Recent comments

  1. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Peter and Barbara Dixon commented

    We have recently found out about an application (DA 1844/2013) for the council’s consent to demolish buildings at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong and to agree to the concept of a waste water and sewerage treatment and recycling plant being built and operated at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong. We were not notified by letter. I imagine letters were only sent to people who may be affected by the demolition of buildings at 60 Avondale Rd. However, we feel we will definitely be affected in some way by the building of a sewage treatment facility which would be only approximately 100 metres from our property.

    There is very little detail in the application concerning this facility and how it would be operated and managed. We have recently been informed that a company, Flow Systems, would most likely be the company to build and operate this facility. This company operates a facility at Pitt Town and Johnson Property Group has stated that the Cooranbong facility would be similar to the one on the Vermont Estate development at Pitt Town. A representative of Flow Systems said he would most likely be asked to speak at Cooranbong if there was a community meeting.

    Flow Systems is a private sector water utility (licensed under the Water Competition Industry Act). They have told us that Stage 2 would be considered for consent by them, not the council, and an Environmental Impact Statement would also be prepared by them. They stated that there would be no noise (one resident at Pitt Town near the water treatment facility has said there is a slight buzzing noise at night) or odour and there would not have to be a buffer zone.

    However, guidelines do have to be followed with private sector utilities, including various factors such as any environmental impacts on a community, any transformation of a locality, any reduction of the aesthetic quality or value of a locality. We believe that building a sewage/water recycling facility in Avondale Rd would have a negative impact on the community in the above ways.

    Further research seems to indicate that there is a possibility of breakdowns in these facilities, particularly including sewage overflows. (The EPA recognises “that there are conditions under which a sewage overflow may be difficult to avoid” - Licensing Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Systems - Environment Protection Act 2003.) Licence application forms also include sections where the applicant has to show they have incident/emergency plans and disaster recovery plans.

    On the site at Avondale Road there are houses right on the boundary of the proposed facility. The Pitt Town area development is also quite different to Cooranbong. The few local, established people at Pitt Town live in a rural zone across a road adjacent to the new waste water facility development there. Here at 60 Avondale Road, the building is to be placed in the midst of a long-established residential area. Also those purchasing blocks on the Vermont Estate at Pitt Town know that there is a waste water treatment plant on the estate and they can choose a block as close or as far away as they desire from the treatment facility. The existing residents in Avondale Road, and those on Freeman’s Drive backing onto the site have no such choice.

    Apart from possible odour and noise we are also concerned about possible chemical hazards. This facility will treat the waste water and pump it back to the new development. In the application by Flow Systems for a similar plant at Wyee it states that: “A variety of chemicals including sodium hypochlorite, alum, etc. will be used for treatment process purposes, disinfection and membrane cleaning.” My wife is a respiratory scientist and is well aware of respiratory problems caused by chemicals.

    We have a young infant and another child due in a few days and we do not want to be forced into a situation where the building of this facility could possibly make our home environment not only unpleasant but harmful. We feel it is entirely objectionable to consider the building of such a facility in this residential area.

  2. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Peter & Margaret Tossell commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    My wife and I object to the DA on the grounds that we have great concerns that any uncontrolled release from this proposed site will impact on the waterways that flow into to our lake in Avondale Springs, we have already had run off from the excavation works that have taken place at the Watagan Gardens Development which is silting up the entry to our lake.

    Why does the sewage from this development need to processed on site? when there is a perfectly good facility located nearby at Marconi Rd which has recently undergone a major upgrade? How can Council be confident that JPG will maintain this site and prevent odours and spills/leakage into the surrounding area? Hunter water are the proper Authority to deal with the Sewage generated from the Watagan Gardens Development.

    I also note the concerns of the residents that are within 400 metres of this proposal; how could Council ever consider such a Development when it does not comply with the recommended 400 metre buffer zone?

