Recent comments

  1. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Sue Ostler commented

    The following is a response to the amended DA, made public on Jan 4, 2016.

    Trouble in Chinatown
    Today’s newspaper headlines are full of the news that Belmore Park otherwise known as Tent City opposite Central Station is out of control. Those who have set up camp show no sign of moving. Security guards are now allegedly deployed to man the area 24-hours a day to deal with the violence, alcohol and drugs in this homeless enclave.
    This is exactly one block away from where we live at the Miramar Apartments on the southern end of Pitt Street, between Goulburn and Campbell, a block which has an ugly history of its own.

    Overrun with backpackers and young party people who frequently clash with the transient and homeless who gravitate towards our block and lump together outside the West End backpackers’ hostel, attracted by the wafting fragrance of marijuana and the free flowing alcohol, openly using our driveway and mailboxes as toilets and inciting anti-social behaviour. This all happening in the very same location where a scene of horrific violence erupted during a triple stabbing two years ago. But regardless of countless complaints and letters to the council (including written submissions by myself), no effort has been made to turn the area into an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’.

    In spite of this out-of-control scene, plans are afoot for a 33-storey super skinny Shanghai style skyscraper budget hotel to be sandwiched as tight as the proverbial in between the original residential buildings and the infamous West End hostel. With a mind-bogglingly narrow 6.4m frontage and capacity of 180 rooms and up to four to five hundred occupants, the extra volume of people will put a massive burden on this pressure-cooker situation - especially when those four to five hundred people are likely to be backpackers – more backpackers! Developer Dean Rzechta, managing director of Ninety Four Feet, said himself in a recent interview that the budget hotel “is to be aimed at younger travellers.”

    We have to ask ourselves why?

    it simply because a Melbourne development company saw an opportunity to make a few bucks when they ran out of sites in Melbourne?

    mean come on! The erection of random sky-high pencil thin building such as this shows a complete lack of regard for its neighbouring occupants. With a devastating loss of amenity: privacy, ventilation, air, sunlight - and of course outlook for the neighbouring buildings - this is a situation reminiscent of the vastly overcrowded cities of Beijing, Macau or Hong Kong - not our own precious downtown Sydney!
    Imagine the noise pollution and loss of air, light, ventilation, daylight, privacy and outlook based on inadequate space between buildings - and that’s just at sky level! At street level things will be total madness.

    Did I mention that the proposed tower provides absolutely no onsite car parking? Do you have any idea what this will do to our streetscape? In a densely overbuilt area known for its budget accommodation where none of the existing backpackers offer parking, it’s sheer madness. Added to the existing traffic congestion in an already overextended block of Pitt Street and what you get is a real bottleneck situation (keep in mind that Pitt Street is nothing like its neighbouring George Street with its broad three lanes. It's one single lane up and one single lane down up until it hits Goulburn Street, and then it’s one way from there all the way to the Pitt Street Mall). And let’s not forget the recent diversion of every George Street bus route which have doubled the traffic flow on Pitt Street – all of this and we’re talking about a street that is not much wider than a city laneway!

    Picture the traffic congestion made by coaches, taxis and service vehicles all converging together to result in chaos alongside an already inadequate area for servicing and waste management utilities. Throw in the congested pedestrian traffic with all manner of transport vehicles and bicycles parked along the kerb-side while visitors come to and from the hotel, waiting for the airport shuttle, their luggage left strewn across the pavement as they straggle across the driveway of the Miramar, blocking primary access and exit points for the residents’ vehicles - and what you get is a very ugly picture.

    And while we appreciate that the current situation at 410 Pitt Street is not a desirable one, we do not wish to substitute one bad situation with a far worse one!
    When the developers initially proposed a 3-star hotel development, residents and neighbours were stunned and took action. An objection was promptly lodged to council and an appeal to the Land and Environments Court was the response.

