Recent comments

  1. In Clontarf QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 12-18 Haysmouth Parade, Clontarf QLD 4019:

    Mick Martin commented

    Michael Martin
    Haysmouth Parade resident and property owner

    There are real and genuine reasons that this proposal should be denied and denied emphatically.

    1. The proposal shows absolute disregard for at least one neighbouring property, 27 Bayview Terrace, which would be effectively left in the shadow of the proposed development. It is my understanding that this proposal would result in a legal claim for compensation costing both the developer and our own council significantly. This is only the financial likely outcome but the moral stance by all parties should be considered before all other considerations.
    We only need an ounce of empathy to realise that this is not acceptable. It is my belief that council will already have a policy on this, the developer clearly does not. Every resident has the right to peaceful enjoyment. Living in the dark is not fair or reasonable.
    Refer section 2 and consider that there would be quite a number more that would be left in almost complete shade. A class action would surely follow. Rate payers and Council should not be burdened such a significant and avoidable cost.

    2. The magnitude of this proposed building flies in the face of convention and common sense. It is well outside Moreton Shire Councils regulations. The height limit was increased quite recently from 8.5 to allow a new 12 meter limit, to concede a 22 meter approval would be quite ridiculous and unnecessary. Keep in mind it was previously (8.5) eight point five meters!
    *The site is prone to tidal flood water so the initial first floor of tenancy must surely be
    about 2 meters above the ground level now,
    *the common practice of including mezzanine floors could take the shadow even higher, say an additional 3.5 meters as a minimum.
    *Shade sails and dividing walls on the penthouse rooftops take it up again. let's say a conservative 2.5 meters higher. This, by definition, would create extra shadow and shade.
    the aggregate being a further (8) eight meters, 30 meters ( approximately 100') above the current ground level.
    these practices are common "variations" once approvals are granted so this is not beyond the realms of possibility, in fact it is very likely and has happened here on the peninsular before.
    This brings the likely result to a staggering 30 meters above current ground level!
    Who knows what damage will be done to the area substrate?

    3. The development proposal gives scant, if any, genuine consideration for the mangroves, marine and birdlife which would undoubtedly be affected. A detailed, independent and comprehensive study with open report should be furnished and funded by the developer. This comment is based on observations as a local resident, I fish, photograph and traverse this area frequently as do many other residents of the Peninsular and beyond. The reflection of such a massive number of glass windows and doors may, in all likelihood, affect the ecology there. We need to know the actual affects before granting approval of any sort, even a lower building.

    4. The Peninsular enjoys and promotes tourism. The local businesses gain valuable tourist dollars from fishermen and women, boaties, canoeists, eco-tourism and food outlets. The argument that more residents creates more business is not lost on me but it is limited. Currently people visit the Peninsular for the natural beauty it has to offer. If this development were to progress as stated there would be nowhere for tourists / visitors to park and the appeal would quickly disappear with the tourist dollars. The site offers one of the world's best photographic opportunities for those magnificent sunsets. If the site has nowhere to park Sandgate will be the winners and Moreton will lose a great opportunity. You can often see photographic clubs meeting before sunset and then continuing on to restaurants and clubs.

    5. A separate but recent development approval in the area will now create an unprecedented and dangerous risk for vehicles traversing and accessing the intersection at the single entry and exit to this area. The Haysmouth Parade traffic lights and access to the intersection (a State asset) will be overrun with traffic as the recent (100) child care facility is to be located on that corner. The reason this is of significant importance is that the 95 motor vehicles proposed to be parked at the site would surely be expected to access that same intersection, say 200 per day. The "child care parents" would also access that intersection 200 times per day. Examination of this intersection quickly shows the impending safety issues. The intersection is just coping with the traffic at the moment, complicating the main access and egress point to the whole Peninsular would be beyond the safe limits of the Haysmouth Parade intersection. The current "green light interval" is about 25 seconds to allow safe passage for the people on foot and those living in the 48 residences currently. The proposed increase would need to change that "green light" time dramatically.
    The impost of parents with small children entering and exiting the new child minding centre as well as the massively increased Haysmouth traffic can only end in serious injury, or at worst, multiple fatalies. This can be substantially avoided by limiting the proposal size or restricting it to match other residences in the area.

