Recent comments

  1. In Fawkner VIC on “Removal of the reserve...” at 104B McBryde Street, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Rebecca Dominguez commented

    The proposed development is too close to Merri Creek, not 50m as in the Moreland Council's Open Space Strategy. Also, the Nufarm site next door has not been thoroughly cleaned, an environmental audit has not been recently completed, and there is a real risk that this development will be impacted by dioxin exposure if the clay cap is ever pierced.

  2. In Preston VIC on “29-35 Stokes Street,...” at 29 Stokes Street Preston VIC 3072:

    simon oaten commented

    Originally, this was a planned master development, with 3 and 4 level buildings, with parking to be underneath the new structures.

    Now - it appears that there are single story, inexpensively built (timber frames) buildings being erected.


    and why weren't the residents allowed to comment.


  3. In East Gosford NSW on “Boarding House (13 Rooms)” at 11 Victoria Street, East Gosford NSW 2250:

    Concerned Citizen commented

    I oppose this development to be built in East Gosford.The types that would be habiting this abode are undesirables and fringe dwellers of society which more often than not bring many issues and problems into the area.I know this as I have seen what happens in inner Sydney when these developments proceed.I have 2 children who walk to school and there are already enough worries and concerns without adding this to them.
    This development will devalue property in the area and be a terrible thing for East Gosford and its citizens.
    I know there is a shortage of affordable housing but a boarding house full of psychosocial issues not the answer

  4. In Glen Iris VIC on “32 lot subdivision - PS...” at 1561, 1563 & 1565 Malvern Road, Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Susan robinson commented

    Malvern Road undrivable at certain times of the day. Burke Road intersection is still horrendous as is Tooronga Road with the railway line. To get to my home at peak hour I have to divert to high street go down a residential street so I can then turn right into my street. Creating rat runs all over the area. It was once a lovely family area, not any more.

  5. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Harrow Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    ann stubley commented

    6 stories is too high, Bexley does not need to go over 4 stories, we don't want to be another high rise area. This is too close to school and traffic is a nightmare in peak times which this development will only compound. This building will be of no benefit to anyone except the developer, who will pack up and go creating more mess for us locals.

  6. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 21-23 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Ange La commented

    FYI I do not believe these comments are even passed to council for consideration. Having been involved in a few planning permit objections over the last couple of years I have learnt there is a process to follow for your comments and objections to be heard. The best way to approach and object to any planning permit is in writing direct to council referencing the application no. You can either fill in an objection form, email Moreland City Council direct or go on their website and search for the the application number and comment on there. By doing so you will receive confirmation of your objection and have a better chance of it been seen and addressed by Council. If no objections are seen, the Town Planner may just tick it off. This is how most of these applications slip through. An application needs at least 10 objections for it to then be considered by Urban Planning Committee. Moreland is fast becoming an overdeveloped area that the current infrastructure cannot cope with. Don't be complaisant but be active,

  7. In Kellyville NSW on “Subdivision creating 12...” at 39-57 Jupiter Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Mustafa Assim commented

    There are two schools near Jupiter Road Our Lady of the Rosary and Tallowood school. Redden Drive gets flooded with cars and people parking their cars to pick up and drop of kids to school. These 12 town houses need to have ample parking to accommodate for their visitors and themselves keeping in mind the average house hold has 2-3 cars

  8. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 21-23 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Keith Heaton commented

    Once again the developer is asking for reduction of a Loading bay area.
    Were will the trucks unload supplies that will be required by the commercial tennant?
    Were will the removalist trucks park when moving the residents in or out of the building.
    They will have to Park ouf in Sydney Road, which will cause taffic kaios for trams pedestrians and vehicles. They will not be able to park in the side streets (Allen Street) because this will be full of all the new residents cars that cant park in the car park due to this dumb arse council reducing the car parking area.
    The council parking inspectors and tow truck operators are going to love this decision

  9. In Carlingford NSW on “Change of use from existing...” at 2 Mulyan Avenue Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Cyndi commented

    This is out of character for mulyan ave to build a 11 room
    Boarding room. It will cause safety concerns and noise.

