Recent comments

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

    Kim Steel commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

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

    Many Thanks,

    Kim Steel

    (m) 0411112825

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

    Kelly Davis commented

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Merrilyn Whitecross commented

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

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

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

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

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

    Joan Helliker commented

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

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

    Edward & Roslyn Chapman commented

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

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

    Ruth Webster commented

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

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

    Trevor Mawer commented

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

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

    Janice Menzies commented

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

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

    Carmen Booyens commented

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

    C. Booyens

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

    Bernard G Howard commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    This application goes against the existing 400m rule for these planned sewerage works. There are too many houses in close proximity for this application to be accepted.

    Also, approx 1000 school children have to pass 60 Avondale Rd. each day to attend school at 119 Avondale Road.

    Johnston Property Developments can build on their own land way up on the other side of the old airport where there are no existing houses!

    PLEASE reject this application!


    Bernard G Howard

  12. In Darlington NSW on “Use of the garage and rear...” at 290 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    michelle camilleri commented

    they should just buy a factory and do this. Theres no need for it in a residential area. coffee roasters give of smoke and odour. This da seems very unprofessional go and buy a factory.
    this will be a nuisance for the local area.

  13. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    James commented

    Definitely needs more parking and is getting on the large size for the area, a more reasonable size development needs to be considered.

  14. In Dundas NSW on “Demolition, tree removal &...” at 77 Kissing Point Road Dundas NSW 2117:

    Stephen commented

    This property is too close to Dundas Public School and constructing town house on this section would be totally out of character for the surrounding area.Also this property is on a notorious accident spot for Kissing.Pt.Rd due to the speed,drop in the road and the school facing right onto Kissing Pt.Rd.

  15. In Alexandria NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 11 Henderson Road Alexandria NSW 2015:

    Justin ONeill commented

    A new apartment complex with 24 units and only 7 car spaces in an area where parking is already extremely difficult beggars belief. And 5 stories in this location will dwarf other buildings and fly in the face of heritage planning. This development should not go ahead without common sense consideration to heritage and parking factors.

  16. In Melbourne VIC on “Construction of a four (4)...” at 964 - 966 Burke Road Deepdene VIC 3103:

    John Ellis commented

    Hi Guys, So far there has been four new multi appartment developements
    in the last few years some still being built within 600m of the corner of
    Burke and Whitehorse roads. Traffic congestion occurs in to morning
    until 9-10am and in the afternoon from 3.30 - 6.30. This is made worse by
    deepdene primary school on Abercrombie street and the Catholic school one
    block down from Whitehorse and Burke. Child pickups times for parents. The Abercrombie /burke road development, which is situated close to one
    of the primary schools, will only add to this mess. Because access to Burke
    road will be limited by the current traffic jams, frustrated drivers will
    speed off down the mum & child crowded back streets. So abundant Safety issues
    will become a problem. Another butt-ugly multi storey development such
    as the three in Whitehorse Rd and the one on the corner of Whitehorse and
    Burke are enough to lower the tone on the neighbourhood - do we really need
    another? There are plenty of existing units withing 200 meters of the intersection
    do we now need another multi storey appartment buildings? Please stop
    this if you can. John Deepdene

  17. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Jacqueline Ann Whalley commented

    Dear Sir

    I have only been recently made aware of the proposal of the 95 new dwellings. At this stage I am still going through the paperwork concerned. I am the owner of 25 Buchanan St, the property is leased. I understand that the sewerage of the new dwellings is going to be connected via our property, with our permission being sought. If this is the case, at this stage I am advising you I do not give the council permission to do so. I would like be contacted by your office as soon as possible. As I do not live there and can only go by the concerns of the residents that do, I see there are many issues that need to be addressed.

    As per usual developers are squeezing in as many dwellings as possible in an area that the infrastucture may not be able to handle. It is well known that councils make mistakes (we all do) in planning and cause major issues down the track. It is much cheaper to amend during the planning stage than later.

    I will be in contact with our tenant and neighbors to discuss the above issues. Hoping to hear from your offices soon.


    Jacki Whalley

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

    Jonpaul DeAngelis commented

    I believe the application in its current form should NOT be approved.

    It's incredible to think that such a significant development within the area, in such a prominant location, has it's most important issue of traffic management, safety and access already "per-determined" by Council. Mayor jodie Harrison's confirmation of Council advice to the Developer, to use Kopa St as the ONLY point of entry is fundamentally wrong.