    6. Should this application be approved it would set a dangerous precedent. Other developers could, or would, look at such approval with glee sighting "common practice" as a valid argument for many more approvals. Any application outside of current Council regulations must be denied.

    7. The application ignores Council's thoughtful expectation of harmonious, sympathetic development. There appears to have been no attempt whatever to consult with the local community or to develop a building design which would "fit in" with current dwellings in the area.

    8. Koalas frequent Haysmouth and Princess Parades, it does not matter if they are temporarily disorientated or lost, they are seen and heard here often. More than doubling the traffic would mean that our local visiting koalas would be in peril. We have proof positive that they actually do come here and frequently. To fob this off would be unreasonable and the poor old koalas would suffer.

    9. Our information is that the sewerage system is frequently in need of repair as it struggles to cope with the volume as it stands currently. We see trucks removing waste regularly so it is obvious there are issues with it. If a developer wants to profit from erecting a unit block they do so for the purposes of profit. If the developer expects the MBRC to foot the bill for a substantial upgrade this needs to be discussed, exposed and denied. Rate payers do not deserve a further cost at the behest of developers who profit substantially and make demands on Council to keep services going for the property when it would probably be the development which caused the problem.

    10. Last and not least, the site is listed by the International organisation Ramsar. In my opinion a single profit driven development by any entity should have done their due diligence and made sure there were no such environmental impacts and if they did, should have advised Council's building Department on how they intended to manage them. A scurrilous omission seems unlikely but is not beyond the realms of possibility for many developers. Fortunately the Council now know this and will hopefully resist development on that basis as well as the many other compelling arguments against it with the available facts to back them up.

    MBRC Please say NO to this proposed development and as a minimum, say no the increased height allowance. It is hard to imagine a proposal that is less suited to the area.
    ( I urge that there be no variations on approvals allowing anything which can cast a shadow from the top of the building. )
    Thanking you in advance
    M Martin

  2. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Dave Schwarz commented

    This is surely an easy DA to knock back!
    I preface my remarks by stating I don't live in C.H., but I regularly visit family at Sapphire Beach and always go to the local café for lunch.
    It is apparent to me that local residents (and after all they're surely the one's who count) don't want another child care centre, they want to retain their suburb as it always has been, a wonderful, peaceful enclave in which to live. Additionally, the café/public open space was a major selling feature of the estate when these locals bought their properties, it is outrageous that at the whim of one property owner and a few compliant councillors this may all be overturned.

    Furthermore, the proposed change will see a significant increase in local traffic as the only access is through suburbia. Surely this will increase the road safety risks for children playing on the nature strips/road in this subdivision, which has small blocks with minimal yards already.

    I am reliably informed that there is a glut of child care spaces already in the Coffs area, there is seemingly no demand for yet another one. It would appear this whole DA is motivated by greed; make the existing café site a better earner by replacing it with a child care centre paying more rent, or increase the value of the property for a sale by changing from an already approved use to something nobody wants! Of course, what many ignore is the federal government subsidises child care - this is why a child care centre can afford to pay more rent than a cafe; in effect local residents taxes are being used to artificially inflate the earning capacity of a block of land for one local owner to the detriment of all the other local owners! Yes, their own money is being used against them!

    Coffs Harbour council has a reputation for bad planning decisions; to allow this change would be just another one.

  3. In Kingscliff NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1 / 30 Pearl Street, Kingscliff NSW 2487:

    George Burson commented

    Great to have more parking but are there any plans to upgrade or build a new centre?
    I think it would be well received by people living in the area.

  4. In Narre Warren East VIC on “Other Applications” at 585 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren East VIC 3804:

    Sandra Roytash commented

    I wish to appeal this application, as a previous resident I am very familiar with the area. Green Wedge Zones are limited to how many dwellings you can erect on the property, but here is council looking at a submission to erect multiples complexes to accommodate over 600 people, water is precious and dams are going to be infilled, mains water supply to these properties have not been made available and water bores have proven challenging. Submissions have made note to bush fires being low risk but each year we are on high alert, I would hate to put young children’s lives in the line of fire/smoke. As for the traffic concerns, the most experience drivers will have issues turning into Belgrave-Hallam Rd from Kerrs Lane, residents and regular users of this road have addressed their concerns and I agree with them, creating more congestion on an already busy road is a recipe for disaster. The property is designed for agriculture what about the current vegetation that has been on the property over 30 year, will this be destroyed. Many wildlife inhabits this area, kangaroos, wombats, ducks, foxes, snakes, spiders, rabbits all these animals will be at risk. Please consider all factors.

