Recent comments

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

    Kristie Krainz commented

    To The Manager, LMCC - DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge

    I am writing to object to the proprosed over development at Whitebridge. As a Whitebridge resident, I am not opposed to the development of the land which is in line with the already existing Whitebridge area, but am opposed to this over development.

    There are a number of real problems with this proposal which need to be considered:

    Traffic Congestion - the exisiting traffic (and pedestrian traffic) in the area is already at capacity and the impact of extra traffic from the development has not been considered.
    Parking - the parking at the Whitebridge shops is already at capacity and the planned parking in the proposal is not sufficient for the area.
    Visual Impact - the development will look more like a housing commission area, and this mass development is not visually in line with the existing dwellings in the area.
    Impact on Facilities - the increase in residents will then impact the local facilities such as the local shops, park, day care facilities and schools. Can our local schools cope with the influx of more students?

    I trust that Council will make a common sense decision and decline this over development. The developer and Council should consider the effect this current proposal will have on the community and come to a resolution that will be consistent with the Whitebridge landscape.

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

    Sarah Blatchford commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Whitebridge (DA 1772-2013). I grew up in Whitebridge and still live in nearby Charlestown East (my parents still reside in our family home in Whitebridge).
    The high density of the proposed development is completely unsuitable to this small, quiet suburb. Having so many 2 and 3 storey dwellings crowded into this space will inevitably cause several problems to this community:

    • Social issues. It is well documented that areas housing highly dense dwellings suffer from higher crime rates, vandalism, and social problems. These dwellings have no yards, parks, personal space or areas for socialising. Residents, especially youths, will have no space to spend their time outdoors aside from the street and public areas.

    • Lack of amenities. Whitebridge is a small suburb and, as such, has the amenities to cope with a small population.

    • No green space. This development has been planned with no green space, aside from the mandatory corridor alongside the Fernleigh track. This lack of green space is in complete contradiction to the bushy surrounds of the area, will radiate an enormous amount of heat, and will be an eyesore to the neighbourhood. These dwellings need to be built with personal green space for each residence and green space separating the dwellings. Ideally there should be communal space as well, such as a park or playground.

    • Traffic congestion. Whitebridge already suffers from traffic problems around the schools and shops as well as a shortage of parking. With another 300 car movements the busy intersections and carparks simply will not cope and will become a serious danger to drivers and pedestrians.

    Quantity over quality appears to have been a determining phrase during the planning of this development, however Whitebridge is a wonderful place to live and visit and is deserving of a development that will harmonise with the existing community and environment.

    I sincerely hope that these issues are taken into consideration

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

    Lee J Currington commented

    To The General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re : DA 1774/2013
    142 Dudley Rd WHITEBRIDGE 2290

    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to express my objection to this proposed development. I feel that when the land was rezoned 2.2 medium density that the general community were not aware that this would lead to a proposal like the one at hand.

    I also feel the developers have been very opportunistic using this technicality to integrate as many buildings as possible in the rezoned land.

    I know there is alarming traffic problems at Whitebridge at the moment. With no future infrastructure planned, another large subdivision of this proposals' nature on the fringe should not be acceptable by local council.

    I am also objecting to the placement of the 3 storey residential units. The only 9 x 4 bedroom Adaptable Garden Villas (AGV)'s share the common boundary with existing residents. This is a very poor planning decision which shows total lack of regard for the privacy and welfare of current residents.

    I feel there has been little to no planning for green space. If there are 3/4 bedroom villas constructed, they will be marketed towards families with children to reside in them. Where are recreation areas located? In Lake Macquarie in 2014 this is an important aspect of residential planning that the developer has overlooked and so needs to be addressed.

    There is many other unsuitable aspects to the development in its current form. I trust you have seen the number of objections to consider its abhorrence to the community at large. Please consider this as my formal objection of DA 1774/2013.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Lee Currington

  4. In Canterbury VIC on “Buildings and works to an...” at 86 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Jack Roach commented

    Five swellings should mean at least 5 or more car parking spaces .
    No reduction should be allowed which may mean there will not be sufficient space for 5 dwellings.

    Therefore council should refuse this application.

