Recent comments

  1. In Reservoir VIC on “Proposed construction of...” at 1 Willoughby Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    It's a fact we will object fully to this commented

    We will certainly be objecting once again. This land directly behind our family home originally wanted 4 huge double story's built. With our adjoining neighbours objections / & obviously going through the council process, the propriotors lost at council. Of course they went to VCAT. They lost again.
    They are now proposing 3 x double story units & the 4th one is now being a single based property. The size of the block is small & certainly doesn't justify 4 proprtiies on it. We will fight the developer, council, VCAT & anyone else that doesn't agree with our family invasion.

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

    Jenny Langmaid commented

    This DA should NOT be approved. The ratepayers of any council have the expectation that their council will not only follow due process when considering any DA application but factor an element of common sense into the process.

    There are 12 child care centres within a 2km radius of Merrivale Lane all of which appear in keeping with character of the street and size limited to the landscape - this is not an example of that. The proposed size and scale of this structure is simply unfathomable for a small suburban lane....my question to you would be not why shouldn't we pass it, but why would you pass it? Surely common sense will prevail here.

    Traffic and Safety - We purchased in the "lane" due to its neighbourhood character and the quiet streets. With nearly every home having to reverse out of their driveway, this is a fatality waiting to happen. I have in the nearly 3 years of living here almost swiped numerous cars and hit oncoming traffic that appear out of nowhere over the crest in the lane on more occassions than I can count. When we were renovating and had just a few trades vehicles on the street it was impossible for residents and waste collection to get through the very small space between vehicles on both sides of the streets . Develop this land and factor the volume of traffic that this lane will have to service and it just doesn't make sense- surely common sense will prevail here.

    The congestion that builds on Pentecost when I am turning into Merrivale is substantial- the increased traffic would create a build up of kilometres particularly in peak hour. There has been fatalities here and this again another accident waiting to happen.

    Development- Whilst I understand change is good and probable with infrastructure and services, I believe that the building of such centres should be within an area that is zoned for such "commercial" business. If I wanted to live on Bobbin Head "Road" or the Pacific "Highway" then I would have spent less and bought there. OK so maybe common sense can't prevail in the drivers seat at the council but surely the council is in the business of serving the community not paving the way for poor precedence.

    Noise - No amount of sound proofing (which has been proven not to work) will ensure that the noise will not be at an acceptable level. Again if I wanted constant noise in my backyard I would have bought under the flight path in the inner city! Don't be financially lured here Council - let common sense prevail!

    Interestingly I have always had a fair opinion of council and its planning/assessment team and wondered why others hold them with the same regard as "uneducated used car salesman" - perhaps it's because I haven't been exposed to poor judgement and poor decision in the past. I have been served by councils that have used sound judgement with a dash of common sense - I only hope that Ku-ring-gai Council does not start precedence on something that goes down in the History books as a fiscal decision made in a time that decisions can be bought and without the respect and support of its rate payers.

    Let common sense prevail Ku-ring-gai or you will have car parking/street rage, fatalities and a Lane that once was!

  3. In Hawthorn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 131 - 141 Church Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Glenys Thomson commented

    This is far too many residences to be built on this one site. In the very recent past several multi-residential buildings in this close vicinity have created traffic blockages, road delays and inconsiderate behaviour by tradespeople working on these sites. The small one way lane beside this site is an exit in much use by residents in Simpson Place and Lion Street and this will be compromised greatly by this proposed work.

  4. In Gordon NSW on “Demolish part of existing...” at 807-813 Pacific Highway, Gordon, NSW:

    Sherryl bremner commented

    At least it won' be a derelict site

  5. In Camperdown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 45 Roberts Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    S.K. commented

    The proposed elevation of the roof at front of this property would dramatically alter the streetscape of Roberts St, which falls under HCA 9 of Marrickville Council. This application should only be approved on condition that the top of the new roof is not visible from the opposite footpath of Roberts St.

