Recent comments

  1. In Mount Lofty QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot 1 into...” at 6 Mary Street Mount Lofty QLD 4350:

    Ginny Lunn commented

    Another disgrace about to happen with this council that has no idea of planning

  2. In Bayswater VIC on “Construction of 19...” at 639 Mountain Highway, Bayswater VIC 3153:

    Jane Bowman commented

    As a local home owner and resident of area, I was just wondering if a asbestos inspection has being done on this property??. Given the era of the house and sheds to be demolished it is likely to have asbestos on the property.

    Thanks

  3. In Malvern VIC on “Construction of a...” at 1306 Malvern Road, Malvern, VIC:

    The Colonel commented

    Another disgraceful act of vandalism in the recent demolition of this building (1306 Malvern Road).....Malvern Road alone is littered with demolitions...makes us all realise what it must be like living in Syria and the city of Mosul...the really sick thing is we don't have a war here...we just voluntarily destroy our heritage! (with the assistance of various local and international property speculators) .....thank god they don't let this sort of pathetic behaviour manifest in cities like Paris, Budapest and Vienna.

  4. In Roseville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Maclaurin Parade, Roseville, NSW:

    Giles Haynes commented

    You have got to be joking. What about access? It's bad enough as it is and this will only make things worse.

  5. In Warners Bay NSW on “Proposed 1 into 2 Lot...” at 270 Hillsborough Road, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Heather Cleary wrote to local councillor Kay Fraser

    I am extremely concerned about the high density nature of this development, affecting the residential topography of this area. Not only is this area a wildlife corridor sheltering sugar gliders, extremely rare black cockatoos, possums and other native animals at risk, but the development will seriously affect drainage, shade, and create noise issues in what is a quiet residential street. The close proximity of 72 units housed in two story buildings within three metres of our fence line is unacceptable, as it will seriously impact both our properties, our privacy and our quality of life.

    It is unfortunate that when one of our neighbours made enquiries she was kindly told that she had nothing to worry about. It was the neighbours at the other end of the street who have the problem. As one of those neighbours at the other end of Myles Avenue, I object on these grounds:

    1. High density development in a previously low density residential area, resulting in increased noise seven days a week, 24 hours a day
    2. The two storey buildings will compromise privacy
    3. An impact on water run off and drainage in an area with a storm water drain and existing water issues
    4. Shadow impact upon my property due to two storey buildings
    5. Vulnerable wildlife will be unable to co-exist within the current plan. This will not be complementary to Council's very laudable attempts to encourage wildlife in backyards
    6. The fact that the development is only three metres from my fence line, rather than the ten metres on the opposite side which would solve many of these issues.

    Photo of Kay Fraser
    Kay Fraser local councillor for Lake Macquarie City Council
    replied to Heather Cleary

    Dear Heather
    Thank you for your email and I have forwarded your concerns onto the assessing officer to be included as part of the assessment.
    Kind regards
    Kay
    Cr Kay Fraser
    Mayor
    Lake Macquarie City Council
    126-138 Main Road Speers Point NSW 2284
    Box 1906 HRMC NSW 2310
    www.facebook.com/CrKayFraser
    twitter.com/MayorKayFraser

  6. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish part of the...” at 48 Commodore Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Dorothy Pellarini commented

    I wish to object to the above application on the basis of :

    1. Privacy:
    The proposed two storey building will extend to approximately three metres from the back boundary line. The side of the first floor facing my property will have a fixed glass window with a privacy screen of 1500mm from the floor, this height is not adequate to block the view into my backyard. Also the proposed balcony on the first floor will look directly into my backyard.
    2. Street Appeal
    The proposed modern building will be seen from the street which I believe is not in keeping with existing properties in Commodore St.

  7. In Redland Bay QLD on “Shop, Drive Through...” at 75 Boundary Street, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Aj wrote to local councillor Mark Edwards

    We need more shops around the redland bay area. Booming population new estates comming up. It would be nice to see this type of development on collins st redland bay where there is a large new estate comming up, or even near serpentine creek rd near cleveland redland bay road

    Delivered to local councillor Mark Edwards. They are yet to respond.

