Recent comments on applications from Ku-ring-gai Council, NSW

  1. In Lindfield NSW on “Provision for outdoor...” at 37 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    KELVIN PERRY commented

    Absolutely not. As pedestrian flows are set to increase in future there will be inadequate walking space with a relatively narrow public walkway of 2 metres. This business already causes occasional inconvenience with patrons queuing on the footpath.

  2. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    KJ commented

    Childcare Centre's are a necessity and these days, the council ensures that the parking and access is beyond what is needed therefore minimizing disturbance to the local neighborhood, the Traffic and Acoustic reports make sure of this. children are not dropped off or picked up on the street and access to the centre's are always forward exit unlike most residential driveways. Most centre's are well presented architecturally and present a tidy well maintained asset to the locality. Childcare centre's are by far the best neighbors to have, they don't have loud parties on the weekend or at night generally most of the noises that come out of them during the day are happy noises.

  3. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Louise commented

    This saga continues, this proposal plus another child care centre on the corner of Boronia and Yeramba. We have had many childcare centres being built on corner blocks within 2 km radius, Canoon and Kissing Point road, Turramurra public School, childcare centre next to Turramurra Public School, Saddington Street Preschool.
    Turramurra Avenue another large child care centre has been built and there is one on the corner of Eastern Road, this is a glut and it just adds to traffic congestion.

  4. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Janette McLeod commented

    Why are there planning applications for two childcare centres practically on the same road (around the corner on Boronia)?
    There are new centres opened in south Turramurra and across the highway on Turramurra ave. Are these all full?
    This corner is very dangerous with limited visibility, a bus stop opposite and a cycle lane. Not ideal for dropping and picking up children.

  5. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 31 Beechworth Road Pymble NSW 2073:

    A. MacDonald commented

    The DA application states that the property is not in an HCA.
    The property is in the middle of KMC's HCA for the local area. KMC stated publically that it is a formally adopted HCA, not a draft HCA, so the DA application should state that the property is within an HCA and that a heritge statement is required.

    Either way, even a draft HCA requires a heritage impact statement.
    None was submitted, according to the KMC website.

    KMC appears to have been inconsistent in its treatment of DA applications along Beechworth Road within the HCA for the locality. Sometimes it seems to require a heritage statement, sometimes not.
    KMC should be consistent and transparent in its HCA-affected requirements as actually enforced.

    There are some new dwellings along Beechworth Road and adjoining streets which are ghastly and have no heritage affinity for the locality, whether within the HCA or just outside of it.
    The heritage assessments and inventories for Beechworth Road and adjoining streets are poorly founded and have no rational coherence. There must be thirty or more "heritage styles" in the HCA, taking into account building design, the look, the layout, gardens and use of the land. Often there are more than a dozen styles within the same street.
    Whatever good is in the purported heritage themes for the HCA, they are traduced by KMC allowing Soviet embassy style architecture and boxy beachside architecture for new dwellings in the HCA.

    The proposed new dwellings in the DA application would be an improvement on the current daggy dwelling on site and would enhance the use of the site with its second dwelling.
    That general improvement is the best "heritiage" feature of the proposal in this DA application. New properties should be better, not uglier and should enhance the family and mulit-generational community (in contrast with KMC fast tracking very high density apartments in the locality).

    I have no connections with the proposal.

  6. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of 4 dwellings,...” at 102 Bannockburn Road, Pymble, NSW:

    Ron Eagle commented

    ​​DA 0342/19 : 102-104 Bannockburn Rd and 2 Reely St Pymble
    ​​Proposed Seniors Housing X 17 : Comments