  5. In Branxton NSW on “Ice Box Liquor - Liquor...” at 74 Maitland St, Branxton 2335:

    Ms King commented

    So all the miners can drink drive better on the way home, its disgusting now as the Ice Box is in the middle of town and you get people doing U turns on double lines just to get to the place , where are they all going to park - its residential

    answer is NO , they shouldn't be allowed

    Just look at how licenses have been approved for the little town now.

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

    J. Davis commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the development in its current form for the following reasons:

    -The sheer size and density of the development which is inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    -The potential for hundreds of extra cars using an already congested section of local roads, particularly the intersections of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue and Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, increasing the risk for pedestrian safety, particularly school children and senior citizens.
    -The existing road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic, with the Whitebridge roundabout already at capacity at peak times.
    -The Whitebridge shops car park is already at capacity for most of the day and the 4 proposed commercial premises will greatly increase the number of cars seeking parking.
    -Inadequate consultation with the community considering the size and density of the development.
    -The increase in the number of residents will have adverse impacts on the amenity, lifestyle and safety of existing and future residents.

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

    Brooke Searles commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing in regards to DA-1774/2013 proposed for Whitebridge.

    I grew up in Whitebridge and now live in neighbouring Charlestown East. My parents still live in our family home in Whitebridge and I am often in the area to visit my family, friends and the local shops.

    Whitebridge is a magnificent place to live and visit. Lake Macquarie City Council has played a significant role in restoring areas of historical significance and developing the Fernleigh Track, which is widely used by residents of the entire region, as well as preserving Glenrock reserve, Dudley Beach, etc. Unfortunately these areas may be under threat if this high density development is approved.

    The vacant land to be used by DA-1774/2013 should be developed. However, this proposal is excessive, in no way integrates with the local surrounds, and would be a disastrous addition to a small, coastal town.

    This level of housing density is befitting of a city or large town that has the resources, road infrastructure and amenities to cope with such an increase in population and traffic. My main objections to this DA are as follows;

    • The level of high density housing will inevitably create an array of social problems due to the poorly designed, cheap housing and a lack of resources, personal space, public transport and green space

    • Roads are already at capacity, with an increase of 200 or so vehicles they simply would not cope and would become a danger to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians

    • The Whitebridge village is now overcrowded, with not enough parking or space to accommodate the current growing population

    • This development offers no green space to integrate with the local surrounds, provide residents with areas to socialise and entertain, provide natural relief from heat and accommodate the multitude of local wildlife

    • The high density dwellings will inevitably cause drainage and storm water issues. The catchment storm water drain, alongside the Fernleigh Track, already overflows during heavy rain and with no green space to slow runoff this problem will be exasperated

    • The 2 – 3 storey, wall to wall dwellings will be an eyesore to the area and will visually separate and isolate from the local surrounds

    I hope that LMCC and the JRPP object to this overdevelopment, ensure community consultation is required and demand a quality development that complements and promotes this wonderful area.

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

    Linda Rees commented

    I agree with all the above concerns for the recently submitted plans to heavily develop
    DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge.

    It is in our area's interest to make this land a piece of well designed housing for a reasonable number of residents, who will enjoy living in a healthy attractive well serviced community.

    Common sense shows that the original architect plan for 142 Dudley Road is unacceptable.

    Please don't allow Whitebridge and surrounds to become a densely populated area at the expense of quality living, for the people who will come and the population here already.

    Thank you for your time.

    Linda Rees

  9. In Little River VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 50 Mcintosh Road, Little River:

    Jacqueline LeLievre commented

    G'day,

    We are concerned about an increase in large heavy vehicles travelling in the area. The surface of McIntosh Road is dirt & suffers if large vehicles frequently travel along it with the occurrence of pot holes and corrugations. We would like to ensure that McIntosh Road & surrounding roads are maintained to a satisfactory level year round given the type of traffic expected. Moreover, that the noise of large/heavy vehicles along the road is avoided during off peak times & weekends.

    If they have pets (dogs) that they are kept securely within the property given I have been attacked by two dogs in the area whilst walking this is important to me.

    Regards,
    Jacqui.

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

    Alec Roberts commented

    In reference to DA 1774/2013 by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Please note that I am not opposed to development of this site per se but to the scale and degree of development proposed in this DA.

