Recent comments

  1. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Melissa Kewin commented

    Just to make clear my points in regards to opposing the proposed business at 29 Miller Place, Menai. Overall aims/objectives page 17 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “quality of life of the local community will not be detrimentally effected” by this development proposal.

    Comment - My family’s and community negative impacts include:
    • Proposed business is approximately 40 meters from a 40 kilometre an hour school zone - then to a 50km zone. During school pick up time it is already very difficult to turn in to Trumper and Miller Place.
    • Everyday adults and children walk and ride bikes down Trumper and Miller Place on the street and not just the footpath as it is a quiet street. Huge concerns for the safety of these people with increased traffic and/or vehicles with the 2 dead end streets involved.
    • Business would be unsuitably positioned on the blind corner of 2 cul-de-sacs.
    • Any business (regardless of type of business) would be more suited to a commercial premises or main road with ample parking and road width. This will be detrimental on the business as well as residents.
    • This location for any business is extremely poorly thought of and deficient. With only one very small consulting room and reception this proposal will need expansion as growth may follow.
    • Increased traffic and noise from not only patients but pathology, staff, deliveries and medical sales representatives
    • Increased risk of crime due to drugs that may or even believed to be kept on premises
    • A reduction in visual appearance of the street as the appealing typical Miller Place residential look of the grassy front yard will be replaced by a concreted car park and business façade.
    • This business will generate noise from people arriving/exiting the building, cars and general business above the ambient area, especially for the adjoining and cross street neighbours. Some adjoining residents do work evenings.
    • Larger concrete surface area of car park will increase localised flooding downhill to neighbouring frontage. Concrete car park must be adequately drained not to cause flooding to adjoining neighbours downhill which is not mentioned in the plans. However this may be allowed for? Overall aims/objectives Page 19 of the Statement of Environmental Effect
    The proposed "will provide a desirable service within the community”

    Comment - Other businesses of this type already exists in multiple areas of this and surrounding suburbs – therefore is not a much needed or desired service. This is not a small country town with no services available.

    3.2 Development Statistics Page 11 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “Hours of operation 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday. 8am to 1pm Saturday”
    Yet, Page 13 states: “The residential medical practice will operate from 7am - 5pm Monday to Friday and will be closed over the weekend”

    Comment - Conflicting hours of operation. We should be given clarification for proposal to proceed. Permissibility Page 17 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    The definition of a residential medical practice is as follows:
    “Residential medical practice means one or more rooms within (or within the curtilage of) a dwelling house used by not more than 3 health care professionals who practice in partnership (if there is more than one such professional) and who provides professional health care services to members of the public”

    Comment - We have no guarantee that this practice will not expand from 1 doctor to 3 in the future. If this happens visitors will increase from 30 to 90+ a day. This will to a great extent increase traffic and noise also negatively affect driver and pedestrian safety in these narrow cul-de-sacs. There is absolutely no room for such traffic and parking without serious concerns for safety.

    4.4.11 Access, Servicing, Parking and Traffic Page 24 of Statement of Environmental Effect

    “The parking provided for the site of 3 to 4 spaces for the medical practice meets and even exceeds the numerical requirement in council's development control plan.
    The design of the proposed parking layout will permit the majority of the patients to enter and exit the site in a forward direction using the existing driveway access provided. One of the spaces will require the occasional front in entry and reverse out exit and this movement is not considered a concern as it is similar to that occurring at the majority of the residential properties in this area”

    Comment -
    • No one can assume the patients will exit the practice in a forward facing direction – once again causing serious concerns for safety on a narrow corner. This cannot be policed or assumed otherwise.
    • Will it be possible for all vehicle sizes, including 4WD's that are common, to turn around to exit the practice in a front facing direction if there are other vehicles parked in spaces provided. This cannot be policed.
    • Patients may decide to park on the street rather than spaces provided increasing the risk of an accident on the narrow street. This cannot be policed or assumed otherwise.
    • 2 or even 4 cars per hour reversing is not “similar to the majority of residential properties in this area”. This is not including any future expansion which may occur.

