Recent comments

  1. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Jeremy & Narelle Baillie commented

    We support this application,

    Our understanding is all Menai Baptist Church is applying to do is transfer their meeting space on a Sunday from one building on the site to another.

    The change of location into the recently built performing arts center within the existing site, will mean greater facilities for the elderly, those hard of hearing and others with mobility challenges. The new center also has advanced acoustics that will protect the neighbors from any noise concerns. We believe this application will have no impact whatsoever on traffic or parking as there is already ample parking on site.

    Menai Baptist Church was established on this site in 1980 and has been apart of the community since this time. The church provides services to the community on a number of different levels and adds value to the lives of those within the 2234 area.

    We trust the Council will take a common sense approach to this minor development application.

  2. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Vikki Kay and Jeff Kay commented

    We wish to support the application to move the meeting place of Menai Baptist Church from one area of the Inaburra Complex to another. We have been residents of the Menai area for the past 30 years and have used both the School facilities to educate our children and the Church facilities as members of Menai Baptist Church since 1995. It has been our experience that both Church and School actively encourage users of the complex to be gracious and mindful of our neighbours including parking within the boundaries of the complex. The change to meeting in the Performing Arts Centre (PAC) will have no greater impact on the neighbourhood than it has meeting in the current "Media Centre" facility and in fact will greatly improve any noise as the PAC is soundproof and also has greater control of any noise levels.

    We would also point out that some of our congregation are elderly. The PAC will allow greater access and comfort for not only the more elderly but for all those with mobility challenges.

    We wholeheartedly support this application.

    Vikki & Jeff Kay

  3. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of six double...” at 5 Downs Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    frank pirro commented

    i and many pascoe vale residents have had enough of townhouses and units being built in our area ,we are choking; parking andtraffic,problems,open space disappearing,etc.i strongly oppose to the application of boxes built on one block.

  4. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Mrs Roz Piper commented

    I have just learned of this proposed development application (DA 1376/2014) and am absolutely appalled that residents who will be affected have not been notified. This development will impact so negatively on the amenity of this special area and I question the need for another supermarket when we have a perfectly adequate local grocer and pharmacy as well as large supermarkets Coles and Woolworths less than 5 minutes away in Swansea.

    There is so much secrecy around this development application that I feel extremely concerned about it. The residents I have spoken to seem unclear about the height - is it 4 storeys, 5 storeys or even unbelievably 8 storeys as some reports suggest.

    Please do not think that a development of this magnitude can be "smuggled in" by stealth without those most affected being made aware of all the ramifications.


    Roz Piper
    Caves Beach

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sylvie McCarthy commented

    I'm am a resident of Whitebridge and am concerned about the impact that development proposal 1774/2013 will have on our community.
    In it's current form this proposed development is not suitable for our residential suburb, mainly due to it's density and height. Objections that I (and many other residents) have include the development proposal not adequately accounting for traffic and safety problems that will arise as a consequence of an inappropriate number of houses and people, and there being no thorough environmental or social impact reports.
    In it's current form this development should be rejected. A development that is appropriate for the site would benefit future and current residents. We want a well designed and low to medium density development.

  6. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Amanda Millar commented

    I strongly object to the planned development DA1376/2014 at 55 Caves Beach Bottlemart site.

    The shade would deeply affect both residents and students at the Swansea High School. I do not believe the planned development is in keeping with the environment and believe that the knock on affects will be unacceptable.
    The people in this area include those who are aged and they need the sun in their backyard.

    This proposal has not been available for community consultation.

    This proposal has two many levels and does not fit with the environment.

    The drainage and water infrastructure is also of grave concern.

    The type of industry this proposal would attract is not what the residents of Caves Beach want.

    I am sure the local Newspaper should also ask questions about this proposal.

