Recent comments

  1. In Caringbah NSW on “Demolition of 4 existing...” at 29 Flide St Caringbah 2229:

    C Leonard commented

    Another 46 units to go with the 80 odd proposed right next door.
    What is this council going to do about the infrastructure around this area?
    The only main access street is continually blocked with overflow parking from the hospital and cannot be accessed from the Kingsway traffic heading East.
    Caringbah will soon become the Wolli Creek of the South I am sad to say.

  2. In Northcote VIC on “Proposed medium density...” at 45 Victoria Road Northcote VIC 3070:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. Car park reduction is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) of the Darebin Planning Scheme.
    2. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    3. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    4. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    5. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  3. In Reservoir VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 25 Loddon Avenue Reservoir VIC 3073:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 4 X two bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with small living spaces. The kitchen meals and lounge areas are the same size as single garage.
    4. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show adequate planting of replacement vegetation.
    5. There is a very narrow driveway and tight turning circles that will encourage residents to park on the street increasing traffic and parking congestion. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk.
    6. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    7. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    8. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    9. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    10. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    11. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    12. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  4. In Thornbury VIC on “Medium density development...” at 388 Station Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance by removing a family home and adding 4 X two bedroom flats.
    2. Units 2 and 3 of this proposal have a 3rd bedroom disguised as a "retreat". These are easily turned into a bedroom making them three bedroom dwellings without providing the appropriate parking allowance.
    3. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    4. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity in Unit 4 with reverse living arrangements with private open space only provided on a balcony.
    5. The proposed development will remove a number of significant shade trees and does not show adequate planting of replacement vegetation.
    6. The enlarger cross-over will require the removal of a significant street tree.
    7. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    8. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    9. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    10. The proposed development does not meet all standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    11. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.
    12. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    13. Traffic and parking will be an issue as the proposed extra crossover will further reduce the safety of the many children and elderly who walk in the street.

  5. In Bli Bli QLD on “312 David Low Way Bli Bli -...” at 308-312 David Low Way, Bli Bli, QLD:

    R F and J. A. Hamblet commented

    We had been advised of a shopping complex redevelopment on the site but not including a tavern on the corner. What about noise levels for the immediate neighbours?

  6. In Rosebery NSW on “Integrated Development...” at 409 Gardeners Road Rosebery NSW 2018:

    Yvette commented

    Is it just me or has the online info for this DA been inaccessible for a week? I've called Council 3 times to get them to fix this. They keep saying they will, but they still haven't.

  7. In Eltham VIC on “The construction of two...” at 99 Brougham Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    lucy commented

    I hope the vegetation removal is monitored so that the property still blends in with the leafy character of Eltham where subdivision is occuring at a scarily rapid rate and vegetation is completely cleared so that creates a scarred barren block for a great length of time both during construction and while any other planted vegetation slowly grows .for example in the town square 2 trees have died since completion.

  8. In Balmain NSW on “Footway application outdoor...” at Town Hall Hotel 366 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Graeme commented

    General feedback about the space proposed for these tables, it will be difficult to get prams and pedestrians past section of you have tables, chairs and planter boxes within that space.
    This is right next to the bus stop and is a busy thoroughfare.

    Cheers

  9. In on “Request for Pre-Gateway...” at 116-132 Amy Street, 2-4 Smith Street and 1,3,5,7,7A and 9 Maunder Street, Regents Park:

