Recent comments

  1. In Empire Bay NSW on “Additional Sites &...” at 7 Pomona Road, Empire Bay NSW 2257:

    M & J S commented

    Apologies that we missed the cut-off date but we were unaware of this proposed development and would like the following to be considered:
    1. The application does not comply with 7 [c2] zoning as it would no longer be a buffer between residential and protected bushland.
    2. The proposal is a commercial venture in the guise of affordable housing and does not fit with the residential guidelines for Pomona Road.
    3. There is insufficient infrastructure for this supposed affordable housing.
    4. There are already traffic concerns due to the narrow road which would be exacerbated if there were bush fires or floods requiring speedy evacuation.
    5. The current use of 7 Pomona Road is a storage yard for caravans, boats and a variety of shipping containers. It is an eyesore and completely at odds with a residential area.
    6. The current Bayside Caravan Park business operates from a different street address as a Caravan Park and should not be allowed to extend into Pomona Road as a Mobile Home Village.
    7. The proposal notes that cabins will be constructed 3m off the boundary which would cause noise issue for the direct neighbouring properties. Apart from the fact that 3m would not be permissible in normal building applications.
    For these reasons we would respectfully ask council to dismiss the proposed development application.

  2. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 14 Garfield Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Karen de Groot commented

    I strongly object to a two storey dwelling being constructed at 14 Garfield St in addition to the current dwelling that already exists. I feel that the parking issues in the area are already a problem and another dwelling will only exacerbate the difficulties of residents parking in the area. The overshadowing and loss of vista and amenities will impact on our lifestyle. We will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy of our own back garden and the increased density will create a higher population in the area thus creating greater noise levels and reducing the enjoyment in/of the existing area and amenities.

  3. In Chippendale NSW on “Temporary use of tenancies...” at 2-12 Kensington Street Chippendale NSW 2008:

    Mrs Kerry Coelho commented

    Why do the people of Chippendale have to put up with pop up bars????

    The trouble starts after the venue closes.

    This brings in people who don't have any consideration for the residents or the area.
    They stay in the street drinking. making lots of noise, swearing, they destroy anything in there way...
    Saturday 24th Oct @12:20 am after leaving the Abercrombie hotel 12 people pulled the fence of the apartment wall put it in the middle of the street stopped traffic 3 times pulled down there pants showed there bums, then laying on the road nearly getting hit by the cars, trying to pass by the fence on the road.
    Redfern Police was called..

  4. In Terrigal NSW on “Steel Framed Garage/Shed” at 145 Serpentine Road, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Tony Johnston commented

    What size will the steel framed garage/shed be?

  5. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Robert Nelson commented

    I live in Brisbane Avenue and have a child who attends LEPS.

    During the week, at the start and end of the school day the amount of traffic - pedestrian and motor vehicle - is massive in the area where the proposed 36 place Child Care Centre would be located.

    I believe this centre would be a serious disruption for the local residents who live in the immediate vicinity. I can't think of a worse location for a child care centre. I know it is near the local primary school...... but that is the problem.

    The congestion would strangle that part of East Lindfield.There is within a 100 or so metres a Dr's Surgery, shops, bus stop, local primary school.......I honestly can't think of a worse spot. If we need more Child Care spots - think about another part of East Lindfield.

  6. In Forresters Beach NSW on “Single Storey Dwelling” at 8 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach NSW 2260:

    Sandra Reis commented

    As owners of Lot 4, 10 Sandcastle Close, Forresters Beach, we strongly object to the planting of an 8 metre tree with a 5 metre spread on our shared boundary with Lot 3. We refer you to 'Landscape Plan DA48636 L3 DP1202617 H8 Sandcastle Cl Forresters Beach Part 1", which indicates that along the Lot 3/Lot 4 boundary fence line that an 8 metre tree (Coastal Banksia) with a 5 metre spread is included in the Planting Schedule.

    We object to the planting of this tree for the following reasons:

    1) This tree's spread will be significant and will encroach onto our property as per Lot 3's initial plan, and would encroach further as the tree ages.

    2) The root system of this large tree may impede the drainage capabilities of the Atlantis cells which would effect the clearance of storm water. We are also concerned that the root system may weaken our retaining wall and our proposed house structure (reference DA48444).

    3) We are concerned about the sheer height of this tree and its tendency to drop flammable leaf litter into our proposed roof gutters (reference DA48444). We object to the increased fire risk in a BAL29 rated area.

    4) This large tree will significantly shadow our property, most notably our solar panels. While this tree, as planted, will be 8 metres in height now, it is noted that this species of tree have the potential to grow up to 15 metres in height.