    Amanda Millar

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Niclas Hakansson commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the development proposal 1774/2013. Although the developers have redesigned the development, they have ignored the biggest and most concerning issues, those being:
    • the negative social impact this type of development will have on a residential suburb;
    • the traffic and safety problems that will arise;
    • the disregard for negative environmental impact and;
    • the inappropriateness of the size and density of the development.

    Negative Social Impact:
    The fact that this development will not sit harmoniously with the existing suburb will create an ’us’ and ’them’ mentality which is inducive to crime. It will negatively impact upon the community-minded spirit of the neighbourhood. The pleasant, neighbourly atmosphere of this suburb will be destroyed. One development should not be allowed to negatively impact so many people. Whitebridge is a Neighbourhood Centre, according to the LMCC, so why is a development which follows guidelines for a Regional Centre being applied to Whitebridge?
    The local character of Whitebridge, which has existed over many generations, would be tragically changed forever. Whilst this land should and must be developed, current residents must not be subjected to such a mutation of their neighbourhood in order to satisfy the aspirations of a commercial developer. Additionally, future residents of new housing in Whitebridge should enjoy a feeling of belonging to and fusing with the community, rather than feeling detached due to such an obvious discordance in their living arrangements.
    The suggestion that 92 dwellings is appropriate on this piece of land is ludicrous, as is 3-4 storeys in a suburb of free-standing houses. The visual monstrosity will not be the only problem - higher density living is associated with negative social outcomes. It decreases social interaction of residents and detracts from a sense of community. Our suburbs should be nurtured if we are to further increase our quality of living and the desirability of our Local Government Area.
    The design report from the developer states, "The secondary dwellings will allow additional rental affordability." (page C:02) This implies the development is aimed as investment properties. This mismatch of demographics will also contribute toward changing the character of the suburb which is 81% owner occupied. When considering this new housing is all on one block, it is glaringly obvious that there is a mismatch with the current character of the suburb.

    Traffic and Safety Problems:
    Lonus Avenue is already at capacity during peak school times and to add an additional, say, 200 cars to this equation, coming in and out of Kopa St, onto Lonus, would be disastrous. The roundabout also already experiences traffic congestion at these times. The safety of pedestrians is at risk if this development is to go ahead. Families with prams accessing the park, Birralee Daycare Centre, and Whitebridge Preschool on Tumpoa Street, school children walking to and from Whitebridge High and the general public accessing shops and facilities will be placed in a daunting position of navigating overly-busy roads and crossings. This is not the spirit of a ’Neighbourhood Centre’.
    It appears the developers are quite aware of this problem as they have obviously attempted to down-play the traffic situation in their report and have not appropriately addressed the characteristics of the area, that being a high pedestrian/cyclist zone. Additionally, the traffic survey took place on one afternoon only.
    There are no provisions for improved roads and/or traffic conditions in this application.
    Parking is also already a problem in Whitebridge, with cars parked along Dudley Road for people to access the shops and cafes. This impacts upon visibility for pedestrians and motorists. The 20 ’new’ carparks being offered by the developer are not technically ’new’ as the area being assigned to this is currently used to capacity as overflow parking from the formal carpark on Dudley Rd.
    It is inevitable that there will also be parking overflow from the development itself, considering the parking assigned in the DA is realistically not adequate for the number of dwellings.

    Negative Environmental Impact:
    I am very concerned about how arrangements for stormwater will impact upon the Fernleigh Track. The calculations appear flawed and the Track is in danger of being impacted during any periods of heavy rain.
    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from any use by the development.

    Safety and Traffic Problems:
    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    The way this piece of land is to be developed needs to be considered with much greater regard for both current and future residents of the area. If the development goes ahead in its current form, a disastrous precedent will be set for more of our suburbs to be developed in a similarly mindless and careless fashion.

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Laurie Mascord commented

    Re: DA/1774/2013

    I wish to object to the current development proposal. It is entirely inappropriate for a NEIGHBOURHOOD centre, which is the classification of Whitebridge as assigned by LMCC. This DA reflects the guidelines for development in a REGIONAL centre.