    The DA has since come back with a vengeance with only a couple of token amendments: it has lopped a couple of floors off the top and plans to be a mere two storeys shorter with a nod to greater sunlight. Bravo. It has also apparently addressed rehousing for the otherwise homeless men residing in the Cosy Private Hotel which will be promptly demolished should the DA go ahead. That however, remains to be seen! Perhaps the evicted men will end up sleeping in our driveway, overlooked and undetected in-between all the pandemonium. Either way, none of this is any comfort to those hundreds of Miramar residents whose south facing windows will become walls - completely blacked out by a towering chunk of concrete.

    for us our home-in-the-sky sits right alongside the proposed building site. Our principal living-room and third bedroom windows are south facing, as is our open balcony. According to diagrams, the proposed development will be within approx. 1.5 metres of our balcony, almost within arm’s reach of our main social and recreation area! And what of the hotel’s rooftop our family wonders - will it be an all-night party rooftop, going off right outside our balcony? Or even more foreboding, will it be a plant service area with vast visual bulk and great noise pollution generated from machinery, service utilities, air conditioning plants and more, forcing us to live with closed windows and darkness to escape the noise and air pollution?

    Whatever it will be, the alarming fact is that I could reach out with my son’s pogo stick and touch it.

    It’s funny too, because it’s not often that a city skyscraper is built with a family and kids in mind. We usually hear about homes-in-the-sky with sprawling master suites for adults. Yet three generations of the Lee family have lived happily on the 37th floor at the Miramar Apartments in Sydney’s Pitt Street over the past twenty years. Now, together with a seventeen-month old toddler, property developers threaten to drive our family away.

    A very distressing thought.

    Our home is our sanctuary, and with that comes security and community. Who says you can’t have community whilst living in the CBD? If you’ve ever lived in Chinatown you would know that for the most part, it’s a haven of friendliness. A buzzing, bustling mecca where concierge, cleaners, receptions, real-estate agents and building managers sing out sunny greetings each time they pass by, and neighbours stop to say hello and offer a hand with shopping bags and prams. Lush, vibrant gardens thrive happily in the challenged conditions of the uppermost sky-high floors and there’s plenty of smiles between locals and shop-keepers, suppliers and servicemen - especially if you have a baby in tow as this writer does.

    But if you had of asked me during the pregnancy how we would go living in the sky with a bub, I just couldn't get my head around it.

    How could I?

    I had grown up with the quintessential backyard teeming with dogs, cats, mini- bikes, over-the-fence paddocks and even a pony. Surely this was the Great Australian dream.
    How could our son grow up without experiencing this?

    Seventeen months later and our little boy bounds up and down our long, narrow balcony with quivering excitement, pointing skywards as the overhead airplanes and great flocks of birds glide by. It’s not the leafy green suburbs and there’s no big backyard, but somehow those luminescent sunsets and sunrises and all the drama that comes with the technicolour storms rolling in - and the occasional rainbow-coloured lorikeet perching on the open balcony - make up for that. This is nature from a very different and enviable perspective!

    But all of this could be a distant memory if developers get their way.

    And the question to ask is why?

    It is simply a gross overdevelopment of an unsuitable site seized on by opportunistic developers with consequent unsustainable impacts on the surrounding buildings.
    Surely it is the role of the City of Sydney council to protect its residents from this unsustainable way of life; to promote the ventilation of Central Sydney by allowing the free movement of air flowing freely around city by ensuring that adequate space, air and efficient servicing are part of any new development proposal.
    Surely it is the role of The City to protect residents from the kind of savagery that currently presides over Belmore Park.

    Surely it is their role to keep their residents safe!

    Hundreds of the residents as well as all the Sydney-siders who love our city and wish to preserve its good image have signed our petition and are joining together to support the council in fighting the amended DA. But it’s not just about our lives - the issue of gross overdevelopment without a second thought for residents and ratepayers affects everybody who passes by the southern end of Pitt Street.

    If we don’t jump on it, the Belmore Park syndrome will blowout further down along Pitt Street and end up right on our doorstep. Before-long the thoroughfare from Central Station and down along Pitt Street could become a strip with a dangerous reputation to be avoided at all costs; a situation which will impact on retailers, shopkeepers and service industries - all because of one developer’s greed.

    We urge you to join in the fight to save our great city - don’t let the southern end of Pitt Street become an ugly extension of Belmore Park and don’t let big time developers' ride into Sydney and show us how they think it should be done. Because as non-residents, maybe they don’t really know.Or give a damn.

  2. In Wandin North VIC on “Two lot subdivision...” at 65 De Lancey Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    trevor hallum commented

    Would like to know original and new block sizes pls.

  3. In Camperdown NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 9-13 Marsden Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Stephen Scutts commented

    Great use of older style factory/warehouse. The Uni and hospital need more local accommodation.

  4. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Tracey Trott commented

    OBJECTION: Consideration needs to be given to the impact on surrounding ratepayers living in Mimosa Ave and Village Road whose numbers far outweigh those catered for in this development.

    SERIOUS CONSIDERATION ALSO NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO TRAFFIC. THIS WILL IMPACT GREATLY ON A BUSY INTERSECTION AND ACCESS TO THE SHOPPING CENTRE.

    The suburbs of Saratoga, Davistown and Yattalunga comprise a unique and enviable community and I feel that, if allowed, this development will set a precedent for other buildings of it's size, or even higher. It would be detrimental to change our landscape and skyline to this extent and to impact the community spirit which is such a part of our small peninsular.

  5. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Tim Wade commented

    Objection: I am voicing my objection as this will only start to change the very dynamics of this small community to the beginning of commercialising and profiting from something that is the heart of Saratoga, the Village atmosphere.

    The entrance from Village road, I see potentially causing accidents, or mishaps due the close proximity to the bend that backs onto Mimosa Ave. Drivers Entering on Mimosa Ave from Davistown road onto Village Road (natural right turn) will be presented with traffic entering this unit complex. With an increase of traffic use from Mimosa Avenue turning right onto Mimosa (taking you to Davistown Rd) will add greater amount of wear and tear on Mimosa Ave that would appear the infrastructure could not handle.

    Also as there is minimal curbing, drainage on wet days cause the sidings of the road to become wet and unusable for parking, with an increase in visitors using this area for the proposed units makes available spaces for current tenants of Mimosa unusable.

    With the units being over 14 metres in height will have an impact on dwellings directly behind these units, environmentally as well as cost and comfort. Dwellings also with current water views also behind these proposed units will lose the view that attracted them to Saratoga, or those that had improved their properties in renovating to obtain to increase their water views will also lose this.

    Also the units itself will lower the costs of the houses around them, this alone should be an objection by council.

    This development is the first multi-tenant development request in the area, and needs to be rejected so that Saratoga remains what it is today and the future, a peaceful, single dwelling community spirited village.

    Council needs to decline this application.

  6. In Sans Souci NSW on “365-377 Rocky Point Road,...” at 365-377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci:

    Angela Hili commented

    Why would Kogarah City Council accept this DA 227/2015 of 7 storeys in total including 2 levels of basement parking when it clear that it does not comply with the current DCP 2013 which is maximum 3 storeys( or levels).It appears that it complies with the New City Plan that hasn't even been legislated!!

  7. In Marks Point NSW on “Emergency Services Facility” at 860A Pacific Highway, Marks Point NSW 2280:

    Sam Sab commented

    The proposal for the Westpac rescue helicopter service being added will only benefit this community. I hope all are for it.

  8. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Tanae Ukalovic commented

    STRONGLY OBJECT: I am shocked to see a DA submission for a development such as this for the Saratoga area. If this is approved it will ruin the area and it's village feel. It will then create a precedence for more of the same which would be devastating for the area and almost surely reduce the value of our properties while developers are set to gain major profits. Not to mention it would be an eye sore with so much bulk of buildings in one area. The traffic and parking for the surrounding streets would also be a nightmare! Potentially 2-3 cars or more per unit would be added, which also adds load to an area with only one way in and one way out. Saratoga / Davistown and Yattalunga are to me very much a unique area and one that doesn't want to be build out with bulky developments. It would be a crying shame if this development was approved at all. Keep it's village feel - please!

  9. In Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU RAL and PSW...” at 49 Taylor Street Toowoomba City QLD 4350:

    Andy Jarret commented

    When is the flood of units in Toowoomba going to stop. The rental vacancy rate is climbing at an alarming rate. Council you need to prevent an over supply of these units that are flooding the area and not being rented!

  10. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Jason commented

    OBJECTION: The very reason Saratoga has such a wonderful name on the central coast is due to the suburbs "village" type feel whereby this 3 story development in no way supports this and would be an absolute eye sore! The amount of added traffic this development would bring to the area is not supported by existing infrastructure. Obviously this developer has seen a wonderful opportunity to try and capitalize on a beautiful, tranquil area and ruin it. Strictly oppose this development and am sure the whole of Saratoga supports this.

  11. In Bondi Junction NSW on “Mixed use development...” at 59 Oxford Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022:

    Blanche Goldstein commented

    I am very worried that my access to light and sun light will be diminished with this high rise. I live at unit 806, 8 Spring Street and my apartment faces west therefore all my light will be removed with this new building. I have no windows on the eastern side only on the western side.

  12. In Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU RAL and PSW...” at 49 Taylor Street Toowoomba City QLD 4350:

    Belinda Nicholson commented

    Heritage, Habitat and Streetscape are ALWAYS the last things this Council considers .... First and foremost is $$$$$$$$$!!!

  13. In Ulladulla NSW on “Mortuary & Funeral Home” at U157 Princes Hwy, Ulladulla, NSW:

    Nathan. Hamilton commented

    To the general manager
    I am writing to you to let you know that I oppose this development DA15/2488 going ahead. I do not want a crematorium to be built alongside the residential area that I live in. I have no opposition to the funeral parlour but I definately do not want the crematorium to go ahead. I feel this would have a negative impact on the value of my home. I am not at all in favour of this application being approved.

  14. In Ulladulla NSW on “Mortuary & Funeral Home” at U157 Princes Hwy, Ulladulla, NSW:

    S.Mison commented

    To the General Manager,
    I am writing to you to let you know that I strongly oppose the idea of this development DA15/2488, going ahead. I do not want a crematorium in this area. I do not know of any crematoriums that are built next to residential areas. I am very upset of the idea of this development in a residential area.I don't oppose the funeral home but I do oppose the crematorium. This application should not be approved.

  15. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Jason commented

    OBJECTION: The very reason Saratoga has such a wonderful name on the central coast is due to the suburbs "village" type feel whereby this 3 story development in no way supports this and would be an absolute eye sore! The amount of added traffic this development would bring to the area is not supported by existing infrastructure. Obviously this developer has seen a wonderful opportunity to try and capitalize on a beautiful, tranquil area and ruin it. Strictly oppose this development and am sure the whole of Saratoga supports this.

  16. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Joanna Blair commented

    OBJECTION: A development of this size will ruin the small village feel of this area and the current infrastructure won't cope.. We recently moved here and liked the fact there were no large high rises or large unit blocks. A 3 storey development amongst the current housing will look ridiculous, overcramped and is unecessary in this area.

  17. In Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU RAL and PSW...” at 49 Taylor Street Toowoomba City QLD 4350:

    Mary Klease wrote to local councillor Sue Englart

    In addition to the above, this property has many very old large trees and shrubs that provide habitats for wildlife. Despite requirement for 'fauna management during removal of this existing vegetation' I do doubt that this will be undertaken. How is this enforced? The Garden City is rapidly being replaced by concrete. A sad time indeed for our beautiful leafy Toowoomba, it's citizens and wildlife.
    In any case the development is already approved.

    Photo of Sue Englart
    Sue Englart local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Mary Klease

    Thank you Mary for your email. You have highlighted many of my concerns with the development of so many unit developments in our city. we are certainly losing many of our old trees. In my view Greed is rampant across our city.

    sue

    Cr Sue Englart
    PORTFOLIO – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
    PARKS & RECREATION

    City Hall, 541 Ruthven Street, Toowoomba
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Village Fair QLD 4350
    P 07 4688 6783 F 07 4631 9158 M 0499 774 271
    E sue.englart@toowoombaRC.qld.gov.au
    W www.toowoombaRC.qld.gov.au

  18. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Lyn Barnett commented

    Objection: This size development is not supported by local infrastructure. Traffic along Davistown road entering Avoca Drive is already at a premium between 8 and 9 am.

    Mimosa Ave and Village Road was not deigned to take the additional traffic that 17-3 bedroom units would bring to it nor does it have the capacity to widen road etc.

    Saratoga Village was not design to cater for high rise residential living, council needs to decline the proposal.

  19. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Lisa Russek commented

    OBJECTION- Yattalunga, Davistown and Saratoga have a village feel to them. 3 story developments would change the everything as there are currently no other developments such as this in the area. The roads and local infrastructure would not support this development and wreck the small community and all it has to offer. This does not benefit anyone in the community at all. This is purely financially beneficial for those in charge of development.

  20. In Knoxfield VIC on “Remove 8 Trees” at 107 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Tim commented

    It is their land, they paid for it, they should be able to do what they want with it...how about the people who object to tree removal put up their hand to fill their property full of trees that will turn into big mature trees or have these ones transplanted on to their property! I bet they wouldn't have a bar of that but it is all well and good for them to offer their opinion on what other people should and shouldn't do with their property. We can line the naturestrip/council land with trees. There is plenty of parkland around the lake, wallace reserve for trees and parkland for all to enjoy, where there is no risk of them falling on houses, cars, people, powerlines or roads, clogging up gutters, dropping mess and debris on footpaths or getting entangled in drains.

  21. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11A John Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Russell Levy commented

    I am concerned that this development proposal will set a new precedent for Charles street of a 3 story non-residential complex which is too large. I am also concerned that there will be further negatives impacts of increased demand for on street parking which is already difficult for resident to find at times due to the number of taxis that congregate around the centre. Finally I am concerned that the noise level will increase, particularly in the evenings with people talking loudly as the come and go to the centre. The majority of residencies on Charles street have main bedrooms right at the front of properties.

  22. In Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU RAL and PSW...” at 49 Taylor Street Toowoomba City QLD 4350:

    Jane Wockner commented

    Can someone please explain to me how you can have a 3 metre wide access to multiple dwellings (as proposed)? What happens when incoming and out coming traffic meet? it would be very hard for a lot of drivers to reverse back on a 3 metre wide access road.

  23. In Redfern NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 48 Douglas Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Lucas Hume commented

    This proposal is a major over development of the site and blatantly inappropriate. It is a substantial departure from the Council controls and completely disregards the typical terrace patterning for this size of block by building a continuous 2 storey envelope to the side boundary lines at the rear.

    I feel for their neighbours to the south and would only hope that my neighbours would be more community spirited. I fear that the approval of this development would pave the way, via precedent, for my neighbours to undertake a similar, detrimental development.

    Thankyou

  24. In Marks Point NSW on “Emergency Services Facility” at 860A Pacific Highway, Marks Point NSW 2280:

    Darryl Hadfield commented

    I fully support this proposal The addition of the Westpac Rescue Helicopter service to the airport is a boost for our local area of East Lake Macquarie. It will revitalise what has been a dormant airport for many years.

  25. In Melbourne VIC on “Amendment to endorsed plans” at Trinity College 65 College Crescent Parkville VIC 3052:

    Dorothy Ann Lee commented

    As Trinity College is actually in Royal Parade and not on College Crescent, may we please have an address that works for us rather than confusing everyone? It would be ideal to have a number on Royal Parade instead of College Crescent. Many thanks!

  26. In Oatlands NSW on “Construction of a Two...” at 15-25 Prindle Street & 2 Kelvin Court, Oatlands:

    Hans van de Ven commented

    Why were local residents not advised of this project before work commenced (last September). I have been looking for any reference to this development began 4 months ago and this is the first I've seen.

    As a nearby resident, I have concerns about parking. Prindle St is quote narrow and vehicles park on both sides, leaving only a single lane for traffic. 56 parking spaces (as listed in last weeks DA) for a 110 resident facility ? Half of that will be taken up by staff (or the staff will be forced to park on the surrounding streets.

    My primary concern however is that there was no advice to residents until 4 months after the project commenced - isn't the point of a DA to allow comment *before* council grants permission for a development ?

  27. In Hinchinbrook NSW on “New Flowerdrum H Chinese...” at Shop 1 441 Hoxton Park Rd, Hinchinbrook 2168:

    Danielle aiello commented

    We are existing tennants in the building and at the moment due to the flowerdrum restaurant opening all other tennants are loosing business due to lack of car spacing cause of customers taking up car spaces for minimum of 2 hours and if given a liquor licence the customers will stay longer in the flowerdrum restaurant please take into consideration as the restaurants 120 seating and car park capacity is not equivalent.

  28. In Knoxfield VIC on “Remove 8 Trees” at 107 Kathryn Road, Knoxfield VIC 3180:

    Benji commented

    Totally agree. To many trees gone already in this area and it is no necessary on this occasion to have them removed. I see no Saftey risk at all.

  29. In Macquarie Park NSW on “To construct a 23 storey...” at 126 Herring Rd, Macquarie Park, NSW Australia:

    Rhonda Ware commented

    I object to this development being built as per the current proposal/current presentation. There are already four blocks of apartments under construction at the address, 126 Herring Road, Macquarie Park. It is not stated that this application is to replace a previous application. The front one is already built. The others are very close to each other giving minimal privacy.
    My concern is that these developments have been sold off the plan and/or are currently for sale. It seems strange to be putting in a new application without reference to existing built and approved apartment blocks for this overcrowded site.
    The proposed parking of 221 car spaces is inadequate as it only allows for one car space per apartment, plus visitor's parking of 23 spaces. Those visitors spaces are further reduced to give spaces to the ground floor retail's staff and their visitors. Their should be 40 visitors car spaces for the apartments - at one carspace per 5 apartments plus the retail requirements.

    If the retail attracts no visitors and requires no parking, then there is a shortfall of 17 visitor car spaces. This would increase up to 25 visitors spaces lacking when including visitors parking for the retail ground floor. The cumulative impact of this inadequate provision of visitor carparking multiplied by the existing four high rise apartment blocks can easily get to 100 car spaces not provided by the developer. There is no parking on busy Herring Road and there will be long waits to egress the site at 126 Herring Road, Macquarie Park.

    Regards

  30. In Coogee NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 115 Dolphin Street Coogee NSW 2034:

    malcolm watson commented

    IIam against the approval if this building.I have just seen the plans of this building , there is very little parking available in this ara and this will make it harder , i have allready lost some of my water views with the other building you allowed to be built at 123 dolphin st .this new building is only 12 metres with a triangle roof to at the top of 12 metres the new design is 16 metres with a flat roof who will compensate me for losing my water views because of this design We have already had to put up with the noise of the last building you allowed at 123 dolphin st as i am writing this i am listining to jack hammers going at 8.00pm on sat morning

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