Recent comments

  1. In Bondi NSW on “Additional two levels to...” at 48-50 Penkivil Street Bondi NSW 2026:

    Bel Thomas commented

    I oppose this development. The building is already 7 stories high. Another 2 stories would exceed height limits and make it the highest in the street. There are too many apartments in the area, no parking, no improvement to infrastructure and way too many building sites. The Developers have absolutely no regard for existing residents with noise, blocking Street parking overnight and dust. Enough is enough!

  2. In Swansea NSW on “Mixed Use Boarding House/...” at 1 Josephson Street, Swansea NSW 2281:

    Jan Fairclough commented

    To whom it may concern

    Lake Macquarie Council asked on their Facebook page “If you could make Lake Mac an even better place to live and play, where would you start?” My Answer: “I would start by not put a 3 story mixed use boarding house on the lakes edge in the heart of Swansea”.

    I believe this 3 story boarding house development does not fit with the family friendly seaside village environment of Swansea. Among our residents we have young families and the elderly who came here because they feel this is a safe community.

    I understand that there is a huge need for housing accommodation and I fully support aged and low income accommodation but only ground level or 2 story at the most.

    We do not have an abundance of employment for the people who already live here so this development would only create social problems that come with unemployment.

    Swansea is the gateway to lake Macquarie and Newcastle and should a welcoming showpiece to the lake yet it is the forgotten area, money should be spent to beautify and market this lovely place as a beautiful seaside village for people come here to holiday and live a beautiful life at the lake and great beaches surrounding us, in doing so create employment in the area.

  3. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Davie Apesmont commented

    I don't understand why so many people aren't objecting this proposal. It's black and white to me.

    I have been an inner west resident for several years and I am in no way associated with the organisers. Here are my views on the situation:

    - it only takes up a small fraction of the park, the majority of the park is free for children and dogs etc.
    - events like this pump much needed money into our councils
    - this is a reputable, professional events company - they are working within council guidelines

    I do think they should integrate Newtown culture and restaurants (and possibly charities) with the festival. But other than that, as long as they pay the fees and ensure the park is safe and clean then why not give them a chance??

    Worst case, is they don't do a good job they will never be invited back again.

    I agree with Sandra in saying this is a typical case of NIMBYism. So many opponents cite weak excuses of 'not being able to walk the dog'. These people have NOT even glanced at the proposal.

    Please give festivals like this a chance. These revenue streams should be explored by the inner west council.

  4. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jeanette commented

    I object to the use of the park (as public space) for a large scale commercial event. The EIS also prompts a number of questions:

    1. Shows that 6 - 8,000 people are anticipated over two days at $15 entry fee. As a comparison, the budget (in the EIS) assumes 4,666 people (not including children that are free).

    These figures compare to 10K attending last years event - with 16K interested. Refer FB. Given the numbers are important in terms of assessing the impact the event will have on the local community, and also the wider area in terms of traffic management, can council clarify what are the nos, and how the patron numbers will be managed.

    2. The EIS includes a budget. This shows that the total costs are are $197K, with revenue being $203K, to achieve $7.5K profit. This assumes ticket sales of $70K and $90K in sponsorship.

    While council is not responsible for assessing the event viability, given the budget, it is assumed that the patron numbers are higher.

    3. The expenses for venue hire are shown as $8,516 with cleaning and waste management shown as $7K.

    If the waste management and cleaning costs are provided by Council, then the net gain to council would be negible.

    4. The no of patrons has the potential to impact the turf and trees.

    5. Last years event was held in a licensed premises. While a Special Event License is held by the event organiser, how will Council ensure the organiser has experience holding a large scale outdoor event.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    David Urquhart commented

    I object to this application.
    "to use Camperdown Memorial Park for the Burgapalooza Festival on 25 March 2017 and 26 March 2017 with ‘bump in’ on Friday 24 March 2017 and ‘bump out’ on Monday 27 March 2017"
    If it was to be only a one day commercial event I would object. However, it will, according to the application (extract above), effectively require access to our community park for FOUR days.
    One person supporting the application claims that the park is not used much on weekends. This is not true. It is so popular on weekends, especially in warm weather, that I refer to the park as Newtown Beach.

