Recent comments

  1. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 18 Baldwin Avenue Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Rhonda Aloisio commented

    This development is totally inappropriate for the eastern side of Asquith. As one of the highest points in this suburb, the size of this development will be markedly out of alignment with the surrounding area of mostly single storey dwellings. It is not at all adhering to the Hornsby Development Control Plan which states on page 3, "Positive
    responses to desired future character include deep soil landscaping along all site
    boundaries, dwellings that address the street or a central walkway, and that are not oriented towards neighbouring properties". The DA currently has multiple balconies overlooking the Asquith Girls High School as well as its neighbouring properties on the western side boundary. This area was zoned for townhouses and should remain so that the character of this area is not destroyed.

    The balconies are all to be made with clear glass so that the view for the surrounding neighbours will be the laundry lines and items that do not fit into the units as their is no plan to include storage facilities for each unit. The clear glass will also mean that each unit facing the internal driveway ramp will have no privacy from each other.

    The Landscaping plan shows that trees are to be planted to reach a height of 3-5metres which given that the space between the property and the fenceline on the side boundaries is 2.9metres on the school's side and 3metres on the western side, this does not give adequate space for these trees to grow. Should there not be a plan for community vegetable and fruit gardens and open spaces greater than a 3metre boundary on the perimeter? This is the kind of garden that will be destroyed by this development. The plans show that car spaces are to be provided underneath for wheel chair access yet the only access from the underground carpark to the ground floor level is via stairs or via the driveway which is not ideal.

    The proposed 43 units will have a significant impact on the availability of parking and traffic flow, particularly at peak times such as the school drop off and pick up times. Pedestrians take their lives in their hands when crossing Sherbrook Road as cars facing east on Baldwin and turning right onto Sherbrook Rd are often racing to make the green light and are unaware that pedestrians also have a green light to cross as well. Having lived just south of this intersection for over 20 years, I have seen more than a few accidents at this set of lights. Most Friday afternoons see a trail of cars stretching from the Pacific Highway lights at Mt Colah all along Royston Parade to the southern end of the Asquith Golf Club and it can take 20 minutes or more to travel this short stretch. The traffic problems in this area increase enormously whenever there is a traffic incident on the M1 when Sherbrook Road and Royston Parade are used as a major Detour route. Sherbrook Road during these incidents can be blocked all the way back from Asquith to Hornsby. Adding unit blocks to this area will only compound this kind of problem.

    With the proposed development, it is highly likely that there will be an increase in people wishing to send their children to the local high schools. I believe Asquith Girls HS is currently at its maximum intake and by allowing such developments on its fence line effectively stops any possibility of expanding the school. What are the plans to enable the school to change its capacity to match the plans of the council to increase the residential population? It would seem to be an issue that should be considered as developers have approached all the neighbours of this school.

    There is insufficient public space/community halls and parks for this kind of development. With the sale of the Asquith Preschool and Community centre, there is no local hall to provide a meeting space for residents, particularly the aged. Mills Park has inadequate playground equipment and no barbeque or picnic sites for outdoor socialising that is so necessary when home is a small unit. The closest barbeque facility is on Lockwood Street. There is one barbeque here for the entire eastern side of Asquith and already it has become increasingly difficult to access this site due to its popularity.

    I respectfully request that this application for the construction of units be denied and that development of a much smaller scale be sought.

  2. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 18 Baldwin Avenue Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Nathan Mulready commented

    The increase in traffic and congestion in this area that will result from this Unit development has not been fully considered.

    The ‘Traffic and Parking assessment report’ attached to the development completely ignores the three schools surrounding the development.
    The large number of pedestrian traffic from entering and leaving Asquith Girls High School via Baldwin Ave is conveniently emitted by the developer.
    Further to the point there is no mention of Asquith Primary School, St Patrick's School or Asquith Early Childcare center which all directly surround the development.

    This proposal is shows a lack of thought and the attached documentation is inaccurate.

