Recent comments

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

    Neighbourhood Watch commented

    This is a residential street.
    As such it is inappropriate for liquor to be traded from this residence.
    Furthermore it is inappropriate for liquor trading up until midnight on most days.

    Please select a suitable commercial location to trade liquor.

  2. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Mamasan Bondi - Change...” at Shops 1, 2 & 3 57-59 Beach Rd, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Jared Antony commented

    As a resident of Glasgow Avenue I am within 150m walk from this premises.

    Over the past 12 months we have seen the number of alcohol related issues in the area rise. I have had 2 break ins to my property by drunk people urinating in my garden and another more serious incident where people scaled some temporary scaffolding I had on my property as part of a renovation. This involved the police.

    Glasgow Avenue has seen numerous instances of vandalism including fences and letter boxes being knocked down and tree limbs broken

    We are having more problems with parking as the number of patrons to Mamasan increases however of even greater annoyance is that these people often return to their vehicles throughout the evening up until Mamasan closes talking and carrying on. This wakes everyone in the household numerous times a night including our children.

    The proliferation of small bars in Bondi Beach is not serving the majority of the local community being families with young children (In our street there would be 12 families with children under the age of 6). It is causing problems through late night activity in what is a enclave of quiet households.

    In making the decision on this license one should be asking who is to benefit from the decision? It is the proprietor and not the community. There is no need for this establishment to have trading hours extended to the proposed time. I doubt there will be much notice taken of my submission as there seems to be little concern for the neighborhood when these decisions are made. If as I suspect that they are given permission to trade later I would suggest that they be responsible along with the beach road hotel for placing a security guard on the corner of Glasgow Avenue and Glenayre Avenue.

    I would also like to have parking areas patrolled for the 2 hour limit on Glasgow Avenue as this goes un-patrolled.

    Regards

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

    kenneth hobbs commented

    we need eco sensitive developments in whitebridge,not get rich quick schemes for greedy developers.development needs to be done with local ratepayers views took into consideration.less units done with better planning seems like a more sensible option,even affordable house lots with a minimum amount of trees per block.we don't need high density developments in this area.less greed more thought needed.kenneth hobbs

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

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    I would like to put on notice the concerns I already hold about a range of aspects related to the reasonable person’s assessment of the over-development of this site:
    • One road in and out for 87 units- despite normal concerns, it’s also in a fire zone
    • Traffic flow will be impeded further in an area which already draws to a preschool, high school, tennis court, playground and shopping precinct and whose roundabout gets blocked at present on a frequent basis causing extensive queuing at certain times of the day and week along feeder roads and streets as well as at the direct point of intersection
    • Parking congestion, which has already increased with the reclamation of land formerly in use to accommodate overflow to that provided by the shops – the inclusion of four more shops will only compound this.
    • Some suggestion that the overflow will then move on to the green verge on Station Street – to my understanding this is part of the green corridor and zoned environmental. Not only that but the crossing over the bridge from that point back to the shops is too narrow for passing bodies and right in line with a narrow road carriage ie. dangerous
    • Lack of pedestrian right of way to join up with existing community and allow for continuation of historic and formerly permitted thoroughfare. The track through this land provided thoroughfare and safety allowing direct access to the shopping precinct and pedestrian crossing and allowing users of Fernleigh Track access to shops and pedestrian crossing.
    • Destruction of local features, such as the playground near the preschool on Lonus Avenue, to accommodate the traffic increase starts to become an imagined possibility
    • Invasion of privacy on neighbouring properties is severe and those in nearby residences who’ve recently had two storey units built alongside speak of this as well as overshadowing and a wall of glare as a legacy that goes on after the noise and disruption of building ceases
    • Poor design apparently mandated on economics not liveability – western orientation for many units, limited green or playing space, and no obvious adherence to any sustainable design elements. The legacy of poorly designed complexes is well known and in an area where the location, close to nature and abutting the Fernleigh Track, this seems counter-intuitive at best.
    • The creation of exclusivity internally in the development, where the adaptable living units are sectioned off from others rather than included among them.

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

    mark commented

    NO NO NO this is development is B/s, this is the work of greedy developers, trying to maximize every inch of space, it should be a normal housing estate, with open space provision. the congestion this development will cause will flow on to all streets surrounding it. It has already done so with them just fencing off the area, let alone adding another couple hundred cars to the problem. Normal house blocks with garages and off street parking, would not be a problem. This development cannot happen!!!!!