    Amenity
    During my time I was living in Melbourne I have seen the construction of a number of medium density housing developments particularly in the Brunswick and Coburg areas. Apart from some increased parking issues in some streets these developments as a whole have increased the amenity of the area. These developments were usually limited to two storey townhouse cluster developments and were designed to be in keeping with the suburbs. Even after a number of years these developments still look good and are well looked after. In one case, developers decided to go with a more compact style using 2-3 storey terraces that obviously was going to allow more residences within the space. This was architect designed and showed initial promise placed between a heritage listed site and a park. However, it wasn’t long before the development had a tired look (even though it was developed after the others) with vandalism and graffiti evident in the development.

    There appears to be a tipping point between medium density developments that provide and continue to provide amenity to the local suburb and those that decrease amenity and become targets for vandalism within the community. Developments to the higher end of medium density fit into the latter category. This development in its current form is at the higher end of medium density (with 87 residences including 2-3 storey terraces) and I fear would lead to a decrease in amenity of the area and become a target for vandalism.

    Parking
    It appears from the DA included drawings that the offstreet parking includes residents’ driveways. This I do not believe would be acceptable to the residents and would impact on parking in the immediate area around the development.

    Visual Impact
    The DA notes that this development is within Scenic Management Zone – 7 (coastal edge, low settlement) of the Lake Macquarie Scenic Management Guidelines 2013. The guidelines state that the desired future character of this zone is to “Protect the dominant natural character of the coastline whilst allowing some sensitive modification”. It further states “Visual impacts of development should be managed through appropriate design, scale, built form, siting and the retention of trees and other natural features. Proposed future residential areas should be limited to ensure that the existing low development character is maintained” and “Any development within these areas is to satisfy the following guidelines: any buildings should be of a low scale and not dominant.” Moreover, the DA states under section 4.1.11 Visual Impact that “No significant public/private views will be significantly/unreasonably affected by the proposed development”.

    The proposed development does not adequately address the visual impacts with inappropriate design and scale. The development proposes three storey terraces immediately adjacent (20 metres) from the Fernleigh Track detracting from the natural amenity of this unique recreational trail. Furthermore a development of 87 residences could not be regarded as low scale and would dominate the local area.

    Conservation zone
    The DA states that a 20 metre conservation zone adjacent to the Fernleigh Track has been set aside as a wildlife corridor. It should be noted that this 20m is effectively halved at the southern end of the development (Dudley rd end) to allow for the inclusion of terraces fronting Dudley rd and a garden townhouse behind. This should have been clearly stated in the DA. Ten metres is not a sufficient width for a wildlife corridor and may not be considered an adequate building setback and buffer from the Fernleigh Track.

    Proposed changes
    The scale and degree of the development is too large and does not fit nor is in keeping within the local area. The size and in particular compactness of this development needs decreasing to allow it to effectively integrate and increase the amenity of the local area.

    The design of the townhouses and garden villas look promising, although some private side yards are about the width of a bath and probably need increasing if they are going to be useful to residents.

    To decrease the density of the development and help address the issue of visual impact stages 9 & 10 should be removed (13 3-storey terraces adjacent to the Fernleigh track) and perhaps replaced by the garden villas/townhouses or developed as additional space for the conservation zone.

    To address the reduced conservation zone the two storey terraces facing Dudley Rd in Stage 6 (terraces 4 & 5) and the garden townhouse (7) should be removed to allow the 20 metre conservation zone to run the length of the property development adjacent to the Fernleigh track.

    And finally, remove the Camphor Laurel tree next to Dudley Rd proposed to be kept and replace with a less invasive species (preferably native to this area).

    Thankyou for your time,

    Alec Roberts

  11. In Birkdale QLD on “Operational Works - ROL 3...” at Burbank Road, Birkdale, QLD:

    G Gall commented

    Burbank Rd Birkdale does not fall within the medium density planning zone so has there been a mistake here? Residents are entitled to keep the value of their properties clear from the crush of medium density that is more appropriate near facilities. Thirty six lots? Could be 72 cars to get parked!

