Recent comments

  1. In Brunswick West VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 166-168 Melville Road, Brunswick West 3055, VIC:

    Cameron Lohse commented

    Where or to whom is the licence going to be transferred to?

  2. In Parkville VIC on “1. Extend ground floor...” at 116 Gatehouse Street Parkville VIC 3052:

    David and Madonna McGregor commented

    We are the owners and residents at 114 Gatehouse Street, Parkville. We object in the strongest possible terms to the addition of a studio over the Garage of property at 116 Gatehouse Street as it will severely impact the liveability of our courtyard by altering the sense of openness . Our block is approx 250 sq metres. Gatehouse Street has become an extremely busy street carrying in excess of twelve thousand vehicles a day. Our very small garden at the rear of our house is our refuge. Any height alteration to the existing garage at 116 Gatehouse Street will negatively impact this space.

    Our property is unique in that it backs onto an historic double story building in Ivers Reserve which is currently the club rooms of the Vintage Automobile Club of Victoria. This building already partially blocks in our courtyard and obscures our visual to the reserve. To have the other side of the courtyard also blocked in would critically impact our amenity and sense of wellbeing.

    In addition, any extension to the house at 116 Gatehouse Street, much of which is currently built on our boundary, will have the potential to impact our property and we will need an opportunity to view the plans in detail to better understand what is proposed for the extension to ground floor living and kitchen areas.

  3. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Heaven forbid I should say anything in support of this Council but the property has been on offer to people/companies to restore and use for some time. No one has wanted to take it on. It's not just in need of TLC it needs serious and costly help. It should never have been allowed to get into such disrepair.

    Is it actually heritage listed? If it is then I believe council and business in the area should fund its restoration. If not, then it should go. It has a very interesting history but it's so far beyond repair that it's just dangerous.

  4. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Isobel Deane commented

    I would like to know why this building is not heritage listed and why it can't be used for community purpose?
    I don't think this building demolition should be approved.

  5. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    SILVIA LEVAME commented

    Please do not demolish this building. It may be abandoned, but still a representative of the architectural history of the area. Once you demolish, it does not come back. Whereas if you restore, you will always keep a piece of history in the suburb.

    Please, do not demolish! Reconsider other options. There are other options and they can bring concrete benefits to the community and the municipality.

  6. In Canterbury NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 364-374 Canterbury Road, Canterbury:

    Garo Benkowics commented

    Hi,
    This mail also adopts the Objections pursuant to the Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 and Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012.

    Please note, Notification letters to all neighbouring residence in apartment block of thirty four residence were not sent until of recent due to action of one owner which leaves Canterbury Council questionable to their failings of guide lines.

    I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505-2014.

    The following Objections for Residential Neighbourhoods (CDCP 2012) are within the notion of being breached.
    Objection 2: “…space between buildings for household activities and landscaping.”
    Objection 3: “…privacy and general amenity is available to occupiers…”

    Additionally, section 2.1.9 ‘Building Separation’ (CDCP 2012) is in the motion of being breached.
    Objection 1: “..privacy is available to residents in new buildings and residents in existing buildings.”
    Objection 2: “Taller buildings require greater separation to buildings on adjoining land to provide spatial relationships which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

    I dispute that there is an inadequate level of separation to the rear of the property (five or six story development) and that the concept of ‘reasonableness’ is being abused. For this reason, I submit that the repercussions of this development will ultimately breach the objections stated.


    Moreover, I submit that reasonable privacy, general amenity and a special relationship is neglected in the development of this building as it is not available to residents at rear of existing buildings adjacent to the rear development site. Furthermore, section 2.1.3 ‘Height’ (CDCP 2012) refers to the initial objective, which states: “New buildings have a scale that is visually compatible with adjacent buildings, and the intended character of the zone.”

    To this objection, I submit that the height of the building is not visually compatible, and to this effect, consequently minimises the direct looking of property. Also, increases the view from the development property into private rooms and personal open spaces.

