Recent comments

  1. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sue Paterson commented

    As a neighbouring tenant to this proposal I object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
    – The bulk and scale of the development is out of context for the area. Applebee St was not designed to service such a large volume of residents;
    – The development will be noticeable from all angles and will have a significant affect on the streetscape;
    – Construction of such a large residential building amongst the existing industrial & artistic spaces is bound to cause future problems when residents start complaining about noise.

    Today I have noticed that there is also a DA lodged for the building next door at 47 Princes Hwy for 58 more apartments. It's time for Marrickville Council to protect the rights of its existing residents/businesses & ensure the cultural and artistic life of the area is preserved.

  2. In Hawthorn VIC on “Sale and consumption of...” at 826 Glenferrie Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Sandy and Geoff Birch wrote to local councillor Steve Hurd

    We are residents of Hawthorn Grove. We are both 70 plus years of age. I have severe respiratory problems. We are already severely affected by existing parking demands relative to close proximity to existing restaurants, coffee shops and other food outlets in Glenferrie Road.

    Regularly we are forced to park more than 100 metres from our house and to carry baggage/shopping long distances from car to house. Existing parking restrictions should be strengthened and penalties increased. New high use retail/commercial businesses should be required to provide adequate parking, on site, sufficient so as not to exacerbate already difficult local situations.

    Delivered to local councillor Steve Hurd. They are yet to respond.

  3. In Preston VIC on “Construct a medium density...” at 50 Regent Street Preston VIC 3072:

    Maria Poletti commented

    1. The development is contrary to the standards and objectives of Clause 55 of the Darebin Planning Scheme in regards to residential policy, residential character, ESD measures, solar access and dwelling diversity.
    2. The proposed development provides very poor internal amenity with reverse living arrangements in three of the four dwellings and private open space only provided on a balcony.
    3. Traffic and parking congestion will be an issue as the proposed development will increase both because it includes a car stacker and tandem parking.
    4. The proposal includes three new cross-overs which will also pose a significant risk to the safety of the many children and elderly who walk the street .
    5. The proposed management of waste collection is not shown which will further disrupt the amenity of the neighbourhood. No spaces for rubbish bins are shown on the plans.
    6. Taking into account the predominant single story, free standing houses in the immediate vicinity, the proposed application is an overdevelopment for this site.
    7. The proposal is of sufficient concern to warrant review against the Darebin Planning Scheme by Darebin Planning Committee.
    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. The proposed development will not guarantee affordable accommodation.

  4. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    David Chartes commented

    I wish to have my objection to the proposed change heard by council. Winston Hills Mall is a great shopping centre and needs all available shop spaces for retail outlets. There also needs to be the option for another chicken shop to open on the mall as the old one was well patronised and is missed as there is no other speciality chicken shop in the centre able to fill the gap left by the closure on Lennards. I was not awar that the building of unit on top of the centre had been approved. Do they have some inside information that the rest of us do not have. We don't need units in the area.

  5. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    David Chartes commented

    I wish to have my objection to the proposed change heard by council. Winston Hills Mall is a great shopping centre and needs all available shop spaces for retail outlets. There also needs to be the option for another chicken shop to open on the mall as the old one was well patronised and is missed as there is no other speciality chicken shop in the centre able to fill the gap left by the closure on Lennards. I was not awar that the building of unit on top of the centre had been approved. Do they have some inside information that the rest of us do not have. We don't need units in the area.

  6. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Cathryn commented

    No high rise building is required above the shopping centre as we have enough high rises around spoiling the area.

  7. In Stanwell Tops NSW on “Residential - concrete...” at Henry Halloran Park, Stonehaven Road, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond commented

    I further object to this proposal for the following reasons:

    1. Regardless of the applicant's "Right of Carriageway" lease which was granted in 1998 for $5,000 with Wollongong City Council, the actual lease document makes no mention of allowing a driveway to be physically built.

    That the lease is only allowing access to the back of the property which is why a driveway was never built.

    2. A crossover has also been built at the rear of the property at double gates. The crossover is physically located within the community land of Henry Halloran Park itself. This crossover is not shown on the plans.

    Council must ask the applicant why it was built.

    3. The following link shows a documentary on the applicant's access way excavation and is video evidence of Objection to this DA:
    https://youtu.be/u0bCMJB0nQU

  8. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jen Barnett commented

    I absolutely agree with all the reasons stated by the other objections to this area. The size of this development cannot be supported by the streets surrounding it. Where is the consideration for the current residents? The St Peters Triangle Masterplan? Traffic flow? Green Space? It's too big. While I think everyone accepts there will be development, it should not be at such high density. It serves NO-ONE but the developers.

