Recent comments

  1. In Wantirna VIC on “2 Double Storey Dwellings” at 14 Juniper Road, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Kathy commented

    I agree.

    Although it is inevitable that many of the older larger blocks will be subdivided, there needs to be some thought given to individual areas.

    There is only one way in and out of this estate!

    Knox Council is gaining extra revenue from the new houses yet very little money seems to be spent in this part of Knox.

  2. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Belinda king commented

    The Hawkesbury is soaked in Heritage and a building like this will not fit into the area. There has been requests to demolish the Jolly Frog but that has been unsuccessful as it is "heritage" our bridge has been at a standstill for years as it is "heritage" so shy can a building be allowed that just does not fit in. There are many places of worship in the Hawkesbury but the fit the area in their construction. This site has a very old grave yard nearby what will happen to that? Councillors you live or have lived in the area we all know it is expanding at a rapid rate infrastructure needs to be in place before we open our LITTLE town to something that will possibly bring in 100s of people each week. If only 125 people are going to use this place of Worship the building does not need to be so huge. Our local school hall holds more than 300 students and it is the size of a small house. I really feel more research and preparation needs to be done prior to allowing this to go ahead.
    Thank you
    Belinda King
    Wilberforce

  3. In Coburg North VIC on “Buildings and works to the...” at 98 Gaffney Street, Coburg North VIC 3058:

    Michael Guest commented

    The reason I consider it necessary to reject the application is because it fails to take into account the inadequacy of parking that will occur. I am concerned that the reduction of parking spaces will cause financial detriment to the small businesses/traders located close by, in which case they will suffer. I, myself, am located next-door. Visitors, clients and shoppers may opt to shop elsewhere as soon as areas begin getting closed off in order to renovate.
    There are many spaces at the Bunnings precinct, however it's a long way to walk when customers are picking up, or being assisted with, their heavy/awkward/fragile purchases, which my business almost solely relies on.
    Parking issues could also become a concern for residents and other traders in the area, since there will be more people in the form of visitors,workers, clients, shoppers and traders wanting to park, than there are spaces available. Currently, there is already a limited number of parking spaces prioritised for use by these people. In fact, even though each business has their own designated car spaces they are almost always ignored, in which case they turn into a 'free for all'.
    Compounding these problems is the fact that some bulky deliveries need to be made to my premises and , more often than not, they need to present at the rear entrance and not the front entrance, which is for customers to enter into a shop, where they can freely browse without enduring any annoying and possibly lengthy interruptions, or perhaps even having to clear the way in case of any danger to themselves. This 'danger' may also result in damage to my own merchandise/property. I hope you can understand why I believe that any of these issues will have an unacceptable impact on my business/property.
    Therefore, the deciding factor for my complaint is PARKING, which, I feel will adversely affect my business in some way or another.

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

    Jason Hepple commented

    I hereby resubmit my prior submissions. The public is not being heard, experts are not being heard and now the JRPP is not being heard. This DA should not be approved.

    It is almost unfathomable that this development has been allowed to progress to the point of assessment by the JRPP, considering its lack of adherence to council guidelines, the inability of local infrastructure to support a development of this size and its disharmony with the surrounding suburb.
    The site was originally intended for 40-50 dwellings (even less considering the original calculation included land on the other side of Kopa Street). To suggest 92 dwellings demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the developer of Whitebridge being a Neighbourhood Centre, underneath Town Centre and Regional Centre on the LMCC hierarchy.
    Further to this, 4 storeys, or even 3, does not reflect LMCC’s guidelines for development within a Neighbourhood Centre.
    Traffic safety of schoolchildren and other pedestrians will be compromised by this development. It will lead to an intensive and unsafe increase in traffic on roads that are already functioning over-capacity. The area is a thoroughfare for people accessing local beaches and it is also home to a high school, preschool and long daycare centre. It is unsafe and irresponsible to compromise the safety of people by squeezing 92 dwellings into the centre of the suburb where they will be required to use the already busy roads that service schools in the area.
    If this development goes ahead in its current form, there is a very high chance that similar developments will spring up along the land once reserved for the East Charlestown Bypass. This will inevitably and irreversibly change the entire character of these coastal suburbs in a negative manner.
    The proposed development of this site is opportunistic and detrimental to the long-standing community. Urban consolidation must be approached in a well-planned, sensible manner with an eye to quality, happy communities for the future. This proposed development does not fit this description.

