Recent comments

  1. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Ted Nassif commented

    The Hawkesbury does not want this cemetery to go ahead! We do not want the beautiful Hawkesbury to be end up like Lakemba / Bankstown / Auburn! The cemetery is just the start, if this is approved, more of them will move into the area and the next thing in council will be a mosque for development! WE DON'T WANT THIS!!!!

  2. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Cheryl Evans commented

    Destroying our bushland fauna, removal of sandstone the impact of the wildlife do the residents have to spell it our for you.
    NO WAY DONT DESTROY THE HAWKESBURY

  3. In Lower Mt Walker QLD on “Impact Assessment:...” at Rosewood-Warrill View Road, Lower Mount Walker, QLD:

    Maxine Ellison commented

    My name is Maxine Ellison and I live at 903 Rosewood- Warrill view road.
    I very strongly object to the poultry farm been put near to my place as this would destroy the life style because of the smell and all the extra traffic it would create. I work from home and breed and train horses, and as i have experienced the smell of poultry farms before i can tell I will not be happy about this. I will tell everyone I know to object to it.
    It was only through a letter I found in my mail box that I found out about this.

  4. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 15 John Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Khurram commented

    There are 25 families waiting for this development. All are renting and going through lots of pain as no idea how long will it take to complete.
    They can't get refund as they have made 10% of the deposit.
    Please please blacktown council please work on it and get it approved as soon as you can.

    Regards,

  5. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 191 Pitt Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    The owner / developer of 191 Pitt Street Redfern (the former Somerset Pub on he corner of Pitt Street and Phillip ) wants to build a 13 unit boardinghouse and estimate the cost to be $400 000!

    When did anyone build 13 units for 400K, let alone on a heritage listed site?

    The floor space ratio (if approved) will be 54% greater then what is allowed in the planning controls and 63% greater in regards to the height using South Sydney LEP.

    That is building 9.75 meters high where a 6 meter restriction is in the planning control.

    That is is 167 M2 extra on a 309 M2 site.

    That is 24 occupants on a 309 m2 site.

    Privacy and peacefulness for all us neighbours all gone.

    This is the second Development application in the same amount of years.

    Please have a look at the plans here and raise your voice to stop this overdevelopment;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1057606

  6. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    @SWR

    Your comments awakes our greatest fears!

    How far outside the controls were the development at 2 - 20 Botany Road?

    We have Clover Moore's assurance that it is the council's obligation to ensure that the controls are adhered to unless the circumstances are such that the benefit of a development justify it being slightly outside the controls.

    This is development is well beyond that and the architect has got serious form.

    Not sure why anyone would use him as his developments frequently become unstuck trying to push everything well outside the controls.

  7. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    Correction: This site is in fact 309 M2, all other numbers are correct but fell free to double check the drawings and details here;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/DAsOnExhibition/details.asp?tpk=1057606

  8. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    SWR commented

    Yeah well good luck with any objections. We along with 16 other people objected to a development at 2-20 Botany Road. Not one objection was taken into consideration. By the time it got to the Council vote it was a done deal. The development breaches many guidelines but Council had a way of justifying everything. Redfern will be ruined.

  9. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Fredrik U commented

    I will give you another example;

    @ 191 Pitt Street Redfern (the former Somerset Pub on he corner of Pitt Street and Phillip) wants to build a 13 unit boardinghouse and estimate the cost to be $400 000!

    When did anyone build 13 units for 400K, let alone on a heritage listed site?

    The floor space ratio (if approved) will be 54% greater then what is allowed in the planning controls and 63% greater in regards to the height.

    That is building 9.75 meters high where a 6 meter restriction is in the planning control.

    That is is 167 M2 extra on a 270 M2 site.

    That is 24 occupants on a 270 m2 site

    Privacy and peacefulness for all us neighbours all gone.

    This is the 2nd D/A attempt and the same amount of years.

