady line of applications requesting the removal of trees and this is greatly affecting the birds in the area. I oppose this application on the basis it once again an application that will have a negative impact on the birdlife and bees in the area.

  13. In Enmore NSW on “Alterations additions &...” at 32 London Street Enmore NSW 2042:

    B Shaw commented

    I support this development application. Crucial to the on-going improvement and desirability of suburbs is local councils allowing development which improves properties whilst maintaining any relevant heritage aesthetics. This development does exactly that and approval would be in line with recent precedent set by the approval of similar development applications of nearby semis.

  14. In Lewisham NSW on “***secpp***” at 2B West Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    N Wheeler commented

    I second Jo Hobson's submission and emphasise the lack of infrastructure, facilities, amenities and increased traffic and congestion in the area.

  15. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Karin Mullenger wrote to local councillor Julie Edge

    If houses like this one are torn down, with little thought for the history and memories they represent, what does that say for Somerville’s future identity as a town? Do we want to be identified as a ‘cookie cutter’ suburb full of boring multi developments? Certainly doesn’t match our community spirit.

    Delivered to local councillor Julie Edge. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Northcote VIC on “ePathway” at 120 Darebin Road Northcote VIC 3070:

    Greg and Clare Iacono commented

    We are the owners of 118 Darebin rd Northcote and would like to ensure that the tree protection zone of our 70yo English oak tree is not infringed upon during their proposed development. Our neighbours are insisting that we remove this tree. This tree is well established and in good health.

  17. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Kylie Emery commented

    This house has historical significance to Somerville. It shouldn't be knocked down, it needs to be restored.

  18. In Wellington Point QLD on “Combined RAL and OPW - 5...” at 31 Nelson Road, Wellington Point QLD 4160:

    Paul Quinn wrote to local councillor Wendy Boglary

    Further to Allans concerns, I submit the following email interaction regarding the rezoning of these blocks despite assurances around the last election time that these blocks (amongst and number of other in this area) would remain zoned as blocks required to be a MINIMUM of 2000m2.

    On 2 Nov 2018, at 8:59 am, Paul Quinn wrote:
    "Hello Wendy,
    Thank you for your recent community notification letter regarding the proposed redevelopment for some of the old Botanix site. I would like some clarification regarding the lot sizes if you could please?
    The lot sizes shown on the proposed plan are considerably smaller than the recommended minimum size of 2000m2 for Low Density Residential*. Originally the lots opposite this property on Nelson road we also pegged out as 2000m2 blocks, but these were changed at some point to smaller blocks as well.
    Could you better explain why the block sizes are almost 1/4 of the recommended size please? I don't understand why the council feels this block size reduction is an acceptable outcome for adherence to the Redlands Planning Scheme.
    *Redlands Planning Scheme Part 4 - Zones, Division 11 - Low Density Residential Zone - Page 13, P-2.4
    Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon.
    Kind regards,
    Paul Quinn"

    "Good morning Paul,
    Thank you for your email concerning the proposed development on the old Botanix site. Recently a new City Plan was adopted in council and in this new plan this area was rezoned this making the smaller lot sizes allowable.
    I will add I didn’t vote for this new City Plan for a number of reasons but mainly as I do not believe it will improve the liveability of our City. I am forwarding all emails onto the assessing officers so they have a record of all concerns. At present they are still waiting for information but once the assessing starts I will hold another meeting with them to discuss the feedback I am receiving. I appreciate you taking the time to email and I will be in contact once I have some idea of the final plans .