    Regards

    Jason Hepple

  5. In North Bondi NSW on “Paradise Road Diner Bondi -...” at Shop 7 296 Campbell Pde, North Bondi 2026:

    joel best commented

    This should approved. Great addition for north bondi

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

    Luke Searles commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I object to DA 1772/2013 and ask that the JRPP reject this over development.

    This development does not integrate with the surrounding land and does not meet the community concerns.

    This land was rezoned with little consultation with the community and as SNL’s spokesman stated it is now being used as a ‘testing ground’ for future developments. It is far too dense and too high for this area. It does not demonstrate any understanding of the local traffic problems, social awareness of what this would do to a village community, or concern for the environment in which it will be built.

    The high density in this small area will create a myriad of problems including higher crime rates, traffic congestion, pressure on amenities, pedestrian safety issues, to list just a few. It will look synonymous to a ghetto. Whitebridge is a small, quiet suburb which boasts a friendly community atmosphere and a thriving environmental landscape, both would be jeopardised by this development.

    The appropriate density zoning could still be achieved with far fewer units.

    The development exceeds the height limits of the area and will create a visual eyesore to the existing shops and residences.

    Whitebridge does not have the road systems, parking or infrastructure to cope with this many new cars to Dudley Road, Lonus Avenue, local shops and nearby streets.

    The development is poorly designed with the obvious inference is that this development has been planned to maximise profits through high density and low quality.

    To SNL, I understand as developers you need to make money off property, but don't make the community suffer because you over paid for the site.

    The JRPP need to reject this overdevelopment.

  7. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Vicki Lewis commented

    I don't believe our current infrastructure could possibly support this planned building. The roads can't cope with the population we have..
    The Hawkesbury is a famous Australian historic town which attracts many visitors for this reason ... I believe a mosque will damage the image of the our beautiful historic town

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

    Kristen Hepple commented

    I resubmit my previous submission and would like to add the following. The concerns of the community and fauna experts have been ignored. The JRPP has been ignored. Concerns about how this type of development in this type of suburb will have negative implications, now and in the future, are real and demand respect.

    There has been no real alterations by the developers in line with either council regulations/policies or community consultation. This development is inappropriate for the area - the developer is making a profit grab at the cost of the surrounding community, it's environment and traditional way of life. Why should this developer be allowed to 'fly in the face' of council and the community for his own gain? This is an inappropriate use of the land - it must be significantly down sized or there will be road chaos in the streets all over whitebridge.

    Kristen Hepple

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

    Renae Conroy commented

    I am incensed and frustrated by the developer’s lack of compliance with the conditions of approval as determined by the JRPP on 23rd July of this year. These conditions represented minimal change to the DA, and even to this, the developer was unwilling to comply. This lack of willingness to respond to other parties has been an ongoing theme during the process so far.
    I hereby resubmit all my previous submissions, objecting to this development application.

    Traffic and safety remain paramount in the minds of residents, students and their families.
    Discordance with of the style of this development with its current surroundings will divide a community which currently enjoys a harmonious existence.
    4-storeys along Dudley Rd will provide an eyesore for motorists passing through on their way to Redhead and Dudley beaches, as well as detract from the lovely atmosphere of the shopping district.
    The environment corridor is in risk of being used as a public pathway, which is not what the community intended to happen when they asked for permeability through the site.
    Users of the Fernleigh Track may be disappointed with their experience once reaching this middle-point, due to the buildings being so close to the track.
    Storm water provisions appear inadequate and could also impact the Fernleigh Track.
    There exists more land in Whitebridge which will be used in a higher-density fashion in the future, given the new zoning. This should be taken into account.
    This is a great opportunity to show how urban consolidation can be achieved in the right way. Make a good example of Whitebridge. Don't allow Whitebridge to become an example of a lesson to be learnt.

    Renae Conroy

  10. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Gary commented

    Council grabbing more money???

    So many houses being built at Pitt Town, and now an major religious Center on the same route.

    Come on Hawksbury, common sense must prevail....!!?

