Recent comments

  1. In North Melbourne VIC on “Amendments to permit...” at 91-93 Flemington Road North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Ales Aliashkevich commented

    Dear Melbourne City Council,

    we would like to object to a planning application 91-93 Flemington Road North Melbourne VIC 3051 for the following reasons:

    • The proposed development will create an unacceptably high density on this already congested part of the Flemington Road. The character of North Melbourne relates to less crowded area and the available facilities would not not bear with overdevelopment of the site.
    • Visually, the development design would be disproportional, massive, over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity. It would overshadow the adjacent buildings.
    • We, existing dwellers of the building 97 Flemington Road would suffer from loss of privacy, giving direct visual and audible contact to the proposed development. The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect our residential amenity.

    We consider that the proposed development does not match a character of a North Melbourne neighbourhood, and would adversely impact on the school and parks in the direct proximity.

    Regards,
    Ales Aliashkevich
    Yan Liu

  2. In Glen Iris VIC on “Construction of an...” at 25 Trent Street Glen Iris VIC 3146:

    Meredith commented

    A reduction in 'standard' car parking facilities for an apartment building with cafe opposite an already busy train station is unacceptable
    I ask Residents to write directly to council opposing the cat parking reduction.

  3. In Wantirna VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 14 Harold Street, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    John Ferguson commented

    Is this for number 14 alone or for numbers 12 & 14?
    Storm water arrangements will need to be carefully considered as this section of Harold street flood every time we have heavy rain.

  4. In Rochedale South QLD on “SP264663 - Standard Format...” at 29 Beatty Street Rochedale South QLD 4123:

    M Kovac commented

    So is Rochedale South also being planned as low density? It seems that these typeof applications are becoming the norm in this area? We have been living in Rochedale South for some time now and it is very sad to see how the council will easily subdivide for more rates income, yet many area still do not have walkways/sidewalks or other basic infrastructure! i.e. Toufik street. So I do not believe this application should be approved till LCC can ensure they can provide the same basics for all rate payers in LCC.

    Also, just look at their neighbours on corner of Beatty/Valeena Street, what a mess - for years now it seams that a junk yard lives there and LCC does nothing about it.

  5. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Michael Inglis commented

    To the general manager Sutherland Shire Council: Ref application DA14/0385

    I am writing in objection to the development of 7 McCabe place Menai construction of dual occupancy premises.

    POINTS OF OBJECTION

    1. PARKING

    Under the requirement, that the developer accommodate on each the properties, 2 car spaces, the present single dwelling 3 bedroom has accommodation for 4. Therefore the is no improvement counter to the application which states there will be an improvement .The 2011 census states for Menai that there are 2 cars per house hold but does not give the ratio of cars per 3 bed rooms or greater. Menai area has 50.8% of 4 bedroom or greater. McCabe place has at present on average 4 bedrooms single dwellings approximately 3 cars per dwelling, by putting two dwelling of combined 9 bedroom on an existing 3 bedroom property what increase will that cause ? The access to the McCabe place for collection of bins by service vehicle would be ne’er impossible as well as any other utility service for access.

    2. TREE REMOVAL

    On the Environment impact statement section, utility services NO TREE REMOVAL IS PROPOSED? Yet on the plan it shows at least two to be removed .As there now two entrances unit one car entrance is a tree very close if not on drive way not to be removed or damaged.

    3. WASTE DISPOSAL

    On the Environment impact statement section, Waste Disposal bins provided for each dwelling, they will be located at rear of dwelling…. I find this hard to understand as the width of unit 1 southern side at the back corner to be narrower than bin 0.55m, then trying taking it up the side with water tank entry.

    4. BUILDING ALIGNMENT

    Overshadowing the property no 5/9 McCabe place receive 4hours minimum sun light direct or otherwise? During the day which day of the year!
    The older 80’s style homes most of which have been updated to designs in the area in the McCabe place are set at the same nature strip yet the development proposal is to move house forward and not stay in line with existing building, I am Not sure what that distance will be drawing 2/14 shows 7.5m and drawing 8/14 is 7m on a computer drawing!

