Recent comments

  1. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Natalie commented

    My name is Natalie, I am 18 years old and I live within 250 meters of the proposed site for this new cellular tower. As a young adult of this community I am deeply concerned about the community’s safety and the safety of future generations that live in this area. As I understand it, the purpose of this new cellular tower is to increase the mobile signal for people around the suburb, but I feel that the major negative health impacts are being underestimated by those who wish to place this high frequency tower in such a highly populated area. Some of these major health effects include; memory loss, birth defects, cardiovascular stress, migraines, sleeps deprivation, cancer and many more.
    Another concern of mine and many of the people I have spoken to, who live in the area, is how close the selected area for the tower is to the business area and playground for children in Wyoming. Not only will this affect adults but it will also affect the health and development of the children which live and play in the area. I am worried that because cellular radiation and its effects are so erratic we do not know what other negative health effects could arise, such as the development of learning, mental and behavioural disabilities within children, teenagers and adults.
    For these reasons I strongly oppose the placement of this new cellular tower within Wyoming.

  2. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Joanne commented

    To the members of Council,

    As a rate payer and member of our community, I am unequivocally opposed to the installation of a phone tower at 50 Renwick Street Wyoming for the following reasons: Potential HEALTH IMPACTS on residents and visitors to the area, the potential DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY PRICES and SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPACT on the area.

    The application to build a telecommunications tower at this site is fundamentally flawed, as it does not take into consideration the potential physical and monetary burden it places on a large proportion of the community, in particular young children and families who utilise this area for recreation and those who live or own property within 1km radius of the area.

    THE PROPOSED SITE IS UNSUITABLE as it is in the close proximity to: Local Preschools, -Primary school, - Girl Guides hall, -Church and Community Hall, - Shopping Centre, Pub/Hotel, and Various other businesses. The proposed site is WITHIN A CHILDREN'S PARK/PLAYGROUND AND PUBLIC RECREATION AREA AND HAS SIGNIFICANT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING BORDERING THE LAND ON ALL SIDES. The direct and long term impact on these residents and rate payers must not be underestimated.

    Based on research I have undertaken in the last day on the internet, I have found the following: “A growing chorus of doctors and researchers warns that electromagnetic fields from many of the hallmarks of modern life have been linked to a wide variety of health risks ranging from sleeplessness to cancer". “The microwaves from cell phone towers can interfere with your body’s own EMFs, causing a variety of potential health problems, including: Headaches, Memory loss, cardiovascular stress, low sperm count, birth defects and cancer".

    What appears to be clear is that not enough research has been done and that the long term health impacts of EMF radiation from Cell Towers being built in residential areas. That there appears to be a GROWING CHORUS OF EVIDENCE COMING TO LIGHT OF THE IMPACTS OF EMF ON PUBLIC HEALTH THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED by Council. (You just have to do a google search to see the overwhelming evidence of people who are significantly concerned about health dangers associated with EMF and Cell Towers)

    Based on information I located online from multiple sites and studies, I am significantly concerned about the potential health risks that are posed when Cell Towers are installed in Residential areas. As a resident of Wyoming and a regular user of 50 Renwick St site, I do not want to be subject to the bombardment of EMF radiation 24/7 from a large Telecommunications Tower being built on my doorstep and in my recreation area. I do not want my families nor my health to be put at these potential risks due to living within metres of this proposed development.

    I would like to know can Council unequivocally guarantee its residents that their health will not be put at risk by the installation of a telecommunications tower in a high traffic and residential site?

    I also ask that Council Members also take into consideration the potential DEVALUATION of property prices in the area, when considering this development application. When I researched the impact of cell tower installation on property prices I found the following information online - Quote: “Research indicates that over 90% of home buyers and renters are less interested in properties near cell towers and would pay less for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas. Documentation of a price drop up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles ….” That would effectively equate to a $100,000.00 drop in value on a modest family home.

    I ask the Council to also consider that a reduction in property value could potentially have a knock on effect on Council revenue. Would owners be entitled to request a review of land value by the Valuer General if their property is impacted by the development? Could a significant wide spread property value drop mean a reduction in annual council rates for each property that is impacted by the Telecommunication Tower. It stands to reason that the revenue that could be potentially derived from leasing of the land (for the compound/tower) could potentially be significantly negated by the reduction in land rates paid by property owners (as rates are calculated on property valuations – reduction in property value = reduction in annual rate payments).

    As to suitability of the site it should be considered that the proposed site is in a low lying parcel of land (50 Renwick street is situated in one of the low lying area of Wyoming Valley) and would not offer a good vantage point for mobile coverage. It would make sense to relocate this tower to the higher mountain area where there are large green spaces away from residential homes and high traffic public spaces.

