PlanningAlerts

36 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. At it again Easts ?

   This development was voted against 2:1 by members of the club last year at a specially convened meeting.

   Easts promised upgrade of club facilities when the merger of the bowling club and Easts occurred but none have been done apart from safety responsibilities.

   This development is against member wishes and should be rejected outright until members have agreed as to what facilities will be delivered for its members and not just for Easts Leagues club profit.

2. I hope Waverley council does the right thing and ensures a proper consultation period after the holiday period. Not a good look to put it through now.

3. This should be put through a proper consultation process after the holidays and not put through during the period around Christmas when few people are available to give it proper consultation.

   There is almost nothing on the Waverley Council page detailing the proposal, so residents cannot comment effectively. This is not how it should be.

   This development was voted against 2:1 by members of the club last year at a specially convened meeting.

   This development is against member wishes and should be rejected outright until members have agreed as to what facilities will be delivered for its members and not just for Easts Leagues club profit.

   Also,

4. I trust that the deciding bodies will give people adequate time to respond. Trying to sneak it through over Christmas is rather disrespectful.

5. This is typical of the underhanded techniques that Easts have already shown themselves to be more than capable of using. They are hell bent on destroying a community asset, that the community - despite the best efforts of Easts - has clearly said they don't want destroyed. Sickened - although not surprised - to see them trying sneak this through over Christmas. Hopefully Waverley Council are not as corrupt as Easts clearly are, and will delay this so that it can be given proper consideration - and rejected again.

6. Very disappointing to see this DA lodged just before Christmas. The sensitive issue of the development of this much-loved community asset should be given adequate time for consideration outside of the holiday period.

7. I agree with the sentiments here. Very disappointing that this DA would be lodged just before the holiday period. It fractures the community further if the opportunity for due process and consideration isn’t provided and will only strengthen the resolve of objectors.

8. Very disappointing that East's are trying to underhand the residents. The development has clearly been voted NO by a poll last year 2:1 and would be voted NO again. This application is a a misrepresentation of what they really want to do as we have seen previously. I would be disappointed if Waverley Council agree to it.

9. No documents, no notification to neighbouring properties, just a $83 million estimated cost and lodged at a time of year designed to minimise public comment.
   It's disgraceful.

10. I have no confidence in Waverley Council’s ability/desire to support residents. There must be consultation and all pertinent details laid out for public to see. Developers will not listen or go away. This is a community resource and must be protected.

11. Very underhanded to do this over the Xmas period and when there is a negative sentiment and people are away.
    Leave the assets alone developers and let people of Waverley enjoy more of a community feel in this overdeveloped area

12. East's poses as an NRL-based community organisation but the Property management are in it for maximum profit. The token "public benefits" in this untimely DA are distractions. Locals have fought long & hard against this site's redevelopment, and will oppose this DA to the hilt. No, no and NO!

13. The comments all indicate
    1. that there has been no community consultation
    2. that there has been no notification of neighbours, including club members
    3. that this application and the way it has been made - timed for a holiday period - is not open, or fair.
    The fact that on the Council website it is stated that there are:
    1. "No Documents Currently Available"
    2. "No properties notified at this stage." and
    3. "No responses at this stage." Despite a list of 12 objections/comments which is slowly growing from disappointed and angry Waverley Residents, hopefully only demonstrating that the Council is on holidays and not that objectors are being ignored and this application is being rushed through without the necessary considerations.
    It is clear that there are strong objections to this proposal which will affect the amenity of this public resource for the future.
    As Fred Johanssen says " The token "public benefits" in this untimely DA are distractions. Locals have fought long & hard against this site's redevelopment, and will oppose this DA to the hilt."

14. Just before Christmas? What a joke! Mean, nasty and un-Australian. It's absurd that Waverley Council have facilitated this underhanded, sneaky DA application that has blighted the peaceful enjoyment of Christmas and hopes for the New Year for so many people! If this very low blow is an example of how these particular developers operate, Waverley residents might wish to question the equity and equality of the DA application & objection process. The original DA was refused by members - what's changed? Nothing!
    I call on Waverley Council to close DA submissions in mid December and re-open in mid January to stop this situation occurring in future! It's the same as the old lawyers trick - email the opposing party at 5pm on a Friday afternoon!
    If I wanted to see low-down underarm bowling I'd watch a replay of Chappell's last bowl against NZ in the 1981 cricket match!