    5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

    It is a viable alternative to owning a new property, without high price tag, compared to that of an individual home ,in a location that would normally be out of reach of you average family.
    The average dual occupancy, three bedroom single car space (not including driveway) in Menai, is a minimum of 85% the price of a single dwelling (figures taken from local sales of properties of in the area for townhouses or similar dual occupancy dwellings) . Referring to the statement above, about affordable property, this is more about installing high density living (fitting 9 bedrooms on a site that currently has 3) to capitalize on an investment, rather than offering affordable housing, which clearly it does not. This type of housing (high density) is not suitable for a cul-de-sac of this size.

  6. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Ray Mumby commented

    Sir,

    This application should be immediately rejected for the following reasons:-

    1. There is no dual occupancy dwellings in the general area from Hall Drive to Monash Drive and beyond.

    2.Roof construction, corrugated iron, is foreign to the area and certainly not in keeping with the Close and the general area.

    3. PARKING.
    This Close, particularly at its end, is narrow and at present is generally fully occupied with excess residence and visitor parking. The construction of premises, where the possibility of a further 5 - 7 cars being introduced to the Close is unacceptable. If construction of the new premises were to proceed we could see conflict arising between local residents with cars having to be parked far away from the residence they belong to, thus creating another problem possibly in other streets. The plans submitted provide for 2 cars being parked on each lot which has been taken into account when accessing future requirements for street parking.

    A prior submission for the development on the corner of Trumper Place and Miller place was rejected partially on the basis of inadequate parking. The parking in this particular case would have been temporary in nature and not over night. The addition of a further driveway will decrease the availability of street parking in the Close.

    PRIVACY.
    Privacy is of concern, although you would not believe it is of concern from the DA. There are no issues with the present premises however there is a threat with the new premises owing to its height. Premises in O'Reilly Close, Benaud Close and other residences in McCabe Place will have their present privacy affected detrimentally by construction of the planned re development as contained in DA14/0385.

    ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT.
    The plans provided would lead you to believe that there will be no tree removal as a consequence of the re-development. There are significant large trees at the front of the premises which, it is believed, will need to be removed.The front boundary of the property is on an arc and I fail to see, from the plans provided, how adequate parking access to the property and the decreased setback of the development can be achieved without the removal of the existing trees.

    BUILDING ALIGNMENT.
    Building alignment of the proposed residence appears to be less than that of all other housed in the Close and would detract from the general asthetic appearance of the Close.
    A shadow plan has not been provided which would substantiate assertions in the proposal that there is no major concerns in this area, which are rejected.

    AFFORDABILITY.
    Assertions in the proposal that this development will provide lower cost housing are refuted on the basis of housing affordability figures recently published in a major newspaper and also the trend in the local market in the sale of "small allotment" accommodation.

    Please consider the above in reaching your decision to reject this appliacation DA14/0385

  7. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a fifth...” at 69 Hardiman Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    AB Byard commented

    Dear AJ Auzins, I agree with you. This is the first time I have seen these comments on the PlanningAlerts website.

    I do not know if these comments are taken by the Planning Department as formal objections to the application. I would appreciate clarification of this point. Otherwise I will download the objection form from http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/BuildingandPlanning/Planning/planningpermits/Pages/Objecting.aspx and submit that also.

    Thanks for any clarifiacation.

  8. In Kensington VIC on “Construction of a fifth...” at 69 Hardiman Street Kensington VIC 3031:

    Andre Jay Auzins commented

    This application should not be approved at 5 storeys.

    There is too much traffic in the area already and in addition the 5 storey building will not suit the landscape of this residential street. At most for this location, a 2 storey property would only be suitable.

    A J Auzins
    Resident - Bent Street Kensington

  9. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Graham Kauffman commented

    Dear Council, Please consider the points below.

    • Where’s the logic?, a modern relatively new home not a pre-war asbestos cement home is being demolished to fit two new homes well forward of the current building alignment and out of character with the surrounding homes.

    • An arboricultural report needs to be commissioned by council and included with the DA re the impact an additional driveway will have if built over the roots of a magnificent old eucalypt. Surely the health of this tree will suffer to a stage where it will be axed sometime later because of safety issues.

    • Any new high density dual occupancy home should complement the surrounding homes not confront them. This proposed dual occupancy will consume the residential site or basically the site is too small for a dual occupancy of these proportions.

    • It is proposed that an additional driveway and street layback be constructed. The plan does not give measurements for the new layback but it appears that two visitor parking spaces on the street will be lost. I hardly think so, but can the street afford to lose two street parking spots?

