Recent comments

  1. In Tempe NSW on “S96(2)iii” at 55 Lymerston Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    G Symonds commented

    I am confused by this application, as the building is currently housing several residents and does not appear to be used for any kind of business/storage purposes whatsoever. Given the large number of people currently residing there, who do not park in the spaces provided on the property as marked on the attachments (these parking spaces are currently filled with pot plants, clothes horses and outdoor furniture - see Photograph 1 in Annexure 3 in Statement of Environmental Effects_55 Lymerston Street Tempe), several of them are taking up precious parking spots in Lymerston Street. As residents of Unwins Bridge Road are also required to use Lymerston Street for parking, they find themselves often having to park much further away (John Street and Lymerston St as far as William Street). I suspect it it also a fire risk having so many people living in an industrial building.

    The fact that people are living there on a permanent basis has been cleverly disguised/hidden in the photos in Annexure 3, which leads me to believe that they will continue to live there after or regardless of whether this DA is approved.

  2. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 177 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    In the interests of public health, any approval for tables on the footpath must prohibit smoking at those tables.

  3. In Fairy Meadow NSW on “Integrated residential...” at 5 Grand Court, Fairy Meadow NSW 2519:

    John Telford commented

    The modification on the initial plan is more than doubled in size. It is advertising the existing neighbourhood as an available asset at the Estates’ disposal (as if the existing Dixon Street and Carters Lane area is uninhabited). It does not reflect transparency and honesty when a building application is radically changed. Its like a foot in the door for the developers who then up the scale by introducing a modification.

  4. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    Paul Macklin commented

    As a resident of Brighton Le Sands who lives within 500 metres of the proposed development I wish to object to the proposed development at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands on the following points:

    1. Kurnell St is a small street which intersects with Crawford Road and is heavily congested already during peak hour. Crawford road is only one lane on each side of the road travelling north and south with a roundabout one block south of Kurnell Street. Already motorists frequently drive through this roundabout at speed, without giving way ,posing a risk to residents and other motorists. The presence of such a large centre near this roundabout increases the risk to pedestrians and motorists alike substantially. It would also be a severe risk to parents dropping children at the day care centre on foot.

    2. There are already three child care centres in the area with two on Crawford Rd and another on England St, all within a block of this proposed child care centre. The local area is already well serviced in this regard. There is no need for another one.

    3. Parking in the near vicinity is already extremely limited as this is a residential area with a high volume of apartment blocks and townhouses. The plan's proposed parking developments won't assist as the size of the local streets are too small to accomodate large traffic volume which means there will be added congestion due to cars waiting to get into the carpark areas. Bearing in mind there is the roundabout, which is located only one block south of Kurnell Street, also making it difficult to see how traffic would not come to a halt in the local area due to persons dropping kids off at the centre as traffic would slow as parents turn left and right into Kurnell Street. Not all parents will do the right thing and park appropriately, as is evidenced outside many primary and high schools during drop off time in the mornings and afternoons.

    5. Currently if there is an incident on Grande Parade, which is a frequent occurrence, the traffic around Crawford Rd, Queens Rd, Wycombe Avenue and Teralba Rd is adversely affected by traffic build up. Because motorists get frustrated as they are trying to get to work, they are frequently seen speeding up these streets to find short cuts between President Avenue and Bay Street to Grande Parade. The commentary within the report regarding traffic is an ideal best scenario description. It is not reflective of the experience of residents who actually live in the area.

    6. There has recently been an apartment block built on the corner of Crawford Road and Bay Street and although this came with its own security parking, it has added noticeably to traffic volume in the area. There has to be a limit to the amount of traffic that can be tolerated on narrow one lane suburban streets. This appears to be a gross overuse of the land and is not in the best interests of the local community due to the associated risks detailed above in this letter.

  5. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 2 Kurnell Street Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    P Macklin commented

    As a resident who has lived in this area for 20 years, this location is NOT a good idea for a child care centre of this size. It is also baffling because there are already two child care centres on Crawford Rd and one on England St, all within a block of this proposed child care centre.

