Recent comments

  1. In Ballarat VIC on “Demolition of buildings and...” at 300-304 Mair Street, Ballarat Central:

    Stuart Kelly commented

    Demolition of this building should not occur until specific and detailed plans for the site have been finalised and approved by Council and the community.

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

    Kathryn R commented

    I believe this application should not be approved as the developer has not considered many impacts on the Whitebridge and greater community in general.

    As a member of the local community I feel the compacted density of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding current housing. This area is already very congested during work day peak hours, as well as "school day" peak hours, and the addition of over 80 homes will only negatively impact on this issue.

    The lack of green space and disregard for native planting (in an area that is adjacent to a green corridor) is also a great concern. This development has not commenced, and already the access to the Fernleigh track at Whitebridge is impeded.

    As a parent my other concern is why is there no allowance for recreational facilities for the residents of this development? Children (and adults, for that matter) need recreational space, which seems to be overlooked in this development.

    My concerns for this development are many and varied. This development needs to consider the environmental, social and traffic impact that this large build will involve before it begins.

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

    Mark Bentley commented

    The developers here do have a right to make a profit however they do not have that right if it is detrimental to others.
    I am concerned that if this proposal goes ahead it is going to devalue my property, and everyone else in the near vicinity, of course this will be of no concern to the developer as they will be long gone with their pockets full.
    I do believe however i would have the right to sue the developer, perhaps the threat of class action suit will see them make a better decision for the development of this land.
    We can only hope the members of this decision board have been to common sense school, seems that is lacking a fair bit nowadays.

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

    Danny de Carvalho commented

    To The General Manager
    Re DA:1774/2013
    142-146 Dudley Rd & 2-4 Kopa St
    Whitebridge NSW 2290

    As a local resident I object to the proposed development in its current configuration.
    I have been involved in real estate nearly all my life and the size and scope of this development is beyond me.
    There is not enough provision for open space and the space that is allocated is ridiculous
    every property is a multi -level configuration
    No single level properties for older people or disabled.
    Not enough provision for visiting cars
    Not enough car parking for the intending residents
    Majority of properties run North west/southeast no use of the northern aspect
    The number of properties would be a social nightmare
    Thank you for allowing my input.

    Regards
    Danny de Carvalho

  5. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    John commented

    To who it may concern

    My wife and I were considering purchasing a residence close to family that live near Avondale rd. lucky we know people in the area that pointed the da out to us. This development will effect the value of all sourounding residences due to the health concerns and environmental impact that it will have. We will also be reconsidering where we send our children to school due to its location.

    The development should not proceed with such concerns when there are clear alternatives as mentioned in the above comments.

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

    Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 87 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is no green space in this entire development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

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

    Nicole Gintings commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy.

    I object for the following specific reasons;

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 87 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    * There is no green space in this entire development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    LMCC and the JRPP have an opportunity to influence what could be a remarkable development promoting the beautiful environment and community that Whitebridge and the local area have to offer. I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the future of this area is paramount to your decision.

    Thank you,
    N. Gintings

  8. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    Joanne makes some excellent points….I agree. Furthermore if developments proceed at the present rate the population of Boroondara will double or triple in a very short time. The facilities simply cannot cope with such an increase. The roads are already crowded….parking is often impossible…..the infrastructure will be in chaos. The only winners are greedy developers !

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

    T Judd commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I strongly oppose the proposed development for a variety of reasons, in particular the areas ability to cope with the additional traffic resulting from a medium density development and the impact this increase in traffic will have on the safety of local residents and children.

    Typically medium density developments are situated in locations that are well resourced by public transport and other facilities/ infrastructure, such as the inner city or close to transport hubs. Such proximity to transport infrastructure and services would therefore reduce the dependency on cars by the residents of the development. This however is not the case in Whitebridge. The bus service, while functional, is hardly capable of servicing the diverse needs of an additional 87 households therefore it is highly likely each of these households may have up to 3 vehicles. On this basis, we are looking at potentially 261 additional vehicles using Kopa Street an Lonus Avenue, most probably at peak time.

    I walk my 4.5 year old daughter and a 1 year old in a pram to preschool along Lonus Avenue. In it's current situation the traffic congestion at school hours can at times be dangerous. Crossing at any point along Lonus Avenue can be difficult, even at the designated crossing point (not a pedestrian crossing) I often have to run to make it across between vehicles. Given there are 2 preschools either on Lonus Avenue, or in close proximity to it, combined with a public playground, tennis court and cricket ground, adding additional traffic to these areas will make these facilities difficult and at times unsafe to access.

