Recent comments

  1. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construct 39 dwellings on a...” at 17 Riversdale Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Amy Wills commented

    Thirty-nine dwellings on a lot of this size seems not only excessive, but disproportionate for this location.

    I am yet to see the plans for this development, but am concerned about what impact this will have on neighbouring properties (one of which is mine) and the overall landscape of the street.

    For instance, how many storeys are proposed for this development, and will this overshadow existing properties, many of which are heritage listed?

    How close to the front of the block is the proposed development to be built? A combination of multi-story development being built close to the street will result in lost city views for neighbours, further devaluing existing property on Riversdale Road.

    The site currently has lush vegetation, offering privacy between neighbouring properties. If this development was to be built, would these established trees and plants be destroyed, resulting in a concrete jungle style amenity, with perhaps some lip service being paid to underdeveloped young shrubs?

    I also have concerns regarding the car parking requirements for 39 dwellings. Clause 22.03 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme states that for new multi-dwelling developments, the requirement is 1.5 car spaces per dwelling for residents plus 0.2 car spaces per dwelling for visitors. For 39 units, this would result in a requirement of 66.3 car spaces. Even if the developer managed to fit 66.3 car spaces into an underground carpark on the 1,387 sqm lot, having that many vehicles in this location is untenable, and potentially dangerous.

    The property is located on a high-traffic road, just beyond a sharp corner bend. To the west of the property is a no standing zone at all times. To the east is a clearway between 4.30pm and 6.30 pm. Opposite the property is a clearway during the morning peak. Vehicles travelling along Riversdale Road and wanting to enter the property will significantly slow down traffic and add to traffic snarls along Riversdale Road, both in the morning and afternoon peak.

    To turn right onto Riversdale Road out of any of the properties on the Western side of the road is fraught with danger. With an additional 60-odd vehicles coming and going from the property it will slow down traffic flows on a road already congested during peak times by trams and fast flowing traffic. The potential for a fatality at this location is high.

    In fact, I would question whether this site should be developed at all. The current property on this site is a historic 1930s Art Deco mansion. Indeed, it was advertised for sale as “a grand property with unique art deco residence.†Hawthorn has Georgian, Federation, and Victorian homes, and some Art Deco apartments, but it is rare to see an Art Deco mansion. I would argue that this property should be added to the Heritage Register, and am surprised that it is not currently protected by heritage overlay.

    Surrounding properties, including numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and23 Riversdale Road are all protected by heritage overlays.
    Historically, Riversdale Road was lined with grand mansions. Unfortunately, over the years, particularly in the 1960s, many of these historic properties were demolished, replaced by units of less architectural merit, and a rare few of the grand old mansions remain.

    In this decade, it is happening again. We cannot let this become the new norm for Hawthorn.

    According to the Multi-Dwelling Development page of the Boroondarra Council website any new development should meet the clauses of the Boroondarra Planning Scheme (also known as ‘rescode’).

    Clause 55 of rescode states:
    • To achieve residential development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or which contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
    • To encourage residential development that provides reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents.
    • To encourage residential development that is responsive to the site and the neighbourhood
    In addition, Clause 55.02-1 ‘Neighbourhood character objectives’ states:
    • To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
    • To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

    I would argue that allowing a historic mansion to be demolished and allowing the development of 39 dwellings on this site flies in the face of rescode, and makes a mockery of the Boroondara Planning Scheme.

    The Multi-Dwelling Development page of the Council website states in regards to proposed developments that: “the objectives of rescode must be met or a proposal will not be supported. †In no way does this proposal meet the objectives of rescode, therefore it should not be accepted by council.

  2. In Carlingford NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 4 Benghazi Road Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Richard Lau commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing regarding the new DA application for 4 Benghazi Road, Carlingford, NSW, 2118 DA/242/2012. that was lodged with Hornsby Council on the March 2012.
    I am highly concern that with a 2 attached dwellings on a small side street (Tripoli Ave) this will make us who live on the street very hard to get in and out from our street. Both Tripoli Ave, and Benghazi Road is already busy enought during school days. We do not need 2 more property build onto this area to creative more traffic. At the moment there are already cars park around this building site. which makes it very hard to turn right into Tripoli Ave from Benghazi Road if you are coming from Hornsby way. Especially in front of number 4 Benghazi Road they are already 2 cars park on either side this makes a street very tight and also turn the street into more like a one way street.

    Secondly, we do not need a multi-unit, 2 attached dwellings in this area anymore. on the last few months we have already a number of dwellings build in Benghazi Road. Some of which where a new granny flat that was build on 28 Benghazi Road, Carlingford which was approved a few months ago as a granny flat, and now they have just rent that granny flat out as a new house, "BRAND NEW GRANNY FLAT. FREESTANDING. 2 bedrooms Villa for Rent. $400 -$430 / Wk. 28 Benghazi Road, Carlingford, NSW 2118. Listed by LJ Hooker Carlingford"

    Also 23 Benghazi Road, Carlingford just started building their property after that DA was Approved 3 Months ago.

    This area does not need to have anymore new build. By approving this new development i feel that this will damage the area even further. As it will increase traffic, increase noise, make resident on Tripoli Ave much harder to get in and out of the property, make the area unsafe for kids to get to and from school.

    Also on this block of land there are a few old trees that has been there for more then 30 years and i feel that by approving this development these natural beauty will go with the house And damage the streetscape also.

  3. In Sydney NSW on “Use and fitout of ground...” at 200-218 Goulburn Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Naya Penabella commented

    I refer to your notice regarding the site mentioned above and the proposed 120 patrons and late operating hours:

    As the resident of 172 Riley Street, Surry Hills I am writing to express my strong objections to the proposed 120 patrons and the late operating hours in such a highly residential area.

    I am concerned that with the operating hours extended past 9pm, there will be:

    • Increased noise late at night when residents are trying to sleep
    o Despite the use of the footway traffic finishing at 12am, it will still take an hour or so for staff to clean the area and allow guests time to finish their drinks and meals bringing the real finish time to near 4am
    o The music from the pub itself till 3am each night is loud enough and with the addition of 120 patrons outside till 3am the noise would now be impossible to sleep through
    • Disruption of residents’ ability to enjoy quiet time with family and friends without being drowned out by drunken Firefly patrons. Note that the Firefly Restaurant Bar is directly adjacent to 172 Riley Street
    • Increased traffic on Riley Street, Goulbourn Street, Pelican Street, Campbell Street, Waine Street, and Arnold Place, which are already very busy streets as more patrons frequent the area
    • Increased violence in the nearby area as drunken patrons lash out at each other or nearby residential property.

    My concerns regarding increased violence are backed up by numerous articles in the newspaper this year and last year stating strong links between alcohol and violence.

    Given my above concerns, I request that the operating hours be limited to 9pm as this represents a fair medium for the Wine Bar and for neighbouring residents.

  4. In Figtree NSW on “Residential - dwelling house” at 27 Lantarra Place, Figtree NSW 2525:

    Richard Barnes commented

    Will the 2 drainage pits and easement located along the divided fence line of properties Lot13 (27) and Lot15 (29) Lantarra Place Figtree be kept untouched and not built upon. My question should have no bearing on this application only that I would like to see this easement undisturbed.

  5. In Bondi Beach NSW on “MAD PIZZA BONDI BEACH -...” at 15 O'Brien Street, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Shane Birges commented

    There is already over supply of liquor places and there is no real reason for another one of them to be allowed to open in the precinct.

    Alcohol related issues is major in the area and authorities who are responsible for the licenses really ought to seriously consider what they are doing to the community in the area by allowing so many alcohol venues. People already have places where they can consume alcohol both at the premises and take away and they are doing that on the streets too.

    It would be appropriate for these same authorities to go to the venue and in the close proximity to the venue and see with their naked eyes how within a few steps of each other these locations, cafes, bars, hotels, clubs and restaurants they are.

    It is time that these same authorities give us residents’ seriously good reasons why they should be allowed and not for us to tell them why these venues should not be allowed to have the alcohol licenses.

    Enough, is enough, is enough?


  6. In Wollongong NSW on “The Drop Culture & Arts...” at 1a/39 Market St, Wollongong 2500:

    mr Adam Smithfield commented

    I am very concerned of the intent to use such a small space in a very old building (19/39 market st wollongong NSW 2500) , that does not have any fire safety systems in place.

    According the local paper (illawarra mercury 24/2/12 page 3) they are going to be trading as a bar (selling alcohol and playing live music) for the next 2 weeks.

    Im worried that places of this nature can get quickly out of control due to the lack of space and consumption of alcohol, and if something was to happen there is a greak risk of personal injury(due to the major inadequcies of the fire safety systems in the premisis).

    The other thing im concerned about is why is the licence "granted" before the submission close date as expired? (5/3/12)

  7. In Newport NSW on “Construction of a shop-top...” at 316 Barrenjoey Road Newport:

    Michael and Sarah Lawrence commented

    I wish to object most strongly to this DA as it does not comply with the Master Plan for Newport in a number of important ways, most importantly it is too high. I understand from a detailed analysis that there are a number of other non compliances. If the new Master Plan is to have any credibility it must be enforced. Otherwise it will be of no value and any future appeal to the Land and Environment Court on Master Plan non compliances will see the Council overruled.

    If Newport is to be the village that all of us living in Newport wish it to be, such large and bulky developments as this proposal must be refused.

  8. In Boronia Heights QLD on “Domestic - Carport” at 4A Alloa Court Boronia Heights QLD 4124:

    Ana commented

    Carport was build more than a year ago and causing a lot of problems to the neighbours as has no drainage (storm water), each time is raining is flooding the property next to them.
    A complain was made to Logan City Council to fix the situation and only then they actioned the registration of the carport. But drainage (storm water) is still not fixed and flooding the next property.

    How can this be registered ????

  9. In Boronia Heights QLD on “Domestic - Carport” at 4A Alloa Court Boronia Heights QLD 4124:

    Gabriel commented

    The carport have a complaint on the Logan city council because is not having any dranage on the property and is foodling our property every rain and this request is for something that is allready built.

    Please action accordingly.

  10. In Heathcote NSW on “Change of Use of a...” at 1347 Princes Hwy Heathcote 2233:

    Mark Mcevoy commented

    In what form of buisness is recreation gym ,solarum ,yoga.

  11. In Wadalba NSW on “Cellarbrations at Wadalba -...” at Shop 5, 2 Edward Stinson Ave, Wadalba 2259:

    Nicole Smith commented

    There is a hotel/motel not 500 metres away.
    This is next to a school (underage drinking). Why do we need another one here.

    There is a drinking problem and graffiti and delinquint behaviour with our young why put in another grog shop so close to the school with another one just up the road.
    Please be sensible and not allow this

  12. In Wadalba NSW on “Cellarbrations at Wadalba -...” at Shop 5, 2 Edward Stinson Ave, Wadalba 2259:

    Bronwyn Barnes commented

    There is already a liquor outlet across the road from this proposed site and a hotel that sells alcohol. I am not sure why it is necessary to have a liquor shop within such close proximity to a Early Childhood Centre, a primary school and a high school. There are more than 1500 children in the area everyday less than 50m from this site. If adults wish to purchase alcohol products the nearest outlet is only 100m away from this application. I object to multiplication of the same type of retail outlet so close to children and families. We have a social responsibility to educate our young about safe alcohol consumption and I am afraid these children could be exposed to potentially harmful role models outside the school fence. A different site in a shopping centre away from the existing school and preschool or in the new Warnervale Town Centre would be more appropriate. We have plenty of liquor shops in the local area. One in Tuggerawong, Kanwal, Lake Haven, Charmhaven, Gorokan, Hamlyn Terrace, Nth Wyong and Wyong all less than 10mins away. Give the community a break! It is far too accessible for children and young people, the exposure is everywhere and effecting so many families. We keep having to spend ridiculous amounts of taxpayers money on education and health programs to combat alcoholism, not to mention the money spent policing alcohol related crimes in the community. Keep our children SAFE and STOP the over saturation permeating every street corner.

  13. In Bondi NSW on “Cafe Max - Liquor licence...” at 251 Bondi Rd, Bondi 2026:

    Oisin McEllin commented


    My name is Oisin McEllin and I have lived on Boonara lane for 8 years.
    I live on Boonara Lane which Cafe Max backs onto. I have found in the past that the noise levels on the lane get a bit much each night when they were using the back entrance to let people out.
    I would ask you to consider this when reviewing this application.
    I have no issues with people entrying from the street(Bondi Road) but the use of the lane causes a lot of noise at closing time.
    The back of the premises had a roller door that would open up and people would back onto the lane and flood the street.
    This was also a hazard as lots of people use the lane as a short cut when driving and have to watch out for people spilling out of the cafe, I surprised nobody was knocked over.
    None of the other businesses use the lane in this way so I don't see why Cafe Max should either.
    I'm very happy a new business is opening but please use Bondi Road to allow them access in and out of the premises.
    I wish the new business venture all the best!

    Kind regards

    Oisin McEllin

  14. In Newtown NSW on “Young Henrys Brewing...” at Lot D 4/76 Wilford Street, Newtown 2042:

    Brett Klapdor commented

    I live in Phillip street and am concerned that DA201200019 76E Wilford Street Newtown will place extra stress on parking and noise during week night to 11pm.

    Please register my concerns.

    Brett Klapdor

  15. In Waterloo NSW on “Fitout and use of retail...” at 18 Danks Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Sean commented

    Wondering why a kitchen showroom needs to be licenced, and stay open till midnight, especially on bank holidays.
    Thanks, Sean

  16. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Kym Glouftsis commented

    Further to my previous objection to the above-mentioned proposed childcare and wish to register my strong objection to this development on the following grounds:

    1. Unsuitability of Use for the Area

    The proposed development provides for a commercial type operation in a low density residential zoning. A centre of this type fails to correlate to the general objectives of this zoning and built form intended for development under the zoning. Specifically we believe that the proposal does not satisfy the aims and objectives for development of the Residential 2 (B) zoning under Schedule 9 of the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (KPSO) 1971. It is clearly stated in this document that the objectives of the zoning are to “…maintain and where appropriate, improve the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zonesâ€.

    The proposal will be completely out of character with surrounding development and will result in adverse impacts on residents of surrounding properties (including degradation of streetscape, lack of visual integration with surrounding properties in the neighbourhood generally, reduced safety to residents ie most notably children and traffic issues). The size and scale of this use, particularly the large basement car park, represents a significant overdevelopment of the site not reflected in the construction of surrounding development generally. A development of this nature in a street such as Manning Road has the potential danger of setting a dangerous precedent for overstated and out of character projects.

    2. Loss of Streetscape

    Manning Road provides an excellent example of the West Killara area’s scenic streetscape and to place a childcare centre in the road and remove significant vegetation will detrimentally alter the character and beauty of this street.

    3. Street width and parking

    The street is too narrow to support the additional onsite traffic and parking that the childcare centre of this size will ultimately generate. Whilst basement parking will be provided within the proposed development the traffic reports provided by the developer suggest the presence of ample onsite parking in the street which will support the centre.
    Manning Road has kerb and guttering to the southern side of the road and earthen formed embankments with drive over vehicular crossings to the north. The northern side gutters have been laid back with bitumen in part and grass towards the southern section of the road. (which is unstable in nature).

    The open gutters and steep embankments (up to 1 metre differential road level) to the northern side of the Road are problematic. Manning Road requires that vehicles be parked away from embankments and open drains to provide unloading space for mothers removing children from car seats and the like. Effective road widths are only between 6.7 and 7.8 metres which is far too narrow when you consider the scenario of cars parked on either side of the road together with buses and trucks navigating in between (Note that Manning Road is a bus route).

    4. Traffic Generation and Pedestrian Safety

    Given the size of the size of the centre and anticipated traffic generation we are concerned that this will have a detrimental impact not only on Manning Road but also surrounding streets. The impact of is further compounded by before and after traffic already generated from nearby Beaumont Road Public School. Pedestrian safety due to increased traffic is a concern around the school and it should be noted that a number of street, in particular Manning Road itself does not have separate pedestrian paths in some cases forcing people to walk on the roads.

    5. Design of the Centre itself.

    The proposal, as it is currently designed, fails to adhere to a number of Council guidelines (namely DCP 57 and 38) as well as KSPO general Child Care Centre design guidelines. DCP 57 – Childcare Centres (3.7. b p7) states: “Where a new child care centre is to be established in a residential street, the applicant must demonstrate that there will be no significant impact to residential amenity or traffic movementâ€. For the reasons set out already in points 1 – 5 inclusive we fail to see how this proposal can comply with this requirement.

    Non code compliance concerns include the number of permitted adjoining properties (no more than 2 although the subject has 4), designated footpaths for pedestrian safety), and the provision of basement car parking verses onsite parking assumptions (which seem designed to “tick a box†rather than provide a real, feasible, convenient and safe child drop off/ customer parking solution).

    Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration. Whilst we are in support of sensible development, including child care centres, we believe that the proposal put forward in this instance is inappropriate for the area, the safety and amenity of residents, and does not comply with a number of established development codes.

    Given the the area of the proposed development is already in a SEPP5 exclusion zone because the Aged are vulnerable as are Young Children, this development should not have even been considered by KMC, it must be rejected immediately.

  17. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Revesby Heights Rhinos...” at Neptune Park Edinburgh Drive, Revesby Heights 2212:

    J. Warren commented

    I disagree if this application means there will be drinking each weekend while the games are on. If it is just for an odd adult type function then that is a different story.I don't agree with junior sports clubs promoting drinking. I have seen another junior rugby league club (in the Sutherland Shire) set up bar tables outside the clubhouse whilst the games are being played and the men all drink in front of the kids. What sort of message is this sending ? No wonder there is such a drinking problem in the NRL.

  18. In St Peters NSW on “To use the premises at 2...” at 2-4 Lackey Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Concerned resident commented


    Our studio is in a close proximity to the discussed premisses.
    The new business has been operating from 2-4 Lackey Street St Peters for the last year or so since the old tenant left. The wall that used to separate the 2 businesses has been taken off and the business (Unique Plaster originally occupying 59 Campbell Rd St Peters, bordering the back of the discussed warehouse) expanded into 2-4 Lackey Street St Peters.

    Please note, materials commonly used for plaster casting and molding includes Epoxy, Latex, Release Agents, Resin, Polyester, Polyurethane, Silicone, cement and many more...

    On most days, there is a very strong chemical odour coming out of the business and can be smelled at least a block away. A council representative is welcome to come and inspect it any day of the week.

    Additionally, there is a white could of dust constantly coming out of the premises and a long white trail is lingering on the road outside of the roller door. Again a council representative is welcome to come and inspect it any day of the week - it is very visible.

    Given the amount of white dust and the awful toxic smell, for the safety and well being of the neighboring tenants It would be good if a Dust Collectors is installed as well as a industrial air cleaner.

    Otherwise, we are happy with the application.

  19. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Kym Glouftsis commented

    The proposed development is in the SEPP5 exclusion zone.

    There is reference to this area with problems of: access, isolated community & bottlenecks in the original document which proposed the SEPP5 exclusion zone. That document was co-produced by the RFS and KMC.

    The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission report made in July 2010 made 3 recommendations that referred to Child Care Centres. In each of those recommendations the vulnerable groups were identified together as: Aged Care Facilities, Hospitals, Schools and Child Care Centres.

    With the proposed Child Care Centre being in the SEPP5 exclusion zone it should treated as a vulnerable group and be excluded from being developed in this area.

    Additionally water mains pressure for Bushfire protection is poor in this area and will be worse now that Sydney Water recently introduced a pressure reduction programme to "improve service" to more of their customers.

    There are three Community Fire Units in Blaxland Rd which is next to Manning Rd. The CFU's are there because we are in a Bushfire Prone Area.

  20. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Christoff Mans commented

    I am writing to object and oppose the proposed development DA11/1270 at Forum Drive, Heathcote.

    My concern is the Council seem to ignore all safety regulations around the Forum Drive and Heathcote Road junction.
    The Council also seem to show no concern for the residents living near Heathcote Road.

    There are fatal accidents on Heathcote Road nearly every week. Several accidents also occurred near the Forum Drive junction.
    With 900 people gathering in a hall, there will be about 200 cars coming from the West trying to turn right on Heathcote Road into Forum Drive, This will happen at least every Tuesday afternoon near peak hours and will cause cars to form queues that will have to stand in the right turn lane plus the fast (right) lane of Heathcote Road. This queue will form right in the blind spot coming up the hill. When drivers see the queue, it will probably be too late to take evasive action.
    There is not even a stop line painted on the Forum Drive to indicate the position where cars should stop and this already caused several accidents.
    Do the council have no concern about the safety of residents?

    Similar areas near main roads like Heathcote Road are protected by Sound Barrier walls. Only in Sutherland Shire you will find barely any sound barrier walls. Is this because the Sutherland Council just do not care about their residents?

    The questions about evacuation during bushfires and environmental damage seem to be of no concern to the Council either?
    The purchasing of the land and development deals also seem to be shrouded in mystery with no public participation, questionable property prices and notices only put up one day before the expiry date

  21. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Sandra and Ian Reinhard commented

    We too wish to voice our concerns and objections to this proposed development of 44R Forum Drive, Heathcote. From our residence in Beethoven Street, Engadine, where we have lived and paid rates for the past 40 years, we will view directly across the valley to this huge development. I refer to the word "huge" in respect to a residential area on the edge of a national park.

    If a visual impact study was taken from the northerly direction it would show a completely different aspect to that taken from the more easterly direction of Stephens Road. We feel this has not been fairly taken into account.

    In the St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader edition of Tuesday 24th January 2012, we have Heathcote Road called a 'Horror Stretch' with the amount of fatalities that have occurred over the last five years. There is no doubt that a facility to accommodate 900 people will bring more traffic than our local roads can handle.

    You are our Council. Please look at all of our concerns with the obvious implications of a development of this size in Heathcote and indeed the Sutherland Shire.

  22. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    KAY ARMSTRONG commented

    After my previous comment I visited the development site and found the vulnerable bushes melaleuca deanii. The report suggests that the 13 bushes are inside a high fence but my observation is that the majority of the bushes are actually outside the fenced area. I cannot see how these mature bushes would survive being moved to another site and think this should be closely looked at before this step is taken.
    Also the visual impact study forgot to add the residents that live to the north of the site being from Fairview Avenue and Beethoven Street going south towards Heathcote Road. A lot of these properties face straight across the gully and will be looking directly at the building. There were no photos taken from this angle and the two photos taken from Stephens Rd don't give a correct indication from this area.
    There are also mixed reports as to the building hight, will it be above the ridge line or not?

  23. In Newport NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 2 Foamcrest Avenue Newport:

    Rosemary and Andrew Szente commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I refer to DA No. N0348/11 No. 2 Foamcrest Avenue, Newport. We are residents who live opposite in Unit 3, No. 26 Seaview Avenue, Newport. We received documentation regarding the DA application in September, 2011 and were given the chance to voice our objections. At that time we did not see the plan of the roof. We have just learned that the owners wish to have a barbeque area on top of the building. A barbeque in the garden area, which is an enclosed area, would be acceptable. The gathering of people on the roof for a barbeque would be noisy and the smells from an open barbeque area wafting across the road would not be acceptable. Our apartments look directly on to the roof area. We expect to look down onto a roof, not a social gathering. We are not too happy about having two swimming pools directly opposite knowing how noisy some people can be around swimming pools.

    We object to having a barbeque area on the roof.

    Will the Norfolk Pine on the corner be cut down? If so, we object to this as well.

    Rosemary and Andrew Szente

  24. In Keiraville NSW on “Residential - use of...” at 3 Cosgrove Avenue, Keiraville NSW 2500:

    Glen Moore commented

    Please advise whether this DA has been approved.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “Application under Section...” at 80-82 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Aaron Ross commented

    Marrickville Council

    I and every other property adjacent to the development through a signed petition, have opposed the placement of north facing balconies and windows in the original DA as they have direct line of sight into my (and other neighbours) primary living areas.

    Dormer windows will have the same impact. I will confirm and expand these comments in a letter to Council.

  26. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Kym Glouftsis commented

    This is no way this DA should be approved!

    Given that the proposed DA is in the middle of Bushfire Prone Vegetation there is no direct evacuation route without passing through Bushfire Prone Vegetation.


  27. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Philip Bartlett commented

    Re DA0671/11

    For Council to even go to the trouble of letting it go past first base is ludicrous. This DA should be refused.

    1. The infrastructure (including roads, nature-strips, pathways, sewage & water supply & public transport) is not suitable for this development.
    2. There would be loss of amenity & lowering of property values in a precinct that is exclusively residential.

  28. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Michael Hardie commented


    I would like to oppose this development on the basis of a number of concerns.

    1. The threat in an emergency bush fir evacuation. The roads are small, narrow and surrounded by bushland. If a fire comes quickly getting the current residents out is a concern already. Adding extra cars and people would be very dangerous and may result in loss of life.

    2. The traffic and noise of car doors, car noise and extra road traffic at early mornings, evenings and their large events will destroy the peace and quiet that this area enjoys.

    3. The threat to wildlife, flora and forna will be an issue. Have the thorough reports been done that are not biased to the applicant? We see a lot of wildlife in this site and I'd hate to see what happens to them.

    Please could you take seriously the concerns and impact this will have on a friendly, quiet, family oriented community. We bought here for the quiet and bushland atmosphere.

    Thanks so much for your work and consideration.

  29. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Maurice Pignatelli commented

    I have serious reservations about the impacts this development will have on our local community, the amenity of our neighbourhood and bushfire safety. This development is consistent with the objectives of the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006 (SSLEP2006).

    I have experienced the 1994, 1997 and 2000 bushfires in this area and our family was evacuated due to the fires in 2000. The fact that this DA is not supported by a Bushfire Emergency Evacuation Plan is contemptible. Regardless however, no amount of specialist reports can convince us that bushfire risk to life, property and the environment can be managed, to an acceptable level, if a meeting hall of this scale is approved by Council at this location. The scale of the development amplifies the bushfire risk for the residential community, attendees at the meeting hall and all emergency services.

    The scale and nature of this development will also impact on the character of this community which consists predominantly of residential dwellings. The development has been designed explicitly not to integrate into the locality. The development is “exclusive†and surrounded by an institutional style compound totally out of character with the open and inclusive community which currently resides in the area. Serenity will be maintained within the compound by design and exclusion, whilst its attendees will traverse through the community impacting on our amenity with noise and traffic. Council is asking the local residents to forego what they cherish about the area for zero community benefit.

    The Traffic and Parking Implications Assessment supporting this DA cannot be relied upon. The report provides no confidence to the local residents that the current or future traffic and parking implications have been adequately assessed. The traffic assessment is based on regular patronage of the meeting hall of up to 400 attendees whilst the capacity of the hall is 900. It is reasonable to expect that regular patronage will grow over time to potentially 900, which will increase traffic impacts and cause parking problems for this and future generations. If this were to occur, the consequences of traffic and parking congestion would be irreversible.

  30. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Sophie Hay commented

    This Application is preposterous.
    The area around Manning Road is clearly residential. The road is small, no lines indicated, no gutters towards the end of the street, and potholes in various locations. The properties on the Road and in surrounding roads, are single house dwellings. Some plots of land have been subdivided. There are no apartments or commercial dwellings in the vicinity.

    The amount of traffic alone, caused by this development would be not sustainable. The roads in this particular area are not built to house so many cars, and as such there are currently no footpaths in the area, and even no gutters in this and neighbouring streets.

    The infrastructure to take so many more cars in the area, currently does not exist. This would also be a danger to the children and people who currently live in the area. There are no footpaths and as such people are required to walk on the road. With the amount of additional cars (equal to what would equate to an apartment block), this would be dangerous.

    The area is situated totally within residential houses. There are no commercial properties in the near vicinity. There is no train station, and the buses are a provision for the local community. The enclave of West Lindfield was not designed to house, such a large development, nor all the traffic that accompanies it.

    There is are numerous Childcare centres in the vicinity including, one that has recently opened on Fiddens Wharf Road. This proposed centre, is out of the way for many, and in an area currently populated with sufficient Childcare facilities. This proposal is for a very large facility, which really should be situated closer to public amenities, commercial properties and public transport.

    In relation to the environmental impact. This development would be huge. There are currently magnificent trees and nature on the property. One can only assume that to house such a large facility with basement carpark, that the majority of these would need to be removed. These trees, speak of history, have not reached their lifespan and enable the properties to remain in line with each other. Not to mention the current brush turkey population, and native fauna that inhabit this area. The development would be catastrophic for the fauna that we see in the area.

    The noise that would be generated from this development would be huge. Regardless of which way the wind is blowing (literally) it would have huge impacts, on immediately surrounding properties, not to mention surrounding streets. People who have lived here for a long time, and even those of us who haven't, moved to the area for the peace, and local community feel. This would destroy all of that, and for those that decide that the noise would be too much and move; they would find that their property price would have dropped substantially. This development would impact, not only directly surrounding properties, not only those on Manning Road, but also those in surrounding streets.
    The noise not only from children, but also from equipment that is needed. The area currently does not have Gas. Electricity is used and does black out quite often. The additional stress this would put on the system would be astronomical. The infrastructure in this area was once again not designed to house, nor support such a development.
    In relation to the above are also the air conditioning units that would be required for the development. Regardless of where they be placed this would seriously be noise pollution for the neighbouring properties.
    The above are but some points as to why the development should not be granted. Simply put the size and number of children for this area, is way too large. The location should not even be considered, considering the area that it is proposed.
    A childcare centre that merely by the increased traffic in the area, places other children in danger.
    This area does not currently have the infrastructure to support such a large and dedicated facility.

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