The proposed parking on the Swann Road site near the outbound Bonvale Lane bus stop is already the subject of an application to council to have the number of car parks reduced. This was put forward by residents of Shea Residences development as it is dangerous to exit from Lamont Street at the crest of the hill due to the obstructed view down Swann Road as a result of the parked cars in front of the bus stop. The council made Bonvale Lane a one way street, so there is not an option to exit there instead.This needs urgent council attention due to the risk of a serious motor vehicle accident at this blind site at Lamont/Swann Road corner. Whilst I support the opening of a licenced food outlet in the proposed location, the crossing options at the Gailey Fiveways roundabout need to be urgently upgraded as I suspect parking will have to be down Indooroopilly Road instead.
The congestion in palm beach is poor currently and likely to become far worse with additional proposed high rises. Another high rise building is likely to add further strain to the area and is unlikely to add any further benefits. Current infrastructure cannot support any further development without ruining the beautiful place that palm beach is.
9 stories on a 488 sqm site? You cannot seriously consider this in any way. There is no way this design can integrate itself seamlessly into the established character of the area. That’s such a joke. Where are the tenants going to park their cars? Local streets are too narrow to allow adequate parking on the streets and cannot cope with the current traffic let alone extra traffic this building would create. Please stop the overcrowding of high rises in Palm Beach. They are totally destroying the reason why Palm Beach is unique and the family way of life here.
I understand a precedent has been setup with the rather incredible number and in many instances outside the current city plan in palm beach. but seriously, please, please don't destroy the rest of the area and local community.
Go speak with most locals and the majority are against the current destruction of our once , beautiful town suburb and loving community.
It is now turning into a rat race, with many locals feed up with limited parking, oversized building reducing the diminishing the once adored landscape.
I'm not against development, but please it must be taking into consideration when looking at the overall improvement of the local community.
To date, i can't say any of the dozen or so developments approved in Palm beach have positively affected the community.
Please don't get addicted to the potential rates and relevant fees associated with approvals for over development and consider what the locals would like.
PS. having the only way to voice opinion on these matters via a web portal is in just to reflect the overall community opinion. Our local Councillor represents the majority of locals very well.
Hi Jack
The QCAT issue has been resolved on September 24, 2019 and the Seller is currently executing the QCAT Order (boundary wall issue) - has to be completed by October 15, 2019.
The noise concern is still open with the Brisbane City Council and will be addressed via the BCC and QCAT.
Thank you for your enquiry.
Bayside Council need to be very cautious when dealing with this Developer. The amended plans have not changed much about the initial proposed building. For a large scale development such as this Lambert road is such a small corner it would be tricky to navigate around with overheight trucks and concrete moving about, and would disrupt the neighbour's lifestyles and especially will interrupt parking space in the street for a long period of time.
We encourage Council to also refuse their access for the reserve as its meant to be for community to enjoy, bushcare groups and the lawn mower and not for large trucks or trucks with oversized tyres that damage the grass and soil.
Developments like this will threaten the surrounding community and environment.
Overall, I oppose the amended plans and do not support this development proposal..
I've noted it to the mayor and a couple of councillors, Roger. If the amalgamation was supposed to improve efficiencies, I'm not seeing it.
1) it used to be that the lodgement and documents happened on or about the same day
2) other parts of the same council can manage it, so they are using different systems, so there is no real amalgamation if they are all operating independently and not as a cohesive service
3) we were sold a bill of lies for an amalgamation we didn't want and had foisted on us.
I suggest we question each and every DA with no documents so they will actually do something about it.
AUSTRALIAN CHIN LIEN CHINESE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
commented
We are writing to express our support for the recent development application RE: Application No. 317.1/2019 submitted to council at 102 Broomfield Street, Cabramatta NSW 2166.
The demographic of associations such as ours are committed to create an inclusive community by upholding the Australian values and way of life.
The Cabramatta community and some of our members require support from the Australian government to receive the provisions they need to live but also the community to receive a sense of belonging and to boost their mental spirit through unity. We believe that there is a need for affordable housing in our LGA amongst members of our association alone where the residents have access to shops by foot as many of them are older and can not afford or operate a vehicle. We would like to encourage these projects to create new, safe and affordable housing for our members.
We believe that not enough is being done in the local area to encourage affordable housing despite the government claiming to address it. The price of a residential unit in the Fairfield LGA is still out of reach for many people in our community and the rend being relative to the price, does not include ongoing living costs such as electricity, water and other utilities.
We believe that a development which has affordable short-term leasing options, as opposed to a traditional lease, coupled with being in close proximity to transport and shops should not only be encouraged but seen as a safe, monitored and inclusive environment for the range of demographics in Cabramatta. We would like to urge council to consider the amount of older people who do not drive, promoting the use of the overhead bridge across the station, and promoting the use of public transport.