  3. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    T Judd commented

    I strongly object to the proposed telecommunications tower on Bullsgarden road. The community of Whitebridge are already exposed to the effects of a telecommunications tower located on the border of Whitebridge and Dudley. To have two telecommunications towers in the one suburb is poor planning and a violation of the rights of the residents to have a safe and healthy place to live. When looking at the proposed towers location as the crow flies it is extremely close to thousands residents. It will not only be negatively affecting the residents in the housing estate off Bullsgarden road but those in the remainder of Whitebridge, Charlestown East and Gateshead. One telecommunication tower in a residential suburb is questionable as it is, but to place two in a suburb shows a complete lack of consideration for resident health and safety, the environment, the impact on property values and the aesthetics of an area.

  4. In Saint Peters NSW on “To remove trees and...” at 15 Unwins Bridge Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sandrw Waugh wrote to local councillor David Leary

    Surely a recycling centre, accessed from Bolton St would mean the trees do not have to be removed. It would make a much better street scape NOT to see this and keep what shade we have.

    Delivered to local councillor David Leary. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Cremorne NSW on “New dwelling, garage,...” at 1 Florence Lane Cremorne NSW 2090:

    Nicole Butcher commented

    I was very interested in purchasing this property last year, and bid at auction. The agent had informed us well of the heritage listing status, both on the local and state heritage register. It cannot be claimed that the heritage listing was not disclosed during the sale process.
    In my position working in property management for the state government, I am very familiar with the restoration of heritage listed properties, and the difficulties which can be faced with termite damage. However in my opinion, it would be a detrimental loss to the community to approve demolition of such a fine example of early 20th century living. As the state heritage register describes, the building "predates most other development locally". The property obviously has significant termite damage, however it is not so extensive as to be unrepairable. I was willing to purchase the property on the understanding that I would need to invest at least $300,000 to restore/renovate it to a suitable standard.

  6. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Middle Camberwell shoppers wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    @ N S Kassy We are most certainly NOT from Woolworths management. Your comments reek of ignorance. I wonder if you even live near the proposal or will you drive through and back to your amenity. Have you bothered looking at the plans yet? Have a long hard look at them. I wouldn't call an art deco shopping strip 'ugly'. It is part of the history of the area. What will be ugly will be the proposal ... if it goes ahead. It is a long box without character and pretty pointless putting another large supermarket opposite Woolworths, removing services, like the medical clinic, etc needed in the community. That is not planning for the future. This is not 'vibrant'. If you bothered to look, you will see this section of Riversdale Road has many 'lovely period homes' both east and west of the shopping strip. If you need a 'big shopping complex' you could visit Camberwell Junction, Box Hill or even Chadstone. FYI this is not a 'big shopping complex' it is just a big supermarket, bottleshop and car park taking up the whole block.

    Delivered to local councillor Heinz Kreutz. They are yet to respond.

  7. In Sans Souci NSW on “365-377 Rocky Point Road,...” at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci:

    Dennis Ward commented

    I am opposed to the current Development Application Number DA 227/2015 for the reasons stated in this submission.

    Some of the reasons to move to this wonderful neighbourhood is that there is minimal traffic flow in the streets, there are so many trees that encourage the native wildlife to reside here, my family can walk the street without fear of being knocked down or hurt in any way shape or form, the parking is of the highest standard for the residence in the street and is already at full usage so how can you possibly hope to provide more in the street for all the other cars that will try to park there.
    I believe that this the absolute outrageous size of the proposed development will have a harmful and significant impact on the residence that live in this street, and my family and I are strongly opposed to the whole development being considered or approved.

  8. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 25 Union Street Tempe NSW 2044:

    Ravit commented

    The addition of the second story to this house will change the façade of the street that the residents have been working so hard to keep. For this reason we object to this DA.

