Recent comments

  1. In Heathcote NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 10 Jacana Gr Heathcote 2233:

    STEVE ROBINSON commented

    1. The plan shows that lot 53 will have the shed, at the rear of the existing property, removed. I am concerned for the fact this is a fibro cement roof and wall shed, therefore I request that the contractors who remove the shed comply with the Asbestos removal regulation and that the neighbouring properties are suitably protected during the removal process. The same applies to the existing house that I believe contains asbestos fibro sheeting.

    2. As the new dwellings will be two storey construction and we are accustomed to living with single storey buildings, it will be intrusive to the neighbours’ privacy with the bedroom windows on the first floor facing into the properties, at the rear of the development.

    Consideration should be given to changing the windows facing the rear properties to prevent direct line of sight from the bedrooms into the adjoining properties.

    3. A suitable fence to be erected behind the property of Lot 53, agreeable to the neighbour located at 27 Parklands Avenue.

  2. In Hunchy QLD on “Secondary Dwelling - John &...” at 110 Hunchy Rd, Hunchy, QLD:

    Leonie Wilson commented

    This " Secondary Dwelling" is the permanent residence of John and Janet Angus, and has been since they moved in on 24/12/13.
    I know this for a fact, because my husband and I own the property right next door. They have built their home right on our boundary line. Their residential block is under single title and therefore should only have 1 HOUSE on it.
    The daughter and son-in-law of John and Janet Angus, live in the original house, and John and Janet live in the new house. Apparently the second house was approved as a " Studio", this is a joke as the second house is definitely a permanent residence.I could provide photo's if necessary, but it is rather obvious even from the road. They have even installed a second mailbox with their own number on it, is this legal?

    I am curious to know if the Sunshine Coast Regional Council is happy with this approval?

    If so, we would like to build a second dwelling on our property also, would that be approved?
    We may as well build our own second cottage, so we don't have to look at their ugly second house from our deck.
    The whole idea of living on small acreage is to not have neighbours so close. We now have a completely different view to the one we purchased in 2003, through no fault of our own.

  3. In Richmond VIC on “Development of the land...” at 368 Burnley St Richmond VIC 3121:

    claire heaney commented

    I notice that applicants are now seeking reductions in bike parking. I thought the idea was that parking requirements could be waived because people were being encouraged to use bikes, walk & use public transport. Developers can't have their cake and eat it too.

  4. In South Yarra VIC on “Multi-storey mixed use...” at 14-16 Wilson Street, South Yarra, VIC:

    Paul commented

    I have received a notification in the mail that the planning permit is now under consideration. Any objections to the planning permit for this 10 story building consisting of 33 dwellings and ground level shop (with only 4 car parking spaces) need to be made in writing to prior to the 19th December 2014

    Reference 0651/14

  5. In Galston NSW on “Subdivision - one lot into two” at 36 Nancy Place Galston NSW 2159, NSW:

    Ingrid Cattley commented

    I strongly support this application.

  6. In Panania NSW on “Remediation of former...” at 35 Anderson Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    Jim commented

    Amenaties and Retail should improve on this side of Panania as a result. Good for the Street and Panania. The Mechanic was an eyesore.

  7. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    linda davies commented

    This application should be approved as blind freddie can see that will never be able to be used as a touring caravan park as its very difficult to get to and dangerous as restricted access leading to thin winding roads, nightmare, We all know that it will become a cheap housing like the one at Wildberforce with the tenants having now way to travel as we have no public travel near there. and please don't even think that by magic the buses will appear as for ten years we have been trying to get more buses to Richmond to no affect. This is nothing else but a cheap land grab to dump social housing in our village. DON'T YOU THINK WE HAVE DONE OUR BIT , Jacaranda ponds will be a major disturbance of the village. the school already has to help the children from San Migual and now you want to put this shanty town on the edge of town. Enough is Enough No More

  8. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Degang Hu commented

    I don't think this development proposal should be approved. The main concern we have is the safety issue derived from the overloaded traffic for the parents (as the driver), our kids as well as the pedestrian. There has already been so many cars in the morning drop-off time and the afternoon pick-up time, which has already created a safety issue and if this proposal was approved, it can only make the situation look even worse.