    Michelle Valacos commented

    Dear Mary-Lynne,
    My property is directly South of this development and will be greatly impacted if the proposal goes ahead as it exists now.
    I notice that, once again, the hand drawn plans of existing structures around this development are incorrect; my house does not sit so far South of the adjoining fenceline that it looks like it is sitting on the Council strip, but is in fact situated between 0.5m and 4.5 m from the South fenceline, as witnessed by Jason Clare, Federal MP for Blaxland, when he visited my property in 2014. I believe that it can be clearly seen if my address were to be Googled. This means that any building built North of my back fence will in fact overshadow my building, not only blocking my Northerly sunlight, but also compromising my privacy with windows directly facing my side yard and kitchen window (spitting distance). Whilst reference has been made to distances between the proposed dwellings to be built, no mention has been made regarding distances between existing dwellings and those to be built so close by.
    I also note that it really is not fair to make the public space included in the plans the responsibility of the council to maintain, and either taking a portion of our council rate fees, or increasing them in lieu; surely, the strata levies from the proposed residents should be utilised to pay for what is supposed to be their free space to use.
    I also note that you did mention in a prior meeting in 2014 regarding (and rejecting) this proposal that the scope and scale is still too large to suit the surrounding existing structures, and that the area is only suitable for single storey dwellings being converted to double storey dwellings.
    Over the ten years that this proposal has been continuously resubmitted, the council requested several times to view the alternate townhouse plans that were suggested as a more suitable development to the one proposed. The plans were never submitted; instead, the public park was added and the units that were originally to be built on this spot were simply added to the remaining proposed structures. On top of this, the developer more than doubled the density of the development, from 9m to 20m in height. If the original proposed heights were unacceptable the first eight times they were submitted, why are the over increased heights acceptable now?
    It has been stated in conmunity feedback time and time again that this suburb is too small and low in density to suit such a large "spot" development, and that the area is only currently fit for villa and townhouse developments, especially since this site is more than 800m away from the town centre (it is in fact 1.2km away), which is outside the LEP scope for consideration.
    In all fairness, this development is about making the most amount of money in the space provided, with no consideration to the quality of life for either the existing residents in the area, or those proposing to move in. Otherwise, this issue would have never made it to the JRPP; instead the developer would have capitulated to both residential and council pressure to downsize the development accordingly, to either villas or towhouses. I would probably have someone's backyard or courtyard North of my fence and hence have no light compromises or privacy issues, and the integrity of the suburb of Regents Park as the next up-and-coming exclusive housing area West of Strathfield would be protected.

  10. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Sarah Wojciechowski commented

    I wish to raise an objection to the residential development on the site of The Alexandria Hotel.

    This is based on:

    - The building height: 7 storeys exceeds the current height of residential buildings on Garden Street. This will cause overshadowing in a residential area and is against current building controls limiting this to 4 storeys. Building at 7 storeys will create an extremely unwelcome precedent for increasing building heights in the area on the cusp of a conservation zone.
    - Lack of parking in the designs: It's incredibly frustrating to see the developer submit plans without parking provisions which was the subject of many objections to an application on the same site just a few months ago. This will cause significant burden on current local residents in the area who struggle with existing limited parking capacity, even with parking permits and restrictions in place.
    - It's pig ugly. When so much effort has been made to protect the heritage of the hotel and neighbouring conservation zone, I cannot fathom why anyone with a design qualification could consider this to be anything other than a blight on the local area, let alone put their name to this mess. It's completely out of character with and detracts from local heritage.

    Thank you for your assistance in not approving this development.

  11. In Port Macquarie NSW on “Change of Use - Dwelling to...” at 24A Granite Street Port Macquarie NSW 2444, Australia:

    Dean Jenner commented

    So many cars do u turns to return to the main CBD district in granite st, as it is the Quickest option to get there. I believe this would only contribute to the likely hood of a major accident as I have already witnessed a number of near hits. Approve this centre at your own peril as it would be neglegant to investigate this further and provide a safe st for the town to use, as it is considered a main thoughroufare for many people

  12. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Boundary Realignment 2 Lots” at 48 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    Somewhat of a fait accompli. Why bother advertising. The lot in question has been divided up with a fence around it and For Sale sign since Christmas time. What a farce. I see we have most of the same old players re-elected, so nothing will probably change. The citizens of attractive streets get to look like they are living in some horrendous Gold Coast development. Wish I could afford to live on a desert island.

  13. In Highfields QLD on “Combined MCU RAL and OWS...” at 1 Cawdor Road Highfields QLD 4352:

    Kathryn Weier wrote to local councillor Bill Cahill

    To councillor Bill Cahill,
    I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 1 Cawdor RD (ref RAL/2016/1776), being a proposed combined MCU RAL and OWS Service Station.
    Reasons for objections are as follows:
    1. Cawdor Road runs through a well established residential area, with the road and environment not set up to receive the increased traffic, noise and safety risks that such a development would create. Introduction of such a commercial space would be detrimental to the safe, peaceful, family-oriented residential environment currently enjoyed by residents living along and near to Cawdor Road.
    2. There are already 3 other service station complexes within Highfields, two of which are within one kilometer from the proposed site, just a little further north along the highway, within the existing commercial zone. There is surely no need for another service station on the same side of the highway in this small area of the new England Highway.
    3. If there IS an identified genuine need for a 4th service station, it should be within the existing commercial zone, nearer to the two existing service stations (plus cafes and shops) further along the New England Highway. Further, another service station would be better placed on the opposite side of the highway to the existing service stations. It seems that rezoning for this proposal would only suit the interests of the developer, with no consideration for the residents of Cawdor Road and surrounding streets.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn Weier
    Cawdor Road Resident

    Photo of Bill Cahill
    Bill Cahill local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Kathryn Weier

    Hello Kathryn

    Thank you for your email outlining your objections to this application.
    I have some concerns myself.
    I will forward this onto the GM for Planning and Development for his attention and ask if the planner assessing this development can contact you to discuss and to register your objection.

    Regards

    Cr Bill Cahill
    CHAIR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

    City Hall, 541 Ruthven Street, Toowoomba
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Village Fair QLD 4350
    P 07 4688 6782 F 07 4631 9158 M 0419 908 083
    E
    W www.toowoombaRC.qld.gov.au

    On 15 Apr 2016, at 4:10 PM, Kathryn Weier <> wrote:

    Hi Bill Cahill,

    You've got a new message from Kathryn Weier in relation to a local
    planning application:

    Address: 1 Cawdor Road Highfields QLD 4352
    Description: Combined MCU RAL and OWS Service Station, Subdivision 1 into 2 lots and 2x Pylon Sign, 2x Ground Sign and 1x Roof Sign/Projecting Wall Sign
    Link: https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/642887?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Kathryn Weier writes:

    To councillor Bill Cahill,
    I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 1 Cawdor RD (ref RAL/2016/1776), being a proposed combined MCU RAL and OWS Service Station.
    Reasons for objections are as follows:
    1. Cawdor Road runs through a well established residential area, with the road and environment not set up to receive the increased traffic, noise and safety risks that such a development would create. Introduction of such a commercial space would be detrimental to the safe, peaceful, family-oriented residential environment currently enjoyed by residents living along and near to Cawdor Road.
    2. There are already 3 other service station complexes within Highfields, two of which are within one kilometer from the proposed site, just a little further north along the highway, within the existing commercial zone. There is surely no need for another service station on the same side of the highway in this small area of the new England Highway.
    3. If there IS an identified genuine need for a 4th service station, it should be within the existing commercial zone, nearer to the two existing service stations (plus cafes and shops) further along the New England Highway. Further, another service station would be better placed on the opposite side of the highway to the existing service stations. It seems that rezoning for this proposal would only suit the interests of the developer, with no consideration for the residents of Cawdor Road and surrounding streets.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn Weier
    Cawdor Road Resident

    =========================================================================

    This message was posted publicly on PlanningAlerts. You can publicly
    respond to this message by simply replying to this email.

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

  14. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Mark J commented

    This forum is appropriate for raising traffic concerns in relation to a DA application, such as this one. However it is not an appropriate forum to question council's studies for traffic. Can we please keep notice board focused on 66 Constitution Rd and the impact the proposed DA will have, and question Marrickville Local Government's traffic studies in the relevant area.