    • It was and as far as I know still is, a planning requirement that homes built in this street have two vehicle parking spaces behind the 7.5 metre building alignment. These homes will have just one parking space behind the 7.5 metre point. Since when has public transport in Menai improved to a degree where we can reduce the number of vehicles at home or in the street?

    • Nothing is showing on the plan for the out of sight storage of garbage bins. Homes in this street generally have four large bins each. As the passages on either side of the dual occupancy are very narrow, one can only assume the bins will be left somewhere within 7.5 metre frontage or forward of the homes. This will surely be an eyesore for the neighbours.

    This DA appears to fall well short of community expectations.

    Regards, Graham Kauffman.

  10. In Parramatta NSW on “S96 2 modificaion of...” at Suite 3/103 George Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Kashinath Mallya commented

    Its too late as the application was made over 4 years ago-however I would like to bring to the notice of the council that the shop in right next to the entrance of residential apartment block with families with young children living.
    In the 6 months I have bought and lived in this block twice the entry door to the building has had its glass shattered and door almost pulled off by its hinges.The last time was last night tuesday 13th may 2014.the owner of the bottle shop has witnessed the offenders.
    On what grounds was permission granted for him to conduct buisness so late in the evening??Is it possible that the council can change his operating hours to close shop by 6 pm or latest 8 pm?/With Roxy hotel and Albion Hotel in the vicinity-patrons refused service there due to intoxication are delighted to see a bottle shop open so late so that they can get further drunk and wreck havoc on the public who just want to have a quiet evening!
    I do hope its not too late for the Council to see reason and not before a resident of the building is hurt !This area of parramatta is supposed to be the show case of development the Council wants to show the residents but this bottle shop(I mean its operating hours) does not make it family friendly area

  11. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Justin Skinner commented

    Dear Council

    I refer to the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Mitz Design in relation to this development application.
    • Flora And Fauna “no adverse effects on any flora and fauna will occur” – Can somebody please tell us then what is going to happen to the huge gumtree on this property & the other gums?
    • Flooding Drainage etc etc… - Are we to assume that the land will remain at its current level as to not effect the easement? The back neighbours already experience a flooding problem, and any alterations to this could exacerbate the situation.
    • Parking and Access – Already there is a parking issue in this street, with many people using off street parking. Adding potentially an extra house to this part of the street is going to add more cars and less space for council to collect the garbage. (Which if you have ever watched the truck attempting to negotiate the street in the morning, they do a fantastic job) We too have had notices on our bins as we always have other residents cars parked outside our property. With a few elderly residents in the cul-de-sac and both myself and my daughter suffering from an autoimmune disease, the thought of emergency services not being able to access our property (both during construction and after) is a horrifying thought. Heaven forbid having a death on your conscience because of lack of foresight.
    • Renovating a property is one thing. Building a new property is another. Squeezing together 2 properties for the sake of financial gain at the detriment of all of the residents is simply not on!

  12. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    John Shanahan commented

    Dear council,

    My concerns are listed below.

    1. Overcrowding of a small Cul-de-sac
    The street currently has a lack of on street parking. The off street parking proposed does not adequately address the on street parking issues and increases strain on existing residents in the street. It will increase the volume of people parking on the street and would make it difficult for garbage trucks and other facilities access the houses. There is potential for 5-10 additional vehicles to be added to the already overburdened cul-de-sac.

    2. Streetscape
    This proposal is completely out of character with the existing dwellings, and would look out of place.

    3. House Values
    It is of major concern that if a high density dwelling was allowed to be built in close proximity to existing single occupancy dwellings that this would have an adverse effect on the value of the existing houses.

    4. Safety concerns with increased vehicular traffic
    There is a walkway from McCabe Place to Lindwall Close that is used consistently for access to school, shops and bus stops by residents, infant and primary school students as well as high school students. There is no footpath in McCabe Place and most people use the road. Increased traffic and cars when the buildings are occupied, as well as the demolition and construction vehicles during the re-development would create a safety hazard.

    5. Overshadowing
    The size location and height of the development will block most of the morning sun to No.9 and afternoon sun to No 5.