    I believe the development should have 2 entry/ exit points, with one on Dudley Road to reduce the traffic burden. A roundabout or traffic lights would be required as the traffic exiting from the shopping complex often have difficulty and cut across or pull into traffic dangerously. Additional pressures on traffic congestion resulting from the development would only make the situation worse.

    Regards,
    T Judd

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

    Peter and Brenda Layzell commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Subject: Follow up submission on behalf of LAYZELL

    Dear Sir,

    We would like to put forward a second submission in regards to this development application. As residents that live on Lonus Avenue, we have been finding the amount of dust and traffic fumes to be increasing all the time. We are becoming concerned for not only ourselves but for the health implications of the babies and children within the child care centre opposite. Have there been any pollution studies done in regards to the excessive traffic in such close proximity to a child care centre? The building has windows that are very close to the roadside. The dust and car fumes from traffic that sits idle along the length of Lonus Ave and Waran Rd five days a week must be negatively impacting on not only the existing residents but the families who frequent the Birralee Child Care Centre. This traffic road dust will only increase along Lonus Ave if the current DA submission is granted.

    Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration,

    P.J and B Layzell.

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

    Peter and Brenda Layzell commented

    To the General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Subject: Follow up submission on behalf of LAYZELL

    Dear Sir,

    We would like to put forward a second submission in regards to this development application. As residents that live on Lonus Avenue, we have been finding the amount of dust and traffic fumes to be increasing all the time. We are becoming concerned for not only ourselves but for the health implications of the babies and children within the child care centre opposite. Have there been any pollution studies done in regards to the excessive traffic in such close proximity to a child care centre? The building has windows that are very close to the roadside. The dust and car fumes from traffic that sits idle along the length of Lonus Ave and Waran Rd five days a week must be negatively impacting on not only the existing residents but the families who frequent the Birralee Child Care Centre. This traffic road dust will only increase along Lonus Ave if the current DA submission is granted.

    Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration,

    P.J and B Layzell.

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

    Robyn Barcello commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    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.

    I am the owner of 47 Banfield Drive, Mount Louisa. After reviewing the proposed plans and traffic report for the development, I cannot see how the traffic management plan in place will make the traffic movement safer, with the increasing number of vehicles using this area.

    It will cause more hazards to all road users and residents including my tenants residing in the above address.

    The concern I have for my tenants residing on Banfield Drive is the limited safety zone they have to enter and exit the driveway, as it is only metres from a very difficult intersection (Banfield Drive & Hedley Ct) where there has already been a number of accidents, including vehicles coming to rest on the property.

    With this development, it will increase the number of road users and an unfortunate accident will occur with a loss of life which has almost happened in the past. Just a couple of concerns, not to mention the school kids walking home and the cyclists on the western side of the development.

    I look for to a response
    Regards,
    Robyn Barcello

  13. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Joanne commented

    Having been to VCAT over the last 2 years where the Boroondara city council and the residents opposed multiple dwellings (8 and 13 on 1/4 acre blocks) on Belmore road, only to be overturned by VCAT, I see the issue of developing Melbourne as more than just local. I think the fact that existing surrounding amenity is not considered in the building regulations, and the method for determining over-shadowing doesn't take mid-winter into account are big omissions. Also, land and building costs are so high that it takes at least 4 dwellings on a 1/4 acre block to even get to a viable project these days, so we end up with developers building many more lower quality dwellings resulting in poor amenity for both those who live there and those who surround it (don't get me started car parking and access for these developments). Town Planners working for developers do not thoroughly investigate the area before they submit their reports and make highly erroneous assumptions in their presentations. This reminds me of the 1960's and '70's when it was open slather on Melbourne CBD and we lost a number of beautiful heritage buildings to ugly block towers, which have since been replaced by huge glass monoliths.
    On a positive, it looks like Boroondara council will have a ratified residential zone and planning policy in the near future which I hope will help maintain some of the existing neighbourhood character. We need to get back to some balance in the near future otherwise this city will become truly unliveable.

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

    Desiree Sheehan and Jack Baldwin commented

    Whilst not opposed to development, we are concerned about the density of this development which will inevitably impact in a negative way on the suburb, community and lifestyle we cherish, in particular:

    1. Sustainability - This development will unavoidably place an enormous strain on an already over taxed natural environment. In addition, we are concerned about the capacity of the area to be able to sustain such a large development including the increase in rubbish removal, water and sewerage requirements, and overall style of living in the Whitebridge community.