    The current proposal fails to acknowledge its history. This is the fourth iteration (three formal and one informal try-on) of essentially the same development by the same applicant over the last three years. The most recent rejection by the Land & Environment Court and how the revealed shortcomings are now addressed, should be front and centre of any new proposal. Not acknowledging previous events is misleading and somewhat disingenuous. There still are serious flaws in this latest version to the extent that Council should reject it out of hand. There is nothing to indicate a need for a further seniors development at this location. On the contrary, there is sufficient opposition to indicate that the local community doesn’t want another one there.
    This submission is in two Parts. Part 1 deals with the proposed driveway in what has been described as a prohibited location. That situation on its own is adequate grounds to reject the Application, since the general layout and configuration of units are directly related to the driveway location.
    Part 2 then becomes less immediately relevant, but is included because much of it is generic to any development on this site.
    Part 1 : Driveway Location
    The proposal locates the driveway on to Bannockburn Rd. at what is now the driveway to 102 Bannockburn. That location is proposed to apply to the completed complex and also to be used during construction.
    It is noted that the Transport Impact Plan refers to and adopts the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2890.1 in designing ramp grades, maneuvering spaces and the like. It fails to recognise however, that the same Australian Standard also regulates permissible locations of multiple use driveways. The location as proposed does not comply.
    “According to the Australian Standards AS 2890.1 (Section) 3.2.3, this is a prohibited location for a driveway for a multi-dwelling complex.” That quotation is from a communication from Council to me dated 23 January 2018 in response to my earlier query as to whether the currently proposed location might indeed be a suitable option.

    The above diagram is indicative only and is not absolutely true to scale.
    Precise consideration of compliance or otherwise with the Australian Standard is not helped by the site survey information included with the DA, stopping short of including the eastern side of Reely St. and the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg. That deficiency in survey detail should be remedied.
    Given that the proposed driveway location is not acceptable for the completed complex, it follows that that location is also not acceptable during the construction period as is proposed, when it would have multiple users and the traffic volume would be much greater and more hazardous.
    If the proposed permanent driveway were to be relocated towards the north, it would still be impacted by AS 2890.1. That Standard explicitly says that, as with all Standards, it provides minimum requirements and that local circumstances may require special additional provisions. If the driveway were to be relocated, for example, further into Reely St., that new location would encounter issues associated with a dangerous concealed driveway (frequented by elderly and/or handicapped drivers) for traffic travelling north from Bannockburn Rd. In addition, the elderly/handicapped drivers exiting the complex would have to cope with an unconventional approach angle requiring them to scan 120 degrees to their right to check for traffic approaching from Bannockburn Rd. It is well established that the elderly have real and increasing problems managing that degree of peripheral vision (ask any Physiotherapist, or elderly person for that matter. According to the Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 85% of people over 60 have some degree of cervical spondylosis or arthritis of the neck).
    In short, there is no suitable, complying, safe option for a multiple use driveway site in Bannockburn Rd. or Reely St. either during construction or in the longer term.

    The Developer should be called on to demonstrate compliance with AS 2890.1 in respect of the proposed location of the driveway and to provide survey data covering the eastern side of Reely St. and into the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg, so that any claimed compliance can be verified.
    Until compliance is demonstrated, the Development Application should be regarded as incomplete and given no detailed consideration. (If the driveway is not correctly located, the viability of the whole proposal comes into question).
    Background Points
    1. The presented design draws on AS 2890.1 for the basement layout, ramp design, maneuverability provision and the like.
    2. The designer shouldn’t be allowed to cherry pick AS 2890.1; use it when it suits; ignore it when it doesn’t.
    3. Decision makers ought to consider why the presented survey information stops short of what is required to ascertain compliance or otherwise. Was it an oversight?, ineptitude?, or ???.
    4. If the Standard is to be set aside for driveway location, the reasons should be set out, be compelling and agreed. (Commercial expediency isn’t one of them.)
    5. We are dealing with elderly and/or handicapped people. They should have the full benefit of best practice arrangements ….. without compromise.
    6. If there were to be a disaster (heaven forbid) at the driveway, the subsequent enquiry would not look kindly at the decision making and approval processes. We should be ahead of the play and avoid any compromise, so that we don’t find ourselves taking “make sure it can’t happen again” action as is sadly so often the case.
    Part 2 : Other Matters
    Considering features of the development, if completed as proposed.