Being across the railway station, car parking provisions as well as being surrounded by employment hubs, we believe that a boarding house development would be beneficial for numerous people who require clean and affordable living arrangements.
Upgrade the whole complex to a modern shopping centre. Have a food court that can cater to a wider range. Include the likes of Hungry Jacks, McDonald's if you need to, as they will help pay for the development, however combine it with the proper modern food & beverage alternatives that the society of 2019 is accustomed to. Also, strongly consider a modern pub that caters to families and incorporate modern cafe's to create a thriving morning trade. The key for me is quality food & beverage so that you can attract smart operators and create jobs that local job seekers will actually want and will stick with.
I don’t agree with any of the stages proposed for this development! The obvious reason is that they all already exist 5 mins drive away.
I think the area lacks spaces for people to meeting up: a neighbourhood centre (like Kincumber), a shared live music venue with many eateries (like at Erina Fountain plaza) and a shared office hub (like Gosford Smart Work hub).
And then turn the Coles floor space into a local food market for all things fresh food: a bakery, a butcher, fruit & vege, deli, etc. and boutique growers/producers.
I think that the development applications for boarding houses in the Parramatta area are excessive. Statistics show that these types of accommodation comprise of residents that don’t fit in desirably with the rest of the community. Let’s continue to keep our suburb a safe and attractive place to live!
Hi there,
It has been 2 years since they first logged their application for building.
May I please have some update of the progress/plan?
Thanks and best regards,
HT
Appears from the location photo to be almost an extension of the Grange development. My objection based on the appalling behaviour or the current developers. Their efforts at dust suppression are laughable and we certainly do not appreciate trucks arriving as early as 5.30 am. One would also have to wonder why it is necessary to dump an enormous amount off fill and the unstated reasons.
Very interesting. What happened to the agreement that this lot would remain as wetlands and wildlife refuge. I am quite sure some would remember the previous meetings and protests from the last attempt. Further, we were informed that GLC had purchased this parcel of land to retain as green space. Can the “new” council provide any explanation or reasons why this development should be considered
My concern, as a tenant next door at 118 Queen St, is about the noise of the demolition, in particular, and construction. The recent demolition of the adjacent buildings was intolerable - each floor came down slowly via jackhammer. At least 6 months of intolerable abrasive jackhammering....it was very difficult for tennants and regular clients who receive services at 118 Queen St.
Please make provision for civilised demolition, including low noise.
I do not support the application based on the following:-
1. I do not believe the application complies with the Neighbourhood Management Statement drawn up by the original owner. "Annexure A to Amendment of Management Statement - (F) Text of added by-law - 1.1(a) North Sapphire Beach provides an opportunity to establish an integrated community that compliments the sites natural surrounds, embracing the beach and breezes. Contemporary beach architecture will be embodied in the dwellings and landscaping to be constructed on the site." My interpretation is for the whole estate to be established with a beach lifestyle feel and I cannot see that a child care centre meets these ideals.
2. Should a child care centre be approved it would mean fencing the child care property. This in turn would limit the access to the council park behind the building to the eastern side of the current building and/or the pathway on the western side of the community access road. What this actually means in practise is that persons visiting the park will be forced to use the community access road on the western side of the property as an access to the park creating an even more dangerous traffic situation.
I am opposed to this development for numerous reasons;
The 3 storey height is excessive and is likely to cause loss of light and privacy to the residences surrounding the development.
The noise coming from the number of people residing in 16 x 3 & 4 bedroom properties will impact severely on the surrounding residences. The constant noise from the air-conditioning units alone will impact on the amenity of the surrounds.
16 x 3 storey units / townhouses is excessive for a 3750m2 block and will severely detract from the visual amenity of the area. There is very little outdoor space and there is nowhere showing for washing to hang to dry in the fresh air except on balconies which will make the development will look like a slum and detract from the coastal village appeal of Burrill Lake.
The traffic generated by the number of vehicles owned by residents and their visitors will be excessive and endanger children, the elderly and wildlife in the area.
The number of vehicles within the development at any one time, a possible 48, is far too many for the small area and will endanger residents and visitors within the development.
The shadow diagrams show excessive shadowing over the Lot behind Lot 5 DP 1123774, this lot is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation how will this affect the trees?
The owners of the neighbouring properties do understand that there will be development on this block but feel that the number of units/townhouses and the three storey height is unreasonable and will not be in keeping with the existing residences. This is a quiet family area and the injection of this many residences in this one small area will destroy the whole feel of the suburb.
