Recent comments

  1. In Hyde Park SA on “Demolish existing...” at 248-252 Unley Road, Hyde Park 5061:

    Anne Wharton commented

    Yes Gary I agree wholeheartedly - its heartbreaking to see the demolition of our precious heritage including our significant trees - 5 magnificent trees at the Opey Ave development will be chopped down. I am a member of FOCUS (Friends of the City of Unley Society) who along with other community groups, are doing their darndest to try and save our streetscapes. I urge people who are concerned about these issues to join FOCUS and add their voice to this campaign.

  2. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Caitlin commented

    This area of Eltham North has high value biodiversity meaning all vegetation should be maintained in order for Nillumbik Shire Council to achieve its strategic objectives of protecting the green wedge's at risk native flora and fauna. There is no public transport within walking distance meaning a high dependency on cars. There is also limited on street parking meaning increasing density will lead to increased congestion. A more appropriate development would be 2 dwellings. Anymore is excessive and detrimental to the neighbourhood character of Eltham North. Planning zones must be swiftly changed to ensure no more subdivisions can occur. The population of Eltham and Eltham North cannot sustain a higher population as the infrastructure is not built to support an increase in population.

  3. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    S Dwyer commented

    I am most concerned about the traffic flow of cars coming from this building turning from and into Nuwarra Road just 50m from a major intersection which is congested and has a history of accidents.
    A driveway located next to the preschool with cars coming and going all day will add to the danger for both the preschool and the high rise as cars will be entering and exiting the building throughout the day.
    Will cars be able to turn right from Nuwarra Road into the apartments? This sounds like a major risk. I witness cars and trucks speeding through the red lights at this intersection on an almost daily basis.
    And where will any additional cars park? Hopefully not on Nuwarra Road. That's just not going to work!

  4. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Helen Ferguson commented

    5 dwellings is way too much for this area. This density housing belongs in the inner suburbs, not in Eltham. Loss of native vegetation cannot continue. This street is not wide enough for high density living where most dwellings have 2 or more vehicles, potentially another 10 + cars on this property....really.???

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 36 Hollands Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Elaine Fowler commented

    Unfortunately the link to this DA is broken, it would be good to see this. Thanks

  6. In Bilambil Heights NSW on “Private access road for...” at Marana Street, Bilambil Heights NSW 2486:

    lee e commented

    Looking at this proposal it will increase traffic from Mountain View into Marana up to the current proposed access; would it not be better and more feasible to have the access straight off McAlisters Rd.

    This way you drive straight into the proposed new development; Mountain View and Marana Streets have a lot of families and kids and the proposed will not increase traffic but also increase risk.

  7. In Mont Albert North VIC on “Removal of one protected...” at 5 Sutton Parade, Mont Albert North VIC 3129:

    Bridget Larkin commented

    If the tree is protected it should not be removed at all. Too many gardens and trees being lost to massive build.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 36 Hordern Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Roger Trumpy commented

    Considering the previous proposal was refused due to the lack of solar access on southern side, once (or if) the ‘required’ tree is planted and grown, there will still be no solar access. As a household who suffers from this, it is a serious issue as it can never really be recovered. Also - how is this ‘studio’ not a ‘dwelling’? Bathroom, windows - it’s a rentable flat if a kitchenette was quietly slipped in.

  9. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Sami Makelainen commented

    5 dwellings is highly excessive in the area zoned as "semi-bush". Other developments on the road have been two dwellings on blocks of similar size.

  10. In Wantirna South VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 390 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Jingjing wang commented

    Dear Knox City Council planning staff, can you please provide an update on 390 Burwood Highway development?

  11. In Naremburn NSW on “Demolish existing garage...” at 16 Dargan Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    B. Manning commented

    I agree with other comments re blocking of sunlight, oversee into backyard and general loss of amenity. I further disagree to this application for a carport and second story dwelling on too of carport as
    1. This property is already huge and taking up more than two thirds of the land. Adding another dwelling will crowd the property even more
    2. Google maps shows this property as already being dual occupancy (16 and 16a). This addition would make it a triple dwelling. This is a residential area and not for apartments like structure. This is what it would be essentially be, 3x apartments.

    So a no and a no from me.

