Recent comments

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

    Margaret commented

    No! No! No!
    I am totally AGAINST the tower in Alan Davidson Oval. Keep these towers AWAY from the population.

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

    Hayley Spencer commented

    I am completely opposed to this tower being placed in the park. I am a resident who lives very close to this area and often enjoy the facilities with my family which includes small children. There must be alternatives to the proposal as the health risks are not worth it. You cannot put a price on outdoor spaces that are enjoyed by so many.

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

    Mark Singleton commented

    I thought the same Paddy, I saw the application and drove past the address and the house is up to the roof going on stage. The developer obviously knows our greedy council will rubber stamp anything

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

    Rebecca Wolski commented

    As a resident living only 500m from the proposed site, I am appalled to think that this park would even be considered as a possible location for a mobile tower.

    I strongly oppose the proposal and ask that you consider a more appropriate location away from a residential area.

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

    Dan Wolski commented

    I don't understand why a family park has been chosen as a Telco tower site? Hundreds of people use the park on weekends. There is empty land next to the rail line not even 700m from the park. Why can't some of this land be used?

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

    Graham Steinthal commented

    It is quite obvious that the telecommunications companies don't take into consideration when they plan the location of their telecommunication towers and what long term affect that it will have on the surrounding residence. Most telecommunication towers are designed to be located on the top of a hill or mountain for maximum reception and not down in the valley on Alan Davidson Oval which would seem to be an inefficient location for this tower. Not to mention how ridiculous this thing would look on our local playing fields, it would be a complete eyesore to look at and would spoil the appearance of our natural parkland. There must be a better option for this tower.

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

    Ainsley Knight commented

    The location selected for this tower is beyond inappropriate. I am a current Optus customer and have no coverage issues whatsoever, therefore I see no valid reason for this tower. I am not convinced of the safety of emissions from these towers and vehemently believe they should be only ever be placed well away from residential areas. There are many people within the community that are highly sensitive to the output from these towers and are affected negatively from proximity to them. Council, please think about this - would you be happy to have a tower like this in YOUR backyard? I am not against progress, but I am against anything that benefits the few and disadvantages many. The cost here would not just be financial for some...

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

    Peter Knight commented

    I am absolutely shocked to find that this has been approved only metres away from my home and on an oval were families frequent every day.
    Please reconsider this before it is to late. Surely there has to be a better position not in a residential area for this.

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

    Jessica Gilkes commented

    No, no. Absolutely not.
    1. Not needed, there's no issue with phone service
    2. What an eyesore!
    3. It's a children's park!! A phone tower next to a children's park? Surely you have some evidence that shows that this is not beneficiary to our future generations

  10. In Enmore NSW on “To continue extended...” at 199 Enmore Road Enmore NSW 2042:

    Scott Murray commented

    I agree with Roger above. Extended gambling hours are not worthy of a caring community. Gambling exploits the hard earned dollars of patrons and in particular their families. Please resist the pressure placed by greedy business owners

  11. In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 17 Belmore Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Maree Mehmet commented

    This DA must be a joke right?? How on earth can 40 boarding houses fit onto that land space? And how are they allowed to demolish a historical building (over 100 yrs old). How will this small area's infrastructure accommodate such a concentrated population increase without a serious traffic incident/fatality?

    Why are the developers not exploiting the property in a positive way, leveraging the significant character potential of this area instead?

    I suggest the council seriously rethink what they will permit for this application, considering the potential for a beautiful cafe/antique/boutique precinct. Arncliffe is perfectly placed given the federation style construction across the suburb. It would both increase revenue to the area as well as raise land value. This corner of Arncliffe is crying out for historically-sympathetic development.

    I am a resident of Belmore St and strongly object to this appalling development application. Can the Council not show some respect and gumption like their northern counterparts (e.g., Kuring-Gai Council)? Or does the Southside only want to attract lower socio-economic residents and remain a "poor cousin".

    It's time for our Council to step up and plan what is possible with such beautiful architecture simply sitting there. Because once it has gone, there is no return.

  12. In Beecroft NSW on “Tree Application - 3x trees...” at 41 Orchard Road Beecroft NSW 2119:

    Bill Rankine commented

    The application is for the pruning of trees not their removal. Pruning is acceptable but not the trees removal. There are far too many trees being removed in Beecroft!

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 132 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Bailan Devereaux commented

    I object to this development application as I did for 7 Renwick Street, Marrickville. 7 Renwick St application demolished a beautiful Victorian house and has been abandoned and left vacant with construction rubbish for many months now. A council’s role is more than approve and disapprove applications based on a simple checklist. Local demand/supply of housing and cultural reservations need to be taken into consideration too. Clearly a lot of applications have destroyed the heritage nature of existing houses and are causing an over supply of residential properties.

  14. In Penrith NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 569 - 595 High Street Penrith NSW 2750:

    Sarah Williams commented

    It was not so long ago that Penrith Council redesigned the Mondo area and created a family friendly area in what is a community space. Now is seems Westfield just want to cash in on it by taking away community organisations like Nepean Community College and replacing it with more overpriced Retail space. Its not going to be much of community space if these additions go ahead considering the construction of the buildings that will occur and the reduced Mondo area that will be affected by large multistorey buildings blocking out all the sun.

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

    Sonja commented

    Like all the above residents I am concerned about health risks, security risks and the General appearance of the tower/structure.
    This is a beautiful oval and used by so many people.
    I am sure there are many other unused areas where such a structure would be out of the way and to no one’s health risk.

  16. In Wanniassa ACT on “PROPOSAL FOR DUAL OCCUPANCY...” at 4 O'hea Street, Wanniassa, ACT:

    Dean O'Brien commented

    I wish to formally have my concerns for the development of 2 x 2 storey housing development of 4 O'Hea Street be heard or read.
    O'Hea street compromises of privately owned homes being 3 and 4 bedroom residences with backyards etc, all of which the current owners of the street have been in ownership of houses for more than 20years, some likemyself being over 40 years.
    The street was never approved for dual occupancy developments up until current legislation was changed.
    Not only will 2x2 level dual occupancy have a impact on the street scape of O'Hea street it will surely have a impact on the current value of the existing homes in the street.
    The block itself is of the smaller blocks made available for purchase in 1976 and is hard to see how 2x2 level dual occupancy housing will be built or how far to the street it will occupy.
    Another issue I see is parking, as all occupants and owners of current housing in O'Hea street have off street parking. No cars are parked on the road side, being that the property being prosposed to be built at no 4 O'Hea street will have at least 2 cars parked street side each day/night with consideration of maybe more depending on the how many people will occupy each 2 level flat/home.
    In summary,
    4 O'Hea street is only suitable for single occupancy housing, with off street parking etc
    A family home in which carries on the facade of O'Hea street currently.
    Also has the consideration of values to properties On O'Hea street been taken into account, and the possible loss of value and rates payable.

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

    Jacqueline Watters commented

    I’m adding my support in request not to go ahead with this re the dangers of these towers in close proximity to people, especially children. Others have provided links to evidence of these dangers so no need for me to repeat.

  18. In Kew VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 50 Princess Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Fiona MacGill commented

    The land size of 50 Princess St is less than a third the size of 48 Princess St. It was subdivided in the past. 48 Princess St is a dense 12 units development.

    A 10 unit development would be very dense and tall and causing concern regarding privacy and deprivation of sunlight of the southern neighbours.

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

    Linda van Epen commented

    I am opposed to the installation of this tower due to the documented health risks associated with its erection within the park. As a resident in Wyoming this proposed site impacts directly on all park users such sports clubs, schools sporting events, families, apart from residents, aged care facilities, schools and businesses within its close proximity. The park is constantly being used by many members of the community on a daily basis all year round. With council completing $600,000 renovation of the fields surface area and upgrade of facilities prior to its amalgamation with Wyong Council.

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

    Stephen Burns commented

    This is a really inappropriate development for this location.

    Why not call it for what it is. Student hostel / accommodation. It would be very disruptive as students regularly circulate in and out, with there being no concierge, rather Resident Administrators who would be expected to introduce the students to the residence and familiarise them with the rules of conduct. Big chance this will happen and be applied across the board and consistently over time.

    Noise from the building is the big concern with the other concern being groups crowding on the sidewalk for a cigarette or just a chat at all hours. As well, the shadowing of local residences would be significant.

    There will be no Lifestyle about this development just trying to cram as many people into one location as possible.

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

    Naomi Silver commented

    Further to previous comments which I support, correction to Rodney Scherer- the developer of this proposal is Iglu not Igloo. Iglu are a well recognised student accommodation provider who I doubt have any idea what it means to be a contiguous resident of this location.
    Student accommodation under the guise of a "Lifestyle Hotel" is a load of nonsense. As local residents we already have more traffic than we need and the crumbling bitumen of Hollywood Avenue will struggle to cope with what is to come. Pedestrians are constantly crossing against the lights at the adjacent Westfield carpark entrance, one can only imagine the students who will make this LH their temporary home completely oblivious to pedestrian etiquette. When traffic lights meet people with ear buds in their ears distracted by 'connecting' to their world whilst cars slam on their brakes and use their horn because they have stepped out in front of them.
    Oh the blissful sounds of Bondi Junction's periphery.
    This development proposal of 198 rooms, a further 200 or more people on the street, making noise, dragging wheeled suitcases at all hours of the night. Being socially disruptive and unaware of the interruption to peaceful enjoyment of ones home. What about local residents?? Do people who pay rates matter? What about all the older people living in this area? Rooftop noise being broadcast till all hours from the development's rooftop terrace.
    We will not grow old quietly and gracefully, deafness is not an option. This development reeks of getting the dollars in with absolutely no consideration to the place and it's permanent residents.