    People who submitted this proposal would say the new kindy will provide local kids with more potions and choices. However, they only say this in order to get their proposal approved. They don't really think about or even care about the current situation.

    I trust the council will listen to what we say as this is simply pure truth.

  9. In Moorang QLD on “Impact Assessment:...” at 1939 Tarome Road, Moorang, QLD:

    rod davis commented

    Council decided to make the section of this road a wildlife corridor which is great. Why put this in jeopardy with increased traffic and huge trucks delivering to these sheds. These roads are not equipped to handle such traffic being of gravel construction.I fear an accident.
    Graziers also use this road to frequently move cattle to and from the dip facility located on moorang lane.l feel this area coming in and going out from the proposed sheds to be too sensitive to allow this development.

  10. In Avondale QLD on “Waterway Barrier Works (Gas...” at 80 Mill Rd, Avondale, QLD:

    Dave commented

    What bright sparks is the BRC?
    Who the hell gave permission with the gas pipeline to go ahead with this new development what ever it is they have just done in the past 2 to 3 months?

    Every day 7 days a week the residents of MILL ST /LUND RD /STARKEY ST Now have to live with trucks screaming up and down the what use to be quiet country roads.

    The company have many water trucks watering the DIRT road turning it into a mud slide when riding or driving on it, turning it very dangerous.

    Many of us were woken 30-11-14 by some extreme gas fire with a huge rumbling as the flames shot high in the air for an hour, I / we never asked for this when we moved here, it's bad enough council makes us live without a garbage waste service or a tar road and makes us pay the same rates as those in town with all the services, now we have to live with all this from a gas line with no one telling us what's going on or how dangerous it is..

    BRC should be abolished for allowing such nonsense near the residencies.
    Very Angry that you would let this noise and exhaust pollution interrupt our homes like this.

    Should NOT have been approved!

  11. In Clovelly NSW on “Proposed stuio above new...” at 1 Barry Street Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Geoffrey Lawrence and Natalie Howard commented

    30th November 2014

    Att: Perry Head

    Environmental Planning Officer
    Randwick City Council

    Re: DA/789/2014 (1 Barry Street, Clovelly)

    Dear Perry,

    In response to DA /789/2014 for Ms T T M Nguyen of 1 Barry St, Clovelly we object to the proposed construction of new rear outbuilding with double garage at ground floor level and a secondary dwelling above.

    Our objection to the proposed development is based on and supported by the clauses contained within the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. These are:

    1. The proposed height of the development exceeds the maximum external wall height of 4.5m as stipulated in clause 8.1 of this Control Plan. This clause states, “All ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m. The maximum external wall height is limited to 4.5m.”

    2. Visual Privacy - The dormer projection windows are north facing which will look directly onto the lane and will impact the privacy of the existing dwellings opposite in Clift Lane. The areas in the dwellings opposite this proposed development that will be impacted are bedrooms and living areas.

    3. View Sharing – As stipulated in this plan “The concept of view sharing relates to the equitable distribution of views between development and neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. View sharing control aims to achieve a balance between facilitating quality development and preserving an equitable amount of views for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable and reasonable. “ With this proposed development we will lose ocean and district views from our downstairs internal and external living areas.

    4. There is a 100 year old Morton Bay Figtree in the property of 38 Knox St Clovelly. This tree is located in the rear of the property and overhangs into Barry Lane. The canopy of this tree currently overhangs in Barry lane and this proposed development will resulted in many of the branches being removed, which could result in destruction of this beautiful icon. We believe that this development is in breach of Clause Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces, stipulated as “To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.”

    We believe that this tree maybe potentially heritage protected due to its local significance.

    5. Dual Occupancy Detached – The property of 1 Barry Street, Clovelly is currently a rental property and has been since the new owners took possession. The proposed development application is for a secondary dwelling (detached) at the rear of the property. As this property is zoned as Low Density we believe that this proposed DA is in breach of “Dual occupancies (detached) are only permissible in R3 (Medium Density Residential) Zones.”

    Based on the objections above we strongly oppose the proposed DA for 1 Barry Street Clovelly.