    Density and Design/

    With a proposed 91 dwellings, this is a gross and opportunistic over-development of the site. SNL are proposing 54 dwellings per hectare, whereas LMCC Lifestyle 2030 stipulate 30-40 dwellings per hectare. The 7(2) conservation land should be excluded from any calculation. This type of development is entirely out of sync with a suburb of majority single-family housing.

    Section 2.7 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Development Control Plan No. 1 “deals with the need for development to respond to the Local Context by identifying desirable elements of its existing character that will contribute to the future character of an area.” (page 1) The proposed development does not incorporate any of the ‘desirable elements’ of Whitebridge, nor does it reflect its ‘existing character’.

    Environmental Impact/

    The 7(2) land should also remain independent from pathways enabling permeability through the site.
    The ecological corridor must be respected as important and irreplaceable for flora and fauna and should in no way be impacted by any development.

    Social Impact/

    In their report on Increasing Density in Australia (2012), Giles-Corti, Ryan and Foster explain how environmental criminologists assert that safe neighbourhoods are characterised by greater land-use homogeneity, with less mixed-use development and more single-family housing. The proposed development is in opposition to these characteristics of safe neighbourhoods.

    Aestethically, the proposed development is imposing, shocking and unbefitting, not only for residents and shoppers, but for recreation-makers on the Fernleigh Track, which is one of the jewels in the crown of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. The visual and atmospherical contrast between Whitebridge and the rest of the experience on the Fernleigh Track would be shameful.

    The request that developer’s contribution s94 be waived is unjustified. Dedication to council of roads, park and conservation area is not ’generous’ on the part of the developer, considering permeability through the site and open space/recreational areas are strongly recommended by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Further, the ’urban space’ proposed on Dudley Rd is not something that was requested by, or even desired by, the community, due to its strong potential for anti-social behaviour. When one takes into account the developer’s plan to use public land for parts of the project (Dudley Rd for the ’urban space’ and Kopa St for private driveway to Lot 23), this request becomes not only ’cheeky’, but blatantly disrespectful.

    Safety and Traffic Problems/

    A single entry/exit point, that being Kopa Street, for 92 dwellings will clearly cause tremendous changes in traffic conditions not only in Kopa Street, but on Lonus Avenue, and the roundabout via which most drivers access Lonus Avenue. The adjacent park, which is used regularly, the tennis courts and the oval will become much less-pleasant places to frequent. This will break down community ties. The traffic along Lonus Avenue will also put families of the Birralee Long Day Care Centre at risk. Students accessing Whitebridge High School by foot along Lonus will be placed in greater danger, and families accessing Whitebridge Preschool in Tumpoa Street will be negatively affected. It is already difficult and sometimes dangerous for buses using Lonus Ave to access the high school.

    Traffic along Dudley Rd will inevitably increase, which will increase the liklihood of accidents for people attempting to turn onto this road from side-streets. It is already hazardous to do so, as is it hazardous to walk the streets of Whitebridge, particularly when attempting to cross Dudley Rd. Considering the current insurge of young families, this is in opposition to the desired character of the area.


    IF this development is approved, a precedent will be set for land of this zoning to be developed in a similarly careless manner, thus putting more of our suburbs at risk of disaffection.

    Within Whitebridge, there exists massive potential for dramatic increases in density, due to the zoning of land on Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue. In other words, these problems have the potential to become even bigger. A careful, predictive view is needed to ensure this suburb grows at a manageable rate.

    The community of Whitebridge and surrounding suburbs have clearly, confidently and justifiably stated their lack of support for this project. This must have weight against the self-gratifying intentions of a developer. Residents have communicated an understanding and acceptance of the inevitability of the site being developed; it is the nature of this development which is being rejected. An appropriate development which adds value to the community and which reflects the spirit and regulations of the governing council would be embraced.