  12. In Durras North NSW on “New Urban Dwelling -...” at 52 Durras Rd, Durras North, NSW:

    brian wheeler commented

    I live next door at no 50. all i want is a plan of the building and where it will sit on the block in relation to my house. I intend to make alterations to my residence and the information will assist me greatly. Thank you

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

    Lydia Price commented

    26/1/2014
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to express my concern and opposition to the proposed development DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge. I have been a resident of Dudley and now live off Dudley Road in Charlestown. I am concerned about this development for a number of reasons as I am a frequent visitor of Whitebridge shops and community area.
    1. This development is far too dense and the buildings far too high for this area. I understand that the zoning requirements would still be met with far fewer residences. This type of development is suited to a city area rather than a quiet, leafy suburb. There are no other 3 storey dwellings in Whitebridge and as a result this development would be inconsistent with the local surroundings.

    Section 5.3.3 of the Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 document states “Compatible development is integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development”. No other surrounding dwellings are as dense, as high or have such continuous shared walls. This current proposal couldn’t be further from ‘integrated’ with existing development.

    2. The social issues caused by this highly dense development would be devastating to the area. The social issues caused by such a large development in a small community are many;
    - So many people living ‘on top’ of each other will inevitably cause friction
    - Whitebridge does not have the resources or amenities to cope with such an influx of population
    - These units don’t have their own residential or communal space and residents, especially kids and teenagers, will be forced to spend time on the surrounding streets
    - The increase in traffic to already busy, narrow roads will cause an increase in accidents and congestion
    3. This development has no personal or communal land (green space). Whitebridge is known for its pristine environment, beautiful Fernleigh track and surrounding bush. Wall to wall dwellings with no green space is in direct contradiction to the environment that Lake Macquarie City Council has worked to maintain and preserve.
    This current proposal would be a blight on a wonderful area, I am hopeful that the LMCC and the JRPP will let common sense and good planning prevail over developer profits.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Price.

  14. In Malabar NSW on “Substantial alterations and...” at 5 Eucla Crescent Malabar NSW 2036:

    Michale and Noela Woodward commented

    Attention Planning Department.
    Re DA 856/2013 @ 5 Eucla Crescent, Malabar.

    Thank you for your recent notification re the substantial development at the above address.
    Our only concern is the storm water which passes though many properties before it enters the easement which runs down the side of our property at 52 Bilga Crescent, Malabar.
    When we have rain and with all of the alterations and additions over the years the easement in our opinion has reached it limitation. Therefore we would appreciate if some of the storm water could be redirected at a Eucla Crescent point.

    Kind regards,
    Michael and Noela Woodward

  15. In Priestdale QLD on “Removal of dead trees and...” at 741-753 Priestdale Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Robert Dickinson commented

    Because this area is within what was known as the Koala Coast region with many nearby reserves such as the Brisbane Koala Bushland, Don and Christine Burnette Reserve, the Daisy Hill Reserve and other reserves under Logan's control, it has for many years had stringent and severe restrictions imposed on properties lying within it. These have been for the most part strictly enforced with offenders prosecuted by councils of both Brisbane and Logan.

    As well as development restrictions, there are vegetation protection policies to ensure protection of local native fauna and flora. Such restrictions encompass both dead and living vegetation and trees especially which serve to provide refuge to the many species species of Australian wildlife found in the area.

    The area is representative of natural Australian bush and should not be altered and destroyed to mimic what is found in high density urban regions. The natural, unaltered beauty reflects the reason people pay increasingly high, record prices for the privilege to live in the area.

    Consequently, clearing, except for limited home construction purposes should not be allowed.

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

    Elon Alva commented

    In reference to DA 1774/2013

    I object to the proposal to build this medium density housing on these grounds

    a) Congestion on the roads, especially during school start and finish times
    b) Insufficient parking spaces
    c) Safety for pedestrians with increased traffic especially during school hours
    d) No/insufficient community consultation
    e) No independant studies to show the social impact for the area
    f) No independant studies to show environment and pollution impact for the area
    g) No independant studies to prove that there is sufficient infrastructure to support all the needs for the increased housing in the area
    h) No reason given why there is a need for medium density housing
    i) If the local council also objects to this proposal then the wishes of the council and the community should be respected

    PLEASE for the sake of the community and future generations - DO NOT approve this application

    Thanks for taking this into consideration

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

    Michael Hansen commented

    RE: DA 1844/2013 (Utility Infrastructure Facility & Demolition, 60 Avondale Road Cooranbong)

    To whom it may concern,

    As the owner of a property on Avondale Road, I formally object to this proposal on the grounds that it contravenes Government guidelines for buffer zones, and in doing so, significantly increases the risk to the health and safety of existing residents as well as the school children who travel through this area.