    Under what basis has this been determined LMCC ? What is the impact of this on the nearby streets, Kopa St, Turrug St, Lonus Ave, Tumpoa St, Warren Rd, Dudley Rd ? What is the impact on the local, schools, shops, parks, medical centre, Ferleigh track ? Why is Council not fully considering these impacts on our community ?

    When an unfortunate accident occurs due to the requirement by Council to use Kopa St, then who will be to blame ? What impact will this development have on the existing traffic on Warren Rd ? Why is Council not insisting on entry from Dudley Rd, a much safer option, with the correct upgrades ?

    Accessing the development via Dudley Rd via an upgrade to accommodate the significant traffic volumes is the only solution. It would set the framework for a "good" development, not "guarantee" it's failure.

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

    Ardel & Rodney Prout commented

    I do not agree with this subdivision going ahead in its present state.
    The houses are all crammed in with no yard space. Where is the Australian
    dream? There's no green space to make this an attractive village. If
    the houses were lower density, with garages, lawns and back yards, it would
    make it a more affable and attractive place to live. Another problem
    is the lack of parking space at Whitebridge Shopping Centre. It is already
    impossible to get a park most days and with all the extra people living next
    to the Centre, and no extra parking in the estate, and only one entrance in
    an out, the congestion caused in Lonus Avenue, especially at school times,
    will cause frustration and accidents. There is also the problem of
    fire hazard. If there was a fire in one dwelling, it could easily spread
    and with only one access to the properties it could be disastrous. I have lived in the area for 35 years, and over that time the extra traffic
    on Dudley Road has increased as it is used as a through road from the Redhead/Belmont
    area. It is sometimes quite a wait to get onto the road from the Dudley
    side streets. With this in mind, the extra traffic from the roundabout at
    Warran Road, Dudley Road and Bulls Garden Road will be horrendous. There should also be a wide green belt around the Fernleigh Track. This is
    supposed to be for walkers and bicycle riders and be a pleasant experience
    for all. I certainly hope there is a lot more sensible thought put
    into this project before it goes ahead.

  20. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Lorne Hyde commented

    It is unfortunate we cannot see the actual application - my understanding is that this is not a wholesale facility but a home office. I see no problem with that. Maybe the planning authority can clarify this issue rather then have it misrepresented.

    I support the application.

  21. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Dorothy White, Graham Brierley, & Gwen Stirrup commented

    To Whom It May Concern, I would like to object to the planned street
    which enters on to Buchanan Street from the planned development. Buchanan
    Street is too narrow as it is, without another street entering on to it.
    I fear it will make exiting our homes almost impossible, and could cause
    someone to be badly injured. The amount of traffic this development will
    incur will make it difficult for free flow of traffic due to any cars parked
    on either side of the road. Buchanan street is too narrow. (Have you ever
    driven down this street). Also considering we have poor water pressure
    now, what will happen when another 96 houses are added to the supply, also
    where will the excess water go if there is heavy rain, will we end up flooded
    by excess run off, as the streets have flooded before. With the increase
    of children in the area with the new development there will be a considerable
    amount of traffic which could put their lives in danger with such a narrow
    street. We do NOT want another street entering on to Buchanan Street. I hope you will consider these important points as to making this development
    a safer place for us all.

  22. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    James Davies commented

    i disagree with this business in this location,
    this is a child friendly area with 2 schools, churches and numerous parks.
    i do not believe a residential street is the appropriate place to be advertising or marketing liquor
    commercial locations for commercial businesses, especially things we don't need our young children being exposed to on our own front doors,
    i don't think young adults or teenagers need to see this either, they may think "home grown" alcohol is a great idea, and this can lead to disaster.

  23. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Mel commented

    Please do not approve this application. This is a residential street right next to two schools and one established place of worship. Producing, marketing and or running an alcohol business from this residence has safety and social problem implications in this location. It is promoting alcohol too close to schools and impressionable children and conflicts with the place of worship. Select a suitable commercial location for office, manufacturing, producing, promoting of alcohol.