  5. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Sarah Smith commented

    I vehemently object to this proposal. The emissions may be “well within acceptable limits” however there will still be emissions that will affect the community.
    I’m concerned about the proximity to Hume Grammar, where my children attend, being in the direct firing line of these emissions when weather conditions dictate.
    This facility is simply too close to a populated residential area. Especially considering the unpredictable nature of weather you simply can’t guarantee that the community will not be negatively affected in any way.

  6. In Umina Beach NSW on “Removal of 1 x Eucalyptus...” at 21 Winifred Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Matt commented

    I object to this application. We need to retain as much of our existing canopy as we can in light of the heat sink issues the peninsula now has due to decades of this kind of activity. In fact, we need to be planting more! Council needs to step in and stop this.

  7. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Use of premises as a...” at 382-388 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Suzanne R commented

    As a local property owner and resident within a block from this proposal, I object to this proposal to move the business to the new address. I have no issue with the nature of the business as they have a legal right to operate but I don't believe this location is appropriate.

    The new address is directly next to many local businesses such as a dentist, cafe/coffee roaster and architectural product suppliers. The area is becoming renowned as the 'new Surry Hills' and businesses of this nature should not be allowed next to businesses that may be frequented by children. The local businesses have spent substantial money on shop fit-touts and have been long-term to their locations, so as one of those owners I would be devastated if an adult store opened directly above their shops.

    The business currently has poor taste images of females and loud advertising material on the premises at Johnson St/Botany Rd. I believe advertising like this should be vetted as part of the council approval process.

    As the premises is on the second floor, I believe the business will use the current window areas facing Botany Road for further loud and bold advertising material to attract customers.

    The location is also near the Pub (Hotel Rosebery), which concerns me that drunken visits to the business will increase and bring an element to the street that is inappropriate and not in keeping with the growth of a vibrant gentrification of a suburb.

    Other illegal massage parlours have operated in the area on Botany Road, and I have witnessed seedy clientele parking directly near my home to visit the businesses. It is reasonable that the business stays in a more industrial area rather than a flourishing part of a suburb.

  8. In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:

    Paul Tobias commented

    As a long term resident of the area i strongly object to this application.
    lifestyle was a major selling feature of this estate and all residents of the estate paid a premium for it. The cafe/restaurant is the
    focal point, used by many of the locals. A safe and enjoyable space to watch the children playing whilst enjoying a coffee or a meal. Approval of this child care center will detract aesthetically,( perimeter fencing) increase traffic,reduce public car parking, and reduce the value of real estate in the immediate area.The developers so called hole in the wall cafe will last 5 minutes and as soon as it becomes nonviable to continue we will be left with simply a child minding centre. If this is approved and fails, what next? a petrol station? come on cougal's and council, the development is one of the best on the east coast of Australia don't destroy it for commercial greed.

  9. In Preston VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 1-3 Arthur Street Preston VIC 3072:

    PD - Preston South Resident commented

    This is ridiculous. There are enough pokies in the area already. We don't need anymore. If the RSL needs to keep resorting to stealing, cheating and lying to the people they are trying to support then they should not continue in their business.

  10. In Speers Point NSW on “Community Facility (Multi...” at Speers Point Park 23 Park Road Speers Point NSW 2284:

    Loris Brown commented

    Having moved up here from Sydney almost 2 years ago, we constantly marvel at the lovely green space that is Speers Point Park. Such an asset for the local community. The planned Arts building is going to be an eyesore in the park and is it really necessary? Perhaps money would be better spent renovating & extending Warner's Bay Creative Arts building to accommodate whatever is proposed for the Speers Point developement.

  11. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Use of premises as a...” at 382-388 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    M Boothroyd commented

    Not sure why the advertisement on this application shows a sweets cake shop? This could make many who see the planning alert flick past it and now be concerned. However, if they know it is an adult shop and the picture depicts that they may want to comment.
    It's location should be questioned as is stated by others this is supposed to be a suburban family friendly area now.

  12. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Approval is sought for a...” at 122 Herring Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Bochuan Yin commented

    The herring road has been very busy and congestion due to high density residents. Look at the new coming NEON project. How can you expect more over 20 floors buildings around. This will be much danger for school kids due to expected cars.
    Please reduce the high density buildings and improve the public transportation and infrastructure.