    There will be 17 basement parking spaces allocated to the units. That number comes from the requirement set out in SEPP 2004. As with all standards, the SEPP sets out minimum requirements. It is then incumbent on the designer/architect to also have regard to the practicalities and impacts on existing features and activities. The aim ought to be, and from the community’s viewpoint is, for any development to have a seamless integration with pre-existing neighbourhood conditions and circumstances. Documents such as the SEPP and for that matter, Australian Standards, were never intended to be stand alone design manuals and should never be used as such. The dominant existing feature in this location is the school and its demands on traffic management and local parking in particular. Those demands have morning and afternoon peaks when, exacerbated by the strange configuration of streets, on-street parking is already at saturation point. (See photograph)
    The SEPP requirements would have been framed without consideration of site specific factors, such as the school or the configuration of local streets as are relevant here. Any overflow parking requirements from a SEPP development would normally be absorbed in the surrounding streets; but spare capacity does not exist in this case. Even a superficial analysis of existing seniors’ developments will reveal that the SEPP requirement of 0.5 car spaces per bedroom is seriously inadequate. The reality is that vehicle parking requirements are closer to 2.0 per main bedroom and an extra 1.0 for each occupied extra bedroom. There is no doubt that the proposed 17 spaces will not be adequate for this development to be self sufficient and there will be overflow parking issues.
    At Section 3.7 of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, it is stated that “on-site parking for all workers will be provided to ensure local roads are not impacted”. That recognition of local parking sensitivity needs to be carried over to dealing with the impact of overflow parking from the completed complex.
    Reely St. is also used as a “rat run” for peak hour traffic between Bobbin Head Rd. and the highway. It is quite narrow in places and extra parked cars at that time, would increase the congestion and dangers. Actions that increase on-street parking are best avoided.
    The developer should be asked how the overflow parking needs will be met without further exacerbating the already stressed and committed parking required in school and commuter peak periods.

    A typical school drop-off/pick-up time. The Toyota is outside 2 Reely St and the view is over towards the school. Wall to wall cars around the dogleg to the left and up to Pentecost Ave; to the right down Bannockburn Rd. and behind, along Reely St.

    Turning to the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). It’s good to see that it exists at this application stage and is apparently no longer seen as simply an “administrative process” that precedes construction, as has previously been suggested by Council. Construction traffic impacts extend from the site, to the immediate neighbourhood and into the wider community. Local activities, for example the school in this case, are often overlooked.
    By and large, I find this CTMP to be a welcomed change from previous attempts. There are however, several aspects that remain to be addressed;
    1. It deals with traffic volume averages, but that is of only passing relevance. Of more importance, is having a plan to manage major concrete pours, demolition and excavation peaks. How many occasions? How many trucks? Where will they be? Where wont they be? Where will they queue? To simply say that during construction there will be an average of 2 heavy vehicle movements per day is totally misleading. The reality is that on peak days there would be as many as 30 such movements. That is where the major hazards lie. This anomaly represents a major deficiency in the CTMP.
    2. In those peak times, the traffic intensity and size will be an order of magnitude and then some, greater than on other days. it is reasonable for the school (and near neighbours) to be advised, say three days in advance, so that parents can decide whether their otherwise independent children should be accompanied on those days. The planned disposition of traffic wardens should also be advised.
    3. Re on-site parking for “all workers”, the term needs to be clarified to include contractors, sub-contractors, tradesmen and their employees.
    4. Limited truck movements during school peak times is noted and applauded. The times should be adjusted to the standard school peaks of 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm. What does ‘limited’ mean?
    5. Who approves the CTMP? Who oversees compliance? Council? Does Council add conditions of its own? What sanctions are there for non compliance?
    6. Any desired variations, even one-off ones, need to be approved in advance by Council.

    Other issues such as set-backs, shadowing, privacy and aesthetics require close scrutiny, but I won’t attempt to address them here. No doubt they will be taken up by others.

    It is assumed that best practice systems will be applied during construction to the monitoring, control and accountability of vibration (often under-done), noise and dust. Detailed plans, especially for vibration, should be provided in advance and adoption of best practice procedures demonstrated and strictly followed.



    Ron Eagle eagleronron@telstra.com


    For convenience, I have attached a take-away list of suggested actions arising from this submission. They should be considered for integration into actions going forward, along with appropriate suggestions from other sources.

