Stock photo

Local residents recently reported to Council that there was a bus parking in Wood St for extended periods of time. Council Officers investigated an made the following report.

“We have received the following advice from Council’s Compliance Department concerning the parking of a bus of Wood St.

One of Council’s Senior Rangers attended the site on Friday afternoon 12/08/16 at approximately 5.30pm. A group of people were waiting at the entrance to the new Scientology facility. The Ranger approached a male in a Hi-vis vest who identified himself as part of the church. The Ranger asked if the church knew about the bus BS54EG parking each night on Wood Street. The gentleman confirmed the bus was owned by the church but didn’t realise it was creating a problem. It was explained to him rule 200 of the Road Rules 2014 (The driver of a heavy vehicle, or long vehicle, must not stop on a length of road in a built-up area for longer than 1 hour) and he stated he would contact the person in charge of the motor pool, to advise him of this rule.

The Ranger then advised that if the bus is observed parked and unattended on the road for longer than an hour, Council may issue a fine. She added that the storage of vehicles on the roadway that are related to the property is a breach of the conditions of consent and suggested the vehicle needs to park on the property from now on. He apologised for the inconvenience caused and stated the last thing they was to do is get offside with the neighbours.

At this point the bus BS54EG arrived and picked up the group.

13-Aug-2006 13:00 – Checked Wood Street – all clear.

14-Aug-2016 16:18:42 – Attended Wood Street this afternoon – all clear.”

I am the Planning Manager for the owners of the property that is opposite 809 Pacific Highway at 688-692 Pacific Highway.

We previously had a proposal for demolition of the existing buildings and seeking approval for an 11 storey apartment building.

We are now not proceeding with that proposal. We are now working on a different plan for a 6-7 storey building.

As part of understanding aspects of the new plan, we want to try to assess the effect of the new building on views from apartments in “Leura” especially those directly opposite our site.

To that end we are hoping that we might gain access to several units at and above level 12 on the southern end of the Leura Building where the views most directly overlook our building. Our aim is to take photos from the apartments/ balconies so that they can be included with our application to Council. That will help Council to better assess the proposal. I expect it would only take 5 minutes in an apartment and we could do it on a weekend or early morning if that was convenient for a resident.

I don’t have plans of “Leura” but I think the units a facing Pacific Highway on level 12, 13 and 14 at the southern end would be the ones to get the photos from.

We don’t need access to all of the units, perhaps 1 on each level if possible.

If you are able to contact the residents on our behalf for them to call me to arrange a suitable time that would be a great help. I can make arrangements directly with the residents or through you if you think that would be appropriate?

My contact details are below. The best number to call me is 0499889830

Kind Regards

Residents of Lane Cove North have lodged the following objection to a proposed mobile phone tower in Felton St:

“We represent the residents of the Lane Cove North area living in close proximity to your proposed mobile phone tower, to be erected on the aged care facility at 3 Felton Avenue Lane Cove North.

We are writing in response to your summary of the information session held on 10th August 2016, and your responses to our concerns about this installation.

Despite a large number of local residents strongly objecting to this installation on the rooftop, we feel that you are ignoring our concerns, and recommending this proposal to Optus & Vodafone on purely economic grounds.

You are repeatedly referring to standards issued by ARPANSA and WHO, in an effort to make us feel comfortable with your decision. However, these “safety” standards cannot guarantee that health issues will not occur in the future. They are heavily influenced by the need to allow business and industry to flourish, while allaying people’s safety concerns.

We take the position that it is better to err on the side of caution. We would rather take precautions in the absence of “refutable” evidence than blindly accept what we have been told. Indeed, there have been numerous articles and case studies written globally about the potential health risks involved with living next to mobile base stations. Yes, they are in the early stages of research, and their results are not conclusive. However, they are still significant.

Evidence on the health effects of mobile phone towers will only come with further rigorous testing and the passage of time. We do not want to find, in 10 to 20 years’ time, that we have a cancer cluster in our area.

