Recent comments

  1. 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.

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

    Steven Axam commented

    I am opposed to DA 227/2015 at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci for the following reasons:

    1. Inconsistency in Building Height and Density

    I believe that the density and height of the proposed development is inconsistent with the housing and other commercial developments in the surrounding streets on the western side of Rocky Point Road. Other nearby buildings are a maximum of three storeys high, so a five-storey building would look “out-of-place” at the proposed location.

    The density of the proposed development is significantly higher than other nearby buildings on the western side of Rocky Point Road. In this way the proposed development is inconsistent with the land zoning of other existing buildings in Broughton and Bonney Streets.

    Such inconsistencies in development would lead to a decline in the appearance and character of the street and that would make it a less desirable area to live. There is also the potential for such a development to negatively affect the value of properties in the surrounding streets.

    2. Traffic and Parking Congestion Issues

    Already there have seen many occasions when street parking has not been available in close proximity to this proposed development. This has lead to situations where parking has not been available at the locate shops on Rocky Point road and in Bonney Street.

    Traffic congestion is also a major issue on Rocky Point road and around the commercial properties in Bonney St. I believe that the proposed development will worsen this situation.

    3. Impact on Native Birds & Tress

    There are many native birds including Rozellas and Kookaburras that live in the immediate area where the development is proposed. I am concerned that the development will result in a reduction in the habitat of the native wildlife due to the potential loss of several large trees that would take many years to regrow.

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

    I would ask that this submission be taken into consideration when assessing the development application.

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

    Michael commented

    If the planning application meets all of the guidelines then why should it not be allowed to proceed?
    The particular location is an eyesore with the buildings all looking hotch-potch and pretty run down. A new development will add vibrancy to the area and certainly give Woolworths a long overdue bit of competition.
    It is a well known marketing fact that smaller independent shops follow the "big 2" as the latter attracts plenty of foot traffic

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

    Rebecca Curran wrote to local councillor Morris Hanna

    I object to this development application because of the excessive overshadowing caused by the proposed second storey addition. Their DA plans show no solar panels on the roof of number 23 as per Marrickville LEP and will render these solar panels as obsolete. This second storey addition plus the car port are not sympathetic to the current streetscape..

    Delivered to local councillor Morris Hanna. They are yet to respond.

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

    Angus commented

    Addition of a 2nd storey to this house - although setback from the street - is not in keeping with the current streetscape with no other houses in this street having a second storey addition. For this reason I object to this application.

  6. In Wyong NSW on “Staged Development -...” at 27 Howarth Street Wyong NSW 2259:

    K A Doig commented

    I disapprove of this new 104 Boarding House development at 27 -31 Howarth Street Wyong. I have notice since there has been more housing commission homes in the area, crime and safety has gone down. There is frequently violent fights and domestic abuse in the area due to drugs. There is also constant stealing from Baker park at local sporting events. The area has gone down in value due to these housing commission homes. Police are frequently called out to stop the violence. When does one feel safe walking home from Wyong station or going to the corner shop. Please consider this submission from a local resident that has had enough of hooligans and drug up people disturbing the peace. I do not feel it is necessary to have a boarding house so close to local families and the community that is has had enough violence.

  7. In Kew East VIC on “Demolition of an...” at 20 Oswin Street Kew East VIC 3102:

    Debbie McColl-Davis commented

    But this outbuilding was demolished last weekend, 19/20 March 2016

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

    Peter Butcher commented

    We inspected 1 Florence Lane Cremorne prior to its sale last year and we bid at the auction.
    We were aware of its heritage listing and verbally advised the successful bidder of that on the day before the auction during an inspection.
    We were happy to buy it and renovate.
    In particular :
    a) the tree on the border of the adjacent apartment block needed to be removed as it had caused a crack in the house east wall.
    b) otherwise numerous timbers needed to be replaced ,due to termite damage.
    c) beyond these two issues , and after getting engineer's advice, we felt the house could be renovated to an impressive historical residence.

    The house is capable of restoration at reasonable cost and the request to demolish should be refused.