    6. Zoning
    Most residents in the vicinity that have been contacted were surprised that a dual occupancy was allowed in our area. Council has never informed any of the residents contacted of any changes in zoning that would allow such a development. Surely something like a re-zoning of a residential area should be put to the residents that had bought into the area based on the understanding that the area we had bought into was based on quiet cul-de-sacs and single occupancy dwellings, so that they could voice their opinion on any proposed change.

    7. Driveways
    Addition of 2 driveways will decrease further the amount of on street parking. This coupled with the potential addition of up to 8 addition cars will create more problems in an already overcrowded street.
    8. Building line
    The new dwelling proposes to be developed in front of the existing houses on each side. This looks to be disproportional to the rest of the street and doesn’t fit with surrounding properties.

    9. Garbage Collection
    The street already has continual problems with garbage and recycling collection. The potential increase in the number of vehicles parking in the street, will only add to this. Just today we had a incident where the garbage collector placed notices on our bins saying they were too close together… the bins were positioned the same way that they have been for the past 20 years, with due consideration for the collection. I have attached one photograph showing the street parking on a normal garbage night and in this incidence there were cars missing that would normally be parked. The proposed development is where the boat is.

    Regards

    John Shanahan

  13. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Kristie Porter commented

    Dear council,

    My concerns are listed below.

    • The high density development proposed will de-value the established homes in the area.
    • Walk way into McCabe Place is used by people to access shops, schools and bus stops – the proposed development will increase traffic into an area with no pedestrian paths causing a safety concern.
    • Lack of on street parking is currently an issue – the proposed development will add to this problem
    • Garbage trucks already struggle to access bins – the proposed development will add to this problem, this would also lead me to think that emergency services would struggle to access the cul-de-sac and people and property within it.
    • Trees – plans do not factor the large trees into consideration. To build the proposed car spaces, the builder will need to cut into the tree roots of trees not being removed, causing damage or destruction. Also if the proposed development goes ahead then the trees could cause damage to people and property.
    • Drainage and storm water run off – doesn’t show details of this. Given the landscape is changing details of this should be provided. Given what is proposed, this would increase the water run off to ours and other neighbour's property.
    • Current tenant has mentioned many concerns with the sewer not coping with the existing dwelling – the proposed development doesn’t outline how it will fix this and upgrade to cope with increased use.
    • The proposed development has plans to build in front of the existing houses either side and well in front of the existing house on the development block.
    • The proposed development would create lack of sun for no 9 McCabe (almost none) and No 5 would lose the westerly afternoon sun.
    • The bulk scale and size of the proposed building is not in line with local amenities and street scape. Nor is it seen as acceptable by the residents.
    • Floor space ratio doesn’t appear to be correct.
    • Concerns about not notifying residents of the zoning change to permit this type of high density dwelling – when did this happen?
    • People purchased in “old” Menai to be near nature, have big blocks, quiet cul-de-sacs and to live the “Australian dream”. This will change the future look and feel of old Menai and the reason why families choose to live here.

    Please consider the above points prior to making your recommendation.

    Regards,
    Kristie Porter

  14. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Andrew Holmewood commented

    Dear Council,

    My concerns with the development at 7 McCabe Place, Menai, is that of size. 9 bedrooms on a 694sqm block is very excessive, when most of the houses in the area are only 3-4-5 bedrooms on larger blocks. Surely there is a Floor to Space Ratio rule that doesn't allow for this?
    The building line should remain set the same as the adjacent existing buildings to maintain the street scape.
    And both buildings should be at least double garage. Being a cul-de-sac you would want to keep as many cars off the road as you can.

    Please consider these issues before approving.

    Best Regards

    Andrew Holmewood

  15. In Speers Point NSW on “Dwelling House, Swimming...” at 35 Berkeley Street Speers Point NSW 2284, NSW:

    Lynda Creagh commented

    Is there any time restriction with this approval.
    This property is incomplete after more than two years construction.
    The build is severely impacting on our property which is adjacent to the build.

    Owners have been overseas for almost six months. Our attempts to contact them have been ignored.