We all remember how smoking was once deemed safe and healthy – our regulatory agencies and health commissions pronounced loudly and clearly that smoking was NOT a health hazard. Now, years later, after conclusive testing and evidence, we are trying to handle the backlash of these decisions. The Tobacco Industry knew the facts well before they were disclosed to the public, and the regulations surrounding smoking were always lagging behind. Our governments now spend billions of dollars in anti-smoking advertising and our health system is struggling to handle the huge increase in cancer patients.

So your points on arranging for further discussions with ARPANSA and other engineers are quite pointless. They will argue from their viewpoint, based on the currently available official scientific information and taking the political approach to enable business.

They do not have to live in proximity to this tower and wonder if or when they are going to suffer any health issues.

It is also interesting to note that your original calculations as to the maximum EME levels from this site have changed from the date of your letter drop to what is now showing on your website. How can we have any confidence in these figures if they are not valid or consistent?

Your explanation on the Deployment Code process gave the impression of “all of the boxes being ticked” in accordance with the laws. You claim that notifications were hand delivered to all people in the applicable surrounding area. However we have comments from residents that they know nothing about this installation, and have received no notifications. We have obtained more than 150 signatures so far on our petition, and the number is growing, as we door knock more residents.

Willoughby Council was given a Consultation Plan on 10th June, and you state that Visionstream has received no comment from Council to date. However, we have contacted Willoughby Council local sitting members who do NOT support your proposal, and are in full agreement with the Mowbray Road Action Group.

Your summary point, rejecting our siting of the mobile phone tower as inappropriate, only repeats the “safety” of the ARPANSA position, which we have discussed above.

In addition, you state the need for better mobile phone coverage in our community, for users and business. Optus & Vodafone have recognised that the coverage area for this tower extends from Epping to Chatswood, with a concentrated coverage along Mowbray Rd – however, they still want to reach as wide an area as to Chatswood Golf Course. Our Group has recommended a number of other sites that could be more suitable, and not be in such a high density area, with childcare and elderly residences.

Your listing of all the requirements for an “appropriate site” could equally apply to other locations. Indeed, Chatswood Golf Club was an appropriate (and nearly approved) site until community disapproval stopped it. At the community meeting on 10th August, Fran Parker confirmed that the Metro Service Station on Mowbray Rd was ruled out, because “the owner would not agree”. So simply selecting an appropriate site is not enough – it needs the owner to approve first, and then it is pushed into the community, regardless of what they really want.

The Mowbray Road Action Group would like to suggest that you discontinue focussing on our site, for all the reasons we have given, and look to alternative locations. If you want it on a high vantage point, consider the newly finished Meriton Arise tower on Epping Highway at Lane Cove – it would certainly include coverage from Epping to Chatswood, and along Mowbray Road. The Chubb Light Industrial Area at the base of Mowbray Road is another suggestion, as is the Metro Service Station at the top of the ridge at Centennial Avenue.

In conclusion, we would like to formally confirm that the Mowbray Road Action Group represents all the residents that oppose this installation. We will object to this proposal with the full force and effect of the law, and will use all avenues to ensure that our Group’s wishes are taken into full consideration.

Your request for individuals to contact Visionstream to discuss all our issues is quite pointless and a waste of time. We understand what we want, and would like our position to be respected.

We urge you to please reconsider any acceptance of this proposed telecommunications facility on the rooftop of St Peters Lane Cove North. We await your earliest response.

Yours sincerely,

Mowbray Road Action Group

View the following information in your browser  for a more colourful view

We know you are passionate about protecting our shared parks, trees, bushland and wildlife. They belong to all of us, and they are not for sale! Critical green spaces across Sydney & NSW are facing multiple threats, so we are launching a new major campaign to save them – SOS Green Spaces. The Total Environment Centre invites you, your group and members to work with us. We’ve organised 4 free information and action evenings that will include presentations on: Current threats to our green spaces The NSW Government scheme for a new urban tree SEPP, which will override existing tree preservation orders, and set new native vegetation clearing controls across urban areas in NSW The NSW Government’s upcoming Crown Lands legislative changes, due to be put to the NSW Parliament in October 2016 The review of SEPP 19, Urban Bushland The work of the Greater Sydney Commission and how it will affect planning if you live in Sydney All of these proposals will have a profound impact on our lives and on the way our shared green spaces and trees are protected and managed. Sign our SOS Green Spaces Petition To book a free place at one of our 4 community workshops, click on a date below: . Tuesday 6 September 6.30pm in Parramatta Thursday 8 September 6pm in Liverpool Monday 12 September 6.30pm in the CBD Wednesday 14 September, 6.30pm in Crows Nest

Check out our campaign video to save our Green Spaces For further information, please contact Corinne Fisher on 9211 5022 orcfisher@tec.org.au I look forward to meeting you! Together we’ll make sure these much loved parks and trees remain ours to enjoy for many years to come. Sincerely, Jeff Angel, Executive Director Total Environment Centre

We have been advised that the Church of Scientology will open their new premises at 126 Greville St, Chatswood at midday on Sunday 4th September (Father’s Day). It is likely that local residents will be invited to attend the opening.

Unfortunately, it appears that the bus drop off bay in Millwood Avenue will not be completed before the opening. We were previously given assurances that the opening would not occur before the drop off bay was completed.

We have been further advised, that members of the organisation have been advised not to drive to the site. There is supposed to be alternate transport in the form a shuttle buses entering the site from Greville Street.

A local resident has posed the following questions to Sydney Metro:

We note from your website that the proponent is currently reviewing the public submissions, for some time now.

What is the program completion for this, and what action must they undertake in response to the submissions?

How will the public be advised of the progress to the next step, and be informed of what action NSW Transport have taken in response to the EIS submissions?

From The North Shore Times (12th August 2016)

Under just released Strata Regulations and By-Laws, Owner Corporations do not have to give a reason in writing if they ban animals from apartments.

However, you will be able to hold a balcony BBQ (subject to normal issues re nuisance).

Smokers can have a designated smoking area but must ensure that their smoke does not drift into apartments.

Voting for the  Owner Corporation has also changed.

To read the new strata regulations in PDF, click here

The recently established Greater Sydney Commission has embarked on a long overdue process of developing a strategic plan for Sydney. The last strategic plan for Sydney was the 1948 County of Cumberland Scheme. So a new plan is long overdue. The Commission will release its draft District Plan for northern Sydney in November this year. The District Plan is not a statutory plan, rather a ‘wish list’ of key aspects we need such as green spaces, clean water, housing affordability and jobs creation. However, the Commission may be chartered to develop the statutory planning to implement aspects of the District Plan.

Now is the time to let the Commission know the aspirations you have for your area. Do we need more open space? What green linkages do we want? Where should housing be located? What transport infrastructure is needed?

Find out more of how to engage with the commission.

In August 2015, the Mayor met with local dog walking residents at the oval to resolve their concerns about sharing oval space with the afternoon sportsfield hirers.

At the time , the field was booked for 2 afternoons a week, at 3.45pm- 5pm for AFL Schools program. The Schools use ceased that month as it was the end of the Winter Sports season.

As a follow up to the residents meeting, we received a request from which included the following suggestion: “For groups who use the entire field, a white line circle will be painted on the oval to clearly mark the hired space and the perimeter space for dog owners.  The distance was not discussed however we suggest a space of about 10 metres”.

The request for the same OHReid Oval booking by the AFL NSW School Program was received for Winter 2016, and has been booked in for the season finishing in August 2016.

Sports staff have painted a white dash line marking, all the way around the oval. Given the layout of the sportsground,  the outer perimeter area varies  in width from 13m and 10 m (south and north) to a minimum of 4 -5 metres (east and west). The line delineates the oval for sport use and the perimeter area for dog walkers on the 2 afternoons per week when the schools training occurs from 3.45pm – 5pm Mondays and Wednesdays. We will re-enforce the use of the ground sharing with the AFL NSW hirer (who are currently training Shore students there).