Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Barbara Workman commented

    I have received notice from Boroondara Council of this proposed development. I own an investment property in this street. The proposal currently requests an 8 storey building which is not in proportion to the other buildings in the street and will be overpowering and produce shade on the opposite side of the road.
    72 dwellings is quite dense and will increase the road and foot traffic in Queens Ave which is a very small street. I am most concerned about the proposal to reduce the car parking requirements and the request to waiver loading and unloading facilities for the shops. This will have a very detrimental effect on the road which is small and not suited to heavy traffic. Parking is already difficult in the area. I do not support these requests and feel it will have a negative effect on the environment and a negative effect on the amenity of my property.

    of my property.

  2. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 301 Parramatta Road Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Sarah Harvey commented

    It is my understanding that other residents of my street are campaigning against this development on the grounds of inconsistency with local "community values" and have alluded to issues with streetscape, character, availability of parking and safety of the surrounding area.

    I am writing to refute these claims and support the development application on the following grounds:

    1. The building to be altered is not an older terrace style house but a commercial block on a major road. Adding an extra storey therefore does not interfere with the current streetscape (much of which is already at the height this additional storey would give) or amenity of the area.

    2. The local community is a friendly community and I hope would welcome low-cost housing to the area. There is not enough social housing and providing low-cost options such as boarding houses is crucial for tackling homelessness. Moreover, dispersing low-cost housing throughout different suburbs is less likely to create "ghetto-type" areas than having them all in the one area. I am not aware of any other similar housing options within the immediate area so to me this would be an ideal location.

    3. Most people who live in lower cost accommodation such as boarding houses do not have vehicles. The location in question is well serviced by public transport. I therefore do not foresee any great influx of cars requiring parking.

    4. The assumption that those living in a boarding house are necessarily a greater risk to the safety of others than any other local resident is quite frankly offensive.

    A development application submission template objecting to this application is circulating the local streets and states that the development "is not supported by our local community." I wish to make it known that this is not the case, as my household, being three members of the community not only support this application but reject and take offense to such arguments being espoused on our behalf.

  3. In Newstead TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 1 Olive Street Newstead TAS 7250:

    Rose and Kent Luttrell commented

    This is a quite residential area, not sure the area is suited to holiday unit accomodation Will this disturb the ambience of our area? As 1 Olive St backs on to our property this could have dries consequences for us. Also parking is very difficult in this area. Is there sufficient parking for holiday rental? How many people will be able to rent the accommodation at the one time?

  4. In Freemans Reach NSW on “Garage” at 7 Graeme Place, Freemans Reach:

    Karen Muscat commented

    Good morning, I am on the understanding that immediate neighbours should get a letter via post prior to permission granted for building applications? We are next door to this application and did not receive any letter. Just to add that we would not have had a problem with this, but I think Council has a duty to inform neighbours.

  5. In Preston VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 27 Murphy Grove Preston VIC 3072:

    Chris Erlandsen commented

    This is an over-development and is not consistent with the pattern of existing housing stock. Residents who supported C152 did not agree to a proposal like this. With its proposed 3 storeys and waiving of car park spaces, the reality will be a further negative impact on the surrounding community.

  6. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Michael Ellis commented

    I think many people have already raised objections on basis that this is a development on a scale totally unsuitable for Merrivale Lane and also for the number of children, way above most in the area. I concur with their objections.
    I further object as it will cause traffic problems in Merrivale Lane but also surrounding streets. I live in Buckra Street and already we seem to have become a peak hour by pass as particularly in the late afternoon motorists get off Pentecost Ave which often is blocked back from the Bobbin Head Rd lights to Merrivale lane/Rd intersection.
    All the streets around us are not suitable for increased traffic volumes, Princes Street particularly at the shops is so bad that you must give way to any on coming vehicles. Adams and Murdock Streets with cars parked also are not suitable for a lot of traffic. Buckra Street where I live is OK with out parked cars but most of Buckra Street is not suitable for any increase traffic volumes. I think the garbage truck driver deserves an award for getting around this area.
    This development will bring a volume of traffic not suitable for the area. The intersecrtion of Merrivale lane with Pentecost Ave is dangeroud now.
    By its very planned size, 150 children, they must be coming from outside the area. Rezoning Merrivale Lane as commercial is very wrong by Council, it is setting a very bad presedent and we will have developers very excited about what next they can do to ruin leafy Ku Ring Gai.
    A commercial development in Merrivale lane is very wrong.

  7. In Hobart TAS on “Partial demolition/tree...” at 181 Elizabeth Steet Hobart 7000:

    Arthur Robert Vincent commented

    Is there an arboriculture problem with the tree? If not why is being proposed for removal.