15. Dear Waverly council, I have good faith that you are better than this and that you will listen , for a second time, the concerns of the residents and the members and represent them and not the Easts corporation. Thank you in advance for doing this.

16. Ref Number: DA-483/2018

    Why has it been submitted a few days before Xmas when there is no one around to object / comment
    There are no documents available to peruse on the website either.....
    Not very helpful...
    It looks like they are trying very hard to hide something....

17. This consultation process should be after the holidays and not put through during the period around Christmas when majority of people are away.

    The Waverley Council page detailing the proposal is limited at best. Residents cannot comment effectively / correctly. Poor form.

    This development was voted against 2:1 by members of the club last year at a specially convened meeting.

    This development is against member wishes and should be rejected outright until members have agreed as to what facilities will be delivered for its members and not just for Easts Leagues club profit.

18. Dear Waverley Council,

    The proposal's timing of submission creates the perception of intending to avoid scrutiny by local residents. I trust that Waverley Council will rerun the submission/commence a consultation period with local residents commencing mid to end of January and running as per standard practise.

    Given the history of the location and the Waverley Councillors and committees ongoing commitment to transparent governance this is not optional but mandatory.

    Regards,

19. Dear Waverley Council,

    This proposal being submitted 20 Dec last year and being available to residents for review over the Christmas period is not reflective of adequate community consultation. The submission should have the period of review notably extended.

    As an East Leagues Club member I rejected this proposal along with many other fellow members as it would take away a valuable community asset. As was suggested, upgrades to the facilities should be made and it be kept as totally publically accessible.

    Finally, there are no documents published on the Waverley Council website that allow us to review what is being proposed. Surely this is a requirement?

    Thank you
    Chris

20. Re DA-438/2018: Dear Waverley Council, we presume we will very soon be able to formally lodge our concerns as per due process? We note that on a visit to Waverley Council’s customer service centre today (January 2) there is a model of the proposed redevelopment for the Waverley Bowling site. It is a very concerning model: a multi-storey development on the corner of Henrietta and Bitrell Streets. Please urgently advise when the appropriate documents will be available to residents and club members. Thank you.

21. Dear Waverley Council
    As per above very concerned about the timing of this DA and impact of such a massive development in an already highly congested area. The roads surrounding this development are chocked to capacity. I look forward to a stringent examination of the impact of extra traffic for this high density development done not on a quiet day in a holiday period but during peck traffic hours particularly once schools are back in February! Also shadowing from top down and visa versa please. Thanking you.

22. I think these developments are looking great, the council have thought of everything in regards to the surrounding community, change is inevitable, and this looks great.

23. Very concerned about the timing of this application and the removal of an important community asset. So many bowling clubs have been demolished to make way for residential properties in the Eastern suburbs. If the club is to be removed then an asset that the community can use should take it's place. Look at the Acre in the Inner West or the Greens in North Sydney. If community asset are being taken then new developments should only be green spaces or for the benefit of the community. They are already an over population in Bondi with traffic jams, insufficient parks for our kids to plsy, and here we go again more people without consideration of the impact on infrastructure. I vote no

24. I am very concerned about this project. There are way too many apartments and projects around, the traffic and parking will be worst and it is already bad.

    This club should be replace for something that bring benefit to the community.

    I totally disagree with this proposal and I would like to know what the community can do to avoid its approval.

25. Easts are a business with a clever idea for getting their application through while potential opponents are distracted. However it is up to the council, that should represent the whole community, (and not the vested interests of one organisation) to manage this and ensure that community expectations are met. It’s Waverley Council’s opportunity to stand up and truly listen to the community.

26. Both the 'process' and the actual development proposed are appalling. The prospect of another 180 residents and their vehicles next to Waverley College is too dire to think about: Traffic is already gridlocked from Council Street to Murray Street along Birrell Street for several hours each day. There is little or no parking for Waverley residents using the excellent facilities of Waverley oval. The College already causes considerable congestion, and access to Bondi Junction is very slow most of the time, even for the much loved bus service (used by commuters and retirees especially).

    This proposal is designed only to enrich Easts Leagues club.

    It should be opposed by every Waverley councillor.