    4.5.2 Tree Removal and Retention Page 27
    “The proposal does not involve removing any vegetation from the site in order to accommodate the medical practice”
    Yet, 3.3.3 Landscaping and tree removal Page 14 states
    “The proposal does not involve the removal of any native vegetation on the site however it is proposed to remove a small stand of Cocos palms and a conifer.”

    Comment - Once again conflicting information

    Conclusion -
    I can manage my family’s many medical issues locally and easily without the approval and go ahead of this development proposal. This letter is not stopping a medical practitioner from performing their duties. This is not personal. He can continue to practice as he already has a practice locally and there are many alternative locations locally for such a proposal and business.

    Regarding convenience, the negatives far outweigh the positives. The increased risks that this business proposal exposes onto the local residents, their visitors and children just cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. A corner store, hairdresser, mechanic or medical practitioner may be convenient, however this is an extremely bad location for any business.

    I believe this will be detrimental to quality of life in this street and strongly oppose this development proposal at 29 Miller Place, Menai.

  2. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Ian Ryan commented

    In response to the comments by Diane Thomas 14/10/12 & 15/10/12
    Well Diane, my wife and I always thought you were a nice person.
    It appears we were very wrong.
    For you to actually wish that we get sick and there is no one to help, is evil & vindictive.
    Perhaps, before you put your thoughts on paper you should actually think.
    My wife & I did not do the letter box drop you refer to.
    Nor did we know it was being done until we received our copy as you did.
    Why are you blaming us?
    I am a patient of Dr. Vihn Giang as you obviously are, so I know his address.
    I have always found him to be an excellent doctor.
    But this proposed move is a bad one for everyone in Trumper, Miller, O'Reilly & McCabe.
    Why? For the very reasons you have already stated.
    The main one being traffic & parking.
    It is a dangerous corner & I have parked my car in the street to demonstrate how difficult it is to get through. People are lazy & they will park on the street whether you think so or not.
    I would also like to thank you for your extremely rude & inaccurate letter you hand delivered to our letter box.
    You now blame me for 1. All the parked cars in Miller Place.
    2. People flying up & down the street.
    3. People doing U turns in Hall Drive & Trumper Place.
    4. People riding motor bikes at night.
    5. People in the street dying of cancer.
    6. People writing on walls & fences.
    And you ask what I intend doing about all of those.
    You then have the nerve to tell me to stop complaining, when it is YOU that has been placing all these comments on this facility.

    As a matter of interest, as much as I would like to solve all of the above complaints of yours.
    I am not a policeman, nor a magical healer, but I was on The Anti Graffiti Committee with Council some years ago, that was responsible for cleaning up all the back fences along Old Illawarra Road & planting the shrubs to deter future vandalism. I believe yours was one of the fences that benefited.
    But, I did not see you or any of your neighbours on that committee.
    This is only about having a Medical Practice at the entrance way to our small but busy Cul de Sac.
    Which is not only dangerous, it is not needed. If you look at the DA which you obviously have not you will see that there is still no treatment room for sick patients to lay down.
    This is the beginning of a large practice, because that is what the doctor wants.

  3. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Diane Thomas commented

    Hi how do you know how many cars go in and out of the doctors surgery if
    you havent got the address right. Today 15th October No. 27 and the house
    opposite deliberately had their cars out together so no one could hardly pass.
    Whats the good of doing this is its is very childish. I would like to complain to
    the council about cars parked together on either side. This is not how the
    doctor will have his cars. I have put up with a lot of cars parked in Miller Place
    for months and I think that the council should step in and do something about it.

