Recent comments

  1. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Chris commented

    i am a big fan of this proposal and believe it would serve the local community. Given there a very few places to enjoy a casual drink. It will serve as a chance for the community and friends to come together in a safe and secure environment.

  2. In Galston NSW on “Subdivision - Two Lots Into...” at 16 Mid-Dural Road Galston NSW 2159 Australia:

    Claire Williams wrote to local councillor Michael Hutchence

    Happy for all subdivision in this area. We live on Mid Dural Road and would be especially happy for the acreages to be able to be sub-divided as well.

    Delivered to local councillor Michael Hutchence. They are yet to respond.

  3. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of 34 triple...” at 144 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Michael Stafford commented

    34? The sheer number of proposed dwellings on this lot is very concerning.

  4. In Woy Woy NSW on “New Dwelling & Demolition...” at 10 Rawson Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Chrissy Hollingsworth commented

    I hope that an application has NOT been lodged for a 50 room building to house former drug addicts, alcoholics & jail inmates as this area Woy Woy, Ettalong, Umina etc. has a lot of young families and Woy Woy station is a main commuter station. Although they may be former drug addicts, everyone knows this demographic has a very very high reoffend rate and I don't want my kids or myself to be fearful when coming home from the station. This area is improving and people also like to holiday here so this would blight the economy of the area so please, please make sure that this does not go ahead.
    With school kids, and families in the area, this would be devastating.

  5. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Merran Hamilton commented

    I couldn't agree more. The absolute beauty of our suburb is being destroyed. It is horrible to walk around the streets and see what is allowed. People/ developers are allowed to build properties with little respect to the prevailing neighbourhood character and it is upsetting many people. Council please take some control.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    CGrant commented

    Not sure I would refer to that strip of shops as a 'business strip' or a 'low residential area'. There are flats above all shops in that row as well as a block of flats next door. Residential Agar Street and Weymss Street back onto the back area of this property.

    If soundproofing was of a high standard and there was no background noise and thumping bass (particularly at night) then I can imagine the residential neighbours would remain happy. NB: Local pub, The Henson, doesn't have amplified music at night. Not a suitable comparison.

    I live on Addison Road and at night it is a quiet street - we sleep with our windows open and our bedroom faces the street. At night, Addison Road is not the bustling commercial strip that some people are painting it to be, therefore sound control at the venue would be of upmost importance.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Sally commented


    I OBJECT to DA201500736.01. The Preliminary Social Impact Statement (PSIS) dated 13 February 2017 goes to great lengths to convince the reader of the difference between a motel, a budget motel, budget hotel and a backpacker establishment, is packed with assumptions, statistics, and inconclusive cited pages based on USA research. I prefer to rely on the facts and my own observation and experiences.

    I am concerned about the impact this development and any future developments of this kind will have on the local community as a whole. Listed below are some of my concerns for the reviewed DA201500736.01.

    The original DA submitted by Mr Perry for this property was for a backpackers’ establishment - the original DA was denied by Council; the appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court for the above was declined on 23.11.10; and, early 2016 Mr Perry submitted another DA to Council for this same property, modified from backpacker to a motel - this DA was also declined by Council.

    Although the number of proposed rooms has been reduced from 61 to 54, the updated plan of 24 parking spaces (reduced from 27) is still inadequate. Point 4 of the PSIS states “The proposed development would appear to have some of the characteristics of a motel, in that parking is available for some of the travellers”. Where do the other 30 residents and the Manager of this “motel” park? Where do the residents’ visitors park? Where do the patrons and staff of the ground floor restaurant or cafe park? The suggestion that residents, visitors and patrons would be able to find parking in the surrounding streets is absurd, considering the congestion in the area. In the last few years Council has approved the following – units 23-29 Addison Road, Cowper Street townhouses, 11-13 Fotheringham Lane converted to seven Torrens title blocks, and units and restaurant at 65-71 Addison Road. It is unknown how the proposed Council bike track will affect parking in Addison Road and the surrounding streets. Residents are struggling to find a parking space as it is.

