Recent comments

  1. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Craig commented

    Just so people know Rowville is about to get 3 new estates so there is plenty of land for the growing population. These are going to be more high density so if people don't mind living there they can and know what they are buying. Why change a well established street so drastically there is no need for it.

  2. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of 6 dwellings...” at 50 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Craig commented

    Just so people know Rowville is about to get 3 new estates so there is plenty of land for the growing population. These are going to be more high density so if people don't mind living there the can and know what they are buying. Why change a well established street so drastically there is no need for it.
    Rowville citizen if you read the planning it is 4x 2 storey and 2x single

  3. In Belgrave VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1592 Burwood Highway, Belgrave VIC 3160:

    N. Delmas commented

    Given this application is yet to be advertised for public review and submissions prior feedback comments and this comment should be considered prior to peliminary assessment and advertising.

    Council should ensure this application is sent to Referral Authority (VICRoads) due to location on a Category 1 road (Burwood Highway).

    This site entry is problematic from Burwood Highway traveling East 9towards Belgrave from Tecoma) requiring a right turn across painted traffic island on a blind turn in variable speed limited zone.
    Undertaking vehicles passing a vehicle attempting entry in such a manner must use bike lane to do so. Notwithstanding such an attempted entry is not legal this does occur due to no easily viable means of executing a U turn along this section of road - only safe viable location is at Burwood Highway / Belgrave Hallum Road / Monbulk Road roundabout in Belgrave shopping precinct that is subject to congestion.

    Current use of this site creates traffic issues and it would appear previous applications were not sent to VICRoads. If previous applications had been sent and no objections subject to conditions, then either appropriate Permit conditions were not applied by Council or compliance to such conditions have not been complied with.

    This application should be used as an opportunity to address this long standing traffic issue AND the sub-standard car parking area on this Lot that does NOT comply to all Clause 52.06 provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.
    This and other car parking areas of similar built form in applications currently yet to be determined by Council will be contested if Council deems such standards to be 'satisfactory'. Such deeming of sub-standard car parking areas is viewed by this respondent as being an unreasonable concession afforded to proponents of no merit to the general public.

  4. In Point Clare NSW on “Seniors And Social Housing...” at 193 Brisbane Water Drive, Point Clare NSW 2250:

    Will commented

    Dear council member
    I would like to take this opportunity to express my disapproval on the proposed social housing development planned for point clare.
    The addition of 55 units on this area will not only put a strain on our community and it schooling issues but also add to the uncertainty of the security of our neighbourhood. Increased traffic and unwanted attention would be a frightening thought for both ourselves and others who live in this peaceful area. I believe there are other options that may not have been looked at for the proposed application by Baptist care. This is a safe and friendly neighborhood that allows us to enjoy the area in which we currently live. Going ahead with this plan would both alter and damage this area both physically and financially by lowering housing prices and reducing the current appeal of the area. Currently we have a broad range of people living in this area from young couples to the elderly. The unwanted attention that would come from building such a development is clearly unacceptable. We want to know that when we leave our houses to go about our daily lives that we can return knowing that everything is as it was left. Introducing 55 units and social housing would create fear of theft crime and this is not something that we want for our peaceful neighbourhood.

  5. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    John O'Donnell commented

    My wife & I have only just purchased on Chittaway Point. It is a unique peninsula jutting into Tuggerah Lake along Ourimbah Creek which has amazing environmental diversity and natural beauty, but there are challenges. It floods, there are acid sulphate soils, bush fires etc etc. I bought with this knowlwdge and the understanding that it was being managed in a responsible way. I would not have bought had I known that there was any potential for additional or inappropriate development. Please reject this rezoning application and reject any inappropriate development on this land that blocks the environmental corridor that it is part of. There a many reasons to do this as many other residents above have already listed.

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Brett commented

    This new DA appears to address some of the neighbours concerns, however, I think given this is a motel (implying people will drive), and is nowhere near a train station, more parking should be catered for, or else the neighbouring streets should have parking restrictions so residents don't need to compete with yet more cars on the road.
    The DA suggests tenants can park on Philpott, Gordon and Perry streets, where it's close to impossible to find parking already. Adding to this, all of the apartment blocks currently being built (two on Addison Rd next door, another on Cowper) have a surplus of apartments over parking, so we will soon see many more cars on the road, all competing for a spot.
    I know it seems to be the council position that residents should be encouraged to not drive, but piling on more cars on roads distant from train stations doesn't seem the best way to achieve this.

