Recent comments

  1. In Killara NSW on “Child care Centre” at 5 Manning Road, Killara, NSW:

    Sophie Hay commented

    This Application is preposterous.
    The area around Manning Road is clearly residential. The road is small, no lines indicated, no gutters towards the end of the street, and potholes in various locations. The properties on the Road and in surrounding roads, are single house dwellings. Some plots of land have been subdivided. There are no apartments or commercial dwellings in the vicinity.

    The amount of traffic alone, caused by this development would be not sustainable. The roads in this particular area are not built to house so many cars, and as such there are currently no footpaths in the area, and even no gutters in this and neighbouring streets.

    The infrastructure to take so many more cars in the area, currently does not exist. This would also be a danger to the children and people who currently live in the area. There are no footpaths and as such people are required to walk on the road. With the amount of additional cars (equal to what would equate to an apartment block), this would be dangerous.

    The area is situated totally within residential houses. There are no commercial properties in the near vicinity. There is no train station, and the buses are a provision for the local community. The enclave of West Lindfield was not designed to house, such a large development, nor all the traffic that accompanies it.

    There is are numerous Childcare centres in the vicinity including, one that has recently opened on Fiddens Wharf Road. This proposed centre, is out of the way for many, and in an area currently populated with sufficient Childcare facilities. This proposal is for a very large facility, which really should be situated closer to public amenities, commercial properties and public transport.

    In relation to the environmental impact. This development would be huge. There are currently magnificent trees and nature on the property. One can only assume that to house such a large facility with basement carpark, that the majority of these would need to be removed. These trees, speak of history, have not reached their lifespan and enable the properties to remain in line with each other. Not to mention the current brush turkey population, and native fauna that inhabit this area. The development would be catastrophic for the fauna that we see in the area.

    The noise that would be generated from this development would be huge. Regardless of which way the wind is blowing (literally) it would have huge impacts, on immediately surrounding properties, not to mention surrounding streets. People who have lived here for a long time, and even those of us who haven't, moved to the area for the peace, and local community feel. This would destroy all of that, and for those that decide that the noise would be too much and move; they would find that their property price would have dropped substantially. This development would impact, not only directly surrounding properties, not only those on Manning Road, but also those in surrounding streets.
    The noise not only from children, but also from equipment that is needed. The area currently does not have Gas. Electricity is used and does black out quite often. The additional stress this would put on the system would be astronomical. The infrastructure in this area was once again not designed to house, nor support such a development.
    In relation to the above are also the air conditioning units that would be required for the development. Regardless of where they be placed this would seriously be noise pollution for the neighbouring properties.
    The above are but some points as to why the development should not be granted. Simply put the size and number of children for this area, is way too large. The location should not even be considered, considering the area that it is proposed.
    A childcare centre that merely by the increased traffic in the area, places other children in danger.
    This area does not currently have the infrastructure to support such a large and dedicated facility.

  2. In Parramatta NSW on “Alterations to accomadate a...” at 100 George Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Lucia Quiroz commented

    Being a working parent is difficult being a single parent with a full time job is even harder. I work on level 2 of 100 George street and the opening of a daycare in my building would be ideal. Parramatta being classed as the 2nd CBD opening this daycare would benefit many employees currently working in parramatta and who are trying to juggle work and home life.

  3. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Greg and Kerri Smith commented

    We have several concerns related to this development application and object to it's implementation.

    The potential impact on the 'valley view' aspect of residents of Engadine, such as ourselves, who overlook the Forum Drive area may be substantial and could impact on property values and our quality of life.

    The development may have a significant effect on traffic flow in narrow urban streets not designed to manage large volumes of traffic during the narrow time frames of the centres meeting times. There currently exists serious traffic risks on Heathcote road and the Princes Highway in the area as exampled by frequent serious accidents on Heathcote road and the imposition of a 50 kilometer an hour limit through Heathcote shopping centre. It is of concern that there does not appear to be any intention to conduct road works to improve local infrastructure to manage this risk.

    The areas surrounding Heathcote National Park are subject to serious fire risk during extended hot, dry periods and due to the frequent, strong prevailing winds in the area. Past fires have resulted in extensive property loss and human tragedy. This development may place visitors and residents at increased risk, particularly in terms of vehicular evacuation with limited exits to main roads leading away from the areas at risk. It is also of concern that access to a fire trail appears to be ceded to the applicants control.

