Recent comments

  1. In Padstow NSW on “Sec 96 Increase first floor...” at 45 Ronald Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jamie Moss commented

    We live next door at 43 Ronald Street Padstow. The demolision crew have damaged our brand new colourfence fence. They somewhat repaired it but its still badly damaged.

    Please advise to the owner of 45 Ronald Street that he is to repair the colourbond fence when he has completed the dweilling.

  2. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 6 Bourne Street Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Hugh reilly commented

    We don't agree with the development being 2 levels tall,
    There are no other 2 level house on the street front and it would not fit in with the heritage of the street.

  3. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Nolan Dos Remedios commented

    A big no no......We don't want this development. Leave Winston Hills with the old charm and community as it is. We all just love it the way it is. Stop using the excuse to have affordable housing in the suburb. It will ruin the neighbourhood. Baulkham Hills, Seven Hills and North Parramatta have a lot of apartments and have destroyed the old suburban charm. Instead make it the Queen of suburbs with its rustic charm.

  4. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Donna commented

    I am registering my objection to the above proposed development in my local area for the following reasons:

    1. Andrew Minto of Glendinning Minto & Associates states in his proposal: “The subject site does not seek to maximise car parking and this is seen as a positive deterrent to reliance upon private motor vehicles”.

    This, as you would already be aware does not meet the current Council DCP carpark provision guidelines of 197 car parking spaces. Andrew Minto seeks to ignore these guidelines and suggests that offering less car spaces than would agreeably service the proposed number of 102 residential units is acceptable.

    Interestingly the "Registering of Interest" promotional brochure that is being distributed online by the owner of Winston Hills Mall and TCG uses the currently available 1200 car parking spaces as a selling point. Thus it appears prior to this proposed development ever being approved the intention is to utilise these currently available car parking spaces for residents of this new development.

    The overflow of vehicular traffic emanating from the proposed 102 units (especially during peak times of social gathering ie: Easter, Christmas etc) would undoubtedly flow into the current Winston Hills Mall community car park and impact on the quality of life of current residents.

    We are a suburban (not inner city) community who have chosen to live in a less densely populated area. Additionally we pay land rates that afford our community the option of being able to readily utilise our personal vehicles. Inherent in this concept is the availability of things such as adequate off street parking and lower per capita levels of residential population.

    Additionally to this, some parents and carers of a child/ren with Special Needs who find it untenable NOT to rely on their private vehicles for transportation due to the nature of their child/ren's disability will potentially be seriously disadvantages if this proposal goes ahead. The current parking provisions within Winston Hills Mall Shopping Complex are quite minimal in regards to size ie: the ever decreasing width of car park spaces is NOT conducive to enabling carers to easily allow their child/ren to alight out of a vehicle with complete safety as it is. A busier local shopping precinct is also not going to assist these local family's in this endeavour.

    I believe I am correct in stating that the not too long ago Council installed ticketed parking in Winston Hills Mall car park was in an effort to dissuade commuters of local public transport such as the M2 Buses from utilising this car park as all day parking and thereby impeding and / or inconveniencing daily patrons of Winston Hills Mall by taking up unnecessary car spaces for long periods of time.

    By increasing available housing stock in this specific location you run the risk of doing just that – having the overflow from these residential units filter down into the general Winston Hills Mall and The Winston Tavern car parks as well as surrounding residential streets such as Junction Road, Buckleys Road and Gibbon Road.

    The ticketing system may prevent these new residents from parking all day – however this will only serve to send them out into the aforementioned already overcrowded surrounding residential streets.

    There is currently already a safety issue of concern in regards to the large amount of vehicles now choosing to park along Junction Road. This impacts on the safety of all those attempting to turn either left or right out of the Junction Road exit from Winston Hills Mall – as visibility is seriously impeded in both directions.

    Daily commuters who are parking in Buckley’s Road are presenting a safety issue to over 320 families who attend Winston Heights Public School and need to alight and enter vehicles twice a day. The same can be said for Junction Road and the over 800 families who utilise Winston Hills Public School. Extra vehicular traffic on either of these roads runs the risk of impacting the safety of both these local school children and their families as well as the immediate residents.

