Recent comments

  1. In Springwood QLD on “Domestic - Tenancy Fitout...” at 15 Watland Street Springwood QLD 4127:

    Kay Kramer commented

    It should not be approved.

    There is not enough parking on the premises. The street then fills up with parent's vehicle making it dangerous for children crossing the street as you can not see them in between the vehicles.

    It creates a dangerous situation for everyone concerned.

    Also put extra stress on other local businesses as parent's park in other businesses car parks close to the location and the children loiter around other local businesses while waiting to be picked up by late parents.

  2. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition of the...” at 11 Goodwood St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Owen Birrell commented

    Parking is at a premium already in this area. I object to the reduction is car parking request as it offloads the burden of parking to the street and hence to the neighboring residents, for whom the planning requirement is supposed to protect. If you are going to squeeze 10 units into a block to maximise the profit, is it not unreasonable that you bear the associated cost of parking.

  3. In Tallebudgera Valley QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at Tallebudgera Creek Road Tallebudgera Valley 4228:

    Sean Fitzjohn commented

    I oppose this project due to the environmental impact on the residential areas. It will also have vast negative outcomes owing to the noise pollutant effects on the residence of Reedy Creek and surrounding suburbs.

  4. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 185 Union Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    steve hyde commented

    I strongly object to the reduction of the standard car parking requirement for this planning application, a minimum of two car spaces per dwelling on site to be designed into the construction. If this is not agreed to it will just increase the existing Street scape conjestion & even worsen the public safety together increasing local council liability.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “To hold Sydney Fringe...” at Eliza Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Since this is a free and ticketless market, and that it will not be noisy, I see no reason why It can't progress. It sounds like a great idea and it looks like the organisers have submitted a well thought out and detailed application.

    One thing though, I would have expected them to notify local residents (I live approx 20 m away from Eliza St) for support and if they had done, with all this information included, I would have been enthusiastic.

  6. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Ali Morrison commented

    I would like to have my concerns noted in regard to DA/830/2014 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290. As a local resident of Tirriki Street for over 10 years I am requesting this DA be subject to a more lengthy and thorough investigation.
    Issues I would like to note are:
    *The excessive number of dwellings proposed for the site. Nearly two thirds of the site is original natural bushland as described in the environmental report, '' The development is likely to incrementally contribute to the Key Threatening process Clearing of Native Vegetation”, this is not a suitable outcome.
    *The increase in the number of vehicles along Kalinda, Hallam, Tirriki, Green Valley Rd and Mimosa Streets. The narrow width of Mimosa Street will create traffic flow problems.
    *The lack of planning for parkland, cycleway/walkway, green space by the developer.
    *The part destruction of Dicks Creek which may have impact immediate and downstream to the ecology of this waterway. As quoted in environ report. '' Incoming residents should be appropriately educated on the value of the retained riparian area and adjacent Public Reserves, and should be made aware of the negative impacts of green waste dumping, uncontrolled run-off, incremental incursion etc. '' - How exactly would incoming residents be appropriately educated re the values of Dicks Creek?
    *The powerful Owl, Tawny Frogmouth, Kookaburras, Rosellas, Rainbow Lorikeets, Magpies, Butcherbirds, Satin Bowerbird, the Eastern Bandicoot, Red-bellied Black Snakes, Green Tree Snakes, Eastern Water Dragons, Blue Tongue Lizard, the Ring Tail and Brush Tail Possums, all these local residents that I have seen and others that I have not - I am asking on their behalf - please do not destroy our home.
    *Why do we all live in this beautiful area? - it is for the very reasons that this DA would destroy. The natural bushland and creeks, the native animals and birds, many homes backing onto bushland or Dicks Creek.
    I urge Lake Macquarie City Council to reject this DA in its present form and request less dwellings and keep more of the natural bushland and creek intact.

