Recent comments

  1. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing two...” at 1-7 Curlewis Street Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Nicolette Boaz commented

    *There is absolutely no room for one more car in this street. Parking is non existent.
    *Cars leaving this street from the northern end will create absolute chaos.
    I have lived near this building for 11 years. Occasionally I attempt to cross the first lane to reach one of the other 2 lanes. It is dangerous and difficult. It also creates more congestion.
    *This corner already has a MAJOR traffic flow problem. Every morning, with each light change a lane of cars sits with their hand on the horn. Please come on site between 8-9.30. (The image of a bicycle in the DA is a joke.)
    *Turning around is either not possible if all driveways have cars in them or it is dangerous and difficult.
    *4 stories ? 20 students per hour ? Seriously ? The DA says that most people will arrive on a bicycle ? Really ? At the bottom of a long steep hill . I dont think so.
    Insanity.
    *Curlewis st is suitable for small businesses. But this business will encourage people to park in Simpson St.(my street) so lets call a spade a spade. This is a corner block with the main access side being residential. People LIVE here. And have done for decades.
    *This site is NOT suitable for a large scale money making exercise like this. It is impossible that this will come in at $2 million. The people at 9 Curlewis St just did a renovation that cost them nearly a million. It is not possible to build 4 stories with inddor facilites and pools for the stated amount.
    *This D.A. should NOT be allowed for the sake of the long time residents like myself and many other neighbours , not just blow-ins interested in a quick buck.

  2. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Ben commented

    Further to my previous comments, Hornsby is developing the quarry, which can be developed in conjuction with the west side. In order to attract tourists, there should be hotels or service apartments considered. Hornsby, in mid way between city and central coast, should do better to serve tourists or hikers.
    As far as I know, Ryde provides free shuttle bus to Top Ryde. Why can’t we have the same service to bring local and nearby people to Westfiled and the west side precinct? The developer can also share part of the costs as more people more profits for them. This can also help the local traffic.

  3. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    Rebecca Monckton commented

    Jannali is crying out for development like this. It's frustrating to see so many small shops in Jannali closing and so much lost opportunity for commercial businesses as well as the residents. Jannali has a good layout to create a village feel and this spot would make a great small bar so why was it rejected? There seems to be a very narrow view of development in this Shire that bigger is better - and all in one or two select locations and forget everywhere else. I haven't seen any strategic planning initiatives in the Jannali area that focus on improving the area other than adding some high-rise units and a bistro to the new Union Place Development. With a few relatively minor changes to traffic flow around the railway bridge and shops you could create some really functional community and commercial space. If the application has been rejected I hope that it will be amended, resubmitted, and approved.

  4. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Lewis Tuck commented

    This development is too much for this particular site to handle safely. There are a lot of cars, buses, 4wd's already travelling along Jukes Rd, in/out of Bonwick St and associated car parks and William St at speed. To allow an additional 5 dwellings on one site will only add to the already growing traffic issue.

    Bonwick St does not handle the current traffic flow and load - adding even more traffic so closely to Bonwick is not a good idea.

    Another consideration is how many young families are utilising the footpaths to navigate their way on foot to Bonwick St - decreasing their safety would be folly.

  5. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Faye Scanlan commented

    The proposed development is too high density for the area and would exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems near Bonwick St shopping precinct.

  6. In Christies Beach SA on “Community Strata Land...” at 22 - 24 Maturin Avenue, Christies Beach, SA:

    Amanda Lindsay commented

    Hello,
    How many properties in total will be on this development? Are they 2 storey dwellings? Is there going to be adequate on site parking for 2 cars per property or is it park on our already crowded street due to 4 townhouses already next door to this property?

  7. In Leabrook SA on “Roof mounted air...” at 6 Rodger Avenue Leabrook SA 5068:

    Tiffany Birrell commented

    I hope that placement of roof top units will be placed in suitable places on the roof so as not to cause increased noise to neighbours.

  8. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Subdivision Strata Into 59...” at 49 The Esplanade , Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Nathan Obrien commented

    Council needs to stop over development on the peninsula right now. The traffic is already too congested, the roads are a joke and parking is really difficult. Council please stop ruining the peninsula.

