Recent comments

  1. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Geoff Williams commented

    My wife and I moved to Whitebridge almost 40 years ago when it was considered by many to be a “depressed” area. During the ensuing years we have seen many changes, e.g. the development of the industrial area at Metro Court and the residential area where the old drive-in used to be, the development of Dudley Beach Estate vicinity, the development of the Whitebridge Shopping precinct, the building of the medium density housing in the Hudson Street/Baroomba Street area, work on Bullsgarden Road, improvements and expansion of Whitebridge Cemetery, Central Leagues Club and associated playing fields, the Fernleigh Track and much more. All of these changes have enhanced the local area and made it a popular residentially

    Changes to the zoning of properties along Dudley Road, whilst having no immediate or rapid effect on the area is seeing new developments begun. It is commonly believed that medium density housing is becoming more accepted and necessary. One particular development currently under construction on Dudley Road represents, in my view, the type of blight on the area that should be avoided. Whilst I am sure it meets all legal requirements its imposition on the neighbourhood is indisputable. It is surely the first example of unabashed developer greed which takes no account of the wishes and opinions of the local residents.

    The plan submitted to LMCC to build 87, two, three and four bedroom units, two to three stories high on a 2.2 hectare site between Dudley Road and Kopa Street Whitebridge smacks of developer greed on a massive scale. This is a proposal which defies logic given the nature of the obvious safety concerns raised not only by the density of the dwellings but more so by the extreme limitations on access to and from the “compound”. Given that there is a very popular shopping precinct and preschool/day-care facility in very close proximity, a high school with really only one vehicular access road, the adjacent Bullsgarden Road/Dudley Road roundabout and all of the other cross streets etc. in a reasonably traffic busy area the addition of another 150 – 250 motor vehicles to the area is a nightmare waiting to happen. Government transport is dismal now, it has no hope of coping with the possible increase in patronage should the new residents be forced onto it. Many children and elderly citizens walk to and from schools and shops and the number of cyclists in the area has greatly increased with the presence of the Fernleigh Track. The marked increase in traffic volumes will in all likelihood see more pedestrian/cyclist and motor vehicle accidents.

    The “elephant in the room” so to speak is the social problem which can be likely with a development such as this. Many examples of “ghetto” type developments are easily quoted. The close proximity of an alcohol outlet is in itself problematic if the housing contains significant numbers of “bored” young people.

    We know that change is inevitable and in fact desirable. Change must be tempered with reason. Developers claim that they see the future however, it is notable that they are never around in the future. When they have made their money they are gone. Politicians are similarly placed. Their terms of office are limited. When the developers and the politicians are gone from the scene, the monstrosities and the social problems they leave remain as do the residents of the area who must abide with the leavings of others.

    This planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community. It will be a blight on the area.


  2. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    I object strenuously to this DA. There is absolutely no need for yet another chain-store development in Katoomba. There is already a Coles, a Target and that hideously overdeveloped unfinished pile of concrete right in the centre of town which has no relationship or bearing to the nature of its site or its stunning environment. There is already an excellent hardware store over the road (Home), at least one small family business in town, and another in Blackheath, and probably others in Leura or nearby. We do not want this kind of development for Katoomba which should be the jewel in the crown of the emerging Blue Mountains environment which will be serving as the main escape route and new base for everyone who is sick of the ghastliness of Sydney with the chain stores, traffic, horrible development everywhere and lack of local identity. And there is already a Bunnings in the mid/lower mountains. So what is to be done with the land - a pretty piece of pastureland with a few horses in it? Given that it is already in a designated "industrial zone" it could be developed as a site for small-scale local industries: building, ceramics, carpentry, bespoke furniture production, with a mix of large studio/gallery spaces for working artists, sculptors and the like. Right now there is nothing in the area to meet these needs. The site could be developed further to include something like community gardens and demonstration sustainability projects (small sustainable buildings for instance which might be used as examples for those interested in building in the mountains). Who would pay? Without knowing what the site value is it is impossible to know what kinds of acquisitions costs are involved, but maybe there would be some capacity for a mixed fund between Council and local investors including some "crowd funding". In any case, there is no need for any more chainstore developments in Katoomba and there never should be. It should be the central exemplar for a new kind of peri-urban sustainable development not yet another site for large scale chain-store greed for an over-bloated bursting Western Sydney. I have made no donation to anybody and have no association with any of the businesses mentioned above.