    Evidently, the CDCP requires, in terms of visual privacy that:

    - “Reasonable levels of visual privacy are available for residents, inside a building and outside within the property, during the day and at night.”

    - “Visual privacy is not compromised…”

    - “Provide adequate building separation, and rear and side setbacks,”

    - “…avoid directly overlooking neighbouring residential properties”

    - “Provide privacy to the principal area of private open space”

    Thus, the complexities of failing to compromise with the Canterbury Councils LEP Controls (five or six stories at least 18m between windows and or balconies), and part two of the CDCP, fuel my further submissions. These include:

    - Low level of visual privacy during the day and night, due to the failure of degree of separation;

    - Levels of visual privacy to adjacent neighbouring residence are not met;

    - Reasonable separation of the two buildings are not met with Canterbury Councils LEP controls;

    - Plan metric findings are 10m or less between the two separation points of buildings, and

    - Greater separation of the two buildings on adjoining and boundary land is required to provide greater spatial relationships between the two which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

    Ultimately, I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505.


    Regards,


    Garo Benkowics

    Please fwd my email add to Michael Anderson

  7. In South Launceston TAS on “Natural and Cultural Values...” at 123 Westbury Road South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Simon lionetti commented

    My understanding is that the last proposal (less than 2 years ago) was declined as the trees are a part of the city sky line and therefore cannot be removed. Has this changed since then? I would also like to know if there are plans for re vegetation as the birds migrate there each year.

  8. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Lorne Hyde commented

    Who on earth thought this up as an option! There are so many options for the use of this heritage listed building. What short sightedness. This should not be happening.

  9. In Melbourne VIC on “Change of use of an...” at 58-66 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Juliana commented

    This is an appalling proposal! The proposed location is surrounded by residential developments making it the most ridiculous place to have a night club. K Box, which is next door to this location, is already causing enough grief for the surrounding residents. I always feel uncomfortable and unsafe going home on a Thursday, Friday and Saturday night due to the number of loud obnoxious drunks going up and down La Trobe Street to and from K Box, and the smokers gathered outside my lobby. And I doubt the clubbers would want to line up outside a residential area that is so well lit with people going home with groceries staring at them. This proposal should definitely be rejected to sustain the quality of living of the 500+ residents living literally next door to this location.

  10. In Alexandria NSW on “Adaptive re-use of a 2...” at 2-16 Mitchell Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    P Hunter commented

    No more apartments...
    We are overcongested, crammed in like rats as it is..
    No more.
    The air pollution, noise pollution etc is too much.

  11. In Alexandria NSW on “Adaptive re-use of a 2...” at 2-16 Mitchell Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already terrible congestion on Mitchell Rd, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  12. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Robert Woodley commented

    The church started life as a Methodist Church in 1902 but with Sydenham's changing demographic, it became a Coptic Church. So many people would have been baptised, married and left on their last journey from here. It is heritage listed too.

    Surely now another use can be found for this building. It would need soundproofing but could work as a theatre, preschool, restaurant, cafe, gym, housing for the homeless, a charity headquarters, an architects office, etc etc

  13. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    ANDREW BASSETT commented

    I also cannot believe that the only course of action is to knock this building down. Surely with a bit of TLC and imagination it could be given a new lease of life and the otherwise fairly barren Sydneham Green a bit more functional personality.

  14. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Clara mason commented

    please keep this building it provides a special focus within the neighbourhood and imagine what it would cost to build today

  15. In Canterbury NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 364-374 Canterbury Road, Canterbury:

    Michael Anderson commented

    Hello,

    I have misplaced my letter regarding this development so am replying here.

    I am a resident close by and have only just noticed that this is a 6 level development unlike the rest of the towers going up along Canterbury Rd which are 5, including the new developments (in DA) to the left and right of this tower.

    The development will block the afternoon sun into our apartment and tower over us.

