Recent comments

  1. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Emma Murdoch commented

    Please do not demolish the Darling Range hotel. Too many historical buildings have been demolished in Perth. It's so sad when you see photos of the amazing buildings that could've been standing today but instead have been demolished. We need to hold onto old buildings to give Perth some diversity in its architecture... otherwise all that history is lost.

  2. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Jeni Hood wrote to local councillor Catherine Ann McCullough

    The Darling Range Hotel is listed on the State Heritage Register and must not be demolished-especially for another petrol station. Midland (and WA) cannot afford to lose any more of its built history.

    Photo of Catherine Ann McCullough
    Catherine Ann McCullough local councillor for Swan City Council
    replied to Jeni Hood

    Hi Jeni,

    How are you? Thanks for email. I am following this up with Midland/Guildford Ward Councillors also...

    Cheers,

    Cate

    Cate McCullough
    Councillor, City of Swan
    Ph 0433 432 430

    IMPORTANT:
    This e-mail message, including any attached files, is private and may contain information that is confidential. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify us promptly.

    We use virus-scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or similar defects in any attachment.

    Please consider the environment before printing this email

  3. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    James Richardson commented

    I agree with all of Cath Harnets sentiments, that this hotel has been a vital part of Midland history for more than 100 years and has been a major contributer in Midlands cultural, social development and this should be akknowleged and the hotel retained as a heritage and historical Midland building and council should endeavour to facillitate this outcome

  4. In Kensington VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 71-89 Hobsons Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Stuart Hyndman commented

    There should be no waiver of car parking and bicycle parking for a project of this size. There are multiple apartment projects being built here and so no waiver of adequate parking should be allowed if this development is to proceed.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1/391-393 Enmore Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Liam Pereira commented

    Grifter is a great venue that bring vibrancy to the area. They provide a great safe, well run space that brings people into the area and provides a space for the local community to mingle. As a venue that showcases local produce in a great light.

    Having spent a lot of time in Grifter I have seen many families and and the community in general enjoy the venue with out any issues as they run the space well.

    Increasing the capacity, trading hours and removing the other restrictions would only better sever the greater community enjoy this local producer

  6. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Cath Harnett commented

    Please take into full consideration that what is proposed is not needed.
    Please also take into full consideration that this building is over 100 years old and represents an opportunity to acknowledge and symbolise the history of the Eastern suburbs, not just Midland. There is anectodal evidence that this is significant in terms of WW1 veterans; Blackboy Hill. There is anecdotal evidence that this is significant owing to the former racetrack across the road.
    Of itself, it is significant.

  7. In Newtown VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 250 Latrobe Terrace, Newtown, VIC:

    John Uzelac commented

    The site is designated as a Residential growth zone as such the proposal is not a suitable use of the site, particularly as it directly abuts a residential property, the land would be better suited to its primary zoning designation.
    The issue for current residents to enjoy reasonable quiet and amenity has not been adequately considered i.e. the proposed car wash facility runs the full length of the site abutting the residential property (1 Aberdeen street) and the increased vehicle movements, patron/employee interactions and airborne water emissions have not been fully analysed nor adequately addressed, in particular as to how they might effect the quiet and amenity of the adjacent resident.
    A car wash facility already exists at the Corner of Noble street and Latrobe T'ce and this facility is sufficient to serve the needs of the community.
    The proposed site is a valuable 'gateway' location to the city of Geelong and a car wash is not an appropriate facility in such a high profile location.
    The planned site access and egress locations are located in a highly dangerous position being adjacent to a slip-lane from Latrobe Tc'e and subject at times to very heavy traffic flows. Already traffic leaving the city along Ryrie street then west onto Aberdeen street has a blending problem i.e. converging to one lane upon entering Aberdeen street, a flow of cars to and from the proposed business would have to giveway to the city exiting traffic as well as negotiating the slip-lane from LaTrobe T'ce. Access to the Business could only be safely undertaken from the slip lane however the opportunity would exist for patrons to execute two dangerous possibilities,
    firstly, to turn into the facility from the east bound lane of Aberdeen street across a solid white line and potentially face oncoming traffic from three possibilities; west bound traffic along Aberdeen street, Slip-lane traffic from Latrobe T'ce or Right hand turning traffic from South bound (LaTrobe T'ce) vehicles turning into Aberdeen street.
    Patrons leaving the facility have to negotiate the exit into Aberdeen street with the danger of blending traffic leaving the city and an unsighted flow of traffic from the slip lane and could potentially turn right when exiting the facility and cause congestion and disrupted traffic flows.