    Worthy of note here also is the fact that not everyone who lives in Winston Hills resides within a comfortable walking distance from either a bus stop or one of the newly planned North West train stations. So Andrew Minto’s above claim about creating a scenario that requires local residents to utilise public transport will seriously impede the quality of life and independence of many residents. Particularly those who have a disability and / or are elderly and find personal vehicles a necessity, rather than a luxury.

    Currently M2 commuters are being allowed to persist in parking on the left hand side of Junction Road near the Cropley Drive Round about. No “No Parking” restrictions are currently in place. This allows for vehicles to be parked right to the very limit of the M2 overbridge – which can at times mean those attempting to navigate this Cropley Drive round about in vehicles, have their progress impeded – as parked commuters vehicles are jutting out onto the roadway – just as you exit this round about. Increased housing stock containing additional residents and their inherent vehicles will again exacerbate an already fraught situation in this locale.

    2. Andrew Minto has stated his proposed development will be: “……….compatable with the desired future character of the locality…………as anticipated by the council Controls” and “….it is considered that the proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the…..character of the surrounding area”.

    I don’t believe the above proposed development will maintain or enhance, the existing, largely 1960’s and 1970’s façade and / or character of the local surrounding dwellings at all. It is more suited to more recently developed areas in the local community such as Bella Vista.

    3. Andrew Minto also comments that his proposal will: “ …………… a result of increased residential population will create an increased demand for shops and services”.

    Again I disagree with Andrew Minto’s assertions. In fact as a local family we are already competing for limited placements in our local Public Primary and High Schools. We are 20 year veteran residents of Winston Hills and still we have been directed to Northmead as our local High School. Additional housing with inherent increased residents will only serve to exacerbate this issue.

    Additionally increased residents will NOT increase demand for additional shops and services. There already exists a situation where local retailers within the Winston Hills Mall are closing their doors after very short periods of time due to being unable to absorb the high rents required. Increased residents in this locale will simply place undue demand on those already available – including public transport infra-structure.

    We regularly utilise the M2 buses and find the peak hour services in both directions are over-crowded and under serviced.

    It is relevant to note at this point that Winston Hills is not planned to be covered by the currently under construction North West Rail Service – so we will simply be overloaded by additional strain on already existing services.

    4. Andrew Minto also makes comment that: “It is my opinion that the proposed development is in the public interest as it will provide for an increase in the areas available housing stock”.

    The Winston Hills local community is currently included in the touted Sydney Housing “Bubble” and are enjoying inflated sale prices as a direct result. Increasing the total number of housing stock available will only serve to reduce competition and ultimately lower housing prices.

    5. Andrew Minto also readily admits his proposed development EXCEEDS the current 12 metre Building Height Control. A control he calls unreasonable and unnecessary.

    I would greatly appreciate you acting in the best interests of the current Winston Hills residents in this instance. At the very least this proposed development requires further investigation and community collaboration before proceeding any further.

    Yours Sincerely

    Donna Loudoun.

  5. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Madeleine Gray commented

    I feel that the increased impact of building this project on roads and parking facilities in Winston Hills has not been adequately investigated. Parking in the shopping centre is already inadequate, with traffic often banking up on Caroline Chisholm Drive and Bellona Street.
    I am all for beautifying the mall and its surrounds but the building of multi-storey units is not in keeping with the general look and architecture of the suburb.
    Winston Hills is a protected pocket of real estate where at most residents have been subjected to dual occupancy. To protect this aesthetic and the family friendly environment currently present in the suburb, high density residences should be kept at a minimum.
    I understand that a demand for housing in the area and in Sydney generally is pushing these developments through. But this happens at the cost of families enjoying the environment in which they live.
    I strongly oppose any move to introduce high density housing to Winston Hills.