  3. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    David Thomas commented

    Issues with this proposed development include:

    Traffic congestion and parking for residents and patrons of the Whitebridge shops and the proposed businesses.

    It also cuts off access to the Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side, which my family and many others regularly use.

    It diminishes the amount of recreational space for families and residents, as well as those using the Fernleigh Track.

    It will cause issues for traffic flow around Whitebridge High School and cause inconvenience to the many students, staff, families and members of the community.

    It is both impractical and ill thought out to have these units, as it shall be too many people crammed into too small an area.

  4. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.


    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I'm concerned that this development is not in keeping with the Whitebridge community.

    This development needs adequate parking that takes into account;
    the number of residents,
    guests of those residents,
    employees and clients of the four proposed businesses,
    and the flow of traffic on Lonus Avenue.

    It is also concerning that this development will largely diminish local residents access to open green spaces for recreation. I think that an effort to maintain recreational space is needed in the plans.

  6. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sharyn Carr commented

    I find the proposed development highly unsuitable for the area, with a lack of foresight and planning. Please have a rethink taking into consideration environmental, parking, traffic and numerous other issues that have been raised by concerned citizens.

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    chris layzell commented

    it just shows you what money,greed,and corruption can will destroy this community...and will become the new windale..the developers don't care they make the money then piss off...and we are left to deal with it...

  8. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Rhett Oswald commented

    I have lived in Whitebridge for the past 20 years, my children all went to Whitebridge high school so I can confirm that parking around school times is diabolic especially when wet. The traffic banks up on both Waran Road and Lonus Avenue leading into Whitebridge roundabout and shops. Having one access into Kopa street which leads into Lonus avenue, shows a complete lack of foresight.

    I would like to know how having that amount of units in such a small place with no provision for green space or parking is going to impact on an already congested environment. Surely LMCC can come to a common sense decision that is not in weighted in favour of greedy developers and the tempting rates that will be generated for the council.

    The parking in the shopping centre is extremely busy and you really need your wits about you to avoid having an accident (I have witnessed about 10 in the past year). We do not need to have the parking problem amplified then rectified with a barrage of restrictions, rangers/ fines, traffic lights and god forbid parking meters. (don’t laugh this is one of Newcastle Council’s major sources of revenue)

    My home is not far from this area and has been declared an extremely high risk fire hazard area, this development is much closer to bushland than my home so one would think that all these residences in such a small area could be catastrophic (in the event of a fire) with one entry/exit point.

    By all means have a development but this plan reeks of greed, by jamming as many residences as possible into a confined space with no thought given to the future implications of current and future residents in this area. Think about the design, make it comply environmentally and sustainably and a place that people want to live in with play areas and seating/benches.

  9. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Sandra Hobden commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir

    I am concerned of the social impact the Karanya Street development will impose on our existing community.

    The Karanya Street development provides no open green space. With multiple dwellings proposed to be Villa, courtyard and dual occupancies. The estate provides nothing to promote getting outside and staying active.

    The existing communities facilities will be put under enormous pressure due to the estate offering nothing but high residency.

    In our vicinity we have 1 park with 1 covered table. Can council confirm our park will receive an upgrade to accommodate at least 4 covered eating tables and extra play equipment like other parks?

    Furthermore, with the major changes proposed to Banfield Drive. The safety for pedestrians and cyclists will decrease significantly compared to how it is. I find it necessary the whole western side of Banfield Drive receives cemented pathways. The eastern side of Banfield Drive has an existing cemented pathway. The main entrance road of the new estate also has cemented pathways on both sides proposed.

    With so many schools surrounding this area and heavy vehicles that use Banfield Drive, it is a priority for safety.

    The cemented pathway will decrease the need for a lot of pedestrian traffic to cross Banfield Drive. It will give the western side residents a direct safe walk way to schools, day cares, park, soccer field and corner shops. This in turn will reduce the number of cars on the road and promote getting out and being active.

    The current proposed plans is dangerous with pedestrian and cyclists needing to share the road with heavy vehicles turning into the new estate.

    The increased traffic produced by this estate will make it harder for the west side to access the cement pathway. No provision has been proposed to add extra pedestrian refuge islands.