    I dont really know where these people are getting their stories from???they do
    not make sense and cant even get the street right. I am very much in favour of the
    doctor coming up the street and I will keep writing this always.
    Diane Thomas

  4. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Olwyn Theivendran commented

    As commened earlier re. the cars collecting school kids, this will not be a problem as these cars turn on Trumper and not Miller.
    This Dr.will not be using no.2 Bradman(not Davidson) as well as Miller Place.
    No drugs or money will be stored on the premises as this Dr. bulk bills. Re. robberies Miller Pl. has had its fair share of them without a Dr. being around.
    My husband and I have absolutely no objection to a Dr. on our street as we are ageing, and, so are a lot of other residents
    Whatever has happened to the Australian way of giving a person a fair go. C'mon guys please
    LIVE and LET LIVE.

  5. In Surrey Hills VIC on “To use the land for a food...” at 111 - 113 Union Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Evan Doumas commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I am a current cafe owner/retailer in Union road,Surrey Hills. We are finding it difficult to find parking for customers currently in this strip and another cafe in the area does not provide a diverse need for the community. The small strip has eight eateries with coffee making facilities and are all suffering due to the lack of business. Council needs to understand that the saturation of a like business will certainly see the strip slow down and many of these businesses will make their staff redundant. A fruit shop, newsagent, bank or other business is more a requirement rather another cafe.
    This application should not be approved.


    Evan Doumas
    Retro cafe tel: 9898 9696

  6. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Diane Thomas and resident of 8 Miller Place. commented

    Yes I will add my comment. As for the doctor who is in 2 Bradman Road not
    2 Davidson Road as stated in the flyer delivered to the residents. The doctor is
    only going to have one practice. The practice he has at the moment is too
    small ie. if people are sick there is no bed for them to lay on while waiting for the
    doctor to attend. When I have passed the doctors surgery there has only been
    on or two cars at a time at the least four cars. There are other issues in Miller
    Place that are not good and should be dealt with. Coming down Miller place to
    the end where the Park is there is always cars parked on both sides of the
    road have you ever thought that children might be standing there and they might
    get knocked over. The residents of Miller Place do more than 50k and I have
    nearly been run over because residents dont pull over to let other people out.
    I think it should be no standing all along Miller Place and you should park your
    car in the driveway provided by your house. What about up at the school where
    mothers do u turns in Trumper place and there is no room for anyone to walk
    or kids from school cross. There are more important issues in the street than a doctor who is trying to provide medical attention to those who need it. Lets get the street organised with the cars first before someone or a child gets hit.

    I am appaulled that residents could be so awful towards someone who is trying to
    help people in need. I hope one day that one of the opposes are sick and there is no one to help.

    No. 6 and 8 Miller Place. 14/10/2012

  7. In Malvern VIC on “Amendment to approved...” at 152 - 154 Wattletree Road, Malvern, VIC:

    Ann Reid commented

    The proposal to tear down two heritage buildings and replace them with a 4 storey building is typical of Cabrini's total disregard for the area in which it resides.

    Council should be protecting its heritage buildings in this area as it does in other areas of Stonnington.

    The entire application should be refused on this basis alone.

  8. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Melissa Kewin commented

    To Sutherland Shire Council,

    This particular GP also has a practice 480m away at 2 Davidson Rd. Why does he need another one so close? There is no extra convenience for residents to have another practice located here.

    In the submitted Statement of Environmental Effect 4.4.11 mentions that one car place has to reverse out. The other 2 car places may reverse exit as well as the GP cannot enforce exiting front on and would be assumption to believe otherwise. If as stated there is 30 customers a day. That is approx 12-15 cars reversing a day on a blind narrow corner next to a school. This is not 'similar to that occurring at the majority of the residential properties in this area' as stated on page 24 of the SOEE. This also does not count cars from the staff, residents, pathology, deliveries and sales representatives. Extra risk for locals and children from the school walking home.

    Considering this is not a convenient location for neighbours, it is unsafe and the GP already has another local practice just 480m away there is no real driver or reason for this to go ahead.

    Please locate his new practice in a commercial premises only.

    I oppose.

  9. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented


    There are 5 medical practices within walking distances.