    Kind regards,

    Geoff Lawrence and Natalie Howard
    24 Greville Street
    Clovelly 2031

  12. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition works,...” at 756 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Jack Roach commented

    Preliminary objection pending availability of documents :
    There must be no reduction of car parking - all too often Council has allowed such reductions with the result that parking is now at a premium in our shopping strips.

  13. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 46 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine commented

    Such a disgrace for council to do this to Toowoomba, have a look also at 68 Bridge/29 Cavell. 2 storey development overpowering the old charm of original Toowoomba. Brisbane developers cashing in on irresponsible decisions made by council, playing with the livelihoods of locals. We have in todays current market lost 15% off the value of our properties. wish our mortgage can also drop 15%. yeah I know life's not fare but we work hard and support our councillors to support us, and then get a slap in the face!

  14. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Boundary Realignment 5 Into...” at 4 Arthur Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Janine commented

    Such a worry to See Toowoomba going down hill. We live in Toowoomba for the "charm" and the heritage of the area. Tourists come to Toowoomba for exactly the same reason. To see 100 year old trees cut down is a crime and a dam disgrace to the council for allowing this to happen. Once an approval has been given to one watch out! Others will definitely follow as they are following precedent.
    Im not sure who to complain to as we are told to complain/voice our opinions to our council representative.... but have found out that the councillor who has been listening to us is also planning her/his own development... talk about double standards. Do we have anyone in council who can take on our fight.
    Im heading off to the doctors this week as Im turning into a blubbering mess, council cant play with our lives this way and develop rental properties on the mass through out Toowoomba. The council decreases our properties by 15 percent in today market, that's a huge chunk that we are paying our mortgage for with no return, not to mention the rates (what a joke, bet they wont be decreased!)
    Im listening to the birds and enjoying the sunshine and the open sky, enjoy while I CAN!

  15. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    kayleen riekie commented

    please consider the safety of the children and families that live in this area and are frequently using this area at the busy times of day....looking at the average drop off time at a day care centre, it is within the half hour before and after the school start time and same goes for the afternoon . with this being said , now think of the added traffic that will be added to an already very very busy section of gymea bay road where the school is , at this time of day , if you approve a 40 plus place centre that will also be struggling to find parking and use this road at the busy times. when you think about it , there is no way the centre is going to provide enough parking for families at the busy times...leaving families to park on the street, possibly on the opposite side and cross the busy road, also pedestrian accses across the busy driveway that would be in use by the centre ultimately endangering childrens lives due to the fact that unfortunately many drivers are in a hurry at these busy times and caution can go by the wayside. please please dont make it any more chaotic on this stretch of road at busy cant take it.

  16. In Tempe NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 826-836 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    826-836 Princes Highway TEMPE NSW 2044


    Application Description to demolish existing improvements and construct a 3 storey mixed use development with basement car parking (for 31 vehicles) containing 2 shops and 24 serviced apartments.

    It is most concerning that the floor space proposed in this development is 40% in excess of that permitted in Council's LEP. This equates to an extra 7 apartments and 9 parking spaces above what Council and the local community has determined is acceptable for this neighbourhood. This intensification of the use of the site has the potential to adversely impact on the amenity and safety of the neighbouring residential precinct. In mitigation, the SEE notes that the site adjoining the development on Barden Street is vacant, creating a buffer between the proposed development and the next house. This property is currently used by the applicant as a tyre store yard and is an eyesore and fire risk. The applicant will need to undertake to renovate this property for a use that is more appropriate for its residential zoning before it can be considered to ameliorate the adverse impacts of the proposed development.

    In relation to the proposed extra parking spaces, the parking study fails to adequately evaluate the impact of the increased vehicular traffic on the surrounding residential streets. Barden and Fanning Streets are narrow two way streets that also provide on street residents parking that effectively reduces them to a single lane. The left turn from the Princes Highway into Barden Street is dangerous as it is a blind corner and there are often cars parked (legally and illegally) too close to the intersection. The proposed increase in vehicle movements at this intersection will need to be specifically addressed by the proponents. Certainly, vehicles entering and leaving the development must be discouraged from using Fanning and Barden Streets. The ongoing problems that Tempe Tyres (the proponent's business) has with staff and customer traffic impacting on surrounding residential streets shows that this is a significant and real issue that must be addressed.