  12. In Eltham North VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 37 Banks Road, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Julianne Napolitano commented

    I can’t believe another one this time 5 oh me goodness this is a limited access street too so in an emergency there would be a traffic jam to get out and as the last fire to come though Eltham north that took out the primary school when right up that hillside the wildlife habitat is being destroyed everyone thinks it’s only one subdivision but this cash grab is getting out of control the infrastructure. Can’t cope now things are just getting out of control when will this over developing stop when we look like Boxhill or Doncaster

  13. In Carlingford NSW on “Complying Development...” at 3 Bellevue Drive Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Brian BORJESON commented

    Consideration to the additional traffic an increase of population will impact on this area.

  14. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 41 Robey Street Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Yuen Lee commented

    I object to this boarding house proposal which is of a poor design and is aimed at providing a low quality product.
    The proposed unit sizes are small eg. Approximately 12.7 sq m . This size is appalling. So 32 of these small units x 2 occupants each . Therefore aprox. 70 residents on this block which is currently occupied by 1 house.
    Every unit will be equipped with single-phase air conditioning units. So there will be 30 to 40 of these units mounted on the facade or the roof.
    Would you like to live next to this ?
    There are lots of other issues eg parking , Rubbish , noise , crimes etc
    Please disapprove this .
    We need better developments!

  15. In Coorparoo QLD on “Dwelling House, Demolition,...” at 19 Verry St Coorparoo QLD 4151:

    John Collin commented

    This appears to be another disappointment for preserving the character of Coorparoo

  16. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Mark commented

    Clearly someone is council is taking bribes

  17. In Clarence Park SA on “Remove regulated tree -...” at 59 George Street, Clarence Park SA 5034:

    Julienne Lenain commented

    The rapid disappearance of tree cover in the Unley Council area is alarming. This is not just a responsibility for the land owner, as it affects us all with climate change. The tree in question is large and shady, providing cooling and oxygen for surrounding dwellings as well as supporting significant local wildlife. Trees of this stature cannot be replaced with saplings which require many years to grow. The removal of this tree should never be considered.

  18. In Petersham NSW on “Alteration and additions to...” at 40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Stewart Lever commented

    I strongly disagree with this application this street can not handle this amount of people into the street. It is already a nightmare to get a park in the street with a possible one to two spots left after 1900h (if lucky). Some houses have 6 to seven vehicles alone, the demographic within the street suggests that this will only increase with time. There are already 31 registered boarding houses in Petersham. We can not even afford another duplex being built on the street let alone a 10 room boarding house.
    This kind of project is not for a small side street with minimal off street parking.
    Please council, this is a ridiculous proposal for a street with minimal width.

  19. In Bronte NSW on “Modification to change...” at 393 Bronte Road Bronte NSW 2024:

    Billy commented

    The steel balustrade has already been installed though. We object as it looks ugly and brings down the look of their house and the streetscape. The owners also seem to build first then ask to change the DA later. They built a completely oversized rear retaining wall that was more than 1200mm over the stipulated height in their approved DA and are now trying to get approval for this too after the fact. Is this how DAs proceed now???

  20. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Nicole Jones commented

    No more apartment or multi dwellings in Moorebank. We are already Over populated + it’s Impacting on schools, shops and parking in the area

  21. In Moorebank NSW on “The demolition of existing...” at 113 Nuwarra Road Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Kathryn Cunneen commented

    Moorebank is unable to sustain current traffic requirements, so to add another apartment block is very short-sighted. Nuwarra road is already in gridlock and needs to be widen to two lanes each way as it is a major thoroughfare between the M5 and Newbridge road. Unfortunately, that option has been reduced due to previous blocks already constructed. Council needs to consider traffic needs first, not just immediate and future needs.

  22. In Naremburn NSW on “Demolish existing garage...” at 16 Dargan Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Giovanna Romano commented

    I am supporting an elderly friend and relative whom resides at 14 Dargan for over 40 years whom is concerned for her loss of sunlight, privacy and over development of her neighbouring property. I reside in Naremburn and have been directly effected by neighbouring over development namely 2 Gaza Road, a double storey residence that has overtaken our lovely park view from four neighbouring properties. We are directly effected by two large air conditioners blowing directly onto our recreational area constantly summer and winter, causing health issues, we expected to enjoy our retirement. This was privately certified. The owners have rented the property they do not live there themselves. I am all for new designs and improvement to our community with consideration to others.

