Recent comments

  1. In Cronulla NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 112 Nicholson Pde Cronulla 2230:

    David and jenny Morgan commented

    David and Jennifer Morgan
    45 Trevellyan St Cronulla
    2230
    janddmorgan@bigpond.com
    Development no - DA12/0870

    * My wife and I are opposed to the above development.

    * The original owners of this site were granted permission to run a preschool with 15 / 16 children aged 1 day to 3 years.

    * The new owners have had the age raised to 5 years already and now want to double the capacity. This is a business being run in a suburban house on a tiny piece of land.

    * In our opinion there is not enough room for the children to run around and exercise their developing bodies, eyes and brains in this crowded environment. Having high fences does not help the development of children's eye site. In wet weather the children have to be inside or on a verandah for the length of their stay.

    * There will be a big increase in traffic if this increase occurs. There will be a nasty accident soon because a number of the parents like to do u-turns in Trevellyan St.

    * There will be an increase in noise levels in the local environment. We both notice this as we have recently retired.

    * The preschool will have to increase their waste disposal to cater for the extra children. Think of the increase in the number of nappies over a week, rubbish night is Wednesday morning currently. What happens to all of those disposable nappies over the weekend?

    * Does the council run preschool on the corner of Sunset Ave and Nicholson Pde have a different pupil to land ratio or are my eyes deceiving me?

    * Please note that our objections are all based on the figure of 33 children.

  2. In Melrose Park NSW on “Removal of 4 underground...” at 2 Hope Street Melrose Park NSW 2114:

    Dennis Eden commented

    Sorry,the address must be wrong No.2 Hope street is close to the corner of Atkins Road and the number is shown 2 times on the property.

  3. In Glen Iris VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 1721 - 1727 Malvern Road & 11 Paran Place & 1535 High Street, Glen Iris, VIC:

    Karen Skillington commented

    The current fire station in Waverley Rd has much safer, immediate access to the main road and arterial roads than this site. If you have driven frequently around Paran Place and this area of shops adjacent, its not rocket science to work out that Paran Place is a difficult site to leave safely from if you are in a hurry! As well as traffic banked up on High St, or traffic flowing quickly to fast, there are many pedestrians running to the train station using phones and listening to their music. I can't imagine this site for a Fire Station was chosen out of safety considerations. In fact, the train crossing is in dire need of an up grade (not about to happen any day), because of the large volumes of traffic that cross it to access on and off the Monash Freeway. There must have been safer, less congested and busy places that the MFB should have chosen. It appears the Paran Place site was probably decided upon because of cost alone, not for any other reason. For safety reasons, I don't think this application should have been chosen.

  4. In Kensington NSW on “Change of use to offices &...” at 76-82 Anzac Parade Kensington NSW 2033:

    K. Budd commented

    Noise from Anzac Parade whether from traffic or existing commercial properties i.e. Liquorland is directed and channelled upwards towards premises on the far side of the road including the various apartments.

    The soundproofing proposed for the music rooms must be robust enough to shield the surrounding residential properties, particularly given the later hours of operation of the music rooms (i.e. 7pm).

    Suggest high quality double glazing for the music rooms. This will also be of benefit to the proposed development by blocking out much of the constant traffic noise.

    Thankyou.

  5. In Bexley North NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 - 20 Sarsfield Circuit, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    A Dong commented

    Dear Officer,

    As a resident of the nearby unit I have serious concerns regarding this new development.
    1. The current structure of the building appears to be well maintained. To destroy it, it is just a waste of resource, and unnecessary damage to our environment. I question the true value in the restructuring
    2. With the already newly built units on this street, I’m questioning the real benefits to the current/new residents such as myself? As far as I’m aware there are no plans in upgrading the shopping facilities or increasing the frequency of the trains stopping at Bexley North station. Both of which are major accountabilities to take into considerations when more units are to be built within the area.
    3. This development will also increase the traffic follow not only on the already congested Bexley road, as well as Sarsfield Circuit, which is a small and narrow strip of road that is not equipped to take additional traffic flow in particularly during peak hour. This can also lead to safety concerns.
    As a result I strongly believe that the council should look at upgrading the commercial faculties within the area first, before accepting development applications for more units to be built in an already congested area within Bexley North.

    Kind Regards

    Resident of Bexley North

  6. In Bexley North NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 - 20 Sarsfield Circuit, Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Liang Dong commented

    Hi there,

    Regarding this development application, I would like to express my following concerns:

    1. It appears that the map provided under this application points to a relatively new apartment building. If so, this is development application will be value-detroying instead of value adding to the surrounding community.

    2. The increased population density will increase utilisation of Bexley Road in the nearby area, which has already been heavily and frequently used by road vehicles including passenger vehicle, trucks and motorbike. The current level of road use plus the inconsistency of road surface (i.e. mix of bitumen and gravel/concrete road surface at difference lanes) already cause significant road noise, which makes the living in the nearby area unpleasant and stressful.

    Many residents including myself in the newly built Sarsfield Circuit apartment already have serious concern over the current road noise level from the street. The proposed development will further exacerbate the situation.

    3. There has already been considerable amount of apartment being errected on the Sarsfield Circuit. Having additional apartment development will place significant strain on the existing lack of street parking in the surrounding area. This subsequently force residents and visitors to use or increase the usage the nearby car park for purposes other than shopping.

    4. This development is likely to render the unavailability of the businesses such as Woolworth in the neighbourhood, which serves many households not only the nearby area but also the wider Bexley North community. This will significantly reduce the convenience.

    On these basis, this development application should not be approved based on the current status quo.

    Yours sincerely

  7. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Graham and Elizabeth Kauffman commented

    Town Planners did a marvellous job when they laid out Menai’s Central, Metro and Town Centre. People come from afar to shop, service their cars, see their dentist or doctor and then off to one the many eateries or restaurants. Menai attracts many shoppers from well outside the Sutherland Shire. Such a variety of shops and services and all within walking distance to each other. Plenty of parking is available close to these shops and services. Town Planners envisaged you seeing your GP then having your script filled at a nearby pharmacy. It all works so well with no disruption to the residential area.

    We now have a doctor wishing to expand his practice into our narrow residential tree lined cul-de-sac. This proposed practice will be less than 500 metres away from his current practice. Our town planners would be quite within their rights to ask “ Why dislocate the lives and amenity of the community when we have put so much money and time into planning Menai so that both commercial and residential properties were not in conflict with each other”.

    Our streets are considered to be safe havens for children, walking our dogs, mums pushing prams and the elderly strolling to the shops or buses. A commercial enterprise like a medical centre slipping in under the radar of our town planners may on the surface seem a blessing but has many undesirable consequences such as:-

    • Our narrow cul-de-sac becomes congested with cars and trucks slowing while turning and parking.
    • Graffiti and tags will adorn the brick walls of the surgery.
    • “No drugs or money kept on these premises overnight” since when did a silly little sign stop thieves breaking into premises so this type of crime will increase.
    • Six days a week commencing from 7 am. We are not supposed to have our lawn cut before 8am. (council regs) We are told the business will close at 5pm. Take a walk past the doctor’s present surgery and you will see people still in the waiting room at 6pm yet the business hours sign on the door says “closes at 5pm”.
    • Private driveways will be blocked from time to time by inconsiderate motorists running late for an appointment.
    • Strangers walking our street who previously had no reason to be in our street.
    • The doctor won’t be living on the premises so the manicured gardens will disappear, the letterbox becomes chocked and local papers pepper the driveway until cars running over them churn them to papier-mâché.

    We have read the planning development application and it addresses none of the resident or street concerns. Just a few of these being:-

    • Three car spaces provided. One for the doctor, one for the receptionist and one disabled. Where do the patients and reps park? In the street of course six days a week jostling for space with neighbours cars.
    • Traffic flow. People and cars entering and leaving the surgery right on a narrow corner. It will become an accident waiting to happen.
    • Caravans and boats in tow, garbage collections, liquid gas re fill trucks (elgas) and street sweepers will all have trouble negotiating the corner when vehicles are parked close to this tight corner.
    • Cars parking, doors slamming, engines revving, people waiting on the corner for the surgery to open. ambulances, pathology pickups and drop-offs, contaminated waste removal every day, courier pickups and drop-offs, medical supply reps. The list of daily visitors goes on.
    • Yes we have all seen these unkept, untidy homes used as a business where the owner resides elsewhere in his quiet tree lined street far from his place of work.

    We have studied this proposal in detail since May and we are sorry if we have offended anyone but we must side with our Town Planners and encourage the doctor to lease or buy a surgery in Menai’s business district where he will be welcomed with open arms. Here his business will include and not available in Miller Place are:-

    • unlimited safe free parking, security lighting, night security patrols, all garbage and wastes collected daily, on site gardener, cleaning and sweeping of the grounds daily, graffiti and tag removal daily, police station nearby, ambulance or emergency vehicle parking bay, pharmacy, xray and ultrasound facility, child minding, bus stop, taxi stand and not forgetting somewhere for the doctor and his receptionist to have a coffee or something to eat rather than sitting at their desks with the sick and injured.

    We very strongly object to this DA being approved.

  8. In Ormond VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 543-545 North Road, Ormond 3204, VIC:

    Ben Mason commented

    I find it hard to believe that another bottle shop can be placed in an area that has two already. One is located 50m away at the IGA and closes at a reasonable time. A second drive-thru is just on Grange Rd. The application if approved would make it the closest bottle shop located to a late trading Mc Donalds and KFC. I'm not opposed to opening bottle shops, however I am opposed to locality, late night opening hours and attributed trouble of these premises in the vicinity. This area is both commercial and residential and I hope that a safe and socially responsible decision can be made.

  9. In Abbotsford VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 140-144 Yarra St Abbotsford VIC 3067:

    Brendan Cigognini commented

    The current 2 storey buildings 140-144 Yarra St are already imposing from the backyard of 15 Paterson Street. To build dwellings double the height or even 3 storeys on the existing block of land and incorporating the visitor’s car park would
    1. be out of character to the Yarra street and the this pocket of Abbotsfords
    2. potentially reduce the afternoon sun into 15 Paterson Street backyard
    3. potentially raise the risk to maintaining privacy into the backyard of 15 Paterson Street
    4. create a very imposing structure only metres from 15 Paterson Street backyard fence
    5. Add to the existing parking woes to the residents of Yarra street and Paterson street
    6. set a height precedent for this pocket of Abbotsford

  10. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    In response to the comments by Diane Thomas 14/10/12 & 15/10/12

    The purpose of this website is to comment for and against the proposed development.

    The rant Diane has given is totally invalid. Diane is complaining about the car parking and speeding - precisely why most people are negative to the proposal. So Diane is actually against the proposed development over parking & traffic reasons.

    The statement Diane made that she hopes that people that are opposing this development, "are sick and there is no one to help." is totally out of line and just shows her character for what she really is. I believe her comments regarding the proposal should be struck from any record of such.

    Anyone is welcome to comment on the proposal positively or negatively in a succinct way without the sort of intimidation and slander that Diane Thomas seems to think she is entitled to do.

    Diane Thomas has made the proposal invalid as many people who may have wanted to comment may be now too scared to do so. This intimidation will now not show the true majority of opinions and comments of the local community which may have been very different if it wasn't for Diane Thomas.

    Sutherland Shire Council must consider what has been written by Diane Thomas intimidating people when conducting the approval evaluation process.

    I welcome everybody to comment ASAP regarding this proposal without prejudice.

  11. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Melissa Kewin commented

    Just to make clear my points in regards to opposing the proposed business at 29 Miller Place, Menai.

    4.1.2.2 Overall aims/objectives page 17 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “quality of life of the local community will not be detrimentally effected” by this development proposal.

    Comment - My family’s and community negative impacts include:
    • Proposed business is approximately 40 meters from a 40 kilometre an hour school zone - then to a 50km zone. During school pick up time it is already very difficult to turn in to Trumper and Miller Place.
    • Everyday adults and children walk and ride bikes down Trumper and Miller Place on the street and not just the footpath as it is a quiet street. Huge concerns for the safety of these people with increased traffic and/or vehicles with the 2 dead end streets involved.
    • Business would be unsuitably positioned on the blind corner of 2 cul-de-sacs.
    • Any business (regardless of type of business) would be more suited to a commercial premises or main road with ample parking and road width. This will be detrimental on the business as well as residents.
    • This location for any business is extremely poorly thought of and deficient. With only one very small consulting room and reception this proposal will need expansion as growth may follow.
    • Increased traffic and noise from not only patients but pathology, staff, deliveries and medical sales representatives
    • Increased risk of crime due to drugs that may or even believed to be kept on premises
    • A reduction in visual appearance of the street as the appealing typical Miller Place residential look of the grassy front yard will be replaced by a concreted car park and business façade.
    • This business will generate noise from people arriving/exiting the building, cars and general business above the ambient area, especially for the adjoining and cross street neighbours. Some adjoining residents do work evenings.
    • Larger concrete surface area of car park will increase localised flooding downhill to neighbouring frontage. Concrete car park must be adequately drained not to cause flooding to adjoining neighbours downhill which is not mentioned in the plans. However this may be allowed for?


    4.3.1.1 Overall aims/objectives Page 19 of the Statement of Environmental Effect
    The proposed "will provide a desirable service within the community”

    Comment - Other businesses of this type already exists in multiple areas of this and surrounding suburbs – therefore is not a much needed or desired service. This is not a small country town with no services available.

    3.2 Development Statistics Page 11 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “Hours of operation 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. 8am to 1pm Saturday”
    Yet, Page 13 states: “The residential medical practice will operate from 7am - 5pm Monday to Friday and will be closed over the weekend”

    Comment - Conflicting hours of operation. We should be given clarification for proposal to proceed.

    4.1.2.3 Permissibility Page 17 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    The definition of a residential medical practice is as follows:
    “Residential medical practice means one or more rooms within (or within the curtilage of) a dwelling house used by not more than 3 health care professionals who practice in partnership (if there is more than one such professional) and who provides professional health care services to members of the public”

    Comment - We have no guarantee that this practice will not expand from 1 doctor to 3 in the future. If this happens visitors will increase from 30 to 90+ a day. This will to a great extent increase traffic and noise also negatively affect driver and pedestrian safety in these narrow cul-de-sacs. There is absolutely no room for such traffic and parking without serious concerns for safety.

    4.4.11 Access, Servicing, Parking and Traffic Page 24 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “The parking provided for the site of 3 to 4 spaces for the medical practice meets and even exceeds the numerical requirement in council's development control plan.
    The design of the proposed parking layout will permit the majority of the patients to enter and exit the site in a forward direction using the existing driveway access provided. One of the spaces will require the occasional front in entry and reverse out exit and this movement is not considered a concern as it is similar to that occurring at the majority of the residential properties in this area”

    Comment -
    • No one can assume the patients will exit the practice in a forward facing direction – once again causing serious concerns for safety on a narrow corner. This cannot be policed or assumed otherwise.
    • Will it be possible for all vehicle sizes, including 4WD's that are common, to turn around to exit the practice in a front facing direction if there are other vehicles parked in spaces provided. This cannot be policed.
    • Patients may decide to park on the street rather than spaces provided increasing the risk of an accident on the narrow street. This cannot be policed or assumed otherwise.
    • 2 or even 4 cars per hour reversing is not “similar to the majority of residential properties in this area”. This is not including any future expansion which may occur.

    4.5.2 Tree Removal and Retention Page 27
    “The proposal does not involve removing any vegetation from the site in order to accommodate the medical practice”
    Yet, 3.3.3 Landscaping and tree removal Page 14 states
    “The proposal does not involve the removal of any native vegetation on the site however it is proposed to remove a small stand of Cocos palms and a conifer.”

    Comment - Once again conflicting information

    Conclusion -
    I can manage my family’s many medical issues locally and easily without the approval and go ahead of this development proposal. This letter is not stopping a medical practitioner from performing their duties. This is not personal. He can continue to practice as he already has a practice locally and there are many alternative locations locally for such a proposal and business.

    Regarding convenience, the negatives far outweigh the positives. The increased risks that this business proposal exposes onto the local residents, their visitors and children just cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. A corner store, hairdresser, mechanic or medical practitioner may be convenient, however this is an extremely bad location for any business.

    I believe this will be detrimental to quality of life in this street and strongly oppose this development proposal at 29 Miller Place, Menai.

  12. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Ian Ryan commented

    In response to the comments by Diane Thomas 14/10/12 & 15/10/12
    Well Diane, my wife and I always thought you were a nice person.
    It appears we were very wrong.
    For you to actually wish that we get sick and there is no one to help, is evil & vindictive.
    Perhaps, before you put your thoughts on paper you should actually think.
    My wife & I did not do the letter box drop you refer to.
    Nor did we know it was being done until we received our copy as you did.
    Why are you blaming us?
    I am a patient of Dr. Vihn Giang as you obviously are, so I know his address.
    I have always found him to be an excellent doctor.
    But this proposed move is a bad one for everyone in Trumper, Miller, O'Reilly & McCabe.
    Why? For the very reasons you have already stated.
    The main one being traffic & parking.
    It is a dangerous corner & I have parked my car in the street to demonstrate how difficult it is to get through. People are lazy & they will park on the street whether you think so or not.
    I would also like to thank you for your extremely rude & inaccurate letter you hand delivered to our letter box.
    You now blame me for 1. All the parked cars in Miller Place.
    2. People flying up & down the street.
    3. People doing U turns in Hall Drive & Trumper Place.
    4. People riding motor bikes at night.
    5. People in the street dying of cancer.
    6. People writing on walls & fences.
    And you ask what I intend doing about all of those.
    You then have the nerve to tell me to stop complaining, when it is YOU that has been placing all these comments on this facility.

    As a matter of interest, as much as I would like to solve all of the above complaints of yours.
    I am not a policeman, nor a magical healer, but I was on The Anti Graffiti Committee with Council some years ago, that was responsible for cleaning up all the back fences along Old Illawarra Road & planting the shrubs to deter future vandalism. I believe yours was one of the fences that benefited.
    But, I did not see you or any of your neighbours on that committee.
    This is only about having a Medical Practice at the entrance way to our small but busy Cul de Sac.
    Which is not only dangerous, it is not needed. If you look at the DA which you obviously have not you will see that there is still no treatment room for sick patients to lay down.
    This is the beginning of a large practice, because that is what the doctor wants.

  13. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Diane Thomas commented

    Hi how do you know how many cars go in and out of the doctors surgery if
    you havent got the address right. Today 15th October No. 27 and the house
    opposite deliberately had their cars out together so no one could hardly pass.
    Whats the good of doing this is its is very childish. I would like to complain to
    the council about cars parked together on either side. This is not how the
    doctor will have his cars. I have put up with a lot of cars parked in Miller Place
    for months and I think that the council should step in and do something about it.

    I dont really know where these people are getting their stories from???they do
    not make sense and cant even get the street right. I am very much in favour of the
    doctor coming up the street and I will keep writing this always.
    Diane Thomas

  14. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Olwyn Theivendran commented

    As commened earlier re. the cars collecting school kids, this will not be a problem as these cars turn on Trumper and not Miller.
    This Dr.will not be using no.2 Bradman(not Davidson) as well as Miller Place.
    No drugs or money will be stored on the premises as this Dr. bulk bills. Re. robberies Miller Pl. has had its fair share of them without a Dr. being around.
    My husband and I have absolutely no objection to a Dr. on our street as we are ageing, and, so are a lot of other residents
    Whatever has happened to the Australian way of giving a person a fair go. C'mon guys please
    LIVE and LET LIVE.

  15. In Surrey Hills VIC on “To use the land for a food...” at 111 - 113 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Evan Doumas commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I am a current cafe owner/retailer in Union road,Surrey Hills. We are finding it difficult to find parking for customers currently in this strip and another cafe in the area does not provide a diverse need for the community. The small strip has eight eateries with coffee making facilities and are all suffering due to the lack of business. Council needs to understand that the saturation of a like business will certainly see the strip slow down and many of these businesses will make their staff redundant. A fruit shop, newsagent, bank or other business is more a requirement rather another cafe.
    This application should not be approved.

    Regards

    Evan Doumas
    Retro cafe tel: 9898 9696

  16. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Diane Thomas and resident of 8 Miller Place. commented

    Yes I will add my comment. As for the doctor who is in 2 Bradman Road not
    2 Davidson Road as stated in the flyer delivered to the residents. The doctor is
    only going to have one practice. The practice he has at the moment is too
    small ie. if people are sick there is no bed for them to lay on while waiting for the
    doctor to attend. When I have passed the doctors surgery there has only been
    on or two cars at a time at the least four cars. There are other issues in Miller
    Place that are not good and should be dealt with. Coming down Miller place to
    the end where the Park is there is always cars parked on both sides of the
    road have you ever thought that children might be standing there and they might
    get knocked over. The residents of Miller Place do more than 50k and I have
    nearly been run over because residents dont pull over to let other people out.
    I think it should be no standing all along Miller Place and you should park your
    car in the driveway provided by your house. What about up at the school where
    mothers do u turns in Trumper place and there is no room for anyone to walk
    or kids from school cross. There are more important issues in the street than a doctor who is trying to provide medical attention to those who need it. Lets get the street organised with the cars first before someone or a child gets hit.

    I am appaulled that residents could be so awful towards someone who is trying to
    help people in need. I hope one day that one of the opposes are sick and there is no one to help.

    No. 6 and 8 Miller Place. 14/10/2012

  17. In Malvern VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 152 - 154 Wattletree Road, Malvern, VIC:

    Ann Reid commented

    The proposal to tear down two heritage buildings and replace them with a 4 storey building is typical of Cabrini's total disregard for the area in which it resides.

    Council should be protecting its heritage buildings in this area as it does in other areas of Stonnington.

    The entire application should be refused on this basis alone.

  18. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Melissa Kewin commented

    To Sutherland Shire Council,

    This particular GP also has a practice 480m away at 2 Davidson Rd. Why does he need another one so close? There is no extra convenience for residents to have another practice located here.

    In the submitted Statement of Environmental Effect 4.4.11 mentions that one car place has to reverse out. The other 2 car places may reverse exit as well as the GP cannot enforce exiting front on and would be assumption to believe otherwise. If as stated there is 30 customers a day. That is approx 12-15 cars reversing a day on a blind narrow corner next to a school. This is not 'similar to that occurring at the majority of the residential properties in this area' as stated on page 24 of the SOEE. This also does not count cars from the staff, residents, pathology, deliveries and sales representatives. Extra risk for locals and children from the school walking home.

    Considering this is not a convenient location for neighbours, it is unsafe and the GP already has another local practice just 480m away there is no real driver or reason for this to go ahead.

    Please locate his new practice in a commercial premises only.

    I oppose.

  19. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    EDIT-

    There are 5 medical practices within walking distances.

    2 Medical practices are 480m away. 1 is 780m away, another 1 is 1km and another at 1.2km away. Not to mention Bangor and Illawong medical centres which are also very close.

    Main point I am making is that there is already ample Medical Centres in the area and commercial areas for this type of business. There is no need or demand for this practice right here in a small no through road. The Medical Practitioner is just trying to get a cheaper way of running a business in a residential street.

    Having a doctor in your street is not a convenience here, not needed and people in the street may not even be customers of this particular medical practitioner.

    In the Statement of Environmental Effect and the Neighbour Notification Letter contradicts each other regarding the hours of business as well. This needs to be clarified. Will this be a mandatory thing that can be governed?

    Also a main point is that the proposed driveway is right on a small tight blind corner on a no through road.

    I oppose strongly.

  20. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    This should not go ahead. There are 4 medical centers already within walking distance of this location. This is a commercial practice in a residential area and small street. There is a commercial area for this 650-700m away and another 1km. Commercial entities are quite welcome there, not in this small no through road area.
    The practice would not generate extra jobs for the area as one GP can only practice in such a small space as proposed.
    There is limited parking entry in this block. The entry is proposed single lane right on the outer of the sharp corner, this could cause people to cut the corner which is quite blind to the incoming traffic. The corner is very narrow and tight, right where customers would also park.
    All roads from this corner are to cul de sac's, this would mean increased traffic in these streets as well. The street is narrow and so many of these cars will do illegal u-turns at McCabe and Miller or just go up the end and have to turn around and drive through again. People already do this with the increased traffic from the school. Many children walk home along this street and i have seen some near misses.
    A commercial premises with handling money and drugs may increase crime that otherwise would not be a target.
    The application is asking for part use, this could turn into a large practice in the future because the ground floor is too small to accommodate growth.
    I strongly oppose this application.

  21. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House –...” at 159 Raglan Street, Mosman, NSW:

    ????Keyth Pisani commented

    ??OBJECTION to the proposed development at 159 Raglan Street Mosman
    ????
    Application Number 8.2012.196.1 (Mr David Cowling)
    ????
    ????•“MORE LOVE” Bachelor Party Pad In Respectable Family Neighbourhood????•

    ??Considerations for Council

    1. Non-Compliance

    The allowable FSR for dwellings in this location under councils planning laws is 0.5. The
    existing FSR for the property at 159 Raglan Street is 0.73 which is already a substantial over-development. The proposed new development will see the FSR rise to 0.77. Again this is an even more significant over-development than Council allows for. The non-compliant FSR will greatly impact the local amenity, impose on neighbouring houses and create a greater building cluster closer to the existing boundary fences.
    The proposed Cabana size greatly exceeds Council’s requirements. The Council requirement for a structure of this nature is 20 m2. The proposal is to develop a Cabana of 28 m2... 40% in excess of the Council’s allowance.
    The back wall height exceeds the existing back boundary fence height by more than 20 cm. There will be a substantial loss of garden under this proposal. The already existing small garden area will be further reduced with the removal of existing mature trees.
    Council’s regulations also indicate that the pool area must have a 2 m setback from all boundaries.