    The potential social, health and economic impacts on residents must be considered when weighing up this development and its location. Based on these concerns raised by many in the community, I feel that it is not in the interest of the community, rate payers or council to approve the application at 50 Renwick St Wyoming to build a telecommunications tower on this site.

    Also it is important to note as a resident who will be significantly impacted by this development that it is disappointing that we first we heard about this proposal yesterday as both Council and the Developer did not send a letter to announce this planned development. It begs to ask how many other residents are unaware this proposal has been submitted to council and that they have not been given sufficient notice to comment on this proposal. Something as significant as this should require Council to send notification to all rate payers within a minimum of a 5km radius of the development.

    Thank you for taking my feedback into consideration

  3. In Terrigal NSW on “Construction of Residential...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Chris Norris commented

    Over development with questionable floor space ratio for the site and area. Insufficient visitor parking and traffic management for the density of this site (incorporating surrounding developments).

  4. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Kelly Pereira commented

    I believe this is a huge safety issue. Not only will there be issues regarding radiation which will lead you to be held liable in future which will cost rate payers but also if you think that bored teenagers will not break in, damage or attempt to climb this tower given how easily accessible it will be in that location then you are absolutely niave. This is in the middle of a busy, active sporting field/playground area. This is not the place for this kind of infastructure. My son plays soccer on this field and if this goes ahead I would encourage sporting clubs to petition to remove their play/competition from this field and local parents to bypass use of the beautiful new playground area.

  5. In Rozelle NSW on “Removal of 2 x Palms” at 23 Red Lion Street Rozelle NSW 2039:

    Anne Sweet commented

    With escalating summer temperatures and increasing air pollution in Sydney, it seems crucial that we retain as many trees as we can. Unless the two palms are badly diseased, or there is another pressing reason for their removal, it would be great for the trees to stay. Red Lion St has almost no trees as it is.

  6. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Gina Hamilton commented

    My concern is safety .
    Question !!! Is this going to be a 5G tower . In which case it should not be allowed to go ahead anywhere .... ever . So dangerous to our bodies .
    And putting a 4G tower near a built up area and directly above children’s play areas ... really where is the common sense .
    .
    Not happy at all !!!!!!

  7. In Carlton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 253 Princes Highway, Carlton, NSW Australia:

    suzanne o'connor commented

    suzanne o'connor
    This is a really bad development ! Next to a school, too high , shopping underneath .
    Should someone wish to shop there , where will they park. Who would want to shop there ! Jubilee Avenue is gridlocked a lot of the time , add in commercial activity and the traffic will be untenable.
    It seems to me that the developers build right to the border to enable a greater number of apartments and more profit. By having commercial space underneath it gives them the right to build that way.
    The residents will have access to what green open space ?
    Who would buy there ?
    Right on the Highway ...busy , noisy choked iwith traffic . Awful !

  8. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Kevin Stone commented

    A very definite NO! Children's playgrounds and playground equipment throughout the Wyoming area over recent years, have been closed down and play equipment removed. Please don't destroy one of the few green areas left in Wyoming for young families to enjoy! The installation of Mobile phone towers and the harmful radiation emitted in and around families and Children is not a good mix! Once again, a very definite No to the whole concept! Wyoming is a vast heavily populated area, please leave the families of Wyoming alone and allow them to have one last safe haven in which they are able to go and enjoy!

  9. In Wyoming NSW on “Installation...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Mark Watkins commented

    Not in childrens play area .

  10. In Potts Point NSW on “S 4.55 (2) modification of...” at 127-139 Macleay Street Potts Point NSW 2011:

    Christopher McManamon commented

    The owners here are so community minded and respectful - and their cafe has breathed a bit of life into our area. I enjoy being there. The hours of operation are perfectly normal. I support this application.

  11. In Waterloo NSW on “Section 4.55(2)...” at 183 Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    M Boothroy commented

