Recent comments

  1. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 53 Campbell Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Clare McConnel commented

    Has this already been approved? The owners have already built a large fence to subdivide their backyard, which results in an existing character house with a tiny backyard, and a very small new block which will most likely need to be either a two-storey house or duplex as the land is so small.

    This is not appropriate infill for this area. Tiny subdivisions are going to produce houses/units/duplexes totally out of keeping with the character of the area.

  2. In Randwick NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at Shop 16/99-105 Frenchmans Road Randwick NSW 2031:

    Richard W. Poole commented

    This existing shop already creates blockages of the footpath and encroaches its stands, trolleys and displays over the council limits as marked on the footpath that has already been allocated.

    This is not only an eye sore but does restrict pedestrians passing.

    This area is regularly congested and untidy almost on a daily basis.

    Trolley and cardboard cartons and boxes are also present in the area. The garden area in front of the shop is also suffering.

    Fruit stands are also placed in front of the bottle shop and once again the area is even more congested. I believe that this is not a council allocated area as well.

    Whilst I appreciate that the existing business has outgrown its present location, it should not be to the detriment of residents of the building that reside above the fruit shop and to pedestrians passing. Some pedestrians are elderly. There is also a safety issue that must be considered even for the existing endorsement.

    I do not support this submission.

  3. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 51 Croydon Road Surrey Hills VIC 3127:

    Lynette commented

    Was this building deemed to be of special significance in Boroondara Council's Heritage listing?

  4. In Woodridge QLD on “Multiple Dwelling x 20,...” at 69 Station Road Woodridge QLD 4114:

    Lucy Jeffery commented

    I would like to find out more about the property at 69 station road. As I own the shop near the property, I'm interested to buy the property. It is convenient to walk and work at my shop.

    I will appreciate it if you can assist me with the information in regards to the property.

    Yours faithfully

    Lucy Jeffery.

  5. In Wingham NSW on “Dwelling” at 18 Abbotts Falls Road, Wingham NSW 2429:

    Gary cox commented

    I am travelling at the moment.
    Could I ask you to provide more detail electronically .

    Thank you
    Gary Cox
    16 Abbotts Falls road

  6. In Woy Woy NSW on “Rebuild Fire Damaged Townhouse” at 12 Park Road, Woy Woy NSW 2256:

    Suzanne Frew commented

    I am interested in renting number 4 and would like to know when the proposed re-building of number 1 and 2 may happen please since the fire?

  7. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Peter van Rooyen and Karli Jozeps commented

    We Peter and Karli appose the change because there have been problems with the 'residents' of this address. There have been numerous incidents requiring police involvement. These residents have been respnsible for trespassing, often after dark but not limited to the night time. There have been thefts and break-ins as well.
    This has been a quiet neighbourhood where residents feel safe leaving their homes unlocked whilst away on short visits, erands or beach walks. Unfortunenately because of the presence of these people we have had to alter our way of living which, we came here for the quiet life.
    These people have been hanging around, malingaring, the streets and beach at times one would expect them to be home. One feels like they are 'casing the joint' when they walk down to the beach (down ORegans Creek Rd and then via Ries Rd) They have been caught on camera stealing cigaretes and alcohol sometimes at one oclock in the morning!
    There are children in the community who could/will be influenced by these people with regards to smoking, stealing and bad behaviours. There has been some graffiting although this is not confirmed as having been committed by the residents of this facility.
    We strongly feel that this type of facility is best suited for another area not ours. We are not prepared to change our lifestyle for the sake of having such a facility in our area. We believe that having this facility here will adversly affect future house and land prices and who will recompence us for this? The Council perhaps or the facility?
    Please decline the proposed change and let us continue to enjoy the peaceful lifestyle that we have enjoyed and not infringe on our right to continue to enjoy in the future.

  8. In Burwood NSW on “Townhouses and Dwelling -...” at 16 Wyatt Avenue Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pedro Queiroz commented

    I strong oppose this proposal. With the current explosion of high-rises close to Burwood station and all the way to Parramatta Road, I find it absolutely disheartening that yet another beautiful property in this unspoiled area of our suburb is being defaced to give room to medium-density housing.
    An approval would It send a very uncomfortable message to anyone deciding to live in Burwood: disregard your property's current surroundings, they'll change at a drop of a hat.
    This proposal is also incredibly unfair to anyone currently living in Wyatt Avenue, as they will get all the downside and none of the upside.

