Recent comments

  1. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Robyn Barcello commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,

    I wish to lodge the strongest objection to the proposed 95 lots which are to be created on 2 Karanya Street, Mount Louisa QLD 4814.

    I am the owner of 47 Banfield Drive, Mount Louisa. After reviewing the proposed plans and traffic report for the development, I cannot see how the traffic management plan in place will make the traffic movement safer, with the increasing number of vehicles using this area.

    It will cause more hazards to all road users and residents including my tenants residing in the above address.

    The concern I have for my tenants residing on Banfield Drive is the limited safety zone they have to enter and exit the driveway, as it is only metres from a very difficult intersection (Banfield Drive & Hedley Ct) where there has already been a number of accidents, including vehicles coming to rest on the property.

    With this development, it will increase the number of road users and an unfortunate accident will occur with a loss of life which has almost happened in the past. Just a couple of concerns, not to mention the school kids walking home and the cyclists on the western side of the development.

    I look for to a response
    Robyn Barcello

  2. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Joanne commented

    Having been to VCAT over the last 2 years where the Boroondara city council and the residents opposed multiple dwellings (8 and 13 on 1/4 acre blocks) on Belmore road, only to be overturned by VCAT, I see the issue of developing Melbourne as more than just local. I think the fact that existing surrounding amenity is not considered in the building regulations, and the method for determining over-shadowing doesn't take mid-winter into account are big omissions. Also, land and building costs are so high that it takes at least 4 dwellings on a 1/4 acre block to even get to a viable project these days, so we end up with developers building many more lower quality dwellings resulting in poor amenity for both those who live there and those who surround it (don't get me started car parking and access for these developments). Town Planners working for developers do not thoroughly investigate the area before they submit their reports and make highly erroneous assumptions in their presentations. This reminds me of the 1960's and '70's when it was open slather on Melbourne CBD and we lost a number of beautiful heritage buildings to ugly block towers, which have since been replaced by huge glass monoliths.
    On a positive, it looks like Boroondara council will have a ratified residential zone and planning policy in the near future which I hope will help maintain some of the existing neighbourhood character. We need to get back to some balance in the near future otherwise this city will become truly unliveable.

  3. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Desiree Sheehan and Jack Baldwin commented

    Whilst not opposed to development, we are concerned about the density of this development which will inevitably impact in a negative way on the suburb, community and lifestyle we cherish, in particular:

    1. Sustainability - This development will unavoidably place an enormous strain on an already over taxed natural environment. In addition, we are concerned about the capacity of the area to be able to sustain such a large development including the increase in rubbish removal, water and sewerage requirements, and overall style of living in the Whitebridge community.

    2. Ecology - We are extremely concerned about the impact of this development on the local flora and fauna in the area, in particular around the green corridor of the Fernleigh track.

    3. Density - The proposal is for 87 residences crammed into a relatively small land area. We are concerned about the ensuing social issues, increased traffic congestion and ambient noise, rubbish and also the impact of such a large development on the adjoining areas including the Fernleigh Bike track and Dudley Beach.

    4. Traffic congestion - The intersection of Lonus Ave, Bulls Garden Road, Waran Road & Dudley Road has an existing traffic congestion problem. With the associated traffic that will be added to the area, coupled with a very limited public transport system (322 bus line) we are concerned that the area will become a bottle neck during peak times.

    Access into Whitebridge is limited to only a few streets. We are also concerned that an adequate study has not been undertaken as to the impact of the 87 residences and associated cars, in our area.

    5. Parking issue - Parking at the Whitebridge shops is at capacity. We are concerned that this area will become another traffic bottleneck and a potential risk to walkers/ school children.

    Footpaths around this area are limited, and with visibility to the shops even via the carpark already a high risk area, we are concerned about the impact of even more cars using this area without adequate consideration given.

    In summation, this planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community.

    We ask that Lake Macquarie City Council stands by its commitment to sustainability and its communities, and uses its influence on the Joint Regional Planning panel to limit the development to ensure that it is more in keeping with Whitebridge – before it’s too late!