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

    N.Dorothy commented

    Is this the proposed site that I heard people talking about that proposed to build government subsidised public housing in our area? Would like to know more about this.

    1 Great concern about congestion especially at roundabout during school mornings, witness many near misses.

    2. Concern about extra congestion for local shops -incredibly difficult to get carpark during peak time and difficult to see from carpark onto Dudley Road if you need to turn right especially if cars are parked on the street

    3. We do not want "lego land' new estate feel in the area its ugly and doesn't match surrounding area/community

    4. Just because there is a parcel of land doesn't mean we need to fill it to the brim with houses, what about usable green areas for kids.

    5. Impact to local daycare and preschool- had my children and even unborn baby on waitlist to get into local daycare, this will impact existing families and extend the already 2-3 year waiting list to get in. I'm still waiting for bub to get in!!!!

    6. Impact local schools- infrastructure- to have extra classroom and now with government school cuts what will that mean to class sizes?

    6. Extra traffic in Whitebridge will also have a flow-on effect to surrounding areas such as extra traffic congestion at Oakdale road Gateshead which can be heavily congested in mornings/ afternoons especially if you turn right from Bullgarden Road onto Oakdale Rd

    7. Extra traffic congestion to Kahibah Road/City Road lights. Already overly congested, some mornings I get stuck at the lights 4 times before I get through.

    8. Extra traffic congestion at intersection going towards Charlestown square

    9. Extra traffic congestion trying to turn from Smart street right into Pacific Hwy Charlestown, as it is if pedestrian are crossing your lucky to get 2 cars through turning right at these lights.

    10. prevent the community feel of the area.

    11. What about providing the community with a carpark and parkland such as a fitness park, sheltered BBQ area.

    12. I strongly believe that proposed development with the increased traffic will reinstate the WARREN ROAD bypass issue which we seem to have to fight every few years. Give us a break! People live here because we like the bush and space and don't want to be around overdeveloped, overpopulated areas.

    13. Very disappointed that local community has not been consulted regarding such a large development, unless you subscribe to planning alerts you would not be aware of the enormous impact this development would have on our area.

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

    S.Grant commented

    Hello please kindly take the following onboard

    1. How will council address the inadequate parking for the extra business that are proposed for influx of customers and staff?

    2. it is of a huge concern that if parking is not exteneded that the business that the local community rely apon will lose out with less trade thus losing jobs and giving less opertunity to locals to stay within the area for work. How will council be ensuring that this does not happen?

    3. pedestrian saftey - whitebridge shops already have an extremly busy center which will only get worse if proper walk ways are not provided within the area. what plan is in place to provide a safer shopping precient within it and surrounding it? extra zebra crossings linking both sides of dudley rd.

    4. lighting at dusk and at night is already comprimised within the parking allotment, will council be looking at this and what measures will be taken?

    5. access to fernleigh track is limited by the new tempory fence that has been errected, busineses are already being affected, as the usual route to the center has been modified without notice from the track. SNL seem to have a complete disregard for this area. I have noticed that the fence has missing panels, is this creating a saftey issue?

    6. staff are having to park on an unsealed, un lighted and undulating patch of dirt at the moment I call for this situation to be looked at as soon as possible, since all business owners are responisble for staff as they leave there place of work and also on their arrival, this puts them at a high risk and this should be assesd.

    7. entry and exit from the shopping center should be upgraded, line of vision is comprimised now let alone when new commercial buildings are put in place, a safer option should be considerd

    8. parking on dudley road across from the buss stop should also be looked at with possible painting parking lines and changing or adding a parking zone with times of 15-20mins. This would help the business that have in and out customers freeing up some of the congestion

    9. with the shopping precient as a whole becomming busier with hopefully better parking attracting even more customers to the area, public toilets should also be considerd, the toilets at the childrens park are un sanitary and look like a prison toilet that are also not very private making them feel like a slum not very inviting and also very intimidating, are there any rules for shopping center size and public toilet ammenites?

    10. what measures will be taken to help minimise the inpact to the parking for staff and customers when the area becomes a construction zone?

