Recent comments on applications from NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments, NSW

  1. In Kosciuszko National Park NSW on “Black Bear Inn -...” at 30 Diggings Terrace, Thredbo,:

    Richard and Sally Gallimore commented

    Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627
    Dear Sir
    of Planning, Industry and Environment Alpine Resorts Team
    Shop 5A, Snowy River Ave
    Jindabyne NSW 2627

    Dear Sir

    DA 10064 Proposed Redevelopment of Black Bear Inn

    I refer to the above matter, the further material provided by the proponent on 6 November 2019, and our submission in relation to the Development Application during the initial Exhibition period.

    We submit that nothing in the developer’s response addresses the concerns we raised in our original objection submission.

    We have read the follow up submissions made by Ray Temperley and Lynne McDonald and by Grant Kleeman, all from Squatters Run apartments. Rather than repeat the arguments set out in those two submissions we agree and adopt each of the Points in those submissions as our own.

    In addition, we submit that the developer’s response in relation to concerns about the access from the village square to the new development, are unsatisfactory.

    The stairway

    The developer suggests that screening plants will ameliorate the privacy issue in relation to the proximity to the bedroom window of apartment 17 Squatters Run. This response is unacceptable because it is well known that plants in the alpine area will take a very long time to grow to a sufficient height and density to provide any sort of screen. Further, the plants will do little or nothing to reduce the noise on the stairway both from voices and footfalls. Further, plants in the alpine area have a high mortality rate. The proposal is silent on the responsibility of Black Bear owners to replace plants when necessary and to undertake routine maintenance.

    The developer remains silent about the type of material to be used to construct the stairway. We submit that any form of steel stair tread will be excessively noisy and should not be approved. The developer remains silent on the issue of the safety hazard arising from the use of the stairs in icy or snowy weather. In particular, there is nothing in the DA to ameliorate our concerns about snow clearing, maintenance and assumption of legal liability by the owners of Black Bear.

    The developer remains silent on the question of how the stairs are to be lit. Given the proximity to the bedroom window of Apartment 17 and the living space windows of Apartments 27 and 32, strict conditions need to be imposed to ensure that lighting does not allow light spillage above waist height and the lighting be strictly confined to the stairs themselves.

    Having said that, we are opposed to the construction of the stairs in any form. The original DA from 2011 proposed stairs which would only be used by resident guests in Black Bear as the access to the restaurant was via Diggings Terrace. In that regard the original DA was misleading and should not be relied upon in relation to a development which is so substantially different from the original proposal. In other words, any consent from neighbours in relation to the stairway proposal in the original DA should be considered to be withdrawn as the proposal upon which neighbours might have been consulted bears little or no resemblance to the current proposal.

    The best solution is for the restaurant to be relocated to the upper levels of the building as in the current Black Bear with access from Diggings Terrace. Should the stairs go ahead then the lower doors should be secured by key pad to restrict access to resident guests.

    In the event that the restaurant remains in its proposed low level position it should not be visible from the village square by the use of hard screening, thereby minimising foot traffic from the square.

    Other buildings

    The developer points to other large scale buildings recently constructed in the village and suggests that this permits a further building of the scale proposed. In relation to the Peak and Elevation apartments we say that the bulk of the building sits below the road level so the bulk of the building is not apparent. In other words, the streetscape of the village is preserved. The Black Bear façade is completely inconsistent with the general streetscape in Thredbo and impacts adversely on the view of the mountain presented to a visitor arriving in the village from the Alpine Way.

    The Mittabar apartments are well recognised in Thredbo as being totally inappropriate and should not have been permitted. The size, bulk and proximity to the roadway of those apartments have no doubt been a significant factor in the general community’s objections to the Black Bear proposal.

    A right to a view

    We submit that no developer should have the right to intentionally devalue other properties and businesses for their own personal gain. Access to beautiful views and privacy add significantly both to the monetary value and the enjoyment of existing buildings. Not only will the proposed building decrease the capital value of other buildings, but it will also negatively impact on the businesses which are based in these properties.

    The impact upon the view available to guests of High Noon in particular has to be described as beyond significant to the scale of devastating.

    It is our submission that the redevelopment of Black Bear be confined to the size, bulk and current height of the existing Black Bear, the access to the village square be restricted to the greatest extent possible, hard screening be installed to protect the privacy of Apartment 17 and subdued lighting be a feature of any stairway, should our submission that the stairway not be built is not accepted.

