Recent comments

  1. In Cooranbong NSW on “Utility Infrastructure...” at 60 Avondale Road, Cooranbong NSW 2265:

    Bernard G Howard commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    This application goes against the existing 400m rule for these planned sewerage works. There are too many houses in close proximity for this application to be accepted.

    Also, approx 1000 school children have to pass 60 Avondale Rd. each day to attend school at 119 Avondale Road.

    Johnston Property Developments can build on their own land way up on the other side of the old airport where there are no existing houses!

    PLEASE reject this application!

    Sincerely,

    Bernard G Howard

  2. In Darlington NSW on “Use of the garage and rear...” at 290 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    michelle camilleri commented

    they should just buy a factory and do this. Theres no need for it in a residential area. coffee roasters give of smoke and odour. This da seems very unprofessional go and buy a factory.
    this will be a nuisance for the local area.

  3. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    James commented

    Definitely needs more parking and is getting on the large size for the area, a more reasonable size development needs to be considered.

  4. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition, tree removal &...” at 77 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117:

    Stephen commented

    This property is too close to Dundas Public School and constructing town house on this section would be totally out of character for the surrounding area.Also this property is on a notorious accident spot for Kissing.Pt.Rd due to the speed,drop in the road and the school facing right onto Kissing Pt.Rd.

  5. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Justin ONeill commented

    A new apartment complex with 24 units and only 7 car spaces in an area where parking is already extremely difficult beggars belief. And 5 stories in this location will dwarf other buildings and fly in the face of heritage planning. This development should not go ahead without common sense consideration to heritage and parking factors.

  6. In Melbourne VIC on “Construction of a four (4)...” at 964 - 966 Burke Road Deepdene VIC 3103:

    John Ellis commented

    Hi Guys, So far there has been four new multi appartment developements
    in the last few years some still being built within 600m of the corner of
    Burke and Whitehorse roads. Traffic congestion occurs in to morning
    until 9-10am and in the afternoon from 3.30 - 6.30. This is made worse by
    deepdene primary school on Abercrombie street and the Catholic school one
    block down from Whitehorse and Burke. Child pickups times for parents. The Abercrombie /burke road development, which is situated close to one
    of the primary schools, will only add to this mess. Because access to Burke
    road will be limited by the current traffic jams, frustrated drivers will
    speed off down the mum & child crowded back streets. So abundant Safety issues
    will become a problem. Another butt-ugly multi storey development such
    as the three in Whitehorse Rd and the one on the corner of Whitehorse and
    Burke are enough to lower the tone on the neighbourhood - do we really need
    another? There are plenty of existing units withing 200 meters of the intersection
    do we now need another multi storey appartment buildings? Please stop
    this if you can. John Deepdene

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

    Jacqueline Ann Whalley commented

    Dear Sir

    I have only been recently made aware of the proposal of the 95 new dwellings. At this stage I am still going through the paperwork concerned. I am the owner of 25 Buchanan St, the property is leased. I understand that the sewerage of the new dwellings is going to be connected via our property, with our permission being sought. If this is the case, at this stage I am advising you I do not give the council permission to do so. I would like be contacted by your office as soon as possible. As I do not live there and can only go by the concerns of the residents that do, I see there are many issues that need to be addressed.

    As per usual developers are squeezing in as many dwellings as possible in an area that the infrastucture may not be able to handle. It is well known that councils make mistakes (we all do) in planning and cause major issues down the track. It is much cheaper to amend during the planning stage than later.

    I will be in contact with our tenant and neighbors to discuss the above issues. Hoping to hear from your offices soon.

    Regards

    Jacki Whalley

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

    Jonpaul DeAngelis commented

    I believe the application in its current form should NOT be approved.

    It's incredible to think that such a significant development within the area, in such a prominant location, has it's most important issue of traffic management, safety and access already "per-determined" by Council. Mayor jodie Harrison's confirmation of Council advice to the Developer, to use Kopa St as the ONLY point of entry is fundamentally wrong.

