Recent comments

  1. In Oatlands NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at 15 Ellis Street, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    HR commented

    Three critical issues here:
    First, this property's sales price was significantly below the average for the Oatlands area and this street, due to its heritage listing, which does not allow demolition
    Second, the buyer was aware of this limitation and had initally proposed a boarding house, which clearly would be unacceptable to neighbours. This is a clever move which provides a significant advantage to the purchaser.
    Finally, council should do all it can to protect the few remaining heritage homes in our area, rather than enabling an obvious opportunistic development.

  2. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    John Wissemann commented

    I agree with Geoff Mason entirely. I have no objection to the proposed development, I like the design and style of the building. And what is it going to over shadow? The pub, footpath and roads is about it. The only negative to this development is it does not have car parking, but hey, who needs a car when you have transport available 5 min walk up the road! I think this is another fantastic opportunity to live close to the city and I am all for it.

  3. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out facade works...” at 267-269 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe O'Sullivan commented

    All for this development. Will bring jobs and money directly into Newtown.

  4. In Westleigh NSW on “Residential - Alterations &...” at 259 Quarter Sessions Road Westleigh NSW 2120 Australia:

    Ashley Foster commented

    I previously submitted a query about the height of the privacy screen overlooking our property as I considered 1700mm to be insufficient but cannot see anything relating to this. I believe that this should be at least 1800mm, given the distance that the construction will extend past the current building line.
    I have no issues with the applicant but just looking to future proof the layout.

  5. In Charlestown NSW on “Mixed use Development” at 8 Smith Street, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Maxwell B Simpson commented

    I have the following objections to the proposed development:
    1. Density
    The type of development as proposed consists of a multi-storey mixed use development comprised essentially of residential units. The density of the residential component of the building is inconsistent with the type of development that is typical in the area, namely low rise commercial or residential development. The commercial development in the area is such as not to generate a large degree of traffic, pedestrian or vehicular, whilst the residential development tends to be single family units rather than a multi-residential complex.
    2. Traffic
    By reason of the number of residential units the traffic flow in Smith Street, which is already a busy street by reason of being a bypass from the Pacific Highway, will be increased greatly and is likely to cause congestion in the street and particularly in terms of off-street parking. It is noted that the point of ingress and egress from the building is via the driveway on the southern end of the building adjacent to Smith Street with the provision on entry to Smith Street being restricted by vehicles parked adjacent to the kerb of Smith Street. This will constitute a potential traffic hazard.
    3. Overshadowing
    The proposed development will overshadow entirely the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown form which is conducted a practice of Ophthalmic Surgeons. The northern wall of the building erected on 12 Smith Street, Charlestown is benefited currently by the natural light which penetrates through the windows built into that wall. The proposed development by reason of being located in the close proximity to the boundary of 12 Smith Street, Charlestown and by reason of the height of the proposed building will deny the occupants of the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown the majority, if not all, of the natural light that presently benefits the property.
    4. Drainage
    As the proposed development occupies the majority of Nos. 8 and 10 Smith Street, Charlestown we are concerned as to the impact the development will have on drainage in the area and particularity the impact that the development will have in terms of drainage upon the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown. Unless stringent requirements are imposed upon the developer in terms of drainage of Nos. 8 and 10 Smith Street, Charlestown there is the very real risk of accumulation of large amounts of water during heavy rain periods and the overflow of the water onto the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown from which is conducted a Medical Practice.
    5. Height
    It appears that the proposed building consists if a basement level plus 8 storeys and this might be considered inconsistent with the Town Centre Area Plan for that particular area which appears to allow for 8 storeys only.

    I would appreciate your consideration of these objections

  6. In Charlestown NSW on “Mixed use Development” at 8 Smith Street, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Maxwell B Simpson commented