    2. Ecology - We are extremely concerned about the impact of this development on the local flora and fauna in the area, in particular around the green corridor of the Fernleigh track.

    3. Density - The proposal is for 87 residences crammed into a relatively small land area. We are concerned about the ensuing social issues, increased traffic congestion and ambient noise, rubbish and also the impact of such a large development on the adjoining areas including the Fernleigh Bike track and Dudley Beach.

    4. Traffic congestion - The intersection of Lonus Ave, Bulls Garden Road, Waran Road & Dudley Road has an existing traffic congestion problem. With the associated traffic that will be added to the area, coupled with a very limited public transport system (322 bus line) we are concerned that the area will become a bottle neck during peak times.

    Access into Whitebridge is limited to only a few streets. We are also concerned that an adequate study has not been undertaken as to the impact of the 87 residences and associated cars, in our area.

    5. Parking issue - Parking at the Whitebridge shops is at capacity. We are concerned that this area will become another traffic bottleneck and a potential risk to walkers/ school children.

    Footpaths around this area are limited, and with visibility to the shops even via the carpark already a high risk area, we are concerned about the impact of even more cars using this area without adequate consideration given.

    In summation, this planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community.

    We ask that Lake Macquarie City Council stands by its commitment to sustainability and its communities, and uses its influence on the Joint Regional Planning panel to limit the development to ensure that it is more in keeping with Whitebridge – before it’s too late!

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

    Maxine de Carvalho commented

    I strongly oppose this development in its current form.
    While I believe we all have the right to make money from our assets - we don't have the rights to do this to the detriment of others - this development is far too extreme for the area.
    I agree with other objections already raised here. This proposal is far too high density for the area. We have to keep our suburbs just that. Quiet suburbs. Cram 87 families into an area the size of a footy field (maybe 2) and you are asking for trouble. Apparently these are to be 3 - 4 bed dwellings. - That's a lot of people not to mention cars. Not enough parking - not enough privacy - not enough space.
    The over 55's development in Bulls Garden Road has 24 properties and a good portion of those have to 2 cars. I think the traffic study grossly underestimates the number of traffic movements per property. We already have cars banked up across the roundabout at times trying to gain access to the shopping car park.
    I don't think the developers are serious about the development at this density - just preparing the way for negotiation for a smaller number of properties. Perhaps if they aimed at half the proposed number, say 45, the current residents in the area would be more amenable.

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

    William Abell commented

    I am a student of Whitebridge High School and I object to the current development application because it is NOT suited to the area and there are already too many cars which makes it very dangerous getting to and from school and the shops at Whitebridge.

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

    Karen Cotton & Rod Green commented

    I am writing to express my concern with the current development application for 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge. We live locally and pass through this area multiple times per day. If the development is approved in it's current state, I am concerned about the following:

    * The sheer size of this development and the negative visual impact it will have;
    * Pedestrian safety, especially the school children and the elderly;
    * Increased traffic congestion = more accidents;
    * Already congested parking; and
    * The social and environmental impact on the beautiful community of Whitebridge.

    This land could host a beautiful development, but the one planned, is definitely not it!

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

    Anne-Marie Abell commented

    I wish to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development for DA1774/2013. Whilst I am not opposed to development of this land, I am totally opposed to the current plan for this development.

    The development in it's current form concerns me greatly because:

    In 1998 I purchased 126 Dudley Road, Whitebridge and in 2005 I moved from this property as a direct result of the amount of traffic travelling along Dudley Road and the danger I faced every day entering and exiting my driveway. I understand this road is classed as an arterial road, a high-capacity urban road linking suburbs to main roads and every year the traffic volume increases. This development will certainly add to this increase and I fear for the safety of others living on this road and others who live in the area who use this road to commute. More so though, I fear for the safety of my family and everyone who frequents the shopping centre, doctors; day care; park; tennis courts; bus stops; high school, etc, etc as the layout of this area does not lend itself to even the current amount of traffic. As for the adjoining roads of Warran Road and Lonus Avenue, well you only have to visit there on a morning and/or afternoon to see the traffic jams, pedestrian near misses and accidents that regularly occur.