    The building facades and level of finishes as shown in the artist impression appear generally to be of high quality. Council must require that this high quality level is maintained if the building design changes. Recent developments further down the Princes Highway in Rockdale show that poor design and shoddy materials make ugly apartments and depressing streetscapes.

    The designated use of the building as serviced apartments is possibly unique in Tempe and the surrounding area. The studies with the application do not evaluate if this use generates particular servicing or traffic impacts as opposed to conventional apartments. It would be of concern if the use and occupancy intensified with student housing or sub-leasing of rooms, as has happened in Alfred Street, St Peters, generating unacceptable traffic and parking impacts. The conclusion of the SEE with the statement that 'Port Macquarie is in great need of additional affordable housing (including affordable rental housing for the lower income workers, students, seniors and the physically disabled)' leaves some room for doubt as to the true intentions of the proponents.

  17. In Bondi Beach NSW on “10-14 Hall Street, Bondi Beach” at 10-14 Hall Street, Bondi Beach:

    george verebes commented

    Objection based on:-

    Proposed development, disregards ALL PLANNING GUIDELINES INCLUDING height restrictions, floor space ratios and amenities of neighbouring properties.

    A selfish self serving profit motivated and disgraceful attempt to sweep aside development guidelines that have controlled development in the area for half a century.

    More particularly:-

    a) Planning issues: Height limit and floor space density ratio ignored.

    site coverage ratio is max 3:1 and not 7:1
    The proposed exceeds 30 odd m in height opposed to the maximum permissible 15m. Therefore, on this point alone the proposed development MUST be entirely refused.

    b) Impact to neighbouring properties

    * significant loss of the westerly view from Campbell parade properties
    * significant loss of afternoon sunlight and warmth.
    * disruption to the airflow which currently brings breezes from the west
    * overshadowing and deprivation of natural sunlight and warmth

    Proposed development must be limited to the maximum permissible height of 15 m. and applicable FSR of 3:1

    c) Issues with proposed use of roof top

    The proposal for gardens on the roof, and rooftop use, are not clearly shown in the plans. excessive numbers must be avoided or limits imposed . Soundproofing should also be required. The potential noise impact has very deleterious impact on entire area.
    council must control following if roof use permitted at all.
    I. The number of persons permitted to occupy the area at any one time.
    II. The noise level created by persons should be restricted to acceptable levels.
    III. Restrictions should be imposed disallowing microphones and music at all times.
    IV. Permitted use should cease at 10.00 pm daily so as not to disturb residential use in area.

    d) Excavation and issues with subsoil

    Absolutely critical issue in view of excavation depth proposed.
    The subsoil in this area is sandy and unstable. Regardless of care taken, serious and costly damage will most likely occur to all neighbouring properties for which developer MUST be held responsible.

    Council should insist developers put aside Funds to cover cost of emergency repairs to neighbours properties (or security BONDS or commercial bank guarantees ) should their development damage adjacent properties.

    Council should impose limits and rigorously enforce

    1. The size and weight of earthmoving machinery permitted.
    2. The maximum permitted vibration caused by all works.
    3. Dilapidation reports to be mandatory for all neighbouring properties
    4. In the event that damages occurs, an automated “cease work” order be imposed to mitigate further damage occurring prior to reinstatement of stability and/or repairs being completed.
    5. Should damages be caused to our property, a mechanism should be in place compelling the developers of Hall Street to immediately perform repairs at their cost.

    e) Permitted working hours
    No machinery or noise producing activity be allowed before 9.00 am. The area is residential!!!!

    The proposed project is simply too big for the site and ignores too many existing planning principles. Accordingly, the current proposal should be refused by council.

  18. In Lynwood NSW on “New Utility” at 11 Dees Lane Lynwood NSW 2477:

    Susan Coleman commented

    We wish to have our signatures removed from the anti NBN tower protest. We really need this service in our area. Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.
    Robert Coleman and Susan Coleman
    61 Platypus Drive
    Uralba 2477

  19. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Milva Larkin commented

    Anybody that uses Gymea Bay Road and the roads that feed onto it during peak times would know that this development would cause major overloads to traffic and safety. Sutherland Shire Council with alls its wisdom should be directing developers to less congested areas with their proposal. It is unfortunate that it is left to Bay Rd Kindy, local residence and commuters to contest the obvious flaws with this DA. Take note Council, safety should be the highest of all your priorites when approving a change not to mention a local impact study. Shame on you for jeopardising the safety of the local community.

  20. In on “Caravan Parks - demolition...” at <strong>66 Wattle Crescent, GLOSSODIA</strong>:

    Elle Carter commented

    Agree with everyone above.

    Glad the council has now asked for more information from the developer. Hopefully the council will not just go along with the new info willy nilly like they did with redbank at nth richmond.

    This is a totally inappropriate site for so many people to live on top of one another.

    People who need a) lower cost housing or b) emergency housing have the right to so much more than this ridiculus development offers.

    I have NOT made any donations to HCC. Although you may as well call my rates a donation as I get buggar all back for them!!!

    Elle Carter

  21. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Sally Amour commented

    I think the idea to build a day care centre at this location is absolutely ridiculous and STUPID.
    I agree totally with all the previous comments re safety of drivers, school children, bike riders, pedestrians and kindergarten aged kids.
    I would like to add that the amount of traffic has increased dramatically over the last two years with an influx of residents to the area. We returned a year ago after living in Brisbane for two years and the increase in traffic along Gymea Bay Rd has been very noticeable, noisy, fast and inconsiderate (people have parked across our driveway - as parking is such an issue) making it difficult for us to drive out.
    My family live on Avenel Rd and we are lucky to be able to walk our children to Bay Rd kindy and school (next year) however I still feel exposed to the traffic just walking on the footpath.
    I think it's very rude and inconsiderate to even consider building a day care centre alongside an already existing and reputable one at that.
    Please take your day care centre and build it in a much quieter, low traffic zone area. It will be much better for all involved.

  22. In Rosslyn Park SA on “Two-storey detached...” at 413 Kensington Road Rosslyn Park (2014), SA:

    Chris Barber commented

    Why another two storey development in this area contrary to guidelines? this is supposed to be predominantly single storey area
    the two storey developments at 407 & 409 kensington road have already negatively impacted the streetscape. this proposal should not be approved without consent of adjoining property owners.

  23. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Donna Halpin commented

    I strongly recommend the application be DECLINED. I agree with all comments lodged to date. The area around Gymea Bay P/S is already congested with crazy traffic each school morning and afternoon. Traffic is normally banked back through both ends of Coonong Rd around the school, Avenel Ave, Gymea Bay Rd, June Place and 1st Ave during school drop off and pick up times. This would most likely be the busiest time for drop off / pick up at the proposed new Kindy site which would cause increased traffic to an already frustrating situation. I also agree that drivers are extremely frustrated with the already crazy traffic and crossing the road at the crossings particularly the crossing at Avenel Ave which is unpatrolled is already dangerous with most drivers not taking note of the crossing and not even stopping whilst children are trying to cross! I know of at least 3 accidents that have occurred just outside of the proposed new Kindy site, one only just recently around 9.20am on the corner of Gymea Bay Rd and Avenel Ave between a truck and a car - adding further delays. I have actually been involved in an accident whilst waiting to turn into Bay Road Kindy when a driver did not take notice of me stopped with brakes on and blinker flashing. So I already know accidents do and will continue to happen in the future. There are already 4 pre-school / kindys within the immediate area and I have also heard rumour of another proposal for a Kindy to be approved in Coonong Ave Gymea Bay. This also would be crazy ! Parking is also an issue at school drop off/ pick up times already. Parents park along Gymea Bay Rd, Avenel Ave, June Pl, both ends of Coonong Rd and 1st Ave with limited spaces already. To add a centre in such a busy traffic area is asking for trouble and a serious accident which could potentially kill a child sadly this may happen sooner than we think should the new proposal go ahead. An additional objection is noise control. I know that Bay Road Kindy are mindful of its neighbours and restrict outside play for the children already. To add an extra 45 children right next door to residents would restrict outdoor play again. Bay Road Kindy has worked hard and respects its neighbours - will the new Kindy also? Why should an already established Kindy of 20years + be restricted on outdoor play time hours? I say NO to the proposal and suggest the applicant look elsewhere in a more appropriate area for a child care centre. Although Childcare is needed it doesn't mean you can just build one anyone ! As a mother of 3 children who attend both Bay Road Kindy and also Gymea Bay P/S I will not have my childs safety jeopardised... I ask you - would you jeopardised your Childs safety? I think not !

