Recent comments

  1. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Yvette commented

    I object to the demolition of the Alexandria Hotel. The history of the pubs around the inner west is one of the key charms of the area for residents. It would be an absolute shame to lose the long bar and interior design that are synonymous with the great Aussie battler story. We have to keep some of the older, publicly assessable, heritage in the area, and this is a true treasure of Alexandria.

  2. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Rod commented

    So what's the solution to housing and moving around the 50-75k people who move into Sydney every year?
    We may not like the current situation but what's the alternative?
    Isn't it best to have higher density housing near public transport and shops?
    We definitely need better public transport but how do you stop the population increase?
    Higher density housing does provide an opportunity for entry level housing for our children who are being shut out of the housing market where they grew up.
    I don't think we can keep knocking every proposal to increase housing stock without offering a credible solution to provide entry level housing for our children and their families whether it's rental or for sale!

  3. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Kerry Glover commented

    As a long term nearby resident, this is distressing. The Alexandria Hotel has contributed to the comunity for over a century. It is a landmark & the neighbourhood is proud of it. It should continue to serve the community & it's visitors.
    There is sufficient development proposed for the area to suggest this site is superfluous to the requirement for more housing. It is a drop in the ocean and an unnecessary destruction of a business. A business which will be needed more than ever as further development takes hold and more people move in. Keeping the hotel running is also incentive for the buyers of the other developments.
    The Alexandria Hotel represents why people want to live in the Inner City, it's insane to destroy that.

  4. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Antony Brennan commented

    I am totally against the demolition of this unique and historic old pub, although no longer my closest watering hole, I still visit several times a year as it's my brother's and friend's local pub.
    It was one of the first pubs that I visited when I arrived here in Sydney in 1978. My sister lived in Alexandria so it was a great venue for family gatherings, we met there most Sunday afternoons in the days when you could smoke at the bar and get rotten drunk without being refused service.
    Although times have changed since those days it's still a vibrant and vital venue for the residents of Alexandria not to mention the employees of the nearby technology park.
    I walk around this area and Redfern often and I'm sure there are many alternative sites
    where developers could stick up there overpriced high rise boxes without upsetting too many people.

  5. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I am a resident and a journalist. So I should mention that I may write about this matter.
    I am opposed to the demolition of this pub which clearly is a thriving business and is a social gathering place in our area. It's also been there for a long time.

    I am very unimpressed by the suggestion from the developer that what is needed is housing. What is needed is social infrastructure to support the massive amount of housing going up in this area. This is a ludicrous self interested justification. No one is opposed to some higher density living but why pull down the very buildings that attract people to our area in the first place

  6. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Waiving of Parking...” at 3/806 Nicholson St Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    L Baxter commented

    As a resident of the area I am totally opposed to any reduction in the parking requirements as the lack of parking is the whole area already causes stress between residents and makes the area less liveable.

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

    Peter Dunn commented

    Development Application No: DA 2015/540

    As a concerned resident residing in Melinda Avenue for the past 13 years, after viewing the plans for the proposed residential development at the south western end of Nerigai Close I have some genuine concerns.

    First of all I strongly object to the size and the scale of this development and the lack of off and on street car parking. The plans I have viewed are for 25 two storey dwellings with each only having a single garage. This is totally inadequate and is a major flaw in the design which raises safety concerns in regards to amount of vehicles that will more than likely be parked on the street in such a confined area.

    It is fair to say that in most cases today the average household consists of at least 3-4 people and regardless of age, gender or employment capacities, in most situations there are at least 2 people per household that have or own a car. As for this proposal, there is the potential to generate over 100 more vehicular movements along Nerigai Close, Melinda Avenue and through to Kerry Avenue each day. This extra traffic alone would have an adverse effect on the quiet amenity of the neighbourhood given the only access is via Nerigai Close.

    Not only does this development ignore the importance of off street parking in such a clustered and confined space, it also creates a major hazard for any emergency services due to only having access via Nerigai Close. Kerrry Avenue was never completed as a cul-de-sac and I was led to believe that it would eventually be continued for any further development. So therefore the question has to be asked as to why this is not the case with this proposed development.