    It will not be in keeping with the rest of the street being a level higher.

    There's no need to try to pack so many units onto such a small site. There are also so few commercial sites vs the amount of dwellings.

    I'm all for the building of new dwellings and retail sites in the area but there are planning laws and guidelines for a reason. This should never be allowed at 6 story's.

    Thank you,
    Michael

  16. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Robynne hayward commented

    I can't believe money can not be found to restore this amazing building. It could be made into artists studios and workshops like the Newtown Lennox street studios which were previously a school.
    It's one of the few remaining landmark buildings in Sydenham, if this is demolished just to save maintainance or restoration costs the councillors should be ashamed of themselves

  17. In Epping NSW on “1 x TREE PRUNE” at 4 / 31 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121:

    Rod commented

    The tree definitely needs pruning. I support the DA.

  18. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jen Barnett commented

    Surely this beautiful old building could be repurposed rather than knocked down?
    A community centre, emergency housing, the options are endless.

  19. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer commented

    @Joe
    You may be correct in this Joe, but it astonishing how many of these "improvements" are also going to improve developer profits. You may be correct in this case that someone just had a bright idea that could improve the design of the flat but they are wearing the consequences of the many applications for extra height, larger footprint, more levels, and decreased heritage compliance seen so frequently in Marrickville and across Sydney. If the changes do not affect the heritage value I have no problem with approval and will leave it to the Council to determine.

  20. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of a five...” at 236 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Dinny Birrell commented

    I would like to object to yet another oversize development in Lygon Street East Brunswick, with the normal developer requirement of a reduction in car parking.

    This application however has yet another selfish developer requirement of waiving loading and unloading requirements.

    Neither of these ought to be granted as both will increase the already hugely overcrowded and congested traffic in this area. To waive loading and unloading requirements when there is commercial shopping included in the development which will necessitate both these activities on a regular basis, is simply ridiculous.

    Visiting our children who live in this area has become impossible with the huge recent increase in cars parking in the area due to massive development all with reduced car parking provisions.

  21. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of a five...” at 236 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jenny M commented

    Ther is an even greater imperative that the the carpark ratio be mantained as per the planning requirements. Even if the theory is that with less carparks this will encourage people to live without a car, this view is shortsighted. Spaces are still required to store bicycles (serious riders have more than one) and other modes of transport and are useful as visitor carparks where people drive in to visit but there is no space on the roads. The lack of loading zone is also a problem given the amount of traffic on the road which struggles with bikes, cars and trams.

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Alfred Peterson commented

    NO MORE BOARDING ROOMS IN DULWICH HILL. This location is prime, right next to 3 forms of public transport! Apartments is more suitable and will provide better amenities for both the public and the future residents. The ugly building (containing boarding rooms) opposite is a prominent example of 'cheap' materials used to uplift developer's profits. WE WANT CREATIVE, INNOVATIVE AND ARCHITECTURALLY EXCITING DESIGNS. All the proposed buildings along Wardell Road near Dulwich Hill are not good designs. Our community deserved much better architecture. I highly recommend the council introduces a 'design excellence panel' that independently rewards 6 star green rated building by additional height or FSR. I'd rather much better denser urban designs than unacceptable smaller building masses.

  23. In Millgrove VIC on “Single dwelling and...” at 16 Tulloch Street, Millgrove VIC 3799:

    Jenny Holmes commented

    I am concerned at the permit being given to build a dwelling at 16 Tulloch Street, Millgrove. I have lived next door to this property at No. 14 Tulloch street, Millgrove for 13 years. This property is full of natural springs and every time it rains, my property, and the street floods. Prior to any building being commenced, the issue of adequate and proper drainage needs to be addressed.

    Previously, flooding from this property has caused damage to the road at the bottom of Tulloch Street, which had to be repaired by the Shire.

    I have taken photos of the property on 9/9/15 after the heavy rains and this shows a stream which has formed as a result of the rain, on my property. This stream will not stop running until approx. November.