  8. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Steve and Kate Cavanagh commented

    We object to the application as it stands due to the failure to properly address:

    * parking, noise, privacy, drainage,traffic, dust and intrusion concerns with neighboring properties.
    * the criteria pertaining to the operating of a home based business in terms of hours of operation; client numbers; Sunday and public holiday operation.
    * The simple fact that such approval will change the low density residential nature of Dundowran Beach and have consequent negative impact upon the quiet and safe environment- the major reason for our choosing to build in this area.
    * the reaction to previous concerns and council meeting discussions to a prior application by the occupants was for them to apparently totally ignore both and to proceed with unauthorized ceremonies on the site. This indicates an arrogance and flagrant disregard for legal protocols hardly likely to instill confidence that this photographic application is not merely the first step in a larger ceremony business plan.
    * the breaching of council regulations for the operation of such a business- so that the applicants are asking to change residential zoning status to our area and also to change the rules under which this business will then operate.

  9. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    STUART Lowndes commented

    Dear Lake Macquarie City Council,

    I am very concerned with the proposed development slated for DA/1774/2013 and the 89 dwellings to go in there.

    My objections include:

    1. Traffic and parking congestion that is already significant, there is no plans to alleviate this problem around Lonus Avenue, Bulls garden road, Kopa Street and Dudley road. This is particularly bad at school commuting times and increased traffic will add to the pedestrian risk in the area particularly to younger members of our community.

    2. Over development out of keeping with the area.

    3. Risk to native fauna such as the endangered squirrel glider native to the area.

    4. Lack of green space for residents in the proposed development.

    I strongly object to the development in its current form and unless significant improvements are made to existing infrastructure such as roads and transport and the number of dwellings proposed is significantly decreased.

    Kind Regards,

    Stuart Lowndes

  10. In Beaconsfield WA on “Two storey Grouped Dwelling” at 60 Jean Street Beaconsfield WA 6162:

    daniel Svensson commented


    Im concerned over this application that I will have the two storey building over looking my property.

    I will need the plans for this property dwelling please or where can I get them?


  11. In Wellington Point QLD on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Main Road, Wellington Point, QLD:

    Alison Woodley commented

    There doesn't appear to be a dwelling at this address.

  12. In Preston VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 27 Murphy Grove Preston VIC 3072:

    Lina Mastroianni commented

    This proposed development will have a serious and detrimental impact on the residence standard of living and totally destroy Murphy Grove’s beautiful and serene surroundings.

  13. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Mandy Crowley commented

    Having read many of the comments about development proposal DAO413/15 I must say I agree completely with many of the objections. Merrivale Lane will be unable to copy with the additional traffic and much of the wildlife in this peaceful area will be impacted.

    I frequently walk our dogs around the Turramurra/Pymble area and there are at least three other child care centres being built or updated in very close proximity to this proposed child care centre.

    I am not against child care centres in residential areas however I feel the appropriateness of the surrounding area should be taken into consideration. I do not feel that a quiet residential street (such as Merrivale Lane) is an appropriate place to build a new 150 place child care centre.

  14. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 169-173 Darlinghurst Road Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Dr Tony Hunt commented

    I believe that a nightclub being open past 1am in a high density residential area is ludicrous.
    It is after this time that alcohol and drug fuelled violence peaks and the locals, as usual, suffer.
    My interest is because my daughter is one of those local residents.

  15. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Janice & Ross Breedon commented

    We Ross & Janice Breedon have seen first hand the residents of 482 O` regan Creek Rd
    entering properties checking for unlocked house windows & car doors of our neighbors &
    removing items from their patio tables that don`t belong to them. This makes us feel very uncomfortable about going out & leaving our homes unattended which is affecting our peaceful lifestyle that we purchased along with our property that we valued until this so called halfway house with their "residents" arrived.
    We would like to decline the proposed change so we can feel safe & comfortable again.

  16. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 7-8...” at 230 Toorak Road, South Yarra, VIC:

    Glenys Richards commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the proposed development of 230 Toorak Road South Yarra.
    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape of the area.
    38 Chambers Street will be dramatically affected by the reduction of light to the building, particularly its South East aspect.
    It appears there is insufficient provision for parking in the plans for 230 Toorak Road. This locale already suffers from inadequate space for on street parking and likewise suffers severe problems with major traffic congestion in very narrow streets and laneways.
    This can then become hazardous to the pedestrian population in the area.