  6. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    I strongly object.
    It is not in the public interest.

  7. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Sandra G. commented

    NIMBYISM at its best. This festival will bring vibrancy to the area. The community benefit is the increased activity brought to the park and the many thousands in fees they will pay the Council to hold it in the park. As for the person complaining that 'organisers haven't reached out to the public' that is Council's job via public notification. People complain about Mr Baird and the lock out laws yet want to strangle anything new and different. And no, I am in no way associated with the project and won't even go but I hate entitled NIMBYs - so we will be making damn sure we show our support for this project.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Gemma E commented

    So a private person/group is wanting to close off a public park and charge members of the public to enter public land? I'm so appalled by this proposal I really have no words.

  9. In Hawthorn VIC on “Construction of a dwelling...” at 6 Bell Street Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Nicholas Hardy commented

    I consider this application to detract from the Victorian Working Cottage character of Bell Street and those adjacent. I appreciate the utility of the design but feel strongly that more could be done to maintain the character of the street setting. The proposed design sets a precedent (another precedent) that shall be detrimental to the architectural harmony of the street and we risk losing the heritage of the area - something I consider central to the wider wellbeing of the community.

  10. In Coogee NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 178 Coogee Bay Road Coogee NSW 2034:

    C. Parsons commented

    I would object strongly to any further development at 178 Coogee Bay Road, particularly increasing their capacity for guests at a hotel. Living backing onto the property for 15 years, the residents of our building have been consistently troubled by the noise coming from the property. Acting, as it does, as backpackers' accommodation it draws a younger crowd who regularly get together at the property for loud gatherings, not to mention parties and people coming back to the property after many of the pubs in the area close or don't allow anyone in. Therefore there is often noise in the early hours of the morning. Repeated calls to the property and attempts to contact the owner have not diminished the noise very much. There is also no point talking to the residents and complaining as they are often drunk and can be abusive. This continues despite a notice that no one is to be outdoors after 9 pm which they often are. Also the noise is heard equally loudly from people inside with the windows open.
    This continued noise for more than 15 years and complete disregard by the owner has angered many other ratepayers and drastically reduced our quality of life and right to a peaceful life in the area.
    Secondly, and importantly in a construction sense, there is a tree on the property which is severely affecting the retaining wall to our property. Despite repeated requests from the Owners' Corporation about this to the owner through the council, nothing has been done to repair this issue. It has been cordoned off on our side as a hazardous area and no residents can go there. Considering this complete disregard by the owner for a safety issue, I do not consider it would be appropriate to grant any kind of development application.

  11. In Randwick NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 2 Courland Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Roslyn A Hilditch commented

    I am disgusted that DA-306/2015A was allowed to go ahead. My daughter has always had problems parking in the street and now with the extension of the driveway and the removal of the tree at the said property there is one less parking spot! Her partner resides at 4 Courland St and she will soon have two children 5 and under!
    Backpackers also leave their cars for months in the street and there is also a rental car parking space as well. For a salubrious suburb it is a shambles.
    The extension is a blight on the landscape it is ugly and the noise from the occupants screaming children is echoed from the materials used in the renovation. My daughter and her partner work nights.
    Now the occupants are renting it out as a dual occupancy and moving away from the area! People are being disadvantaged by a greedy money making scheme.

  12. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Todd commented

    I object to this event.

    I reject the idea that our public space should be used for private profit.

    There is no community benefit from this event, and Council should not approve this application.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Liz Brigden commented

    I object to this proposal, this is a public space used by all of us. It should not be closed off for a commercial for profit event, there are many other locations they could use

  14. In Buff Point NSW on “Child care centre” at 5 Yackerboom Avenue Buff Point NSW 2262:

    Michelle Kemsley commented

    Could you please tell me if you know what age range this centre will cater for and if it is a private centre or community based? Is it Long Day Care or PreSchool, Long day? Hours of operation?