  11. In Wantirna VIC on “2 Double Storey Dwellings” at 14 Juniper Road, Wantirna VIC 3152:

    Connie Zundel commented

    So much for Knox Council declaring this patch of area being named in their forward planning as "Garden Area"

    With all the applications being made and approved in this area with only one entrance/exit point, our rates are not being used wisely, and in times of crisis will be dangerous..

    It is a disgrace that such a nice area is being ruined by developmental creed by both the Council and developers.

    Soon Knox the liveable City will become Knox the Congested Streets!

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

    Nicole Gintings commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    As a local resident I would like to express my objection to the proposed development in Whitebridge DA-1772-2013.

    SNL have continued to ignore community concerns and have continued to flout regulations and the JRPP recommendations.

    I do not object to the development of this vacant land, however I believe this is an over-development and does not integrate with the existing surrounds, as per Lake Macquarie City Council's Lifestyle 2030 strategy. I understand that this document is not a concrete set of rules, but it was developed for this area and has been referenced by both SNL and LMCC, so we must assume that the vision of integration within this strategy is to be upheld.

    After examining the amended proposal for this development I must state my objection and ask that the JRPP reject this application.

    I object for the following specific reasons;
    *The density is far too high for this area. I understand the zoning status (which the residents were not adequately informed of when this land was rezoned), however this level of density will create a wealth of problems to the area. The density could be easily reduced whilst still remaining ‘medium density’. I believe most objections would be void if the density was reduced to a reasonable level.

    *The height of the buildings continues to exceed the height limits of the area. There is an obvious solution, adhere to the height limits.

    * The traffic and parking congestion will be pushed to a dangerous level with the addition of 89 new dwellings all exiting onto Lonus Avenue, with preschools, day cares, high school, sporting fields, childrens' park, etc. along the same 'dead-end' road. There have already been accidents involving children and many close calls and as my children will be walking to and attending Whitebridge highschool this is a major concern for me. The lack of adequate and efficient public transport ensures that most of these dwellings will be adding an additional 2 or 3 cars to the neighbourhood.

    * The aesthetics of this development do not in any way integrate with the surrounding environment. There are no 3 storey wall to wall dwellings in the area and it will create a concrete eyesore. This design is far more suited to an inner city area rather than a suburban village. The units should be a MAXIMUM of 2 storey and have less dwellings attached along a single wall, to attempt to create some harmony with its village and natural surrounds.

    *This development is poorly designed. The buildings that were recently changed do not ‘step down’ adequately to the buildings behind them. It is a visual and design eyesore.

    * There is an obvious lack of green space in this development, aside from the mandatory (minimum) nature corridor along the Fernleigh Track. Again this creates total disharmony with the existing surrounds, raises concerns about storm water runoff, creates a massive power usage using air conditioners to compensate the masses of concrete and clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, and once again creates a visual eyesore.

    * The ‘conservation zone’ is being used for a multitude of purposes that do not fall within the realms of conservation.

    * The community space, including childrens’ park, is so small in comparison to the development that it is insignificant. This needs to be rectified.
    SNL have stated that this development is a ‘testing ground’ for future large scale developments. We should not be accepting this low standard. I ask that the JRPP reject this proposal.

    Thank you,
    Nicole Gintings

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

    Becky Beveridge commented

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I am writing to state my objections to the proposed Whitebridge development DA 1774/2013. Community objections continue to be valid, despite the (trivial) changes that have been made.

    I am disappointed that the recommendations set out by the JRPP have been blatantly disregarded and it once again exhibits the arrogance of SNL. Community objections about the area in which they live and experience daily have been disregarded by both the developer and, sadly, by the LMCC.

    It became clear at the JRPP meeting that the councilors who voted for this land to be rezoned did not foresee the ramifications of this and were in fact under a false belief about the density that would be built. Residents were NOT properly informed about this rezoning and what the implications of this were. We should not have to wear the mistakes of those responsible for this.

    I would first like to point out that I am not ‘anti-development’ and if this development had been appropriate to the area in both size and design I would not be voicing an objection.

    I am a resident of Whitebridge and will be a direct neighbour of this development. The following outlines my primary concerns,
    1. Density
    This is an over development of a suburban lot within a neighbourhood centre. I believe that most of my concerns, and indeed probably most of the concerns of those who are objecting, would be alleviated by a development of a lower density. High density living is suited to inner city or regional centres where there are the amenities to cope with a population of this size in such a small area.