    The environmental impact is of particular concern to us as there are limited amounts of native habitat outside of national parks and it is distressing that such areas continue to be subject to sale and development. While provision has been made to transplant a threatened plant species the development appears to require the destruction and/or fragmentation of the native habitat. This would probably result in increased incursion of introduced plant and birds species into the surrounding habitat, ie. pushing the 'edge effect' further towards or into the national park.

  4. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Sandra Campbell commented

    I have read the statement of Environmental Effects included in the DA11/1270 which included a table of anticipated traffic volume during particular meeting times. Sunday morning one can expect 400 people in 100 cars. That is, 1 car every 9 secs allowing that people arrive within 15 minutes of the starting time and leave within a 15 minute period.That doesn't allow for the queue of cars building up whilst cars are being parked etc.

    I've lived through this when Inaburra Baptist School grew from 300 to 1100 and they built a 650 seat performing arts centre in Billa rd last year. The local streets come to a grinding halt every day with still no submission of a traffic management plan to council.

    Forum Street is not designed for such high traffic use not to mention that it feeds from the hilly and winding Corinth Street at an intersection of limited visibility - a dangerous mix.

    As to the development being a public place of worship - are we all going to be allowed to attend? My understanding is that if you are not a Brethren then you can't get past the security personnel on the gate.

  5. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Kevin R Jacobson commented

    I am extremely concerned that these type of developments can get through. I hope this doesn't for the following reasons.

    1. Bush fire hazard and danger during evacuation for attenders at the 900 seat venue and the local residents all trying to get out at the same time. The roads are too small for this traffic.

    2. The weekly, monthly and annual traffic despite their small numbers mentioned will grow. They are intending to grow. That's fine. That's why they are moving from a 500 seat venue to a 900 seat venue. But this means the attendance and potential for growth is huge with multiple meetings. Our small streets can't handle this. Imagine a street that has parked cars on both sides from residents. Only one car can fit through the middle. How will a hundred plus cars and buses get through here without problems.

    3. The threat to animals, flora and forna in this bush area is of concern. This is well used by residents for bushwalking etc. Don't let this area be destroyed.

    4. How did they aquire the land from a small ad in the paper without anyone else knowing. Why were no large for sale signs placed on site? This is the norm I thought. What's going on with the sales of our land for everyone?

    Hmmm.

    Write to your councillor and politicians.

  6. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    KAY ARMSTRONG commented

    I have lived in Beethoven Street Engadine for 42 years overlookingwhere the proposed development site in Forum Drive. I cannot work out how this property has been acquired, who sold the land to these people and why should they be allowed to block off a fire trail with locked gates for there own use with access for the fire brigade and no one else when there is a fire, the fire will invariably come again. Also the plan I have seen takes in some of Heathcote National Park, how can this happen?
    What is going to happen to the intersection of Heathcote Road and Forum Drive, I guess there will be a set of lights put in to control the extra traffic and choke Heathcote Road even more creating more accidents.
    I am totally apposed to this development and can't think of any reason why it should be approved.

  7. In Mosman NSW on “Dwelling House – New” at 37 Bond Street, Mosman, NSW:

    Nicholas Whiteley commented

    Hi there - I live in 35 Bond St just next door to this property. There is an ASBESTOS ROOF being removed today with no one having prior informed us of when it starts so that we can make adequate arrangements to ensure that the roofing does not come near our house.

    Furthermore, I have not been shown and agreed upon adequate measures to prevent ASBESTOS DUST from entering our property, especially given that we have a dog (registered with Mosman Council) in our back yard... please contact me asap on 0404 231 233

  8. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Wayne and Janette Greene commented

    We must object to this application for a so called "meeting hall" at the end of Forum Drive, Heathcote. Forum Drive is a dead end road with one access in and the same one out. It is a very fire prone area on the ridge of a steep hill surrounded by bush on the south as well as to the west (where most of our bush fires have come from). With a westerly wind combined with extreme temperatures, Forum Drive is one of the most highest fire prone areas of Heathcote. In the thirty two years that my family has been living at Heathcote we have been through at least four major fires and have been evacuated on three occasions. Heathcote is surrounded by bush in the East, South and West. When we have fires the roads are choked with traffic trying to get to our only two roads out, either the Princes Highway or the Heathcote Road. If we should have what is known as a "Section 4" fire where it is totally out of control impacting on the Forum Drive / Corinth Road parts of Heathcote and this development goes ahead, the end result could be devastating. If this church development goes ahead and is full of people, not to mention those in the surrounding streets, a great many lives could be lost due to only one way out. Should that road become blocked either by smoke or car accident, no one could get out.
    I do not have a problem with any church group wanting a meeting hall but I do object to the very careless and impractical location that is being proposed. We both feel that development application number DA11/1270 should not be approved due to both traffic and fire dangers.

