Recent comments

  1. In Bushells Ridge NSW on “Asphalt Plant” at 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259:

    Joanne Cross commented

    17th February 2017

    Mr Rob Noble Chief Executive Officer
    Central Coast Council (Wyong Office) PO BOX 20
    WYONG NSW 2259

    Development Application No. 1511/2016 Asphalt Plant 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259

    I wish to object to Development Application No 1511/2016 on the following grounds listed below.

    1. How can this be economically viable to build a new processing plant at Tooheys Road when the already established plant at Doyalson that could be upgraded at a less cost than building a new plant. The upgrade will cost less at the established plant which can be upgraded to meet the EPA and Environmental standards?

    2. Air Pollution of Poly Hydrocarbons (PAH) will be admitted to the Air from this plant this will entry to the atmosphere. When the winds blow in the direction of a southerly the residential of Bushells Ridge Road, Hue Hue Road, and Tooheys Road will be affected by the PAH emission from this processing plant which will then in turn fall on our roofs of the houses and this will then in turn affect/contaminate our domestic drinking water.

    3.. Residents Tank Water will have PAH in their domestic drinking water. Also Dam water for Stock, water for the native animals will be contaminated and cause deaths to native animals and birds. There has been sightings of Dingo’s in Tooheys Road and also Charmhaven to Wyong areas. These dogs are protected. In the EIS there is only mention of the Koala inhabitant, but there are many other native species in this area that have not been taken into consideration.

    4. On Tooheys Rd and Bushells Ridge Rd and Hue Hue Road there is a Environmental Protection on these properties which was imposed by Council.

    5. On our property there is environmental protection for Glider Squirrels.

    6. There is vast amounts of native animals birds plants which will be affected by Air Quality and the list goes on.

    7. We have great concerns for Creeks and Waterways close to this Proposed Asphalt Plant with run off water, as well as diesel from the tanks that will be placed on this site this will affect marine life in these streams. If there is a diesel spillage on this site where will the run off go to?

    8. Roads infrastructure is inadequate for Bushells Ridge Road and Tooheys Road are a Rural road with five School Buses a day on Bushells Ridge Road some sections two Buses cannot pass one another due to the width of this Road. These roads are not constructed for Heavy Vehicle traffic that will be required for construction of this plant. Previous developments on this road have caused destruction of the Tar Sealing.

    9. The section of Bushells Ridge Rd in front of our house is laid on contaminated Soil. This cannot be disturbed, and if the tar surface breaks up this tar surface has to be replaced immediately to prevent contamination to our home and domestic water. This sealing of this road in front of our home was instructed by the EPA this contaminated foundation for this section of this road was supplied and laid by Wyong Shire Council.

    10. If this industry cannot meet EPA and Environmental standards now at Doyalson where this company has operated for years, how will they meet the EPA and Environmental standards at a new site in Tooheys Road?

    11. How can this plant meet the standards when it stated in EIS that hot asphalt will be placed in trucks already and covered with a tarp? How will a spillage be controlled and how will this affect traffic on the link road or any other roads that will transport this material?

    12. There has been no consideration for the residents of these areas with the EIS stating that the plant will be operating twenty four hours seven days a week. What noise constraints have been considered for the residents of these areas?

    Yours faithfully
    Ms J. Cross

  2. In Bushells Ridge NSW on “Asphalt Plant” at 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259:

    B & J Cross commented

    17th February 2017

    Mr Rob Noble Chief Executive Officer
    Central Coast Council (Wyong Office) PO BOX 20
    WYONG NSW 2259

    Development Application No. 1511/2016 Asphalt Plant 203 Tooheys Road Bushells Ridge NSW 2259

    I wish to object to Development Application No 1511/2016 on the following grounds listed below.

    1. Air Pollution of Poly Hydrocarbons (PAH) will be admitted to the Air from this plant this will entry to the atmosphere. When the winds blow in the direction of a southerly the residential of Bushells Ridge Road, Hue Hue Road, and Tooheys Road will be affected by the PAH emission from this processing plant which will then in turn fall on our roofs of the houses and this will then in turn affect/contaminate our domestic drinking water.

