Recent comments on applications from Blue Mountains City Council, NSW

  1. In Leura NSW on “Nineteen residential units...” at 8 Great Western Highway Leura NSW 2780:

    Kim Downie commented

    This level of density housing is not needed in Leura. People live in the Nlue Mountains to get away from this type of housing development . Stop

  2. In Leura NSW on “Nineteen residential units...” at 8 Great Western Highway Leura NSW 2780:

    Kim Downie commented

    Stop the overdevelopment of this village, this dentistry level of housing is not needed in Leura especially at the gateway to the village . This is madness .

  3. In Leura NSW on “Nineteen residential units...” at 8 Great Western Highway Leura NSW 2780:

    Darryl Nelson commented

    Dannielle Parisi comments would reflect most residents feelings about the character of the Leura village and surrounding area.

  4. In Leura NSW on “Nineteen residential units...” at 8 Great Western Highway Leura NSW 2780:

    Dannielle Parisi commented

    These units do not have the architectural charm to sit at the entrance to Leura Village. How can this council allow more units that defile everything that locals and tourists love about Leura?
    Where is the character? Where is the foresight? Why are you ignoring the architectural heritage of our village?

  5. In Katoomba NSW on “Change of use from...” at 6 Cooper Street Katoomba NSW 2780:

    Kate Miller commented

    Can I please obtain a description of what sort of manufacturing/production this facility will now be doing? as it says "change from a warehouse to manufacturing and production" but does not state what sort of manufacturing (aka will there be fumes, noise, additional traffic, etc) Thank you so much.

  6. In Leura NSW on “Detached secondary dwelling...” at 15 Wentworth Street Leura NSW 2780:

    Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    It is submitted that Council should for consistency in upholding the proper standards, refuse development consent. In addition insufficient off-street paved parking, as well as no measure to address increased ingress of rain to neighbouring lots and the local stormwater network from reduced open ground space have been provided for.

  7. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “A new single storey...” at 9 Sinclair Crescent, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    S Bright commented

    I would like to express my disapproval and concerns as to the proposed development at 9 Sinclair Cres, Wentworth Falls. To start with I never received any written notification to this development.
    My concerns are as follows:
    (A) Sinclair Cres is a very busy street with cars, pushbikes, pedestrians with families all heading to and from the lake and also local residents. There is only one path that is accessible to parents with strollers and wheelchairs. I consider this to be extremely dangerous if there is to be a vast amount of building and trades vehicles attending the development. The road is also is need of repair and will be affected more so by heavy vehicles. As well if there is an incident on the Great Western Highway Sinclair Cres is the ONLY alternative if incident between Leura and Wentwoth Falls.This would cause total ciaos with these incidents if the street was over run with work vehicles. It recently had to be the main thoroughfare in a recent incident that had GW Highway blocked for hours. There does not appear to be any off street parking so where will the trades park. Totally dangerous for people using the street and without doubt it will cause accidents!.
    (B) The property is extremely close to Jamison Creek which I can see will be impacted on with building and construction and also when built what are the safe guards to keep the creek environmentally sustained with NO POLLUTION entering it.
    (C) Obviously the development will involve a lot of clearing of trees and once again the run off will go directly into the stream. Impacting on the creek and the flow on effect to Wentworth Falls. I feel it will also risk in adjoining properties being impacted by flooding due to any problems that occur due to increased clearing of vegetation..
    (D) This property is a swamp flood plain and totally unsuitable for development.
    (E) The plans for the large dwelling on poles are not in character with this street, it will impact character of the street and as a resident I see every day large amounts of tourists stopping and taking photos of one of the most beautiful streets in the Blue Mountains. Wedding photos, family photos ALL taking advantage of its beauty.
    (F) I know there will be a lot less tourists to The Lake if there is always constant construction going on.
    (G) Finally I feel that no matter what we should be protecting Jamison Creek, environment and the wildlife....let the land be maintained as open land in order to do this.

