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

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. In Rush Creek QLD on “Rushes Creek Development...” at Rushes Creek Road, Rushes Creek,:

    Justin Connors commented

    Oppose development.

    As seen with these developments in the past, they have not created extensive job opportunities to the local community as the majority of the capital works (building process) has been contracted in by large/commercial companies who can afford the extensive outlay of supplying materials and insurance etc. So as predicted, this will not directly boost local community’s economy.

    As far as ongoing job opportunities, I don’t believe this will enhance Manilla’s unemployment rate at all. With those who can work, working and the remainder on various disability pensions etc.

    This is a major biosecurity risk to both native wildlife/birds and the commercial broiler enterprise having such a mega farm backing onto the shores of Lake Keepit with numerous native wildlife and no real control about what can enter and exit the property via the air in such close proximity to Keepit. Furthermore, the proximity to Russells chickens just down the road (eg. Moving live birds past another chicken farm, creating a biosecurity risk for those).

    Other concerns include how waste will be managed, as any possible issues could cause massive repercussions in the Lake Keepit ecosystem. Various nutrient/waste leaks causing Algae Blooms, possible flooding etc.

    Final concerns would include neighbouring properties with reduced visual amenity, increased odur, noise, dust and night lights of the sheds in the proximity.

  8. In Pyrmont NSW on “Switching Station and Star...” at 20-80 Pyrmont Street, Pyrmont,:

    David Zaoui commented

    The building is too large and over shadows the neighbourhood. I totally disapprove of this development. The Star always had a height restriction and they have blatantly ignored the height restrictions of the neighbourhood.

  9. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Jim Varelas commented

    This proposal, is not appropriate for the area. We should not be forced to have our children living in such close proximity of such industrial chemicals.

  10. In West Melbourne VIC on “Former Pasminco Site...” at Pasminco Cockle Creek Smelter Pty Ltd c/- Ferrier Hodgson, PO Box 290, Colins Street West, Melbourne,:

    Ryan Greentree commented

    My concerns are with the on going monitoring of the cell and funding to maintain its standard

  11. In The Ponds NSW on “Sydney Metro - Tallawong...” at 75 -81 Schofields Rd, 38 Cudgegong Rd, Rouse Hill,:

    Sharon Hill commented

    Its positive and responsible to note they are including affordable housing.

  12. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Nicole commented

    I don’t feel the UNI are being good neighbours to the private residents that are in between the proposed development. It really looks like a good way to de-value there properties. I know I wouldn’t like going from a nice sunny backyard to having a 3 storey development on both sides. Especially property 120. Nice work let’s put a rooftop terrace overlooking for noise and reducing your privacy. I feel they should be asked to cut backorreduce the height of this proposal at the neighbouring properties. I also feel 2 stories high would be more appropriate and in keeping with the terraces nearby.

  13. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Joe commented

    I think a lot of people are missing the point.
    Students living neat campus have little need for cars with the availability of bus and train so close. Car share covers the need around that. There is no evidence this will bring more cars into the area.
    I moved into Newtown because it is so close to the city and all that offers. One shouldn’t live in the inner city and not expect housing to increase. Mascot and green square are examples of building hoses before community. We already have community.

    Students need a mix of housing. From bespoke accoms like this to shared housing in the private sector. I can only see an upside to more youth in the neighbourhood.

  14. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Deidre Mitchell commented

    Stop with the student accommodation.

  15. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Peter McGee commented

    I feel the proposal is inappropriate and would completely alter and degrade the heritage integrity of the precinct. In addition the public road at the rear of the properties would effectively be captured by the university for its private use and profit.

    The addition of another 300 student residents would increase pressure on congestion of roads and local amenity and will exacerbate a problem that will become apparent when the student accommodation on the Sydney University Regiment site is operational.

    There will be significant additional noise, parking problems and pollution associated with the significant change in residential density in the area.

    One can only feel the utmost sympathy for the owners of few privately held residences within the site that will be dramatically and negatively impacted by this over-development proposal.

    The university could easily build over its sporting fields or utilise the green space in front of the Fisher Library, which would have little negative impact on the local residents of Darlington, if there is a dire need for on campus student accommodation.

  16. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Joe commented

    Karen White
    I love that you came here to express your opinion. That’s fantastic and I encourage you to continue to speak your mind.