    A lot of suburbs are already privileged to this safety. Kern Brothers Drive, Sandstone Drive, Burnda St, Thuringowa Drive, Lindeman Avenue, just to name a few.

    Could you Please consider this with your highest priority.

    Being able to get out and stay active along with my children getting to school safely concerns me greatly.

    The increased traffic from the new estate and changed traffic conditions has disadvantage the west side immensely, but favoured the east. All residents should be entitled to the same safety.

    Thank you for your time. A response is requested.

  10. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    catherine hodgson commented

    Too much much too soon. No consideration for parking, road access, pedestrians. Comfortable living period. It at present is a beautiful green space that will become blighted by over crowded buildings. A slum in the making.

  11. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Gwenda Smith commented

    We are very concerned about the sheer size of the proposed development, it could become a ghetto in the future with so many people crowded into a small space.

    The plan reduces the amount of parking available to customers of the Whitebridge shops and has already had a detrimental impact on safety in the area due to the early erection of the cyclone fencing. This is already a very busy area along Dudley Rd, with traffic exiting the car park turning right a hazard at the best of times. Cars are often parked now right up to the bridge.

    The plan will cause increased traffic and congestion in Dudley Rd, Bullsgarden Rd, Lonus Ave and Kopa St, as well as other local roads such as Burwood Rd and Waran Rd.

    There will be ramifications for the safety of the local students and people at the high school, the pre-school, the childrens' playground, tennis courts, cricket field etc.

    Surely the development can be modified to something more acceptable to the community, not just those who live and work in the immediate area, but those of us in Whitebridge generally, Dudley, Redhead, Charlestown East etc. A smaller development would also be a more pleasant and functional place for the residents who end up living there.

  12. In Sydney NSW on “Fit out and use of upper...” at 8 Spring Street Sydney NSW 2000:

    Mark Hull commented

    Please advise phone number to discuss booking. Thank you

  13. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    N.Hakansson commented

    I'm concerned about:

    Pedestrian safety especially for the elderly & children.

    Vehicle safety & traffic congestion on Kopa Street, Lonus Ave & Dudley Road.

    Safe access to day care centre, high school, playground, tennis courts, bus stops and shops.

    Increased hazard entering & exiting Whitebridge shopping area .

    Reduction of parking at Whitebridge shops.

    Lack of alternative exit in case of bush fire emergency.

    Integrating the new development with the existing community.

    Lack of green space and outdoor play areas.

    This development CAN be modified to become an asset to the community.

  14. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Karyn Huizing commented

    As a resident of Kopa St this development, if it goes ahead as is, will impact me greatly. I am set to have a possible extra 600 odd cars pass my door to stop and start at the Kopa St/Lonus Ave intersection EVERYDAY. I am as you can understand horrified by the thought of my children no longer having a safe, quiet street in which to live. This development is far to big for our area. It has very little space for children to play and be kids. The proposal of parking area with increased shops is ridiculous, anyone visiting the shops already knows about the parking issues.
    I can only hope that people get behind this and make a stand for our community. The council and developer need to hear your concerns, Hopefully in the end some compromise and common sense on behalf of those in power will prevail.
    Please come to the meeting, contact council and do whatever you can to be heard, if we don't fight now it will be too late.

  15. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Karina Currington commented

    Has there been any traffic studies undertaken on the surrounding streets? I am wondering if the local members are actually aware of how heavy the traffic can get in peak school drop off hours, not to mention the complete gridlock in inclement weather. I fear this could lead to a disaster if there is an emergency in the proposed high density development at these peak times, there is NO OTHER WAY emergency services will be able to access the entrance/exit. I lived on Lonus Avenue for 25 years and witnessed first hand the dramatic increase of traffic over time including more high school teenagers on their P plates driving to and from school. There needs to be a suitable alternative put in place for the high amount of traffic that will be attempting to turn in and out of Kopa St.

    Could it be considered that a lower density development would be more in keeping with the area, I feel there is really not enough infrastructure to support this great new influx of residents. There is only a public bus that runs once every hour at the moment, is this really adequate? How are the garbage/ recycling trucks able to manoeuver through the narrow streets? Where are the overflow of visitors cars expected to park? What does this mean for existing residents who find they are unable to enter and exit their own driveway safely? How are the sewerage and drainage/ runoff services going to cope? How will the local shopkeepers react when people are unable to find parking so decide to shop elsewhere?