  15. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    As someone who takes their dog to Simpson Park on Lackey Street, this type of development seems to be excessive in relation to the surrounds. The street is also one way and already practically impossible to park during the middle of the work week. How will it cope with 63 additional residences, although the Basix certificate actually states there are 94 resident units.

    Either way the 110 residential car spaces and 11 non-residential car spaces are completely insufficient for the number of residents that will invade the area. Possible catastrophic if multiple car owners live in the one unit. The concern also is that the car spaces will need to be purchased separately giving people the option to not purchase a space and be issued with a residential parking permit to park on the surrounding streets. Again, this location does not have the capacity to handle this influx of vehicles.

    Marrickville Council has a responsibility to look after the needs of current residents This development would create gridlock, overlook current residents and cause unnecessary stress and disruption.

  16. In Kingsbury VIC on “Proposed medium density...” at 7 Highland Street Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Michael Grey commented

    This development is not consistent with the character of the area in general and the street in particular.

    Its height will stand out noticeably in a street of single story dwellings, creating an eyesore.

    It will increase parking congestion on a street already congested, and will may cause accidents with the children and older people who live on the street already due to restricted sight lines.

    The increased number of 1 and 2 small bedroom dwellings in the area changes the character of the area of larger, 3 bedroom plus housing, and will cause additional stress to already busy local amenities with not benefit to the community as a whole.

  17. In Condell Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 131 Eldridge Road Condell Park NSW 2200 Australia:

    Wendy C commented

    I am against the development of a public place of worship at this location for the following reasons:

    - Further traffic congestion along Eldridge Road. It currently can take me 20-30 mins something just to pass this intersection. Constructing a building as such here will only exacerbate the traffic problem here;
    - Together with added traffic problem, there will also be additional noise pollution in the neighbourhood. We do not need further noise pollution from impatient and frustrated drivers pressing horns;
    - Thirdly, based on the plans we received previously and structure of the building, we do not need members of the religion to be ringing bells at midnight. We currently have a turbo shop near the area and are constantly hearing engine and tire sounds late at night. These noises can sometimes last past 10pm. We do not need further noise added to this in the area.

    Please consider this very carefully as due to the above factors. We do no need further noise and traffic pollution in the area.

  18. In Caringbah South NSW on “Construction of shop top...” at 493 Port Hacking Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Rob Nixon commented

    No problems with this sort of dwelling going ahead.
    My problem is with all these multi housing developments without up dating the infrastructure. Our house now has had sewerage backing up into our house because of the main blocking up. Not nice to have to clean up & to live with when we all pay decent rates to live in the Shire.

  19. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    John commented

    To Melanie (and others): Your concerns re the proposed crematorium are understandable but needlessly exaggerated. A much greater hazard to health is posed by the constant exhaust fumes from nearby road traffic and from the carcinogenic particulates falling from the large jet aircraft which pass over Buderim and environs at regular intervals. By comparison, the impact of the crematorium will be insignificant.

  20. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    N Hay commented

    In relation to the Dulwich Hill North LATM Study draft report could Council please advise the following:
    (1) Where we can find legible maps of precincts 1, 2 and 3 including street names?
    (2) Table 6.3 suggests that the projected future traffic impacts were based on an additional 155 residences in 'precinct 2'. What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 2 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 1 and 3 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) If the actual number of proposed residences exceeds the forecast number, what impact will that have on vehicle per day estimates? For example, if precinct 2 includes the Arlington development, there are approximately 90 'residences' that have not been included in the projections on my reckoning.
    (4) At page 17, the report states "It is expected that the opening of the Inner West Light Rail extension in 2014 ... will have some impact on journey to work patterns for Dulwich Hill". Did this study take into account the actual impacts of the light rail stop at Arlington?
    (5) Generally the report appears to be based on conditions as they existed before the Arlington DA was finalised. A lot has changed since then. Can Council advise in what respects the analysis is based on data current for 2016?
    It would be good if Council could make this information available in a timely manner so that residents can make an informed response.