    11. who is responisble for maintaing the green zone allocated to the back of the development and is there a roster/routine in place to ensure that the green zone is safe for people who wish to use it.

    12. the area is zoned 22? medium? is this development that is proposed classed as dense?

    13. the facias of the development look like storage containers how can this be inproved and is there a ratio for garage door to facia surface area is this complying?

    14. The road surface on dudley rd towards the bridge is in need of repair as the road has dropped away leaving a step/drop off the side creating a hazard for bike riders and pedestrians potentially causing to cars and motorcycles, the traffic is so heavy at times that motorists leave the shopping center turning left then doing a u - turn which is easier and faster than trying to turn right onto dudley rd running the gauntlet of crossing the road, when the buss stop is full a severe blind spot is created. Traffic lights should be considerd to help with traffic flow on dudley road

    15. concerns to the amount of traffic in peak times along kopa st, can this road handle this amount of new traffic during and after construction

    16. have the roads been designed wide enough for waste and recycling trucks to gain access? with regard to waste has council considerd the implications to extra waste generated at awaba at its current rate we are almost at 80% full.

    17. land value is of grave concern to all residents, have council made any evaluations in respect to the rate payers losing land value?

    19. Fire evacuation - the area is a high risk fire zone - if a mass evacuation of the residents within the development is required is a one way in one way out road practical and will it provide a fast and easy access/exit . Have or will the RFS provide the report? will fire engine/s be able to gain access to the area and are water hydrants for engine connection provided with in the development

    20. with lake mac being an excellent enviroment leader are there rules/regulations in place for new large scale dense developments to help reduce carbon emmisions in the effect of water power and gas consumption and of course the removal of waste. This could be an ecellent opertunity to create an eco village are there any thoughts in this area. I would find it contradictory to lake mac if there was not a standard in place to let a development like this go through without checks in place. There dosent seem to be any provisions of rain water collection in the plans, greywater recycling would also add to the eco aspect as with building design to reduce cooling and heating. and community meeting places that could provide comunial activites like gardening and social activites like eating together in a central location. Are there companies that will be engaged to advise on these types of issues?

    21. with extra commercial properties being added have provisions been made for delivery vehicles?

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

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

    Sean Brown commented

    I have some concerns over this development.

    1) Road and pedestrian safety.

    The only car access to the dwellings is via the Kopa St, Lonus Ave. With 87 units with roughly 250 bedrooms, this will result in around 200 cars. These intersections cannot handle that kind of traffic load.
    With a day care centre, pre school, high school and sporting facilities all being connected to this tiny intersection, pedestrian, especially that of children, will be put at risk.
    This intersection can't even handle the load as it is during peak hours, rainy days are far worse.

    Even if only half the cars in the development leave during the peak periods the results will be extremely dangerous.

    Giving the residents of the development another entrance/exit to Dudley Rd could help split the traffic.

    2) Parking for Shops

    On the other side of the development, Dudley Rd side are an additional 4 commercial units. As i observe every day form living here the existing car parking for the shops can barley handle the load. Adding more shops an no extra parking will only compound this problem.
    Resulting in more people parking in unsuitable and dangerous places, running across the road, thru traffic etc. A recipe for danger.
    Visitors and even residents of the new development will even use this car parking, is for many of them it will be more convenient than driving around the back. Visitors especially. Resulting in even less parking.
    This isn't the giant Charlestown Square on a Thursday night, were you go to drive round the car park for a hour, so you can buy the latest fashion. This is a local shopping centre were people stop by on their way home from work to grab a few groceries, or stop at the cafe or bakery. Or even come to see the doctor (the car park serves him to), and pick up their scripts.
    We use it for convenience not for the excitement of fighting for a car park.
    Less parking for more shops = Less parks per shop = Less business for each shop.
    If it is no longer convenient then we will stop using it and the businesses will suffer.

    3. The Density

    250 bedrooms, 200 cars. It's too much. I am not against development, my income depends on the building industry, but this is over the top for this site. It is way above the average for the area, and the local amenities can't cope. Less dwellings, even if this results in them being slightly larger, with more green area. It would be great to see an actual park area worked in, not just a green strip down the side. This will result in a much better scenario. It will give a little back to the community and connect the two. making it a nice place to live.
    Imagine that. Half way along Fernleigh track, where people can stop get some food from a local shop, eat it in the park before continuing their journey.

