Recent comments

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

    lorraine Taylor commented

    My name is Lorraine Taylor, and l live in the area near this residence, 482 O,Regans Creek Rd,Toogoom.Naturally the owner of this property has an interest in this property being rented out, so l would completely rule out her comments. Because we live with the threat of our homes being broken into by some of these "residents" of 482 O'Regans Creek Rd, l do not consider it to be "unAustralian" to object to their being there. I find her comment very insulting. I wonder how she would feel if she lived nearby(which she doesn't!).She misses the point entirely when she states that her property is valued "way in excess of most Toogoom properties". It is not about the value of properties, but about being able to live with peace of mind, not being under the threat of being burgled.To the owner, l say, "Come out here and live nearby" before you post your "UnAustralian" comments.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 247-249 Wardell Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Diana Nguyen commented

    Just, no. 33 boarding rooms with one car space? Is there a cohesive plan for the future of Dulwich Hill? It seems as though nonsensical developments are popping up left, right and centre without any consideration for future impacts on the community. I oppose this ill-thought out development.

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

    Jennifer Killen commented

    As others have pointed out this should not be approved if it will obstruct wheelchairs, prams or other users of the footpath.
    Nor should it be used as an excuse to add a polluting outdoor heater to the many already in operation in King Street.
    Outdoor gas heaters are an enormous waste of energy and contribute to global warning because of the fossil fuel consumed and the carbon dioxide produced. Poisonous nitrous oxides are also produced by gas heaters.

  4. In Buderim QLD on “55 Gloucester Road BUDERIM...” at 53-55 Gloucester Rd, Buderim, QLD:

    Patricia Ashton commented

    I have not seen the plan and I am wondering if the plan is sympathetic with the local environment and architecture? Is it leaving sufficient space between neighbours? A duplex, currently under construction, directly across the road appears not to have accommodated what once was space for gardens and wildlife and appears very close to a zero boundary in comparison to the rest of the street.

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

    Tammy Davies commented

    I am the OWNER of this beautiful property at 482 O'Regan Creek Road, Toogoom and have been for the past 11 years.

    I have lived in this property for many years and know only too well that it suits my tenants needs 100%. It gives my tenants an AMAZING opportunity to grow and develop as every Australian citizen deserves.

    I feel the negative responses to the application for material use of change stems from a "not in my backyard" mentality which is very unaustralian. My property features a huge house with ALL bedrooms are attached to the house, nothing is detached. My land is NOT tidal. This is a material use of change NOT development of my land.

    My property is extremely unique and is valued way in excess of the majority of properties in Toogoom so for it to be mentioned that my property devalues Toogoom is a complete joke.

    If my tenants were to relocate away from my property......who will my next tenants be ???? Are they going to be ostracised from the community too because they do not "fit" other residents ideal of a community member?

    Sometimes I am embarrassed to be an Australian, a Toogoom property owner and a Fraser Coast rate payer!

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

    Robyn Hayman commented

    Upon reading the development application this appears to be setting up a manufactured home exhibition centre of two homes with a additional two more homes to come! If we wanted to live in a manufactured home village we would have bought one originally. We do not want manufactured homes in this area!

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

    John O'Leary commented

    The decision to approve a facility without consideration to the sporting and residential properties that are in close proximity is wrong. I would support a chapel and funeral parlour pending traffic impact study, however the furnace should be located in an industrial site where environmental impact allowances can be given for such activity.
    I am disappointed that once again our local councillor has been absent from the debate to look after the interests of the area.

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

    Luke Bacon commented

    As long as this doesn't limit access to the foot path for pedestrians, I'm all in favour of more cafe/restaurant street seating. I think it brings life to the street.

    Clearly if this reduces access for pedestrians, including people who use wheel chairs or other walking aids, then unfortunately this shouldn’t be approved.

    I assume the council and the applicants can test this out somehow.

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

    Stuart Chandler commented

    I strongly oppose the opening of a child care centre at this location. There are already plenty of child care locations in and around the Roseville and Lindfield areas and no need for an additional one. The traffic congestion is already very heavy on Tryon Rd and this will only add to already very congested traffic conditions and would be a danger to pedestrians and drivers alike with very limited access into and out of the property for what would be a large commercial business in the street.

