Recent comments

  1. In Castlecrag NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 13 Cheyne Walk, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Farrah chew commented

    Dear officer , could you please send me the DA drawing?

  2. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Judith Fry commented

    DA 0413/15.
    I have been a resident of Merrivale Lane for 30 years and am alarmed at the possibility of serious consequences relating to safety issues should this application for a Commercial, 150 place Child Care Centre proceed.
    A serious accident occurred some time ago at the intersection of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Ave whereby a car collided with a pedestrian resulting in permanent brain damage to the pedestrian. Local residents are aware of the restricted sight line for vehicles entering Merrivale Lane in an easterly direction from Pentecost Ave and the need for extreme caution. Customers of the 150 place Child Care Centre, should Council approve the application, may not be aware of this danger and I am alarmed at the prospect of injury or death to children or parents as a consequence of this.
    A recent house fire in Merrivale Lane required seven fire trucks to control the blaze. The current level of resident street parking allowed the trucks access and the blaze was brought under control and no one was injured. In many such fires in a residential street, adjoining houses often need to be evacuated. In a Commercial Child Care Centre of 150 children, evacuating 40 children under 2 years, and 110 children 2 to 6 years would require extremely large numbers of parents/staff and vehicles. Combine these numbers with the need for access for a number of Emergency Vehicles and it is clear that there is the potential for disaster.
    The Bush Fire Map indicates that on the eastern side of Merrivale Lane, both ends of Merrivale Lane are designated as being in a Red Zone. This indicated that the authorities are aware of the potential for a bush fire in the native bushland at the rear of Merrivale Lane. In the event of such a fire and as already noted above, there may be the need to evacuate 150 under 6 year olds, as well as the residents of the Lane, some of whom are elderly, resulting in extraordinary congestion in the Lane.
    We urge the Council, as the approving authority, to consider that the safety of the children may not be assured.
    Given the safety issues outlined above, a large, Commercial Child Care Centre catering for 150 children is not appropriate. We trust that the staff and Councillors of Ku-ring-gai Council, after due consideration, will agree that because of the potential danger to children, parents, staff and residents, this Development Application should not proceed.
    Sincerely, Judith Fry

  3. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    Jo Lucas commented

    I agree with John Rivis. Plus; overall there is too much development going on with generic ''cookie cutter'' beige rendered townhouses. These are not obviously not architecturally designed. They are bland and boring. Overall these ''fast buck'' developments will bring down the suburb of Mount Waverley and also of Glen Waverley. This will be both in terms of price and desirability as there is no scarcity in these types of dwellings and if council keeps allowing them the suburb will take on the appearance of a housing development project. Meanwhile council is trying to impose a green overlay. I think that what council should be concerned with is the quality and uniqueness of the dwellings and the number of dwellings per block. That will take care of the green aspect of the suburb.

  4. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Lloyd Turner commented

    This development looks absolutely awful.

    I was just getting serious about purchasing 22 Robinia, but with this possibility just over the back fence, there is no way i would consider going ahead. I have no problem with a back fence neighbour, but this proposal is for a back fence ghetto.

  5. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Angie Burns commented

    Dear Ku-ring-gai Council,

    I strongly object to the proposed development of a 150 place Child Care Centre (DA0413/15) in Merrivale Lane for all the reasons my neighbours have outlined in the previous letters. We have lived in Charlton Avenue for the past 7 years and the repercussions for our street if the proposal goes ahead will completely change the nature and character of our neighbourhood!
    Building another Child Care facility in our area, especially one so huge, is totally unnecessary. The typical operating hours for centre-based “long day care” child centres are from 7am to 6pm on weekdays, even longer for some centres, and on weekends too, 48 weeks a year!
    The car parking solutions for the proposed development are clearly inadequate to accommodate the comings and goings of the parents and carers of 150 children, plus upwards of 30 to 40 staff and support staff, and will severely compromise amenities and the original density advantages of living in an R2 designated Low Density Residential area!
    We deliberately chose to live in a Low Density Residential area for good reason, because we wanted our 4 children to grow up in a safe and quiet environment.
    The inevitable massive increase in the volume of traffic travelling at speed down our street, particularly at peak pick up and drop off times, is of huge concern for me on a personal level, as our youngest son has autism. Our property is open to the road at the front, in keeping with the character of the street, and I am really afraid for the safety of my son with the increased number of cars rushing past our driveway to pick up their children. One of his greatest pleasures is to walk his dogs to the local park after school every day with me, and because there are no footpaths we have to walk on the road! We also have a steep driveway and a blind spot to the south of Charlton Avenue, which could be potentially dangerous for us reversing out of our driveway if cars come round the corner too quickly.
    Please do not allow this development to go ahead and change our wonderful neighbourhood! It is completely the wrong location for a child care centre!