27. The Heritage Report indicates that the Waverley Bowling club demolished some beautiful and historic buildings (Preston, St Gabriel's school) in the 1960s to build the club and bowling green which was disappointing to find out. However the current DA plans show a massive 6 story building completely out of character with the area. Estimated cost of work $83,042,442. The developer's own traffic report shows a NETT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC GENERATION POTENTIAL: 88 vph(AM) 154 vph (PM). The cumulative impact of this development along with other developments will increase the already unacceptable traffic congestion in the area. It is zoned RE2 so how is it that a high density aged care development can be built on the site? (RE2 Private Recreation provides a wide range of recreational activities on land that is privately owned. Other uses however are substantially limited.)

28. Additional traffic and roads clogged already.
    Using open space and community facilities for more development and housing/care facilities..
    Not in the communities best interest and should not be allowed.
    WE ARE CONGESTED ENOugh

29. Yet again we see that Easts do not respect the decision of it own members in regard to any development of this site. Yet again we see Easts try to overturn the wishes the local community and its own members.

    Issues such as traffic congestion are a major concern with the area being inundated with traffic during school days. The traffic along Birrell Street is bad enough throughout the week without the added stress that this development will bring. Parking will be another issue around the area with little or no parking available at the moment for residents and their visitors.
    The height of the buildings will cause shadows to the nearby neighbours and the whole area will change from a lovely open space to yet another high rise in an area that has already enough large developments.
    I strenuously object to this development application and trust that the council will vote this application down and respect the wishes of the local community.

30. As attendees of St Mary’s and local residents we vehemently object to a such a development that serves some to the detriment of an entire suburb. What studies don’t show are the butterfly effects of these developments. Employee parking, visitor parking etc etc at the centre causes immediate congestion, parking issues in the surrounding streets with ripple effects for many streets around the area. You have children at St Mary’s and youths at the college - let’s add twice the traffic and see what happens to the safety profile within a 500m radius of the development. Listen to the people Waverley.

31. Everyone wants sensible, consultative, ethical development. Not overdevelopment. Rezoning should not be permitted. I don't know anyone who wants another "mini-Bondi Junction" in an beautiful, open, green area that is loved by the community.

32. I object to this proposed demolition of the bowling club and construction of 4 buildings (90 senior apartments), child care and 2 level underground car park for 298 car spaces. Why do 90 apartments & child care facility require 298 car spaces?

    The applicant is rushing thru the DA as their Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) issued by Dept of Planning & Environment will expire on 25 Sept 2019. If DA is not approved they would need to lodge another DA (3rd one) before this date otherwise the SCC for senior accomodation will lapse.

    The proposed use for seniors living accommodation is not permitted under RE2 and a separate DA for the change of use will need to be lodged.

    What happens if DA approval is not obtained for the change of use? Do the buildings revert to residential use for commercial benefit of the applicant to use/dispose as they choose? Is EASTS lodging a DA for aged care accommodation under false pretenses only for it to "revert to residential use"?

    This proposal does not comply with Waverley LEP and RE2 zoning and is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of the Waverley LEP. More trees will be removed and loss of more green space.

33. I object to this application for the following reasons.

    The area is zoned RE2 which does not permit of the proposal.

    The local road system is inadequate for existing needs. There should be no additional traffic resulting from this or other developments facilitated by Council.

    Birrell, Henrietta and Victoria Sts, Carrington and Bronte Roads are already at saturation levels.

    The proposal is out of character with the area and I note the large number of proposed parking spaces as an indication of traffic expectations.

    On a recent Friday morning it took me 35 minutes plus to drive from Gardyne St Bronte to Bondi Junction with no traffic incident being apparent. This is a result of continued approval of developments which simply detract from the enjoyment of those living here and benefit developers, or in this case Easts Leagues and not the community.

    Then we face the horrors of the construction phase.

34. To Waverley Council

    We object to the proposed development which is grossly overscale for the site and out of keeping with the density and heritage character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The bowling club building is an important local landmark in an area that has lost many of its heritage buildings, particularly those from the 20th century. Its distinctive design is a key marker on Birrell Street and the club and its building are well loved and used by the community.

    The immediate area is already congested due to the location of Waverley College, it’s multiple campuses, and Waverley Park, which has various sporting competitions and training sessions held there every day of the week.