    I have the following objections to the proposed development:
    1. Density
    The type of development as proposed consists of a multi-storey mixed use development comprised essentially of residential units. The density of the residential component of the building is inconsistent with the type of development that is typical in the area, namely low rise commercial or residential development. The commercial development in the area is such as not to generate a large degree of traffic, pedestrian or vehicular, whilst the residential development tends to be single family units rather than a multi-residential complex.
    2. Traffic
    By reason of the number of residential units the traffic flow in Smith Street, which is already a busy street by reason of being a bypass from the Pacific Highway, will be increased greatly and is likely to cause congestion in the street and particularly in terms of off-street parking. It is noted that the point of ingress and egress from the building is via the driveway on the southern end of the building adjacent to Smith Street with the provision on entry to Smith Street being restricted by vehicles parked adjacent to the kerb of Smith Street. This will constitute a potential traffic hazard.
    3. Overshadowing
    The proposed development will overshadow entirely the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown form which is conducted a practice of Ophthalmic Surgeons. The northern wall of the building erected on 12 Smith Street, Charlestown is benefited currently by the natural light which penetrates through the windows built into that wall. The proposed development by reason of being located in the close proximity to the boundary of 12 Smith Street, Charlestown and by reason of the height of the proposed building will deny the occupants of the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown the majority, if not all, of the natural light that presently benefits the property.
    4. Drainage
    As the proposed development occupies the majority of Nos. 8 and 10 Smith Street, Charlestown we are concerned as to the impact the development will have on drainage in the area and particularity the impact that the development will have in terms of drainage upon the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown. Unless stringent requirements are imposed upon the developer in terms of drainage of Nos. 8 and 10 Smith Street, Charlestown there is the very real risk of accumulation of large amounts of water during heavy rain periods and the overflow of the water onto the property at 12 Smith Street, Charlestown from which is conducted a Medical Practice.
    5. Height
    It appears that the proposed building consists if a basement level plus 8 storeys and this might be considered inconsistent with the Town Centre Area Plan for that particular area which appears to allow for 8 storeys only.

    I would appreciate your consideration of these objections

  7. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Geoff Mason commented

    I have no objection to the current development, a seven story building with only 26 apartments is not over development. Over shadowing is not an issue as the current 'heritage listed' building was always in shadow from the adjoining Ambulance headquarters.

    If the objectors think this is over development wait until you see the plans for the Commonwealth Bank's 'campus' 100 metres away in Technology Park. Grow up, this development is a pin prick on the horizon. The pub's 'saved' - move on...

  8. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Anna Beaumont wrote to local councillor Clover Moore

    This proposed construction is too tall (over developed for the site) and out of proportion for the local area. It has no parking spaces allocated and no residents' parking. This is unacceptable in the inner city/inner west. Yes, Redfern station is very close but we saw the issues involved when Channel 7 moved in at Redfern- the employees all drove to work and the streets became congested - parking for locals became very difficult as cars parked illegally. The above comments from Gary Speechley cover very well the many issues involved. How is it that the developer hasn't sorted out the building over the railway tunnel? I strongly object to this development.

    Delivered to local councillor Clover Moore. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Stanwell Tops NSW on “Residential - dual...” at 12 Longview Crescent, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond commented

    EXTREMELY DANGEROUS EUCALYPTUS TREE

    1.The 24m high Eucalyptus tree referred to in the Arborist’s Report is in an extremely dangerous position in that it leans towards my property and home.

    There is no mention of this in the Arborist’s Report. I was not interviewed by the Arborist on any concerns.

    2. If it was blown down like the previous tree in the same front yard , located at the corner of the present driveway on the nature strip, of same height and weight (30 tonnes) in 2003, and fortunately laid down on the nature strip outside of 12 and 14 Longview Crescent, this present tree could certainly reach my house and bedroom section.

    It could even possible take out the tall liquid amber trees in my own front garden from across the road, adding to the carnage. But the tree could fall any direction. Adjacent homes would be in danger too.

    There is no mention in the Arborist’s Report on this previous tree that was blown down by strong westerly winds. As a matter of fact, no westerly winds affecting the tree are mentioned at all.

    3. The tree would be placed in a similar dangerous position if a driveway is allowed to pass near it.

    The tree blown down did so because the ground slope from base of the tree to the current house driveway undermined the tree. It was also affected by the ground water and was shallow rooted because of the sandstone beds just below the surface in this section of Stanwell Tops.

    The Arborist’s report makes no mention of this.

    4. There is also “foaming up” around the base of the tree after heavy rain which indicates an instability in the ground it sits.

    There is no mention of this in the Arborist’s Report.

    5. This tree may be in keeping with typical trees at Kellys Falls etc, however they do fall down but do not pose a threat to housing at that location since there are no houses there.

    The subject tree in the Arborist’s Report is a severe, extremely dangerous threat to surrounding houses. Council should exercise their “Duty of Care” and have this tree removed by the applicant.