  4. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Maxine de Carvalho commented

    I strongly oppose this development in its current form.
    While I believe we all have the right to make money from our assets - we don't have the rights to do this to the detriment of others - this development is far too extreme for the area.
    I agree with other objections already raised here. This proposal is far too high density for the area. We have to keep our suburbs just that. Quiet suburbs. Cram 87 families into an area the size of a footy field (maybe 2) and you are asking for trouble. Apparently these are to be 3 - 4 bed dwellings. - That's a lot of people not to mention cars. Not enough parking - not enough privacy - not enough space.
    The over 55's development in Bulls Garden Road has 24 properties and a good portion of those have to 2 cars. I think the traffic study grossly underestimates the number of traffic movements per property. We already have cars banked up across the roundabout at times trying to gain access to the shopping car park.
    I don't think the developers are serious about the development at this density - just preparing the way for negotiation for a smaller number of properties. Perhaps if they aimed at half the proposed number, say 45, the current residents in the area would be more amenable.

  5. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    William Abell commented

    I am a student of Whitebridge High School and I object to the current development application because it is NOT suited to the area and there are already too many cars which makes it very dangerous getting to and from school and the shops at Whitebridge.

  6. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Karen Cotton & Rod Green commented

    I am writing to express my concern with the current development application for 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge. We live locally and pass through this area multiple times per day. If the development is approved in it's current state, I am concerned about the following:

    * The sheer size of this development and the negative visual impact it will have;
    * Pedestrian safety, especially the school children and the elderly;
    * Increased traffic congestion = more accidents;
    * Already congested parking; and
    * The social and environmental impact on the beautiful community of Whitebridge.

    This land could host a beautiful development, but the one planned, is definitely not it!

  7. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Anne-Marie Abell commented

    I wish to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development for DA1774/2013. Whilst I am not opposed to development of this land, I am totally opposed to the current plan for this development.

    The development in it's current form concerns me greatly because:

    In 1998 I purchased 126 Dudley Road, Whitebridge and in 2005 I moved from this property as a direct result of the amount of traffic travelling along Dudley Road and the danger I faced every day entering and exiting my driveway. I understand this road is classed as an arterial road, a high-capacity urban road linking suburbs to main roads and every year the traffic volume increases. This development will certainly add to this increase and I fear for the safety of others living on this road and others who live in the area who use this road to commute. More so though, I fear for the safety of my family and everyone who frequents the shopping centre, doctors; day care; park; tennis courts; bus stops; high school, etc, etc as the layout of this area does not lend itself to even the current amount of traffic. As for the adjoining roads of Warran Road and Lonus Avenue, well you only have to visit there on a morning and/or afternoon to see the traffic jams, pedestrian near misses and accidents that regularly occur.

    Another concern I have is the size and density of this development. I attended the meeting last weekend and was told that this development is to be family focused. I'm unsure how this will work as I don't think I know of any family that would want to live in a unit with no outdoor area, only one car space (most families have at least two vehicles), no visitor parking, no recreational facilities; and a 'token' green area? As for the parking issue, well that's a no brainer - parking is an issue now around this area without these extra vehicles and their visitor's vehicles, this development will definitely escalate parking issues to beyond breaking point.

    In a nutshell, this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and in it's current form, should not be approved.

    I trust that common sense will prevail (and not the mighty dollar!).

  8. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    BS commented

    Obviously developers are making a fortune…….they don't worry about the quality of life …..only lining their pockets. Boroondara Council should be aware of this and take steps to protect our life style before it is too late . This comment does not only apply to this development but all overcrowding in our once beautiful leafy suburbs.

  9. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Rainer Heigl commented

    As a resident of the Dudley/Whitebridge area, I oppose the current development application regarding Dudley Road/Kopa Street Whitebridge by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    The proposed development would change the feel of our community and would be in wild contrast to the existing community.

    The density of the proposed development would lead to traffic congestion, parking and safety issues.

    Currently there are already periods of parking shortage at Whitebridge shops.
    The central Whitebridge area is small and would not functioning with an adjacent 87 residential units jammed against it.

  10. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Ben commented

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.
    To Whom It May Concern,

    Firstly I would like to state that I am not against development in Whitebridge. I do believe that development, and in particular the use of this parcel of land, could be of great value to the current community and future generations of this area. However, I feel that the Development Application in its current form is pushing the allowed zoning to its limits and if approved will be an eyesore and burden to the community for decades to come.

    I strongly believe that there are statistical anomalies within the traffic survey in particular relating to the number of vehicles using Lonus Ave during peak periods. The intersection of Dudley Road and Lonus Ave during school drop off and pick up times is extremely busy often resulting heavy congestion at the Whitebridge roundabout. If the development was to proceed in its current form this will only add to this issue.