  8. In North Bondi NSW on “Construction of third...” at 8 Warners Avenue North Bondi NSW 2026:

    Jonathan Rosenblitt wrote to local councillor Miriam Guttman-Jones

    The building was originally approved and constructed as 2 floors. If they go up an extra floor it will set a precedent and have a domino effect, and all adjacent buildings and streets will also want to add an extra floor.
    What provision are they making for providing extra off street parking. Are they going to excavate more parking under the current building. There is already not enough on street parking. The middle verge is parkland and not available for parking. The RMS wants to remove bus stops in the area so buses are not an option for transport and their is no train.
    I object to this Development.

    Delivered to local councillor Miriam Guttman-Jones. They are yet to respond.

  9. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Megan Blair. commented

    I would like to add my voice to those opposing this application. My concerns are in line with those already given by others, so I'll not repeat those. What I do want to add though, is my concern that facilities such as this attract drug dealers to the area. Having spoken to people who have worked in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, I understand that this is a very real risk and certainly not one we want to have in a residential area where families are raising their children.
    I also believe that any 16 unit apartment block, regardless of it's purpose, is entirely unsuited to an area that has heritage overlay listings (see COGG Schedule To The Heritage Overlay, pg 113, PS Map Refs HO1642 and HO1643). By their very nature, they will irrevocably deplete the character of surrounding streets that so strongly defines East Geelong and all that residents love about living here.

  10. In Kensington VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 71-89 Hobsons Road Kensington VIC 3031:

    Pamela Frost wrote to local councillor Rohan Leppert

    Yet more dwellings in this already densely populated suburb! Hope there is adequate parking provided.

    Delivered to local councillor Rohan Leppert. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Penny Hooper commented

    I'm very sad to see this proposal, another old building that should for historical reason be renovated is in the fireing line for demolishon. How many petrol stations does one intersection need? Absolutely absurd. I'm sure I will soon be hearing the fire engines attending a accidentle fire there any day now!

  12. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application -...” at 370-398 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Gabby W wrote to local councillor Luke Smith

    Will logan reserve road be upgraded? OR will there be a new way for all the traffic to get through to yarrabilba etc?
    Logan reserve road has become so very busy.There is so many speeders it needs to be slowed down alot before more cars come and also it is getting very very noisy . even now without the new development! so maybe if there is going to be more traffic... look at something to block noise into Stoneleigh reserve? and to slow down commuters who think its 80 kms speed limit.

    L S
    Luke Smith local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Gabby W

    This is an Automatic Reply - Please do not respond to this email.

    Thank you for contacting the Office of the Mayor.

    I confirm your email has been received by the office and will be responded to as soon as possible.

    My office receives a large volume of enquiries every day, by phone and email and for this reason we unfortunately cannot get back to you immediately.

    Kind regards,

    [cid:]
    Mayor Luke Smith | City of Logan
    P: +61 7 3412 4226 E:
    PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld Australia 4114
    www.logan.qld.gov.au | facebook.com/logancitycouncil | twitter.com/logancc

    *********************************************************************
    This email, including any attachment, is confidential to the intended recipient. It may also be privileged and may be subject to copyright. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of the email. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived. Neither the Council nor the sender warrant that this email does not contain any viruses or other unsolicited items.

    This email is an informal Council communication. The Council only accepts responsibility for information sent under official letterhead and duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Chief Executive Officer.

    Privacy Collection Notice
    Logan City Council may collect your personal information e.g. name, residential address, phone number etc, in order to conduct its business and/or meet its statutory obligations. The information may be accessed by and/or transferred to business partners, contractors, employees and/or Councillors of Logan City Council and other government agencies for Council business related activities. Your information will be handled in accordance with the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and may be released to other parties where we are required or authorised by law to do so.

    L S
    Luke Smith local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Gabby W

    Dear Gabby,

    Thank you for your enquiry. My office has investigated this for you with Council’s relevant departments.

    At this stage no Council upgrades are planned for Logan Reserve for the short to medium term. Council is however, currently making substantial upgrades to Chambers Flat Road between Bumstead Road and Park Ridge Road to four lanes to help alleviate the traffic issues associated with Yarrabilba. The upgrades will consists of two north bound and two south bound lanes. These works are expected to be completed earlier next year.

    Any development applications which are approved on sites fronting onto Logan Reserve Road will need to undertake works necessary to ensure safety of all road users.

    In relation to your comments regarding road noise, any properties located within a designated transport corridor such as Logan Reserve Road is required to comply with the construction requirements identified in the Queensland Development Code - “MP4.4 Building in a transport noise corridor” which is regulated by the Department of Housing and Public Works.

    I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

    Again, thank you for contacting my office.

    Kind regards,

    [X]
    Cr Luke Smith, Mayor | City of Logan

    P: +61 7 3412 4226 E:

    PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld Australia 4114
    www.logan.qld.gov.au | facebook.com/logancitycouncil | twitter.com/logancc

  13. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Stuart Cairns commented

    I'm posting this comment in opposition to the Haven Foundation proposal to build a high density mental health facility for 16 clients "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" at 46 Lomond Terrace East Geelong, in a residential zoned area. In my opinion the Haven Foundation are manipulating the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme definition of land use.

    Although clause 74 does not provide a definition of community care units (CCUs), Haven have adopted (according to their planning report) the Department of Health and Human Services definition being "CCU's provide clinical care and rehabilitation in a home like environment. They support the recovery of people seriously affected by mental illness to develop or relearn skills in self-care, communication and social skills in a community-based residential facility". Haven are comfortable aligning with this definition until the term of "clinical care". If this facility provided "clinical care" it would not be deemed residential and therefore would not fit the criteria for residential zoning. Clinical care involves the employment of on-site specialist clinical mental health practitioners. Although Haven state that this is a supported facility for 16 people "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" there will be no on-site clinical care, instead there will be "at least one Karingal staff member per shift (this information is drawn directly from their planning report lodged with the COGG).

    By eliminating the requirement to have an on-site clinician at all times Haven are trying to manipulate the planning process in order to get a mental health facility into a residential zoned area. In my opinion it is totally inappropriate to have 16 people "seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness" without the necessary clinical care they require just so this facility can be built in a residential zoned area.

  14. In Barwon Heads VIC on “Additions and Alterations...” at 28 Stephens Parade, Barwon Heads, VIC:

    Brian Riggs commented

    This is not a formal objection to the proposal but more of a concern and enquiry.

    It appears that the proposal is being presented as an - extension - ie It has a 10m connecting future link footpath and no evident kitchen. The future I suspect will more clearly define this status.

    Can the planning authorities please inform me if there has been changes to local regulations that will enable other properties in Stephens Parade to follow a similar course of development and how would they be rated. Single - Single with extension - Or two properties.

  15. In Smeaton Grange NSW on “Galvanising Plant” at 42A Bluett Drive, Smeaton Grange:

    Luke Cascarino commented

    I, as a resident, am opposed to this proposed development.
    1. Chemicals transported, stored and used are hazardous to health and environment; are deemed corrosive and dangerous. These chemicals will be stored in close proximity to Kenny Creek which runs into the Nepean River. Potential spillage close to schools and homes could create a localized disaster. Both Currans Hill and Gregory Hills are suburbs aimed at young families, the presence of the chemicals including Hydrogen Chloride, could present future health issues.
    2. Pollution, particularly air pollution, has been shown to directly affect residents and workplaces in Currans Hill, Gregory Hills and Smeaton Grange. These suburbs will be directly affected by the air borne particles of Hydrogen Chloride, Ammonium and Zinc, all of which have been proven to have severe health impacts. These chemicals directly result in the creation of acid rain, affecting homes, cars, clothing, and the environment.
    Noise Pollution from running 24/7 is another factor that will impact resident in neighbouring suburbs. Noise levels at night will be at above the legal limit, and the solution in the DA is community consultation; which is not defined. Which resident would happily approve the excessive noise at 2am on a Monday morning?
    3. Traffic caused by the trucks operating along residential roads with small round abouts, sharp turns and narrow roads with cars parked on either side will be interesting at the least. Add to that the noise caused by low gear acceleration of trucks,
    4. The proposed building height exceeds the limit of 11m for light industrial as defined by the Local Environmental Plans. Why does this limit get ignored in this development? Can I build my house closer to my boundary just because I like a wider house? Why do the rules get bent for the developer?
    5. The statement on page 119, saying the proposal fits in with the current industrial estate is a blatant lie. The current industrial estate consists of smaller factories, operating within normal business hours, within the height limits and not using the extremely dangerous chemicals this proposal does. That combined with the fact that these other industrial buildings were there prior to most residents, meant that most people knew of the potential dangers and could have chosen not to live there.
    Finally, as a resident, I purchased my land, built my house and grew my vegetable garden with the outlook of the current environment being safe and clean. The proposal takes away the safety and cleanliness by potentially exposing me, my food and my air to dangerous chemicals.
    I, as a resident, am opposed to this proposed development.
    1. The air pollution; from the trucks and the productions. It will directly

  16. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of six triple...” at 13 Fawkner Road, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    first of all i am against triple storey dwellings,for open space,disappearing,no Privacy,and Parking problems around the area.Wake up Greedy Moreland Council at one of the Meeting for the new rezoning you made a commitment that your first priority would be Parking Problems ,on every development there is always a reduction in resident parking space,Good one Moreland Council ( Lies ,lies ,lies ) If thats good management i would love to know where you have received the diplomas ,so that i could study at the same place.on how to destroy not manage Moreland.

  17. In Cleveland QLD on “Operational Works - 10...” at 140 Middle Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Robert C Pendrey commented

    I live 650 metres from this development.
    Thank you for providing mostly two car parking even though it is close to the railway station.
    Would it be possible to make some units disabled access as they are close to shops and transport?
    Thanks Bob Pendrey

  18. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Daniel Lamanna commented

    My comment is around the reduction of parking. For this development to have success, the patients must require assistance from medical professionals and family support. Where are these visitors going to park. Residential streets??? Surely this is not an acceptable solution to the application for reduced parking. This area is selling to young families renovating and a majority of the residential homes already have a lack of off street parking. Why should the local residents be forced to source parking further from their properties due to a company attempting to increase commercial return through decreased parking requirements. I would like to see council maintain their stringent parking requirements under all other residential housing developments whilst reviewing this application.

  19. In Saint Leonards TAS on “Educational and Occasional...” at Soldiers Memorial Hall 14 Station Road St Leonards TAS 7250:

    Susanne Swierc wrote to local councillor Simon Wood

    We have already such congestion on Station Road. With two schools, St Leonards Primary and Larminier Catholic School, road traffic during pickup and drop off times are chaotic. Hardly any curb side parking exists to accommodate the schools or home owners cars. Buses and other vehicles trying to squeeze between the parked vehicles along with Children and their guardians crossing to and fro from school is a death trap waiting to happen. Therefore adding another school across the road from St Leonards Primary to join this confusion all ready is plain ridiculousness.

    Delivered to local councillor Simon Wood. They are yet to respond.