  9. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    N S Kassy commented

    When I read some of the comments here (blinding "red and white signboard", "do we need another supermarket when we have Woolies"...etc) I do suspect they are from Woolworth's management!! As for fears of additional traffic - the same people will either walk/drive to Coles instead of Woolies and vice versa.

    Loss of character, seriously? Are we talking about the same 4-5 random shops in some positively ugly single storey structures? What character do these ugly buildings have exactly? Riversdale Road is a main/arterial road for and not some inner residential street with lovely period homes.

    As for additional traffic - well, with the increase in population, that is to be expected. The comments reek of NIMBYism.

    I am all for Riversdale Road to develop and become more vibrant on both sides. Because once we have a big shopping complex, I am pretty sure even more smaller shops will follow thanks to more foot traffic.

    Regards
    Kassy

  10. In Saint Peters NSW on “To remove trees and...” at 15 Unwins Bridge Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    zio ledeux wrote to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore

    i dont understand why the trees need to be removed either. please rethink this, we need more trees not less, thankyou

    Delivered to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore. They are yet to respond.

  11. In Parramatta NSW on “Development application” at 60, 60A & 62 Thomas Street, Parramatta NSW 2150:

    William Rawle commented

    What's being built? More information please.

  12. In Tamarama NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1/18 Carlisle Street Tamarama NSW 2026:

    see below commented

    Dear Sir / Madam,
    I have reviewed the DA application for 18 Carlisle St Tamarama and wish to object on the basis that it is:
    1. Very bulky
    2. Not fitting for the street scape
    3. Lacks any achitecturial appreciation
    Thanks

  13. In Saint Peters NSW on “To remove trees and...” at 15 Unwins Bridge Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Rodney McShanag commented

    Why remove the trees ? Not sure this makes any sense

  14. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Canterbury girl wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    @ Michael and @ N S Kassy
    The only 'eyesore' will be the blinding red and white illuminated 6m, 5m, etc. long multiple signs on the bland steel, glass and concrete box like development if it goes ahead. Small business will be driven from Middle Camberwell and traffic will be horrendous on Riversdale Road and within local residential streets impacting on amenity. This development will be the demise of the identity and character of the shopping strip. You can use your buzz words of 'vibrancy/' etc, but all a development such as this will create is 'chaos'. There is absolutely NO NEED for two supermarkets opposite each other in this strip. Take it to a strip with no existing supermarket. We have no problem with new development appropriate to the strip offering a diverse range of services to complement the existing. The medical centre needs to be returned to Middle Camberwell as a necessity.

    Delivered to local councillor Heinz Kreutz. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Kingsbury VIC on “Proposed medium density...” at 7 Highland Street Kingsbury VIC 3083:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance as it replaces a family home with only 1 and 2 bedroom flats.
    2. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    3. The proposed development does not respect preferred sustainability characteristics of the area.
    4. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street.
    5. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an over-development for this site.
    6. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    7. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    8. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    9. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    10. The proposed development will not provide affordable accommodation.

  16. In Northcote VIC on “RE-ADVERTISING: Amend the...” at 2 Mc Cutcheon Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. There is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments in Darebin, and an undersupply of 3 or more bedroom separate housing for families. This development adds to the imbalance because it replaces 2 family homes with 29, 1 and 2 bedroom apartments
    2. Very poor internal amenity of some of the one bedroom flats at less than 50sq metres.
    3. The proposal is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area.
    4. The proposal lacks the required number of car parking spaces offering only 29 of 34.
    5. The proposed development does not respect preferred sustainability characteristics of the area.
    6. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both. The increased congestion in the street will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who use the street to walk to nearby schools, kindergartens and community activities.
    7. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an over-development for this site.
    8. The visual bulk from the built scale of the proposed development will be very imposing as it will be visible from surrounding properties and the street.
    9. The proposed development does not add net value to the community.
    10. The number of objections indicates the scale of the negative social effect on the community.
    11. The proposed development does not meet standards set in the Darebin Planning Scheme amendments appropriate for this street.
    12. There is no guarantee that the proposed development will provide affordable accommodation.