    Laurie Mascord

  9. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use & fit out...” at 1C Whateley Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Adriano Pupilli commented

    This is an exemplary proposal that the City of Sydney should support 100%. Fusing a community workshop environment with a hub for good food and social interaction. It is a fantastic model for mixed use development, something the City of Sydney has been working to achieve for the last 10 years.

    I am a past resident of Lennox St and frequent patron of the Rising Sun pop-up there. Over the past few months they've been operating it has improved surveillance and community atmosphere of the street and park opposite. At the Mitre 10 site it will create a more active building frontage, encouraging social interaction and passive surveillance of the carpark and back lane which can feel dodgy at times. I couldn't imagine a better location or a more genuine bunch of people to make this place happen.

    Please support this application.

  10. In Newport NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 28 Walworth Avenue Newport NSW 2106:

    Sharon and Paul sands commented

    We are residents of 105 Queens pde East. We request the following:
    1. That all run off from this development is sent into correct stormwater and drainage facilities. There is no mention of detention storage or a flow spreader in the application to mitigate adverse impacts from runoff on downstream properties.
    2. That any pumps and or filter equipment is not placed on the northern fenceline.due to adverse noise levels. These should be placed on the southern side of the pool.
    3. That measures are in place for the management of overflowing water following heavy rainfall to the pool. Mitigation strategies need to be in place due to the impact of overflowing pool.
    4.. A privacy screen is erected on the northern fenceline
    5. That the significant magnolia tree is not damaged by excavation and therefore, the pool be set back from fenceline and root system.

  11. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Roslyn Stewart commented

    I feel that to approve this application would be very wrong. Already people in the area are going to have to get ready for the subdivision for Jacarandah Ponds. Caravan Parks usually attrack people of lesser standards of living than home owners and im sure the future buyers of Jacarandah Ponds would not be too impressed with this. Also how many times does it have to be brought to councils attention of the lack of infrastructure and services on this side of the river. There is also not enough things to do for people if they dont have a car. Such as if a caravan park is near the river at least people can fish or swim and even if council says they need to build play equipment etc it would be soon vandalised and rendered useless so please think very carefull councellors before saying yes to this application and maybe think of the residents already here who pay rates and will already will be having to live with 580 new homes. Vote no to this application. I

  12. In Richmond VIC on “Partial demolition,...” at 51 Firebell Lane Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish commented

    Does this have overlooking consideratiosn for surrounding properties?

  13. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Cate Buskin commented

    As a 40year resident of the area I endorse the many concerns expressed by the other
    residents re the proposed development.

    The density and height of the development are out of character in this suburb.

    Access issues have not been adequately addressed. ( Have council considered crossing over Fernleigh track to Station St as an additional access so Dudley road roundabout will be less congested?)

    The new proposal plan looks better than the previous one but has environmental and height issues. Surely Whitebridge shopping centre would be dwarfed by four storeys on the roadside.

    I am also concerned that the already limited parking would not be able to cater for more

    I Implore council to ensure this development is scaled down to a more suitable size and density which is in harmony with the area.

  14. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Ross Clay commented

    We have been residents of the Shire for over 35 years and have enjoyed the community, environment and lifestyle that it provides for residents. Over the years we have attended several churches in the Shire and are currently members of Menai Baptist Church.
    We support the current application to move to the Performing Arts Centre because it will be positive for both the Bangor Residents as well as community members who attend the Church. Our reasons for this support are;
    1. The move only involves moving from one building to another on the same site.
    2 .Existing parking facilities will continue to be utilized with no on street parking needed.
    3.The new facility has been purpose built and has better acoustic qualities for those inside as well as those in the neighbouring properties if noise was considered a factor.
    4.Those with physical and hearing disabilities will benefit greatly from a move to this facility.
    5. Eliminate the need to convert a classroom type environment each Sunday to a Church Worship Centre and then return it at the end of the day to facilitate the school,s requirements.
    Carol & Ross Clay

  15. In Caves Beach NSW on “Mixed Use Development and 1...” at 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Karen Webb commented

    I object to the development DA/1376/2014 – 55 Caves Beach Road, Caves Beach. Even though our house is not directly affected by this development, I do not think that there is any need for a 5 storey apartment block within Caves Beach. This is not an inner city community, where housing is at a premium. I believe that even 2 storeys on that high block will create enough oceanviews for the residents. Raising the height from 13 metres to 21 metres, without community consultation is unforgivable.