    Kurnell St intersects with Crawford road and is already very congested in peak hour during the morning, especially since it is only one lane on either side of both roads. Most people, including myself, use Kurnell St as a cut through to Bay St for this reason. People also go this way to avoid The Grand Parade as that receives heavy traffic during peak times. I completely disagree with the reports for this proposal. Parking on these streets is already a nightmare and is limited, particularly because this is a residential area with a lot of surrounding unit blocks. The proposed parking spaces aren't going to make a difference to that given the size of the proposed child care centre, all this will do is contribute to the current congestion.

    The proposed car park and access is located right next to a four car drive way for another unit block on Crawford Rd. Having these drive ways and car park areas so close together is a safety risk to pedestrians, particularly because this footpath is used by parents and children going to and from Brighton Le-Sands Public School. This will also add to the congestion on Crawford Road with residents, parents/children and workers trying to access these car parking spaces.

    This section of Brighton Le-Sands is a residential area and i believe this proposed child care centre would de-value the surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proposed opening and closing times would cause disruptions to local residents.

  6. In West Hobart TAS on “Alterations” at 219 Warwick Street West Hobart 7000:

    Ian Stanley commented

    It is too big

  7. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Jessica commented

    Dear city council,

    My unit is in the corner and next to 410 pitt street. The new high rise hotel will defenitely block the daylight for 398 pitt street , 412 Pitt street and the building behind 410 Pitt street.

    The draft plan of 410 Pitt street only mentioned the daylight of itself. However, the plan did not consider the daylight of neighboring buildings. The 398 Pitt street miramar building is a residential apartment and with more than 76 windows open in the south aspect of this building. The new budget hotel will block the daylight for these 76 windows!!! Turns the window into the wall!!!

    The budget hotel may bring more backpackers, teenagers and drunk people in the night time. This will put the neibouring residential buildings in a noisy and unsafe environment.

    It does not mentioned the compulsory setback to the neibouring building In the draft plan of 410 Pitt street.

    Please consider the residents, the kids , the whole environment of the city ?the high rise hotel in such a narrow place will cause troubles!

    Kinds Regards,


  8. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Bill Wang commented

    My first thought when hearing about this DA is "you must be kidding me". It is a silly idea. The proposed building will be very very close to 398 Pitt Street. There will be no privacy for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street, there will be no natural light for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street, and there will be potential danger for the residents living at the southern face of 398 Pitt Street as criminals can break into the apartments of 398 Pitt Street through windows.

    More importantly!!! If there is any fire emergency in either of these two buildings, it will put residents in both buildings in danger as they are so close to each other!!! By then, who is going to be reponsible for the loss? I believe the people who have approved this DA should be!!!

    We must be reasonale people and do reasonable things. This kind of silly idea should never be approved. I feel angry when someone just pursues the profits but does not care about the lives of others.

  9. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I also support the application so long as the mural are preserved. The help create an identity for Newtown and are valued by many residents and visitors

  10. In Bundeena NSW on “Coastal Classic Fun Run...” at 75 Loftus St, Bundeena 2230:

    Helen Vogt commented

    There is no date shown for this event.

  11. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construct buildings and...” at 25 Trent Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Judy commented

    The proposal for 92 units in this location is completely against all the discussion in recent years for increased housing density close to railway stations, but having DUE CONSIDERATION to the local character and amenity of the surrounding suburb.

    As has been stated already, cars are parked in surrounding streets at pretty much capacity now, and the added traffic would be impossible to absorb without major disruption.

    For a good example of the sort of development that ENHANCES the area, look at the very attractive units in Glen Iris Road opposite Ferndale Park. I don't know how many dwellings there are there, but they are modern yet fit in with the housing in the suburb.

    Another example of extra housing density that is sensible and attractive is in Laurel St. opposite the Alamein Station, where a former Housing Commission house has been replaced by TWO dwellings with a common wall. This is the sort of housing common in Britain and Europe. It is still suburban homes with space for gardens and trees, but housing twice as many people without having high buildings a la Hong Kong or the Gold Coast.