  9. In Kingswood NSW on “Installation of Solar Panel...” at 36 - 42 Copeland Street Kingswood NSW 2747:

    Ingelle moore commented

    Fantastic- the more solar the better!

  10. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Simone Simpkins commented

    I object to this development because of the size & style of the building, and the potential traffic to the area.

    I use very similar objections to the ones I posted to the very similar development that has been lodged only a few doors up in the same small neighbourhood.

    My objection to the size & style:
    - The high-rise design does NOT fit with the identity of the locality, so is at risk of contributing to the demise of the appeal of the Inner west locale. Why not build some new-style terraces or townhouses, which 'fit' with the rest of King Street? This development is in danger of confusing Sydney with the high rises of Hong Kong and Singapore.

    My objection to the traffic:
    - The 'streets' in this area are one way single lanes, which are already congested. Every day in Applebee street, cars, vans and small trucks are forced to stop on the pavement (blocking pedestrians) due to no car spaces as they come & go from their respective warehouses. Adding to this congestion will place strain and discontent on everyone using these streets, residents & visitors alike, despite the development's traffic report bravely citing "...the proposed development will result in a slight decrease in the traffic generation potential of the site". This is just prior to its acknowledgement that in addition to the 84 cars it will accommodate, the development is expected to be serviced by a variety of commercial vehicles up to and including 6.4m long SRV trucks. I'm reasonably certain that the current house and 2 small businesses do not attract this kind of traffic.

    - I have safety concerns with potential increase in the misuse of the current one-way system. It is already FREQUENTLY ignored, especially at weekends, with vehicles travelling in the wrong direction to navigate out of the 'triangle' putting other cars and pedestrians & their ever-present canine companions at grave risk. With the main access to this building being via Huchinson St (oneway), then Lackey St (one way) then Applebee St (one way) I have serious safety concerns for current and prospective residents.

    - Using Short Street as the main entry/exit is not a good idea. It's a one-way laneway with terrible visibility & opportunity to exit onto Princes Highway already. I assume that any plans to widen this to a 2way street will remove the precious few car spaces that are there now, used by locals accessing the Post Office & local businesses.

    I appreciate the residential appeal of St Peters / the Inner West and all of the facilities on offer for current and potential residents. And I support Marrickville Council's requirement of 60/40 residential/business space, as I'd like to see more retail and professional businesses on the South end of King Street. However I remain dubious of the 'work/live' spaces in this, and similar, style of development, and how they'll actually contribute to the retail expansion of the area.

    Lets not forget that another Victorian workers cottage, forming the fabric of the Inner West neighborhood, and particularly in fitting with its surrounding dwellings, is on the brink of demolition. I hope that the council gives serious thought to the direction of the Inner West, or what is left of it.

  11. In Balwyn VIC on “The construction of...” at 122 Rochester Road Balwyn VIC 3103:

    Russell Gray commented

    It is the applicant's right to attempt this of course however I am trusting in the integrity of the Council's Planning Department to decline permission for this permit based on the substantial increase to the existing traffic congestion around the Balwyn shopping centre that this development would bring and the fact that this particular development will add a MINIMUM of 13 ADDITIONAL cars focussed on this address, not counting their visiting families and friends.

  12. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 47 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Simone Simpkins commented

    I object to this development because of the size & style of the building, and the potential traffic to the area.

    My objection to the size & style:
    - The block high-rise design does NOT fit with the identity of the locality, so is at risk of contributing to the demise of the appeal of the Inner west locale. Why not build some new-style terraces or townhouses, which 'fit' with the rest of King Street? This development is in danger of confusing Sydney with the high rises of Hong Kong and Singapore.

    My objection to the traffic:
    - It's an absurd assumption that any increase in traffic corresponds to the number of residential car spaces made available. The shortfall of parking in such a new development (with an 'average of less than 0.86 spaces per apartment) cannot be assumed to mean that ''the traffic generation of the proposed apartments will be less than the generic RMS criteria'. In reality, residents without car spaces (or apartments with multiple cars but one car space) will simply park in the streets.
    Those 'streets' are one way single lanes, which are already congested. Every day in Applebee street, cars, vans and small trucks are forced to stop on the pavement (blocking pedestrians) due to no car spaces as they come & go from their respective warehouses.