    The development will substantially increase traffic congestion on Birrell Street, which is heavily used and experiences daily traffic jams (and gridlock during Sculpture by the Sea), and will seriously increase demand for parking in an area that already has significant parking pressures. Council attempted to address existing traffic issues when Henrietta Street was split in two and converted to one way. Henrietta Street and Langlee Avenue are both narrow and already suffer traffic jams twice daily at school drop off and pick up times as well as during school open days and evening functions. Langlee is a dangerous street as it has a sharp curve and blind spot. Substantially increasing traffic to these two small streets will result in poor outcomes for residents and stakeholders.

    Adding a child care centre and seniors accommodation to this mix shows a complete disregard for the local community as it will only add to the traffic issues with a large new parent population dropping off and picking up children at the same time as existing school parents. We already have issues with Waverley College parents driving at speed in our local area potentially endangering local children and adults who cross the road. Another issue is P plate drivers (Waverley College seniors) driving to school, loitering while residents leave in order to secure a park in our streets. The local area is small but already busy and complicated with this mix of drivers and users.

    The proposal shows a complete lack of understanding of the local environment, the existing traffic and parking issues seems designed only to greatly exacerbate these. The community has already voted no to two previous larger development proposals for this site. Easts seems determined to push ahead regardless of their past promises, community and stakeholder opinion or commonsense. I appreciate that Easts will not give up on their quest to develop the site therefore I would support a significantly scaled back proposal that considered community needs and addressed parking and traffic issues - this is not that proposal.

    Thank you

35. I object on the basis of the many breaches of the LEP, it being out of keeping with the character of the area, is excessive in scale, associated traffic impacts and reduction in much needed recreational land in our densely populated municipality. This proposal will adversely change the character of the local area through its excessive scale, resulting in new presidents for the area and add to already high levels on congestion on our roads.

    Site Compatibility Certificate
    The site compatibility certificate was issued for a different proposal than this DA and was done so without the full and proper consultation of our council representatives. The DA should not be able to be considered under this certificate and a new certificate should have to be obtained that align with this DA and with proper consultation with council.

    Loss of Recreational Land
    The addition of 90 units, nearly 300 car parking space, a large child care center and lose of highly valued recreational space is deeply unpopular with those living in the area and the many patrons of the Waverley bowling club. The Waverley bowling club is an asset to the Waverley area and should not be allowed to be diminished so that it’s future operations are at threat. The site serves a community function in it’s current form as scarse recreational land.

    Character of the Area
    The street analysis in the DA is misleading as it focuses on Birrell street. Both Henrietta and Langley avenue are impacted where buildings are 1 and 2 storys. The proposed 7, 5 and 4 story buildings will totally dominate and change the character of the area.

    Traffic Congestion and Parking
    Traffic congestion in the area has reached a point where cars are at a standstill both in the week and weekends on Birrell, Henrietta, Langley and Victoria. The previous traffic report submitted with the last proposal for this site concluded that there were issues with traffic - which is inconsistent with the traffic report in this latest DA. Anyone who lives in the area knows that congestion and parking are a daily struggle both during the week and weekend.

    The inclusion of 300 underground parking spaces will encourage more traffic and more congestion. The scale of the development should be smaller so that it does not require so many parking spaces. There should be no loss of on-street parking. A resident parking permit will not address all the problems of parking which are at the worst during the evening when most residents are home.

    I wish to address the following planning issues.

    1. Aims of Plan:
    Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP2012)
    
    Compliance
    (a) to promote and co-ordinate a range of commercial, retail, residential, tourism, entertainment, cultural and community uses to service the local and wider community,
    Does not Comply. The proposed development will be increasing the mix of commercial uses within this area significantly. Resulting in the loss of amenity, carparking spaces and privacy to the adjoining residential units.

    (b) to maintain and reinforce Bondi Junction as the primary commercial and cultural centre in Sydney’s eastern suburbs,
    
    Does not Comply: The proposed development will be seriously increasing the residential density of the existing streetscapes of Birrell, Langlee and Henrietta. The result of this action will be felt throughout the immediate area and will create a number of ongoing lifestyle issues for residents.

    (d) to provide an appropriate transition in building scale around the edge of the commercial centres to protect the amenity of surrounding residential areas,

    Does not Comply. As identified within the Clause 4.6 Variation and the proposed building height does not comply. The scale of the new development will be outrageously greater than what is allowable within the zone as well as the immediate context of the area. It is requested that serious consideration is given by Council to the cumulative impacts of this development.

    (e) to protect, maintain and accommodate a range of open space uses, recreational opportunities, community facilities and services available to the community,
    
    Does not Comply: As seen within the plans provided, there will be a decrease in the recreational opportunities of the Waverley bowling Club.

    (f) to enhance and preserve the natural environment through appropriate planning, protecting the integrity of natural systems and by protecting existing trees,
    
    Does not Comply: The landscape plan provided with this application demonstrates that the deep soil landscaping does not comply. The proposed development is for demolition of all structures, therefore as it is a blank canvas there is no reasonable excuse that the development should not comply with this, other than over development.

    (g) to identify and conserve the cultural, environmental, natural, aesthetic, social and built heritage of Waverley.
    
    Does not Comply: The aesthetics of Birrell Street, Langlee Avneue and Henrietta Street will be dominated with bulk and out of character buildings. Therefore, a reduction is requested.

    Response: As indicated by the WLEP2012, Objective d, e, f and g the proposed development does not comply with nearly all of the aims set out by Waverley council. These objectives state that development should minimise the impacts to the surrounding sites and protect the amenity of the area. The proposed development is not in keeping with the aims of the WLEP2012, the following reasons and justifications have been put forward:
    - There is no transition between building scales, with the extremely high building height being proposed a significant impact will be generated on the Waverley area and more specifically the adjoining sites.
    - The open space that the streetscape and surrounding areas currently poses will be removed as a result of this development. The existing recreational area will be diminished and reduce the availability of recreational areas to the community.
    - The proposed development is a huge ‘over development’, meaning that the preservation of the natural environment will be severely impacted on.
    - The proposed development is not consistent with the cultural, environmental, natural and social elements of Waverley, issues such as overshadowing, car parking, street congestion demonstrate this.

    Overall, it can be identified that the proposed development is not in keeping with the aims of the WLEP2012 and provides a number of large issues that will impact the immediate and broader area.

    2. Objectives of Zone:
    Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP2012) – RE2 Private Recreation

    1 – Objectives of Zone
    Does not Comply

    • To enable land to be used for private open space or recreational purposes.
    Does not Comply: The proposed development is seeking to take away this opportunity

    • To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.
    Does not Comply: The development is seeking to grossly over development the existing site

    • To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes
    Does not Comply: There are a number of examples of how the proposed development does not comply with this, including landscaping, loss of amenity etc.

    Response: The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the SSLEP2015. As seen in the above table, the objectives of the Private Recreation Zone are to ensure that areas of Waverley have private recreation opportunities and to also protect and enhance the natural environment. The proposed development in turn will:
    -  Overpower the existing character of Birrell Street;
    -  Considerably reduce the amenity of the adjoining neighbours as well as the streetscape of Birrell Street;
    -  Increase the cumulative impact of multi-dwelling housing within Birrell Street;
    -  Reduce the private open space and recreational areas for residents

    The approval of this Development Application, as indicated in the points listed above will create a negative effect on the existing streetscape and the residential areas in the immediate location.

    3. Building Height:
    Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP2012) – Clause 4.3 Building Height
    
    Aims of plan:
    (a) to establish limits on the overall height of development to preserve the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties and public spaces and, if appropriate, the sharing of views,
    (b) to increase development capacity within the Bondi Junction Centre to accommodate future retail and commercial floor space growth,
    (c) to accommodate taller buildings on land in Zone B3 Commercial Core of the Bondi Junction Centre and provide an appropriate transition in building heights surrounding that land,
    (d) to ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the desired future character of the locality and positively complement and contribute to the physical definition of the street network and public space.
    
    Response: The proposed building height for the new development is 23.35m, the maximum allowable building height according to the WLEP2012 is 8.5m. This means that the proposed development is seeking to exceed the maximum allowable building height by 15.05m (277%).

    In addition to the proposed development not complying with the development standard of 8.5m, it also does not comply with the objectives of Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings). The proposed building height as it stands will significantly impact the adjoining sites as well as the streetscapes of Birrell Street, Henrietta Street and Langlee Avenue.

    In particular, objective ‘d’ states the buildings are to be compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the desired future character of the locality and positively complement and contribute to the physical definition of the street network. The proposed development does not achieve this with the non-compliance of 15.05m meaning all adjoining sites will be severely impacted on, the integration of the proposed development will not occur with the streetscape and the bulk and scale of such a development will create a negative impact.