    Incredibly, Clause 1.1 of the PSIS actually admits the potential for social impact including potential for crime, anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance, and parking problems. Also Clause 1.3 and Clause 1.4 points out that there will be noise disturbance from the balconies of the proposed development as well as parking problems for established residents whose residences back Fahey Lane. The following Clause 1.5 is contradictory to that of those above, arguing that because the development will be a motel (not a budget hotel or backpacker), there is “unlikely to be risks of significant social impacts”.

    I am not able to locate information about the Management Plan in the DA, only that there is a manager’s residence in the architectural plans.

    We already have Addison Road backpackers; we don’t need a “motel” or any other type of accommodation for transients. Owner occupiers of new developments with their own car space would be welcome; owner occupiers are more likely to respect their neighbours, their property and property of others.

    I would like to resubmit to Council my January 2016 Objection as, even though Newington Mews Fotheringham Lane has ceased operating as a backpacker business due to legal intervention, it is still relevant. I would like to remind Council of the mismanagement, total lack of responsibility, and disregard for neighboring residents in close proximity to Addison Road Travellers Lodge and Newington Mews (Fotheringham Lane) backpackers (no longer functioning as a backpackers). For nearly a decade residents were subjected to extreme noise levels, very noisy parties, drunken anti social behavior, drug fuelled parties (accompanied by the loud psychedelic trance music) that lasted 24 hours a day for up to 4 days and 4 nights with no respite, screaming in the streets in the early hours, vandalism and tampering of property on a daily basis, litter, beer bottles lined up under residents’ cars, a roller door pulled off a garage and dumped with other objects on top of a car, climbing on residents’ roofs, abandoned cars, the list goes on. Police were called regularly (each call was logged by Marrickville Police) not only because of the noise, vandalism and drug parties, but because of concern for the safety of residents and the safety of the backpackers. In an endeavor to build relationships between Mr Perry and the long suffering residents as well as alleviate the stress on police resources, a fridge magnet was designed with Mr Perry’s contact details and a request to phone him if we had any concerns. This fridge magnet was personally delivered by the Senior Constable at Marrickville LAC to each resident in the surrounding vicinity. On the only occasion that I utilized this option and telephoned the owner about the excessive noise emanating from his property, I was met with hostility and accused of making trouble for him.

    It is my belief that Mr Perry has done himself a disservice by not building and maintaining good relationships with neighbours. A good facility (backpacker / motel / hostel / whatever you want to call it) should be run in a manner that causes no disturbances to neighbouring properties.

  8. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of 34 triple...” at 144 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Teresa Ferro commented

    Yet another uninspiring, out of the box, design from Time Architects. I suggest a visit to 10 Millward Street Brunswick to see a 3 D example of what it will be from the same architects. Dark walls, no articulation and heat area.

    This design has a lack of articulation which makes it one monolithic building next door to one storey homes. A design to maximise habitation only.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Adrian commented

    Fully supported. This is an appropriate business strip, which has nearby restaurants opening. There is a very diverse local population whom will benefit from this premises, perhaps making the area more inclusive. The request appears to be similar in nature to a small bar and I'm sure the requisite requirements for amplified (fancy word for music through speakers) music will be adhered too. The site was previously a restaurant, trading in to the evening. Of note, nearby Henson Hotel was granted a pub licence after initially applying for a restaurant licence, it too has larger capacity and an outdoor area and play area in very close proximity to residences. This is very similar, only on a much smaller scale on a commercial strip. Parking would be no more of any issue than it already is, considering lost people are more likely to drive to a restaurant than a bar. Can't wait.

  10. In Leichhardt NSW on “Construction of a community...” at Lambert Park 20-22 Foster Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Karen Eldridge commented

    While it is unclear what the construction of a community and caretakers facility at Lambert Park entails, I strongly object to any changes in the use of parks and sports grounds in the (former) Leichhardt Municipality.

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 65 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    I support this application, as the managers of the property seem to be responsible and there have been no issues in the past year. The restaurant is a welcome addition to Addison Rd.