  9. In Berowra Heights NSW on “Mixed - comprising 13...” at 25-29 Turner Road Berowra Heights NSW 2082:

    Leonard Kelton Smith commented

    I wish to oppose this application on the grounds that it is unsuitable for the site and for Berowra Heights.
    1. It is 3klm from station, so it is not suitable for flat or apartment type living.
    2.The councils requirement that commercial premises be included in any development
    of this type is ridiculous as a study of any commercial and retail development in Berowra or Berowra Hts will show that there are vacant premises still there after 40 years in some cases. The same can be found in Hornsby CBD away from the Westfield complex.
    3. If we have to have any development of this site it should be limited to 2 stories in the form of Villas similar to what is in Kita Rd already.
    4. Under no circumstances should this development be approved with any commercial/retail reqirements. They have no future in Berowra Heights and will be an unnecessary cost burden on who is developing this site. The cost of which would end up being past on the purchasers of the residental units, making these even more unaffordable to the average person.

  10. In Newtown NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 46A O'Connell Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Con GATZOUNAS & Nick PERDIKARIS commented

    8th Jan 2011

    Att: City of Sydney Council,

    Objectors;
    Owners of No.50 & 52 O’Connell st NEWTOWN

    Re: Objection to DA /2011/1772 – proposed Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of two (2) new two (2) bedroom dwellings.

    Dear Jessica Symons,
    We have examined the proposed development at No.46A O’Connell st NEWTOWN and understand as per your controls, objectives and impacts we conclude that we have concerns in the following areas.

    1. Elevations – for further assessment, we would like to see the location / elevation of our dwellings and the relationship with the proposed development shown on the north elevations to compare form , height etc….
    2. What are the heights of the rainwater tanks?
    3. What are the details of the shared boundary fence in-fill. Height, material etc…
    4. What is the proposed wall construction and finishes to the east elevation?
    5. Unsightly mass – The east elevation would propose 6.3m of wall height ion a zero boundary? This would create a feeling of closing in when compared to the current distant views and skyline view we would have a 2 storey wall. This would feel as if we have relocated adjacent to a jail. Simply put this would create a unsightly mass of walls that we would have to look at on a full time basis, this is specifically worse for No52. We object to the two storey walls on a zero boundary given the anticipated negative impacts.
    6. Privacy -
    • The first floor balcony from Unit B is of major concern in relation to privacy impact in to your courtyards. We object to balcony and its negative impact.
    • The first floor mastered & bed-study room from Unit B is of major concern in relation to privacy impact in to your courtyards. We object to this window and its negative impact.

    7. Other Non Compliances – we note that the proposal would seek variations to objectives & controls on according to the various planning instruments. These area area laso of concern to us as they directly impact onto our amenity.
    • Floor Space Ratio,
    • Minimum private open space
    • Building on the boundary adjacent to existing houses
    • Building height
    • Setback controls regarding front boundaries
    • Fence height control to ensure privacy and security of courtyards

    Mr C & Mrs S GATZOUNAS
    Mr N PERDIKARIS & Mr C PERDIKARIS.

  11. In Wollongong NSW on “Renovation Of Existing...” at 88 Smith Street, Wollongong NSW 2500:

    Michael Bainbridge commented

    I believe that this development should not be approved , i feel that in doing so would in turn take away the authenticity of the original structure.
    The new and proposed construction would not compliment the original structure and seem to detract from its presence in the streetscape.
    Another potentiel planning issue may be the intersection close by and the change in the current constant flow of traffic, The proposed development may cause heavy congestion due to its proximity to the intersection.