    Warm Regards
    Cr Wendy Boglary
    Division 1 Councillor ( Ormiston/Wellington Point)
    Redland City Council

    Delivered to local councillor Wendy Boglary. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Kelly Drake commented

    I have lived in Somerville for 25 years and have always loved the historic buildings and that country feel Somerville has.
    I understand the house on this property is very run down but the last thing Somerville needs are more units/townhouses.
    My children also attend wagtail cottage daycare at the neighbouring address. There is already a development in progress on one side of the daycare and is getting difficult to access the daycare.
    If this unnecessary development goes ahead, please consider the safety of the staff, parents and children of the daycare.
    But as I have mentioned above, it will be a disgrace to Somerville residents to see this development go ahead.
    I plan to have my children grow up in the lovely Somerville that I grew up in, but if these type of plans keep going ahead, it will be a over populated town full of units and townhouses!

  20. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 22 Black Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Claire Plummer wrote to local councillor Mark Riley

    Dear Mark,

    I work full time, so was unable to attend the council meeting last week. I object to 22 Black St proposal - it's TOO HIGH and exceeds the 19M height control.

    Please be reminded:

    - You have already approved four towers in the Jewell area, which gave no regard to the physical context of the low scale, single storey Victorian terraces that have a heritage overlay. The heritage overlay means these terraces are unlikely to experience any significant redevelopment.

    - Many residents have lived in these terraces well before the commercial zoning and heritage overlay was applied, so it’s unreasonable to expect residents should’ve known Moreland would develop a strong strategic direction that would destroy their existing amenity. Your approvals are creating a canyon effect for the heritage overlay terraces.

    Is there an annual review of your incoherent strong strategic direction? It needs to properly consider equitable outcomes for existing and future residents, rather than favouring the fortune of developers, and driving inequality in Brunswick, and our society.

    Has there been any examples where you have pivoted, switched direction, learned lessons and stopped approving these inequitable plans?

    Regards
    Claire

    Photo of Mark Riley
    Mark Riley local councillor for Moreland City Council
    replied to Claire Plummer

    Claire,

    Thanks for your email re 22 Black St.

    I've just written to you on your other questions. I will ask the professionals to reply to your other concerns below. Once you get this response, I'd be pleased to chat further about the Councillors role and how this comes into play after you hear back from officers.

    Re your queries:

    Is there an annual review of your incoherent strong strategic direction? It needs to properly consider equitable outcomes for existing and future residents, rather than favouring the fortune of developers, and driving inequality in Brunswick, and our society.

    Our Council is working towards a more live-able city and is addressing this through plans/strategies such as Urban Forest, Urban Heat Island Effect, Greening Sydney Road, A Park Close to Home and so on. You can see our Council Plan for this 4 year term, here:
    https://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-and-publications/council-plan/

    You can read our policies here:
    https://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-and-publications/policies-and-strategies/

    Has there been any examples where you have pivoted, switched direction, learned lessons and stopped approving these inequitable plans?

    Thanks for your queries.

    Yours sincerely.

    Cr Mark Riley
    South Ward I Moreland City Council
    90 Bell Street, Coburg. 3058
    m: +61 499 807 044
    e:
    https://www.facebook.com/MarkRileyGreens/

    To make a report, complaint or request for a service to Moreland City Council Go To >
    http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-us/online-payments-and-services/erequests/

  21. In North Fremantle WA on “Renovations and additions...” at 82-84 Stirling Highway North Fremantle WA 6159:

    Bonnie Doran commented

    As a neighbouring resident, I'm concerned about the impact of this development on street parking in the area (which is already under pressure from users of the North Fremantle train station) and overshadowing/privacy to the backyards of the adjacent houses facing Alfred road.

    I would like Fremantle Council to consider the following in assessing the application:
    1. The applicant's proposal to extend the building to the boundary fence on the Northern boundary should be rejected on the basis of privacy and overshadowing to the adjacent residential properties;
    2. Any north facing windows proposed to be installed in the proposed additional storey should be installed above eye level or frosted to ensure privacy to the adjacent residential properties;
    3. The Council should consider the disruption that the proposed development will cause to neighbouring properties. A dilapidation report should be required given proposal to excavate a basement level carpark; and
    4. The applicant should be required to comply with the Council's codes and guidelines in relation to the number of allocated car bays available for the building, so as not to add any additional pressure to the already strained street parking.

