Recent comments on applications from Hawkesbury City Council, NSW

  1. In North Richmond NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 6 Keda Circuit, North Richmond, NSW:

    Colleen Turnbull commented

    This proposed development will exacerbate already dangerous traffic conditions. Traffic is already gridlocked around the area with no proposals to improve access . Although the proposed development is innocuous in itself the site is not suitable .

  2. In Wisemans Ferry NSW on “Lot 2 DP 260032Change of...” at 81 St Albans Road, Wisemans Ferry, NSW:

    John Yu commented

    this is a great idea, great for the local community

  3. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Monique Pryce commented

    HI Council
    I would like to add my voice to those who have already written expressing concerns regarding the caravan park at 66 Wattle Cr. Glossodia.
    I have several concerns regarding transport, lack of amenities and access to services.
    People who may live in this type of housing often have limited access to a car often having to rely on public transport. There is no bus that goes past this property and they will need to walk to Golden Valley Dr - a substantial climb. If these residents have limited mobility this is not an option and a taxi may not be financially viable.

    There are limited facilities in Glossodia. While there is a grocery store they have limited food especially fresh produce which is of questionable quality. For someone with limited mobility who can not access shops further away this is lack of choice is unacceptable.

    People who live in these type of dwellings often need to access employment services, training/education, health and medical practitioners. None of these services are within a distance that can be easily accessed without a private vehicle which can place additional stress in the household.

    This high density development is not in the best interests of the potential residents and should be rejected.

    Monique Pryce

  4. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Raymond Vinton commented

    As a long time resident of Glossodia (since 1973)I would like to take this opportunity to state my comments against the proposed “affordable” low cost dwelling park sited at 66 Wattle Crescent Glossodia.
    As you may appreciate ,living in the area for more than 45 years one should have gained an insight into any issues that may be detrimental to high density growth in an area that is not suitable, I mention high density growth as the proposed new development would be added to the existing Glossodia Hamlet plus the new Jacaranda development which would put an excessive strain on the existing facilities.
    Whilst there is always a need for low cost living one must consider many aspects that the potential new residents must contend with, for example:
    • Is the proposed new site the most suitable in the proposed area or should it be sited on the other side of the Hawkesbury River where it would be closer to emergency needs such as hospitals, specialists and doctors, with the current volume of traffic there are times when the line of traffic to turn onto Windsor bridge may be 500m long and take well over 35 minutes to reach Windsor from Glossodia, this could prove fatal should there be an emergency in the area. This problem will be compounded with all the new areas being developed in the Karrajong area as so much traffic is now taking a short cut from Bells line of Road because of the traffic density in Richmond.
    • Approximately 15 years ago there was a serious bushfire on the ridge behind the proposed new low cost development and Glossodia residents were advised that unless the fire changed its course Glossodia would be lost, lucky for us the fire changed it’s course and the area was saved, but if that change of direction had not happened we were advised that the whole of Wattle Crescent could have been in trouble, what if this event happens again with a park surrounded by forest.
    • Wattle Crescent has no footpaths pedestrian routes are steep and quite narrow, totally unsuitable for people with limited transport and mobility issues.
    • The Glossidia side of the Hawkesbury River has always suffered during the flood times, we have been cut off for anything up to a week, how will this impact on the new proposed inhabitants, how well will they survive if their electricity water and sewerage is cut off for a week or more?
    On a personal note, I live in Glossodia because I enjoy the healthy tree laden area full of Australian wildlife, the area is home to so many varied species of birds that it would be a tragedy to unnecessarily destroy another small forest when there are so many suitable blocks of land, close to Windsor, that have already been stripped bare awaiting similar development.

