8 Wirra Close, St Ives, NSW

Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new seniors housing development consisting of 8 dwellings with a common basement car park.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 2 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Ku-ring-gai Council, reference DA0208/18)

39 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Claire S. commented

    This is really close to the school. It makes no sense to have a seniors dwelling there. This should be another family home like around it. I’m very much against it.

  2. Martin white commented

    Adding 8 new dwellings to a close with currently 10 houses on. This is how Development’s ruin communities. It is currently a quiet on Cul de sac with only houses around. This is a development that is not in keeping with the location at all crowding 8 dwellings and underground parking in a residential street on about 1700 sq mtr block. So much for zoning regulations. Completely money hungry developers coming in. Once they get one approved watch them try for more!!

  3. Dewi Hermanto commented

    I do not agree to it. This area should be zoned as residential for houses/family homes. The development of 8 dwellings, which is similar like communal building/apartments will destroy the ambience of the surrounding houses as well as st ives. We have had enough apartments in st ives, keep them out at main roads. Please preserve st ives as leafy and family suburb.

  4. Mark Evans commented

    I object to this development.
    it is totally out of character with the suburb / area.
    Traffic is already horrendous in this street as it's utilized by the local mum and dads dropping off primary school kids. to the point where you cannot get out of the street in peak hours.
    The area itself is 100% low density housing. How 8 dwellings on a single 1000m block can even be considered is questionable in the least.
    Please point these grubby developers elsewhere towards the Mona Vale Road corridor if they want to build such monstrosities.
    I thank you for your timely and kind attention to my application.

  5. Jonathon Madden commented

    Blatant disregard for the aesthetic of the area. The wishes of the local population. It is not in keeping with current housing density and sets a very dangerous precedent for the rest of St Ives

  6. Joanne Michaels commented

    This is a total disregard for the neighbor hood. This is a quiet family based area and should be respected as such. Walking distance to the schools it is ridiculous to have anything but a family home as it’s location. I am strongly against this development and any others like it that threaten the family home based culture of the street and those surrounding it

  7. caroline enfield commented

    As a local resident I fervently hope this development proposal is denied. This is a little cul de sac in a leafy area currently with established single homes, and the roadway and junction is already under great traffic strain at peak times due to the proximity to the schools. It is not anywhere near shops or medical facilities. There is already a great deal of the seniors housing available in St Ives due to the huge amount of development all along Mona Vale Road/Link Road.
    PLEASE do not allow this proposal to ruin the community feel of this area. Sadly more and more of St Ives is under threat of demolition and disruption, and it's not as though there is really a need for the housing.
    Thank you

  8. Robert Perry commented

    I object to this application on three main points:
    1- The danger of overlooking 16-20 Kelvin Road, potentially blocking light, reducing privacy and setting a precedent that will compromise those living close by
    2- The lack of consistency with surrounding houses, and danger with prioritising seniors living that parents with children will be priced out of an area preciously close to schools incl a public school
    3- The incredibly dangerous precedent this could set for buying single plots and building high/er rise accommodation. These are streets with family houses and in particular could dwarf roads beneath them blocking light and privacy, damaging house value.
    In addition promoting underground parking encourages more cars when the area is becoming more congested - against environmental values and further stressing infrastructure.

  9. Sharlene H commented

    I have children at the schools near this development. It is already extremely hard negotiating these streets in peak hour. It does not make sense to have a complex such us this when there are no medical facilities or shopping within easy walking distance for their elderly residents. This is the first time I have ever commented about development - I didn't even object to the very large childcare centre being built three doors down from me. I feel strongly about the impact this large building will have in such a small, already hard to access street.

  10. Li Ozinga commented

    Hi. I don’t believe there are valid grounds for objection. Councillors may direct their staff to write a report objecting and then leaving the developer with option to go to L&E Court where it will be heard and decided upon on its merits. Honestly, the traffic from the development will be unnoticeable. The bigger issue is the adequate provision of on site parking. Stop the new residents from using their secure parking as storage and parking their cars on the street. Just look at the real monstrosities near St Ives Village and the carnage caused by all the residents parking on the narrow streets.