  9. In Rozelle NSW on “Conversion of existing...” at 50-58 Evans Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Ben Rushton commented

    Not long ago there were 4 (hardware stores on the Balmain Peninsular), soon to be none. Increase density and decrease diversity. How's that good town planning?

  10. In Toorak VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 1 Smyth Street, Toorak VIC 3142:

    Sean Elliott commented

    As residents of Ashe Grove who live adjacent to the application, we believe that the scale of the dwelling and style of design will be highly intrusive to the environment and out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. It will also be disruptive to the peace and enjoyment of the existing residents.

  11. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 40 Jones Street Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Melissa commented

    Got that right noddy just today some tipper guy came to my door and wants me to move my car from the street I live on and I have a right to park there so he can park there trucks there so I think there is going to be some trouble in this street when they demolish the green building that’s opposite Penrith high school I live right next to it there doing this cause when there all built all the rates around Penrith will go up sick of the greedy council pushing ppl out which we will have to move cause there is a 3m car park right next to where I live going in

  12. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Daniela commented

    Residents and visitors of the proposed site will use car parking on bonwick Street and designated shopping car parking. The area is already heavy congested and parking already insufficient for the number of people that use it. The residences should have their own designated parking assigned, at least 1-2 per home to avoid increasing congestion, traffic and overall chaos to the strip.

  13. In Jannali NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 25 Bindea Street Jannali NSW 2226:

    Wendy Sorby commented

    There is only ONE access road into the immediate area of the proposed development, that being Sutherland Road (now Skillcorn Lane is blocked off). The only entry into Sutherland Road is via Mitchell Avenue.
    No doubt, with the huge high rise developments on Mitchell Avenue, the increased volume of cars turning in/out of driveways, Sutherland Road and Oxley Avenue will be chaotic. This will make crossing the railway bridge in either direction "mission impossible".
    Before further development is approved in the immediate area, Council should plan another exit road, otherwise it will be "death valley".

  14. In Stanmore NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 11 Stafford Street Stanmore NSW 2048:

    Beryl Foulds commented

    >>vThe proposed additions and alterations shall impact upon Tree 3 Callistemon viminalis (syn. Melaleuca viminalis) (Weeping Bottlebrush),

    We have submitted a letter supporting the removal of the the tree in question [see above]

    Our main objection being damage done by the tree roots to pavers, making the area where roots extend dangerous underfoot. These areas have been remediated four times since 2007, but the tree has doubled in size since that time, roots now extend further into the garden proper and are getting larger and more extensive, to the point where some areas are inaccessible.

    Cost of replacing damaged water pipes was in excess of $11,000. Lifting of pavers alongside the side fence has been costly to remediate, and quickly needs further work.

    The canopy encroaches westward over our roof preventing installation of planned solar panels, there is also a risk of damage to our existing solar water heater from falling branches.

    If the tree is removed these problems will, we feel, disappear, as will the risk to our health and safety.

  15. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 116 Jukes Road, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    spiros Haldas commented

    I think this planning application to build 5 triple storey dwellings at 116 Jukes Rd is over development ,insufficient parking, noise, and not suitable with the local area .

  16. In Malvern East VIC on “Secondary Consent Amendment...” at 301 Waverley Road, Malvern East Victoria 3145:

    Tina stavropoulos commented

    We are residents behind this “cafe”, on darling rd.
    We object to any extension of trading hours or beer garden..
    Last summer this business had an out of control event. Under age children spilled out into Laneway all day and night. No consequences or penalties to business, even though numerous laws and bylaws broken..
    Police called several times by residents.

    The positioning of this beer garden backs on to backyards and music is excessively loud.
    Please take this into consideration when granting permits.
    We, the residents/neighbours, were not notified of any permit request by letter. I believe we should have legally been notified, as our property is behind this “cafe”
    Regards,
    Tina Stavropoulos

  17. In Bethania QLD on “Crematorium, Caretakers...” at 1/3-13 High Road Bethania QLD 4205:

    Gordon Simmonds wrote to local councillor Cherie Dalley

    This development should NOT proceed under any circumstances !
    It defies common sense - These people need to be treated with respect - they have all been a part of this community for decades worked their whole lives . They need to have a nice relaxing (physically AND mentally ) place to live -
    It is not fair -
    This should not just be a case of " look at the planning rules " this should be approached with care and compassion - not from a book of black and white rules -
    The people reviewing this application need to imagine themselves in the position of the Palm lake pensioners - how would they feel ?