    Clause 4.6 Variation:
    A clause 4.6 variation has been lodged to vary this development standard. A clause 4.6 variation must demonstrate:
    1. That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and
    2. That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

    4.3
    EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
    (1) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the
    Does not Comply: The proposed development does not provide any justification that warrants a variation of the building height. Clause 4.6 states that meeting applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:
    A. That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and
    B. That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
    Compliance needs to be unreasonable or unnecessary for the particular development. As seen in the proposed design, the variation does not have any reason not to comply with the controls, other than over development. The proposed development is for a site that will be a blank canvas.

    (2) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:
    1. The consent authority is satisfied that:
    2. The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed
    the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and
    3. The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out,
    Does not Comoply: The proposed development will not be in the piublice interest due to:
    -  Loss of on street parking;
    -  Loss of amenity;
    -  Unreasonable Increased traffic
    volumes;
    -  Substantial bulk and scale

    As the proposed development is for the demolition of existing structures, it presents as a blank canvas. Therefore, there is no reason that the proposed development shouldn’t meet the building height as set out in the WLEP2012, any development over this can therefore be determined as over development.

    4. Site compatibility certificate:

    The Site Compatibility Certificate that has been provided with the development application package was for the previous development application that was submitted for the subject site. Therefore, is it requested that the most up to date version be lodged with this application.

    5. Deep Soil Landscape Zone:
    Waverley Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP2012)
    
    Controls:
    (d) Deep soil zones: if, in relation to that part of the site (being the site, not only of that particular development, but also of any other associated development to which this Policy applies) that is not built
    on, paved or otherwise sealed, there is soil of a sufficient depth to support the growth of trees and shrubs on an area of not less than 15% of the area of the site (the deep soil zone). Two-thirds of the deep soil zone should preferably be located at the rear of the site and each area forming part of the zone should have a minimum dimension of 3 metres,
    
    The proposed development is seeking a non-compliance with the deep soil landscaped area. As stated previously within this report, as the proposed development will be a blank canvas there is no reason for a non-compliance like this, other than over development. For this reason, it is requested that the design is amended to reflect compliance with the landscaping controls.

    6. Increased parking impacts

    There has been a number of car parking impacts identified as a result of the proposed development. Birrell Street, Langlee Avenue and Henrietta Street all currently have congestion and parking issues. The proposed development will further intensify these congestions issues as and additional 298 vehicles will be added to the congestion.

    It is considered that the amount of car parking space provided will dramatically impact the flow of traffic within the area. With the over development of the height and the non-compliance with the deep soil landscaping it is requested that the design be amended to reduce the overall height of the development to reduce the need for as many car parking spaces.

    7. Shadowing of building

    Overshadowing of the adjoining sites has also been identified as being an issue resulting from this proposed development. As indicated by the shadow diagram provided with the submission package, there will be a significant increase to the overshadowing of the adjoining sites. The shadowing would be significantly reduced if the proposed development met compliance of clause 4.3 Height of Buildings as set out by the WLEP2012.
    As the proposed development is providing such a non-compliance with the building height, a unreasonable amount of overshadowing will result from this development.

    8. Loss of on street Car Spaces

    The proposed development will be taking at least 8 on-street car parking spaces away as a result of the development. Currently the car parking opportunity within Birrell Street, Henrietta Street and Langlee Avenue are minimal, with all hours of the day presenting limited opportunity. It is requested that an alternate design be submitted that does not impact on the on-street parking spaces. This will likely involve the reduction of the overall size of the development. Further the deign should allow for w widening of Langlee Ave near Birrell st.

    Conclusion:

    The environmental impacts generated by this proposal, whether considered individually or cumulatively in the context of the site and broader area, are significant and raise a number of issues, therefore the application does not warrant the support of Council and the issue of development consent.
    In general, the development proposals of this particular site are not acceptable, as it competes with the integrity or character of the surrounding area.

36. Waverley Bowling Club Revised June 2019. DA 483/2018.

    I wish to object to the revised DA for the Waverley Bowling club.

    Firstly, while the DA has been amended, most of the points raised in my previous submission are still applicable. Once again, I refer you to the objection letter from Urban & co, which forms part of my objection. A copy of this can be downloaded at: http://www.savewaverley.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Planner-Letter-of-Objection-Web.pdf

    Further, I wish to raise the following points:
    
    The applicant has not shown that contravening the development standard of the LEP is justified. The significant quantitative variation from the controls does not meet the objectives of the planning control. In the absence of compliance with the control, an appropriate town planning outcome would not eventuate. It is not in the public interest and is overwhelmingly objected to by those living in the local area as shown by the significantly high number of submissions received by council.