  8. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Grace R commented

    This development is not on a main road, close town center, university or hospital where boarding houses are usually located. Who would be their residents? It is almost reality to turn this building into AirBNB property, which is against the principle behind the affordable housing for Australians!

  9. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Young Street, Parkside:

    Jeremy Glaros commented

    I own 9/71 Young Street and am also firmly against the removal of this magnificent tree. I believe it will materially and detrimentally alter the character of the street. For this reason, I also ask that a second opinion should be sought.

    Also, can you please send the arborist's report to me?

    Regards,
    Jeremy

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out the...” at 313-319 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Dean Summers commented

    Apparently I'm too late for my comments to officially matter however the three key issues must be addressed.
    11, 10 and 9 stories of Mvrac is completely out of character with Marrickville and far exceeds the existing the height of area.
    The token percentage of affordable housing is disgraceful and again out of step with community standards in the area.
    The impact of traffic from the three apartment towers will cause further traffic gridlock at critical times around school pick up and drop off.

  11. In Epping NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 123 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Lauren Kim commented

    I strongly object to the development proposal of boarding house on 123 Ray road Epping.
    Their application is in clear violation of the R2 zoning of the area and will have detrimental effect to the family friendly neighbourhood of Epping.
    I strongly urge the council to consider needs of the present residents of the area and to take into consideration the traffic congestion and limited transport ability to handle such dramatic increase in the local population in a limited area.

    Please do not allow such clearly illegal development proposal to be passed.

  12. In Belmont North NSW on “Child Care Centre” at 200 Pacific Highway, Belmont North NSW 2280:

    Ave commented

    The existing infrastructure around this area is totally unsuitable for centres that will bring increased traffic. They are single track roads with Housing at each side and parking on a busy road to get children out of cars is an accident waiting to happen. There is a childcare centre in Valentine that has a tiny car park but the majority of parents park on the road often unloading when moving traffic is flying past to work etc.

  13. In Lane Cove NSW on “S4.55 Modification of...” at 296 Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    P. Bailey-Smith commented

    I have a unit in Burns Bay Road close to no 296 and have been astounded to observe the development in this area in the past 3 years. The infrastructure has not kept pace with the development. I share the concerns of the other respondents regarding traffic flow, parking, green space and public transport. I agree with the comment that this previously attractive area is beginning to resemble a rabbit warren. The proposal to build a shop and child care centre is positive but I urge Lane Cove Councillors and Planning Authority members to visit the site and seriously question if we need more units. A recent Citibank report specifically mentions Lane Cove as being at risk of an oversupply of units by 2017.

  14. In Belmont North NSW on “Child Care Centre” at 200 Pacific Highway, Belmont North NSW 2280:

    Mitchell Adams commented

    This is not suitable for this corner property, it will be to close the Highway and those poor children will subjected to carcinogenic fumes from trucks and cars. Violet Town Rd. is a race track and the traffic report says that south bound traffic will use the Floraville Rd intersection to go south AT SCHOOL HOURS, the traffic around Floraville public school was not taken into consideration and please note that most traffic takes a short cut down Camberwarra Dr and then across to Floraville Rd via Nyanda Ave, this will increase traffic through suburbia and pass another preschool.
    The traffic report also stated that there was 40kmh zone already in the area, these are the ones that are supposed to be observed when a bus is stopped and flashing its 40kmh lights which NO ONE observes, so you have traffic doing 80kmh and above right next to the proposed child car centre, I wouldn't let my child go there even if it was the last one around. If cars are going to exit the car park and turn right they will not be able to see the cars coming off the highway from north or south until it is to late. If this is approved it will be a disaster waiting to happen with possible motor vehicle accidents or even worse a child getting cancer from the fumes. I think an air quality study should be done over a period of at least 4 weeks to see how much they will be exposed to.