  12. In Heathcote NSW on “Torrens Title Subdivision...” at 44R Forum Drive Heathcote 2233:

    Sharon Burke commented

    I am very concerned about the proposed construction of a Public Place of Worship (meeting hall) and 7 lots at the end of Forum Drive Heathcote.

    Several years ago we were evacuated from our home on Boxing Day night due to a bushfire. Well over 100 households needed to exit via Dalley Road. This resulted in a queue of cars at the end of Forum Drive Upper including ourselves needing to leave due to the fire but unable to turn right into Corinth Road because so many cars were travelling south along Corinth Road (the only exit route available due to the fire).

    If further lots and most particularly a Place of Public Worship are created at the end of Forum Drive this evacuation problem will be much greater and a real danger to our community. I strongly believe that this application DA11/1270 should not be approved on safety grounds.

  13. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 21 Beatrice Street Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Mick Gounder commented

    I am really Concerned about the way the council has put this proposal hidden from us till todate, it is surprising that the members of the public and the street was not informed about this proposal of 18 units blocks.

    It is a quite residential street, with people living in this street for more than 35 years, in the ir property, know the way things are going it will significantly affect the life style we are used to in this street.

    The street will be very busy one and it will have traffic conjestion in both ways even though each unit has its own parking spot, the street will be full of cars as the occupants will park on the road and in front of properties that are not known.

    In my opinion the council need to send letters as to when the building works start so the public can have its own say to this proposal.

  14. In Camperdown NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 23 Larkin Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Alex Vasiliev commented

    Regarding DA Notification: D/2010/772/B, 23 Larkin Street CAMPERDOWN NSW 2050

    Dear Anthea,

    I am a resident and owner of an apartment on 1-3 Larking Street and I have a concern about this development proposal.

    It is planned that the new building will have 6 apartments without allocated car parking space. One of the units without a car space has two bedrooms. All residents are likely to have one or more cars per apartment and they all will be forced to use on street parking. Larkin Street is already problematic to park for our visitors and if this development will be undertaken it will be nearly impossible to find a parking space. There are few other developments happening in a very close proximity which would only make the matter worse. This issue will not only affect residents of this new apartment block but the rest of the local community as well.

    It would be nice if the developer would consider turning the space resulted from reconfiguration into more car spaces and not an apartment.

    Thank you for attending to my concern,
    Alex V

  15. In Camellia NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 16 Grand Avenue Camellia NSW 2142:

    Dennis Read commented

    Hymix Management and Hymix consultation with site employees - Any proactive measures by the operator to spread traffic hours to simplfy operations and ease conjestion is greatly needed and appreaciate.
    We thank KLF holdings for their assistance in achieving the road improvements over the last 12 months.
    The objection appears to be a copy of a letter previously submitted to the Council by Hymix about 16 months ago. To keep things in context Hymix consulted with its employees and KLF Holdings and based on peoples views and our review of the situation the objection was withdrawn.

  16. In Glebe NSW on “Proposed extension of hours...” at 375 Glebe Point Road Glebe NSW 2037:

    Craig Keeler-Milne commented

    I write in support of this application for an extension of hours to Timbah Bar. The establishment is well run and appropriate for the lifestyle that is sought by residents and Council - as evident in the Councils recent policy decisions.

  17. In Newtown NSW on “Section 96(2) modification...” at 536A King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    mario commented

    These guys were washing cars last week i am the area manager for Sydney Water on King street Newtown, i seen that they were already washing cars without approval last week, while they washing motor vehicles and allowing the contaminated water from motor vehicles to wash down in the Sydney water drains mixed with the fresh water outside on the laneway/road.
    I'v given to the owner there a cease order/notice to stop.

  18. In Tumbi Umbi NSW on “Circus performance at Mingara” at Club Mingara Carpark 14 Mingara Dr Tumbi Umbi NSW 2261:

    Rawad Nicola commented

    As a member of the local community I strongly look forward to the approval of this application.
    This will be great for our community and for our children and local schools. Also a tourist attraction such as this in the central coast is what we need and will boost our tourism industry. I look forward to an approval of this application.