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

    Camberwell resident and ratepayer and regular shopper in Middle Camberwell wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    Camberwell resident and ratepayer and regular shopper in Middle Camberwell commented 1 day ago

    THIS IS A HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE CAMBERWELL SHOPPING PRECINT.

    The is traffic congestion and lack of parking already. Why when there is the Camberwell Junction major shopping precinct just over a mile away with lots of parking etc and public transport access would the Council even consider yet allow such over-development in Middle Camberwell? - more//higher rates income I guess. The current supermarket and other businesses and service providers in Middle Camberwell cater well for customer needs. It seems to be a matter of over zealous competition between 2 major retail players no matter what and the Council will fail in its duty to local ratepayers and residents if a decision to allow this development is allowed.

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

  10. In Epping NSW on “Residential - New Multi...” at 1 Hazlewood Place Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    N paterson commented

    When is enough enough? I cant believe without transport infracstruture morr units! No spaces at schools and it takes me an hour or 50 mins morning trip beecroft to epping heights then gordon. Ray road and carlingford road r terrible. Stop thinking people will all walk and train to work when living in these units as i see cars driving from units constantly. I am so disappointed with councils ruining beautiful epping where i resided for most of my last 28 years. Yes we understand some units have to be built to accomodate our growing population but enough is enough

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

    Camilla Duggan commented

    What kind of recycling centre? Why place it near residential property. I object to the removal of trees and the lack of information regarding this recycling centre. I would like the trees to be replaced.

  12. In Bundamba QLD on “Extension to a Relevant Period” at 72 Nelson Street Bundamba QLD 4304:

    Michael Johnson commented

    There is only one route out of north Bundamba for all traffic travelling on the Warrego Hwy or Brisbane Rd to Brisbane, that is Mary Street Bundamba between the TAFE and TAFE carpark and a kindergarten.

    Mary St has one lane each way with cars parked on both sides and a pedestrian crossing. Flooded areas of Bundamba in 2011 were rezoned to allow heavy trucks to be parked in special purpose zones. There is already too much heavy traffic down this narrow road.

    An alternative route to the Warrego Hwy should be opened before allowing any further development in Bundamba north of the TAFE.

  13. In Victoria Point QLD on “MCU for "Amendment to...” at 32A Teak Lane, Victoria Point, QLD:

    Maria sealy commented

    To whom it may concern,
    We are located directly behind VP town centre, this will heavily impact all the residents adjoining the conservation park. There has been no consultation with the residents, no communication, no officers reports etc from Council. yes we have experienced anti social behaviour from time to time but to relinquish a precious parcel of land and bulldoze for a car park etc, how will it be monitored, pedestrians, cars which will be a Black spot for hooning, we were encouraged by council to keep them informed of any situations. Prior to VP Town centre being built we all encouraged and involved with the buffer that was the key factor for us the residents, and appreciated that Council had the foresight to listen to our concerns. There are no cctv cameras council or vp town centre did not listen to our request. A simple request to place a bin just behind our properties was declined by vp town centre. We care and take great pride of our area and are a very strong community. This is an injustice as the land is protected by a court order. We will collectively work together to protect this precious parcel of land. The trees have matured and we the native animals, birds return.
    Also writing for our neighbour no 32
    Thank you for your time

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

    Paul Kennedy commented

    My 3 yr old son is too young to object to potential brain damage these towers may cause in twenty years time. So I'm doing it for him. Don't allow this tower.

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

    Camberwell resident and ratepayer and regular shopper in Middle Camberwell commented

    THIS IS A HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE CAMBERWELL SHOPPING PRECINT.

    The is traffic congestion and lack of parking already. Why when there is the Camberwell Junction major shopping precinct just over a mile away with lots of parking etc and public transport access would the Council even consider yet allow such over-development in Middle Camberwell? - more//higher rates income I guess. The current supermarket and other businesses and service providers in Middle Camberwell cater well for customer needs. It seems to be a matter of over zealous competition between 2 major retail players no matter what and the Council will fail in its duty to local ratepayers and residents if a decision to allow this development is allowed.

