Recent comments

  1. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Martin K commented

    This development is completely unsuitable for this area and, as previously stated, very disappointing that it is considered appropriate to demolish a federation style home to make way for these townhouses. This corner block is surrounded by single storey houses of a similar style/era to the current structure and any development should be more in keeping with its surroundings. Whilst this property has been (quite wrongfully) "moved" into the Canterbury precinct according to the NSW Planning and Environment Urban Renewal project, it is quite definitely still in Hurlstone Park and any development should be more in keeping with the vision defined for the Hurlstone Park precinct given that it falls well within the 400m radius from Hurlstone Park station.
    Further, I don't believe the site is suitable for 6 dwellings - especially considering that 4 of the 6 townhouses will only have a "garden" area of 9 sqm each. Perhaps consideration should be given to reducing the number of dwellings allowed on this site.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    There is a time and a place for modern buildings, this is definitely the time but this is not the place. Why approve something that not only intrudes on the privacy of those houses that back on to the site but is an eyesore and not in keeping with the surrounds?

    Marrickville council seems to be extremely focussed on wiping out any heritage areas. Design is not just inserting any collection of buildings together. It takes careful consideration and care. These buildings look as if they'll be the cheapest possible to achieve the highest profit.

  3. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Charmaine Silver commented

    Hurlstone Park is one of the few remaining suburbs in the inner west that has retained its character and charm. This is due to the abundance of beautiful heritage houses in wide, leafy streets, low traffic and peace and quiet. This suburb will be ruined once townhouses start being built- just look at Earlwood. And tearing down a lovely heritage house to build ugly
    townhouses is appalling. Please reconsider- once it's gone, it's gone forever.

  4. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Joseph Ballantyne commented

    MCU15/0203 at 139-159 Wises Road Development of a Crematorium.
    I would urge all that have posted comment on this application send the comments posted to Ted.Hungerford@sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au

    I have made submission on line at the Sunshine Coast council web site at PD on line, but have yet to see that the submission listed?

    I received a prompt reply from Cr Ted Hungerford who commented that he would ensure my submition, sent by email to him, would be lodged and that my comments would be considered in his presentation to council. Cr Ted Hungerford has indicated his support for the communities concerns let's hope he can gain the support of his fellow councillors.

    I believe that the more that contact him directly the more traction we will receive in this matter.

  5. In Rydalmere NSW on “30 Kirby Street (the site...” at 30 Kirby Street Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Sean Cherrett commented

    Hi. With this development what is proposed for carparking? The road usually has a lot of cars parked near this house. With 10 new dwellings (given 2 will be on the Pine Street Side) has there been consideration for the amount of off street parking or does it meet councils requirements?

  6. In Springwood QLD on “Shopping Centre Extension” at 1 Hawkins Street Springwood QLD 4127:

    Elke Carstens commented

    This major change to the use from residential house to be knocked down for commercial use/a carpark, truck turnaround etc is not wanted by the residents of the street. I will be sending my objecton to council this week. Regards - Elke Carstens, resident of Hawkins Street.

  7. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Section 96(1a) the removal...” at 570 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Margaret Martin commented

    This application is aimed at increasing the ground floor space on a site already densely developed. Such extensions to the original DA suggest that the developer has originally applied for approval with every intention of modifying it. This increase in floor area provides profit. To the developer without adding to their costs.
    I urge council to consider this as a precedent and refuse this DA. Future developers on even more sensitive sites than this one will utilise the same tactics.

