Recent comments

  1. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe0 commented

    Hi Tai
    You have every right to object to whatever you choose, as I have a right to comment your objection breaches no DA controls. I hated the proliferation of group places a few years ago but I had no grounds to expect change. In time most have left because there was no market for it.
    Your most recent comment goes beyond this specific DA by mentioning drunkeness, which convenience stores do not add to and the lockout laws, which had not created convenience store demands. but in response, I'm not against any community consultation, which is why I'm active here, to write to local authorities mainly as this isn't really a discussion forum. You mention consensus, but I should be allowed to disagree with you. A community voice does not guarantee consensus, indeed, in my experience, when a consultation is opened there are many opinions, sometimes conflicting, which is what a community is good at.
    There is a difference between your right to say your piece as much as mine to highlight that your stated issue with a DA breaches no planning controls.
    By all means, say your piece and I will listen quietly to hear what you say. But that's not to be confused with me having the same opinion nor whether your arguments have merit. A convenience store created before the lockout laws isn't "cashing in", nor is one that closes before 3am. Your complaints are connected to the lockout laws, which I completely agree with you on, and am happy to add my voice to yours on a balanced and well rounded nightlife, but the majority of your complaints are not connected to convenience stores as far as I can see.

  2. In Randwick NSW on “Restaurant/cafe with...” at 19 Clovelly Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Andrew Watts commented

    I support this application for the restaurant/cafe. I think that it will improve the street in the area and improve the character of the area. I believe that it will enhance the 'village' feel already contributed to by the cafes in the immediate proximity.
    Hopefully it will help to attract other businesses that also enhance this strip. Currently, there are numerous under-utilised shop fronts that are ugly and detract from the look along this strip of shops/cafes.

  3. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    Katrina Dunn commented

    Hi
    Can management please review this proposal of having 10 apartments and reject the proposal. Park lane is a very SMALL NARROW LANE opposite a children playground . It can not afford extra traffics. It will be chaos for local residents and increase saftey risks to children playing at the park.

    Three story apartments will disturb neighbour privacy and overshadowing issue.

    Basically, it is impossible to have extra traffic as currently only one car can drive down the lane the time.

    Please do not put apartments ahead of the livelihood of the local residents and children saftey .

    Your sincerely,
    Katryna Dunn

  4. In Pyrmont NSW on “Change of use to a cafe (14...” at 308 Harris Street Pyrmont NSW 2009:

    Margaret Kelly commented

    Just wanting to know what development is planned for the experiment street side of the three shops ,including the fig tree.
    The electrical cables draped over the street seem two close to unit balconies & terraces.
    Regards

  5. In Strathpine QLD on “Material Change of Use -...” at 2 Melling Street, Strathpine QLD 4500:

    Jo- anne Lawson commented

    As a resident of Brennan Pde, I do have concerns about plans for six units due to the proximity of the Child Care Centre and heavy traffic and parking both morning and night in this vicinity. Parking for a unit complex needs to be adequate so that there is not a negative street parking impact.

  6. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Philippa commented

    I believe this location should be leased as the current Eating House and Shop and NOT change to Carwash (Unlisted Use) and Associated Car Parking. Here are my reasons.

    1. The location is diagonally opposite a school and directly opposite a day care centre and allowing the change to carwash would increase traffic down Scarborough beach road when it is already fairly clogged during peak hours.

    2. There are already several car wash businesses on Charles street, approximately 1km from the proposed Scarborough Beach Road site.

    3. I feel that a carwash on this site would not fit in with the vibrancy and flair of what the council has promoted the Scarborough Beach Road "strip" of Mount Hawthorn to be.

    4. A carwash is an anti-social business, again not fitting with the vibrancy of the area.

  7. In Tempe NSW on “To use the premises as a 24...” at 598 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044:

    Scott Williams commented

    I object to this application.

    The roads around Sydenham and Tempe are already at capacity with excessive traffic and a marked increase in heavy vehicles.

    I am a resident of Park Road Sydenham, and the intersections at Park Road / Princes Hwy / Talbot Street are already very busy particularly with traffic backed up from the Railway Road lights, and heavy vehicles turning from Princes Hwy into Talbot Street.