  9. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Caravan / Relocatable Home...” at 48-54 Flesser Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    John and Donna commented

    Yes also my husband and I do object to this application for caravan/ relocatable home park. The area has more than enough cars and trucks travelling along Flesser and Koplick every morning and afternoon without adding more congestion. This is a rural area with lots of wildlife and with more development and housing and lost bushland this will impact on the wildlife residing in the area not to mention the probability of more crime in the area and the lack of quality roads. We feel this will impact on ours and others lifestyle in the immediate area. We all bought out here to get away from all of that and now you are bringing it right on our doorstep. We already have 3 lifestyle resorts in close proximity, Greenbank Gardens, Hammond Village and Chambers Pines only 3 k away. We do not need another in this area. Please take our concerns into account as we have lived here for 18 years and do not want to see it ruined.

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

    Paul and Marilyn Rickard commented

    I write to support the opposition voiced by the residents of Merrivale Lane to this proposed development.

    It is inevitable that the large increase in traffic volume flowing from it will, in a narrow lane with largely unusable footpaths, lead to serious pedestrian injury or even fatality.

    The amenity of adjoining streets, (Buckra Street and Charlton Avenue) which are already carrying unreasonably high traffic volumes from vehicles using them as shortcuts, will also be adversely affected.

    This is a large commercial development which should only be carried out in an area already zoned for commercial use rather than a quiet residential lane. It is totally unworkable and should not be allowed to diminish the amenity of existing residents and, more importantly, put their safety at risk.

  11. In Fitzroy North VIC on “Develop the land by...” at 585 Rae St Fitzroy North VIC 3068:

    Helen commented

    There should be no lessening of the parking requirements for this location. Having lived for 10yrs in this street I frequently experienced parking issues as none of the houses have off street parking (and that was 25yrs ago). Double storey dwellings, in this particular location, are not sympathetic with the area. There are no double storey houses in this section of the street and only a few in the next block.

  12. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Reconfigure 1 into 2 Lots” at 53 Campbell Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Paddy Boxall commented

    I have walked past this place and the owners must be very confident of getting approval as they have already put up a paling fence and had ground works carried out.
    Is this going to be another "approved by stealth" application to reduce blocks in our, once lovely part of town and put up another dwelling on a tiny block?

    In passing. There is a For Sale sign on a block in the lower end of Dunmore Street that has apparently been approved without any apparent notice to the general population.
    The Council appears to have very loose rules regarding what can and what can't be done.
    I, for one am completely sick of the current set of Councillors and hope that next year we get some people elected who actually "Give a Damn" about our city.

  13. In South Launceston TAS on “Educational and Occasional...” at 34-40 Howick Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Philip and Kelly Keam commented

    I have been alerted to this development by residents in French street.
    I believe this relates to the structure at the end of French street and if so would not impact Howick street in any way.
    French street has experienced increased traffic and day parking from workers at "the charles" and launceston general hospital in the past few years which has altered residential parking and amenity of French Street and further development as proposed here will further increase this in French street.
    For this reason we would be opposed to such a development.

  14. In Leichhardt NSW on “Construction of 3 Dwellings...” at 221 Elswick Street North Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Christina Valentine commented

    I live across the road from this proposed demolition and new development. The first comment I wish to make is that I think it is very sad that this brick home, which is over 100 years old, is to be demolished. I have already expressed my disappointment about this but have been told the Council is powerless to stop such a demolition. A little piece of history will be gone and that is sad. It is also upsetting for those of us who have bought into the area because we failure its history and enjoy the character homes around us. It is also disappointing for those of us who also have larger blocks and older homes yet choose to protect and restore the character of our home rather than demolish and rebuild for profit,