    This property has been sold several times in the past few years and approval has been given to build only at the rear of the property as the springs flow through the centre.

    I have also noticed that many trees on this property have been marked for removal.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe O commented

    @Jennifer
    It is normal during a build, when you are transforming the theoretical (plans and designs) to the concrete (excuse the pun, but otherwise bringing the designs into reality), you realise improvements that you would not have considered when in the planning and drawing stage. Rightly so, the Developer/Builder should be able to submit those improvements for consideration, and, as I understand it, if it affected the heritage building it would need consideration by the Heritage Dept. But that won't apply in this case because it is to the new façade, not the old one.

    @Neil
    It doesn't sound like you had a look at the plans, Neil, which I understand as it was hard to find the link, but I have added it here for you.
    Please have a look at the plans, and read the other comments already here and you will see that the façade of the current building is not in question, only the façade of the new building.

  25. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of a five...” at 236 Lygon Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Rhonda Bavington commented

    This area has been flooded with approvals for multi storey developments without consideration for the existing parking or transport needs. There is an excess of unleased retail properties, and the area is struggling for parking. Do not reduce the parking requirements for this building. Every development is doing this putting pressure on the existing residents and creating a dangerous stretch of road between Glenlyon and Victoria streets.

  26. In Sandford TAS on “16 lot subdivision” at 211 School Road, Sandford, TAS:

    Stephen commented

    With the proposed subdivision wouldn't it be appropriate to seal and widen the entire road in that street before going ahead with any approval? 50% of the road running parallel to the proposed site is still unsealed and is used frequently by heavy vehicles carring large loads of rock and gravel.The roar is unlined and half of which is also too narrow to pass other vehicles at all and on top it off it has no lines and signage to notify road users large vehiles will be coming down the hill aand that there is only enough room for one vehicle. Trucks use the unsealed road at a decent speed with limited grip to the road as it is dirt so safety is a major concern here as is the already increasing usage of this road with 0 signs to warn users about it.

  27. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96AA modification...” at 292 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Neil Murray commented

    This is total destruction of the exterior of a landmark heritage building.The developer's knew of the heritage listing and should not be allowed to carry out this vast detrimental change to the facade.

  28. In Collingwood VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 86 Smith St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Shane Gardner commented

    Why all the reduction in parking, what about existing (exiting) businesses, with all the parking concessions being made the only obvious choice is for the new residents to park on the roads, NOT EVERYONE RIDES BIKES, therefore taking valuable customer parking, hence Collingwood's Rag Trade is almost gone, certainly along Wellington St.

  29. In Rowville VIC on “Development of land for 2...” at 22 Tamboon Drive, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Troy Ruse commented

    Need to ensure minimum setback with privacy for surrounding propertys bedrooms. Its a must that you enforce the parking allocation on site for the units/no off street parking. As drivers have hit cars (parked and reversing) within 50m of this proposed site. And many near misses from people getting out of vehicles from school buses and other drivers.

    Truthfully unless all vehicles owned are contained on site this development should not get the green light. Please use common sense......

  30. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Preety. Duggal commented

    Dear Officer,

    I am writing to express my concerns about the application to construct a boarding house containing 11 rooms under the provisions of SEPP 2009 at 12 Westmore drive, West Pennant Hills.

    I am firmly against high density housing in West Pennant Hills. Carlingford is a nearby suburb that has already had a lot of development in this arena and it has become a very densely populated suburb. There is now an increase in drug activity and alcohol abuse there because of higher density housing. Higher density housing is not in line with the other properties in my area. Approval of this type of construction would lead to more and more applications of this nature and change the landscape of West Pennant Hills. West Pennant Hills is a suburb that is away from busy train stations and I choose to live here for that reason. If this type of construction is approved, council will effectively be allowing more and more applications of this nature throughout the rest of the suburb by setting a precedence.

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