  16. In Byron Bay NSW on “BYRON BAY RUGBY UNION CLUB...” at Byron Bay Recreation Grounds Tennyson Street, Byron Bay 2481:

    Teresa Heal commented

    Please do NOT approve a limited Liquor Licence to the Byron Bay Rugby Union Club.
    I believe it is poor practice to provide alcohol at Sporting Events.
    In fact it sends the wrong message to young people in attendance that it's ok to drink in the daytime and that Sport & alcohol go together.
    Byron Bay is already statistically identified as an area of NSW with a drinking problem amongst young people.
    The problems identified by Boscar & Olgr's own statistics note alcohol related violence & anti-social behaviour as problematic.
    To continue to provide more Liquor licences is irresponsible.
    Byron Bay is saturated with approx. 73 liquor licences. It does not need more.
    I especially object to alcohol being provide for October, The Byron 7's.
    To provide Alcohol, all day from 10am to 8pm on a Saturday 18th & Sunday19th will result in drunk people.
    Note this recreation Ground is surrounded by Residential property.
    To provide liquor from 10am, and for 10hours straight is irresponsible.
    In the past this is a noisy event with noisy, rowdy groups of drunk young people, predominately men.
    These noisy groups are disturbing as they are noisy and intimidating.
    The noise extends beyond the Rec. ground as these groups come & go from the grounds, walking down Marvell street into town.

  17. In Menai NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 McCabe Cl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    Hello Council,

    I have looked at the plans and the issues I have with this proposal is size, inadequate parking, street frontage, style.
    These two dwellings being very large a 5 and 4 bedroom is way over sized for the very small narrow street and smallish block. There is not even close a 9 bedroom house in that little street. These families might end up having 3-4 cars each, so maybe 7-8 + cars and only 4 car spaces. I would rather see more car spaces - double garages and/or fewer bedrooms. I see there is barely enough room to get a garbage truck or emergency vehicles at the moment with cars parked in the street. A 3 and 4 bedroom duplex would be better to fit better with the small no through street.
    Having all concrete front yard for cars is different from neighbours and would have much water run off to downhill neighbours.
    Ratio of house to soft surfaces and frontage distance looks inadequate but might be OK, I would like officers to check this. It does not seem to be much gardens or soft surfaces at all.
    The style of colorbond roof is out of character, every house in the area has tiles. I would like to see tiles used.
    I don’t also believe duplexes give any ‘cheaper’ option for families. I always see these large duplexes go for the same price as a normal standard house.
    Thank you.

  18. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Janine Davis commented

    I'm not a local resident, however, I have known one of the owners for many many years and have observed his passion and dedication for the wine industry. Having read all the previous comments it is blatantly obvious that the local residents are against the opening of a further Dan Murphy's with 2 previous applications being successfully blocked.

    I think Dan Murphy's and Barny's both have a place in the market as they offer something different to their customers.

    Dan Murphy's bulk buying power is able to offer wine & beer at discounted prices, however, they seem to employ staff with very little or no knowledge of the products they sell - it is all about price.

    On the other hand Barny's is a specialist business which not only offers an excellent range of boutique beer & wines, but both owners experts and clearly passionate about their business and it shows.

    It would be a serious shame to see a boutique business like Barneys swallowed up by another large retail chain store like Dan Murphys/Woolworths.

    Surely 2 Dan Murphy stores in a 5 km radius is sufficient! That hardly seems to like fair play - more like "killing" the opposition. Should the ACC have something to say about this?????

    Please support the independent business owners of Australia we have enough large chain stores already and need to encourage and support small businesses!
    Janine

  19. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construct twenty two...” at 261 Balwyn Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Tim Beattie commented

    The problem is that most people think we live in a democracy where local people can have some influence over life in their locality. The reality is that bureaucrats wield a lot of power and make the consultative and appeals process cursory or difficult and often expensive. We should institute ostracism so that any citizen can challenge any politician or public servant to a vote, which results in the loser being permanently exiled from the country. This would help to restore the concept of accountability to the people.

    When we went to VCAT for the second time to oppose a developer, despite massive local support the VCAT member simply concluded that his decision would not be based on a "popularity contest". Essentially all he was doing was trivialising the strongly felt opinions of local residents and forgetting that "popular" means "relating to the People"' which is what democracy is supposed to be all about. Unfortunately we do not have a "popular" democracy (the People did not elect the VCAT member) and so I was unable to line him up for ostracism and exile! So we ended up with 17 units on a 1000 m block in a small side street in Balwyn. So for 22 units on 900 m on Balwyn Road (a main road) I would abandon all hope now and save some citizens time and money believing there is some promising democratic recourse that could prevent this happening. This sort of thing is routine now!