    The decision to approve this particular development impacts the Whitebridge and surrounding areas very deeply. I urge the members to listen to the residents concerns when making this decision. After all, they have to live with it.

  16. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Maria commented

    This is a residential street. Please do not approve this applicant to produce/manufacturer/wholesale alcohol from this residence. Find a suitable commercial location to produce/manufacture/wholesale alcohol.

  17. In Winston Hills NSW on “Demolisth existing dwelling...” at 12 Attlee Place Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Genevieve Hough commented

    I am a resident of the mention street and i definitely was not imformed of any developement especially a double storey house overlooking our pool area which we believe should be private. I would have had no problems with a single storey dwelling but not one that affects our privacy. You mentioned that there were email notifications so I guess I was not on that list and I had no letter drops either so as you can see, I was very surprised to see workmen arriving day after day with their goings on. Do we need to look further then council for some answers? All in all to sum up is not being notified and privacy issues. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

  18. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Angus commented

    As no liquor will be sold directly from this venue as it is merely the office of a producer/wholesaler I fully support this license application.

  19. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Sandra Hobden commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,

    As a long term resident of Mt Louisa and mother of 3 school aged children who use Banfield Drive as a cyclist and pedestrian. I am greatly concerned the proposed road changes to Banfield Drive to accommodate a new main entrance for the Karanya Street Precinct, will adversely affect the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who rely on Banfield Drive.

    The development proposed for 2 Karanya St is closely surrounded by Mt Louisa's many schools and day cares.

    Calvary Christian Early Learning Centre

    Calvary Christian College

    ABV Care Calvary

    Mt Louisa Child Care

    Mt Louisa Good Early Learning Centre A and B

    Heatley Secondary College (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Heatley State Primary (zoned for Mt Louisa Area)

    Banfield Drive is used as a main transit link for all these schools and day cares.

    Furthermore, the developer has proposed the main entrance to be situated in very close vicinity of two public bus stops on this heavily used road.

    With this development introducing 95 more lots. The pedestrian, cyclist and public transport traffic is going to increase considerably.

    If there is multiple cars waiting to turn right into the new estate on Banfield Drive. A large bus at the Galway Court bus stop will have difficulty trying to enter back into traffic with cars starting to divert around the new entrance. A pedestrians safety is also put at risk as they have to try and gain access to the refuge island. I'm unsure and concerned where a cyclist is suppose go during all this??

    If the western side of Banfield Drive side road is going to be incorporated into a channelised right hand turn, will a large bus, cement truck etc have enough room to divert around stationary traffic waiting to turn into the new estate? Where is a cyclist suppose go? If any error in driving or cycling is to occur I'm concerned it could be fatal.

    How are Banfield Drive residents proposed to reverse out of their driveways and will this affect a cyclist?

    The construction of a new refuge island at the Banara Court bus stop will be essential if a main entrance is to be located on Banfield Drive. The increased traffic and amount of new properties being introduced will have an effect on pedestrians safety trying to cross the road.

    If a Lawn Mowing contractor were to service any 7 houses on the western side of Banfield Drive. Where are they expected to park their ute and trailer? Would this impede on pedestrian /cyclist safety?

    In regards to the new car parks proposed on the eastern side of Banfield Drive. Can the developer assure that these parks will only be used by the 7 houses affected on Banfield Drive? The parks will be very inviting to be used by the new estate residents to park their work vehicles and trailers on. With the new estate being so squashed together the likeliness of this happening is very high and should not be assumed by the developer that it won't happen.

    As a regular visitor to a Banfield Drive resident in the affected area, my car is going to be required to be parked a fair distance away. My car will be out of my clear sight for myself to monitor it's safety. I am extremely upset that the developer has such disregard for the safety of my car compared to the residents of his new estate. Can the developer assure that my car is safe parked so far away, and near a major public bus stop??

    The increased cars due to be parked on the eastern side of Banfield Drive to compensate the removal of western street parking will impact pedestrian safety hugely!

    The cars parked will be directly in front of the Galway Court Bus Stop and refuge island. Pedestrians will be forced to deal with a potentially opened car door as soon as they exit off the refuge island. Also, pedestrians will be forced to walk in the middle of cars trying to pull out of car parks. My children use this refuge island every school day. It is very congested at peak hours with buses and school traffic. Having cars parked here will provide no safe route for my children to get to school.