  8. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “A new single storey...” at 9 Sinclair Crescent, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    S Bright commented

    I would like to express my disapproval and concerns as to the proposed development at 9 Sinclair Cres, Wentworth Falls. To start with I never received any written notification to this development.
    My concerns are as follows:
    (A) Sinclair Cres is a very busy street with cars, pushbikes, pedestrians with families all heading to and from the lake and also local residents. There is only one path that is accessible to parents with strollers and wheelchairs. I consider this to be extremely dangerous if there is to be a vast amount of building and trades vehicles attending the development. The road is also is need of repair and will be affected more so by heavy vehicles. As well if there is an incident on the Great Western Highway Sinclair Cres is the ONLY alternative if incident between Leura and Wentwoth Falls.This would cause total ciaos with these incidents if the street was over run with work vehicles. It recently had to be the main thoroughfare in a recent incident that had GW Highway blocked for hours. There does not appear to be any off street parking so where will the trades park. Totally dangerous for people using the street and without doubt it will cause accidents!.
    (B) The property is extremely close to Jamison Creek which I can see will be impacted on with building and construction and also when built what are the safe guards to keep the creek environmentally sustained with NO POLLUTION entering it.
    (C) Obviously the development will involve a lot of clearing of trees and once again the run off will go directly into the stream. Impacting on the creek and the flow on effect to Wentworth Falls. I feel it will also risk in adjoining properties being impacted by flooding due to any problems that occur due to increased clearing of vegetation..
    (D) This property is a swamp flood plain and totally unsuitable for development.
    (E) The plans for the large dwelling on poles are not in character with this street, it will impact character of the street and as a resident I see every day large amounts of tourists stopping and taking photos of one of the most beautiful streets in the Blue Mountains. Wedding photos, family photos ALL taking advantage of its beauty.
    (F) I know there will be a lot less tourists to The Lake if there is always constant construction going on.
    (G) Finally I feel that no matter what we should be protecting Jamison Creek, environment and the wildlife....let the land be maintained as open land in order to do this.

  9. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “A two storey dwelling and a...” at 60 B Waratah Road, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Clancy Matthews commented

    I object to the solid fuel heater component of this application owing to the contribution to loss of air quality and the resulting impacts on respiratory health. After installation, the flues are rarely or poorly maintained releasing excess smoke and embers into the atmosphere. With the increase in applications and installations of solid fuel heaters in the area surrounding the lake in recent years, the air quality during the winter time is being noticeably and adversely affected.

  10. In Mount Victoria NSW on “A single storey dwelling...” at 3 Mount Piddington Road, Mount Victoria, NSW:

    C. Paul commented

    the plan appears to minimise tree removal

  11. In Blaxland NSW on “A five unit seniors living...” at 46 Matthew Parade, Blaxland, NSW:

    Valiant Wooi commented

    A copy of the letter I sent to the council during the official commenting period:

    We write in connection with the above planning application. We have examined the plans and as a direct neighbour we know the site well. We wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.
    Firstly we refer you to the Zoning classification for Blaxland R2 which in part states that a “dual occupancies, boarding house and group homes”” can be built “with consent”, which we are not giving in this instance. This area of Blaxland is composed of only free standing single homes and where development proposals should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the suburb while group housing or strata development would overwhelm it. At most, R2 zoning allows for dual occupancies on a single block, not 5 homes, 4 of which are double storeys. This building application clearly breaches this zoning classification.
    I next refer you to the State Environmental Planning Policy https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2004/143/chap1/cl2 (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, Chapter 1, Clause 2 which states in part that the aims of the policy is “(b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and (c) be of good design”, the intent of which is clearly contradicted by this plan for five double storey homes.
    Addressing the issue of “efficient use of existing infrastructure and services”, this area of Blaxland simply does not have existing infrastructure for disabled seniors. As far as services, the reference to a bus stop which is 300 metres away along an unpaved walkway is once again wholly inappropriate. Even if a walkway were to be built, the bus service itself is sporadic and would not afford the disabled residents any form of “services”.
    As for “good design”, a plan for double storey residences for disabled seniors is wholly inappropriate and would present a major mobility issues within the home from the onset. This cannot be mitigated by additional handrails and any other mobility aids, as the intrinsic two stories design and its intent is inherently flawed. Two stories are thus wholly unsuitable for disabled aged citizens and we do not give consent for a structure of such proportions to be built. This may initially be occupied by disabled seniors, but there is no surety that this will be the case in the longer term. While this is speculation, there are no restrictions to these dwellings being occupied by non disabled younger occupants which will lead to the normal congestion associated with more mobile younger families.
    The next most serious reason for our objection is the obvious additional fire danger presented to the area by such a large structure with only one exit for an emergency evacuation. The block is in a documented bushfire prone area and the construction of such considerable bulk would increase the fire risk to the disabled seniors as well as the residences all around.

