Recent comments

  1. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Kay & Steve Laurence commented

    As residents of Menai and attendees of Menai Baptist Church, we wish to support the approval of the proposal for Menai Baptist Church to meet on Sundays in the Performing Arts Centre. There would be no change to noise (in fact improvement), traffic or activities that are currently in operation.
    Many churches around the Shire use school facilities with no problem or objection.
    Menai Baptist Church seek the same consideration and understanding as these other churches have been afforded.

  2. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Neil Dawson commented

    I fully endorse and support the approval of the proposal for Menai Baptist Church to be able to meet for worship services on Sunday in the Performing Arts Centre (PAC) situated at Inaburra School.

    This facility (PAC) has been purpose built to provide for live performances, with state of the art acoustic control (to ensure negligible sound outside the building), seating (to ensure comfort for those attending, especially the elderly) and access (to allow ease of entry/exit for disabled, families with strollers, and the elderly).

    This proposal highlights the fact that the church already meets on Sunday within Inaburra, but in an inadequate room with difficult access, and that the change of venue to the PAC will not in any way result in a negative change for the neighbours of the school. Parking in contained within the school campus and the proposal is simply asking for a change of location from one room in the school to another (albeit a more suitable room).

    Many churches make use of school facilities all over Sydney on any given Sunday and support and contribute positively to their communities in many ways. Menai Baptist Church has served the 2234 district for over 30 years and is a source of invaluable community connection and support. This proposal would allow the church to continue its positive contribution to our community for years to come.

    I am a resident of Billa Road Bangor and a member of Menai Baptist Church.

  3. In Brunswick East VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 180 Glenlyon Road, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Leon Melven commented

    I am writing to object to the waiver of required car parking for the proposed development of 180 Glenlyon Road. The proposal indicates that plans for this property will include construction of a seven dwellings including two double storey and five triple storey and requests a waiver in required car parking.

    We are deeply concerned about the impact a reduction in car parking requirements that the new development will have on this already heavily congested area of Brunswick East. Our street alone is pushed to the limit many times during the week and residents are often forced to search further than their own street for parking.

    From August 2011 residents of new apartment dwellings are not entitled to any residential parking permits. The hope is that this will reduce parking pressures for existing residents. With this in mind, this development must be able to accommodate all variations of parking within its existing design.

  4. In Launceston TAS on “Food Services -...” at 1A Bridge Road Launceston TAS 7250:

    William Wright commented

    The Development relies on too much use of public amenities and infrastructure to benefit a private business at the detriment of our visitor markets...This Gorge Road area is already under traffic pressure from the West Tamar Council's over-development of the upper regions above Trevallyn.

    The Cataract Gorge visitation is growing, with 226,899 Interstate/Overseas visitors in year to June 2014. This does NOT include Tasmanian visitors. This bottle neck does not need more vehicles and less ambiance.

    The TIA report attached (sect. 4.3.3 Parking Impacts) quotes "the development relies on available public parking". The report says the developers can get away with this by -
    1. sending buses up through Trevallyn shopping precinct and around the Trevallyn Primary School (are they kidding?) for the convenience of the developer's customers.
    2.The report actually recommends to keep secret the fact that the Penny Royal car park is owned by the ratepayers, so that tourists to the Gorge wont be able to find it!
    3. Make Bridge St/ Paterson st public parking even less available, for the benefit of the developer.

    This cost transferring on to the rate- payers and tourists is unethical and border-line scam.

    Additionally, the link footpath from the Bridge to Trevallyn Village, completed during Mayor Dickenson's period, has become a major commuter and tourist pedestrian asset. This significant walkway now needs a second stage design/rebuild to alleviate the risks of increased traffic and improve the visitor experience.

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Lisa Suprano commented

    DA 1774/2013 – Development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street

    I strongly oppose the proposed development of Dudley Road and Kopa Street.

    I often walk to the shops or park with my friend and our children from Station Street. I am concerned about the safety of walking around Whitebridge with children in the event of an addition of 91 dwellings and their cars in the centre of the neighbourhood.

    I am also concerned about the traffic congestion that will occur. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrians using the walkways and crossings, which will slow down the movement of traffic past the shops. The roads are already barely coping when considering the amount of movement around the suburb related to the shops, park, tennis court, oval, 2 preschools, highschool and general traffic passing through on the way to Dudley and Redhead.