  8. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Ken Jones commented

    Prior to the purchase of our home in Palymra Crescent Buderim, we followed the regular practice of due diligence relating to any vacant land in the area that could impact on environmental conditions, personal safety, economic status, improved value of the property etc. In doing so searched the council website and talked to various officers in the planning department of council. Trusting in the information that was given ie no adverse planning applications presently registered that would cause us concern. Hence we purchased our new home only to find out within three months that a funeral home and caretakers residence was approved and about to commence development. After much angst, time and effort we were assured that the funeral home and caretakers residence could not be refused by Council due to the zoning in that particular area of 139 -159 Wises Road. It is with concern that we now learn that there is an additional planning application to construct a cremator furnace on this site. We find this to be most inappropriate for this area that is closely populated with up market homes, a large private school and well used sporting facility, not to mention that this section (Wises Rd) is the throughfare for a large residential area of North Buderim. There has been no consideration re the quality of air that will be negatively impacted by the emissions from this furnace. A quick second to research the impact on population health from the emission of crematoriums will give you a clear indication of the risk to the members of the community of Headland Park, Buderim Forest, Sunshine Cove and Palmyra Crescent, who live in the immediate areas not to mention those who frequent the area to attend day care, kindy, school, and sporting events. The area immediately across the motorway, Sunshine Cove is already highly populated with additional stocks of townhouses being constructed. Could we also suggest that you research the recommendations as set out by World Health Organisation in relation to the location of Cremator Furnaces and their emissions and how they impact on humans. Even with the latest technology available for filtration systems the outcomes are not good with numerous safeguards and monitored devices recommended to protect humans from Toxic Emissions. The altered traffic conditions in this area are also of concern with children as young as five years of age negotiating traffic at various times of the day - not just at school start and finish times. This surely must be a major safety consideration. Please note that we feel that the development of a crematorium at this site is not in the best interest of the home owners who have made considerable investment in their homes ie up to and in excess of $1,000,000.00 but more importantly purchased their properties in good faith believing that the living environment would not have a detrimental effect on their health ie the emission of toxic waste. We request that the application for a cremator furnace at this site be refused with the health and personal safety of residents in this area in mind including those who frequent the area for school and sporting activities as well as motorists who attempt to use Wises Road as a traffic throughfare.

  9. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Johnathon Thirroul commented

    Dear Councillors and residents,

    As a resident of Merrivale Lane for now over 10 years i make the following submission;

    1. A child care centre is appropriate, all the other centres are full to the brim and the children will enjoy the beautiful vistas of the pymble golf club;

    2. The street can easily handle the traffic and noise - there already unit blocks on the street towards buckra street where development is going to be

    3. The area needs to get out of 1952 and move on with the times

    4. The re zoning of the land will add value to all properties located around it

    5. This is sensible long term state significant planning.

    6. I fully support it

    Resident and owner
    Merrivale lane Turramrra

  10. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    bruce finch commented

    Gregsons spokesman has stated that there will be emissions but that they will no worse than a truck going past. James Hardie continually said that their product fibro sheeting was completely safe genuinely believing that there was no problem. Countries around the world are legislating to keep cremators away from residential areas because of emissions fears.
    A cremator furnace manufacturer in Sydney told me quite openly that there are emissions from these furnaces. Mercury vapour, dioxins and micro particles are just a couple of these emissions.
    Residents in Tewantin have been battling with Noosa Council over emissions and smells that come from two cremators. Sunshine Coast Regional Council have the opportunity to eliminate any complaints by refusing approval of this cremator.
    Gregsons are a family company I have dealt with before and they are caring people so I cannot understand them wanting to position this cremator within metres of extremely busy sports fields and homes.
    Is there an independent body who will monitor the emissions or is it self regulated?

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 119 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    mark matheson commented

    The streetscape elevation looks very depressing.

    It doesn't look like a home at all. It is a machine for living in.

    It looks as though a malevolent landlord has obtained 4 'intermodal shipping containers' and had his staff plonked them just off the footpath ready to rent out to desperate people and/or asylum seekers.

  12. In Bexley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Forest Road, Bexley NSW 2207:

    Eugenia Tsavdaridis commented

    The plans for 580 Forest Rd Bexley are simply not good enough to replace Brandlesome, the historic home that currently occupies the site. There is potential to build dual occupancy dwellings on the site while keeping and renovating the existing building, which is a local landmark and was owned for four generations by the Greenhalgh family, whose roots can be traced back centuries to the original Brandlesholme Hall outside Manchester.
    Forest Rd still features many beautiful, grand homes of heritage value. Unfortunately, these are becoming fewer in number every year. As the developer and architect themselves acknowledge in their Statement of Environmental Effects, the house is "in an overall traditional area within Bexley," but the current plans do not fall into line with this statement. Saying there MAY be an addition of some original features into the new build is not satisfactory. I urge those considering this development to ask for amendments that will allow the continued existence of this very important building alongside the developer's desire to gain value from their build.

  13. In Myrtle Bank SA on “Construct two storey...” at 78 Cross Road, Myrtle Bank SA 5064:

    Dianne Narciso and Robert Peressin commented

    We request a copy of the application at 78 cross rd myrtle bank 5064 asap.
    We are concerned neighbours and this is a formal objection notice to the building proposal for 78 cross rd Myrtle bank 5064. Our concerns are overlooking and shadowing of the proposed dwelling onto our property. Please contact me immediately as we wish to resolve the matter promptly and amicably otherwise we will have no other option but to pursue legal action.

  14. In Saint Peters NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 73 Mary Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Wholeheartedly support this application!

  15. In Saint Peters NSW on “Proposed temporary use of...” at 22 Burrows Road St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jennifer Killen commented

    Very little information seems to be available except that the approval would allow one event every week for a year from 6pm until 2am.
    Do the plans include noise insulation? The nature of the events is not indicated but they are more likely to be dance parties than prayer meetings.
    All night noise from the airport, which is much further from my house than this building, is already a problem.
    I do not want further sleep disturbance. Although this is an industrial area, the nearest dwelling is not far away.
    Size of events is not defined. Plans for parking are not available.
    More detail is needed

  16. In Medowie NSW on “Dwelling house - 1 storey” at 33 Huntingdale Pl, Medowie 2318 NSW:

    Heidi Ballard commented

    Hello I am 17 year old and I am currently pregnant, living at my mums house. I'm not happy there as my mums boyfriend verbally abuses me everyday. I am in desperate need of some help with somewhere I can call home and feel at home. I have been homeless since I was 15 but I moved back to my mums house 4 months ago because I had nowhere at all to go. I can't love here anymore. It would be much appreciated if I could get some help. Thankyou.

  17. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Michele van der Sander commented

    So now the Dept of Planning has highlighted this area of HP for single dwellings, is the council now going to approve medium density developments in this area so they can can pre-empt the changes and get their slice of the development pie before the state government steps in with its plans for 'value capture'??

  18. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 82 Floss Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Nat B commented

    Please please please do not approve this development.

    It is criminal to demolish a beautiful period federation house to build these townhouses, there is no requirement for this type of housing in Hurlstone Park. These townhouse do not fit with the feel of the rest of the housing in the suburb.

  19. In Lewisham NSW on “To construct a 6 part 9...” at Longport Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Sharon F commented

    I'm completely against this proposal.
    The traffic along Old Canterbury Road going under the Railway line heading towards Leichhardt, and Longport St/Railway Terrace heading up towards Stanmore/Newtown, and that whole area in general is always a disaster.
    There is so much development going up in this area already and no one has considered the effect on residents and the impact on driving in and out of this area.
    This part of Summer Hill/Lewisham is being destroyed by over-development.

