The tattoo parlour should not be approved in Cobham ave as it and the neighbouring streets are full of families with school kids walking to and from school. Although most kids are aware of stranger danger, it may put some of them in difficult situations without a known adult to support them nearby. It would be better suited on a street like Constitution Rd near the railway station or on Victoria Rd which are busier and lots of adults around looking out for the kids. If Council approves this tattoo parlour and something does happens to a child, I (and I am sure others) will hold Council responsible.
Wow! Looking forward to the application documents being uploaded so I can see what this 270 unit development application with 2000sqm+ of commercial space will look like.
The sewerage line that supports this property and properties in Bellevue Road appears to be at capacity. We have had constant sewerage problems relating to this line. A further 8 units will put this sewerage line beyond capacity and cause endless issues. The current blockage is causing properties in Carlotta St to be flooded.
Unless a major upgrade to the sewerage line is completed, no further developments should commence.
Mrs Taylor
wrote to
local councillor
Brooke Savige
A 5 storey development is not suitable for beautiful Bribie Island,
3 would be more inline with the area.
We don't have the infastructure now (bridge, road lanes, trains, hospital etc) to cope properly
Delivered to local councillor Brooke Savige.
They are yet to respond.
Dear Council
The applicant is proposing to move one of their bin corrals to the Northumberland Rd frontage. As a Northumberland Rd resident I am strongly opposed to this. Waste management is an ongoing issue in our neighbourhood, and the inability of developments to comply with waste management plans or common decency is leading to an increase in vermin in our neighbourhood. The inability of developments to manage waste is also a pedestrian hazard and an eyesore. These bins must be located away from the street frontage and the development must be required to comply with a waste management plan which council must enforce.
I am also opposed to the landscaping shown to driveways being replaced with permeable concrete. Firstly, because this has already been done, the units are built and on the market. The developer should be required to deliver what they have represented in obtaining an approval, and not change these plans to suit and then ask Moreland to retrospectively endorse changes. Secondly, this is completely contrary to Moreland's attempts to ameliorate the urban heat island effect. Thirdly, when our driveway was modified by the previous owner of our home, they were required to incorporate landscape strips which they did. The rules should be applied consistently, and the developer can rip out their permeable pavement and start again.
I am strongly opposed to this . Shorely the can find a more suitable site than an area where hundreds of children play. What are you thinking Opus. Come on Council do something.
My concern is the pollution coming in from Memorial Drive. This would be a nightmare for children with asthma or other respiratory issues. Also, has anyone considered what will happen in the event of an emergency? With only one way in and one-way out, how do you safely evacuate the children from the centre if the top end of Russell Street is blocked? I wonder if people even bothered to consider the children's health and safety when going ahead with this development. I thought under Wollongong DCP, only childcare centres with a maximum of 49 places could be built in residential areas. Does this not matter anymore?
Dear Sir or Madame,
As a resident of Wyoming, I strongly oppose the shocking decision.
I believe it is wrong to build a mobile tower in a residential valley area. Has the council considered the harm to people's health with the long term exposure to mobile tower radiation?
Please do review your terrible decision!
Wow, this "Concerned Resident" should be hired by council.
He or she has reviewed the DCP and the published proposal and come up with a detailed objection that must be addressed by Hornsby Council.
I commend him/her for their concern and their diligence.
Get ready for the same comment / different property from
Lou
David Grover
Jenkins Peter J
Peter Jenkins
Peter Hayes
Chris Brunck
Who appear to make an objection without assessing the merits of the application.
Get ready for the same comment / different property from
Lou
David Grover
Jenkins Peter J
Peter Jenkins
Peter Hayes
Chris Brunck
Who appear to make an objection without assessing the merits of the application.
.
I Vehemently Condemn, Object & Oppose this Proposed Development Application.
There is always a large number of unattended young children walking past this address on their way to & from School, and also on weekends, due to Melrose Park being a very safe and relatively quiet area.
I guess the cold comfort that we neighbours can all have, is that if it does get approved, the chances are it wont be round for too long, due to it being in the wrong area, as they have obviously not done their market research that well. Have a look around at your fellow Melrose Park/Meadowbank Residents and how many have tattoos? You could argue that they may have tattoos under their clothing, but you can usually tell the type of person who would get a tattoo & not many in the Melrose Park/Meadowbank area!