    Under what basis has this been determined LMCC ? What is the impact of this on the nearby streets, Kopa St, Turrug St, Lonus Ave, Tumpoa St, Warren Rd, Dudley Rd ? What is the impact on the local, schools, shops, parks, medical centre, Ferleigh track ? Why is Council not fully considering these impacts on our community ?

    When an unfortunate accident occurs due to the requirement by Council to use Kopa St, then who will be to blame ? What impact will this development have on the existing traffic on Warren Rd ? Why is Council not insisting on entry from Dudley Rd, a much safer option, with the correct upgrades ?

    Accessing the development via Dudley Rd via an upgrade to accommodate the significant traffic volumes is the only solution. It would set the framework for a "good" development, not "guarantee" it's failure.

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

    Ardel & Rodney Prout commented

    I do not agree with this subdivision going ahead in its present state.
    The houses are all crammed in with no yard space. Where is the Australian
    dream? There's no green space to make this an attractive village. If
    the houses were lower density, with garages, lawns and back yards, it would
    make it a more affable and attractive place to live. Another problem
    is the lack of parking space at Whitebridge Shopping Centre. It is already
    impossible to get a park most days and with all the extra people living next
    to the Centre, and no extra parking in the estate, and only one entrance in
    an out, the congestion caused in Lonus Avenue, especially at school times,
    will cause frustration and accidents. There is also the problem of
    fire hazard. If there was a fire in one dwelling, it could easily spread
    and with only one access to the properties it could be disastrous. I have lived in the area for 35 years, and over that time the extra traffic
    on Dudley Road has increased as it is used as a through road from the Redhead/Belmont
    area. It is sometimes quite a wait to get onto the road from the Dudley
    side streets. With this in mind, the extra traffic from the roundabout at
    Warran Road, Dudley Road and Bulls Garden Road will be horrendous. There should also be a wide green belt around the Fernleigh Track. This is
    supposed to be for walkers and bicycle riders and be a pleasant experience
    for all. I certainly hope there is a lot more sensible thought put
    into this project before it goes ahead.

  10. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Lorne Hyde commented

    It is unfortunate we cannot see the actual application - my understanding is that this is not a wholesale facility but a home office. I see no problem with that. Maybe the planning authority can clarify this issue rather then have it misrepresented.

    I support the application.

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

    Dorothy White, Graham Brierley, & Gwen Stirrup commented

    To Whom It May Concern, I would like to object to the planned street
    which enters on to Buchanan Street from the planned development. Buchanan
    Street is too narrow as it is, without another street entering on to it.
    I fear it will make exiting our homes almost impossible, and could cause
    someone to be badly injured. The amount of traffic this development will
    incur will make it difficult for free flow of traffic due to any cars parked
    on either side of the road. Buchanan street is too narrow. (Have you ever
    driven down this street). Also considering we have poor water pressure
    now, what will happen when another 96 houses are added to the supply, also
    where will the excess water go if there is heavy rain, will we end up flooded
    by excess run off, as the streets have flooded before. With the increase
    of children in the area with the new development there will be a considerable
    amount of traffic which could put their lives in danger with such a narrow
    street. We do NOT want another street entering on to Buchanan Street. I hope you will consider these important points as to making this development
    a safer place for us all.

  12. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    James Davies commented

    i disagree with this business in this location,
    this is a child friendly area with 2 schools, churches and numerous parks.
    i do not believe a residential street is the appropriate place to be advertising or marketing liquor
    commercial locations for commercial businesses, especially things we don't need our young children being exposed to on our own front doors,
    i don't think young adults or teenagers need to see this either, they may think "home grown" alcohol is a great idea, and this can lead to disaster.

  13. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Mel commented

    Please do not approve this application. This is a residential street right next to two schools and one established place of worship. Producing, marketing and or running an alcohol business from this residence has safety and social problem implications in this location. It is promoting alcohol too close to schools and impressionable children and conflicts with the place of worship. Select a suitable commercial location for office, manufacturing, producing, promoting of alcohol.