    This design does not integrate with the existing surrounds, neither natural nor man-made, as the Lake Macquarie City Council’s Lifestyle 2030 strategy states developments should. I understand that this development is being called ‘medium density’ however that appears to be pushing on technicalities, as I doubt a reasonable mind would consider something of this size in a neighbourhood centre to be medium density. It has been designed with little or no regard for the area in which it is to be built.

    The height of this development exceeds the Lake Macquarie City Council’s height limits. I am disheartened that it seems council rules and regulations become ‘guidelines’ or ‘grey areas’ for large developments. I understand the development has been lowered in height after the JRPP meeting, however it is still exceeding the height limits for this area.

    The surrounding residences are houses or townhouses of a maximum height of 2 storeys. They are mixed lots that provide a visual and aesthetic break from monotonous buildings. There is quite a bit of in-fill development in Whitebridge, consisting entirely of townhouses, however for the most part these have integrated into the surrounds and have attracted little or no attention or objection from the community. This proposal would do no such thing as such an obvious change in building height, density and appearance will be an obvious and disastrous addition to this beautiful village.

    Whitebridge is known for its bush surrounds, an environmentally friendly area that hosts a number of beautiful and well regarded areas that Lake Macquarie Council should be proud of and seek to preserve the integrity of, such as the Fernleigh track, Glenrock reserve, Dudley beach, etc. Residents from all over Lake Macquarie and Newcastle visit this area as it is a naturally beautiful, highly regarded environment that caters for such a wide range of the population. This development will detract from these community assets in every possible way.

    2. Traffic and congestion
    Pedestrian safety has been a major issue in an increasingly busy area. As it is currently Whitebridge village has limited parking, congestion times are growing and there is limited solutions once a large population has moved in to the area. With the influx of cars from a development of this size the traffic and pedestrian congestion will be moved to dangerous levels.

    My daughter attends preschool on Tumpoa Street, to get there we have to walk up Lonus Avenue and cross Kopa Street. As I am walking with a pram (for my son) and my 3 year old daughter we can sometimes be waiting quite some time for a safe time to cross the road. The high school, day care, preschool, tennis courts, childrens’ park and sporting fields are all accessed by this Avenue. As I often walk this area I have witnessed, on a regular basis, near misses of pedestrians and car accidents. Now this is with the current traffic along Lonus Avenue and with only a few houses down Kopa Street. Once an additional 200 cars are entering and exiting onto this street, I cannot imagine how dangerous this area will be.

    The public transport in Whitebridge is minimal. My husband and I, and everyone I know in the area, would be unable to compute to work via public transport alone, due to the lack of frequency or destinations. It is impossible to believe that an influx of 91 residences, could even remotely rely on public transport, which means that an influx of 200+ cars is inevitable. I really cannot fathom how this suburb would cope. MAJOR works would need to be undertaken to even begin to address the traffic and pedestrian safety issues this development would raise. LMCC state that most residents of this new development will rely on public transport therefore it will not impact traffic. This is a ridiculous and completely implausible statement.

    3. Social impact
    The concentration of so many dwellings into such a small space brings with it a range of social problems. There is inadequate space for residents to spend their time within their own dwellings and Whitebridge does not have the infrastructure or activity that a larger town or city has to cater for this number of people. There will inevitably be an increase in 'bored youths' within the neighbourhood.

    I have lived in many high density developments before moving to Whitebridge, however they have always been in cities or large regional areas with the surrounding amenities, transport, shops, community activities and social venues to accommodate the population. The limited personal and communal space that this development offers is not ‘balanced out’ by the amenities of the area.

    Whitebridge is a beautiful suburb to live and a wonderful suburb to visit, however Whitebridge has limited amenities which will not cope with an increase of 300+ people caused by a development of this size. The local daycare centre, as an example, has a three year waiting period for any positions (I know as we have been on it for nearly 3 years). The local shops rarely have free parking in busy times, the bus stop is dangerous, and the parking at the shops fails to accommodate even the current residents. There is no way this area will cope with a development of this size.