  7. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 269 Stewart Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jenni Wanigasekera commented

    This development is highly inappropriate and not in keeping with the neighbourhood characteristics surrounding it. Nor does it address a number of things contained in the Brunswick Structure plan that specifically relates to this area near CERES. Higher density developments may be required due to increasing land costs in the inner city but not at the expense of amenity to existing residents. A 6 level apartment building is not required in this non high growth street, nor is it necessary for the expected population growth (refer inside Moreland brochure) given approvals already approved on Nicholson St, Lygon St & Sydney Rds which are all Activity Centres ear marked for high growth developments.
    We have 2 existing townhouse developments in this pocket which a) respond to higher density b) still remain connected to the community c) respect the character of the existing neighbourhood. d) do not contribute negatively to traffic/parking issues.
    Please reduce this development to 3 levels maxium and ensure community connection. This development will add noise to neighbouring houses in Stewart & Kingfisher & possibly create wind tunnels as it is too close to existing residents & towers over any small private open space reducing amenity & will also create traffic and parking issues. Essentially it will be an insular ghetto building in its current form as it is does not contribute to the community around it. Ideally 269 Stewart St should be a townhouse development, there are far too many vacant apartments already, townhouses are far more viable from a sales point of view and attract more buyers & remain community connected!

  8. In Melbourne VIC on “Proposal to install roller...” at 163-169 Russell Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Jenny Eltham commented

    Roller shutters add nothing to the ambience of a city. There are infinitely more attractive options that could be considered. It would be hoped City of Melbourne will encourage this business owner to explore other options.

  9. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mark commented

    I've lived on Sir Thomas Mitchell Road since 1975, I remember when the park was created turning it from a through road into a cul-de-sac.
    The truth is this building has always been a slag heap, and it's about time it was demolished. I've had a look at am image of the replacement and I think it's good.
    I'll admit the classical facade does have some merit but seriously the building is in such a dire state the only solution is to pull it down and start from scratch.
    There are many old crumbling buildings around Bondi that need to be demolished and replaced with something more in tune with the 21st century. I'm glad it's happening here and hope to see more of it.
    Something also needs to be done about Lamrock lane as it resembles a rubbish strewn 3rd world slum.
    I do sympathise with those who will be adversely affected in neighbouring buildings.
    I have no sympathy for professional NIMBY's who complain at any improvement in this my suburb.
    Bondi beach now is a much much better place than what it was in the 70's. This mythical golden age the nimby's constantly talk about is one where junkies shot up in the street and gangs of feral teens roamed out of control. Our home was broken into 3 times during the 80's. My uncle's girlfriend was attacked and raped once in the late 70's. That my friends was the old Bondi. If you're nostalgic for that, then good luck to you. I'm not and I welcome improvement and progress.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Caleb commented

    Would really like to see Addison road Main Street continue to thrive but once again a little more clarity on amplified music, where the DJs will set up (indoor/outdoor) aswell as a bit of flexibility on traditional working hours that have been mentioned previously. Keep the communication and best of luck.

  11. In Wantirna VIC on “12 lot subdivision” at 6 Benwerrin Drive, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Eddie Maakasa commented

    Hoping to keep our area open area with less density and congestion and I am opposing The High rise and 2-3 stories in our area , especially my street Gateshead Drive which will be subjected to higher overcrowding with the extension of Westfield shopping centre. Knox
    Please Consider
    Yours faithfully
    Eddie Maakasa

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mitchell Donaldson commented

    I absolutely support this application.

    Knowing Ash from Satellite she always respects her neighbours and District would be no different.

    More late night venues are just what this area needs.

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michael Hollis commented

    I give this plan my full support. Because of my work hours I would love District to be open at night.
    Marrickville is known for being a creative, diverse and community-oriented suburb and that's why I live here.
    It is encouraging to see a business owner thinking creatively to give breath and life to the night economy.
    Something more refreshing than the same looking old man pub we seem to have on every corner anyway.
    It's also exciting for there to be a safe night spot for our queer community.

    Let's give opportunity to businesses rather than continue the license suffocation we've seen happen to small businesses throughout the rest of the city.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kevin Privett commented

    I feel it's about time sydney developed a night cafe culture where a venue can serve as a multi purpose facility. 'District' given its location, business owner and staff would be a perfect venture allowing to rise a level of community awareness in Marrickville. You need to do this.

  15. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Brian and Diane Cosgrove wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    Hi. This morning a very large delivery truck arrived with scaffolding for this development. The truck blocked the cul-de-sac while the driver unpacked the equipment on to the footpath in front of the site. It was garbage pickup day which added to the problem. I have rung the Sunshine Coast Council as I am concerned that this scaffolding is going to remain on the footpath for a long period of time. I have been told that someone will come out and look at the situation and also it will be investigated if the developer has a permit to place equipment on the footpath. I would like to know the result of this call and how long the permit would be for. I think that this morning's actions are a good indicator of what to expect in the near future.

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Brian and Diane Cosgrove

    Dear Brian and Diane,
    Thanks for your email.
    Please call my office on 5420 8965 to discuss how this matter can be remedied should your call to council not result in a suitable outcome.

    Regards
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Finance and Strategic Planning Portfolio
    Councillor │ Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council

    Ph: 07 5420 8965.
    Mob: 0418 348 896
    Email:
    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

    On 17 Feb 2017, at 12:56 pm, Brian and Diane Cosgrove <> wrote:

    Hi. This morning a very large delivery truck arrived with scaffolding for this development. The truck blocked the cul-de-sac while the driver unpacked the equipment on to the footpath in front of the site. It was garbage pickup day which added to the problem. I have rung the Sunshine Coast Council as I am concerned that this scaffolding is going to remain on the footpath for a long period of time. I have been told that someone will come out and look at the situation and also it will be investigated if the developer has a permit to place equipment on the footpath. I would like to know the result of this call and how long the permit would be for. I think that this morning's actions are a good indicator of what to expect in the near future.

    From Brian and Diane Cosgrove to local councillor Tim Dwyer

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

    Brian and Diane Cosgrove posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Brian and Diane Cosgrove and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD

    Description: Multiple Dwelling Units x 35 - Rise Projects Services

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/745840?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  16. In Allenby Gardens SA on “Childcare centre (70...” at 47 East Avenue Allenby Gardens SA 5009:

    Joseph Marcon commented

    This development does not comply with councils zoning regulations. This area is zoned residential. There was no public notification

  17. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Amanda Sordes commented

    Marrickville needs more places that offer evening entertainment. "District" is an inclusive space in which LGBTQI people feel welcome, which is something to be encouraged and supported. The cafe is spacious and can easily accomodate 100 people. The area is low density and I am sure the music would stay at reasonable level. I whole-heartedly support this application.

  18. In Belgrave VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1592 Burwood Highway, Belgrave VIC 3160:

    N. Delmas commented

    What Australian Standard is this car parking area at this address built to?

    More to the point, how does Council rationalise this car parking area that fails to meet Clause 52.06 requirements?

    Is this what happens when a cynical conditioned public fails to make objections?

    If this is an example of what Council deems to be satisfactory, not to mention retrospective approval of works effected that is clearly sub-standard, it warrants further action if the same 'standards' works are approved in 2017 at any other site in Tecoma, not limited to VCAT appeal.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Andrea commented

    In theory I support the development, but as a resident who will be directly impacted by the increased hours and inclusion of amplified music until midnight most days of the week, I would like to suggest the following:
    DJs/live music is kept indoors and rooms suitably soundproofed.
    During weekdays (Mon-Thurs), cut off times for music be amended to 10pm.
    The number of rooftop tables be decreased to ensure levels of sound is reduced.

    There are also 3 other DA's for large scale residential properties currently in front of council for consideration. I would suggest that in light of this new application that will only ensure to bring further parking restraints, that all current residential applications should include sufficient parking.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Tricia commented

    What about parking? Esp with bike path plan?

  21. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Stage 1: Demolition” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    Did I miss something? This building is already being demolished. And the neighbourhood continues to be ruined.

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Vicki commented

    I wholeheartedly support this application.
    It is important to the community that the council to allow a good mix of residential and entertainment options in order to allow Sydney to remain a cultural hub.

  23. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Vicki commented

    I wholeheartedly support this application.
    It is important to the community that the council to allow a good mix of residential and entertainment options in order to allow Sydney to remain a cultural hub.

  24. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Joel wrote to local councillor Mark Jamieson

    Hi Tim,

    I'm contacting you in regard to the proposed development of 35 Saltair Street. As a property owner in the nearby vicinity, and after easing the prior emails you have had sent to you, I have a number of concerns which I feel as a valued member of the Sunshine Coast community need to be expressed. A number of these issues seem to have been raised in prior correspondence, with yourself and the local community but it seems to me that your response, some of which are I feel are words that might not be of your own wording and rather put together by others, for you.

    The first of which I would like to put forward to you is that the residents of Kings Beach, and by no means am I speaking for all, but I feel would completely disagree with your response about Kings Beach roads taking the capacity / load of traffic in the area. Tim I not sure exactly what your strategic team is up to, but I can tell you they must have the wrong information or really they are sitting in a different location and thinking they are in Kings beach!!! Tim I'll be the first to say I Iove the area and what it's history is and the fact that it's one of the sunshine coast best holiday spots, but if you and or your strategic planning team feel the network of roads and parking are capable of with standing the capacity of traffic then I feel our council is not completing their tasks as elected members to represent our community. You're more then welcome to throw as many of your strategic planning facts and figures at me, but i'll let you in on somewhat of a little secret, the parking in our great area is a disgrace, and thats before we even get to everyone's favourite time, holiday time. I can't tell you, your little team of elected members of our community, and the strategic planning team how incorrect you are. I ask you to grab your hat and sunscreen and walk the walk around the area and see it for yourself. Now knowing what I know, from my background I'm going to say that the developer will come to some agreement to accommodate those extra cars so that they aren't parked on Saltair Street however, it comes to my attention that you may also need to factor in the visitors and family that will also come with these new units owners. Where do you feel they will park their cars? There is only so much room for them onsite, there is already no parking signs in the street. Which at 35 units in the development, and if one unit has a guest each over at the same time, which is probable, where do they park their cars? I mean sure, everyone loves exercise but do you feel people would be happy parking so far away? Better still, if I was going to buy one of these units, I'd be asking where all the street parking is, no parking, no deal. Now some people might be happy with that, and I respect that, but there are a lot of people who won't be happy with that, like the residents who already live in the connecting streets. I feel your responses thus far have been, at best average. Take a good hard look through the Kings Beach area, there is lack of packing considering the amount or dewellings that are in the area. Then at holiday time it just becomes even worse. Now you could say to me, well you did make the choice to live in the area, and yes you're right. That was based on many reasons but one of the reasons I choose this location to purchase was because it wasn't looking like the gold coast where everyone seems to be living more and more like they are in a tin of sardines. The space, the fact we have minimal high-rise. I actually think that makes us more of a desired location for families on holidays because we are mrs of a community then a holiday precinct. I mean of all streets to choose to put another development, a cul-de-sac??? This actually leads me to my next point which is, surely the has to be some other street or even a suburb that these developments could be approved? Maybe even an area that is untapped, or even on a bigger through road....??? The Street is already under enough stress as it is. It's clear to even see that with the trucks that cut through the street, but I'm guessing the strategic planning team doesn't really see the trucks from their point of view, not too mention the rest of the traffic, which for a dead end street is more then I've ever seen. I mean let's just think about the traffic that will take place on this street and the joining streets over the duration of the build. The first of which will be a demolition team, probably consisting of a number of large earth moving equipment. That to me, and Im no expert, I'm just simply raising the obvious, is going to be a little more then the normal road traffic in Saltair Street and adjoining streets. next will come the piling gear, which will be heavier again. This will be followed by the commencement of slabs for the structure. Now if I do a rough figure in my head, I'm going to say there will be a fair area of floor space per floor. I'm going to guess roughly 700m2, which means one thing. The transport of materials to site on large trucks will be of excessive weights. On decks that size you will average steel truck delivery's around the maximum weight load of 24 tonne and I'll guess again and say that nearly all slabs bar the podium deck will take roughly 30 tonne each. The podium deck, which is the first deck of a build will take a lot more, possibly double that due to post tensioning of the podium slab. This creating more weight on such little streets, has your strategic planning team thought about all these weights? I'm really hoping they have, because after that comes the concrete trucks which at a guess will carry around 7 cubic metres each is going to be around 17.2 tonne each, plus the tare weight of the truck which will be around another 12 tonne. I'm sure I could go on Tim, but I feel by now you must be getting the picture about the roads around Kings beach taking this extra traffic, weight and size. That is of course if the truck drivers can actually gain access into the street with it being so narrow, I know for one i wouldn't want to be backing a semi trailer with 24 tonne of rep steel bar on it, all the way up Saltair Street. I'm sure that the council along with residents in our community wouldn't want that either? Because let's face it, the street and adjoining streets are nowhere near big enough to take the size and weight or this traffic. My opinion at the end of the day is that the streets will not handle it. Sure, Tomkins are doing a development in Canberra Terrace but the line of concrete trucks doesn't appeal to me there either, however it's a much wider and larger road that has better access points for large gear, wide trucks and ore traffic in general.