  20. In Medowie NSW on “1A Sylvan Ave, Medowie 2318...” at 1 Sylvan Ave, Medowie 2318 NSW:

    Bernadette van de Wijgaart commented

    To Whom It May Concern – Port Stephens Council,
    I am writing in objection to the gross over-development of the site 1 & 1A Sylvan Avenue MEDOWIE. My family lives directly opposite the property and will undoubtedly be affected by the over-development of this site. I have lived in Medowie since 1985 and finally had the opportunity to build our dream home on a lovely big block in Medowie’s finest acreage estate. It was with disbelief that I opened the mail proposing the greedy over-development of the block across the road. It is, without question, not at all in keeping with the character of the estate. There are no multi dwelling housing developments along any part of Sylvan Avenue or South Street or the embedded Closes/Streets etc. It is completely out of character with neighbourhood and not at all in keeping with the original conditions from which this beautiful estate evolved. It will have a depreciating effect on our property, as people don’t want to move to an acreage estate to look over the rooftops of six congested houses and a large shed. This proposal has an aesthetically disgusting aspect for our family home. It’s not what the people who buy into this particular estate are looking for, and it’s certainly not at all necessary given the quantity of tiny lot alignments now available on the golf course itself. Further, it sets a precedent. If over-development of this site is allowed, then it opens the door for future residents to “cash in” on similar development proposals, ruining the estate and devaluing neighbouring properties as they move on, having destroyed the rural acreage landscape in their wake!
    Safety is another big concern. I can’t possibly imagine 12 red/yellow garbage bins fitting in between the extra 2 driveways proposed. What I can predict are the unsafe conditions drivers will be faced with as they try to manoeuvre on the dangerous arcing crest, as it’s blocked by a garbage truck emptying 12 bins! Not to mention the sheer influx of cars to the site. As it stands, this road is double white lines due to the dangerous crest, and we know that parking on the council reserve is illegal. Already there are frequent occasions, meaning daily, where people are parking either partially on the road or on the council reserve. This happens with trades(some with trailers) attending the site office on the corner, residents parked near the bus stopping area, especially on wet days and parents from the Kindy Patch parked everywhere given preschool functions, such as the upcoming Christmas/graduation concert. There is no way that the site is designed for multiple visitors to park. Can you imagine just 2 out of the 6 proposed houses hosting an occasion on the same afternoon/evening?? It would be a dangerous, congested nightmare for residents…with this design guaranteeing visitors are forced to park illegally on the roadside (that’s if the 12 bins aren’t blocking the kerb!) It would affect residents walking their children to the Kindy Patch preschool also. The houses are small designs in comparison to the surrounding acreage properties. It is not hard to imagine, given their size, that the garages would be used for storage and the 2 resident’s vehicles would be parked in their driveways. This would not only prevent a single potential visitor from parking safely, but possibly block the council reserve used by residents to walk to Kindy Patch or the golf course itself. Now, if the future residents had a teenage child and we added a third car to the mix and times that possibility by 6 houses…it’s a recipe for ghetto disaster given the lane way access for at least four of the houses and the caravanning/boat storage shed. God help the poor neighbours adjacent to the side of the laneway…one can easily imagine the lights, noise of cars/motorbikes revving up and the commotions of frequent traffic up the side of their house as their young children try to sleep! I fear the noise problem for us will be bad enough. There is no denying that the cumulative effect of housing residences so closely will create a substantive increase of noise for residents. A congested site is so unappealing to residents who sought the tranquillity of acreage living, and the peace afforded them in making that choice to invest in space!
    Community concern also reflects the watering down of estate ‘rules’. NOBODY signed up to invest in a congested dual occupancy estate!! Particularly the fact that this development is in no way keeping with the original design briefs imposed on residents who have already built. How far away is the furthest house form the roadside water hydrant in front of our property, across the road from this site? It was noted that it was only 15 metres from the “house” on the development application…but which house, there are 6 after all! It is certainly a fire risk being so far away from the water hydrant, coupled with a congested alleyway access point! Further, they have ticked “no” to a plan to have a dedicated water supply for fire fighting purposes. It is congested, money driven, investment. It absolutely DOES NOT fit with existing houses and their ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ is a rather convincing joke. The streetscape character C4.21 is not sympathetic to our residence at all! If this over-development is approved than it will be to the detriment of existing residents. It is ridiculous to consider the building of 6 houses as still complying with an R5 Large Lot Residential area. It does not fit with the character of the neighbourhood/acreage estate. The gift of hindsight is a wonderful thing, had we known that this excessive development were proposed directly across the road from our house, that it would be our ‘picturesque view’, before we invested in building our executive residence, than we would have certainly have looked elsewhere for a block of land. It is completely out-of-character with surrounding estate homes, all situated on large acreage. There is little provision for privacy, as there is little space afforded these lots for substantive gardens and privacy planting. It is simply too much over-development of the site, in keeping with the scope of the neighbourhood.
    What concerns us further, is the usage of the number of houses. Are they to be rented out? Is this a greedy attempt to bend the rules and capitalise on every square inch of the land? Is this a cash cow for the council, who will collect 6 sets of rates instead of 2 or 3? Given the council’s inability to maintain community expectations, as demonstrated by the watering down of what was/is here, our concern is – “Will the rules be further bent to allow for future rezoning in order to sell the excessive number of houses as individual lot alignments when investors move on?” What has happened to Medowie’s rural outlook? Who would want to live in a supposedly ‘acreage estate’, directly across the road from the hideous over-development of this site? If the lots were not rezoned, then their design is to the appeal of future investors, not residents who want to live in this paradise and make it their home. Investors don’t tend to care about much more than money/rental income. Will they care and manicure any potential garden; will they invest in the aesthetic appeal of the properties/neighbourhood? It’s simply not hard to imagine these properties continually changing tenant hands. This over-development creates stress for existing residents.
    It is stressful simply contemplating the unsympathetic proposal for the site. We urge the council to look closely at the concerns of neighbours and scrutinise this over-development within this estate. It’s a far too greedy proposal which is out of touch with existing properties, raises safety concerns, including physical and aesthetic congestion, affects the valuation of surrounding properties built within this supposedly ‘acreage estate’ and is consequently not wanted on the doorstep of existing residences. The council has only sent notification to 3 affected neighbours, yet word spread in disbelief of the proposal! Neighbours were aghast with disappointment. I dare say that if council were to survey all of the residents in this particular area/estate, it would be an almost unanimous call to objection to the over-development of this beautiful area and this particular site. Residents would vote NO to greedy developments of multiple dual residences on once large acreage blocks! Again, we urge you to consider community concern against this proposal and insist developers rethink this design and the impact it has on the neighbours. Build quality NOT quantity!
    Sincerely, R & B van de Wijgaart

  21. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Bob Forrester commented

    I understand that the date for submissions opposing the Material Change of Use to be considered has now passed, but after reading the owner’s (Tammy Davies) comments expressing her views I can’t help feeling that she is making a very poor argument when she says ‘My property is extremely unique and is valued way in excess of the majority of properties in Toogoom’ It seems to me to be a case of IFYS make better tenants because they will return a higher rent and could be expected to be longer term tenants than a normal family. The council rates are no doubt substantial due to the size of the land area.
    Her comment ‘If my tenants were to relocate away from my property who will my next tenants be ????) provides a clue to the possibility that “good” long term tenants are hard to come by. A property of that type requires a tenant that would be able to utilise the land area and therefore is prepared to pay a higher rent.
    Her comment that she had over $80,000 worth of property stolen, with no resolution by the police, seems to imply that there are already thieves in the area. Whilst this is possible as it is any other area she may be able to put the record straight, as sometime after that event there was a rumour that the “stolen property” was removed by the then tenants.
    I understand it is hard to get “good” tenants when one is relying on rental managers especially when the owner is not living in the area
    As I said in my earlier letter the property itself is fairly well suited to the proposed use, it is the conduct of the persons living there and the supervision by the organisation (IFYS) that have allowed it to get the reputation that it now has.
    As the property has been in use for the proposed purpose since 2009 would it be true to say that it is only now being made “legal” because of the complaints to police due to the activities of the tenants?

  22. In Buderim QLD on “159 Wises Rd BUDERIM -...” at 139-159 Wises Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Ross wilkinson commented

    I am a resident nearby.
    I object to the placement of a crematorium so close to our houses.

  23. In Canterbury NSW on “Section 96 Modification...” at Nos. 242, 246– 248, 250-252, 254-256 and 258 Canterbury Road, Canterbury and Nos. 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-13 Close Street, Canterbury.:

    Mark J commented

    This amendment to an existing DA wants to change the layout completely, and add more floors to some of the buildings.

    Canterbury Council - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - say no.

    I understand this goes against your current practice of approving and reapproving anything that in the area surrounding high density buildings. But this is not what your constituents want. LISTEN to the community for a change. We do not want more. I know the money you make out of these must be appealing, but stop selling out your community.

    PLEASE!