    4. Environmental concerns
    There is an obvious lack of green space in this development. There is the mandatory green strip and a few feature trees, an abysmal effort considering the environmental wonderland in which this development will be built.

    The lack of personal green space raises a multitude of social problems and problems created from the over extension of local amenities, however the environmental problems raised are also significant. The massive power usage using air conditioners to alleviate the heat from such close living plus clothes dryers as there is no room to hang washing, to just list a few.

    The current storm water drain for this area is between my house and the Fernleigh track. As it is now, in a heavy shower of rain it very quickly becomes too much for the drains and pools onto the Fernleigh track. I understand the storm water management facilities will be housed in the designated environmental area, how is this possible? I can only assume that this also is a rule that can be bent by large developers, much like the height limits.

    As an additional issue I would like to raise the apparent disdain, disrespect and arrogance in which the community has been treated by the developers.

    *There has been a total lack of adequate community consultation.
    * Verbal abuse, by the developers, have been made at community meetings (witnessed and heard by many bystanders).
    * A very large, public billboard was erected by the developer depicting them throwing money around whilst mocking locals in a staged horse race.
    * The developer has very publicly admitted to illegally bribing parliamentary candidates
    * I have sent emails to the developers with my concerns (in the early stages) and have received replies of ‘not our problem’.
    *The continued disregard for rules and regulations, including conservation zones and height limits.
    * Disregard for JRPP recommendations
    * Complete disregard for community concerns and needs.

    There is an opportunity here to create something remarkable, a development that integrates with the community, that provides something aesthetically pleasing, that addresses community concerns and promotes this beautiful area.

    SNL’s spokesman made a comment at the JRPP meeting that ‘community members are supportive as they are not objecting as much’. There is a big difference between quietening due to support and quietening due to feeling disheartened and doomed. The residents are still VERY MUCH IN OBJECTION TO THIS OVER DEVELOPMENT, however after watching this monstrosity bulldoze through commonsense and rationality, all that is left is.... gloom.

    Kindest regards,
    Becky Beveridge

  14. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Ashleigh Harvey commented

    I feel like this is one of the last small quiet areas left in McGraths Hill. Families feel safe allowing their children to still play in these streets knowing they will be safe because of the low traffic volume. I believe that if this were built here it would be taking that away from families and children due to the rise in traffic in the area. Please do not build here.

  15. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 221 Elswick Street North Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Annette Hamilton commented

    I couldn't agree more. Although I don't live in Elswick Street I have lived in the Leichhardt Council area for 34 years and the destruction this council has permitted of the character of the neighbourhoods here - irreplaceable, some of the oldest parts of Sydney's urban fabric - is no less than vandalism. I oppose the current wave of facadism too - keeping some few sorry reminders of the authentic character at the front while building McMansions at the back is no solution. The Council should immediately act to issue an order whereby no more old houses, run-down or otherwise, can be demolished. Replacement to the rear, where usually there are old kitchens, bathrooms and laundries, and some extension of living areas is OK but most of the houses should be maintained as far as possible intact. If this means that the idiotically high house prices in the area fall, good. This makes it possible for our children, and for inner city workers, to maybe afford to live here. As for the disgusting rates of arboricide going on everywhere in the Municipality, not to mention the proliferation of minuscule swimming pools, this should also be stopped at once.

  16. In Surry Hills NSW on “Use of the public footway...” at 426 Cleveland Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    P Hunter commented

    Outdoor heaters are very bad for the environment...

    Attempting to heat the planet so that people can sit comfortably outside in winter is obscene..

    Outdoor heaters should be banned..

    If you are cold, put on a coat and scarf..

  17. In Leichhardt NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 221 Elswick Street North Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Christina Valentine commented

    I live directly opposite this house and strongly object to its demolition. It is one of the few remaining original homes in the street and is part of the history of the area. While the home has been allowed to be run down to its current poor condition the facade should be retained so that the character and streetscape is retained. Over the part four years three historic homes have been bought and demolished. This has led to a lack of character and loss of sense of history of our street. I strongly encourage the Council to insist that at least the facade of this historic, original home is retained.

    Christina Valentine
    Owner of 278 Elswick Street North
    Leichhardt

  18. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    ST commented

    Please don't build this structure in the Hawkesbury, it's the wrong thing for this area and our community. The traffic and congestion is bad enough already also, particularly in the the area where this is proposed to go - it's not worth the trouble it will cause and negative affects on the area that will result.