  15. In Peregian Springs QLD on “The Ridge Lot 2301 Honey...” at Honey Myrtle Cl, Peregian Springs, QLD:

    Felix Clack commented

    I object to dual occupancy on this application. I own land on this street and as a future resident it would appear to me that there is no compelling reason to place 2 residences on a single plot, with the extra people and traffic that it brings when there is still vacant land In the same area and even on the same street.

    It strikes me more as profiteering than genuinely trying to alleviate any need for housing.

  16. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Jane wei commented

    I object to this . It really effects the businesses normal trading near the park and the neighbors / local resident around the park, it also impacts on the parking situation for customers near the park. A lot of residents use the park for dog walking and time spent with friends and family. Please take this festival else where .

  17. In Elsternwick VIC on “Use of shop with a floor...” at 483-493 Glen Huntly Road Elsternwick VIC 3185:

    erika wils commented

    I would like to strongly object to any further development of multi story buildings and more so with reduced parking and waiver of a parking bay, Glenhuntly road already has excess number of multi storey buildings and huge traffic congestion and not enough parking areas for us residents. It will add to traffic congestion and increase danger and this is in view of the already approved development of the supermarket area which is within walking distance and next door to a recent multi storey development. Council needs to protect us rate paying residence and make our area safe and stop approving these developments enough is enough.

  18. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 16A Park Crescent, Pymble, NSW:

    John wrote to local councillor David Ossip

    Hello,

    I am compiling history of Pymble Hill and I went to the Nuns' school there.

    This was a very long time ago (that school, built 1947 but on a very much older Catholic site, is long ago gone now. I have been looking hard for anyone else interested in the area and according to the Council they have been are aware of nobody else. Should there be anyone else interested in this part of (central) Pymble then can we please meet at Robert Pymble Park to just introduce ourselves and each speak for 5 mins on what they have been doing? Re what 'Fact Checker" wrote:

    """"""""""""""""
    Nothing like some facts....
    1. The site is not in the Pymble Conservation Area.
    2. The two houses being demolished are very ordinary 1980's houses and not in conformity with the older original housing styles.
    3. No original 1930s or 1940s housing is to be demolished.
    """""""""""""""""
    I thought probably only ONE house is be demolished there (plus a garage) for the new blocks of units. Namely the house which is on the site of old "Clutha" (totally destroyed years back?) ... where in regards to that house does the second house lie which is going to be demolished, please? Dr John Byrnes (Geologist)

    (I can be contacted at john dot mail at ozemail dot com dot au - and am also researhing other places as well, including North Turramurra and Irish Town and the remnant Browns Forest canopy along Mona Vale Road. I have had two small Council grants for looking into the OLDER history of the area. Also if anyone knows EXACTLY where the building "Wallaby Hall" once stood near Pymble Station I would appreciate such information.)

    Nothing like some facts....

    1. The site is not in the Pymble Conservation Area.
    2. The two houses being demolished are very ordinary 1980's houses and not in conformity with the older original housing styles.
    3. No original 1930s or 1940s housing is to be demolished.

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

  19. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Denis J & Bee Poh Y commented

    Totally against any big events in Camperdown Memorial Park as I consider that it should be a recreational facility for the immediate neighbourhood. Newtown Festival is okay but that should be it for any 12 month period. Also who pays for the damage to the grassed areas, paving etc. caused by these festivals? Locals already see overuse, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, brought to us by the State Government’s lockout laws. Local residents need to have this Park available for our own recreational needs. So it is a definite "No" from me. These requests should be declared outside the Council's defined uses for this park (No such requests to be considered in the future). Council should instead focus on preventing overnight camping in Federation Street and stopping excessive noise by people partying in the Park into the wee hours of the morning

  20. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Andrew commented

    I don't think many posting here have read the DA clearly - the event plans on taking up a portion of the park (roughly 1/5th) for 2 days. A lot of people are alleging what "Newtown is about" in the comments - I think it is beyond dispute that Newtown is known Sydney wide for hosting alternative events you don't find in the mainstream, and this is one of them. Local councils are struggling for funding everywhere, surely the extra income is worth it. Our neighbourhood is a busy social hub every weekend, regardless of whether there is a one off event.

    Parks are there to be used, grass does grow back. Although I would hope the organisers have a firm plan in place to control garbage and waste to minimise any lasting impact.