    Youtube video link of 30 Tonne Tree Being Blown Down: https://youtu.be/ykPZaBa_D_A

  10. In Stanwell Tops NSW on “Residential - dual...” at 12 Longview Crescent, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond commented

    PROVEN HIGH BUSHFIRE ZONE

    To emphasise my Objection on this DA is the great concern on Bushfires.

    Council must remember the chaos that surrounded the 2001 Christmas Day Bushfires that came close to obliterating Stanwell Tops and much of the surrounding district.

    The chaos of traffic jams on the limited roads of the area.

    That it took Scarborough Fire Brigade 4 hours to go from Bald Hill to Longview Crescent, battling the fire all the way. A relative of mine was one of the firemen.

    Now the population has increased with more families living in residences of Stanwell Tops.

    Such a disaster of another bushfire, which will inevitably happen, can never be dismissed or not taken seriously by Council.

    Council were concerned over this very matter, when they rejected the Helensburgh Land Pooling.

    The same can be applied to here because of allowing the dual occupancy of "cluster housing" which increases population in an isolated area.

    Can Council afford that risk?

  11. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Mark Raddatz wrote to local councillor Irene Doutney

    I object to the development application at 35 Henderson Road for the same grounds as all previous objections ie bulk, context, lack of parking but would like to alert viewers of this site that this development is tiny compared to the 20 storey towers that Urban Growth is wanting to install along the rail corridor from Eveleigh to Central. So if you object to this development wait until you see what the state government has planned for the area.

    Photo of Irene Doutney
    Irene Doutney local councillor for City of Sydney
    replied to Mark Raddatz

    Dear Mark,

    I apologise for the late reply. Thank you for sending your submission to DLM Irene Doutney.

    We appreciate the concerns you have raised, particularly surrounding the bulk and scale and the FSR of this development, that towers over the Alexandria Hotel – a site that Council has fought to preserve as heritage. I assure you that our office will be watching over this DA. DLM Doutney has been involved in the ‘save the Alex’ campaign and she has a high interest in preserving this site.
    We cannot call this for a briefing, as it is above 3 stories, however it will come to Council automatically to be discussed. We can keep you updated as we find out more.

    Kind regards,

    Gillian Pick
    (For DLM Irene Doutney)
    City Of Sydney

  12. In East Perth WA on “79 Residential Apartments...” at 9 Tully Road East Perth WA 6004:

    Felicity commented

    Reject this submission.

    Huge concerns over the increase of traffic. Tully Road will not support an increase without major adjustments to road infrastructure.

    With an already increase of traffic due to the recent developments on the railway (working through the night being heard) and replacing this with 93 potential cars by residents plus the approx. 71 apartments going up on Kensington Street and East Parade. Tully Road is already very busy for current residents and business.

    Currently many have witnessed daily near misses both on Tully Road turning onto Kensington, Kensington turning onto East Parade - currently the road capacity would not allow for the increase of traffic.

  13. In Stanwell Tops NSW on “Residential - dual...” at 12 Longview Crescent, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond commented

    I strongly object to this development application for the following reasons:

    1. The dual occupancy is definitely not within keeping of the Objectives of the Zone. Low density hardly fits the description to two, two storey dual occupancy homes on 10.67m wide blocks despite sought for seperate Torrens titles. There will only be just over 2 metres width between the buildings!

    2. Dual occupancy in Stanwell Tops is usually one home in front of the other (as 6 Longview Cres.) with a single common driveway if it's possible.

    3. Most importantly this proposal will set a "over development" precedent because of the block subdivision. It is “cluster” development in a proven, highly dangerous bushfire zone.

    4. Previously Wollongong Council have rejected "cluster housing" on 6 lots on Maddens Plains despite being large properties. But the houses were going to be within close proximity of each other in a proven high risk bushfire zone.

    5. Wollongong City Council and authorities also rejected "cluster housing" on the Lady Carrington South Estates located adjacent to Helensburgh.

    6. Council can NOT afford to have a precedent set of dual occupancy representing "cluster housing" in such a limited suburb like Stanwell Tops with a proven environmentally sensitive natural wildlife corridor area.

    7. Importantly, the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area is adjacent to the south; the Australian Heritage Listed Garawarra Conservation Area, Kellys Falls Section adjacent to the north and the Woronora Plateau to the west.