    Please have a look at the plans here and raise your voice;

    http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Datasource/DANotifications/1057606_025.pdf

  10. In Kensington NSW on “Amalgamation of 3 lots,...” at 2 Goodwood Street Kensington NSW 2033:

    Ms Jan Nicholas commented

    I very strongly disagree to the construction of such a large scale building on this small space of land. Kokoda Memorial Park, which adjoins this proposed developmental site, is a family friendly park with sunlight from early morning until almost sunset. It is a delight to see many children play there throughout the day, but particularly after school hours where they run, cycle, and generally enjoy this beautiful, unique, green area of Kensington. This Park is highly utilised daily by all age groups.

    The proposed development will cause major overshadowing and result in a loss of sunlight by early afternoon. Users of the Park, both children and adults, will be observed by people living in the proposed development housing which will look directly on to the Park. This development will incur a major loss of privacy for park users.

    Parking in this area is a major concern. As a local resident with no access off street parking, it is now difficult to find a place to park my car, except on Sunday, when most of the shops in the area are closed. The proposed development will generate much more traffic in the area, with visitors to those proposed apartments also trying to find places to park in Goodwood and surrounding streets.

    Overdevelopment is ruining this lovely Kensington neighbourhood. As Cat Stevens would say: "where will the children play?"

  11. In Helensburgh NSW on “Helensburgh Community...” at Helensburgh Hotel, 112 Parkes Street, Helensburgh NSW 2508:

    Angela Bevitt commented

    The twilight markets should be approved without delay.
    this is an excellent thing for the local economy and the community.

  12. In Millswood SA on “Construct two storey...” at 39 Lynton Avenue, Millswood 5034:

    Mark Wittervan commented

    Although this building is not considered part of the Millswood page estate heritage value buildings a two story house in this area would not fit with the characteristics. It should meet the standards set out in policy area 4 of the City of Unley Development Plan. IE roof height no greater than 5.6m

  13. In Bushland Beach QLD on “Bushland Beach Stage 3 -...” at Mount Low Parkway Bushland Beach QLD 4818:

    Paul Jacob commented

    Could I please have more information on the exact location of this proposal. According to the map indicated the lot shown will not accommodate 20 lots and three balance lots. if it is the large lot next to the hotel on Livistonia Pd I wish to raise the objection that the lots would be extremely small and not fit into the character of the area. Could you give me the average lot sizes.

    Thanks

  14. In Leichhardt NSW on “Change of use of shop 17...” at 281-285 Parramatta Road Glebe NSW:

    Scott Morris commented

    Looks like this entry has its address confused. The Council link takes you to an application on Glebe Pt Road

  15. In Richmond VIC on “Re-advertising of the...” at 174 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish Robinson commented

    Excessively large number of dwellings for the size of the site. Unless it is going to be much higher than any other building in the area which will then significantly overshadow neighbouring buildings and change the nature of the street in a negative way. Unnecessary given already high density of the street.

  16. In Malvern East VIC on “Alteration to existing...” at 809 - 823 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    Hi, I was wondering what the changes to to liquor licence may be and how I would find out. In principle I have no objections to the operation of a business so long as it can be assured that the adjacent streets will no suffer adverse noise affects. This request in merely a note of consideration rather than an objection. Thankyou.

  17. In Fitzroy VIC on “Part demolition to allow...” at 119 Rose St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Alex Bean commented

    I'm a local resident and have seen that this application is for a 5 storey apartment block and a reduction in the the associated car parking requirement.

    It's a relatively compact area. 5 storeys seems way too high for the area. The nearest buildings dont go above 3 stoeys, so 5 will be very imposing on local residents.

    In additional, there is already limited parking availability around this area and it seems to me unfair to apply for less parking than is already required.

    There are loads of new apartment blocks going up around the area and there's much less parking availability generally for residents and people coming to the area for shopping.