  19. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Kate Kustreba commented

    I object to the building of this 'place of worship'
    The proposed building does not suit the rural landscape of the Hawkesbury
    The proposed location is already known for terrible traffic conditions which will only be made worse with so many worshipers coming to this venue.
    There are only a small number of Hindu faith living in the Hawkesbury according to the last census, therefore is this really the best location for their place of worship.
    I believe that the construction of such a large building will impact on value of the Mcgraths hill and surrounding areas.
    Whilst there are numerous reasons for this application to be object to. I strongly believe the most important to keep in mind is that the Hawkesbury is a rural area. Even though there are other developments in the area these are all kept within guild lines to help maintain this rural setting and I do not believe the building in the plans submitted (especially at 10m high!!!) are to this specification.
    We as residents of the Hawkesbury are very passionate about the lifestyle we have here and will do what we can to protect and maintain it. Strongly disagreeing to this proposal.

  20. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Katrina Kelty commented

    I am a rate payer of McGraths Hill and my family and I object to this being built.
    It will effect traffic and have impact on our already crappy roads also the beautiful country atmosphere of the Hawkesbury.
    It will be an eye sore and it is not welcomed.
    Council stop it !!!

  21. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Tracy commented

    Please don't build this building in McGrath hill. We need more parks and places we can take our family's not temples.

  22. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Toni von Pein commented

    Please do not approve this application. The Hawkesbury is not the appropriate place to house such a place of worship.
    Please Vote NO to this application.

  23. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Clare commented

    Not suited to the aesthetics of the area... #atall How did it become possible?? Questions need to be asked? McGraths Hill is such a small suburb, traffic congestion?

  24. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    L Verheyden commented

    Seriously reconsider this proposal. As an Australian who is proud of my country/ culture and heritage this would be like burning another section of our past. The Windsor area has a vast history, one we should be proud of, one that needs to be preserved. They are basically requesting this temple/mosque/eyesore to be at the entrance of of this amazingly, peaceful, traquil area.
    Question: Why is every culture/race/religion considered more important than our own??
    Its time we preserved our own history. Say NO!!
    My fear is that someone will be paid off so this monstrosity goes ahead.

  25. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Tamar Edmunds commented

    RE: Proposed Place of Public Worship at 10 Beddek Street, McGraths Hill.

    This correspondence is in relation to the above development application. I have studied the plans and I recognise the proposed location. I strongly object to the development of this place of public worship in this location.

    I recently moved to McGraths Hill from an inner city suburb. The main attraction to move to the Hawkesbury was due to the heritage character of this area. It is my knowledge from the Hawkesbury Council website that "Council's vision is for sustainable and livable communities that respect, preserve and manage the heritage, cultural and natural assets of the City”. Allowing the construction of a temple in such a historic area would overwhelm the character of this area and I believe would take away from the historic appeal of the Windsor area. The scale of the proposed temple will be quite high so anyone approaching or leaving Windsor will have views of it and aesthetically it would not fit in to the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

    Another complication with this development application would be the impact it would have on traffic. We currently have a traffic congestion problem in this area due to all the new development at Pitt Town. Vehicles are already using an alternate route to avoid the congestion at Pitt Town Rd & Windsor Rd by travelling on Old Hawkesbury Road and McGrath Road. Having a place of worship approved in this area will only be increasing the amount of commuters to the area, hence making the already congested roads significantly worse.

    Overall, I feel this development is not in the best interest of the citizens of the Windsor / McGraths Hill area, and I strongly urge you not to approve this application.

  26. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Renae Darlington commented

    I have strong concerns regarding this development on three levels. Firstly relating to the heritage impact, secondly the cultural dynamics of the community and lastly the lack of infrastructure ie roads and traffic management to support current community and traffic movements, let alone adding to that further.

    The Hawkesbury is renowned as a historic precinct, which epitomises early colonial heritage in its buildings and stories. Our area has the five Macquarie Towns which is testament to this. In any development, what appears to be important to council is that developments are 'in keeping' with the current environment and sympathic to the surroundings. The construction of a temple of this sort would simply not be in keeping with the area, and to be located at one of the two gateway points to Windsor is not appropriate from a local perspective, nor from a tourism perpsective.