  14. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Patrick McInerney commented

    There will be no alcohol physically produced or sold at this licensed address. It is merely a home office for email, internet and account management. All Alcohol Produced by Willie the Boatman will be done via contract with St Peters Brewery 15 May Street St Peters. All Alcohol will be kept at St Peters Brewery under Bond of the Tax Department until sold to retail and/or hotels with the appropriate liquor license. Willie the Boatman has no intention or permission by any authority to produce alcohol or physically sell alcohol at 7 Edwin Street.

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

    Michael Arthur commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA
    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,
    In accordance with my objection I just emailed today 9.12.13. I would like to highlight some impacts the new main intersection on Banfield Drive will have, that the traffic report has not identified and taken into consideration finding a solution for.

    1. The new intersection will stop Banfield Drive residents from being able to turn right directly into their premises. They will be using the Galway Court intersection to do a U TURN to access their premises. This is now encouraging more traffic to use the Galway intersection. I feel a NO U TURN PERMITTED sign will be needed at this intersection, as it would certainly impact the safety of pedestrian and bus users as there is a pedestrian crossing and bus stop here.

    2. Galway Court will need a (CHR(s)) to improve it's intersection safety and improve traffic flow. The traffic report is providing one for Hedley Court to reduce the risk of rear-end collisions (quote from page 19 of traffic report). Why is this not imperative at Galway Court considering there is a bus stop and pedestrian crossing?

    3. In the hand sketched drawing submitted to council in correspondence, it clearly shows the proposed new parks blocking the pedestrian refuge . I don't find this safe. No cars are ever parked here as there is no reason for them to have to be. Eliminating parking from the western side will be forcing these parks to be used. If cars are parked here pedestrians will have to be standing very close to the road waiting for a clear run of traffic to get to the pedestrian refuge. If a car is waiting to turn right into Galway Court, there is high risk of that a pedestrian will get hit, as traffic is blocked, due to no turning lane.

    I find it neglectful the traffic report overlooked all these traffic impacts there affects on pedestrian/cyclist/ motorist and bus user safety. It surely makes sense the developer would want the bus stop and pedestrian refuge to become obsolete. If this were to occur I find it deceitful and misleading the public. It also raises questions to where will they replace the pedestrian crossing to? and will it adversely make it harder for pedestrians and children trying to get to school safely. The public should be able to comment on this.

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

    MICHAEL ARTHUR commented

    RE: 2 KARANYA STREET, MOUNT LOUISA ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456 APPLICATION
    NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096 Dear Sir, I find the traffic report
    inconclusive of what is actually required to make the new main entrance intersection
    of Banfield Drive operate in a safe and functional manner. With the
    traffic report failing to directly investigate the Galway Court/ Banfield
    Drive bus stop intersection. They have therefore, not had to highlight the
    many traffic implications associated with it, and furthermore, not had to
    justify it's practicality in terms of operating safely. The two comments
    made in the traffic report on (page 26) 8-4-1 and mentioned again in
    8-4-2, regarding Practically of Proposed Intersection Upgrade support this. The comment reads "In terms of positioning the proposed CHR(s) on Banfield
    Drive, the bus stop and pedestrian crossing refuge on Banfield Drive requires
    consideration" Does this mean the developer wants to remove the Galway
    Court Bus Stop and Pedestrian Refuge Island? This leads me to believe
    the developers intention is to make the Galway Court bus stop obsolete, so
    the practicality of the new intersection can be implemented. When the
    council approached UDP Consulting Engineers in correspondence dated 10 October,
    2013. The council required further information in regards to Road Design,
    which was: "The applicant must confirm that the proposed intersection upgrades
    will not adversely impact on the existing bicycle and pedestrian routes along
    Banfield Lane and that the location of the entrance road to the site from
    Banfield Lane will not impact on existing bus stops". The engineers
    have assured council in correspondence dated 24th October, 2013 that "The
    existing bus stops would not be impacted by the location of the access to
    the site by Banfield Drive" and "everything will be addressed in further
    detail during the detailed design stage" With the traffic analyst
    carrying out no direct investigations around this bus stop intersection, but
    has in fact stated twice it needs further consideration. I am unsure how this
    reply is supported. I feel the traffic report has not disclosed their
    full intentions to public yet regarding Banfield Drive. I feel it is of the
    public's right to be provided with a traffic report that clearly states all
    changes needed to make this new intersection operate in a safe manner for
    motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I hereby ask the Karanya
    Street application to be not approved until the public can be assured of full
    details, and have the opportunity to further comment on. I, with other
    community members would appreciate a group meeting to talk with you, to discuss
    the many shortcomings the Galway Court and Banfield Drive intersection has.
    As this intersection has not been directly addressed in the traffic report,
    I feel it's imperative it gets addressed. I look forward to hearing
    from you.