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

    Sharyn Hunter commented

    i do not agree with the development plans for the area off Dudley Rd. My concerns are the traffic congestion in the area, in particular the streets coming off the roundabout on Dudley rd and Kopa St. Currently the parking at the shops is a nightmare and i have observed cars actually parked on the bridge nearby. I also believe that the Fernleigh Track will become more like a suburban street, it's very busy already with many people using it to ride or walk to work, or for exercise. There has been occasions where bike riders are colliding with walkers/runners and one woman was injured quite badly recently. The proposed dwelling itself is an eyesore, what a way to spoil that area and consequently all of Whitebridge. I have been a resident of Whitebridge for all of my 51 years and I would hate to see the community suffer the negative impact that this particular development would bring

  4. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Demolition, Alterations to...” at 302 Ocean View Rd, Ettalong Beach, NSW:

    Judi Galbraith commented

    The Council has spent so much money on making such a wonderful difference to the waterfront space.
    How can a low income accommodation improve these new facilities?

  5. In West Perth WA on “Demolition of existing...” at 28-44 Cowle Street, West Perth, WA, 6005:

    Simon commented

    This building may have been neglected and is run down in its current state, but it's a solid, structurally sound building. It's a Victorian era, Georgian style building with a bold and unique heritage character. I haven't seen another quite like this in Perth. Especially with the long convex verandah. It adds character to the street scape and to the charm and 'sense of place' for the area. It should be restored and preserved for these reasons. There is a large block of land and plenty of room to develop on the site while keeping the existing building. Demolition of this building would be irresponsible to the community and future development of this street, for reasons of preserving its character, sense of place, heritage and long term investment of properties in this area. I believe in this case the councillors should recommend to the owners and developers that the demolition of this building should be avoided and it should be restored instead.

  6. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Demolition, Alterations to...” at 302 Ocean View Rd, Ettalong Beach, NSW:

    Kerri Pearce commented

    This is high density development in what is predominately a low to medium density residential area. A development of this scale is out of character with the surrounding environment and will impact severely on the existing residents. Parking is already a problem due to the adjacent ferry wharf so a development of thirty rooms with only fifteen car spaces will increase this problem. It will also affect traffic flow in this area which is already congested around the ferry wharf.

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

    Bruce Sibthorpe commented

    Whitebridge High School Parents’ and Citizens’ Association Submission Concerning the Proposed Multiple-Dwelling and Mixed Use Development, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge NSW 2290. DA-1774/2013

    The December meeting of the Whitebridge High School Parents’ and Citizens’ Association discussed the proposal at length. We have referred to the proposal’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA), the Crime Risk Assessment Report (CRAR), the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and The Transport Report by Better Transport Futures (TR).

    The meeting was advertised as a discussion forum for the proposed development and was well attended. A large number of concerns were raised relating to, but not limited to:

    The public realm and aesthetics of the proposed development
    Public amenity
    Traffic management in terms of access and egress in relation to school based pedestrian and traffic
    Parking and transport, and
    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    The nature of the discussion will be addressed under each of the above points.

    From the outset it needs to be stated that the P&C recognises the need for new housing and development in the community of Whitebridge. It also, more importantly, recognises the need to have any development be in line with moderate community growth, in line with existing facilities and allow the evolution of the community to occur over time and in line with a steady expansion of facilities and dwellings in the context of the village atmosphere that exists and provides an atmosphere of safety and utility for residents, in our case the students and school community.

    Public realm and aesthetics

    A high level of concern was expressed at the nature of the development in relation to the existing dwellings and housing in the village of Whitebridge.

    The proposal is totally out of context with a village that is predominately single dwellings in a low density setting. Granted that local government area zoning rules has been amended to accommodate medium density living but the extent and scope of this development is at the upper to extreme end of the medium density zoning. This fact was openly admitted by the developer’s representative at the public meeting. In short the proposal is out of step with the current community setting. The impact of this proposed development would be significant in social terms.

    Notably the development is devoid of space for each dwelling. There are no softening features for the development in terms of the skyline and amenity in terms in blending in with the existing housing and bushland facilities offered by the proximity to the Fernleigh Track and Glenrock Conservation area or offered by the village context of the existing shopping facilities and services.