    The proposal for 92 units is totally inappropriate and I strongly object to it.

  12. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Daniel Wu commented

    It is good to have new building in city. But never, never and never at this location. It is so close to the Building at 398 Pitt Street and 412 Pitt Street. The high building will block the daylight to the existing buildings, and it will also cause higher volume of traffic, people and problem. Pitt street is very narrow, how can it digest more traffic? People who think of building a high rise here are crazy, they are profit-hunters and do not care about the negative impact on the neighbourhood.

    We are fans of City Council. But if the Council approves this DA, I am 100% sure that all of us influeced by this decision will never vote for it again.

  13. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    John commented

    I strongly object to granting a(nother) packaged liquor licence in this area, on the corner of a street which is otherwise almost totally residential with considerable amenity for local residents. The proximity to the Surrey Hills train station poses the risk of consumption of alcohol near the station, where measures have recently been taken to address rising violence in the area. There is no link between additional provision of alcohol and reduction of violence in Melbourne.

    I also strongly object to the VCGLR overriding the Dry Area designation without conducting a poll. What benefits are going to the Boroondara Council and Victorian Govt coffers as a result of granting this application, versus the detriment to the amenity (including increased traffic congestion and difficulty parking) for the local community?

  14. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    william young commented

    I object to a Liquorland or any other bottle shop opening in this particular area of Union Road Surrey Hills because of traffic congestion, narrow side streets already full of parked cars, and the fact there are a number of bottle shops already close by.


  15. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Luke Bacon commented

    I absolutely support the submissions of Allison Heller and Joe Ortenzi that any alterations should not impact the murals on the exterior walls.

    I've been in Newtown for 25 years and can't remember that corner not having these paintings. They are definitely local heritage.

    Best wishes

  16. In QLD on “Road Works, Stormwater,...” at Greenbank Military Camp 1028 Johnson Road Greenbank QLD 4124:

    Jacob Arkadieff commented

    Be nice to know what the siren was on for last week at south end of Greenbank traing ground I thort we was getting invaded waiting for a bomb to go off or heep of troops to land then last night some helicopter flying around with no lights on for all I know it could b spy for other country's trying to get into the greenbank barracks not even casa could say who it was flying around army, police or unwanted visitors we just asum it is police one day some bad might fly right in under the radar and every on asums it police think you guys need to in force a serton sound when there flying at night with no lights some sort of Siron it's not like it will give there position away over the blads so we no it's not bad an not to worry or ring casa and waisting there time but what got me wondering of an invasion is that siron last week would like to know what it ment even if it was just traing it was a worry to here it at home that loud

  17. In Newtown NSW on “Proposed extended trading...” at 197 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I hope that Council will take care to ensure this is not approved unless the owners are paying at least minimum wages in accordance with Australian law. Many convenience stores are in breach of the law by paying as little as $10 per hour. While wages are not directly the responsibility of Council, it is not in the public interest to approve businesses which do not adhere to community standards. Public interest is something council must consider before a development application is approved.

  18. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Cecilia commented

    I shudder at the thought of defacing the elegant vibe of the Union road shopping/cafe strip with large obscene posters in garish colours offering liquor. I drink wine and buy alcohol and in order to do so have a great many options from which to buy. Some within walking distance of Guildford Road where I live.

  19. In Riverview QLD on “One (1) lot into Two (2) lots” at 36 Ipswich Street Riverview QLD 4303:

    Robert Winkler commented

    This proposal should only proceed after these issues have been addressed and once adequate safeguards are made to prevent adverse consequences for the community in the vicinity of this site.

    1. Contamination of land with potentially toxic materials. The application states that “there are no site contamination issues affecting the subject land nor has the site been used for any notifiable activities”. However, over several years a previous owner of this property dumped large volumes of construction waste on the site, some of which was probably in excess of one meter above natural ground level. The waste contained a wide range of construction debris and there is every possibility that toxic materials, such as asbestos, were in it. A complaint made to Council at the time revealed that no approvals had been obtained. In recent works to clear the site, hard waste was excavated and removed. As there is a strong possibility that dust or seepage from the site could contaminate the surrounding area, investigations should be carried out to determine if there is any toxic material present and, if so, it should be removed.