    Less dwellings will also go part of the way to reducing the resulting traffic problems.

    4. Other concerns are making sure the engineering for storm water management is up to scotch. Any over flow will drain straight on to the track.
    Impact on surrounding property value.

    The For Sale sign for the land described it as a land mark site and what ever goes here will be exactly that. And I think the development should suit that title.

    Do we want a good land mark or a bad one?

    I don't want to here people give directions like "Just turn left after the horrible housing development"

    I think with some amendments to the plan, and a bit more integration to the local community this could be a quality high value development, that is a win win for both the developer and the community.

    Sean Brown

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

    MPurcell commented

    1. The people of Whitebridge were not consulted on this matter

    2. The amount of congestion already apparent especially at school times has not been taken into account

    3. This does not fit in with any of the surroundings of Whitebridge, I applied for an extension on my house and we were not even allowed to have a carport where we wanted it because it did not fit in with surrounds, so this is a joke on everyone

    4. The amount of noise and upheaval with the proposed development is not acceptable

    5. Privacy to the people around the proposed development will be impinged

    6. This kind of development is not needed

    7. How will this affect students attending Whitebridge High school and also surrounding schools

    8. It is basically an eyesore on Whitebridge

    9. The effect on local wildlife that use this area as a corridor

    10. The area has already been fenced and look at the mess and upset and ridiculous parking this has caused

  10. 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 wish to lodge the strongest objection to the proposed 95 lots which are to be created on 2 Karanya Street, Mount Louisa QLD 4814. The proposed precinct's character is over-bearing and out-of-scale compared to our existing surrounds. With our suburb placed around the foothills of Mount Louisa itself, it gives the feeling of living in a semi rural suburb. The high level of residency proposed will take this away and overpopulate the area causing added strain to an already congested Banfield Drive. The majority of lots proposed are half the size compared to what occupies the existing vicinity. Please act as our advocate to reduce the number of blocks proposed to keep Mt Louisa in scale to how it is today. To overpopulate our suburb will take away the natural beauty of where our suburb lies. It should not be allowed for the sake of a developer making maximum profit.

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

    Bridgette Davis commented

    There are many concerns and this development needs a whole lot more thought and planning:

    1. Lack of walkways for residents, large number of young families living in the area, this open space provided a safe access to the whitebridge shops for residents living in Station St and Hudson St.

    2. Lack of dog exercise areas. There is only 1 unleashed dog exercise area in Whitebridge, this area is not fenced and backs onto a busy road.

    3.During peak hour prior to the area being fenced off which was used for parking for shop patrons a queue would sometimes form backing on to the Whitebridge roundabout, this is considerably worse since the property has been fenced off. Not to mention the plan to build more shops with no additional parking.

    4.How exactly would future residents of this proposed development access their cars if the developers plan to take the last bit of green space into a car park on the other side of the track?

    5. Unsure if the fernleigh track could be widened if this development takes place. This is definitely an issue as it gets busier and busier all the time.

    6. The infrastructure is not there to support this many dwellings.

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

    R. Ashton commented

    There are several issues with this development.
    1. Traffic congestion. Traffic at the roundabout that joins Bullsgarden Rd, Dudley Rd, Lonus Ave & Waran Rd is already congested most of the day. At school drop off and pick up time, you could be waiting at that roundabout for 5 minutes or so just to get through it. Also, with the cars parked along Dudley Rd it is difficult at most times of the day to get out of the current carpark and safely turn left onto Dudley Rd. This will only get worse with extra cars entering and leaving.
    2. Parking is already at a premium at the shops and along all of the roads mentioned above. Is there provision for extra parking? Understandably new residents will have their own parking. If there is to be commercial dwellings - where will their patrons / customers / staff park?
    3. Yes, residents have been spoilt with the green corridor that has been there for years. Access to the shops from the Fernleigh track has also been easy. Whitebridge shops might see a decline in trade if it is no longer easy for walkers and cyclists to access them from the track.
    4. I am concerned about the lack of provision for green space in this new development. It will be a hot concrete jungle!

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

    Lynden Jacobi commented

    My concerns are many.