Tattoo Parlours are not always - but usually - more prosperous in lower income areas, or Near major arterial routes, shopping centres or commercial areas.
As someone who drives all around Sydney every day for work for the last 15 years it is amazing how many times you see Tattoo Parlours Start Up & Close Down in a very short space of time!
The worst bit is the type of people that hang around them during their short duration - devaluing & degrading the area!
All trees and shrubs must be kept as they provide; oxygen for all living creatures, shade from sunlight, habitats for living creatures and beautification of our neighbourhood. Only when trees and shrubs threaten lives, do they need to be trimmed or removed
We do not require another child care centre on KissingPoint Road. It appears to be common place a corner block is sold then becomes a child care centre because this and the over 55s residential development is a government incentive. KissingPoint Road Turramurra has many educational and Religious centres which all add to traffic congestion on weekends and weekdays, these include Turramurra Public School, Ku-ring-gai Kindergarten, and Good Hands preshcool, the new Montessori academy on the cnr Canoon and Kissingpoint Road. Also the Sikh Temple.
We do not need another child care centre and this building will be two stories and will not blend into the surrounding area. I strongly object.
Castlefield street should be left as is, we don’t want a unit block! Residents appreciate our community and our streetscape as it is. Not to mention the parking situation and traffic in the precinct is already bad enough. Also - last time they did works on these houses (just over a year ago) it displaced rats in the area and caused all sorts of problems for residents and council.
I cannot believe that Council would even consider such an application for this site. It is public space with sport being played all year round by people of all ages. It is used by local schools for carnivals and is smack dab in the middle of suburbia. What will happen to the football fields and cricket pitch? What is the liability to all involved for long term issues from radiation and safety of children climbing fences etc. Needs to be a public meeting to explain why it needs to be there.
I am rather confused about this Development application. The site of the proposed DA, located on the East side of Park Avenue, opposite Waitara Oval (Mark Taylor Oval), is zoned for 5 storey apartments. This is also clearly stated in the current DCP, refer to page 3-82 (82/93).
The site zoned for 6 storey apartments, which is clearly referred to the current DCP, (Jan 2015) is the site enclosed within the streets, east side Waitara Ave, south side Park Lane, west side Park Ave and north side of Alexandria Parade. Refer to page 3-112 (112/119).
The proposed 6 storey development does not comply with the current DCP which is zoned for 5 storey developments. That alone should be enough to reject the development. However there are a number of other issues of non-compliance and as the proposed development falls with the zoning for 5 storeys, I shall refer to section 3.4 of the DCP.
3.4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT.
The DCP states the building should be a maximum of 5 stories and a maximum height of 17.5m
The proposed development is 6 storey and 17.750m. This is non-compliant.
3.4.5 SET BACKS.
Rear-
Basement setback is only 6m. The DCP calls for 7m setback.
Ground floor setback is only 3m. It is well within the required 10m set back
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are only set back 6m from the rear boundary. The DCP requires 10m setback
Level 5 set back is only set back 9m. As per the DCP, it should be 13m.
Front-
More than 1/3 of the front building encroaches within the 10m setback and more that 1/3 of the front is facade is located within the 8m front setback. 2 ground floor street front balconies encroach well within the 7m set back zone.
Side-
Habitable rooms are only set back 4m which encroach well within 6m compliant side set back.
3.4.6 BUILDING FORM AND SEPARATION
The building floor plate exceeds 35m. It dose not have a minimum 4mx4m recess to create the appearance of two separate pavilions as stated in the DCP.
The two buildings are only separated by 6m The DCP required a 9m separation.
The northern side of the building along the boundary of 34 Park Ave required an additional 3m set back from the boundary.
The building design does not visually break-up the built form. The façade is repetitive as a solid form, they do not look lightweight. The façade is repetitive in materials.
The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
The proposed paint colours of the building are too bold and will be overwhelming for the neighbours.
The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.
3.4.7 LANDSCAPING
The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.
The proposed development removes all existing trees on the site including trees that have been listed in the original DA to remain.
The proposed development indicated gardens to the level 5 in the 3D rendered images, however the plans do not indicate that there are roof gardens. This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of what will actually be built.
Due to the minimal setback to the rear boundary there is less that 40% area that can accommodate any trees that will be 10-12m.
The required deep soil setbacks to the boundaries, 8m front, 7m rear have not been provided.