  7. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Keith and Linda Watson commented

    RE: DA/830/2014

    Like other residents in the vicinity of this proposed development we would like to request an extension of the public notification period which is only seven calendar days from when we received the notice in our mail box. This hardly sufficient time to study in depth the numerous documents and their implications associated with this proposed development.

    We have lived at 32 Kalinda Parade for only seven years but in that time have witnessed the diversity of wild life seen from the rear of our property. Whilst we had not ruled out that limited development might occur on this site at some stage we would not have imagined that high density as submitted would ever be allowed by LMCC Planning Authority. The high density of the development would inevitably mean the removal of most of the trees in the proposed sub-division with the consequent loss to a considerable variety of flora and fauna. The Ecology Report accompanying this DA concedes that the observation times for the study of flora and fauna were limited and from our own observations do not accurately reflect the diversity of this area.

    As property owners we are naturally concerned about the unpredictable effects of storm water in this area that may be caused by the removal of a substantial quantity of trees.

    The volume of traffic using Kalinda Parade is considerable at present especially at peak times. Many cars use this route as a Dudley Road by-pass, often at speeds exceeding local limits. Kalinda Parade would be an obvious route for residents of this proposed sub-division to access Whitebridge Shopping Area/local schools etc and therefore traffic volumes would increase considerably.

    The area of this proposed sub-division is unique and Charlestown has very few comparable sites. The Council's policy on tree preservation would lead us to believe that had an individual application been made to remove a large quantity of mature trees on a property, this would undoubtedly have been met with a refusal. The high density of the development and the inevitable removal of many trees appears contrary to Council Policy.

    Please give detailed consideration to the unique nature of this site. In the Ecology Report it is disappointing that many issues relating to this proposal are dismissed in what would seem a flippant way. It is hoped that LMCC would require a more thorough investigation, to be considered in conjunction with issues raised by ourselves and other residents in the area.

  8. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Colin & Judith Haworth commented

    We strongly support every comment that has been made regarding the development at 30 Green valley rd., Charlestown how can this development even be considered. We live on the corner of Tirriki St & Green Valley rd. & a few years ago an application for town houses to be built behind our property in Green Valley. Rd., was rejected by the council because of the volume of traffic it would create, it is a very narrow road & as the road is still the same we cannot see how the council could approve this development

  9. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Mark Harris commented

    I object to this proposal as I believe that it is not suited to the local ecosystem of the area . The high density nature of this plan is not inline with existing infrasructure and will create significant traffic hazards in the area on local roads not suited to this volume of traffic.Many children including my own use these roads to walk to schools in the area and I believe that this development will jeopardise the safety of these children as their are no pedestrian crossings on Tirriki st
    I also believe that this development will dramatically alter the natural watercourses and have detrimental impact on surrounding properties .
    I urge council to reject this proposal in its current format and ask the developer to resubmit a proposal that reduces the impact on the natural environment of this site.

  10. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Peter and Noreen Elliott commented

    We object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

    1. The planned subdivision is an over-development of a relatively small parcel of land. Construction of up to 36 residences cannot be achieved in a manner which is 'sympathetic to the existing scenic, natural and built environment of the locality.'

    2. Not enough consideration is given to the protection of flora and fauna in the area. It is obvious that large-scale clearing of trees and bushland will have a detrimental effect on local native fauna.

    3. No public open space is proposed in the plan. The Dicks Creek area cannot be classified as 'open public space' because it is not accessible to the public.

    4. There is no provision of pedestrian networks and places in the new subdivision. We do not accept the assertion (2.6.4) that because there is no existing infrastructure (e.g. footpaths, cycle ways) in the locality, then none will be needed in the future!