  24. In Tempe NSW on “Willie the Boatman -...” at 7 Edwin St, Tempe 2044:

    Patrick McInerney commented

    There will be no alcohol physically produced or sold at this licensed address. It is merely a home office for email, internet and account management. All Alcohol Produced by Willie the Boatman will be done via contract with St Peters Brewery 15 May Street St Peters. All Alcohol will be kept at St Peters Brewery under Bond of the Tax Department until sold to retail and/or hotels with the appropriate liquor license. Willie the Boatman has no intention or permission by any authority to produce alcohol or physically sell alcohol at 7 Edwin Street.

  25. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    Michael Arthur commented

    ON: LOT 743 ON EP1456
    APPLICATION NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096

    Dear Sir,
    In accordance with my objection I just emailed today 9.12.13. I would like to highlight some impacts the new main intersection on Banfield Drive will have, that the traffic report has not identified and taken into consideration finding a solution for.

    1. The new intersection will stop Banfield Drive residents from being able to turn right directly into their premises. They will be using the Galway Court intersection to do a U TURN to access their premises. This is now encouraging more traffic to use the Galway intersection. I feel a NO U TURN PERMITTED sign will be needed at this intersection, as it would certainly impact the safety of pedestrian and bus users as there is a pedestrian crossing and bus stop here.

    2. Galway Court will need a (CHR(s)) to improve it's intersection safety and improve traffic flow. The traffic report is providing one for Hedley Court to reduce the risk of rear-end collisions (quote from page 19 of traffic report). Why is this not imperative at Galway Court considering there is a bus stop and pedestrian crossing?

    3. In the hand sketched drawing submitted to council in correspondence, it clearly shows the proposed new parks blocking the pedestrian refuge . I don't find this safe. No cars are ever parked here as there is no reason for them to have to be. Eliminating parking from the western side will be forcing these parks to be used. If cars are parked here pedestrians will have to be standing very close to the road waiting for a clear run of traffic to get to the pedestrian refuge. If a car is waiting to turn right into Galway Court, there is high risk of that a pedestrian will get hit, as traffic is blocked, due to no turning lane.

    I find it neglectful the traffic report overlooked all these traffic impacts there affects on pedestrian/cyclist/ motorist and bus user safety. It surely makes sense the developer would want the bus stop and pedestrian refuge to become obsolete. If this were to occur I find it deceitful and misleading the public. It also raises questions to where will they replace the pedestrian crossing to? and will it adversely make it harder for pedestrians and children trying to get to school safely. The public should be able to comment on this.

  26. In Mount Louisa QLD on “Lot Creation - One (1) into...” at 2 Karanya Street Mount Louisa QLD 4814:

    MICHAEL ARTHUR commented

    NO; MI13/0042 & RC13/0096 Dear Sir, I find the traffic report
    inconclusive of what is actually required to make the new main entrance intersection
    of Banfield Drive operate in a safe and functional manner. With the
    traffic report failing to directly investigate the Galway Court/ Banfield
    Drive bus stop intersection. They have therefore, not had to highlight the
    many traffic implications associated with it, and furthermore, not had to
    justify it's practicality in terms of operating safely. The two comments
    made in the traffic report on (page 26) 8-4-1 and mentioned again in
    8-4-2, regarding Practically of Proposed Intersection Upgrade support this. The comment reads "In terms of positioning the proposed CHR(s) on Banfield
    Drive, the bus stop and pedestrian crossing refuge on Banfield Drive requires
    consideration" Does this mean the developer wants to remove the Galway
    Court Bus Stop and Pedestrian Refuge Island? This leads me to believe
    the developers intention is to make the Galway Court bus stop obsolete, so
    the practicality of the new intersection can be implemented. When the
    council approached UDP Consulting Engineers in correspondence dated 10 October,
    2013. The council required further information in regards to Road Design,
    which was: "The applicant must confirm that the proposed intersection upgrades
    will not adversely impact on the existing bicycle and pedestrian routes along
    Banfield Lane and that the location of the entrance road to the site from
    Banfield Lane will not impact on existing bus stops". The engineers
    have assured council in correspondence dated 24th October, 2013 that "The
    existing bus stops would not be impacted by the location of the access to
    the site by Banfield Drive" and "everything will be addressed in further
    detail during the detailed design stage" With the traffic analyst
    carrying out no direct investigations around this bus stop intersection, but
    has in fact stated twice it needs further consideration. I am unsure how this
    reply is supported. I feel the traffic report has not disclosed their
    full intentions to public yet regarding Banfield Drive. I feel it is of the
    public's right to be provided with a traffic report that clearly states all
    changes needed to make this new intersection operate in a safe manner for
    motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. I hereby ask the Karanya
    Street application to be not approved until the public can be assured of full
    details, and have the opportunity to further comment on. I, with other
    community members would appreciate a group meeting to talk with you, to discuss
    the many shortcomings the Galway Court and Banfield Drive intersection has.
    As this intersection has not been directly addressed in the traffic report,
    I feel it's imperative it gets addressed. I look forward to hearing
    from you.

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

    Monique Grace commented

    This development needs to be rethought out to suit the area and the community. Issues with the high impact of the extra housing in a small area which increases usages on all infrastructure including traffic and other amenities. This land was purchased from the original home owners to be used for a bypass and should never have been rezoned to accommodate a development such as this.

    Access to Fernleigh Track from the Lonus Avenue side will become a safety issue with all the extra traffic entering and exiting Kopa Street. This is how my family currently access the track to ride or walk along this corridor which we have enjoyed since before it was paved and constructed.

    I hope the council takes into account the community concerns about this development as the traffic along Dudley Road continues to increase with the additional medium housing boom happening in the area.

    The parking near and around the shops will become an increasingly urgent safety aspect with more people using the space. Already the bus stop and pedestrian crossing limits visibility for drivers and safe crossing of Dudley Road.

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

    Andrew Morgan commented

    Firstly I appreciate the need for mixed development, not everyone needs a 700 m2 block with a 4 brm house. The block lends itself to medium density housing. What has been proposed here is way too many dwellings on one parcel of land with one entry & exit point. The development is totally out of character with the remainder of the suburb and should be reviewed to include open space / parkland.

    other issues.

    1. Parking - prior to the fence going up most of the employees of the shops parked on the grass behind the barrier leaving the car park for customers. This system worked well. Now there are extra shops going in and less parking. This will force cars out onto Dudley road and surrounding side streets. This is a major safety issue as none of these streets were designed for this level of parking. There is a huge amount of school children pedestrian traffic around the area and the extra parking will create hazards for pedestrians which will be only a matter of time before an incident occurrs. As a minimum the should be no dwellings or shops south of the current shop front line and the developer should make all this land through to the train line car parking.

    2. Traffic in Kopa st / Lonus Ave - the only exit & entry will be through Kopa st. I suggest council send someone up when school is busy (not december) and see what the traffic is like at the end of Lonus ave. This is without a few hundred extra car movements. The exit point is near a day care facility with toddlers, the extra traffic will lead to frustration and drivers will take risks to get out into the traffic flow around 2-4 year old children. Not good enough !! They need to re-think where the access comes from as the current streets are already overloaded in peak time.

    3. Loss of open space - the development does not include any open space. It will resemble a ghetto and the character of the area will degrade accordingly. Council and the developers have the opportunity to make a really positive impact on the community if they get the balance right. At present it seems to be trying to fit as many dwellings as possible onto a block with out consideration of the character of the surrounds.

    I think the council needs to send a message to the developer to have another think and really consider the views of the residents. This is a huge loss of open space to our community and should be managed in a responsible way to benefit all.

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

    Rhyss Hamilton commented

    This development is a JOKE, another farcical money grab by GREEDY fat cats.

    Don't let them get away with it in our area, this DA should not be approved.

    Balance. Harmony. Sustainability.

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

    Laurie Mascord commented

    I am very concerned about 'the Whitebridge of the future' if this development takes place in its proposed form.

    I am worried about SAFETY as I have two small children who I walk to and from preschool by crossing the Fernleigh Track and walking along Kopa Street AND Lonus Ave.

    I am worried about the negative change in the TONE/MOOD/CULTURE of Whitebridge which will occur once a development like that is placed right in its centre, or heart.

    I am worried about the AESTHETICS of the area, once an eye-sore like that exists which looks like a slum and does not fit harmoniously with the existing environment.

    I am worried about the TRAFFIC CONGESTION which is inappropriate for the small, suburban roads of Whitebridge.

    This development is unjust for a suburb where people are just living peacefully, raising their kids and trying to enjoy life.


    Whitebridge would welcome a FAIR, JUST AND APPROPRIATE development.

    There is a'mutually beneficial' way.

    Please help save our suburb.

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