    In addition, the nature of this facility and proximity to major environmental regions (for example, Avondale Springs lake and associated waterways) demands the highest level of diligence and assurance and in it's current form this proposal is an obvious failure.

    Short of commercial interests, there are NO broader benefits to the community within this proposal. In fact, the probable impact to the community of this proposal in it's current form is almost entirely negative.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

    Judith J Gray commented

    As a resident of Whitebridge I am writing to object to DA 1772-2013 in Whitebridge. I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I have strong objections to this current proposal.
    I understand this land has been zoned ‘medium density’ and as such a certain number of dwellings are required to be built. The current proposal of 87 units plus commercial properties is an excessive number for such a small community. The zoning requirements could still be met with far fewer properties.
    Development needs to be “integrated with, rather than separating from existing surrounding development” (Section 5.3.3. Lake Macquarie City Council Lifestyle 2020 strategy). This development proposes wall to wall structures 2 – 3 storeys high, which would completely ‘separate’ the existing surrounding development as this type of structure is non-existent in the local area.
    The local amenities are already strained coping with the current population. Roads are extremely busy and dangerous, the Fernleigh track is often crowded and parking is insufficient. A development of this many units would exasperate these already existing problems.
    The social impact of such high density living in a small area would be disastrous. Residents would have little or no personal space, a lack of amenities and public transport to cope with their needs, extreme heat due to lack of greenery and poor building design, and extremely busy roads.

    These buildings need to be planned to integrate with the existing community, provide personal and communal green space, space in between dwellings for trees and privacy and ideally contribute to the local community, e.g. building of a park, new pathways, extra parking, upgrading of roads, etc.
    I sincerely hope the local community is consulted about this development in the future.

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

    Christie Venegas commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    As residents of Avondale Road with 3 small children and another due in 5 weeks, my husband and I strongly oppose the proposed staged development application for the utility being a sewage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road. We live less than 100m from the proposed development site, and are concerned about the impact that noise, chemicals and odour might have on our young family.
    Please deny this application for rezoning and development, and ensure a more suitable location (i.e. away from residential housing and schools, and well away from flood zones) is found should a new treatment plant really be necessary.

    John and Christie Venegas

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

    Donna Jamieson commented

    It is with grave concern that I write this letter regarding the future development on 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge NSW 2290 (DA number 1774/2013).
    It is my strong believe that a cluster of units can only lead to a ghetto style environment in the not so distant future. Whitebridge, and the surround area, is rich in historical culture that reflects the unique fabric which is the Whitebridge Community. To erect such a monstrosity will be blight on such a picturesque landscape – an environment that will for ever change.
    Why – why does the government feel that Whitebridge needs an influx of housing, people and vehicles when services are already stretch – surely other areas would benefit more.
    I don’t live in Whitebridge, so I’m not concerned about my house value my concern is the social well being of the Whitebridge Community and if such a development does go ahead a precedent will be set, a precedent that disregards community over development, profit and business.
    Once the mistake is made it cannot be undone.
    Yours sincerely
    Donna Jamieson

  21. In Mount Lawley WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 544 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, WA, 6050:

    Paul Blanchard commented

    Hope this development gets underway. A few years of doing nothing but attracting homeless to the building. Making a "shop" will be fine.

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

    Lisa Dixon commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    I write to voice my numerous concerns about SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd proposed development in Whitebridge (DA No: 1774/2013):

    Firstly, that this development has proceeded this far without adequate community consultation or social impact assessment.

    Secondly, and more alarmingly, this development seems to ignore the significant effects that such a high density development will have on the surrounding traffic conditions, these effects include:
    i)the compounding of already existing traffic delays at peak times (most notably during school times).

    ii)inadequate access to the proposed development and surrounding areas for emergency vehicles due to traffic congestion, further compounded by the single road access to the site (the local bush fires last year were a timely reminder of the need for multiple and effective entries and exits to a site).

    iii) additionally, the increased traffic density must be considered in the context of Whitebridge as, increasingly, a major pedestrian hub due to the increased popularity of the Fernleigh Track and surrounding schools and shops - and as such pedestrian safety and crossing availability must be considered.

    For these reasons I am strongly of the belief that the development should not be allowed to proceed as currently proposed.