    To insure traffic flow is maintained along Banfield Drive at the intersection of Banfield Drive and Galway Court. A turning lane will be needed. If not added, vehicles that are stationary waiting to turn right into Galway Court will block traffic from flowing as this is the exact spot the new eastern side car parks are proposed. Could I highlight the road is already narrowed here due to the refuge island. If the traffic backs up enough in peak hour it will furthermore block the entrance to the new estate. I am a resident of Galway Court and this intersection concerns me greatly as it is already difficult at peak hours to get in and out of our court. This court services Galway Court, Lewin Court, Gruner Court and Bancroft St.

    The developer proposing to take parking away from long term residents is disappointing especially when he privileges his new estate residents with it. This breaks community spirit and it should not be allowed.

    If all entry and exit roads to the new estate were to be placed opposite existing courts or streets. This estate could be introduced without disrupting any existing properties in the already established area.

    I fail to see any plans to alleviate my concerns regarding pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user safety on Banfield Drive. When will the public be entitled to further detailed plans? Will this be before council approval is granted? The on site plans fail to highlight major changes needed and I feel the communities rights have been neglected.

    A response with answers to my concerns is requested. Thank you for your time.

  20. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Neighbourhood Watch commented

    This is a residential street.
    As such it is inappropriate for liquor to be traded from this residence.
    Furthermore it is inappropriate for liquor trading up until midnight on most days.

    Please select a suitable commercial location to trade liquor.

  21. In Bondi Beach NSW on “Mamasan Bondi - Change...” at Shops 1, 2 & 3 57-59 Beach Rd, Bondi Beach 2026:

    Jared Antony commented

    As a resident of Glasgow Avenue I am within 150m walk from this premises.

    Over the past 12 months we have seen the number of alcohol related issues in the area rise. I have had 2 break ins to my property by drunk people urinating in my garden and another more serious incident where people scaled some temporary scaffolding I had on my property as part of a renovation. This involved the police.

    Glasgow Avenue has seen numerous instances of vandalism including fences and letter boxes being knocked down and tree limbs broken

    We are having more problems with parking as the number of patrons to Mamasan increases however of even greater annoyance is that these people often return to their vehicles throughout the evening up until Mamasan closes talking and carrying on. This wakes everyone in the household numerous times a night including our children.

    The proliferation of small bars in Bondi Beach is not serving the majority of the local community being families with young children (In our street there would be 12 families with children under the age of 6). It is causing problems through late night activity in what is a enclave of quiet households.

    In making the decision on this license one should be asking who is to benefit from the decision? It is the proprietor and not the community. There is no need for this establishment to have trading hours extended to the proposed time. I doubt there will be much notice taken of my submission as there seems to be little concern for the neighborhood when these decisions are made. If as I suspect that they are given permission to trade later I would suggest that they be responsible along with the beach road hotel for placing a security guard on the corner of Glasgow Avenue and Glenayre Avenue.

    I would also like to have parking areas patrolled for the 2 hour limit on Glasgow Avenue as this goes un-patrolled.


  22. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    kenneth hobbs commented

    we need eco sensitive developments in whitebridge,not get rich quick schemes for greedy developers.development needs to be done with local ratepayers views took into consideration.less units done with better planning seems like a more sensible option,even affordable house lots with a minimum amount of trees per block.we don't need high density developments in this area.less greed more thought needed.kenneth hobbs

  23. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Michelle Burdekin commented