    Lessons need to be learned from similar developments owned by the NSW Department of Housing in Hexham Street Kahibah and previously in Kahibah, Woodrising and Booragul (the latter having been demolished and removed.) All these developments have been totally out of place with surrounding village atmospheres and have attracted a rise in anti-social behaviours and crime. These are examples where high density living has resulted in behaviours that have required the intervention of law enforcement and other government agencies.

    Fears were expressed over the high potential for significant changes to the social fabric of the village because of the high density of the development. It is noted that the SIA refers to this but considers it unlikely. Our view is that the SIA is totally dismissive of this crucial aspect of higher density living.

    The P&C has the opposite view and requests the Council to be alert to the unseen impacts of this aspect of the development and request appropriate modifications and amendments be made to the capacity and scope of the development proposal before approval.

    We accept that the population has to live somewhere and that the open space is appropriate for housing development. This development needs to be moderate and in keeping with the context of the local village community rather than being purposefully out of step with what already exists.

    Public amenity

    There was much discussion over the public amenity aspect of the development proposal. In particular the lack of open space for children to play and be outside of the dwelling. There is a lack of landscaping to enable the skyline of the development to blend in with surrounding dwellings. The dwelling offers no new public amenity but relies on use of the existing amenities.

    There is a lack of accommodation for teenage children who like to ‘hang around” in outdoor areas. Comparisons were made with this aspect of Charlestown Square where considerable cost, effort and time goes into managing teenage behaviour and the associated anti social aspects of that age group. The recreational needs of this age group needs to be acknowledged and planned for. They need opportunities to engage in open spaces interspersed with challenges and facilities such as skate parks/bowls.

    The P&C were most concerned about the lack of space to allow residents, particularly children, the freedom or opportunity to express themselves nearby to their dwelling in a safe manner. The close proximity of motorised vehicles and contained access and egress to the development lends itself to a range of significant safety and social concerns.

    Whitebridge High School has and is the repository of this negative social impact in the community. It has suffered many graffiti incidents and unprovoked vandalism. This adds a huge cost to the school and government services and further stretches the already slow responses to repair. An increase in population without adequate recreational and safety planning will maintain and possibly increase local incidences of these antisocial behaviours.

    Again in relation to this aspect the development is well out of line with the current setting and it is requested that Council place reasonable conditions on the developers to modify the extent of the capacity of the development and make available adequate space for quality interactions and play within the development area.

    Traffic Management

    The P&C were very concerned with this aspect of the development. It is noted from the TR attached to the development proposal that the developer makes it clear that while all the indicators from the recent Waran Road and Burwood Road Traffic Study indicated that the traffic management was within the limits of the road categories the reality of the traffic management situation was totally opposite to that view.

    The parents were most concerned at the one (1) entry and exit for the development and demand that Council not approve this aspect of the proposal in its current form and suggest that Council undertake negotiations regarding alternative access and egress points.

    It was stated adamantly that surely some safe access and egress from the Dudley Road and existing shopping carpark area could be made so as to accommodate the traffic and provide an alternative access other than that suggested in the plans.

    What the TR fundamentally fails to recognise is the large numbers of near misses from the high density of traffic at peak times, particularly with pedestrian traffic. This is of significant concern to the P&C and school community. It is evident to all parents of the school community and to local residents in Lonus Avenue that the school traffic situation in a dead end access street is already an extremely unsafe solution to allow access to a large comprehensive high school. To add in additional traffic to that street with the proposed traffic management plan is to raise the threshold of potential accidents and injury to young children as well as frustration to commuters and local residents in an unnecessary manner. While the use of the word ‘potential’ is used here it is clearly foreseeable to any responsible statutory body that there will be a far higher risk associated with the traffic management of this proposal in its current form.

    The P&C association has already raised the traffic management and parking in Lonus Avenue and surrounding streets as a contentious issue with the Lake Macquarie City Council. To further compound this issue by allowing only one (1) entry and egress point to the development is, in short, short sighted and bears no real understanding of the reality of the situation. The P&C would not like to be in a position of “I told you so” after a fatality to someone associated with the school.