  18. In Redfern NSW on “Proposed alterations and...” at 736 Bourke Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    A Byrnes commented

    There is absolutely no way this work will cost only $19,000. Why does Council accept these ridiculously low estimates by persons trying to avoid Council fees (that are based on percentage of costs)? How is this different than tax evasion?

  19. In Darlington NSW on “Demolition of St Michael's...” at 150 City Road Darlington NSW 2008:

    Henare Degan commented

    I do not support this application.

    The proposed development is is at least twice and often three times the height other buildings in the vicinity. A 14 storey building on this main road will significantly alter the character of the area in a negative way, bringing the dehumanising feel of CBD skyscrapers to Darlington.

    I also reject the applicant's assertion that the "physical loss of St Michael’s College building will have no heritage impact". A sympathetic redevelopment of the site, incorporating reuse of the existing building as has been done to a number of other local sites recently, would retain the heritage aspects of the building and be more in keeping with the area.

    Thanks for considering my submission.

  20. In Watson ACT on “COMMERCIAL - DEMOLITION -...” at 15 Watson Place, Watson, ACT:

    Hamilton Dwight Walker commented

    It is a good idea to upgrade this thriving centre.

  21. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Amalgamation of 3 lots,...” at 91-93 Riley Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Ben Drayton commented

    I agree with everything Evelyn has written. I've lived on Stanley St for close to 20 years, this development will be a visual blight on our area and adversely affect it's character and amenity, in terms of parking (already stretched to breaking point), blocking district views for many neighbours and overshadowing our low rise neighbourhood.

    The thought of enduring still more construction noise just after the two year renovation of the Residence apartment block and the simultaneous construction of the new auditorium at Sydney Grammar is particularly distressing.

  22. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Amalgamation of 3 lots,...” at 91-93 Riley Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    EVELYN KLOPFER commented

    Sadly it is another development JUST where everybody these days wants to make money of one sort or another. I am writing to the Council about this today anyway.

    I am shocked at the 13 storey building, but also a little worried about the 5 storey building in front of it in Riley Street. I have lived here for 42 years, and we LOVE our area, and want to continue to love it.

    However, the description and picture of the building on Riley Street is a hotchpotch of frontage and although it may not have to be Heritage, it looks like a fifties spec-builder thing - built in a hurry. NOT the sort of thing we need in Riley Street. Perhaps they could come down a couple of floors and also design the front so that it looks RIGHT here! At the moment it would be a disgrace. Three storeys and a different design for the frontage would be a good start!
    Maybe we can argue about the huge apartment building? There is no parking here and we wonder about that and its implications on other people in the area further South.
    Sorry, but I DO CARE.
    Evelyn Klopfer

  23. In Abbotsford VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 140-144 Yarra St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Audra Kunciunas commented

    I own the property at 15 Paterson Street, Abbotsford, and have lived in this small pocket of inner Melbourne for 27 years prior to moving to NE Victoria a little over a year ago.

    I have no objection to increasing the density of housing in Abbotsford, except where development plans are inappropriate and cause significant difficulties for neighbouring residents.

    The proposed four-story development has no precedent in the immediate area with regard to height: it will affect the afternoon sun on my property and, given the importance of sustainability in housing, the full benefits of winter sun will be lost (consider the ineffectiveness of solar panels planned for this property).

    Secondly, overlooking windows will destroy any privacy for residents of not only this home but also for a number of homes in the immediate vicinity. In recent years, I have had a couple of prowlers requiring the attendance of police - as a single woman, there is something distinctly uncomfortable about the potential of being part of someone's 'peep show'. If I had young children, as my tenants do, I would feel the same concern for them.

    In addition, the infrastructure (chiefly parking) is not adequate to cope with such a large increase in residents. We current residents have already attended numerous meetings, filled in surveys, about how best to resolve parking issues in Abbotsford. Any new developments must also take into consideration the influx of large numbers of people visiting the area (principally the Abbotsford Convent and Collingwood Children's Farm). A few years ago, the Good Shepherd Sisters had the foresight to include underground parking for their block of apartments in Clarke Street.