    The second comment is that I believe that putting three homes on this site should not be supported. The same developer has built two homes (on a smaller site) a couple of doors down. In my view that development and this proposed build looks quite out of step with the streetscape and is out on line with the majority of the homes on the street. Most of the homes are either double-fronted single homes or single fronted homes, but with a proper distance between each other. This means they do not have intrusive overlooking, nor do they have the cramped, over-developed look of this development. I appreciate the developer is trying to maximise his profit and squeeze as much house onto the site as possible, but the result is quite unsightly and does not suit the rest of the houses on the street.The effect of squeezing three homes onto this site, as is evident from the architectural plans, is that the look cramped and negatively affect the streetscape, as well as being out of step with the rest of the streetscape. For that reason I believe that only two homes should be permitted on this site, that the homes should have a proper distance between them and their neighbours so that they fit in more with the existing homes on this street.

    Christina Valentine

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

    John and Diane Tippett commented

    We are long term residents of Charlton Ave and have already seen a massive increase in the volume of traffic in our area. Our biggest concern with this proposal is the safety implications the extra traffic will have on our local streets. Pentecost Ave is a very busy link road between Bobbin Head Rd and Mona Vale Rd and although it has a speed limit of 50kph it is rarely heeded. Cars waiting to turn into either Merrivale Lane, Merrivale Rd or Charlton Ave frequently halt the traffic flow in Pentecost Ave which creates impatience and frustration for the people passing through. At peak times when parents will invariably be dropping off or picking up children from this proposed centre the extra traffic will only increase the risk to people already navigating these dangerous intersections. All these corners have blind spots that have caused numerous traffic accidents over the years. We ceased turning right into Pentecost from our road years ago after several near misses from speeding cars coming from the blind spot on the left. The exit from Merrivale Lane is even more hazardous. One can only imagine what the consequences will be if people with no local knowledge of the conditions start using these roads on a frequent basis. The fact that such a proposal would even be considered appropriate in Merrivale Lane which is such a narrow, hard to access and difficult to navigate lane is astounding and concerning.
    The area is also in a designated bush fire zone and the limited access for emergency vehicles, should they be required, must be a concern for everyone involved. This will further put lives at risk.

    We have real concerns about the safety issues involved with this proposal and hope council give it the serious consideration it deserves.

  16. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Caravan / Relocatable Home...” at 48-54 Flesser Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Karina Clarkson commented

    I object to the proposed caravan/relocate lee home project MCUI-31/2015. I am concerned with traffic volumes in flesser rd. there are already numerous of these types of properties in the area so do not agree that we need another such property. This area has a rural feel and most of the appeal of this area is the quiet streets and roads. This type of proposed development would require extensive changes to our current services to this area that I do not feel are needed.

  17. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Caravan / Relocatable Home...” at 48-54 Flesser Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Daryl and Jenny Larkin commented

    We also object to the proposed caravan park / relocatable home park (MCUI-31/2015)

    Flesser Road is not in a fit state to cater for the heavy vehicles, nor the volume of traffic expected when construction commences. As it is now, the road is narrow and precarious edges makes passing oncoming traffic a nightmare. The continuous physical force exerted by heavy vehicles will make it even more dangerous.

    Public transport isn't available in the area. Should the park go ahead, what plans does council have in place for the impact of an extra 350 people living in the vicinity of Koplick and Flesser Roads?

    High density housing does not fit in the rural location of Flesser Road and its surrounds.

  18. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Gordon Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Graham Maranda commented

    Six stories is totally out of context with the general height of all nearby buildings. It is a contemptuos application that takes our community down the wrong planning path.

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

    James & Megan Kinniburgh commented

    I too agree with every comment thus far.

    A simply summary

    1. no foot paths
    2. RED fire zone
    3. lane - "narrow road"
    4. increased traffic flow in the "lane" and the surrounding quiet, safe "residential" streets
    5. exit to Penticost Ave is a blind dangerous corner
    6. child care centres exist on Penticost Ave, Bannockburn Rd, Bobbin Head Rd, Eastern Rd (have I missed any?), if this "entrepreneur" cares to offer quality facilities to families how about spreading the love and seek alternative locations which genuinely need child care spaces in their areas !

    I sincerely hope the council will treat this this application with the care and responsibility that their rate pays expect.

    And BIN IT !