  17. In Northcote VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 16 Separation Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Rane Bowen commented

    I feel that a 4 story building in this part of the street in such a small property will stick out like a sore thumb and change the character of the street in a negative way. Having a restaurant here will increase the foot traffic at night, making for much noisier evenings.

  18. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    John Douglas commented

    I am advised that only 26 staff will be monitoring 150 children. I have a friend working in this industry and she has advised they are required to have 12 staff for 36 children i.e. 1 staff for 3 children. The proposed development appears to be 1 staff per 6 children. I suspect that ancillary staff have not been noted in the application
    There is parking proposed for 20 staff in the underground car park of 38 spaces. At least 6 staff will be parking in the LANE and obviously they will park as close to the centre as possible. Merrivale Lane is a narrow thoroughfare only 3 car widths wide. At best 2 cars can pass each other when a third car is legally parked. With parked cars on both sides of the road, as is currently allowed, traffic will be reduced to a single lane - a nightmare for both residents and parents dropping off children. Exiting from a resident's driveway will be restricted by parked vehicles on either side of the LANE.


    Travelling North, access to Merrivale Lane from Pentecoste Avenue is a blind right turn to oncoming traffic. In the afternoon the western sun causes even more vision problems. There have been many accidents at this location over the years I have been a resident of the area.
    With a number of other childcare centres in the immediate vicinity, I do not believe this location is the correct place for a childcare centre of this magnitude.


  19. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    Is this a brothel or a hotel?

    Tiny units with double beds but insufficient room to live in.

  20. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    J. O'Callaghan commented

    I agree with previous concerns raised about this proposed development at 158-160 New Canterbury Rd, Petersham.

    The height of the building and the lack of parking are real issues.

    It will also be out of keeping with the Petersham commercial precinct which many features heritage facades.

  21. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Rupert Holden commented

    It is disappointing that the Ku-Ring-Gai Council is prepared to let narrow commercial interests affect the amenity and wellbeing of Merrivale Lane's inhabitants.

    I grew up in Merrivale Lane with my three siblings. As children, we played front yard cricket, front yard tag, and front yard soccer with our neighbours - always safe in the knowledge that cars would not be tearing up and down the street. We knew our neighbours personally, and there was a real sense of community that I was extremely glad to be a part of. I am certain that the installation of a 150-place child care centre would destroy the neighbourly spirit that was such an important part of my childhood, and leave no prospect for future generations of children in Merrivale Lane to grow up around the same tranquil surroundings that I did.

    I have two principal concerns about the RMEGA Child Care Centre. The first is safety, and the second is destruction of ammenities.

    Turning first to safety, Merrivale Lane is narrow, and already becoming overpopulated with cars parked on both sides of the street. This is particularly dangerous for cars turning off from Pentecost Avenue (a busy road leading on to Merrivale Lane) where cars often turn only to find themselves needing to break abruptly in order to prevent rear-ending a parked car at the beginning of the lane, totally hidden from view. This particular safety hazard, even though dangerous in the first instance, is likely to become even more so when there is increased congestion on Merrivale Lane, brought about by the Child Centre.

    Turning now to amenities. I have two concerns in this respect:

    First, the noise pollution will be intolerable. 150 young children screaming and playing throughout the day can hardly be considered reasonable in a lane environment. It is also completely incongruous with the retirement centre that is only a few doors down. Many residents on Merrivale Lane either don't work during the day, or are retired, and as such, are entitled to a level of external noise that is reasonable for a suburban lane. I put it to the council that it is wholly unreasonable to expect Merrivale Lane's residents to withstand an extra 150 voices. Additionally, the bustle of traffic, cars screaming past all the time on the street is only likely to add to the din.

    Second, many houses in Merrivale Lane enjoy a beautiful view over Pymble golf course. a tall building and multi-storey carpark in the vicinity will destroy that particular amenity for many inhabitants.

    On a final note, I wish to add that my grandmother resides in Merrivale Lane, in a separate home to my family home. She has recently spent months in hospital. Whilst recovering, she remains frail and in need of regular care and treatment. Her home would be exactly opposite the new complex. The congestion will affect her welfare, her access to help, and her confidence in leaving her drawing room to spend time outdoors.

    This is a nice street with good people. We are not cranks - and these complaints are not frivolous. We care about the communities that have been created in Merrivale Lane, which often pass back over generations. We do not want an impersonal corporate enterprise polluting the fair shades of Merrivale Lane, and I hope that the Council will take the resident's unanimous displeasure seriously.