    So follow Billy Connolly's polite advice about Australian democracy - "don't vote, it only encourages the b.........s!"

  20. In South Toowoomba QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Four Units” at 9 Cranley Street South Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Kathie Doggett commented

    Cranley Street is narrow enough without having MORE units in this street. if there is a car parked on either side of this street, only 1 car can pass through. COUNCIL is ruining the nice leafy family atmosphere of this street. we do not need any more units. we currently have 5 already with a new double ones being built on the corner of Geddes & Cranley Street.

  21. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construct twenty two...” at 261 Balwyn Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    Things are getting worst…when will the limit of 2 on a block be signed ?
    Wake up Matthew Guy…sign that paper …or I won't be voting Liberal ever again !

  22. In Boronia VIC on “Removal of Tree” at 174 Albert Avenue, Boronia VIC 3155:

    Clive Catlow commented

    This application was described as 'Removal of Tree' (singular) but when the chainsaws started up early yesterday (Thursday, 8th May, 2014) I discovered; by calling the Knox Council Offices; that they'd issued a permit for the removal of 6 trees, not just one! How does that work? In addition, and as an immediate neighbour to this property at 174 Albert Avenue I would have thought that I'd also be informed by Knox CC that my neighbour had submitted a request to remove so many trees. My attitude towards the removal of 6 trees as compared to 1 would have been quite different. But it's all too late now, the trees are gone!

  23. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construct twenty two...” at 261 Balwyn Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Laura Stephens commented

    22 dwellings on a 900sqm land? This cannot be true.
    Must be a typo somewhere, or else this is outrages.

  24. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Janet Carolyn Dyne commented

    I would like to strongly object to the proposal to build a Dan Murphy's store on the above site on a number of grounds. I have lived in the apartment block opposite the site at 1 Shirley St Alexandria for over 10 years and I have witnessed and participated in the evolution of the community here. I objected to the siting of a Dan Murphy's store on this site some time ago when the proposal was attached to a large McDonald's drive-in fast food outlet, and to the stand alone McDonald's drive- through and my position has not changed (Proposals D/2010/2173 and D/2012/286). I am only dismayed that the Dan Murphy's proposal has come back again when I thought after all our hard work the last time the issue of such a large scale, inappropriate, traffic-bearing development was behind us. So I again submit a my objections to the proposal.

    I was reccently delighted to discover that the site was to be used to build much needed medium density housing. I went to see the plans for the development in the display centre in Botany Road . There people were being told that a Woolworths Store will open on this site. Like me, they didn't realise that the Woolworths Store is in fact to be a Dan Murphy's which is owned by Woolworths. The potential purchasers of the apartments are expecting a supermarket.

    In essence this type of 'booze barn' has no place in a medium density residential area. Smaller community friendly outlets are to hand. In particular, Barney's Fine Wines and Ales lies within 400metres. The proprierters there are part of this community and a Dan Murphy's store, which will have the capacity of a retail giant to undersell all their prices, will kill their business. While Barny's specialises in Fine WIne and Ales and serving regular local customers, it must also make a large part of its income on general and casual wine and beer sales, which would soon evaporate. Mascot Liquor, a larger store, is just 1.8 km away and there are 2 pubs within a kilometre of the site, The Rosebery and The Newmarket. Other small outlets are also close by. There is a Cellarbrations in Botany Road, Alexandria and a Dan Murphy's in McEvoy Street, Alexandria, a very short distance from here.

    We are certainly not under-serviced here in terms of liquor stores and the closest to hand and most threatened by this Goliath of a liquor outlet is a small business that has found a place as part of the community, that is, Barny's.

    In fact for our community, the arrival of a Dan Murphy's in the area will only mean an exponential increase in the availability of cheap alcohol, which research has shown is a threat to social cohesion and family life. A media release concerning Liverpool Council's rejection of a similar Dan Murphy's proposal in Moorebank in Augusr 2013, titled "Booze Barn rejection a big win for Liverpool" stated that according to emergency services workers, the rejection of the proposal is "a sign that the council is serious about putting the needs of the local community ahead of big business self-interest."

    I would also like to point out that apart from being within walking distance of two other liquor outlets, the proposed Dan Murphy's is less that 500 metres from a school. What is the message here for children and young people? I would like to ask you to consider very carefully the potential social impacts of the proposed development and the effect it may have on the formation of the future community.