    I would like to put on notice the concerns I already hold about a range of aspects related to the reasonable person’s assessment of the over-development of this site:
    • One road in and out for 87 units- despite normal concerns, it’s also in a fire zone
    • Traffic flow will be impeded further in an area which already draws to a preschool, high school, tennis court, playground and shopping precinct and whose roundabout gets blocked at present on a frequent basis causing extensive queuing at certain times of the day and week along feeder roads and streets as well as at the direct point of intersection
    • Parking congestion, which has already increased with the reclamation of land formerly in use to accommodate overflow to that provided by the shops – the inclusion of four more shops will only compound this.
    • Some suggestion that the overflow will then move on to the green verge on Station Street – to my understanding this is part of the green corridor and zoned environmental. Not only that but the crossing over the bridge from that point back to the shops is too narrow for passing bodies and right in line with a narrow road carriage ie. dangerous
    • Lack of pedestrian right of way to join up with existing community and allow for continuation of historic and formerly permitted thoroughfare. The track through this land provided thoroughfare and safety allowing direct access to the shopping precinct and pedestrian crossing and allowing users of Fernleigh Track access to shops and pedestrian crossing.
    • Destruction of local features, such as the playground near the preschool on Lonus Avenue, to accommodate the traffic increase starts to become an imagined possibility
    • Invasion of privacy on neighbouring properties is severe and those in nearby residences who’ve recently had two storey units built alongside speak of this as well as overshadowing and a wall of glare as a legacy that goes on after the noise and disruption of building ceases
    • Poor design apparently mandated on economics not liveability – western orientation for many units, limited green or playing space, and no obvious adherence to any sustainable design elements. The legacy of poorly designed complexes is well known and in an area where the location, close to nature and abutting the Fernleigh Track, this seems counter-intuitive at best.
    • The creation of exclusivity internally in the development, where the adaptable living units are sectioned off from others rather than included among them.

  24. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    mark commented

    NO NO NO this is development is B/s, this is the work of greedy developers, trying to maximize every inch of space, it should be a normal housing estate, with open space provision. the congestion this development will cause will flow on to all streets surrounding it. It has already done so with them just fencing off the area, let alone adding another couple hundred cars to the problem. Normal house blocks with garages and off street parking, would not be a problem. This development cannot happen!!!!!

  25. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    N.Dorothy commented

    Is this the proposed site that I heard people talking about that proposed to build government subsidised public housing in our area? Would like to know more about this.

    1 Great concern about congestion especially at roundabout during school mornings, witness many near misses.

    2. Concern about extra congestion for local shops -incredibly difficult to get carpark during peak time and difficult to see from carpark onto Dudley Road if you need to turn right especially if cars are parked on the street

    3. We do not want "lego land' new estate feel in the area its ugly and doesn't match surrounding area/community

    4. Just because there is a parcel of land doesn't mean we need to fill it to the brim with houses, what about usable green areas for kids.

    5. Impact to local daycare and preschool- had my children and even unborn baby on waitlist to get into local daycare, this will impact existing families and extend the already 2-3 year waiting list to get in. I'm still waiting for bub to get in!!!!

    6. Impact local schools- infrastructure- to have extra classroom and now with government school cuts what will that mean to class sizes?

    6. Extra traffic in Whitebridge will also have a flow-on effect to surrounding areas such as extra traffic congestion at Oakdale road Gateshead which can be heavily congested in mornings/ afternoons especially if you turn right from Bullgarden Road onto Oakdale Rd

    7. Extra traffic congestion to Kahibah Road/City Road lights. Already overly congested, some mornings I get stuck at the lights 4 times before I get through.

    8. Extra traffic congestion at intersection going towards Charlestown square

    9. Extra traffic congestion trying to turn from Smart street right into Pacific Hwy Charlestown, as it is if pedestrian are crossing your lucky to get 2 cars through turning right at these lights.

    10. prevent the community feel of the area.

    11. What about providing the community with a carpark and parkland such as a fitness park, sheltered BBQ area.

    12. I strongly believe that proposed development with the increased traffic will reinstate the WARREN ROAD bypass issue which we seem to have to fight every few years. Give us a break! People live here because we like the bush and space and don't want to be around overdeveloped, overpopulated areas.

    13. Very disappointed that local community has not been consulted regarding such a large development, unless you subscribe to planning alerts you would not be aware of the enormous impact this development would have on our area.

  26. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    S.Grant commented

    Hello please kindly take the following onboard

    1. How will council address the inadequate parking for the extra business that are proposed for influx of customers and staff?

    2. it is of a huge concern that if parking is not exteneded that the business that the local community rely apon will lose out with less trade thus losing jobs and giving less opertunity to locals to stay within the area for work. How will council be ensuring that this does not happen?

    3. pedestrian saftey - whitebridge shops already have an extremly busy center which will only get worse if proper walk ways are not provided within the area. what plan is in place to provide a safer shopping precient within it and surrounding it? extra zebra crossings linking both sides of dudley rd.

    4. lighting at dusk and at night is already comprimised within the parking allotment, will council be looking at this and what measures will be taken?