    I resent the person above who maintains that Newtown is "against eating meat" - you are speaking about a very small minority, even in Newtown. The majority of Newtown is not vegan or vegetarian.

  21. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Eli Reed commented

    I object to the commercial nature of the event in what is a public and community space.

    I object to the disturbance involved to locals when the event is closing down and people are leaving after 9pm on a Sunday and the disturbance again when the site is being packed up beginning from 6am of a Monday morning.

    I object to the disturbance of the area for what amounts to 4 days - Friday through Monday.

    Also, a the labelling of a $15 entry fee as nominal shows how out of touch the organisers are. $15 is a lot of money to pay for the privilege of having access to stand in queues to buy things.

  22. In Swansea NSW on “Mixed Use Boarding House/...” at 1 Josephson Street, Swansea NSW 2281:

    Sykvia Lee 1. wrote to local councillor Ken Paxinos

    • MP HOENIG'S success knocking similar DA's.

    • Police Rec's on this DA.(1 Josephson St, Swansea.)

    • Crime Risk Assessment on this DA.

    • 9 ONLY NOTIFIED & allowed to attend Developers Private Meeting on this DA.

    • RP DATA Pic of Swansea.

    • INVITATION to Public Meeting.

    • Social Media Invitation.

    • LMCC Swansea Streetscape Master Plan.

    • Crime Risk Assessment Recommendations - more details.

    HOW CAN YOU - HELP US (CROS - Concerned Residents Of Swansea) STOP INAPPROPRIATE LAKE MACQUARIE CITY COUNCIL (LMCC) DA: 1 JOSEPHSON ST, SWANSEA for a 3 storey Private Boarding House + Supervisor/Manager Onsite. 

    Re LMCC DA: 1 Josephson St, Swansea, NSW & Private Boarding House + Supervisor Onsite - NOT to be confused with Swansea local Doctor's LMCC DA for 3 Josephson St redevelopment for dental practice next door.

    PS: Where local Dr's LMCC DA for 3 Josephson St, Swansea for a dental practice has just (apparently) had ADDED ON COMPLIANCE Requirements by LMCC...

    Re LMCC DA for 1 Josephson St, Swansea: 

    - 2 LMCC councillors declared conflict in late Nov '16. (22nd/25th Nov '16)

    - Submissions Closed 3.1.17. When most locals away on family/holiday visits.

    DA 1 Josephson St, Swansea - for 3 Storey Private Boarding House + Manager/Supervisor Onsite and located opposite public school, public pool and Swansea foreshore; this would destroy our unique family, retirees, cyclists and tourists haven that been apart of our Swansea community for generations.

    Member for Swansea, Yasmin Catley MP; said she would organise the FIRST public meeting. Then apparently overnight she cancelled this and since  seemingly not wanting to be involved at all.

    No reply from MP for Shortland, Pat Conroy yet, despite my weekly emails to him.

    For Swansea residents and locals please write your Submission letters to LMCC and include your feedback For or Against this DA and reasons based under PLANNING objections like Swansea Density, Setback,  Amenity, Traffic fallout and streetscape etc for whether you support this DA or not....

    Going by Mayor Kay Frasers regular report in THE STAR newspaper Wed 18.1.17 that more then 1,100 Written Submissions needed (re Pelican Jetty Not Be Moved 150m East to carpark - as damaged from superstorm) to knock this location as inappropiate and 1,100 written submissions needed from Swansea locals Opposing this LMCC DA for 1 Josephson St, Swansea...

    Demographic: Swansea includes many 1 level miner shacks, small family homes, retirees and Sydney downsizers with child friendly waterfront, swimming areas, cricket pitches on grassed sporting fields; picnic areas plus public amenities with playgrounds within 50-100 metre radius walk.

    ● "Swansea is built upon a tidal sand flat." Ex Swansea MP, Robert Coombs.

    3 storey Paris Apartments next to Swansea Bridge and foreshore has no retaining wall. Wether dredging, subsidence, and possibly responsible for foreshore recurring sinkholes, subsidence and cracking fissures in cement pedestrians/cyclists pathways and pavers uprooting and overhang next to Swansea Jetties?

