Recent comments

  1. In Wattle Grove NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Oatlands Court Wattle Grove NSW 2173, Australia:

    Kylie commented

    In regards to the application to build a child care centre at 2 Oatlands Court, Wattle Grove, DA-615/2018 I would like to voice my opposition.
    I am concerned that the added traffic, especially during peak times of leaving for school/work and returning home from school/work, will be both dangerous and untenable for this street. The corner that this house is on is at the very beginning of the street and is the only course of access to all residents in Oatlands Court, Cliveden Court and Farnborough Court. These three streets have approximately 60 residences (with many more residents – at least 100+ cars), all accessing their homes via the entrance at the corner of Oatlands Court and Conroy Rd - exactly where this business is being proposed.
    Where and how are the cars parked on the street to drop off or pick up their children, going to turn around to exit Oatlands Court? The street is narrow and doesn’t allow for u-turns. This means that the 38 families attending the service will need to drive all the way to the end of Oatlands Court and turn around at the garden opposite Farnborough Court and the park. This increases the daily traffic in a quiet residential street to commercial levels. And increases the safety risks to the children living in our neighbourhood.
    Additionally, the houses on Conroy Road, opposite the corner of Oatlands Court, will also be affected by the increase in traffic – parked and moving.
    With the close proximity of this site to the Australis Avenue/Conroy Road intersection, I believe the increase in traffic could be dangerous at worst and incredibly inconvenient for all residents, at least.
    An additional concern is the on street parking situation. The plan for this business states that it will have 11 off street parking spaces. A child care centre of this size will have a minimum of 7 educators working face to face with the children. In addition, there is likely to be a director, a cook, and possibly an administrative officer. Potentially, 10 of the allotted 11 spaces will be filled by staff and not accessible to parents dropping off or picking up their children. On the application, it shows 11 spaces, one of which is a disabled parking spot and cannot be used by anyone unless they have a disabled sticker. The 7th staff member, and the 8th, 9th and 10th, will have to use the 4 allocated ‘visitors’ parking spaces. This leaves only street parking for customers in an already narrow street with a great deal of local traffic, as stated above. It is already an issue, trying to navigate through the cars parked at that end of the street.
    I would also like to see the landscaping plan and the floor plan for this child care centre. The previous application plans have been redacted and there appears to be no new plans submitted. How can we see if the required minimum unencumbered indoor floor space and unencumbered outdoor space have been provided? The Education and Care Services National Regulations are very clear in regards to these matters and with the proposed size of the building, I am not convinced that 266m2 of unencumbered outdoor play space is available.
    The noise factor, for neighbouring houses, will also be disruptive. Young children are noisy, and early childhood services are busy and noisy. Whilst the noise may not be ongoing throughout the day, it will be intense any time the children are outdoors. The child care service may run an indoor/outdoor concurrent program, meaning the children will be outdoors almost all of the opening hours. This would have a huge impact on the homes in the immediate vicinity.
    Please consider the long term affect this development will have on the local neighbours, and the safety of the children who will potentially be attending the child care centre or in neighbouring homes.

  2. In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 2 Mawarra Street, Palm Beach QLD 4221:

    Jarrett commented

    This is over my back fence, we are now Jammed between this and magnolia. We are a single story complex on the southern side of an 8 story building. Good bye sun and grass. Can we just split the GCCC? No one south of Tally creek want any of this rubbish and we’re so sick of it.

  3. In Saratoga NSW on “Telecommunications Tower” at 138 Davistown Road, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Wane Kerr commented

    I Strongly agree to the construction of the Telstra Tower, 99% of the people commenting on this and opposing it are the same people who will probably wear tin foil hats if google told them to, Let's finally get some good coverage wooohooooooooooo!

  4. In Caulfield East VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 15 Leamington Crescent Caulfield East VIC 3145:

    Jo Randi commented

    Squeezing 4 double storey townhouses on a small block of land surrounded by single storey family houses doesn’t match the neighbourhood character in the area. We have enough apartments and small units along the main road and around station. Please glen Eire council don’t encourage even more such development in a neighbourhood zone.

  5. In Saint Lucia QLD on “Dwelling House, Subdivision...” at 140 Gailey Rd St Lucia QLD 4067:

    ALLAN HILLESS commented

    Subdivision maybe one thing but the development planned could be very problematic. How do they believe they will have access to the block. This needs to be revealed before they can subdivide.

  6. In Darwin City NT on “Additions to an existing...” at 91 Woods St, Darwin City, NT:

    Nick Kirlew commented

    Not suitable.
    It would be questionable that placing 6 containers will contribute to the amenity of the location. There are storage facilities that are fit for purpose with in reasonable distance of the facility.
    Nick Kirlew
    Convener PLan: the Planning Action network Inc.

  7. In Quirindi NSW on “24 Hour Truck Stop/Service...” at Lot 3 in DP1125557, Kamilaroi Highway, Quirindi:

    Quaydan Effer commented

    Hi I was wondering if there is a service station still going here thanks

  8. In Trigg WA on “Development Assessment...” at 331 West Coast Drive Trigg WA 6029:

    Andy Freeman commented

    Parking has always ben an issue.As a person building directly behind this location I door knocked before buying on Mettam Street. the neighbours said Yelo was an issue due to its popularity as it is now in its current format - let alone the proposed reduction (elimination) in Public Car bays that currently exist, the increased in-out traffic of the proposed vertical development, the increased visitors to the tenant abodes, as well as the all day dining offering on ground floor - its not practical.

    The height will block some of our north western view, as it exceeds the permitted plot ration / building height - this is an issue for someone who has just bought, designed and almost completed a build in the vicinity. This is another huge issue for me!
    Overshadowing was an issue I had to abide by when designing our house. I would be offended if another development disregarded this with their neighbours.

    the design is interesting - but very large in relation to the area also. I dont think its reasonable.

  9. In Bronte NSW on “Prune one (1) Pyrus...” at 14 Belgrave Street Bronte NSW 2024:

    Liviano L commented

    These trees are dangerous and need to be replaced with natives.
    The western tree has a serious deformity in its trunk which renders the whole tree unstable and branches likely to fall.
    The eastern tree has repetitively fallen on the electricity line that it has woven itself around. After the recent storm on 9th February a medium sized branch again fell on the wire and hovered there for over a week before it was removed by council. This branch was at a height that an adult could reach. There are numerous chain saw marks on branches at this level where council and the electrical company have had to repetitively remove branches that have fallen on the electricity wire and the lane way..
    The only birds much in the trees are a group of aggressive Minahs that chase native birds away.
    We all want a green safe neighborhood. Native trees as replacements will encourage native birds, keep the lane way green and the neighborhood safe.

  10. In Toormina NSW on “Health Care Building-New -...” at 144 - 144 Sawtell Road, Toormina NSW 2452:

    david wood commented

    Re. above comment. Edit '60 native tree species' - replace with '30 native trees' in second sentence. Confused by numbering system in Tree Survey doc.
    Thankyou - Dave Wood, Boambee East

  11. In Toormina NSW on “Health Care Building-New -...” at 144 - 144 Sawtell Road, Toormina NSW 2452:

    david wood commented

    We do not question the need for, or importance of, an essential public emergency service such as this Ambulance station, and appreciate compromises must be made when considering environmental factors.
    However; if the Planning authority is serious about it's very own koala plan of management and other environmental planning constraints eg: Threatened Species Act, then the proposed offsets contained in this DA for the removal of the approximately 60 native tree species on site seem token at the best, and totally insufficient at worst. While we understand that the existing trees vary in size and condition and only 2 of the trees are within the mapped primary koala habitat area, we're not sure that koalas and other wildlife follow the map.
    The primary local koala food species on site are -
    - nine Eucalyptus robusta (swamp mahogany) trees. All but 1 are to be removed.
    The secondary koala food species on site include -
    - five blackbutt (E. pilularis) of which 1 is to be retained.
    - four smooth barked apple (Angophora costata) to be removed.
    - 2 white mahogany (E. acmenoides) to be removed.
    - 1 bloodwood (E. intermedia) which is to be removed and is also a known food source for the vulnerable squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis ), known to exist in the local area as recently as 2011.
    The offsets recommended in the DA document labelled Appendix B Section 5.3 p.19.
    while maybe complying with the letter of CHCC DCP 2015 fail to make sense in terms of replacing the total value of the habitat lost to the local koala and other wildlife as a result of this proposal and we question the claim that there will be 'no net loss' of habitat.
    The DA recommendations for compensatory plantings are -
    - 3 pink euodia (Melicope elleryana) - an non-endemic introduced street tree which has become an invasive pest of local native bushland and is not a koala feed tree.
    - 3 Blackbutt (E. pilularis) - a non-preferred koala feed tree, self seeding and increasingly dominating in the local ecology with excessive shading and future limb drop risks in an urban environment.
    - 4 swamp mahogany (E. robusta) - that makes sense.
    We suggest these species also be given consideration - tallowwood (E. microcorys), red gum, (E. tereticornis), Grey gum (E. propinqua), white mahogany (E. acmenoides) pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia,)
    We also recommend a suitable site with connectivity to the adjacent primary koala habitat be sought before further recommendations and purchase are made and also recommend that only local sourced planting stock is used as stock sourced from outside this locale can have different chemistry and may not provide suitable koala
    food requirements. Thankyou - Dave Wood, Boambee East