  6. In Rockdale NSW on “Construction of Nine (9)...” at 386 Princes Highway, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Chris commented

    Your home is most probably built on the site of captain cooks historical outlook of the banksia ridge .. This development is now a government planning issue not a council issue .. You can't stop progress .. I live at banksia station , princes hwy side and the zoning height is set currently approved and set at 8 stories .. Information will be released shortly for even higher and I look forward like many others for the change around the station and along the arncliffe to Rockdale princes hwy corridor

  7. In Lilyfield NSW on “Remove tree that is...” at 39 The Boulevarde Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Axel Olleroch commented

    The tree does need addressing however the rear end extension roof is actually higher than the tree.
    A rear extension which has been approved under State complying development is the height of a three storey building. The height according to plans is 8m however from independent calculations it is higher than that. There is a neighbouring two storey addition which is half the size. The first floor has 3m ceilings with large glass sliding doors which look over into properties in May street and my second floor bedroom. It is a very intrusive addition.
    It would be easy to achieve a third level loft space with the construction of this extension, which is what could happen after the occupation certificate is issued. NSW planning only allows two storey additions.
    As this is State complying development none of the immediate neighbours in May Street, which are affected by this build, were given the chance to voice concerns. This is the problem with State building approvals, no one needs to be notified, only adjacent houses.
    Council can't do anything because it's State approved. What good is a local council then? The certifier didn't even bother to put their name and the CD number on the front fence, just the builder's sign in the rear lane, very clandestine.

  8. In Sussex Inlet NSW on “Thongs on the Beach -...” at 182 Jacobs Dr, Sussex Inlet 2540:

    Mick Bothell commented

    There is already a pub and club right in the area ,As well as a Restraurant that sell alcohol I don't think we need a nother 1 as it is a small community town . & it would disadvantage the town

  9. In Kirrawee NSW on “Mixed use retail,...” at 566-594 Princes Highway Kirrawee 2232:

    Natalie Popple commented

    Question 1: If there are 749 units and retail as well as public facilities how many car parks are envisaged for the site in total, and what is the break up calculation for each use? How many disabled facilities will the complex cater for?

    Question 2: What measures are proposed to combat traffic stagnation along Oak Road as current conditions are that it takes, on average, two or three light changes to cross the intersection of Oak and Princes Hwy. What measures are proposed to deal with residual traffic along Oak Road between The Hwy and Waratah Street as more sites are developed in this area?

    Question 3: How much street parking will be sacrificed for this project?

    Question 4: How will traffic be directed on and off the site and where will it connect with the main roads, being Princes Hwy, Oak Rd and President Avenue.

    Question 5: How will people be moved via public transport to and from this site. How will foot traffic be moved across the Hwy.

    Question 6: What maintenance procedures are proposed to keep the site from becoming an eyesore.

    Thank you for considering my queries.

  10. In Rockdale NSW on “Construction of Nine (9)...” at 386 Princes Highway, Rockdale NSW 2216:

    Sandra Steele commented

    I have significant concerns about the height of this and other proposed developments such as that at 397 Princes Highway as they will set a precedent for further developments in the Princes Highway corridor.

    Historically, the ridge running above Banksia railway station is thought to be one of the sites Captain James Cook climbed to to in 1770 to assess the area surrounding Botany Bay.

    Thousands of residents who live on this ridge are at risk of having this historic outlook blocked by the proposed development of high rise appartment blocks. Whilst there is a certain inevitability of development in the local area, rows of 10 storey appartment blocks along the highway at Banksia and Arncliffe will completely destroy the views and ambience for many current residents of these areas.

    I am not against the development of unit blocks in this area, but feel that there should be height restrictions with no blocks being higher than the current block of units on the corner of Banksia Ave and the highway, next door to the Woolworths Petrol Station.

    My other concern is the impact any high rise developments will have on the already overcrowded traffic on the Highway. We are already suffering the impact of poor infrastructure development around Wolli Creek with many large apartment blocks and a road system which has insufficient capacity to deal with the increased amounts of traffic in the area. Further high rise decvelopments locally are only going to exascerbate this issue.

    I think that stricter height restrictions should be applied to unit blocks along the prices highway between Rockdale and Arncliffe. Any unit developments in this area should be restricted to a maximum of 5 storeys.

  11. In Lake Wendouree VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1200 Mair Street, Lake Wendouree:

    Stuart Kelly commented

    On street parking in this vicinity is already overstretched by the students of Aquinas, and by staff, patients and visitors to the hospitals and medical centres in Mair Street and Drummond Street North.