    8. These areas must be protected from over development within Stanwell Tops which only has 2 roads in and out.

    In Conclusion:
    Wollongong City Council must exercise their "Duty of Care" to not allow any precedent of "over development" by allowing this dual occupancy "cluster" within Stanwell Tops.

  14. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 / 33 Stawell Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Frank Penhalluriack wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    This land has a heritage overlay to protect its character, and while each building may add little, the overall "heritage atmosphere" will be detracted from by this planned redevelopment, which is considerably taller and bulkier than the existing building.
    The site is on the higher side of Stawell Street and will overlook those buildings to the north, notwithstanding the wide divided road. It will also dominate the view from those residences to the south.
    The planned building will be taller than any of its neighbours, and likely is in a residential zone with a three storey 10.5 metre maximum height limit.

    Delivered to local councillor Phillip Healey. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Kelly commented

    Just to be clear Vanessa, these discussions you see here are actually sent off to Pittwater Council as well.

    I also don't think you have read my comments properly....."I think it is irresponsible at this stage not to consider the infrastructure and any future DA's should include traffic impact studies and current traffic flow statistics for the valley". I am not opposing the DA's but they need to consider the infrastructure to support them. The number of dwellings suggested times four possible developments equates to an average of 672 additional cars during peak hour.

    If I need to leave my home during the afternoon peak hour to drop the kids to training, it takes me 20-30 minutes just to get through the roundabout and onto Ponderosa.

    As you say 'suggested solutions' are great, but that's all they are.....suggestions aren't they. We need a plan of action and that was the point I was making.

  16. In Forestdale QLD on “Shed (Combined Size...” at 63-67 Macadamia Street Forestdale QLD 4118:

    Gavin commented

    I am a close by neighbour to this property and if the sole purpose for this new shed is to use it for his business I am 100% against it, this is a residential area and running a demolition business from this site is WRONG and should not be allowed. Council needs to investigate this application before just approving.
    This could have a big impact on our property values if allowed to go ahead.

  17. In Bayswater VIC on “Development of 6 dwellings,...” at 23 Edinburgh Road, Bayswater VIC 3153:

    Jacqui Davis commented

    Will there be adequate on site parking. Due to all the multi unit sites in this area it is hard to get a park outside of your own house now! There should be at least 12 onsite car parks provided.

  18. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    James Dempster commented

    I would like to submit my Objection to Development Application No D/2016/0374, Site Address: 35 Henderson Road EVELEIGH NSW 2015.

    I object on the grounds the building is exceeding height limits and overshadows the heritage-listed hotel, its an eyesore when we are trying to make Sydney City a beautiful place to live and visit. There is also an extreme lack of parking.

    The Sydney City Council talk about a city of villages, you don’t build villages out of new soulless apartment blocks, they are made around heritage buildings to create beauty and contrast.

  19. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Andrew Cruz commented

    Object. The bulk and scale is out of character

  20. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Helen commented

    Thanks Vanessa! Good constructive suggestions. I admitted that I'm not there during peak times but most suburbs have issues during peak times, school drop offs etc, allambie heights the suburb I used to live in ( now in Dee why) is no exception, but from my observation Warriewood is still better placed to handle more residents than either of those two suburbs. Dee why is experiencing substantial development including quite a lot of high rise but they don't seem to have the level of difficulty of getting development applications through the council that Warriewood does. I'm not sure why this is the case.

  21. In Waverley NSW on “Modifications including...” at 9 Kent Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Tess Stamell commented

    I would say that Orel Lea of 11 Kent Street Waverley has a definite case as described above. House renovations are now being constructed to such an extreme that we are starting to live in each others pockets . This does not allow for healthy nor happy living arrangements . Deprivation of space, sky view and / or sunlight will only lead to a depressive suburbia which eventually with the passing of time will have the beginnings of a ghetto . High walls especially along fence lines give the appearance of isolation, anti social and unfriendly environment . This is Not what Bondi / Waverley area represent .

  22. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Simone Harris commented

    I object to the proposed residential development on this land. My main objections are the height of the building as it is in no way keeping with the heritage listing of the Alexandria hotel. My main objection is that there is no parking supplied for tenants in the building. The local residents have enough issues with parking especially those living on Henderson Road due to the over development (again exceeding initial height restriction) of the Technology park in particular channel 7 and the soon to be built CBA buildings. It is impossible to park on Henderson Road during the week as is forcing me to walk blocks wit 2 young children and shopping to get to my house. By allowing additional building without sufficient parking will again add to this issue one that will see me most probably move from the area in the future as residents concerns over the parking are continually ignored by council, state government and developers.