    2 Medical practices are 480m away. 1 is 780m away, another 1 is 1km and another at 1.2km away. Not to mention Bangor and Illawong medical centres which are also very close.

    Main point I am making is that there is already ample Medical Centres in the area and commercial areas for this type of business. There is no need or demand for this practice right here in a small no through road. The Medical Practitioner is just trying to get a cheaper way of running a business in a residential street.

    Having a doctor in your street is not a convenience here, not needed and people in the street may not even be customers of this particular medical practitioner.

    In the Statement of Environmental Effect and the Neighbour Notification Letter contradicts each other regarding the hours of business as well. This needs to be clarified. Will this be a mandatory thing that can be governed?

    Also a main point is that the proposed driveway is right on a small tight blind corner on a no through road.

    I oppose strongly.

  10. In Menai NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 29 Miller Pl Menai 2234:

    Glen Sullivan commented

    This should not go ahead. There are 4 medical centers already within walking distance of this location. This is a commercial practice in a residential area and small street. There is a commercial area for this 650-700m away and another 1km. Commercial entities are quite welcome there, not in this small no through road area.
    The practice would not generate extra jobs for the area as one GP can only practice in such a small space as proposed.
    There is limited parking entry in this block. The entry is proposed single lane right on the outer of the sharp corner, this could cause people to cut the corner which is quite blind to the incoming traffic. The corner is very narrow and tight, right where customers would also park.
    All roads from this corner are to cul de sac's, this would mean increased traffic in these streets as well. The street is narrow and so many of these cars will do illegal u-turns at McCabe and Miller or just go up the end and have to turn around and drive through again. People already do this with the increased traffic from the school. Many children walk home along this street and i have seen some near misses.
    A commercial premises with handling money and drugs may increase crime that otherwise would not be a target.
    The application is asking for part use, this could turn into a large practice in the future because the ground floor is too small to accommodate growth.
    I strongly oppose this application.

  11. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House –...” at 159 Raglan Street, Mosman, NSW:

    ????Keyth Pisani commented

    ??OBJECTION to the proposed development at 159 Raglan Street Mosman
    Application Number 8.2012.196.1 (Mr David Cowling)
    ????•“MORE LOVE” Bachelor Party Pad In Respectable Family Neighbourhood????•

    ??Considerations for Council

    1. Non-Compliance

    The allowable FSR for dwellings in this location under councils planning laws is 0.5. The
    existing FSR for the property at 159 Raglan Street is 0.73 which is already a substantial over-development. The proposed new development will see the FSR rise to 0.77. Again this is an even more significant over-development than Council allows for. The non-compliant FSR will greatly impact the local amenity, impose on neighbouring houses and create a greater building cluster closer to the existing boundary fences.
    The proposed Cabana size greatly exceeds Council’s requirements. The Council requirement for a structure of this nature is 20 m2. The proposal is to develop a Cabana of 28 m2... 40% in excess of the Council’s allowance.
    The back wall height exceeds the existing back boundary fence height by more than 20 cm. There will be a substantial loss of garden under this proposal. The already existing small garden area will be further reduced with the removal of existing mature trees.
    Council’s regulations also indicate that the pool area must have a 2 m setback from all boundaries.

    2. Overlook

    The applicant makes a range of allegations that his property is “overlooked” by neighbouring properties and seeks to further screen-off existing boundaries in order to increase concealment. Quite frankly, any privacy issues are exaggerated. The applicant’s property is nestled amongst four other properties in a respectable family neighbourhood block and this over-sensitivity to absolute privacy is unrealistic.

    3. Drainage

    The proposed flat roof of the Cabana does not appear to have appropriate drainage and may cause substantial water pooling. Currently, this area is not affected by any water pooling or poor drainage of storm water, due to Council’s tight oversight of the development of neighbouring properties.
    ?4. Pollution

    There is a very substantial risk of party noise directly affecting my property as well as other properties that surround the proposed development. The Cabana will have audio and lighting facilities and the location of proposed development will direct noise towards our living room downstairs and bedrooms upstairs.