    We just suffered an extension of McDonald's hours only a few months ago. Wasn't that supposed to have a time limit before another extension could be made.
    City of Sydney Council and McDonald's are in each others pockets in that they don't allow a reasonable are of the community know of this extension.
    I only find out due to Planning Alerts. City of Sydney only advise the properties with 50m which means they let an office building behind McDonald's know and one block of apartments alongside know.
    I request this not be approved for the following reasons.
    1. City of Sydney has been thoughtless to the community in not getting feedback to more than those 50m from McDonald's. It is a greater are than those just alongside who suffer these operating hours.
    2. We are still suffering the latest extension - to hit us with another blow in such a short time is unreasonable.
    3. Rubbish in my street has increased.
    4. Noise in my street due to revellers looking for food/drunks who frequent McDonald's for food has increased.
    5. We all need a break from the smell of the fat for more than 4hrs a day.
    6. This is a residential community. Put McDonald's in shopping centres or major highways where nobody is living and suffering the noise.
    7. We all need more than a 4 hr break from the traffic it brings, remembering current traffic noise goes something like this:
    a. McDonald's traffic includes noisy vehicles (hotted up cars)
    b. 5am helicopters flying over.
    c. 6am aeroplane flights start
    d. 11pm aeroplane flights finish
    e. all night - large trucks travelling down Botany Rd braking nosily, waking me up.
    f. all day and night - due to being in the vicinity of emergency services we are interrupted by their sirens constantly.

    Enough!
    It astounds me that council will read this and likely nobody will contact me for community consultation and say wow we are sorry we have bought so much noise to the local community. They will just shrug their shoulders (as they don't care about people actually, they pretend to be but are fake), and say we were looking for replies saying yes please open McDonald's 24hours (which face it this is what you and McDonald's is edging towards) This COMMUNITY FEEDBACK doesn't suit our current agenda so we will just ignore it.

    Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has launched an investigation into why we suffer such bad sleep. COUNCIL and McDONALDS you can take plenty of the blame.

  12. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Change of use for existing...” at 9 Hartill-Law Avenue, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Cameron commented

    Hello Adam J, Palms Thai Day Spa closed down because it was raided by the police a week or so ago.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Commercial Premises Use...” at 1/2C Gladstone Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Matt Costain commented

    There is a fantastic community of creatives, educators, artists, businesses and producers in these spaces. whose presence and contribution to the cultural landscape of Newtown, Enmore and the greater Inner West is legendary. They would have to move in the name of 'progress' and many not for the first time in very recent history. In addition, the additional vehicle traffic to the area would be unwelcome.

  14. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Helen commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    As parents we spend our whole life trying to protect our children, only to have Optus wanting to situate a mobile phone tower on top of our local sporting fields and playground. I have grave concerns and strongly oppose this due to safety issues.
    Please reconsider for the safety of our community. There are other sites and options that are far less intrusive.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Matt Costain commented

    This is pretty obscene. Will increase traffic levels on often congested roads, and will ruin the low rise Marrickville enjoys, as spell the death of some of the creative and noise/music creating industries nearby with the inevitable noise complaints from appropriate zoning.

  16. In Port Kembla NSW on “Change of Use - community...” at 27-29 Wentworth Street, Port Kembla NSW 2505:

    Karen Tavener-Smith commented

    Darcy House should be part of the Port Kembla main street.They are a professional, high quality service of staff and volunteers providing what is needed to many members of the community.All members of the Port Kembla community have a right to access services and enjoy the many good changes that are occurring in the area.I have always admired Port Kembla as a strong and respectful community. This will be the platform for the change you are seeking to a vibrant main street.
    I do not live in Port Kembla but support businesses there.I will definitely not shop in the main street if it is not inclusive and becomes another 'sanitised' shopping precinct.
    Darcy House does a wonderful job of supporting members of the community who are in need and I fully support their application.

  17. In Tusmore SA on “Alterations and additions...” at 12 Lynington Street Tusmore SA 5065:

    Raymond liu commented

    Is this property heritage listed?

  18. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Ngaire commented

    I cannot believe this tower is even being considered for a public park!
    Why is it not going on a mountain like most others, away from the population?
    Alan Davidson Oval is a widely used park by locals and many sporting clubs from around the Central Coast as well as being in a heavily populated area.

    As a nearby resident I STRONGLY OPPOSE the installation of this tower at Alan Davidson Oval.

  19. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Dwelling House” at 48B Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Pat Bartholomew wrote to local councillor Geoff McDonald

    this mob of Councillors just don't give a rats about the concerns and lifestyle of the ratepayers. None of them have the internal fortitude to make a stand or at least make a relevant reply on this site. It is all $$$ to them in one way or another..... no empathy whatsoever.

    Delivered to local councillor Geoff McDonald. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Bondi Junction NSW on “New hotel development” at 5-11 Hollywood Avenue, Bondi Junction:

    Andrew Dickson commented

    Some concerns with this proposal:
    1. Describing the proposal as a "new hotel development" is disingenuous. Call it what it is; student accommodation.
    2. Student accommodation, with an open rooftop area, opposite residential housing. You will hear this blocks away...
    3. 198 rooms and no parking; do they imagine that none of the guests/residents will have a car, irrespective of the public transport options? The additional vehicles will just end up in the nearest non-restricted parking, or clog zoned parking after hours.
    4. This street is already significantly overcrowded from a traffic perspective due to the entrance to Westfields parking. Adding up to another 396 people to the street will not improve matters.
    5. The "justification" for exceeding the height limit is spurious. If a specific limit has been set with the purpose of meeting the objectives set out, then a breach should not be entertained. Certainly, the building does not "provide an appropriate transition in building heights surrounding that land" in relation to the double story terraces diagonally across the road. Obviously other buildings in the area have the same issue, but why make it worse?