  13. In Murrumbeena VIC on “The proposed development...” at 430-434 Neerim Road Murrumbeena VIC 3163:

    Olivia T commented

    There are several reasons why the proposed development is not appropriate for the area:

    1. As many have mentioned, the height is out of step with the rest of the area. Eight stories is unnecessary and will be a blight on the landscape. It will also reduce the natural sunlight that makes the area a comfortable place to live.

    2. The traffic at the station is already cumbersome. A years-long construction period followed by the influx of hundreds of residents will make a bad situation worse.

    3. We do not have the infrastructure to support this type of development. As mentioned by some other submissions, a business development would be much more appropriate for the area and could be achieved in a much shorter period of time.

    4. Living directly opposite the proposed development in a front-facing building, I am concerned about the quality of life for those in my vicinity for the years it will take to build, particularly air quality.

    5. There are already two developments underway on Murrumbeena Road (one close to Dandenong Road, the other further down towards Kangaroo Road). Have both of these developments sold out? If not, this might give some indication that the proposed development will be stuck in limbo for some time to come.

  14. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Maria Alberto commented

    Dear Council,

    I would like to echo the complaint made below by Katherine Lawford against proposed Application No. P22489 by ENRGX PTY LTD for “Use and Development of a Waste to Energy Facility”. This facility has serious implications for local residents and the wider community.

    Burning waste for energy will emit toxins which will be breathed in by anyone in the area. I object to this pollution being sanctioned by Council, particularly when studies reveal that long term exposure to these toxins lead to serious health complications.

    Secondly, burning waste to produce energy does nothing to address the core problem of excessive waste production. In fact, once this plant is in operation, it will create a demand for waste instead of encouraging a decrease.

    There are far more responsible responses to the waste crisis that could be auctioned by Council:
    - support of community recycling initiatives
    - funding for community education programs related to responsible recycling
    - financial incentives for residents to live sustainably
    - financial incentives for local businesses to practice sustainably
    - lobby of government to replace plastic packaging with sustainable alternatives

    The ENRGX PTY LTD plant endangers our community health, lifestyle and environment. I urge you to prioritize the wellbeing of Hume residents and reject this proposal.

    Kind regards,

    Maria Alberto

  15. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Jo Sangwell commented

    I am disgusted that this is even up for consideration!!

  16. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Use of premises as a...” at 382-388 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Daniel commented

    This business is not suitable for the area anymore. In its current location its playing loud music all day to try get customers in. It also puts several posters up outside the building and posters across from it.

    I dont for a second believe they will keep to the advertising as described.

    There are also families living next to this business a few doors down, behind in the lane, and across the road. Completely unsuitable to the area now, more so in this high visibility spot.

  17. In Beaconsfield NSW on “Use of premises as a...” at 382-388 Botany Road Beaconsfield NSW 2015:

    Bernadette Burke commented

    Please no! This whole Green Square area is being touted as a family and community friendly area with lots of family friendly amenities including the new library, aqua centre and the shops and restaurants of the Infinity development. An adult retail shop with a shopfront on Botany Road virtually opposite all of the above is a shocking

  18. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Fiona Hitchens commented

    I strongly oppose this development. I believe it is far too close to our homes and the residential areas of Craigieburn and surrounding suburbs and that the residents should have a say in this going forward.
    I am strongly concerned that if this was to go ahead it would have a detrimental impact on the cleanliness of the air in our suburb and have a negative impact on property prices in the area. Most importantly though affect the health of residents and have long term implications for families in the area. Please reconsider approving this facility!!!

  19. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Stephanie Browitt commented

    A recycling plant should not be placed in an inner suburb, especially one of such a large community size. We do not want to breathe in smoke and have more pollution then needed. This project is a disgrace and many people including myself DO NOT APPROVE of this AT ALL! Air pollution is a huge problem and this just adds to it. People suffer from asmtha but also children should not have to be breathing this rubbish in.

  20. In Speers Point NSW on “Community Facility (Multi...” at Speers Point Park 23 Park Road Speers Point NSW 2284:

    Briallen Merrick commented

    Great idea but terrible location. I understand this is part of the master plan for Speers Point Park but the space would receive more use as an open space. Please rethink the location

  21. In Tyabb VIC on “Use of the land for the...” at 98 Stuart Road Tyabb VIC 3913:

    Laura Dunkley commented

    My whole family look forward to the Airshow every 2nd year and can’t wait to see it again next year! It is a no brainer to continue with this wonderful event

  22. In Clontarf QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 12-18 Haysmouth Parade, Clontarf QLD 4019:

    Kim Davis commented

    To Moreton Bay Regional Council,

    I am a resident of Princess Terrace Clontarf and do not support the application in its current form.

    At approximately 22 m height the tower will loom over the surrounding houses and have a huge impact on the character and amenity of the established low-rise suburb.

    It is beyond any reasonable expectation that the existing residents could have anticipated for development in such a scenic and peaceful area, such a development is in conflict with zoning and will have a huge impact on the character of the established low-rise suburb apart from the fact that such a development conflicts with all current applicable zoning

    This development does not represent the lifestyle or behaviors of the people in this area, it does not enhance our lives and I personally am against it, and I know first-hand many of my fellow neighbors are against it also.

    The street and small ramp at the western end is used by a limited number of kayakers and fisherpersons, regularly, as there is limited room. It is a quiet, nature enjoying area.

    Paddle Against Plastic event at the end of this street in June to help clean and protect the Internationally Ramsar listed Hays Inlet site. The event was instructed by MBRC to be a small-scaled event due to this small residential area with one access road.

    Apart from the obvious dangers imposed by the increased traffic and street access. Vehicle access to the site is inadequate for the nature and scale of the proposed development.

    Haysmouth Parade and Bayview Terrace are not designed to support the quantum of traffic the proposed development will bring.

    The plans show future widening of the street, where is the land for this to come from?

    This application for material change is well beyond the scope of the 12m limit that is currently in place. This change is almost double the amount in height of the zoning, which has been put in place for a reason.

    The structure is inappropriate to the area and is close to a tidal line which may mean a significant modification of the shoreline which would be detrimental to Hays Inlet.

    The proposed development site sits on a Ramsar site which is of international significance.

    The Ramsar Convention encourages the designation of sites containing representative, rare or unique wetlands, or wetlands that are important for conserving biological diversity. Once designated, these sites are added to the Convention's List of Wetlands of International Importance and become known as Ramsar sites.

    It provides for national action and international cooperation regarding the conservation of wetlands, and wise sustainable use of their resources. Ramsar identifies wetlands of international importance, especially those providing waterfowl habitat.

    In light of its significant conflicts with the assessment benchmarks, Council cannot – pursuant to its responsibilities under the Planning Act 2016 – consider approving the proposed development.

    On this basis, the Council has no choice but to unequivocally refuse the proposed development."

    Kim Davis

  23. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Approval is sought for a...” at 122 Herring Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Mee Poh Ong commented

    I strongly object to this application progress (LDA2019/0264) because this area is already overly congested with residential units. There are so many vacant units!

    We are residents at 1 Mooltane ave. If the proposed building was to go through, it would only be one small lane away from our existing home and our neighbours!! As it is, we can see what our neighbours is doing or eating for meals at Building #120. Right now, our morning sun is totally blocked by Building #120. The new proposed building will be terribly near to our balconies, lounges and bedrooms, they will block whatever sunlight we have at the moment. All parties will not have any privacy or safety or healthy personal space. This application must be terminated without a single doubt.

    We moved into this area since 2014. Since day 1,we have had to put up with the non ceasing construction activities including almost 24 hrs pounding sound from the construction of the buildings, walking paths, roads, blocking of roads or closure of roads or detour of roads, not to mention the tons of dust that landed on our balconies and homes. We could not enjoy our homes that we have had bought with our hard earned saving. We have to stay in our homes with closed doors and windows most of the time.

    The Herring road is over used and clearly it is not meant for so many traffic. As it is, it is so over used that it takes time for cars from Macqurire Park village to join Herring Road and on our ways home from Macqurire mall, we have to cross to the traffic light intersection
    (Herring & Eipping Roads) and then u turn again into Macqurire Park village to reach home, hence going through more unnecessary traffic and consumption of petrol and a sharp drop in quality of life even at suburb.

    Further, all these high rise buildings are creating strong, gushing winds that blow away our abd our neighbour wooden deck furniture. We have to put brick to stabilise our outdoor furniture. Worst of all, we can feel our units shaking daily. All these new buildings construction and digging will surely not beneficial or safe to all existing high rise homes!

    For the past years, our neighbours and we have had to live in our homes with closed doors and windows. At night, we have had to wear ear plugs to sleep but many at times, our ear plugs were no match to the piercing noises and shaking ground created by the jack hammers or whatever equipments the constructors were using. Please have mercy on us. No more new construction or digging grounds for new foundations for new buildings.

    The council office is to have big pictiure and take care of all the interest of the community. Right now, anyone can see this particular small section of Macqurire Park is overly crowded and the Herring road is overly congested and heavily used. It is clearly that this new application of more residential units will not add anymore quality of live to the community other than benefit the few greedy individuals.

    I strongly object to this application. We need council office to be wise and re look at this application and stop it.

    Thank you.
    Mee Poh ONG
    1 Mooltane Ave

  24. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Approval is sought for a...” at 122 Herring Rd Macquarie Park NSW 2113:

    Kim Law commented

    I am a local resident and I moved to this area since 2014. I first resided at Saunder Close. I moved to MacQuarie Park to move away from the construction work and little did I know that the new project across the road sprang up right after 120 Herring Road.

    We had been subjected to Noise and air pollution all these years. How many more years do we need to subject to such living condition? The proposed projects are going to make the traffic conditions from bad to worse. The council needs to weight out the current density and the infrastructure around this less than 1 km stretch.

    I had written to The council several times on the development plan of 116 Herring road but no response was received.

    As rates payer and resident, I urge the council to stop any more apartments to be built along this stretch.


  25. In Brinkin NT on “Three-storey single dwelling” at 18 Claymore Cct, Brinkin, NT:

    Niki commented

    This development will negatively impact the quite, private area of Claymore Circuit and tightly held suburb of Brinkin.
    As a Brinkin home owner and occupier since year 2000, this would open the gates to many more similar developments in the area. This development will put a strain on immediate infrastructure, add noise pollution and increase traffic in the street, which will undoubtedly increase the amount of accidents - not to mention result in a very unsafe street for neighboring children who enjoy afternoon play time on the quiet street!!
    I believe this type of development will decrease surrounding property prices and have a huge impact on Brinkin's proud, family orientated presence.
    Definitely not a positive addition to the street or suburb.

  26. In Narara NSW on “Group Home” at 15 Isabella Close, Narara NSW 2250:

    Heather commented

    Hi, I am wondering what this will mean for the street in regards to neighbours? What type of group home will this be? I have concerns, the street is full of small children and young families.

  27. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Amelia Guest commented

    Dear Council members

    Please do not let this application progress because this company has money to influence it. This is an absolutely HUGE issue to be putting right next to a suburban area.

    The issues, including air pollution, effects on global warming etc. Are already mentioned above, so rather than reiterate them I'd like to add my name to the list of people who would like to see this application terminated.
    Your job is to represent your community, allowing this to happen will be against your community wishes, to the detriment of the community you represent and purely self serving to the big greedy businesses that don't need any more exemptions from the right way to do things.

    Please choose the thousands over the one or two rich individuals

  28. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 209A Cambridge Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138:

    Kim Mckay commented

    What are you all insane these war crimes and corporate terrorism attacks aiding and abetting mass invasions ten times worse than any world war in history upon Australia being the 2nd DRIEST ISLAND CONTINENT ONE ECOSYSTEM IN THE WORLD!


  29. In Craigieburn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 65 Amaroo Rd Craigieburn VIC 3064:

    Lisa Bogie commented

    I wish to register a complaint against proposed Application No. P22489 by ENRGX PTY LTD for “Use and Development of a Waste to Energy Facility”. This facility may help with our current recycling crisis but this idea has some very serious implications to the respiratory health of the Craigieburn community in the long run. We are a young community, with many young children and families, please reconsider.

  30. In Kingswood NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 40 Jones Street Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Wendy Spinks commented

    To the residents of Penrith.
    Currently the Penrith Council and the Penrith Planning Department is not listening to what the residents of Penrith wants. They are trying to place all residents in flats, town house, boarding houses, reducing the size of land more cars parked on the street, increasing the traffic on local street.
    The Penrith Council and the Penrith Planning Department do not look at the comments on the Planning Alert pages. All submission should be email to: or maybe to the Mayor

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