PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. The proposed development is completely out of sync with the feel of our local street community and will have a dramatic impact on what is already a highly dense population area. We do not need more development - there is already stress on parking and public transport. This appears to be a very different type of residence compared to our immediate area. We have already had to endure the impact of excessive development in nearby precincts and now have heavily increased traffic. When we first moved in to the area 24 years ago it was a protected heritage street and then that went with no consultation with local residents. Please do not allow more 'modernisation' and capitalisation on what is an important historical legacy. The current residence would be valuable if returned to its original state rather than demolishing it.

2. I object tho this DA as it is destroys the character and heritage of the local area. Lewisham is well known for its heritage buildings and well maintained homes with original features still in tact. One aspect that attracts buyers and new residents is that the land sizes are original and not chopped up into unreasonably small lots like in other suburbs.
   Lewisham is already suffering due to the traffic and lack of parking caused by Lewisham Christian Brothers School, the negative impact this school causes with its Ilegal enrolments and refusal to comply to Councils guidelines (and council turning a blind eye and allowing this school to operate illegally) already impact the local residents to an unacepectable level.
   Lewisham has also been bombarded with high density developments without any road or transport improvements or change.
   The proposal to demolish heritage and create high density living without considering the value of the heritage and the negative impact on local community is unacceptable. The style and size is not in keeping with existing architecture.
   This DA should not be approved.

3. I object to this DA as it involves demolishing the original existing Victorian terrace house, and sqeezing 2 new Torrens title dwellings (and swimming pools) onto the property, with no off-street parking allowance.

   The development is out of keeping with the area, and it is a shame to lose the original terrace building, which while not heritage listed, has original features and attributes (which would benefit from being restored rather than demolished). The 2 new residential dwellings proposed on the existing property will be crammed into the site (built right to the boundries) with 2 swimming pools at rear.

   This development will put additional pressure on the parking in an already busy street, with potentially 4 additional cars (eg 2 cars per dwelling) using on-street parking. The property currently has 1 off-street parking spot, which will be lost under the proposed DA.

4. We object to this development application. This development is designed to create two very small blocks of land that test the limits of habitable space. The lots will be the smallest in the street, making it unpleasant for habitants and the local community.

   The schematic architectural drawings contradict the land ratio proposed, which suggests that there will a larger density build, if the development is approved. The proposal does not take into consideration the character of the street. The proposed development ruins the integrity of the existing block and is more analogous to a smaller tenanted street (similar to those found in Barker between the railway and Parramatta Road). The high density proposal is not appropriate to Denison Road, and the affordances Denison Road benefits from by being adjacent to a heritage listed area.

   The proposal is designed to maximise profits so it is likely to made of cheap materials which will degrade quickly. This proposal will exacerbate the already congested parking in the street by removing existing off street parking for the existing dwelling. Lot sizes and buildings of this type encourage a transient population with the consequent noise and congestion problems.

   The proposal test the limits of set backs to adjoining properties with consequent safety, shadowing and privacy issues. The proposal is ill conceived with noticeable errors. The proposal should take into consideration the existing character of the building and its family usage. On this basis, the proposal for development - from one lot to two very small lots, with a notional two dwelling design and pools, is whole heartedly objected to. The DA should not be approved.
   

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council (Marrickville). 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