    Ray & Maree Vinton

  5. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    John & Daphne Paul commented

    We have resided in Glossodia since 1974 and have seen the area progress first with tar roads, then street lights and curb and guttering, town water and then eventually sewerage. Although most of these developments have improved the amenity of the area, we have noticed over the years of our residence that traffic density has increased dramatically. The increased traffic has meant that we now suffer from sometime lengthy delays getting across the Windsor or North Richmond bridges and we believe this will only get worse unless there is another bridge or an increase in the number of traffic lanes.
    We are very concerned that the proposed "high density" development being proposed in wattle crescent will add substantially more traffic to an already very busy residential area. We presume that the proposed development would require many trees on the site to be removed and this will adversely impact on wildlife activity. We particularly fond of the local birdlife which utilise all of the bush in our area to live and breed.
    In the past when we had septic pump out there were significant health issue with overflows from septic systems being commonplace during heavy rain. The sewerage system has removed this problem, but our understanding is that the proposed development in Wattle Crescent would need to utilise a pump out system given that the sewerage system was never designed to cater for a "high density" residential development. This would surely lead to problems in terms of increased frequency of heavy truck movements to cart the septic pump out on a roadway already suffering from increased traffic density. There may also be problems caused by overflow in times of heavy rain and this would result in pollution of the creek adjoining the property.

    We are also aware that most people in Glossodia have their own vehicles to allow easy access to Windsor/Richmond and we are not sure that there would be sufficient room for adequate car parking in the proposed development. Many Glossodia homes have at least 2 or more vehicles.
    If the proposed development is meant to cater for low cost residential dwellings, how can someone already struggling to afford housing afford the transport costs of travelling to Windsor/Richmond not to mention accessing employment which mostly is on the Windsor/Richmond side of the river.

    We have attended meetings when this applicant previously tried to get approval for a much higher density development several years ago. We were very concerned about that proposal and are still very concerned that someone should be trying to impose a "high density" residential development in a relatively quiet rural hamlet like Glossodia.

    We sincerely hope that this latest development proposal is rejected because it is entirely unsuitable for the Glossodia area.

    John & Daphne Paul

  6. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Peter Gooley commented

    This application for a caravan Park had been rejected twice already.
    The complete lack of support services and transport options within Glossodia in general, makes this proposal completely unworkable.
    The need for residents to have their own vehicle just to access Windsor, North Richmond or Richmond means that any proposal will need to provide adequate parking onsite. Wattle Crescent could not support Street parking due to its width and steep edges.
    Current households in Glossodia typically have more than one vehicle.
    I doubt that the Caravan Park will address that need adequately, and will indicate that public transport is available.

    Public transport is less than adequate to provide for a concentrated population in such a small village.

    Access to services such as human services in Windsor, job interviews, employment agencies, would be quite restricted if attempting to utilise public transport, as one example of the challenges that would be faced by residents.

    Further, I would suggest that, one the plans have actually been made available for viewing, I don't that the Caravan Park applicant will have put forward a detailed plan for dealing with sewerage waste from the site. The Sydney water installed pressured system had enough extra capability for 6 houses. The system was not built to cater for such a development. The Jacaranda Ponds development proposal had to agree to build their own treatment plant before consent was even configured. As this property backs on to a creek that feeds the Hawkesbury River that flows to the oyster leases downstream, potential pollution from this site would impact dramatically on a creek system that supports creatures such as platypus.

    I disagree with this proposal and request that it be rejected for reasons I have indicated above.

  7. In Vineyard NSW on “Lot 13 DP 1159365Extensive...” at 675 Windsor Road, Vineyard, NSW:

    Fiona Zammit commented

    We are the neighboring property. Could you please advise what the extensive agriculture is, as we have had no notification of this development. Also advise if there is going to be raising of the land (fill) as this was started by the leasee without the owners permission.
    Thank you.

  8. In Kurrajong NSW on “Lot E DP 373372Subdivision...” at 452 Greggs Road, Kurrajong, NSW:

    Andrew Docking commented

    Hi, Subdivision below 2ha within an RU1 zone is unlikely to achieve the objectives for the zone for supporting primary industry development. Please consider the NSW DPIi farm subdivision guidelines http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/313565/farm-subdivision-assessment-guideline.pdf
    Particularly regarding:
    each lot has sufficient area and resources required to sustain the dominant commercial agricultural industries suitable to the locality,
    each lot can manage its onsite and offsite environmental impacts,
    the justification for further fragmentation given the current number of small lots,
    the appropriate distribution and balance of agricultural resources within lots, e.g. cultivation land, shelterbelts, water resources, and infrastructure.