    This application will only contribute to further congestion making exiting Park Road onto the Princes Hwy increasingly difficult and dangerous.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Liquor licence transfer by...” at 323 King St, Newtown, NSW:

    zahn pithers commented

    This venue is innapropriate and encourages binge drinking. The many crowds of drunk people coming into and out of the venue is alarming. This venue is seedy and needs to be monitored more closely. Patrons leaving this venue are noisy and often damage cars and property.

  9. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Engineering Construction...” at 40 Merindah Road, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Lorraine Grindrod wrote to local councillor Michelle Byrne

    This building project should not have been approved .... so wrong in so many ways and I know a lot of locals fought to defend the residents' rights in this area including myself ....wonder how much money passed hands with the developer ... just saying !!! Greed knows no bounds ...

    Delivered to local councillor Michelle Byrne. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Tai Lee commented

    Kye Sanderson & Joe O, I have to disagree with you both. Anyone in the community where they live is completely entitled to object to new developments and new businesses in their community. That's why it's called a community, and if a consensus is reached that a business or development is not in keeping with what the community wants, then it should be denied. I'm sure there are many similar examples e.g. small towns who didn't want fast food chains like McDonalds in their town, and they were stopped before they could even open their doors. We don't have to let any and every business open wherever they like purely because of free market principles. Without any community consultation and consensus, then we're not really a community at all and we have no say in anything outside the walls of our own private homes. I for one have witnessed a change in Newtown in recent years that I attribute to the lock out laws in Kings Cross. We're getting a lot more late night drunken visitors to our suburb, and correspondingly more violence and disturbance to local residents. A proliferation of franchised late night bright light convenience stores appears to me to be an attempt to cash in on and encourage this changing demographic of Newtown, and I for one would rather see new businesses and regulation attempt to reverse this trend, instead of accelerating it. In the last year my wife and I have both felt less safe and less at home than ever before (been here 7 years) walking down King Street on a Friday or Saturday night, having to ignore random comments from drunken patrons crawling to their next venue. It's starting to feel like Darlinghurst or Kings Cross. My kids also don't appreciate being woken up at 3AM by drunks hanging around outside our front door, or running down our street screaming at each other, which again has never happened in our previously extremely quiet out of the way street, which is not even that close to King Street, but is still obviously absorbing some overflow as more late night visitors try to find parking on our streets. Now all that obviously can't be attributed to a single convenience store application, but clearly residents are noticing changes and the growing number of these types of business do appear to be linked. It might be unlucky that this application is late to the party, but if there are already several convenience stores within very close proximity, we should absolutely be considering how much patronage Newtown convenience stores are expecting as late as midnight, 7 days a week. If you want another convenience store, great. Voice your opinion in support of the application. But don't try and tell others who object that they have no right to object to what is happening in their community.

  11. In Cotswold Hills QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350:

    Michelle Hoffman wrote to local councillor Geoff McDonald

    Cannot believe that yet again we, the residents of Cotswold Hills, and specifically Morris Court, are being let down by some nameless person who has no idea of the impact that their decision making has on us. We all chose to live in the Cotswold Hills area because of the lifestyle that it provided. This lifestyle is now slowly but surely being taken away from us. Morris Court is a cul-de-sac at the moment, and the residents of this street really want it to stay that way. Why hasn't anyone in council got the ability to make a stand on this and stand up for ratepayers and not just let developers from out of town come in and do what ever they want???????

    Delivered to local councillor Geoff McDonald. They are yet to respond.

  12. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Joe O commented

    I'm with Kye on this.
    Objecting to the use of a shop unit as a convenience store is unfounded.
    There are no planning controls this application infringes.
    There is no evidence of a "proliferation" of convenience stores, no evidence of any negative impact of them, and there are fewer fast food outlets here than there were 9 years ago. There are many restaurants and shops, which has been the case for a very long time in King Street, and which have formed its' character for many years.
    If there were noise, light, odour or other issues that impact on local community enjoyment of the area, I would understand, but someone complying with local planning controls to operate a business of their choice in an area reserved for business has every right to do so.

  13. In Newtown NSW on “Demolition of all buildings...” at 46A O'Connell Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Margaret Kesteven commented

    1. There is an old house on the site, which, it is believed by the locals, is the house occupied by a farm hand or shepherd, in the days before the city had spread to what is now Newtown. It would be a shame if the house were demolished before the heritage value is assessed.
    2. The property has no street frontage (access is by a pedestrian walkway - previously, the dunny lane); it would be interesting to know how the materials of the existing house, when it is demolished, will be removed.
    3. The proposal describes a house which completely covers the site, two stories high. While it is under construction, where will the builder store his materials?
    4. I have never made a donation or gift to a council employee or other official.

  14. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 28 Murphy Street, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Bruce Swift wrote to local councillor Meghan Hopper

    Objection against another block of units in Murphy street this one being at 28 Murphy Street Oak Park , the appeal of this street-cape is diminishing due to the number of multiple developments altering the overall look and feel of this area. Parking and safety issues are of great concern as the street parking has increased considerably dues to the lack of adequate parking with the new dwellings this in turn may increased risk affecting school children walking each day to Oak Park Primary.

    Large established tree has just been removed from this property again changing the overall look of the street.

    Delivered to local councillor Meghan Hopper. They are yet to respond.

  15. In Oak Park VIC on “Construction of two double...” at 28 Murphy Street, Oak Park VIC 3046:

    Bruce Swift commented

    Objection against another block of units in Murphy street this one being at 28 Murphy Street Oak Park , the appeal of this street-cape is diminishing due to the number of multiple developments altering the overall look and feel of this area. Parking and safety issues are of great concern as the street parking has increased considerably dues to the lack of adequate parking with the new dwellings this in turn may increased risk affecting school children walking each day to Oak Park Primary.

    Large established tree has just been removed from this property again changing the overall look of the street.

  16. In Buddina QLD on “Generally In Accordance -...” at 140 Point Cartwright Dr, Buddina, QLD:

    Anthony Frank commented

    Please - NO more empty retail spaces. Whats happened to the cinemas we were promised.? Surely a half full cinema has to be a better return than an empty shop.

  17. In Henley Beach SA on “Alterations and additions...” at Evida 269 Seaview Road Henley Beach SA 5022:

    Natalie Murray commented

    I can't believe that the Council are allowing this development to go ahead when the applicant has not fixed serious problems caused at Henley Beach with his last development. The Council have let this developer get away with ruining the beach at Henley with the groundwater runoff from his Baju Apartment development at the expense of the residents who are left with the unsightly run off and the potential threat to their homes from the depletion of groundwater.

    On top of this, to let him get away with taking two more car parking spaces when he reneged on his condition of allowing the car park in his last development be used after hours is very concerning.

    The Council is behaving like a toothless tiger letting this guy make millions with his developments at Henley Beach at the expense of the residents. I am truly disgusted that the Council to which I pay rates to is even considering granting this developer the chance to cause more problems.

  18. In Leichhardt NSW on “Removal of trees.” at 114 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Mary commented

    I also agree with Dee. I am an advocate for trees. However, people in general and Council need to consider tree placement: Right tree, Right Place. I have seen Jacarandas in people's 3x3 front yards!

  19. In Pymble NSW on “Section 96AA application to...” at 2 Livingstone Avenue, Pymble, NSW:

    Judy Benson commented

    I cannot believe we are adding more units to our suburb. Its changing the whole suburb and not for the better. Livingstone is just not able to cope with bringing more traffic into it and dealing with the building works that will be going on.

  20. In Cotswold Hills QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350:

    Scott Browning wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    Us the people who live in Morris court live in a dead end street and once again the TRC want to take that away from us. Once again thus should not even be coincided at all. We lost the fight to stop the development that as comes under the name of Cotswold hills now and I believe this will have a major impact on or living style that we all live here for, devalue our property and make it the new slum of Toowoomba just like it has Glenvale. This should not even be concided to open up Morris court. TRC need to start listening to the people and not just be a push over from money hunger developers.

    Delivered to local councillor Carol Taylor. They are yet to respond.

  21. In Ashburton VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 194 High Street Ashburton VIC 3147:

    Bob Stensholt commented

    I wish to object to the waiver of parking. There is already no parking on a regular basis on the south side of High St. It is also not possible to access the car parks at the Ashburton Library. The staff there should park in the traders car parks on the north side allowing library and community centre users to use the rear car parks
    The loading and unloading requirements should be adhered to and not reduced at the rear

  22. In Buddina QLD on “Generally In Accordance -...” at 140 Point Cartwright Dr, Buddina, QLD:

    Paul REW commented

    Lets hope the Developers don't set some poor sole up into opening ANOTHER fitness centre into the already saturated market!

  23. In Cotswold Hills QLD on “Request for Negotiated...” at Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350:

    Maree Bach wrote to local councillor Carol Taylor

    What are you trying to do to our local neighbourhood??????????????????Don't you think having high density living so close to our nice quiet acreage blocks is bad enough. Why do you think we paid the price to live in Cotswold Hills. As well as devalue our houses as the high density living is under the Cotswold Hills suburb. This is just going to be another Glenvale. Now known as the next slum area. So now you want to make this area worse by opening up Morris Court. It is bad enough that Opal Court is going to be open. Crazy ................

    Photo of Carol Taylor
    Carol Taylor local councillor for Toowoomba Regional Council
    replied to Maree Bach

    Good afternoon Maree
    As you know Council refused this development
    The applicant took it to the Planning and Development court
    Council has no where else to go with this under the state planning legislation

    I will forward to the planning chair to reply but you need to understand we can't shears do what we ( council ) would like

    Regards

    Cr Carol Taylor
    Sent from my iPhone
    0427723948
    Please excuse typographical errors!

    On 26 May 2016, at 1:54 PM, Maree Bach <> wrote:

    What are you trying to do to our local neighbourhood??????????????????Don't you think having high density living so close to our nice quiet acreage blocks is bad enough. Why do you think we paid the price to live in Cotswold Hills. As well as devalue our houses as the high density living is under the Cotswold Hills suburb. This is just going to be another Glenvale. Now known as the next slum area. So now you want to make this area worse by opening up Morris Court. It is bad enough that Opal Court is going to be open. Crazy ................

    From Maree Bach to local councillor Carol Taylor

    =========================================================================

    Maree Bach posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Maree Bach and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for Gowrie Junction Road Cotswold Hills QLD 4350

    Description: Request for Negotiated Decision Road works Stormwater Water infrastructure Drainage works Earthworks Sewerage infrastructure Landscaping Signage Clearing vegetation under the planning scheme Rehabilitation

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/668017?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

    ***************************************
    This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
    the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
    you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
    delete the material from any computer.

    The Council accepts no responsibility for the content of any email
    which is sent by an employee which is of a personal nature or which
    represents the personal view of the sender.

    If you wish to contact Council by non electronic means, Council's
    postal address is:

    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021, Toowoomba Qld 4350
    ***************************************

  24. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Kye Sanderson commented

    I have to call out these objections about the opening of a convenience store. This idea that local communities or a governing body should have some sort of veto power where they can pick and choose which businesses they consider 'good' and should be allowed to open and which are not is ridiculous. Whether it is a convenience store or a bookshop or a clothes shop, they are all just ‘shops’. If it is the case that there are far too many convenience stores for the local area than some of them will go out business and be replaced with something else. The Council allows for ‘shops’ along King Street (obviously) and there is no proper reason to treat a proposal to open a convenience store differently to the opening of any other type of shop.

  25. In Parkdale VIC on “Develop the land for the...” at 40 Herbert Street, Parkdale, VIC:

    Ian Millar wrote to local councillor Tamsin Bearsley

    Sorry Peter, it's happening everywhere in Kingston (and elsewhere) but no-one seems to have the will to do anything to change our current and future gridlock. The State Government is the only authority able to change this dismal future.
    Currently, State Planning Regulations only require one (1) parking space for each dwelling (even 2 bedroom dwellings). Any VCAT hearing confirms this and the Local Authorities have no say in it at all.
    Developers continue to push the fallacy that a person purchasing a property relatively near public transport hubs will not want or even need a motor vehicle, they'll be using the public transport.
    The only way any change to that thinking will occur is when Kingston Council introduce street parking permits to ratepayers (a-la the beach permits) and make it clear to developers and potential buyers of their developments that these street permits will not be available for their multiple dwelling properties.
    Parking by-laws are the ONE power the Local Authorities have in these areas and, it's a long bow but, the thinking behind this may 'possibly' work if the developers then have great difficulty selling their dog boxes.
    Ian, Mordialloc

    Delivered to local councillor Tamsin Bearsley. They are yet to respond.