    The proposed “MORE LOVE” fountain and signage is offensive in its party/poolside context and suggests lewd behaviour and debauchery; totally out of place in a respectable family neighbourhood.

    5. Proposed Cabana – Habitable Dwelling

    The proposed Cabana is clearly a space that can be habitable with cooking and sleeping facilities and appears to be the construction of a habitable room and living quarters. There is a suggestion of a possible fireplace and chimney with no details of its location and construction and possible effects of smoke drifting into neighbouring properties by prevailing winds. This is especially concerning considering the relative roof height of the building at fence height.
    The proposal is a relocation and duplication of existing facilities to adjoin a rear boundary fence unnecessarily causing loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The proposed structure exceeds what is allowable under existing Council regulations in every aspect of the development.

    Finally, the applicant has not seen fit to consult any neighbours to discuss his proposed development or its potential impact on their property. It is unfortunate that he has chosen this path rather than adopt a more harmonious and openhanded approach. This is the second time he has submitted the proposal without our prior knowledge. The first application was submitted just before Christmas on 16 December 2011 and rejected by council due to insufficient documentation. This second application has been timed to coincide with the election of a new council, school holidays and the sale of two adjoining and directly affected properties one of which is empty awaiting the new owners and the other also as yet not inhabited by its new owners.

  12. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    ANYONE who wishes to comment has until 5.00PM MONDAY 15 OCTOBER 2012. That includes GAY STREET, KARIOLA STREET, ROSLYN STREET and MOWBRAY ROAD residents.

  13. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Roslyn Street Residents commented

    The period of comment has just been extended to end Friday 12th October 2012

  14. In Kew VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 58 Walpole Street Kew VIC 3101:

    R Chee commented

    I am against further medium/high density development on Walpole Street. Walpole Street is already congested and prone to traffic issues (especially during school start/end times) as well as during the morning peak when people use it as a alternate North-South route to by pass the Junction. Unless the development provides 2 car spaces per dwelling with at least 2 available guest parking spaces for the entire development, I am afraid it will only lead to more traffic problems.

  15. In Capalaba QLD on “Deomolition - Swimming Pool” at 36 Daveson Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Jan Garabedian commented

    We installed the swimming pool in approx. 1990. Buccaneer Pools was the company we used. Buccaneer Pools damaged the main sewerage pipes in the bottom left hand side of the garden, we took them to Court in Brisbane and they were found guilty, but never paid for the sewage repairs, even though they were instructed by the Court to do do.

  16. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Heather hands commented

    As a resident of Helsal Drive and a direct next door neighbour of the proposed units we are very upset as we have had no notification of these plans and have only known of this from reading this website.
    We are in favour of everything that has been written by fellow neighbours and surrounding streets of Helsal Drive we would also like to mention that the 2 storey buildings will block out all of the afternoon sun to our property and also the problem with privacey looking into our backyard along with the increase of traffic and parking and the develuation of our property.
    We do hope that our comments along with other residents comments are taken seriously.

    Joy, Kevin and Heather Hands

  17. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Lisa Hsiao commented

    At this area, there ar already too many " no through road". to have 6 two story units will make this area become highly density. The traffic is extremely terrible at night. The council should really seriously consider about the big influence at this area.

    our next door negibhour is going to buil up another unit in the back, i can't image how many construtions are going at this area. this should be stopped and get the neighbour notice as well as we didn't know anything until the neighbour's notice to our mail box.

  18. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Rebecca and Rodney Morrissey commented

    We would also like to object to the above proposed development. We agree wholeheartedly with the previous objections. One of the main reasons we bought in this immediate area was the LOW density zoning, which at the time also translated to low traffic.

  19. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 6 Gay St, Lane Cove North:

    Mr and Mrs Wetherill commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    We are residents in Roslyn Street and only became aware of this application yesterday after the close of business. We received no notification despite the fact it will affect the nature of the street as a whole.