    The aesthetic appeal of the proposed dwellings also appears more suited to an inner city landscape rather than a suburban community that mainly consists of detached low/medium density dwellings.

    The adjacent shopping village currently has a severe lack of available parking since the developer erected the temporary fence around the proposed site. Although the development has included parking for its commercial aspect I don't believe it will cater for the increase in patronage considering the current parking is insufficient.

    I trust that the council will listen to the overwhelming dissatisfaction of local residents and force the developers to align its application with the greater community’s interests in mind.


    Ben Judd

  11. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Subdivision 1 into 2 lots &...” at 30 Cowmeadow Road, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Elizabeth Conlan commented

    Drainage needs to be rigorously addressed as this development slopes down towards two complexes consisting of multiple dwellings. One of which No. 4 Cowmeadow, Mount Hutton have had issues from the land drainage without development. Drainage would need to be adequately provided for and pumped to the front of the property at No. 30 Cowmeadow Road, Mount Hutton.

  12. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Nelson commented

    What are you talking about? Council insisted me to have fornt setback of about 9m on a main trunk road.Thats about 20% of land wasted to keep a local characteristics and that worth more than 200k for front empty space. It sure help to push up land prices though. Stop complaining when property is too expensive !!!

  13. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Carmen Kolisnyk commented

    28th January, 2014 Carmen Kolisnyk
    10 Hudson Street,
    Whitebridge, NSW, 2290

    The General Manager,
    Lake Macquarie City Council,
    PO Box 1906
    Hunter Region Mail Centre
    NSW 2310.

    Re: DA 1774/2013
    Address: 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street, Whitebridge. NSW 2290.
    Applicant's Name: SNL Building Constructions Pty. Ltd.

    In reference to the above application I would like to voice my deep concerns in regards to the development of this site in its current form. I strongly object to this over development by SNL.

    As a resident of Whitebridge, I was both stunned and disappointed that the LMCC had re-zoned the Whitebridge area with what seems like very little, if any, consultation with LMCC residents.

    The proposed development that SNL have put forward is so very much out of character with the existing area. There is already existing traffic and parking problems that have become more dangerous by the fencing off of what was a communal parking area and more importantly a recreation area for families and community residents.

    No community consultation on traffic problems which local community has knowledge of.

    Lonus Ave and Waran Road will be overloaded with vehicle movements. An entry/exit onto Lonus Ave at peak points will exacerbate the problems and impact on pedestrian safety and congestion.

    If this is a medium density development I would hate to see their plans for high density. So many people crammed into such a small area are just wrong and unfair to us, the residents of Whitebridge and also to the ‘new residents’ of this ‘estate’.

    Pedestrian safety for mothers with children, school children and the elderly will be severely compromised, as well as access to Birralee Long Day Care Centre, Whitebridge High School, Whitebridge Tennis Court, bus stops and, Whitebridge shops.
    Access to Whitebridge Shops from the Hudson Street/Station Street end will be significantly extended over a less secure pathway along roadside and travel over a narrow bridge footpath.

    The physical/visual impact of this development will be imposing in relation to the existing low level housing. A 3D model has not been made available to the public, which would give residents a clearer more concise vision of this over development.

    There is very little ‘green space’ and no provision for recreational facilities for the residents, especially teenagers and children. This fact alone has been shown to lead to future antisocial behaviour.

    The Ecological corridor (Environmental Conservation Zoned Land) will be used as the developments own private green space. In SNL‘s Landscape Master Plan only ten (10) native species are mentioned. There should be a minimum of thirty (30) native species in this corridor to increase its biodiversity. Non-native and native, not local species have been selected for the individual development areas which is not acceptable. These non-native species could become invasive.

    If a turning circle at the end of Kopa Street is permitted the mature trees in this location will be removed which is in conflict with SNL’s Arborist report.

    Progress is necessary for any community to advance and grow - but this ‘progress’ should
    never be at the expense of the existing community.

    Yours Sincerely
    Carmen Kolisnyk

  14. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Ian Harris commented

    To the General Manager LMCC in reference to DA1774/2013,

    Myself and my family are residents of Whitebridge and my child attends Whitebridge High School. I would like to voice my concerns for the development (over development) of 142 Dudley Road Whitebridge.