  26. In Leichhardt NSW on “Removal of trees.” at 114 Marion Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Dee Payne commented

    I think if tree s need to be removed it's because there is a problem,I also beleive the Council s guidelines need to be reassessed concerning removal of trees ,after just losing battle to have fig tree on 69 Marion street removed, which roots have destroyed one person front fence( that was called insignificant damage) the girth off the roots are so large. a decking was built over them ,more importantly ,the branches are hit by trucks and buses quite often,and if it rains worse,they hang so low over footpath you have to cross rd,so sad this tree was ever planted there or the ones along Marion street ,quite obviously wrong type of trees for area,overall I believe of those who make these bad decisions in the choice of trees and removal when nesssarry,

  27. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sarina Kilham commented

    I object to this DA and urge Council (Marrickville Council? Inner West Council?) to reject it in its current form. Whilst I think that increasing housing availability around public transport hubs such as St Peters is an excellent idea, the current form of this DA is oversize, poorly designed and will not the meet the social or environmental needs of this area. I would like see a development that (a) aesthetically is in keeping with the heritage of the area (being located across from Brickworks & Sydney Park) (b) include more green space/green walls/pedestrian walkways/ bicycle access (c ) have better interactions with the street frontages so that this area doesn't end up a "concrete jungle". Council should also consider this DA in light of the two recent DA's submitted for the block between May Street and Short Street. What is the combined effect of the 3 DA's with >200 apartments? Do they meet the St Peters Triangle Master Plan? This is meant to be a combined live/work/art zone but feels like a new Wolli Creek. Plus - I think pedestrian / bicycle / car share spaces need to be more seriously considered especially if Westconnex goes ahead the traffic flows for the area will alter significantly. This DA appears like an "ikea quick fix" and is ugly on the inside and outside. More investment in decent architecture and planning please. Finally, I cannot send this comment to my elected member as they were fired by the Baird Government.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Philip Andrew Oye commented

    I fail to see how yet another convenience store will help the character of King Street. This no offers no benefit to residents or the community as a whole. There are plenty of existing "convenient" alternatives.

  29. In Newtown NSW on “Change of use and internal...” at 180 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Mike Williams commented

    There are too many convenience stores through this section of King St already. The area is losing its identity to a swathe of froyo, Thai Massage and junk food stores.

  30. In Stanwell Tops NSW on “Residential - concrete...” at Henry Halloran Park, Stonehaven Road, Stanwell Tops NSW 2508:

    Alan Bond wrote to local councillor Vicki Curran

    Following is the Objection speech I presented to the IHAP meeting of the 25 May 2016 where this Development Proposal was presented. I conclude with added recommendations when this proposal is passed by Council:

    1. My name is Alan Bond and I have lived at (left blank for this), Stanwell Tops for over 26 years. I sent information to IHAP yesterday with photos of the subject site including the link to a video documentary I have on Youtube regarding this subject and also referring to the Nomination for Heritage Listing of Henry Halloran Park that would give background information. I trust this has been passed onto you?

    2. Up until seeing these Council papers online last Monday, I had no idea that there was not a lease on this Right of Carriage Way.

    3. As a matter of fact I had requested of Council all documentation as I could not find the council’s resolution of 1999 online. However, the resolution was not sent to me.

    4. Therefore, at all times it was referred to as a “lease” from day one. The adjacent neighbour when he spoke to Buckley’s Concreting contractor and asked him why they were excavating the access way, he was told the owner of 8 Longview had a “lease” on it.

    5. In all correspondence there was indicated that there was a lease. It was never corrected by anyone.

    6. But this has been presented by Council in notification letters initially as a “driveway” but now is referred to as a “road” in the IHAP meeting papers. Regardless, it is actually a private driveway on community property for the applicant’s soul desire to reach a garage. A fact that can not be denied.

    7. It can not be forgotten that the access way driveway was being originally built under PC-2015/979 and started to be excavated nearly 1 month prior to this seperate DA proposal.

    8. This particular DA occurred only after a number of inquiries by residents to Council about it being built on community land. Prior to that there was no public notification by Council to residents that this was going to occur. As a matter of fact it would seriously appear that Council also had no knowledge that this was occurring.