  23. In Naremburn NSW on “Demolish existing garage...” at 16 Dargan Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Bernard Ryan commented

    The proposed development for 16 Dargan Street will not only have a materially adverse impact on the ability of residents within neighbouring properties to enjoy the same quality of living and tranquillity that they currently experience, but also sets a dangerous precedent for the broader community.

    In terms of the immediate neighbours to 16 Dargan Street, the overshadowing will materially reduce the volume of sun within their backyards, and thus restrict their enjoyment and use of their backyards. In addition, there are also intrusions into their privacy as a result of the proposed development.

    The proposed development has the same effect on neighbouring properties as a dual occupancy property, with it just occurring within a reduced space. The approval of this proposed development could create precedents for other residents in Naremburn and surrounding suburbs to propose something similar. The effect of this would be to change the nature of these suburbs forever, and not in a positive way.

  24. In Bomaderry NSW on “Community Title subdivision...” at 80 Brinawarr St, Bomaderry, NSW:

    Wayne Brighton commented

    As a neighbouring resident I support the application. Being a medium density it fits within the zoning, and clearing of vegetation (with offset provisions) is an advancement in this particular location. The proposal supports the local area Strategic Growth Strategy. The completed development will support the gentrification of the southern Bomaderry district and contribute to a safer community.

  25. In Dover Heights NSW on “Remove one (1) Fig tree...” at 132 Military Road Dover Heights NSW 2030:

    Hillary Goldsmith commented

    Some trees are not suitable for suburban areas - fig trees being one of them. Any tree that grows taller than 3M in height should be regularly trimmed (whether on private residential site or on council streetscapes) to prevent - amongst other things: damage to underground pipes, falling leaves blocking gutters and drains, compromising natural light into a property, compromising views, soiling (from bird droppings and foliage) on paved paths and cars, uprooting surfaces and sidewalks, possible danger of falling branches which can damage private property, or injure passing pedestrians.

  26. In Wantirna South VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 390 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    Hi Joanne,
    Mr Taylor has left the Knox City Council.

  27. In Hyde Park SA on “Demolish existing...” at 248-252 Unley Road, Hyde Park 5061:

    gary champion commented

    Let's be clear that this & all the other developments currently & proposed have only come about because of John Rau & the changes he introduced & took the power away from council regarding such developments. Do not blame council -they are relatively powerless. Ironic that the Unley area is renowned for it's beautiful architecture & "village" atmosphere which is to be destroyed by the ghettos of tomorrow. Spare a thought for the residents of the adjoining streets such as Opey Ave which is a thoroughfare to KWR.

  28. In Arana Hills QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot -...” at 82 Plucks Road, Arana Hills QLD 4054:

    Lorraine Heidke commented

    This building project has already had the request to have road access from Leatherwood Drive disallowed, there is insufficient room for a car access point in the street. Given vehicles park along the opposite side of the road at all times there would not be sufficient room for emergency vehicles or utilities such as garbage trucks. This is a small street with a dead end.

  29. In Naremburn NSW on “Demolish existing garage...” at 16 Dargan Street Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Gerard Ryan commented

    Two storeys in the backyard causes a serious loss of privacy to the surrounding neighbours.
    It also causes a serious loss of sun to the property on the south side - no. 14 - as the blocks run from east to west.
    In that part of our city, people still have vegetable gardens - this is something we should be encouraging within our community, not discouraging by unnecessarily blocking out sunlight.
    Two storeys effectively means a separate residence to the main house. Is this permitted under council regulations?

  30. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Jenny Krasnowski commented

    Just because the skyrail has gone through Carnegie, Murrumbeena and beyond does not justify developers pushing for multi-level, unacceptable and inappropriate developments in an area that already suffers major congestion and parking problems and knowing that the council will approve these developments.
    All pending and future developments in GE need to have more than enough car parking on the site for all the residents and visitor parking. Just because you live close to public transport does not automatically mean a resident does not own one, two or more vehicles.
    Reduction in car parking should no longer be allowed or supported by the council, unless the developers can show they can improve street and road access and parking.
    Overshadowing, overlooking and lack of privacy and also the added demand on our diminishing open spaces is the area, it appears parks are also crowded places in the warmer months.
    And why is this development only reserved for student? Does this not discriminate against, singles, couples, downsizers and families that might choose to live in GE. The area around the development will become a slum, and that is a concern for all.
    Developments should be no taller than the closest nature strip tree.

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