    The amount and size (3 storeys) of the dwellings is way too large for that site. It will produce many problems such as:
    ** Traffic congestion on streets and roads which include Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, Kopa Street, Waran Road and Whitebridge roundabout especially with only having one entry and exit to the development on Kopa St.
    ** Parking problems at Whitebridge shops (which is already congested with limited parking spaces)

    All the traffic and parking problems will have a huge impact on safety related concerns with residents, school children and fernleigh track users (pushbikes, prams, elderly walkers and kids) Also other people who use the childcare centre, tennis courts and adjoining park/oval which is used for cricket and other sports will be faced these problems

    This type of development is totally out of character with the surrounding village and will have a massive, negative impact on the community.

    The land needs to be developed so it can be a part and an asset of Whitebridge and the surrounding areas. In its present design it wont be. To do this we need a development with less amount of units that are aesthetically pleasing with more open, green spaces and parking.

    Thank you for hearing SOME of my many concerns.
    Ian, Yvette and Sharna Harris

  15. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Rob and Anika Roohan commented

    If appropriate decision making and the concerns of residents are taken into consideration, the development of 142 Dudley Rd Whitebridge could provide an opportunity to create a residential and commercial space that can be a national leader in sustainable living. What is needed is the vision and confidence of the developers to acknowledge the environmental significance of the site and work alongside these factors, treating them as a positive prospect not a limitation. Improved community response, increased profit and environmental sustainability are all achievable if adequate planning is applied.

    The development requires a philosophy of a sustainable approach to the environment, as well as proper consideration of social and economic responsibilities to the wider community. The current plan in no way reflects the environmental and geographical significance of the area. Offering no sustainable creativity, relying on old and outdated methods of planning and architecture, the plan is over simplistic in its ideology of mass production. The proposal may succeed in a standard urban setting. Whitebridge is not a standard urban setting.

    Whitebridge is distinctive in its positioning as a link between Glenrock State Recreation Area and Awabakal Nature Reserve. This area is possibly the largest network of high quality coastal native vegetation in an “urbanised” area in NSW. The site in question forms the centrepiece in this green corridor. To develop in its current proposal will metaphorically be like clogging an artery.

    This corridor allows movement of wildlife between habitats to maintain their genetic diversity, which is critical for their survival and persistence into the future, especially in the face of future environmental change through climate change and other threats.

    The long-term viability of Glenrock State Conservation Area, Awabakal Nature Reserve and Belmont/Jewells Wetlands is dependent on surrounding areas of bushland remaining intact and being managed effectively. Any future development of the area has the potential to increase edge effects on these reserves, increase direct and induced impacts and management costs for conservation agencies and increase both impacts and risk for a large number of resident and migratory threatened and native species.

    The proposed development requires a complete re-think of how it can fit into the unique landscape, whilst at the same time remain viable and possibly even more profitable. If done correctly a national benchmark in sustainable development is achievable whilst possibly gaining international recognition.

    To achieve community support, a development that is reflective of the areas environmental significance is essential. Further professional consultancy in planning, design/architecture, product choice, sustainable features, environmental footprint reduction should be at the forefront of the developments future.

  16. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of three (3)...” at 50 Tower Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    B Simmonds commented

    Boroondara Council is turning the area into a future slum. There is not enough infrastructure to cope with all the influx of people that these developments are bring into the area. It is turning into multiculturalism at its worst neighbours forming cultural groups …. not mixing with each other…… the detriment of our local society .

  17. In Mount Helen VIC on “CA 49D Eddy Avenue” at Mount Helen:

    Helen de Weerd commented

    Notification received 30 JAN 2014.

    RE: Planning permit application No. PLP/2012/1086.

    "The Statutory Planning Unit has considered the above application and determined to refuse to grant a planning permit".


  18. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Ethan Bentley commented

    I would also like to raise my concerns about the development at 142 dudley road whitebridge.
    There has been many issues raised about traffic and population density.
    The current state of the intersection of Lonus Avenue and Dudley Rd is already overcrowded, especially in mornings and afternoons due to the addition of school traffic.

    For me personally this raises concerns about the safety of pedestrians in this area, particularly with adolescents who are attending Whitebridge high school.

    As well as the fact that there are very few dwellings in the Whitebridge area that are more than 2 stories high. This also has nothing to do with the amount of residents that you can fit into this area.
    IE: Less residents in total would be the way to achieve a common ground among the community.

    If this development were to go ahead in its current state then the impact of its new residents could potentially be indirectly dangerous to the youth of this area.