    The residential streets, particularly Mair Street, Ascot Street North and Talbot Street are always totally full of cars from early morning to evening.

    No reduction in the car parking requirements should be even considered for this development. All car parking requirements should be provided on site.

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

    Catherine Tapp commented

    This DA Should NOT be approved! It is a MASSIVE Child Care Development and totally inappropriate for Merrivale Lane.
    It is not called Merrivale Road or Merrivale Street or Merrivale Highway.
    Australian Oxford Dictionary states the meaning of a Lane as "a narrow road, track or passage. A strip of road for a single line of traffic"
    The residents in the lane have continual problems coping with existing vehicular access. Between the dangerous intersection on the corner of Pentecost Ave & Merrivale Lane and managing the flow of residents traffic if there are cars parked on the street. There are constant problems with the collection of garbage and frustration by the truck drivers when they are unable to drive along the LANE due to restricted access.
    To allow this type of BUSINESS to set up in a residential lane way, catering for 150 children x 100-150 cars dropping off in the morning and 100-150 cars picking up in the evening is insane!
    It is not a matter of IF but WHEN will there be a tragedy involving a child/adult and cars or trucks due to the limited access.

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

    Melissa Richardson commented

    This application should not be approved.

    Merrivale Lane is called a lane for a good reason. It is a narrow, quiet street that cannot possibly accommodate the increased traffic a childcare centre for 150 children would create. Lack of pedestrian footpaths means people are obliged to walk on the road in parts of the lane where the gradient of the nature strip is too steep. Imagine parents with strollers having to park hundreds of metres away, then having to navigate their way around parked cars, residents driving out of steep driveways with limited visibility, and other traffic.

    If this proposal is approved it will not reflect well on Council's regard for the safety of its residents. Any childcare centre would be unsuitable for this lane. One for 150 children is completely unreasonable.

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

    rohit ralli commented

    Currently Merrivale lane averages about 50 Cars going back and forth on a normal day. It’s an extremely narrow street. Under this Mega development we can expect:
    • Max 150 SUV’s / Cars every morning and every Evening driven by Parents dropping and collecting their kids. i.e. 600 individual trips
    • Max of about 25 Cars driven by the Staff x two shifts. i.e. 100 trips

    That puts 700 trips per day into this narrow and already compromised lane with no sidewalks and a steep nature strip at peak hours. This equates to a 18.5 times (1850%) increase in traffic.

    A majority of the Residents are elderly or, young families. We already reverse blindly downhill, or, have to come uphill partially blind onto oncoming traffic from our homes.

    With 700 cars and SUV’s driven by Parent’s in duress we are creating a life threatening situation. If we throw in Rain, Dusk and Dawn for good measure under the current circumstances – it’s playing Russian roulette.

    Due to a lack of a nature reserve and footpath the young and the old walk, cycle and play in the midst of the street. Since it’s a quiet and friendly neighbourhood we are all patient with the Elderly an the young. By having 700 Car / SUV's plying on this 200 meters narrow stretch driven by Parent’s who are always short on time we are going to have some serious accidents.

    Ducks, Rabbits, Lizards, Echidnas, Bandicoots simply waddle across the Road at their own pace all day. With hundreds of large SUV's plying through his narrow lane – these animals do not stand a chance. Sausages anyone?!

    We are a stone’s throw from the Red Fire zone – God Forbid there is a Fire how will the Fire Department and Ambulances get past when 150 Cars / SUV’s, Cars for 25 Staff members and over 200 elderly and young residents all trying to get out at the same time in smoky conditions via a narrow severely compromised lane.

    The Garbage and Tradie trucks already have a problem getting through on normal days. We did not have a Street Sweeper come through for a very long time as the Truck would not get through the lane. Can you imagine what’s going to happen with 700 additional SUV’s plying past or parked on either side of the Road? Garbage collection day is going to need a Miracle.

    With over 12 Child Care Centres within 2.5 Kilometres of this site why is the Council even considering a Mega Child Care centre in a narrow, quiet street and lending to creating a life threatening situation for ratepayers and outsiders alike?

    Please do not approve this Mega Development spread across 3 blocks – let common sense prevail. Keep out Community safe and Children Safer.