  10. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 21-23 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Richard Burt commented

    While I have no problem with the construction of a 6 story building on a main road, I do take issue with the proposed parking waiver & proposed waiver on the loading bay requirement. Over development in Moreland is a real & pressing issue, parking & traffic congestion in particular are concerns that are raising the hackles of residents.
    If development such as this are to be approved they should allow for parking & inward & outward loading of goods. These activities shouldn't be pushed onto to residents so that developers can shave costs off a project. If they cannot make the project work within therules, then it shouldn't go ahead. Theses rules shouldn't exist to be bent to ensure developers make a profit, rather they should exist to ensure appropriate development & decent quality of life for residents of the city of Moreland.

  11. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Harrow Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    F Mac commented

    The previous submission of a 7 storey structure was refused. Again this is still too high near the public school. The surrounding buildings will be overshadowed. It must be only 4 storeys. This will be higher than existing and be less overbearing. 20 residential units too many in such a small block and busy corner.

  12. In Merrylands NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11-19 Centenary Road Merrylands NSW 2160:

    David T A Tran commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I know Amelie Housing has a good intention of helping the disadvantages. However please consider the negative/bad side effect for building a large housing building block. This large building can bring problems of thief, robbery, drug, violent, crimes etc. in the area as it have happened in the past and still. It’ll be a repeated of the past housing centre failure like Villawood housing centre, Bonnyrigg etc.
    At Bonnyrigg (where my car got smashed, things stolen) etc.

    The housing dwelling should be dispersed/spread out just a few small dwelling at any given location to avoid these problems happening again. This problem happened with Villawood housing leading it to be demolished, same for Bonnyrigg and other similar housing places. Please consider not to approve such a large housing building. I was growing up haunted by these large places, got robbed etc.
    Other problems like noises, traffic chaos etc. to our quiet community street, some of our neighbours have already gave up, have to sale their homes and left.

    Mr T A Tran.

  13. In Highett VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1217-1219 Nepean Highway, Highett, VIC:

    Arkie Vee wrote to local councillor Rosemary West

    It is appalling to hear what is proposed for that site. I share all Cheryl Follett's concerns for the integrity of the environment. It is pleasing to read both Ms Follett's and Rodriguez's comments. These are people who care - and are brave enough to speak out - without them we may be over-run with random inappropriate development. Apart from the parking issues, the thought of 36-plus garbage bins lining that street is nauseating. This slums concept is disgraceful for 1. the neighbours 2. the visual impact of the site and 3. for the poor souls who live in them.

    Delivered to local councillor Rosemary West. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Berry NSW on “Dual Occupancy &...” at 150 North St, Berry, NSW:

    Robert Bann commented

    Hello, My name is Robert Bann & I am the owner & occupier of no. 3 Prince Alfred Street, Berry, which adjoins this proposed development on two of my boundaries. I wish to object to such an extensive development as with the addition of eight (seven if the existing dwelling is excluded) dwellings in such a confined area which means the addition of new residents, their vehicles, visitors vehicles, commercial vehicles, etc. will place an added demand on an all ready inadequate local road situation. The condition of the northern section of Prince Alfred Street is appalling. The sealed road is degraded and there is no kerb & gutters on either side of the street & there are no footpaths for pedestrians. The sporting complex fronting North Street is nearby & the public is obliged to use already busy North Street & Prince Alfred Street to access & egress these facilities. The North Street situation is the same.
    I feel that in these circumstances if nothing is to be done to improve the road surface & drainage, & provision made for pedestrian safety & comfort, then then this proposal should be denied & the existing property remain as it is at present as a single dwelling.

    I will anticipate a reply.
    yours faithfully, Robert Bann.

  15. In Bardwell Park NSW on “Alterations and addition of...” at 48 Slade Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:

    Annette commented

    Please make sure the rear laneway is not blocked during these renovations as I and many others use it as access to our properties.