    2. Overlook

    The applicant makes a range of allegations that his property is “overlooked” by neighbouring properties and seeks to further screen-off existing boundaries in order to increase concealment. Quite frankly, any privacy issues are exaggerated. The applicant’s property is nestled amongst four other properties in a respectable family neighbourhood block and this over-sensitivity to absolute privacy is unrealistic.

    3. Drainage

    The proposed flat roof of the Cabana does not appear to have appropriate drainage and may cause substantial water pooling. Currently, this area is not affected by any water pooling or poor drainage of storm water, due to Council’s tight oversight of the development of neighbouring properties.
    ?
    ?4. Pollution

    There is a very substantial risk of party noise directly affecting my property as well as other properties that surround the proposed development. The Cabana will have audio and lighting facilities and the location of proposed development will direct noise towards our living room downstairs and bedrooms upstairs.

    The proposed “MORE LOVE” fountain and signage is offensive in its party/poolside context and suggests lewd behaviour and debauchery; totally out of place in a respectable family neighbourhood.

    5. Proposed Cabana – Habitable Dwelling

    The proposed Cabana is clearly a space that can be habitable with cooking and sleeping facilities and appears to be the construction of a habitable room and living quarters. There is a suggestion of a possible fireplace and chimney with no details of its location and construction and possible effects of smoke drifting into neighbouring properties by prevailing winds. This is especially concerning considering the relative roof height of the building at fence height.
    The proposal is a relocation and duplication of existing facilities to adjoin a rear boundary fence unnecessarily causing loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The proposed structure exceeds what is allowable under existing Council regulations in every aspect of the development.

    Finally, the applicant has not seen fit to consult any neighbours to discuss his proposed development or its potential impact on their property. It is unfortunate that he has chosen this path rather than adopt a more harmonious and openhanded approach. This is the second time he has submitted the proposal without our prior knowledge. The first application was submitted just before Christmas on 16 December 2011 and rejected by council due to insufficient documentation. This second application has been timed to coincide with the election of a new council, school holidays and the sale of two adjoining and directly affected properties one of which is empty awaiting the new owners and the other also as yet not inhabited by its new owners.
    ??

  22. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    ********************UPDATE***************************
    ANYONE who wishes to comment has until 5.00PM MONDAY 15 OCTOBER 2012. That includes GAY STREET, KARIOLA STREET, ROSLYN STREET and MOWBRAY ROAD residents.

  23. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    The period of comment has just been extended to end Friday 12th October 2012

  24. In Kew VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 58 Walpole Street Kew VIC 3101:

    R Chee commented

    I am against further medium/high density development on Walpole Street. Walpole Street is already congested and prone to traffic issues (especially during school start/end times) as well as during the morning peak when people use it as a alternate North-South route to by pass the Junction. Unless the development provides 2 car spaces per dwelling with at least 2 available guest parking spaces for the entire development, I am afraid it will only lead to more traffic problems.

  25. In Capalaba QLD on “Deomolition - Swimming Pool” at 36 Daveson Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Jan Garabedian commented

    We installed the swimming pool in approx. 1990. Buccaneer Pools was the company we used. Buccaneer Pools damaged the main sewerage pipes in the bottom left hand side of the garden, we took them to Court in Brisbane and they were found guilty, but never paid for the sewage repairs, even though they were instructed by the Court to do do.

  26. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Heather hands commented

    As a resident of Helsal Drive and a direct next door neighbour of the proposed units we are very upset as we have had no notification of these plans and have only known of this from reading this website.
    We are in favour of everything that has been written by fellow neighbours and surrounding streets of Helsal Drive we would also like to mention that the 2 storey buildings will block out all of the afternoon sun to our property and also the problem with privacey looking into our backyard along with the increase of traffic and parking and the develuation of our property.
    We do hope that our comments along with other residents comments are taken seriously.