  6. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 2 Shearing St Oaklands Park:

    rosemary ranford commented

    Just wonder whether the grass will be cut for summer. Wall of garage is part of my fence what will happen to my fence. I have a secure backyard and dont want this changed. Thank you.

  7. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    John Rivis commented

    The application for four (4) double storey dwellings is an over development of the site.
    The size of each dwelling would be very small: the rooms would be like dog boxes.

    To be consistent with the area,two (2) double storey 3 bedroom dwellings would be more appropriate. eg 10 & 13 Hunter Street. These properties are in close proximity to 2 Shirley Avenue and are of a high standard of construction and appearance.

    Three (3) double storey dwellings would be more appropriate than four (4) dwellings as they will have larger rooms. eg .Refer to 18 Hunter Street and 17 Edith Street as typical examples. Each dwelling is very small and to have four (4) dwellings without gardens on 2 Shirley Avenue the rooms would be even smaller.

  8. In Burnley VIC on “Construction of 2 new dwellngs” at 30 Manton St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dolores leropoulis commented

    Will this house be completely demolished as part of the planning application ?

  9. In Chippendale NSW on “Bistrot Gavroche -...” at Level 1 2-10 Kensington Street, Chippendale 2008:

    Charlie Chang commented

    There are simply too many licensed venues inside and surrounding Central Park.

    The unwelcome do noise, public urination, public defamation and anti social behaviour in general has turned a residential area into a ghetto.

    Please listen. When the area starts becoming the next Kings Cross, what will you do? Shift it all to Newtown?

  10. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Sophie Trousdale commented

    Agree and second the comments above by Kelly Wratten.

    Also can Council please explain what additional public transport infrastructure that will be put into this area to cope with this already overdeveloped very small area of turf. The road at the intersection of Old Canterbury Rd and Railway Terrace is already a nightmare and a car park at most times of the day. Please don't give us the 'we want people to ride bikes and car share and discourage car ownership naivety' rubbish. Plus Council have already admitted that the Light Rail is ineffectual and currently at capacity. There are one or two buses servicing the immediate area as far as I'm aware. And Lewisham train line is really the only public transport option and those trains only depart every 15 mins in peak hour.

    Any plans for additional health services to support all the additional residents that Council are jamming into Lewisham and Dulwich Hill? Child care?

    There seems to be absolutely no planning either short term or long term by local Council and/or in conjunction with State Government.

    And I keep asking myself why have development guidelines when you don't need them. A complete and obvious waste of money. Most DA's are approved in the long run anyway with no regard for the existing residents and ratepayers.

    Shaking my head in absolute disbelief.

  11. In Belmore NSW on “Construction of a four...” at 86-92 Kingsgrove Road, Belmore NSW:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA 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 air quality and the already terrible congestion on Belmore, 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. 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.

  12. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA 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 terrible congestion in Lewisham, 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. 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.

  13. In Mascot NSW on “Integrated Development...” at 577 Gardeners Road Mascot NSW 2020:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA 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 terrible congestion on Gardneners Rd, 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. 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.

  14. In Kirrawee NSW on “Mixed Use Retail,...” at 566-594 Princes Highway, Kirrawee:

    Natalie Popple commented

    It depends on whether the Da refers to bulk retail, commercial or small business what sort of traffic will be attracted to a already severely conjested area. We have not been told how many parking spaces are to be provided and /or any secured tenancy contracts i.e.: Coles, Sky Zone, Norton Street Grocer, Costco, Ikea etc...etc... Also because of the huge scope of this project I think a wider Neighbour Impact area should be considered. Don't forget the extra traffic caused by the Train Station during peak times as a safe P/up and drop off location. What extra public transport will be integrated into the area I:e Cab rank, bus stop. I know this project will go ahead. It's called progress BUT should it be at the cost of the Suburb's integrity? Council needs to decide what it is willing to ask the state government to do to help congestion on these roads: Flora Street, Oak Road and the main Princes Hwy. I also believe that we have to look at pending DAs for the Hotel project across the Hwy as this will increase pedestrian traffic in the area.Thank you for considering my concerns.

  15. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Harry Brookes commented

    I am a frequent visitor to my wife's sister who resides in 125 Merrivale Lane.
    We come through St Ives and enter and leave Merrivale Lane by Pentecost Ave.
    There is a left-hand bend in Pentecost Ave and traffic coming from Bobbin Head Rd end approach quickly on the down hill grade and extreme care is necessary.
    I am concerned that, in view of the number of vehicles which will be using Merrivale Lane to access the proposed child care centre, there is an extreme risk of accident at this corner.
    Furthermore, in the past 9 years we have been visiting the area, there are two boats parked in Merrivale Lane and I am sure that have not moved in all this time. The one on the left leaving Merrivale Lane is barely visible in the evening.
    If any boats or vehicles are parked in Merrivale Lane and another car is approaching when we are in the section of the Lane between Pentecost Ave and the say 125, one of us must stop and pull over to the side. Another feature we have noticed is that there are no footpaths in the first section of the Lane and pedestrians and children are often on the road.
    In my opinion, the increase in traffic which will be using this section of the Lane, at least twice per day, must result in problems and possibly accidents.

  16. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 56 Richmond Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Matthew M commented

    This is a massive industrial style project for PROFIT and commercial gain right smack bang in a small Street and residential community. There are numerous concerns from such a development, total height, environmental, extra noise with a possible extra 10-12 people living in close proximity, extra traffic to name a few. Surely this project can be scaled down not up with more bedrooms, more windows and replaced with more car spaces. Home owners in this Street already have up to 3 cars in this already full street with no car spots. I look forward to discussing this further with all the profit making builders involved in this large scale development.

  17. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Kelly Wratten commented

    9 storeys? The Council's 2011 Development Control Plan for the Lewisham Precinct is quite clear in that there is to be a 6 storey height limit. What is the purpose of having a DCP if it is to be ignored some 4 years later. It seems common place now for developers to submit plans that are outside these guidelines and for Council to approve. Voluntary Planning Agreements which equate to large sweetener payments are now the norm.

    Why would consideration be given to a plan that clearly grossly exceeds this one point alone?

    The area where this development is already a traffic nightmare, being right next to the rail line, where there is already oversized developments courtesy of Ashfield Council. The traffic situation has always been difficult but has been worsened by recent construction in the area.

  18. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of two attached...” at 39 Mountfield Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Katrina Aspinall commented

    Hello, Mountfield Street has no capacity for reduced car parking requirements - this application should provide for the spaces needed, including bike storage.

  19. In Bellingen NSW on “Cedar Bar & Kitchen -...” at 8 Church St, Bellingen 2454:

    Al smitz commented

    as this venue will seat over 100 people, how will they maintain order from drinkers, as the newest establishment already can't. also there is a huge parking problem in bellingen already, this will impact very poorly on town with too many drinking places already.

  20. In Kirrawee NSW on “Mixed Use Retail,...” at 566-594 Princes Highway, Kirrawee:

    Mrs June Wilson commented

    NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel
    Re: DA15/1134
    Former Brick Pit Site
    566-594 Princes Highway
    KIRRAWEE 2232 NSW
    Dear Sir,

    Once again I am writing to support the development of the Kirrawee Brick Pit Site which has been an eyesore for many years.

    Since 2001 there has been many meetings, submissions, appeal by Sutherland
    Council to the Land and Environment Court and final a determination of concept plan MP10_0076 was made by PAC-Planning Assessment Commission 23rd August 2012
    giving it approval with certain conditions.

    In 2013 the site was sold to Pace, they in turned sold the development rights to Deicorp, Payce retaining the ownership of the land.

    We now have another DA increasing 432 units to 749 units and here we are some 14 years later and nothing done except clear the site and remove the water from the hole! It is a pity that the development was blocked back in 2008 when it would have been much smaller and less traffic for our area and would have been built by now.

    My husband and I live in the nearby Retirement Village and along with others here have wanted super markets and other shops to complement Kirrawee Local shops in Oak Road. It will be so much more convenient to be able to walk to the proposed shops without the need for public transport. Many here do not drive.

    The proposed 749 dwellings will provide much needed housing close to shops and Kirrawee Railway Station.

    Traffic is a concern however, I am sure the authorities will sort it out. We look forward to the removal of the round-a-bout at the intersection of Oak and Flora Street replacing it with much needed traffic lights and pedestrian crossings which we do not have from Flora street at present making it difficult for people with walkers.

    I like the concept of a local park although I see this is now subject to further VPA thus reducing it in size which is a great shame because we do not have a public park for elderly folk to relax in.

    Heritage Conservation of the Pipe Kiln, it is hoped that this will be preserved and incorporated in the design of the site as it is part of Kirrawee Heritage.

    It will be a great day for Kirrawee people when the site is completely built providing, jobs, homes, much needed supermarkets, shops. park, conservation of the Pipe Kiln where elderly people can go and have easy access-(elderly people stay clear of Westfield too large and difficult)

    I declare that I have not made any political donations or gift to a Councillor or Council employee

    I thank you for the opportunity of making this submission and that you will take it into consideration.

    So I say bring it on, the sooner the better.

    Yours sincerely,

    June Wilson
    Donald Robinson Village
    Flora Street
    Kirrawee NSW 2232

  21. In Highfields QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at 87 Otto Road Highfields QLD 4352:

    Kathryn Weier commented

    I am a resident of Highfields, living on Cawdor Road. My road, although in a residential area, has a high volume of through-traffic, including traffic turning from Cawdor onto Granada and Cawdor Drives, both of which lead into the area of this proposed new housing development. I am concerned that this and other new housing developments will result in increased traffic along Cawdor Road, leading to increased traffic risks, noise, rubbish along the road and fumes for Cawdor Road residents to deal with. What plans are in place for more roads to be developed or improved coming off of New England Highway closer to Toowoomba, to encourage new residents of new lots to use another road than Cawdor road.

  22. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Yvonnne Jayawardena commented

    this is the wrong location for a large childcare centre due to the traffic situation in Tryon
    Road.. Between the hours of 8.45 am and 2.45 pm it is a quiet suburban road. Between
    7 am and 8.45 am and 2.45 pm and 4 pm it is bumper to bumper. I live further down the
    street and had to wait for 32 cars to pass before I could get out of my driveway
    There are 3 reasons for this: the local public school close to opposite of no.125 , the Oval further down on the opposite side with all the sports activities and the fact that
    there is only one traffic light for the whole of East Lindfield between Tryon Road and the Roseville School, so all traffic wanting to go West or North goes through Tryon
    Road from all the surrounding streets. The pedestrian traffic light close to Carnarvon
    does not count.
    I am seriously concerned about the safety of those children.

  23. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Sandra Lee commented

    East Lindfield is a beautiful residential area where many families are lucky to call home.

    I do NOT support having a large childcare centre on Tryon Road and believe the DA application no. DA0370/15 sould be REJECTED for the following reasons:

    1. Constant noise and disruption to local residents lifestyle in a peaceful and tranquil neighbourhood during the construction and when there are 36 kids and 9 staff operating from the centre.

    2. Traffic congestion on a busy road where there are significant visibility issues for traffic crossing Tryon Road into Sydney Road and also those turning right from Sydney Road to Tryon Road. Currently one or two cars of residents parked on the road are enough to cause poor visibility of cars coming up the hill towards the Tryon/Sydney Road intersection. Parents picking up and dropping off kids are also at risk of accidents from passing traffic on a road that is not wide enough to allow for parked cars and doors being opened wide to let babies and children get in and out.

    3. The proportion of hard spaces to soft spaces is grossly disproportionate with the greenscape that Kuringai and East Lindfield is known for and should not be tolerated.

    4. There is a great Council Childcare Centre in East Lindfield and a Community Preschool, along with other family daycare facilities in the suburb to service the needs of the local community. Families having to use childcare centres in other suburbs have been a practice that has existed for a long time and is a result of family preferences and not just avalable spots.

    5. This section of Sydney and Tryon road is also on a bus route and the buses will have trouble fitting on a shared road that's not wide enough for a large number of parked cars during school pickup and drop off times. The potential for accidents will increase due to congestion and visibility, not to mention poor driving practices that have become more prevalent.

    6. Traffic congestion causing safety issues are already apparent where Lindfield East Public School (LEPS) and the Community Preschool are. The section fo Tryon Road around LEPS is flat and visibility is still affected as it is usually very congested, let alone a poor visbility section on Tryon Road where 125 Tryon Road is located that will be extremely busy with at least 36 cars dropping off and picking up. It really is only a matter of time before a serious accident happens as there is a lot of traffic on these narrow suburban two way streets.

  24. In Forest Glen QLD on “269 Eudlo Flats Rd Forest...” at Maroochydore Rd, Forest Glen, QLD:

    A. Fidler commented

    This is a massive industrial project right smack in the middle of a thriving schooling and residential community. There are numerous concerns rising from such a development, environmental, noise, traffic to name a few. Surely this project can be positioned further away from the Coastal area.

  25. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Ben Holden commented

    Whilst I no longer live on Merrivale Lane, I am strongly against the proposed development. Three generations of my family have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the beautiful views and the peace and quiet that are characteristic of our residential lane. I was fortunate enough to spend 11 glorious years of my childhood there and I could not have asked for a better environment for my up bringing. The quiet nature of our road encouraged children to be active and be outdoors - something that all councils should embrace with such high numbers of obese and overweight children. We could play cricket in the street, football in the front garden and there were never any concerns about oncoming traffic if we did have to fetch the odd ball off the road. The new development will potentially bring 150 new cars to our lane, which will only lead to increased risk and inconvenience for the existing families.

    Many members of the community have raised the issue around the safety and suitability of the roads and footpaths, but I cannot reiterate enough the dangers of the corner of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Avenue. Over the years, we have seen many near misses, and sadly, some very serious accidents around this corner. Both drivers and pedestrians are vulnerable, and encouraging more people to this area is only adding to problem.

    I hope the council listens to its community and I hope common sense will prevail. Merrivale Lane has been an idyllic, safe haven for young and old alike. I truly could not have asked for a better place to grow up and I hope many more generations will be fortunate enough to share the same sentiment.

  26. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunications Facility” at 46 Wilsons Road, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Douglas Kelly commented

    I have owned the Property at 55 Helen Street Mount Hutton since 1982.

    When the original application was made for the construction of the Lake Fair shopping centre it was for a shopping centre only. When this development was undertaken the natural route of the watercourse, which was a windy creek, was straightened and the water course shifted nearer to my residence to allow more room for the carpark.

    Several years later a new application was made to construct a petrol station at the rear of the shopping centre site, opposite my property. This site has increased the noise level to surrounding properties specifically by Liquid Gas Tankers filling the stations tanks at all hours of the night. This station was originally guaranteed to have minimal noise impact on surrounding residences and have working hours to ensure this. ( this is not the case at the present time and noise levels are unacceptable)

    The next issue of concern are the Charity clothing bins that have been installed adjacent to the Petrol Station. These bins are an eye sore and there are all types of housing rubbish dumped beside the bins nightly. A large amount of this rubbish is dumped in Scrubby Creek polluting the waterway, by people scavenging around the bins. They should be totally removed or relocated closer to the Hotel located near Coles so the visual impact on surrounding residences will be minimal

    Now I receive this proposal about a telecommunications Tower being installed close to my residence

    Firstly I am not an Optus user so there is no advantage to me, or a large portion of the community in the construction of this tower.

    A tower that size will tower above the landscape and the trees on Scrubby Creek are only about 4mtrs to 5 mtrs, the proposed tower is over 20 mtrs in height

    My biggest worry is the radiation levels from such a tower. The table showing radiation levels is very technical and is not clear to a normal person.

    I am from an electrical background and the table is confusing for me and is definitely not sufficient to allow surrounding home owners to asses the impact of the tower on their properties and give an accurate opinion on their acceptance of the proposed development.

    Lake Macquarie Council is asking effected owners to have their say but the information provided is not clear and concise enough to allow us to make an informed decision on the project

    I want to know what the proposed radiation levels are at my residence which is only 100mtrs from the proposed tower. The table is a very poor attempt to provide this information.

    I would have expected these levels would have been compiled for each property and mailed to all effected property owners as part of the development application.

    All individual property owners must be given accurate assessment of the radiation levels for their own properties. Not try to work out the levels from a technical table.