    This development is not in keeping with the current character of Whitebridge. Whitebridge is a neighbourhood with a village-like atmosphere. A 91 unit, 3 to 4 storey development is totally out of character for this area. It will impact negatively on the atmosphere of the neighbourhood.

    The proposed development will look out of place in a neighbourhood where most dwellings are single-storey houses. Although it is inevitable that the area will increase in density over time given the zoning applied, to attempt to grow so drastically, all on one piece of land, in the heart of the neighbourhood, is inappropriate growth and will have devastating consequences for the suburb.

    The developement is also too close to the Fernleigh Track and will ruin the current tranquil experience of using the track. Also of concern is the developer's lack of regard for the Environmental Corridor which should remain undisturbed.

  6. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Brett Suprano commented

    I wish to express my opposition to the revised plans for the development on Dudley Road, Whitebridge DA 1774/2013.
    The developer has failed to address the issues that are of huge concern.

    The INCREASE of the amount of units in this new plan further worsens the problem of the density being way too high for the area. The land was intended for 40-50 dwellings, which is still much more dense than the rest of Whitebridge, but which could still blend in with the suburb which should be the intention of any new development.

    The fact that the developer has also INCREASED the number of storeys to 4 along Dudley Road shows further lack of regard for community concerns and council planning guidelines. The intended maximum for a neighbourhood centre is HALF this.

    To think the developer also requests the s94 contribution be waived demonstrates their self-serving intentions. It is a ludicrous request in light of already using public land on Dudley Road and Kopa Street AND the environmental corridor as a pathway from the Track to Dudley Road. Although we live in a society that encourages capitalism, we also strive for quality lifestyles and living standards. This should not be compromised as it serves the greater good.

    The developer assumes to know ’the desired future of Whitebridge’ but it is obvious in reading council’s Lifestyle 2020 and 2030 documents that although urban consolidation is desirable, there was no intention that it be achieved in such a drastic, thoughtless and inappropriate manner. It was once fortunate for Whitebridge that a large parcel of undeveloped land existed, as the possibilities were exciting – now it is extremely unfortunate as it could mean the destruction of the suburb as we know it.

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Kristen Hepple commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed development at Dudley Road and Kopa Street, Whitebridge.

    The TRAFFIC IMPACT of the development has not been carefully considered. It is already becoming extremely difficult to get a park to use the Whitebridge shops, and the congestion at school times is already a problem.

    The dramatic increase in traffic will affect the SAFETY of the area for motorists and pedestrians alike.

    There are SOCIAL PROBLEMS associated with this type of development such as an increase in CRIME and ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. This is particularly pertinent when considering high potential for the development being used as rental ropertiess rather than being owner-occupied; it is when a large number of rental properties are placed together that statistics show problems may arise.

    I am also concerned about the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of this development. Little regard is being shown for the environmental corridor, which should not be used for thoroughfare. Provisions for stormwater are inadequate. Aestethically, it impedes negatively on the Fernleigh Track. 3-4 STOREYS DOES NOT FIT THE SURROUNDINGS. It will look OUT-OF-PLACE in Whitebridge.

    The DENSITY is ridiculously high and unsuitable for the area. The developer showed great disrespect by increasing the number of units in the re-design, after the community had expressed so much concern over the issue of density already.

    This development will SET A PRECEDENT for other land along the environmental corridor from Adamstown to Belmont to be developed in the same careless manner.

    Council must ensure that this land is developed in a RESPONSIBLE and PROGRESSIVE manner so that the community of Whitebridge and all surrounding suburbs may benefit from, rather than bear the consequences of, the development of this land.

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Jason Hepple commented

    I write again in opposition of the development at Kopa Streets and Dudley Road, Whitebridge for similar AND additional reasons.

    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.

    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.

    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.

    The proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community.

  9. In Greenbank QLD on “Kennel (20 dogs + training...” at 111-119 Attunga Road Greenbank QLD 4124:

    Maxine Box commented

    I've noted several things about this application.
    1. No other notification to surrounding neighbours has been noted. Not even sure anyone else in the area knows of this application.

