Recent comments

  1. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Kate Etherington commented

    In accord with those who have left comments above, I do not support this development.

    Having additional child care facilities in the neighbourhood would surely be welcome, but the choice of location is more than questionable.

  2. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    kattie bish commented

    Firstly I can not understand the need for another day care center when there are already 2 in such close proximity and one of those right next door.

    Most importantly the traffic congestion in the area in the school drop off times is absolutly at capacity at it is right now. It is so dangerous and I often find that I have to do a risky pull out in front of traffic just to get up or down gymea bay road. How many more accidents need to happen for council to realise this.

    I have only found out about this application by word of mouth and am very dissapointed that council havnt made the effort to inform the residents of gymea bay of the DA considering that gymea bay road is the main passage in and out of our homes and getting through that area during school drop off/pick up times already adds 15minutes or so to your trip.

    Has the public school also been informed of the plans to increase traffic congestion? Im sure that every single person who has children at the school would also oppose the go ahead for more traffic.

    I hope the council see sense and not allow this to go ahead I cant see any benifit to it what so ever.

  3. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Justin Heazlewood commented

    I dont support the approval of this application at the proposed location.

    I do support the spirit of competition and opportunity, but I think that council needs to carefully consider the logistic needs involved in this application.

    1. Traffic and parking in this area is a problem. Gymea bay road is extremely busy and i would argue - already at a safety threshold for the volume of traffic that is focussed in this area
    2. The difficulty in managing noise in a way that is "to be realistically expected" for an early childhood centre yet not disruptive to a neighbouring facility offering the same services - or to residents in the neighbouring properties.

    As a general comment - I also consider it unnecassary to have an early childhood centre virtually right next door to another. The awkwardness of the arrangement could easily have negative effects on the daily working experience of staff at both Bay Road Kindy and the proposed service.

    I would propose that it's specifically the proximity of the application to an existing well established service provider that makes the proposed application at this site to be unsuitable.

  4. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Ruth Eaton commented

    I do not think this application should be approved.

    The development of a child care centre directly next to an existing child care centre would create severe safety issues. Given that Gymea Bay Public School is 100 metres away, traffic around the area is already congested especially at school pick-up/drop-off times. The development of another child care centre at this spot would generate even more traffic congestion and increase the likelihood of a serious accident.

    Bay Road Kindy has offered a wonderful community service for many years now and works closely with neighbours to ensure an harmonious environment for residents as well as students. To put another child care centre right next door would create noise issues for the residents and would no doubt end up in restrictions for outdoor play for our children.

    There is just no need to another child care centre this close to Bay Road Kindy and Gymea Public School. There are several options for child care in this area already.

    Thank you.

  5. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Hayley Pankhania commented

    I cannot believe that this application has even been submitted and now considered.

    The traffic and pressure on the area, that a new daycare right next door to an existing one, will cause havoc and make peoples life in the community stressful. As well as being dangerous for the foot traffic for loads of young kids walking to school.

    Not only that, Bay Road Kindy has been part of the community for over 20yrs! There are already several childcare center's located within that immediate area. There is no need for another to be located next door to an existing center.

  6. In Morisset Park NSW on “Mixed Used Development...” at 71 Trinity Point Drive, Morisset Park NSW 2264:

    Ann-Maree Mabbutt commented

    Firstly, I ask the question why Mr Johnson needs to be so greedy, after gaining approval on a perfectly workable plan approved for Trinity Point some five (5) years ago, but now is asking to add another 100 villas and a 60 room hotel in addition to the 188 berth marina, and a heliport (give me strength).

    As a Bonnells Bay resident, I am writing to you to strongly oppose the newly submitted Berth Marina being proposed for the Morisset peninsular, with the many extra berths and dwellings. I have many reasons why I would contest the validity of this Marina on this peninsular, but my main concerns are as follow:

    Lack of Peninsular Infrastructure -

    One of my major concerns is the lack of infrastructure and dangerous roads currently leading not only onto the Peninsular but also to this Marina area. There is currently one road in and out of this peninsular, which is tremendously inadequate as it stands, without a large marina being built in the vicinity.

    These are simply suburban streets you are now proposing to have to deal with this increased traffic load. I would find it hard to believe that the developer would be concerned in relation to building an appropriate AND SAFE infrastructure to manage traffic in and out from the major connecting roads.

    Helipad -

    Public transport into and out of the Morisset area, both rail and bus services, is also unsatisfactory for the ever increasing peninsular population, hence why the developer is obviously again proposing a heliport as stated “A helipad provides additional accessibility to the site increasing its attractiveness within the Tourism market.”

    I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THIS HELIPAD – Why should all of the suburbs on the Morisset peninsula and surrounding suburbs have to endure the noisiest of aircraft (being the helicopter) coming over their heads at all hours of the day. I do not want to hear how this will only be used minimally – as a resident who moved from aircraft noise in the past, I know once a heliport is built, we the residents will have to suffer, not the greedy Mr Johnson.