  10. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 148 Kingsway Woolooware 2230:

    B.Carson. commented

    There is no demand for boarding accommodation in this area....I strongly this boarding house will used to accommodate refugees or to ex jail criminals or recovering addicts.

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

    Bruno Jimenez commented

    I go to Newtown every weekend. I have noticed that this company already has tables, chairs and barriers in this location, blocking pedestrian access.

    This company cannot be trusted. They are requesting council for permission to have 2 tables and 4 chairs and 2 barriers, however they already doing this without authorisation. Which means that they are obstructing the pathway without caring what council has to say, and as they have not asked for council authorisation and they do not know the impact on the community, means they did not care how these tables impacted the community and the people trying to use the pathway.

    There is also not enough space to house both tables there. As soon as someone sits on the road side of any of the tables, the pedestrian access on the pathway is reduced even further than requested. I have experienced this myself, and during busy periods, I had to walk onto the road.

    Based on this lack of respect to the community and council, I would not trust this company. And the additional use of the pathway by using chairs on the table side closest to the road, means that the pedestrians, specially on busy days such as weekends, would heavily block the pathway thus I strongly suggest council to reject the plan.

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

    Evie Reynolds commented

    Hi my young family and I have very recently bought and moved into a property very close to this area and I have become aware that there is to be a crematorium furnace built here. My first and foremost concern is about the possible health risks and fumes that this furnace may cause especially being so close to many residential properties. Secondly, another concern I have is the value of our property as we have only recently purchased at a premium price that our valuation will drop.

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

    Gina Richter commented

    Section 96 amendments to DAs have been used by developers for years to sneak in enlargements to developments which were not originally approved. Unfortunately reforms to planning legislation introduced since 2011 by the Baird Govt have made the situation much worse for residents. We will have less and less say, and less and less access to documents and information in the name of increasing urban density to allow for urban growth across all of Sydney. With the amalgamation of Councils and the increased powers of the state govt to override councils' decisions, residents will be increasingly disempowered. What is happening on Canterbury Rd is a portent of the future. There is legislation going through the upper house this week or next. You could try lobbying the opposition and independents to get it stopped.

  14. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Construction of a fence in...” at 5 Sir Garnet Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lyn J. commented

    No details have been given as to the proposed new fence's height, construction material and design. How can local residents consider the application properly without this basic information?

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

    Kelly Wratten commented

    What is the purpose of this removal? That is he big question. This development has been to Land & Environment Court. This development is in contravention to public opinion. How is it that a significant alteration can be submitted after the event. These units have been sold off the plan, a plan that at the time was not approved. Have the purchasers been advised? Canterbury Council do not permit for documentation to be viewed on line like Marrickville Council. How do we obtain this information when it is only available during business hours.

  16. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 44 Arthur Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    I don't think it matters much regarding this development. There has been an eyesore of a unit block there for many years. Any redevelopment will probably be an improvement.
    However. it once again highlights the redevelopment at "any cost" by Council.
    As I have stated before. The sooner we get a Council elected who is sympathetic to the values and opinions and wishes of the ratepayers, the better. Roll on April 2016.

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

    Lesilea Smedleu commented

    I object to this development. The site has a covenant which limits development to private dwelling only. The current owner was aware of this at the time of purchase. All homes on the low side of the lane have this covenant.
    The lane is narrow and intersects at Pentecost in a dangerous intersection.
    The site is only a few houses away from a bush fire hazard zone on BOTH sides. Evacuation would be difficult given there is only one entrance and one exit to this long lane.
    The noise level would be excessive.

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

    Debra Copeland commented

    I believe that any development in this pocket would actually be putting ALL residents lives at risk. The single access point relied upon in the proposal would make it impossible to evacuate residents and businesses in any emergency situation.

    Section 5 (501) - 8 Forest Rd - has been addressed by Regional Planning Proposals as a complete lot with access to Forest Rd. The DA proposed is only for part of this section and does not include any access via Forest Road. Without this access there is only one way in and out - through the already congested Industrial Estate ie Jubilee Ave.