    I truly hope common sense prevails -

    Delivered to local councillor Cherie Dalley. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of the land by...” at 21 Northumberland Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Lisa O'Halloran commented

    The applicant is taking the matter to VCAT as council did not respond within the statutory timeframe - ie failure to decide
    Objectors have until 13 December to lodge statements of grounds
    lmdallatorre@gmail.com if anyone would like to discuss

  19. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Subdivision Strata Into 59...” at 49 The Esplanade , Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    Rosemarie Smith commented

    Council really needs to seriously look at some of these big developments. The whole of the peninsula is lacking basic facilities such as footpaths, gutters and roads full of potholes. Traffic is already congested and at a standstill morning and afternoons along Blackwall Rd and Ocean Beach Rd. The area is being destroyed by over development.
    Please look at the whole of the peninsula and seek community feedback.

  20. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    Lisa TILLEY commented

    This is a great step in the right direction. Council really needs to focus on improving Jannali shops. They are so rundown, empty or neglected. The renovation work on the corner has been allowed to drag on too long and looks terrible.

  21. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Mr Li commented

    I object to this development on the following grounds:-

    Westside should be developed in accordance with community consultation - residence in the immediate made it clear that the area was to maintain the low rise of the westside to avoid the high rise nature of the east side.

    Heritage - simply retaining a small facade of 2 buildings and relocating the preschool building within the site is considered in the DA docs as "a modern interpretation" of the heritage streetscape - Hornsby will look like Chatswood and North Sydney you will destory the village feeling.

    Extremely out of character for this immediate area - 2 towers is totally inappropriate size and scale for that precinct - the top heavy nature of the building design (where the higher floors of the 21 storey tower have a bigger floorplate size than the street level) makes it look totally unappealing visually and loose all village feeling

    Traffic congestion, Hornsby is already over burned with roads it can take 15-20 minutes to travel 1km along Petes Ferry or George Street. The traffic report in the DA docs also indicates that many areas within Hornsby have been identified as being at close to capacity at peak times. This will only make it worse. There is the common developer/council line that people should use public transport more. Sure, if your destination is within the current public transport infrastructure and you are not tied to getting kids to/from school etc - it is unreasonable to expect everyone to get everywhere by public transport. All our local streets are parked out by unit dwellers with the average 2.5 cars to 1 car space.

    Pressures on schools, Hospital, Doctors, childcare etc - although the DA hints at inclusion of a day care facility - the shire is already at breaking point with schools and the local Hospital - this needs to be addressed before adding more people to the area.

    Construction management this is a busy precinct for buses taxis, rail buses and station drop off and pick up. There is no way this will not impact daily lives of those trying to move around the village

    Environmental impact - We all have heard the "bushland shire" being spoken of, but we are quickly losing the sense of the bush when monstrous building developments like these are springing up everywhere - the landscaping reports attached to the DA show little (if any) streetside landscaping - with references to rooftop gardens and central podium areas only getting a superficial treatment of plantings. As they talk in the reports of the development being at the gateway to Hornsby, it is sad that there is no greenery in sight.

    Hornsby Council have EXCEEDED State Housing Quotas go build this in Gordon which is actually Zoned for it

    Please do not allow this development to be approved this has significant ramifications for future generations and a burden to existing infrastructure.

  22. In Rozelle NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 28 Waterloo Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Jane Vaughan commented

    Application for driveway takes away 2 parking spaces in the street when parking is already at a premium and the additional residences planned for the future with the Tigers site is only going to make parking more difficult

  23. In Chatswood NSW on “Demolition of existing main...” at 18 De Villiers Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    david grover commented

    I wish to submit that existing significant trees be retained.

  24. In Hornsby NSW on “Mixed - Shop Top Housing...” at 187 Peats Ferry Rd Hornsby NSW 2077 Australia:

    Jacqueline Taylor commented

    Two decades ago, I wrote to The Advocate on the matter of the development of the west side. At that stage, I would have liked to see cafes, book shops, pedestrian areas, markets, laneways and trees.