  15. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 367 Cotham Road Kew VIC 3101:

    Jasper Coghlan wrote to local councillor Judith Voce

    This development at 367 Cotham Rd, Kew on the corner of Bradford Ave, near the Traffic School is an overdevelopment of the site (31 apartments, 6 levels including 2 underground).

    The building is too high (12.6 metres) and the 4th storey makes the building too bulky and dominant on the crest of a hill that is the highest point in Kew. The design and materials used are not sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character. With 75 car spaces there will be additional traffic jams adjacent to a busy pedestrian crossing.

    The 4th storey needs to be eliminated and the number of units reduced. The exterior needs to be better articulated and the materials changed, e.g., no black cladding.

    I am happy to provide more details and additional concerns as well as other suggested changes. I can be contacted via the Bradford Ave Resident Group via email at Oppose367Cotham@gmail.com

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Voce. They are yet to respond.

  16. In Mount Nelson TAS on “Demolition, Subdivision (18...” at 512 Nelson Road Mount Nelson TAS 7007:

    Jane Beaumont commented

    To the General Manager

    We oppose the application for the same grounds as set out above by Johan L Joubert.

    The property owners:
    16 Lalwinya Road
    Mount Nelson TAS 7007

  17. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Sam commented

    FYI - I believe the land offered by the church has recently been retracted. A letter was sent to parents at the school indicating this.

  18. In Coledale NSW on “Commercial -...” at 749 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Coledale NSW 2515:

    Heather Wright commented

    Hi

    We are concerned about the restaurant trading seven days a week and the disturbance this would cause for residents. Would like to see this limited to 4 nights a week.

  19. In Gardenvale VIC on “Four (4) storey building...” at 103A Gardenvale Road Gardenvale VIC 3185:

    Ms Sue Woods commented

    Parking spaces available to the public are very limited now.
    Since moving to Martin St. 3 years ago I have been unable to invite friends to drive and park here due to continuing road works and building construction.
    It is important for developers to provide enough parking for each development with a few visitor parks also. This is a prerequisite for businesses why not housing/business developments. The new constructions have businesses at street level.

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations to...” at 13 Brompton Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Brett commented

    This looks like a very welcome addition to the Marrickville microbrewery community.

    Approved.

  21. In Berwick VIC on “Development of Three...” at 54 Brisbane Street Berwick, VIC:

    Resident of Old Berwick commented

    This beautiful area of Olde Berwick is being destroyed with multi-unit developments.
    The charm of Olde Berwick will be lost if out of control development continues.
    Brisbane Street is becoming a very busy road. There is little parking and the more Units that are built will bring more visitors to the units to park in Brisbane Street. The European trees are what makes the character and uniqueness of Olde Berwick and if removed will be like any other inner city suburb.

  22. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Tiriel Mora commented

    Further to others objections, there would seem to be a very interesting technical question as to whether or not this facility would actually be regarded as residential when the application to me sounds like they are building a healthcare facility. I live in a house and I do not have an on site health supervisor nor do I have clinicians visiting daily to provide services for my needs and nor does anyone visit me to provide activities. To me it sounds more like a nursing home than a residential complex and I'm no lawyer and it may just be the vibe felt by me, but I don't think you can just build a nursing home or hospital just anywhere you like and surely prevented by the constitution?

    The proponents claim in their application that the site is suitable as it is near convenient public transport (a few buses is not like the South Yarra facility) and is near shopping centres (A milkbar and bottleshop and cafe and fruit shop??? - Again nothing like the South Yarra facility they always quote) This is a completely different area than the area they keep quoting as being comparable. As it is not comparable in the least, it cannot be used as an example of how residents will act or engage with the community. South Yarra is a busy, diverse area where residents would be able to blend into the community and would have many things to do in the local area to keep them occupied. At the proposed site they will be isolated due to there location and lack of things to do, though at least they will be able to head to the milkbar or bottleshop which as the proponents suggest in their report are well located to meet their needs. I would have thought there are many many other suitable locations which are closer to actual shopping centres, whether that be further out in the suburbs or indeed closer to the city as opposed to here in no mans land with respect to the services suggested. (Especially given that they are specifically requesting a reduction in parking claiming residents will not drive, in an area where other than an infrequent bus service - or non existent on many days or times - the residents will be forced to drive just to do normal daily activities or alternatively remain isolated which is the exact opposite to their intentions)