  20. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Anna Craig commented

    Without a doubt, this is a TOTALLY inappropriate area to have the Haven Foundation apartments housing severely mentally ill persons. 2 Primary Schools, Childcare, Kindergartens, loads of family living in the area who love the idea of their kids riding to school safely without the added worry of knowing a concentration of severely mentally ill people are housed right near their destinations. This is a highly irresponsible decision by the Catholic Church and Haven Foundation to locate these apartments here. There would be many other suitable places they can build this. You can see from the initial application that there was a MASSIVE public outcry in 2014 - it really isn't fair to the local organisations and residents to keep trying to beat the system - you know how we all feel about it already, you would have documented this from your initial meeting with the community, so please listen AND understand that nobody has changed their views since 2014. As mentioned by other residents, there is not enough parking in the street as it is with the childcare drop offs, childcare workers, primary school drop off and workers, and residents. Not only have Haven requested a reduction in parking provision, they havent considered that visitors will be parking in the street, where will they park if its already busy? Please look at other options - its simply isn't a viable location and we all want to feel safe in the streets with our kids and not have to turn into helicopter parents.

  21. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Megan Williamson commented

    Haven first proposed this development in mid-2014 but due to public outcry they withdrew their application. This outcry was due, in part, to the inappropriate location of such a facility - across the road from a primary school and child care centre and around the corner from a bottle shop. Potential clients for this facility were persons with severe mental illness coupled with drug and/or alcohol problems.

    Under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the minimum parking provision for this facility is calculated as 19 spaces. As per the planning report Haven have requested a reduction in this requirement (to 3 spaces - 1 would be for disabled) as "Haven residents will typically not drive". The reduction in required number of car spaces is based on a presumption and I feel this is inappropriate.

    The Haven planning report states that "Haven Geelong residents will be seriously affected by severe and enduring mental illness". Further to this, in recent conversations with Ric Walsh (Haven CEO) and Allan Fels (Haven Chairman) it is unclear as to what type of clients would now be considered. Walsh 100% guaranteed the clients would be medically compliant with no substance abuse issues or criminal offending history. When questioned further her conceded that no client would be police checked and none of the clients would be on compulsory treatment orders mandating them to comply with taking their medication. Fels stated they would be police checked but wouldn't elaborate further.

    In response to my email to the Catholic Church (dated 21/9/16) they stated that the St. Mary's Parish believes that Haven are a "responsible organisation". As per the Haven brochure they list Sarah Henderson Mp (Federal Member for Corangamite) and Christine Couzens (State Member for Geelong) as being supporters of this proposal. In response to my email to Couzens (dated 20/9/16) she states that "at no time have I given permission to Haven Foundation to use my name as a supporter of their proposal". Further to this, in a phone conversation with Henderson's assistant today this is "outside of her constituency".

    Although this project has value and merit, the proposed location for such a facility is totally inappropriate and I feel that the marketing of this project to local residents has not been totally transparent. The Catholic Church have stated that "the proposed project can go ahead only if it receives wide community support" and I respectfully submit that this is not the case

  22. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Charmaine Ferguson commented

    I support the need to provided opportunity and care for those with mental illness, but it needs to be suitable, appropriate and stable.
    To build sixteen self-contained, one bedroom unit’s apartments on a compact site where there are 2 schools, child care centre, sports facility, bottle shop and already limited car parking does not seem suitable, appropriate or stable. To develop such accommodation facility is not only a concern for the existing tenants of the compact area, but a genuine risk for the young who are educated in the area to.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1/391-393 Enmore Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Claire commented

    This venue brings more of the vibrancy that the inner west is known best for. It would be a terrible shame to see this not be approved.