  17. In Asquith NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 18 Baldwin Avenue Asquith NSW 2077 Australia:

    Liz Paul commented

    According to the Hornsby Shire Housing Strategy the designated housing form for the Baldwin Avenue and Stokes Avenue precincts is townhouses. This application is for units and given that the Development Control is for medium density, I am assuming that these will be 3 storey.

    Cars entering and leaving this development will do so via Baldwin Avenue.This is a very busy pedestrian area at peak hour as high school students enter and leave the adjoining high school and primary school students make their way to and from school in the adjoining streets. This end of Baldwin Avenue forms part of the ever increasing commuter parking area around Asquith Station. The scale of off-street parking is reaching dangerous and unacceptable levels. Many people who live near stations beyond Asquith park here because the stopping patterns of the trains mean that Asquith has a more regular service.

    Putting units on these 4 blocks instead of townhouses significantly increases the number of dwellings, which in turn, significantly increases the number of vehicles in an already congested area.

    Discounting the Heritage Listed house on the corner of Baldwin and Royston, there are 22 parcels of land to develop in the precinct. This application only represents 4 of these parcels. I wonder how many more parcels of land that should have townhouses on them will also be earmarked for units, contrary to the Housing Development Strategy?

    The housing strategy already recognises the poor connectivity between areas east and west of the railway line and that housing development in this precinct will increase traffic movements. This precinct is within 1 km of two primary schools and two high schools. Traffic on Royston Parade is already at capacity at peak hour and there are regular tailbacks over the bridge as traffic tries to filter on to the Pacific Highway. Tailbacks also occur where drivers try to right turn in to Dudley Street off Royston since cars are able to park opposite this junction and traffic cannot flow around the car waiting to turn. There is no signalisation at Kuring-gai Chase Road/Royston Road intersection and traffic jams of cars waiting to turn right on to Kuring-gai Chase road often form and tail back past Asquith Golf course. This junction is also very unsafe for pedestrians who want to cross the road.

    Please stick to the Housing Strategy and build townhouses instead of units. This area cannot cope with the extra burden these additional dwellings will place on traffic volumes in this precinct.

    I wonder how long our existing infrastructure will hold up under the pressure of all the new dwellings being built in our suburb? A major review of local traffic management is already urgently needed. Increasing the number of dwellings by building units instead of townhouses increases the volume of cars using the local roads. We are already near gridlock at peak hour and the risk to pedestrians accessing local schools and Mills Park is reaching unacceptable levels.

  18. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Judith Voce

    I object to this application.

    There are no benefits to local residents in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate.

    Issues:

    1. Removal of variety of services from shopping strip forcing residents to shop elsewhere, e.g. Camberwell Junction and while we're there using the pet shop, petrol station, Myki top up, fish and chips, etc. we may as well use the Woolies too!

    2. 15 truck deliveries per day - amenity / safety issue for residents/students in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate, directly adjoining to the north. No truck runs through the Hassett Estate.

    3. Change pedestrian crossing to traffic signals. Otherwise entering/exiting the proposal is an accident waiting to happen.

    4. Excessive amount of large illuminated screaming signage not in keeping with either the 1920's/1930's Middle Camberwell shopping strip character nor the peaceful neighbourhood character in general in both the HO 191 Hassett Estate north and the Bringa Estate south.

    5. Excessive noise from plant and equipment associated with a LARGE supermarket.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Voce. They are yet to respond.

  19. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    I object to this application.

    There are no benefits to local residents in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate.

    Issues:

    1. Removal of variety of services from shopping strip forcing residents to shop elsewhere, e.g. Camberwell Junction and while we're there using the pet shop, petrol station, Myki top up, fish and chips, etc. we may as well use the Woolies too!