    2. Residents Tank Water will have PAH in their domestic drinking water. Also Dam water for Stock, water for the native animals will be contaminated and cause deaths to native animals and birds. There has been sightings of Dingo’s in Tooheys Road and also Charmhaven to Wyong areas. These dogs are protected. In the EIS there is only mention of the Koala inhabitant, but there are many other native species in this area that have not been taken into consideration.

    3. On Tooheys Rd and Bushells Ridge Rd and Hue Hue Road there is a Environmental Protection on these properties which was imposed by Council.

    4. On our property there is environmental protection for Glider Squirrels.

    5. There is vast amounts of native animals birds plants which will be affected by Air Quality and the list goes on.

    6. We have great concerns for Creeks and Waterways close to this Proposed Asphalt Plant with run off water, as well as diesel from the tanks that will be placed on this site this will affect marine life in these streams. If there is a diesel spillage on this site where will the run off go to?

    7. Roads infrastructure is inadequate for Bushells Ridge Road and Tooheys Road are a Rural road with five School Buses a day on Bushells Ridge Road some sections two Buses cannot pass one another due to the width of this Road. These roads are not constructed for Heavy Vehicle traffic that will be required for construction of this plant. Previous developments on this road have caused destruction of the Tar Sealing.

    8. The section of Bushells Ridge Rd in front of our house is laid on contaminated Soil. This cannot be disturbed, and if the tar surface breaks up this tar surface has to be replaced immediately to prevent contamination to our home and domestic water. This sealing of this road in front of our home was instructed by the EPA this contaminated foundation for this section of this road was supplied and laid by Wyong Shire Council.

    9. If this industry cannot meet EPA and Environmental standards now at Doyalson where this company has operated for years, how will they meet the EPA and Environmental standards at a new site in Tooheys Road?

    10. How can this be economically viable to build a new processing plant at Tooheys Road when the already established plant at Doyalson that could be upgraded at a less cost than building a new plant. The upgrade will cost less at the established plant which can be upgraded to meet the EPA and Environmental standards?

    11. How can this plant meet the standards when it stated in EIS that hot asphalt will be placed in trucks already and covered with a tarp? How will a spillage be controlled and how will this affect traffic on the link road or any other roads that will transport this material?

    12. There has been no consideration for the residents of these areas with the EIS stating that the plant will be operating twenty four hours seven days a week. What noise constraints have been considered for the residents of these areas?

    Yours faithfully
    Mr B & Mrs J Cross

  3. In Eltham VIC on “Building and works to...” at 25 Dudley Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mary McCleary commented

    The height limit in Eltham is 4 metres. Also are they providing enough parking on site? Dudley Street is quite narrow and parked cars on the road would inhibit traffic. We cannot sustain many more people in Eltham as the traffic is already bad and and the public transport is insufficient.

  4. In Terrigal NSW on “Section 96 Amendment...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Nicole Perezous commented

    Disputing height increase and as a neighbour have yet received proposed plans. Supposedly, there was some more than 5 years ago, which thereby theoretically should have been resubmitted. Furthermore, nor were we notified of construction before demolition began.

  5. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    Joanne Carr commented

    I have visited this area many times over the last 20 years and believe it would be a very sad decision to allow this development to go ahead. The area is part of the wetlands and therefore provides essential refuge for a wide range of wildlife.
    This is a special area that deserves to be protected

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    I support this application and think it would be an asset to the area. It is somewhere that I would definitely go to regularly if it lives up to the design plans.

    I understand that there are concerns around parking, though the area is well serviced by buses and the DA seems like it is aiming to attract more locals than those that need to drive. I don't think parking should be used as an excuse not to increase either residential or commercial properties in the area. Possibly timed parking with signage should be considered for nearby streets though.

    As the planes overhead make noise until 11pm, maybe this should be the cutoff for outside music? Inside and not disturbing neighbours it should be 12am.

  7. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Katy Macmillan commented

    Yes we support this application for a
    License. This will encourage the revitalisation of Artarmon and add a modern gourmet option for dinner and wine in our local area which is lacking.