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

    Sheila Gregg commented

    A mobile phone tower in a childrens playground does not sound like a very good idea

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

    KATHLEEN TANGNEY commented



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

    Ad van den Boogaard commented

    Dear Mr.McInnes,

    Thank you for the opportunity to review the application and to make a submission to KMC.

    It was at the 17 Dec 2018 KLPP meeting where several speakers had an opportunity to have their 2 minutes to express their concerns about this DA0058/18. As usual, all concerns in regard to traffic, street parking, bushfire hazard etc. associated with the Wahroonga Estate overdevelopment were discarded as the Chair of the meeting reminded all present that they had nothing to do with the specific DA being discussed; the compounding effect of continuous development is not thus being addressed.
    The last speaker was a representative of the developer/builder. In the 10 minutes time given to him, which was 5 times more than anyone else present, he was not able to answer even ONE question from the panel. Despite on-the-spot assistance provided by his accomplices with laptop and many papers, they were still unable to provide satisfactory answers to the questions.
    After the meeting was closed, we noticed a get-together of developer/builder representatives with more laptops and more papers having a discussion with the chair and panel members. Not in front of the counter; no, the off the record meeting was behind the counter in full view of everyone present!
    This shameless discard for the public and process was shocking. As such, it was no surprise when the DA was approved at the same same day.
    Although we are not able to witness “behind the counter” meetings, we think this unethical and shady practice should not be supported by the KMC, that exists to represent the public that funds it, not a few greedy developers and landowners.
    The MOD0040/19 Modification is just another call in favour of the developments going on in this already congested area. The concerns of the many members of the public who live in the area and who took leave from work and childcare to attend that day were apparently not as great as influential developers and their better connected representatives. Please KMC do not give this development any further favours!
    Furthermore, I am not sure what point Pastor Terry Johnson is trying to make with his basketball courts. He tries to divert the real issues the community is facing, including the SDA school, Church and Hospital into basketball courts being ready in time.
    I think Pastor Johnson should read a few chapters of his handbook:

    Matthew 23:25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.".

    We note that Pastor Johnson is no longer responding to community concerns, hence my sidenote in this response.

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

    Katrina Jefferson commented

    I have only recently been made aware of this. Surely there must be an option that is not near a childrens playground and soccer club. What research has the council done to prove that this is safe for the long term of our community? I would like to see the scientific test results and alternative sites please.

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

    Steven Baxter commented

    I am strongly against this tower being built in such a densely populated area and of all places right next to a children's play ground which I take my children to on a regular basis. They have just recently built the new playground only to have it ruined by this tower.

    I especially feel for the houses that will be so close to this tower not only in reference to their health concerns but also on a aesthetic level, as well as the potential impact on property value.

    I am unsure why this site has been chosen but there seems to be a lot of vacant land throughout the area why does it need to be in someones backyard? If this is due to it being the most cost effective means of installing this tower it disgusts me that this is the only consideration.

    I implore the council to consider the importance of public areas like this rather than someone mobile reception.

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

    Leigh Harriman wrote to local councillor Chris Tait

    Its unbelievable isnt it Paddy. The Walton Street units that we are upset about had mature yet manageable trees that would have been 100 years old on the site. The developer removed them before the application was considered. Councils decision was, of course, that the trees remain and be part of the development. Too Late! There should be fines imposed on these people to make them think twice. I have owls who sit out in the open during the day because their habitat has been removed. Cat fodder.

    Delivered to local councillor Chris Tait. They are yet to respond.

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

    Julian A Savage commented

    I am in full support of this application.

    There is no evidential link between mobile phone towers and any adverse health impacts.

    As a resident of Wyoming in reasonable proximity to this proposed development and an Optus network user, I am highly conscious of the poor coverage that this tower will alleviate.

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

    Tamara S commented

    I’m also another local resident of Wyoming & in total agreement with everyone above. The site chosen for the new Optus tower is clearly not suitable, the oval is a public space used by families & children everyday. The research done on the effects of microwaves on the human body should be enough for the tower to moved to a location further up the mountain. The families surrounding the proposed site have every right to be concerned for the welfare of their children.... the question is: “why aren’t you?!”....

  30. In Neutral Bay NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Spruson Street, Neutral Bay NSW 2089:

    Christopher Brown commented

    I support several points made by Chris Bradley:
    The 1930s Red Brick apartments of North Sydney are becoming endangered and given they are approaching 100yrs old now, should have art deco heritage considerations or development consistent with their theme (say keeping the façade).

    the street will change from the existing affordable accommodation for young workers in North Sydney & Sydney CBD and young families that the present dwellings offer, to something else (perhaps absentee holders) that the multi-million price tags probably >$15,000 per sqm will dictate.

    Important and historic fresh water streams run under 26/30 Spruson Street that need to be considered.

    Noise & dust management! (A very important point- we are being negatively impacted by these issues as a result of works on Wycombe Rd. Health & well being is being impacted through a long project of 6 mths!)

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