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

    Monique Grace commented

    This development needs to be rethought out to suit the area and the community. Issues with the high impact of the extra housing in a small area which increases usages on all infrastructure including traffic and other amenities. This land was purchased from the original home owners to be used for a bypass and should never have been rezoned to accommodate a development such as this.

    Access to Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side will become a safety issue with all the extra traffic entering and exiting Kopa Street. This is how my family currently access the track to ride or walk along this corridor which we have enjoyed since before it was paved and constructed.

    I hope the council takes into account the community concerns about this development as the traffic along Dudley Road continues to increase with the additional medium housing boom happening in the area.

    The parking near and around the shops will become an increasingly urgent safety aspect with more people using the space. Already the bus stop and pedestrian crossing limits visibility for drivers and safe crossing of Dudley Road.

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

    Andrew Morgan commented

    Firstly I appreciate the need for mixed development, not everyone needs a 700 m2 block with a 4 brm house. The block lends itself to medium density housing. What has been proposed here is way too many dwellings on one parcel of land with one entry & exit point. The development is totally out of character with the remainder of the suburb and should be reviewed to include open space / parkland.

    other issues.

    1. Parking - prior to the fence going up most of the employees of the shops parked on the grass behind the barrier leaving the car park for customers. This system worked well. Now there are extra shops going in and less parking. This will force cars out onto Dudley road and surrounding side streets. This is a major safety issue as none of these streets were designed for this level of parking. There is a huge amount of school children pedestrian traffic around the area and the extra parking will create hazards for pedestrians which will be only a matter of time before an incident occurrs. As a minimum the should be no dwellings or shops south of the current shop front line and the developer should make all this land through to the train line car parking.

    2. Traffic in Kopa st / Lonus Ave - the only exit & entry will be through Kopa st. I suggest council send someone up when school is busy (not december) and see what the traffic is like at the end of Lonus ave. This is without a few hundred extra car movements. The exit point is near a day care facility with toddlers, the extra traffic will lead to frustration and drivers will take risks to get out into the traffic flow around 2-4 year old children. Not good enough !! They need to re-think where the access comes from as the current streets are already overloaded in peak time.

    3. Loss of open space - the development does not include any open space. It will resemble a ghetto and the character of the area will degrade accordingly. Council and the developers have the opportunity to make a really positive impact on the community if they get the balance right. At present it seems to be trying to fit as many dwellings as possible onto a block with out consideration of the character of the surrounds.

    I think the council needs to send a message to the developer to have another think and really consider the views of the residents. This is a huge loss of open space to our community and should be managed in a responsible way to benefit all.

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

    Rhyss Hamilton commented

    This development is a JOKE, another farcical money grab by GREEDY fat cats.

    Don't let them get away with it in our area, this DA should not be approved.

    Balance. Harmony. Sustainability.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

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

    Dave Hinds commented

    To Whom It May Concern

    I too believe that this proposed development in it's current is blatantly discriminating against the rights of all previous long term residents of Mount Louisa.

    Not only does it favour the developers possible clients, it generates a great inconvenience to all current residents by increasing local traffic flow, water useage without new infrastructure to handle the increased useage volume, increased pressure on an almost inadequate sewerage and drainwater system currently in place.Not to mention the abysmal attempt to stop residents on Banfield Drive and their visitors from parking in the gutter outside their homes.

    All access to the new development should be opposite an existing street so as to alleviate any of the existing homes being disadvantaged by having a road directly opposite their driveway.