    The west side has been in limbo all of this time. Waiting, waiting, deteriorating and no improvements made as there is scope for large scale plans 'in the future'. I would like a pedestrian light for the crossing from the station, but have been told that as there are bigger plans in motion, there is no point in dealing with such things right now.

    So I am open to suggestions for an evolving population and perhaps Hornsby needs to embrace its standing as a hub/large centre? However maintain trees, communal spaces, ensure parking/traffic flow is well considered and allowance made for cyclists. Encourage places for people to meet, chat and consider the visual aspect of design. Big can be beautiful. Consider how people need to live if residential, ie there needs to be spaces to hang out washing.... keep it contained within the development not out on residents' crowded verandahs, or use shutters. Ensure that open spaces remain and we can feel the sun on our backs and the relief of shade on our cheeks. Ensure good landscaping is incorporated. Be wise with plant choices. The plant choice near the lifts on the Eastern side are poor. They are forever yellow. Better choices could have been made.

  25. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 40 Jones Street Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Noddy commented

    Got it in ONE Melissa! The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Penrith City Council Real Estate Agents are just doing what they want they don't care that WE THE PEOPLE want some infrastructure our roads can't cope anymore, Penrith has turned into a city of Highrise Cranes!!

  26. In Jannali NSW on “Change of use of unit 7...” at 544-546 Box Road Jannali NSW 2226:

    Damien commented

    Notwistanding the status of this particular DA, Jannali is very much in need of revitalisation. It is looking forlorn with at least 8 empty shops, and several of those remaining in a very poor state. We as a community should be supportive of reasonably balanced proposals that can help kick-start investment and the bringing of life to this village. Have we no aspiration? Rejection of investment and life will lead to further dilapidation, tumbleweeds, and entrenchment as the domain of housing commission & "doosh" bags - which (save for a few exceptions) seems to be Jannali's general direction of the past decade. No thanks.

  27. In Randwick NSW on “Demolition of exciting...” at 31 Wansey Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Yuri P Y commented

    The greed of a Developer to achieve the number of 82 units, and trying to build something clearly over dense for the site, ignore many principles from SEPP and specially from the DCP, and fail to provide some acceptable living standards spaces.
    As per the floor plans, the communal open space for example, will not receive any direct sun light, neither any units that is facing south.The proposal has not provide the minimum required common facilities,such as laundries, communal kitchen, drying cloths open space, etc...
    A total of 30 units (36.5%) not receiving any sun at all. Also, 6 of those units (G07, G14,106,114,212 and 203) do not even have windows in the room!
    Also single lift serving 26 units per floor, and an over build non-comply FSR, makes this proposal an affront of the public and the community interest.
    Sydney is flooded with new developments and clear the city needs to grow, but we can not go back and start ignoring those simple principles that has been created to ensure a good quality of life in this beautiful city.
    The site has clearly the potential to provide a much better outcome, with just a reduction of units and better space design and facilities.

  28. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at 48A Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    Just a shame what greed can do, to suck out as many rate payers as possible without thinking of the consequences in the future, these dreadful proposes just create gettos,
    What a shame we don;t have councilors who want to preserve our heritage.

  29. In New Town TAS on “New Signage” at 170 - 174 New Town Road New Town Tas 7008:

    Tanya La Paglia commented

    It would appear that the signage on the building at 170-174 New Town Road was already erected before the application was submitted to council. It is very loud and has obviously not been designed professionally to suit the location. As it is sighted by all thoroughfare on New Town Road, its presence influences the presentation of the entire streetscape in a negative way. Three large red and white signs for one business is inappropriate. One aesthetically pleasing sign per business would be more suitable.

  30. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 11 Roy Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Megan commented

    This application needs to be rejected.

    According to the submitted plans, the proposed dwelling with auxiliary unit is to be situated on a 450m2 block of land. As per the Ipswich Planning Scheme auxiliary units can only be built on an Auxiliary Unit Lot which has a minimum block size of 800m2. Therefore the block size for the proposed dwelling is too small.

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