    Kerry Avenue is significantly wider then Nerigai Close and in my opinion and from what I have observed with service vehicles such as large garbage trucks travelling along Nerigai Close, Kerry Avenue should be the preferred connection for any new smaller development. If it was to be retained at its current width it would be better suited to cater for safe on street parking along with the expected increase in traffic flow and allow for a quick response time for any emergency situations should they arise .

    While I accept progress and that things don't stay the same forever, I am totally against this irresponsible development and the ramifications to the surrounding neighbourhood.

    Peter & Merryn Dunn

    Melinda Avenue,
    Elermore Vale

  8. In Leederville WA on “Proposed demolition of...” at 225 Loftus Street, Leederville, WA, 6007:

    Martin McGinty commented

    In principle, I endorse the application. I believe that of many of the current dwellings are in need of a revamp to improve the streetscape and Loftus St appears to be an ideal canvas on which to advance Perth's urban infill requirements. We will be looking to do something similar on blocks 187 and 189 Loftus St in the not to distant future.

  9. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Ron Cave commented

    As a frequent visitor to Sydney this is the sort of place we look for. Alexandria is one of our favourite areas as it has so many great shops, cafes etc and we are always coming across something undiscovered. We have visited the Alex many times feel it would be to Alexandria and Sydneys detriment to let it go.

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

    Meredith Harris commented

    RE: DEVELOPMENT INTENDED FOR LOT 7 DP 842408 – DA 2015/540 – 18 NERIGAI CLOSE, ELERMORE VALE

    I am writing to you to raise my concerns regarding this proposed development. I have lived in the area for my whole life and have seen many changes within the subdivision behind my house. I live at 29 Watkins Road, Elermore Vale on the corner of Kerry Avenue, the only entrance in and out of the subdivision. When Newcastle City Council approved the first development within this subdivision all those years ago (when my parents were the owners of my house) they gave a guarantee to concerned residents that they would not extend the subdivision beyond that development without first making a second entrance and exit. Yet some years down the track and many additions onto the subdivision this issue has not been addressed and a second entrance and exit to this subdivision has not been forthcoming.

    My concerns regarding this proposed extension of the subdivision are as follows:

    • The Traffic flow is a major concern as there has been nothing done to the infrastructure to cope with the large traffic flow coming along Watkins Road and turning into Kerry Avenue the only entrance and exit from the subdivision. If you take a look at your plans Kerry Avenue the main entrance into this subdivision is not wide enough to cope with the traffic already produced with the existing houses. There have been many accidents along this road when there are cars parked either side of the road as there is only enough room for one car and with the bend in the middle of the road it is very hard to see what is coming the other way hence the danger. There have also been near misses with young children from within the subdivision darting across the road between cars and nearly being hit. The volume of traffic would increase by at least 50 cars a day along this already dangerously narrow road and would exasperate the dangers. This is not the only narrow street which your intended extension will be using Melinda and Nerigai are very narrow streets and are already over flowing with cars on these narrow road ways. When you plan to develop a parcel of land you need to provide ample parking within the complex to house the vehicles of the people who will be living in this complex as well as having parking available for anyone who wants to visit and this proposal falls very short on both counts.
    • My second major concern is the water run off from these Units the infrastructure that exists for this subdivision does not cope with the run off of the existing houses and has caused major flooding concerns (including the need for council to buy to houses on Croudace Road that flooded in previous floods because the creek broke its banks and caused major problems). Can you please show me where on this plan they have created any kind of holding bays for water run off for this proposal. Because if you cannot then this proposal falls short in the planning process the last time a developer wanted to extend this subdivision this was a main reason the plans were rejected because this issue was not addressed and the fact that Newcastle City Council has done nothing to improve the water run off situation. The proposal does not make any effort to regulate the run off without it going straight into the drainage system which will cause all sorts of problems including I would expect the flooding of the houses in Cheryl Close and Watkins Road that are built close to the creek which would carry the run off. You cannot keep extending and extending to subdivisions without improving infrastructure problems first because it will just lead to a disaster. I have lived in Watkins Road all my life and have seen the problem which the water run off has caused one of the resident at 20 Watkins Road he has lost quite a substantial part of his land due to the creek running through his property and his land was classed as a flood zone which prevented him from selling his property. When he purchased his property this was not the case and because of the over development already of the existing subdivisions in the area and the increased storm water run off now his land is affect because there has not been the infrastructure put in place to cope with the extra water run off.
    • Another concern for myself and the residents already residing in the subdivision is if there is an emergency within the subdivision (which we have experienced) can you please explain how they will all be able to exit in time down this one narrow road? The fire brigade did an inspection when the last proposed subdivision was submitted and it failed completely as there is no second entrance and exit needed to get the residents out should there be such an emergency. The safety of the residents living within this subdivision should be considered.
    • There is also the question of the southern brown bandicoot which is near extinction that lives in the bush and cannot be relocated from its natural habitat what will happen to it?
    • I would like to know if you are aware of the amount of traffic that actually uses Watkins Road which is the only access road to the subdivision because when a road count was done years ago there were at least 5,000 cars a day using this suburban street as a main through way and with all the development that has happened in the area I can only imagine the traffic flow now.

    Before this proposal goes any further there are a few things that I would like either the council or the developer to carry out.

    These are as follows:

    • I would request that a road count be conducted in Kerry Avenue and a proposal put in place for this road to cope with the increased traffic volume.
    • I would also ask that a report be done regarding what the developer is willing to do to combat the water run off that his development would produce (or when the area floods is the council going to be responsible for the residents houses that get flooded because the infrastructure was not adequate). Is the council willing to pay compensation to the owner of 20 Watkins Road for the damage that the water run off has done to his property because the infrastructure has not been improved to cope with the run off.
    • I am also very concerned that the only people notified about this development were only in the immediate proximity to the development and the wider community was not informed. Do you not think that this proposal will affect everyone living within this subdivision and the only way into and out of this subdivision eg Watkins Road? I would therefore request that the submission time for rejections to the development be extended so the wider community can have there say and this would give the developer the time to get the reports that I have requested and time to come up with some strategies to cope with the traffic and the volume of water from the development (council cannot keep approving extension after extension without putting into action plans to the existing infrastructure to cope with these developments and whether they are at the expense of the developer or the council a long term strategy needs to be put in place)
    • I would also request that a report needs to be carried out by the Fire Brigade in relation to the existing infrastructure to ascertain whether one entrance and exit is able to cope in the case of an emergency (which we all know it will not)
    • I also think the council should be working on a plan to have a second entrance and exit for this subdivision before it even looks at any more plans to the proposed subdivision as it had guaranteed the residents when the first 20 – 30 homes were built (which was originally proposed to come out on Cardiff Road)
    • Can you please tell me where the developer thinks they should make the sanctuary within the development for the southern brown bandicoots that are unable to be relocated and near extinction.
    • I would also like a please explain how when this proposal is extending onto an existing subdivision why the same covenants and conditions do not seem to apply to this extension? The people who built in Nerigai Close all had to sign the covenant and keep there buildings within the guidelines of these covenants so how is this possible when it is an extension of this subdivision that these guidelines do not seem to apply to this proposed development?

    These are just a few of the reasons that this proposal should not go ahead not only does this complex not fit within the existing lay out of the subdivision the proposed two storey buildings will create a wide range of problems for the residents backing onto and adjoining this complex in regard to their privacy, blocking their natural sunlight and let alone the headache you will be creating for your garbage truck driver who already has trouble picking up the bins from the end of Nerigai Close as it is.

    This development would put a major strain on the already heavily burden infrastructure of the existing subdivision and I feel that council would be negligent if they let this proposal proceed without making any changes to the already failing infrastructure of the existing subdivision.