  22. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Sharon F. commented

    I agree with Jordan's comment above.
    The height and shadowing is not fair on neighbouring properties.
    24 boarding rooms with only what appears to be five, perhaps seven at the most, parking spaces? Will it be a requirement that says applicants may not own cars because I don't know where you expect people to park. This is also not in keeping with the general appearance of the local area. Five stories is too high.
    I feel sorry for the neighbours of this property if this goes ahead.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    The Starr-Bowkett building does not fit with the rest of the street. It is a waste of space to have a single storey building on the high street. I'm aware that a building that most people consider modern and ugly will take it's place, but I don't see this as any worse than the building in it's current state. I think a lot of people are rightly proud of the ideals that the defunct Starr-Bowkett society stands for. Using this as a reason to preserve a building that no longer has any real connection to that philosophy does not make sense. Ideas live on, even if physical things change.

  24. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Jennifer Young commented

    I strongly object to DAO413/15 121 to117 Merrivale Lane Childcare/Preschool. I live 2 houses away from this proposed COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT in a narrow Residential lane. How can this be? The noise from 150 children screaming, crying, yelling, bells ringing, 100's of cars in and out, doors slamming 7am to 7pm will be horrific and we won't be able to go outside. Why should my rights to live quietly be trampled on by someone operating a business for huge profits? This building will be huge with classrooms, nappy rooms, bin rooms and a car park for 38 cars. It is a most inappropriate Commercial operation for this situation.

    Jennifer Young

    3/125 Merrivale Lane.


  25. In South Yarra VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at Shop 5, 177 Toorak Road, South Yarra 3141, VIC:

    Heinz Tilenius commented

    I do not think that it is appropriate to grant a liquor license for this venue due to the proximity of nearby living residents. If a liquor licence will be granted I would think that at least no footpath trading, or serving of liquor, should be allowed.

  26. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Elizabeth Kilian commented

    I write in support of the above objections to the proposed DA for a child care centre in Merrivale Lane. As a long term resident of this area, I am well aware of the already dangerous intersection of Merrivale Lane with Pentecost Ave. The inevitable increase in traffic at this intersection, as well as at Charlton St and Pentecost Ave will make these blind spots even more dangerous. As for the lane, itself, there is simply not enough room to accommodate the volume of traffic which would result from a day care centre of this size, not to mention the large number of parents and young children who would have no choice but to share the road in the absence of proper footpaths.

    There are a number of child care centres in the area and if these do not meet the current demand, it makes far more sense to allow existing centres to expand their numbers than build a completely outsized centre in a lane which is completely unequipped to cope.

  27. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Nicky Coghill commented

    As a resident living in Buckra Street and driving down Merrivale Lane on a daily basis, I strongly support the previous comments. There are many near accidents in this Lane because the road is too narrow and tricky for a car to pass through when there are cars parked on both sides of the road. This is a quiet residential area and the increase in traffic would change the whole atmosphere of the neighbourhood. Please do not approve this application, there is no need for another child care facility in the area as there is one only a couple of minutes up the road.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I am opposed to this building being demolished - it forms an important part of the history of the landscape and is fits well with the current scale and character of the street. Why on earth can't this building be preserved? The fact that other development mistakes have been made on Enmore Road does not mean that we should trash it. I was shocked when I realised that this building could so easily be destroyed. Saving facades is a farce - the point is the square squat nature of the building is an important feature. Please keep me informed about the progress of this application - it should be rejected

  29. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Colin and Lynda Smith commented

    We,Colin and Lynda Smith would like to oppose the change of use to this address. We have had to rely on the Howard Police to control the theft, vandalism, break'ins and trespass incidents that have occurred by the 'residents' residing at this address. As they walk our streets heading to the beach, we feel as if they are casing our homes and properties. These 'residents' have been caught on camera during night time raids, stealing property that is not theirs.

    We now have to lock everything away, even if only visiting neighbours for a short time.

    There is no regular bus service, shopping outlets or activities in the immediate vicinity to service a community housing of this nature.

    These 'residents' have proven unacceptable behavior as per reports to the Howard Police Station. We should not have to change our lifestyle to accommodate the bad behaviour from these 'residents'. Please decline the proposed change so our quiet lifestyle will continue.

  30. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Caravan / Relocatable Home...” at 48-54 Flesser Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Judith catchpole commented

    I too object to the prosed development on Flesser rd. I feel these types of properties would be best suited in suburban built up areas with shops or public transport nearby. This area is wildlife rich and public facilities poor. Such a large increase in people to this area will harm our quiet rural lifestyle and do serious harm to the wildlife habitat. This type of development is simply high density low cost cheap housing and not something our area needs.

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