    The building of a new small supermarket is also not necessary. We currently have a small line of shops that will potentially lose out if an IGA supermarket is developed on the site, and there is no need as Coles and Woolworths are a short walk or drive down into Swansea.

    Having an additional 79 Units occupied will create more traffic – cars already tear along Caves Beach Road now – and this is quite close to the Nursing Home which would be a danger to the elderly residents and their visitors. Currently in the daytime, when cars are parked across from the Nursing Home, a blind spot is created, this would be much worse with more traffic flow. There is only one exit in and out of Caves Beach, which is quite dangerous enough now.

    It is hard to trust this development will not be completely different to what is in the plans – it seems to be completely secret and underhanded with no notice to the community. This should be put in a prominent place so that all residents can have their say – and give them more than the paltry 2 weeks that has been granted with this application.

  16. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Review request under...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    KW commented

    I refer to the request to change the plans on this development. I have previously made comment on this and will again. I refer to the letter received from Council which clearly states "to change the internal layout of unit 9 and unit 10 for the PROVISION of roof top terraces". I am totally opposed to the development being modified to this extent. I do not have the original plans available and am unsure whether a rooftop terrace was included initially.

    This development has had numerous applications for modifications put in and had even commenced building but had still not reached an agreement with Council concerning the carparking for the complex! Speaking to local residents a lot of concern is still based around a development such as this being so close to the traffic lights and where the exit for cars will be.

    How is it that developers are permitted to commence building and selling apartments off the plan when in fact the plans are not finalised? Shady, shady, shady!

    I note the comment by S Mirian who has apparently contracted to purchase one of these units.

    I believe that the argument/s by the purchaser should be directed at the developer - misrepresentation - not only to the purchaser but also to the residents and Council. Further, I hope that the strata - once formed - permits pets!

  17. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Canberra Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    John commented

    I have been looking for any friends of Turramurra or the environment (anybody know of any?). I have not had a chance to look at Canberra Avenue (am born and bred on the Chase Road though, so not far away). Re another development matter - demolitions with ZERO NOTICE to neighbours -- There was a demolition and rebuild done on Fairlawn Avenue (presumably involving one of both of private certification / complying development which even on the day of demolition the Council said they knew nothing of. Therefore, needless to say, no tree protection zones were stipulated. One very large tree was probably affected by roots cutting within 2m of it so it is sheer luck it seems to have discussed ill effects. Have been looking for anyone who knows of other house demolitions completely sans notification to neighbours - and/or is interested in getting these (notifications - tree protection) better regulated. The situation of course deteriorated starting with the so-called 'Sator reforms' ---- And, finally, have also I have written this webpage on another case of poor tree protection not in the Kuringai LGA .... .... it turns out too that this is not an isolated instance, for after seening that one I began looking at other large trees at building sites and has seen some other (not as bad) cases. ~ John (

  18. In Crows Nest NSW on “Increase the maximum height...” at 29 Albany Street Crows Nest NSW 2065:

    Ian Brennan commented

    This application appears to be submitted as the building nears completion.

    It would seem that the development is looking to extend the already-agreed boundaries of the development, without understanding the impact to the homes across the road, nor the offices and amenities surrounding the development.

    It would seem that this would impact the environment around the area, leading to an encroachment of a "St Leonards" skyline into Crows Nest itself.