    The recent repaving of Lonus Avenue is a case in point. The school had to intervene with Council to ensure enhanced safety requirements were instituted to make allowances to cater for the high incidence in traffic at peak times. Even after this intervention two (2) students were knocked over crossing Waran Road. The peak time traffic on Lonus Avenue, the Dudley Road roundabout, Waran Road and Whitebridge Village shopping and carpark are notorious for both commuters and pedestrians, add in the impatient and impulsive nature of teenagers in traffic and you have a lethal mix.

    The Council is strongly urged to address the traffic management aspect of this development in a more solution based manner that takes into consideration the nature of the teenage demographic that are the main pedestrians and road users of the Lonus Avenue area.

    Parking and Transport

    This aspect of the development is also of great concern to the P&C association. The village parking is already at high use and is notoriously dangerous when students from the school congregate in the village area. The school responds to many complaints from community residents and shop owners regarding risky behaviour of students in relation to motorists and residents using the small and limited parking facilities.

    While it could be argued that the responsibility for the behaviour is that of individual students it is wise to plan and build facilities that ameliorate risk rather than add to the risk associated with community use of the area.

    Of concern also is the street parking on Lonus Avenue. The school receives many complaints regarding the cramped nature of parking on Lonus Avenue. There is no off street parking for Whitebridge High School. Students, staff and parents are forced to utilise street parking. This regularly angers residents when family members, relatives, tradespeople and emergency services cannot park adjacent to the house they are attending.

    The P&C does not agree with the TR that advises that residents of the development will utilise public transport and use pedestrian means for travel. Clearly the report indicates that vehicle ownership in the community is higher than the LGA and state average. We don’t see this changing considering the higher than LGA and state levels of employment and subsequent higher levels of discretionary income per family.

    Consideration should also be given to the fact that there are two Child Care Centres that use Lonus Avenue and surrounding streets for access, both during and outside the high school hours.

    The P&C association strongly urges Council to reconsider the adequacy of this aspect of the proposed development.

    Impact on existing infrastructure.

    The discussion around the above points clearly provide a substantial underpinning view that the impact of the proposed development will be substantial on the existing infrastructure of the village itself; the surrounding streets and road use; the pedestrian safety; the amenity of the village; the capacity of the services to the development and existing sewerage and treatment facilities as well as the flow on impacts over time of social context and fabric of the village and associated anti social behaviours.

    While it is easy to view the associated reports as being in favour of the development and noting their recognition that there will be some impact on existing infrastructure there is a distinct dismissive tone in the reports. There is also a distinct suggestion that the impact will be monitored and the staging of the development will be such that the impacts will be ameliorated over time by the community getting used to the development as part of the community.

    Our argument is that there will be substantial impact that will be too late to turn around after the development gains approval. This aspect of the planning process needs to be recognised and moderated well before the development gets approval to continue.

    Thank you for allowing us to make comment about the proposal. We hope that the points raised have been useful as they represent the views of a large community based organisation and service provider.

    Christine Beverly
    President
    Whitebridge High School P&C Association

  8. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling 2x3...” at 170 Mary Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Alison Bartlett commented

    This is one of the old houses in Toowoomba - built in 1901 I believe.
    The previous owners have made it into a beautiful home and it has a wonderful garden. Toowoomba needs to maintain and keep some of these old homes and not keep making them into high density dwellings for money's sake...
    Please don't allow it to be cut up and ruined.

  9. In Eastwood NSW on “2 x tree removal or pruning” at 17 Cocos Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Aleks Todoroski commented

    I am concerned that removal of the large tree at the front of the property will degrade the amenity of this street. If the removal of this tree is proposed, I strongly object.