    As owners of Lot 4, whilst we have no wish to negatively impact our Lot 3 neighbours planting requests, we feel that this particular tree planting signifcantly and negatively impacts upon Lot 4 and approval should not be granted.

  7. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Susie Bardwell commented

    I do not support this development as Merrivale Lane is not a suitable road on which to build the proposed childcare centre. Access would be extremely difficult on this narrow laneway esp in the morning and afternoons.

  8. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Neville and Diane Turner commented

    Need for a Child Care Centre in this location.

    There are alleged to be 12 or more Child Care Centres within about 2 kms of Merrivale Lane. The total capacity of these Centres is unknown, but it seems likely that it is more than adequate for the very young children of THIS neighbourhood. That being so, the capture area of the proposed Centre is likely to be more distant. Logically it should be built where the demand is, not on a lane which has a significant driving hazard at its junction with Pentecost Avenue.

    Future of the Proposed Child Care Centre

    The proposed building, together with its 38 car parking spaces, is of a significant capacity and particular design. This is not a local neighbourhood venture using basic facilities and largely volunteer staff. It is a large commercial business with no altruistic motives and it is debatable whether it could prove to be a commercial success. Whilst that is entirely a problem for the developer we are concerned at what might follow on in that location if the project fails. Once built it is unlikely that any owner of the property will wish to demolish it and reinstate ordinary housing.

    Dropping off and collecting children.

    The dropping off process will involve a considerable number of vehicles parking in Merrivale Lane for far more than the few seconds it usually takes to drop off Primary School students who can quickly disembark from a vehicle and walk into school on their own. In most cases the parent will have to park, take the child into the Centre and discuss any dietary or health issues with a staff member before returning to drive away. Collection will involve a similar lengthy process.

    Driving routes to and from the Centre

    The Traffic and Parking Assessment by VARGA does not go far enough in its research and concentrates only on Merrivale Lane, the east end of Buckra Street and Pentecost Avenue.

    In the morning peak period traveling from the east it is difficult to turn from Pentecost Avenue into Merrivale Lane due to the west/east traffic flow and the partially blind corner. The safer route is from Pentecost Avenue into Charlton Avenue, thence Buckra Street and Merrivale Lane and reverse. The evening peak period is less difficult.

    In both the morning and evening peak periods there is a "rat run" from Bobbin Head Road via Bannockburn, Murdoch and Adams Avenue and reverse. The local bus service also uses this route at a frequency of about 20 minutes. This traffic will conflict with any large volume of traffic turning right from Charlton Avenue to the eastern end of Buckra Street. Perhaps the local police force could examine the issue and offer advice?

    We live on the Charlton Avenue/ Buckra Street junction so have a personal interest in this route and the increase in traffic generated by the proposed Centre.

  9. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 7-8...” at 230 Toorak Road, South Yarra, VIC:

    Harry Williscroft commented

    As the Owners of no 13 38 Chambers St South Yarra, Being on the top level, we wish to submit our opposition to the proposed development proposal adjacent to our property.
    The only natural light in two Bedrooms is via the Light Well at the rear of our Property. With the proposed adjacent building Height we will virtually loose this essential light source. In addition the two Bathrooms have only Skylights to provide natural lighting once again these will be in virtual perpetual shade.
    Others have detailed objections regarding the traffic, road width and parking, we support these objections also.
    Harry Williscroft

  10. In Castlecrag NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 13 Cheyne Walk, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Farrah chew commented

    Dear officer , could you please send me the DA drawing?

  11. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Judith Fry commented

    DA 0413/15.
    I have been a resident of Merrivale Lane for 30 years and am alarmed at the possibility of serious consequences relating to safety issues should this application for a Commercial, 150 place Child Care Centre proceed.
    A serious accident occurred some time ago at the intersection of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Ave whereby a car collided with a pedestrian resulting in permanent brain damage to the pedestrian. Local residents are aware of the restricted sight line for vehicles entering Merrivale Lane in an easterly direction from Pentecost Ave and the need for extreme caution. Customers of the 150 place Child Care Centre, should Council approve the application, may not be aware of this danger and I am alarmed at the prospect of injury or death to children or parents as a consequence of this.
    A recent house fire in Merrivale Lane required seven fire trucks to control the blaze. The current level of resident street parking allowed the trucks access and the blaze was brought under control and no one was injured. In many such fires in a residential street, adjoining houses often need to be evacuated. In a Commercial Child Care Centre of 150 children, evacuating 40 children under 2 years, and 110 children 2 to 6 years would require extremely large numbers of parents/staff and vehicles. Combine these numbers with the need for access for a number of Emergency Vehicles and it is clear that there is the potential for disaster.
    The Bush Fire Map indicates that on the eastern side of Merrivale Lane, both ends of Merrivale Lane are designated as being in a Red Zone. This indicated that the authorities are aware of the potential for a bush fire in the native bushland at the rear of Merrivale Lane. In the event of such a fire and as already noted above, there may be the need to evacuate 150 under 6 year olds, as well as the residents of the Lane, some of whom are elderly, resulting in extraordinary congestion in the Lane.
    We urge the Council, as the approving authority, to consider that the safety of the children may not be assured.
    Given the safety issues outlined above, a large, Commercial Child Care Centre catering for 150 children is not appropriate. We trust that the staff and Councillors of Ku-ring-gai Council, after due consideration, will agree that because of the potential danger to children, parents, staff and residents, this Development Application should not proceed.
    Sincerely, Judith Fry