  12. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Michael Hewes commented

    We are at a turning point. The widespread permission being granted for the replacement of period buildings with contemporary lifestyle containers is effectively erasing our architectural heritage and diminishing the unique characteristics that so exquisitely articulate the evolution of our urban environment. There are places where this can be considered 'development' - Cranbourne and Caroline Springs. Imposing that design mentality to Kew is an aberration and a degradation of the streets ape, and has no place in Sackville St. Our legacy as a generation will ultimately be judged on whether or not we allow this to happen. How we could even contemplate modeling Kew on Caroline Springs is beyond me. Decision makers should think long and hard about the mark they want to leave.

  13. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Carol Hewes commented

    I have just been alerted to this planning application. This house has significant garden (although has been let go since sold last year) beautiful trees, fruit, nuts and palms etc as well as specimen trees. The house itself stands out as in character with the class of houses in Sackville Street. It has been standing since the 1950's. It has had an interesting life as it was built by a Lebanese migrant who came with nothing and had a family here who worked together to afford, design, build and live together in this superb double brick house. It could be modernized and updated rather than destroyed. The house next door was built (late '80's or 90's I believe ) and modeled to look similar to no. 78 in order to keep the continuity with the streetscspe. This house is in a heritage overlay. Do not let it and its beautiful garden and it's beauty be destroyed for yet another soulless McMansion with no significant trees or garden surrounding it. Council always says it will make sure significant trees are protected or replanted but I can give many examples where they are not! Please look after Sackville Street and no. 78. and retain this house and garden. Kew has already suffered enough.

  14. In Howrah TAS on “Extension to trading hours...” at 45 Hance Road, Howrah, TAS:

    Sharon Brown commented

    I would like to firmly object to the extension of trading hours. Opening on Saturday & Sunday is completely unnecessary and would cause a disturbance to local residents. It is mentioned in the application that this is to benefit patients who work full time during the week, however opening until 8pm during weekdays is more than enough time for people to attend after normal working hours. On weekends, most residents are at home. Having the medical centre open creates more traffic and noise and an overall disturbance on the weekend. I really don't see the need when the opening hours during the week is more than enough time for patients to attend (even if they do work full time hours).
    I would like to stress that this is still a residential area, and business opening hours need to be kept only from Monday - Friday.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    C commented

    There are numerous problems with this application and we will be making a full objection detailing all of the issues.
    The owner of this business is openly telling people in person and on social media that she intends to run it as a bar.
    To submit the application as a section 96 is dishonest and should not have even made it across the counter at council.
    Until she goes through the proper application process for what she wants to do there, it's a waste of everyones time. There are hours of work involved in researching planning controls in order to lodge a thorough objection.

  16. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of six double...” at 19 Acacia Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Clare Clifton commented

    Council is going to HAVE to indent parking spaces in nature strips otherwise traffic will be gridlocked.
    Disappointing that visitors' car parks are disappearing.

  17. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 6 - 8 Baywater Drive Wentworth Point NSW 2127:

    Kevin Lacey commented

    Part of the approval (once given) should also include the developer be made to add or create a designated off-leash dog area in a designated area on the outer side of the site perimetre for the enjoyment of new and existing residents of the surrounding area. This will save council money in establishing this type of area along with providing the community of Wentworth Point, direct access to a sociable area for dogs and their owners to enjoy the surrounds freely without issue of public nuisance. Currently Wentworth Point does not have a close accessible Off-Leash area for the majority of residents who have pets.

  18. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 6 - 8 Baywater Drive Wentworth Point NSW 2127:

    Kevin Lacey commented

    Part of the approval (once given) should also include the developer be made to add or create a designated off-leash dog area in a designated area on the outer side of the site perimetre for the enjoyment of new and existing residents of the surrounding area. This will save council money in establishing this type of area along with providing the community of Wentworth Point, direct access to a sociable area for dogs and their owners to enjoy the surrounds freely without issue of public nuisance. Currently Wentworth Point does not have a close accessible Off-Leash area for the majority of residents who have pets.

