PlanningAlerts

16 Comments

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

1. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
   - Parking on Lamrock avenue is already overcrowded, another 93 lodgers will make it impossible to find a park
   - Height requirements are exceeded
   - The noise and rubbish from the Village (neighbouring boarding house) is excessive, to add 93 lodgers would create even more of a dumping ground on the street.
   - The driveway is too close to the neighbouring property
   - The FSR appears not to include hallways, this should not be the case

2. Infrastructure isn’t considered when approving developments. It’s already overcrowded in Bondi with no solution on public transport or roads.

3. I strongly object to the development for the following reasons:
   It is not in keeping with the tone and culture of the community in the surrounding residential streets. There is already a large backpackers in the steet and others nearby all which bring noise late at night in to the streets. The neighbourhood needs to be a comfortable place to live.
   Infrastructure is also insufficient for the added influx of population.
   Rubbish is already a problem in the street that the development will only exacerbate.

4. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
   - Noise and disturbance from the current backpacker lodge is bad enough. There are backpackers always partying, screaming outside as it is.
   - I constantly have backpackers using our garage door as a urinal, and see backpackers doing drugs at all hours outside on the street on the corner of Lamrock Ave and Consett Ave, yesterday being the most recent occurance!
   - There is rubbish on the corner of Lamrock and Consett Ave that never gets cleaned up.

   This development would be a disaster for the community and surrounding residents.

5. I do not believe that another large back packers any where in our neighbourhood is appropriate. This is a residential area and the 'business district' should not be allowed to spread in Bondi in this way. In addition the building is too tall and out of character.
   This development should not go ahead.

6. Also strongly object to this development and wish to echo the comments made by the other objectors above:
   - Parking on Lamrock avenue is already overcrowded, another 93 lodgers will make it impossible to find a park
   - Height requirements are exceeded
   - The noise and rubbish from the Village (neighbouring boarding house) is excessive, to add 93 lodgers would create even more of a dumping ground on the street.
   - The driveway is too close to the neighbouring property
   - The FSR appears not to include hallways, this should not be the case

   Bondi Beach is a residential community that being destroyed by constant commercial development that does not take community interests in mind. This project does not and anything to local community, and simply serves to bring revenues to developers and business interests. It should not be allowed to progress

7. I strongly object to the development proposal under the guise of affordable housing.
   The reasons for my objection are, this is a residential area with one traveller's hostel in this street which is enough.
   Noise is already a problem in the early hours of the morning.
   Problems with rubbish will be compounded.
   Parking will be a serious issue.
   A 4 storey development is unprecedented and will overshadow the street and undermine its charm.
   Developers will say and do whatever it takes to maximise their return without any consideration for the community they leave in their wake.

8. this proposed development has excessive height, scale and bulk.
   
   There are averse impacts on adjoining properties, particularly overlooking Impact , Visual
   Impact and Acoustic Impact.
   
   The adoption by the Applicant of existing “intrusive” 1960’s/1970’s buildings as a
   benchmark for justification of the proposed height, bulk and scale of the current
   DA. I consider that such an approach is not supportable based on previous Land and
   Environment Court judgements.
   
   If one was to utilise the adjoining
   1960’s/1970’s residential flat buildings as a benchmark, the proposed development
   is of a height, bulk and scale which is inconsistent with these adjoining existing
   buildings.
   
   Inadequate deep soil landscaped area due to the excessive extent of the proposed
   basement carpark.
   
   Inadequate Clause 4.6 Request seeking variation of the Height of Buildings Standard. S415 of the act
   Page 9 of the 38 page Statement of Environmental Effects, describes the site as cramped.
   "Figure 7:The subject site as viewed from the side fence of 1 Consett Avenue
   demonstrates the site’s cramped setting between 4 storeys buildings on all 3
   sides."

9. this proposed development has excessive height, scale and bulk.

   There are averse impacts on adjoining properties, particularly overlooking Impact , Visual
   Impact and Acoustic Impact.
   
   The adoption by the Applicant of existing “intrusive” 1960’s/1970’s buildings as a
   benchmark for justification of the proposed height, bulk and scale of the current
   DA.
   

   The measurement of floorspace ( the hallways have been excluded from the total calculation),

   The building is over height, and non-compliant

   non compliant parking provision
   
   Inadequate deep soil landscaped area due to the excessive extent of the proposed
   basement carpark.
   
   Inadequate Clause 4.6 Request seeking variation of the Height of Buildings Standard. S415 of the act
   Page 9 of the 38 page Statement of Environmental Effects, describes the site as cramped.
   "Figure 7:The subject site as viewed from the side fence of 1 Consett Avenue
   demonstrates the site’s cramped setting between 4 storeys buildings on all 3
   sides."
   
   I consider that such an approach is not supportable based on previous Land and
   Environment Court judgements.
   