    Another concern I have is the size and density of this development. I attended the meeting last weekend and was told that this development is to be family focused. I'm unsure how this will work as I don't think I know of any family that would want to live in a unit with no outdoor area, only one car space (most families have at least two vehicles), no visitor parking, no recreational facilities; and a 'token' green area? As for the parking issue, well that's a no brainer - parking is an issue now around this area without these extra vehicles and their visitor's vehicles, this development will definitely escalate parking issues to beyond breaking point.

    In a nutshell, this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and in it's current form, should not be approved.

    I trust that common sense will prevail (and not the mighty dollar!).

  19. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    Obviously developers are making a fortune…….they don't worry about the quality of life …..only lining their pockets. Boroondara Council should be aware of this and take steps to protect our life style before it is too late . This comment does not only apply to this development but all overcrowding in our once beautiful leafy suburbs.

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

    Rainer Heigl commented

    As a resident of the Dudley/Whitebridge area, I oppose the current development application regarding Dudley Road/Kopa Street Whitebridge by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    The proposed development would change the feel of our community and would be in wild contrast to the existing community.

    The density of the proposed development would lead to traffic congestion, parking and safety issues.

    Currently there are already periods of parking shortage at Whitebridge shops.
    The central Whitebridge area is small and would not functioning with an adjacent 87 residential units jammed against it.

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

    Ben commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    To Whom It May Concern,

    Firstly I would like to state that I am not against development in Whitebridge. I do believe that development, and in particular the use of this parcel of land, could be of great value to the current community and future generations of this area. However, I feel that the Development Application in its current form is pushing the allowed zoning to its limits and if approved will be an eyesore and burden to the community for decades to come.

    I strongly believe that there are statistical anomalies within the traffic survey in particular relating to the number of vehicles using Lonus Ave during peak periods. The intersection of Dudley Road and Lonus Ave during school drop off and pick up times is extremely busy often resulting heavy congestion at the Whitebridge roundabout. If the development was to proceed in its current form this will only add to this issue.

    The aesthetic appeal of the proposed dwellings also appears more suited to an inner city landscape rather than a suburban community that mainly consists of detached low/medium density dwellings.

    The adjacent shopping village currently has a severe lack of available parking since the developer erected the temporary fence around the proposed site. Although the development has included parking for its commercial aspect I don't believe it will cater for the increase in patronage considering the current parking is insufficient.

    I trust that the council will listen to the overwhelming dissatisfaction of local residents and force the developers to align its application with the greater community’s interests in mind.

    Regards

    Ben Judd

  22. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Subdivision 1 into 2 lots &...” at 30 Cowmeadow Road, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Elizabeth Conlan commented

    Drainage needs to be rigorously addressed as this development slopes down towards two complexes consisting of multiple dwellings. One of which No. 4 Cowmeadow, Mount Hutton have had issues from the land drainage without development. Drainage would need to be adequately provided for and pumped to the front of the property at No. 30 Cowmeadow Road, Mount Hutton.

  23. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Nelson commented

    What are you talking about? Council insisted me to have fornt setback of about 9m on a main trunk road.Thats about 20% of land wasted to keep a local characteristics and that worth more than 200k for front empty space. It sure help to push up land prices though. Stop complaining when property is too expensive !!!

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

    Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    28th January, 2014 Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    Sir/Madam,

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the development of this site in its current form. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.

    TRAFFIC IMPACT
    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents.

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    SOCIAL IMPACT
    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops.
    Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing in relation to the existing low level housing. A 3D model has not been made available to the public, which would give residents a clearer more concise vision of this over development.

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
    There is very little ‘green space’ and no provision for recreational facilities for the residents, especially teenagers and children. This fact alone has been shown to lead to future antisocial behaviour.

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be used as the developments own private green space. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only ten (10) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    If a turning circle at the end of Kopa Street is permitted the mature trees in this location will be removed which is in conflict with SNL’s Arborist report.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

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

    Ian Harris commented

    To the General Manager LMCC in reference to DA1774/2013,

    Myself and my family are residents of Whitebridge and my child attends Whitebridge High School. I would like to voice my concerns for the development (over development) of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge.

    The amount and size (3 storeys) of the dwellings is way too large for that site. It will produce many problems such as:
    ** Traffic congestion on streets and roads which include Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, Kopa Street, Waran Road and Whitebridge roundabout especially with only having one entry and exit to the development on Kopa St.
    ** Parking problems at Whitebridge shops (which is already congested with limited parking spaces)

    All the traffic and parking problems will have a huge impact on safety related concerns with residents, school children and fernleigh track users (pushbikes, prams, elderly walkers and kids) Also other people who use the childcare centre, tennis courts and adjoining park/oval which is used for cricket and other sports will be faced these problems

    This type of development is totally out of character with the surrounding village and will have a massive, negative impact on the community.