  19. In Wentworth Point NSW on “Construction of a mixed use...” at 6 - 8 Baywater Drive Wentworth Point NSW 2127:

    Kevin Lacey commented

    Consideration of the appropriate boundaries need to be clearly defined between the site and that of the water line to denote public land from that of the site itself

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    V commented

    oppose this application.
    I feel the applicant has chosen to deliberately open as a small local cafe and then attempt to convert into a bar /local night spot, to possibly avoid more objections and ‘get a foot in the door’.
    I do not think this mainly residential strip of Addison Road is in “dire need” of night life (as stated by previous supporter). The area has young families and many long established elderly residents, who will be greatly affected by midnight closing of such a venue. The residents within close proximity to the cafe (of which I am one) are already subjected to intermittent aeroplane noise until 11pm each night, and I do not like the idea of constant noise from “amplified DJ’s” (as the applicant has requested) will continue a further hour past the airport curfew.
    Finally, I strongly object to our neighbourhood becoming the next red light district /dance den /nightspot as promoted and boasted by the applicant via their personal and business social media pages…”Here's our next little project we're getting off the ground on Addison Road - new red light district for Sydney we say! Local.. Queer.. Underground.. Love Affair.. “ “I've just handed a (not so) little document over to Council, and in a matter of a few months we'll hopefully have ourselves a new little off-beat, underground paradise, right in the heart of Addison Rd. Red light District... Watch out.. We're coming for ya.” ….
    There are numerous bars and night spots offering extended hours entertainment and dancing venues within 15-20 minutes walk of Addison Road in Enmore, Newtown and Marrickville. These bars are welcoming of the diverse community the inner west houses, and more to the point, these bars are operating in area’s that have been long established as an entertainment area, and thus have much lower residential houses surrounding them, but more pointedly, with those that choose to move into that area fully aware they will be experiencing the noise (and other antisocial behaviour sometimes) associated with these businesses and their extended hours.

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    H commented

    I oppose some aspects of this application. In particular the application to play amplified music until midnight. The sorrounding streets are full of young families like myself as well as older people. The owner states on her business own FB page the following:

    "It's an application to flip our little Addison Rd queer haven into a local night spot where we all come alive, with trading hours of 6am to midnight Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 10pm Sundays. We're also gunning for the use of the cute little courtyard out back, which i'm roofing in with a fancy-schmancy polycarbonate so none of you will get sunburnt nor rained on. It'll be full of plants, fairy lights and other creatures of the night. Aaaaaaaaand we're also applying for the ability to have DJs in there weds to sunday - we want the ability to, so we can all get our dancing shoes on"

    This seems to contradict the DA application which states music will only be 'background noise.' I am also offended by the suggestion in the DA that as we all live under the flight path then music until midnight is acceptable. It is a different kind of noise and aircraft noise stops much earlier. The DA also includes outdoor entertaining, will music be also be amplified to the outdoor area? The owner makes no provision for soundproofing or closure of doors while music is being played.

    I support an evening restaurant application but only with extensive soundproofing if music is to be amplified, agreement that doors and windows be closed and trading hours to 10pm.

  22. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of three...” at 45 Stanley Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Mark Neilson commented

    Consider the poposed development will add to the traffic congestion in Victoria Street, Oak Park given there is two driveways into Victoria Street and already 2 bus stops in the immeadiate vicinity. Victoria Street already carries alot of traffic and with cars parking on the street, it causes difficulty for buses and larger vehicles to use the Street. It is currently difficult for residents to enter and exit their driveways at prent with existing traffic and cars parked in the street. The Street also has many children using the footpaths on their way to and from school.

    I am not opposed to the develpoment on the basis that there is no driveways on to Victoria Street.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    C commented

    I strongly object to this DA.

    The advertising for this venue is already up. "Klubdistrict" wants to be known as a "techno powerhouse". This is completely at odds with the working families and elderly residents who live in the neighbouring properties.

    When will the Inner West Council be notifying impacted residents via mail? Our elderly neighbours do not have access to these online Planning Alerts. Will the notification period be extended to give these members of the community an opportunity to respond?