    Could we please have developments that are not made simply to maximise profits with all 'costs' being borne by local residents. Can we have developments that put sustainability higher on the priority list. Finally, can we have developments with a vision for the future of this area. This way, in the end, everyone wins.

  24. In Abbotsford VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 140-144 Yarra St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Jill Koppel commented

    I'm confused: it appears that the site in question has already been given the 'increased housing density and urban consolidation' treatment.

    I wonder which local and state planning principles examine the triple bottom line costs of demolishing sound buildings well before the end of their 'natural life', ie. the true cost in terms of wasting embodied carbon in the existing building materials?

    Parking should not be waived - if there is parking on the site already this should not be sacrificed to a greater footprint. Parking in this area is a premium - a waiver of parking requirements is just a licence for the developer to cut costs and erode amenity of current residents in this street.

  25. In Newtown NSW on “Young Henrys Brewing...” at Unit 4, 76 Wilford St, Newtown 2042:

    S Fisher commented

    This sounds great a small independent brewery doing something different. It would be a good destination to visit as part of Enmore thriving small bar scene.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “Young Henrys Brewing...” at Unit 4, 76 Wilford St, Newtown 2042:

    Jason Mountney commented

    This will make Enmore a better food and drink destination. The Inner City needs thriving, innovative businesses like these.

  27. In Kings Meadows TAS on “Subdivision - two lot...” at 23 Ormley Street Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    Blaire Rochford commented

    Will the property be correctly surveyed prior to dividing?

    23 Ormley Street has had storm water issues with 23, 25, 27 Innocent street, will this be corrected and checked by council?

    Apparently the high ground & retaining wall [still existing on the site] is on the title being offered for sud-division. If they want to change the title boundaries, could this be notified please to adjoining land holders.

  28. In Bayview NSW on “A new single dwelling...” at 18 Lentara Road Bayview:

    Jon Roberts and Michelle Thompson commented

    My wife and I own and reside at 16 Lentara Road which is a battle axe block adjacent to number 18. We have obviously been aware of the development application for number 18, but were somewhat alarmed when the poles indicating both height and proximity for the proposed studio were put in place last week.
    One of the reasons we bought this property was because of its relative isolation and privacy.
    The positioning and height of the proposed studio effectively negates this and potentially will be quite intrusive.
    As neighbours who share a common driveway with number 18 we have been reluctant to provide comment on the proposed development application to date. However, as we now have a much better understanding of the impact of the building on our property should it proceed, we would like to bring our concerns to the attention of the Council.
    We would be happy to discuss the matter in more detail at Coucil's convenience.
    I would appreciate an acknowledgement from your office that this correspondence has been received and will be considered.

  29. In Abbotsford VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 140-144 Yarra St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Lorrae Wild commented

    It is important to note that individuals need to put in separate objections as outlined by the planning officer comments below:

    "Council will carefully consider each objection, regardless of how many objections are received. However, Council must consider a wide range of factors when making a decision, including State planning policy objectives relating to increased housing density and urban consolidation, in addition to objections from local residents. Council’s decisions must achieve a balance between these (often conflicting) considerations.

    You have correctly pointed out that we do not count each signatory to a petition individually. Each concerned resident must prepare a unique individual objection, clearly stating how they will be affected by the proposal. The objection form is available on the City of Yarra website.

    If we receive 1-5 objections, the application will be decided by the planning coordinators at a DAP meeting. If we receive 6+ objections, the application will be determined at a meeting of IDAC. "

    The recent objection by the body Corporate of 121-123 Yarra St to the previous development on this site was discounted because it read as one objection instead of 5. We will be preparing a response to this development proposal shortly.

  30. In Nicholls ACT on “COMMUNITY FACILITY -...” at No Address, Nicholls, ACT:

    Elizabeth Zatschler commented

    Quite happy to have it here. Would just like to know when this is proceeding. They cleared and levelled the land more than 12 months ago and it is just sitting idle.

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