    The developer has ignored this and has relied on Jubilee Ave for all access in and out of the proposed ISLAND BLOCK development for all residents and services. It is in a designated bushfire area and is also noted as flood prone - all traffic has to cross a small narrow bridge which is often under water during storms with Narrabeen Creek rising up to 1.5 mtr over it during flash flooding. (See Flood Prone Studies).

    This lane way leads all traffic into the Cul-de-sac end of Jubilee Ave (west). Jubilee Ave comprises of an "east" and a "west" section (the Ponderosa/Jubilee roundabout divides it) making the "west" end of Jubilee a "no through Road". Every vehicle that enters has to backtrack/turn to exit.

    This entire Sector is zoned as light Industrial and employment area. The only exit/entry point is the roundabout on Ponderosa/Jubilee. The traffic funnelling into this pocket of Jubilee (dead end) currently comes from:

    * Many large Industrial Complexes which generate a massive amount of traffic not only with employees, business/trade visitors, associated business vehicles and trucks but continuous articulated and container deliveries.

    * From Daydream Ave and 92 Mona Vale Rd - traffic from numerous office and Industrial Complexes including the newly constructed "Amber" complex which includes (among other tenants) a swimming school, Child Care centre and Cafe - none of which have any way in or out other than "West" Jubilee.

    * There is a pending approval for a (much needed) 100 bed Private Hospital complimenting a variety of Medical/Physio/Chiro etc professional practices already existing.

    * There are now 4 Child Care Centres and a kids Party establishment + 3 or 4 Cafes.

    * Uniting Church community with Sports Complex; Pre-school; admin; cafe etc has a single ingress/egress onto "west" Jubilee.

    * Entry into this melee is also the only access for the residents of Bert Close who can testify to being "locked in" by traffic most days. These residents were confident that any development of "Lot 1" (now 8 Forest Rd) would - as per previous proposed plans - give them an alternative way in and out via Forest Rd once developed.

    This entire "West" end of Jubilee Ave is usually blocked with dense and confusing traffic all day but becomes totally gridlocked at either end of the school/business day. Any DA for Sect 501 MUST contain a suitable and workable traffic control proposal owing to several factors - not the least of which are the impact of the logistics of such a project on local schools/child-care/preschool; but also the interference to business that a battleaxe development would have.

    CONCLUSION:

    Any application for Development of Section 501 should be for the entire site as stated in planning strategies . No DA should be considered unless there is an amalgamation of the entire site.

    The current applicant states that they have included a cul-de-sac for "future access" - they have no control over another owner who may apply for a DA for medium density and not wish to give away 30% of their property to enable another developers prospects.

    The current proposal is for 89 residences where Section 501 in its entirety was for 75 dwellings. This is grossly overdeveloped even with Forest Rd access.

    Any future DA's for Sect 501 (entire) should include evacuation plans (ie how long to evacuate), traffic impact studies and current traffic flow statistics for this "west" Jubilee area.

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

    Andrew Tapp commented

    I strongly object to DAO413/15 121 to117 Merrivale Lane for the following reasons:

    1. This is setting a very dangerous and disturbing precedent to establish a very large commercial child care centre in a quiet, narrow, residential laneway. NOWHERE will be safe in any residential area of Ku-Ring-Gai from future such commercial developments if this gets approved.

    2. This is not an insignificant development, this is a major commercial development … a MEGA child care centre in anyone’s terms: 150 children, minimum of 26 staff (double that at changeover), over 4000m2 of land … 65% bigger than any of the 22 other current centres Montessori Academy have across the Sydney basin, 50% bigger than any other centre in the Turramurra/Pymble area … 100% bigger than limits imposed by control plans established by other councils across Sydney in relation to CCCs in residential areas.

    3. Approving this proposal will place the safety of the children, parents and residents at direct and significant risk during the high volume, concentrated pick up and drop off times in the narrow lane throughout the year. If cars are parked either side of the street it is difficult for a car to get through now.

    To increase the risk, the curbs are built up on both sides of the lane outside the proposed development so you cannot get your children out on the passenger side. They will either have to park out from the curb, stopping traffic, or get their children out in the middle of the lane. Someone will get killed!