  11. R Iraninejad commented

    I would be completely shocked and horrified if this development was allowed to proceed. As mentioned by others who have already commented, this proposal goes not only against the character of the area but more importantly will also negatively impact the future lives of all residents living in St Ives. You see, if we collectively cannot protect a quiet Cul de sac in the middle of a suburb from such proposed developments, then how can we possibly oppose any other. Such developments should be limited to areas that already provide localised amenities that would better match the needs of the proposed residents. I personally also believe that our suburb has already taken on its fair share of large developments and that we may have to stop and take count before our beautiful leafy suburb is changed; not for the better but for the worse.

  12. Tim Brown commented

    I object to the development in such a small cul-de-sac.
    Please reconsider and look to Mona Vale Rd coridoor.

    Wirra Close is very near both St Ives Primary and High Schools.
    Traffic at drop off and pick up times is congested enough.

    Adding such a development to the local area will make things even worse.
    Please, please don't do it.

  13. Greg Rouse commented

    After many days of contemplation and drawing breath it is the stunning display of greed shown by people who move into small streets such as ours with no intention of integrating or becoming part of their neighbourhood. It is clear that developers such as these will always be grubs grabbing a quick buck with absolutely no concern for the havoc left behind. What concerns me more is the attitude of the people buying these properties just for the intention of flicking them onto developers, not much wonder our neighbours can’t look anybody in the eye. Our Close has homes that are all on large blocks, they have large homes that have 4/5 bedrooms with double garages that invariably led to teenage families with 3 /4 cars over time. Our Close already suffers congestion not only around school hours but weekends etc when anyone of our families choose to have guests visit. The Close was designed to have a certain number of dwellings upon it by town planners who understood what they were doing.

    I wonder why if the intention is to turn Wirra Close into another Newhaven that our neighbours were ever given permission to build large brand new family homes on this street, 2 brand new family homes in keeping with the area now are going to be wedged in with this totally out of character development. David Citer whilst I sense you throwing your hands in the air saying I can do little, that’s a cop out, represent us and lobby your fellow council members to stand up against this ridiculous development. Don’t care what allegiance a council is but one that does littlle to represent its constituents has only one destiny.

    There already is inadequate lighting parking, wide easily accessible entry to Torokina Ave, without adding 8 more families, yes over 55s have visitors. The traffic management plan attachef is a complete and utter fantasy story. A writer mentioned Newhaven Place as a case to follow, the difference being all traffic flowed from this street onto a main arterial road, logical, this development has additional traffic flowing into Torokina an already clogged local street.

    This is not a bleet from a directly affected Wirra Close resident but a plea for this insanity to be stopped. To our neighbours shame on you, maybe you may acknowledge your fellow neighbours now, but then I don’t think so as you appear to have no community spirit or sense of doing the right thing for the community, bring on the $$$&$$

  14. Sarah Frydman commented

    I object to this development.

    The intersection of Yarrabung Rd and Torokina Ave is highly congested. It is a regular occurrence - literally every single day - to see traffic in the afternoon at gridlock on Torokina all the way down to Wirra Close. It is very scary walking my children across this intersection twice a day and I have already experienced a near hit and I know other parents in the St Ives Primary School community would have a similar experience.

    This is not the location for an over 55's dwelling. Wirra Close is not close to shops, amenities, adequate public transport options and there are no footpaths. The nearest bus stop should be removed or relocated because it adds to horrendous traffic that sees buses regularly block the traffic on Yarrabung Road near the school, and forces Torokina between Wirra Close and Horace Street into gridlock. This makes it unsafe for our school children to cross the road and it is only a matter of time before there is a pedestrian accident or a child is seriously hurt or injured. The thought of adding up to 17 additional cars to this disastrous traffic problem is irresponsible and absurd.