    Obviously some sort of development needs to occur on this land, however, I think that it should be scaled down due to the already overcrowded population density in this area.

  19. In Kew VIC on “Variation of category to...” at 7 Studley Park Road, Kew 3101, VIC:

    Dr. Pauline Chazan commented

    I do not believe that this application should be approved. It is right next door to a residential property, with a family and children living in it. It is also on a street block with residential houses making up the bulk of the occupancy. It is completely inappropriate for this area and will affect the residential amenity of the surrounding houses in the block.Dr

  20. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Kristie Krainz commented

    To The Manager, LMCC - DA 1774/2013 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge

    I am writing to object to the proprosed over development at Whitebridge. As a Whitebridge resident, I am not opposed to the development of the land which is in line with the already existing Whitebridge area, but am opposed to this over development.

    There are a number of real problems with this proposal which need to be considered:

    Traffic Congestion - the exisiting traffic (and pedestrian traffic) in the area is already at capacity and the impact of extra traffic from the development has not been considered.
    Parking - the parking at the Whitebridge shops is already at capacity and the planned parking in the proposal is not sufficient for the area.
    Visual Impact - the development will look more like a housing commission area, and this mass development is not visually in line with the existing dwellings in the area.
    Impact on Facilities - the increase in residents will then impact the local facilities such as the local shops, park, day care facilities and schools. Can our local schools cope with the influx of more students?

    I trust that Council will make a common sense decision and decline this over development. The developer and Council should consider the effect this current proposal will have on the community and come to a resolution that will be consistent with the Whitebridge landscape.

  21. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Sarah Blatchford commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Whitebridge (DA 1772-2013). I grew up in Whitebridge and still live in nearby Charlestown East (my parents still reside in our family home in Whitebridge).
    The high density of the proposed development is completely unsuitable to this small, quiet suburb. Having so many 2 and 3 storey dwellings crowded into this space will inevitably cause several problems to this community:

    • Social issues. It is well documented that areas housing highly dense dwellings suffer from higher crime rates, vandalism, and social problems. These dwellings have no yards, parks, personal space or areas for socialising. Residents, especially youths, will have no space to spend their time outdoors aside from the street and public areas.

    • Lack of amenities. Whitebridge is a small suburb and, as such, has the amenities to cope with a small population.

    • No green space. This development has been planned with no green space, aside from the mandatory corridor alongside the Fernleigh track. This lack of green space is in complete contradiction to the bushy surrounds of the area, will radiate an enormous amount of heat, and will be an eyesore to the neighbourhood. These dwellings need to be built with personal green space for each residence and green space separating the dwellings. Ideally there should be communal space as well, such as a park or playground.

    • Traffic congestion. Whitebridge already suffers from traffic problems around the schools and shops as well as a shortage of parking. With another 300 car movements the busy intersections and carparks simply will not cope and will become a serious danger to drivers and pedestrians.

    Quantity over quality appears to have been a determining phrase during the planning of this development, however Whitebridge is a wonderful place to live and visit and is deserving of a development that will harmonise with the existing community and environment.

    I sincerely hope that these issues are taken into consideration

  22. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Lee J Currington commented

    To The General Manager, Lake Macquarie City Council
    Re : DA 1774/2013
    142 Dudley Rd WHITEBRIDGE 2290

    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to express my objection to this proposed development. I feel that when the land was rezoned 2.2 medium density that the general community were not aware that this would lead to a proposal like the one at hand.

    I also feel the developers have been very opportunistic using this technicality to integrate as many buildings as possible in the rezoned land.

    I know there is alarming traffic problems at Whitebridge at the moment. With no future infrastructure planned, another large subdivision of this proposals' nature on the fringe should not be acceptable by local council.

    I am also objecting to the placement of the 3 storey residential units. The only 9 x 4 bedroom Adaptable Garden Villas (AGV)'s share the common boundary with existing residents. This is a very poor planning decision which shows total lack of regard for the privacy and welfare of current residents.

    I feel there has been little to no planning for green space. If there are 3/4 bedroom villas constructed, they will be marketed towards families with children to reside in them. Where are recreation areas located? In Lake Macquarie in 2014 this is an important aspect of residential planning that the developer has overlooked and so needs to be addressed.