The deep soil diagram provided on page 15 of the design statement seems to be misleading. It is showing more deep soil area than what will actually be provided. The deep soil area in the between the 2 buildings is indicated to be paved making the deep soil area unusable.
3.4.10 MATERIALS, FINISHES AND SERVICES.
The building colours do not reference the natural habitat.
The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
There is no indication of what type of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning system that is to be provided for the building. It is critical to know if there will be exposed wall mounted units.
3.4.11 SUNLIGHT AND VENTILATION
With the proposed design, less that 70% of dwellings in the block will receive 2 hours of sunlight.
It will be interesting to see how this developer, Charbel Demian, who is currently under investigation with the ICAC, will get this development through. He has been around the block. He has all the right connections.
I 100% agree with the comments above. There is a giant pine tree in our neighbours place that’s most likely been there 50+ years as she has been there for 64 years that hangs over our driveway and the falling needles and bats are ruining our two cars. She has tried to remove the tree 3 times as it’s also lifting up her path and she is in a wheelchair so makes it hard to get out and the council have rejected it because of rejections from the community so each night we have to put car covers on and save up for a carport all because of a tree that does more harm than good!
I completely agree with Rob Scott. There are too many people making objections without assessing the merits of the application. These people are diminishing the value of Planning Alerts as their comments add absolutely no value.
If you want to provide your comments about a particular application make sure you assess the application on the merits of that application. Generic comments do not in any way help council make a decision.
I also ask Willoughby City Council to stop putting every tree application for public comment. Every other council has clearly documented guidelines meaning that public consultation is not necessary. With the escalating anger shown by some of these perpetual objectors, I fear for the safety of any making an application.
In the absence of any detail as to why the trees are being removed it is very difficult to assess the application. If they are healthy trees they should not be removed and if they need to be removed for some other reasonable reason there should be some requirement to replace them. The way things are going around Beecroft we soon will not be able to be called the leafy suburb.
i find it funny how closed minded the people opposing this app are. its like you are all the cunninghams from happy days thinking that tattoo shops have degenerates and criminals and drug dealers hanging around them. just last weekend there was a international tattoo convention at the icc in darling harbour. if tattoo shops bring criminals about then we should shut down the financial sector because of the well known and widespread illegal drug usage and the fact drug dealers hang around the cbd
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.
In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:
In Gosford NSW on “Section 4.55...” at 65 Donnison Street West, Gosford NSW 2250:
In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:
In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:
In Bellevue Hill NSW on “Dwelling House and Swimming...” at 124 Bellevue Rd, Bellevue Hill, NSW:
In Bongaree QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 233 Welsby Parade, Bongaree QLD 4507:
Delivered to local councillor Brooke Savige. They are yet to respond.
In Waitara NSW on “Construction of 2 x 6...” at 22-32 Park Avenue, Waitara:
In Pascoe Vale VIC on “The construction of 12...” at 6 Fawkner Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:
In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:
In Woonona NSW on “Commercial - demolition of...” at 74 Russell Street, Woonona NSW 2517:
In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:
In Waitara NSW on “Construction of 2 x 6...” at 22-32 Park Avenue, Waitara:
In Chatswood NSW on “Inspect 3 trees for removal...” at 28 Eddy Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:
In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove 1x...” at 44 Waters Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:
In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:
In Chatswood NSW on “Inspect 3 trees for removal...” at 28 Eddy Road Chatswood NSW 2067.:
In Appin NSW on “Continued Use of Secondary...” at 23 Macquariedale Road Appin, NSW, 2560:
In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:
In Bondi NSW on “Demolition of dwelling...” at 5 Castlefield Street Bondi NSW 2026:
In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:
In Waitara NSW on “Construction of 2 x 6...” at 22-32 Park Avenue, Waitara:
In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:
In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:
In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:
In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - Request...” at 8 Marwood Drive Beecroft NSW 2119:
In Artarmon NSW on “Removal of 2 Trees and...” at 20B Weedon Road Artarmon NSW 2064.:
In Newington NSW on “Tree Application - 2 x Tree” at 26 Newington Boulevarde Newington NSW 2127:
In Marsden QLD on “Construction of a series of...” at 1-13 Fifth Avenue Marsden QLD 4132:
In Melrose Park NSW on “Home business - Tattoo...” at 31 Cobham Ave Melrose Park NSW 2114:
In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074: