Recent comments

  1. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    James Davies commented

    i disagree with this business in this location,
    this is a child friendly area with 2 schools, churches and numerous parks.
    i do not believe a residential street is the appropriate place to be advertising or marketing liquor
    commercial locations for commercial businesses, especially things we don't need our young children being exposed to on our own front doors,
    i don't think young adults or teenagers need to see this either, they may think "home grown" alcohol is a great idea, and this can lead to disaster.

  2. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Mel commented

    Please do not approve this application. This is a residential street right next to two schools and one established place of worship. Producing, marketing and or running an alcohol business from this residence has safety and social problem implications in this location. It is promoting alcohol too close to schools and impressionable children and conflicts with the place of worship. Select a suitable commercial location for office, manufacturing, producing, promoting of alcohol.

  3. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Patrick McInerney commented

    There will be no alcohol physically produced or sold at this licensed address. It is merely a home office for email, internet and account management. All Alcohol Produced by Willie the Boatman will be done via contract with St Peters Brewery 15 May Street St Peters. All Alcohol will be kept at St Peters Brewery under Bond of the Tax Department until sold to retail and/or hotels with the appropriate liquor license. Willie the Boatman has no intention or permission by any authority to produce alcohol or physically sell alcohol at 7 Edwin Street.

  4. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Michael Arthur commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,
    In accordance with my objection I just emailed today 9.12.13. I would like to highlight some impacts the new main intersection on Banfield Drive will have, that the traffic report has not identified and taken into consideration finding a solution for.

    1. The new intersection will stop Banfield Drive residents from being able to turn right directly into their premises. They will be using the Galway Court intersection to do a U TURN to access their premises. This is now encouraging more traffic to use the Galway intersection. I feel a NO U TURN PERMITTED sign will be needed at this intersection, as it would certainly impact the safety of pedestrian and bus users as there is a pedestrian crossing and bus stop here.

    2. Galway Court will need a (CHR(s)) to improve it's intersection safety and improve traffic flow. The traffic report is providing one for Hedley Court to reduce the risk of rear-end collisions (quote from page 19 of traffic report). Why is this not imperative at Galway Court considering there is a bus stop and pedestrian crossing?

    3. In the hand sketched drawing submitted to council in correspondence, it clearly shows the proposed new parks blocking the pedestrian refuge . I don't find this safe. No cars are ever parked here as there is no reason for them to have to be. Eliminating parking from the western side will be forcing these parks to be used. If cars are parked here pedestrians will have to be standing very close to the road waiting for a clear run of traffic to get to the pedestrian refuge. If a car is waiting to turn right into Galway Court, there is high risk of that a pedestrian will get hit, as traffic is blocked, due to no turning lane.

    I find it neglectful the traffic report overlooked all these traffic impacts there affects on pedestrian/cyclist/ motorist and bus user safety. It surely makes sense the developer would want the bus stop and pedestrian refuge to become obsolete. If this were to occur I find it deceitful and misleading the public. It also raises questions to where will they replace the pedestrian crossing to? and will it adversely make it harder for pedestrians and children trying to get to school safely. The public should be able to comment on this.