  8. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Eva Wiland commented

    I totally support an on-premise license for Salvage Coffee. It is already a popular coffee spot - Artarmon desperately needs a place for residents to relax and meet over a drink.

  9. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Debbie B commented

    Joel I read your comments and I agree with them. It is concerning that Kings Beach is rapidly losing its limited parking especially in holiday times. It is an area that is known to be family friendly, but if families can't get a carpark with their little children then it becomes another place that they are locked out of. Shame on the Council if this happens.
    Maintaining street parking by not having it taken up with high rise owners/tenants allows Kings Beach to keep its appeal for all.
    I am an owner/resident and I walk to the beach...but I don't own the beach. There are plenty of other places, like Aura where developers can use space without affecting others.
    If the building of large high rises without sufficient parking on site to cater for residents and their visitors is not being enforced as a requirement by Council, then Kings Beach residents may have to do what Coolum residents have done, and take a more vocal stand until they listen.
    I hope those in Planning who are allowing developers to dictate terms and in doing so reduce easy parking access to this public beach amenity will have the guts to protect it, before it is too late.
    It is not their monopoly.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    S.Watts commented

    While I support local venues, consideration to residents should be paramount. It should be indoor and sound proofed and 10 pm closing. We have recently experienced the problems with noise where we felt trapped inside our home due to loud people, loud mobile phones users and smokers, making it impossible to use our backyard and have windows and doors open. It also make it hard to carry on with daily activities and have undistured sleep. Any kind of new venue will be an impost on residents particularly when like us, there has not been this kind of establishment before.

  11. In Artarmon NSW on “On-premises licence - New...” at 5 Wilkes Avenue, Artarmon, NSW:

    Sally kelly commented

    I think this will be great for the areas with alfresco, courtyard dining

  12. In Launceston TAS on “Passive Recreation - public...” at Town Hall 18-28 St John Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    The arborist's report is unavailable for download or viewing to see whether there's supporting evidence for removing mature, shade-giving trees.

  13. In Launceston TAS on “Passive Recreation - public...” at Town Hall 18-28 St John Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden wrote to local councillor Karina Stojansek

    As a user of the civic square during events and on a week lying basis with my daughter we find it an enjoyable and amenable area.
    We look forward to the area being updated and it's changed use that will make it a more enjoyable.
    I wish to make a representation against the removal of mature trees. Despite an artist's impression showing the retention of the gumtrees on the north east corner of Henty House, in the plan the trees are to be removed.
    The trees are healthy and shade giving, softening the brutalist design of the monolithic Henty House.
    Whilst I understand the plan wanting to update the infrastructure and paving, I strongly resent that shade giving and mature plants are to be removed.
    The trees on the left, front east area around the library entrance and the trees on the north east area of St Andrews Church are all slated to be removed. Trees which have all matured beautifully over many years. It is difficult to comment on the proposed design by Aspect Studios of Adelaide due to the convoluted and poor documents that are very difficult to read for a lay person as they are so complicated with many overlays of different colours and ideas.
    My objection to this plan is that perfectly good seating, gardens and much-loved areas are also being removed and it's difficult to see what's being replaced.
    I look forward to the public having further consultations so that we can have a better idea of what our beloved Civic square will look like in the future if the plan is continued with.

    Delivered to local councillor Karina Stojansek. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Belgrave VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1592 Burwood Highway, Belgrave VIC 3160:

    N. Delmas commented

    Given this application is yet to be advertised for public review and submissions prior feedback comments and this comment should be considered prior to preliminary assessment and advertising.

    Council should ensure this application is sent to Referral Authority (VICRoads) due to location on a Category 1 road (Burwood Highway).

    This site entry is problematic from Burwood Highway traveling East (towards Belgrave from Tecoma) requiring a right turn across painted traffic island on a blind turn in variable speed limited zone.
    Undertaking vehicles passing a vehicle attempting entry in such a manner must use bike lane to do so. Notwithstanding such an attempted entry is not legal this does occur due to no easily viable means of executing a U turn along this section of road - only safe viable location is at Burwood Highway / Belgrave Hallum Road / Monbulk Road roundabout in Belgrave shopping precinct that is subject to congestion.