    The land needs to be developed so it can be a part and an asset of Whitebridge and the surrounding areas. In its present design it wont be. To do this we need a development with less amount of units that are aesthetically pleasing with more open, green spaces and parking.

    Thank you for hearing SOME of my many concerns.
    Ian, Yvette and Sharna Harris

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

    Rob and Anika Roohan commented

    If appropriate decision making and the concerns of residents are taken into consideration, the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge could provide an opportunity to create a residential and commercial space that can be a national leader in sustainable living. What is needed is the vision and confidence of the developers to acknowledge the environmental significance of the site and work alongside these factors, treating them as a positive prospect not a limitation. Improved community response, increased profit and environmental sustainability are all achievable if adequate planning is applied.

    The development requires a philosophy of a sustainable approach to the environment, as well as proper consideration of social and economic responsibilities to the wider community. The current plan in no way reflects the environmental and geographical significance of the area. Offering no sustainable creativity, relying on old and outdated methods of planning and architecture, the plan is over simplistic in its ideology of mass production. The proposal may succeed in a standard urban setting. Whitebridge is not a standard urban setting.

    Whitebridge is distinctive in its positioning as a link between Glenrock State Recreation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve. This area is possibly the largest network of high quality coastal native vegetation in an “urbanised” area in NSW. The site in question forms the centrepiece in this green corridor. To develop in its current proposal will metaphorically be like clogging an artery.

    This corridor allows movement of wildlife between habitats to maintain their genetic diversity, which is critical for their survival and persistence into the future, especially in the face of future environmental change through climate change and other threats.

    The long-term viability of Glenrock State Conservation Area, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Belmont/Jewells Wetlands is dependent on surrounding areas of bushland remaining intact and being managed effectively. Any future development of the area has the potential to increase edge effects on these reserves, increase direct and induced impacts and management costs for conservation agencies and increase both impacts and risk for a large number of resident and migratory threatened and native species.

    The proposed development requires a complete re-think of how it can fit into the unique landscape, whilst at the same time remain viable and possibly even more profitable. If done correctly a national benchmark in sustainable development is achievable whilst possibly gaining international recognition.

    To achieve community support, a development that is reflective of the areas environmental significance is essential. Further professional consultancy in planning, design/architecture, product choice, sustainable features, environmental footprint reduction should be at the forefront of the developments future.

  27. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    B Simmonds commented

    Boroondara Council is turning the area into a future slum. There is not enough infrastructure to cope with all the influx of people that these developments are bring into the area. It is turning into multiculturalism at its worst neighbours forming cultural groups …. not mixing with each other……..to the detriment of our local society .

  28. In Mount Helen VIC on “CA 49D Eddy Avenue” at Mount Helen:

    Helen de Weerd commented

    Notification received 30 JAN 2014.

    RE: Planning permit application No. PLP/2012/1086.

    "The Statutory Planning Unit has considered the above application and determined to refuse to grant a planning permit".

    THANK YOU.

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

    Ethan Bentley commented

    I would also like to raise my concerns about the development at 142 dudley road whitebridge.
    There has been many issues raised about traffic and population density.
    The current state of the intersection of Lonus Avenue and Dudley Rd is already overcrowded, especially in mornings and afternoons due to the addition of school traffic.

    For me personally this raises concerns about the safety of pedestrians in this area, particularly with adolescents who are attending Whitebridge high school.

    As well as the fact that there are very few dwellings in the Whitebridge area that are more than 2 stories high. This also has nothing to do with the amount of residents that you can fit into this area.
    IE: Less residents in total would be the way to achieve a common ground among the community.

    If this development were to go ahead in its current state then the impact of its new residents could potentially be indirectly dangerous to the youth of this area.

    Obviously some sort of development needs to occur on this land, however, I think that it should be scaled down due to the already overcrowded population density in this area.

  30. In Kew VIC on “Variation of category to...” at 7 Studley Park Road, Kew 3101, VIC:

    Dr. Pauline Chazan commented

    I do not believe that this application should be approved. It is right next door to a residential property, with a family and children living in it. It is also on a street block with residential houses making up the bulk of the occupancy. It is completely inappropriate for this area and will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding houses in the block.Dr

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