  15. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolish existing structure...” at 47 Killeaton Street, St Ives, NSW:

    John Forbes commented

    I have the following concerns regarding this development –
    - The addition of 16 Units at 47/51 Killeaton Street will bring the total number of new dwellings to 36 between Cowan Road and Collins Road. This is a substantial increase in vehicle movements in/out of Killeaton St in this short stretch of road.

    - The DA plan shows 49 Killeaton Street as a single dwelling. This is incorrect. Number 49 has an approved DA for 6 Dwellings which have started construction. There are actually 22 dwellings, not 16 accessing Killeaton Street between 47 and 51 Killeaton Street.

    - There is no on site visitor parking for 47/51 or 49 Killeaton Street. Visitors will need to either park on Killeaton Street – which will cause traffic congestion, or on surrounding side streets which are already under pressure due to inadequate parking at St Ives Village Shopping Centre and Village green.

  16. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units 4x2...” at 96 Perth Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Belinda Nicholson commented

    MORE BLOODY UNITS!!! Getting VERY difficult to be called the 'Garden City' when there are no yards left to garden ......

  17. In Kurrajong NSW on “Subdivision - Torrens Tile...” at 160 Dollins Road, Kurrajong, NSW:

    darryl beaton commented

    this subdivision should not be approved due to it being a small quit street it would if anything decrease the value and increase the traffic in a currently quit street and i and i think all residents will agree increasing properties on this street will be to nobobys advantage accept the people trying to make a quick dollar by over sub dividing these properties, also these properties are situated on steep terrain and building 11 houses would hugely increase fire risk as apposed to a single dwelling not to mention taking out a huge ammount of vegetation to build these houses and clearing of land which will also have an impact on local wildlife. i urge you not to approve this sub division thank you.

  18. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Dilan Mahendra commented

    I have now had some further time to properly consider this development application. For the reasons I have set out below, I strongly object to the application and note that any approval of it would be contrary to precedents set by the Land and Environment Court (LEC) in Northcote Trust v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1327 (Northcote) and Succar v Bankstown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1255 (Succar).

    Pursuant to section 30A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), the Council must not consent to this type of development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. It is clear that this type of development is not compatible with the character of the local area.

    The meaning of the phrase “compatible with the character of the local area” was considered by the LEC in Northcote Trust v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1327, albeit in the context of an affordable rental housing development containing 31. In applying the facts of that case, the LEC found that such a development was not compatible with the character of the local area on Northcote Road, Hornsby.

    If anything, the facts relevant to the present development application provide an even stronger basis to reject the application on the ground that it is not compatible with the character of the local area.

    First, what must be borne in mind is that the present application is for a development in a particular pocket of West Pennant Hills that is solely made up of single and 2 storey detached dwelling residential development with large backyards. Unlike the facts in Northcote, there are no 2 storey multi-unit housing developments in this particular part of West Pennant Hills. Further, even if there were such multi-unit developments in parts of this area that I am unaware of, according to Northcote at [40] this type of development would still not be compatible with the character of the local area within the meaning of s.30A of the SEPP ARH because such developments would be an anomaly rather than a common occurrence.

    Further, the character of the area is similar, if not identical, to what the LEC dealt with in Succar v Bankstown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1255 when it refused the development application for the construction of affordable housing on Brennan Street, Bankstown. In that case, the LEC found that the character of the area at Brennan St, Yagoona, was a "building zone" to the front, and a "green zone" to the rear. The LEC went on to find that the green zone, an area of open backyard or private open space, separates and relieves the visual impact of the construction in the building zone. That is precisely what we have in this pocket of West Pennant Hills. As in Succar, this development does not offer that open backyard separation or relief because it seeks to retain the existence of the current dwelling at the front of the block as set out in more detail below.

    Second, as in Northcote, there is a significant negative aspect of the development. This development is proposed for a block of land that is significantly smaller than the block proposed in Northcote. That is approximately half of the 1000 sqm available on the land (490 sqm according to the Statement of Environmental Effects) will be used for the proposed boarding house compared to 3,378 sqm for Northcote. It appears that it will be a large dwelling with no significant set-back from Oakes Rd. We’re effectively dealing with a monstrosity that will have 11 occupancy rooms (the same as 11 studio apartments), 2 common rooms, a sitting room, patio, open space and a double garage. As in Northcote, none of the elevations adequately deal with the issue of bulk and massing for this type of development.