    It is also questionable as to why the structure needs to be so large when there are apparently so few people who will be using it on a regular basis.

    There may be a limited tolerance to, and lack of understanding of other religions within this primarily Anglican and Catholic area, which may lead to cultural conflict within the community. Current media and world events contribute greatly to this situation, and it must be considered.

    Lastly, the intersection closest to the site, is one of the major bottlenecks getting into the Hawkesbury, on both weekdays and weekends. Adding the potential of essentially what is an event venue in the precinct is simply ludicrous.

    I do not support the development of the temple/mosque in McGraths Hills.

  27. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Charmaine Hetherington commented

    I have grown up in Mcgraths Hill and my mother is still here some 35 years after building. I do not have an issue with whichever religion is applying for this building, I have concerns about the affect on our community, house prices, traffic and the position for which this building is proposed.
    The Australian pub is part of our history and with so little parking for new building it will impact on the pub and its little amount of parking. Will it take away from the quiet afternoon beer or meal many people enjoy..?
    To integrate any religion is great but to dominate an area? There is so much land and wide open spaces that to stick a temple between a pub and a historical graveyard seems a little hasty. I love our history and country town feel, I am concerned that this building will not fit in to it.. and take away from our sense of history and age.
    Will this drive our house prices higher or send them plummeting? Will we have an influx of people wanting to buy in area or the real locals that have been here from when Mcgraths hill was open land all move out due to the congestion and over crowding.
    I am not apposed to the religion, each to their own, but to that location I have a strong objection.
    The out pouring of objections and concerns of our community should be enough for council to reject this particular application. I am sure a more suitable location can be found.

  28. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Michelle commented

    As a home owner & rate payer I strongly object this application, the impact it will have on the already congested roads will be a bigger headache to all the residents in McGraths Hill & surrounding areas, this building will not blend in with the heritage buildings that already exist.

  29. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    Hailey McConnell commented

    Please do NOT build this temple! The idea of building a hindu temple in McGraths Hill surrounded by Australian residents is truly rediculous and definitely should not be considered. A tiny little alley is not the spot for it. Placing a temple there will 100% effect the traffic conditions, the community and even more so the close by residents like myself. This idea should not be considered. DO NOT BUILD THIS TEMPLE!

  30. In Mc Graths Hill NSW on “Place of Public Worship” at 10 Beddek Street, Mcgraths Hill, NSW:

    sally commented

    Having recently moved to Pitt Town I have become aware of the issues that any future developments will impose on the hawkesbury without the infrastructure to support the growth. The hawkesbury council needs to realise and be proactive in the growth that is fast approaching the area. Without the infrastructure to support the growth I have grave fears on the negative impact it will create not only on the existing community but the rural environment that the hawkesbury is and stands for.

    Furthermore, I am opposed to the development of the above DA application due to the following impacts I believe are extremely significant; the location of the development is a huge concern based on existing traffic that is already bumper to bumper on windsor road come peak hour am and pm that lasts for hours, if this development is approved and the council don't act on implementing infrastructure to not only clear up the existing traffic but to also take future growth into account. I am also concerned that the design of this development will denote the significance of local heritage buildings and land. Having watched my parents fight so hard to preserve and maintain a significant property that is heritage listed and the hawkesbury put so many restrictions on what they can and cannot do in order to preserve what it stands for and then for the council to consider this development is so contradicting on so many different levels. And lastly my concern is around flooding and evacuation, in the recent floods there was quite a large pooling of water which I would consider to be a mini flooding at mcgraths hill, basically opposite where the proposed location of the development is. So I am concerned that without any planning to avoid future flooding (infrastructure) that more traffic to this location will cause issues around potential accidents with people not being cautious of how dangerous even a small pooling of water can be will create caos and havoc.

    I am all for development in order to promote and support local businesses that growth will bring however the hawkesbury has such a huge significance to the Australian history and it would be really sad to see this demolished with developments such as a place of worship and the impacts it will cause our community overall.

    I would like to see the council put more thought into the future of the hawkesbury and be proactive and sensible about the decisions that are made based on the history and culture that the hawkesbury is about. Don't ruin what the hawkesbury stands for.

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