    1. The area that is proposed for this development is an area that has long been used for playing ball with kids or dogs, flying kites and as an open space and as a thoroughfare to and from the Whitebridge shops from the suburb and the Fernleigh track. The proposal is for 87 residences crammed into this space with only a 10 – 20 metre edge along the lower side for grass & trees along the Fernleigh track. That area is inadequate space for the current locals let alone the extra people who will take up residence in the proposed 251 bedrooms.

    2. It has been long known that treed areas promote better physical & mental health yet it seems that every one of these houses has a tiny courtyard and no front yard and there seems to be no area for kerbside planting and there are no parks or open spaces except for a tiny area between two commercial properties. Street trees should be planted to reduce energy use and improve air quality. The whole plan of cramming people in like this is like a slum. Fencing it in to separate it from the rest of the community makes it even more like a slum. I am not against medium density housing in this area but it should be integrated into the community. 251 bedrooms in this space with no trees or garden or recreational space is outrageous. It smacks of developer greed.

    3. The intersection of Lonus Ave, Bulls Garden Road, Waran Road & Dudley Road already becomes incredibly congested (backing up to Station St on Dudley Road and back past Kopa Street along Lonus Ave at times). The proposal has all traffic entering and exiting from Kopa Street via Lonus Ave. Will there be provisions for the extra congestion that will be caused by the extra 87 dwellings?

    4. It has become obvious since the land has been fenced off that the original parking plan for the Whitebridge shops is inadequate. People are parking all the way up to the bridge. This will have to be remedied before new shops are added.

    5. The townhouses don't have adequate parking. On average, households in Australia with 2 bedrooms own 2 or more cars, 3 - 4 bedroom dwellings have 3 or more cars. This proposed development has 19 x 2 bedroom, 59 x 3 bedroom, 9 x 4 bedroom dwellings. That is a total of 251 bedrooms. The SNL representative suggested that their solution to possible parking problems would be for the council to turn the grassy area along Station Street into a parking lot! This would be totally unsuitable.

    5. It seems that no consideration for ecologically sustainable design has been taken into account. Surely dwellings should be aligned towards the winter sun for minimum need for heating & cooling not towards the west. I speak from experience having had 4 ill-designed units put in alongside our house at Hudson Street Whitebridge. They are aligned in exactly the way this new proposal has planned. The residents of the townhouses near us stand out shivering on the driveway in the mornings in winter to warm up and have their blinds drawn and air conditioners pumping right through summer. It is a crime to allow such developments in the age where we know about sustainable housing and energy efficiency.

    6. This area was zoned conservation until the council chose to rezone it in 2010 with no community consultation. It adjoins the green corridor of the Fernleigh track. Living in Hudson Street we have bandicoots, echidnas, ringtails, brushtails, bats, water dragons, frogs and a huge variety of birds. We often find damaged or dead native wildlife that have been killed by neighbours' cats & dogs. This problem will be much worse if we have another 87 residences' pets adding to the problem.

    This should be made a proper sustainable world class development not be turned into a slum because the owners want quick profits.

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

    chris keeley commented

    Dear Sir, can you please confirm how the storm water will be dispersed from the proposed new development?
    Already from a decent amount of rain, Buchanan from our property south, the street floods from water run-off from this site, the site becomes a lake and drains for up to a week into drainage already in place.
    I too am concerned regarding the water run-off, Buchanan street flood consistently during any significant rain. Flooding the entire paddock area, engulfing Buchannan Street into a river and over flowing to current resident door steps! With the rain over flow from this proposed development plan having the over flow run into Buchanan street, will you have the developer made accountable if current residents are cause any water damage because of more off flow water? I can supply pictures of the proposed site flooded up to our door step! Our house has never flooded in 34years, I would like a guarantee from the council and developer that if any water damage occurs during and after development that all compensation will be meet for those damages!

  15. In Trevallyn TAS on “Removal of three trees” at 99 Bain Terrace Trevallyn TAS 7250:

    Susan McClarron commented

    I can see the need to remove all three trees for safety reasons.
    It appears that the tree numbered 1 on the arborist's report could easily be replaced a little further away from the fence line. I feel the Council should enforce the recommendation of a 1:1 replacement for at least tree no. 1.
    Trevallyn's natural skyline is being eroded by the loss of trees, some of which are being removed or "topped" without Council permission. I hope that the Council will be proactive in ensuring a replacement planting does occur in this case.
    I commend the owner for going through the correct channels for this proposal.