    2. Additional stormwater volumes. The site plan in the application shows stormwater from the back allotment being discharged in Ipswich St and, although not stated explicitly, the intent is that stormwater from the front allotment will also discharge in Ipswich St. This stormwater will flow into an open drain that passes directly through our property and others downstream. The additional stormwater will be channelled into a stormwater system that is poorly designed and fails to meet acceptable, modern design approaches to stormwater management. The system is also inadequate for the flows seen in recent extreme weather events with large volumes of overflow occurring. Concerns about this infrastructure have been raised with Council previously, because the open drain is a health and safety hazard for us and the public. In full flow the drain is highly dangerous and the drain adversely affects the amenity of our property. Recent heavy rains also caused considerable scouring of the land in Small Family Park. Therefore, additional stormwater loads should not be permitted until full investigations are carried out by hydrologists and a planned implementation of upgrades to the system made.

    3. House construction has already commenced. Despite the fact that the application was only notified by Council on 9 June 2015, construction of the house on the back allotment has commenced and is at an advanced stage already. This seems to assume approval of the application and presents significant problems in carrying out further investigations of the issues raised.

    We ask that Council defer any approval of the application until these issues are thoroughly investigated and appropriate solutions implemented. We look forward to your further advice in due course.

  20. In Knoxfield VIC on “Construction and siplay of...” at 1464 Ferntree Gully Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Peter Shearman commented

    What company want's to add signage and how big are the signs. If McDonalds wants any additional signage then I am against further advertising for this company. The fast food outlet is already well enough signed. Large signs will be a further distraction to drivers.

  21. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    S Lam commented

    I object to a liquor store in a residential street in a family oriented neighbourhood such as Croydon Road.

    The location of the liquor store being at the end of Croydon Road and a short walking distance to many homes on the street, while also being in the vicinity of a busy train station will forever alter the amenity of this area.

    Croydon Road and Guildford Road and the areas nearby have always been an area attracting families and the elderly to set up homes. For us, the safety and security of our homes and families are of paramount importance.

    The possibility of having a liquor store in such a short vicinity to our homes, not only will increase foot traffic but may also lead to alcohol induced crime. In fact, it is almost impossible not to associate the liquor store with the possibility of greater grafiti, greater numbers of loiterers and rubbish. I would not feel safe walking on the street after hours in such a situation.

    One must also consider the train station and therefore the possibility of people loitering around due to the easier accessibility to alcohol.

    Secondly, as it is, Croydon Road already has quite a lot of parking restrictions to cope for the traffic that uses it due to the train station. It will not cope with delivery trucks and further car parking traffic as a result of the liquor store.

    Finally, the location of this liquor store can be distinguished from any other applications as it is to be located at the end of a residential street not in a commercial area, but actually at the end of a residential street literally next to family homes. If in my view, if it is possible to have a liquor store at the end of a residential street in Melbourne, prized for its family orientation and the safety of the area, then, you have opened the floodgates for having a liquor store on any street in Melbourne. This is clearly not what VGLRC and harm minimisation is about.

  22. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - single...” at 6 Bushland Grove Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    LM & NB Cameron commented

    We believe as the applicants this should be approved for the reasons as stated.
    We are not using this as a precedent for the new subdivision as not every property has existing large structures on their north-eastern boundary.

    As outlined the adjoining property structures are 5.2 m high 6.1 m (plus) wide and have a setback of 500mm from our north-east boundary.
    The proposed shed's height has been incorrectly stated as it is only 4.1m high.
    (refer to drawing 9)
    This makes the existing structures 1.1m taller.
    As we are situated south west this causes considerable overshadowing of our property.
    refer to to drawing 3 for the orientation of the proposed and adjoining structures

    With this in mind, we have taken into consideration the surrounding buildings and
    Our shed should not have to be moved as it does not overshadow any other properties.

    If our shed is to be moved from the the nominated setback this will cause a dark,damp large over shadowed area that will get little or no sunlight.