    5. It is highly unlikely that the development will proceed 'in a manner which will ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles in and around the site.' We maintain that the accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment (May 2014) is totally unrealistic and therefore misleading. Access via Green Valley Road and Mimosa Avenue is manifestly unsuitable. Both are narrow streets, and when cars are parked on both sides of Green Valley Road or Mimosa Avenue it is very difficult for a third vehicle to gain safe thoroughfare. Furthermore, there is a blind crest at the south-western end of Green Valley Road, close to the intersection with Tirriki Street. When vehicles approach this blind crest, from either direction, there is a very real danger of a head-on collision - a situation made worse when a vehicle is parked on or near the crest. It will become considerably more dangerous with the added volume of traffic gaining access to a large new subdivision. A more suitable access point would be via 62 Tirriki Street, which has been used as a thoroughfare to the property at 30 Green Valley Road for many years.

    In conclusion, we urge Lake Macquarie City Council to reject the planned proposal in its current form. We request a drastic reduction in the number of approved building sites, as well as the provision of a safer road access to the new subdivision. We urge LMCC to demand that the developer provides suitable infrastructure (e.g. footpaths and cycle ways) as well as buffer areas of open green spaces that will minimise the impact on this sensitive local environment while, at the same time, providing an attractive facility for public recreation.

    Peter and Noreen Elliott

  11. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Brant Barden commented

    Mr David W Pavitt
    I am writing to you by way of this formal submission regarding DP/830/2014 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290.
    I have concerns regarding the size, nature and impact of the proposed development on this site.
    I would also like to apply for an extension of time as the proposed subdivision will have a major impact on the area, and as such residents require more time to analyse the proposal.
    Outlines of my major concerns are listed below.

    1. Zoning and Residential density
    a) The current proposal is incongruous with the LMCC 2030 plan for R2 (low density residential) “maintaining and enhancing the character of the surrounding area.”
    b) It is not fitting with the block size of existing suburb dwellings and is below median land size within the neighbourhood.
    c) It will alter the elements that residents find attractive about the local area.
    d) The existing environment appears not to be offered protections that should be required given the recent developments of Whitebridge Shops, Coppa Street and the proposed high-density residential apartments adjoining the Fernleigh track.
    e) Many existing residents have outlaid significant monies in accordance with fire protection regulations. A development of this nature may affect property value.

    2. Forrest and Green corridor
    a) Councils current maps linked to the 2030 plan indicate that the forest and the canopy represent significant wildlife corridors and link to other green spaces. It would appear that retention of trees would be difficult under the current development proposal. The DA report also incorrectly identifies some tree species.

    3. Species of concern
    a) The powerful owl has a large feeding range. Birds have been often sighted, photographed and scats and pellets containing ringtail possums have been encountered within and around the proposed development site.
    b) The Littlejohns tree frog (male) has been heard, sighted and photographed within the proposed development site.
    c) The Eastern Bandicoot has been sighted and photographed within the bushland and in adjoining properties.

    4. Other notable Species
    a) A large colony of Kookaburras exist within the site. These are territorial birds that rarely relocate successfully.
    b) Two separate families of Saturn Bowerbirds are located within the site.
    c) Numerous Catbirds, white-headed pigeons and a King parrot population exist within the site.
    d) Microbats nest within the trees and feed at night within the site.
    e) Red-bellied Black Snakes are present and reduce the number of Eastern Brown snakes. Green tree Snakes are also present.
    f) Population of Eastern Water dragons inhabit the creek and the watercourses that feed into the creek.
    g) Very large populations of possum species (Brush & ring tailed) which form part of the diet for large nocturnal birds.

    5. Geological and Hydrological Concerns
    a) A coal seam beaks the surface of the land within the site. Being porous and coupled with the tree root penetration this represents a significant recharge point for waters into surrounding aquifers.
    b) The catchment, subsurface aquifers and Dicks creek form part of a sensitive section of the headwaters for Jewels swamp.
    c) One proposed road appears to cover an existing natural watercourse that feeds into Dick’s creek.
    d) The forest density currently mitigates runoff and wind speed.
    e) Runoff and sediment may contaminate Dick’s creek during and after the proposed development.