    2. Is it to be a kennel for a specific breed of dog?

    3. A dog resort?

    4. Rescue Group?

    5. Puppy Farm?

    6. I've noted that the application is for 20 dogs, when there is 22 Kennels on the plan, plus another 3 extra for isolation. That equals 25 dogs. (not including any pups they may have).

    7. Also noted that the applicants postal address is in Toowong. Does this mean that someone other than the home owner/resident of property is going to be running a business in a rural residential area.

    8. The new residents created a bush fire during a crucial High fire time in the area, that went into a neighbouring property which was attended by the fire brigade. This was phoned in by another neighbour to report the fire. So not sure of the residents Health and Safety procedures record is up to standards to run a business.

    9. On a more personal note, We've lived in this area for 25 years and watched and listened to this kennel with no problems with the amount of dogs that have been allowed by the previous kennel owner. There have been Germans shepherds and corgis over the years. We are on the high side so we tend to hear quite a bit. I am concerned with more dogs, will come more noise. The house on the corner of Coolac Court used to be a kennel as well with Dobermans, but they never had more than 14 dogs. We do not have a problem with dogs but with how a business that has failed to informed their neighbours. The only way I found out was by the planning alert emails. This is not good enough.

  10. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Jill Mascord commented

    It is extremely disappointing to see the revised plans for the proposed development of Dudley Road/Kopa Street haave not addressed the real issues raised by the community.

    92 dwellings and 4 storeys in Whitebridge? The developer has obviously taken no care to consider marrying this new development into the existing suburb. This is a gross over-development of the site. The majority of Whitebridge is single-storey, detached single-family homes. This development is not in keeping with the character of Whitebridge.

    I often use the Whitebridge shops as a convenient place to stop and shop. The addition of 92 dwellings will totally detract from the convenience of using Whitebridge shops, thus negatively impacting on business there.

    I feel concerned for safety if this development is approved. Safety will be an issue when using the shops and when crossing busy Dudley Road with my grandchildren. Additionally, I am concerned for my grandchildren’s future safety when they attend Whitebridge High as a result of traffic congestions and due to the possibility of an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour which is often associated with developments of this type.

    Whitebridge currently enjoys a relaxed, village atmosphere which is apprpriate for an area accommodating a pre-school, long daycare centre, highschool, park, tennis courts and access to the Fenleigh Track. This village atmosphere will be severely compromised if this development is to go ahead in its current form as it is in stark contrast with the character of the suburb.

    ...or lack there of, on the part of the developer. Suggesting the environmental corridor be used to accommodate a thoroughfare between the Fernleigh Track and the shops is not what the community had in mind when they encouraged the developer to allow permeability through the site. It appears the developer would rather spend their time pretending to address issues rather than actually compromising on anything!

    Council has a responsibility to its current and future residents to not be intimidated by the persuasive powers of self-interested developers.

  11. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Maree Turner commented

    I am disappointed that our community needs to write these submissions once again for a proposal that has not addressed any original concerns. I feel the new proposal for the development on Dudley Road/Kopa Street has not improved in anyway. The proposal still creates the same threats to citizen safety, traffic, green space and utility overload.

    My previous submission focussed on traffic concerns and pedestrian safety. As a mother of two children under the age of four, we are regularly outdoor walking/cycling to the shops, on the Fernleigh track and to other community facilities such as netball courts and parks. With an increase of at least 300 citizens and an anticipated 150 or more vehicles, I feel that my current concern for safety on the roads will only increase.
    We are also a family that uses only one vehicle and we do rely on public transport. I don’t feel that the already basic public transport service could support this sort of community increase. Public transport would need to improve dramatically for people to consider using it to commute to and from work.

    Again I would like to state: I do support development of some kind on the site, and an increase to the existing harmonious community of Whitebridge. It is a beautiful community that I hope to live in for many years, raising my young family safely. While not solving the existing traffic, utility and safety issues, a smaller, less dense development with a reduction in scope would better suit the site and broader community. If the development were to proceed in its proposed form, without significant improvement to existing road, services, utilities, pedestrian infrastructure and environmental support, I fear for the future of our community and the safety of residents and visitors.