  5. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    MICHAEL ARTHUR commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456 APPLICATION
    NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096 Dear Sir, I find the traffic report
    inconclusive of what is actually required to make the new main entrance intersection
    of Banfield Drive operate in a safe and functional manner. With the
    traffic report failing to directly investigate the Galway Court/ Banfield
    Drive bus stop intersection. They have therefore, not had to highlight the
    many traffic implications associated with it, and furthermore, not had to
    justify it's practicality in terms of operating safely. The two comments
    made in the traffic report on (page 26) 8-4-1 and mentioned again in
    8-4-2, regarding Practically of Proposed Intersection Upgrade support this. The comment reads "In terms of positioning the proposed CHR(s) on Banfield
    Drive, the bus stop and pedestrian crossing refuge on Banfield Drive requires
    consideration" Does this mean the developer wants to remove the Galway
    Court Bus Stop and Pedestrian Refuge Island? This leads me to believe
    the developers intention is to make the Galway Court bus stop obsolete, so
    the practicality of the new intersection can be implemented. When the
    council approached UDP Consulting Engineers in correspondence dated 10 October,
    2013. The council required further information in regards to Road Design,
    which was: "The applicant must confirm that the proposed intersection upgrades
    will not adversely impact on the existing bicycle and pedestrian routes along
    Banfield Lane and that the location of the entrance road to the site from
    Banfield Lane will not impact on existing bus stops". The engineers
    have assured council in correspondence dated 24th October, 2013 that "The
    existing bus stops would not be impacted by the location of the access to
    the site by Banfield Drive" and "everything will be addressed in further
    detail during the detailed design stage" With the traffic analyst
    carrying out no direct investigations around this bus stop intersection, but
    has in fact stated twice it needs further consideration. I am unsure how this
    reply is supported. I feel the traffic report has not disclosed their
    full intentions to public yet regarding Banfield Drive. I feel it is of the
    public's right to be provided with a traffic report that clearly states all
    changes needed to make this new intersection operate in a safe manner for
    motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I hereby ask the Karanya
    Street application to be not approved until the public can be assured of full
    details, and have the opportunity to further comment on. I, with other
    community members would appreciate a group meeting to talk with you, to discuss
    the many shortcomings the Galway Court and Banfield Drive intersection has.
    As this intersection has not been directly addressed in the traffic report,
    I feel it's imperative it gets addressed. I look forward to hearing
    from you.

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

    Monique Grace commented

    This development needs to be rethought out to suit the area and the community. Issues with the high impact of the extra housing in a small area which increases usages on all infrastructure including traffic and other amenities. This land was purchased from the original home owners to be used for a bypass and should never have been rezoned to accommodate a development such as this.

    Access to Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side will become a safety issue with all the extra traffic entering and exiting Kopa Street. This is how my family currently access the track to ride or walk along this corridor which we have enjoyed since before it was paved and constructed.

    I hope the council takes into account the community concerns about this development as the traffic along Dudley Road continues to increase with the additional medium housing boom happening in the area.

    The parking near and around the shops will become an increasingly urgent safety aspect with more people using the space. Already the bus stop and pedestrian crossing limits visibility for drivers and safe crossing of Dudley Road.

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

    Andrew Morgan commented

    Firstly I appreciate the need for mixed development, not everyone needs a 700 m2 block with a 4 brm house. The block lends itself to medium density housing. What has been proposed here is way too many dwellings on one parcel of land with one entry & exit point. The development is totally out of character with the remainder of the suburb and should be reviewed to include open space / parkland.

    other issues.

    1. Parking - prior to the fence going up most of the employees of the shops parked on the grass behind the barrier leaving the car park for customers. This system worked well. Now there are extra shops going in and less parking. This will force cars out onto Dudley road and surrounding side streets. This is a major safety issue as none of these streets were designed for this level of parking. There is a huge amount of school children pedestrian traffic around the area and the extra parking will create hazards for pedestrians which will be only a matter of time before an incident occurrs. As a minimum the should be no dwellings or shops south of the current shop front line and the developer should make all this land through to the train line car parking.

    2. Traffic in Kopa st / Lonus Ave - the only exit & entry will be through Kopa st. I suggest council send someone up when school is busy (not december) and see what the traffic is like at the end of Lonus ave. This is without a few hundred extra car movements. The exit point is near a day care facility with toddlers, the extra traffic will lead to frustration and drivers will take risks to get out into the traffic flow around 2-4 year old children. Not good enough !! They need to re-think where the access comes from as the current streets are already overloaded in peak time.

    3. Loss of open space - the development does not include any open space. It will resemble a ghetto and the character of the area will degrade accordingly. Council and the developers have the opportunity to make a really positive impact on the community if they get the balance right. At present it seems to be trying to fit as many dwellings as possible onto a block with out consideration of the character of the surrounds.

    I think the council needs to send a message to the developer to have another think and really consider the views of the residents. This is a huge loss of open space to our community and should be managed in a responsible way to benefit all.

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

    Rhyss Hamilton commented

    This development is a JOKE, another farcical money grab by GREEDY fat cats.

    Don't let them get away with it in our area, this DA should not be approved.

    Balance. Harmony. Sustainability.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

  10. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Dave Hinds commented

    To Whom It May Concern

    I too believe that this proposed development in it's current is blatantly discriminating against the rights of all previous long term residents of Mount Louisa.

    Not only does it favour the developers possible clients, it generates a great inconvenience to all current residents by increasing local traffic flow, water useage without new infrastructure to handle the increased useage volume, increased pressure on an almost inadequate sewerage and drainwater system currently in place.Not to mention the abysmal attempt to stop residents on Banfield Drive and their visitors from parking in the gutter outside their homes.

    All access to the new development should be opposite an existing street so as to alleviate any of the existing homes being disadvantaged by having a road directly opposite their driveway.

    The developers have shown a complete disregard on tyhe current residents (and Ratepayers I might add) of Mount Louisa, with this proposed development. Council shpould think long and hard before approving same. Council should also communicate with resident abount their concerns.The developer doesn't give a toss about the rateayers currently ivingin the area, apparently.

    I look forward to a response.
    Regards,
    Dave Hinds.

  11. In Ballarat VIC on “Use of land for food and...” at 207A Creswick Road, Ballarat Central:

    David Mac Phail commented

    Our property, 54 Loch Ave, is separated by one house, from the proposed business and is attached to that house.

    1. Parking: will there be signage to prevent business patrons using the very limited parking in Loch Ave as some properties, including ours, in that street have no off-street parking?

    2. The business operating hours are to 11PM and there will be both alcohol and live music: what protection is there for families living very close to the venue against noise and alcohol fueled disruption in the street?

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

    Geoff Williams commented

    My wife and I moved to Whitebridge almost 40 years ago when it was considered by many to be a “depressed” area. During the ensuing years we have seen many changes, e.g. the development of the industrial area at Metro Court and the residential area where the old drive-in used to be, the development of Dudley Beach Estate vicinity, the development of the Whitebridge Shopping precinct, the building of the medium density housing in the Hudson Street/Baroomba Street area, work on Bullsgarden Road, improvements and expansion of Whitebridge Cemetery, Central Leagues Club and associated playing fields, the Fernleigh Track and much more. All of these changes have enhanced the local area and made it a popular residentially

    Changes to the zoning of properties along Dudley Road, whilst having no immediate or rapid effect on the area is seeing new developments begun. It is commonly believed that medium density housing is becoming more accepted and necessary. One particular development currently under construction on Dudley Road represents, in my view, the type of blight on the area that should be avoided. Whilst I am sure it meets all legal requirements its imposition on the neighbourhood is indisputable. It is surely the first example of unabashed developer greed which takes no account of the wishes and opinions of the local residents.

    The plan submitted to LMCC to build 87, two, three and four bedroom units, two to three stories high on a 2.2 hectare site between Dudley Road and Kopa Street Whitebridge smacks of developer greed on a massive scale. This is a proposal which defies logic given the nature of the obvious safety concerns raised not only by the density of the dwellings but more so by the extreme limitations on access to and from the “compound”. Given that there is a very popular shopping precinct and preschool/day-care facility in very close proximity, a high school with really only one vehicular access road, the adjacent Bullsgarden Road/Dudley Road roundabout and all of the other cross streets etc. in a reasonably traffic busy area the addition of another 150 – 250 motor vehicles to the area is a nightmare waiting to happen. Government transport is dismal now, it has no hope of coping with the possible increase in patronage should the new residents be forced onto it. Many children and elderly citizens walk to and from schools and shops and the number of cyclists in the area has greatly increased with the presence of the Fernleigh Track. The marked increase in traffic volumes will in all likelihood see more pedestrian/cyclist and motor vehicle accidents.

    The “elephant in the room” so to speak is the social problem which can be likely with a development such as this. Many examples of “ghetto” type developments are easily quoted. The close proximity of an alcohol outlet is in itself problematic if the housing contains significant numbers of “bored” young people.

    We know that change is inevitable and in fact desirable. Change must be tempered with reason. Developers claim that they see the future however, it is notable that they are never around in the future. When they have made their money they are gone. Politicians are similarly placed. Their terms of office are limited. When the developers and the politicians are gone from the scene, the monstrosities and the social problems they leave remain as do the residents of the area who must abide with the leavings of others.

    This planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community. It will be a blight on the area.

    ,

  13. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    I object strenuously to this DA. There is absolutely no need for yet another chain-store development in Katoomba. There is already a Coles, a Target and that hideously overdeveloped unfinished pile of concrete right in the centre of town which has no relationship or bearing to the nature of its site or its stunning environment. There is already an excellent hardware store over the road (Home), at least one small family business in town, and another in Blackheath, and probably others in Leura or nearby. We do not want this kind of development for Katoomba which should be the jewel in the crown of the emerging Blue Mountains environment which will be serving as the main escape route and new base for everyone who is sick of the ghastliness of Sydney with the chain stores, traffic, horrible development everywhere and lack of local identity. And there is already a Bunnings in the mid/lower mountains. So what is to be done with the land - a pretty piece of pastureland with a few horses in it? Given that it is already in a designated "industrial zone" it could be developed as a site for small-scale local industries: building, ceramics, carpentry, bespoke furniture production, with a mix of large studio/gallery spaces for working artists, sculptors and the like. Right now there is nothing in the area to meet these needs. The site could be developed further to include something like community gardens and demonstration sustainability projects (small sustainable buildings for instance which might be used as examples for those interested in building in the mountains). Who would pay? Without knowing what the site value is it is impossible to know what kinds of acquisitions costs are involved, but maybe there would be some capacity for a mixed fund between Council and local investors including some "crowd funding". In any case, there is no need for any more chainstore developments in Katoomba and there never should be. It should be the central exemplar for a new kind of peri-urban sustainable development not yet another site for large scale chain-store greed for an over-bloated bursting Western Sydney. I have made no donation to anybody and have no association with any of the businesses mentioned above.

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

    David Thomas commented

    Issues with this proposed development include:

    Traffic congestion and parking for residents and patrons of the Whitebridge shops and the proposed businesses.

    It also cuts off access to the Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side, which my family and many others regularly use.

    It diminishes the amount of recreational space for families and residents, as well as those using the Fernleigh Track.

    It will cause issues for traffic flow around Whitebridge High School and cause inconvenience to the many students, staff, families and members of the community.

    It is both impractical and ill thought out to have these units, as it shall be too many people crammed into too small an area.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

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

    Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I'm concerned that this development is not in keeping with the Whitebridge community.

    This development needs adequate parking that takes into account;
    the number of residents,
    guests of those residents,
    employees and clients of the four proposed businesses,
    and the flow of traffic on Lonus Avenue.

    It is also concerning that this development will largely diminish local residents access to open green spaces for recreation. I think that an effort to maintain recreational space is needed in the plans.

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

    Sharyn Carr commented

    I find the proposed development highly unsuitable for the area, with a lack of foresight and planning. Please have a rethink taking into consideration environmental, parking, traffic and numerous other issues that have been raised by concerned citizens.

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

    chris layzell commented

    it just shows you what money,greed,and corruption can do..it will destroy this community...and will become the new windale..the developers don't care they make the money then piss off...and we are left to deal with it...

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

    Rhett Oswald commented

    I have lived in Whitebridge for the past 20 years, my children all went to Whitebridge high school so I can confirm that parking around school times is diabolic especially when wet. The traffic banks up on both Waran Road and Lonus Avenue leading into Whitebridge roundabout and shops. Having one access into Kopa street which leads into Lonus avenue, shows a complete lack of foresight.

    I would like to know how having that amount of units in such a small place with no provision for green space or parking is going to impact on an already congested environment. Surely LMCC can come to a common sense decision that is not in weighted in favour of greedy developers and the tempting rates that will be generated for the council.

    The parking in the shopping centre is extremely busy and you really need your wits about you to avoid having an accident (I have witnessed about 10 in the past year). We do not need to have the parking problem amplified then rectified with a barrage of restrictions, rangers/ fines, traffic lights and god forbid parking meters. (don’t laugh this is one of Newcastle Council’s major sources of revenue)

    My home is not far from this area and has been declared an extremely high risk fire hazard area, this development is much closer to bushland than my home so one would think that all these residences in such a small area could be catastrophic (in the event of a fire) with one entry/exit point.

    By all means have a development but this plan reeks of greed, by jamming as many residences as possible into a confined space with no thought given to the future implications of current and future residents in this area. Think about the design, make it comply environmentally and sustainably and a place that people want to live in with play areas and seating/benches.

  20. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Sandra Hobden commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir

    I am concerned of the social impact the Karanya Street development will impose on our existing community.

    The Karanya Street development provides no open green space. With multiple dwellings proposed to be Villa, courtyard and dual occupancies. The estate provides nothing to promote getting outside and staying active.

    The existing communities facilities will be put under enormous pressure due to the estate offering nothing but high residency.

    In our vicinity we have 1 park with 1 covered table. Can council confirm our park will receive an upgrade to accommodate at least 4 covered eating tables and extra play equipment like other parks?

    Furthermore, with the major changes proposed to Banfield Drive. The safety for pedestrians and cyclists will decrease significantly compared to how it is. I find it necessary the whole western side of Banfield Drive receives cemented pathways. The eastern side of Banfield Drive has an existing cemented pathway. The main entrance road of the new estate also has cemented pathways on both sides proposed.

    With so many schools surrounding this area and heavy vehicles that use Banfield Drive, it is a priority for safety.

    The cemented pathway will decrease the need for a lot of pedestrian traffic to cross Banfield Drive. It will give the western side residents a direct safe walk way to schools, day cares, park, soccer field and corner shops. This in turn will reduce the number of cars on the road and promote getting out and being active.

    The current proposed plans is dangerous with pedestrian and cyclists needing to share the road with heavy vehicles turning into the new estate.

    The increased traffic produced by this estate will make it harder for the west side to access the cement pathway. No provision has been proposed to add extra pedestrian refuge islands.

    A lot of suburbs are already privileged to this safety. Kern Brothers Drive, Sandstone Drive, Burnda St, Thuringowa Drive, Lindeman Avenue, just to name a few.

    Could you Please consider this with your highest priority.

    Being able to get out and stay active along with my children getting to school safely concerns me greatly.

    The increased traffic from the new estate and changed traffic conditions has disadvantage the west side immensely, but favoured the east. All residents should be entitled to the same safety.

    Thank you for your time. A response is requested.

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

    catherine hodgson commented

    Too much much too soon. No consideration for parking, road access, pedestrians. Comfortable living period. It at present is a beautiful green space that will become blighted by over crowded buildings. A slum in the making.

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

    Gwenda Smith commented

    We are very concerned about the sheer size of the proposed development, it could become a ghetto in the future with so many people crowded into a small space.

    The plan reduces the amount of parking available to customers of the Whitebridge shops and has already had a detrimental impact on safety in the area due to the early erection of the cyclone fencing. This is already a very busy area along Dudley Rd, with traffic exiting the car park turning right a hazard at the best of times. Cars are often parked now right up to the bridge.

    The plan will cause increased traffic and congestion in Dudley Rd, Bullsgarden Rd, Lonus Ave and Kopa St, as well as other local roads such as Burwood Rd and Waran Rd.

    There will be ramifications for the safety of the local students and people at the high school, the pre-school, the childrens' playground, tennis courts, cricket field etc.

    Surely the development can be modified to something more acceptable to the community, not just those who live and work in the immediate area, but those of us in Whitebridge generally, Dudley, Redhead, Charlestown East etc. A smaller development would also be a more pleasant and functional place for the residents who end up living there.