  23. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Vanessa commented

    Ladies - How about expressing your general frustrations to the council instead of here. http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/yoursay Helen is only wanting to get into the area to have a good life for her young family - which Warriewood can certainly provide.

    I do agree there are traffic problems at peak times which need to be addressed. Suggested solutions are to extend Brands Lane to encourage a different route through to Mona Vale Rd, and to replace the roundabout at Jubilee & Machperson St with traffic lights, to alleviate the bottleneck where the congestion begins.

    (Also - No northern beaches buses go to Central Station anymore, as they are building the light rail.)

  24. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Stacey Mitchell commented

    Absolutely Kelly - you nailed it. Sorry Helen but I am a resident of Warriewood now for 40 years and your comment "not in my backyard" seriously what a misguided comment! I don't live in the valley but I can tell you the infrastructure is not there. We now also have a dementia house in Alameda Way and no foot path or pedestrian crossing to support that?! Let's just keep popping in houses, who needs roads!!!

    Let me just pick up on your transport option - The bus service that comes through Warriwood 185 only goes to Wynyard yet so many elederly need it to go to Central (for trains to airports) but no, the elderly are expected to change at Narrabeen (with luggage etc).

    Yes we have some green spaces but that doesn't help us access adjoining suburbs - get to work, school, shops - and yes in peak hour or school periods!

    Perhaps take a drive in peak hour and you may understand the frustration we, the long suffering residents are facing. Poor old South ward - we always bear the brunt! But let's see some proper studies and perhaps some spend on infrastructure to match another influx! But that's what we get as a "blue ribbon seat". No one listens!!!

    No one objects to people wanting to "buy in" but we object to the fact that we can't support it and shouldn't have to suffer because the state govt opens up land grabs and the developers get richer - we suffer!

    So with respect Helen, your response is misguided and lacking substance and wasn't necessary. Know your facts before you tell us, the residents, what we should accept and shouldn't!

  25. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Belinda Evernden commented

    I object to the proposal for a seven storey building behind the Alexandria hotel. This is not in keeping with the local neighbourhood and is far too tall compared to the surrounding buildings. Please respect the opinions of the residents who Live in this neighbourhood!

  26. In Caringbah South NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 14 Binney St Caringbah 2229:

    Linda Jaynne commented

    I agree with the above, Binney Street is a short, narrow street. Yes, I agree parking will be a problem. There appears to be a single garage for each dwelling with possibly a single car space directly in front of the garages for each dwelling. Four bedrooms each dwelling will most likely attract the potential for extra cars which these proposed dwellings do not provide for. Also these dwellings do not provide for visitors parking. It appears to be overdeveloped in regards to four bedrooms to allow for maximum potential of Sale without consideration of parking in a short and narrow street. Also there would be at least six waste bins associated with these dwellings, effectively using parking space on an already narrow and at times congested street.

  27. In Diamond Creek VIC on “Development and use of the...” at 69 Main Street, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Sarah Le Page commented

    Firstly, the address provided on this alert is incorrect, as 69 belongs to The Windy Mile. If this planning alert relates to the building next door (75), being the old Veterinary surgery, it is a ludicrous suggestion. The location of this building is such that it cannot possibly sustain the amount of traffic required for a 120 place childcare centre. There is a small roadway between this building and The Windy Mile, which was put in place when AD Ryan's was owned by Julie and David Thompson - this was a gentleman's agreement for their customers to share space when both businesses were operating at different peak times. The building at 75 Main Street can only cope with approximately 10 cars entering and leaving the premises at a single time. The demand on a 120 place childcare centre would be many times this amount at peak periods, affecting the traffic also driving up Chute Street. People trying to get into the childcare centre would be forced to use parking at St John's and The Windy Mile when dropping off their children. The building itself is unsuitable for so many children to be in at one time, and the staff required to supervise this number of children would most likely take up most of the available car parking that exists now, forcing more pressure on any actual users of the service. I also believe that the balcony of The Windy Mile may expose any children right next door to inappropriate language as it is in operation throughout the day, not just at night. My main concern with the proposal is that the position of the building and its entrance and exit is absolutely unsuitable for the surrounding traffic requirements. The driveway to enter is not wide enough for two cars to come and go simultaneously. The particular location is suitable to a business which does not entertain large numbers of people at particular times of day.