  22. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Susan Smith wrote to local councillor Julie Edge

    I agree with the above comments. Our town is in danger of becoming unit infested and we are slowly losing the essence of how the town used to be. We don’t even have a park area to enjoy flora and fauna with family and friends.

    Delivered to local councillor Julie Edge. They are yet to respond.

  23. In North Fremantle WA on “From to retail and Liquor...” at 90 Stirling Highway North Fremantle WA 6159:

    Bonnie Doran commented

    As a neighbouring resident, I'm concerned about the impact of this development on street parking in the area (which is already under pressure from users of the North Fremantle train station) and overshadowing/privacy to the backyards of the adjacent houses facing Alfred road.

    I would like Fremantle Council to consider the following in assessing the application:
    1. The applicant's proposal to extend the building to the boundary fence on the Northern boundary should be rejected on the basis of privacy and overshadowing to the adjacent residential properties;
    2. Any north facing windows proposed to be installed in the proposed additional storey should be installed above eye level or frosted to ensure privacy to the adjacent residential properties;
    3. The Council should consider the disruption that the proposed development will cause to neighbouring properties. A dilapidation report should be required given proposal to excavate a basement level carpark; and
    4. The applicant should be required to comply with the Council's codes and guidelines in relation to the number of allocated car bays available for the building, so as not to add any additional pressure to the already strained street parking.

  24. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Maree Angelo commented

    Somerville is rapidly losing its history. This house is one of the last few standing remnants of Somerville's past and should be preserved. Sadly as it is not heritage listed it has been allowed to run into disrepair to ease and justify the way for its demolition.
    While I understand the need for development and the need for additional lower cost housing there is more suitable land that could be made available for development. The destruction of this historic home with the replacement being multiple units on a main road through the town will have the lasting effect of changing the image and feel of the town.
    The semi rural feel of the town will be replaced with an over developed and cramped first image instead of the semi rural feel that the Mornington Shire insists it is fighting for in the area.

  25. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Shannon blaby commented

    Firstly i don't think that area in Somerville needs more units when just next door 30 something townhouses are going in. This house is over 100 years old and needs to be heritage listed and restored.There will be nothing left in Somerville as everything is being knocked down due to money and greed. This needs to be thought through. There will be many angry people from the Somerville community if this happens

  26. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Samuel Lowrey wrote to local councillor Julie Edge

    The Council Cannot allow this planing permit to go through. This house was originally built/owned by one of the pineeers of somerville and the surrouning area.

    Its over 100 years old and is just as important as, Belura house, Coolart and The Briars to Somerville. It should be saved as all costs so we don't lose the history.

    Delivered to local councillor Julie Edge. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Gregory Nicholls commented

    Tearing down This house would be a travesty both for Somerville's History but Victoria & Australia's as a whole, That the house has been allowed to fall into the condition it is a blatant case of demolition by default . You only have to look at the other restored houses in Somerville to see that it is possible for New buildings to built side by side with old on the same block , to put 4 units on the site is just a money hungry grab.
    In Tyabb a lovely old house was saved & a new estate built around it. Why could this not happen here ???
    Must we the residents of Somerville Lose our History just so even more Units are built , We in Australia lag behind the rest of the developed world in saving our old buildings in the name of progress & Money.
    The owner should be made to restore the house & only be allowed to Build 2 Units at the back of the property

  28. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Louise McLean commented

    Do not agree to this development. Sad to see a beautiful old place removed.

  29. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Elisha lavallin commented

    I’d hate for this to be knocked down such history!

  30. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Amy Joseph commented

    I would like this planning proposal to be reconsidered. The house is a historical icon in the area and as a direct descendant of the Wells family (the first family that settled on the Mornington Peninsula) I would be extremely upset for another part of the areas history to be removed for another unit block. The cultural identity of Somerville is rapidly in decline due to the oversupply of units and townhouses.

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