    Richard and Sally Gallimore
    Apartment 17
    Squatters Run

    PO Box 200 Thredbo 2625.

  2. In Austral NSW on “St Anthony of Padua...” at 125-165 Tenth Avenue and 140-170 Eleventh Avenue, Austral,:

    Daniel commented

    Hi I have just moved to Tenth Avenue which I see the plans to build a school will be across the road from me. I have to say I am not pleased to have a school right across the road from me.

    This is disappointing as it is my first home if I knew this was going to be the case I would of not bought on Tenth Avenue.

  3. In Somersby NSW on “Kariong Sand and Soil...” at 90 Gindurra Rd, Somersby,:

    Mark Schuman commented

    It's so frustrating that time and time again big business can do what they want and the public are ignored by politicians and public servants. I will put money on it that none of these people live anywhere near this site. Shame on you for even considering this. Add this to your ignore list as I expect.

  4. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    John Maine commented

    Everything must be done to retain native animals when so many trees are going to be removed. Surely with such a large development the supply and maintenance of a few nesting boxes won't break the bank

  5. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    April A commented

    Considering the clearing that will happen to accommodate this development. It would be unwise environmentally to remove the nesting and hollows. Allowing the room for bird families and people to grow together would better.

  6. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    Kim Morris commented

    It seems this developer continually tries to cut costs by not investing in necessary environment and infrastructure programs, that will lessen the impact on both wildlife and residents.
    Not wanting to upgrade a major intersection to the highway until after the final stages of the development, and now not wanting to provide nesting boxes to lessen the impact of tree and habitat removal, for the abundant wildlife in the development zone.
    The local community are very passionate about preserving our wildlife and beautiful, unique area, and hope you take all of the above into account, before considering this latest amendment.

  7. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    Patricia Eckart commented

    The mass removal of trees due to developments has a devastating effect on our wildlife and plants. We do not agree with the removal of allotted nesting boxes just to satisfy a developers wishes, our environment is much more important than that. There may look like a lot of land available but flora and fauna need their traditional areas to survive.

  8. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    Tamara Gregoric commented

    Nesting boxes are not used 12 months a year. Although not all are currently being used they will undoubtedly be used in the months leading up to sporting and throughout the summer.
    This new development encompasses a significant amount of old growth trees that have been used by generations of wildlife. As these trees are removed, wildlife will be looking for new homes. As such, it is presumptuous to remove the allotted nesting boxes prior to development.
    It is in the best interest of local wildlife and our community to deny this application.

  9. In Gwandalan NSW on “Gwandalan - Modification 4...” at Kanangra drive, Gwandalan,:

    Meredith and Brian Corrigan commented

    We have a nesting box at home that is used once a year by Eastern Rosellas. The boxes and hollows that have been installed within this development have not been in place for a lengthy period so we do not imagine the animals will be fully utilising. Time of placement is critical.
    It is imperative these boxes and hollows are retained.

  10. In Dunmore NSW on “Dunmore Quarry - Establish...” at Tabbita Road, Dunmore,:

    Andrew Sloan (Deputy Mayor - Kiama) commented

    a) the proposed expansion areas are some distance from the original approved area (especially 5B) and as such a modification of the approval without full EIS is inappropriate.
    b) area 5A is directly over the road from a major landfill site. Quarrying here could mobilise contaminated groundwater (leachate) with resulting impacts on the Minnamurra River. This has not been modelled or properly assessed.
    c) area 5B is very remote from the existing areas and brings sand mining effectively to the banks of the Minnamurra River for the first time. This river is extremely important to the Kiama community and tourism. The location is very close to significant saltmarsh and mangrove ecosystems. Impact of greater groundwater fluctuations on these ecosystems must be undertaken.
    d) area 5B, should it proceed, will impact on residents of Dunmore Lakes and residents there have lodged a submission about noise and dust.
    e) the Minnamurra Progress Association points out that the larger trees on 5B are important nesting sites incl for sea eagles.
    f) this is NOT a modification. It brings the mining to new areas close to our beloved river for the first time.