  19. In Morisset NSW on “Car Repair Station -...” at 2/18 Kam Close Morisset NSW 2264, NSW:

    mat commented

    Can you please explain what it means by "Without Associated Works"

  20. In Redfern NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 28 Little Cleveland Street Redfern NSW 2016:

    Kirsten Hodgon commented

    Re: D/2011/1695
    28 Little Cleveland Street, Redfern

    As local residents, we do not support the construction of a garage on this site. It is our understanding that council supports local residents with garages who request the removal of street parking if they cannot enter their garage. It appears highly unlikely that a car could enter a garage on this site without removing street parking and as a family with two small children, we already struggle with the lack of parking in this street and Stanley Street. Often we have to park two or three streets away already.

    While the current developers may state that they will not request the removal of street parking, as council regulations rule to the garage owner, we are concerned that future owners may make this request and so we ask that council do not approve the construction of a garage.

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “Application under Section...” at 6 Faversham Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Henare Degan commented

    I think the Red Rattler is a positive business to have in our community and the proposed extended trading hours make sense for a business like this.

    I don't see any negative impacts of these extended trading hours and I support this development proposal.

    Thanks, Henare

  22. In Brunswick VIC on “Construction of a front and...” at 1/114 Wilson Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Paul Dorazio commented

    As a resident of the premises I ask that you please allow an even higher fence. The ground level of the property is much higher then the street level. Making a small fence will result in no privacy and security for the people that live there. The fence will not be high enough to even cover clothes lines at the side and rear of the property - this will look very unsightly to passers by. Please consider the dynamics of this unique property before making any decisions that effect the people who live there and how this will look for the surrounding community. The current fence provides security and privacy to the tenants and covers unsightly things like clothes lines and rubbish bins from the street. Any changes to lowering the height of the fence will be detrimental to the tenants and how they can use their backyards. How would you anyone like the whole street to be able to see right into their backyard? If any reductions are made I won't even be able to have a bbq this summer without the whole street be able to see.

  23. In Tumbi Umbi NSW on “Change of use to medical...” at Club Mingara Carpark 14 Mingara Dr Tumbi Umbi NSW 2261:

    Nick commented

    This application should be rejected. As I own two pharmacies in the area and another pharmacy in the area can send be bankrupt. There is no need for this pharmacy and I am prepared to raise a court case against the council and the pharmacy that is aplying for this.

  24. In Annandale NSW on “Deletion of portion of...” at Annandale Lodge 98 Johnston Street Annandale NSW 2038:

    Merrin Cooper commented

    In a street that is struggling for carparking, the eradication of car spaces at the Annandale Lodge would put more pressure on an already stressed street. Number 90, 88 and the Leichhardt Community Centre that do not have adequate parking and place further stress on an already busy street. The people who stay in these facilities do have cars, despite the arguments that they do not.
    The inclusion of an outdoor seating area would create more noise for the surrounding residence.

  25. In Mona Vale NSW on “A subdivision of one lot...” at 26 Samuel Street Mona Vale:

    Jeremy Gray commented

    I am concerned with the location of a driveway to Lot 51 as RTA has installed traffic calming devices in the roadway and screening plants have been installed to comply with the DA across the road.

    I have not received notification of the application.

    Otherwise I have no objections.

  26. In Castlecrag NSW on “Construction of a new...” at 14 The Parapet, Castlecrag NSW 2068.:

    Peter Resanceff commented

    This house has been meticulously restored by the previous owner to reflect the original structure and vision of this important Walter Burley Griffin House - 'Cheong House'. It is arguably the ONLY Burley Griffin house in Castlecrag close to its original form.

    The proposed construction of new carport on the site interferes with the integrity of the buildings on site which were purposefully set well back into the block to allow the buildings to blend into the site surroundings. (The construction of a new storeroom is anticipated to be a part of this new carport structure?)

    The conversion of the garage into a bedroom further estranges the house from its original design.

    If the creation of a new ensuite, if proposed to be internal to the main building, will destroy the integrity of the internal room structure which has been restored to reflect its original form.

  27. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Residential Lifestyle...” at 55 and 75 Gordons Hill Road Lindisfarne , TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    I support this development. However, I see problems arising from the location of the main entrance into Gordons Hill Road, mainly for vehicles exiting the development. Its position adjacent to the inside curve of the bend near Selby Place means very difficult visibility of southbound vehicles on Gordons Hill Rd. Moreover, the gradient is such that these descending vehicles are often travelling at considerable speed, in excess of 60 km/h - and this will occur largely irrespective of any extra speed limits that may be introduced.