    - I disagree that ''there will be no unsatisfactory traffic or traffic related environmental implications" and disagree with "the potential future traffic management arrangements will not present any difficulties for the proposed development and its vehicle access requirements". The surrounding one-way system is FREQUENTLY ignored, especially at weekends, with vehicles travelling in the wrong direction to navigate out of the 'triangle' putting other cars and pedestrians at grave risk. With the only access to this building being via Huchinson St (oneway), then Lackey St (one way) then Applebee St (one way) I have serious safety concerns for current and prospective residents.

    I do appreciate the residential appeal of St Peters / the Inner West and all of the facilities on offer for current and potential residents. And I support Marrickville Council's requirement of 60/40 residential/business space, as I'd like to see more retail and professional businesses on the South end of King Street. However I remain dubious of the 'work/live' spaces in this 7 similar style of development, and how they'll actually contribute to the retail expansion of the area.

    I hope that the council gives serious thought to the direction of the Inner West, or what is left of it.

  13. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Murray commented

    In my opinion the way in which this whole development has been aproached by the developers has been quite underhand to say the least. Now they are wanting to use shops that service the community for their own benefit, this is not acceptable to many of the community who would rather see another retail outlet servicing the needs of the local residents and passing trade.

  14. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Jenny Charters commented

    I am writing to object to shop 37 at Winston Hills Mall being changed into a sales office. We regularly shopped at Lenards Chickens, I know the owner of the franchise in shop 37 would be horrified to know his franchise was not allowed to continue in Winston Hills Mall. My family & I vote to have another chicken shop opened in shop 37.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 65-69 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW:

    Mike Williams commented

    Please provide a resident parking scheme for Perry St and surrounds (and approve previous requests for making the eastern side of Perry St rear-to-kerb parking) BEFORE this business goes into operation. The explosion in residential and commercial properties between Enmore Road and Illawarra Rd has put incredible pressure on homes that don't have off-street parking. Th 65-69 development has already removed three parking spots from the rear at Fahey Lane, and the addition of residents' vehicles, commercial vehicles of the Barzaari property and customer vehicles is just making a mockery of "creating amenity for the local community" as the local community walk further and further to their vehicles with every passing month.

    Garbage collection to Fahey Lane (where this property backs on to) is frequently missed due to congestion. The addition of commercial waste is going to make this problem worse. (NB the D/A at the other end of the lane will mean the lane is blocked for 12 months or more during construction, so both parking, traffic access and garbage issues are going to get much much worse.)

  16. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    N.W. commented

    I object to this DA for the following reasons:

    Over development and congestion
    This DA in addition to the 1000 other dwellings unfortunately being developed in the area, is creating a gross over development of the quaint and historical suburb.
    Parking is near impossible at the local shopping strip, discouraging shopping with small business and public transport is at capacity with the current population and cannot withstand an increase.
    This DA only favours property developers and not the existing community. Property developers are set to make huge financial gains while the local community is left to deal with the consequences.

    Loss of heritage and character
    Dulwich Hill is a largely intact 120-year Federation garden suburb. The very reason why the residents love living in this area and why new residents want to move to Dulwich Hill is because of the period homes and heritage of the suburb. Adding yet another soul-less building that doesn't respect the local heritage, should not be approved.

    Stress on infrastructure
    Council has not made any plans for increased and improved infrastructure. Public transport is at capacity, roads cannot cope with additional traffic (and most homes now have two cars, where will the additional cars park?), the daycare centres and preschools have waitlists that are years long and schools cannot accept more students. How can our suburb cope with yet another apartment block?

    Dulwich Hill is being negatively subjected to developer greed, with little regard to the exsiting community and future consquences. Please do not approve this DA.

    Regards
    NW

  17. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 66 Constitution Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    N.W. wrote to local councillor Jo Haylen

    I object to this DA for the following reasons:

    Over development and congestion
    This DA in addition to the 1000 other dwellings unfortunately being developed in the area, is creating a gross over development of the quaint and historical suburb.
    Parking is near impossible at the local shopping strip, discouraging shopping with small business and public transport is at capacity with the current population and cannot withstand an increase.
    This DA only favours property developers and not the existing community. Property developers are set to make huge financial gains while the local community is left to deal with the consequences.

    Loss of heritage and character
    Dulwich Hill is a largely intact 120-year Federation garden suburb. The very reason why the residents love living in this area and why new residents want to move to Dulwich Hill is because of the period homes and heritage of the suburb. Adding yet another soul-less building that doesn't respect the local heritage, should not be approved.

    Stress on infrastructure
    Council has not made any plans for increased and improved infrastructure. Public transport is at capacity, roads cannot cope with additional traffic (and most homes now have two cars, where will the additional cars park?), the daycare centres and preschools have waitlists that are years long and schools cannot accept more students. How can our suburb cope with yet another apartment block?