    2. 15 truck deliveries per day - amenity / safety issue for residents/students in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate, directly adjoining to the north. No truck runs through the Hassett Estate.

    3. Change pedestrian crossing to traffic signals. Otherwise entering/exiting the proposal is an accident waiting to happen.

    4. Excessive amount of large illuminated screaming signage not in keeping with either the 1920's/1930's Middle Camberwell shopping strip character nor the peaceful neighbourhood character in general in both the HO 191 Hassett Estate north and the Bringa Estate south.

    5. Excessive noise from plant and equipment associated with a LARGE supermarket.

    Delivered to local councillor Phillip Healey. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    I object to this application.

    There are no benefits to local residents in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate.

    Issues:

    1. Removal of variety of services from shopping strip forcing residents to shop elsewhere, e.g. Camberwell Junction and while we're there using the pet shop, petrol station, Myki top up, fish and chips, etc. we may as well use the Woolies too!

    2. 15 truck deliveries per day - amenity / safety issue for residents/students in Heritage Overlay 191, Hassett Estate, directly adjoining to the north. No truck runs through the Hassett Estate.

    3. Change pedestrian crossing to traffic signals. Otherwise entering/exiting the proposal is an accident waiting to happen.

    4. Excessive amount of large illuminated screaming signage not in keeping with either the 1920's/1930's Middle Camberwell shopping strip character nor the peaceful neighbourhood character in general in both the HO 191 Hassett Estate north and the Bringa Estate south.

    5. Excessive noise from plant and equipment associated with a LARGE supermarket.

    Delivered to local councillor Heinz Kreutz. They are yet to respond.

  21. In Hurstville NSW on “Proposed change of use and...” at 11 / 106 Queens Road, Hurstville, NSW Australia:

    John commented

    This description is very unclear and does not indicate what kind of community facility this will be? Is this an underhanded way to get a mosque in the area, again?

    Please elaborate on the description and I kindly protest against such a consideration.

  22. In Gateshead NSW on “Telecommunication Facility” at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Andrew Mayzen commented

    I strongly object to the proposed telecommunication tower (DA 329/2016) proposed at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge 2290.

    The jury is not out on the effects of EMF radiation. I have two children including one newborn. Simply I do not want to chance it. I chose to reside here as we are close to nature and far from the impacts of hi-rise and other city type development.

    I am not against Optus putting up a tower for better coverage just not in my face in such a prominent spot. Keep it away from us and our Children. Surely they can put it in an area further away from residences.

    And for the record when a DA like this is put in, call it what it is, a Mobile Phone Tower NOT a "communication facility". If you want communication get the NBN here instead

  23. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 7 Carronshore Close Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Clare Buckley commented

    I agree with all that Alexander has said. We must protect the amenity of Boroondara for which we have paid a premium when we bought our properties. We need to keep our canopy trees and other vegetation, our birds and our peaceful, beautiful streets.
    In addition, our main roads and car parking in shopping centres are already becoming very congested. A cul-de-sac such as Carronshore Close has limited on street parking which could not accomodate the increase in demand for street parking that would be the consequence of this proposed 7 dwelling development.
    Please, Boroondara Council, preserve our life style and amenity by saying NO to these greedy developers.

  24. In Balwyn VIC on “Construction of eight (8)...” at 7 Carronshore Close Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Alexander commented

    Balwyn and the City of Boroondara are one of the wealthiest and affluent areas of Victoria.

    This properties location is being exploited by the developer to overload it with dwellings to gain as much possible profits for themselves. There is no consideration for the suburb, the neighbours, the character of the area, the property values of the area and social status of the area.

    Incorporating 8 townhouses amongst multi-million dollar mansions degrades the area beyond measure.

    It greatly affects the property values of the surrounding homes by greatly reducing their value due to being adjacent to so many townhouses with poor aesthetic design and increasingly added traffic.

    Balwyn is an area that needs to be protected from over developments like this and retain the single dwellings and large properties.