    Regards,
    Lisa Dixon.

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

    Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing concerning DA 1772-2013 proposed for Lonus Ave, Whitebridge and to express my concern and objection to this development. I live in Charlestown, however am regularly in Whitebridge for work and to visit family.

    I do not object to the development of this land, however this development is excessive and will be a detriment to Whitebridge and the surrounding areas.

    1. There are too many units planned for this space. This number of units in a small suburb will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.
    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    2. This development will create traffic and parking problems resulting from 88 two-three bedroom units and several commercial properties. Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    3. The development is poorly designed which is evidenced in the boxy, ‘dorm room’ style dwellings with no area between dwellings for large trees or gardens, no personal or communal space. The obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    I am hopeful that Lake Macquarie Council and the JRPP make a stand against this development and demand one that suits the local area and is not detrimental to it.

    Thank you,
    Luke Searles

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

    John Fraser commented

    OBJECTION TO PROPOSED STAGED DEVELOPMENT FOR A UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE BEING A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT LOT B, DP391418, 60 AVONDALE ROAD COORANBONG

    As a Cooranbong citizen I strongly object to the proposed staged development application for the utility being a sewage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road

    Insufficient factual information is given to assess realistically.
    A plant that is 8 meters tall will detract from the values of the community.

    Positioning of the proposed plant gives no consideration for many who will be subjected to either sight, smell or noise factors that will diminish their current standard of living and create health hazards.

    Owner and developer have, in reference to this DA, both clearly written " we would not want to see the establishment of a facility that will result in significant detriment to the community" yet this is exactly what the proposed plant will do.

    Properties will likely be devalued as buyers on hearing that a sewage plant is nearby will on this knowledge alone be negatively influenced. Mere perception that a sewage plant is nearby will seriously affect property values.

    Documentation reveals that the Hunter Water Board's Marconi Road Sewage facility is able to service the area. It now is apparent that the developer is out to save money to the detriment of nearby residents. There is no justice in this.

    We stridently object to this development application. We respectfully request that consideration be given to the health and quality and lifestyle of residents in the area; further that a more suitable location be found, well distanced from established homes and from the environmentally sensitive riparian zone where spillage and overflow has the potential to affect downstream water bodies including Avondale. Springs .

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

    graham booyens commented

    To whom it may concern

    As a long term resident in the Cooranbong area, I have watched development occur under JPG and have been dismayed by the devastation of native flora and disappearance of associated fauna.
    For obvious reasons or odour , proximity to homes and no doubt heavier traffic, I strongly object to the installation of a sewage treatment facility on Avondale road.

    Mr Graham Booyens

  26. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Angela Thompson commented

    Dear Harjaat,

    I wish to submit a complaint regarding the proposed changes to DA201100625.03 on 244 Wardell Road, Dulwich Hill.

    The recent development on the site has caused great concern amongst the members of our community and this was reflected in the initial rejection of the development by Marrickville Council. While the Land and Environment Court went on to approve the development it has been made known the Developer has not completed the basic aesthetic aspects of the approved plans.

    The Developer should be made to fulfil the basic criteria approved by the Land and Environment Court. Located at the steps of Dulwich Hill station, the aesthetics of the building contribute to the aesthetic tone of the local environment. Marrickville Council has recognised the importance of this location by allocating significant funds to upgrading the surrounding area including Dulwich Hill station and Wardell Road. The changes in the recent DA application by the developer stand in stark contrast to Marrickville Council’s vision for the area. The proposed ‘horizontal banding’ is an economical and unattractive way to cover the problem of the Developer NOT COMPLYING to the approved legal plans.

    The changes cited in the DA are not what our community wants and are not what the Land and Environment Court approved and should be rejected.

    Sincerely,

    Angela Thompson

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

    Anne Walker commented

    I write with concern regarding the DA 1774/2013 by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    I do not support the proposed development in it's current form on the basis of TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND PARKING PROBLEMS, particularly around the Whitebridge Shops on Dudley Road. The current parking space available at the Whitebridge shops is already at capacity on a daily basis, which is evidenced by over 20 cars parked on the vacant lot of land which is to be developed (usually utilised by staff members who work at the Whitebridge shopping precinct and customers using this overflow area at peek hours of the day). The planned parking spaces of the development is inadequate and needs to be substantially increased.