    ● Tourism & Education To Replace Mining As Australia's Top Growth Industries. www.tourismcouncilwa.com.au
    ● Tourism Boom Can Help Replace Mining Boom With The Right Strategy.
    www.ttf.org.au Tourism & Transport Forum.
    ● Tourism Will Replace The Resources Boom In Australia If We Get It Right.
    www.heraldsun.com.au 

    SAVE SWANSEA FOR FAMILIES, RETIREES & TOURISTS.
    We genuinely believe this DA isn't appropriate for Swansea; and contributions to community enrichment and nurturing in a positive and meaningful way that benefits us all.

    WRITE TO COUNCIL or ONLINE: 
    HaveYourSayLakeMac.com.au

    Thus Ministers; you each are invited to personally attend and speak at:

    2nd PUBLIC MEETING: 

    25th February 2017. Saturday.

    10am for 10.30am start. 
    Pensioners Hall, 
    Josephson St, Swansea.

    CROS. 

    CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF SWANSEA. 

    I, personally sat in street outside Woolies & Coles for 2 weeks including all of New Years Day in 30+°C.

    Seeking your assistance in HOW TO BEST LEGALLY KNOCK THIS ON THE HEAD and for your PERSONAL attendance to speak and listen to locals whom majority are AGAINST the LMCC DA for 1 Josephson St, Swansea.

    - 1,300+ already have signed our Opposing Petition.

    Delivered to local councillor Ken Paxinos. They are yet to respond.

  23. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mike B commented

    I completely object to this event. this is a completely commercial event with no benefit to the local community. i echo the responses previously mentioned

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Michael Reville commented

    As a nearby resident I take my child to this park almost every day. It would be a shame to trash the park with this event, and to shutdown the park and the surrounding area for 2 - 4 days.

  25. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Trudie H commented

    Please reject this application. We live on Roberts St and have two small children. Getting a park is next to impossible now and we have a requirement to drive to and from home on several occasions on a weekend- frequently we have to park multiple streets away now. I can't imagine what a nightmare this commercial event would create. I absolutely support community events but sincerely believe this is not a for-purpose use of our park as so many residents describe above. Please consider a park where access is not such a problem now. Parking spaces are already commandeered by people permanently leaving trailers and vehicles there, as well as campervans meaning very few casual parking spots. Please act in the broader community interest and reject this poorly consulted and superficially planned event.

  26. In Ashwood VIC on “Construction of four (4)...” at 11 May Park Avenue Ashwood VIC 3147:

    Sandy Toohey commented

    On a site which currently has one house, the plan is for four units with four bedrooms each; that is sixteen bedrooms with four car parks provided! The area is already congested with Safeway customers overflowing into the street, childcare and aged care facilities,in high street road parking here also... it ain't going to work. Surely one car park for 4 bedrooms is not enough!
    By the way the plans show a single storey dwelling at number 5 Shaw street? We are number 3 NOT number 5.

  27. In Sassafras VIC on “Limited Licence - Renewable” at 363 Mount Dandenong Tourist Rd, Sassafras 3787, VIC:

    Matt C commented

    A much needed addition in Sassafras.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mark Zureik commented

    Hello,

    While I have only been a resident in the community for a relatively short time I do have an opinion on this as the event was brought to my attention by my neighbour and I live very close. I generally take the family out (dog included) for a walk through the park each weekend.

    While I 100% see the point of those not wishing this event to take place I can't help but also notice the benefit that it can have on the community (that is IF money is being paid to the council - and they better!). Honestly I rarely see the park being utilised much on the weekends, with most people opting to visit the bigger & more secluded Sydney park.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Scott commented

    I absolutely object to this event being held in Camperdown Memorial Rest Park.

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 68 of the...” at Church Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Laura McGuinness commented

    Newtown is not a community which only supports events which directly benefit the local community and charities, not commercial events such as these. Our local park is for residents and visitors to enjoy, walk their dog etc. The area is already busy at weekends and does not need a huge event to take away from our caring, alternative, charitable and community focussed nature. Our park is only used a year by a non commercial fundraiser, the Newtown Festival.

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