  21. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Julie Kesby commented

    No!No!No!Surely there must be another site to build this tower on! My son is often down at Alan Davidson playing footy with his friends and along with all the other kids who play soccer,cricket or play in the Park.
    This is a really bad decision and I am thoroughly opposed to it.

  22. In Warradale SA on “1 into 2 Torrens division” at 3C Louise Avenue Warradale, SA:

    Barbara Hann commented

    sneaky council decided to sell this block, not much warning of what and when it was happening, letter received just before Christmas with very little information, of which they already had a big idea of what actually was happening...???? it is now being developed and very quickly at that?? I would like to know what is exactly being built on this site, due to living next door, my interest is that my home will not be depleated of any sunlight and over hang with windows looking in to our private home/garden ???

  23. In Richmond VIC on “Amendment” at 20 Bosisto St Richmond VIC 3121:

    TESTING commented

    TESTING

  24. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Sheri Hatter commented

    The risk of radiation to residents and children and visitors to the oval is unacceptable. These towers not only are eyesores they are dangerous to the community. I live close by and my grandchildren play on the oval regularly . I could understand if this area was never accessed however this oval is used by many people all year round. I thoroughly oppose this plan for a tower.

  25. In Wahroonga NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) for...” at 161 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Samantha Baker commented

    I do not support an extension, but question why the request goes from 2 to 5 years? Any extension should be considered in much smaller increments, of 12 months or less, to allow a re-evaluation of impact and whether the outcome has been reached. The extension is unwarranted and the duration requested is unreasonably long.

  26. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Phil Kesby commented

    To even consider Alan Davidson Oval as a site for this type of construction is absurd.
    There must be other locations.

  27. In Knoxfield VIC on “Development of 11 dwellings...” at 56 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Ian Simpson commented

    Eleven townhouses on this site is extreme. Nine townhouses would provide for more onsite parking for residents and less crowding on Kathryn Road parking spaces.

    Secondly, the removal of native trees will further desecrate the environment for birdlife that use these trees as an avenue from Lakewood Reserve to Corhanwarrabul Creek and from the Dandenong Ranges to Dandenong Creek areas. Once Knoxfield's birdlife was thriving now due to tree removals less and less varieties of birds have been noted.
    Retaining some trees would at least provide some benefit for the birdlife.

    Most townhouses have at least 2 cars, some rental properties have four, meaning that car parking space is at a premium on these developments. Local courts and parking spaces along Kathryn Road are becoming so congested adding to traffic problems along Kathryn Road. Eleven townhouses with at least two cars would mean another 110 car trips a day along Kathryn Road daily and with no traffic lighted exits from the estate, creating dangerous conditions during peak times. So a reduction of units would assist with traffic flows considerably.

    It is no wonder that the mean temperature in Knoxfield has risen by 2 degrees since 1970, considering all the developments that have been built with all the concrete areas, creating "heat banks". Less units and more earthen areas would assist in developing a more appropriate environment for this suburb.

    Please consider these arguments before making a decision on the 56 Kathryn Road planned development.

  28. In Wyoming NSW on “Section 4.55 - Change to...” at 50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250:

    Pauleen commented

    I have concerns regarding the impact this structure will make to the playing fields for both the players and spectators and possibly the health implications. We have large areas away from playing fields and residential areas that surely could be used for this structure

  29. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Change of use for existing...” at 9 Hartill-Law Avenue, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Adam J. commented

    I see that the Palms Thai Day Spa and Massage business has closed down. I can only put it down to them opening up without the correct permits. THANK YOU Bayside Council. Also, following comments from above, I have looked into Jane Bardwell Park Massage's Statement of Environment Effects. They are not qualified remedial massage therapists. They have obtained credentials from the NSW Business College which is a private college and not a reputable educational institution. If this college was a legit and honest business, they would show on their website the Management of the company and they do not disclose this. ASIC should look into them as they are simply overseas private companies running an education scam for students to work in our country.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 182 Victoria Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mark Matheson commented

    Fifty-two people have already been killed in crashes in and around Sydney Airport.

    What kind of people would spend money to live with the constant threat of aeroplanes destroying their house and lives.

    I thought home-units were banned under the flight path.

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