    We next draw your attention to the fact that the sidewalk frontage between my property and number 46 is a mere one meter wide. This is the smallest sidewalk width in the entire street. There is literally only space to place our two bins at the regulation 1 meter apart. If 5 homes were to be built, the collection of 10 bins would present a logistical impossibility even if the bins were to be collected from within the property, this will involve excessive noise, danger and additional traffic danger for a truck of even light duty size.
    We also emphasise that the tight corner of this street into which the driveway exits is already extremely dangerous in that traffic from either side has limited visibility. Last year (2016) alone there were two motor accidents on this corner which resulted in one vehicle spearing off into the front yard of the corner property. Adding the traffic of 5 more disabled seniors entering and exiting this smallest of entryways will increase the possibility of a serious collision by many fold. Are you as a council prepared to bear responsibility for injury or even death from an avoidable accident? Right on this corner we have families with pre-school children and these young lives will be unnecessarily be exposed to a much higher volume of traffic than what their parents envisaged for this area.
    The small street frontage will also pose a challenge for any visitors and indeed to the residents themselves if they are to own the average of 2 cars per household. The plans show only one garage per household and the minimum legal 2 visitor spots. This may be compliant to regulations but in reality this minimum allocation will force residents to park their extra vehicles, caravans and boats out on the street which is already dangerously congested due to the tightness of the corner.
    On the matter of privacy, we will lose our privacy from our backyard and pool with a direct line of sight from many of the second storey windows. The environmental impact report mentions that our backyard view is protected by trees but this is not the case at all. The line of sight extends past my property directly to the bedroom windows of number 42 and this will be most intrusive.
    As a matter of history, we refer you to your records of refused building applications for a double storey building by the previous owners of my property. We are informed that the reason for refusal was that the building was out of character for the area. After a number of years this reason is even more substantial as Blaxland has a firmly entrenched character of single storey frontages. The same rules must apply to the building application of 4 double storeys in the spirit of fairness.
    If this application is to be decided by councillors, please take this as notice that we would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let us know as soon as possible the date of the meeting.
    Finally, please note that our submission is in respect of the proposed development. While we have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, as we are not a decision maker or statutory consultee, we cannot accept any responsibility for unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.

  12. In Katoomba NSW on “Dual occupancy - 2 storey...” at 94 Camp Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Christine Taylor commented

    I live on Cooper Street, Katoomba and the proposed development backs on to my property on the other side of McNab Lane.. Firstly I'd like to say that the plans sent to me regarding this property are illegible and unreadable even with a magnifying glass. I have been away and there has been no time to come into council offices to view the plans.

    This neighborhood has suffered an excess of development over the past few years. The building of the Caltex service station was very disruptive and
    another very similar development to the one proposed for Camp Street has taken place next door to my property, taking a year to complete, finishing just this week. There has also been building work on Camp Street for the climbing wall and the Reece plumbing building. Given that I work from a home office, this constant building noise has been very difficult to work through.

    The new property next door to me and the proposed buildings for the Camp Street property are not in keeping with the style of the other dwellings in this neighbourhood. I would like to object to the style of this building and the height as it will affect my long view to the mounts.

    Like the new property at 27 Cooper Street, the d.a. for the Camp Street property includes a granny flat. It is unclear on these plans whether or not there is access from McNab Lane. I also object to the use of colourbond fencing which is unsightly and which appears to buckle and fall in a short space of time (see the properties next door to this address).

    I am not sure if the builders for this project are the same as those for that at 27 Cooper Street, but if so I would be very unhappy as they were obnoxious and intimidating, even though I had given them some access from my property during the build. They trampled plants and gardens and there was constant run off of soil and cement which I was left to clean up.

    I hope that you will take my concerns seriously. I felt that I was fobbed off with concerns I had with problems, and there were many, on the recent building at 27 Cooper Street.

  13. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “S96 modification -...” at 22 Sinclair Crescent, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Clancy Matthews commented

    We live in a neighbouring proper that does not fall within the notified properties requirement even though we are directly affected. I'm now aware the previous DA amendment was very scant in detail and applied to extend the second storey 2 or 2.5 metres to the front claiming a "need" to extend without citing the reason and that there would be no impact on privacy. The approval of the previous amendment has now created an issue with the scale and proportion addressing the street and the surrounding properties under BMCC LEP Section 6.17 and the objectives of the BMCC DCP B.2 and B.3. I'm also concerned about a reversal of council's earlier stance to discourage new solid fuel installations to improve air quality, particularly for those with respiratory health issues. The impact of this substantial development on our privacy has been significant (Human Rights Act Protocol 1, Articles 1 and 8).

    I acknowledge that these issues are not part of the current application amendment which is now the 3rd iteration of this DA, however this is my first and only opportunity to comment and I feel compelled to do so as it has set a disturbing and unsympathetic precedent.

    That being said, I agree that this amendment to realign and reduce the size of the garage and associated non-permeable surfaces is needed to address the site density and ratio compliance which appears to have been significantly understated in the original application and subsequent amendment. I question one of the previous DA conditions concerning the environmental controls as it was my understanding that the rainwater tanks were to be installed prior to the roof cladding to mitigate potential water run off and erosion. The roof has since been installed and the rainwater tanks are not evident. It is unlikely they are installed underground as the second and current amendment shows these will be installed behind the garage touching on the western property boundary. The setback needs close scrutiny as the state rail fencing has been installed approximately 0.3 metres away from the actual residential boundaries and there is potential to encroach on State Rail property. With regard to BMCC DCP C14, construction of the 3 vehicle garage and water tank installation so close to the rear boundary is also likely to create erosion issues and sediment to run down into the culvert that runs along the western/rear property boundaries. This is frog habitat and it should also be considered that water that runs along this culvert feeds into the Jamison Creek and therefore the water catchment area for Warragamba Dam. Given the fall of the land to the east, it is also a concern that no sediment fencing is proposed to be installed adjacent to the eastern boundary to protect runoff into the adjacent property.

  14. In Blackheath NSW on “A one into three lot...” at 148 - 152 Evans Lookout Road, Blackheath, NSW:

    Mark Hanemann commented

    The proposed subdivision is not consistent with many of the objectives of the Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 2005.

    The proposed development will increase the impacts of urbanisation on Govetts Leap Brook, adding to the continuing incremental decline of the health of the upper mountains catchments.

    The SEE states that "no trees are to removed as part of the application." However, the building envelopes identified in the application overlap existing tree locations. Therefore any subsequent building works as approved in the proposal will require the removal of numerous mature trees.

    The SEE for the proposal attempts to address these matters but provides no evidence to support its conclusion that the proposal is "unlikely to have any adverse environmental impacts."

    The SEE states that the proposal "will contribute to the unique character of Blackheath." However, the continuing subdivision of residential allotments in Blackheath is rapidly destroying the unique character of the town, with an immediate, negative impact on residents and subsequent decline of the tourism industry in the upper mountains. The proposal will be clearly visible to visitors travelling to Evans Lookout.