  24. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Joseph Walsh and PooiLing See commented

    Very concerned that a non secured type residential housing for persons suffering with mental illness and potential dual diagnosis of chronic mental illness with drug or alcohol problems be located in a residential area with young families, close to a childcare centre, a primary school and a bottle shop. As it's not a high security type dwelling or a facility that can monitor the comings and goings of its residents, we fear for the safety of the vulnerable young children at such close quarters. We know that there just aren't enough police to patrol the area. We feel this location is totally unsuitable as a site for this.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1/391-393 Enmore Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    David Phillips commented

    A responsibly run production facility and venue which showcases well our local beer and brewing community. As the owner and operator of Australia's largest specialist Beer Tourism businesses myself and my team spend each day in and out of breweries and this is one of the best.

    The team behind this establishment are considered and take their responsibilities and legal requirements seriously. With the available space and capacity they have on site, it's current configuration and usage allowances are severely under-dimensioned. Whilst this is not uncommon, what is different in this situation is the people who manage this business and the confidence I and others in the beer industry have in them.

    Providing further usage rights and thus allowing more people to enjoy this business, their products and the space would only benefit the community and area at large.

  26. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Peter O'Connor commented

    I am concerned that a residential village housing persons with a mental illness will be located across the road from a primary school, 150 metres from a child care centre and around the corner from a bottle shop. It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. While I support the need to assist those with a mental illness, I am concerned that this location will put young children at risk as well as being unsuitable for the residents

  27. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Jessica Mauger wrote to local councillor Catherine Ann McCullough

    Please do not demolish this wonderful building. It has history and houses the best restaurant in Perth. My husband and I go there for dinner for our anniversary every year.

    There is a service station directly across the road. There is no need for another.

    If anything, the building needs a face lift which would accentuate the beauty of it and emphasis how important the history of our area is.

    Delivered to local councillor Catherine Ann McCullough. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Bellevue WA on “Service Station &...” at Darling Range Tavern 49 Great Eastern Highway Bellevue WA 6056:

    Jessica Mauger commented

    Please do not demolish this wonderful building. It has history and houses the best restaurant in Perth. My husband and I go there for dinner for our anniversary every year.

    There is a service station directly across the road. There is no need for another.

    If anything, the building needs a face lift which would accentuate the beauty of it and emphasis how important the history of our area is.

  29. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 Gillman Street, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Louise Parker commented

    This level of development is not in keeping with the local street. It threatens the community feel of the street and is unsustainable for the area, with a potential increase in people from ~6 to up to 30+ people! Not to mention the cars...some of the people who bought in the recent development at 22 Gillman St actually have a Truck they park on the street...someone else has a caravan! What happens to all of these vehicles for the people who move into a development such as this?
    In the planning details I can't see anything about the proposed height of these dwellings, but I urge these to be capped at 2 storeys. This street does not have an exemption from Residential 1 Zoning, and this every effort should be made by the planning authority to retain and support this....there are other parts of Cheltenham i.e. Hall & Barker street where this level of development needs to be confined to.

  30. In Cheltenham VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 1 Gillman Street, Cheltenham, VIC:

    Alicia Brown commented

    I'm assuming this is 11 dwellings for 1 & 3 Gillman street, however this is absolutely excessive for this suburban street. A typically acceptable level of development on a standard house block is 3 dwellings. It is essential that on-site carparking is also included.
    Currently, this street already has massive parking issues as a direct result of increased development.
    A development of this proposed scale potentially requires carparking of up to 22 cars, as opposed to 4 cars for these properties currently.
    I also feel concerned that development to this level is sought, given that these people will have no open space, and are forced to use local parks (which are few and far between not to mention poorly maintained for recreational activities). The footprint of this development on the land would result in over 80% constructed surfaces, which not only is environmentally unsustainable but is also not a very healthy quality of living for the occupants. It would also involve removal of almost all the trees on this site, and I am concerned about the loss of trees (which are replaced in developments with non-Australian vegetation options - if they are replaced at all) as well as the removal of established street trees (as seen at 22 Gillman St).
    Additionally, the increased traffic to the street as a result of this level of development, with many school children living and crossing this street to access local schools is of concern, together with access for rubbish trucks and existing residents down a street already heavily packed with onstreet parking.

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