    I suggest it would be relatively straightforward, requiring minimal change of the current design, to relocate the main entrance around 100 metres further south, closer to the Tasman Hwy overpass. Being on a straight stretch of Gordons Hill Rd, this would give much better sightlines for all traffic approaching the entrance/intersection.

  28. In Dulwich SA on “Change of use -...” at 65C/65 Dulwich Avenue Dulwich SA 5065:

    Ben Kirchner commented

    As owner of unit 6 3 Grandview Grove Dulwich. I have read the application and believe this would add increase value to the already successful precinct. As this will add to the diversity and quality of outdoor cafe experiences.

    I believe the additional parking behind the cafe offered is a strong offer to offset the issues relating to parking.

  29. In Avalon NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 64 Avalon Parade Avalon:

    John Geeves commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I'm concerned as to the density of this development, these two blocks currently have only two dwellings to increase this to 11 is ridiculous and a massive over development.

    I understand that we need seniors living close to the shopping centre, but there are now plenty of properties available and currently for sale, not to mention Pittwater Palms over the back fence with units always available.

    I live on Avalon Parade as well, we have a disabled daughter who also needs to be close to the village centre, so she can have her independence by walking in her walking frame to the shops.
    If all our street is turned into over 55 developments this will make it unavailable for people under 55 with physical disabilities.

    Regards,

    John Geeves

  30. In Tempe NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 914 Princes Highway Tempe NSW 2044:

    J Watson commented

    RE DA201100510 at 914 Princes Highway Tempe 2044
    Traffic and parking congestion already problematic and exacerbated by hotel and newly opened Ikea. Patrons, staff of brothel and taxis/drivers dropping off and collecting them, deliveries, cleaners etc will frequent Station St, Young St, Old St, Holbeach Ave, South St and Bay St. Traffic cannot turn right into Bay St from South direction and Bay St has a very sharp corner when turning left into it from north direction so most traffic turns at Holbeach Ave where traffic lights are. If traffic turns into Holbeach Ave to access brothel they will then turn left onto South St and left into Bay St. Alternatively traffic will turn left into Station St and right into Young St/Old St/South St and then right into Bay St to access brothel – these are all quiet tiny residential streets with little parking or driving/passing space.
    The proposed site is large - 15 rooms with not enough parking.
    There are already very little street parking spaces in the area and lots of traffic congestion with most residents having to park up on the curb to not block off our tiny streets. Bay St has virtually no parking spots barely enough for residents. Proposed brothel entrance and parking is on Bay St which is a tiny street more like a laneway. This site is totally unsuitable for the constant traffic and nature of a 24/7 brothel.

    24/7 brothel will disrupt the quietude of this quiet mostly family neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood streets are very quiet after dark except for noise and traffic from Harp/Valve Hotel events but they are not 24/7.
    No other 24/7 business operating in area.

    Too many children and families nearby (& within 200m) –
    *Tempe Reserve Park, Holbeach Ave & South St Tempe
    – lots of children, women, families utilise for sport, recreational activities
    *Sporting facilities – Robyn Webster Sporting Centre access Holbeach Ave
    *Cooks River jetty, foreshore and parklands on Holbeach Ave
    – lots of children, families, women, joggers, cyclists, dog walkers utilise for exercise, sport, training, recreational, family and community events and religious festivals
    *Holbeach Ave & Princes Highway traffic lights/pedestrian crossings
    *Transport: Tempe Train Station, Bus Depot & stops on Princes Highway
    * Brothel site and entrance/parking on Bay St is situated in a mostly residential area too close to the 15 homes directly near it on Young St & Bay St – most of these homes are family homes with children and will negatively impact on this immediate and surrounding Tempe area which is a residential enclave.
    This is our home & we do not want a 24/7 brothel in it.

    To close to:
    Day care/Schools:
    Betty Spears Child Care Centre, 1 Gannon St Tempe (within 200m)
    Tempe Public School, Tempe High School
    Place of worship:
    Al-Hijrah Mosque, 45 Station St Tempe (within 200m)

    Property Values will fall & be negatively impacted and your house value will decrease as well as the value of Tempe overall as a suburb.

    Risk of safety and crime problems including drugs increasing in the area.

    This is a family area and a business of this nature is not in our community interest. This site is totally unsuitable for a 24/7 brothel and does not ‘fit’ our local community which is a quiet residential family area.

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