Recent comments

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

    Shayne Hannah commented

    My Family & I are residents & property owners in Winston Hills. My Wife's Family moved into Winston Hills in 1966 when the suburb was known as 'Model Farms' so we have some attachment & history in the area.
    We DO NOT agree with this proposal. We believe it will unjustly stress the the existing infrastructure which is ageing limited. There is no regard for maintaining the current lifestyle for which people moved into the area.
    If we do some approximate calculations based on the proposed number of additional 102 residences there would be a minimum of :
    200-400 additional people,
    50-250 school pupils,
    120-220 additional motor vehicles,
    1000 kWHs p.a of energy required,
    30 Megalitres p.a. of water required,
    equivalent sewerage disposal required,

    The current infrastructure will likely not support this without significant upgrading the cost of which will be likely largely bourne by the current residents in additional rates, etc.
    The developer has no apparent offset in the proposal for any of this.

    It would be a major blunder to allow this proposal to proceed.

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

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area.

    But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already hideous congestion in the Green Square area, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development.

    In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. In fact, a quick look along much of Parramatta Rd will give planners the right idea.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  3. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 456 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Mrs C. Fuller commented

    I do not believe reduced car parking should be approved. Already there are too many parked cars belonging to residents and visitors on the road outside these properties. If there is insufficient room on the allotment for 2 parks per owner, obviously there are too many apartments/units per building site. How long before we start seeing more traffic problems, slower movement around these parked cars, constant obstacles for Council vehicles and difficulty for maintenance and tradesmen to access their designated job.
    Stop the developers making all their profit without contributing to the community. They are buying up land at reasonable prices without returning any benefit.
    Wish we could demand a ratio of so much public housing per ten residences/town houses sold.

    I do not believe this application should be approved until more guaranteed parking is made available per owner, on the proposed site.

  4. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 456 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    This application should be refused point blank. It does not fit in the City of Knox - it fits in Melbourne City. We moved to Wantirna for the green wide open spaces, we do not want our suburbs turned into skyscraper city. How can this possibly be approved when the new laws prohibit exactly this kind of project.
    That white domino on the corner of Stud Road already wrecks the views of the
    Dandenongs, do not allow any more horrible configurations to wreck our suburb.
    Two storey anything was supposed to be the limit.

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

    Esther Anderson commented

    I object to the application by Liquorland and I do not think the application should be approved. There is a liquor outlet literally metres away on Union & Canterbury Rds, and in addition the area is well serviced with liquor outlets very close by on the corner of Union & Whitehorse roads, in Hamilton St Mont Albert and several large outlets in Whitehorse Rd Balwyn.
    Furthermore the area already suffers from significant traffic congestion and adding the delivery vehicles to this quiet residential precinct would compound the problems.
    There are many young families in this area and the excessive promotion of alcohol consumption is concerning in an era where the evidence of the damage that drinking alcohol can cause.
    A recent study reported in the Australian and The Age see http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/more-ambulance-callouts-in-areas-near-big-bottle-shops-report-20150526-gha2o2.html found there were more ambulance callouts in areas near bottleshops related to falls, and another study found a link between the rise in licenced premises and the alarming rise in alcohol-related ambulance callouts.

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

    Mary Helen Farrell commented

    I believe a Liquorland outlet in Union Road is totally unnecessary as there are outlets within a few kms of the proposed site. The Union Road/ Surrey Hills Village will be changed totally and for what, bringing alcohol sales into what is termed a "dry area"!
    I have been a resident of Surrey Hills and within close proximity to Union Road for 30 years and definitely do not want this application to be granted, as do so many others.

  7. In Oatlands NSW on “Construction of a twenty...” at 8 Forsyth Place, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    Hans van de Ven commented

    How did I miss this one... As Holly Usher pointed out, 6 parking spots for effectively 23 residences in an area with very limited public transport makes no sense. Forsyth pl is a small street and already quite crowded with cars. There's also no parking on the nearest streets (Bettington and Kissing Point Rds). If this is to happen, the car parking situation needs to be addressed.

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

    Barry West commented

    Although the existing shed on the adjoining property to the rear of the proposed development may be closer to the boundary than the set back required under current regulations, it must be remembered that the Regulations were changed to protect all adjoining properties. I am not affected by this current application but I am concerned that should this current application be approved in it's current format, it sets a dangerous precedent for future developments and anyone buying adjoining properties in the area would tend to use this precedent to support future developments in the area and it could be that all adjoining properties would be permitted to build outside the regulated building envelop thus voiding the effectiveness of the recent changes to building regulations. My reason for commenting on this is that my premises was affected by a "shed" built under the old regulations that is a monstrosity approximately 9 meters high that totally blocks my view of Launceston and cast shadow over most of another residential yard. If this development is permitted I suggest that it also have a restriction that no minor protrusions on the roof surface of any kind be permitted as minor protrusions can be in excess of 1 meter higher than the roof surface. I ask that council consider the height of the protrusions on the shed at 6 Waveney Street, South Launceston when deciding on this current application.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 18 Lawson Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Megan commented

    It seems to me that Heritage Impact Statements accompanying development applications are frequently farcical. Too often they are prepared by people with a vested interest in the development such as, for instance, the architect of the proposed alterations or some friend of the party seeking to make the alterations. Such people have sham qualifications for writing Heritage Impact Statements and are, in any case, doing their best to see that the development is approved.

    How is Council supposed to take into account any Heritage Impact Statements when so many of them are biased and often untruthful?

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

    L M & N B Cameron commented

    In response to your comment,

    As to your proposed condition that the shed blend in with the natural environment, I believe it would be unfair for the Council to agree to such a proposal as it was a condition of the sale of the land that any outbuildings are to blend in with the colour scheme of the dwelling.

    As you have stated 12.4.2 p3 part (c) I must take into consideration the setback of surrounding buildings.As your shed is directly behind where our proposed shed is,
    and as there is no fence between our boundary and your shed the setback and height was
    considered.
    After measuring your shed it has a setback of 500 mm from the boundary.The width is 6.1 metres and height from the top of unexcavated ground to the peak of the roof is 5.2 metres. An additional cladded structure attached to the side measures 1.8 metres wide and 2.4 metres high.
    The roofing of these structures is a colorbond green and I believe the reflective comparison
    between matt monument is very similar to the green.
    Even though your shed roof is taller at 5.2 m than our proposed shed being 4.7m, I
    am willing to repitch the roof to 17.5 degrees and not 22.5 as proposed. This will reduce the height thus obscuring your view of our proposed shed behind your existing outbuildings.

    I hope this proposal meets with your approval.

  11. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 2 Little Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Denise Moss commented

    I oppose this. Vehemently. I wouldn't want to live next door to a boarding house with 39 tenants. I truly cant think of anything worse. I feel sorry for the neighbors if this gets the go ahead.

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

    Denis & Jillian Hennessy commented

    We agree wholeheartedly with previous comments made by our neighbours. Especially after receiving a copy of the "Residential Projects" issued on line by TGC, requesting would be buyers to register their interest, in the purchase of the proposed residential development.
    We definitely say NO to such a project.

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 8 Cowper Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    sue paterson commented

    This development is vasty different to what was approved & does not comply on many grounds
    Of significant concern to local residents is that in some parts it will be 3m higher than originally approved & the dwelling configuration will result in more parking issues in local streets.

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

    Billy A commented

    As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

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

    Billy A commented

    As a resident of Surrey Hills I object to a bottle shop at the Surrey Hills Village.
    The residents in this area have decided to live in a “dry area” and should have a say whether a liquor license is approved by conducting a poll to obtain the feedback from the community.
    The proposed bottle shop will detrimentally affect the Surrey Hills village community and amenities. It could attract undesirable individuals getting off the train station and obtaining alcohol from the bottle shop which could then be consumed in the surrounding residential streets. This will increase the noise levels and affect the harmony and family environment of the Surrey Hills area.
    This proposed bottle shop will further increase the traffic congestion and noise in the quiet residential area due to the truck deliveries, waste trucks and vehicle noise. It also does not have adequate customer parking and with the current limited street parking it will further add to the current over saturation of the parking in the surrounding residential streets.

  16. In Canterbury VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 2 Chatham Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Lyn commented

    Are the approved building works associated with extensions to the family home? Or are they for commercial use?

  17. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of the land...” at 80 Tyler Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    I am in agreement with Stewart Midgley's summery of the features of this development application.

    The more than 50% inclusion of three and four bedroom dwellings will help redress the current loss of family housing in Darebin.

    The level of density, internal and external amenity provides adequately for occupant livability.

    Public and private open space should be oriented to allow food production for the future food security of residents.

    For such a large development a small reduction in parking provision seems reasonable.

    Given not all of the accompanying reports are accessable online it is difficult to determine if the proposal adequately meets ESD requirements or provides social and low cost housing for our community. These provisions should be considered in all development proposals in Darebin.

  18. In Padstow NSW on “Sec 96 Increase first floor...” at 45 Ronald Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jamie Moss commented

    We live next door at 43 Ronald Street Padstow. The demolision crew have damaged our brand new colourfence fence. They somewhat repaired it but its still badly damaged.

    Please advise to the owner of 45 Ronald Street that he is to repair the colourbond fence when he has completed the dweilling.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 6 Bourne Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Hugh reilly commented

    We don't agree with the development being 2 levels tall,
    There are no other 2 level house on the street front and it would not fit in with the heritage of the street.

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

    Nolan Dos Remedios commented

    A big no no......We don't want this development. Leave Winston Hills with the old charm and community as it is. We all just love it the way it is. Stop using the excuse to have affordable housing in the suburb. It will ruin the neighbourhood. Baulkham Hills, Seven Hills and North Parramatta have a lot of apartments and have destroyed the old suburban charm. Instead make it the Queen of suburbs with its rustic charm.

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

    Donna commented

    I am registering my objection to the above proposed development in my local area for the following reasons:

    1. Andrew Minto of Glendinning Minto & Associates states in his proposal: “The subject site does not seek to maximise car parking and this is seen as a positive deterrent to reliance upon private motor vehicles”.

    This, as you would already be aware does not meet the current Council DCP carpark provision guidelines of 197 car parking spaces. Andrew Minto seeks to ignore these guidelines and suggests that offering less car spaces than would agreeably service the proposed number of 102 residential units is acceptable.

    Interestingly the "Registering of Interest" promotional brochure that is being distributed online by the owner of Winston Hills Mall and TCG uses the currently available 1200 car parking spaces as a selling point. Thus it appears prior to this proposed development ever being approved the intention is to utilise these currently available car parking spaces for residents of this new development.

    The overflow of vehicular traffic emanating from the proposed 102 units (especially during peak times of social gathering ie: Easter, Christmas etc) would undoubtedly flow into the current Winston Hills Mall community car park and impact on the quality of life of current residents.

    We are a suburban (not inner city) community who have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. Additionally we pay land rates that afford our community the option of being able to readily utilise our personal vehicles. Inherent in this concept is the availability of things such as adequate off street parking and lower per capita levels of residential population.

    Additionally to this, some parents and carers of a child/ren with Special Needs who find it untenable NOT to rely on their private vehicles for transportation due to the nature of their child/ren's disability will potentially be seriously disadvantages if this proposal goes ahead. The current parking provisions within Winston Hills Mall Shopping Complex are quite minimal in regards to size ie: the ever decreasing width of car park spaces is NOT conducive to enabling carers to easily allow their child/ren to alight out of a vehicle with complete safety as it is. A busier local shopping precinct is also not going to assist these local family's in this endeavour.

    I believe I am correct in stating that the not too long ago Council installed ticketed parking in Winston Hills Mall car park was in an effort to dissuade commuters of local public transport such as the M2 Buses from utilising this car park as all day parking and thereby impeding and / or inconveniencing daily patrons of Winston Hills Mall by taking up unnecessary car spaces for long periods of time.

    By increasing available housing stock in this specific location you run the risk of doing just that – having the overflow from these residential units filter down into the general Winston Hills Mall and The Winston Tavern car parks as well as surrounding residential streets such as Junction Road, Buckleys Road and Gibbon Road.

    The ticketing system may prevent these new residents from parking all day – however this will only serve to send them out into the aforementioned already overcrowded surrounding residential streets.

    There is currently already a safety issue of concern in regards to the large amount of vehicles now choosing to park along Junction Road. This impacts on the safety of all those attempting to turn either left or right out of the Junction Road exit from Winston Hills Mall – as visibility is seriously impeded in both directions.

    Daily commuters who are parking in Buckley’s Road are presenting a safety issue to over 320 families who attend Winston Heights Public School and need to alight and enter vehicles twice a day. The same can be said for Junction Road and the over 800 families who utilise Winston Hills Public School. Extra vehicular traffic on either of these roads runs the risk of impacting the safety of both these local school children and their families as well as the immediate residents.

    Worthy of note here also is the fact that not everyone who lives in Winston Hills resides within a comfortable walking distance from either a bus stop or one of the newly planned North West train stations. So Andrew Minto’s above claim about creating a scenario that requires local residents to utilise public transport will seriously impede the quality of life and independence of many residents. Particularly those who have a disability and / or are elderly and find personal vehicles a necessity, rather than a luxury.

    Currently M2 commuters are being allowed to persist in parking on the left hand side of Junction Road near the Cropley Drive Round about. No “No Parking” restrictions are currently in place. This allows for vehicles to be parked right to the very limit of the M2 overbridge – which can at times mean those attempting to navigate this Cropley Drive round about in vehicles, have their progress impeded – as parked commuters vehicles are jutting out onto the roadway – just as you exit this round about. Increased housing stock containing additional residents and their inherent vehicles will again exacerbate an already fraught situation in this locale.

    2. Andrew Minto has stated his proposed development will be: “……….compatable with the desired future character of the locality…………as anticipated by the council Controls” and “….it is considered that the proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the…..character of the surrounding area”.

    I don’t believe the above proposed development will maintain or enhance, the existing, largely 1960’s and 1970’s façade and / or character of the local surrounding dwellings at all. It is more suited to more recently developed areas in the local community such as Bella Vista.

    3. Andrew Minto also comments that his proposal will: “ ……………..as a result of increased residential population will create an increased demand for shops and services”.

    Again I disagree with Andrew Minto’s assertions. In fact as a local family we are already competing for limited placements in our local Public Primary and High Schools. We are 20 year veteran residents of Winston Hills and still we have been directed to Northmead as our local High School. Additional housing with inherent increased residents will only serve to exacerbate this issue.

    Additionally increased residents will NOT increase demand for additional shops and services. There already exists a situation where local retailers within the Winston Hills Mall are closing their doors after very short periods of time due to being unable to absorb the high rents required. Increased residents in this locale will simply place undue demand on those already available – including public transport infra-structure.

    We regularly utilise the M2 buses and find the peak hour services in both directions are over-crowded and under serviced.

    It is relevant to note at this point that Winston Hills is not planned to be covered by the currently under construction North West Rail Service – so we will simply be overloaded by additional strain on already existing services.


    4. Andrew Minto also makes comment that: “It is my opinion that the proposed development is in the public interest as it will provide for an increase in the areas available housing stock”.

    The Winston Hills local community is currently included in the touted Sydney Housing “Bubble” and are enjoying inflated sale prices as a direct result. Increasing the total number of housing stock available will only serve to reduce competition and ultimately lower housing prices.

    5. Andrew Minto also readily admits his proposed development EXCEEDS the current 12 metre Building Height Control. A control he calls unreasonable and unnecessary.

    I would greatly appreciate you acting in the best interests of the current Winston Hills residents in this instance. At the very least this proposed development requires further investigation and community collaboration before proceeding any further.

    Yours Sincerely

    Donna Loudoun.

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

    Madeleine Gray commented

    I feel that the increased impact of building this project on roads and parking facilities in Winston Hills has not been adequately investigated. Parking in the shopping centre is already inadequate, with traffic often banking up on Caroline Chisholm Drive and Bellona Street.
    I am all for beautifying the mall and its surrounds but the building of multi-storey units is not in keeping with the general look and architecture of the suburb.
    Winston Hills is a protected pocket of real estate where at most residents have been subjected to dual occupancy. To protect this aesthetic and the family friendly environment currently present in the suburb, high density residences should be kept at a minimum.
    I understand that a demand for housing in the area and in Sydney generally is pushing these developments through. But this happens at the cost of families enjoying the environment in which they live.
    I strongly oppose any move to introduce high density housing to Winston Hills.

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

    John and Elizabeth Higgs commented

    We do not think this application should be approved for the following reasons.
    1. The development application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with 12.4.2 P3, regarding rear setback. The acceptable solution states a minimum rear setback requirement of 5 metres, whereas the proposed outbuilding shows a setback of one metre. Part (C) of the performance criteria states that the building must be sited, taking into consideration the setback of the surrounding buildings. The adjoining lot appears to have a rear setback for. The garage/shed of between 3 and 5 metres. It is argued that the setback of the proposed shed should be in line with the adjoining property to the northwest. With a vacant property below, council should not be setting a precedent of relaxing the rear setback, especially in a new subdivision. The site plan indicates there is room to provide on site to bring the setback into conformity with the adjoining property.
    2. The relaxed setback is not required, taking into account P3 (b). The 1500 sqm block has ample room to provide a dwelling and shed without having to relax the rear setback. The dwelling and she'd could be brought forward a few more metres, this would still comply with the required frontage setback of 4.5 metres and allow for greater rear setback for the shed.
    3. The outbuilding has a proposed apex height of 4.7 metres. It is requested that this height be reduced, through altering the style of the roof. It is asked that if the application is approved, a condition be included on the report stating that the outbuilding blend in with the natural environment and avoid the use of reflective materials. This will avoid glare and visual bulk when viewed from adjoining properties .
    We would be willing to withdraw our representation if the applicant is willing to alter the style, location or design of the shed and would be open to further discussions.

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

    Hannelie Engelbrecht commented

    Completely unnecessary and I oppose the application 100%!! I don't understand why the Council can even consider this seeing so many of the residents are opposed to it! It is time you start listening to us.
    You are contributing to the demise of our Dry Area. There are more than enough locations to purchase alcohol for residents of Surrey Hills. DON'T GRANT THIS!

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

    Marlene Krelle commented

    I concur with the comments opposing the application by Liquourland to set up an outlet at 140 Union Road Surrey Hills.

    Any liquor outlet for packaged liquor encourages use and abuse of the products.

    I consider that the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquour Regulation needs to act according to the implication of their title and that means in the best interests of the community they are making decisions about. This is a dry area. Families have chosen to live here for reasons which may include that amenity. Their choice needs to be respected.

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

    Rebecca Bugeja commented

    I would like The Hills Shire Council to consider not approving the above DA based on a number of concerns:
    1) The proposed development requires the amendment of the Hills Shire LEP2012 to rezone the subject lot from B2 ‘Local Centre’ to R4 ‘High Density Residential’. This will be the only R4 Land Zone within a radius of at least 2.5km with the nearest High Density Residential Zone being the cnr of Arthur St and Yattenden Cr Baulkham Hills.
    2) The subject lot is contained within the suburb of Winston Hills which has a Land Zone of R1 ‘Low Density Residential’ and apart from the subject lot and a small industrial area, are within the LGA of Parramatta City Council. Therefore this proposed development will go against the general amenity of the local area.
    3) The site of the proposed development is a central location for the suburb of Winston Hills being the location of the largest shopping area and the local Hotel. Including a High Density Residential complex in this location will increase the amount of traffic (both foot traffic and vehicular traffic) in an area that already suffers congestion during peak times.
    4) The site of the proposed development is directly across the road from a park that is adjacent to a local public school. The increased vehicular traffic caused by this development will increase the risk of injury or death to local primary aged school children.
    5) The main arterial access roads to the proposed development location are Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road and these are linked to the proposed development location by only single lane residential roads, including Oakes Rd, Gibbon Rd, Caroline Chisholm Drive and Junction Rd. As a result, this development will see a significant increase in motor vehicle traffic during peak periods which will increase the traffic flow and congestion already evident on these roads.
    6) The design of the proposed development will increase the population of Winston Hills by approx. 2.5% once the proposed development is completed and occupied. This is based on an estimated 265 residents in the 102 apartments and a 2011 ABS Census that Winston Hills contains approx. 11,100 people. This is a significant and sudden increase to the population of an established suburb with little or no consideration to the required infrastructure adjustments necessary.
    7) All roads, parks and public amenities servicing the area are the responsibility of Parramatta City Council who has chosen in their 2011 LEP to maintain the long standing status of Low Residential Land Zone for this suburb.
    8) The 3 primary schools contained within Winston Hills and the 2 nearest primary schools not within Winston Hills are already crowded and would be negatively impacted by increasing the student levels as a result of this development.
    9) Approx. 94% of the proposed apartments within the development are 1 or 2 bedroom only. The current and planned demographic for the local area, including the nearby suburbs of Baulkham Hills and Northmead are families and yet the inclusion of such a high percentage of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings does not support this strategy. Clr Andrew Jeffries recently reaffirmed this strategy in an article in the Hills News dated June 2 2015 and I quote:
    "I would argue that the size of the apartment will absolutely determine the character of the neighbourhood and the local impacts," Cr Jefferies said.
    "It will determine whether we provide accommodation for a family population or a transient population."
    The mayor said population forecasts allegedly showed families would dominate the area by 2031.
    "Minimum size apartments are not the answer, and unfortunately they are just fuelling a predominance of one and two-bedroom small apartments that suit investors and add to developers' bottom lines," he said.
    I would again request that The Hills Shire Council consider not approving this DA and respect the wishes of the residents of the surrounding suburbs of Winston Hills and Baulkham Hills who have chosen to live in Low Density Residential areas

  27. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at 180-190 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Eddie commented

    hello, as resident of this area, I oppose this development application for high density dwellings. The development is out of the norm with the surrounding residential houses in the area. The creation of any high density dwellings in the area will greatly impact the living standards of the people, with crowded parklands, schools, and deterioration of the environment. But most importantly, with minimal public transports in the area, the local roads simply cannot cope with the sudden increase in population from high density dwellings. I urge you to reject this development.

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

    Roisin Wall commented

    Please say no to this development application. As a resident of Winston Hills for 11 years and both my children at local schools, I value the small community feel of our suburb. There is currently no unit development here. The traffic problems 102 units would create would overtax an already stretched road network, the shopping mall would be impossible to use, local schools would be inundated with new students without the infrastructure needed to accommodate them, and would create a dangerous precedent of high density development in our family friendly suburb. Many feel as I do about this. I have already seen the units advertised, I doubt this is legal. Roisin Wall

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

    Andrew King commented

    We don't need or want this in our suburb, The Hills Shire council leave our suburb alone as it won't affect your constituents !

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

    Dean Floody commented

    Hi

    My name is Dean Floody
    I have lived in Winston Hill for 7 years after moving from Wentworthville and have seen first hand the changes that occurs when a aria is re zoned into higher occupancy.The increase in cars trying to park that will overflow to parking on the street . As having a young family I know and appreciate some of the pressures that the local schools are already under only this year a before and after school care through out 25 family s because of the high demand and they where not attending the public school with all schools running at a very high occupancyand the criteria get narrowed how much extra pressure can we place on them . But also to a degree a brake down of community spirits as people in units don't seem to be as open conversation community spirit this is only based on my own experience and also the reason I moved into Winston Hill in the first place where people still walk down the street and say hallo

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