    If this land is developed without a substantial amount of parking for the community, in addition to the formal parking available at the shops, the current traffic congestion and parking issues will be exacerbated. From 3-4pm each day of the school term, it is often the case that traffic queues can bank up from the shops, across the Dudley Road roundabout and down Bullsgarden Road, Dudley Road and Waran Road. If density of housing, parking and residents increases at the Dudley Road development site, without substantial commitment to community parking, this section of road could likely become jammed on a daily basis as there are no alternate routes that by pass this roundabout intersection. If parking and traffic congestion becomes an issue, trade at the local shops could be compromised and this would threaten a key community asset.

    Whilst I support development of the local area, I believe this should be achieved in a socially sustainable manner and with forward planning for ample and much required community parking.

    Kind regards
    Anne Walker

  28. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Steve commented

    How this development was approved in the first place is beyond comprehension.

    To approve horizontal banding after the developer has failed to comply is giving a free ticket to developers to do as they please. The developer has not considered the suburban environment, the aesthetics nor the tenants with this build. It has been built as cheaply and quickly as possible for maximum profit.

    The building needs to be completed as per the original plans and therefore the developer should be asked to comply.

    The alternative is a cheaper looking, uglier building than what already exists in which local residents and the community are already not happy about.

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

    Jill Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about the impact the proposed development of Dudley Rd/Kopa St will have on the Whitebridge area.

    I live in Charlestown East and regularly use the shops at Whitebridge. Dudley Rd is ALREADY a very busy road and this development will add much traffic congestion and many parking problems. I often walk to the shops and nearby park with my grandchildren, and I am very concerned about safety around the roads and roundabout when crossing the streets between the shops and to get to the park with the addition of so many more people and cars in such a small area.

    This increase in traffic around the area will also increase noise pollution, rendering it unpleasant for children to play calmly and peacefully in the park adjoining the roundabout.

    My daughter and her young family live in Whitebridge, and I am concerned about the social impact this development will have on the area where they have only recently decided to settle and raise their family. Housing which is densely compacted with little green space (or in this case, NO) green space) and without any pleasant outlook for its residents only breeds tension and frustration. This will adversely affect the culture of the suburb by creating a more city-like feeling through over-population and overdevelopment.

    This development is inappropriate for the area which, as implied above, is a suburb of Newcastle/Lake Macquarie, NOT a city. The proposed development is suited to an inner-city location due to its density and three-storey units.

    It will look very out-of-place in a suburb which is overwhelmingly single-storey detached housing. It is aestetically very unpleasant to see such a dense development of multi-storey housing and will look more like a slum than a quality, well-planned, well-designed addition to an up-and-coming suburb.

    As a retired school teacher, I am also conscious of the fact that this will adversely affect the school zoning and intake system currently operating and, as such, surely requires a very close analysis of whether the public schools to which the area is zoned (Charlestown East Primary and Whitebridge High) are able to effectively cater for the dramatic and sudden increase in population in the area.

    The Fernleigh Track is a very special feature of Newcastle/Lake Macquarie life and we should be mindful of preserving its beauty and tranquility after all the work, time and money that went into creating it. Whitebridge, as its highest point, is the most popular rest place and meeting place, with many people coming off the track to use the local cafes and shops as visitors to the area. A development such as the one proposed would make it an unpleasant spot to stop when using the track and this would negatively affect business in the area as well as destroying a growing tradition of incorporating your bike ride with a Whitebridge coffee stop.

    If this development goes ahead in its current form, a precedent will be set for other such inappropriate developments which will gradually but surely change the culture of our suburbs. We need to ensure that developments are an advantage to our residents, existing AND new, and that they positively contribute to the growth of our suburbs, rather than changing them in a negative, and irreversible, manner.

  30. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 244 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Peter Williams commented

    The developer has failed to comply with the original plans approved by the Land and Environment Court. The developer's application should be rejected and the developer should be required to complete the building as approved.

    The "horizontal banding" proposed in this application is a cheaper and uglier alternative to what was already an aesthetically challenged design.

    Approval of this application sends the wrong message to developers and the community - that developers can get away with non-compliance, save themselves some money and deal with it later through a modification.

    As a local resident I would ask that you uphold some semblance of standards and require the developer to comply with the approved plans.

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