    Dulwich Hill is being negatively subjected to developer greed, with little regard to the exsiting community and future consquences. Does the suburb really need another ugly apartment block? Please do not approve this DA.

    Regards
    NW

    Delivered to local councillor Jo Haylen. They are yet to respond.

  18. In Chatswood NSW on “Change of use of the...” at 28 Archer Street, Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Marcos Perelmuter commented

    Dear Sir/Madam
    Today, Monday April 25th 2016, I saw for the first time the yellow notice on 28 Archer Street DA 2014/566. This notice was never displayed before on this site. Notwithstanding the legal implications of omitting development notices, please advise where to find the corresponding drawings for this proposal.
    Thank you very much,

  19. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sarina Kilham commented

    I suggest that this DA is rejected in its current form due to the need for Marrickville Council to consider this development together with the neighbouring site DA201600135 (47 Princes Hwy, St Peters). The Traffic Plan claims that 68 new apartments will create LESS traffic than is currently present on Applebee Street. This claim seems ingenious at best. The traffic flow is underestimated and fail to take into consideration traffic from recent residential/commercial developments on Hutchinson Street (combined >100 new units). The placement of bins and loading zones on the Applebee Street side will massively reduce the amenity of Applebee Street (noise, access) and also contradict the idea of Applebee Street as a "shared zone". I see no attempts at "creative live work zones" in this development. Further, the impact of Westconnex and traffic flows into Hutchinson-Lackey-Applebee Street has not be clarified. The only way for residents to access the parking in this building is via narrow one way streets that are already heavily used by local residents to access Simpson Park and St Peters Preschool and Primary School. With no pedestrian crossing I feel that Marrickville Council needs to reconsider the flow of people and cars in this area. The shadow diagrams show significant shadows on the Eastern side shops of the Princes Hwy. Whilst I fully support the development of new residential areas about public transport hubs, this DA will loom over the local area and is out of line with the St Peters Master Plan (which also needs revising).

  20. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Louise Stuart commented

    I am writing in objection to the proposal that the former Leonards Chicken store being turned into a sales office for the unit development. A centre that size needs a chicken shop or similar to help meet the needs of the community. Lenoards was always busy and provided an alternative to the major supermarkets for people to buy their chicken. It was also a lot more convenient than having to negotiate the supermarket. I can't see how a sales office will benefit the community.

  21. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demoltion and construction...” at 99 Kirby Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Brendan Cleary commented

    Can you please send me the plans to view

    DA/48/2016

  22. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 47 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sarina Kilham commented

    I suggest that this DA is rejected in its current form due to serious errors in the DA documents and the need for Marrickville Council to consider this development together with the neighbouring site DA201600150 (63-81 Princes Hwy, St Peters). The Landscape Plans and Traffic Plans show 2 different sites marked out for this DA. Further, the traffic flow statistics are underestimated and fail to take into consideration traffic from recent residential/commercial developments on Hutchinson Street (combined >100 new units). I think this DA shows potential in the landscape plans, however, some of the diagrams show a gated pedestrian thoroughfare and others show an open pedestrian thoroughfare. I think the placement of bins and loading zones on the Applebee Street side will massively reduce the amenity of Applebee Street (noise, access) and also contradict the idea of Applebee Street as a "shared zone". I see no attempts at "creative live work zones" in this development.
    Further, the impact of Westconnex and traffic flows into Hutchinson-Lackey-Applebee Street has not be clarified. The only way for residents to access the parking in this building is via narrow one way streets that are already heavily used by local pedestrians to access Simpson Park and St Peters Preschool and Primary School. With no pedestrian crossing I feel that Marrickville Council needs to reconsider the flow of people and cars in this area. The shadow diagrams also fail to show the impact of shadows on the Eastern side shops of the Princes Hwy. Given the 7 story height, it is likely to shadow across the road. Finally, despite being a resident on this street & likely to be impacted by this development I received no DA notification from Marrickville Council. I'm all in support of new residential building around public transport hubs but I think this DA could do better.

  23. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Kerry B commented

    I would like to object to this development.
    * The shops within the centre should cater to the needs of the community. This shop is only going to cater to the needs of one person - the developer!
    If the Developer needs a place to sell these units from then it should not come at the loss of the community's shopping facilities.
    * As a community we do not want to lose a shop. We like the variety of stores which cater to the diverse shopping needs in our community.
    * In recent years we have lost several stores which we were important to us because the managers saw a way to get new tenets in on higher rent... robbing us of shops we loved and store owners of their business. We don't want this to become another example of this.
    For the above reasons, I provide my objection to this DA and ask that council consider this in their determination.

  24. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Robyn McKeon commented

    I object to the change of use of the former chicken shop at the Winston Hills Mall to become a sales office for the units which are yet to be erected. We have already seen the closure of the Winston Garden Restaurant and now another shop. I have been a resident of Winston Hills for 43 years and have seen many changes in that time not always for the best of the residents. The closure of the chicken shop seems to be yet another bad decision made by the management of the Winston Hills Mall.

  25. In Narre Warren North VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 365-367 Belgrave-Hallam Road, Narre Warren North, VIC:

    Leah Anderson commented

    object to a Mosque operating from 365-367 Belgrave Hallam Road :
    Firstly the Mosque and Church at the other end if Belgrave Hallam road have caused and continue to cause traffic issues as when you turn right at lights into Belgrave Hallam Rd I have had cars exit out if their drives directly in front of traffic, also cars parked on both sides of road on nature strips and it is congested and a traffic hazard. I they don't seem to care about the other traffic.The same would occur for this new mosque which us situated directly down from intersection of Hilton Court and cause further noise, traffic congestion in a RESIDENTIAL area not COMMERCIAL! They alteady illegally tried to operate a mosque and gathering when they first bought the property and there was a stream of cars exiting the property on to Belgrave Hallam Rd until residents reported this activity to the Council and it was ceased as a mosque.
    I strongly object to any activity other than the purpose of residential in our lovely rural area whereby the residents have invested in owning homes. A development like this would wreck at the very heart and soul of what the community most values about the Casey foothills. The traffic is bad enough we don't need any more. We don't need this mosque to wreck the little quiet town of Narre Warren North. This will also affect the sale of out properties as well.

  26. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    John commented

    Whatever your claims and sources, Steven (et al), mercury amalgams are definitely on the way out; and, in any case, according to some researchers they are nowhere near as dangerous as has been claimed. Playing it safe, my own dentist volunteered to remove mine many years ago and replaced them with neat ceramic fillings, so - old and decrepit as I am - I should not add any mercury vapours at all to our local Buderim atmosphere. Incidentally, research at the MIT suggests that we should all be much more worried about the nano-particulates falling on us constantly from the engines of jet aircraft. According to their figures, TEN TIMES as many people die from ingesting aircraft exhaust emissions as die in air crashes. So perhaps all of our concerns might be better applied to this increasing pollution hazard rather than the minimal and decreasing one from cremators. In the meantime, perhaps you should ask your dentist to remove all your own amalgams? - if you have any.

  27. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    morris saric commented

    The proposed location of a property sales office at shop 37 in winston hills mall should not be allowed as the shopping centre is for the people of the area.
    The chicken shop provided an option for shoppers and always provided a service for customers.
    Please reconsider your decision.

  28. In Redfern NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 609 Elizabeth Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    BIKESydney commented

    Proposed is a 27 bedroom boarding house.

    The application states:

    "...This amendment does not seek to intensify the approved use of the subject site.

    ...Furthermore, the amendments do not include changes to the approved building envelope, height, footprint, setbacks or room numbers. Therefore, the modification to the application does not alter the nature or essence of the approved development."

    ...but the application requests "3 additional car parking spaces".

    This will clearly increase the development's traffic generation.

    The site is situated near the City of Sydney's east-west cycling corridor, the nearest access to which is Redfern Lane (for eastbound riders connecting to the Eastern Suburbs) and Redfern Park (for westbound riders to Redfern Stn and Sydney Uni).

    The application should be updated to provide bike parking rather than the additional car parking, and in any case, should be required to comply with the bike parking provisioning requirements of Sydney DCP (2012) Table 3.5: On-site bike parking rates.

  29. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Deb Benn commented

    I object to the development application on the grounds that not providing Leonards the opportunity to replace with a similar store will unfairly impact minority groups within our community who will not be able to source fresh chicken meeting halal or kosher requirements from any of the other local stores.

  30. In Winston Hills NSW on “Change of use & new fitout...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Donna Loudoun commented

    As a family (& residents of 20 years) we have already moved the majority of our shopping power to other local precincts as a direct result of what we see as a dearth of appropriate shopping outlets in Winston Mall that cater for our needs. The Target Market being utilised by the Mall Owner in order to decide whom to rent to already does not satisfy our needs. If the current location of Leonards Chicken shop is enabled as a site office for units that the local community has already lodged it's almost unanimous disapproval of them that would only serve to lend further credence to our desire to relocate completely from Winston Hills.

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