    The developers have shown a complete disregard on tyhe current residents (and Ratepayers I might add) of Mount Louisa, with this proposed development. Council shpould think long and hard before approving same. Council should also communicate with resident abount their concerns.The developer doesn't give a toss about the rateayers currently ivingin the area, apparently.

    I look forward to a response.
    Regards,
    Dave Hinds.

  22. In Ballarat VIC on “Use of land for food and...” at 207A Creswick Road, Ballarat Central:

    David Mac Phail commented

    Our property, 54 Loch Ave, is separated by one house, from the proposed business and is attached to that house.

    1. Parking: will there be signage to prevent business patrons using the very limited parking in Loch Ave as some properties, including ours, in that street have no off-street parking?

    2. The business operating hours are to 11PM and there will be both alcohol and live music: what protection is there for families living very close to the venue against noise and alcohol fueled disruption in the street?

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

    Geoff Williams commented

    My wife and I moved to Whitebridge almost 40 years ago when it was considered by many to be a “depressed” area. During the ensuing years we have seen many changes, e.g. the development of the industrial area at Metro Court and the residential area where the old drive-in used to be, the development of Dudley Beach Estate vicinity, the development of the Whitebridge Shopping precinct, the building of the medium density housing in the Hudson Street/Baroomba Street area, work on Bullsgarden Road, improvements and expansion of Whitebridge Cemetery, Central Leagues Club and associated playing fields, the Fernleigh Track and much more. All of these changes have enhanced the local area and made it a popular residentially

    Changes to the zoning of properties along Dudley Road, whilst having no immediate or rapid effect on the area is seeing new developments begun. It is commonly believed that medium density housing is becoming more accepted and necessary. One particular development currently under construction on Dudley Road represents, in my view, the type of blight on the area that should be avoided. Whilst I am sure it meets all legal requirements its imposition on the neighbourhood is indisputable. It is surely the first example of unabashed developer greed which takes no account of the wishes and opinions of the local residents.

    The plan submitted to LMCC to build 87, two, three and four bedroom units, two to three stories high on a 2.2 hectare site between Dudley Road and Kopa Street Whitebridge smacks of developer greed on a massive scale. This is a proposal which defies logic given the nature of the obvious safety concerns raised not only by the density of the dwellings but more so by the extreme limitations on access to and from the “compound”. Given that there is a very popular shopping precinct and preschool/day-care facility in very close proximity, a high school with really only one vehicular access road, the adjacent Bullsgarden Road/Dudley Road roundabout and all of the other cross streets etc. in a reasonably traffic busy area the addition of another 150 – 250 motor vehicles to the area is a nightmare waiting to happen. Government transport is dismal now, it has no hope of coping with the possible increase in patronage should the new residents be forced onto it. Many children and elderly citizens walk to and from schools and shops and the number of cyclists in the area has greatly increased with the presence of the Fernleigh Track. The marked increase in traffic volumes will in all likelihood see more pedestrian/cyclist and motor vehicle accidents.

    The “elephant in the room” so to speak is the social problem which can be likely with a development such as this. Many examples of “ghetto” type developments are easily quoted. The close proximity of an alcohol outlet is in itself problematic if the housing contains significant numbers of “bored” young people.

    We know that change is inevitable and in fact desirable. Change must be tempered with reason. Developers claim that they see the future however, it is notable that they are never around in the future. When they have made their money they are gone. Politicians are similarly placed. Their terms of office are limited. When the developers and the politicians are gone from the scene, the monstrosities and the social problems they leave remain as do the residents of the area who must abide with the leavings of others.

    This planned development as it stands is entirely undesirable. It is not in keeping within the Whitebridge community. It will be a blight on the area.