  28. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Partial demolition of...” at 34 Bondi Road Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Linda commented

    If the extension of the pedestrian island is approved could we please have a red light on the left lane of Bondi Rd when the cars turning right from Council St have a green arrow.
    It is difficult at the present time in peak hours and summer to move across into the left lane of Bondi Rd in order to turn left into Paul St.
    The extension of the island and hence reduction in the available lane lenght to make the change will only be made worse.

  29. In Warriewood NSW on “Subdivision into 84...” at 18 Macpherson Street Warriewood NSW 2102:

    Kelly commented

    I think Helen’s comments above are a bit misguided as a weekend visitor to the Valley.
    The statement “not in my backyard’ has nothing to do with the actual infrastructure of the Valley, it just isn’t coping now, let alone when and if several other developments go through. For example 84 new dwellings will potentially add another 170 cars during peak hour.
    Helen I think you are forgetting that half of Warriewood Valley has been zoned light industrial which includes traffic funnelling from:
    * Many large Industrial Complexes and two major healthcare manufacturers/laboratories in Jubilee, Vineyard and Apollo/Prosperity Rds which generate a massive amount of traffic not only with employees, business/trade visitors, associated business vehicles and trucks but continuous articulated and container deliveries.
    * From Daydream Ave and 92 Mona Vale Rd - traffic from numerous office and Industrial Complexes including the newly constructed "Amber" complex which includes (among other tenants) a swimming school, Child Care centre and Cafe.
    * There has been an approval for a (much needed) 100 bed Private Hospital complimenting a variety of Medical/Physio/Chiro etc professional practices already existing.
    * There are now 4 Child Care Centres and a kids Party establishment, not to mention Mater Maria High School drop off and pickups and the massive Retirement Home and newly constructed villas.
    * In heavy rain the East end of Macpherson Street is under water making it difficult to get through to Warriewood Rd and the road is currently breaking up because of the constant water damage.
    The above mentioned points all contribute to excessive traffic chaos in peak hour times and it’s not unusual from traffic to be at a standstill for over a kilometre trying to get through the roundabouts on Ponderosa in the mornings.
    I think it is irresponsible at this stage not to consider the infrastructure and any future DA's should include traffic impact studies and current traffic flow statistics for the valley.

    It’s not about being selfish Helen, it’s about common sense.

  30. In Guildford NSW on “Change of use for new...” at 527 Woodville Road Guildford NSW 2161:

    Galib Anwar commented

    Property: Lot 190 DP 1060765, 527 Woodville Road, Guildford NSW 2161
    together “Proposed Development”

    This submission is in objection to the Proposed Development. The reasons for our objection is as follows:

    - The Proposed Development will result in a significant increase in the density of residents in a small area. The increased number of residents in the area will result in a corresponding increase in street traffic and an increase requirement of parking on the streets which the current development does not provide for nor is there sufficient infrastructure currently in place to cope with this increased traffic. Further, infrastructure in the area is not in place to handle increased density of population proposed by the development, including street lanes, shops and services.

    - The Proposed Development will impact the socioeconomic factors of the area. It is an up and coming affluent area, which needs residents that can contribute and build local demand in retail and other areas. The Proposed Development will effect this, as the residents of the development cannot afford to contribute to the area in comparison to the alternative residents. This area cannot handle increased population without the accompanying positive contribution;

    - The Proposed Development will negatively impact the land value of our property. Our property is part of a new development, in which capital growth of the property is reliant on increasing demand for the area such as more developments like that of our property, rather than the Proposed Development. Building an affordable rental housing development next to our complex will severely determent the land value of our property that we had bought only 2 years ago. At that time, we had done our due diligence in regards to future developments, and this was not a part of it. The original development would have improved our land value. But if the Proposed Development had been listed at that time, we would not have bought our property.

    - Affordable rental housing sites are associated with significant increase in noise activity at unusual times of the day and will be of significant impact on our property and living quality.

    - Affordable rental housing sites are associated with increased security issues and anti-social behaviour which will impact the safety of our children and elderly.

    Given the above issues which have macro issues impacting the whole neighbourhood as well as our individual property, we strongly urge the Council to reject the Proposed 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