    Current use of this site creates traffic issues and it would appear previous applications were not sent to VICRoads. If previous applications had been sent and no objections subject to conditions, then either appropriate Permit conditions were not applied by Council or compliance to such conditions have not been complied with.

    This application should be used as an opportunity to address this long standing traffic issue AND the sub-standard car parking area on this Lot that does NOT comply to all Clause 52.06 provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.
    This and other car parking areas of similar built form in applications currently yet to be determined by Council will be contested if Council deems such standards to be 'satisfactory'. Such deeming of sub-standard car parking areas is viewed by this respondent as being an unreasonable concession afforded to proponents of no merit to the general public.

  15. In Rowville VIC on “Proposed 6 unit development” at 48 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Craig commented

    Just so people know Rowville is about to get 3 new estates so there is plenty of land for the growing population. These are going to be more high density so if people don't mind living there they can and know what they are buying. Why change a well established street so drastically there is no need for it.

  16. In Rowville VIC on “Construction of 6 dwellings...” at 50 Murray Crescent, Rowville VIC 3178:

    Craig commented

    Just so people know Rowville is about to get 3 new estates so there is plenty of land for the growing population. These are going to be more high density so if people don't mind living there the can and know what they are buying. Why change a well established street so drastically there is no need for it.
    Rowville citizen if you read the planning it is 4x 2 storey and 2x single

  17. In Belgrave VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 1592 Burwood Highway, Belgrave VIC 3160:

    N. Delmas commented

    Given this application is yet to be advertised for public review and submissions prior feedback comments and this comment should be considered prior to peliminary assessment and advertising.

    Council should ensure this application is sent to Referral Authority (VICRoads) due to location on a Category 1 road (Burwood Highway).

    This site entry is problematic from Burwood Highway traveling East 9towards Belgrave from Tecoma) requiring a right turn across painted traffic island on a blind turn in variable speed limited zone.
    Undertaking vehicles passing a vehicle attempting entry in such a manner must use bike lane to do so. Notwithstanding such an attempted entry is not legal this does occur due to no easily viable means of executing a U turn along this section of road - only safe viable location is at Burwood Highway / Belgrave Hallum Road / Monbulk Road roundabout in Belgrave shopping precinct that is subject to congestion.

    Current use of this site creates traffic issues and it would appear previous applications were not sent to VICRoads. If previous applications had been sent and no objections subject to conditions, then either appropriate Permit conditions were not applied by Council or compliance to such conditions have not been complied with.

    This application should be used as an opportunity to address this long standing traffic issue AND the sub-standard car parking area on this Lot that does NOT comply to all Clause 52.06 provisions of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.
    This and other car parking areas of similar built form in applications currently yet to be determined by Council will be contested if Council deems such standards to be 'satisfactory'. Such deeming of sub-standard car parking areas is viewed by this respondent as being an unreasonable concession afforded to proponents of no merit to the general public.

  18. In Point Clare NSW on “Seniors And Social Housing...” at 193 Brisbane Water Drive, Point Clare NSW 2250:

    Will commented

    Dear council member
    I would like to take this opportunity to express my disapproval on the proposed social housing development planned for point clare.
    The addition of 55 units on this area will not only put a strain on our community and it schooling issues but also add to the uncertainty of the security of our neighbourhood. Increased traffic and unwanted attention would be a frightening thought for both ourselves and others who live in this peaceful area. I believe there are other options that may not have been looked at for the proposed application by Baptist care. This is a safe and friendly neighborhood that allows us to enjoy the area in which we currently live. Going ahead with this plan would both alter and damage this area both physically and financially by lowering housing prices and reducing the current appeal of the area. Currently we have a broad range of people living in this area from young couples to the elderly. The unwanted attention that would come from building such a development is clearly unacceptable. We want to know that when we leave our houses to go about our daily lives that we can return knowing that everything is as it was left. Introducing 55 units and social housing would create fear of theft crime and this is not something that we want for our peaceful neighbourhood.