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

    Rod Roldan commented

    I rather have the trees than your recycling centre that not many people wil use or are trying to match the destruction of my community in St Peters with a competition to the M5?

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

    Petra Jones wrote to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore

    How many trees will be removed? Can they be replanted nearby? I am opposed to the removal of all the trees.

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

  18. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 308-314 Stanmore Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Angel Antoun commented

    Please don't alter the facade
    Please provide evidence of all intentions
    Chris Browns comments sums it up
    The heritage items in this area of Sydney is priceless

  19. In Guildford NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 493 Guildford Road Guildford NSW 2161:

    Pamela Cahil commented

    As the resident and rate payer behind this particular application for development at 493 Guildford Road, Guildford 2161. I am located at 16 Lucas Street, Guildford, and have been resident for 38 years. I am hopeful details to my privacy will be taken into consideration, as this development will result in additional noise to the locality. Also I am requesting adequate and suitable replacement of my rear fence (at the expense of the developer of 493 Guildford Road, Guildford), which has been damaged by trees on that property, for both privacy and noise reduction. Also request is made to view the plans for this development as it will impact on my property.

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

    Local Resident wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    To whom it may concern,

    I wish to object to the proposal - PP15/01414, on the following grounds.
    permanent closure of mixed small businesses will reduce the amenity for local residents - particularly those who don't have access to cars. The community stands to lose its only petrol station, pet warehouse, fish & chip shop. Medical centre has already been closed down due to this and is what I would call an essential service. Also loss of beautician & various small offices. Add to this the closure of the hardware store to allow Woolworths expansion and some have already dubbed the shopping centre "supermarket central" -

    THIS WILL LEAD TO THE LONG TERM DEMISE OF MIDDLE CAMBERWELL SHOPPING CENTRE.

    loss of competition with dominance of supermarket duopoly
    no market need for additional supermarket - this is purely part of the "supermarket wars" and nothing to do with competition or public interest
    increased traffic on an already congested road
    will increase noise, lighting and traffic in residential area
    will overload off street parking, which will be unfair & detrimental to local residents
    increased traffic entering/ exiting Riversdale Road (on both sides) is a RECIPE FOR DISASTER, with a mix of pedestrians (school children, elderly), private vehicles, delivery trucks & trams all converging in one small area.
    extended hours will be a destruction of peaceful amenity for local residents

    THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA - THERE IS NO NEED FOR A SECOND SUPERMARKET - WE NEED OUR SHOPPING STRIP TO HAVE DIVERSITY OF BUSINESS, NOT BIG BUSINESS WITH LARGE SCALE 24/7 OPERATIONS.