    I request also that information regarding any Green offset points levied by the developer be provided to the residents affected.
    I would welcome the opportunity to meet with all stakeholders to elaborate further and work towards obtaining a mutually agreeable outcome.
    Yours truly,

    Mr Brant Ian Barden B.Sc. B.Ed. (University of Sydney).
    36 Kalinda Prd Charlestown

  12. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Withdrawn commented

    Having lived in this area since a child my first memories of growing up in the area was being warned never to cut a tree down and this was by the owners of the homestead and surround property in current dispute. This area is a forest and studded with many large trees, many of which were planted by the same Wardell Family. It is disgraceful that Council may even consider allowing the demolition of this historic structure be demolished, this is an element of Charlestown's history and heritage and I am not surprised that the heritage Trust has not explored this travesty.

    I ask you to ask you how you would feel if your home was demolished? This is exactly what is going to happen to the thousands of various native animals occupying this area that have done so for many many years, should this proposal go ahead this wildlife will be destroyed.

    I ask if council will accept responsibility should a tree fall and damage a property or potentially harm an innocent person? should this development go ahead the destruction of so many trees will subsequently no longer support the surrounding trees hence danger arrives.

    One can only go onto imagine the social issues that will arise from cramming our population.

    Is council willing to subsidise for the loss in value to residents properties should this development go ahead?

    I strongly suggest that you listen to the people of this area and also consider the fact of the common knowledge and that being the word of the Wardell Family that "this land will never be developed". It is an absolute travesty to even contemplate destroying nature purely to financially benefit.

  13. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Susan Portier commented

    I also would like to add my name to the objection of this 'developemnt' I have lived in Kalinda Pde since 1976 and have seen this area grow and flourish. Sadly this developement is if it is allowed to go ahead going to have a detremental affect on the surrounding area. and not just a small piece of pristine land that is going to be turned into an overcrowded sub-division.
    Apart from the effects this will have on the wild life and the erosion of tree removal due to the steepness of the land fall, what will happen to the water that Dickies creek? it has always taken the run-off from the properties in the surrounding streets. Many residents may not be aware that the subsoil is largely clay in layers, we have problems with the water run off from Dudley road as people that have done extentsions on their property have found out. The water seeps between these clay levels and gradually ends up in the creek. If the creek is 'removed' as indicated by the developers what happens then? Is this water build-up going to be left? how can you destroy a natural water course that is home to many animals, it has provided the area with a water drain-off solution for over 50 years to my knowledge. Now with this new developement with so many houses being crammed into such a small area it sounds like we are going to have many more problems than can be imagined. We are loosing so much land in Lake Macquarie to housing, please do not let developements like this happen. We need these small areas of pristine bushland to help stablilise the landscape. To give homes to the wild life and keep our suburb from turning into a lifeless 'concrete jungle'.

  14. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Dan Hodgins commented

    My self and family wish to object the development of 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown for the following reasons;
    • Minimal retention of large trees due to small lot sizes
    • Further Traffic Congestion
    • Lot size imbalance with existing dwellings
    • Amount of large trees appears to be understated
    • Significance of tributary feeding Dickies Creek
    • Significant loss of extensive fauna
    I do not feel I need to elaborate upon the dangers this potential development will initiate also the significant loss of heritage style homestead that is a part of Charlestown’s history.
    I also am aware of neighbouring properties whom are currently on vacation and request upon their behalves an extension of this matter.

  15. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Graham Henderson commented

    My Property abuts 2 Gardiner Street, the property in question is extremely small, an 8 bed permit would leave no room for common areas, and any that are there would be quite cramped and not add to any standard of living.

    Also with the limited car parking in the area this would be an extra burden placed on the surrounding streets. Noise will be an issue in such a confined area, also the lane-way that is adjacent to the property will become a recreation area for the residents.

    This type of accommodation in such a small space is draconian, and will only detract from the area and not improve the quality of life for people who will be using it. Does council have a ratio of space to amount of people in a dwelling?