    I can appreciate that one public feedback mechanism can look like another. But this isn’t Facebook. I would like to let you know that replying to a DA in Planning Alerts isn’t like other places where your opinion is reviewed in relation to the other posts. It’s a submission to council or your local state or council rep. So you saying “I couldn’t agree more” might be perceived as you agreeing to the DA instead of the opinion you just read against the DA. I’m guessing you are against the DA. It might be worthwhile coming back to clarify your opinion so that your desires and thoughts are clear.

    Goodonya!!

  17. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Karen White commented

    Could not agree more. I live in a very close proximity to the university and have never been consulted about their developments. In addition The Sydney University's seems to be moving into the business of major accommodation developers so not sure why they should apply for any waivers.
    https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/news/university-of-sydney-looks-to-redevelop-38-historic-terraces-in-darlington-into-student-hub/

  18. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Catherine Kennedy commented

    This is the first time I have seen this DA but the eloquent comments of Ms Ong prompted me to add my voice. For too long Sydney University has acted in its own interest with complete disregard for the local community and it is time this changed. The license to make money from educating foreign students will not last and the University must adjust. One way to transition to this should be making the University available to others but not as a revenue stream. Inclusion of the wider community would lead to a broadening of education and its role in adapting to the challenges of the 21st century. Universities won’t be imitations of Oxford and Cambridge any more, nor will they be corporations with salaries to match.
    I live about 1 km from Sydney University (its hard to tell as they own so much of Darlington and surrounds) and have never been consulted about any developments.
    Time to act honourably Syd Uni!

  19. In Camperdown NSW on “The University of Sydney,...” at Darlington Campus, Darlington, NSW:

    Pristine Ong commented

    I question the University's request to waive development contributions under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In Section 13.0 "Waiving of Section 94 Contributions" of the document submitted for assessment titled "Request for the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) – State Significant Development" (p. 29), the University justifies this request by writing that it contributes to the community by providing various communities, sporting and cultural facilities and spaces, etc. However, these are things that the University has to provide to students anyway to support student life. While I understand that the general public may access these spaces, the University effectively acts as a insular community (there are physical gates around the campus which prevents permeability), so the wider community only gets limited access or perceives that it gets only limited access even though it is a public institution.

    Additionally, in 2012, the NSW Vice-Chancellors' Committee wrote a submission to the NSW Planning System review (p. 6), saying that universities should be exempt from payment development contributions because they would impact on university budgets. Given recent reports of financial misconduct by university staff and also the multi-million dollar salaries of vice-chancellors (the University of Sydney's Michael Spence earns A$1.4 million after an increase of 56% over five years), we must question why the salary packages of University bosses are considered more important than contributions to the public.

    Finally, it is questionable if sufficient consultation was undertaken for this project. 200 invitations were letterbox dropped to the surrounding community. I live in the surrounding community and did not receive this invitation, which I gather is because the engagement plan only included residents in a very small radius of the site. However, given the size of the building and the University, the catchment should have been much larger. Furthermore, the consultation report does not indicate if staff and students were consulted. Since this is a building for teaching and research, it would be an oversight if they were missed during consultation. The presentation shown during consultation made no mention of the University's seeking to waive developer contributions, which is an important bit of information for resident action groups.

    Read more:

    NSW Vice-chancellors' Committee (2012), Planning System Review Submission: https://sydney.edu.au/documents/about/higher_education/2012/20120229_NSWVCC_PlanningSystemReviewSubmission.pdf

    The Conversation (2018), Vice-chancellors' salaries are just a symptom of what's wrong with universities: https://theconversation.com/vice-chancellors-salaries-are-just-a-symptom-of-whats-wrong-with-universities-90999

    Sydney Morning Herald (2018), More than 20 Sydney Uni staff under investigation: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/more-than-20-sydney-uni-staff-are-under-investigation-20180207-p4yzk9.html

  20. In Wahroonga NSW on “Waitara Public School -...” at 48 -58 Myra Street, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Leone commented

    This school is crowded now with cars everywhere at drop off and pick up times. How much better will it be with 1,000 children in a high rise. Is the school going to provide internal drop off and pick up areas?

  21. In Strathfield South NSW on “Enfield Intermodal...” at Cosgrove Rd, Strathfield South, NSW:

    Julie commented

    We don't want any more 24 hours noise in Strathfield South. Go elsewhere.

  22. In North Sydney NSW on “Shore School - Construction...” at Senior school campus on Blue/William Streets and 4 and 5 Hunter Crescent and 16 William Street,, North Sydney, NSW:

    Philip Newnham commented

    I remember this being displayed the School was at it,s best showing the most cunning examples of not considering any one who lives in the area, and also remember the selecting of the individuals per person to educate who wished to be present at the meeting,sort of weeding out the desenters whom the School wished not to be present at the meeting. Well it,s going ahead and my sincere wishes the progress in building will have limited noise impact as i will also being high will get some impact also.

  23. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Maria Vuica commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval. I will also add the lack of community consultation by NULON. We were never informed and didn’t know, until now and found out second hand. Here are my points
    • The land/ block/ area chosen has been approved for light industrial use only NULON is attempting to build a heavy industrial site that the council approved for cafes, restaurants, park lands, shops
    • The impact on our local roads from increased traffic congestion due to heavy vehicles, oil tanker trucks operating 24/7
    • The risk of a heavy vehicle incident involving hazardous materials in/ around our local community
    • The very real daily threat to our local families/ schools/ day care centres/ children (your choice of wording) of a major incident occurring due to mechanical failure or human error. The impact would be catastrophic to the immediate area/s depending on the severity of the incident (explosion/ fire etc…)
    • The immediate threat to the surrounding environment/ community/ residents should there be a major/ spill due to on site tank rupture due to fire incident occurred in or around or local community
    • The hazardous products stored, mixed, refined, transported are carcinogenic (cancer causing) and can be directly related to the development of tumours, rashes, lung and raspatory issues/ complications/ when exposed either directly or indirectly
    • If you can smell it, its affecting you, no price on my families health, zero tolerance
    • The daily smells, the trucks running all night and day
    • Incidents (not accidents) will and have happened, we will not take the chance of having such a hazardous operation directly within our family community
    • Previous incident occurred at the Moorebank factory where an oil mixing/ blending machine was left running until the fire brigade were alerted via an electronic direct alarm, when they attended they found that the blending machine had been left on unattended, if that alarm had failed (mechanical failure) the result (worst case) could have been multiple fatalities. 48 people suffered chemical exposure symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, head ache/ migraines/ sores and rashes as a result. We will not take that chance with our families/ community and surrounding areas. EPA report on the face book page
    • Processes and procedures can be diverted from/ due to fatigue, poor training, poor operational culture (meeting deadlines/ company expectations), alcohol, drugs, repetition (breeds complacency/ laziness/ take short cuts) these would be classed as an example of human error
    • We will not live with the daily fear of a minor, major or any incident ever occurring within our immediate community, there is no price that can be put on our families lives/ health/ wellbeing no amount of compensation would ever take back the damage done
    • If this factory is built it will lower our housing prices considerably, as who wants to live near an oil/ aerosol production factory/ distribution centre (this is one reason NULON has proposed to build next to established homes, would you buy next to NULON?)
    • People/ children/ elderly with pre-existing medical conditions in the area such as autism, asthma and so on would be greatly affected
    The NULON company obviously has no interest in the detrimental effects on the surrounding residents quality of life as a result of their operational goals, this is clear within the information provided on the face book page.
    * This type of facility needs to be in an heavy industrial zone and away from residence.
    Thank you

  24. In North Sydney NSW on “Shore School - Construction...” at Senior school campus on Blue/William Streets and 4 and 5 Hunter Crescent and 16 William Street,, North Sydney, NSW:

    Tom Mitchell commented

    This project will take 18 months to build (4 months demolition, 15 months construction), and the impact will fall largely on the Shore-tenanted properties on William Street. These properties (between Hunter Street and Blues Point Road) will be surrounded on two sides (north and west) by construction and demolition noise, and by traffic on the eastern side along William Street.
    The noise reports note that it will be significantly noisy project, and yet no mitigant is offered to tenants of the Shore-owned properties. These tenants should claim against the Shore landlord for breach of the 'quiet enjoyment' clause of their lease. Better, Shore should voluntarily reduce their rents as a mitigant to salve the impact on their tenants amenity.
    It's inequitable enough that wealthy schools like Shore can enjoy tax-effective landbanking, and government grants of public funds for private schools, but it's galling that they can be so cheap as to dump an 18 month demolition project onto their tenants and neighbours without even honouring their leases to those tenants.
    The permit should be amended retrospectively to compel Shore to offer rent reductions as mitigation to its tenant neighbours.