  6. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - single...” at 6 Bushland Grove Kings Meadows TAS 7249:

    John and Elizabeth Higgs commented

    We do not think this application should be approved for the following reasons.
    1. The development application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with 12.4.2 P3, regarding rear setback. The acceptable solution states a minimum rear setback requirement of 5 metres, whereas the proposed outbuilding shows a setback of one metre. Part (C) of the performance criteria states that the building must be sited, taking into consideration the setback of the surrounding buildings. The adjoining lot appears to have a rear setback for. The garage/shed of between 3 and 5 metres. It is argued that the setback of the proposed shed should be in line with the adjoining property to the northwest. With a vacant property below, council should not be setting a precedent of relaxing the rear setback, especially in a new subdivision. The site plan indicates there is room to provide on site to bring the setback into conformity with the adjoining property.
    2. The relaxed setback is not required, taking into account P3 (b). The 1500 sqm block has ample room to provide a dwelling and shed without having to relax the rear setback. The dwelling and she'd could be brought forward a few more metres, this would still comply with the required frontage setback of 4.5 metres and allow for greater rear setback for the shed.
    3. The outbuilding has a proposed apex height of 4.7 metres. It is requested that this height be reduced, through altering the style of the roof. It is asked that if the application is approved, a condition be included on the report stating that the outbuilding blend in with the natural environment and avoid the use of reflective materials. This will avoid glare and visual bulk when viewed from adjoining properties .
    We would be willing to withdraw our representation if the applicant is willing to alter the style, location or design of the shed and would be open to further discussions.

  7. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Hannelie Engelbrecht commented

    Completely unnecessary and I oppose the application 100%!! I don't understand why the Council can even consider this seeing so many of the residents are opposed to it! It is time you start listening to us.
    You are contributing to the demise of our Dry Area. There are more than enough locations to purchase alcohol for residents of Surrey Hills. DON'T GRANT THIS!

  8. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Marlene Krelle commented

    I concur with the comments opposing the application by Liquourland to set up an outlet at 140 Union Road Surrey Hills.

    Any liquor outlet for packaged liquor encourages use and abuse of the products.

    I consider that the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquour Regulation needs to act according to the implication of their title and that means in the best interests of the community they are making decisions about. This is a dry area. Families have chosen to live here for reasons which may include that amenity. Their choice needs to be respected.

  9. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Rebecca Bugeja commented

    I would like The Hills Shire Council to consider not approving the above DA based on a number of concerns:
    1) The proposed development requires the amendment of the Hills Shire LEP2012 to rezone the subject lot from B2 ‘Local Centre’ to R4 ‘High Density Residential’. This will be the only R4 Land Zone within a radius of at least 2.5km with the nearest High Density Residential Zone being the cnr of Arthur St and Yattenden Cr Baulkham Hills.
    2) The subject lot is contained within the suburb of Winston Hills which has a Land Zone of R1 ‘Low Density Residential’ and apart from the subject lot and a small industrial area, are within the LGA of Parramatta City Council. Therefore this proposed development will go against the general amenity of the local area.
    3) The site of the proposed development is a central location for the suburb of Winston Hills being the location of the largest shopping area and the local Hotel. Including a High Density Residential complex in this location will increase the amount of traffic (both foot traffic and vehicular traffic) in an area that already suffers congestion during peak times.
    4) The site of the proposed development is directly across the road from a park that is adjacent to a local public school. The increased vehicular traffic caused by this development will increase the risk of injury or death to local primary aged school children.
    5) The main arterial access roads to the proposed development location are Windsor Road and Old Windsor Road and these are linked to the proposed development location by only single lane residential roads, including Oakes Rd, Gibbon Rd, Caroline Chisholm Drive and Junction Rd. As a result, this development will see a significant increase in motor vehicle traffic during peak periods which will increase the traffic flow and congestion already evident on these roads.
    6) The design of the proposed development will increase the population of Winston Hills by approx. 2.5% once the proposed development is completed and occupied. This is based on an estimated 265 residents in the 102 apartments and a 2011 ABS Census that Winston Hills contains approx. 11,100 people. This is a significant and sudden increase to the population of an established suburb with little or no consideration to the required infrastructure adjustments necessary.
    7) All roads, parks and public amenities servicing the area are the responsibility of Parramatta City Council who has chosen in their 2011 LEP to maintain the long standing status of Low Residential Land Zone for this suburb.
    8) The 3 primary schools contained within Winston Hills and the 2 nearest primary schools not within Winston Hills are already crowded and would be negatively impacted by increasing the student levels as a result of this development.
    9) Approx. 94% of the proposed apartments within the development are 1 or 2 bedroom only. The current and planned demographic for the local area, including the nearby suburbs of Baulkham Hills and Northmead are families and yet the inclusion of such a high percentage of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings does not support this strategy. Clr Andrew Jeffries recently reaffirmed this strategy in an article in the Hills News dated June 2 2015 and I quote:
    "I would argue that the size of the apartment will absolutely determine the character of the neighbourhood and the local impacts," Cr Jefferies said.
    "It will determine whether we provide accommodation for a family population or a transient population."
    The mayor said population forecasts allegedly showed families would dominate the area by 2031.
    "Minimum size apartments are not the answer, and unfortunately they are just fuelling a predominance of one and two-bedroom small apartments that suit investors and add to developers' bottom lines," he said.
    I would again request that The Hills Shire Council consider not approving this DA and respect the wishes of the residents of the surrounding suburbs of Winston Hills and Baulkham Hills who have chosen to live in Low Density Residential areas