    There is many other unsuitable aspects to the development in its current form. I trust you have seen the number of objections to consider its abhorrence to the community at large. Please consider this as my formal objection of DA 1774/2013.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Lee Currington

  23. In Canterbury VIC on “Buildings and works to an...” at 86 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Jack Roach commented

    Five swellings should mean at least 5 or more car parking spaces .
    No reduction should be allowed which may mean there will not be sufficient space for 5 dwellings.

    Therefore council should refuse this application.

  24. In Branxton NSW on “Ice Box Liquor - Liquor...” at 74 Maitland St, Branxton 2335:

    Ms King commented

    So all the miners can drink drive better on the way home, its disgusting now as the Ice Box is in the middle of town and you get people doing U turns on double lines just to get to the place , where are they all going to park - its residential

    answer is NO , they shouldn't be allowed

    Just look at how licenses have been approved for the little town now.

  25. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    J. Davis commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the development in its current form for the following reasons:

    -The sheer size and density of the development which is inconsistent with the surrounding area.
    -The potential for hundreds of extra cars using an already congested section of local roads, particularly the intersections of Kopa Street and Lonus Avenue and Lonus Avenue and Dudley Road, increasing the risk for pedestrian safety, particularly school children and senior citizens.
    -The existing road infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic, with the Whitebridge roundabout already at capacity at peak times.
    -The Whitebridge shops car park is already at capacity for most of the day and the 4 proposed commercial premises will greatly increase the number of cars seeking parking.
    -Inadequate consultation with the community considering the size and density of the development.
    -The increase in the number of residents will have adverse impacts on the amenity, lifestyle and safety of existing and future residents.

  26. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Brooke Searles commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing in regards to DA-1774/2013 proposed for Whitebridge.

    I grew up in Whitebridge and now live in neighbouring Charlestown East. My parents still live in our family home in Whitebridge and I am often in the area to visit my family, friends and the local shops.

    Whitebridge is a magnificent place to live and visit. Lake Macquarie City Council has played a significant role in restoring areas of historical significance and developing the Fernleigh Track, which is widely used by residents of the entire region, as well as preserving Glenrock reserve, Dudley Beach, etc. Unfortunately these areas may be under threat if this high density development is approved.

    The vacant land to be used by DA-1774/2013 should be developed. However, this proposal is excessive, in no way integrates with the local surrounds, and would be a disastrous addition to a small, coastal town.

    This level of housing density is befitting of a city or large town that has the resources, road infrastructure and amenities to cope with such an increase in population and traffic. My main objections to this DA are as follows;

    • The level of high density housing will inevitably create an array of social problems due to the poorly designed, cheap housing and a lack of resources, personal space, public transport and green space

    • Roads are already at capacity, with an increase of 200 or so vehicles they simply would not cope and would become a danger to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians

    • The Whitebridge village is now overcrowded, with not enough parking or space to accommodate the current growing population

    • This development offers no green space to integrate with the local surrounds, provide residents with areas to socialise and entertain, provide natural relief from heat and accommodate the multitude of local wildlife

    • The high density dwellings will inevitably cause drainage and storm water issues. The catchment storm water drain, alongside the Fernleigh Track, already overflows during heavy rain and with no green space to slow runoff this problem will be exasperated

    • The 2 – 3 storey, wall to wall dwellings will be an eyesore to the area and will visually separate and isolate from the local surrounds

    I hope that LMCC and the JRPP object to this overdevelopment, ensure community consultation is required and demand a quality development that complements and promotes this wonderful area.

  27. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Linda Rees commented

    I agree with all the above concerns for the recently submitted plans to heavily develop
    DA-1774/2013, 142-146 Dudley Road and 2-4 Kopa Street Whitebridge.

    It is in our area's interest to make this land a piece of well designed housing for a reasonable number of residents, who will enjoy living in a healthy attractive well serviced community.

    Common sense shows that the original architect plan for 142 Dudley Road is unacceptable.

    Please don't allow Whitebridge and surrounds to become a densely populated area at the expense of quality living, for the people who will come and the population here already.

    Thank you for your time.

    Linda Rees

  28. In Little River VIC on “Use and Development of a...” at 50 Mcintosh Road, Little River:

    Jacqueline LeLievre commented


    We are concerned about an increase in large heavy vehicles travelling in the area. The surface of McIntosh Road is dirt & suffers if large vehicles frequently travel along it with the occurrence of pot holes and corrugations. We would like to ensure that McIntosh Road & surrounding roads are maintained to a satisfactory level year round given the type of traffic expected. Moreover, that the noise of large/heavy vehicles along the road is avoided during off peak times & weekends.