    9. So therefore it is relevant that it be associated with that “secondary dwelling” DA as this is obviously being used to gain access to that dwelling despite the fact that secondary dwelling should legally be entered from the front of the property which it can on the eastern side with parking on the street.

    10. There is an area on the eastern side of the property which is just over 2.5 metres wide with a side gate and pathway that can be easily used to comply with reaching the dwelling at the rear of the property. This is a fact and can not be denied.

    11. However, the subject property has a colourbond fence right across the property which would appear to be illegal under the “Secondary Dwelling” Act allowing no front entry. Even the private certifier confirmed that fact to me personally. Therefore this is the only logical and reasonable excuse for this driveway/road to access the secondary dwelling. This is a fact and can not be denied.

    12. I have sent information to the IHAP Panel in regards to photos showing the dangerous driveway/road as there is no mention in the meeting papers that there is a power pole in the way of this driveway that literally curves around it. This is a fact and can not be denied.

    13. Safety aspects have seemingly been dismissed in the meeting papers. However, there is no mention of my subject in the meeting papers that the local children, which there are many, will be drawn to this road to skateboard, etc down. It is too much of a tempting target for children who could either hit the power pole or just blindly ride out onto the road and into on coming traffic. To be clear, I had this in my submission and Council have completely ignored this concern. But children’s safety can not be dismissed. This is a fact and can not be denied.

    14. A native banksia tree was also cut back from over hanging the Council access way to allow work vehicles to get onto the access way. This has been dismissed in the meeting papers as “it would appear not to meet the definition of a prescribed tree”, yet it was a native banksia, overhanging from the adjacent neighbour’s property over Council land, in this case the Council do not seem to want to do anything about it. This is a fact and can not be denied.

    15. The reason for only six objections was the fact that Council did not inform the entire Stanwell Tops Community of this DA which was strongly urged by residents who put in submissions to the extent that ALL of Stanwell Tops should be informed as it was community property. Despite repeated requests and information from John Woods that it was noted, Council failed to notify the entire community. A failure of Duty of Care. So just another fact that can not be denied.

    16. It must be Noted that it is extremely rare that the Stanwell Tops suburb gets The Advertiser newspaper that features these Council proposal notices. Not all residents are on the internet either.

    17. The concerning factor regarding the storm water run off is not what the meetings papers says, but in actual fact the reverse.

    18. That is, water running from the remaining untouched adjacent access way, because of the slope of the land towards the driveway, would run down the side of it. So let’s be clear on that.

    19. This Right of Carriage Way came from a precedent for a Right of Carriageway at Kembla Grange, which in the end was not acted upon.

    20. So it is extremely misinforming to say why this Right of Way also would not set a precedent, especially astoundingly, the grant of transfer is under the Real Property Act 1900. 116 years old!

    21. Extremely out of date with this grant already being 18 years old and also never acted upon till now. Which if it had been not acted upon for at least another 2 years can be cancelled by the Registrar General. Some updating by Council to 2016 certainly seems to be required.

    22. Regarding the Council bollard at the end of this driveway/road and a parking space for a vehicle, it must be asked why there is a crossover from the rear of the property that is actually on Henry Halloran Park itself.

    23. Hypothetically, a rational person could logically, reasonably believe, that the subdivided property in the rear section could also house a “granny flat” in the extremely large shed that is described as a double garage thus giving you 3 “cluster” dwellings on 1 property in a proven bushfire zone. But that’s hypothetical, of course.

    24. However the most logical simple solution is this.

    25. I would recommend that the applicant approach Council and seek permission to use the main gated entry to the Park to enable to reach his garage which seems to be the sole object for this DA.

    26. I would see no problem with this. It would be a win, win solution all around and be advantage to enhance the nomination of Henry Halloran Park for Heritage Listing for all Australians.

    27. This Right of Carriage Way would no longer be required. Has the applicant approached Council for this?

    28. Finally, this “driveway/road” is not in the Public Interest, but as well, not in the Community Interest.

    29. Thank you -

    Presented by Alan Bond

    M recommendations would be:

    1. "No Standing" signs along the driveway.

    2. Removal of what appears to be a parking space at the end so the driveway finishes at the gates.

    3. Calming devices on the driveway itself. This would help in preventing children from using the path for skateboarding, etc activities that could lead to injuries.

    Delivered to local councillor Vicki Curran. They are yet to respond.

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