  10. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at 180-190 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Eddie commented

    hello, as resident of this area, I oppose this development application for high density dwellings. The development is out of the norm with the surrounding residential houses in the area. The creation of any high density dwellings in the area will greatly impact the living standards of the people, with crowded parklands, schools, and deterioration of the environment. But most importantly, with minimal public transports in the area, the local roads simply cannot cope with the sudden increase in population from high density dwellings. I urge you to reject this development.

  11. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Roisin Wall commented

    Please say no to this development application. As a resident of Winston Hills for 11 years and both my children at local schools, I value the small community feel of our suburb. There is currently no unit development here. The traffic problems 102 units would create would overtax an already stretched road network, the shopping mall would be impossible to use, local schools would be inundated with new students without the infrastructure needed to accommodate them, and would create a dangerous precedent of high density development in our family friendly suburb. Many feel as I do about this. I have already seen the units advertised, I doubt this is legal. Roisin Wall

  12. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Andrew King commented

    We don't need or want this in our suburb, The Hills Shire council leave our suburb alone as it won't affect your constituents !

  13. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Dean Floody commented


    My name is Dean Floody
    I have lived in Winston Hill for 7 years after moving from Wentworthville and have seen first hand the changes that occurs when a aria is re zoned into higher occupancy.The increase in cars trying to park that will overflow to parking on the street . As having a young family I know and appreciate some of the pressures that the local schools are already under only this year a before and after school care through out 25 family s because of the high demand and they where not attending the public school with all schools running at a very high occupancyand the criteria get narrowed how much extra pressure can we place on them . But also to a degree a brake down of community spirits as people in units don't seem to be as open conversation community spirit this is only based on my own experience and also the reason I moved into Winston Hill in the first place where people still walk down the street and say hallo

  14. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Faith O'Connor commented

    I have lived in Winston Hills most of my life and my family have bought many properties in the area, we have seen many changes over the years such as New parks, new mall, road improvements like the round a bouts along Caroline Chisholm Drive and much more.
    I am looking forward for my 6 children to live in Winston Hills the way I did and have the great memories of the area as I do, I feel this development of the units will have a massive impact on our life and the lives of other locals. Schools will be overloaded and won't have the cozy family vibe, the shopping mall will be a nightmare to shop at and the traffic on our already busy roads will be an inconvenience.
    Instead of units I would like to see a wider road put into Romulus street at Max Ruddock park as I can see the street from my house and see how dangerous it is for all the young children who play sports at the park.

  15. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Simon commented

    We don't want this development. Leave Winston Hills as it is! It will ruin the neighbourhood. It's bad enough that you're trying as hard as you can to get your hands on Winston Hills

  16. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Peter commented


    As a resident of the area for almost 30 years (i'm 30, not an old person), i'm against this development. It is in no way in keeping with the aesthetic of the area, and the roads are in no way designed to handle the extra traffic flow. It would also open up the flood gates to high density in Winston Hills. We don't want it, and we like the suburb the way it is. Keep high rise where there is already high rise!