    ​​​​​​



    DA 0342/19 : 102-104 Bannockburn Rd and 2 Reely St Pymble
    Proposed Seniors Housing X 17 : Submission to Council : (by Ron Eagle)

    Take-away List of proposed Actions
    1. Call on Developer to demonstrate compliance with AS 2890.1 in respect of the proposed location of the driveway.
    2. Require provision of survey data covering the eastern side of Reely St. and into the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg, so that AS 2890.1 compliance can be demonstrated.
    3. If ‘1’ and ‘2’ are not satisfactorily resolved, reject the Application.
    4. Call on Developer to explain how overflow parking requirements from the completed complex will be met without compromising existing uses of on-street parking spaces.
    5. Require provision of detailed, quantified plans to manage construction and local traffic during peak operations in demolition, excavation and concrete pours.
    6. In the CTMP:-
    • “all workers” needs to be defined to include contractors, sub-contractors, tradesmen and their employees.
    • School peak hours to be adjusted to the standard 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm
    • What does ‘limited’ mean in Section 3.3? Perhaps it means ‘avoided’?
    • Clarify the mixed use of terms e.g. construction vehicles, light/heavy vehicles, workers’ private cars.
    • The school and near neighbours to be advised 3 days in advance of peak traffic impacts during demolition, excavation and concrete pours.
    • Desired variations to the approved CTMP to be subject to approval in advance by Council.
    7. Provide a quantified, detailed, best practice plan for the management, monitoring and reporting of vibration and its impact on adjacent buildings.

    1

  7. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 70 Warrangi Street Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Kevin John Conway commented

    Re Application No : DA 0381/19. PRoperty 70 Warrangi st Turramurra

    I wish to record my objection to this proposed development. The building of five dwellings on a property of this size in this quiet residential street will change the character of the area, and set a dangerous precedent.

  8. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 8 Wirra Close, St Ives, NSW:

    Aaron commented

    I do object to this development.

    I have recently bought in Wirra Close considering it is a local low density neighborhood and we can start our family here. Finding the notice about this development proposal and its court proceedings were utterly shocking!

    This development needs to be stopped. Wirra Close is a local narrow cul-de-sac and not suitable to accommodate 7 more dwellings (senior/disabled) whatsoever. It is not compatible with neighboring houses, there’s not enough room for increasing traffic load, and not enough parking for increasing number of residents and their visitors, onsite staff, sub-contractors etc. There’s no space for footpath unless to demolish the frontage grass of established houses. It will add to congestion of already blocked nearby streets and junction at Torokina ave as a result of nearby schools.
    The fact that this proposal may go thorough is absolutely ridiculous and not fair for local owners.

  9. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1558 Pacific Highway Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Louise commented

    A childcare centre on the Pacific Highway, this will be dangerous and we have so many new child care centres springing up all over the area.

  10. In Pymble NSW on “CC - Private Certifier -...” at 72 Livingstone Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Michael Yelf commented

    I live further down the street. It would be nice to maintain the community feel of the area by minimising high fences and gates in penrhyn avenue. Many houses have no front fences. Please request and put further details of the planned fence on the application.

  11. In Lindfield NSW on “CC for DA0175/17 -...” at 51 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Trish Clark commented

    I totally agree with Tony Skinner. Once peaceful Lindfield Avenue has become a suburban Pitt Street and something should be done about the endless queues, traffic jams and potential for accidents.

  12. In Lindfield NSW on “CC for DA0175/17 -...” at 51 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Tony Skinner commented

    Can we please sort out traffic flow on Lindfield Avenue before approving more apartments. 69 units will mean probably over a 100 cars on Lindfield avenue trying to get in and out from the single lane access under bridge onto pacific highway. As it is the traffic jams on this street are ridiculous from the existing units, IGA and Harris Farm. Any further units should not be allowed until the traffic chaos is sorted out!

  13. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed five-lot torrens...” at 185A Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Melanie Martin commented

    I request The state government and the council to consider the evacuation in the event of a bush fire emergency of this entire area given the fire zone and that many roads including Browns Road and The south end of Fox Valley road are one road in and one road out. In a large evacuation how is traffic going to more out and emergency services move in to evacuate all the dependent and immobile daycare children, school students and nursing home nursing home residents in this vicinity. I also request that the Department of State planning and council consider carefully how that many people accusing the school during peak periods are not going to impact the residents in the planned apartment towers and road congestion in that surrounding area.

  14. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Jill Collins commented

    I agree with comments above. There are already too many cars parking on both sides of the road making it dangerous for traffic moving in either direction between the vehicles already parked, not to mention how dangerous it is for children going to and from school to negotiate between vehicles and crossing Shaddock Avenue. It would be unthinkable to make a child care centre so close to a very busy main road.
    I have lived in the area since 1960 and have seen the increase in traffic along Ryde Road and to plan a child care centre so close to the main road would be a disaster waiting to happen, I strongly oppose the idea!

  15. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Kyla Eide commented

    I live in the area and frequently park on Shaddock Avenue to take my two children to Gordon West Primary School. I park on Shaddock Avenue as I find accessing the school from the other side of Ryde Road to be extremely dangerous. Shaddock Avenue already struggles to cope with the amount of traffic it endures. This street is very congested with cars and children and I fear that adding more traffic to the street is a recipe for disaster. As others have stated above, Shaddock can only have cars driving one at a time in either direction when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Exiting off Shaddock on to Ryde Road is also dangerous when school zones are not in effect as visibility is poor with the speeds coming around the corner on Ryde. This is poor planning heaped on top of prior poor planning...build community infrastructure in appropriate areas, do not concentrate more cars and more children on the corner of Shaddock and Ryde Road at peak hours!

  16. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Bob the builder commented

    No, don’t do it.

  17. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Trish commented

    Agree with all the above comments. Reject. The increased traffic to the already busy Shaddock Avenue will create a gridlocked street at peak times that will be dangerous to students and residents.

  18. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Jackie Nevill commented

    I agree with the above comments as a parent with kids at Gordon West, the street is already dangerous to primary school children, i'd hate to think about adding preschoolers and toddlers and more rushing parents to this mix. That is not to mention it is right on the corner of one of Sydney's main roads. Why build a center for small children on a main road? If you think about what area might be a good place for kids to spend their childhood (rather than where developers might be able to make money from it), this is hardly the right place.

  19. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Mary Thompson commented

    I am a West Pymble resident who uses Shaddock Avenue to access Ryde Road. There are always cars parked on both sides of the road which allows only 1 car to move through (almost impossible at peak times for school pick up/drop off).
    I strongly urge you to reject this application as the road will not be able to cope with any extra traffic or parking. In fact I feel this would cause an unnecessary danger for pedestrians, and of particular concern, the many Gordon West primary children crossing here.

  20. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Tiffany Judson commented

    I agree with Tammy and Fiona. Traffic in Shaddock Ave is already dangerous around school zone times. To date, nothing has been done to manage that. There is also the issue of Mona Vale Rd/Shaddock Ave where motorists are not adhering to the lights or 40km zone. A childcare centre would only add to the chaos.

  21. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Fiona Wicks commented

    I strongly oppose the construction of a childcare at this location. The traffic and parking report doesn't appear to focus on the traffic much but talks about parking a lot. The development proposes 18 parking spots whereas the Ku- ring- ai DCP requires 1 spot for every 4 kid. 76 kids are proposed thus 19 spots. Design shows 18 spots however report states 19. The centre requires 19 spots to be available but the proposal shows only 9 spots + 1 accessible available for parent parking whereas the remaining are taken up by staff parking.

    The parking may not be the concern if the above is overlooked however it is the traffic. Shaddock Avenue is used by parents of Gordon West School for parking. It is quite a narrow street which is unable to cater for cars parked on both sides of the street. It is almost impossible for traffic to flow in both directions in the afternoon and mornings.

    I urge council officer to physically inspect the site during morning and afternoon peaks prior to approving this proposal. Regardless of whether we will benefit or not from another centre, I strongly believe this site is not suitable for this proposal.

  22. In Killara NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 23 Coronga Crescent Killara NSW 2071:

    Harry David Cramer commented

    Dear Ku-ring-Gai residents
    It is a shame to see this beautiful full brick residence being destroyed because of what they call progress.
    The house was built to the highest standard just before restrictions came into force restricting size because of WW2. In 1942.
    The way things are going there will be no heritage houses left to admire if a place like this is destroyed.

  23. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Sarah Rou commented

    Hi - our home is close to the proposed substation and I'd like to object to the location chosen. There is considerable land available surrounding this proposed substation that is much further away from homes. I am most concerned about those residents who reside within 100 meters of the substation in Chase Road.

  24. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Judy Benson commented

    Totally agree with Tammy. They are everywhere in residential areas locally and struggling to get children to fill the places. It’s changing the whole face of our suburbs and bringing so much extra traffic which our streets are not able to cope with.

  25. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Tammy Whitham commented

    How many new childcare centres do we need in the area? The ones that are currently in existence aren’t full so I have to wonder what kind of scam is going on.

  26. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Cathy O’Malley commented

    Hello,our home is close to the proposed
    substation.I have 2 young daughters and am
    concerned about its proximity to our house.
    There have been studies done about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on one’s health
    (especially children)
    With so much land available why does it have to be located near houses.There must be other options that are not as close.

  27. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Vivienne du Toit commented

    To Whom it May Concern

    As a neighbouring resident, I would like to bring to your attention that I am concerned about the location of the AUSGRID SUBSTATION proposed on the development of 12 Chase Avenue.

    We purchases our property, 5 Chase Avenue because of the location and wanting to be away from the likes of substations.

    Substations emit low-frequencyelectromagnetic radiation (EMR) which creates an electromagnetic field (EMF).
    EMF have two components, an electric field and a magnetic field.
    The magnetic field radiation emitted by all sub-stations, even though non-ionising, are nevertheless dangerous to health.

    Another issue I am concerned about is the growing awareness of potential EMF hazard from substations among the general population and the effects this could have on the value of our property if it is in close proximity to a substation.
    It is a know fact that properties closer to substations tend to put off potential buyers, reducing demand for the property.
    When selling a property near a substation, you can expect that MOST buyers these days WILL notice the substation, at some stage during the buying process – or have it drawn to their attention in the property survey report.
    Even if buyers tend to overestimate the EMF affect of a nearby substation on a proposed property. This has a detrimental effect on the sales price and demand of a property.

    I'm not sure of what the visual impact will be, but potentially this could also be an issue for me.

    Based on the above I am not happy about the location of the substation and would like to voice objection to its proposed location that has just been brought to our attention, via the "MODIFICATION TO LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPROVAL 11291 of 2007 (DA1461/05) PROPOSAL "

    Regards
    Vivienne du Toit

  28. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Modification to Land and...” at 12 Chase Avenue Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Melvy du Toit commented

    Dear Sir/Madam.
    Countless scientific studies have shown that substations emit dangerous (as in cancer causing) EMF rays may extend to about 15 metres and beyond.

    As a resident who lives within 15 meters of this proposed substation we strongly object to its placement so close to residential homes. Why can the substation be placed further down the new private road further away from the houses at the end of Chase Ave and the homes above in Cardigan Rd?

    We bought our home in the bush to get away from substations and other cancer causing structures so will be using all the legal facilities at our disposal not to have this built so close to our homes. It will devalue our homes as well as being an eyesore to an otherwise pristine bush environment.

    Yours in strong opposition
    Melvyn Francois du Toit

  29. In Pymble NSW on “CC -Stage 3 - Above ground...” at 2 Pymble Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Debbie Moore commented

    There are serious traffic issues in this area and a concentrated number of apartment blocks in this immediate vicinity already not to mention the lack of parking!!!!

  30. In Lindfield NSW on “CC - Private Certifier -...” at 375 Pacific Highway Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Emma Bell commented

    How many Boarding Houses do we need in the local area?!?! This is the fourth that I know of! We live in a family orientated community. The development and the approval of boarding houses by Ku-ring-Gai Council needs to stop!

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