Recent comments

  1. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 169-173 Darlinghurst Road Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Dr Tony Hunt commented

    I believe that a nightclub being open past 1am in a high density residential area is ludicrous.
    It is after this time that alcohol and drug fuelled violence peaks and the locals, as usual, suffer.
    My interest is because my daughter is one of those local residents.

  2. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Janice & Ross Breedon commented

    We Ross & Janice Breedon have seen first hand the residents of 482 O` regan Creek Rd
    entering properties checking for unlocked house windows & car doors of our neighbors &
    removing items from their patio tables that don`t belong to them. This makes us feel very uncomfortable about going out & leaving our homes unattended which is affecting our peaceful lifestyle that we purchased along with our property that we valued until this so called halfway house with their "residents" arrived.
    We would like to decline the proposed change so we can feel safe & comfortable again.

  3. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 7-8...” at 230 Toorak Road, South Yarra, VIC:

    Glenys Richards commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the proposed development of 230 Toorak Road South Yarra.
    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape of the area.
    38 Chambers Street will be dramatically affected by the reduction of light to the building, particularly its South East aspect.
    It appears there is insufficient provision for parking in the plans for 230 Toorak Road. This locale already suffers from inadequate space for on street parking and likewise suffers severe problems with major traffic congestion in very narrow streets and laneways.
    This can then become hazardous to the pedestrian population in the area.

  4. In Northcote VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 16 Separation Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Rane Bowen commented

    I feel that a 4 story building in this part of the street in such a small property will stick out like a sore thumb and change the character of the street in a negative way. Having a restaurant here will increase the foot traffic at night, making for much noisier evenings.

  5. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    John Douglas commented

    I am advised that only 26 staff will be monitoring 150 children. I have a friend working in this industry and she has advised they are required to have 12 staff for 36 children i.e. 1 staff for 3 children. The proposed development appears to be 1 staff per 6 children. I suspect that ancillary staff have not been noted in the application
    There is parking proposed for 20 staff in the underground car park of 38 spaces. At least 6 staff will be parking in the LANE and obviously they will park as close to the centre as possible. Merrivale Lane is a narrow thoroughfare only 3 car widths wide. At best 2 cars can pass each other when a third car is legally parked. With parked cars on both sides of the road, as is currently allowed, traffic will be reduced to a single lane - a nightmare for both residents and parents dropping off children. Exiting from a resident's driveway will be restricted by parked vehicles on either side of the LANE.


    Travelling North, access to Merrivale Lane from Pentecoste Avenue is a blind right turn to oncoming traffic. In the afternoon the western sun causes even more vision problems. There have been many accidents at this location over the years I have been a resident of the area.
    With a number of other childcare centres in the immediate vicinity, I do not believe this location is the correct place for a childcare centre of this magnitude.


  6. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    Is this a brothel or a hotel?

    Tiny units with double beds but insufficient room to live in.

  7. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    J. O'Callaghan commented

    I agree with previous concerns raised about this proposed development at 158-160 New Canterbury Rd, Petersham.

    The height of the building and the lack of parking are real issues.

    It will also be out of keeping with the Petersham commercial precinct which many features heritage facades.

  8. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Rupert Holden commented

    It is disappointing that the Ku-Ring-Gai Council is prepared to let narrow commercial interests affect the amenity and wellbeing of Merrivale Lane's inhabitants.

    I grew up in Merrivale Lane with my three siblings. As children, we played front yard cricket, front yard tag, and front yard soccer with our neighbours - always safe in the knowledge that cars would not be tearing up and down the street. We knew our neighbours personally, and there was a real sense of community that I was extremely glad to be a part of. I am certain that the installation of a 150-place child care centre would destroy the neighbourly spirit that was such an important part of my childhood, and leave no prospect for future generations of children in Merrivale Lane to grow up around the same tranquil surroundings that I did.

    I have two principal concerns about the RMEGA Child Care Centre. The first is safety, and the second is destruction of ammenities.

    Turning first to safety, Merrivale Lane is narrow, and already becoming overpopulated with cars parked on both sides of the street. This is particularly dangerous for cars turning off from Pentecost Avenue (a busy road leading on to Merrivale Lane) where cars often turn only to find themselves needing to break abruptly in order to prevent rear-ending a parked car at the beginning of the lane, totally hidden from view. This particular safety hazard, even though dangerous in the first instance, is likely to become even more so when there is increased congestion on Merrivale Lane, brought about by the Child Centre.

    Turning now to amenities. I have two concerns in this respect:

    First, the noise pollution will be intolerable. 150 young children screaming and playing throughout the day can hardly be considered reasonable in a lane environment. It is also completely incongruous with the retirement centre that is only a few doors down. Many residents on Merrivale Lane either don't work during the day, or are retired, and as such, are entitled to a level of external noise that is reasonable for a suburban lane. I put it to the council that it is wholly unreasonable to expect Merrivale Lane's residents to withstand an extra 150 voices. Additionally, the bustle of traffic, cars screaming past all the time on the street is only likely to add to the din.

    Second, many houses in Merrivale Lane enjoy a beautiful view over Pymble golf course. a tall building and multi-storey carpark in the vicinity will destroy that particular amenity for many inhabitants.

    On a final note, I wish to add that my grandmother resides in Merrivale Lane, in a separate home to my family home. She has recently spent months in hospital. Whilst recovering, she remains frail and in need of regular care and treatment. Her home would be exactly opposite the new complex. The congestion will affect her welfare, her access to help, and her confidence in leaving her drawing room to spend time outdoors.

    This is a nice street with good people. We are not cranks - and these complaints are not frivolous. We care about the communities that have been created in Merrivale Lane, which often pass back over generations. We do not want an impersonal corporate enterprise polluting the fair shades of Merrivale Lane, and I hope that the Council will take the resident's unanimous displeasure seriously.

  9. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Sharon F. commented

    I agree with Jordan's comment above.
    The height and shadowing is not fair on neighbouring properties.
    24 boarding rooms with only what appears to be five, perhaps seven at the most, parking spaces? Will it be a requirement that says applicants may not own cars because I don't know where you expect people to park. This is also not in keeping with the general appearance of the local area. Five stories is too high.
    I feel sorry for the neighbours of this property if this goes ahead.

  10. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    The Starr-Bowkett building does not fit with the rest of the street. It is a waste of space to have a single storey building on the high street. I'm aware that a building that most people consider modern and ugly will take it's place, but I don't see this as any worse than the building in it's current state. I think a lot of people are rightly proud of the ideals that the defunct Starr-Bowkett society stands for. Using this as a reason to preserve a building that no longer has any real connection to that philosophy does not make sense. Ideas live on, even if physical things change.

  11. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Jennifer Young commented

    I strongly object to DAO413/15 121 to117 Merrivale Lane Childcare/Preschool. I live 2 houses away from this proposed COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT in a narrow Residential lane. How can this be? The noise from 150 children screaming, crying, yelling, bells ringing, 100's of cars in and out, doors slamming 7am to 7pm will be horrific and we won't be able to go outside. Why should my rights to live quietly be trampled on by someone operating a business for huge profits? This building will be huge with classrooms, nappy rooms, bin rooms and a car park for 38 cars. It is a most inappropriate Commercial operation for this situation.

    Jennifer Young

    3/125 Merrivale Lane.


  12. In South Yarra VIC on “Transfer of Licence” at Shop 5, 177 Toorak Road, South Yarra 3141, VIC:

    Heinz Tilenius commented

    I do not think that it is appropriate to grant a liquor license for this venue due to the proximity of nearby living residents. If a liquor licence will be granted I would think that at least no footpath trading, or serving of liquor, should be allowed.

  13. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Elizabeth Kilian commented

    I write in support of the above objections to the proposed DA for a child care centre in Merrivale Lane. As a long term resident of this area, I am well aware of the already dangerous intersection of Merrivale Lane with Pentecost Ave. The inevitable increase in traffic at this intersection, as well as at Charlton St and Pentecost Ave will make these blind spots even more dangerous. As for the lane, itself, there is simply not enough room to accommodate the volume of traffic which would result from a day care centre of this size, not to mention the large number of parents and young children who would have no choice but to share the road in the absence of proper footpaths.

    There are a number of child care centres in the area and if these do not meet the current demand, it makes far more sense to allow existing centres to expand their numbers than build a completely outsized centre in a lane which is completely unequipped to cope.

  14. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Nicky Coghill commented

    As a resident living in Buckra Street and driving down Merrivale Lane on a daily basis, I strongly support the previous comments. There are many near accidents in this Lane because the road is too narrow and tricky for a car to pass through when there are cars parked on both sides of the road. This is a quiet residential area and the increase in traffic would change the whole atmosphere of the neighbourhood. Please do not approve this application, there is no need for another child care facility in the area as there is one only a couple of minutes up the road.

  15. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Wendy Bacon commented

    I am opposed to this building being demolished - it forms an important part of the history of the landscape and is fits well with the current scale and character of the street. Why on earth can't this building be preserved? The fact that other development mistakes have been made on Enmore Road does not mean that we should trash it. I was shocked when I realised that this building could so easily be destroyed. Saving facades is a farce - the point is the square squat nature of the building is an important feature. Please keep me informed about the progress of this application - it should be rejected

  16. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Colin and Lynda Smith commented

    We,Colin and Lynda Smith would like to oppose the change of use to this address. We have had to rely on the Howard Police to control the theft, vandalism, break'ins and trespass incidents that have occurred by the 'residents' residing at this address. As they walk our streets heading to the beach, we feel as if they are casing our homes and properties. These 'residents' have been caught on camera during night time raids, stealing property that is not theirs.

    We now have to lock everything away, even if only visiting neighbours for a short time.

    There is no regular bus service, shopping outlets or activities in the immediate vicinity to service a community housing of this nature.

    These 'residents' have proven unacceptable behavior as per reports to the Howard Police Station. We should not have to change our lifestyle to accommodate the bad behaviour from these 'residents'. Please decline the proposed change so our quiet lifestyle will continue.

  17. In Chambers Flat QLD on “Caravan / Relocatable Home...” at 48-54 Flesser Road Chambers Flat QLD 4133:

    Judith catchpole commented

    I too object to the prosed development on Flesser rd. I feel these types of properties would be best suited in suburban built up areas with shops or public transport nearby. This area is wildlife rich and public facilities poor. Such a large increase in people to this area will harm our quiet rural lifestyle and do serious harm to the wildlife habitat. This type of development is simply high density low cost cheap housing and not something our area needs.

  18. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    sue commented

    I don't believe this building should be demolished - it has historical & social significance.
    Many people (my parents included) would never have been able to buy homes without the Starr Bowkett co-operative.
    I'm not opposed to development, but surely a good architect could incorporate the original building to design something unique & worthy of our fabulous suburb.

  19. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Scott MacArthur, Vice-President Marrickville Heritage Society. commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society has been advised that a revised Development Application has been lodged for this building development, that retains the facade of the existing building. The Society does not support this new proposal, as it still fails to provide a building that is sympathetic to the character of this important Conservation Area. The new building looms over the original facade, and overwhelms it with a confused compostion of irregularly placed and oriented slot windows, cladding types, strip windows and balconies. The overall composition is jumbled and detracts greatly from the ordered simplicity of the retained facade, and the adjoining Victorian shop fronts.
    Council should not approve this development until there is a considered proposal that addresses the importance of this building and its heritage setting.

  20. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Scott MacArthur, Vice-President, Marrickville Heritage Society commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society does not support this development within the Petersham Commercial Precinct Conservation Area.

    The scale and style of the building are completely at odds with the existing two to three storey Victorian retail facades that establish the built character of the heritage precinct.

    Of particular concern is the main street facade, that has large areas of glazing and balconies with glazed balustrades. This is completely out of character with the surrounding existing facades that are characterised by extensive areas of rendered masonry, and regular small fenestration.

    The Statement of Heritage Impact serves to emphasize this contrast by showing a photomontage of a much more successful new development at 111-115 New Canterbury Road. This new apartment building has a facade with a higher and much more traditional proportion of solid to void, and which sits more respectfully in the precinct.

    Council should require that the scale, massing and facade of the proposed new building at 158-160 New Canterbury Road should be modified to be less intrusive to this important Conservation Area.

  21. In Sydenham NSW on “To demolish the former...” at 24A Railway Road Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Scott MacArthur, Vice-President Marrickville Heritage Society. commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society has consistently encouraged Council to preserve this Heritage Listed building. The building has housed religious institutions that have played important community building roles in Sydenham, and Council should be pursuing all options that could continue this tradition.
    The consecration of the former Methodist Church for the Coptic religious community in 1968 was the first outside of Egypt, providing a religious and community focus for an otherwise isolated migrant group. The recent upheavals in Syria will likely see an influx of Middle Eastern Christians that will strongly identify with the hopes of a safe future that the Church could symbolise, if it is retained.
    The Society understands that at least one self-funding artist and community group is very interested in occupying the building, and restoring it. Council should be actively supporting such initiatives.
    The Society is also seeking clarification of the future care and presentation of the war memorial fence and plaque. All Australian official commemorations and Memorials to the Missing are required to be maintained in perpetuity to established Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) standards.Responsibility for maintenance is divided between the CWGC and the Office of Australian War Graves (OAWG), depending upon the location and the conflict to which the grave, commemoration or Memorial to the Missing relates. Regional war memorials play a vital role as focal points for community commemoration. Saluting Their Service commemorations grants are, subject to eligibility requirements, available to assist with the restoration of war memorials or to build new memorials where none exist. We trust that, as owner of the building and its memorial, Council is aware of its responsibilities.

  22. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Kylee Bill commented

    I would like to echo all of the valid objections and comments made above in relation to the DA application for a massive child care business in Merivale Lane....... it is absolutely absurd that this application be given any serious consideration!

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

    Robynne hayward commented

    Has the council got a policy on this type of development, i.e. new buildings that are out of character with the neighbouring houses? I think haberfield council has one ... On the other hand, Melbourne is a good example of how to integrate different styles into a suburb in an interesting and stylish way- but in Sydney it's more likely to be a cheaply built and architecturally bland or ugly block overshadowing the original houses.

  24. In North Sydney NSW on “Change of use to hostel,...” at 31 West Street North Sydney NSW 2060:

    Amanda Laura Smith commented

    Please advise what type of hostel this will be ? And , how many people will be residing there ?

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

    Hugh reilly commented

    Again we object to a two storey dwelling on our street,
    No other two storey houses on this street and it would not fit in with the heritage of the street .

  26. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Graham Richardson commented

    Objection to the DA for a 150 person Child Care Centre
    We appeal to our councillors in regard to this application. It is inappropriate to place any childcare centre in this lane-way for many reasons.
    * This is a lane-way & is named as such. This means it is narrow. It also has no pedestrian pathway on either side of the road because of the narrowness of the space. Consequently there are issues regarding parking on the street for, trades & delivery vehicle to ingress & egress &, in particular, access for utilities such as refuse, recycling, street sweeping, communication, power & water services.
    * There is an over 50's apartment block next door which would be heavily impacted by the noise & activity around a busy amenity such as this child care centre. Residents would be impacted by comings & goings all day from early morning through to the night - at least 12 hours every week day.
    * Being a lane-way, there are safety issues along the whole lane with residents exiting their driveways. Many have to reverse out as it stands & so there is a serious safety issue in substantially increasing the traffic volume on a daily basis.
    * Although there will be off street parking provided on the site, it is impractical to think that this will be adequate to deal with the volume of drop off & pick up activity - there will simply not be enough spaces to cope, given that these spaces will be shared with staff & services traffic. Particularly at peak times, morning & afternoon/night. Many parents/caregivers will need to, or prefer to, park at the street level, which will necessitate blocking the lane way, causing frustration & inevitable altercations & accidents.
    * Safety; a key concern is the safety of children & adults. This large installation will bring many people into danger with the risk of injury, fatality & damage to property because of the congestion & high volume of traffic & noise in a confined environment.
    * The corner at Pentecost is a very dangerous traffic spot for turning vehicles in & out of the lane. Many vehicles currently run a gauntlet getting in & out of the intersection. Charlton is not much better. So the volume of traffic generated by this proposal will inevitably be the cause of harm to life & property. Please note that there is a blind spot with a crest in the road as well as another blind spot in turning into Merrivale Lane from Bukra.
    * We suggest that this is an inappropriate position for a child care centre in any event & we sincerely hope that our councillors take this into account. It is well known that, once the child care centre is developed, the operators will be able to apply for more spaces, increasing the capacity to more than the proposed 150. This would magnify the issue manifold.
    Please do not approve this DA under any circumstances. We ask that each councillor refer to their stance when asking to represent their constituents. We are not against child care centres, but this sets a precedent in installing such an intrusive installation right in the heart of a residential environment, which is nevertheless inappropriate for such an amenity.
    Thank you

  27. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Joseph Natoli commented


    I strongly object to the above application for development approval for the establishment of a 150 place child care centre at 117 and 119-121 Merrivale Lane.

    I refer to the Ku-ring-gai council Traffic and Transport plan 2011-2021 issued by Ku-ring-gai Council in September 2011 located at this link:

    This report identifies specifically the intersection of Pentecost Ave and Merrivale Rd (assumption of Merrivale Lane as a part of this intersection) as a Ranked Site for Traffic Management Works. (ranked 30 on page 15 resulting in 5 accidents over 2005-2009 and with a percentage score of 57%)

    My argument here is that if the council has previously deemed this specific intersection as a site for further traffic management with current traffic flow. It would be irresponsible for council to decide to approve a develompent to increase the traffic flow at that intersection having already identified it as a problem area. Not only that, they would be in direct contradition to previous assesment of this intersection if they deem it safe.

    This report also identifes Pentecost Avenue as a Collector road approaching Regional road in its function in the Councils road hierarchy on page 7. The independant traffic report done by Varga traffic planning attached to the DA states "Merrivale Lane, Buckra Street and Pentecost Avenue are local, unclassified roads which are primarily used to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to frontage properties." The judgement of the Varga Traffic Planing report on this intersection in this report is flawed in respect to perception of the road heirachy of Pentecost Avenue and therefore so are the results.

    My view is aligned with many of the local residents view that Merrivale Lane (and in concequence Buckra Street and the intersection of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost avenue) are not designed for such increased traffic flow that a development of this scale would demand. The lack of footpaths; The blind corner; crest in the road at the junction via Buckra; the narrow width (7.3meters) of the Lane, the impact if there is a build up of cars turning left onto Pentecost from either Merrivale Lane or Buckra Street; the inability to do a 3 point turn without the use of residents driveways; There are 3 such centres within 1 km of the proposed site; The Location does not comply with Councils Development Control Plan DCP57/3.1 Chapter Objectives/Preferred Locations for Child Care Centres; are all valid points of concern and not easily rectified considering proximity of house frontages to the Lane itself. Not only would it directly impact the safety of the residents of the local community it would also cause greater inconvienience to those using Pentecost Avenue in a regional road capacity thus causing build up of traffic through the adjoining roads (Bobbin Head Rd, Eastern Road, Mona Vale Rd). Council has already proven their concern about this intersection in the past and hence would be inplicated greatly if an accident or fatality were to occur because of negligence of these issues. Surely common sense would prevail in deniying this application. I encourage council to not approve DA0413/15

    Joseph Natoli

  28. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Janine Haefeli commented

    Dear Ku ring gai councillors,

    It is a sad day for the people on Merrivsle Lane and surrounding streets as this little area will take so much strain and be put into gridlock every day with at least 700 additional vehicle trips a day, mostly concentrated into peak periods in the morning and evening.

    Local Flora, Fauna and the Environment will be greatly impacted.

    • The massive scale of the proposal, 150 kids and across 4000M2. This is not designed for the immediate community, but to draw from a far wider area.
    • The site in a narrow suburban lane. There is not enough room for cars to pass each other in opposing directions when there is a vehicle parked on the kerb.
    • There are no footpaths near the proposed development, putting pedestrian traffic at risk.
    • The very dangerous intersection at the corner of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Avenue.
    • The close proximity of a “Red bushfire zone” only a few house blocks.

    I hope that council takes these remarks into consideration and does not chase the dollar.

    Thank you
    Janine Harfeli

  29. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    steve fantham commented

    although I recognise the need for more childcare facilities in the area. This location would create a dangerous and reckless extra traffic load on what is already a very dangerous area. I have lived and driven in the area for 16 years I use Tryon road every day. Friday evening rugby training for the juniors means an overload of out of area vehicles parking both sides of the road. Only 24 months ago a child road traffic victim had to be airlifted by care flight to Westmead hospital. The accident occurred within 150 metres of this location. Other evenings with older age groups training also add to the traffic load. Buses use this road every day. The location of this proposed facility needs to be reviewed.

  30. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Alex Guo commented

    I have a little daughter and am also looking for child care services. However knowing this area well enough I will definitely not send my precious little one to this proposed child care. The small house, with its compact back yard which is surrounded by other houses on 3 sides, with dogs and other garden noises so obvious, is simply a very bad place to turn into a child care centre. This area is NOT that desperate to have yet another childcare centre.
    When I walked my other children to the school in the morning, I have seen many times how close it is that the reversing vehicles from this house to hit the passing by cars on the busy Tryon Road. Small children are constantly warned about the danger whenever they need to walk pass the driveway of this house. There is clearly an accident waiting to happen. Making this place a centre for 36 children is irresponsible on safety to the locals.
    I don't oppose facility that benefits the community. However it needs to be appropriately planned and does not create more problem than it resolves. For those who support this application, I just want to say, we all need to be considerate to others don't we?

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