    We ask you to consider our comments in relation to the traffic component of the application:-

    Taking the Traffic Report figures of 1 space per 4 children (Page 18), you would reasonably conclude that for 40 children you require 10 parking spaces. I am unclear from the reports how this number of parking spaces is achieved given this is a corner site and therefore immediate street parking is not as readily available as might be deduced from the reports propositions.

    These are residential streets, with many families (I am told [not verified] there are in the order of 26 children living on Roslyn Street) who travel to and from their own schools and pre-schools/day-care at the same time as the drop-off to 6 Gay Street. This does not appear to be recognised in the reports findings.

    Our primary concern is for safety, a number of the Childcare Centres existing parents travel at inappropriate speeds along Roslyn Street (having dropped off their children). When you have many families who live here getting children in and out of their cars to get them to school it is hazardous - If this application is approved we believe conditions should be applied to ensure the safety of the residents and ensure the increased number of parents dropping off at 6 Gay street does not increase the incidence of those parents driving too fast along Roslyn Street indeed the conditions might regulate the current situation!

    Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

    Yours sincerely,

  20. In Tamborine QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 20 - 30 Sundown Court, Tamborine, QLD:

    Eron and Maureen POIDEVIN commented

    Our comments are based on some 32 years living on Sundown Court.

    We have noted in that time that visitors to Sundown Court most frequently travel the full length of the road even if their visit is primarily to a location short of the road end.

    1. The establishment of a commercial enterprise, relying upon on site customers for its operation, is clearly unsuited to the ambiance of both the residents of the Sundown Court or to those of the Ryemore Estate.

    2. Why was there NO contact by the developer of the proposal with the residents of Sundown Court prior to the submission to Council?

    3. The area in which the proposal is sited has a large resident wild life population which will be adversely affected by the increased traffic flow.

    4. It should be noted that Sundown Court was originally a dirt track extension of a gravelled Munstervale Road. It was developed into a narrow, underserviced "road" by layering a bitumen surface over the track by the developer of the large (four hectare plus) rural residential blocks. Money left over for the maintenance of Sundown Court by the developer was used by the Beaudesrt Council to eventually bitumen Munstervale Road from Sundown Court to the Beenleigh - Beaudesrt Rd. (Sundown Court is in a much poorer state than Munstervale Rd in the width, edges and surface quality.)

    5. (a) The area is very much a family area, even though it is classsified as rural/ residential and the roads are frequented by children and adults horse riding, cycling and walking/running along the roads.
    (b) In some parts it is quite difficult for pedestrians or riders to get safely of the road surface. Customers of the proposed brewery would not be familiar with the roads and particularly on Sundown Court which is quite narrower and with blind corners/hills all users could be at risk. Even now road users, not familiar with Sundown Court, tend to exceed the speed limit and drive down the middle of the road, and resent having to move off the bitumen surface to permit other cars to pass. As frequent road users we have had many close calls.

    6. Motor cyclists, both residental or visitors, tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends, already pose a considerable danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

    7. The operation of the brewery will generate a considerable amount of effluent which will require disposal, most likely in the general area of the plant's operation. There will also be the need to meet health and safety needs for workers and visitors. The effect of this effluent, gaseous, solid and liquid, in an area with NO industrial disposal system, would need to be articulated/quantified to the satisfaction of local residents.

    8. Some moor cyclists, residential and visitors tend to speed along Sundown Court and particularly at weekends and public holidays already pose a significant danger. This danger would most likely be exaccerbated by the presence of a boutique brewery on Sundown Court.

  21. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Rosaleen Helen Alban commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed double story 6 unit apartment block to be erected at number 17 Helsal Drive Wantirna South (reference P/2012/6605). This construction will irreversibly change the landscape of this area while creating increased traffic in an already pressured environment.