  25. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Samantha Vandenberg commented

    This proposal is not light industrial, it heavy industrial. Allowing a oil preparation plant next to a gas main and water way is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Please look at this area as a whole. There is high density housing, parklands, water way and gas main. Not the perfect location for such hazardous chemicals plant. Business see the main junction transport line as perfect spots without seeing what else is already survive in the surrounding areas. Hazardous materials need to be contained within heavy industrial zones not residential and park/wetlands. Please consider the local residents.

  26. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Jon Crutcher commented

    This is definitely not an appropriate development. This is within close proximity to a zoned major town centre. You would not want this kind of development near a civc precinct or high density residential. This type of development needs to be in a heavy industrial zoning.

  27. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Joseph Caruana commented

    The EIS is vague and subjective, resulting in a biased conclusion of minimal environmental impact. I am of the view that further quantative analysis is required to substantiate this claim, prior to any formal consideration.

    For example, the EIS states that there is a low risk of spillage and appropriate remediation actions are in place. However, page 27 of the EIS states a spill management plan will be developed, with no further information provided.

    Further, page 35 states that a qualitative air quality assessment was undertaken which identified a medium risk of dust and human health impacts offsite if no mitigation measures are applied. No information is provided on what these health impacts are and who will be effected. It is noted that the proposed development is bordered by residential dwellings to the north and east of the site. In response, the applicant states that standard dust mitigation measures will be implemented where practical. No further information is provided on what these measures are, where / when they will be implemented during construction and what criteria will be used to determine when it is practical for their use.

    The EIS concludes that no serious threat of irreversible environmental damage has been identified and the proposed measures are considered to be robust. I am of the view that an inadequate assessment was undertaken and this led to the biased no impact conclusion. Further, the outlined remediation measures are either non-existent or inadequate.

    It is also noted that the applicant did not meet with Liverpool council prior to lodging the EIS. This has resulted in a flawed consultation outcome by the proponent.

  28. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Sheree Aspinall commented

    This development is not appropriate for the area. The danger to the community and the environment (Western Sydney Parklands) cannot be ignored.

  29. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Maria Fabian commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval to this submission. Unfortunately the Department has not sought to consult the affected community to an appropriate extent. A number of concerned residents in the suburbs surrounding the proposal have not received letters notifying them of this state significant project which is to be located in their neighbourhood. This is considered unacceptable and appears to intentionally limit the involvement of the community. In order to rectify this, I request that the public exhibition period be extended and the project be notified to all residents within a 5km radius. This would better allow for the concerns of the community to be gathered and considered in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The local Councils Liverpool and Camden should also be provided the opportunity to provide comment and represent their community. I am unaware that Camden has been notified of this development which may have an impact on their planned communities . The project has a range of potential impacts on the local community and environment which include traffic, odours and air quality, bushfire risk, contamination risk, water contamination risk to the heritage listed Sydney Water Channel and potential conflict with the Jemena Gas main. Noise and vibration from the machinery and truck movements add to the noise pollution. The Greater Sydney Commission has said the adjoining Western Sydney Parklands are the green lungs of our community and would be threatened by this proposed development. Surely this type of development would be better suited to an industrial area, possibly in the newly created industrial area near the Western Sydney Airport where the risks on so many residents can be avoided. This development is certainly NOT light industrial due to the safety concerns alone.

  30. In Leppington NSW on “Bringelly Road Business Hub...” at Bringelly Road, Leppington, NSW:

    Kelly thompson commented

    I would like to lodge my disapproval to this submission. This business is certainly not ‘light’ industrial, it is in extremely close proximity to the Wesyern Sydney Regional parklands & contains hazardous chemicals !! It is also in a bushfire prone area . The area is surrounded by residential areas which will also be affected by increase in noise due to traffic & any environmental hazards due to production & storage of chemicals .
    Furthermore , residents of Horningsea Park & surrounding areas have not been given adequate information about this submission- I found out 2nd hand . Why is the local community not being contacted directly ???

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