  23. In Sydney NSW on “Fit out and use of upper...” at 8 Spring Street Sydney NSW 2000:

    Mark Hull commented

    Please advise phone number to discuss booking. Thank you

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

    N.Hakansson commented

    I'm concerned about:

    Pedestrian safety especially for the elderly & children.

    Vehicle safety & traffic congestion on Kopa Street, Lonus Ave & Dudley Road.

    Safe access to day care centre, high school, playground, tennis courts, bus stops and shops.

    Increased hazard entering & exiting Whitebridge shopping area .

    Reduction of parking at Whitebridge shops.

    Lack of alternative exit in case of bush fire emergency.

    Integrating the new development with the existing community.

    Lack of green space and outdoor play areas.

    This development CAN be modified to become an asset to the community.

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

    Karyn Huizing commented

    As a resident of Kopa St this development, if it goes ahead as is, will impact me greatly. I am set to have a possible extra 600 odd cars pass my door to stop and start at the Kopa St/Lonus Ave intersection EVERYDAY. I am as you can understand horrified by the thought of my children no longer having a safe, quiet street in which to live. This development is far to big for our area. It has very little space for children to play and be kids. The proposal of parking area with increased shops is ridiculous, anyone visiting the shops already knows about the parking issues.
    I can only hope that people get behind this and make a stand for our community. The council and developer need to hear your concerns, Hopefully in the end some compromise and common sense on behalf of those in power will prevail.
    Please come to the meeting, contact council and do whatever you can to be heard, if we don't fight now it will be too late.

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

    Karina Currington commented

    Has there been any traffic studies undertaken on the surrounding streets? I am wondering if the local members are actually aware of how heavy the traffic can get in peak school drop off hours, not to mention the complete gridlock in inclement weather. I fear this could lead to a disaster if there is an emergency in the proposed high density development at these peak times, there is NO OTHER WAY emergency services will be able to access the entrance/exit. I lived on Lonus Avenue for 25 years and witnessed first hand the dramatic increase of traffic over time including more high school teenagers on their P plates driving to and from school. There needs to be a suitable alternative put in place for the high amount of traffic that will be attempting to turn in and out of Kopa St.

    Could it be considered that a lower density development would be more in keeping with the area, I feel there is really not enough infrastructure to support this great new influx of residents. There is only a public bus that runs once every hour at the moment, is this really adequate? How are the garbage/ recycling trucks able to manoeuver through the narrow streets? Where are the overflow of visitors cars expected to park? What does this mean for existing residents who find they are unable to enter and exit their own driveway safely? How are the sewerage and drainage/ runoff services going to cope? How will the local shopkeepers react when people are unable to find parking so decide to shop elsewhere?

    The decision to approve this particular development impacts the Whitebridge and surrounding areas very deeply. I urge the members to listen to the residents concerns when making this decision. After all, they have to live with it.

  27. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Maria commented

    This is a residential street. Please do not approve this applicant to produce/manufacturer/wholesale alcohol from this residence. Find a suitable commercial location to produce/manufacture/wholesale alcohol.

  28. In Winston Hills NSW on “Demolisth existing dwelling...” at 12 Attlee Place Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Genevieve Hough commented

    I am a resident of the mention street and i definitely was not imformed of any developement especially a double storey house overlooking our pool area which we believe should be private. I would have had no problems with a single storey dwelling but not one that affects our privacy. You mentioned that there were email notifications so I guess I was not on that list and I had no letter drops either so as you can see, I was very surprised to see workmen arriving day after day with their goings on. Do we need to look further then council for some answers? All in all to sum up is not being notified and privacy issues. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

  29. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Angus commented

    As no liquor will be sold directly from this venue as it is merely the office of a producer/wholesaler I fully support this license application.

  30. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Sandra Hobden commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,

    As a long term resident of Mt Louisa and mother of 3 school aged children who use Banfield Drive as a cyclist and pedestrian. I am greatly concerned the proposed road changes to Banfield Drive to accommodate a new main entrance for the Karanya Street Precinct, will adversely affect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who rely on Banfield Drive.

    The development proposed for 2 Karanya St is closely surrounded by Mt Louisa's many schools and day cares.