  24. In Tallwoods Village NSW on “Subdivision - 3 Lot” at 4 Eucalyptus Drive, Tallwoods Village NSW 2430:

    Joel K commented

    In regards to this development application a number of concerns arise.
    1. Driveway/vehicle access hasn't been included and I would recommend/ request that the road of Eucalyptus Drive be extended slightly to allow for adequate access to each block before approving this application. I would definitely not appreciate all vehicles driving in and out of these blocks directly behind my back fence.
    2. There is no inclusion or restriction set for the type of dwellings to be built. I put forward that a stipulation is made that only newly built homes can be placed on each proposed block similar to the rest of the Tallwoods Village estate. I fear that old relocatable homes will be placed there like two other nearby homes in a subdivided block in Creekline Crescent. If this does happen this will affect the value of my property, nearby neighbours and the overall estate.
    3. I purchased my block of land on the basis that only one house would be built behind my block at the top. Never did I think that the block would be subdivided. The two proposed lower blocks would be looking directly into the back of my house taking away a lot of my privacy.

  25. In Coburg North VIC on “Construction of four double...” at 2 Gaffney Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Clare commented

    Please dont allow this block to be over used - it will ruin the serenity of the neighboring parkland 2 - 3 townhouses is plenty

  26. In Buderim QLD on “17 Jorl Court Buderim -...” at 13 Jorl Ct, Buderim, QLD:

    Petra Rajkovic commented

    As there was the construction of 50 townhouses completed late last year at 6 Jorl Crt and another 17 townhouses has commenced at 14-16 Jorl Crt, we were assured by the council in respect to the current town plan that no more townhouses were in Jorl Crt however now there are a further 25 townhouses across 13 and 15-17 Jorl Court in the pipeline for approval. This is unacceptable by residents of Jorl Court as there are many environmental issues which have been ignored. The proposed extra 25 townhouses will increase traffic conjestion, pedestrian accessibility and visibility and safety issues which will come on top of what we already have now. Housing lots would be preferred in the reconfiguration but not townhouses as there are too many and the support networks are not in place for such changes.

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Alexandra commented

    I strongly object to this application, which has been refused by the Land and Environment Court more than once over the last several years. My main concern is the likely negative impact on the neighbourhood. This developer's 'management' of his townhouses in Newington Mews resulted in more than a decade of antisocial behaviour and property damage, despite repeated representations by local residents, the council and the police (the situation was only resolved through legal action). He also owns a backpackers' lodge and a backpacker accommodation service on Addison Rd. My fear is that the proposed 'motel' is designed to accommodate more transient visitors to our neighbourhood to the detriment of our community. A secondary consideration is the architectural standard. The backpackers' lodge on Addison Road is notable for the poor quality of its design.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jillian Greig commented

    I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for numerous reasons and I ask these please be represented by Council at the LEC.

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1) Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been re-lodged in late December 30 (2016) when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2) Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3) Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the community environment.

    4) Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected by the Land and Environment Court.

    5) Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain.

    6) Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighboring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of privacy, natural light and airflow.

    7) Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

    8) The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels.

    9) Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The areas it does not comply with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 are:
    Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    Part 2.7 Solar Access
    Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    Part 2.9 Community Safety
    Part 2.10 Parking
    Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    10) Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    11) Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area is high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    12) Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    13) Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally.

    14) Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

    15) Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

    16) Development Against the Public’s Interest: Marrickville Council stated the development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    17) Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic having been designed for horses and carts. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having ZERO visibility already when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars parked in small streets. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

  29. In Swansea NSW on “Mixed Use Boarding House/...” at 1 Josephson Street, Swansea NSW 2281:

    C. Fenton wrote to local councillor Wendy Harrison

    Everyone deserves to lay there head down at night and feel safe. Even the disadvantaged. People of Swansea say the pride themselves of being warm and friendly people yet you seem to not want change. People are sleeping every night on the streets (even the streets of swansea) for many different reasons. This does not mean these people are criminals or bad people. If a couple who both work cant afford to buy into the housing market then how on earth do people who have lost there jobs in the mining down turn and cant pay there morgage survive. C'mon Swansea, stop being so narrow minded!

    Photo of Wendy Harrison
    Wendy Harrison local councillor for Lake Macquarie City Council
    replied to C. Fenton

    Thank you very much for your email. I will give it close consideration when the DA comes to Council for determination.



    Cr Wendy Harrison
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    ph. 0409 775 432 (m)
    (02) 4958 3771 (h)

  30. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of six double...” at 19 Acacia Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Anthony commented

    another car park waiver...
    unless council... where on earth do you expect these cars to park...

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