  10. In Diamond Creek VIC on “To install 4 Business...” at 7/67 Main Hurstbridge Road, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Luke Richter commented

    Dominoes already has two signs present (one which is as large as the coles building next to it). An additional 4 signs seems like it would be excessive for keeping in with the trend of the other businesses in this set of shops. I can understand having their sign/details on the large display as your enter the car park. but fail to see where the additional signs may go. I have particular concern if they are illuminated and will be displayed during the night, i don't live in diamond creek for that kind of atmosphere.

  11. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Karen Noble commented

    As someone who lived in Cooranbong for many years, I was recently appalled to discover that Johnson Property Group developers are planning to install a sewage recycling plant at 60 Avondale Rd. I understand it is planned to be built and operated by a private water utility (licensed under the Water Competition Industry Act).

    Stage 2 of the Johnson Property Group Development Application would go to this company rather than the council and it would also undertake the environmental impact statement. This appears to me to be a conflict of interest. The private company maintains there is no odour or noise. Every utility has the possibility of breakdowns and in the case of Cooranbong, houses are back to back with the boundaries of the proposed site.

    A similar utility exists at Pitt Town but in quite different circumstances. I believe the local Pitt Town community do not have respect for JPG.

    I find it hard to understand how the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who is the beneficiary of this housing development, would even consider building a sewage plant, of whatever kind, so close to a long time established residential area. It would have to affect the value of land and have other possible environmental effects, minimal or otherwise.

    My brother and his family live about 100 meters from this proposed utility and I would like to strongly object to the council consenting to this concept.

  12. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Suzanne & John Blyde commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    We have strong objections to development application listed which includes the development of a sewerage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road. We are long term residents of Cooranbong who live just outside the recommended 400 metre buffer zone, but there are many long standing residences well within 400 metres of the current development proposal.

    We have concerns about the certainties of noise, odour and possible chemical hazards. We are also concerned about where the run-off would go from this plant. Will there be limits set on gas and noise pollution and how will these be enforced in both the short-term and long-term?

    In addition it would appear that having such a treatment plant under private management rather than governed by the Hunter Water Board adds much uncertainty about ongoing maintenance, both long term and short term. In light of this :

    1. Could you please provide details of how management and maintenance of the system will be carried out.
    2. Could you please provide details of the expected discharge rates now in the future and where it will be discharged to.
    3. If the water is being discharged to the environment or community, what are the allowable BOD and nutrient loads and how will these limits be monitored and enforced, and by whom?

  13. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Wesley and Lisa Thomson commented

    To Whom It May Concern, Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    As long-term residents of Cooranbong, we oppose the DA for a privately owned and operated sewerage treatment facility/Utility Infrastructure Facility at 60 Avondale Rd, Cooranbong for the following reasons:

    1) This DA flouts the NSW best practice guidelines for such a facility with regards to exclusion and buffer zones as they apply to numerous existing residences nearby that would be within a 400 metre exclusion zone. Our home would only be 600 metres away from the proposed facility.

    2) By applying to locate the proposed facility (known to emit some poisonous gases) at 60 Avondale Rd, this DA presents the potential for unnecessary risk to the health and safety of many existing Cooranbong residents, including the 1000+ children who go to school nearby at 119 Avondale Rd.

    3) There may be a detrimental impact on local flora and fauna and a watercourse that feeds into the existing Avondale Springs development, not to mention the drop in value of surrounding properties potentially affected by: odour, poisonous gases such as hydrogen sulphide, unsightly structures and any light or noise pollution associated with the operation of a sewerage treatment facility.

    4) We ask Lake Macquarie City Council to consider the following options:

    i) requiring the Developer locate the facility elsewhere within the Watagan Park Estate that it will service, complying with the NSW best practice guidelines for exclusion zones. Apply the guidelines to existing residences as well as proposed developments within the estate.
    OR
    ii) requiring the Developer to organise sewerage connection to the Marconi Road facility, again complying with NSW best practice guidelines.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Wesley and Lisa Thomson

  14. In Bexley North NSW on “S82a Review - S82A -...” at 8 - 20 Sarsfield Circuit Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Greg BH commented

    Will the integrity of the pedestrian amenity on the retail/carpark side be retained? Where will vehicle parking for the new development be accessed from?