  12. In Woy Woy NSW on “Multi Dwelling Housing...” at 4 Piper Street, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Anne commented

    I hope the developer will be required to also place kerbing, guttering and footpaths out the front of the property to deter parking on the verge and blocking the view of motorists and help the safety of pedestrians.

  13. In Toowong QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 43 Elizabeth St Toowong QLD 4066:

    Kristy Gethin-Jones commented

    I don’t believe this design aligns with the character of the street or preserving Brisbane architecture. I can’t believe the BCC is entertaining a submission to demolish a beautiful QLDer for another modern soulless development or are they trying to jam this to the side of the QLDer. Please don’t allow this, the units that have been approved and built on our street have allowed original houses in our street that were part of Brisbane history be demolished without a trace changing the residential feel of the street. Units also create privacy issues when larger buildings dwarf the neighbouring houses such is the case with my house. Please start seeing Toowong for its Architectural history and start making an effort to preserve many more do we have to loose.

  14. In Redbank Plains QLD on “Minor Change - Combined...” at 639 Redbank Plains Road Redbank Plains QLD 4301:

    Glen Costello commented

    Another ‘minor change’...... 263 lots??? Are these people for real? If this is a minor change then what is a major change?

    This is insane that these type of proposals are put forward when it’s clear the council can not provide for those already in the area. The grass on Argle street behind Town Square is almost at 7’ now. I’m 6’4” and the grass is taller than me. Everyday kids on trail bikes bombard our suburb and nothing gets done. Crime is rife, traffic is heavy and the backstreet full of black skid marks.

    This is all down to the fact that area is almost a slum. With no local police station, nothing for youths to do, no assistance for parents having problems with misguided kids. The council really needs to get on top of these issues before allowing hordes of people settle here and find the disappointment that awaits them.

    I really hope the council rejects this proposal as it doesn't add to the area or fit into the feel or the area.

  15. In Wisemans Ferry NSW on “Alterations to the Existing...” at 5564 Old Northern Road, Wisemans Ferry NSW 2775:

    breeza commented

    would be great for local area . The area needs this and the flow on of employment and general business. I live near this and I strongly support this.

  16. In Padstow Heights NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 5 Barry Crescent, Padstow Heights NSW 2211:

    Donna Henry commented

    I hope there is plenty of off street parking in these dwellings. Barry Crescent is a very narrow cul de sac which already struggles with vehicles having enough room to manoeuvre between parked cars. Please don’t allow more homes with four bedrooms and only one undersized garage space.

  17. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 64 Bowker Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Nick Pedler commented

    Hi Janet,

    Unfortunately the house is already demolished, otherwise I would’ve definitely been ok to let you come through and have a look.


  18. In Somerton Park SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 64 Bowker Street Somerton Park SA 5044:

    Mrs Janet Russack commented

    If 64 Bowker Street is going yo be demolished I would love the opportunity to look through the home. I grew up there, my parents built that house in 1952 and we moved in in the October of that year.
    There are many memories I have and it would be wonderful to see inside.

