Recent comments

  1. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Ping commented

    We definitely do not agree for them to construct. I believe you guys all know King George Road is too busy every day, too many trucks on the road, always get traffic jam there , it is even worse during the peak time, we really can't stand it. There are so many kids and elder people live there, they need safe, peace , Not noisy, crowd, traffic jam etc. southern suburbs are already so crowded. Please recommend them to build a bit farther, to build in country , there will be lot of vacant land for them and it is quite for them. Or recommend them to build in Northern or Eastern suburb as those areas are not as busy as Southern Suburb . Thank you.

  2. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    heng commented

    I strongly against this DA application.

    - Huge noise problem for Mosque especially 7 days a week.
    - Extremely bad Traffic congestion if the buildings are allowed to be build.
    - Should be located far away from residential areas

  3. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of eight...” at 5 Bellevue Terrace, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    it is a joke for 8 triple storey to be built in zone 1 no extra car parking space,congestion,privacy for residents around,there is no hub close by,Councillers don`t live in the area so dont worry because we (councillers ) wont be around when problems arise.No open space no green ,you get a pat in the back and we residents choke.well done voiceless councillers.

  4. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Cooky commented

    According to the huge population in Hurstville area, I don’t think is a good decision to build the temple. At the same time, it will increase the traffic pressure on King Georges Road. We should consider bringing back the proper living environment to the local people instead of pushing them to move out their current area.

  5. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Peter Wu commented

    I strongly against this DA application. For such a Mosque/worship, it should be located far away from residential areas. The Mosque/worship will provide very enconvenience to the local residents. The traffic will be very busy, the cars will be parking on the streets surounding the Mosque/worship, that will make the busy parking streets even worse and worse. The local residents will not be able to find a parking in the streets after the Mosque/worship is openned. The Mosque/worship will generate big noise to the local residents. The properties value will be decreased dramatically after the building of such a Mosque/worship.

  6. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Wendy commented

    This area has become extremely busy & crowded in last few years. It is supposed to be a quiet residential area and I don't think the worship is suit for this area. Especially it plans to run 7 days a week from really early morning to late evening. There are primary school & childcare facilities in this area. Could Kogarah City Council please think about the current residences in this area?

  7. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Hai ZHAO commented

    This area's traffic is very bad already.We do not want more cars parking in this area.

  8. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Chao Bi commented

    South Hurstville is already a traffic hotspot, so not really suitable for a 7 day worship place. I also believe a worship place shouldn't be built if most local residents disagree.

  9. In Lewisham NSW on “4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham” at 4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham:

    Ian Meggitt commented

    This immediate area is already being extensively developed; Lewisham Towers, The Mills, etc. Further development of the area should be deferred until the effect of this growth in population; in terms of traffic, congestion, public transport, sustainability of attached commercial enterprises etc., is fully realised and understood.

    Traffic on Railway Terrace and Old Canterbury Road, Toothill and New Canterbury Road, West Street to Parramatta Road, all currently experiences regular long delays due to heavy congestion that stretches from Summer Hill through Lewisham to Petersham, and from Parramatta Road through to Marrickville Road – and this happens every day and the development to the area centred between these thoroughfares has not yet been populated.

    I also question the wisdom in every single multi-storey development needing a cafe underneath it. There will be significant retail and hospitality development in the Mills and Lewisham Towers, the potential overdevelopment and/or over supply of retail spaces risks these becoming disused and a significant eyesore at street level. It should also be noted that, even if it is successful, retail may actually attract even more people into an already congested area.

    Will patrons be afforded off-street parking to utilise the retail spaces?

    What about utilising street level space for community use? E.g. undercover bicycle parking of near public transport.

    What additional recreational areas are being provided for this new population?

    These extensive developments need to look at an area more holistically and not just centre on the specific property and its boundaries. We must look at how the overall community that will live in the area will interact, travel, park, shop, recreate etc. and this broader planning should be part of the development process.

    PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE MORE LARGE, MULTI-STOREY DEVELOPMENTS UNTIL THE ISSUES OF SUCH RAPID POPULATION GROWTH ARE REALISED, FULLY UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED AS NEEDS MAY BE.

  10. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Carrie chen commented

    This proposal is not suitable for the local area. It has two local schools and a retirement centre. It will be too noisy for the local people to live in.

    I strongly disagree!

  11. In South Coogee NSW on “Second floor addition to...” at 61 Malabar Road South Coogee NSW 2034:

    Ray Zammit commented

    When will the associated documents be available for viewing?

  12. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    John commented

    Hurstville got large population. If someone are going to build another temple, the traffic jam will be much worse and the car space will be not enough for the local people! Thank you!

  13. In Gymea NSW on “Section 96(2) Modification...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Robyn commented

    I agree that we need a roundabout at the corner of Avenel Rd and Gymea Bay Rd as the traffic congestion in the morning is already bad enough. In addition the crossing being so closely positioned to the corner is extremely dangerous for pedestrians and needs to be moved further up into Avenel Rd. Because of the embankment obscuring a small portion of the view of the crossing, you can be almost on that crossing before you see any pedestrians. Please don't approve the increase in number of children for this development...too many cars equals increased traffic snarls.

  14. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Qing LU commented

    South Hurstville area is very important business district in Sydney. If the big change in this area like crowded traffic we will see the local basement people will move out quickly. Don't lost all of us we love here!

  15. In Gymea NSW on “Section 96(2) Modification...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Ben Wood commented

    This has to be a joke! My comments are still against the original DA. Next door is a 40 place centre so potentially 128 children over 2 adjacent sites. Not to mention the 873 enrolled students at Gymea Bay Public School approx 150m away.

    In my opinion the original DA approval was dangerous on the grounds that parent pick up and drop off access is in a dangerous position .

    Can the council at least get an independent traffic study done around the current traffic numbers + the estimated increase due to this centre. By that I mean not to use some traffic data from a few years back as they did with the original DA.

    The intersection at Avenel and Gymea Bay Road needs a roundabout at the very least.

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 310-312 Marrickville Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Keri Bell commented

    I would like to express my dismay that another five storey building has been proposed for Marrickville Road, particularly at the Western end which is predominately two storey facades on the hilltop. Previous developments of this nature - eg. 123 Marrickville Road, have resulted in a third world building and design outcome(https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/123+MARRICKVILLE+ROAD/@-33.9124852,151.1604782,3a,75y,29.97h,106.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smAZp0kkkryCFyJ9uERd1Qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xfb3ae88ed8d7d095!6m1!1e1), which is totally inappropriate for the streetscape - and more importantly, cheaply build with no consideration for sight lines and aesthetic, longevity of the building fabric, and the poor people who will reside in them.

    Why are we not approving and building green buildings that are sympathetic to their surroundings? Higher density should not equate to cheaply build and poorly planned apartments. We have architects and town planners for a reason and it's frustrating that Marrickville seems to be being redeveloped for the developers, not for the residents and business who live and work here.

    Please make sure buildings like this have 5 star green credentials and are designed and built by professionals so the end product fits within the context of a wider plan (123 Marrickville road if a fine example of how this is not happening in Marrickville!). Sydney City Council seems to do this well as many new developments in Alexandria are huge, but have appropriate setbacks, incorporate avenues of trees, seem to be designed and built well with all users in mind. Marrickville deserves the same care and consideration as these building will be lived in by real people, and make up the fabric of our streetscapes for many years to come.

  17. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Henry Yu commented

    I am against this develoent because of the five sessions of prays everyday from early morning to late evening will creat constantly adverse impact on the quiet neighbourhood. Such new place of worship should only be built in a remote area, far away from densely populated residential neighbourhood area.

  18. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Citizens commented

    The traffic is so bad now, and we want a quiet place to live.

  19. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Jeff commented

    council needs to reconsider this development proposal. It is not suitable in our local area. Higher flow of traffic, both automobiles and people, increase noise, garbage and waste disposal and management, pest and hygiene control. Etc...

  20. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Ben commented

    Traffic will be much worse and no parking will be chaos

  21. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Patrick Cheung commented

    This location of this proposed site is not suitable for the area. A place of worship, benefiting people who have their faith is good, however, in consideration of the surrounding and especially the residences of the area isn't the best choice of location. Higher flow of traffic, both automobiles and people, increase noise, garbage and waste disposal and management, pest and hygiene control, and specifically safety and security for both worshippers and local residents.

    Although take in account of both side, I believed that the benefits are only impacting a smaller size of community, especially where majority of the worshippers/visitors are from outside of local area. This proposal, however, is affecting our local area negative much more than benefiting. Hence I strongly suggest the Council to consider this proposal with high cautions, as the result may lead a strong discouragement to the local residents and communities, and ultimately relocating. Losing the healthy, peaceful, and wealthy community as to now.

  22. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    paul commented

    1:Not enough car park!
    2: Extremely bad Traffic congestion if the buildings are allowed to be build.
    3: huge noise problem for Mosque especially 7 days a week!

  23. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Ronnie commented

    The traffic congestion is already very bad around the proposed site.
    There are two pre schools and one retirement village around it.
    To access to the site, prayers will have to take the Mall and Connells Point Rd. The Connells Point Public School is located on Connells Point. And IGA is also located on the same street. We are experiencing heavy traffic everyday and can't afford to have more traffics.

    I strongly suggest the council rethink about the development proposal. It is not suitable in our local area.

  24. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Ronnie commented

    The traffic congestion is already very bad around the proposed site.
    There are two pre schools and one retirement village around it.
    To access to the site, prayers will have to take the Mall and Connells Point Rd. The Connells Point Public School is located on Connells Point. And IGA is also located on the same street. We are experiencing heavy traffic everyday and can't afford to have more traffics.

    I strongly suggest the council rethink about the development proposal. It is not suitable in our local area.

  25. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Yue Citizen commented

    It is too crowded for nowadays Hurstville, and their worship would pose a serious threat to the normal life of the recidents. We respect their religious custom, but , please consider the environmental, public and demographic problems cautiously.

    In a word, we strongly against this project, and hope the govenment can reconsider this issue. Thanks!

  26. In South Hurstville NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 849 King Georges Rd South Hurstville, NSW:

    Frank Sullivan commented

    This planning proposal doesn't suit the existing environment and may never be. The area's demographic situation doesn't support the proposal either

  27. In Gymea NSW on “Section 96(2) Modification...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Jackie Douglas commented

    Typical of less than ethical developers, sneak through a s96 after the initial approval. Let's hope the council has the sense to refuse this cash grab. There is surely not enough children in the gymea Bay Area looking for care that warrants this approval. There are already in a 2 km radius at least 5 child care centres with 1 more in at council waiting approval( in an even worse spot in Coonong rd). Wait for all the hand ringing and outcry if god forbid someone gets injured at this already congested intersection

  28. In Lewisham NSW on “4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham” at 4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham:

    J. O'Callaghan commented

    I oppose this development at 4-12 McGill Street, Lewisham.

    The area is already 'beyond capacity' in terms of development. I do not understand how infrastructure, traffic, and the local community will cope with this expected influx of residents in this small space. The area of the Mills and Lewisham Towers is already over-developed. Traffic along New Canterbury Rd and Railway Terrace is already at grid-lock every day - this will only get much, much worse. Will there be an end to this?

  29. In Mooroolbark VIC on “Multi dwelling and/or...” at 120 Mooroolbark Road, Mooroolbark VIC 3138 (Council Site - Mooroolbark Retarding Basin):

    Rachel Sincock commented

    We want drugs, tagging and destructive children off the street. We want children to be active happy kids; we want adults active and happy; we want people out and about in our community yet we are taking away all their recreational areas.
    Taking away this recreational area that is used by so many families, clubs and people everyday is just obscene.
    What are we going to gain from this going up that will over ride the loss? I can tell you. . Nothing. .
    I use the park nearly everyday with my dogs and my three year old, it's easy for us to get to and my daughter loves to run and kick the ball. Your going to take that away from not Just us but so many others.
    Please don't put up the pole.. We lose more than we gain..

  30. In Fitzroy VIC on “Part demolition and...” at 239-243 Johnston St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Darren Ferguson commented

    The demolition of this building would be a terrible loss. This is an example where culture and history should prevail over profits . There are many more suitable plots of land with unimportant buildings which should be used for property development. Please don't make a decision that is irreversible and result in the loss of this building.

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