  21. In Port Macquarie NSW on “Change of Use - Dwelling to...” at 24A Granite Street Port Macquarie NSW 2444, Australia:

    Wendy Jensen commented

    I believe this position or particular house wouldn't be appropriate as a medical centre. The off street parking there is already not enough for the residence around the area. And as well this dwelling has no off street parking
    The block and access is not suitable for elderly or disabled and very hard to access. Also the busy road makes it hard with small children. I think this would be more a traffic hazard than anything.

  22. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sophie T wrote to local councillor Melissa Brooks

    With all due respect, is it not a little late for Council to be issuing a draft traffic report? The traffic reports really should have been prepared before the approved developments have added an extra 1000 odd units into a very small area. The residents of Lewisham St were promised this report a few years ago given the narrow street is used as a way to get to Denison and then over to the western side of Dulwich Hill. The residents of Dulwich St were led to believe this report was due before the development at 429-449 New Canterbury Rd was approved. For this local resident it really seems like a waste of time and a very very late box ticking exercise which will only serve to tell us what we already know, that the streets of Dulwich Hill are becoming a car park and that the situation will only get worse ...

    Delivered to local councillor Melissa Brooks. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Lilyfield NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 145 Francis Street Lilyfield NSW 2040:

    Rebecca Fesq commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I would like to comment on the following:

    1) As the owner of 149 Francis Street, I am concerned that our building is shown incorrectly in sections and elevations. The proposal shows our highest point adjacent to 145 Francis, however it is actually sloping towards 145 Francis Street; the highest point being adjacent to 151 Francis Street. This shows the bulk incorrectly and therefore shows our building having a larger impact than it does.

    2) The upper bedroom on the Francis Street Elevation has a corner window which looks directly onto the pool in our yard. Due to the nature of my children and their friends using the pool, I would like to request privacy louvres or screens for this issue.

    3) Our extension is currently in construction phase. Our upper floor bedroom on the Francis Street Elevation has been designed to overlook the roofs to 145 and 143 Francis Street and therefore to alleviate any issues with views or privacy to neighbouring properties. We are concerned that the roof proposed at 145 Francis, at its highest point, is currently in line with eyesight level when standing in the corner of the room. We feel this loss of amenity is a waste of our efforts during construction and design to retain this; we are requesting the roof proposed in the application to 145 Francis to drop by 200mm. This will still enable a high and amenable ceiling height to 145 Francis Street whilst maintaining the amenity created at 149 Francis Street.

  24. In Eveleigh NSW on “Proposed mixed use...” at 35 Henderson Road Eveleigh NSW 2015:

    Craig Lindsay commented

    I strongly object to the proposed development. The new apartment complex is completely out of character with the neighbouring (former) Alexandria Hotel.

    A seven level building next a hotel? How is that going to work. The height exceeds height restrictions and should be rejected entirely for that reason alone.

    And by their own admission in the traffic report, the 26 Apartments will have NO parking what so ever. The developer seems to justify this by referring to access to "Excellent train and bus services." Clearly they are not regular users of Sydney Public Transport.

    Assuming at least some of the new residents have motor vehicles, where does the developer propose they park? Do they presume all residents of Alexandria live and work locally and can every where they need on the "excellent" bus and train network?

    This development has been rushed with very little thought or consideration of the affects it will have on the area and should not be allowed to proceed.

  25. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Melanie Gosling commented

    We are a young, professional family who have purchased our first home at a premium in October 2014. It is only a stones throw from this development proposal.
    We have not finished having a family either, and to know what crematorium emissions can do to an unborn child has me very concerned.
    We purchased in the area for the natural beauty, family facilities and school catchment. Not to have to resell in a couple of years at a loss, as the worry of stillborn and brain damage for future children is too much of a gamble for us.

  26. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Melissa Brooks commented

    Hello,

    I noticed a few people are looking for more information about the traffic and parking studies being undertaken in Dulwich Hill. Those studies were very recently completed and a draft went to today's traffic committee meeting. You can see the reports under the April heading on this page: http://marrickville.nsw.gov.au/en/community/get-involved/advisory-and-consultative-committees/pedestrian-cyclist-and-traffic-calming-committee/

    They will now be considered by council's Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services Committee on the first Tuesday in May. Residents can speak to the report at that meeting.

    The report will then be put on public exhibition and I would encourage you to make comments. I've only had a brief chance to read the report so far, but it does recommend some traffic calming measures that the community has previously suggested. I am very happy to have a meeting with you and your neighbours about the traffic and parking reports - on a weekend afternoon is the easiest for me. Please let me know if you think this would be useful. I do not inspect development sites except on council site inspections with staff (but as a local resident and your ward councillor I am very familiar with the area).

    Email is the best way to get in touch with me - mbrooks@marrickville.nsw.gov.au

    Best wishes,
    Clr Melissa Brooks (Burraga West Ward)

  27. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I strongly object to this development.
    1. the notion of a "live-work" dwelling is ill-defined and open to exploitation which adversely affects the amenity of neighbours.
    2. The size and scale of the building is inappropriate - the existence of neighbouring monstrosities such as Larry & Barry Towers on the corner of May St and the highway does not justify another.
    3. Until the state government improves our local public transport, public education and public health infrastructure we cannot afford to bring more people into the area just to profit developers and investors reliant on negative-gearing.
    4. For all the above reasons, it is not in the public interest.

  28. In Minto Heights NSW on “Commercial” at 49 Hansens Road, Minto Heights, NSW:

    Irene Roy commented

    Campbelltown City Council (Source: Campbelltown, reference558/2016/DA-C)
    Isn't this parcel of land on the Georges River Reserve Belt
    We don't need the run off from a commercial venture like this to run into the creeks and Georges River, we can't swim in Georges River now with out getting a earache or worse
    It's very sad how the river and the creeks are, the river bottom is slime, once upon a time it was clear, you could see the crayfish, fish, eels, the reeds growing from under the rocks in the water, the clean sand, it was beautiful and you could swim in the river, drink the water, you would die if you drank it now, you could camp in the bush and hear the night animals moving around at night, there were always plenty of native animals you could see, lots of wild birds to hear
    Now someone wants to cage the animals, the land doesn't look big enough, my thinking is, if you want to see native animals and birds, put some shoes on and go for a hike, we have some beautiful bushwalks in the whole Campbelltown area, get out and breath the fresh air, see the animals or their tracks
    Please leave The Georges River Reserve Belt as is "Natural" :)

  29. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Douglas Walton commented

    I note that I have missed the deadline for submissions to the council on the above matter. However, I feel that this comment is important enough to consider as part of the determination of the application from Visionstream.

    I've taken the time to read the proposal from Visionstream carefully and I believe there is a rather large omission from their Environmental Impact statement. According to Schedule 3A of the ISEPP, the proposal does not appear to be permissible as the lot they claim is a natural barrier (119 Bulls Garden Road - Lot 2052 DP 823719) to the residential zone to the north is actually zoned R2. Under the code it states "If the tower is located on land in Zone IN1, IN2 or IN3 or an equivalent land use zone, the tower must not:
    (a) be located within 100 metres of a Zone R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 or RU5 or equivalent land use zone boundary".

    I know of at least one occasion that this lot was attempted to be sold to developers since I've been a resident of this estate. Under these guidelines I believe the council has no other option but to reject this application outright.

  30. In Leichhardt NSW on “2nd two storey additions...” at 100 William Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Linda Martin commented

    This is my great aunts house, built 1912 by my great grandfather .102 was built for my Grandmother who lived there her whole life . The streetscape should remain the same .I would be ok with the current owners adding a contemporary addition to the rear.

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