  19. In Tamborine Mountain QLD on “Dual Occupancy (Residential...” at 362 - 376 Main Western Road, Tamborine Mountain QLD 4272:

    Sarah commented

    Could the council please contact me in regards to this approval as it’s not being upheld. It has more than “dual living residential”

  20. In Caulfield South VIC on “Alterations and additions...” at 24A Almond Street Caulfield South VIC 3162:

    Ian & Zina Foster commented

    We gained Melbourne water approval for a proposed redevelopment of this site.
    With changing financial circumstances, this project for our future home was put on hold.
    Can we resurrect this and keep the permit / application current or do we need to go through a whole re apply process again??

  21. In Wisemans Ferry NSW on “Alterations to the Existing...” at 5564 Old Northern Road, Wisemans Ferry NSW 2775:

    L Clark commented

    Wait hang on do any of you people live anywhere near the retreat ?
    What about the impact on the residents that live close ?

  22. In on “Modification of conditions...” at 123 Forster Dr, Bawley POINT132 Forster Dr, Bawley Point, NSW:

    james commented

    This is an absolute joke. As it is now theres enough noise pollution coming from willinga park.

  23. In on “Modification of conditions...” at 123 Forster Dr, Bawley POINT132 Forster Dr, Bawley Point, NSW:

    Martin commented

    I strongly object to Willinga parks development application put forth. More traffic noise, more cars, more PA noise, more rubbish, more wildlife hit. Enough is enough!
    Our lovely peaceful hamlet is being ruined right under our noses.

  24. In Launceston TAS on “Visitor Accommodation, Food...” at 116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    Hi Iain,

    I am guessing that the time we have to look at this starts from when the docs become available ? At the moment it simply says "Internal server error, and it cannot be displayed"


  25. In Woolloomooloo NSW on “Usage of tenancy G02 to be...” at 52-58 William Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011:

    Lizzie commented

    As long as the common stairs lights get turned out at night it’s a fabulous idea.
    The waist of electricity and light pollution in the air is insane

  26. In Northbridge NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 17 Coolawin Road Northbridge NSW 2063.:

    Gregory Szuladzinski commented

    Please make certain that the height or the width are not enlarged.
    There is no need for bigger towers at the seashore.

  27. In Wisemans Ferry NSW on “Alterations to the Existing...” at 5564 Old Northern Road, Wisemans Ferry NSW 2775:

    douglas mcgregor commented

    this town is in need of injection of visitors to boost local trade .
    I am a local supplier of clothing & business has been waning for years ,
    the retreat is a fantastic place to stay but it badly needs this facility to secure it's future
    viability and it would enhance the town .

    please make this happen!!!!

  28. In Kenmore QLD on “Subdivision of Land” at 81 Kenmore Rd Kenmore QLD 4069:

    BRYAN commented

    With due respect we believe that the Development Application should not proceed for the following reasons:
    (1) The Development of 81 Kenmore road was for two lots. This application is for lot 2 only and the driveaway of Lot 2A when relocated in the future should also be considered in this development as the two can potentially impact each other and will have impact on street parking for residents.
    (2) It does not comply with the BCC Planning Code for small lots section AO12.2 a maximum crossover width of 4.0M . The proposed width is 6.47m. 60% larger then the maximum width in the small lot code.
    (3) This width of 6.47m is not consistent with driveways in the vicinity.
    (4) what is the reason that warrants this development to exceed the small lot crossover width of four metres?

  29. In Seacombe Gardens SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 13 Kingston Av, Seacombe Gardens 5047 SA:

    Rachel commented

    Kingston Avenue , is a very congested street without a lot of street parking. With the addition of the proposed subdivision it would introduce more residents & cars. Could it please be considered to have extra long driveways which could accommodate at least 2 cars in each driveway in addition to the carport/ garage. Therefore making space / provisions for 3 cars to fit in each subdivision.

  30. In North Brighton SA on “Construction of an...” at 336-338 Brighton Road North Brighton SA 5048:

    Elissa commented

    This strip of 5ks of Brighton Road has 5 petrol stations and multiple shops. There is so many issues with traffic and congestion along this strip. Its a short space of road and there is no need to add another petrol station when there is one about 500m up the road. This needs to be rejected - its bad for the road space, the locals and the environment. Please consider these comments.

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