  9. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Sabine Donney commented

    Hi...
    I live on 10 acres at East Kurrajong on a battle axe block that adjoins the base of the property 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia...
    Howes creek runs between both our properties - my property adjoins the boundary of this DA - approximately a 300mtr frontage. We bought our property for the privacy and seclusion, have consistently maintained the landscape and have lived here since 1995... this development undermines everything we’ve built here, it’s like building a high rise apartment in our backyard.
    Please revisit all paperwork lodged in regards to this development application previously, study the costings the developer submitted, ask why the original application was rejected not just once but 3 times...
    I’ve been to several meetings previously in regards to this development and am deeply troubled by the lack of integrity shown by this developer, and his attempt to push through this development form a fourth time in the interest of making money... No one gains from this venture except for the developer... It compromises the privacy of all adjoining property owners and it will also have a significantly negative affect on our property value as well.
    More importantly however, consider the devastating affect 1800 new residents would have on such a small area of land (25 acres) and the surrounding environment in the event of a bushfire which is always ever present here... Wattle crescent itself is essentially quite narrow even just for local traffic; access in and out of 66 Wattle Crescent itself is restrictive (much like my own property) making it an extremely dangerous situation should a bush fire break out...
    In such an event... with fire brigades rushing in to help, and tenants attempting to flee... would cause a gridlock that would inevitably endanger the lives of everyone involved...
    This was also a concern posed by older residents at previous meetings who have lived here longer than myself and who have witnessed the ferocity such a fire can have when it creates its own wind storm through the Howes creek channel... it’s beyond terrifying
    What would happen to so many people trying to leave in a panic? They would be looking for any avenue to escape, and where would they go if the entrance to 66 Wattle Crescent was blocked with firefighters coming in and tenants trying to escape? Not to mention other property owners in the area trying to leave? The only option to safety is an adjoining property - my property has the widest access joining 66 Wattle Crescent at its base where the creek is... Council’s responsibility would be to insist on a fire exit strategy in conjunction with local brigades to ensure safety is a priority- that responsibility should also lie with the developer without impacting the existing property owners

    To finish... I’m alarmed that this is even being considered again. We as local residents were assured by Hawkesbury Council, the lands and environment court, and the final court case that followed, that this development would never ever be approved... how is it possible that this development is once again being considered when it only benefits the developer?

  10. In Oakville NSW on “Lot 5 DP 253872Residential...” at 21 Harkness Road, Oakville, NSW:

    Maureen Fraser commented

    VERY SAD TO SEE RURAL AREA'S DISAPPEAR JUST FOR MAKING DOLLARS.

  11. In Oakville NSW on “Lot 5 DP 253872Residential...” at 21 Harkness Road, Oakville, NSW:

    David Ball commented

    Be good to have more residential properties in the area and close to schools makes scene.

  12. In Bligh Park NSW on “Lot 716 DP 777657Group Home...” at 13 Neptune Crescent, Bligh Park, NSW:

    Linda borg commented

    I have been a resident since 1991, our concerns are lack off information on the residents who will be living in the group home, we live in a quiet friendly street, and I feel this will change if this goes ahead, we have a school and preschools and young children living in the street, I lives should not be affected due to the lack of concerns you have shown by allowing this group home to go ahead.

  13. In Freemans Reach NSW on “Lot 14 DP 1157035Dwelling...” at 109 Hibberts Lane, Freemans Reach, NSW:

    James davidson commented

    Would it be possible to have more details regarding this development. Pardon our concerns but you recently approved (a house) which is actually a shed on one of the highest spots opposite our home without any notification. We would also like to know exactly how much land this development is on.

  14. In Kurrajong NSW on “Lot 51 DP 248295Alterations...” at 41 Robertson Street, Kurrajong, NSW:

    Andrew Docking commented

    No issues to raise regarding the proposed extension at 41 Robertson Street.

  15. In Wilberforce NSW on “Lot 4 DP 1135286Subdivision...” at 541 Wilberforce Road, Wilberforce, NSW:

    peterdeg commented

    Sorry - council website at http://www.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/

  16. In Wilberforce NSW on “Lot 4 DP 1135286Subdivision...” at 541 Wilberforce Road, Wilberforce, NSW:

    peterdeg commented

    Available on the council website. Development - Development Applications - DA Tracking
    See the 'Documents' tab for the specific DA, in there is a file '(02/05/2017) DA0225/17 - A -Submitted Plans'

  17. In Wilberforce NSW on “Lot 4 DP 1135286Subdivision...” at 541 Wilberforce Road, Wilberforce, NSW:

    Barbara Stanners commented

    Could details about this application please be clarified in terms of what is being proposed in relation to subdivision and boundary readjustment.
    Given how close the site appears to be to the mouth of Bushells Lagoon, what impact is likely to be made to alleviate further risk of environmental damage to the area.
    Heavy excavators and trucks are often stored and moved in and out of an adjoining block raising questions about what zoning regulations are currently in place to safeguard the lagoon and what zoning changes if any, would arise if this application was approved.
    Clarification of what is actually being applied for would be greatly appreciated as they were not available when I rang the Council for details last week.

  18. In Richmond NSW on “Lot 21 DP...” at 78 March Street, Richmond, NSW:

    Pino commented

    Hi what is the market place wanting to refurbish
    Thank you ...

  19. In South Windsor NSW on “Lot 101 DP...” at 100 Mileham Street, South Windsor, NSW:

    Jackie Slaviero commented

    Where will the trucks bringing and taking away the products be driving? There already have been a number of bad accidents on Argyle Street and the truck movements in Macquarie Street are excessive. What about the residents? Do we ever have a say? Already MOITS is destroying the road...now this expansion. Thanks for the chance for a bit of a say. Someone is going to be killed with all these trucks moving in streets not built for the volume and number of HUGE trucks, How is council going to address this?

  20. In North Richmond NSW on “Erection of Toilet & Shower...” at 83 Slopes Road, North Richmond, NSW:

    Derek young commented

    Hi could you please supply detailed site plans, surveyers plans ,contours of land area sizes.ta Derek

  21. In Ebenezer NSW on “Lot 11 DP 603763Intensive...” at 672 Sackville Road, Ebenezer, NSW:

    Alan Ryrie commented

    Dear Councillors,
    I wish to comment on the application as being an immediate neighbour we have already had concerns re the recent developments on the site, and are aware that Council has had complaints already re tree clearing, seemingly without permission. We have also been concerned that a large shed ( suggest it is a 3 story sized shed that maybe Council thinks is a garden shed) had already been constructed without a DA, as apparently the use of private certifiers is away of avoiding such public scrutiny by neighbours being notified of such development.

    Our main concern is with the potential noise impact of the proposed development as already recently in January 2017 that we have been subjected to the noise of jack hammers on a number of occasions commencing at 7am--our property is directly across Sackville Rd and the noise does affect the ambience of our living conditions--thus I would object to times of operation likely to generate noise either during the 'earthworks' stage and/or the operational phase as being possibly extended to between 6am and 8pm--I would suggest that between 7am and 7pm should be sufficient. In addition late last year there was regularly noise emanating from tractors working --and clearing scrub often nearly all day and after dark.

    We have concerns too re exactly which are the 12 trees to be cleared--a number of tress have already been cleared as part of this overall development, and whilst much of the property could be considered spoiled re vegetation cover due to previous owners activities, and the demolition of the large shedding there (and hopefully the asbestos contained within not simply buried on site as told to us by a neighbour), we feel that the removal of 12 more trees might be unnecessary-- some Councils are encouraging more plantings as fauna corridors as well.

    There is already a buffer zone of natural vegetation between Sackville Rd and the area of operations so we would suggest that must be maintained not only as it is a stand of undisturbed natural growth but it will assist in reducing the ingress of dust and odours to our property , as despite what a farm management/chemical management plan may state market gardens do sometimes produce offensive odours and dust. The area has also of course fought battles before re the stench and health impacts of the mushroom composting industry.