  16. In Glendale NSW on “Shops & Restaurants” at Pt 1 Dp 860494, 10 Stockland Drive, Glendale:

    Audrey Sawyer commented

    I am a tenant at stockland & my store & 3 others will be directly impacted by this development, but we have received no direct information to that effect. The only notice tenants received was a memo stating that plans for a food court development had been lodged with council. The memo did not include a DA. I believe a food court would be good for the area, but not at the cost of my tenancy. I would like to hear further public information into the development & what store will be included in the food court & be offered a place there. I may have missunderstood, but I thought submissions closed on the 14 June 14. 2 days (today the 16 June )after the closure the development application was announced on the radio. Maybe I am a bit suspicious of the effects it is going to have on my livelihood & that of my 10 staff

  17. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 80A Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Craig Watson commented

    As a component of the Epping Plan a new conservation area has been gazetted. This site sits within this area and opposite a 2 draft and 2 existing heritage items.
    The street has no 2 storey houses and approval of this house will set a very poor example of councils approach to heritage.
    The proposal is completely atypical of the interwar housing that is identified in the character studies as being the principle reason for having the conservation area in the first place.
    To add insult to injury the proponent is asking for a reduction in one side setback from the mandatory 1500mm to 1290mm.
    Thankfully this proposal can't be dealt with as a Complying Development but requires a DA.
    It is important that council reviews this in the light of the draft DCP and ensures that the streetscape character is maintained in both bulk and form.

  18. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 80A Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Martin Todd-Smith commented

    The single low rise house that was previously on this site now becomes 4 buildings including double storeyed houses as well as granny flats.

    With the extra granny flats this is an over-development of this site with no comeback possible from neighbours because of the complying development.

    My northerly aspect will now have a "granny flat" ( in reality a full blown house) placed close up against my back fence. My outlook and privacy are affected by this and the second storey of the double storeyed house

    I object strongly.This development should not be approved in it's present form.

    But from my previous discussions with the Council Staff and the private certifiers I apparently can have no input or affect the development outcome but meekly have to accept a decision.

    The development is overblown and will have an impact on my privacy and outlook and on top of that any system that does not take into account the effects on existing residents is flawed .

    On a broader scale it makes you wonder how much influence a bottle of Grange can have.

  19. In Collaroy Plateau NSW on “Collaroy Plateau IGA -...” at Shop 6 65 Veterans Pde, Collaroy Plateau 2097:

    Harley Jackson commented

    APPLICATION APP-0000787668

    I wish to lodge my objection to the abovementioned application on the following grounds.

    Collaroy Plateau is a small family oriented community village and is already well served by two bottle shops. In addition there is a bottle shop at the bottom on the hill in each of the 3 directions east (LiquorLand), south (Time and Tide) and west (Wheeler Heights) possibly already giving Collaroy Plateau one of the highest liquor-shop-to-household ratios in Sydney if not Australia.

    The proposed bottle shop would be located in the Augusta shops directly across the road from two primary schools (St Rose and Wheeler Heights). An existing bottle shop is already located in this shopping strip. Adding another one literally metres from the existing one in my opinion would serve to give the impression to young minds that liquor stores are more important than grocery stores, newsagents, pharmacies, video rental stores, bakeries, fish and chip shops, delicatessens and bookstores (one each of which is located within the Augusta shopping strip). It is my considered opinion as well as those of the community with whom I have discussed this issue, that an additional bottle shop is completely unwarranted and completely out of the character of the area.

  20. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Cherie May Quinn commented

    We object to the development of 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown for the following reasons:

    1/ Massive loss of large/old-growth trees due to small lot sizes. Due to the small lot sizes and retaining of said lots, most large trees will be cut down. This will not only severly impact on appearance, but cause stability and safety issues. Isolated large gum trees can easily become dangerous, especially on sloping grounds, in severe/high winds situations, endangering both residents and existing properties adjacent o the proposed subdivision.