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

    Betty Won commented

    This application should not be approved. Please remember that Merrivale Lane is a LANE- it is already hard enough reversing out of the driveway due to the narrow width of the lane, let alone getting out of the driveway when there are cars parked adjacent to the driveway. Now this proposition to have cars enter in and out of Merrivale LANE - with the addition of garbage and deliveries... it evidences itself as a terrible idea.

  21. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Gordon Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Kye Sanderson commented

    Redevelopment is happening all over Sydney which is a good thing for the city as housing would be even more expensive then it is if there weren't some new supply being added to accommodate a growing population. Marrickville Council has gone through an extensive planning process (including consultation with the community) to determine where the best places are to accommodate its share of growth. It strikes me as odd that people would be surprised that the area around Petersham train station and shops is found to be a good location for some more dense development. So I'm glad to inform you that the train has already left the station there and the future character of the eastern side of Gordon St will consist of 6 storey apartment buildings.

    As someone who would be happy to live in one of those blocks I think I must be one of those desperate people Mark refers to.


  22. In Aveley WA on “Below Ground Swimming Pool...” at 6 Tolj Loop Aveley WA 6069 ,:

    Roger commented

    Sorry that had meant to say full of shit.

  23. In Aveley WA on “Below Ground Swimming Pool...” at 6 Tolj Loop Aveley WA 6069 ,:

    Roger commented

    STOP putting up false information about my property, either take it down or print the truth. Anybody reading stuff written by this site is full of shift.

  24. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Lynette Bradford and Paul Bradford commented

    We wish to express our disapproval of above application and do not support approval of any change. We live at 515 O'Regan Creek Road and have been broken into, robbed, ramsacked and had our car stolen by juveniles residing in current residence of 482 O'Regan Creek Road run by a government department (DOCS). Our suburb of Toogoom does not provide facilities such as a regular bus service (except for morning and afternoon school service) or affordable, convenient grocery store such as Woolwoorths, Aldi or Coles or a petrol station. Community housing brings residents of lower income whom may not be employed or may have a disability. Locating residents in this area will isolate them with no convenient services. This will lead to unacceptable behaviours which current residents of Toogoom should not have to deal with. Toogoom is a desirable area for quiet pleasures, natural vegetation, rural type properties, untouched beaches and an abundance of flora and fauna. Existing residents in this location are on larger alotments and have greater real estate values. Properties have also been purchased for the lifestyle that presents as being safe and away from the CBD and suburbia. A Community residence will devalue all properties. Will the developer or the council compensate existing residents for the loss of property values. very unlikely. Please explain how an approval benefits the suburb or the existing community. I thought this land is tidal so most of it would be unusable or will developers change natural flow of creek which will lead to greater flooding in area.
    PLEASE DO NOT change Toogoom. Please come and look at our quite little part of paradise on the Fraser Coast.

  25. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Gordon Street Petersham NSW 2049:

    Mark Matheson commented

    I agree with Jordan. This idea is unrealistic and bullish in a residential area.

    The three storey block across the road looks painful but SIX STOREYS is ludicrous.

    Only desperate people would rent in such an inappropriate block.

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

    Winston Lo commented

    I cannot agree more with all the comments made. My objections are:
    1. How narrow the lane is to get through with the current traffic
    2. We are in bush fire zone
    3. The dangerous for cars exisiting to Penticost Ave
    4. No footpath
    Please do not approve.

  27. In Nelson NSW on “A Two Storey Dwelling” at 'Perapsaville Bulldog', 8 Blind Road, Nelson NSW 2765:

    jan commented

    Why are the plans redacted? Why cannot we see the floor plan. It appears to have 9 bedrooms. The building looks ugly and mosque like. Is there something in the interior that is a secret?

    This building is not in keeping with Nelson or the surrounding rural area.

    I do not believe this application should be approved

  28. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Kim Burns-Atkinson & Craig Atkinson commented

    6th October 2015

    The Assessment Manager,
    Fraser Coast Regional Council,
    PO Box 1943,
    Hervey Bay QLD 4655

    We wish to object to the development application before council. Material change of Use – (Home based business - Photographic Location Service). 58B Waterview Dve, Dundowran Beach QLD 4655.