  24. In Warriewood NSW on “8 Forest Road, Warriewood” at 8 Forest Road, Warriewood:

    Kelly Hammond commented

    The address for this development is listed as 8 Forest Road, although the submission has no entry or exit for this development via Forest Road. The developer plans to use the existing access over Warriewood Grove’s narrow single lane bridge which cannot accommodate 170 additional vehicles if an emergency was to arise (85 dwellings x 2 cars = 170 cars).
    I believe this development will put all residents lives at risk, as the single access over our bridge would make it impossible if an evacuation was needed due to the area being a bush fire area.
    The residents of Bert Close already find it difficult to leave at certain times of the day due to the industrial estate’s traffic which congests Jubilee Ave, another matter that urgently needs to be addressed, as the existing infrastructure here is also not coping with the traffic.
    This development will be putting lives at risk and should not be allowed to go ahead if they don’t use Forest Road as an access point.

  25. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 303 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Peter O'Neill commented

    I object to the reduction of trees planned for 303 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204. There was not enough trees planned for the site originally and there should be no reduction in the trees planned for it now.

  26. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    NAN WANG commented

    We strongly DISAGREE this DA project, as Tryon Rd is narrow, and too busy in the morning and afternoon, if cars come in and out from the proposed centre, it wil block the whole traffic.
    It will increase the risk of causing a accident, and especially when kids cross the drive way.

  27. In Carlingford NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 85 Felton Road, Carlingford NSW 2118:

    Stephen Batey commented

    This house is a Lend Lease Demonstration home and one of what was at the time, the largest demonstration village in the Southern Hemisphere. There are approximately 20 other Lend Lease demonstration homes still existing in the vicinity of this house. The house is in substantially original condition, having only limited alterations and additions. It is the 'Californian' model from 1971 and as such is very near to the end of Lend Lease Homes venture and one of the last homes designed while Nino Sydney was chief Architect. It is a very rare model. I have only found one other in existence in Sydney so far. It should not be demolished, but rather preserved for its historical value.

  28. In Newtown NSW on “Use of public footway on...” at 232 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Bruno Jimenez commented

    Joe Ortenzi... 1st, you only realised that it was "previous approved DA", because you saw it in Luke's comments and as you stated "Well done Luke for looking up the details, and discovering the facts before speaking", then you went onto a rampage here. Joe, WRONG PLATFORM TO VENT OFF. This is a site for DA comments. Not for you to comment on others input. So refrain from directing yourself to me in this site, and I will stop directing myself to you. Yes I missed the comment about "Previous approved DA" but you did not see it either until someone else did. Even on this you are not even original, need to piggyback on someone else's research. This company "ALLOWS" for their customers to sit on the closest road side when on their tables, exceeding their "Previously approved DA" agreed space. So this company does not care for pedestrians, Wheel chairs, disabled persons, etc.... No, this company cannot be trusted that they will stay within their agreed "Previously approved DA" allotted area, and will directly impact pedestrians.

  29. In Arncliffe NSW on “Alteration to rear bakery...” at 51 Station Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

    Ben Talman commented

    Was there an approval for the original bakery? If there was no approval for the original bakery, would this be classifed as a 'Change of Use' of a premises and how would this comply? Being a Food Preparation Area, does this or did the previous 'bakery' comply to the Australian Standard in its design for Food Preparation? Was the original bakery subject to regular inspection by council officers for such a premises, as all other similar premises are subject to, for compliance to the Food Act of NSW and council regulations, ie School Canteens, Take-Away Food shops etc? Given that this will be used for Food Preparation, what are its 'Hours of Use' as per council approval, as determined for other similar commercial operations?
    Will these premises be subject to regular inspection by council for compliance?
    If 'No' is the answer to any these questions, it is a matter of serious concern to the local community and needs to be suitably addressed with transparency and due diligence

  30. In Heatherbrae NSW on “Exhibition villages x 4...” at 2 Kingston Pde, Heatherbrae 2324 NSW:

    Peter Hutchison commented

    We strongly oppose this development, this is a prestigious estate as the Sale sign states, we were expecting quality homes ie: Brick construction with tiled roofs as the original covenant states, the neighbours are in the process of obtaining a petition against manufactured homes being installed in this neighbourhood.

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