    The over 55's excuse for this application is a loophole that is being abused by developers. It would be devastating for our suburb and school community to see this ridiculous development application proceed.

  15. Dean Glasser commented

    As a long term resident of Torokina Avenue, I must oppose this development in the strongest terms. The increase in traffic over the past 10 - 20 years is dramatic, and dangerous.
    I have witnessed children almost being run over, buses stopped as they cannot pass, and holding their hands on their hooters in frustration for up to 10 minutes. It can only be described as utter bedlam, and any further development resulting in additional traffic should be rejected out of hand.

  16. Lauri S commented

    I strongly oppose this development.

    There are 2 large schools around the corner from Wirra Close. There is major traffic congestion currently at school pick up and drop off times. Torokina Ave and Yarrabung Road become single lane roads as cars park on both sides of the road. There is only one way in and out for all residents in Torokina. Every new car that is added to the street has an impact on the congestion that exists. Particularly at drop off and pick up times. This new development will introduce many many more cars into this existing mess. Garbage trucks and street sweepers can't even manage their way through with the existing traffic loads. More congestion makes the existing situation even more dangerous for the many children and parents in the road at this time. Adding this senior housing will only add to road traffic, congestion and parking issues.

    There are no footpaths along Wirra Close and Torokina Avenue and as such, no easy direct access to buses for Pedestrians. I understand that a paved, level footpath would be a requirement for the proposed development. I have not seen any plans relating to how this will be achieved. Will trees be removed? Will front yard landscaping be affected? Will drive way access be impacted? Will all pedestrian traffic (over 55 residents as well as all the parent and school kids) be shifted to one side of the road? These details are lacking in the plans.... If you do a site visit, you will see there is no clear, sensible path to achieve this. Building footpaths is also not a simple task. There are lots of trees on the one side of the road that would need to be removed And on the other side of the road, grassed pavements that would need to be dug up and destroyed. Many of the residents take pride in the appearance of the outside of their homes and have invested many years of effort to cultivate this appearance. Building foot paths will destroy all of this.

    Lastly, the proposed development is not in sync with the suburban homes in the area. All the blocks have low density single dwellings... and now suddenly there will be this huge, high density (massively over guideline floor space ratios) monstrosity visible to all. Furthermore, there are no cafes or shops or pharmacies or doctors or other services anywhere near the proposed development. How can this be seen as a good fit for the existing area? Surely these developments are supposed to make sense for the over 55's that will live there in terms of providing convenient level access to the above listed amenities?

  17. Mark Davidson commented

    I object to the Application

    It is over-developing the site
    It is not in keeping with residential nature of the surrounding environment
    The proposal would generate a significant increase in Traffic for this small cul-de-sac. Twice a day the entire street fills up with school drop offs and pick ups with significant numbers of small children running about.
    The land to which this application refers has large native trees on the site.
    There is sufficient stock of Medium Density housing in the St Ives town centre that is closer to key infrastructure and more suitable for over 55's

  18. Frank Zhuang commented

    I Object to the application.

    It’s too close to the schools and will generate traffic problems which are too dangerous to the kids. There is no point to develop properties like this in the area.

  19. Kate Buys commented

    I object strongly to this development. The level of density would be inappropriate on a hither-to quiet residential cul-de-sac surrounded by family homes and a long walk from public transport. The increase in traffic and congestion in such close proximity to 2 schools will exacerbate the existing traffic and parking issues and have a serious impact on the safety of students walking and cycling to school. The difficulty of reversing out of the driveway is of particular concern especially when considering the extra drivers will be elderly or disabled and that the street will almost certainly be lined with the second cars of said residents. Lastly this development disregards the nearby heritage listed property.
    St Ives now has ample high density properties for over 55's to choose from. I can't see why it needs more particularly in light of the deleterious impact it will have on the neighbourhood. Please for once could the needs and desires of existing residents be placed above those of greedy developers?!
    Thanks, Kate Buys, St Ives resident and St Ives Primary school parent

  20. Sharon S commented

    I object to this development. There is enough traffic in the area, and certainly does not need at least an additional 8 added to this close. It is very close to the junior school, and as senior citizens, they may not be as alert as necessary around the school zone.

  21. Sarah Glasser commented

    I object to the Application.
    It is not in keeping with residential nature of the surrounding environment.
    The proposal would generate a significant increase in Traffic for this small cul-de-sac.

  22. Rita Russo commented

    I strongly object to the application. It will only cause more traffic problems which are too dangerous to the kids. It is also not in keeping with residential nature of the surrounding environment.

  23. Jilin Z commented

    As a resident of Torokina and a Mum of two boys who attends the St Ives public school, I strongly against this development.
    The over 55's excuse for this application is a loophole that is being abused by developers, with no consideration for traffic and public transport etc.

  24. K W commented

    I strongly object this development application as this is completely not the right development for the area in the vicinity of schools for Over 55's, which is obviously being used as an excuse to make big profits by the developer.

  25. Jeanette Noriega commented

    I do not agree with it. This area should be zoned as residential for houses/family homes. The development of 8 dwellings. The traffic is already difficult around the school and the council is aware of it as just recently changed the stop and parking permits to the area, so it should also consider this before allowing a development like the proposed.

  26. Catharina de Muelenaere commented

    I am very against this development. We share the same premises as the Kelvin Kindergarten. This is a lovely quiet young family suburb. It is already very congested with parking with school drop offs and pick ups. But we walk to school. With no footpath to walk on, it’s already very dangerous. Bringing in more traffic is going to create chaos.

    I don’t think an apartment block is suitable for this area especially not in a cul-d-sac where kids ride with their bikes.
    This development will overlook the childcare (Kelvin Kindergarden) and will not be appropriate for elderly people during the day. I am a mum of 3 young children who I have during the day, so I know about the Kindergarden and the amount of noise they make.
    Please don’t go forward with this. We beg you!!

  27. Danielle Li commented

    I strongly object to this DA!

    This DA totally ignores the SAFETY of the local residents and children attending the nearby Primary School (approx. 550 students) & High School (approximately 1000 students). Yarrabung Road has recently changed its parking rules to restrict parking during school zone hours. This means Torokina Avenue - a narrow street with regular local resident cars parked on both sides - would be bearing the increased traffic load.

    Both Wirra Close & Torokina Avenue are popular walking routes for St Ives' local residents. With no footpath to walk on, it is already deemed as unsafe. Bringing in more traffic is likely to create chaos and accidents.

    Lastly, Torokina Ave & Wirra Close are a family home based community. Constructing a site to house 24 bedrooms on a small cul-de-sac is totally 'out of character' and will ruin the community feel of this area.

  28. AE commented

    An area so close to a school needs affordable family housing. A cul de sac should be a safe haven for local children who have easy access to the local schools.

  29. Vivian Y commented

    I strongly oppose this development application. It not only totally ignore the current congested road condition and the safety of local residents/children/parents, but also not fit into the character of existing homes and community. As a resident of Torokina, this is totally unacceptable.

  30. Maryann Inbari commented

    I strongly object to this application.

    I do not think that a senior living facility is in line with the area which has young children many of whom attend school at St Ives Public. Living in the cul-de-sac allows freedom for the kids to play and many walk to and from school. We already have congestion problems on Torokina Avenue at school drop off times and adding 8 more units with car spaces would increase the congestion and make the area unsafe for the kids to ride their bikes and walk to school.

  31. Annabel G commented

    I strongly oppose this development application. A development with so many townhouses on a single site, located in a cul-de sac will cause congestion which is dangerous so close to local schools. There will be no parking nearby for visitors of the over 55 residents. The location of this development seems poorly suited to over 55's. The footpath to the bus stop is rough with lots of tree roots, full of puddles whenever it rains, and would be dangerous for elderly people to walk. There are no shops within walking distance, no nearby medical services, and the area has traffic congestion twice a day when schools start and finish. I cannot see there is any reasonable grounds for this application. It will NOT achieve the goal of providing suitable accommodation for over 55's. Whilst removing barriers to good development is important, so is rejecting developments which are not in the interest of those over age 55. The density of this housing plan, sharing walls on both sides for 6 of the 8 townhouses, will not give enough windows and outdoor spaces to residents, and they cannot easily walk outside on rough pavements. This will result in poorer health without access to sunlight and exercise. Family which have no parking when they visit, causing further social isolation for this vulnerable group. Poor access to the property causes problems for the elderly residents when they require community health services and emergency services which need access to the property. These factors will further isolate these people. Multilevel accommodation has challenges as people age, are there lifts in every property? How will they negotiate stairs with their shopping from basement carparks and narrow internal corridors? I challenge the idea that this development has been designed to suit the needs of over 55 residents, and I ask the council to reject this application.

  32. Leanne C commented

    I strongly oppose this development.

    This development is being assessed under the SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability 2004 which permits a developer to override local Council planning controls on block sizes over 1000m2 and build a higher density project than what is consistent with the existing neighbourhood.

    The SEPP's aims are to encourage the provision of housing (including residential care facilities) that will:
    1. increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability, and
    2. make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and
    3. be of good design.
    The proposed development does not meet any of these aims.

    1. Supply diverse residences to meet the needs of seniors or people with a disability
    The design of accommodation does not meet the basic needs for seniors or people with a disability. None of the dwellings currently comply for disability/ageing needs, they are only adaptable for compliance. This clearly is not in keeping with the intention of the codes and shows that the developer is trying to circumvent the codes intention for profit.

    If the true intention was to supply residences for seniors and people with a disability, then there would be at least one in that configuration, but as none are provided, the developer clearly believed that compliant dwellings are not desired/required in this area and would not sell.

    Compliance with the legislation
    The legislation on seniors’ developments is to be read in conjunction with the urban design guidelines for infill developments. This is as per Clause 31 of SEPP

    This publication clearly states, amongst many other things that:-requirements of this policy are to be excluded. As such only 12 of the 17 car parking spaces should be excluded. 5 should not and the driveways allowing access to these 5 also should not be excluded. This shows the extent of the bulk even further.

    The traffic plan indicated virtually no difference in number of cars yet the street will go from 10 residences to a proposed 17. One would be very naive to think that from 17 car spaces those cars will not venture out. Over 55’s are more likely to do multiple short trips in the day than workers who leave in the morning and return in the evening. Let’s assume the simplest scenario that the new residents drive the same as the existing. As such you are nearly doubling the traffic movement in the street.

    Whilst the bus stop may only be 320m away there are no footpaths at all along this distance. Hence no amenity for seniors or the disabled to get to the bus stop. Are they to walk on the road or the nature strip, or will council be funding the footpath. The application indicates a footpath on Wirra Close. There are no paved footpaths on this street. Clause 26 of SEPP dictates that there must be a suitable access pathway to the bus stop and defines a suitable access pathway as a path of travel by means of a sealed footpath or other similar and safe means that is suitable for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like. This is not simply building a path. The nature-strips in question have many established trees that are home to many creatures and the streetscape adjoins 2 significant Heritage conservation points.
    This element is missing as such the development does not comply with clause 26 of SEPP with regard to access to transport.

    In addition, to cross Yarrabung Rd at the corner of Torokina is gravely unsafe. The only safe route would be via the pedestrian crossing at the Primary School. This crossing would then make the distance over 400m. This crossing is also not well lit as it is designed for mainly school use. Simply put the crossing responds to the current resident’s needs. This proposal brings forward a new set of needs that are not satisfied by the existing infrastructure

    The whole idea of SEPP is to allow concessions for seniors and disabled developments that are still within the aesthetics of the community. This development goes far beyond that idea to attempt to side step valid resident protections such as FSR and setbacks to aid the developers profit motives.

    All that is offered is explanation on shadowing with no proof offered on how the development will comply with the streetscape and neighbourhood. These are in the SEPP legislation for a reason to stop over development. Clause 33 of SEPP talks of the locations current character.
    This development is completely out of character in a quiet cul-de-sac and therefore does not comply.

    The proposal is in close vicinity to Heritage items of 2 Wirra Close and the Torokina Street scape. Clause 33 of SEPP requires the proposed development to “retain, complement and sensitively harmonise with any heritage conservation areas in the vicinity and any relevant heritage items that are identified in a local environmental plan”. The fact that a section of Wirra Close street scape has been heritage listed shows the significance of the landscape to the community and its history. Whilst this actual property is not subject to a heritage listing it is most definitely not in keeping with the heritage conservation areas in its vicinity.

    The proposal completely neglects the heritage areas in its vicinity

    2. Location and the efficient use of existing infrastructure and services.
    Wirra Close is located within close proximity to the local Public primary (approx. 550 students) and high (approximately 1000 students) schools. Many walk to and from school via Torokina. With no stopping zones and no parking zones in force along Horace Street, the rear gate of the school is the only feasible area for parents to pick up and drop off their children. Adding congestion onto these roads would be unwise and unsafe.

    Wirra Close is a residential cul-de-sac which facilitates children playing on the verges and riding their bikes on the road. This proposal funnels cars out an impossibly narrow driveway with limited vision to enter the road. No provision for a passing bay has been made on the driveway which would mean that on occasions cars would be forced to reverse out onto the road, again with limited vision. Add into this factor senior citizens who may have vision challenges, reduced mobility of their neck to check all blind spots and reduced reaction times. It is only a matter of time before an incident occurs

    There is no parking nearby for visitors to the development and no visitor spaces provided. .

    The area is primarily low density housing. This scale of density in a low density area is inappropriate and should be located within the existing zones with better transport and amenity such as the Mona Vale Road corridor.

    3. Good Design
    As noted previously the design of accommodation for seniors or people with a disability should be cognizant of their physical and mental needs. This development does not acknowledge, and is not designed to fulfill those needs.

    None of the dwellings currently comply for disability/ageing needs, they are only adaptable for compliance. This clearly is not in keeping with the intention of the codes and shows that the developer is trying to circumvent its intention for profit
    If these dwellings were required, there would be at least one in that configuration, but as none are provided, the developer clearly believed that compliant dwellings would not sell.

    All dwellings have multilevel accommodation, with no bedrooms on ground floors. Senior will have to negotiate stairs with their shopping from basement carparks and narrow internal corridors and always climb stairs to a bedroom.

    The density of this housing plan, sharing walls on both sides for 6 of the 8 townhouses, will not give enough windows and outdoor spaces to residents, and they cannot easily walk outside on rough pavements. This will result in poorer health without access to sunlight and exercise.

    There is no parking for family or visitors, causing further social isolation for this vulnerable group.

    Poor access to the property causes problems for the elderly residents when they require community health services and emergency services which need access to the property.

    These factors will further isolate these people.

    This development fails to adequately meet these aims, as the townhouses are:
    1. ONLY adaptable (not compliant) for disability/ageing, clearly trying to misuse the SEPP for financial gain as dwellings currently compliant in this area would not sell,
    2. Located poorly with no safe access to public transport and services
    3. Densely designed that solar access and access to outdoor space is limited

    All of the above factors clearly prove that this is a non-compliant development, located and designed poorly, and as such should be rejected.

  33. Kellie Parkin commented

    I object to this DA but wholeheartedly support the AIM of the 'Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability' SEPP that states "... all people in New South Wales, including older people, people with disabilities and those on low incomes have access to AFFORDABLE and WELL-DESIGNED housing."

    The SEPP however, fundamentally fails the people for whom it is written when DAs like this one are allowed to proceed:

    – without inclusionary zoning conditions to meet the AIM of AFFORDABILITY and

    – only need demonstrate ADAPTABILITY NOT COMPIANCE for the AIM to be WELL-DESIGNED for seniors aging-in-place or persons living with a disability (Disability Discrimination Act).

    To approve this DA, and future new developments under this SEPP, Ku-ring-gai Council can only grant consent with the following conditions to ensure the project MEETS the AIMS of the SEPP:

    • AFFORDABILITY – at least townhouse should be maintained as an 'affordable' rental for people with low to moderate incomes.

    • WELL-DESIGNED –
    ••• ALL townhouses should, as a minimum comply, with moderate Performance Levels ('Gold' as outlined in 'Livable Housing Design Guidelines') and
    ••• at least 2 of the 8 townhouses must completely comply with the Disability Discrimination Act to accommodate the 1 in 5 Australians currently living with a disability of some type.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  34. Louise Bardone commented

    I do not agree to this going ahead as a local resident and patron of the primary school. Congestion around the area is already extensive and this will add to it. Parking and access to this street is difficult and no real solutions to its resolution.

  35. Jenni Dowzell commented

    Has my comment (neither for nor against but balanced) been removed? It took a long while to compose. A little annoying.

    Pls do not publish this. I am unable to repost as I am overseas and my copy is at home.

  36. Cheyne G commented

    Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. I'm not a big fan of overdevelopment but there's been a tremendous backlash for this application and most of the criticism appears to argue that traffic congestion is already bad and this proposal would make it worse.

    Generally, I agree with the criticism.

    However, not a word in anger is uttered for irresponsible parents double parking on Torokina and surrounding streets. Nor a peep about parents driving teenagers a few hundred metres to school. Nor has there been anything said about the danger of all this vehicular activity to both the children and other pedestrians.

    Perhaps one possible solution could be to ban non-residential parking/traffic (unless it's business related - ie, tradesmen, teachers and other school employees/volunteers) from around the school from 8:15am to 9:00am and again from 2:45pm to 3:30pm.

    I think the argument for dissipating traffic is a good one but we've stopped looking at the source of the problem and are now voicing our anger at the symptoms.

    Once we treat the underlying traffic management problems around the school, then perhaps every time a child care proposal, over 55s or other development comes along we can look at it objectively.

    Having said that this proposal in Wirra Cl. is just plain wrong for all the reasons the aforementioned critics have already articulated so well. If for no other reason it will add to the traffic problems in the area.

    Full disclosure: I am not a builder, developer, land investor or anything else to do with property. I have a passionate interest in improving my neighbourhood though. I also have a child at the high school (previously the primary school). He has always walked (either with a parent or alone). In doing so he tells me of the almost daily near misses around the school.

  37. Ken commented

    The application should include a construction noise and vibration management plan and a noise assessment report for future mechanical plant.

  38. Brad Miller commented

    This proposal does not suit elderly, and does not provide reasonable access and parking for residents of this proposal, or those surrounding it. Local school parents are already arriving very early at drop off and pickup times, causing traffic congestion and dangers to school kids, and this new proposal only adds to what is already an unsuitable situation.
    SEPP development needs to be more thought out than plonking something in the middle of congested single dwellings that only have single road access directly through a school pickup zone.

  39. Aaron commented

    I do object to this development.

    I have recently bought in Wirra Close considering it is a local low density neighborhood and we can start our family here. Finding the notice about this development proposal and its court proceedings were utterly shocking!

    This development needs to be stopped. Wirra Close is a local narrow cul-de-sac and not suitable to accommodate 7 more dwellings (senior/disabled) whatsoever. It is not compatible with neighboring houses, there’s not enough room for increasing traffic load, and not enough parking for increasing number of residents and their visitors, onsite staff, sub-contractors etc. There’s no space for footpath unless to demolish the frontage grass of established houses. It will add to congestion of already blocked nearby streets and junction at Torokina ave as a result of nearby schools.
    The fact that this proposal may go thorough is absolutely ridiculous and not fair for local owners.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

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