  19. In Chittaway Point NSW on “Rezone from RE2 to R2” at 275 Geoffrey Road Chittaway Point NSW 2261:

    John O'Donnell commented

    My wife & I have only just purchased on Chittaway Point. It is a unique peninsula jutting into Tuggerah Lake along Ourimbah Creek which has amazing environmental diversity and natural beauty, but there are challenges. It floods, there are acid sulphate soils, bush fires etc etc. I bought with this knowlwdge and the understanding that it was being managed in a responsible way. I would not have bought had I known that there was any potential for additional or inappropriate development. Please reject this rezoning application and reject any inappropriate development on this land that blocks the environmental corridor that it is part of. There a many reasons to do this as many other residents above have already listed.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Brett commented

    This new DA appears to address some of the neighbours concerns, however, I think given this is a motel (implying people will drive), and is nowhere near a train station, more parking should be catered for, or else the neighbouring streets should have parking restrictions so residents don't need to compete with yet more cars on the road.
    The DA suggests tenants can park on Philpott, Gordon and Perry streets, where it's close to impossible to find parking already. Adding to this, all of the apartment blocks currently being built (two on Addison Rd next door, another on Cowper) have a surplus of apartments over parking, so we will soon see many more cars on the road, all competing for a spot.
    I know it seems to be the council position that residents should be encouraged to not drive, but piling on more cars on roads distant from train stations doesn't seem the best way to achieve this.

  21. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of a six...” at 269 Stewart Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Jenni Wanigasekera commented

    This development is highly inappropriate and not in keeping with the neighbourhood characteristics surrounding it. Nor does it address a number of things contained in the Brunswick Structure plan that specifically relates to this area near CERES. Higher density developments may be required due to increasing land costs in the inner city but not at the expense of amenity to existing residents. A 6 level apartment building is not required in this non high growth street, nor is it necessary for the expected population growth (refer inside Moreland brochure) given approvals already approved on Nicholson St, Lygon St & Sydney Rds which are all Activity Centres ear marked for high growth developments.
    We have 2 existing townhouse developments in this pocket which a) respond to higher density b) still remain connected to the community c) respect the character of the existing neighbourhood. d) do not contribute negatively to traffic/parking issues.
    Please reduce this development to 3 levels maxium and ensure community connection. This development will add noise to neighbouring houses in Stewart & Kingfisher & possibly create wind tunnels as it is too close to existing residents & towers over any small private open space reducing amenity & will also create traffic and parking issues. Essentially it will be an insular ghetto building in its current form as it is does not contribute to the community around it. Ideally 269 Stewart St should be a townhouse development, there are far too many vacant apartments already, townhouses are far more viable from a sales point of view and attract more buyers & remain community connected!

  22. In Melbourne VIC on “Proposal to install roller...” at 163-169 Russell Street Melbourne VIC 3000:

    Jenny Eltham commented

    Roller shutters add nothing to the ambience of a city. There are infinitely more attractive options that could be considered. It would be hoped City of Melbourne will encourage this business owner to explore other options.

  23. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026:

    Mark commented

    I've lived on Sir Thomas Mitchell Road since 1975, I remember when the park was created turning it from a through road into a cul-de-sac.
    The truth is this building has always been a slag heap, and it's about time it was demolished. I've had a look at am image of the replacement and I think it's good.
    I'll admit the classical facade does have some merit but seriously the building is in such a dire state the only solution is to pull it down and start from scratch.
    There are many old crumbling buildings around Bondi that need to be demolished and replaced with something more in tune with the 21st century. I'm glad it's happening here and hope to see more of it.
    Something also needs to be done about Lamrock lane as it resembles a rubbish strewn 3rd world slum.
    I do sympathise with those who will be adversely affected in neighbouring buildings.
    I have no sympathy for professional NIMBY's who complain at any improvement in this my suburb.
    Bondi beach now is a much much better place than what it was in the 70's. This mythical golden age the nimby's constantly talk about is one where junkies shot up in the street and gangs of feral teens roamed out of control. Our home was broken into 3 times during the 80's. My uncle's girlfriend was attacked and raped once in the late 70's. That my friends was the old Bondi. If you're nostalgic for that, then good luck to you. I'm not and I welcome improvement and progress.

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Caleb commented

    Would really like to see Addison road Main Street continue to thrive but once again a little more clarity on amplified music, where the DJs will set up (indoor/outdoor) aswell as a bit of flexibility on traditional working hours that have been mentioned previously. Keep the communication and best of luck.

  25. In Wantirna VIC on “12 lot subdivision” at 6 Benwerrin Drive, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Eddie Maakasa commented

    Hoping to keep our area open area with less density and congestion and I am opposing The High rise and 2-3 stories in our area , especially my street Gateshead Drive which will be subjected to higher overcrowding with the extension of Westfield shopping centre. Knox
    Please Consider
    Yours faithfully
    Eddie Maakasa

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Mitchell Donaldson commented

    I absolutely support this application.

    Knowing Ash from Satellite she always respects her neighbours and District would be no different.

    More late night venues are just what this area needs.

  27. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Michael Hollis commented

    I give this plan my full support. Because of my work hours I would love District to be open at night.
    Marrickville is known for being a creative, diverse and community-oriented suburb and that's why I live here.
    It is encouraging to see a business owner thinking creatively to give breath and life to the night economy.
    Something more refreshing than the same looking old man pub we seem to have on every corner anyway.
    It's also exciting for there to be a safe night spot for our queer community.

    Let's give opportunity to businesses rather than continue the license suffocation we've seen happen to small businesses throughout the rest of the city.

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Kevin Privett commented

    I feel it's about time sydney developed a night cafe culture where a venue can serve as a multi purpose facility. 'District' given its location, business owner and staff would be a perfect venture allowing to rise a level of community awareness in Marrickville. You need to do this.

  29. In Kings Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units x...” at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD:

    Brian and Diane Cosgrove wrote to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    Hi. This morning a very large delivery truck arrived with scaffolding for this development. The truck blocked the cul-de-sac while the driver unpacked the equipment on to the footpath in front of the site. It was garbage pickup day which added to the problem. I have rung the Sunshine Coast Council as I am concerned that this scaffolding is going to remain on the footpath for a long period of time. I have been told that someone will come out and look at the situation and also it will be investigated if the developer has a permit to place equipment on the footpath. I would like to know the result of this call and how long the permit would be for. I think that this morning's actions are a good indicator of what to expect in the near future.

    Photo of Tim Dwyer
    Tim Dwyer local councillor for Sunshine Coast Regional Council
    replied to Brian and Diane Cosgrove

    Dear Brian and Diane,
    Thanks for your email.
    Please call my office on 5420 8965 to discuss how this matter can be remedied should your call to council not result in a suitable outcome.

    Regards
    Cr Tim Dwyer
    Deputy Mayor
    Finance and Strategic Planning Portfolio
    Councillor │ Division 2
    Sunshine Coast Council

    Ph: 07 5420 8965.
    Mob: 0418 348 896
    Email:
    Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au
    Mail: Locked Bag 72, Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560

    Please consider the environment before printing this email
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author.

    On 17 Feb 2017, at 12:56 pm, Brian and Diane Cosgrove <> wrote:

    Hi. This morning a very large delivery truck arrived with scaffolding for this development. The truck blocked the cul-de-sac while the driver unpacked the equipment on to the footpath in front of the site. It was garbage pickup day which added to the problem. I have rung the Sunshine Coast Council as I am concerned that this scaffolding is going to remain on the footpath for a long period of time. I have been told that someone will come out and look at the situation and also it will be investigated if the developer has a permit to place equipment on the footpath. I would like to know the result of this call and how long the permit would be for. I think that this morning's actions are a good indicator of what to expect in the near future.

    From Brian and Diane Cosgrove to local councillor Tim Dwyer

    =========================================================================

    Brian and Diane Cosgrove posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Brian and Diane Cosgrove and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD

    Description: Multiple Dwelling Units x 35 - Rise Projects Services

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/745840?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  30. In Allenby Gardens SA on “Childcare centre (70...” at 47 East Avenue Allenby Gardens SA 5009:

    Joseph Marcon commented

    This development does not comply with councils zoning regulations. This area is zoned residential. There was no public notification

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