  17. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Sally Kelly commented

    I object to the application by Liquorland in the strongest possible terms. There is a liquor outlet literally metres away on Union & Canterbury Rds, and in addition the area is well serviced with liquor outlets very close by on the corner of Union & Whitehorse roads, in Hamilton St Mont Albert and several large outlets in Whitehorse Rd Balwyn.
    Furthermore the area already suffers from significant traffic congestion and adding the delivery vehicles to this quiet residential precinct would compound the problems.
    There are many young families in this area and the excessive promotion of alcohol consumption is concerning in an era where the evidence of the damage that drinking alcohol can cause.

  18. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Clare Cross commented

    A packaged liquor outlet is unnecessary on the corner of Union Road and Croydon Road. Within walking distance there is already a liquor outlet. This is a village shopping precinct, with limited parking, very near a train crossing, that already has parking and traffic issues. We certainly do NOT need a large commercial venture that will change the village environment that we have all searched for. Large delivery trucks will only cause further traffic congestion.

  19. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Mary A commented

    The new Liquor bottle shop should not be permitted to open in our residential streets. It is inappropriate for a residential street such as Croydon Road and it will greatly impact the local residents. It should remain as a “Dry Area”.

  20. In Reservoir VIC on “Development of the land...” at 80 Tyler Street Reservoir VIC 3073:

    stewart midgley commented

    application date 29/01/15
    80 Tyler St Reservoir VIC 3073

    "Development of the land with a total of 107 dwellings comprised of a four-storey apartment building containing 44 dwellings and 63 two-storey dwellings, a reduction in the car parking requirement; buildings and works in a Special Building Overlay (SBO), as shown on the plans accompanying the application."

    Table 1. Summary of site
    14530 site coverage (sq m)
    55.5% covered (buildings)
    24.0% paved areas (driveways, paths)
    20.5% permeable area

    Table 2. Numbers of dwellings arranged according to the number of bed rooms summarisong total floor space (sq m), secluded private open space (SPOS, sq m) and available parking (P=uncovered, G=garage and T=total).

    Beds number floor SPOS P+G=T total spaces
    (a) apartments
    1 bed x1 75 12 0+1=2 1
    2 bed x43 70-105 8-20 0+1=2 43
    (b) town houses
    3 bed x55 150-190 18-45 1+1=2 ~110
    4 bed x9 140-240 35+40 1+1=2 ~18
    other +15 visitors
    ----- -----
    total 1+66+165+36=268 beds 177 parking

    (1) The population density is approx 268/14530 = 1 bedroom per 54 m2
    suggesting approx 1-2 people per 50 m2

    (2) The project provides 44 apartments (41% of dwellings) with 1-2 bedrooms
    including just one apartment with a single bedroom (less than 1% of dwellings)

    (3) plus 55x 3 bed + 9x 4 = 63 town houses (i.e., 59% dwellings are for families)

    (4) Parking space are 1 per 1-2 bed, 2 per 3-4 bed + 15 for visitors

    (5) each apartment floor area exceeds 70 sq m

    (6) and each town house floor area exceeds 140 sq m

    (7) Floor plans show good internal amenity, i.e., absence of battle-axe layout, separation of waste areas (toilets, rubbish bins) from living areas, provision of windows for natural light and ventilation.

    (8) Secluded private open space (SPOS) is provided for each dwelling as balconies, yards etc with area 8-45 sq m.

    (9) Plans also show an out door "common space" approx 37x20 m2 (5% of site),

    (10) plus street trees and other landscaping opportunities

    This development demonstrates that it is possible to

    (1) achieve low population density

    (2-3) provide accommodation whereby the minority of dwellings are 1-2 bed rooms and more that half are 3+ bedrooms as accommodation for families

    (4) provide parking for residents and visitors as per the LPPF, without the need to demand residents own "small cars" and request waivers to allow overflow in to the nearby residential streets

    (5-7) deliver internal amenity and floor space that exceeds 50 sq m for 1 bed apartments, exceeds 60 m2 for 2 bed apartments.

    (8) offer SPOS for the residents

    (9) provide an external common space for residents to share

    (10) offer gardens and other external green spaces.

    Darebin would benefit from more planning applications that aim to achieve these outcomes.

  21. In Oatlands NSW on “Construction of a twenty...” at 8 Forsyth Place, Oatlands NSW 2117:

    holly usher commented

    While it seems like a good location for a boarding house, 6 parking spots is hardly acceptable. The caretaker is likely to have their own vehicle plus a visitor leaving only 4 spaces for 22 rooms in a building not that close to many public transport options.