    A structure of this magnitude will generate a great deal of noise and inconvenience to the residents during construction and for this reason alone the wider neighbourhood should have been informed of the proposed development. If this project continues it will create visual pollution, block the winter sun to the adjoining properties and reduce the privacy for the residents of Helsal Drive and Apollo Court affecting the enjoyment of our properties.

    This area is not suitable for a high density housing estate as there is limited access to major roads and the side streets are already crowded. In this area some household now sport 3, 4 and sometimes 5 vehicles creating an obstacle course for traffic in the side streets. Increased traffic creates a higher risk of accidents and therefore should be avoided.

  22. In Surry Hills NSW on “Footway application in...” at 412-416 Crown Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Tim commented

    The bouncers at the dolphin hotel think they already own the street was walking past one night not even attending the hotel and stopped to answer a call only to be pushed onto the road as i was in the way of some ten metre rule.
    The hotel already occupies enough of the foot path with it customers pouring out onto the streets.
    It is difficult enough to walk down the street as it is without having to dodge tables and chairs
    I think this proposal should not go ahead

  23. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and OWS...” at 1 Cohoe Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    James and Judith Clanchy commented

    JL & JM Clanchy
    PO Box 3097
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    2nd October 2012

    Assessment Manager
    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    To Whom It May Concern

    Re: MCUI/2012/3127 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign
    OWS/2012/3134 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign

    We would like to make a submission in respect of the abovementioned development application.

    This application does not appear to be at all consistent with the intent of the area. The proposed use does not comply with the identified outcomes required of the code and the residential zoning in place.

    The nature of the proposed development will have a major impact on many aspects of the amenity and environs of this residential area.

    The intersection where the proposed development will be sited is already a congested traffic zone at different times throughout the day, particularly, during the working week. It is the designated route taken by Greyhound buses and other coach services, many daily commuters and the likes of tradespeople and freight couriers. Further development, subsequently encouraging a much higher volume of traffic, would exacerbate this situation to the extreme and back up traffic to the west along Herries Street further. It would impede appreciably upon the through traffic on Herries Street moving to enter Cohoe Street. This would increase noise and pollution and diminish safety for the general travelling public. It would also encumber residents who walk this section and increase risks when traversing this area.

    This would significantly impact the roadways, intersections and private driveways from the Warrego Highway entry to Cohoe and Margaret Streets, right along the Cohoe to James Street section and westerly back through the roundabout at Herries/Curzon Street. This top section and major entry and exit point to our city is often under excessive pressure whenever there is a traffic mishap on the range or somewhere in the near proximity because of the nature of it being a major artery in and out.

    The area around St. Vincent’s Hospital and the Scott Street Medical Precinct is heavily saturated with vehicles looking for parking now. Consequently, this means that there is haphazard vehicle movement and congestion already present in these adjoining environs. All of this impacts upon the residential dwellings and residents within the area.

    We also feel that the existing businesses within this vicinity would also be impacted at a time when retail and hospitality are already under pressure. We would not like to see small local businesses suffer further and possibly lost due to larger national chains being imposed on our neighbourhood.
    Such businesses as the independent service station at the top of the range, the coffee shops at Medici Medical and the Range Shopping Centre and other eating establishments at the Range could be severely impacted. This would decrease the amenity and character of our neighbourhood and community.

    The fact that homes of character and our tree lined streetscape could be replaced by concrete carparks and commercial buildings operating extended trading hours would detract significantly from the local character of the area and one of the more pleasant aspects of welcoming visitors to our city.

    It is our belief that the residents of our area are not apt to value or support this proposed development. Canvassing which has been done in the neighbourhood would seem to further support this. People fear the many risks to lifestyle, community and harmonious living which may come about as a result of such a development in this particular location. I believe Council will also be in receipt of a petition to this end.

    Yours faithfully

    Jim and Judy Clanchy

    18 Fletcher Street
    East Toowoomba. 4350

  24. In Caringbah NSW on “Child Care Centre...” at 105 Cawarra Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Oliver commented

    Based on current traffic condition, would it be even worse if the Child Care Centre approved? Need a traffic study for this road.