  11. In Kyeemagh NSW on “Kyeemagh Infants School -...” at 30A Jacobson Avenue, Kyeemagh,:

    Dean Katsikaros commented

    As a resident of Kyeemagh, I object to this development proposal for the following key reasons:

    - The suburb of Kyeemagh only has 919 residents, of which only 107 are aged between 5-14 years old (based on ABS 2016 Census Data, vhttp://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12226?opendocument).
    - Based on this census information and assuming every local primary school aged child were to attend the school, the development stands to cater to a population that simply does not exist in the area.
    - In catering to 500 pupils, it is clear that residents from other areas will be commuting to Kyeemagh. The area's roads currently face congestion at peak traffic times given its proximity to main roads and limited access from either Bestic Street or General Holmes Drive.
    - The introduction of additional cars and school busses catering to the drop off/pick up of students will create a traffic nightmare that the current roads are not equipped for. Note, access onto General Holmes Drive from Beehag Street is not permitted on weekdays until 10:00am, half an hour after school zone road restrictions end.
    - In addition to traffic congestion, there will undoubtedly be a range of subsequent safety hazards. The risk of traffic incidents in the area will increase. I note that in the last 12 months, approximately 100 traffic incidents have been recorded in Kyeemagh, of which the majority are within a 1km radius of the school (http://www.snarl.com.au/incidents/suburb/nsw/kyeemagh).
    - The additional noise, potential for vandalism, loitering, littering etc. is simply not acceptable to impose on local residents. The suburb does not have adequate facilities to cater to a 50% population increase.

    These issues only address concerns pertaining to the operational use of the proposed development upon completion. Throughout construction there are countless possible hazards which will be imposed that no amount of modelling or statistical analysis will ever truly capture.

    The attachments to the development proposal offer a biased take on the reality of what living in this suburb is actually like. Frankly, it is in the interest of the various consultants engaged to undertake the attached reports to skew their findings and recommendations in favour of the development. As someone who works in the construction industry and who has managed construction at a public school myself, I know all too well the real implications associated with a project of this nature.

    In summary, increased traffic, increased noise, increased public safety risks, increased waste generation and littering, increased likelihood of vandalism will result from the development and on this basis, the development should not move forward. I am sure that with some creative thinking and resourcefulness, SINSW can find a better solution to cater for forecasted population growth in this general region. Any additional costs associated with going down a different path than that proposed would be nothing more than a drop in the $6B ocean of funding allocated to the state wide schools upgrades.

  12. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Stefanie Almgren commented

    As resident that has just seen yet another approval go ahead with the Iglu on regent st and now this coming up for approval, enough with the student housing and affordable housing.
    I have concerns with the numbers that will be the bedrooms - fire hazards, how is this regulated?
    What about the height of the building, this will block views that I currently have and also have "new residents" looking into the building. Another investor cashing in when the height should remain the same as the original building and no higher!
    The parking situation is already bad, with the stripping of 10 spots last year on Gibbons st and now the closure of Marian St near the station - thats a considerable loss, will there be more parking thats untimed? what are the measures in place?
    I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly her concerns are also mine;
    - proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our building (massive issues in the past for the street, with already traffic jams)
    - traffic management of the building site during demolition and construction phase
    - general cleanliness of area and buildings during construction phase given that other buildings have done the same and caused bugs and rodents to come out of the demo.
    - there is already a considerable amount of noise along Gibbons St, how are you going to reduce this and the impact made on all the buildings in street.

  13. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Kelly O'Brien commented

    I have concerns relating to the following:

    - The dormitory rooms planned for the podium mean high density bedrooms looking directly into our properties at 1 Margaret st
    - The podium height is higher than planning standards
    - There is already another property at 80-88 regent st being assesed for student housing in addition to the newly completed Iglu at 66 regent st. This is already a huge increase in student housing within a very small area. I agree with Donald Glover's comment that the impact of current plans should be measured before any more are approved.
    - The planning documents show the Podium on Margaret st side being up to the boundary. Does this mean the building will be even closer to 1 Margaret st than the current building
    - This seems to be premium priced student accommodation. How does this address housing affordability in inner sydney?
    - what measures are in place to minimise disruption and noise for the residents in 1 margaret st?
    - what measures can be made to allow sunlight for the residents at 1 margaret st? Is something like the heliostat at central park chippendale feasible? Based on the plans it seems we will have a significant decrease in light into our building.
    - how will additional parking requirements be met?
    - the laneway seems to be only optional at this stage, will there be an increase to the building size if the laneway is not approved?
    - overall it seems to be a very large building proposed for a small site.

  14. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Jane Seldon commented

    Good gracious, enough already, there is an overwhelming amount of student accommodation in this area, much to the detriment of long term residents and families.
    There is not near the amount a recreational space for any more than already here.
    And if the this greedy governments totally overwhelming concept of what they think is appropriate for Waterloo we shall be the most overcrowded area in Sydney.
    I also see no plans here for either sustainable or low cost housing.
    This to me is another greedy grab by developers to not consider the area but to squeeze every dollar they can for the cheapest possible outlay.
    No matter what you chose to believe there will be extra parking needed and we have no need for more retail. The cafes that are here are more than adequate.
    Just another grab for high rentals.

    Look after the current community, people who have been paying your rates for years, consider the impact of yet another few hundred students and if every second one becomes a food courier we are in trouble.
    Students themselves are lovely but we have no facilities left.

    Dear Planning Minister, I would like to know what you have learnt about planning, human factors, demolition, sustainability, conservation, community needs, recycling, utilities access and over supply.
    Just imagine if your home was inundated in this way how would you feel.?

  15. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    David Glover commented

    As a nearby resident, I'm concerned at the dramatic increase in population with all the student accommodation that's been built or approved.

    There are several hundred units completed and hundreds more already approved. So we simply don't yet know their full impact.

    While I'm certainly not opposed in principle, I feel we should pause on further approvals until those already approved are complete, occupied and we have a better understanding of their impact on the local area.

    I'm also concerned at what may happen if there turns out to be an oversupply of student accommodation and its use changes.

    I note that City of Sydney has approved use of Urbanest on Abercrombie Street as tourist and visitor accommodation outside term time (in spite of their original DA having an explicit condition that this would not happen). I have very serious concerns about student accommodation intended for full-time occupancy being used for tourist accommodation with its frequent arrivals and departures. I note that none of the current or planned buildings have any provision for off-street vehicle access. So all the arrivals, departures, luggage, tour groups etc happens on the street (often double-parked). This is both inconvenient and unsafe. And it's happening right now with Urbanest on Abercrombie.

    Ideally, let's pause before approving yet more of this type of use to give us time to properly understand its impact.

    If not, I would strongly recommend this and all plans include provision for loading and unloading passengers on the site rather than on the road to at least reduce the disruption and improve the safety of this.

  16. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Deidre Gai Mitchell commented

    There needs to be a maximum number of student accommodatin in this area because the traffic and pedestrian flow will be impacted. There is already Iglu in Regent Street; a proposal for Eveleigh Street of 24 storeys. There are enough student accomm in Abercrombie and Darlington Road and also Central Park. Enough is enough. The community village atmosphere is disappearing and we are Isolating our low socio economic group. Its not always about money but good taste.

  17. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Kathryn Waples commented

    Hi,

    I have concerns over the following points:
    - number of residents - it is a significant increase on the local area
    - security issues given that it is proposed for short term student rentals who are generally not community minded like apartment owners
    - hours of operation of the exterior cafe/business proposed for William Lane
    - substantial reduction in light on my apartment given the proposed 18 levels
    - impact on local environment & infrastructure including Policing, waste management etc
    - proximity of building works and disruption to the foundations of our building (massive issues in the past for our building)
    - traffic management of the building site during demolition and construction phase
    - general cleanliness of area and our building during construction phase given that our building is only a matter of metres away from the our boundary.

    I am happy to provide more information and discuss at any time.