  16. In Sutherland NSW on “Construction of a Carport” at 1 Gailes St Sutherland 2232:

    Margaret Richardson commented

    This carport if constructed may interfere with the common driveway which I use to access my property at 3 Gailes St Sutherland.

    I would like to ensure that the carport does not overhang the driveway which may prevent access by any trucks or larger vehicles to my property at 3 Gailes St.

    I would also like to may sure that any drainage from the carport is not directed down the driveway to my property. At present water flows from the rock face in no 1 Gailes across the concrete area where the proposed carport is to go down the driveway to my property. Please ensure that this water is diverted into a drain which does not come into my property.

    There is already water coming down from the top of the driveway from Moira St via a channel which I believe is still under Council planning/consideration. Debris is also sometimes in this waterflow!!!!

    I hope you will take into consideration the points which I have raised before approving the construction of this carport. I do not wish to have access to my property impeded by any construction or more water.

  17. In Eltham North VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 27 Highpoint Crescent, Eltham North VIC 3095:

    Julianne Napolitano commented

    I have noticed that many trees have already been removed over the last few weeks before this notice too late now

  18. In Gymea NSW on “Section 82A Review of...” at 748 Kingsway Gymea 2227:

    Simone Mernagh commented

    This DA13/0299 should be assessed under the Sutherland Shire LEP 2006. Council made the correct decision when assessing the original application and the determination should stand.

    Best Regards,

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Sewerage

    Dear Sir,
    In the preliminary application it is suggested that sewerage will be connected via the allotment at 25 Buchanan Street on approval from the owner of that property.
    From this inspection point the connecting sewerage line crosses Buchanan Street and runs through our property. The application advises that the pumping station on Mather Street could handle the increased flow.
    I wish to advise Council that in recent medium to heavy rainfall a toilet flushing by someone and passing via the inspection point in our property causes water to bubble up through the lid.
    I am concerned that an additional 95 homes in the proposed development will further compound this problem.

    Your response would be appreciated.

    With Thanks

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Stormwater Run off.

    Dear Sir, can you please confirm how the storm water will be dispersed from the proposed new development?
    Already from a decent amount of rain, Buchanan from our property south, the street floods from water run off from this site, the site becomes a lake and drains for up to a week into drainage already in place.

    With Thanks

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Traffic Flow

    Dear Sir,
    despite in-depth traffic data being presented with this proposed development I wish to make the following observations.
    1. The developer assumes that all traffic is going to enter/exit via Banfield Drive and has gone to great lengths to provide data for Banfield Drive, Karanya Street and the Round-about on Banfield Drive Bayswater Road to support this.
    2. The developers traffic flow further suggests that only ten cars per peak hour will enter /exit this development. That indicates that only 10 people out of a probable 190 residents will exit/enter during peak hour!
    3. The developer through their traffic study suggests that once the road connects Cosgrove to Liberty Rise that traffic on Banfield Drive will reduce.
    4. The traffic flow study does not appear to have taken into consideration the increased traffic flow along Bayswater Road from theses developments.
    5. There has been no data suggesting the increased traffic flow in Buchanan Street from this development or from increased rat-runners wanting to avoid queues on Banfield Dve. There are already delays at the Buchanan St /Bayswater Rd intersection during peak hour due to the housing increase in Crestbrook

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Dear Sir
    I too join with other concerned contributors regarding the removal of parking from out front of existing houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    I am totally amazed that the developer has taken this approach, it is obvious that they are only concerned with their development and they are showing little or no concern for existing residents with their suggested removal of parking form surrounding streets. The developers drawing, Karanya Street MI 13 0042_Part3 page 97 needs much more thought than has been given thus far. The developer proposes removal of parking from the western side of Banfield Drive and show two off street parking areas on the eastern side. The developer has obliviously failed to notice that there are NO houses fronting Banfield Drive in their proposed development and further their appears as though there will be a brick wall running along western side of their development.
    I ask the question why has parking been suggested for this area and who do they expect will be the users?
    Council is therefore requested to oppose the removal of parking in lieu of the the off street paring outlined as above and configure lanes by line-marking to enable the residents on the western side of Banfield drive to retain access to their properties for the reasons already contributed.