  12. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    Jo Lucas commented

    I agree with John Rivis. Plus; overall there is too much development going on with generic ''cookie cutter'' beige rendered townhouses. These are not obviously not architecturally designed. They are bland and boring. Overall these ''fast buck'' developments will bring down the suburb of Mount Waverley and also of Glen Waverley. This will be both in terms of price and desirability as there is no scarcity in these types of dwellings and if council keeps allowing them the suburb will take on the appearance of a housing development project. Meanwhile council is trying to impose a green overlay. I think that what council should be concerned with is the quality and uniqueness of the dwellings and the number of dwellings per block. That will take care of the green aspect of the suburb.

  13. In Elermore Vale NSW on “Erection of 25 attached two...” at 18 Nerigai Close Elermore vale, NSW:

    Lloyd Turner commented

    This development looks absolutely awful.

    I was just getting serious about purchasing 22 Robinia, but with this possibility just over the back fence, there is no way i would consider going ahead. I have no problem with a back fence neighbour, but this proposal is for a back fence ghetto.

  14. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Angie Burns commented

    Dear Ku-ring-gai Council,

    I strongly object to the proposed development of a 150 place Child Care Centre (DA0413/15) in Merrivale Lane for all the reasons my neighbours have outlined in the previous letters. We have lived in Charlton Avenue for the past 7 years and the repercussions for our street if the proposal goes ahead will completely change the nature and character of our neighbourhood!
    Building another Child Care facility in our area, especially one so huge, is totally unnecessary. The typical operating hours for centre-based “long day care” child centres are from 7am to 6pm on weekdays, even longer for some centres, and on weekends too, 48 weeks a year!
    The car parking solutions for the proposed development are clearly inadequate to accommodate the comings and goings of the parents and carers of 150 children, plus upwards of 30 to 40 staff and support staff, and will severely compromise amenities and the original density advantages of living in an R2 designated Low Density Residential area!
    We deliberately chose to live in a Low Density Residential area for good reason, because we wanted our 4 children to grow up in a safe and quiet environment.
    The inevitable massive increase in the volume of traffic travelling at speed down our street, particularly at peak pick up and drop off times, is of huge concern for me on a personal level, as our youngest son has autism. Our property is open to the road at the front, in keeping with the character of the street, and I am really afraid for the safety of my son with the increased number of cars rushing past our driveway to pick up their children. One of his greatest pleasures is to walk his dogs to the local park after school every day with me, and because there are no footpaths we have to walk on the road! We also have a steep driveway and a blind spot to the south of Charlton Avenue, which could be potentially dangerous for us reversing out of our driveway if cars come round the corner too quickly.
    Please do not allow this development to go ahead and change our wonderful neighbourhood! It is completely the wrong location for a child care centre!

  15. In Oaklands Park SA on “Land Division Residential...” at 2 Shearing St Oaklands Park:

    rosemary ranford commented

    Just wonder whether the grass will be cut for summer. Wall of garage is part of my fence what will happen to my fence. I have a secure backyard and dont want this changed. Thank you.

  16. In Glen Waverley VIC on “The construction of four...” at 2 Shirley Avenue Glen Waverley VIC 3150:

    John Rivis commented

    The application for four (4) double storey dwellings is an over development of the site.
    The size of each dwelling would be very small: the rooms would be like dog boxes.

    To be consistent with the area,two (2) double storey 3 bedroom dwellings would be more appropriate. eg 10 & 13 Hunter Street. These properties are in close proximity to 2 Shirley Avenue and are of a high standard of construction and appearance.

    Three (3) double storey dwellings would be more appropriate than four (4) dwellings as they will have larger rooms. eg .Refer to 18 Hunter Street and 17 Edith Street as typical examples. Each dwelling is very small and to have four (4) dwellings without gardens on 2 Shirley Avenue the rooms would be even smaller.