  18. In Wahroonga NSW on “Wahroonga Estate - Change...” at Fox Valley Way, The Comenara Parkway, Wahroonga, Sydney,:

    Tam Wallin commented

    As a local resident whose family uses Fox Valley Rd to get to school/work I am very concerned about the impact this development will have on our lives. The traffic assessment completed by Terraffic Pty Ltd to accompany the DA stated that the traffic generation estimate should be discounted taking into account the traffic generated by the former prinary school (60% students arriving by car, 40% catch public transport or walk). This statement is highly flawed as it doesn't give any consideration to the variation in age of the students who attend childcare vs primary school and their independence and physical ability to be able to walk or catch public transport as such the number of cars entering/exiting the facility has been severly underestimated. There were considerable traffic issues caused by cars trying to turn right into that driveway which has improved considerably since the school relocated but not eliminated as some cars still do use that driveway for other purposes. Cars turning right into that driveway need to give way to oncoming traffic that have turned onto Fox Valley from the Comenarra and because there is no kind of turning bay to remove them from the general flow it results in a bank of traffic behind them of people trying to proceed in that lane to turn right from Fox Valley onto the Commenarra, so it will be a nightmare for anyone trying to go in the direction of Pennant Hills rd. I would suggest someone taking the time to test in person the impact that the use of that driveway (right turning traffic) has on traffic during morning and afternoon peak rather than trusting a report which is very clearly flawed. The traffic issues generated by this particular development along with the medical suites on the opposite side of Fox Valley, the other proposed Childcare centre on the other corner and the future apartment development on the other side of the hospital will severely impact the livability of the area for current residents. I would be happy to discuss my comments further in person should you wish to contact me.

  19. In Bulli NSW on “Sandon Point Residential...” at , Sandon Point,:

    Shayne Green commented

    Why must we continually allow the very things that bring us to the area to be destroyed for commercial gain?
    Leave the trees there. Let us continue, everyone continue, residents and visitors alike, to walk, ride, skate, perambulate with this wonderful vista that will never be regained once lost.
    Unbelievable that goverment allows it's citizens to be last priority. Again. And again.
    Buildings can be built anywhere, but you can only have the view and smell and sensation of the coastline.... on the coastline.
    Stop it, you're killing us. Is this the Illawarra and Australia you want for your kids?

  20. In Bulli NSW on “Sandon Point Residential...” at , Sandon Point,:

    Don Humphreys commented

    I object to the proposed Anglicare overdevelopment of the Sandon Point site on the following grounds:

    - the Turpentine Forest at this site must be preserved
    - the current local infrastructure is incapable of supporting this development
    - there is only one access road through Thirroul, which is already overburdened
    - the South Coast rail line is inadequate due to timetable changes and parking around Thirroul station is a huge problem. The development will only add to this problem.

  21. In Teralba NSW on “Concrush - Concrush is...” at 21 Racecourse Road, Teralba,:

    Sylvia Ross commented

    My sister inlaw was in a car crash a few days ago with another vehicle on thIs road which is already dangerous. More traffic without road upgrades would be irresponsible. Also many homes in Boolaroo look upon this site on the hill and to make it even larger would again only give Boolaroo another isore to look at and add more dust to the already dirty area due to this and the ex pasminco site. When is council going to start letting Boolaroo become beautiful instead of allowing continued pollution, hasnt the area suffered enough. What council also allows a Main street premise to store hundreds of tyres in the open for all to see. Fire hazard. Dont allow the enlargement of this site to proceed.

  22. In Teralba NSW on “Concrush - Concrush is...” at 21 Racecourse Road, Teralba,:

    Philip Uebergang commented

    Teralba requires significant road upgrades before this should be considered. Billy's Lookout is already one traffic disaster too many. To exacerbate the problem at the other end would be highly irresponsible. Racecourse Road is already an accident waiting to happen.

  23. In Teralba NSW on “Concrush - Concrush is...” at 21 Racecourse Road, Teralba,:

    Maureen Spilstead commented

    More dust pollution, that's all we need.

  24. In Teralba NSW on “Concrush - Concrush is...” at 21 Racecourse Road, Teralba,:

    Jo Fitszimmons commented

    I have concerns with regard to the increase in traffic and types in the vicinity for access to this location.
    All minor and major roads will be impacted on due to traffic number increase and size of vehicles .The Speers Point roundabout at Five Islands Bridge is already inadequate with traffic volumes and the roundabout near Cockle Creek railway station will have increased use with the continuation of Muninbung road extension to Cardiff in the future as well as increase due to current residential expansion .This also includes the road noise increase
    The Weir road access will be adversely impacted upon with increase in use.
    The access roads pass through residential and school zone areas.
    All roads will have an increase in deterioration and therefore require increased maintenance. Who will fund this on a regular basis
    Will the truck usage be compliant with current load limits in the travel access areas
    Thankyou