    5. access to fernleigh track is limited by the new tempory fence that has been errected, busineses are already being affected, as the usual route to the center has been modified without notice from the track. SNL seem to have a complete disregard for this area. I have noticed that the fence has missing panels, is this creating a saftey issue?

    6. staff are having to park on an unsealed, un lighted and undulating patch of dirt at the moment I call for this situation to be looked at as soon as possible, since all business owners are responisble for staff as they leave there place of work and also on their arrival, this puts them at a high risk and this should be assesd.

    7. entry and exit from the shopping center should be upgraded, line of vision is comprimised now let alone when new commercial buildings are put in place, a safer option should be considerd

    8. parking on dudley road across from the buss stop should also be looked at with possible painting parking lines and changing or adding a parking zone with times of 15-20mins. This would help the business that have in and out customers freeing up some of the congestion

    9. with the shopping precient as a whole becomming busier with hopefully better parking attracting even more customers to the area, public toilets should also be considerd, the toilets at the childrens park are un sanitary and look like a prison toilet that are also not very private making them feel like a slum not very inviting and also very intimidating, are there any rules for shopping center size and public toilet ammenites?

    10. what measures will be taken to help minimise the inpact to the parking for staff and customers when the area becomes a construction zone?

    11. who is responisble for maintaing the green zone allocated to the back of the development and is there a roster/routine in place to ensure that the green zone is safe for people who wish to use it.

    12. the area is zoned 22? medium? is this development that is proposed classed as dense?

    13. the facias of the development look like storage containers how can this be inproved and is there a ratio for garage door to facia surface area is this complying?

    14. The road surface on dudley rd towards the bridge is in need of repair as the road has dropped away leaving a step/drop off the side creating a hazard for bike riders and pedestrians potentially causing to cars and motorcycles, the traffic is so heavy at times that motorists leave the shopping center turning left then doing a u - turn which is easier and faster than trying to turn right onto dudley rd running the gauntlet of crossing the road, when the buss stop is full a severe blind spot is created. Traffic lights should be considerd to help with traffic flow on dudley road

    15. concerns to the amount of traffic in peak times along kopa st, can this road handle this amount of new traffic during and after construction

    16. have the roads been designed wide enough for waste and recycling trucks to gain access? with regard to waste has council considerd the implications to extra waste generated at awaba at its current rate we are almost at 80% full.

    17. land value is of grave concern to all residents, have council made any evaluations in respect to the rate payers losing land value?

    19. Fire evacuation - the area is a high risk fire zone - if a mass evacuation of the residents within the development is required is a one way in one way out road practical and will it provide a fast and easy access/exit . Have or will the RFS provide the report? will fire engine/s be able to gain access to the area and are water hydrants for engine connection provided with in the development

    20. with lake mac being an excellent enviroment leader are there rules/regulations in place for new large scale dense developments to help reduce carbon emmisions in the effect of water power and gas consumption and of course the removal of waste. This could be an ecellent opertunity to create an eco village are there any thoughts in this area. I would find it contradictory to lake mac if there was not a standard in place to let a development like this go through without checks in place. There dosent seem to be any provisions of rain water collection in the plans, greywater recycling would also add to the eco aspect as with building design to reduce cooling and heating. and community meeting places that could provide comunial activites like gardening and social activites like eating together in a central location. Are there companies that will be engaged to advise on these types of issues?

    21. with extra commercial properties being added have provisions been made for delivery vehicles?

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

  27. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sean Brown commented

    I have some concerns over this development.

    1) Road and pedestrian safety.

    The only car access to the dwellings is via the Kopa St, Lonus Ave. With 87 units with roughly 250 bedrooms, this will result in around 200 cars. These intersections cannot handle that kind of traffic load.
    With a day care centre, pre school, high school and sporting facilities all being connected to this tiny intersection, pedestrian, especially that of children, will be put at risk.
    This intersection can't even handle the load as it is during peak hours, rainy days are far worse.

    Even if only half the cars in the development leave during the peak periods the results will be extremely dangerous.

    Giving the residents of the development another entrance/exit to Dudley Rd could help split the traffic.