    Meredith Harris

  11. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Hollie Ussher commented

    I strongly object to this development application. This hotel has real significance in the Alexandria community. It is an historic, iconic, and extremely unique venue. Please tell me where in city Sydney I can sit under the stars watching sporting events on a large outdoor theatre screen, or sit by an open fireplace with a friend or two. This venue is accessible to ALL OF US. This future da has no accessibility. Any retail space if indeed used for hospitality will be small and overpriced. There is a flood of apartment blocks going up in the area as it is. Slow down Sydney City Council. Pace yourself and think clearly and into the future of your people. We love the old stuff just as much as the new stuff. Please do not allow this particular application. Keep Alexandria Hotel for our future, so we can look back on its past, not just in a book or online.

  12. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing 2...” at 165-171 Oak Road Kirrawee 2232:

    Warren Price commented

    As a local resident who resides in Fauna Place which is immediately behind this proposed developement my main concerns are:-
    1. How will access be achieved for parking for resident and business proprietors?
    2. The only option would be for there to be underground park, which given the footprint of this position would appear to be a near impossibility to adequately provide.
    3. The parking in Fauna Place already makes it near imposssible to access my own property at times.
    Warren Price
    15 Fauna Place
    Kirrawee 2232
    0412468271

  13. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Robert Kennedy commented

    It is wrong-headed to consider knocking down this nice 100 year-old pub and replacing it with more drab apartments! Whatever the developers, politicians and bureaucrats might say, The Alex is part of the social fabric and has loads of heritage. Hands Off I say!

  14. In Buff Point NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at Castle Rose 54-56 Buff Point Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Wendy commented

    Surly more could have been done by the council to save this significant historical site.

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

    Ray Clarke commented

    The following sets out our grounds and concerns for opposing the proposed development in its current form.
    1. The proposed building height does not reflect the surrounding building heights and is not in line with current limits for shopping area precincts.
    2. The setback combined with the proposed building height creates more negative issues. The proposed building setback in our view is not acceptable and will produce crowding in the street affecting the residential interface by overlooking adjacent private properties.
    3. Traffic and pedestrian safety issues. In our view the proposed development will intensify the traffic movement in the street.
    4. The proposed development will intensify the already high traffic congestion and parking in the area.
    5. Along with increased traffic, service vehicles and pedestrian activity comes increased noise and urban disturbance.
    6. The proposed development’s visual bulk also doesn't sit well or fit in with the surrounding heritage environment. The bulk of the proposed building taking into consideration the increased height and setbacks can only infringe upon the privacy of the existing surrounding buildings, in fact there will be very invasive overlooking.
    We ask that the concerns as outlined above be given fair and due consideration during the assessment process of this application.

  16. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Chris Welch commented

    The Alexandria Hotel is a rare and wonderful establishment. A great, iconic pub with a beer garden for all, including kids and dogs and a cool venue for sports lovers too.
    It has a lot of character and it is one of the reasons why you want to live in the area.
    To change it too much in any way would be a real shame, but to knock it down and build another block of soulless units would be a crime to all the patrons from the past and present. There are many of us hoping that The Alexandria Hotel has a long and happy future.

  17. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Danny Corvini commented

    I am a journalist for Domain in the Sydney Morning Herald and so I am acutely aware of Sydney’s housing shortage.

    However, I do not believe that this means that a community must accept every development proposal that’s proposed - especially in cases like the Alexandria Hotel, where there’s heritage value and even more so because the community loves it.

    Centennial Property Group offers a misleading choice by implying that the heritage value of the Alexandria Hotel has already been diminished by the disappearance of other historic buildings nearby.

    In reality, the developer seeks to encourage a further decrease of Alexandria’s built history, thereby (in my opinion) proving that they have no real connection to or respect for the area.

    The community response to the proposal has been strong. An appropriate response would be to put the community’s wishes ahead of that of a developer who took a gamble, but is by no means any more deserving.