    ,

  24. In Katoomba NSW on “New Bunnings store, outdoor...” at 48 Megalong Street, Katoomba, NSW:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    I object strenuously to this DA. There is absolutely no need for yet another chain-store development in Katoomba. There is already a Coles, a Target and that hideously overdeveloped unfinished pile of concrete right in the centre of town which has no relationship or bearing to the nature of its site or its stunning environment. There is already an excellent hardware store over the road (Home), at least one small family business in town, and another in Blackheath, and probably others in Leura or nearby. We do not want this kind of development for Katoomba which should be the jewel in the crown of the emerging Blue Mountains environment which will be serving as the main escape route and new base for everyone who is sick of the ghastliness of Sydney with the chain stores, traffic, horrible development everywhere and lack of local identity. And there is already a Bunnings in the mid/lower mountains. So what is to be done with the land - a pretty piece of pastureland with a few horses in it? Given that it is already in a designated "industrial zone" it could be developed as a site for small-scale local industries: building, ceramics, carpentry, bespoke furniture production, with a mix of large studio/gallery spaces for working artists, sculptors and the like. Right now there is nothing in the area to meet these needs. The site could be developed further to include something like community gardens and demonstration sustainability projects (small sustainable buildings for instance which might be used as examples for those interested in building in the mountains). Who would pay? Without knowing what the site value is it is impossible to know what kinds of acquisitions costs are involved, but maybe there would be some capacity for a mixed fund between Council and local investors including some "crowd funding". In any case, there is no need for any more chainstore developments in Katoomba and there never should be. It should be the central exemplar for a new kind of peri-urban sustainable development not yet another site for large scale chain-store greed for an over-bloated bursting Western Sydney. I have made no donation to anybody and have no association with any of the businesses mentioned above.

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

    David Thomas commented

    Issues with this proposed development include:

    Traffic congestion and parking for residents and patrons of the Whitebridge shops and the proposed businesses.

    It also cuts off access to the Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side, which my family and many others regularly use.

    It diminishes the amount of recreational space for families and residents, as well as those using the Fernleigh Track.

    It will cause issues for traffic flow around Whitebridge High School and cause inconvenience to the many students, staff, families and members of the community.

    It is both impractical and ill thought out to have these units, as it shall be too many people crammed into too small an area.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.

    THIS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS NO-ONE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPERS!
    IT IS GREED.

    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

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

    Sylvie Jacobi-McCarthy commented

    I'm concerned that this development is not in keeping with the Whitebridge community.

    This development needs adequate parking that takes into account;
    the number of residents,
    guests of those residents,
    employees and clients of the four proposed businesses,
    and the flow of traffic on Lonus Avenue.

    It is also concerning that this development will largely diminish local residents access to open green spaces for recreation. I think that an effort to maintain recreational space is needed in the plans.

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

    Sharyn Carr commented

    I find the proposed development highly unsuitable for the area, with a lack of foresight and planning. Please have a rethink taking into consideration environmental, parking, traffic and numerous other issues that have been raised by concerned citizens.

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

    chris layzell commented

    it just shows you what money,greed,and corruption can do..it will destroy this community...and will become the new windale..the developers don't care they make the money then piss off...and we are left to deal with it...

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

    Rhett Oswald commented

    I have lived in Whitebridge for the past 20 years, my children all went to Whitebridge high school so I can confirm that parking around school times is diabolic especially when wet. The traffic banks up on both Waran Road and Lonus Avenue leading into Whitebridge roundabout and shops. Having one access into Kopa street which leads into Lonus avenue, shows a complete lack of foresight.

    I would like to know how having that amount of units in such a small place with no provision for green space or parking is going to impact on an already congested environment. Surely LMCC can come to a common sense decision that is not in weighted in favour of greedy developers and the tempting rates that will be generated for the council.

    The parking in the shopping centre is extremely busy and you really need your wits about you to avoid having an accident (I have witnessed about 10 in the past year). We do not need to have the parking problem amplified then rectified with a barrage of restrictions, rangers/ fines, traffic lights and god forbid parking meters. (don’t laugh this is one of Newcastle Council’s major sources of revenue)

    My home is not far from this area and has been declared an extremely high risk fire hazard area, this development is much closer to bushland than my home so one would think that all these residences in such a small area could be catastrophic (in the event of a fire) with one entry/exit point.

    By all means have a development but this plan reeks of greed, by jamming as many residences as possible into a confined space with no thought given to the future implications of current and future residents in this area. Think about the design, make it comply environmentally and sustainably and a place that people want to live in with play areas and seating/benches.

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