    My working career was with the NSW Department of Commerce and in my opinion the level of detail you are providing to property owners to asses this project is totally inadequate.

    The tower could be located in the bush land near the intersection of Warners Bay Road and Bayview Street. There are very few residences in this area and the impact would be minimal.

    Originally the Lake Fair had a 20mtr plus Flag Pole located outside the Main entry. This was demolished in the last round of expansion construction several years ago.

    Installation of the tower could be installed in the alleyway between Big W and Coles which would even less visual impact on surrounding property owners than the original flagpole.

    This alleyway was originally a through passageway between the two stores, but Woolworths extended their store several years ago blocking the alleyway. It is now minimally used for stores near Coles.

    The option to install the tower in Lake Fair appears to be based on the cheapest possible construction option and with little respect for surrounding property owners.

    There are large tracts of non residential land in the Mount Hutton, Tingara Heights area and a more suitable lower impact site could easily be found.

    This appears to be this easy cheap option with total disregard for Lake Macquarie rate payers

    Local residents originally thought the construction of Lake Fair was a good idea but the flow on effects from subsequent additions to the site have proven to be impacting negatively on adjacent property owners.

    Lake Macquarie Council is responsible for the rejection of developments that have negative impacts on rate payers when there are alternatives.

    This apparent cheap alternative, money driven project, has not provided adequate information to the Council and Property Owners and should be rejected.

    Await your response

  27. In Forest Glen QLD on “269 Eudlo Flats Rd Forest...” at Maroochydore Rd, Forest Glen, QLD:

    R Filler commented

    Grave concerns about an extractive industry so close to a residential area. The impact on the health of the residents and the wetlands& fish habitat may be under estimated. Roads and road safety will also suffer. On behalf of all coast lovers please reconsider this proposal.

  28. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Margaret Driscoll commented

    I strongly support all the previous comments re the DA for a childcare facility in Merrivale Lane.We have lived in Buckra St. for 10 years and the proposed facility is totally inappropriate in this quiet residential area.I avoid driving down Merrivale Lane now because of the narrow road and the dangerous corner at Pentecost Avenue. Merrivale Lane, Buckra Street, and surrounding streets will be severely impacted with increased traffic volume.

  29. In Hawthorn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Barbara Workman commented

    I have received notice from Boroondara Council of this proposed development. I own an investment property in this street. The proposal currently requests an 8 storey building which is not in proportion to the other buildings in the street and will be overpowering and produce shade on the opposite side of the road.
    72 dwellings is quite dense and will increase the road and foot traffic in Queens Ave which is a very small street. I am most concerned about the proposal to reduce the car parking requirements and the request to waiver loading and unloading facilities for the shops. This will have a very detrimental effect on the road which is small and not suited to heavy traffic. Parking is already difficult in the area. I do not support these requests and feel it will have a negative effect on the environment and a negative effect on the amenity of my property.

    of my property.

  30. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 301 Parramatta Road Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Sarah Harvey commented

    It is my understanding that other residents of my street are campaigning against this development on the grounds of inconsistency with local "community values" and have alluded to issues with streetscape, character, availability of parking and safety of the surrounding area.

    I am writing to refute these claims and support the development application on the following grounds:

    1. The building to be altered is not an older terrace style house but a commercial block on a major road. Adding an extra storey therefore does not interfere with the current streetscape (much of which is already at the height this additional storey would give) or amenity of the area.

    2. The local community is a friendly community and I hope would welcome low-cost housing to the area. There is not enough social housing and providing low-cost options such as boarding houses is crucial for tackling homelessness. Moreover, dispersing low-cost housing throughout different suburbs is less likely to create "ghetto-type" areas than having them all in the one area. I am not aware of any other similar housing options within the immediate area so to me this would be an ideal location.

    3. Most people who live in lower cost accommodation such as boarding houses do not have vehicles. The location in question is well serviced by public transport. I therefore do not foresee any great influx of cars requiring parking.

    4. The assumption that those living in a boarding house are necessarily a greater risk to the safety of others than any other local resident is quite frankly offensive.

    A development application submission template objecting to this application is circulating the local streets and states that the development "is not supported by our local community." I wish to make it known that this is not the case, as my household, being three members of the community not only support this application but reject and take offense to such arguments being espoused on our behalf.

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