    The Alexandria Hotel is a Sydney icon and it has been used numerous times as a filming location because its old pub architecture is so iconic.

    The Redfern/Alexandria precinct is emerging as a cultural precinct, not just a high-density living precinct. But what is the point of putting more people into an area that is losing its very essence?

    Sydney lost so many of its great buildings last century and we should be extremely vigilant to not let it happen now.

    I believe that developers can and will find other sites for their developments, but once buildings like the Alexandria Hotel are gone, they’re gone. Please save the Alexandria.

  18. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 3 Powena Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Kimbal McMahon commented

    1.Having looked at the plans for this development, and as the property owner of 6 Powena street, I need to question whether there is enough off-street parking for the proposed occupancy rate.
    The plans do not appear to have taken into account turning space requirements for vehicles parked under the apartments with regards to the other supposed parking on the property.
    The side of the property bordering Powena Street would safely fit two vehicles whilst the long roadside border ( Curena St ) provides no safe on-road parking.
    The lower portion of Powena Street, west of Curena St, is currently used by people visiting houses on Meredith Crescent as well as parking for people already living in the existing houses in Powena Street. Most nights the available off street parking is used.

    The majority of premises in the lower portion of Powena St also have young children so anything that increases the traffic and car movements also increases the potential for accident.

    2.It is my understanding that the subdivision of 7 Meredith Cres. was under the proviso that the new structure would not be higher that the existing roofline of the property.
    Has this been ignored with the current three storey planning application?

  19. In Buff Point NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at Castle Rose 54-56 Buff Point Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Robbie commented

    Thank god it's finally going. What an eye sore, been a drug den for the last 20 years ++.

  20. In Buff Point NSW on “Demolition of Exisiting...” at Castle Rose 54-56 Buff Point Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Cheryl Cantwell commented

    Today is a sad day. The demolition of this beautiful but neglected castle has begun. Living down the street from it has been a joy and more than a few tears hate being shed by many many locals. It's a shame that council has been short sighted and not saved Castle Rose

  21. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    P. Unters. Club. commented

    Dear developers
    Could you please knock down the Rose Hotel on Cleveland St instead?
    Overpriced drinks, overpriced pizza, and an arrogant service culture have combined to ruin the Rose as a place to spend time.
    If you're going to trash a beer garden to make money off poorly built units, could you do it there instead?

  22. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Kitty Blackman commented

    I Object
    Demolishing the Alexandra Hotel for any reason would be sacrilege. It should be preserved and heritage listed out of respect for it's long history, current community and cultural relevance and for future generations. The loss of such a beautiful, spacious and friendly pub for our diverse community would be a great tragedy. The Alex is an important icon, concentrate on redeveloping the eyesores if you must. We have already knocked down enough buildings of historical importance, lets not make another ill advised decision. Listen to these profound community comments and not the developers greedy pockets.
    Please save our pub, think long and hard before you make a decision you will regret.

  23. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Lee Roche commented

    I object to the development proposal on the site of the Alexandria Hotel.

    I am all for redevelopment of the inner urban areas of Sydney and in particular the re-zoning of industrial and commercial land in Redfern, Alexandria and Zetland for residential use. However, with all the new people coming to live in the area, social institutions such as the Alexandria Hotel must be preserved. These places are part of our cultural capital and cannot be replaced with sterile new buildings. We must preserve them for new residents and existing residents alike.

    The demolition of this building is an outrage. I do not blame the owner for trying this on but the City of Sydney must not let it proceed.

  24. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish improvements...” at 27 Railway Terrace Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Beverley Hall commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: 27 Railway Terrace, Lewisham DA201500333

    I am resident of Lewisham, living in the area for nearly 13 years.

    I object to this development for the reasons already given regarding traffic congestion.

    I should add that no thought and planning seems to have been given to the potential increase and traffic and the effect that it will have on an area that is already overloaded, particularly at rush hour.

    I also object to the development as it will also be totally out of keeping with anything in the immediate precinct.

    Best, Beverley

  25. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed demolition of the...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Richie commented

    As an Irishman I have to tell you that most pubs in this otherwise magnificent country lack character and soul. The Alexandria Hotel is an exception. It would be regrettable should the mistake be made to knock it.

  26. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1a) -...” at 50 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Neridah commented

    Agree cheryl. Just a disgrace

  27. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Astoria Circuit Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Todd Perry commented

    To whom it may concern.

    As a concerned Maroubra resident I object on the grounds that

    - The area has substantial social issues already
    - Boarding houses are locations where predominately unemployed men find accommodation likely to create further social problems
    -Close proximity to schools and undesirable nature of residents
    -Inadequate public transport
    -FRS bonus use to be investigated and considered If it meets the objectives of the code
    - 3 Storey housing is unlikely to be suitable for disabled residents. Large portions of disabled and those on disability find accommodation in boarding houses
    - Shadowing issues created
    - Likely to become a hub for antisocial behaviour with boarding houses a hub for those who are unable to find licenced care.
    - Poor amenity for residents with small bathrooms and rooms.
    - Unrealistic construction cost estimate aimed at avoiding s94, LSL and other levies.

    Regards
    Todd

  28. In Kenthurst NSW on “Conversion of an existing...” at 16 Pitt Town Road, Kenthurst NSW 2156:

    Kate Stinson commented

    This would be a total disaster for all people living within a 2 km radius or more. I live two km from a kennel now and the sound of the howling dogs is disgusting. It is not normal for dogs to howl like that. There is no way this facility should be allowed in a residential area it should be in an industrial zone if anywhere.

  29. In Thornbury VIC on “Construction of a medium...” at 117 Flinders Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Mel Taouk commented

    Hi. How many bedrooms are each of the new dwellings? Also will each of the 4 dwellings have their own dedicated on site parking?
    Thanks.

  30. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a four...” at 3-5 Chambers Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Rae-ann Sinclair commented

    The proposed development at 3-5 Chambers Street with out adequate guest parking.

    I object to this proposal on the current grounds:

    Continued development of residential units in the vicinity of Chambers Street that do not have a guest parking facility is causing increased traffic congestion in Chambers Street and its immediate environs.

    There is always heavy traffic flows and parking pressures on Chambers Street. Visitors to residents and people working for residents (cleaners, caregivers, nannies etc) put daily pressure on parking. Added to this are the trucks that service restaurants and retail outlets abating this area, delivering their supplies and picking up their refuse. The patrons to the many food and beverage facilities that are constantly looking for parking, as are people shopping in the popular Chapel Street retail precinct. These people are looking for parks seven days a week, often late into the night.
    Visitors to residents of the Forest Hill developments also park on Chambers Street. In addition the clients of the large dental practice, and the new one planned for 4 Chambers Street. There are a number of other commercial enterprises that have regular visitors also.
    Not to be overlooked the trades people who are always in the area, either fixing existing buildings or working on new buildings.

    The density and fast growing nature of South Yarra means these pressures on parking will continue and in the foreseeable future increase with more units planned for Forest Hill without adequate guest parking.

    To allow such a significant development to proceed without the specified guest parking requirements laid out by Council would exasperate an already frustrating situation.

    One of my many concerns is that the pressure on parking creates illegal parks, I fear that in an emergency (fire specifically) emergency vehicles will be prohibited or delayed in getting through.

    Living in the area one constantly sees or is the "victim" of frustrated drivers. Parking issues do not bring out the best in people unfortunately!

    Under current Council guidelines and proposed future guidelines, this development could not and should not proceed without adequate guest parking.

    It is important that new development in Chambers Street adequately addresses current and future parking requirements.

    I note there is another development in Chambers Street putting in underground parking. This addresses all guest parking requirements without compromising on the design.

    I ask that the Council rejects the current plan, ensuring any approved plan takes into account the amenity of Chambers Street and its surrounds.

    Rae-ann Sinclair
    13/20 Chambers Street
    South Yarra
    VIC 3141

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