  16. In Woy Woy NSW on “Demolition of Dwelling &...” at 23 Watkin Avenue, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Margaret: Overwhelming Objection to childcare facility commented

    23 Watkin Avenue has always been a residential property in a heavily residential area. Has the council contacted all the residents in this area individually to notify them of this change of plan? How can the council arrange for a childcare facility in a community when the community do not want it and object to the proposal?
    The Council appears to be disregarding the rate payers in favour of commercial enterprise fiscal matters. When was the public consultation for this proposal and why has there been no minutes published for public review? Gosford Council is displaying a blatant disregard for tax payers with unjustified support for a "non-resident" business owner with financial gain as their only interest in the area. The Council should have a 2 tier system or 2 separate departments i.e clearly define the residential area from the commercial area. The present set up of the Council allows commercial enterprise to over rule people living in their own homes all their life, pay their rates, work all their life to own their own homes and then have "their right to say" or "voice" removed or taken away. The Council staff seem to have already supported the Child Care centre with the rezoning and paucity of information regarding this business for the general public review.
    Child care centres are not permitted at this site because it  is contrary to Council’s Development Control Plan 117. Section 7.4.3 states that a childcare centre should not be located in a cul-de-sac, opposite an intersection or on any other road where additional vehicles may create traffic conflict or adverse impact on the amenity of the area. The location does not comply with any of these requirements. There are 100 resident houses on this road. This road is a no-through road which is blocked off at the end by the Everglades golf course. The amenity of adjoining neighbours is significantly compromised.
    The neighbouring properties to this proposed business does not just consist of young families with young children. The neighbours consist of mature families and retired couples that have no interest in this type of commercial business. Although, residents do have great respect and care about children in our community but we also understand a collection of this volume of children altogether can be noisy and disrupt the peace and tranquility enjoyed in Watkin Avenue forever. Also, the precedence it creates in over-development of land zoned for residential purposes only. Futhermore, incompatibility with neighbouring land uses: the proposal does not integrate into the existing residential environment and is unnecessarily obtrusive in terms of size, bulk, height and the invasion on neighbouring privacy. At the end of the day this is not about a child care facility it is infact only about business enterprise and financial gain. There are Childcare facilities already all over the Peninsula that have vacancies. This proposed Childcare centre will detract from the existing established Childcare centres we already have. The economic impact on the community needs serious consideration. The location of such a large facility in a totally residential area is contrary to the objectives of the Central Coast Regional Strategy.
    There are major flooding concerns in Watkin Avenue whenever there is heavy or prolonged rain this road completely floods. There is no curb or guttering on this road to drain away flood water. Then as the water stands on the road it builds up to significant depths in parts hiding deep drains etc. There are approximately 100 residential houses on Watkin Avenue and when a neighbouring road floods namely Mackensie road the residents of that road also use Watkin Avenue to enter and exit onto Ocean Beach Road. This results in doubling of traffic on Watkin road as a result. This flooding and traffic issue will be compounded by this new proposal adding even more new traffic to an already dangerous driving and parking conditions. What precautions or infrastructure
    plans will the Council make to consider the safety of the residents/pedestrians on this road? The location and design creates significant safety and traffic hazards that pose an unacceptable health and safety risk to children, parents, pedestrians and motorists.
    How many staff will be employed at this Child care Centre and what are the parking arrangements for all the staff? Is the staff parking area separate from the carer/parent drop off parking areas. The parking for this Centre is not a "kiss and drop" zone. Infact, cars will need to be parked for the duration of time required to escort the child into the centre, talk to the staff, settle the child there. That is 40 cars all "parked" for the same duration doing the same thing. Where are these cars parking ? in the neighbours gardens? The residents already object to this sort of parking set up ! Has the Council allocated carparks elsewhere for this purpose? Futhermore, the foundation of the road in Watkin Avenue is sand based. After every flood deep potholes appear almost immediately, considering the weight of the new proposed traffic it has significant potential for dangerous driving conditions for everyone.
    There is an added high risk of Bushfire.
    This is an ill thought out Child Centre location and we suggest the owner checks out areas around the Peninsula with vacant buildings standing waiting to be used and have ample parking attached to them. A vacant building example would be the old "video ezy" How about using correct areas for the proposal and actually working with the community and not against the people of the community and their wishes. Please respect our community and "hands off " our home life and environment!

  17. In Oatley NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 32 Judd St, Oatley 2223 NSW:

    Junling Yu commented

    This development application is a high contrast to this area’s neighborhood character.
    Judd Street are full of nicely presented houses of the similar architectural style. The proposed boarding house is obviously not compatible to the whole street;

    Judd Street, Oatley is zoned for low density residential, not for commercial, especially not for Boarding House.

    This application basically just proposes to change Lot Size and shape against the zoning scheme;

    This development application represents an overdevelopment, lack of open space and limited landscaping, not much can be seen in the proposal.

    In this application, I could not see the adequate car parking; where are the parking spots,how many?

    The traffic at the site is already highly risky due to the shape of the bent, slope, speeding cars and motorbikes, entrances of the school and the depot; the proposed boarding house will certainly bring in more risks or just make the existing risks actualized.

  18. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 2 Century Circuit, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Kerrie Baldini commented

    Please email me the alterations planned ...

    I have purchased apartment at 11-13 Solent Crt

  19. In Matraville NSW on “Torrens title subdivision...” at 1897-1901 Botany Road Matraville NSW 2036:

    Dr Gordon Hyde wrote to local councillor Robert Belleli

    The 24/7 noise from Port Botany is becoming unbearable for the residents of Matraville. I live in [address removed] and the problem is getting worse every day. The proposed development allowing the use of semi-trailer & B-Double truck is utterly outrageous. We need wider community consultation before this proposal is given a green light.

    Photo of Robert Belleli
    Robert Belleli local councillor for Randwick City Council
    replied to Dr Gordon Hyde

    Hello Dr Gordon Hyde I've pass your feedback and concerns /complaint to look into and for council to respond to us.

    Council can you please read bellow email look into the situation and please respond.
    Thank you

    Sent from my iPhone

    "Please come and visit us at"


    This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. The use, copying or distribution of this message or any information it contains, by anyone other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender.

    Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Randwick City Council, unless otherwise stated.

    This message has been scanned by anti-virus software prior to transmission.


  20. In Bellbird Park QLD on “One (1) lot into three (3)...” at 78 Fiona Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Judith Burnell wrote to local councillor Paul Tully

    The proposed development is out of character with the neighbourhood character. The proposed dwellings will overlook neighbouring properties.
    The residence has a number of large old trees which are home to many native birds including a boobook owl. Removal of these trees will destroy the nesting places of native birds and animals.
    The property is on a sharp bend, just after an unsafe junction and it is not desirable to have multiple vehicles entering and leaving the property. This is likely to result in traffic issues and cause a danger to pedestrians and drivers alike.

    Photo of Paul Tully
    Paul Tully local councillor for Ipswich City Council
    replied to Judith Burnell

    Thanks for that. Have you lodged a similar email directly to the Council to ensure that your concerns are officially lodged?

    Councillor for Division 2 - Augustine Heights, Bellbird Park, Gailes, Goodna and Redbank
    City of Ipswich - Queensland's Regional Capital
    Australian Migration Agent No. 0002733

    PO Box 1
    18 Queen St
    Goodna QLD 4300

    T: 07 3818 6900
    F: 07 3818 1099

    SKYPE: PaulGTully

    * Ambassador Goodna Jacaranda Festival
    * Chair, Ipswich City Enterprises Pty Ltd
    * Chair, Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd
    * Deputy Chair, Ipswich City Developments Pty Ltd
    * Deputy Chair, Ipswich Motorsport Park Pty Ltd
    * Deputy Chair, Ipswich Rivers Improvement Trust
    * Honorary Life Member Goodna Bowls Club
    * Patron Goodna Rugby League Football Club

    Queensland's Longest-Serving Councillor 1979 - 2017

    [cid:CurrentDisclaimerLogo_bb5bb5db-0040-41cd-8a65-b0fb44a14913.jpg] The information contained in this email and any attachments is privileged and confidential and is intended for use only by the addressee. Copying, distributing, or disclosing the information contained in this email and any attachments is prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, and you have received this message in error - do not read, copy or distribute this email. If you have received this message in error, please delete all copies of this message from your system and notify the sender by return email. It is recommended that you scan this email and any attachments for viruses. Ipswich City Council does not accept liability for any loss or damage incurred directly or indirectly caused by opening this email and/or any attachments.

    On 29 Jun 2017, at 5:30 pm, Judith Burnell <> wrote:

    The proposed development is out of character with the neighbourhood character. The proposed dwellings will overlook neighbouring properties.
    The residence has a number of large old trees which are home to many native birds including a boobook owl. Removal of these trees will destroy the nesting places of native birds and animals.
    The property is on a sharp bend, just after an unsafe junction and it is not desirable to have multiple vehicles entering and leaving the property. This is likely to result in traffic issues and cause a danger to pedestrians and drivers alike.

    From Judith Burnell to local councillor Paul Tully


    Judith Burnell posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Judith Burnell and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 78 Fiona Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300

    Description: One (1) lot into three (3) lots

    Read more and see what others have to say here:

    Best wishes,


  21. In Fawkner VIC on “Construction and use of the...” at 102 McBryde Street, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Mark Thomas commented

    Thankyou for this oportunity to provide comment.

    Please consider..

    How can the EPA determine the site suitability for the intended use, being, that there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment without following their own enforced environmental investigation and reporting standards, in the relevant Publications and Policies.
    Where is the investigation to the National Environmental Protection Measure which is the back bone of Vic EPA Contaminated Lands, Water and Groundwater. In addition no evidence of meeting Australian Standards AS4482.1 for sampling density and investigative riggor.

    How did EPA assess the clay cap to be 'working with confidence' over contamination where the nature and extent has not been determined or monitored. Has the cap been engineered as required for any contamination that is left in situ any where else in Victoria.

    Where are the Environmental Site Assessment Reports? Where is the contaminated site risk assessment, the review of various clean up methods that determined this cap is suitable.

    Where are the down stream groundwater reports detailing on going monitoring groundwater at the site boundary to verify there is no groundwater contamination eminating from the site?

    Approval of any building plan is opening a legal mindfield exposing stakeholders to future litigation because the decisions were based on flawed and non existent Environmental Site Assessment Reports normally required and expected.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Mark Thomas
    Environmental Scientist

  22. In Coburg VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 21-23 Sydney Road, Coburg VIC 3058:

    Emeritus Professor Alexander Grishin AM commented

    This is an inappropriate over-development where the limited, minimum and inadequate parking provisions, required by council, are being further eroded. The proposed waiver on the loading bay is not sensible and sets up a situation for a serious accident to happen. Such developments need to be blocked for Coburg to retain its character as a livable and accessible community.

  23. In Lilyfield NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 White Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Rachael Mullane commented

    Dear Inner West Council,

    I agree with the comments already posted above. Specifically I want to highlight my main concern being the size and scale of the development being out of character with the surrounding area.

    I am very concerned about the impact on the traffic and parking around the development. Providing only 15 car spaces for 22 units some of which will no doubt have more than one car per unit is not sufficient. The additional parking will spill over into Arguimbau Street and more likely White Street where the front entry to the building is proposed. Parking on White Street is already an issue with many people parking their cars on the footpath when there are events in the community centre and/or in Whites Creek Valley Park which is very dangerous. All the households on White Street between Moore and Piper Streets own at least one vehicle with most having two and some households three vehicles. Only three of these properties have off street parking for one car. White Street is very narrow and whenever there are cars parked on both sides of the road it is almost impossible to 'squeeze' through.

    On the weekends when the park is utilised by many visitors this issue becomes exacerbated and even more dangerous for children crossing the road and accessing the park. Add to the already chaotic traffic and parking conditions an additional 30 residents (minimum assuming 1 resident per bedroom) who will also have visitors and White Street will not be able to cope with the traffic.

    I appreciate that there is a need for additional affordable housing in the area but I strongly feel that the size of this development is not appropriate given the environment. I think that the council needs to seriously consider the viability of this site for such a development and in particular the size of the development.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 209 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Noelene Lucas commented

    I agree with David, it's so disrespectful.
    What we feared with the proposed development is already happening on the site, smoking adjacent to the playground, and washing hanging in full view.

    And if David is correct that there is no DA for change of use, then these people have proved they will just do as they please without complying with the law, this does not bode well for the future.