  17. In Burnley VIC on “Construction of 2 new dwellngs” at 30 Manton St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dolores leropoulis commented

    Will this house be completely demolished as part of the planning application ?

  18. In Chippendale NSW on “Bistrot Gavroche -...” at Level 1 2-10 Kensington Street, Chippendale 2008:

    Charlie Chang commented

    There are simply too many licensed venues inside and surrounding Central Park.

    The unwelcome do noise, public urination, public defamation and anti social behaviour in general has turned a residential area into a ghetto.

    Please listen. When the area starts becoming the next Kings Cross, what will you do? Shift it all to Newtown?

  19. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Sophie Trousdale commented

    Agree and second the comments above by Kelly Wratten.

    Also can Council please explain what additional public transport infrastructure that will be put into this area to cope with this already overdeveloped very small area of turf. The road at the intersection of Old Canterbury Rd and Railway Terrace is already a nightmare and a car park at most times of the day. Please don't give us the 'we want people to ride bikes and car share and discourage car ownership naivety' rubbish. Plus Council have already admitted that the Light Rail is ineffectual and currently at capacity. There are one or two buses servicing the immediate area as far as I'm aware. And Lewisham train line is really the only public transport option and those trains only depart every 15 mins in peak hour.

    Any plans for additional health services to support all the additional residents that Council are jamming into Lewisham and Dulwich Hill? Child care?

    There seems to be absolutely no planning either short term or long term by local Council and/or in conjunction with State Government.

    And I keep asking myself why have development guidelines when you don't need them. A complete and obvious waste of money. Most DA's are approved in the long run anyway with no regard for the existing residents and ratepayers.

    Shaking my head in absolute disbelief.

  20. In Belmore NSW on “Construction of a four...” at 86-92 Kingsgrove Road, Belmore NSW:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen air quality and the already terrible congestion on Belmore, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  21. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already terrible congestion in Lewisham, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  22. In Mascot NSW on “Integrated Development...” at 577 Gardeners Road Mascot NSW 2020:

    Andrew Chuter commented

    This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen the already terrible congestion on Gardneners Rd, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

  23. In Kirrawee NSW on “Mixed Use Retail,...” at 566-594 Princes Highway, Kirrawee:

    Natalie Popple commented

    It depends on whether the Da refers to bulk retail, commercial or small business what sort of traffic will be attracted to a already severely conjested area. We have not been told how many parking spaces are to be provided and /or any secured tenancy contracts i.e.: Coles, Sky Zone, Norton Street Grocer, Costco, Ikea etc...etc... Also because of the huge scope of this project I think a wider Neighbour Impact area should be considered. Don't forget the extra traffic caused by the Train Station during peak times as a safe P/up and drop off location. What extra public transport will be integrated into the area I:e Cab rank, bus stop. I know this project will go ahead. It's called progress BUT should it be at the cost of the Suburb's integrity? Council needs to decide what it is willing to ask the state government to do to help congestion on these roads: Flora Street, Oak Road and the main Princes Hwy. I also believe that we have to look at pending DAs for the Hotel project across the Hwy as this will increase pedestrian traffic in the area.Thank you for considering my concerns.

  24. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Harry Brookes commented

    I am a frequent visitor to my wife's sister who resides in 125 Merrivale Lane.
    We come through St Ives and enter and leave Merrivale Lane by Pentecost Ave.
    There is a left-hand bend in Pentecost Ave and traffic coming from Bobbin Head Rd end approach quickly on the down hill grade and extreme care is necessary.
    I am concerned that, in view of the number of vehicles which will be using Merrivale Lane to access the proposed child care centre, there is an extreme risk of accident at this corner.
    Furthermore, in the past 9 years we have been visiting the area, there are two boats parked in Merrivale Lane and I am sure that have not moved in all this time. The one on the left leaving Merrivale Lane is barely visible in the evening.
    If any boats or vehicles are parked in Merrivale Lane and another car is approaching when we are in the section of the Lane between Pentecost Ave and the say 125, one of us must stop and pull over to the side. Another feature we have noticed is that there are no footpaths in the first section of the Lane and pedestrians and children are often on the road.
    In my opinion, the increase in traffic which will be using this section of the Lane, at least twice per day, must result in problems and possibly accidents.

  25. In Earlwood NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 56 Richmond Street, Earlwood NSW:

    Matthew M commented

    This is a massive industrial style project for PROFIT and commercial gain right smack bang in a small Street and residential community. There are numerous concerns from such a development, total height, environmental, extra noise with a possible extra 10-12 people living in close proximity, extra traffic to name a few. Surely this project can be scaled down not up with more bedrooms, more windows and replaced with more car spaces. Home owners in this Street already have up to 3 cars in this already full street with no car spots. I look forward to discussing this further with all the profit making builders involved in this large scale development.