  15. In Cronulla NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 70 Cronulla St Cronulla 2230:

    nick deguingand commented

    I think it is a shame that Cronulla has not made any effort to keep a lot of its 1920s period architecture. In other areas, this would be respected, and would become an attraction for the area. There was a lot of building around then, and Cronulla could have been seen as an Art Deco area. We could at least be looking to preserve what we have left.

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

    Petar B commented

    How a development like this can even be taken into consideration is absolutely insane. This should be a regular housing estate with 25-30 properties (this will actually boost land value and the general life style in the area).

    To add this much congestion in such a small area does not require complex math to figure out it is a bad idea and will not work in this location. Property values will diminish and the young families that have purchased properties in Whitebridge for a family life style will most certainly leave the suburb if a development as absurd as this was to be approved.

    This type of development would be a great idea for an area like Jesmond where there is a greater demand for small units which would benefit things such as the university, not a growing family suburb which has sustained growth due to the lifestyle benefits of the area.

    The only people that can see positives with this proposition are the developers, NO ONE ELSE!!!

  17. In Zetland NSW on “Section 96(2) -...” at 5 O'Dea Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    a) local residents have NOT been advised of this application
    b) as far as I can see the contractor has already exceeded the original 7 storey limitation
    c) the building is already very large and imposing and the extra storey's only justification is to further line the pockets of the contractor
    d) the extra storey will only increase the shadow, environmental and traffic problems that the building will cause

  18. In Zetland NSW on “Section 96(2) -...” at 5 O'Dea Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    a) local residents have NOT been advised of this application
    b) as far as I can see the contractor has already exceeded the original 7 storey limitation
    c) the building is already very large and imposing and the extra storey's only justification is to further line the pockets of the contractor
    d) the extra storey will only increase the shadow, environmental and traffic problems that the building will cause

  19. In Cronulla NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 70 Cronulla St Cronulla 2230:

    penelope meads commented

    To whom it may concern, I have lived up above the old Commonwealth Bank Building for nearly 18 years, as a rental tenant, And I must say I have loved living in this old building. Everything changes, and I am under no misconception that sooner or later I will have to leave here. My question is how far will the title "heritage building" matter, when alterations begin. I have seen and read the proposed plans for this building, and to be truthful, I was quite shocked at how modern the building looked in the artists impression. People who know I live here and care about this building are forever asking what is happening to it. I tell them I don't really know, what council can do for this building. But that they should join the email list as I have. Is it possible to ask council, will this building be looked after? I see with my own eyes daily, how its not looked after as a heritage building should be, which is why I am voicing my concern. My interest is purely out of love for this building and certainly not to make trouble for anyone. Thanking you.

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

    Gregory Lewis commented

    Hi,
    The density of the proposed current DA is excessive to say the least. We currently experience notable traffic issues in this built up area, and to approve this development in its current form would turn our local traffic into an extreme bottleneck. We have the local shops with traffic, we have the local High School traffic, and to add such a ridiculous extreme number of dwellings with an estimate of 2 cars per dwelling would be nothing short of insane.
    The area should have the commercial shops extended, in so doing it would protect any proposed dwellings behind, also it would add to the parking for customers of the existing and proposed shops.
    The distance to the Fernleigh track should be greater allowing for the current Native Flora and Fauna and to act as a buffer for those who use the track.
    In respect of privacy, overshadowing, View Corridors, the current proposed development does not allow for privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors in accordance with Lake Mac Council guidelines and as a consequence must be redesigned to comply with privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors.
    Visitor Parking has not been suitably addressed to accommodate this extreme proposed number of dwellings, this current DA must be scaled down in the proposed number of dwellings to comply with Lake Mac Council Visitor Parking Per Dwelling.
    Any use of the current loop hole of Low Cost Housing or Senior Living Housing, MUST have a positive covenant placed on title ensuring that these are complied with and there must be policing conducted by Lake Mac Council.
    The current use of the land for years for the locals has been that of green belt open space and for it to not have any green belt open space incorporated into any proposed development is not in keeping with the area, nor is it sympathetic to the locals and the long standing use of the site. This will without doubt cost votes to any Mayoral candidate. This will be distributes to locals via flyers, Posters and word of mouth. Whitebridge is a tight knit community and we have friends throughout all of Lake Macquarie Council Shire and we will use our influence if need be.
    A proposal of a combination single storey and two storey homes ALL freestanding with the frontage on Dudley Rd being an extension of commercial shops and customer parking with some green belt open space (Park) within the development would be appreciated and well received by locals and visitors.
    In short the current proposed development is extreme to say the least and it is NOT welcomed and is NOT to be approved. Please refer to the above to find reasons for why not, also please see above for a brief on what is desired.
    WE DO NOT WANT A GHETTO. DEVELOPERS ARE TRYING TO USE LOOPHOLES TO MAXIMISE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES WITH NO CONCERN ABOUT COUNCIL, THE SUBURB OR EVEN SHIRE. THIS MUST BE STOPPED WITH COUNCIL PLANNERS AT THE FOREFRONT. WHAT ARE WE TO LEAVE AS INHERITANCE TO OUR CHILDREN ? THIS IS A DISGRACE, TOWN PLANNERS AND COUNCILLORS AND THE MAYOR SHOULD EXERCISE COMMON SENSE.

  21. In Birkdale QLD on “Operational Works - ROL 3...” at Burbank Road, Birkdale, QLD:

    Michael McKee commented

    Seems these lots are to be of a very small size which would see the Redlands trend continuing. I don't agree if they are micro blocks

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

    Sheena Dobbins commented

    My main concern with this development is increased traffic congestion on the round about at Lonus Ave and Warren Road and side streets that exist onto Dudley Road which are already congested prior to this development. With a lot of bicycles and pedestrians already using Fernleigh Track via Lonus Ave I feel there is an accident waiting to happen with extra cars entering and existing Kopa Street. There is not enough parking at shops and visibility on crossing going towards Dudley is limited by the fence. High School Students, Pre-Schoolers, Primary Students walking to school and children using the park at end of Lonus Ave safety should also be considered.

  23. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Paul Rankin commented

    Objection to the proposed stage development by Johnson Property Developments of a Sewage Treatment Plant at 60 Avondale Road (Lot B, DP 391418) Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013 By Mr Paul and Mrs Sonia Rankin, 79 Avondale road, Cooranbong, 2265. The DA 1844/2013 appears to be in two parts. The first part is for the demolition of a house and outbuildings at 60 Avondale Road. We have no objection to the demolition of the house and outbuildings. However the second stage of this DA concerns the development of a Sewerage Treatment Plant and we have strong objections to the development of the sewerage treatment plant. Our residence at 79 Avondale Road is 244 m from the proposed Sewerage Treatment Plant. The NSW Department of Planning Best Practice Road Guidelines April 2010 Recommends a Buffer Zone of at least 400 m around Sewage Treatment Plants. In the case of this proposal there are in the vicinity of 190 houses with in 400 m of the proposed development. Our preferred outcome would be that the developers of the proposed North Cooranbong Development are required to connect to the Marconi Road (Dora Creek) Sewerage Treatment Plant operated by the Hunter Water Board. If this outcome cannot be achieved can we please request that in the consideration of this proposal that the New South Wales Department of Planning Best Practice Owed Guidelines be enforced and that if a Sewerage Treatment Plant is established then the recommended buffer zone is enforced. Yours sincerely, Paul and Sonia Rankin

  24. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Mr Milton McFarlane commented

    I would like to strongly object to the development of a sewerage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road. My nephew and his family live approximately 100 meters from the boundary of this proposed building. NSW Government guidelines suggest a buffer zone of at least 400 meters from residential areas. This is because of likely noise, odour and possible chemical hazards.

    I am a long term resident of Cooranbong and think that a sewerage treatment plant located in the middle of a residential zone is completely inappropriate.