    If emergency vehicles were trying to get through (and I’ve seen two fires in the street) it would be unthinkable as to the consequences.

    In addition, the corner of Pentecost Ave and Merrivale Lane is extremely dangerous. I have had a car ram into the back of me while waiting to turn into the lane. It is very difficult to see cars and cyclists when turning left into Pentecost from the lane. Increasing traffic volumes will increase the risk of accidents, injury and fatalities, particularly for cyclists.

    This DA is ludicrous and MUST be stopped!

  20. In Saratoga NSW on “Section 96 Amendment” at 92 Steyne Road, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Russell Deane commented

    The height of this building has already exceeded our expectations and has reduced our water views more than expected. As this current application merely refers to an addition of a patio roof without drawings then I must ask if this further extends the height of the building, and if so I request that permission be denied.

  21. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 14 Garfield Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Karen de Groot commented

    I strongly object to a two storey dwelling being constructed at 14 Garfield St in addition to the current dwelling that already exists. I feel that the parking issues in the area are already a problem and another dwelling will only exacerbate the difficulties of residents parking in the area. The overshadowing and loss of vista and amenities will impact on our lifestyle. We will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy of our own back garden and the increased density will create a higher population in the area thus creating greater noise levels and reducing the enjoyment in/of the existing area and amenities.

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

    gregory stevens commented

    there is not enough room on foot path. I often have to step onto the road to get past out side seating on busy days and when King st becomes a clear way i will be run over when I do so.
    gregory stevens

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

    Bob Forrester commented

    I Bob Forrester would like to comment on the proposed Material Change of Use of the property, 482 O’Regans Creek Road.

    Whilst I agree with the comments of the previous persons I acknowledge as stated in the IFYS submission that the property has been used for the proposed purpose since 2009.
    My wife and I have lived in Ries Rd since 2002 and to my knowledge the problems of kids roaming and thieving etc has only been happening relatively recently, mainly but not exclusively after dark in the early hours of the morning.

    The application states that there is only accommodation for one carer 24/7. I understand that a comment was made that the carer cannot see what these kids are up to when he/her is asleep. This comment I believe was made during Police visits to persons that had been victims of theft by kids resident at these premises at the time.

    Whilst the premises and location are theoretically ideal for the purpose being applied for, the actual layout of the buildings, there being two (2) bed rooms detached from the main building, makes the premises unsuitable for the intended purpose, unless better supervisory facilities are put in place.

    These could/should include:
     more conscientious carers,
     a 24/7 carer in each sleeping area
     movement sensors to monitor the movement of persons outside the buildings during hours when direct supervision is not possible.
     no bedrooms detached from the main building.

    Certainly more concern for the existing residents of this quiet residential area should be given before approval by FCRC goes ahead.
    Bob Forrester
    15 Ries Rd Toogoom

  24. In Edgeworth NSW on “Dual Occupancy and 1 into 2...” at 21 Baurea Close, Edgeworth NSW 2285:

    Maryanne wilkinson commented

    I have enquired with LMCC about this development and was told that it has nothing to do with council. No resident in the street has received any notifications and the building has already commenced. Please explain. I have re
    Cried no feedback from LMCC

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

    Craig Lockart commented

    This dreadful application is a problem because it immediately affects only the people in Merrivale Lane and the streets leading to it. the voices of objectors will only be the locals. But if approved this DA would set the precedent for all child care center aplications. It is the most residential location imaginable with the most limited access.... such a quiet street.

    That is why we bought there i.e. it is not really a through street or a commuter "rat run". There is no supporting public transport...no buses to the street...no trains.

    It would generate 150 parent plus 40+ staff and service cars times four traffic movements per day. We are at home only around 5.00 pm in the evening and leave around 8.30am. We do some gardening or just sit and enjoy the evenings, have dinner, sleep enjoy the mornings and go to work. This development would mean four of our hours at home each day will be accompanied by the noise and conjestion of the extra 700 traffic movements per day ( which will be in the peak morning and evening at home enjoyment hours of residents) generated by this development.

    600 door openings and 600 door closures. 600 conversations about kids getting out of
    and into cars. At the peak my estimation is 5 cars a minute will arrive and five will leave and ten will be parked while the parent delivers the child into the centre. Cars will try
    and compete with residents for a hundred metres or more each side of the street. This is a two million plus dollar p.a. turnover business and belongs in a town centre not in a narrow residential street.

    Councillors, please do not approve any child care centre on this compromised site.

    Please do not put the monetary profit motives of one individual ahead of the interests of the residents of the street.

    If this is approved my neighbours and Marylou and I will lodge a similar application and expect it to be approved so we can get the value of our land back and go live somewhere residential again.

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

    Ann Owen (I use my daughter's email) commented

    I am 83 years old and have lived in Merrivale Lane for more than 41 years. I strongly oppose the development application for the 150 place child care centre which is directly opposite my home. I fear that this large scale commercial child care centre will really have a very negative effect on me. All my living areas are at the front of my house and I will find the noise from the centre and the additional traffic intrusive and very distressing. I am too old to move house.

    Living alone, I make a lot of use of my front verandah, which is an important way for me to stay in touch with my neighbourhood and the outside world generally. This simple pleasure will be spoiled by the commotion likely to emanate from this huge child care centre. Even if I stay inside, my lounge, kitchen, dining room and bedroom will all be permeated by the noise. As the days are long, I do treat myself to a lie-in now and again, but if the childcare centre opens for business, the onslaught of traffic at 7.00am will put a stop to that. There is no doubt in my mind that my health will suffer and I will experience greatly heightened levels of stress and discomfort.

    The lane is very narrow and extra traffic will cause a real hazard. Another issue will be increased numbers of parked cars in the lane. As the verges are mostly quite high, and like my own, made from sandstone, cars cannot be parked close to the side of the road if passengers need to get out. I really worry that cars will be parked in a dangerous way (ie a long way out from the kerb) I use a walker and often rely on friends and carers to collect me. The added traffic and parked cars will make it very dangerous for me to get out of my home.

    I also worry about the extra ancillary traffic - deliveries and garbage collection for example. This, along with the inevitable lines of parked cars, will add to the traffic chaos and make it difficult to get in and out of my driveway. If this goes ahead, I really am looking at the frightening prospect of being housebound.

    Any development is noisy and disruptive during the building phase, but the sheer size and scale of this one will prolong the agony for far longer than would be normal.

    Please do not approve this development.

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

    Peter Hutchison commented

    Are these Homes transportable homes as you see in caravan parks ? are they in standing with the other quality homes built in this neighbourhood ?

  28. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 148 Kingsway Woolooware 2230:

    Kay koutzas commented

    I am also opposed to the proposed boarding house which is being considered amongst a tightly held family residential zone.
    I have submitted my objection via a letter to council and to the state and federal members of Cook.
    Such a project does not belong here. The social instability it will bring to the area threatens the current environment.
    The proposal allows for limited car spaces which will impact traffic and parking along the Kingsway.
    I note a boarding house at 83 the Kingsway but this is set amongst units and a hotel closer to the beach and does not look aesthetically or socially out of place.
    All local residents should forward their opposition to council and ministers so our current stable residential environment is maintained. Boarding houses may be a quick way to make some good money for developers but the negative social and environmental impact to the local community cannot be ignored.
    Kay Koutzas

  29. In Castle Hill QLD on “Telecommunication Facility...” at 10 Castle Hill Road Castle Hill QLD 4810:

    Kirsteen Masson commented

    I thought Castle Hill was a nature reserve. Why would Council even consider this?? I would like to lodge my objection as a nearby resident and user of the hill for recreational purposes. We already have to look at the ugly structures on Yarrawonga why do we need one on the middle of Castle Hill an iconic tourist attraction.

  30. In Capalaba QLD on “Carport” at 39 Finucane Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy Glade commented

    Am I to understand this application is for a carport only? If so, why would it be mentioned since a carport does not encroach on anyone else's property...does it? However, my neighbours do not approve the sell off of open space at entry from Finucane Rd at Ingham and Elmhurst Streets as it helps stop pollution from heavily trafficked Finucane Road. This address is on what is known as the Finucane Service Road...where the road turns right off Finucane Rd and Left into Ingham St.

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