    I have major concerns for overshadowing of my property.

  23. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Pauline commented

    I object to this application by Liquor Land.

    A liqour outlet is not necessary. Liquor can be purchased within 100 metres and there are at least 3 liquor shops operating within 1km of this application. We do not need another one in a dry area.

    Traffic congestion and parking is already a problem.

    Adding a liquor shop so close to the train station raises concerns for the safety of children or anyone walking to the train station. It would compromise a family friendly area and make the area less attractive.

  24. In West Melbourne VIC on “Change of description of...” at 1-9 Stawell Street West Melbourne VIC 3003:

    Annie commented

    If food and drink premises and produce supply store, means a caffe and a small supermarket, I say YAY!
    This is just what West Melbourne needs.
    A small local alternative to the supermarket in Errol street.

  25. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Allison Heller commented

    This is a great business - it's excellent to see a local small business making good use of this beautiful space - it was empty for so long.

    The uses are appropriate to the neighbourhood and low impact. They make a great contribution to our street and really pleased to see them in there.

    I fully support this application and wish the business every future success.

    I would like to see the Aboriginal artwork on the building preserved for the future and not changed. Could Council protect it please?

    Thank you.

  26. In Newtown NSW on “To use the ground floor of...” at 19 Mary Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    A great shop with wonderful people running it with plenty of interesting in being a good member of the local community.
    They have been nothing short of awesome!

    I wholeheartedly approve, so long as none of the signage damages the lovely existing mural

  27. In Zetland NSW on “New 16 storey mixed use...” at 105-115 Portman Street Zetland NSW 2017:

    Kathryn Calman commented

    Without a proper public transport infrastructure for Sydney, further developments should not be considered as these will add considerably to the existing congestion. Particularly one of this size. Unfortunately, the WestConnex project will only contribute to Sydney's congestion and pollution with no proper transport solution that is urgently needed.

  28. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kirsten commented

    Firstly, I would request longer consultation periods, especially during times of high development interest and activity. It's very disappointing that my comments will not be formally considered.

    I live in Hill St. It is a cul-de-sac. Council and the Joint Regional Planning Panel have already approved 246 units over 4 buildings of 8 storeys in the "Arlington Grove" development between Hill St, Grove St and Constitution Ave. However both the entry and egress to all 246 units is from Hill St alone.

    The proposal for 1A Hill St means traffic for a further 66 units will need to use Hill St alone as its access point.

    That means 312 new dwellings and associated traffic accessing these developments from Hill St, a cul-de-sac.

    It was inevitable that the land on which these 2 developments will be built would be used for higher density residential once the light rail extension was completed. That's reasonable in principle. But I struggle to understand how decision-makers see this kind of traffic increase to be fair or reasonable and I am yet to see any plan to ameliorate it.

  29. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Bernadette & Peter commented


    Yes I know we are shouting, but we have been residents in Winston Hills for over 22 years now. What attracted us and why we continue to live in Winston Hills as it is one of the very few suburbs that DOES NOT have high density. And because we border Baulkham Hills and the Winston Hills Mall falls within your shire, you are now considering this application.

    Unfortunately Baulkham Hills Council seems to have an agenda of creating chaos buy allowing so much unit development within your zone.

    We lived for 20 years in Olympus Street, only 100 metres from the Winston Hills Mall & now live 2 streets away in Buckleys Road. We were very active in trying to stop the boom gates from going in and sure enough it has caused no amount of traffic congestion over peak periods. Considering we were told at the time (at least 10 years ago) that ALL the other shopping centres were going to install boom gates, they have not yet been installed at Castle Towers or Stockland Mall. At least Stockland Mall & Castle Towers have parking indicators above each parking space. We don’t even have this at Winston Hills Mall!