    Leave the subdivisions and apartment developments for Manningham, Stonninghton and Whitehorse and retain and increase the affluential reputation of Boroondara, keeping and increasing property values of those in the area.

  25. In Balwyn VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 178 Balwyn Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Alexander commented

    Unless there is a dire need for two or more dwellings on a small piece of land that is located on a busy Single Land main road, beyond the need for the owner to simply make their profits by gaining permits to build more cheap dwellings then this Permit should not be granted.

    Nor should it be granted for the council to simply gain more rate payers by adding further dwellings.

    There is no dire need for the Road Zone Access to be changed and no need to waive the standard car parking requirements. This is not the CBD and nor is there adequate public transport access, it is not within reasonable walking distance to either trams on doncaster rd and whitehorse rd and is only catered to by buses.

    A busy main road that is single lane and limited on street parking cannot cater to any extra cars parking on the road. Therefore no changes to parking requirements should be waived.

    The surrounding homes are all single detached dwellings and adding more homes does not remain within the character of the area of Balwyn and the surrounding homes. The impact of more dwellings and those that are cheaply built and small in size, reduces the neighbouring property ($) value and brings down the overall property median of Balwyn and subsequently Balwyn North.

    These are two suburbs that have gone under the radar for a number of years but finally coming to light, being known for the large parcels of land, quiet and safe neighbourhoods with quality schools and high property values. This is something that should be adhered to by the council as a reputation to retain for the areas of Boroondara and not give in to developer greed for profits and poor quality.

    No extra dwellings should be permitted other than a single home for the reasons stated above.

  26. In Saint Peters NSW on “To remove trees and...” at 15 Unwins Bridge Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Why can't we access the recycling centre via Bolton Street?
    I object strongly to the removal of trees and the increase in traffic which would adversely affect residents.

  27. In Fairfield VIC on “Construct and use a five...” at 72A Station Street Fairfield VIC 3078:

    Oscar Paolone commented

    I write to express my support for the development at 72a Station st Fairfield for the following reasons;
    1. Well planned and generous apartments of a variety of sizes (1, 2 & 3 bed) giving choice across a number of demographic groups. Hopefully this goes a long way to supporting owner occupiers (in lieu of investors) who will be less transient then renters.
    Other developers would have shoe horned 30+ bedsits.
    2. High quality ESD initiatives with veggie gardens on the roof! Not common in developments this size.
    3. Will improve activity in the daytime and support surveillance from residents in the evening. The development on the east side of Station St is a very poor example of this.
    4. Impact on the surrounding area such as over shadowing is minimal, mostly onto the street. No residential is affected.
    5. Good quality Architect / Developer who have successfully done a similar development in East Brunswick. Go and see it!

    Development will continue to happen so the key is supporting the better ones and not objecting for the sake of it.

    However I do agree any future under grounding of the tracks needs to be considered.

  28. In Camberwell VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 725 Riversdale Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    N S Kassy commented

    I welcome the application provided it meets all the guidelines. We certainly need more competition and new shops are welcome.

  29. In Saint Peters NSW on “To remove trees and...” at 15 Unwins Bridge Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    The trees are pretty spaced apart. It shouldn't be necessary to remove them all. Hopefully the irony of setting up a recycling and destroying trees to do it isn't lost on Marrickville Council.

  30. In Fairfield VIC on “Construct and use a five...” at 72A Station Street Fairfield VIC 3078:

    Richard Stanaway commented

    This development is very much out of character for the site. A 3 storey development which preserves some open space would be much more appropriate for the site (like the development on the other site of Station Street). A 5 storey structure would dominate and shade the immediate area and destroy its character.

    Another aspect of the development which possibly hasn't been considered is a future grade separation replacing the existing level crossing next to the site. A 5 storey (even a 3 storey one) structure would make grade separation a very expensive and complex exercise. Allowance for this inevitable replacement should be considered in the design for the development.

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