    Building Height and Floor Space Ratio:

    The buildings are well in excess of the maximum LEP height and floor space ratio, are unsympathetic towards the streetscape/character of the area and will be higher than any other building in proximity, especially those approved since more stringent planning processes have been in place.

    The proposed height will result in buildings that dominate the streetscape, reduce visual privacy and will have significant overshadowing impacts. It bears no relationship to other developments adjoining the site. The streetscape analysis provided in the architectural design report does not take into account that Henrietta and Langley Avenue are both predominated by 1& 2 story dwellings. Many of these dwellings are within close proximity to the site and would be impacted by the proposed height and bulk particularly of buildings A, B & C. The use planting and green walls will not make the proposed scale of the built form any less dominating.

    While the DA application looks to draw comparisons with Waverley college, the later is lower density and has far larger offsets relative to neighbouring buildings. The buildings should be no higher than neighbouring buildings that have been required to comply with the LEP. The proposed height sets a dangerous precedent for future developments.

    In addition, there should be no plant, equipment and communal rooftop terrace on the roof of any building. A communal rooftop terrace will be a noise nuisance. Were these to be removed the proposed height of the buildings are still in no way acceptable.

    The development will significantly reduce solar access for buildings to the South. Solar access is also reduced to the bowling greens.
    The inclusion of 2 bowling greens/common use areas should not permit excessive height in other parts of the site.

    The applicant has provided no economic viability evidence to justify the need for the additional height and floor space required to offset the cost of providing community facilities. An economically viable development that provides benefits to the community could be constructed with the current LEP.

    Waverley Council is already able to achieve jobs and housing targets without the additional building height and scale proposed.

    The historic building will be dwarfed against the huge bulk of the new surrounding buildings. There should be more setbacks from the historic building to enable it to occupy the site without being compromised.

    Privacy and Overlooking Plan:

    Views provided are set back from the boundary. For example, B303, is shown from a vantage point well back from the window, not at the window. This is misleading and understates the overlooking aspect. Site planting should not be relied upon as an effective privacy plan.
    

    Loss of recreational space:

    Private recreational space is an asset and should be protected as such. This is of utmost importance in our densely populated area. Such zoning exists to provide amenity and improve livability of the area. This proposal significantly reduces the available private recreational space. Providing residential housing does not replace or justify the loss of recreational space. The loss of 1 bowling green, reduction in size of the remaining bowling greens and loss of surrounding open space will all negatively impact on the amenity of this recreational space currently enjoyed by a wide cross-section of the community.

    The development must not result in noise complaints from the adjoining seniors living as this could curtail bowling and club operations. To avoid this scenario, there should be larger offset between buildings and the club.

    Easts have made representations to the members of the bowling club that the two greens would be dedicated bowling greens. As such, there is limited open recreation space for non-bowling residents and non-bowling visitors to the club. As such, the DA should be amended to provide more open space.
    

    Traffic:

    The study fails to recognise the complex set of surrounding one-way streets and traffic congestion at Victoria St and Henrietta st. No assessment of the Victoria Street and Carrington road intersection has been carried out. This intersection is the cause of most of the problems with traffic congestion along Henrietta and Langlee Avenue.

    The significant increase in traffic volumes will have a detrimental effect on residential amenity. The proposed residential living will see a significant increase in cars using Henrietta St and Langlee Ave.

    It should be noted that the “senior living” is defined as over 55. As such, many residents are “young”, would still be working with children living at home and be still active users of their cars in peek hours.

    The proposed basement drop off and pickup area will further add to traffic and parking problems. Traffic modelling survey should be undertaken in the peak summer months when traffic volumes are higher to better assess intersection operation/impacts. There is no recognition that traffic levels vary due to ill weather.

    Easts traffic study provided in the DA is contradicted by its early study which shows that the Birrell Langlee Intersection is already near capacity. Traffic congestion has increased not decreased over the years.

    Widening of Langlee Avenue does not negate the difficulty vehicles have turning out of Langley Avenue onto Birrell street particularly during peak hours.

    The narrow and single lane road of Henrietta street with the counterflow bike lane is not conducive to any increase in traffic. The council has identified that the counterflow bike lane is problematic due to the narrow width of the road.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Waverley Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment