Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “To remove existing...” at 76 Edinburgh Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Aiden Macreadie commented

    Is it possible to receive a clarification of what a 'high tech space' is and what will be contained in the 5 story building.

  2. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Eloys commented

    Please no to the extra storeys! It will overshadow more homes and public area. It will take away from visual amenity of the local area. It exceeds guidelines for height restrictions and there is a good reason for that. It will bring more cars to the area. The proposed parking strategy in the area does not include 2 hour parking in nearby street Hawken St which is where I live. All the cars will just be pushed to our street and where we will residents be able to park? Now this extra storey means even more cars. Please if you let this go through increase you area for timed parking (2 hour) based on the fact there will be even more cars in the local streets. It is hard enough trying to park the car here with the traffic from the local school and the teo ones that have been subdivided for rental. We have seen 8 extra permanent cars in this street just based on one subdivision. It's ludicrous to propose that Hawken St does not require any metered parking.

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

    Karina Currington commented

    Dear General Manager,
    RE : DA 1774/2013

    As my previous submissions against this project have stated, I am personally concerned as my family resides in one of the 11 properties adjoining this development. So I feel I am entitled to express my objection to the former and current proposals.

    I have been trying to keep up to date with the referrals and responses from various other government departments in relation to this project, but one thing I still cannot understand, which has been addressed by other concerned citizens in the past, is why the details on this Application Tracking site still lists the owner as Roads and Maritime Services. If this is so, then please explain if Roads and Maritime Services are footing the bill for this seemingly endless paperwork shuffle that has now been going nigh on one and a half years. And if the owner is not Roads and Maritime, then why has this not been corrected before now? It is quite misleading and fraudulent towards residents when they attempt to submit an objection without knowing who to direct their criticism towards.

    Secondly, I cannot understand why the current amended proposal has actually increased in dwelling numbers and height. Wasn't that what was objected to by LMCC, Mine Subsidence, etc in the first place? And if not, why not? The residents of Whitebridge expressed their concerns about 87 dwellings on such a small area of land and in response the developers kindly went back to the drawing board and increased the number to 92 with a height increase to boot. Now, if this is not deliberately antagonising the community, I'm not sure what would be. I cannot fathom why a project of this scale is even being considered when SNL are quite capable of building quality projects such as the one currently at Burton Rd, Eleebana which would have been a perfect development for this site, and could have been well underway by now, creating jobs and avoiding all this unnecessary tension.

    My former submissions with reasons opposing this development in its current form still stand, and hopefully all will be taken into consideration when choosing to reject or approve this DA.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Karina Currington

  4. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Sue commented

    As a local resident I think this development is way too large and not at all in keeping with the surrounding residential area.
    2 further stories is just too much. The over-shadowing, over crowding & traffic resulting from this DA update is unacceptable to local residents & should also be unacceptable to Council.

    The guidelines are in place for a reason - and this development is already clearly in breach of them. Please don't let it get even more out of hand.

  5. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    liz paddison commented

    There is too much traffic on Alice, King sets and Edgeware road already. Local streets cannot cope with more residents

  6. In Priestdale QLD on “House (Build Outside...” at 833-857 Underwood Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Neil Maxwell commented

    The application should have lapsed as there has been no compliance of the conditions of the approval within the time framers of the approval

    2. COMPLIANCE TIMING
    2.1. Comply with all conditions of this development approval at no cost to Council and prior to the commencement of the use unless otherwise stated in a specific condition.
    2.2. No clearing is to be undertaken until the rehabilitation of the existing building envelope has occurred.

    VEGETATION REPLANTING & REHABILITATION
    24.5. Revegetate, within 3 months of this approval taking effect, the entire existing cleared building pad including all batters and disturbed areas with a randomly distributed and representative mixture (minimum of 12 different species) of large and medium trees native to the area and selected from the approved revegetation species list attached as Appendix A, unless otherwise approved in writing by Council.

    iF ANY CLEARING OF ANY FURTHER LAND IS NOTED A QUICK CALL TO COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson Hotel - Liquor...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Joe commented

    **this is not a submission, it is an explanatory note**

    David

    That is not a "blank page", but the ILGA application noticeboard search form.
    All you need to do is use a search term to find that specific liquor licence transfer application, like "The Henson Hotel" or if you're interested in your area, the suburb or postcode to find out about more.

    Melissa Brooks has done this for you, a volunteer, courteously helping you.

    Because each gov website is built differently, it is not possible to link to each piece of information, and when gov sites get updated (one or more new or updated gov site launches each week!) the method to dig the data out changes. Expecting PlanningAlerts, a voluntary site working hard to bring your community closer to you, to do all the hard lifting is a bit unfair. They are a few volunteers and could use your help, not complaints.

    As I said before, it is designed as an "alert" system, not a completely integrated government approach. Once the state and fed government agencies consolidate how data is stored and queried, sites like this will be able to provide you with more details directly, but until then, it's up to you to take active, not passive, responsibility in your role in the democratic process and petition your MPs to prioritise that consolidation of data.

  8. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson Hotel - Liquor...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Melissa Brooks commented

    **this is not a submission, it is an explanatory note**

    Joe is right, this is a free, not for profit site that scrapes information and provides alerts. The reason it's not better info is because governments make it so hard to extra and share information about these applications easily.

    If you search the address at the OLGR site, it takes you here: http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/liquor_applications/docs/1-3081252203-Notice.pdf

    It looks to me like this is an application to change the licensee at the same premises.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson Hotel - Liquor...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    David Baird commented

    And clicking the Link "read more" results in a blank page.

    Was this the intention?

    http://www.ilga.nsw.gov.au/liquor/application-noticeboard

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

    Lynden Jacobi commented

    To the General Manager,
    I have been a resident of Whitebridge since 1984 and lived in the area & attended Whitebridge High School in the 70s. I have watched it change and grow. It has always been a vibrant and welcoming community.
    When the grassed open land between Kopa Street & Dudley road was first fenced off I became concerned about what was happening to our suburb. I wrote a submission to council, went to meetings and met with SNL. I was hopeful when I heard that there was an amended plan submitted. What a shock to see that the developers had not improved the plan in any way and have neglected to address most of the problems found by the Whitebridge Community Alliance, concerned residents & Lake Macquarie City Council in their first development application in 2013.
    Building Design
    The original plan proposed 87 dwellings with some up to 3 stories high. This amended plan is proposing 91 with some up to 5 stories high! How does this change address the issue that the development is an over development and not suited to this area? The LEP seems to imply that around 50 residences would be the appropriate number for a block this size. This will be almost double that.
    The density of this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and the height of the proposed buildings along Dudley Road are 3 metres higher than the maximum allowed by LMCC guidelines. The building SNL propose to build next to the existing bottle shop will be more than double its height.
    The whole development will be overwhelming and imposing and even SNL acknowledges in its Visual Impact Statement “there are four viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as severe”. There are way too many dwellings and not enough outdoor space. The density proposed is not consistent with Lake Macquarie Council’s future plans for the area.
    There is a lack of integration of this development with the existing neighbourhood. It is known that developments which are well designed and fit in and enhance community amenity allow the new residents to integrate more readily with the existing community. The suggestion by the developer for methods to discourage Whitebridge locals from walking through this area will cause a feeling of segregation and “us & them” mentality.
    The physical layout and building structures have not been planned with an eye to how they would influence patterns of social interaction and increase the possibilities for informal social control (discouraging vandalism etc). There should be clear fields of vision to observe public spaces from individual units. It is important to provide space and opportunities for tenants and existing local residents to meet both for formal and informal activities.

    Public Amenity
    This project has no connection to the existing community.
    Providing public amenities (or not) affects perceptions of projects long after they are complete. Projects that provide amenities that are available to the public and not just to residents of the project, show evidence of earning acceptance from neighbours.
    This development is designed to be quite separate from the existing Whitebridge community. There are no features such as neighbourhood pathways or parks and the few mature trees which were to be preserved in the original DA are now to be cut down to allow for a road extension!
    Whitebridge residents are already upset about being denied access to the footpath that linked the eastern side of the suburb to the shops & public transport. This space has been used for many decades for recreational activities as well. The loss of our neighbourhood open space will have a negative impact on our children & adults. Surely a bit of common ground for existing & new residents is necessary in any new development. Including a park that can be enjoyed by the whole neighbourhood could help gaining higher acceptance by the whole community.
    Increased Traffic
    As far as I can tell none of the traffic and safety concerns have been addressed. If anything there will be more traffic movements than the original development suggested. At the moment the traffic along Dudley Road to the south of Lonus Avenue is often backed up past Station Street on school mornings & afternoons. The data on the original proposed development indicated an increase of around 340 car movements each day on Lonus Avenue. As it is there are residents of Lonus Avenue and the streets around there who park out on Dudley Road and walk home because it is so congested.
    Having the two entries at one end onto Kopa Street leaves only one route in and out on a road fronted by single-family houses with no footpaths.
    Increased traffic will make it more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists & drivers. This area is home to a children’s park, pre-school, family daycare, church, tennis courts, shops & school. It is a high pedestrian/cycle zone with lots of elderly & children on or near the roads.
    The situation with parking near the Whitebridge shops will only get worse. It is dangerous as is and the addition of the new over-sized multi-use buildings and parking for those still lessens the current parking area used by the existing shops.
    Environmental Impacts
    The Fernleigh track and the narrow green corridor along it are absolutely essential to the health of a degraded environment. We live in a suburb with many wild animals including squirrel gliders, brushtail possums, ringtail possums, bandicoots, echidnas and fruit bats. There are numerous species of lizards including water dragons, land mullets, blue-tongues and eastern water skinks. Frogs including Perrons tree frog, Green tree frog, Eastern Swamp Frog, Striped Marsh Frog can be heard calling and the birds range from rosellas (eastern & rainbow), lorikeets & black cockatoos to forest owls, pardalotes, fairy wrens and brush turkeys. These animals are under pressure from loss of habitat already and the green corridor that connects Glenrock State Recreation area and the Awabakal Nature Reserve is vitally important.
    The amended DA proposes the road reserve and footpath encroach on this area by up to 6.3m! It also proposes to use the already narrow green corridor for storm water basins and swales!
    The road, footpath & the stormwater management facilities should all be built within the residential zone and not in the Conservation Zone.
    Thanks you

    Lynden Jacobi | Artree Creations
    lyndenjacobi@gmail.com
    PO Box 743 Charlestown NSW 2290
    T: +61 407 766 389

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson Hotel - Liquor...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Joe Ortenzi commented

    If you follow the link, Craig Brown, titled: "Read more information" you will get all the information available on the matter, directly from the source.

    As I understand it, the free, voluntary and non-profit PlanningAlerts site collates information from various gov sources, and gives you links directly to each source, making it easier for you to be more involved in your community, and to direct your understanding and opinion more easily.

    It doesn't do all the work of interpreting and analysing the original resources for you and, to butcher an established metaphor, leads you to the water, but can't drink for you.

    If you would like the quality of the information to change, you'll ned to petition the source, in this case Marrickville Council, and not the messenger, a team of dedicated and hard-working volunteers providing you with this free service.

    If you feel you'd like to improve the service, they have a link for you to "get involved", rather than complaining from your armchair.

    :D

    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/getinvolved

  12. In Priestdale QLD on “House (Build Outside...” at 833-857 Underwood Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Edna and Dennis Parsons commented

    We have been watching the ongoing flouting of council planning approvals on Lot 36.
    Original building envelope with its truck loads of illegal fill from Rochedale major fire ant area to alarming heights. Banana trees planted to start planned orchard? All still there despite council directions to remove.
    Then this new MCU application. Does the applicant intend to achieve a subdivision by stealth by clearing new building envelopes until all natural vegetation gone.
    .
    Something John Ganis failed to do in the past. I note his remaining Lot 35 sold Sept 2014. Interesting that is now up for sale via Ray Whites Calamvale. Concerning it is being advertised as "two acres available to build on"

    We thought this area was building envelope 2000 sq metres!,

    This shows us that the same vigilance that was shown in 2004 against the John Ganis led sub division plans and the subsequent later extensive church plans is still needed.

    Time for council to enforce the directions given as time restrictions have been ignored yet once again.

  13. In Priestdale QLD on “House (Build Outside...” at 833-857 Underwood Road Priestdale QLD 4127:

    Edna and Dennis Parsons commented

    We have been watching the ongoing flouting of council planning approvals on Lot 36.
    Original building envelope with its truck loads of illegal fill from Rochedale major fire ant area to alarming heights. Banana trees planted to start planned orchard? All still there despite council directions to remove.
    Then this new MCU application. Does the applicant intend to achieve a subdivision by stealth by clearing new building envelopes until all natural vegetation gone.
    .
    Something John Ganis failed to do in the past. I note his remaining Lot 35 sold Sept 2014. Interesting that is now up for sale via Ray Whites Calamvale. Concerning it is being advertised as "two acres available to build on"

    We thought this area was building envelope 2000 sq metres!,

    This shows us that the same vigilance that was shown in 2004 against the John Ganis led sub division plans and the subsequent later extensive church plans is still needed.

    Time for council to enforce the directions given as time restrictions have been ignored yet once again.

  14. In Leichhardt NSW on “To use Leichhardt Town Hall...” at Leichhardt Town Hall and Car Park 107 Norton Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Karen Eldridge commented

    What a great idea. The Council should arrange for more similar activities.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “The Henson Hotel - Liquor...” at 91 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville 2204:

    Craig Brown commented

    I am pretty sick of the limited information presented here for me to respond to, what's the point?
    "The Henson Hotel - Liquor license transfer"
    What does this mean?
    Are the transferring a liquor license to the Henson Hotel?
    or taking one away?

    If it's to take a license away then I object, that hotel is in a great location and now there are wonderful little food joints popping up all around it, plus it serves all the crowds from a very popular sports park, the Henson Park.

    Please include more information in this and future plans if you have an expectation of people making reasonable comments based on the information that you supply.

  16. In Maianbar NSW on “Construction of a Secondary...” at 48 Pacific Cres Maianbar 2230:

    Simone commented

    This is a test, please ensure it gets to R White. R when you get this plz forward to me. Simone

  17. In Lara VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 2-4 Patullos Road, Lara 3212, VIC:

    Jenny Thomas commented

    I object to this application on the basis of location and population density of the area.

    Lara has more bottle shops / outlets than grocery stores and the ratio will worsen if this application is approved. Local governments are responsible for managing 'alcohol outlet density,' and to approve this license in addition to the overwhelming amount of packaged liquor licenses in this town would prove irresponsible.

    Limits for packaged liquor outlets must be set by our local government. That this hasn't occurred already is evident by this application.

    Similarly, the location chosen by the applicant is unsuitable, within minutes walking distance to a local park, the local swimming pool and primary school. The precise location is constantly frequented by children and teenagers who move between these locations and the Milk Bar, central among these recreation areas - and precisely where the liquor outlet is proposed. It would be negligent for local government to ignore the specifics of the proposed location given the demographic that this area provides for.

    Social factors are a major concern, as evidence provides clear links between alcohol outlet density to 'alcohol-related harms including assault, domestic violence and health issues' (Livingston 2008). Approving this outlet in its intended location places a threat to the welfare and wellbeing of the locals in the area, and to the township in general. Please refer to the statistics to see that we have more than enough alcohol outlets in Lara.

    Livingston, M 2008. A Longitudinal Analysis of Alcohol Outlet Density and Assault. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(6), pp. 1074-1079.

  18. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out alterations...” at 36 Alice Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    amanda galvin-deboo commented

    I object to the latest DA adjustment proposal because it makes the development far too large for the area. The systematic incremental DA additions have seen the originally DA approved by the Sydney East joint regional planning increase by 15.81% for units and 11.89% for car spaces. At that time it was noted that the development was (25.9%) above Marrickville councils floor space ratio (FSR), these increases would now make it well over 30% above the councils FSR. The new DA adjustment will also see the height increased to 25 meters that is 3 meters above the LEP. This proposed DA adjustment is far too large and breaches major guidelines.

  19. In Leichhardt NSW on “To use Leichhardt Town Hall...” at Leichhardt Town Hall and Car Park 107 Norton Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Karen Eldridge commented

    What a great idea. The Council should arrange for more similar activities.

  20. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Mark Johnson commented

    Hi Craig,

    Have a look at the office of gaming and liquor site:

    http://www.ilga.nsw.gov.au/liquor/application-noticeboard?collection=ilga-lan&query=Hurlstone&meta_P=&meta_L=&meta_t=&meta_T=&meta_Z=&dp_from=&dp_to=&scd_from=&scd_to=

    It shows the three applications to move Grumpys licences to Campsie. Do the current owners really intend to put another hotel back on this site while they are applying to move its licences?

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

    Lianne Blanch commented

    I do not think that a large multi-storey development is appropriate for this area. My children attend Whitebridge High School, and the traffic congestion in the area of the development is already very heavy at peak times, as has been mentioned in previous comments. There needs to be more planning at an infrastructure level otherwise this area will become too congested to properly function.

    There needs to be more parking for the existing shopping centre.

    This site would be ideal for an ecologically sensitive 'green' model development of low-rise medium density housing. Lake Macquarie Council should take leadership in encouraging best practice green development incorporating solar energy, grey-water recycling and low-toxic material use.

  22. In Lara VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 2-4 Patullos Road, Lara 3212, VIC:

    Fides Kapteina commented

    The proposed site has high exposure to school children as they use this thoroughfare to from the Lara Lake Primary School and to from the Lara Swimming Pool for school buses. They may attribute that alcohol is cool due to its location.There is also excessive availability for packaged liquor in the Lara township. The following outlets Coles Liquorland, Safeway BWS, Premix King and Lara Hotel's Thirsty Camel are within 2 kms of the proposed site. The proposed site will be the fifth within the same radius. There is no lack of premises where one could purchase a drink as the Lara Sporting Club and the Lara Hotel offer these. In addition, there are also licensed restaurants in town.

  23. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Craig Brown commented

    "the owners have put in an application to move the liquor licence to a new site in Campsie"

    Where did you read that?

    I used to live in this area, not many pubs around at all, but an abundance of apartments, I wouldn't want to live on a main arterial road in an apartment when some of Sydney's cheapest apartments are found in this area in quieter streets.

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

    Kelly Davis commented

    To the General Manager, in regards to the Whitebridge development.

    I am a Whitebridge resident and strongly disagree with the current DA .
    If someone did a survey of local opinion I am quite sure over 90% of people would oppose this development .

    It is basically SNL being greedy. Dont forget that a certain Mining magnate accused of giving a bribe to a (former) liberal member of charlestown is funding this project.
    Its Interesting how the proposal for this development was first put forward when the Liberal Government took over from the Labour party in NSW.
    A project this big could only be taken and approved by state government.

    Iam sorry but this simply reeks of corruption and greed , the people of Newcastle are growing tired of this. Where is the truth? Where is the transparency ? What do the local people want?

    If SNL were serious in pleasing Whitebridge, than the first thing they would do is go back to the drawing board and maybe half the number of dwellings. That would be a good place to start.

  25. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Dwelling House” at 42 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    rodney p boxall commented

    From secondhand information, I believe that the developer wishes to create a dwelling sympathetic to the area. I trust he does carry out this plan.
    As for the proposal further down the street, strident complaints should be made if it is anything other than sympathetic to the entire heritage ambiance of our section of East Toowoomba

  26. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Mark Johnson commented

    This is an interesting DA as the owners have put in an application to move the liquor licence to a new site in Campsie. Slim Dusty sang of a pub with no beer, who shall have the rights to a hotel with no booze?

    This venue is an icon of the area. Do we simply want to bulldoze over this all in the name of progress too? I have been to cities that destroyed their heritage for modern apartments and buildings. How can we stop this happening in Sydney?

    And right on the cnr of New Canterbury Rd and Duntroon Sts, Speedway development down the road, the proposed Caltex site, across the other side of New Canterbury Rd, where will it end? As requested previously, residents need to see from council environmental and other studies factoring in ALL proposed sites along that stretch of New Canterbury Rd. Now council have another site to consider.....will they add this in their big picture study. Or just consider it in isolation?

  27. In Maitland NSW on “The Pourhouse - Liquor...” at 327 High St, Maitland 2320:

    Patrick Cochrane commented

    Great location and very much needed boutique beverage option for inner city Maitland. Attracts a professional crowd and also provides a welcome option for smart/casual personal affairs.

  28. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 140 Pentecost Avenue, Turramurra, NSW:

    Ron Eagle commented

    Demolition should not be approved without a detailed heritage report on the property's history and significance both architecturally and its part in the evolution of the suburb.

    Ideally, the building and its wonderfully landscaped grounds should not be lost future generations.

    If it is not already protected by planning instruments, there should be a rigorous review as to how it and other deserving cases may have escaped the protection they deserve.

    Council has a difficult decision to make, but I think it is clear that the ratepayers interests would be best served by rejecting this application.

    Perhaps there are other ways of providing seniors accommodation without actually demolishing the main building.

  29. In Marrickville NSW on “To fit-out and use the...” at 337 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Jayson Tracey commented

    I wholeheartedly support this development application.Marrickville needs more night life ...

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

    Elon Alva commented

    In reference to DA/1774/2013

    The amended plans still do not address the issue of traffic congestion, no added infrastructure for the area, insufficient parking spaces in the area, safety concerns, lack of community support for this application, Even the studies (probably paid for by the developer and not truly independent) show the negative impact for the area.

    Please DO NOT grant this application.

    Thanks,
    Elon Alva

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