    Having read the development application we would like to draw your attention to the following facts.
    Our major concerns are: -
    1) It is clearly in breach of PO2 that states “No more than 2 customers or clients are present at any one time and no more than 8 customers or clients are present in any one day.” The application clearly states that group-wedding photographs will likely attract larger numbers of up to 10 guests, with the opportunity for multiple sessions to be held each day between the hours of 8am and 6pm.
    2) It does not comply with hours of operation PO4 - AO4 which states “ Not at all on Sunday’s or public holidays.” The application states that: - “Most demand will be expected to be on weekends.” Clearly, this application does not comply with the requirements for a small home business and therefore not suitable for a low-density residential area.
    3) Parking will be adjacent to the back of our house and is in breach of PO16. At present the proposal is to leave the area as it is – poorly grassed. This could well become a dust bowl over time, particularly during dry weather, with dust blowing into our yard, dirtying our house, dirtying washing and dirtying our swimming pool. We note that on (1.3 paragraph 5) “Parking will be provided with a dust free surface.” Clearly grass or gravel are not dust free.
    4) Our privacy, peace and serenity will be impacted by the noise of vehicles coming and going, doors opening and closing and guests mingling in the car parking area. Our yard is clearly visible from both the proposed parking area and the rose gardens. Whilst trees have been proposed as a screen this is not more than a token gesture from the developer. They would take some time to grow and would have little impact on reducing the noise that clearly is expected. We find this solution completely unsatisfactory. In addition, a wedding ceremony that was held there on 26th September confirmed our concerns, with guests parking right on our back fence-line seeking shade from the trees, rather than parking in the centre of the block.
    5) It is quite likely that some patrons will park in Winston Court and walk through to the venue along our side fence or park in Azure Court below. There is no fence preventing this.
    6) We are concerned also about reverse amenity. We have two dogs which are likely to bark with the noise and disturbance created by numerous cars and people coming and going. Our shed also backs on close to the proposed site, at times the radio is playing, motor bikes are serviced in the shed, power tools and garden tools used in the yard, all of which may impact on the “photographic sessions” and we are genuinely concerned that our normal weekend activities could ruin somebodies day.
    7) No toilet facilities are available.
    8) We believe that the change of zoning would set a precedent for future commercial development. We believe it is possible that any future plans to add a venue to hold wedding ceremonies would be easier to pass through council, once the change from Low Density Residential to the proposed zoning was in place.
    9) Finally, whilst this has been proposed as a home business proposal, it is clearly a much larger scale commercial venture. The owners have already conducted several weddings, advertised on a website, in Wedding Magazines and through a dedicated Facebook site. Although they have changed their application, the intention to run a business to cater for weddings remains unchanged. A sign displaying Bumble Bee Gardens has already been erected at the front of the property.
    10) We urge council to refuse approval of this undesirable development, protect the interest of its constituents and ensure that the neighbourhood of Dundowran Beach remains the quiet, safe and highly sort after residential address that it currently is. Clearly this development does not have the local residential amenity that is required for a home business proposal.
    Should, however, this proposal be approved then I seek council support to impose the following management conditions: -
    • The proposed car park is moved to the opposite side of the property, away from our fence line.
    • The surface of the car park and access easement is truly non-dust emitting and quiet – that being concrete or bitumen.
    • Suitable storm-water drainage plans be submitted and examined for approval once the access easement and car-parking surface has been confirmed.
    • Acoustic fencing be erected along my back fence line and those of other adjoining properties to mitigate noise both from the proposed development site and from adjoining properties to the photographic site. This is also required to ensure visual privacy to adjoining properties and prevent wedding guests accessing the site from Winston Court and Azure Court.
    • No business to be conducted on Sundays or public holidays.
    • Hours of operation to be strictly 9am – 5pm.
    • The number of photographic sessions is limited to no more than 40 in a given year.
    • Maximum customers are limited to 2 at any one time and no more than 8 in any one-day.

    Furthermore, we again wish to draw attention to the fact that a home business already appears to be operating from this residence without council approval. Clearly the occupants have little regard for council regulations. We are concerned that any approval would require constant supervision to ensure that they comply with any restrictions imposed by council.

    Yours sincerely,

    Kim Burns-Atkinson & Craig Atkinson

  29. In Caringbah South NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at 24 Blamey Ave Caringbah 2229:

    Donna Miller commented

    I don't believe that this development complies with the R2 zoning relating to low density housing where the planning objective is to protect the locality’s single dwelling character and landscape is too bulky in it's size in relation to the surrounding road widths and other residences.
    It is on a busy road that is used to access Lilli Pilli oval in winter for soccer and cricket in summer(also for training,) Lilli Pilli Public School and the child care centre in Regatta Ave.
    Turning from Blamey Ave into Mirral Rd is already trickey with limited vision, this will only
    make it more dangerous.
    There is no landscape diagram provided, but it does not look like there is the minimum 35% landscaping( not including paving as per LEPP)
    The shadow diagrams only show 3months of the year at 9am??is this a mistake. The September diagram which I think would show marked loss of natural light for the single level residence of 22 Blamey Ave has not been provided at all.

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

    Rob Greenop commented

    This Application should not be approved
    In that:

    The siting of a child day care centre in a narrow residential lane (width of 7.3mtrs) is totally inappropriate
    There are 3 such centres within 1 km of the proposed site
    The Location does not comply with Councils Development Control Plan DCP57/3.1 Chapter Objectives/Preferred Locations for Child Care Centres

    Traffic Flows Parking and Congestion
    The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report, compiled by Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd to support the Application, fails to address or ignores certain issues as follows:
    Traffic Flow
    The data In the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report was obtained on a Wednesday and a Thursday, two fairly quiet days of the week. A Monday and/or Friday would be more representative of accurate vehicles/per/hour (vph) in Merrivale Lane
    The report does not address the extra vph generated by the impact of up to 26 staff cars
    The report uses 23yr old data from an RTA survey, which assumed that 75% of the children arrived at a day care centre by car. With no public transport close to the proposed Merrivale Lane centre, and the taking into account the age of the RTA data, the applicable figure is undoubtedly higher
    The report assumes that an increase in traffic of 105 ‘child care’ vehicles (I dispute this figure as too low) is spread evenly over the ‘peak’ period between 4pm and 6pm. However a survey undertaken outside a Manly Vale Child Care Centre on Wed 7th Oct found that of the vehicles entering the premises between 4pm and 6pm 66% did so between 4.30pm and 5.30pm
    When applying this figure (66%) to a projected Merrivale Lane traffic of 105 additional vph we will see an increase of 70 vph during a peak period of 4.30 to 5.30pm!
    The report does not take into account traffic that uses Merrivale Lane as a ‘rat-run’ during times of heavy congestion in Pentecost Ave.
    The report states that quote:
    ‘Two-way traffic flows in Merrivale Lane are significantly lower, typically in the order
    of 25 vph during peak periods’.
    This assumption of 25 vph is inaccurate. Traffic observed on Friday 2nd October at exactly 5pm traffic in Merrivale Lane northbound was 15 vehicles during a 4 minute period

    With 26 staff and only 20 staff parking places, the report offers no guidance where the remaining 6 staff members will park - presumably kerb-side, increasing standing congestion in the Lane
    Merrivale Lane is a narrow residential lane ( at one point only 7.3mtrs wide). The report notes that it is an unclassified road but fails to address its narrow width and the inability of opposite direction traffic to pass where vehicles/boats are parked at kerb-side – one vehicle has to give way

    THE STATEMENT BY VARGA THAT QUOTES: ‘In the circumstances, it is clear that the proposed development will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity’

    Safety Concerns
    There are no pavements for pedestrian traffic use in Merrivale Lane from Pentecost Ave to the proposed development site. Currently joggers, walkers with and without dogs, mothers/grannies with push-chairs share the Lane road surface with cars etc
    The junction of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Ave gives restricted visibility of traffic proceeding in either direction along Pentecost Ave. It is incongruous, from a safety aspect, that an increase in current levels of traffic at this junction should be contemplated
    The proposed two lane entrance/exit into the day care centre is in an adverse position. Line of sight of traffic using the Lane in either direction is extremely poor


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