    They also have plans or quote the success of their other facility in Frankston. From what I can see this does not appear to be located in a residential area and indeed appears to be located very close to central Frankston. Approval for this Frankston facility was approved in 2014 but again it is my understanding that it still has not progressed beyond approval as they do not have the funds to build it. Does this mean that we will also endure this uncertainty for many years to come, uncertainty that is having actual serious impacts on the health and well being of our lovely local community.

    Good day to you all.

  23. In Lane Cove NSW on “S4.55 Modification of...” at 296 Burns Bay Rd, Lane Cove:

    Margaret Clinch commented

    Anyone who knows this area, knows that the area is already crowded to too many apartments. The whole area is like a rabbit warren. Parking or turning can be a nightmare. This building would be too high and dominant, overlooking those further down hill. Any decision makers should be required to visit the site, rather than relying on Mock ups, or architect's drawings.

    The land in this whole precinct is very steep. Parking for the existing units is already short, In reality, many more people live in the units than was allowed for in the design standard. This area is changing from a pleasant, well planned area, to an over densified one. Access to the whole precinct is very limited. ...

  24. In Pooraka SA on “Place of Worship with...” at 256-258 Bridge Road, Pooraka SA 5095:

    Dianne Riley wrote to local councillor Brad Vermeer

    I OBJECT to this application in the strongest possible way.
    There has been no social impact study done and according to Mr. Salter who has done extensive studies of how Mosques impact a community it would be wise of the council to take that into consideration.
    Already in South Australia there are:
    Masjid Adelaide Mosque Adelaide Adelaide
    Musalla Islamic Society UniSA Adelaide Adelaide
    Masjid The Islamic Information Centre of SA (IICSA) Adelaide Adelaide
    Musalla Coober Pedy Musalla Coober Pedy Coober Pedy
    Masjid Adelaide Turkish Islamic and Cultural Centre Gepps Cross Adelaide
    Masjid Abu Bakr Assiddiq Masjid - Gilles Plain Mosque Gilles Plain Adelaide
    Masjid Green Fields Mosque Greenfields Adelaide
    Musalla University of South Australia Musalla Magill Adelaide
    Musalla University of South Australia Musalla Mawson Lakes Adelaide
    Org Islamic Information Centre of SA IICSA Mile End Adelaide
    Masjid Mount Gambia Mosque Mount Gambia Mount Gambia
    Masjid Parafield Gardens Masjid Parafield Gardnes Adelaide
    Registered Charity Islamic Society Of South Aust Inc (ISSA) Park Holme Adelaide
    Masjid Masjid Omar Bin Alkhattab - Marion Mosque Park Holme Adelaide
    Masjid Imam Ali Mosque Pooraka Poorooka Adelaide
    Masjid Islamic Da'wah Centre of SA (IDC) Incorporated Torrensville Adelaide
    School Islamic College of South Australia West Croydon Adelaide
    Org Islamic Council of South Australia Inc, The West Croydon Adelaide
    Org Islamic College of South Australia, The West Croydon West Croydon
    Masjid Whyalla Islamic Centre & Mosque Whyalla Whyalla
    Musalla University of Adelaide Musalla Adelaide Adelaide
    Musalla University of SA East North Terrace Adelaide
    Musalla University of SA West Adelaide Adelaide
    Masjid Elizabeth Grove Masjid Elizabeth Grove Adelaide
    Masjid Murray Bridge Mosque Murray Bridge Murray Bridge
    Masjid Renmark Masjid Renmark Renmark
    Masjid Royal Park Mosque Royal Park Adelaide
    Masjid AL-KHALIL MOSQUE Woodville Adelaide
    Org Australian Indonesian Ass of SA Adelaide Adelaide
    Registered Charity Muslim Women's Association of South Australia Inc Bedford Park Adelaide
    Registered Charity Murray Bridge Islamic and Islamic Cultural Ed Murray Bridge Murray Bridge
    Registered Charity Imam Ali Mosque and Islamic Centre of SA Pooraka Adelaide
    Org Renmark Turkish Islamic Society of SA, The Renmark Renmark
    Org Australian Islamic Social Associantion Inc Parafield Gardens Adelaide
    School Gardens College Parafield Gardens Adelaide
    School Playford College Elizabeth Elizabeth
    Org Jafaria Islamic Society Ltd Blair Athol Adelaide
    School Iqra Islamic College of South Australia Limited O'Halloran Hill
    Org Imam Hussain Islamic Centre of SA Ltd Northgate
    Registered Charity Turkish Islamic Educational Cultural Association O Smithfield Plains Adelaide
    Org Islamic Foundation Australia Inc
    Org Shahin Holdings Pty Ltd Woodville North Adelaide
    Registered Charity Islamic Association of South Australia, The Mawson Lakes
    Org Islamic Society of Whyalla Inc, The Whyalla Whyalla
    Org Islamic Community Milli Gorus Adelaide Incorp. Parafield Gardens Adelaide
    Org Al Huda Islamic Centre Oakden Adelaide
    Business ISSA Butcher Edwardstown Adelaide
    Org Halal Supervisory Board of SA for the Kingdom of Adelaide
    Revoked Charity Adelaide Mosque Islamic Society of SA Inc Aedelaide Adelaide
    Org Muslim Foundation of Australia
    Org Adelaide Muslim Youth League Inc Aberfoyle Park Adelaide
    Org African Muslim Association of South Australia Inc, Croydon Park
    Org Bosnian and Hercegovina Muslim Socieity SA INC
    Org Fijian Muslim Ethnic School of SA INC
    Org Shia Muslim Youth Council of South Australia
    Org South Australian Muslim Communities Council incorp
    Org Islamic Arabic Centre & Al Khalil Mosque Woodville North Adelaide
    Registered Charity Fatima Zahra Mosque and Hussainia Incorporated Greenfield Adelaide
    Proposal Jafaria Masjid Pooraka Blair Athol Adelaide
    Org Trustee For Adelaide Turkish Islamic Cultural Cen
    Masjid Bosniaks Masjid Adelaide Inc ROYAL PARK Adelaide
    Registered Charity Bosniaks' Association of South Australia - Bosniak Royal Park Adelaide
    Masjid (ISSA) - Marion Street Mosque Park Holme Adelaide
    Proposal (ISSA) - Marion Street Mosque Park Holme Adelaide
    Masjid Hussainiah of Adelaide, The Mawson Lakes Adelaide
    Registered Charity Gardens College Inc Parafield Gardens Adelaide
    Registered Charity Islamic Society of South Aust Inc Park Holme Adelaide
    Org Islamic Society of Regional South Australia Inc
    Org Eritrean Islamic Society of South Australia Inc
    School Eritrean Ethnic School of South Australia Torrensville Adelaide
    Org Islamic Society of Port Pirie Inc, The
    Org Adelaide University Islamic Students Society
    Org Eritrean Islamic Society in Adelaide Inc
    Org Australian Al-Thakalian Islamic Centre Inc Shia Is
    School Centre of Islamic Thought and Education CITE Magill Adelaide
    Its time the councilors took the communities wishes into consideration.

    Delivered to local councillor Brad Vermeer. They are yet to respond.

  25. In Balwyn North VIC on “Construction of four...” at 199 Doncaster Road Balwyn North VIC 3104:

    Stelyios commented

    I agree. I have posted a submission. I wish I could submit some documentation. This scale of development is disgusting in our suburb. Definitely what we don't want!