    A response is requested.
    With Thanks

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Entry/Exit access.

    Please let it be noted that I too join with other contributors in objecting to the proposed entry/exit roads for the new development. There are already several streets/courts fronting Banfield Drive and Buchanan Street. Surely two four way intersection (one each side of the development) would be much better for traffic flow than what has been presented in this proposal.

    Your response would be appreciated.

    With Thanks.

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

    Raymond Hurle commented

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

    Dear Sir
    I too join with other concerned contributors regarding the removal of parking from out front of existing houses on the western side of Banfield Drive.
    I am totally amazed that the developer has taken this approach, it is obvious that they are only concerned with their development and they are showing little or no concern for existing residents with their suggested removal of parking form surrounding streets. The developers drawing, Karanya Street MI 13 0042_Part3 page 97 needs much more thought than has been given thus far. The developer proposes removal of parking from the western side of Banfield Drive and show two off street parking areas on the eastern side. The developer has obliviously failed to notice that there are NO houses fronting Banfield Drive in their proposed development and further their appears as though there will be a brick wall running along western side of their development.
    I ask the question why has parking been suggested for this area and who do they expect will be the users?
    Council is therefore requested to oppose the removal of parking in lieu of the the off street paring outlined as above and configure lanes by line-marking to enable the residents on the western side of Banfield drive to retain access to their properties for the reasons already contributed.

    A response is requested.
    With Thanks

  25. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Antonio Gulotta commented

    This development should not be allowed.

    There's is no where near the infrastructure to support such a development.

    Building more houses doesn't create more jobs. It will create more people needing jobs.

    This development has nothing to do with the Warnervale Town Centre.
    This is just some building developer wanting to make money.


    On another note:
    All frogs (and tadpoles) are protected in NSW under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

  26. In Melbourne VIC on “Buildings and works, and...” at 99 Hornby Street & 254 - 256 High Street, Windsor, VIC:

    cah commented

    this continues the overcrowding of the area where parking is unavailable most times of the evening. the pattern is to amend the planning permit for parking dispensation after having exhausted objectors. no doubt a report has been prepared saying all the residents are going to ride push bikes!!!.

    the question is will the council allow this pattern to continue

  27. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    R Marshall commented

    I oppose this type of development is this area.

    The area is already being over developed and does not have the infrastructure to support such large developments.

    Once again another land owner trying to jump in claiming this is part of the Warnervale town centre.

    This is Woongarrah NOT Warnervale.

  28. In Maroubra NSW on “Install internally...” at Shop 192B Maroubra Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    Paul Corbett commented

    I am opposed to this business.

    There is no toilet inside and staff have to go to a disconnected toilet at the back. Customers cannot use the toilet. There is no toilet for customers.

    I became concerned after reading an article in the Sun Herald last Sunday which concerned illegal brothels operating in the Crows Nest area.

    One of these was the "Relax Thai Massage"

    It is clear that some "Thai massage" shops in Sydney have been proven to be illegal brothels.

    The girls working at this shop appear to be young. I understand that in order to advertise as a massage therapist you would need to leave school and get a certificate.

    I believe that the girls are not qualified therapists. Customers cannot get their money back from a health fund.

    On the basis of having no toilet for customers the business should be closed.

    With respect to the qualifications of the girls the council should attend the premises and demand certification and ID

    thanks

  29. In Woongarrah NSW on “12 Lot Subdivision” at 123-133 Mataram Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Anthony Clay commented

    This Development should be allowed.

    Increasing the supply of available land for construction of new homes is a good thing. Construction of new homes on the Coast is important as it creates jobs and gives people the opportunity to own thier own home.

    Families are finding it difficult to afford their own homes and limiting the amount of available land for construction will not solve this problem.

    There are still many open nature areas left on the Coast.

    Has the neighbour who hears frogs determined the species of Frog, if they are endangered etc or do thet just not want more homes built next to them.

  30. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of land for...” at 27 Danin Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Tieri commented

    Main concern is with parking.
    Already many cars parked on both sides of the street causing a hazard when driving up Danin Street.
    Would it be possible to create parking bays by eliminating nature strips??
    This would ease the parking situatuation considerably.

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