Recent comments

  1. In Eastwood NSW on “2 x tree removal or pruning” at 17 Cocos Avenue Eastwood NSW 2122:

    Aleks Todoroski commented

    I am concerned that removal of the large tree at the front of the property will degrade the amenity of this street. If the removal of this tree is proposed, I strongly object.

  2. In Diamond Creek VIC on “To install 4 Business...” at 7/67 Main Hurstbridge Road, Diamond Creek VIC 3089:

    Luke Richter commented

    Dominoes already has two signs present (one which is as large as the coles building next to it). An additional 4 signs seems like it would be excessive for keeping in with the trend of the other businesses in this set of shops. I can understand having their sign/details on the large display as your enter the car park. but fail to see where the additional signs may go. I have particular concern if they are illuminated and will be displayed during the night, i don't live in diamond creek for that kind of atmosphere.

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

    Karen Noble commented

    As someone who lived in Cooranbong for many years, I was recently appalled to discover that Johnson Property Group developers are planning to install a sewage recycling plant at 60 Avondale Rd. I understand it is planned to be built and operated by a private water utility (licensed under the Water Competition Industry Act).

    Stage 2 of the Johnson Property Group Development Application would go to this company rather than the council and it would also undertake the environmental impact statement. This appears to me to be a conflict of interest. The private company maintains there is no odour or noise. Every utility has the possibility of breakdowns and in the case of Cooranbong, houses are back to back with the boundaries of the proposed site.

    A similar utility exists at Pitt Town but in quite different circumstances. I believe the local Pitt Town community do not have respect for JPG.

    I find it hard to understand how the Seventh-day Adventist Church, who is the beneficiary of this housing development, would even consider building a sewage plant, of whatever kind, so close to a long time established residential area. It would have to affect the value of land and have other possible environmental effects, minimal or otherwise.

    My brother and his family live about 100 meters from this proposed utility and I would like to strongly object to the council consenting to this concept.

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

    Suzanne & John Blyde commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    We have strong objections to development application listed which includes the development of a sewerage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road. We are long term residents of Cooranbong who live just outside the recommended 400 metre buffer zone, but there are many long standing residences well within 400 metres of the current development proposal.

    We have concerns about the certainties of noise, odour and possible chemical hazards. We are also concerned about where the run-off would go from this plant. Will there be limits set on gas and noise pollution and how will these be enforced in both the short-term and long-term?

    In addition it would appear that having such a treatment plant under private management rather than governed by the Hunter Water Board adds much uncertainty about ongoing maintenance, both long term and short term. In light of this :

    1. Could you please provide details of how management and maintenance of the system will be carried out.
    2. Could you please provide details of the expected discharge rates now in the future and where it will be discharged to.
    3. If the water is being discharged to the environment or community, what are the allowable BOD and nutrient loads and how will these limits be monitored and enforced, and by whom?

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

    Wesley and Lisa Thomson commented

    To Whom It May Concern, Re: Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013

    As long-term residents of Cooranbong, we oppose the DA for a privately owned and operated sewerage treatment facility/Utility Infrastructure Facility at 60 Avondale Rd, Cooranbong for the following reasons:

    1) This DA flouts the NSW best practice guidelines for such a facility with regards to exclusion and buffer zones as they apply to numerous existing residences nearby that would be within a 400 metre exclusion zone. Our home would only be 600 metres away from the proposed facility.

    2) By applying to locate the proposed facility (known to emit some poisonous gases) at 60 Avondale Rd, this DA presents the potential for unnecessary risk to the health and safety of many existing Cooranbong residents, including the 1000+ children who go to school nearby at 119 Avondale Rd.

    3) There may be a detrimental impact on local flora and fauna and a watercourse that feeds into the existing Avondale Springs development, not to mention the drop in value of surrounding properties potentially affected by: odour, poisonous gases such as hydrogen sulphide, unsightly structures and any light or noise pollution associated with the operation of a sewerage treatment facility.

    4) We ask Lake Macquarie City Council to consider the following options:

    i) requiring the Developer locate the facility elsewhere within the Watagan Park Estate that it will service, complying with the NSW best practice guidelines for exclusion zones. Apply the guidelines to existing residences as well as proposed developments within the estate.
    OR
    ii) requiring the Developer to organise sewerage connection to the Marconi Road facility, again complying with NSW best practice guidelines.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Wesley and Lisa Thomson

  6. In Bexley North NSW on “S82a Review - S82A -...” at 8 - 20 Sarsfield Circuit Bexley North NSW 2207:

    Greg BH commented

    Will the integrity of the pedestrian amenity on the retail/carpark side be retained? Where will vehicle parking for the new development be accessed from?

  7. In Cronulla NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 70 Cronulla St Cronulla 2230:

    nick deguingand commented

    I think it is a shame that Cronulla has not made any effort to keep a lot of its 1920s period architecture. In other areas, this would be respected, and would become an attraction for the area. There was a lot of building around then, and Cronulla could have been seen as an Art Deco area. We could at least be looking to preserve what we have left.

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

    Petar B commented

    How a development like this can even be taken into consideration is absolutely insane. This should be a regular housing estate with 25-30 properties (this will actually boost land value and the general life style in the area).

    To add this much congestion in such a small area does not require complex math to figure out it is a bad idea and will not work in this location. Property values will diminish and the young families that have purchased properties in Whitebridge for a family life style will most certainly leave the suburb if a development as absurd as this was to be approved.

    This type of development would be a great idea for an area like Jesmond where there is a greater demand for small units which would benefit things such as the university, not a growing family suburb which has sustained growth due to the lifestyle benefits of the area.

    The only people that can see positives with this proposition are the developers, NO ONE ELSE!!!

  9. In Zetland NSW on “Section 96(2) -...” at 5 O'Dea Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    a) local residents have NOT been advised of this application
    b) as far as I can see the contractor has already exceeded the original 7 storey limitation
    c) the building is already very large and imposing and the extra storey's only justification is to further line the pockets of the contractor
    d) the extra storey will only increase the shadow, environmental and traffic problems that the building will cause

  10. In Zetland NSW on “Section 96(2) -...” at 5 O'Dea Avenue Zetland NSW 2017:

    Peter Keeda commented

    a) local residents have NOT been advised of this application
    b) as far as I can see the contractor has already exceeded the original 7 storey limitation
    c) the building is already very large and imposing and the extra storey's only justification is to further line the pockets of the contractor
    d) the extra storey will only increase the shadow, environmental and traffic problems that the building will cause

  11. In Cronulla NSW on “Alterations & Additions to...” at 70 Cronulla St Cronulla 2230:

    penelope meads commented

    To whom it may concern, I have lived up above the old Commonwealth Bank Building for nearly 18 years, as a rental tenant, And I must say I have loved living in this old building. Everything changes, and I am under no misconception that sooner or later I will have to leave here. My question is how far will the title "heritage building" matter, when alterations begin. I have seen and read the proposed plans for this building, and to be truthful, I was quite shocked at how modern the building looked in the artists impression. People who know I live here and care about this building are forever asking what is happening to it. I tell them I don't really know, what council can do for this building. But that they should join the email list as I have. Is it possible to ask council, will this building be looked after? I see with my own eyes daily, how its not looked after as a heritage building should be, which is why I am voicing my concern. My interest is purely out of love for this building and certainly not to make trouble for anyone. Thanking you.

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

    Gregory Lewis commented

    Hi,
    The density of the proposed current DA is excessive to say the least. We currently experience notable traffic issues in this built up area, and to approve this development in its current form would turn our local traffic into an extreme bottleneck. We have the local shops with traffic, we have the local High School traffic, and to add such a ridiculous extreme number of dwellings with an estimate of 2 cars per dwelling would be nothing short of insane.
    The area should have the commercial shops extended, in so doing it would protect any proposed dwellings behind, also it would add to the parking for customers of the existing and proposed shops.
    The distance to the Fernleigh track should be greater allowing for the current Native Flora and Fauna and to act as a buffer for those who use the track.
    In respect of privacy, overshadowing, View Corridors, the current proposed development does not allow for privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors in accordance with Lake Mac Council guidelines and as a consequence must be redesigned to comply with privacy and overshadowing and even view corridors.
    Visitor Parking has not been suitably addressed to accommodate this extreme proposed number of dwellings, this current DA must be scaled down in the proposed number of dwellings to comply with Lake Mac Council Visitor Parking Per Dwelling.
    Any use of the current loop hole of Low Cost Housing or Senior Living Housing, MUST have a positive covenant placed on title ensuring that these are complied with and there must be policing conducted by Lake Mac Council.
    The current use of the land for years for the locals has been that of green belt open space and for it to not have any green belt open space incorporated into any proposed development is not in keeping with the area, nor is it sympathetic to the locals and the long standing use of the site. This will without doubt cost votes to any Mayoral candidate. This will be distributes to locals via flyers, Posters and word of mouth. Whitebridge is a tight knit community and we have friends throughout all of Lake Macquarie Council Shire and we will use our influence if need be.
    A proposal of a combination single storey and two storey homes ALL freestanding with the frontage on Dudley Rd being an extension of commercial shops and customer parking with some green belt open space (Park) within the development would be appreciated and well received by locals and visitors.
    In short the current proposed development is extreme to say the least and it is NOT welcomed and is NOT to be approved. Please refer to the above to find reasons for why not, also please see above for a brief on what is desired.
    WE DO NOT WANT A GHETTO. DEVELOPERS ARE TRYING TO USE LOOPHOLES TO MAXIMISE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES WITH NO CONCERN ABOUT COUNCIL, THE SUBURB OR EVEN SHIRE. THIS MUST BE STOPPED WITH COUNCIL PLANNERS AT THE FOREFRONT. WHAT ARE WE TO LEAVE AS INHERITANCE TO OUR CHILDREN ? THIS IS A DISGRACE, TOWN PLANNERS AND COUNCILLORS AND THE MAYOR SHOULD EXERCISE COMMON SENSE.

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

    Michael McKee commented

    Seems these lots are to be of a very small size which would see the Redlands trend continuing. I don't agree if they are micro blocks

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

    Sheena Dobbins commented

    My main concern with this development is increased traffic congestion on the round about at Lonus Ave and Warren Road and side streets that exist onto Dudley Road which are already congested prior to this development. With a lot of bicycles and pedestrians already using Fernleigh Track via Lonus Ave I feel there is an accident waiting to happen with extra cars entering and existing Kopa Street. There is not enough parking at shops and visibility on crossing going towards Dudley is limited by the fence. High School Students, Pre-Schoolers, Primary Students walking to school and children using the park at end of Lonus Ave safety should also be considered.

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

    Paul Rankin commented

    Objection to the proposed stage development by Johnson Property Developments of a Sewage Treatment Plant at 60 Avondale Road (Lot B, DP 391418) Cooranbong Lake Macquarie City Council DA 1844/2013 By Mr Paul and Mrs Sonia Rankin, 79 Avondale road, Cooranbong, 2265. The DA 1844/2013 appears to be in two parts. The first part is for the demolition of a house and outbuildings at 60 Avondale Road. We have no objection to the demolition of the house and outbuildings. However the second stage of this DA concerns the development of a Sewerage Treatment Plant and we have strong objections to the development of the sewerage treatment plant. Our residence at 79 Avondale Road is 244 m from the proposed Sewerage Treatment Plant. The NSW Department of Planning Best Practice Road Guidelines April 2010 Recommends a Buffer Zone of at least 400 m around Sewage Treatment Plants. In the case of this proposal there are in the vicinity of 190 houses with in 400 m of the proposed development. Our preferred outcome would be that the developers of the proposed North Cooranbong Development are required to connect to the Marconi Road (Dora Creek) Sewerage Treatment Plant operated by the Hunter Water Board. If this outcome cannot be achieved can we please request that in the consideration of this proposal that the New South Wales Department of Planning Best Practice Owed Guidelines be enforced and that if a Sewerage Treatment Plant is established then the recommended buffer zone is enforced. Yours sincerely, Paul and Sonia Rankin

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

    Mr Milton McFarlane commented

    I would like to strongly object to the development of a sewerage treatment plant at 60 Avondale Road. My nephew and his family live approximately 100 meters from the boundary of this proposed building. NSW Government guidelines suggest a buffer zone of at least 400 meters from residential areas. This is because of likely noise, odour and possible chemical hazards.

    I am a long term resident of Cooranbong and think that a sewerage treatment plant located in the middle of a residential zone is completely inappropriate.

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

    N Quinn commented

    This whole development needs a complete rethink!

    Too many residents in such a small space with no regard for appropriate infrastructure.

    There are not enough roads in and out of the development - where is the traffic study prior to this proposal? Where is the revised traffic study based on the proposal going ahead?

    The area is congested in the morning and afternoons already and there is not enough parking there already for the shops in use - I can see residents parking in the shopping areas already due to not enough access of parking provided for 250 plus bedrooms.

    A good number of the residents face the wrong direction to achieve good environmental planning which means excessive air conditioning use which is not efficient, cost more for residents and uses more power. Peak loads will change in that area which could effect the already inconsistent power issues in the area.

    For such a green focused council this proposed development doesn't seem to meet any of the council guidelines for eco friendliness

    One could suggest that this development seems more about profit than good environmental design for urban growth.

  18. In Yowie Bay NSW on “Waterfront Development -...” at 16 Maroopna Road, Yowie Bay, NSW:

    Kim Steel commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am interested in purchasing this property if the owners are interested in selling, but it has come to my attention that there may be some design problems with this house. Can you furnish me with the relevant information about this property, 16 Maroopna Rd Yowie Bay 2228. Also, do you have the contact details of the owners?

    Many Thanks,

    Kim Steel

    (m) 0411112825
    ksteel@hotmail.com

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

    Kelly Davis commented

    My wife and I live in a small miners cottage on Station St (opposite development site) which we bought around 2 years ago.We love this area as it is close to everything but still retains a community feel . I think it is one of most desirable suburbs for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest attraction for many people is the amazing area of bushland leading down to the ocean. To live near this we should all be truly thankful.

    To develop this land in Whitebridge in the manner proposed would be a crime.

    I think it is basically wrong to turn a fairly quiet community into a busy/congested area overnight.This piece of land shouldn't be viewed as instant dollars, but built on so it dosn't detract from the towns unique characteristics. I'm just not convinced that 100, 3 storey brick and tile town houses crammed on top of one another is going to be good for Whitebridge.

    I believe there should be a public footpath running towards the shops (preferably on the development site) as there is no footpath from Station St . This means locals would walk or ride pushbikes instead of getting in cars. Appropriate landscaping on the site is also essential . A green corridor running both sides of a walkway would be good.

    There are many things to consider here, I really hope someone has the decency to take a long hard look at this proposal, and admit that it could be done a whole lot better.

  20. In Wantirna South VIC on “Multiple dwellings and...” at Obsolete 525 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

    All residents have visitors at some time or other.
    Now that you have waived the visitor car park, where are they going to park?

  21. In Parramatta NSW on “Tree removal and...” at 37 Campbell Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    One would hope that the building on this site does not interfere with 39 Campbell Street which was the home of Master Bridge Builder David Lennox.

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

    Joan Helliker commented

    Utility Infrastructure Facility. Is this a fancy name for a sewage treatment plant?
    My grand children live within metres of this proposed development. Has any one considered the
    potential exposure to the surrounding properties from sewer gases(rotten egg gas) that will be omitted from such a facility. The major components of sewer gas are, Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ammonia and other biological agents. Health effect of H2S are at.0-10ppm Low range= irritation of eyes, nose and throat. 10-50-ppm MOD range = Headaches, Dizziness, Nausea and vomiting, Coughing and breathing difficulty. 50-200ppm High range= Severe respiratory tract irritation, Eye irritation/ Acute conjunctivitis and Convulsions. Hydrogen Sulfide is 20% heavier than air so this invisible gas will collect in depressions in the ground. At 100ppm a persons ability to detect the gas is effected by rapid temporary paralysis of the olfactory nerves in the nose leading to loss of sense of smell.Prolonged exposure to lower concentrations can also result in simular effects.
    I am not in favour of this development. I believe my grand children's health is a risk due to the close proximity of this proposed development.The fact that Hyrogen sulfide is a toxic gas.Why build such a facility so close to residential properties. There must be an alternate site that can be considered. council need to consider the residence already living in the area.

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

    Edward & Roslyn Chapman commented

    We strongly oppose this development as it is well inside the NSW guideline of a 400 metre buffer from existing housing, and may add noise, odour & gas pollution and further visual pollution to housing already affected by fallout from the power station and by the noise and dust pollution occasioned by the recent development of the Watagan Park Estate.
    The Estate covers a large area which should be able to encompass the sewerage treatment plant needed to meet current and future needs.
    Please reject this application
    Ros & Ted Chapman

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

    Ruth Webster commented

    I OBJECT to this development. I am stunned that a developer would put in an application for a major infrastructure in an area that has so many residential houses. I own a home very close by on Freemans Drive. Surely something of this nature needs to be declared long before any new development takes place. The developer has plenty of land that is not near existing residences. Please reject this application.

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

    Trevor Mawer commented

    i strongly object to this development. it is too close to residents on Freemans Drive, Avondale Road and not to mention the school. further its proximity to a natural water course would be of high concern WHEN an overflow occurs. Johnson Group should be made to build this well away from established residences or upgrade existing sewage infrastructure.

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

    Janice Menzies commented

    I agree with the other comments, there are a lot of residents nearby and there is ample land on the existing development.
    I think this application should be strongly rejected.
    It is also in a flood zone and will affect other water systems.

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

    Carmen Booyens commented

    As a long term resident I oppose this development. It is too close to existing homes. There is plenty of space within the estate. It was one thing to see the estate develop but another dimension has been entered into and exploited by this proposed sewerage works! ENOUGH.

    C. Booyens

  28. 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

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

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