    2/ Amount of large trees appear to be understated in the DA. In the flora counts, the tree numbers in the existing forest appear to be under reported and only one of the accompanying images shows a forested area. An independent tree count on proposed Lot 26 (464m2) shows 23 Spotted Gum, 3 Ironbark and 3 Cedar Wattle and various saplings. Several of the Spotted Gu are above 30 metres. These trees are vital to maintaining the eco system in an already abused urban environment.

    3/ Fauna not included in the report. The DA does not take into consideration the considerable damage to the permanent population of native wildlife occupying the green belt. Bandicoots, Green Tree Snakes, Eastern Brown Snakes, Red Bellied Black Snakes, Tawny Frogmouths, native Wrens, Powerful Owls, Kookaburras, Magpies, Easter Water Dragon, Satin Bowerbirds and Sugar Glider possums all live in this area. The destruction of these native animals' habitats would result in not only the decimation of their numbers in the Charlestown area, but an ongoing negative impact on their breeding numbers in the Lake Macquarie area.

    4/ Significance of tributary feeding Dickies Creek. The central roadway in the plan terminating in a cup-de-sac at the high end has been located on top of the main tributary running down the slope feeding Dickies Creek. Although this does not run continuously above ground it has a significant flow during rainfall. To disrupt this tributary would cause water disbersment dangers to surrounding properties, not only resulting in property damage but potential property valuation loss.

    5/ Lot size. Lot sizes in DA are high density and significantly smaller than exiting lots. There appears to be a lack of consideration for the existing residents' lifestyles for this low density zoned residential area. No attempt has been made to blend the new development into the environment.

    6/ Traffic congestion. An extra 36 residences will add to an already burdened traffic situation for the local road network. Kalinda Pde is already used as a by-pass for many people, exceeding the speed-limit and putting residence at risk. This situation will only increase with more traffic in the area.

  21. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Brenden Dipper commented

    Hello my name is Brenden Dipper. I live at 20 Greenvalley Rd Charlestown. I have been here and raised my family here as of 2002. I am very concerned about the proposed development at 30 Greenvalley Road Charlestown. There is numerous reasons why I object to the proposal. My personal concern is that of the size of the development. My other concerns are the impact it's going to have on all the flora and fauna of this old growth forest and Nature corridor. There should be a environmental impact study done to this area rather than the council just allowing for the whole area to be demolished. It makes me very angry that this proposal could even be put into words and maps as it is set out like a car parking lot. Personally I don't think you could squeeze anything more on the Map. I think it's best that somebody over qualified from the council actually comes out to the area and has a look at the size of the existing dwellings and size of the roads in & around this Proposed development. I do know that development happens In this day & age but I think this is ridiculous trying to squeeze in the likes of 37 houses into a small spot. Not only are you going to demolish the whole forest, You're going to wipe out so many different protected species of Reptiles,marsupials,native Australian birds And thousands of different types of species of their food chain. The Past owner of this Whole area has kept this land pruned and Free of pests and unwanted Non-native weeds For dozens of years. My personal opinion is that if it is going to be a development that there only be 2 to 3 acreages be allowed only.If the council allows this current development to go ahead I strongly advise Lake Macqurie City Council that the whole local Community will object profusely.

  22. In Newtown NSW on “Arts Attack Music Festival...” at Bound by Australia St Lennox St Church St And Federation Road, Newtown 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    As a resident of a street bordering on the park I would like to know why I was not notified of this plan for a music festival on this date. There are a number of issues with this application that concern me.

    1. For an expected audience of 1000 (how will they manage the gates if more show up with only 2 security personnel across the entire park?) they estimate 100L of beer and 100L of wine and 10L of spirits, which adds up to about 1 drink per attendee. If you have ever been to a music gig you would immediately see the problem with this.

    2. With shops and hotels so near, what steps are being taken to manage people bringing their own drink?

    3. They state the event is during the day, but also list the hours of operation 11AM to 10 PM, well into the night. How will they manage dispersal, in the dark, over several acres with two security personnel?

    4, With social media, if the event is any good, I would expect attendees to contact friends and connections to invite them. What measures have been put in place so that audience numbers are managed? Again, two people managing security will not control 20 people angry at the liquor running out and as a resident facing that park, I wouldn't want to have to defend my property against the organisers lack of crowd control.

    5. Where is the DA for this festival and have the police been notified?

  23. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Oliver Mendelsohn commented

    My view, as a resident with a frontage on Warwick Street, is that it would be undesirable for Council to endorse this development. If as many as 8 independent residents are to be accommodated in a facility in North Melbourne, it should be comprehensively assessed for the suitability of the accommodation and its compatibility with the surrounding environment. It would be quite short-sighted to wave a development through merely because it might make no structural change to the external landscape of a given precinct. The precinct of Gardiner and Warwick Streets is increasingly being consolidated as a low-to medium rise colony of separate dwellings, with residents who know each other. It is quite undesirable to allow a significant variation to this model without a formal inquiry with adequate opportunity to explore all sides of the application.

  24. In Terrigal NSW on “Florida Beach Bar...” at Terrigal Esp, Terrigal 2260:

    Mrs K Minassian commented

    What is the special occasion? AND what time will the trading hours be extended to as I live only a few steps from these premises.

    The stats at the end of this email are incorrect if they refer to me personally as this is the first email that I've sent.

    Kind regards

    K. Minassian

  25. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Stephen Farrugia commented

    The property is in a quiet location surrounded by narrow streets and laneways. It is important to the many residents surrounding this property that it remains a private dwelling. Noise in narrow streets has a tendency to carry some distance and be annoying. As the property footprint is quite small, it's easy to see that the laneway alongside will become a recreation area for the residents, so the probability that the change of use will impact the surrounding properties is inevitable.

    Also, as the property footprint is small, ~15mx8m, where will the individual rooms fit? Will the amenity of the people living there be acceptable with respect to council guidelines?

    I suggest that council clamp down on ventures such as this as it is poorly regulated and very open to abuse.

  26. In Collingwood VIC on “Change of use (Brothel)” at 100 Johnston St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Jill Koppel commented

    Change of use to a Brothel? As far as I remember, it's always been one!
    (This is not an objection provided no women are held there without THEIR CONSENT!)

  27. In East Launceston TAS on “Utilities - Remove 9 trees...” at Road Reserve between Arthur & Adelaide Streets 18-32 High Street East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Stephen Stronach commented

    On perusal of DA no DA202/2014 I find it very difficult to justify the funds being spent on the removal and replacement of trees with exotic palms considering that the existing trees are in good condition, are native trees which attract native birds, and are not creating any danger to people or property.

    The funds would be better spent on beautification of Launceston by the removal of litter, weeds and general rubbish in any number of places in the city.

    Stephen Stronach

  28. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    City of Boroondara commented

    No decision has been made at this time. Officers are still assessing this application and Council is obliged to make a decision under the Planning and Environment Act. This act limits the issues to be considered to planning matters, such as amenity impacts, car parking and traffic generation.

    Community perceptions about the nature of the business or those who participate in the service offered by the business are not relevant planning considerations and will not form part of Council’s decision making process. This application is likely to considered at a public Urban Planning Special Committee in July.

    City of Boroondara - Communications and Engagement Team

  29. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 3 & 5 Railway Avenue, Armadale, VIC:

    Eleanor Sarah Hart commented

    Could you please email 3d image/ drawings of development.


  30. In East Launceston TAS on “Utilities - Remove 9 trees...” at Road Reserve between Arthur & Adelaide Streets 18-32 High Street East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Nicola Barton commented

    I find this a total waste of rate payers money. There is actually nothing wrong with the trees that are already there, and to have them replaced with palm trees is crazy. I am sure the $25 000.00 (so we have been told) can be spent more wisely by the LCC. Can you please explain why they need to be replaced, and if going to be replaced by palm trees are these palm trees actually native to Tasmania. Spend your money on cleaning up the undergrowth on the York Street side of the pool and up along Welman street, it is a disgrace.

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