  26. In Kellyville NSW on “Packaged liquor licence -...” at 133 Samantha Riley Dr, Kellyville, NSW:

    Dave Kempe commented

    I have no problem with Aldi being in the position it is in. Its naive to think kids are going to be somehow corrupted by being within walking distance of a store that sells alcohol.

    Aldi employs plenty of young people, and provides jobs and cheap groceries to its customers. My own 15 yr old daughter sees it more a place to get cheap snacks and lollies and potential employment, than a place to buy alcohol.
    If you provide a proper parenting environment where personal responsibility and self control are key principals, kids will have the resilience to withstand the "temptations" of the world, regardless of where they might be found, from the internet to the bus-stop to the corner store.

  27. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Young Street, Parkside:

    Iris Mullins commented

    The tree in question is part of the local character of this part of Parkside. The two together support each other. With one gone the effects of the wind on the other will change significantly. Has anyone researched when they were planted. As a safety matter an arborist should be called in to give opinions on safety. A similar tree is not seen as dangerous at Parkside school.

  28. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Tiriel Mora commented

    Further to others objections, there would seem to be a very interesting technical question as to whether or not this facility would actually be regarded as residential when the application to me sounds like they are building a healthcare facility. I live in a house and I do not have an on site health supervisor nor do I have clinicians visiting daily to provide services for my needs and nor does anyone visit me to provide activities. To me it sounds more like a nursing home than a residential complex and I'm no lawyer and it may just be the vibe felt by me, but I don't think you can just build a nursing home or hospital just anywhere you like and surely prevented by the constitution?

    The proponents claim in their application that the site is suitable as it is near convenient public transport (a few buses is not like the South Yarra facility) and is near shopping centres (A milkbar and bottleshop and cafe and fruit shop??? - Again nothing like the South Yarra facility they always quote) This is a completely different area than the area they keep quoting as being comparable. As it is not comparable in the least, it cannot be used as an example of how residents will act or engage with the community. South Yarra is a busy, diverse area where residents would be able to blend into the community and would have many things to do in the local area to keep them occupied. At the proposed site they will be isolated due to there location and lack of things to do, though at least they will be able to head to the milkbar or bottleshop which as the proponents suggest in their report are well located to meet their needs. I would have thought there are many many other suitable locations which are closer to actual shopping centres, whether that be further out in the suburbs or indeed closer to the city as opposed to here in no mans land with respect to the services suggested. (Especially given that they are specifically requesting a reduction in parking claiming residents will not drive, in an area where other than an infrequent bus service - or non existent on many days or times - the residents will be forced to drive just to do normal daily activities or alternatively remain isolated which is the exact opposite to their intentions)

    They also have plans or quote the success of their other facility in Frankston. From what I can see this does not appear to be located in a residential area and indeed appears to be located very close to central Frankston. Approval for this Frankston facility was approved in 2014 but again it is my understanding that it still has not progressed beyond approval as they do not have the funds to build it. Does this mean that we will also endure this uncertainty for many years to come, uncertainty that is having actual serious impacts on the health and well being of our lovely local community.

    Good day to you all.

  29. In East Geelong VIC on “Construction of Residential...” at 46 Lomond Terrace, East Geelong, VIC:

    Steve Simmons and Renae Munzel commented

    As nearby residents, we strongly object to the current proposal as we believe that the intended construction is totally inappropriate for many reasons.

    Primarily, the building is completely out of character with the local area, with many buildings being heritage listed, primarily single story weatherboard residential houses. There are no pre-existing 3 storey buildings in the area to set the precedent that would allow the argument for this building to be in keeping with the current surroundings. It is our concern that if such development were permitted, this would result in many more applications for three story multi-apartment complexes, as a precedence would exist. One of the significant charms of living in this pocket of East Geelong, is the current environment of charming heritage single story weatherboard buildings - this contributes much to the enjoyment and living standards of local residents. Our residence is within 100metres of the proposed development, our current view from our residence is that of a skyline including a beautiful view of the old St Margarets Church. This view will be completely destroyed by the construction of the proposed 3 storey monstrosity and hence will severely effect our quiet enjoyment of this view due to the dominance of the skyline.

    Further to the reduction of enjoyment caused by the visual impact of the building, the current proposal for a waiver of the rules pertaining to parking requirements is ridiculous. It is quite obvious that with the intended number of residents and the current proposal of a mere 2 carparks and 1 disabled carpark, is inappropriately inadequate and flies in the face of the intentions of parking requirements in the first place. If these rules don't apply to such a construction, where and who else will these rules be disregarded in other developments no matter how large or small throughout the rest of the City of Greater Geelong. To me it is an afront to each and every Geelong resident and simply a commercial cash-grab as the development would clearly not be viable if the rules were to be followed appropriately.

    How can the Haven foundation claim that parking is not necessary for this development, when Professor Fells himself, a single residents parent, reports that he visits regularly?? As I am sure every other residents family and friends do so. As such, we do not agree with the calculation provided within the application, if anything there should be provision for GREATER parking than a normal residential development due to the enormous number of expected visitors, caregivers, clinicians, staff, residents and others.

    I note in the application, Haven's claim to wish to use existing parking on the corner of St Albans Rd and Breakwater Rd. This would require residents and visitors etc to cross a busy road where no current pedestrian crossing exists (nor do we want one to interrupt the flow of traffic) at the junction of a busy 5-way roundabout. Additionally, is this parking not already allocated and taken in to account in planning provisions for pre-existing businesses within the immediate area? These parking spaces are limited and often already utilised for local residents to access their local amenities. I also believe that the estimate of parking provisions within the proposal is grossly over-quoted - unless Haven have mistakenly (or intentionally) included use of private parking on private land exclusive to local business (e.g. Fruit Shack)?

    Further to the above, we have a major concern with the proposed building and requests for lessening of boundary setback allowances, particularly on the Northern boundary. In one part of the submitted report, there is a claim that the building will meet energy efficiency standards due to the number of north facing windows - however within the same application they have requested a reduction in setback from the northern boundary which has a pre-existing dwelling built on to the boundary. These two statements or requests do not reconcile - how can energy efficiency be gained by windows immediately facing on to a brick wall??

    As of today, 20/10/16, the planning application public notice sign required to be posted on the boundary of the proposed site has been removed. And we have no idea how long this has been the case, but are weary of this as a tactic, given the application is still active on the COGG website. This has been recorded on video footage, should this be required.

    We have been made aware that Father Dillon has written to some local residents, and / or parents of local schoolchildren indicating his withdrawal of support for the project. However, we are concerned that this has been another tactic to subvert the process of public objection by giving the impression that the development will no longer go ahead.

    Because of the above two paragraphs, we believe many people who may have objected would not have due to the belief that either their objection was too late, or that is no longer required.

    Finally, we are disappointed, disillusioned and angered by the current proposal being lodged at a time where no existing council presides over the City of Greater Geelong. We see this as an attempt to subvert public opinion and the right of every citizen to have our voices democratically represented. Our cynicism is heightened by the fact that the exact same application was withdrawn and debunked in 2014 and residents were advised that the development would not take place on this site.

  30. In Parkside SA on “Remove regulated street...” at Young Street, Parkside:

    Blake Cameron Appleby commented

    Young St 1/71 Tree removal

    I believe a second opinion should be carried out.

    I DO Not support its removal at this stage.

    As a significant tree 150 years old (at a guess) and a owner in the block for 11 years not only is the street and entrance with the two fig trees stunning visually its the character and history attached to them both.

    Any safety concerns will be confirmed with a second opinion in 11 years I've seen drop three small branches. You cut one down the second will follow.

    History and Charter of Young St gone for ever.

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