  19. In Sydney NSW on “Use of the Existing...” at Inaburra School 75-79 Billa Rd Bangor 2234:

    Brett Robinson commented

    I support this application.

    I am an ex-student of Inaburra, a Menai Baptist Church member and Music Director for the Sunday morning services. The relocation from one building to another building on the same site will have a number of benefits for the church and local community. From a sound perspective, the design of the current building (Media Centre) has an acoustic atmosphere where it is more difficult to control sound quality, clarity and volume. Consequently, the music and sound technical team have a heightened level of awareness when caring for the comfort of our congregation; in particular for our more senior members, young children and those with hearing sensitivities. While some audio improvement measures have been implemented, ultimately the design of the current building means that the desired level of audio control will not be obtainable.

    Utilising a purpose built facility (which is on the same site and has zoning that allows for the use as a Place of Public Worship) that alleviates these sound issues is the most desirable outcome. The Performing Arts Centre has been designed such that sound quality, clarity and volume can be controlled at an optimum level.

  20. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition, reduction...” at 153-155 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121:

    Roger Daily commented

    Yet another application for a reduction in the required car parking at the expense of the amenity of existing residents. If the developer wants to turn a profit from this site then do it in compliance with the requirements for parking. Richmond is being ruined by developments like this.

  21. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Judith Gray commented

    I am a long term resident of Whitebridge and I regularly use Dudley Road for access to Pacific Highway. I also use the Fernleigh track as a commuter.

    I am very concerned about the effect of additional traffic from the proposed development - parking is already difficult at the Whitebridge shops and I believe the additional ~ 200 vehicles likely from this development, that will be accessing Kopa Street will overload the roundabout area.

    I also have some questions about the development proposed on the Environmental 7(2) zone. I would like to know if this proposed pathway, stormwater management structures and landscaping meets the requirements for the ecological corridor.

    I also have serious concerns about the height of the proposed buildings on Dudley Road and the density of the other buildings proposed, which are not in keeping with other current developments in the suburb.

    Finally, I dispute that the dedication to Council of roads, park and conversation land is beneficial to the extent that the developers contribution S94 be waived.

    Judy Gray

  22. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Peter Asmussen commented

    A Caravan Park in Wattle Crescent Glossodia would be completely inappropriate for more reasons than I could describe here.
    I hope that those deciding on this application have the sense to deny this application at the first opportunity.

    I sense that the local community, currently disillusioned with recent revelations of council decision making processes, will not not stand for this development going ahead.

    Over 500 people in 10 hrs have signed on to an online residents group opposing this application. I would expect to see a lot more opposition to this development, and to any council move to support it. I will involve myself fully in this opposition.

    I am involved in the community in many capacities...Rural Fire Service; Soccer Club; and with Glossodia Public School. I pay my rates and ask for no special considerations.

    I do not want this development to go ahead.

  23. In South Yarra VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 43 Wilson Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Jim commented

    There is too many apartments going up in this area. So many trucks and noise nearly all week. Traffic problems and hard to park.

  24. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Review request under...” at 743 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    S Mirian commented

    I am the buyer of one of the two units this rooftop proposal affects. I am in support of the rooftop terrace being approved but not as presented in this submission. Outlined below are my reasons why this is the case. 

    1. I find it concerning that, as the buyer of this unit, our family pet who is home during the days while my partner and I are at work, will not be able to access the rooftop terrace. This was a strong incentive to purchase this unit and makes our PRIVATE PERSONAL space inaccessible for most of the day.

    2. It is completely unacceptable to separate private areas of a person's unit, with the only way to access this space being a shared staircase or common area. The previous plans showed our own internal staircase from the downstairs living space to the upstairs area allowing our pet and children between OUR OWN spaces. 

    3. It presents safety concerns as, in an emergency, a small shared stairwell is the only way out, and both PRIVATE rooftops may be used for entertaining with several people there at any time. It also seems highly possible that someone could potentially lock themselves out of their own unit and be stuck on the rooftop with no other way down. 

    4. This shared stairwell presents a security issue given that an intruder could try and gain access to one of the units from within the stairwell, uninterrupted and out of sight of any witnesses.

    This proposal of a shared stairwell to units 9 & 10 is not a viable solution to council's concerns.

    The intention of adding the open rooftop provides more outdoor space, adding room for greenery and vegetation, and is in line marrickville council's green equity paper which promotes the idea of using open space.

    This most recent submission proposing a shared stairwell to the rooftop seems unnecessary. With the removal of the pergola, and by using a privacy blade on the rooftop level, as done on the north facing balcony below (rather than minimizing the trafficable space on the rooftop), there is sufficient space for two separate stairwells to each unit and would present an aesthetic that is already in line with what council has approved for the balcony directly below.

    This minimizes any privacy concerns and visual bulk as viewed from adjoining properties.

  25. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    William Abell commented

    I have just one question:

    How can this application be even considered when the major issues from the previous application, which was rejected, have not been addressed?

  26. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Curli Abell commented

    I can not believe that this proposal has been amended to be even worse that what it was. This development is all about greed and does not have the well being of this area in mind at all.

    NONE of the issues from the previous application have been addressed. Complete contempt has been shown with an even worse proposal.

    If this land is to be developed it should be in keeping with what the majority of people want not what greedy developers want, you as councilors were voted in to represent us, it is now up to you to do your job and represent us.

    Do not let this proposal get through as it stands.

  27. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Anne-Marie Abell commented

    Here I am writing another objection to this proposal :-(

    I find it hard to believe that this latest proposal is even more appalling than the first!

    All objections previously have included concern over the density of the development and now this latest plan is for even greater density and more stories, all on an area of mine subsidence!

    Come on guys, let's get real here, please.

  28. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Brenda Carter commented

    The latest proposal for the development at 142-146 Dudley Rd., Whitebridge is even more appalling than the first. The chief objection previously had been the density of the over-development - the latest plan is for even greater density, plus more storeys than before, over a mine subsidence area.
    I attended the information session at The Place, Charlestown on 9th July 2014. The developer tried to gloss over the huge concern that the local community has about the enormous impact that the development will have on traffic in Kopa Street, Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road. There is urgent need for an independent assessment of current traffic flows over several representative days (not just on one wildly unrepresentative day as previously, which happened to be a sports day) to gauge impacts of the over-development.
    Further, I strongly suggest the proposal be put on hold following the revelations at the ICAC to allow a thorough review of controversial developments such as this, involving developers adversely mentioned in the commission.

  29. In Mona Vale NSW on “New single dwelling-...” at 93 Narrabeen Park Parade Mona Vale NSW 2103:

    Robert Brian Harvie & Miri Frances Craig commented

    Comment Re: DA No. NO297/14

    We are residents of 15 Bruce St., Mona Vale, which is situated directly East of the proposed new residence at 93 Narrabeen Park Parade, Mona Vale.

    Apologies, firstly, for our response's being a couple of days later than the published response time from Pittwater Council.

    We wish to state that we have no particular objections to the proposed dwelling, but we wish to make clear that we support the objections of our Neighbours, namely residents in Nos. 95, 140, & 142 Narrabeen Park Parade.

    These objections encompass height of eastern skillion roof, loss of views, & nature of vegetation.
    Our final comment is Our request for builders to have no loud radios whilst the building is in progress.

  30. In Lewisham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 7 Mcgill Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Stuart commented

    Lewisham is being destroyed by unchecked over development brought to you by Liberal NSW and their donors in the over-development industry, coupled with Marrickville council controlled by ALP and LNP.

    The traffic problems on Old Canterbury Rd at Station St and surrounds will be appalling after hundreds of apartments are built in such a small area. Goodbye local light industry and jobs, hello profit for land owners, including those who owned the mattress factory that mysteriously burnt down.

    These developments should be opposed.

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