    If they have pets (dogs) that they are kept securely within the property given I have been attacked by two dogs in the area whilst walking this is important to me.


  29. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    Alec Roberts commented

    In reference to DA 1774/2013 by SNL Building Constructions Pty Ltd.

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Please note that I am not opposed to development of this site per se but to the scale and degree of development proposed in this DA.

    During my time I was living in Melbourne I have seen the construction of a number of medium density housing developments particularly in the Brunswick and Coburg areas. Apart from some increased parking issues in some streets these developments as a whole have increased the amenity of the area. These developments were usually limited to two storey townhouse cluster developments and were designed to be in keeping with the suburbs. Even after a number of years these developments still look good and are well looked after. In one case, developers decided to go with a more compact style using 2-3 storey terraces that obviously was going to allow more residences within the space. This was architect designed and showed initial promise placed between a heritage listed site and a park. However, it wasn’t long before the development had a tired look (even though it was developed after the others) with vandalism and graffiti evident in the development.

    There appears to be a tipping point between medium density developments that provide and continue to provide amenity to the local suburb and those that decrease amenity and become targets for vandalism within the community. Developments to the higher end of medium density fit into the latter category. This development in its current form is at the higher end of medium density (with 87 residences including 2-3 storey terraces) and I fear would lead to a decrease in amenity of the area and become a target for vandalism.

    It appears from the DA included drawings that the offstreet parking includes residents’ driveways. This I do not believe would be acceptable to the residents and would impact on parking in the immediate area around the development.

    Visual Impact
    The DA notes that this development is within Scenic Management Zone – 7 (coastal edge, low settlement) of the Lake Macquarie Scenic Management Guidelines 2013. The guidelines state that the desired future character of this zone is to “Protect the dominant natural character of the coastline whilst allowing some sensitive modification”. It further states “Visual impacts of development should be managed through appropriate design, scale, built form, siting and the retention of trees and other natural features. Proposed future residential areas should be limited to ensure that the existing low development character is maintained” and “Any development within these areas is to satisfy the following guidelines: any buildings should be of a low scale and not dominant.” Moreover, the DA states under section 4.1.11 Visual Impact that “No significant public/private views will be significantly/unreasonably affected by the proposed development”.

    The proposed development does not adequately address the visual impacts with inappropriate design and scale. The development proposes three storey terraces immediately adjacent (20 metres) from the Fernleigh Track detracting from the natural amenity of this unique recreational trail. Furthermore a development of 87 residences could not be regarded as low scale and would dominate the local area.

    Conservation zone
    The DA states that a 20 metre conservation zone adjacent to the Fernleigh Track has been set aside as a wildlife corridor. It should be noted that this 20m is effectively halved at the southern end of the development (Dudley rd end) to allow for the inclusion of terraces fronting Dudley rd and a garden townhouse behind. This should have been clearly stated in the DA. Ten metres is not a sufficient width for a wildlife corridor and may not be considered an adequate building setback and buffer from the Fernleigh Track.

    Proposed changes
    The scale and degree of the development is too large and does not fit nor is in keeping within the local area. The size and in particular compactness of this development needs decreasing to allow it to effectively integrate and increase the amenity of the local area.

    The design of the townhouses and garden villas look promising, although some private side yards are about the width of a bath and probably need increasing if they are going to be useful to residents.

    To decrease the density of the development and help address the issue of visual impact stages 9 & 10 should be removed (13 3-storey terraces adjacent to the Fernleigh track) and perhaps replaced by the garden villas/townhouses or developed as additional space for the conservation zone.

    To address the reduced conservation zone the two storey terraces facing Dudley Rd in Stage 6 (terraces 4 & 5) and the garden townhouse (7) should be removed to allow the 20 metre conservation zone to run the length of the property development adjacent to the Fernleigh track.

    And finally, remove the Camphor Laurel tree next to Dudley Rd proposed to be kept and replace with a less invasive species (preferably native to this area).

    Thankyou for your time,

    Alec Roberts

  30. In Birkdale QLD on “Operational Works - ROL 3...” at Burbank Road, Birkdale, QLD:

    G Gall commented

    Burbank Rd Birkdale does not fall within the medium density planning zone so has there been a mistake here? Residents are entitled to keep the value of their properties clear from the crush of medium density that is more appropriate near facilities. Thirty six lots? Could be 72 cars to get parked!

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