    The SEE states that the proposal will have "minimal impacts on the aesthetic values of the land", but provides no evidence to support this conclusion. Local residents' experience with the recent subdivision at Forest Park Road, Blackheath indicates that aesthetic and amenity impacts will be significant and ongoing.

    Adding the impacts of the proposal to other recent subdivisions in Blackheath will contribute to the incremental deterioration of the health of upper mountains waterways and the adjoining national park, the unique character of the town, the amenity of local residents, and the strength of the tourist industry in the upper mountains.

  15. In Faulconbridge NSW on “A new single storey...” at 8 Highland Road, Faulconbridge, NSW:

    Kaye Maxine Cruickshank commented

    We did not receive any written notification about this development. Surely, council has an obligation to inform us in writing about this development. As we know nothing about it we object to any development without consultation, as there are significant problems with trees encroaching on our property.
    Why were we not informed , in writing about this development?

  16. In Blaxland NSW on “Additions and alterations...” at 1 - 11 Layton Avenue, Blaxland, NSW:

    Annette LEGGE commented

    Re: Environmental Impact of Blaxland McDonalds Carpark Entry/Exit & Layton Ave

    I regret that I was not able to contact Council earlier to comment on the Development Proposal relating to McDonalds at Blaxland. Unfortunately I was in hospital and this is really the first opportunity I have had to make my position known.
    Basically, I share the same view of other members of my family at No.s 23, 25 and 27 Layton Ave Blaxland. Our concerns relate primarily to safety issues but also to environmental factors as well.
    Whilst living just down the road from the existing McDonalds over the past 9 months, since moving here last September, we have noticed:

    1. Traffic congestion/ blockage of Layton Ave to through traffic at the entrance/exit to McDonalds caused by the poor set out of Layton Ave from the Gt Western Hwy to the McDonalds entrance. It is a one-lane road that is blocked by;
    a) Patrons queuing to enter McDonalds that form a line of stopped traffic back to the Gt Western Hwy due to lack of parking in McDonalds and the drive through service driveway being backed right up to the entrance not allowing patrons entry.
    b) The fact that patrons park on the side of Layton Ave between the Gt Western Hwy and the McDonalds entrance not allowing through traffic to pass to the left side of the line of cars queued to enter McDonalds.
    This section of Layton Ave from the Gt Western Hwy to the McDonalds entrance should be dual lanes with a right turn only lane for the entrance into McDonalds. There should be no parking along this section of road so that through traffic can pass by the patrons lined up waiting to enter the McDonalds car park.

    2. Many vehicles turning into our driveways to do a U-turn, sometimes proving to be a hazardous action with obstruction to oncoming traffic and near accident misses

    3. A significant amount of litter, as customers of McDonalds walk past and dispose of their rubbish, McDonalds packaging etc by throwing it onto our front lawn/s and leaving it at the bus stop seat/bench at the front of 27 Layton Ave.

    4. Due to the location of the existing entry/exit to McDonalds, near or on the bend about 40 metres from the traffic lights at the intersection of the Great Western Hwy and Layton Ave, there is a real and great risk of accidents involving both cars and pedestrians. This is particularly problematic during the afternoons at the end of the school day, evenings as commuters travel home from work and, especially on weekends any time of the day or evening. We have witnessed and experienced traffic jams all the way down Layton Ave from the McDonalds car park entry/exit, sometimes to the Stop Sign just before the underpass.

    It is my/our view that the location of this entrance/exit should be given serious consideration as part of any Development Proposal/Application. Given that there is a large parcel of vacant land in front of McDonalds on the Great Western Highway, perhaps if this land was made available to McDonalds to purchase from the RTA (presuming such land is owned by the RTA) and McDonalds was willing to purchase this land, then that would be a much more suitable location for a car park entry/exit. It would be far safer to access and less intrusive on nearby residents.

    Please consider these points in your appraisal of McDonalds Development Proposal and as part of your overall town planning to ensure improved safety and better traffic flow generally, thank you.