I originally objected to this DA in 2018 and I would like to object to the amended plans again. The amended plans change little of the structure except a slight height modification which still is unacceptable.
Bardwell Park is a peaceful suburb and the development will interfere with people's daily lives as the property also backs on to Lambert Road Reserve and we would not want the developer to be bringing trucks through again during the development process.
It's also important to keep the trees in their yard as they are mature and native which provide much space for the canopy and neighbour's privacy.
The statement of environmental effects claims that neighbours will not lose any privacy due to this development but if the trees will be cut down they would lose a lot of privacy and natural light.
This community space is used all year round by us locals and the coffee shop is a great meeting place for locals and tourists. A child care centre would deter people from the area and increase traffic and noise in the area.
We live in the area and love our local coffee shop and community space right by the beach!
Not yet. No DA displayed outside property either. You’d have to wonder if there is much point to the process. Do you think they might need some software training? Probably too busy updating their twitter feed.
Building height must be consistent with surrounding buildings and in line with the heritage character of the area. This building should not be allowed to be more than 4 storeys high.
I believe that Karen Roberts' comments beautifully give feedback about changes to the current plan to meet the actual usage and needs of our community. Thoughtful and well written. While I doubt that toilet facilities will be added, they are certainly needed if this area is to be as well used as it should be for our community! Her thoughts about replacing the mature trees that are in the way of the proposed plan is excellent - we must provide for our wildlife most especially during the current weather traumas for them. BCC planning has missed the mark when it does not consider the actual community and the natural environment's needs. Our new sporting grounds are a prime example of close but not close enough.
I feel a developer 'picnic" coming on. To objectors some advice. just say no . Surely you dont think the planners read your submissions.. The response to the "happy jack" development, 60 objections. and where did that get us? The 99 community members are looking primarily at Council Transparency. Well tell us the complete story of the "happy Jack" development. As an aside can someone tell us why the developers have stopped work for 6 weeks.
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.
In Redland Bay QLD on “Redland Bay Childcare” at 100 - 102 Collins Street, Redland Bay QLD 4165:
In Saint Lucia QLD on “Food and Drink Outlet” at 264 Swann Rd St Lucia QLD 4067:
In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:
In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:
In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:
In Palm Beach QLD on “Material Change of Use Code...” at 1101 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach QLD 4221:
In Enmore NSW on “For alterations and...” at 12 Juliett Street Enmore NSW 2042:
In Ascot QLD on “Dwelling House, Dwelling House” at 89 Towers St Ascot QLD 4007:
In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of semi...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:
In Enmore NSW on “For alterations and...” at 12 Juliett Street Enmore NSW 2042:
In Cabramatta NSW on “5-Storey Boarding House...” at 102 Broomfield St Cabramatta:
In West Gosford NSW on “INTEGRATED Stage 1 - Hungry...” at 269 Brisbane Water Drive, West Gosford NSW 2250:
In West Gosford NSW on “INTEGRATED Stage 1 - Hungry...” at 269 Brisbane Water Drive, West Gosford NSW 2250:
In Leichhardt NSW on “CCp- Demolition of existing...” at 35 Charles Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:
In Toongabbie NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 7 Linden Street Toongabbie NSW 2146:
In Oatlands NSW on “Development Application -...” at 34 Kissing Point Road Oatlands NSW 2117:
In Greensborough VIC on “Construction of two (2)...” at 22 Patrick Close, Greensborough VIC 3088:
In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 22 Mars Street Revesby NSW 2212:
In Forster NSW on “Two lot subdivision” at Lot 602 The Southern Parkway, Forster NSW 2428:
In Forster NSW on “179 lot residential...” at 1 The Southern Parkway, Forster NSW 2428:
In Brunswick VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at 140 Sydney Road, Brunswick 3056, VIC:
In Melbourne VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 128-146 Queen Street Melbourne 3000:
In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:
In Burrill Lake NSW on “Removal of vegetation and...” at Dolphin Point Rd, Burrill Lake, NSW:
In Bardwell Park NSW on “Construction of semi...” at 10 Lambert Road, Bardwell Park NSW 2207:
In Sapphire Beach NSW on “Centre-based childcare...” at 2 Beach Way, Sapphire Beach NSW 2450:
In Enmore NSW on “For alterations and...” at 12 Juliett Street Enmore NSW 2042:
In West Melbourne VIC on “The application proposes...” at 164-170 Roden Street West Melbourne 3003:
In Bellbowrie QLD on “Park, Park” at 147 Kangaroo Gully Rd Bellbowrie QLD 4070:
In Camira QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 18 Dale Road Camira QLD 4300: