Recent comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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 ?

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. In West Lakes SA on “Demolition of existing...” at 9-11 Lakeview Avenue West Lakes SA 5021:

    Ben commented

    After having trouble getting approval for only 2 homes on the lake, I would like to see how the Council have allowed and approved the building of 5 on 2 allotments........??????

  24. In Kew VIC on “Construct three (3)...” at 29 Parkhill Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Darren commented

    Paul, how can you knock down half a duplex construction at 29 & 31 Parkhill. Surely both residents would have objections to the other half being knocked down??

  25. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    John Hallahan commented

    I agree that all traffic to and from the proposed Bunnnings store should be via the Princes Highway. If they can't manage that the proposal should be rejected.

    The streets around the site were set out in the 1910s and 20s. They were not designed for the volume of the cars that there are today. And, they are wholly residential streets. Also, the streets are too narrow for the volume of traffic that the store will attract especially Union St and all the streets east of the highway (South, Station, Harp, Wentworth, Fanning and Barden streets).

    I am especially concerned that South Street will become a "rat-run" to and from the store and the residential amenity that all residents are entitled to will be lost forever.

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

    David Burns commented

    Dear Mayor Szatow,

    Thank you for the special bulletin. I strongly support the position of the council and will be active in opposing the proposed amalgamation with Hornsby council.

    I trust the fight to protect Ku-ring-gai from rampant development is heartfelt and will continue to be applied to current development applications. In particular the preposterous proposal to develop a giant child care centre for 150 children in a small low density lane such as Merrivale Lane. The increase in traffic flow from such a large commercial enterprise in the middle of a quiet residential area will result in a material loss of amenity to the current residents. Many residents are required to walk on the roads due to a lack of footpaths. Traffic movements for parents, staff and supplier/contractors to this commercial enterprise will significantly increase the risk to the safety of residents. I ask that you support the many current residents in opposing this development application.

    Yours Sincerely,

    David Burns
    17 Charlton Avenue
    Turramurra


    Web Version | Update preferences | Unsubscribe

    Like

    Tweet

    Forward

    Ku-ring-gai at the crossroads - Your help is needed!

    As Mayor I am writing to tell you that our Council is facing the biggest challenge of our 109 year old history. Last week the Baird Government announced that over 70% of Sydney councils are considered ‘unfit’ and should merge.

    Ku-ring-gai has been recommended to merge with Hornsby Council.

    What you can do to help our cause

    If you care about Ku-ring-gai – and want our Council to stand alone without merging – please contact your local state MP to express your view by 18 November.

    These local members represent the Baird Government in Ku-ring-gai and must respond to your concerns.

    Click on the below links now to send a suggested email and voice your concerns.

    • Email Alister Henskens - Member for Ku-ring-gai
    • Email Jonathan O’Dea - Member for Davidson

    Why merging with Hornsby Council is not in your interests

    If we merge with Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai ratepayers face:

    Paying between 5% and 17% more in rates. Hornsby’s land values are lower than ours and in a merged council, ratepayers with higher land values pay higher rates.
    Having less say in how rates are spent in our area. Hornsby has a larger population and will have more Councillors in a merger.
    Reduced service levels associated with serving a population projected to be 350,000, instead of Ku-ring-gai’s current 120,000 people.
    Our council decided on 27 October that it will maintain its position to stand alone

    We are doing this because:

    Over 70% of our residents who responded to a survey between April and June said they did not want to merge with Hornsby.
    Ku-ring-gai has been rated by the NSW Government’s own finance department (TCorp) as one of the 16 strongest councils out of 152 in NSW. There is no financial reason for us to merge.
    Ku-ring-gai won the most prestigious award for local government in 2014 – the Bluett Award – for the quality of its services and assets.
    There is little objective evidence that merged councils are more efficient or cost effective.
    The Baird government has given us a deadline of 18 November to submit a merger proposal.

    Our response will be that our position has not changed and we should stand alone based on the reasons above.

    With your help we still have a chance for Ku-ring-gai Council to survive

    Without it we will lose this fight. Please write to your local MP now!

    Stay up to date on this important issue on Council's Fit For the Future website. You can also stay informed on our position by following me on Facebook.

    Yours sincerely,
    Mayor Cheryl Szatow

    P: 9424 0709
    E: mayor@kmc.nsw.gov.au

    Edit your subscription | Unsubscribe

    www.kmc.nsw.gov.au

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

    David Burns commented

    Dear Mayor Szatow,

    Thank you for the special bulletin. I strongly support the position of the council and will be active in opposing the proposed amalgamation with Hornsby council.

    I trust the fight to protect Ku-ring-gai from rampant development is heartfelt and will continue to be applied to current development applications. In particular the preposterous proposal to develop a giant child care centre for 150 children in a small low density lane such as Merrivale Lane. The increase in traffic flow from such a large commercial enterprise in the middle of a quiet residential area will result in a material loss of amenity to the current residents. Many residents are required to walk on the roads due to a lack of footpaths. Traffic movements for parents, staff and supplier/contractors to this commercial enterprise will significantly increase the risk to the safety of residents. I ask that you support the many current residents in opposing this development application.

    Yours Sincerely,

    David Burns
    17 Charlton Avenue
    Turramurra


    Web Version | Update preferences | Unsubscribe

    Like

    Tweet

    Forward

    Ku-ring-gai at the crossroads - Your help is needed!

    As Mayor I am writing to tell you that our Council is facing the biggest challenge of our 109 year old history. Last week the Baird Government announced that over 70% of Sydney councils are considered ‘unfit’ and should merge.

    Ku-ring-gai has been recommended to merge with Hornsby Council.

    What you can do to help our cause

    If you care about Ku-ring-gai – and want our Council to stand alone without merging – please contact your local state MP to express your view by 18 November.

    These local members represent the Baird Government in Ku-ring-gai and must respond to your concerns.

    Click on the below links now to send a suggested email and voice your concerns.

    • Email Alister Henskens - Member for Ku-ring-gai
    • Email Jonathan O’Dea - Member for Davidson

    Why merging with Hornsby Council is not in your interests

    If we merge with Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai ratepayers face:

    Paying between 5% and 17% more in rates. Hornsby’s land values are lower than ours and in a merged council, ratepayers with higher land values pay higher rates.
    Having less say in how rates are spent in our area. Hornsby has a larger population and will have more Councillors in a merger.
    Reduced service levels associated with serving a population projected to be 350,000, instead of Ku-ring-gai’s current 120,000 people.
    Our council decided on 27 October that it will maintain its position to stand alone

    We are doing this because:

    Over 70% of our residents who responded to a survey between April and June said they did not want to merge with Hornsby.
    Ku-ring-gai has been rated by the NSW Government’s own finance department (TCorp) as one of the 16 strongest councils out of 152 in NSW. There is no financial reason for us to merge.
    Ku-ring-gai won the most prestigious award for local government in 2014 – the Bluett Award – for the quality of its services and assets.
    There is little objective evidence that merged councils are more efficient or cost effective.
    The Baird government has given us a deadline of 18 November to submit a merger proposal.

    Our response will be that our position has not changed and we should stand alone based on the reasons above.

    With your help we still have a chance for Ku-ring-gai Council to survive

    Without it we will lose this fight. Please write to your local MP now!

    Stay up to date on this important issue on Council's Fit For the Future website. You can also stay informed on our position by following me on Facebook.

    Yours sincerely,
    Mayor Cheryl Szatow

    P: 9424 0709
    E: mayor@kmc.nsw.gov.au

    Edit your subscription | Unsubscribe

    www.kmc.nsw.gov.au

  28. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Tim Mills commented

    I object to this proposal on the grounds that the development of Bunnings and the widening of Smith street for the purpose of servicing Bunnings will have significant negative impact on local residents of Smith street and all surrounding residential streets.

    Currently Smith street suffers from parking stress and traffic congestion on weekdays and during office hours only. The development of the Bunnings store will ensure that these conditions are not only worsened but extended into evenings and weekends. Smith street is currently very quiet on the weekends and this will not continue should the development go ahead. Residents will lose a significant street parking should the Northern side of Smith Street be widened for traffic.

    Further to this, the increased traffic congestion will see increased traffic incidents in the area. There have already been significant accidents along this strip of the Princes Highway including pedestrians being hit by cars in the past twelve months. With more traffic including semi-trailers being forced into and out of Smith street and into Union street local residents will see their commute times dramatically increased and it is likely that drivers will try to take different routes to avoid Smith street, only furthering to congest surrounding narrow residential streets such as South street. Traffic will be forced down as far as Holbeach avenue to service all residential streets from there to Smith street.

    On top of congestion the increased traffic will mean increased noise for residents and as the opening hours proposed are from 6am -10pm it will mean deliveries in noisy semi-trailers could start from as early as 4am. The lights from entering and exiting traffic after dark will also shine into residents homes and disturb residents quality of living.

    All traffic for the Bunnings should flow into and out of the site from the Highway. None of this traffic should be directed into a residential street such as Smith street.

  29. In Tempe NSW on “Bunnings Tempe” at 750 Princes Highway, Tempe:

    Stephanie Ward commented

    I strongly object to this DA proposal for a number of significant reasons:

    • Traffic will increase dramatically and negatively impact the residents of Smith street and surrounding streets in terms of noise, pollution and increased commute times
    • Bunnings will do nothing to diversify and enhance our Tempe community. I would prefer a development that would have everyday use for residents such as mixed business retail including cafes and groceries to develop local business and create a community centre for the suburb. There are already Bunnings stores within ten minute drives from the site in Rockdale and Alexandria. There is no need to build another one at this location.
    • The widening of Smith street may impact on house prices in Smith street creating financial tensions for new homeowners
    • The opening hours proposed are unacceptable and will only serve to increase noise and traffic for residents

    I have already outlined these matters in detail to Marrickville Council and have only received an auto generated response to acknowledge receipt of letter. This is not good enough.

    Along with other residents we have also contacted the RMS pinch point program identifying this proposal as a significant problem in terms of traffic congestion and again have not gained a response.

    I have also contacted Andrew O’Neill the Regional Property Developer for Bunnings and received no response. This shows a complete lack of regard from Bunnings towards the local community in which it wants to set up business.

    Furthermore, on the 12th and 13th October Sure Search systems were working on the site from 9pm until 5am. The noise of drilling etc. was simply unacceptable for residents and there was no notification. We have now received a last minute notification of plans to conduct such operations at the site again tonight from 9pm-5am by the same company (29th October). I believe that this poor consideration for residents is a sign of how Bunnings is going to operate in all future operations on the site.

    Overall there has been very poor communication to residents regarding this proposal.

  30. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 1 Lancelot Close, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    This block is possibly 650sqm at most. Where are they getting the clear land to build a two storey dwelling?

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