    Kind regards
    Annette Legge and family

  17. In Blaxland NSW on “Additions and alterations...” at 1 - 11 Layton Avenue, Blaxland, NSW:

    Annette LEGGE wrote to local councillor Michael Begg

    Re: Environmental Impact of Blaxland McDonalds Carpark Entry/Exit & Layton Ave

    I regret that I was not able to contact Council earlier to comment on the Development Proposal relating to McDonalds at Blaxland. Unfortunately I was in hospital and this is really the first opportunity I have had to make my position known.
    Basically, I share the same view of other members of my family at No.s 23, 25 and 27 Layton Ave Blaxland. Our concerns relate primarily to safety issues but also to environmental factors as well.
    Whilst living just down the road from the existing McDonalds over the past 9 months, since moving here last September, we have noticed:

    1. Traffic congestion/ blockage of Layton Ave to through traffic at the entrance/exit to McDonalds caused by the poor set out of Layton Ave from the Gt Western Hwy to the McDonalds entrance. It is a one-lane road that is blocked by;
    a) Patrons queuing to enter McDonalds that form a line of stopped traffic back to the Gt Western Hwy due to lack of parking in McDonalds and the drive through service driveway being backed right up to the entrance not allowing patrons entry.
    b) The fact that patrons park on the side of Layton Ave between the Gt Western Hwy and the McDonalds entrance not allowing through traffic to pass to the left side of the line of cars queued to enter McDonalds.
    This section of Layton Ave from the Gt Western Hwy to the McDonalds entrance should be dual lanes with a right turn only lane for the entrance into McDonalds. There should be no parking along this section of road so that through traffic can pass by the patrons lined up waiting to enter the McDonalds car park.

    2. Many vehicles turning into our driveways to do a U-turn, sometimes proving to be a hazardous action with obstruction to oncoming traffic and near accident misses

    3. A significant amount of litter, as customers of McDonalds walk past and dispose of their rubbish, McDonalds packaging etc by throwing it onto our front lawn/s and leaving it at the bus stop seat/bench at the front of 27 Layton Ave.

    4. Due to the location of the existing entry/exit to McDonalds, near or on the bend about 40 metres from the traffic lights at the intersection of the Great Western Hwy and Layton Ave, there is a real and great risk of accidents involving both cars and pedestrians. This is particularly problematic during the afternoons at the end of the school day, evenings as commuters travel home from work and, especially on weekends any time of the day or evening. We have witnessed and experienced traffic jams all the way down Layton Ave from the McDonalds car park entry/exit, sometimes to the Stop Sign just before the underpass.

    It is my/our view that the location of this entrance/exit should be given serious consideration as part of any Development Proposal/Application. Given that there is a large parcel of vacant land in front of McDonalds on the Great Western Highway, perhaps if this land was made available to McDonalds to purchase from the RTA (presuming such land is owned by the RTA) and McDonalds was willing to purchase this land, then that would be a much more suitable location for a car park entry/exit. It would be far safer to access and less intrusive on nearby residents.

    Please consider these points in your appraisal of McDonalds Development Proposal and as part of your overall town planning to ensure improved safety and better traffic flow generally, thank you.

    Kind regards
    Annette Legge and family

    Photo of Michael Begg
    Michael Begg local councillor for Blue Mountains City Council
    replied to Annette LEGGE

    Dear Annette and family,
    Thank you for your detailed submission that I will fully consider before making any vote on the matter.

    Best wishes
    Michael

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This message is intended
    for the addressee/s named and may contain confidential information. If you are
    not the intended recipient, please delete it (do not read, use, disseminate, distribute
    or copy this message or attachments) and notify the sender immediately. Views
    expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily
    the views of the Blue Mountains City Council. The copyright of this communication
    belongs to the Blue Mountains City Council.

    DISCLAIMER - Before opening any attachments, please
    check them for viruses and defects. Neither the sender nor Blue Mountains City
    Council accepts liability for any viruses, errors or omissions in the contents
    of this message or attachment, which arise as a result of email transmission.

  18. In Katoomba NSW on “Replacement of retaining wall” at 36 Freelander Avenue, Katoomba, NSW:

    Kat Szuminska wrote to local councillor Romola Hollywood

    I think this is a great idea. I worry for the owner's car or anyone else who parks here at the moment, because this wall leans quite far forward. It looks precarious.

    Delivered to local councillor Romola Hollywood. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Springwood NSW on “A one into two lot subdivision” at 44 Burns Road, Springwood, NSW:

    Christian Hanvey commented

    We would hereby like to publically state objections to the planning development application S/17/2016 with the following comments.

    The building at 44 Burns Road is a character period house and a well-known local landmark in this area of Springwood. Its demolition would be a loss to the cultural history and heritage of this area and we would like to see this property preserved.

    We are in the process of purchasing 46B Burns Road, a property directly adjacent to 44 Burns Road. As immminent neighbours, we are very concerned about the proposed demolition and subdivision of this property. In particular, the potential health hazards the proposed works would present, including: asbestos removal, increased dust, and potential erosion and sedimentation from any earthworks carried out on the property.

    In the event that this application is approved by Council we request the following conditions to be considered for inclusion as part of the complying development and specifically in response to the health concerns regarding the above points:

    - The developer is to notify adjoining residents five (5) working days prior to demolition
    - Demolition works are restricted to Monday to Friday between the hours of 7am to 6pm
    - No demolition works are to be undertaken on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays.
    - All works to ensure neighbouring properties are not directly impacted with increased dust or sedimentation from works

    We note that the development application includes the property to be subdivided into two lots. To maintain the privacy of neighbouring properties, it is requested that future dwellings are restricted to single storey and the building envelope is not extended any further back than the existing dwelling. This will also be in keeping with the neighbouring dwellings on either side of the current property.

    We also note that the property was extensively cleared of trees and vegetation sometime between October 2012 and November 2013 - which can be seen from historical satellite mapping data. This has removed privacy from neighbouring properties and will expose these properties to increased noise and dust levels during works. If approved, it is requested that a condition of the approval be that shielding foliage is re-instated along the property boundaries to provide a screen for neighbouring properties and thereby reduce some of the impacts of the development.

    Yours sincerely,
    Christian & Leanne Hanvey

  20. In Katoomba NSW on “The conversion of the...” at 40 Whitton Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    x commented

    I'm astonished this house does not appear on the heritage listing for Katoomba

  21. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “Change of use to a...” at 33 Station Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Marlene Jones commented

    Interested in receiving more information on this please.

  22. In Blackheath NSW on “A take away food outlet” at 122 B Wentworth Street, Blackheath, NSW:

    Michael Skinner commented

    What is happening to the Vet? and what sort of fast food? there is a perfectly good fish and chip shop 50 metres across the car park.

  23. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Sally commented

    I welcome a NEW Bunnings. Consider Home Hardware are owned by Woolworths. Competition is great.

  24. In Blaxland NSW on “A medical centre” at 2 - 6 View Street, Blaxland, NSW:

    Alyson Mack commented

    As a resident of View Street I am worried about the extra traffic and car parking that goes along with a new medical centre. This space at the moment is dirt and a few trees, but it is used for parking for:
    1. IGA and other shops in the arcade plus the Tavern
    2. Post Office
    3. Paint shop, second hand shop
    4. Dentists
    Where would all these vehicles park when this space is a medical centre? There is hardly any kerb parking on View Street. On Hope Street there is limited kerb parking but if you lived here you would know how dangerous it is going past IGA carpark when vehicles parked along the kerb block the vision of patrons coming in and out of IGA.
    The intersection of View Street with the highway is very dangerous and has no middle island to half cross the street. I have seen a child hit by a car coming very fast around the corner from the highway trying to beat on-coming traffic. I have also had my own close calls trying to keep an eye on who is coming from the highway and from what direction because they are both dangerous. With the medical centre there would be more foot traffic, especially with older people and this intersection needs attention.
    Also on this street there are turning bays so residents can turn because of the middle being divided, but these bays are blocked by people parking after the no-parking sign now.
    Would you please do more research on this area before consent is given for this development especially regarding the safety issues I have raised. Thank you

  25. In Katoomba NSW on “TEST Application for...” at 2-6 Civic Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    Perry Mowbray commented

    This is a test comment on this test application.

  26. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    I object strenuously to this DA. There is absolutely no need for yet another chain-store development in Katoomba. There is already a Coles, a Target and that hideously overdeveloped unfinished pile of concrete right in the centre of town which has no relationship or bearing to the nature of its site or its stunning environment. There is already an excellent hardware store over the road (Home), at least one small family business in town, and another in Blackheath, and probably others in Leura or nearby. We do not want this kind of development for Katoomba which should be the jewel in the crown of the emerging Blue Mountains environment which will be serving as the main escape route and new base for everyone who is sick of the ghastliness of Sydney with the chain stores, traffic, horrible development everywhere and lack of local identity. And there is already a Bunnings in the mid/lower mountains. So what is to be done with the land - a pretty piece of pastureland with a few horses in it? Given that it is already in a designated "industrial zone" it could be developed as a site for small-scale local industries: building, ceramics, carpentry, bespoke furniture production, with a mix of large studio/gallery spaces for working artists, sculptors and the like. Right now there is nothing in the area to meet these needs. The site could be developed further to include something like community gardens and demonstration sustainability projects (small sustainable buildings for instance which might be used as examples for those interested in building in the mountains). Who would pay? Without knowing what the site value is it is impossible to know what kinds of acquisitions costs are involved, but maybe there would be some capacity for a mixed fund between Council and local investors including some "crowd funding". In any case, there is no need for any more chainstore developments in Katoomba and there never should be. It should be the central exemplar for a new kind of peri-urban sustainable development not yet another site for large scale chain-store greed for an over-bloated bursting Western Sydney. I have made no donation to anybody and have no association with any of the businesses mentioned above.

  27. In Mount Victoria NSW on “A split level dwelling” at 12-14 Milson Street, Mount Victoria, NSW:

    Peter Morgan commented

    The reason we recently purchased our property at no7 Mt Piddington Road was the terrific bush views.

    Every effort should be made to preserve established trees on the site and I will rely on the council to ensure that happens

  28. In Mt Victoria NSW on “Additional use - retail...” at 26 Station Street, Mount Victoria, NSW:

    Octavia Barron Martin commented

    I urge you, for the sake of the ailing commercial centre of Mt Victoria, to please do all that you can to pass this planning application.
    Too often do the historical hearts of townships end up entirely authentic but neglected derelicts. The disintegration of listed properties throughout Britain are testimonies to the "killed with kindness" result of discouraging investment or improvement in areas and properties rich with heritage. A quick visit to the frighteningly (not charming) quiet heart of Mt Vic will show you how welcome and necessary the proposed business will be. We need this. Thank you for your time and consideration. I have no affliation whatsover with this application or the business.

  29. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “An accessible housing...” at 41-45 Cascade Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Ann Marie Renouf commented

    I would like to object to proposal of town houses adjacent to my property. Murray Ave which has been proposed as an entrance to the development, is a narrow road with no footpaths or curb and guttering this with the extra traffic and pedestrians will cause problems
    .On the development plan a retaining wall is shown on the boundary of my property with unit 13 a two story residence to be built there. Im sure that my privacy and sunlight will be lost

    Regards Ann Marie Renouf

  30. In Katoomba NSW on “S96 modification - mixed...” at 3-5 Goldsmith Place, Katoomba, NSW:

    El Gibbs commented

    Catherine, this development was approved in 2005, so there's no way to stop it now. The Section 96 refers to a small modification, rather than the whole development.
    Get in touch if there's any more info I can provide.
    El Gibbs
    Ward 1 Councillor, BMCC
    egibbs@bmcc.nsw.gov.au

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