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

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

    Concerned residents wrote to local councillor Heinz Kreutz

    Re PP15/01414
    Dear Sir,
    We wish to object most strongly to the plan for a large supermarket in Middle Camberwell.
    First a general comment and complaint: planners seem to be increasingly intent on allowing or encouraging development which is quite inappropriate in some areas, and greatly favours big Business, often at the detriment of actual people, particularly those who live or work in the area.
    This proposed development in Middle Camberwell is a very clear case in point. A large company is being allowed to develop an area despite strong objection on what seem very sensible grounds by local people, including those in the Heritage area bordering it.
    The first, and obvious point is that we already have one middle sized supermarket, and there are at least 2 more, much larger, about 2 km away, and only a few minutes by car. Other serious objections are that the proposed building will dwarf the local heritage area, and cause traffic congestion in it, as well as more danger to local walkers and children. (This has already occurred to some extent, with recent increase in parking in local streets, and also, for example, 'cut through' driving in our Griotte/Dorothea street because of increased traffic, particularly after hours, some coming from the supermarket. ) There are many walkers, both school children with parents, and old slow walking people passing our corner each day. There are four large schools in the area, two with primary sections. Several of their children walk to and from the tram stop in Middle Camberwell or to the nearby railway station.
    Another objection is because of the Riversdale Road congestion which is likely to occur. There would be many supply lorries for a new store which will be a cause for traffic delays, at times. This is already true for the current store, and, at times appears to cause increased danger to children congregating on the pavements, both sides between the 7-11 and the present supermarket. Sometimes, after the close of school in the afternoons, I have counted more than 40 children outside the 7-11, waiting for the tram, and several more on the opposite side, (most of them cross over with the lights!) At present a big group has space to spread out onto the 7-11 verge or apron (often having made purchases inside). It is sometimes necessary for pedestrians to zig-zag a way through. Mostly if a pram is involved, it gets good consideration. But what will happen if we have building walls right out to the edge of the narrowish pavement on both sides of the street near the lights and tram stops? There will be much less room to accommodate 40 or so children, and also, at times, the area will probably act as a 'wind tunnel'
    Unfortunately Middle Camberwell has never had a 'public area' near the places where people congregate, or rest, (unlike Malling Road, for instance), but some sense of visual space has been given by the areas much wider that the narrow pavement, such as in front of the 7-11, the pet shop, furniture shop and Dry Cleaner. It seems these can be taken away from the community.
    Not only that, but we seem set to lose several small stores and Doctor's rooms, where many work, in favour of a large store which is likely to be much automated. In small stores owners are able to adapt to their customers' needs, and interact over interests, family, children, etc. If the present supermarket is any guide, it will be possible to get goods there and not have to interact with a single person. Furthermore, the checkout people change, so there is less likely to be the same person to interact with next time of checking out. It is often difficult to find someone to help in such big stores where the owners' understandable aim is to reduce wages as much as possible! Present automation trends suggests that trolleys may be designed with loops, which, as goods are dropped into them, will total the cost, so with merely a credit card one can walk out of the store to car or home without interacting with a single person! We ourselves have already experienced this with hand held scanners doing a similar job to a loop.
    And this when increasing research suggests that humans, particularly older people and those living on their own, need contact with others to stay mentally healthy. Another reason for serious concern over human health in the region is how much increased the pollution will be with many heavy diesel lorries and cars coming into it. It is well known that slowing and accellerating adds a great deal to the pollution emitted from vehicles. This will be greatly to the detriment of those walking and working in the area. Automotive pollution is ever more seen as a serious cause of poor health, particularly in the aged, of which there are many in the surrounding areas, many having to walk to and from home to the shops, or children walking to and from schools.
    This is not a case of NIMBY, because development is welcome, if in keeping with an area, and helps local residents to have more fulfilling lives instead of more automation.
    Your concerned residents

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

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

    Philip Cleary commented

    The removal of all these trees seems unnecessary. I understand a few would need to be removed to construct the crossing, but all of them? C'mon guys work it out, public amenity says we need trees now more than ever before, trees make our existence in this city which is rapidly becoming overdeveloped a little more bearable.

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Jane Addis

    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.

    Photo of Jane Addis
    Jane Addis local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Canterbury Resident

    Thanks Aleesha

    Your comments are noted.

    regards

    Jane Addis
    Councillor Maling Ward

    City of Boroondara
    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    Telephone: (03) 9835 7845 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466
    Email: Jane.Addis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    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 Coral Ross. They are yet to respond.

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Jim Parke

    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.

    Photo of Jim Parke
    Jim Parke local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to Canterbury Resident

    I am responding on behalf of the Mayor, Cr Jim Parke to acknowledge receipt of your email and advise your comments have been noted.

    The Mayor has asked me to register your email which will then be sent to the relevant Director for the appropriate action.

    Regards
    Tula Sahinidis
    Secretary to Mayor and Councillors

    8 Inglesby Rd, Camberwell, Victoria, 3124
    City of Boroondara - Governance
    Telephone: (03) 9278 4457 | Fax: (03) 9278 4466
    Tula.Sahinidis@boroondara.vic.gov.au
    Web: www.boroondara.vic.gov.au

    Integrity I Collaboration I Accountability I Innovation I Respect

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Kevin Chow

    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 Kevin Chow. They are yet to respond.

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    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 Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Philip Mallis

    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 Philip Mallis. They are yet to respond.

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

    Canterbury Resident wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    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 Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

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

    Canterbury Resident commented

    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.

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