    Calvary Christian Early Learning Centre

    Calvary Christian College

    ABV Care Calvary

    Mt Louisa Child Care

    Mt Louisa Good Early Learning Centre A and B

    Heatley Secondary College (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Heatley State Primary (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Banfield Drive is used as a main transit link for all these schools and day cares.

    Furthermore, the developer has proposed the main entrance to be situated in very close vicinity of two public bus stops on this heavily used road.

    With this development introducing 95 more lots. The pedestrian, cyclist and public transport traffic is going to increase considerably.

    If there is multiple cars waiting to turn right into the new estate on Banfield Drive. A large bus at the Galway Court bus stop will have difficulty trying to enter back into traffic with cars starting to divert around the new entrance. A pedestrians safety is also put at risk as they have to try and gain access to the refuge island. I'm unsure and concerned where a cyclist is suppose go during all this??

    If the western side of Banfield Drive side road is going to be incorporated into a channelised right hand turn, will a large bus, cement truck etc have enough room to divert around stationary traffic waiting to turn into the new estate? Where is a cyclist suppose go? If any error in driving or cycling is to occur I'm concerned it could be fatal.

    How are Banfield Drive residents proposed to reverse out of their driveways and will this affect a cyclist?

    The construction of a new refuge island at the Banara Court bus stop will be essential if a main entrance is to be located on Banfield Drive. The increased traffic and amount of new properties being introduced will have an effect on pedestrians safety trying to cross the road.

    If a Lawn Mowing contractor were to service any 7 houses on the western side of Banfield Drive. Where are they expected to park their ute and trailer? Would this impede on pedestrian /cyclist safety?

    In regards to the new car parks proposed on the eastern side of Banfield Drive. Can the developer assure that these parks will only be used by the 7 houses affected on Banfield Drive? The parks will be very inviting to be used by the new estate residents to park their work vehicles and trailers on. With the new estate being so squashed together the likeliness of this happening is very high and should not be assumed by the developer that it won't happen.

    As a regular visitor to a Banfield Drive resident in the affected area, my car is going to be required to be parked a fair distance away. My car will be out of my clear sight for myself to monitor it's safety. I am extremely upset that the developer has such disregard for the safety of my car compared to the residents of his new estate. Can the developer assure that my car is safe parked so far away, and near a major public bus stop??

    The increased cars due to be parked on the eastern side of Banfield Drive to compensate the removal of western street parking will impact pedestrian safety hugely!

    The cars parked will be directly in front of the Galway Court Bus Stop and refuge island. Pedestrians will be forced to deal with a potentially opened car door as soon as they exit off the refuge island. Also, pedestrians will be forced to walk in the middle of cars trying to pull out of car parks. My children use this refuge island every school day. It is very congested at peak hours with buses and school traffic. Having cars parked here will provide no safe route for my children to get to school.

    To insure traffic flow is maintained along Banfield Drive at the intersection of Banfield Drive and Galway Court. A turning lane will be needed. If not added, vehicles that are stationary waiting to turn right into Galway Court will block traffic from flowing as this is the exact spot the new eastern side car parks are proposed. Could I highlight the road is already narrowed here due to the refuge island. If the traffic backs up enough in peak hour it will furthermore block the entrance to the new estate. I am a resident of Galway Court and this intersection concerns me greatly as it is already difficult at peak hours to get in and out of our court. This court services Galway Court, Lewin Court, Gruner Court and Bancroft St.

    The developer proposing to take parking away from long term residents is disappointing especially when he privileges his new estate residents with it. This breaks community spirit and it should not be allowed.

    If all entry and exit roads to the new estate were to be placed opposite existing courts or streets. This estate could be introduced without disrupting any existing properties in the already established area.

    I fail to see any plans to alleviate my concerns regarding pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user safety on Banfield Drive. When will the public be entitled to further detailed plans? Will this be before council approval is granted? The on site plans fail to highlight major changes needed and I feel the communities rights have been neglected.

    A response with answers to my concerns is requested. Thank you for your time.

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