  26. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Kelly Wratten commented

    9 storeys? The Council's 2011 Development Control Plan for the Lewisham Precinct is quite clear in that there is to be a 6 storey height limit. What is the purpose of having a DCP if it is to be ignored some 4 years later. It seems common place now for developers to submit plans that are outside these guidelines and for Council to approve. Voluntary Planning Agreements which equate to large sweetener payments are now the norm.

    Why would consideration be given to a plan that clearly grossly exceeds this one point alone?

    The area where this development is already a traffic nightmare, being right next to the rail line, where there is already oversized developments courtesy of Ashfield Council. The traffic situation has always been difficult but has been worsened by recent construction in the area.

  27. In Brunswick VIC on “Development of two attached...” at 39 Mountfield Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Katrina Aspinall commented

    Hello, Mountfield Street has no capacity for reduced car parking requirements - this application should provide for the spaces needed, including bike storage.

  28. In Bellingen NSW on “Cedar Bar & Kitchen -...” at 8 Church St, Bellingen 2454:

    Al smitz commented

    as this venue will seat over 100 people, how will they maintain order from drinkers, as the newest establishment already can't. also there is a huge parking problem in bellingen already, this will impact very poorly on town with too many drinking places already.

  29. In Kirrawee NSW on “Mixed Use Retail,...” at 566-594 Princes Highway, Kirrawee:

    Mrs June Wilson commented

    NSW Joint Regional Planning Panel
    Re: DA15/1134
    Former Brick Pit Site
    566-594 Princes Highway
    KIRRAWEE 2232 NSW
    Dear Sir,

    Once again I am writing to support the development of the Kirrawee Brick Pit Site which has been an eyesore for many years.

    Since 2001 there has been many meetings, submissions, appeal by Sutherland
    Council to the Land and Environment Court and final a determination of concept plan MP10_0076 was made by PAC-Planning Assessment Commission 23rd August 2012
    giving it approval with certain conditions.

    In 2013 the site was sold to Pace, they in turned sold the development rights to Deicorp, Payce retaining the ownership of the land.

    We now have another DA increasing 432 units to 749 units and here we are some 14 years later and nothing done except clear the site and remove the water from the hole! It is a pity that the development was blocked back in 2008 when it would have been much smaller and less traffic for our area and would have been built by now.

    My husband and I live in the nearby Retirement Village and along with others here have wanted super markets and other shops to complement Kirrawee Local shops in Oak Road. It will be so much more convenient to be able to walk to the proposed shops without the need for public transport. Many here do not drive.

    The proposed 749 dwellings will provide much needed housing close to shops and Kirrawee Railway Station.

    Traffic is a concern however, I am sure the authorities will sort it out. We look forward to the removal of the round-a-bout at the intersection of Oak and Flora Street replacing it with much needed traffic lights and pedestrian crossings which we do not have from Flora street at present making it difficult for people with walkers.

    I like the concept of a local park although I see this is now subject to further VPA thus reducing it in size which is a great shame because we do not have a public park for elderly folk to relax in.

    Heritage Conservation of the Pipe Kiln, it is hoped that this will be preserved and incorporated in the design of the site as it is part of Kirrawee Heritage.

    It will be a great day for Kirrawee people when the site is completely built providing, jobs, homes, much needed supermarkets, shops. park, conservation of the Pipe Kiln where elderly people can go and have easy access-(elderly people stay clear of Westfield too large and difficult)

    I declare that I have not made any political donations or gift to a Councillor or Council employee

    I thank you for the opportunity of making this submission and that you will take it into consideration.

    So I say bring it on, the sooner the better.

    Yours sincerely,

    June Wilson
    Donald Robinson Village
    Flora Street
    Kirrawee NSW 2232

  30. In Highfields QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at 87 Otto Road Highfields QLD 4352:

    Kathryn Weier commented

    I am a resident of Highfields, living on Cawdor Road. My road, although in a residential area, has a high volume of through-traffic, including traffic turning from Cawdor onto Granada and Cawdor Drives, both of which lead into the area of this proposed new housing development. I am concerned that this and other new housing developments will result in increased traffic along Cawdor Road, leading to increased traffic risks, noise, rubbish along the road and fumes for Cawdor Road residents to deal with. What plans are in place for more roads to be developed or improved coming off of New England Highway closer to Toowoomba, to encourage new residents of new lots to use another road than Cawdor road.

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