    2) Parking for Shops

    On the other side of the development, Dudley Rd side are an additional 4 commercial units. As i observe every day form living here the existing car parking for the shops can barley handle the load. Adding more shops an no extra parking will only compound this problem.
    Resulting in more people parking in unsuitable and dangerous places, running across the road, thru traffic etc. A recipe for danger.
    Visitors and even residents of the new development will even use this car parking, is for many of them it will be more convenient than driving around the back. Visitors especially. Resulting in even less parking.
    This isn't the giant Charlestown Square on a Thursday night, were you go to drive round the car park for a hour, so you can buy the latest fashion. This is a local shopping centre were people stop by on their way home from work to grab a few groceries, or stop at the cafe or bakery. Or even come to see the doctor (the car park serves him to), and pick up their scripts.
    We use it for convenience not for the excitement of fighting for a car park.
    Less parking for more shops = Less parks per shop = Less business for each shop.
    If it is no longer convenient then we will stop using it and the businesses will suffer.

    3. The Density

    250 bedrooms, 200 cars. It's too much. I am not against development, my income depends on the building industry, but this is over the top for this site. It is way above the average for the area, and the local amenities can't cope. Less dwellings, even if this results in them being slightly larger, with more green area. It would be great to see an actual park area worked in, not just a green strip down the side. This will result in a much better scenario. It will give a little back to the community and connect the two. making it a nice place to live.
    Imagine that. Half way along Fernleigh track, where people can stop get some food from a local shop, eat it in the park before continuing their journey.

    Less dwellings will also go part of the way to reducing the resulting traffic problems.

    4. Other concerns are making sure the engineering for storm water management is up to scotch. Any over flow will drain straight on to the track.
    Impact on surrounding property value.

    The For Sale sign for the land described it as a land mark site and what ever goes here will be exactly that. And I think the development should suit that title.

    Do we want a good land mark or a bad one?

    I don't want to here people give directions like "Just turn left after the horrible housing development"

    I think with some amendments to the plan, and a bit more integration to the local community this could be a quality high value development, that is a win win for both the developer and the community.

    Sean Brown

  28. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    MPurcell commented

    1. The people of Whitebridge were not consulted on this matter

    2. The amount of congestion already apparent especially at school times has not been taken into account

    3. This does not fit in with any of the surroundings of Whitebridge, I applied for an extension on my house and we were not even allowed to have a carport where we wanted it because it did not fit in with surrounds, so this is a joke on everyone

    4. The amount of noise and upheaval with the proposed development is not acceptable

    5. Privacy to the people around the proposed development will be impinged

    6. This kind of development is not needed

    7. How will this affect students attending Whitebridge High school and also surrounding schools

    8. It is basically an eyesore on Whitebridge

    9. The effect on local wildlife that use this area as a corridor

    10. The area has already been fenced and look at the mess and upset and ridiculous parking this has caused

  29. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Sandra Hobden commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir, I wish to lodge the strongest objection to the proposed 95 lots which are to be created on 2 Karanya Street, Mount Louisa QLD 4814. The proposed precinct's character is over-bearing and out-of-scale compared to our existing surrounds. With our suburb placed around the foothills of Mount Louisa itself, it gives the feeling of living in a semi rural suburb. The high level of residency proposed will take this away and overpopulate the area causing added strain to an already congested Banfield Drive. The majority of lots proposed are half the size compared to what occupies the existing vicinity. Please act as our advocate to reduce the number of blocks proposed to keep Mt Louisa in scale to how it is today. To overpopulate our suburb will take away the natural beauty of where our suburb lies. It should not be allowed for the sake of a developer making maximum profit.

  30. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Bridgette Davis commented

    There are many concerns and this development needs a whole lot more thought and planning:

    1. Lack of walkways for residents, large number of young families living in the area, this open space provided a safe access to the whitebridge shops for residents living in Station St and Hudson St.

    2. Lack of dog exercise areas. There is only 1 unleashed dog exercise area in Whitebridge, this area is not fenced and backs onto a busy road.

    3.During peak hour prior to the area being fenced off which was used for parking for shop patrons a queue would sometimes form backing on to the Whitebridge roundabout, this is considerably worse since the property has been fenced off. Not to mention the plan to build more shops with no additional parking.

    4.How exactly would future residents of this proposed development access their cars if the developers plan to take the last bit of green space into a car park on the other side of the track?

    5. Unsure if the fernleigh track could be widened if this development takes place. This is definitely an issue as it gets busier and busier all the time.

    6. The infrastructure is not there to support this many dwellings.

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