    To conclude, we realise the new owners have the right to perform this type of agriculture but it must not have any detrimental impact on neighbouring properties or their occupants, and to date we have already seen development without Council being fully aware of what was being developed (the shed size and vegetation removal for that) , the noise already generated, the time frame of the noise generated activities and absolutely no communication or consultation with neighbours.

    We feel it would be useful for Council representatives to actually visit and inspect the site as it is now, and to discuss with neighbouring residents on site any concerns or misconceptions they may have as what is conveyed by the submitted paperwork may not be clear to those not immediately involved.

    We thus would like to see these concerns addressed prior to Council approving the development.

  22. In Richmond NSW on “Lot 3 DP 709154Subdivision...” at 10 Inalls Lane, Richmond, NSW:

    Hank Vanderpol commented

    Attention: Dela Tamakloe,Town Planner
    1. I would like to point out that page 5 of the "Statement of Environmental Effects" document is unavailable online therefore I am unable to make a proper assessment.
    2. I have no problem with the concept of developing 10 Inalls Lane.
    3 .In respect to section 79C 1(c) the development does impact the environment in this area, it does have social consequences and it does have an economic impact.
    4. I would like you to consider the above proposal in respect to the effects it has on any future development possibilities of 5 and 7 Silverburn Ave. Past poor planning has already created 2 very strange, unconventional allotments at nos 5 & 7 Silverburn Ave.
    5. Now the above planned subdivision is also going to be unconventional, unusual and unnecessarily complicated .....battleaxe ...handle. Jim Apostola is selling / giving Lot 1 to his daughter, what future parcels of land will be forwarded to the other children? .... what will be the big picture of 10 Inalls Lane?
    6. The above development is not comprehensive and not inclusive of the whole of 10 Inalls Lane.
    7. As the plan is at present it indicates that council is happy now and will be happy in the future with small developments. I would like town planning to plan ahead and see how the subdivision of lot 5 and lot 7 Silverburn Ave as well as lot 1,2,3,4,5,6 Inalls Lane will look like in the future.
    8. In respect to page 6 section 79C 1(e) of the "Statement of Environmental Effects" the proposed subdivision has the potential to have a poor visual effect, the beginnings of a rabbit warren, poor financial outcomes for adjacent allotments, the ability to hem 5 and 7 Silverburn with poor prospects of future subdivision. Therefore this subdivision does have an impact upon surrounding residences and the quality standards of planning.
    9. In summary I am not against the subdivision, I am not in agreement with this plan.

  23. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Tim commented

    DO NOT BUILD THIS TEMPLE!!!
    It will change the whole demographic of Windsor
    Strongly object!

  24. In on “Lot 1 DP 232770 , Lot 2 DP...” at 213 Commercial Road, Vineyard, NSW:

    Peter Inens commented

    Dear Hawkesbury City Council,

    I am concerned about the proposed development of 247 residences adjoining the caravan park in Oakville for the following reasons:
    * Oakville is zoned rural residential and this development in no way is appropriate for this zoning.
    * There will be and increase in vehicular traffic and concurrent noise, pollution and wear and tear on roads only designed for low density population
    * Pedestrians have to walk down Chapman Rd to reach public transport. People are forced to walk on the roadway.There is no footpath and a narrow bridge crossing with poor visibility halfway down. It is already very dangerous for pedestrians, especially at night with no street lighting.
    * this seems to be a backdoor method of getting high density housing in an area that was never zoned for it. If it is to go ahead then that area and surrounding areas of Oakville should be suitably rezoned to ensure the proper services are in place to support this type of development, before it proceeds.

    regards,
    Peter and Dianne Innes
    34 Glenidol Rd.,
    Oakville NSW 2765
    pjinnes@gmail.com

  25. In South Windsor NSW on “Place of public worship -...” at 699C George Street, South Windsor, NSW:

    Emma Byers commented

    I wish to express my support in principle for the DA currently with council for a place of public worship. The church will be an attractive addition to the Bligh Park/South Windsor area and will offer more diversity to residents of the Hawkesbury.