    Joy, Kevin and Heather Hands

  27. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Lisa Hsiao commented

    At this area, there ar already too many " no through road". to have 6 two story units will make this area become highly density. The traffic is extremely terrible at night. The council should really seriously consider about the big influence at this area.

    our next door negibhour is going to buil up another unit in the back, i can't image how many construtions are going at this area. this should be stopped and get the neighbour notice as well as we didn't know anything until the neighbour's notice to our mail box.

  28. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Rebecca and Rodney Morrissey commented

    We would also like to object to the above proposed development. We agree wholeheartedly with the previous objections. One of the main reasons we bought in this immediate area was the LOW density zoning, which at the time also translated to low traffic.

  29. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Mr and Mrs Wetherill commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    We are residents in Roslyn Street and only became aware of this application yesterday after the close of business. We received no notification despite the fact it will affect the nature of the street as a whole.

    We ask you to consider our comments in relation to the traffic component of the application:-

    Taking the Traffic Report figures of 1 space per 4 children (Page 18), you would reasonably conclude that for 40 children you require 10 parking spaces. I am unclear from the reports how this number of parking spaces is achieved given this is a corner site and therefore immediate street parking is not as readily available as might be deduced from the reports propositions.

    These are residential streets, with many families (I am told [not verified] there are in the order of 26 children living on Roslyn Street) who travel to and from their own schools and pre-schools/day-care at the same time as the drop-off to 6 Gay Street. This does not appear to be recognised in the reports findings.

    Our primary concern is for safety, a number of the Childcare Centres existing parents travel at inappropriate speeds along Roslyn Street (having dropped off their children). When you have many families who live here getting children in and out of their cars to get them to school it is hazardous - If this application is approved we believe conditions should be applied to ensure the safety of the residents and ensure the increased number of parents dropping off at 6 Gay street does not increase the incidence of those parents driving too fast along Roslyn Street indeed the conditions might regulate the current situation!

    Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

    Yours sincerely,

  30. In Tamborine QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 20 - 30 Sundown Court, Tamborine, QLD:

    Eron and Maureen POIDEVIN commented

    Our comments are based on some 32 years living on Sundown Court.

    We have noted in that time that visitors to Sundown Court most frequently travel the full length of the road even if their visit is primarily to a location short of the road end.

    1. The establishment of a commercial enterprise, relying upon on site customers for its operation, is clearly unsuited to the ambiance of both the residents of the Sundown Court or to those of the Ryemore Estate.

    2. Why was there NO contact by the developer of the proposal with the residents of Sundown Court prior to the submission to Council?

    3. The area in which the proposal is sited has a large resident wild life population which will be adversely affected by the increased traffic flow.

    4. It should be noted that Sundown Court was originally a dirt track extension of a gravelled Munstervale Road. It was developed into a narrow, underserviced "road" by layering a bitumen surface over the track by the developer of the large (four hectare plus) rural residential blocks. Money left over for the maintenance of Sundown Court by the developer was used by the Beaudesrt Council to eventually bitumen Munstervale Road from Sundown Court to the Beenleigh - Beaudesrt Rd. (Sundown Court is in a much poorer state than Munstervale Rd in the width, edges and surface quality.)

    5. (a) The area is very much a family area, even though it is classsified as rural/ residential and the roads are frequented by children and adults horse riding, cycling and walking/running along the roads.
    (b) In some parts it is quite difficult for pedestrians or riders to get safely of the road surface. Customers of the proposed brewery would not be familiar with the roads and particularly on Sundown Court which is quite narrower and with blind corners/hills all users could be at risk. Even now road users, not familiar with Sundown Court, tend to exceed the speed limit and drive down the middle of the road, and resent having to move off the bitumen surface to permit other cars to pass. As frequent road users we have had many close calls.

    6. Motor cyclists, both residental or visitors, tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends, already pose a considerable danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

    7. The operation of the brewery will generate a considerable amount of effluent which will require disposal, most likely in the general area of the plant's operation. There will also be the need to meet health and safety needs for workers and visitors. The effect of this effluent, gaseous, solid and liquid, in an area with NO industrial disposal system, would need to be articulated/quantified to the satisfaction of local residents.

    8. Some moor cyclists, residential and visitors tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends and public holidays already pose a significant danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

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