  12. In Pyrmont NSW on “Ground Floor Unit 1- Fitout...” at 17-21 Pyrmont Bridge Road Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Mrs M.-R. Stringer commented

    I fear that a gym in this particular building is going to make lives hideous: the walls transfer sound like nothing ever heard. If someone on the top floor hammers in a nail,the entire building hears it.
    Is there some way of ascertaining if the future operators intend to install any kind of baffling ? - because a scant 7 hours of non-operational time is simply not enough for people to have to live with noise, otherwise.

  13. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Jeremy & Narelle Baillie commented

    We support this application,

    Our understanding is all Menai Baptist Church is applying to do is transfer their meeting space on a Sunday from one building on the site to another.

    The change of location into the recently built performing arts center within the existing site, will mean greater facilities for the elderly, those hard of hearing and others with mobility challenges. The new center also has advanced acoustics that will protect the neighbors from any noise concerns. We believe this application will have no impact whatsoever on traffic or parking as there is already ample parking on site.

    Menai Baptist Church was established on this site in 1980 and has been apart of the community since this time. The church provides services to the community on a number of different levels and adds value to the lives of those within the 2234 area.

    We trust the Council will take a common sense approach to this minor development application.

  14. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Vikki Kay and Jeff Kay commented

    We wish to support the application to move the meeting place of Menai Baptist Church from one area of the Inaburra Complex to another. We have been residents of the Menai area for the past 30 years and have used both the School facilities to educate our children and the Church facilities as members of Menai Baptist Church since 1995. It has been our experience that both Church and School actively encourage users of the complex to be gracious and mindful of our neighbours including parking within the boundaries of the complex. The change to meeting in the Performing Arts Centre (PAC) will have no greater impact on the neighbourhood than it has meeting in the current "Media Centre" facility and in fact will greatly improve any noise as the PAC is soundproof and also has greater control of any noise levels.

    We would also point out that some of our congregation are elderly. The PAC will allow greater access and comfort for not only the more elderly but for all those with mobility challenges.

    We wholeheartedly support this application.

    Vikki & Jeff Kay

  15. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of six double...” at 5 Downs Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    frank pirro commented

    i and many pascoe vale residents have had enough of townhouses and units being built in our area ,we are choking; parking andtraffic,problems,open space disappearing,etc.i strongly oppose to the application of boxes built on one block.

  16. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Mrs Roz Piper commented

    I have just learned of this proposed development application (DA 1376/2014) and am absolutely appalled that residents who will be affected have not been notified. This development will impact so negatively on the amenity of this special area and I question the need for another supermarket when we have a perfectly adequate local grocer and pharmacy as well as large supermarkets Coles and Woolworths less than 5 minutes away in Swansea.

    There is so much secrecy around this development application that I feel extremely concerned about it. The residents I have spoken to seem unclear about the height - is it 4 storeys, 5 storeys or even unbelievably 8 storeys as some reports suggest.

    Please do not think that a development of this magnitude can be "smuggled in" by stealth without those most affected being made aware of all the ramifications.


    Roz Piper
    Caves Beach

  17. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sylvie McCarthy commented

    I'm am a resident of Whitebridge and am concerned about the impact that development proposal 1774/2013 will have on our community.
    In it's current form this proposed development is not suitable for our residential suburb, mainly due to it's density and height. Objections that I (and many other residents) have include the development proposal not adequately accounting for traffic and safety problems that will arise as a consequence of an inappropriate number of houses and people, and there being no thorough environmental or social impact reports.
    In it's current form this development should be rejected. A development that is appropriate for the site would benefit future and current residents. We want a well designed and low to medium density development.

  18. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Amanda Millar commented

    I strongly object to the planned development DA1376/2014 at 55 Caves Beach Bottlemart site.

    The shade would deeply affect both residents and students at the Swansea High School. I do not believe the planned development is in keeping with the environment and believe that the knock on affects will be unacceptable.
    The people in this area include those who are aged and they need the sun in their backyard.

    This proposal has not been available for community consultation.

    This proposal has two many levels and does not fit with the environment.

    The drainage and water infrastructure is also of grave concern.

    The type of industry this proposal would attract is not what the residents of Caves Beach want.

    I am sure the local Newspaper should also ask questions about this proposal.

    Amanda Millar

  19. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Niclas Hakansson commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the development proposal 1774/2013. Although the developers have redesigned the development, they have ignored the biggest and most concerning issues, those being:
    • the negative social impact this type of development will have on a residential suburb;
    • the traffic and safety problems that will arise;
    • the disregard for negative environmental impact and;
    • the inappropriateness of the size and density of the development.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and ’them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre being applied to Whitebridge?
    The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally, future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.
    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area.
    The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birralee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only.
    There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.
    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd.
    It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain.
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

  20. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC. This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.

    Density and Design/

    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare. The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.

    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.” (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.

    Environmental Impact/

    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site.
    The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.

    Social Impact/

    In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods.

    Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.

    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. Dedication to council of roads, park and conservation area is not ’generous’ on the part of the developer, considering permeability through the site and open space/recreational areas are strongly recommended by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Further, the ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by, the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes into account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful.

    Safety and Traffic Problems/

    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the liklihood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.


    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection.

    Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate.

    The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council would be embraced.

    Laurie Mascord

  21. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use & fit out...” at 1C Whateley Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Adriano Pupilli commented

    This is an exemplary proposal that the City of Sydney should support 100%. Fusing a community workshop environment with a hub for good food and social interaction. It is a fantastic model for mixed use development, something the City of Sydney has been working to achieve for the last 10 years.

    I am a past resident of Lennox St and frequent patron of the Rising Sun pop-up there. Over the past few months they've been operating it has improved surveillance and community atmosphere of the street and park opposite. At the Mitre 10 site it will create a more active building frontage, encouraging social interaction and passive surveillance of the carpark and back lane which can feel dodgy at times. I couldn't imagine a better location or a more genuine bunch of people to make this place happen.

    Please support this application.

  22. In Newport NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 28 Walworth Avenue Newport NSW 2106:

    Sharon and Paul sands commented

    We are residents of 105 Queens pde East. We request the following:
    1. That all run off from this development is sent into correct stormwater and drainage facilities. There is no mention of detention storage or a flow spreader in the application to mitigate adverse impacts from runoff on downstream properties.
    2. That any pumps and or filter equipment is not placed on the northern fenceline.due to adverse noise levels. These should be placed on the southern side of the pool.
    3. That measures are in place for the management of overflowing water following heavy rainfall to the pool. Mitigation strategies need to be in place due to the impact of overflowing pool.
    4.. A privacy screen is erected on the northern fenceline
    5. That the significant magnolia tree is not damaged by excavation and therefore, the pool be set back from fenceline and root system.

  23. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Roslyn Stewart commented

    I feel that to approve this application would be very wrong. Already people in the area are going to have to get ready for the subdivision for Jacarandah Ponds. Caravan Parks usually attrack people of lesser standards of living than home owners and im sure the future buyers of Jacarandah Ponds would not be too impressed with this. Also how many times does it have to be brought to councils attention of the lack of infrastructure and services on this side of the river. There is also not enough things to do for people if they dont have a car. Such as if a caravan park is near the river at least people can fish or swim and even if council says they need to build play equipment etc it would be soon vandalised and rendered useless so please think very carefull councellors before saying yes to this application and maybe think of the residents already here who pay rates and will already will be having to live with 580 new homes. Vote no to this application. I

  24. In Richmond VIC on “Partial demolition,...” at 51 Firebell Lane Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish commented

    Does this have overlooking consideratiosn for surrounding properties?

  25. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Cate Buskin commented

    As a 40year resident of the area I endorse the many concerns expressed by the other
    residents re the proposed development.

    The density and height of the development are out of character in this suburb.

    Access issues have not been adequately addressed. ( Have council considered crossing over Fernleigh track to Station St as an additional access so Dudley road roundabout will be less congested?)

    The new proposal plan looks better than the previous one but has environmental and height issues. Surely Whitebridge shopping centre would be dwarfed by four storeys on the roadside.

    I am also concerned that the already limited parking would not be able to cater for more

    I Implore council to ensure this development is scaled down to a more suitable size and density which is in harmony with the area.

  26. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Ross Clay commented

    We have been residents of the Shire for over 35 years and have enjoyed the community, environment and lifestyle that it provides for residents. Over the years we have attended several churches in the Shire and are currently members of Menai Baptist Church.
    We support the current application to move to the Performing Arts Centre because it will be positive for both the Bangor Residents as well as community members who attend the Church. Our reasons for this support are;
    1. The move only involves moving from one building to another on the same site.
    2 .Existing parking facilities will continue to be utilized with no on street parking needed.
    3.The new facility has been purpose built and has better acoustic qualities for those inside as well as those in the neighbouring properties if noise was considered a factor.
    4.Those with physical and hearing disabilities will benefit greatly from a move to this facility.
    5. Eliminate the need to convert a classroom type environment each Sunday to a Church Worship Centre and then return it at the end of the day to facilitate the school,s requirements.
    Carol & Ross Clay

  27. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Karen Webb commented

    I object to the development DA/1376/2014 – 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach. Even though our house is not directly affected by this development, I do not think that there is any need for a 5 storey apartment block within Caves Beach. This is not an inner city community, where housing is at a premium. I believe that even 2 storeys on that high block will create enough oceanviews for the residents. Raising the height from 13 metres to 21 metres, without community consultation is unforgivable.

    The building of a new small supermarket is also not necessary. We currently have a small line of shops that will potentially lose out if an IGA supermarket is developed on the site, and there is no need as Coles and Woolworths are a short walk or drive down into Swansea.

    Having an additional 79 Units occupied will create more traffic – cars already tear along Caves Beach Road now – and this is quite close to the Nursing Home which would be a danger to the elderly residents and their visitors. Currently in the daytime, when cars are parked across from the Nursing Home, a blind spot is created, this would be much worse with more traffic flow. There is only one exit in and out of Caves Beach, which is quite dangerous enough now.

    It is hard to trust this development will not be completely different to what is in the plans – it seems to be completely secret and underhanded with no notice to the community. This should be put in a prominent place so that all residents can have their say – and give them more than the paltry 2 weeks that has been granted with this application.

  28. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Review request under...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    KW commented

    I refer to the request to change the plans on this development. I have previously made comment on this and will again. I refer to the letter received from Council which clearly states "to change the internal layout of unit 9 and unit 10 for the PROVISION of roof top terraces". I am totally opposed to the development being modified to this extent. I do not have the original plans available and am unsure whether a rooftop terrace was included initially.

    This development has had numerous applications for modifications put in and had even commenced building but had still not reached an agreement with Council concerning the carparking for the complex! Speaking to local residents a lot of concern is still based around a development such as this being so close to the traffic lights and where the exit for cars will be.

    How is it that developers are permitted to commence building and selling apartments off the plan when in fact the plans are not finalised? Shady, shady, shady!

    I note the comment by S Mirian who has apparently contracted to purchase one of these units.

    I believe that the argument/s by the purchaser should be directed at the developer - misrepresentation - not only to the purchaser but also to the residents and Council. Further, I hope that the strata - once formed - permits pets!

  29. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Canberra Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    John commented

    I have been looking for any friends of Turramurra or the environment (anybody know of any?). I have not had a chance to look at Canberra Avenue (am born and bred on the Chase Road though, so not far away). Re another development matter - demolitions with ZERO NOTICE to neighbours -- There was a demolition and rebuild done on Fairlawn Avenue (presumably involving one of both of private certification / complying development which even on the day of demolition the Council said they knew nothing of. Therefore, needless to say, no tree protection zones were stipulated. One very large tree was probably affected by roots cutting within 2m of it so it is sheer luck it seems to have discussed ill effects. Have been looking for anyone who knows of other house demolitions completely sans notification to neighbours - and/or is interested in getting these (notifications - tree protection) better regulated. The situation of course deteriorated starting with the so-called 'Sator reforms' ---- And, finally, have also I have written this webpage on another case of poor tree protection not in the Kuringai LGA .... .... it turns out too that this is not an isolated instance, for after seening that one I began looking at other large trees at building sites and has seen some other (not as bad) cases. ~ John (

  30. In Crows Nest NSW on “Increase the maximum height...” at 29 Albany Street Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Ian Brennan commented

    This application appears to be submitted as the building nears completion.

    It would seem that the development is looking to extend the already-agreed boundaries of the development, without understanding the impact to the homes across the road, nor the offices and amenities surrounding the development.

    It would seem that this would impact the environment around the area, leading to an encroachment of a "St Leonards" skyline into Crows Nest itself.

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