    Third, as stated above, under the proposed development the house currently on Westmore Drive will be retained and used as the manager’s residence. Accordingly, contrary to the assertion in the Statement of Environmental Effects, the total development on the block will have a site coverage well in excess of the DCP maximum of 60% because of the retention of the manager’s residence.

    For all of the above reasons the Council should reject this development application.

    Kind regards,

    Dilan Mahendra

  19. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Chris commented

    The SUBURB does not have the transport infrastructure to support a development of this size, including the nominated site. This specific site is not fit for purpose based on other considerations as well, such as historic, aesthetic, flooding etc.

    I'd be very interested to find out where the congregation is actually from (suburb) and why they consider McGraths Hill to be an ideal location for this project.
    Having lived in the suburb for many years I have yet to notice this large 'Hindi' community growing within the suburb.
    If they were local residents then they would be aware of the already congested and/or dangerous state of the roads, without adding out-of-surburb traffic using the roads essentially for (in my opinion only) their hobby.

    If the councilors chose to approve such a proposal I would suggest that they are not supporting the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent, in which case it's time to find leadership that does.

    In reply to "Gary":
    > "Wow a lots of subtle "racist" comments here..."
    There have been complaints about developments at other (christian) 'places of worship' within the area. So you implications regarding 'White Christians only policy' is unfounded. That the suburb is visually secular is one aspect that appeals to myself and other resident that I know personally within the suburb, but that is irrelevant to the main points of my objection.

    > "Would there be such an outcry for another Christian place of worship?"
    Yes, on the grounds that it would impact the suburb in tangible ways such as transport. But why speculate unless you're question is nothing but bait?
    I'd also suggest that any other sizable development regardless their purpose (religious, industrial, commercial or otherwise) would see similar objections.

    > "Windsor has heaps of Christian Churches on small aerial roads."
    Most of which have been there for a long time, i.e. before the area grew, making the point irrelevant.
    If those developments were applied for today they would probably garner similar opposition if they cause similar valid issues.

    > "Stop using your own personal religious beliefs to dampen other peoples enjoyment."
    Stop using yours to presume our intention. "Other peoples enjoyment" should not come at the sake of the local safety, nor should it come at the expense of the current residents' "enjoyment" for that matter.

    "By the way I'm an atheist, just believe in equality for all."
    What does 'equality for all' have to do with local infrastructure issues? How about you also take into consideration the 'equality' of the locals before labeling the suburb 'racist'. My suburb is full of educated, considerate residents; think twice before casually insulting us.

  20. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Jacky Casey commented

    Why was the community not even consulted? People use this parkland every day in many different ways. It's a community gathering space. It's a sporting venue. It's a fun place to be for kite flyers and people with remote control aeroplanes. It's a wonderful open area for dogs to have a real romp wiht their owners. Not to mention that Mooroolbark Road is already well overloaded with traffic. I strongly object.

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

    Janet Thompson commented

    As a current resident of Merrivale Lane I know the limitation of traffic moving through the street all too well, I cannot imagine how they could even consider a childcare centre in this little lane with barely 2 way traffic and no footpaths!! I think there has to be too many safety issues with regards to this proposal. As mentioned before there are already too many childcare centres in the immediate area. Working in the real estate industry the best thing that can happen to those properties is they are sold on for someone to bring them back to their former glory. This is a quiet residential street with limited access. Even when we were renovating we were told off on a number of occasions for too many vehicles "blocking" access to the end of the street in case emergency vehicles needed to get through! I have no idea how an emergency vehicle would gain access if they needed to with a childcare centre catering for 150 children is erected in the street!! Unacceptable proposal and cannot understand why it would even be considered.

  22. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Caroline Hoare commented

    This should not be approved. The quarry is being sold off. Our green wedges are being destroyed. The site is always used a recreational area. How is Mooroolbark road and Hull Road going to cope with all the traffic. Has there been any consultation. Lilydale is going to be destroyed with apartments like Mooroolbark. I definitely object.