  22. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Herman Cramer commented

    I agree with all my fellow residents on the reasons for the objections against this proposal.

    However, I strongly disagree that the very body I have to lodge my objection to is the very body (VCGLR) that just, seemingly unilaterally, recently lifted the ban on the sale of alcohol in the Camberwell area. We, as residents of this - so called anachronistic - alcohol licensing laws area, were not consulted or had an option to vote for or against this lifting.
    Herman Cramer

  23. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    Jason Ng commented

    Agree with all the comments above. There are bottle shops that are walking distance from the train station and even closer from this proposed location. Parking is already a nightmare. This liquor license will only bring detriment to the area. Please take into consideration the needs of the existing and future community.

  24. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 6 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Bruce commented

    I agree, but what is needed is residents banding together and presenting cogent and we-argued objections to council. The State Environmental Planning Policy allows for objections to be lodged formally and must be considered by council. People talk about community and neighbourhoods all the time so it is advantageous to everyone to put the talk into action. Get your neighbours together, start sending objections to council and fight against the destruction of this once beautiful suburb. Consider what the impacts are and how this over-development will adversely affect the amenity of our beautiful Epping! Look at the Local Environmental Plan and the Heritage Plan. It's all on the Council website.

    Here are some handy sites:

    We're all sick of the congestion and the high rises and the poor driving and the fact that it takes more than half an hour to get from Carlingford Road to Oxford Street at certain times of the day. But internet postings are NOT enough. Action speaks louder than words. Done properly, we might just see these over developers pulled into line and shown they can't just ride roughshod over people who have lived here for years.

    I exhort everyone who will be adversely affected by this to GET ACTIVE AND GET INVILVED!

  25. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition and construction...” at 2 Saxon Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Katrina Aspinall commented

    Car parking is hard enough in this are - with the RMIT campus enrolments increasing and demand based on the train station. Its foolish to reduce the requirements and think that people wont have cars. At least one space per unit, plus requirements for loading and office staff/visitor parking are needed.

  26. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 6 Carlingford Road Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Jo commented

    The traffic congestion and lack of community facilities in this area is already very stressful for families living here. Cramming more people in like this at such a high density particularly when more units are planned for the Coles site will create complete traffic gridlock and overcrowding in our already full at the seams local schools. Then to make matters worse, Hornsby Council is planning to close Dence Park pool permanently meaning more loss of amenity. The loss of trees in this area is tragic and impacting wildlife adversely and will be further compounded by these high rise units. The NWRL will cut off direct access to the city stations such as Wynyard, North Sydney etc and make many people go back to using their cars which will mean more traffic gridlock. The density off these units must be kept low and lots of trees and landscaping used to soften the impact.

  27. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    M.Peck commented

    Please reconsider this application. The area does not need another liquor outlet and we have safety and traffic congestion concerns in croydon rd.

  28. In Surrey Hills VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 140 Union Road, Surrey Hills 3127, VIC:

    David Howell commented

    There is no need for yet another liquor outlet in this area as the area is already well served by liquor outlets.

    The Union Road 'Village' area is not suitable for the traffic that a liquor outlet is likely to generate. Purchasing liquor is usually a destination purchase generally by car due to the weight of items purchased, whereas the existing retail outlets in the 'Village' are either coffee shops or retail outlets which don't usually require a car to carry purchases home.

    With the railway crossing and very limited parking, a liquor outlet will cause significantly increased congestion and make the area less attractive overall.

  29. In Baulkham Hills NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at St Matthews Uniting Church, 15 Edgar Street, Baulkham Hills NSW 2153:

    Murtaza Jabir commented

    I would like to offer 3d rendering or 3d visualisation services for this development to give an overview of how the development will look like. Please connect me to the builder. I am from the area and my website is


  30. In Northmead NSW on “Strata Subdivision of forty...” at Common Property, 75 Windsor Road, Northmead NSW 2152:

    Murtaza Jabir commented

    I would like to offer 3d rendering or 3d visualisation services for this development to give an overview of how the development will look like. Please connect me to the builder. I am from the area and my website is


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