  25. In on “Edmondson Park - Section...” at , ,:

    Liliana Samson commented

    I vehemently oppose this request.
    The infrastructure around Edmondson Park will not cope with the proposed increase in dwelling.
    1. The station parking is already beyond full capacity. Cars have to park along nearby roads which are mostly one lane, in front of residential streets. Some cars even park illegally on no parking area. The government is opposed to build a multi storey car park, so no one knows when the parking problem will be solved.
    2. the roads in and out of Edmondson Park is already jammed during peak hours. Camden Valley Way is only two lanes and Campbelltown Road is one lane each way.
    3. There are no local parks and green scape avaiable yet.
    4. The schools are already at full capacity
    NSW government must realise that for a city to be able to grow, the infrastructure must be established first. You can't just keep clearing land and build suburbs without proper planning. In the end, it's only the developers and builders who profit.
    I bought a property in Edmondson Park because I don't want to see high rise buildings and terrace house, I wanted to enjoy the space and clear air.
    I hope & pray that this proposal will be rejected

  26. In Cudgen NSW on “Tweed Valley Hospital - A...” at 771 Cudgen Road (part), Kingscliff,:

    Peter kennedy commented

    Site location may or may not be best decision ....but it has to go somewhere n such a gift of generosity should be respected.
    Please consider impact on immediate surrounding area n traffic flow to n from Site.
    Existing access roads will need to raised above flood levels, widened to accommodate increased traffic flow , provide flyover access n egress from hospital site in both a north n sound direction in order to eliminate traffic 'stop' congestion.
    Provide landscape buffer zones to lessen impact on surrounding area.
    Hospital Service facilities need to be at least double the size n capacity of that existing at Tweed to cope with demand or you are just wasting your time.
    Visitor n staff car parking essential.
    It would be good if Architectural design could maximise views from site for guests n patients n layout may best be served by a Resort style with an indoor out door feeling.
    You have the chance to make it one of the best n most desirable health facilities in the state ..
    Don't blow it n don't stuff up the local surrounds n living environment.

  27. In Wentworth Point NSW on “23 Bennelong Parkway,...” at 23 Bennelong Parkway, ,:

    JT commented

    There is already an excess of apartment complexes in the area and increasing the number and the height of the building will detract from the look of the neighbourhood and there is no demand for more apartments in an area that is already overpopulated with a oversupply of apartments. The local infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the increased traffic leading to greater congestion and travel times, reduced aesthetics in an area surrounded by water and parks- having two monster sized towers like the ones being proposed will just look ugly and out of place. Furthermore the site for the proposed monster towers is too small for such large buildings. The construction has already started for the 9 storey building granted by the original DA and from the looks of it the apartment buildings are squished together and it will be densely populated. That street corner is too small for any building over 8-9 storeys. In my opinion there should not be any buildings at all on that corner as it will cause havoc with all the incoming and outgoing vehicles.

    In any case there is simply no need for such towers in the neighbourhood. It will create adverse impact on the environment which will not be fixed by simply putting in a park or creating a new road. It will be a eyesore and it will be out of place with the rest of the buildings in the area.

  28. In Wentworth Point NSW on “23 Bennelong Parkway,...” at 23 Bennelong Parkway, ,:

    Susan Kehoe commented

    This site adjoins buildings of 9 stories and is adjacent to reclaimed bushland, recreational open space, and bikeways. It is on a dead end peninsula that is already overdeveloped with poor road and public transport infrastructure and with insufficient residential parking. More development is already underway and this height increase would further exacerbate the problems. In my view buildings of 25 or 35 stories are completely inappropriate in such a location, do not fit with the streetscape or environment, and would further continue the trend of concentrating inappropriate high rise development into a area that is unsuited to such density and traffic flows.

  29. In Gymea NSW on “Pedestrian Bridge...” at 492R Princes Highway, Gymea,:

    Natalie Popple commented

    There is a road the children must cross at the foot of the bridge on the Kirrawee side of the highway. It is quite dangerous now and there are daily near misses I fear a distractive sign could make this fatal.

  30. In Gymea NSW on “Pedestrian Bridge...” at 492R Princes Highway, Gymea,:

    Robert Wooley commented

    The Bridge is in a 40kmh school zone, do we really need another distraction for drivers.
    the police regularly sit on the median strip to catch drivers at school times. I say NO to allowing the advertsing

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