  23. In Hurstville NSW on “New mixed use development...” at 22 Woniora Rd Hurstville, NSW:

    Ann Selle commented

    To demolish the only decent looking building in the Ormonde Parade area and replace with 384 units is ridiculus. 18 stories of apartments will overshadow our homes and take away any privacy we have. A maximum of 7 storey buildings would be much more acceptable.
    Traffic is banked up every morning and afternoon trying to get to the station and 400+ cars added to the chaos will make it impossible for residents to exit O'Briens estate.

  24. In Avalon Beach NSW on “Change of classification of...” at 65 Riverview Road Avalon Beach NSW 2107:

    Christopher Pahljina commented

    I am the owner of 69 Riverview Road, Avalon Beach 2107, which neighbours 65 and 67 Riverview Road Avalon (which are in effect one property owned by same owner). I oppose the application on the following grounds:

    1. Number 65 has been designed and built as a single dwelling. It was not designed or built to include a secondary dwelling nor has any consideration to neighbouring properties (including my own) been given to convert part of it into a secondary dwelling especially with respect to privacy, noise and parking.

    2. The titles of the properties in the subdivision that includes the properties at 65 and 67 Riverview Road contain restrictive covenants against the building of secondary buildings on the properties. This was done to preserve the beauty and peaceful nature of the area which I note has also been designated by council as an area of outstanding beauty. Allowing secondary dwellings would contravene such covenant and would change the character of the area.

    3. The houses at 65 and 67 both face towards my property with no adequate screening protecting my privacy or restricting the noise that generates from the properties. I have already discussed these issues with the owner but the problem still persists.

  25. In Hawthorn East VIC on “The construction of...” at 548 Barkers Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Angela McLean commented

    Dear Council,

    I am the immediate neighbour of 548 Barkers Rd Hawthorn East and seek information as to the nature of construction and alterations proposed (I have been unable to locate this on your website).

    At the moment I have complete privacy and uninterrupted natural light in my courtyard (which abuts the common fence to 548 ) and back windows, where I work full time. Naturally my interest is to preserve this, as it was one of the principle reasons I purchased this property in 2007. My concern is that any additional storey to 548 will compromise this space, if this is indeed what is proposed for construction.

    Would you kindly provide the plans in view of my substantive interest in this matter.

    Thank you.
    Angela McLean.

  26. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    So I found out that it is heritage listed in which case it is now, and always has been, Councils responsibility to repair and maintain it. Why has it been ignored for so long?

    I've lived across from it for 5 years and I've never seen council do anything but now the lawns outside the fence? Surely some kind of mitigation could have been attempted since many things could have been done to avoid its current state.

    Can we t be used as a teaching opportunity for trainee builders, carpenters other trades from tafes or other trade schools?

  27. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Construction of Boarding...” at 12 Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills NSW 2125:

    Anne Fidler commented

    Boarding house at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
    We object on the following grounds, no parking on Oakes Road due to the day parking of commuters using the M2 bus.
    Parking at the bottom of Westmore drive is difficult as cars are parked on both sides of the road and therefore it is one way traffic only.
    As there are many families with young children in our neighbourhood can you be sure that we are not going to have trouble with the coming and goings of the people in the boarding house?
    I have written to Clr. Jefferies and Clr. Alan Haseldon who agree with my concerns.
    Anne Fidler

  28. In Blackheath NSW on “A take away food outlet” at 122 B Wentworth Street, Blackheath, NSW:

    Michael Skinner commented

    What is happening to the Vet? and what sort of fast food? there is a perfectly good fish and chip shop 50 metres across the car park.

  29. In Collingwood VIC on “Development of the land for...” at Ground Floor 109 Dight St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Shannon Peach commented

    Hi Robert Young, I would be more than happy to explain to you in person why a reduction in the statutory car parking requirements is appropriate. Also, this is an application to amend a planning permit which already exists on the site. Please give me a call on 9699 5000

  30. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    lisa skerl commented

    This church, it's history and it's architectural features need to be given a rebirth instead of demolishing it. Passion and vision are all that is needed to transform this church into a venue for the local community or even a private residence.. The options are endless. This particular site like hundreds of others should not be touched. By the way, it is Heritage listed.

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