    So our points below as to why we are so concerned of the impact this development have are as follows:

    1. TRAFFIC – Caroline Chisholm Drive & Langdon Road are only single lane roads. We already have considerable traffic load trying to get into the shopping centre, let alone the impact of 102 dwellings and their possible use of vehicles.
    2. Olympus Street (where we lived for 20 years) has major issues with parking on both sides, creating a situation of only allowing one car thru in either direction.
    3. Winston Heights Primary School is only 100 metres from the Mall, with Model Farms High School 500 metres away. Even though it would be convenient for those living in the high rise, the primary issue again would be the amount of traffic flowing thru this area.
    4. The application for 102 units with 137 car spaces, with the potential of more cars needing to park in surrounding streets, again creating congestion.
    5. Winston Hills (as defined by Parramatta Council) was objected to having any high density due to the following:
    • lack of infrastructure, public transport, services and facilities, and open space; will change the character of an area and will contribute to loss of neighbourhood cohesion; will create traffic congestion problems; loss of privacy and aesthetic appeal; will create environmental and social problems.
    6. We understand that Baulkham Hills Council changed the zoning laws so that now the owners of the Winston Hills Mall cannot develop the existing roof area for restaurants. We only have the Winston Hills Gardens (Chinese restaurant) and the Winston Hills Hotel as the ONLY dining area in this precinct. We always travel to Bella Vista or Castle Hill to go to a decent restaurant. Why couldn’t the Mall be allowed to build restaurants on the top level?

    Bottom Line is that we do not want to see high rise on this side of the M2. Keep it over your side please!!!!!

  30. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 6 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Alex Cullen commented

    Having read through the application for this property, it is disappointing the way in which it glosses over significant issues in relation to the impact of the development on the area. In particular I want to draw your attention to the traffic impact assessment. There are a raft of issues with this survey and the supposed marginal impact that adding over 140 units and 150 car parking spaces.

    Firstly, the assessment only considers the impact on the immediate intersection and glibly suggests that being close to main roads was in and of itself good enough to handle any traffic and distribute it away from epping. It fails to take into account that Carlingford Rd already suffers from significant delays on the approach to the Beecroft Road intersection during the AM peak period and even at times outside of this period. The beecroft road bridge is the first non tolled means for through traffic to cross the railway line since pennant hills and as such draws traffic from a range of areas west and north west of epping. Additionally the M2 also suffers heavy traffic during peak periods even with its high toll deterring some users, Either way, users are required to either travel via carlingford road or attempt to use increasingly congested back roads like Ray Rd and Midson Rd to get across the railway line. The biggest problem with the carlingford rd approach is the combination of the 3 sets of traffic lights between cliff road and blaxland/epping road results in significant congestion and queues and even with the lights providing a favourable phase there can still be long delays for other traffic coming from carlingford rd.

    Secondly the traffic assessment can only point to a 2nd right hand turn lane from beecroft southbound into carlingford rd as any tangible example of road improvements in the area. A 2nd right hand turn lane not only wont do any good at the rawson/ray rd intersection lights limit the capacity of cars that can turn right as they meet a red light. Nor does it address the traffic problem of Rawson St/Ray Roads nor Carlingford rd -> Epping road.

    Thirdly many of the public transport options such as the 288/290/295/546/549/630 services are rather limited in their operation, with the many of these services being limited in peak and even more infrequent off peak. Likewise a service like the 630 doesnt even run on weekend and the 546/549/M54 and 630 all impacted by the congestion around Beecroft,Carlingford Rds and Ray Rd/Rawson St. Likewise the Northern Line at Epping station already is straining to handle existing capacity and the shutdown of the epping chatswood line for upgrades will further deter people from public transport use.

    Finally the report fails to consider the impact of multiple developments as both part of the urban activation precinct or even further beyond that. Carlingford Road at the Carlingford end has already seen many new multi tenant buildings in and around that end of the street much traffic of which is being added to the increasing congestion at epping.

    In conclusion the DA submission for this development is extremely narrow in its focus and fails to realistically identify the actual impacts of adding in over 140 extra apartments on the transport and traffic facilities of the region and without actual significant changes to the road infrastructure in the region and without further upgrades to the public transport infrastructure, this and any other development should not be approved until such time as the area is better equipped to handle the expected growth, let alone the current levels of development.

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