  24. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 46 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    I agree with Paul........exactly who is running this council ???? those that live here and cherish where they live, or those that come it and just want to make a fast buck

  25. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Dean Langton commented

    Given the local traffic, Public School Traffic and the current Kindergarten traffic, it is already congested enough in this particular area at peak times. It is at times quite difficult to navigate through this area to get my child safely to and from the current Kindergarten.

    To place another child care facility directly next door would definitely increase traffic at the peak drop of and pick up times creating an extremely unsafe situation for all families concerned.

  26. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Robyn Smith commented

    I support the very real need for child care centres in Gymea Bay but the position of this one proposed is not good because of the already heavy traffic congestion. With more and more parents driving their children to school these days (maybe due to concerns for their safety) I have found as a resident of the Bay for more than 30 years that it has been getting progressively harder to get out of my own street in the mornings, and a lot more hazardous around the area of the school and Avenel Road.
    Even should the Council not approve this new proposal, I feel that they need to look at the existing problems with traffic surrounding the school and Avenel Road. I have seen many near misses and a lot of frustration resulting in some people taking stupid risks to not only get a parking space outside the school, but also to get their "spot" in the line of traffic. One young driver the other day was obviously so enraged at having a hard time getting through the traffic congestion and then having to be stopped by the school crossing man with his flag, that he put his foot to the floor ignoring the 40kmh law and gunned it after the crossing, which could very easily have all gone wrong had he lost control of his car on the bend of Gymea Bay Road near the playing fields. I don't know what the solution can be, as a roundabout on the corner of Coonong and Gymea Bay Roads has already been in operation for some time. To approve the development proposal of another facility that will add to this traffic congestion is madness, and a serious accident is surely going to be the end result.

  27. In North Melbourne VIC on “Development of the site for...” at 490-492 Victoria Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    Huw Davies commented

    Why is this proposal shown on a map as being on Victoria St North Melbourne? It is completely misleading. It is supposed to be in Brunswick West.

  28. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 46 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paul Cranch commented

    These types if unit developments in Toowiombas Charater districts are ruining the heritage brand which attracts a lot tourism to the region. There needs to be a lot more consideration when developing in this area and more restrictions need to be placed to preserve the brand. There should be areas that allow this type of development outside of this area. Brisbane can still maintain it's Character Precincts without having to flood areas with units. It appears that there is no reason at all to even have a heritage advisory committee if it is clearly not maintaining a hertitage area. 'Streetscape' also has lost its meaning. Units do not look like houses and these units being the first in the street will clearly standout and change the character.

  29. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Janelle commented

    What a rediculous proposal! There is already a fully operational childcare facility right next door! Why is this even being considered??? My daughter has been attending Bay Road Kindy for the past 3 years, and I strongly believe that this new facility next door, if approved would be a huge mistake. Here are my reasons: Firstly, At drop off and pick up times, Gymea Bay rd is already a nightmare due the the school just up the road and normal peak time congestion. It is sometimes difficult to access the Bay road kindy's driveway at these times, causing added obstruction to the flow of traffic and forcing families to park on and cross the busy road with their small children. To add another childcare centre to this equation with extra cars and people stopping, parking and crossing this already busy road would potentially very dangerous to the community. Secondly, this is a residential area. Bay Rd Kindy is very conscious of the noise generated by the children out side playing and manages to keep the level of noise to a minimum for the sake of surrounding neighbours. To add another childcare centre right next door with and extra 45 children playing outside could be very disrupting to the surrounding neighbours and their right to peace and quiet. Thirdly, why place this type of competition right next door to and existing child care facility?? It threatens the livelihood and future of the existing business that has many years of experience in providing excellent child care for our community. I understand we need more child care centres, but not next to each other. This proposal should have been thrown out from the start as it makes no sense at all.

  30. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Kate Etherington commented

    In accord with those who have left comments above, I do not support this development.

    Having additional child care facilities in the neighbourhood would surely be welcome, but the choice of location is more than questionable.

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