    We have 3-4 chid care centres already in the local area, why we create another big childcare centre ?

  25. In Northbridge WA on “Shop Fitout - Maya Masala...” at 283-291 William Street:

    John Smith commented

    Application should not be approved.

    Maya Masala's owner is not an ethical business man.

    He has taken money from international students with the hope that he will provide them permanent residency. This money is now being used to develop this store.

    He does not pay his staff correctly and many staff still have unpaid superannuation and taxes.

    Bob in the past and currently is in legal battles with ATO and former business partners and Landlords from doing the wrong thing.

    It is disgusting how a man like this is still able to operate. Maya Masala is a detriment to 'upcoming' Northbridge.


  26. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Elizabeth & Robert Briant commented

    We were very alarmed to hear about the proposed re-development to 17 Helsal Drive Wantirna South, as residents we also do not want an increase to heavy traffic such as trucks etc that would be required . The value of our property would also be lowered if these six two story MacMansions are allowed to be erected, you only have to look on the corner of Helsal Drive to see the type of ugly huge house on a tiny block
    that was built recently and how that house often has four cars parked on the street, close to corner and causing a traffic hazard

  27. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Joanne Marchese commented

    I am objecting to this development also at 9 Maling Road, as it consumes the entire block and dominates the houses either side and be visually imposing from the front street view. The reason as to why people move to these areas is for the historic housing, variety and greening of the streets - not the suburban banality that this type of design provides.

  28. In East Maitland NSW on “ALDI Greenhills - Change...” at 18-20 Garnett Rd, East Maitland 2323:

    john may commented

    I am totally opposed to Aldi allowing the sale of alcohol. They already employ young staff that will be intimidated by other teenagers when buying alcohol. They will then take it across the road to the Park (200m away) near the Council Library and drink themselves into a stupour. This places more pressure on neighbours, police and ratepayers to repair the damage that they do. The park equipment was burnt to the ground 6 months ago and alcohol will only make more youth visit the park at night.

    A a Social and economic report been undertaken adequately ? and I mean have they inetrviewed the residents nearby and do they have police and council records of destruction to property in that area, and can we compare that to other areas such as Rutherford shopping centre that has been the centre of youth crime since 2 alcohol shops opened up there ?

    If Aldi is given approval they should be paying an annual bond that can be used for removal of grafitti and contribute to public proeprty damage. A bond of $5000 a year should be imposed.

    Police should also be attending Aldi stores undercover and buy alcohol to see if they are asked for identity.

    The argument that the alcohol is not cold doesnt deter them as kids will mix it with coke that they buy elsewhere that is cold. Packaged alcohol also may reduce some buying but pooling of funds will take place and kids will be forced to buy in bulk.

    The Assessing Officer should be held responsible for any approval.

  29. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Sophie Williams commented

    I am objecting to this development because:

    The visual bulk and height is not in keeping with the Maling Rd Precinct and will impact the amenity of the area.

    The second story is not set back in keeping with other 2 storey houses in the area.

  30. In Invermay TAS on “(varying building envelope,...” at 34 Holbrook Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Christopher Jones commented

    Chris Jones c/- C & B Super Fund owner of 30-32 Holbrook Street Invermay.

    I am writing concerning the proposed garage by Mr B Kurth at 34 Holbrook Street.

    I have no problem with the building, but I am concerned with the shadow the 9 metre x 5.5mt

    high boundary wall will cast during winter months. The 1.8mt high fence we have at the moment

    casts a shadow almost one third of the block mid winter, so I would think the 5.5 metre wall

    would almost cover the entire width of the block for 9 metres and the carport at 2.7metre high

    would shadow around half the block for another 8 metres? I would like the council to have a

    look at this and advise me of their thoughts. I know it's only a car park for 30 Holbrook Street at

    the moment, but that may change in the future, it may not always be so. A back yard with so

    much shade?

    I await your reply,


    Chris Jones for C & B Super Fund.

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