  25. In Highett VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1217-1219 Nepean Highway, Highett, VIC:

    Rodriguez wrote to local councillor Geoff Gledhill

    @Cheryl, you may be surprised to know, that there is currently several properties at the corner of Mathieson & Karen Sts & Nepean Hwy, with a VCAT application pending, (the original development proposal was for 240 apartments on the site of 3 now demolished dwellings, which was rejected by council). The developer has erected a site sales office and appears to be going to presell the apartments, likely in advance of a VCAT/PlanningDept ruling. Of course, the apartments all typically have 1 car space per dwelling, but the reality is that most property owners have 2 or more cars per dwelling, and use their car space/garage for storage, preferring to park their cars on the street. This development and several others in the area will rapidly devastate the already crowded street parking.

    Delivered to local councillor Geoff Gledhill. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Southbank VIC on “Proposed 20 storey...” at 83-89 Coventry Street Southbank VIC 3006:

    Cameron South commented

    The reason I purchased in Coventry st was due to it being in the low rise part of south Melbourne close to the arts precinct, which by it's very nature was not meant to be high density. Since the rezoning to Southbank it's almost like the planners have gone overboard and turning it into another problem area that hit city road amongst others in the late 90s and into the 2000s. I definitely don't see this adding value and when I enquired recently with my bank they informed me there is little scope for any lifestyle expansion, hence, why property values are staying stagnant and lenders not being able to promote anything due to what is planning and what is approved

  27. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 96(1A) modification...” at 156 Forbes Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Chris Davies commented

    The changes to security conditions seem reasonable however the changes to conditions relating to outdoor speakers/amplification should not be approved.

    As a resident of the Dominion which is directly opposite NAS on Forbes St, we are directly and regularly impacted by noise resulting from the regular events at NAS. NAS has done a good job of managing the events and reducing the impacts of these events on neighbours, however private functions such as weddings have caused issues for residents due to the conduct of attendees and organisers. Complaints to those organising these events regarding outdoor noise levels have in at least one instance resulting in an assault on a resident.

    Private functions are more poorly policed and generally cause significant disruption to residents, any additional relaxation of the terms will have further impact upon local residents.

    The current conditions are not perfect but have achieved a reasonable balance, outdoor use of speakers will likely lead to further conflict between residents and private function organisers.

  28. In Adelaide SA on “Demolish existing...” at 149-151 Gilbert Street, Adelaide 5000:

    Roopwant K Singh commented

    1. I own one of the Townhouses on Park Lane and object to the proposed highrise development as traffic into Park Lane is from a busy main road which is often congested with a bus stop close to the entrance.

    2. The proposed highrise building will infringe on the privacy of residents of our complex.

    3.The size of the proposed structure will limit the amount of sunlight and views we currently enjoy.

    4.It has the potential to devalue our properties due to congestion etc.The road of Park Lane already is in a bad state as can be seen from the impression above and is likely to get much worse with higher traffic flow.

  29. In Fawkner VIC on “Removal of the reserve...” at 104B McBryde Street, Fawkner VIC 3060:

    Bee Lancaster commented

    I'm very concerned about the potential of residual toxins left over from the production of chemicals used in the creation of Agent Orange at Nufarm. I understand there is a clay cap on the land to prevent migration of toxins. However I am concerned that the process of building will uncover the contaminated soil and workers residents and the creek will be exposed. There needs to be comprehensive remediation of the land before any building takes place. I don't think anybody should be living on that land until then.

  30. In Epping NSW on “Tree Application - Removal...” at 5 Maida Road Epping NSW 2121:

    M.McCartney commented

    Amanda Chadwick has reported there is nothing which can be done under the current Hornsby Concil Development Control Plan (which applies to this tree) to save this tree. She will instigate an amendment to the HDCP but unfortunately I have been told this will not be in time to save this tree. I wish a decision on this tree could be delayed until after this is completed. However, if this can not happen I would like to ask the council to require a large proportion of the tree stump to remain to provide habitat for wild life. This will not pose any problem of branches potentially dropping from overhanging the neighbours (the primary reason for removing the tree). Please note I have sent an arborist letter to the Council stating this is a healthy tree which does not need to be removed.
    For those who care about the prolific loss of trees in Epping and the unnecessary removal of this beautiful, mature gum tree there will be a photo opportunity at 8 am Friday 30 June in front of the tree, 5 Maida Road. All are welcome. Please join us.

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