    Another immediate and very serious problem the development would cause is the issues of traffic. A Dan Murphy's of this size will attract more traffic from other suburbs as people come to source cheap alcohol. The site is entirely unsuited for high volume comercial traffic. Jones Lane is a narrow access lane that services workshops and not a proper thoroughfare. It will not be able to handle the the kind of traffic generated by a big Dan Murphy's store as a volume of cars turn in to park there. Turning into Hayes Road from Botany Road, coming from the Mascot direction will cause chaos in Botany Road and Hayes Road. This was always our objection to a development of this type on this site.

    This traffic will also put unsupportable and unnecessary strain on the traffic and parking situation of the residents of the new complex.

    I trust that Sydney City Council will also put the needs of our local community here in Rosebery/Alexandria/Beaconsfield ahead of big business and reject this proposal.

    Thank you for your consideration this matter.

  25. In Parap NT on “Rezone from Zone SD and SD7...” at 6 Jones Pl, Parap, NT:

    Lisa Williams commented

    Good Afternoon,

    I think it would be madness to allow this buiding to go up. THe resources in Parap are already under strain with the high density biuing that has occured inthe past few years. Parking is a nightmare on most streets already and this will only make it worse. I plead with Michael Gunner to stop this immediately.

    Thanks,

    Lisa Williams

  26. In Surf Beach NSW on “IGA Surf Beach - Packaged...” at U 5 640-646 Beach Rd, Surf Beach 2536:

    Troy Webbe commented

    How many liquor outlets do we need in one place? There is already a liquor outlet in the same neighbourhood shops.

    If we as a community are to remain in control of the current youth alcohols and even adult problems in the area we can't have a liquor store on every corner. Certainly to have TWO in the one small neighbour hood shops is just wrong for the community.

    There needs to be a balance here. If we start to adopt putting two stores in every neighbourhood shopping strip that is not a balance. It is maximising access to alcohol and exposure of it. Given alcohol is already available in that small centre I don't know how adding more is other than detrimental to the community.

    I urge that we be responsible in relation to where and how many outlets we put in any one immediate location. This should not be approved.

    Where are the community positives? There are none given there is already a liquor outlet 30m from where this is proposed, using the same car park, in the same shopping strip.

  27. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Monique Drysdale commented

    To whom it may concern,

    Botany road tonight was just shocking. It took me forever to get home and now I hear Dan Murphy's has applied to move here again to our fabulous community of Rosebery.

    The traffic is already very very congested on Botany Road, why would anyone want a Dan Murphy's on an already stretched infrastructure.

    Councillors please reject this for a third time. I don't want to spend my life in traffic. I would rather spend quality time with my husband and children.

    Please think of our wonderful community when deciding on this proposal.

    Yours sincerely,

    Monique Drysdale

  28. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Construction of 76 new...” at 243-247 Queens Pde Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    I object to any reduction in the parking requirements as continual such reductions have acerbated the parking problems of the inner suburbs.

  29. In Rosebery NSW on “Fitout and use of Shop 1 as...” at 767-779 Botany Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Ricky commented

    There is already a Dan Murphy's store at Alexandria and Kingsford which are very close to the proposed site, not to mention numerous others throughout Sydney.

    Traffic is already congested along Botany Road at this location.

    Demand for alcohol sales can easily be met by existing stores in the area of which one in particular supports many small associated independent and craft brewers, especially in Australia.

    The residents do not want this store.

  30. In Coogee NSW on “New rear first floor additions” at 274 Rainbow Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    Mrs Katina White commented

    Dear Planning.

    As we are a next door Neighbour, can i ask how the architect has determined that this DA Application will not block all of our natural sunlight light into our kitchen and lounge room area as we live next door at 272A Rainbow Street.

    Given the heights and design that we have seen, we will lose all of out natural light into these area's of our home, given that the DA is for a bedroom, home office and bathroom it will extend and block entirely out natural sunlight light and we will have to have our lights on 24/7 in our kitchen and living area's

    I/we do not believe this should be approved, given the proximity of the adjoining Semi's and blocking natural sunlight.

    I would suggest the planners have a look at the street scape and this will become very self evident.

    Regards

    Katina White (sergis)

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