    One concern I wish to raise is the assertion in the traffic report that no further traffic calming measures will be required, as the church will not generate much more traffic along George Street. Based on the assumptions in Table 1 of the SEE document, that would be the case, however places of public worship are regularly used for more than one purpose, including being used as community halls and meeting places for groups either associated with the church or not.
    I don't believe the assertion can be made that there will be no other activities at the church outside of the normal worship hours can be claimed, given other ancillary activities including weddings, funerals, use of the hall for general community use (if the church hires it out, as most do), other church activities including peer support, support for older members of the community, church youth groups. Given George Street is already quite congested at certain times of the day and that the turn into the site is only approximately 18m from the Rifle Range Road intersection, this development will certainly impact on traffic movements in the area. Calming measures such as slip lanes, restrictions on movement directions and appropriate clearance are required to ensure the safety of the general community in that area.

  26. In South Windsor NSW on “Place of public worship -...” at 699C George Street, South Windsor, NSW:

    Deon Coles commented

    There should be a blanket ban on all da's for places of worship, this will only bring major issues to Bligh Park and surrounding areas.

  27. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Ranjoo commented

    I'm amazed to see so many negative comments on building a Hindu temple. had it been a church, no one would have dared to oppose it.. on one hand, Australians tell the world that they have democratic values and on other hand, they can't see people from another faith practising their faith. why so much hypocrisy ?
    is it a regime? is it a true democracy? how people could be so narrow- minded?

  28. 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.

  29. In Kurrajong NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens Tile...” at 160 Dollins Road, Kurrajong, NSW:

    darryl beaton commented

    this subdivision should not be approved due to it being a small quit street it would if anything decrease the value and increase the traffic in a currently quit street and i and i think all residents will agree increasing properties on this street will be to nobobys advantage accept the people trying to make a quick dollar by over sub dividing these properties, also these properties are situated on steep terrain and building 11 houses would hugely increase fire risk as apposed to a single dwelling not to mention taking out a huge ammount of vegetation to build these houses and clearing of land which will also have an impact on local wildlife. i urge you not to approve this sub division thank you.

  30. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Chris commented

    The SUBURB does not have the transport infrastructure to support a development of this size, including the nominated site. This specific site is not fit for purpose based on other considerations as well, such as historic, aesthetic, flooding etc.

    I'd be very interested to find out where the congregation is actually from (suburb) and why they consider McGraths Hill to be an ideal location for this project.
    Having lived in the suburb for many years I have yet to notice this large 'Hindi' community growing within the suburb.
    If they were local residents then they would be aware of the already congested and/or dangerous state of the roads, without adding out-of-surburb traffic using the roads essentially for (in my opinion only) their hobby.

    If the councilors chose to approve such a proposal I would suggest that they are not supporting the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent, in which case it's time to find leadership that does.

    In reply to "Gary":
    > "Wow a lots of subtle "racist" comments here..."
    There have been complaints about developments at other (christian) 'places of worship' within the area. So you implications regarding 'White Christians only policy' is unfounded. That the suburb is visually secular is one aspect that appeals to myself and other resident that I know personally within the suburb, but that is irrelevant to the main points of my objection.

    > "Would there be such an outcry for another Christian place of worship?"
    Yes, on the grounds that it would impact the suburb in tangible ways such as transport. But why speculate unless you're question is nothing but bait?
    I'd also suggest that any other sizable development regardless their purpose (religious, industrial, commercial or otherwise) would see similar objections.

    > "Windsor has heaps of Christian Churches on small aerial roads."
    Most of which have been there for a long time, i.e. before the area grew, making the point irrelevant.
    If those developments were applied for today they would probably garner similar opposition if they cause similar valid issues.

    > "Stop using your own personal religious beliefs to dampen other peoples enjoyment."
    Stop using yours to presume our intention. "Other peoples enjoyment" should not come at the sake of the local safety, nor should it come at the expense of the current residents' "enjoyment" for that matter.

    "By the way I'm an atheist, just believe in equality for all."
    What does 'equality for all' have to do with local infrastructure issues? How about you also take into consideration the 'equality' of the locals before labeling the suburb 'racist'. My suburb is full of educated, considerate residents; think twice before casually insulting us.

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