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

    N Quinn commented

    This whole development needs a complete rethink!

    Too many residents in such a small space with no regard for appropriate infrastructure.

    There are not enough roads in and out of the development - where is the traffic study prior to this proposal? Where is the revised traffic study based on the proposal going ahead?

    The area is congested in the morning and afternoons already and there is not enough parking there already for the shops in use - I can see residents parking in the shopping areas already due to not enough access of parking provided for 250 plus bedrooms.

    A good number of the residents face the wrong direction to achieve good environmental planning which means excessive air conditioning use which is not efficient, cost more for residents and uses more power. Peak loads will change in that area which could effect the already inconsistent power issues in the area.

    For such a green focused council this proposed development doesn't seem to meet any of the council guidelines for eco friendliness

    One could suggest that this development seems more about profit than good environmental design for urban growth.

  26. In Yowie Bay NSW on “Waterfront Development -...” at 16 Maroopna Road, Yowie Bay, NSW:

    Kim Steel commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am interested in purchasing this property if the owners are interested in selling, but it has come to my attention that there may be some design problems with this house. Can you furnish me with the relevant information about this property, 16 Maroopna Rd Yowie Bay 2228. Also, do you have the contact details of the owners?

    Many Thanks,

    Kim Steel

    (m) 0411112825
    ksteel@hotmail.com

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

    Kelly Davis commented

    My wife and I live in a small miners cottage on Station St (opposite development site) which we bought around 2 years ago.We love this area as it is close to everything but still retains a community feel . I think it is one of most desirable suburbs for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest attraction for many people is the amazing area of bushland leading down to the ocean. To live near this we should all be truly thankful.

    To develop this land in Whitebridge in the manner proposed would be a crime.

    I think it is basically wrong to turn a fairly quiet community into a busy/congested area overnight.This piece of land shouldn't be viewed as instant dollars, but built on so it dosn't detract from the towns unique characteristics. I'm just not convinced that 100, 3 storey brick and tile town houses crammed on top of one another is going to be good for Whitebridge.

    I believe there should be a public footpath running towards the shops (preferably on the development site) as there is no footpath from Station St . This means locals would walk or ride pushbikes instead of getting in cars. Appropriate landscaping on the site is also essential . A green corridor running both sides of a walkway would be good.

    There are many things to consider here, I really hope someone has the decency to take a long hard look at this proposal, and admit that it could be done a whole lot better.

  28. In Wantirna South VIC on “Multiple dwellings and...” at Obsolete 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    All residents have visitors at some time or other.
    Now that you have waived the visitor car park, where are they going to park?

  29. In Parramatta NSW on “Tree removal and...” at 37 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    One would hope that the building on this site does not interfere with 39 Campbell Street which was the home of Master Bridge Builder David Lennox.

  30. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Joan Helliker commented

    Utility Infrastructure Facility. Is this a fancy name for a sewage treatment plant?
    My grand children live within metres of this proposed development. Has any one considered the
    potential exposure to the surrounding properties from sewer gases(rotten egg gas) that will be omitted from such a facility. The major components of sewer gas are, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ammonia and other biological agents. Health effect of H2S are at.0-10ppm Low range= irritation of eyes, nose and throat. 10-50-ppm MOD range = Headaches, Dizziness, Nausea and vomiting, Coughing and breathing difficulty. 50-200ppm High range= Severe respiratory tract irritation, Eye irritation/ Acute conjunctivitis and Convulsions. Hydrogen Sulfide is 20% heavier than air so this invisible gas will collect in depressions in the ground. At 100ppm a persons ability to detect the gas is effected by rapid temporary paralysis of the olfactory nerves in the nose leading to loss of sense of smell.Prolonged exposure to lower concentrations can also result in simular effects.
    I am not in favour of this development. I believe my grand children's health is a risk due to the close proximity of this proposed development.The fact that Hyrogen sulfide is a toxic gas.Why build such a facility so close to residential properties. There must be an alternate site that can be considered. council need to consider the residence already living in the area.

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