    The next issue I feel needs to be looked at seriously is that of people's privacy. Now I know that with living in a unit privacy is of a premium. It's something that you relinquish by buying a unit. Especially when you have other units so close, that I can sit on the toilet and other people can watch me. Yes we all have doors and windows, and yes we can keep them closed for more privacy, however we also have a choice, and a right to live how we like, respectfully that is. Whether you live on the top or bottom floor of any unit with other units close by, people are always going to be having a look in. That's what us as humans do, we sticky beak and want to know what everyone is up to. I think it's called something like neighbourhood watch? You know, where we are encouraged to look out for any suspect behaviour and in general look out for each other. Now as a good community member I am happy to do such things, what most people aren't happy with is people seeing in every time they open a door or a window. Too be completely honest it's almost invasion of privacy. Now take yourself out of your shoes for a moment and put yourself in the unit owners shoes or better still the new buyers shoes, do you feel that's something that a development like this is going to be able to provide privacy for all parties, including keeping your doors and windows open? Look what I'm getting at is that the location of this particular development seems rather odd, that is on top of my other comments and valid points. I mean, if a tower crane happens to be erected for the site, which is a probable possibility, where do we sit with privacy? Not too mention the boom over hang, unless of course they are planning to use a jib luffing crane? Or should the developer chose not to use a tower crane, where on earth can they set up a mobile crane in that street for hours at a time? Can that crane hold the capacity of a 50 to 100 tonne mobile crane? That just comes back to the traffic, but i'm guessing your elite strategic team would know all these little things that need to be factored in for each project, all the gross mass weights of the machinery , trucks and materials being delivered to site, and even the materials, not to mention a site like that is going to need to army of trees to complete it, where do you feel they will all park for the duration of the project? That's a lot of traffic Tim, and what happens to the damage of the roads? We all know that council will put it back on the developer. The developer will put it back to the council, this will go on for a number of weeks maybe even months and with no action. You can sit there and respond with what ever you feel is right in response, and no disrespect, but you sit in an office wearing a white collar not a blue collar. Sometimes us blue collars are handy to know a thing or two and think outside the normal box most look into.

    At the end of the day let's face it, this is going to be a business deal between the council and developers. The way I see it, more rates bills to be paid more water bills, more power bills, but is this development right for this location? My answer is no, and that's just based on the traffic system let along the extra people, or the loss of people's views, which I didn't even touch on. Tim if you and your team feel that this is the ideal development for this area, then maybe you might need to look on seek.com.au. because as a member of our community I feel that council and all the people that have been elected to stand and represent our community aren't doing the tasks and seeing their promises for which they have been voted in for, in our community. I don't know all the fancy rules and regulations like others do in our area, but one thing I do know is that we, as a community don''t need another development in a street that really can't take anymore.

    Kind Regards,
    Joel

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Jamieson. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Capalaba QLD on “Advertising Device -...” at 113 Ney Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Simon Sanderson commented

    If this is for a video/digital advertising hoarding on Ney Road as you approach the school zone then I am raising an objection to this application.

    This will be a distraction to drivers who are entering a school zone and this could prove fatal for some poor child.

    Drivers coming down this steep hill should not be distracted from keeping their speed within the limits by eye catching colours, movement and imagery.

    There are enough distractions for young people in their cars as it is already.

    It is difficult enough to keep your speed down to 60 kph coming down this hill let alone 40 kph as it is when the school zone is active.

  26. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    Dianne Fernandez commented

    I have lived in the Chittaway area for 35 years and am strongly against this rezoning applicaton, this area is a unique wetland area land and is in the middle of a nature corridor. This land was zoned as private recreational when it was bought and that is what it should be. We need to look after our lakes by protecting the fore shores so the whole community now and in the future can enjoy this beautiful area. Please don't allow this development.

  27. In Petersham NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 2-4 Shaw Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Anonymous commented

    I oppose this change. The boarding house currently does not have facilities to cater for this many people. There is no parking, no plans for garbage disposal & no letterboxes.
    This property is currently used illegally, with boarders jumping the fence and resisting enquiries as to why they are on the property.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    K webster commented

    I strongly oppose the rooftop where I see there are plans for 10 tables. At 6 people per table that's 60 people six nights a week until midnight and 10pm on Sundays. I live directly behind this in agar street which up until now has been a quiet residential street. There are babies, preschoolers and kids doing their hsc in agar st. this application is asking for too much.

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    K commented

    I live in agar street and have done for 15 years. It's a quiet residential street, so is WEMYSS street and all of the surrounding streets. I don't mind music until 10pm but not midnight and that would depend on how "amplified" it is. I don't fancy 5-6 hours sleep a night really, 10pm-6am would make a good 8 hours sleep and would be fair to everyone in my opinion. I'd not oppose a 10pm closing time.

  30. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    steve hoddinett commented

    I have been a resident of Geoffrey road for 25 years and agree with everything that the previous post say.
    I Am strongly against any zone changes to this land

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