    I love the Lake Macquarie area, but I am very much against the ludicrous growth of this suburban area (Trinity Point) without proper infrastructure to accommodate such a major marina development and as a resident also having to endure helicopters over my home.

    Regards
    Ann-Maree Mabbutt

  7. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and PSW...” at 46 Dunmore Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    Rodney Patrick (Paddy) Boxall commented

    The tiny trickle is now becoming a flood. TRC's ill-informed and hasty decision to allow the units in Joffre Street have encouraged developers with no other object than to line their pockets to the detriment of our once beautiful heritage type suburb is going to increase exponetionally
    There is an election next year. If I was a Councillor,I would be trying to gain the support of the residents who have developments thrust upon them, not get them off-side by their ill-considered and mealy-mouthed actions.

  8. In Alexandria NSW on “Serbian Orthodox Church...” at Church Hall Renwick St, Alexandria 2015:

    Jamieson Cramer commented

    This is ludicrous - why does a 'place of worship' need a liquor licence at all ? Serving alcohol EVERY Sunday for 3 hours is more a social and celebratary occasion, not a religious occasion and how could you call this 'limited' - the schedule is for 47 regular functions.

    One doesn't go to the pub to worship God, so why go to church to drink alcohol ?

    The licence application should be disallowed on simple moral grounds. Alcohol and religion don't mix and it will only bring more undesirable anti-social religious alcoholics to the neighborhood.

  9. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Syd Bower commented

    I would support the construction of an Aldi Store at Hallett Cove. It would provide an alternative shopping experience (low cost home brands) to the existing retail shopping mix in this area.

  10. In Alexandria NSW on “Serbian Orthodox Church...” at Church Hall Renwick St, Alexandria 2015:

    Brett Randall commented

    I oppose this application. A church hall in a quiet residential area is not the appropriate location for three hours of liquor service every Sunday afternoon. There are an number of nearby hotels and licenced premises more appropriate for that.

  11. In Carrum VIC on “Develop The Land For The...” at 1 6 8 Valetta Street, Carrum, VIC:

    Sharon Grace commented

    Will create more parking problems to an already problem parking in this street

  12. In Blaxland NSW on “A medical centre” at 2 - 6 View Street, Blaxland, NSW:

    Alyson Mack commented

    As a resident of View Street I am worried about the extra traffic and car parking that goes along with a new medical centre. This space at the moment is dirt and a few trees, but it is used for parking for:
    1. IGA and other shops in the arcade plus the Tavern
    2. Post Office
    3. Paint shop, second hand shop
    4. Dentists
    Where would all these vehicles park when this space is a medical centre? There is hardly any kerb parking on View Street. On Hope Street there is limited kerb parking but if you lived here you would know how dangerous it is going past IGA carpark when vehicles parked along the kerb block the vision of patrons coming in and out of IGA.
    The intersection of View Street with the highway is very dangerous and has no middle island to half cross the street. I have seen a child hit by a car coming very fast around the corner from the highway trying to beat on-coming traffic. I have also had my own close calls trying to keep an eye on who is coming from the highway and from what direction because they are both dangerous. With the medical centre there would be more foot traffic, especially with older people and this intersection needs attention.
    Also on this street there are turning bays so residents can turn because of the middle being divided, but these bays are blocked by people parking after the no-parking sign now.
    Would you please do more research on this area before consent is given for this development especially regarding the safety issues I have raised. Thank you

  13. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 727 New Canterbury Road Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Paul Amendolia commented

    Please consider the heritage street scape. Keep the front facade and do whatever behind it. Don't demolish part of a historical facade.

  14. In Alexandria NSW on “Serbian Orthodox Church...” at Church Hall Renwick St, Alexandria 2015:

    Mary and James Folderson commented

    To the NSW Office of Liquor,

    We kindly ask to either:

    A: reject this application due to the following reasons:
    1: the church is located in a quiet, peaceful residential area and whenever there are functions with alcohol serving, our quiet and peaceful neighborhood turns into an acoustic nightmare as drunk people on the street dont respect our neighborhood and scream, litter (broken glass, cigarette buds etc)
    2: parking is very limited and functions clearly impact our parking situation as we dont find parking spaces anymore although we pay for this priviledge.

    B: accept this application under the following circumstances:
    1: functions with alcohol serving can only be held inside the church, attending people need to stay inside when consuming.
    2: parking for attending people needs to be facilitated via public parking spaces.
    3: church staff is responsible for cleaning the streets afterwards in case there are cigarette buds, broken glass, empty bottles etc.

    Many thanks for your consideration,

    Mary and James

  15. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 11 Mayston Street Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    H duncan commented

    Stephen, why not just ring the council? It isn't this sites responsibility to provide the documents or links.

  16. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    lisa dann commented

    yes
    Aldi is VERY welcome at hallett cove!!

  17. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Construction of buildings...” at 11 Mayston Street Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Steven Harper commented

    How can residents evaluate this application?!

    It appears no documents supporting the application are available for viewing on the Online Planning Register site. Pls point to the location where design documents submitted by the developer can be viewed and downloaded. Thank you.

  18. In Maroubra NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 54 Marine Parade Maroubra NSW 2035:

    K Sheppard commented

    I'm hearing rumours that this application has been approved, yet I've not received a response on my letter against this development. Please can you provide the tenants with notification , as none , not even a letter to advise it's been sold, has ever been sent. They are still paying rent to the same account so how can this even be settled.
    Thank you,
    (A tenant)

  19. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Karlee Payne commented

    I do not think this application should be approved, as the traffic on Gymea Bay road is already extremely heavy during school drop off and pick up time. Creating a new centre in the same vicinity will cause major havoc. I have personally seen several accidents right outside this area already just in the last year. I do not want to add more pressure to this area. There is no need for another Child care service as there are already many in the area. (Including right next door). The kindy next door has been there for over 20 years and has been respectful of the neighbours by controlling noise. Adding more noise will restrict the children's opportunity to play outside.

  20. In Moonee Beach NSW on “Preferred Project Report -...” at 0 Pacific Highway Moonee Beach NSW 2450:

    Thea Eves commented

    Dear Sir

    Would you kindly let me know on which side of Pacific Highway the proposed subdivision is situated.

    Thank you.

    Thea Eves

  21. In Hallett Cove SA on “Construction of an ALDI...” at Ramrod Av Hallett Cove:

    Diane commented

    would create more employment for the area

  22. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Susan Keane commented

    The traffic is bad enough during peak school time. I live at 202 and currently have to travel towards the bay before heading towards Gymea as I cannot get out of my driveway. When returning home down avenel I currently turn left and turn round at the round about for fear of having an accident (have experienced that already).
    There is a already operational day care centres either side of the school along Gymea bay road
    People already illegally park in avenel road (over the foot path at 90 degree angle).
    The high volume of children going to and from school with the added traffic entering driveways is a concern

  23. In Eagleby QLD on “1 into 33 lots” at 23 Schmidt Road Eagleby QLD 4207:

    Phillip Cleveland commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    How many more units is the council going to allow in the Eagleby area? I purchased my property in Eagleby in 2009 and due to the amount of new properties developed in the area, I have lost, currently, $70-80K on my purchase price - according to a bank valuation performed in Jul 14.

    Development needs to slow to allow current developments to be completed and tenanted before starting any more. Why would someone want a 15 year of unit at my purchase price of $253K when they can buy a brand new one at $278K or worse still have them tenanted under the (old title) Housing Commission.

    A development was completed in Eagleby Road and on the plan they were to be sold at $339K but by the time they were built they were being sold at $278K. What chance does the ordinary citizen who bought their property to stay in, or even worse those who bought for an investment, expected to get their dollar back. It won't get any better whilst council is approving more and more developments.

    Sincerely

  24. In Norwood TAS on “Residential - multiple...” at 19 Eldonhurst Drive Newstead TAS 7250:

    Selwyn & Judy Johnston commented

    My one concern is that this area is already inundated with too many unit developments which does nothing to add to the ameniety of the area. This subdivision had the opportunity of being a very good one with quite a lot of quality houses being built but units are not an asset and the extra traffic and itinerant nature of a lot of tenants is often not condusive to a settled and attractive suburb. Selwyn Johnston, owner of 23 Eldonhurst Drive, 63944442.

  25. In Alexandria NSW on “Serbian Orthodox Church...” at Church Hall Renwick St, Alexandria 2015:

    Michael Knapp commented

    The church sits on a quiet suburban street, and typical of inner-south suburbs, parking is at a premium.

    This application should be rejected for the following reasons:

    1. The church has no off-street parking. Whenever the church has a function, local residents are forced to park many streets away from their houses.
    2. Allowing them to serve liquor will result in them increasing the number of functions they currently hold.
    3. People attending functions are often loud, disrespectful of local residents, breaking glass in the street and carrying on in an obnoxious manner.
    4. Already the church serves alcohol so allowing them to serve even more alcohol will increase what is really unacceptable behaviour

    I am not against any group being allowed to serve liquor, but not in the middle of a quiet residential area. Allowing a liquor licence will greatly exacerbate what is already undesirable behaviour and an unacceptable intrusion into the lives of people living nearby.

    For all the above reasons, and on the basis it simply flies in the face of what is reasonable and fair, this application must be rejected

  26. In Alexandria NSW on “Serbian Orthodox Church...” at Church Hall Renwick St, Alexandria 2015:

    Dimity Cara Moore commented

    To whom it may concern,
    This is totally inappropriate for a quiet residential street. Already there is inadequate parking for the visitors to the church, causing great inconvenience for the residents. There is also a consistent pattern from this church of loud drunken behaviour on the street, as well as littering with cigarette butts and broken liquor bottles.
    Please do not authorise this additional licensing request.
    Yours faithfully
    Dimity Moore
    (0419) 295 355

  27. In Eltham VIC on “Development of land for 10...” at 31 Dudley Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Julie Naploitano commented

    what is going on we just seem to be over developing this very special suburb that is Eltham the thing that makes Eltham special is this space and the bush feel like you are in the country but you are not once we have overdeveloped it will be too late and the special character that is Eltham will be gone forever

  28. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Renee Afonso commented

    This development causes some serious safety concerns especially the increased traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours, drop off and pick up times. This will result in safety issues, particularly in relation to pedestrians and school children walking to and from school and who may need to use the crossing on Avenal Road.

    The added noise due to larger groups of children is also of concern.

    There are already several childcare center's located within that immediate area. There is no need for another to be located next door to an existing center.

  29. In Gymea Bay NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 203 Gymea Bay Rd Gymea Bay 2227:

    Ben Wood commented

    I do not think this application should be approved for the following reasons:

    1 This DA site is directly next door to a current early childhood centre (Bay Road Kindy) which has been in operation for 20+ years.
    2 Traffic congestion around the intersection of Avenel Road and Gymea Bay Road during the morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up times is already quite bad
    3 Current traffic congestion is dangerous enough already for children from Gymea Bay Public School as well as Bay Road Kindy and other kids walking and riding to St Catherine's Gymea.
    4 Parking on Gymea Bay Road, in front of Bay Road Kindy and the new DA site is very tight. The footpath is directly adjacent to the roadway in this area which can be dangerous for pedestrians.
    5 It is dangerous getting kindy age kids in and out of cars on Gymea Bay Road in morning and afternoon peak.
    6 Parking on the eastern side of Gymea Bay Road and crossing over to Bay Road Kindy, The new DA site or Gymea Bay Public School is dangerous at the current traffic and parked car volumes.
    7 Extra parking for a childcare centre for an extra 45 children per day will add that many vehicle movements each morning and afternoon during the already busy peak periods.
    8 Some parents for the current school and childcare centre already park in the 90 degree parking against the playing fields in Avenel Road and walk across the crossing on Avenel Road.
    9 - The crossing on Avenel is already dangerous in my opinion due to people trying to scoot around between traffic as the turn from the southbound lane of Gymea Bay Road. They rush around and then have to stop suddenly for someone crossing.
    10 - Assuming the new centre will have on site parking and at least 1 driveway this is more traffic crossing the footpaths causing danger to pedestrians who are mainly children going to school.
    11 - Traffic is often banked back with traffic attempting to turn from Avenel Road south onto Gymea Bay Road. Same with cars attempting the turn from southbound lane of Gymea Bay Road into west bound Avenel Road. I have seen many people take risks in order to just get around these corners.

  30. In Rooty Hill NSW on “Dual occupancy - 2nd...” at 12 Eleanor Crescent Rooty Hill 2766, NSW:

    Katherine LeRoy commented

    I would like to raise concerns over the Dual Occupancy Development Application – DA 14-2168 at 12 Eleanor Crescent Rooty Hill NSW 2766 and the lack of proposed parking outlined in the submission.

    The application to covert the existing garage into a 1 bedroom granny flat, the plans that accompanied the submission do not show any off street parking for the new granny flat as well as the existing dwelling (3-bedroom house).

    According to Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006 – Development in Residential zones – Part C - Section 4 – Parking proposed parking plans are to be included at the time the plans are submitted, which they have not.

    Also it states “At least one accessible sealed off-street car parking space shall be provided on the site for each dwelling where the dwelling is 1 or 2 bedrooms and at least two accessible sealed off-street car parking spaces shall be provided on the site for each dwelling where the dwelling is 3 or more bedrooms’. The minimum 3 required parking spaces have not been provided for in the plans, and to the specifications as outlined in the Blacktown Development Control Plan 2006.

    12 Eleanor Crescent is located at the apex of cul-de-sac with little off street parking in front of the property and the street is already congested. The extra dwellings will potentially adding an extra 4 vehicles to be parked in the street.
    Also, new tenants have moved into the existing dwelling and own a Semi Trailer – parking the prime mover either on the street in the apex of the cul-de-sac or in the driveway but parked over the foot path, adding to the congestion and also restricting access to the current driveway for other vehicles as well as neighbouring driveways when parked in the street.

    Can the plans be resubmitted with the proposed parking allocation to comply with the Development Control Plan 2006.

    Kind Regards
    Katie

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