   If the powers that be were to utilise the adjoining
   1960’s / 1970’s residential flat buildings as a benchmark, then the proposed development
   is of a height, bulk and scale which is inconsistent with these adjoining existing
   buildings.

   24 x 240 litre bins will be put out each week creating a traffic jam on Lamrock as trucks collect, and a blindspot for any vehicle crossing the pavement

   50 plus vehicle movements across the pavement each day could constitute a pedestrian hazard

   A non compliant provision of enough parking spaces

   Povided drawings are very scant on detail, in terms of solar access an isometric view should be demonstrated to asses the loss of sun on the street

10. I strongly object to the proposed four storey building (which already exceeds the height requirements, driveways too close to neighbouring properties and plans that exclude hallways) which has made no an attempt at addressing the overcrowding which already has existing “boarders” standing around outside until all hours drinking and partying to all hours in the neighbouring Boarding House at 19 Lamrock Ave. This includes lack of space for 24x240 litre bins curbed weekly or the additional pressure put on parking already at saturation point by proposing a shortfall of parking spaces internally, or visitors vehicles.

    I strongly object to the Boarding House proposal under the guise of “Affordable Housing” No guarantees or regulations have been established to ensure this is low cost housing for Sydney residents and it’s workers: what are the regulations/criteria for acceptance? The DA itself states there won’t be additional traffic/parking issues as it will accommodate tourists. A short residency/lease is not helping the housing crisis it’s simply providing Backpackers accommodation for commercial gain in an established residential zone for its owners with no regard for the current infrastructure, existing buildings or its residents.

11. The scale of this development is too big, being 4 stories of residential, and 93 lodgers is excessive. Parking provisions are inadequate. Parking is already a problem in Lamrock Ave. There are too many units for the available space. If this is not officially another backpackers, and nor it should be, then it sets an unsatisfactory precedent to development in Lamrock Ave.

12. As a neighbour I am concerned about the development of a boarding house. We already struggle with noise and disturbances from the backpackers, similar housing across the road will only contribute to this issue.
    I am also concerned that the issues with rubbish and parking will be compounded.

13. This proposal is a Trojan Horse which will, under the provisions of the NSW Government's well-intentioned attempts to provide affordable accommodation for less well off citizens, insert a sub-standard high-density over-scale building into what remains an essentially low-density residential neighborhood.
    The height of the proposed building exceeds Council's controls, and the justification for this which is being provided in the accompanying SEE and other documents fails to convince.
    For example, some properties on the other side of Lamrock Avenue are presented as being four storey, but this ignores the fact of the steep slope of the land on which they are built. This means that they are at most three storey only; many are two storey and some are single-storey.
    The SEE arguments that the design of the proposed building respects the existing and future desired character of the neighborhood fail entirely to convince.
    The 1960s/70s blocks of flats which are used as reference in the SEE are exceptions to an area that still retains much of the distinctive character of Bondi's interwar period, which is recognized in a number of Council's planning policies. Even if the current buildings are not protected by instruments, there are conservation zones nearby, and the character of the area has been referenced in various other Council documents and decisions.
    Equally, the on-going real-life frustrations of local residents (and police) arising from the Village backpacker business on the adjoining block here should ensure that Council looks very critically at the impact of a second high-density high-income block. The cumulative effect will be significant: the profits from the operation of any approved "guest house" here will come at the direct expense of the amenity of neighbors and the community. Bondi is a holiday destination, and the use of the project is likely to be as seasonal and short-term backpacker-style accommodation. In real life, the purported social benefits of the SEPP will be hard to identify.
    The community will fight this proposal, and asks that Council's planners and the assessment panel recognize the strength of their arguments.

14. When is enough enough. We already feel the fallout from 21 Lamrock Ave. As there is not anywhere near enough parking they seek parking in our area. Rarely a morning goes by that we are not picking up beer bottles from our footpath. The thought of adding another 93 people to the area fills me with dread.

    I feel that with developments such as this we are in danger of changing the character of Bondi forever.

    I would ask all councillors to keep our interests in mind. Backpackers don’t vote.

15. I object to such development.

    With the presence of the current backpacker, the street has become a sort of urinal, we constantly confront tourists at night doing the wrong thing; there is more rubbish everyday, it is definitely louder at night and probably very uncomfortable for who is close by. The height plans are definitely excessive, and blocking the view of many people.

    I feel very uncertain how it is going be controlled? All this excessive noise, rubbish around, violent people under the influence of who knows, going back to their hostels in the middle of the night, 3am - 5am.

    I warmly hope the authorities can reconsider the numbers, the height of the building and everything else.

16. I find it quite shocking that with all the parking problems (impossible to hide), the council can give permit to the construction a 93-lodgers building.
    There is always the possibility to complain after, yes! But it will be too late when the building will be up. So here I am.
    Imagine yourself living in the area for many years, taking care of its beauty and helping the council to keep it clean..and one day, slowly the council decides for some reason, that your right of living in a civil quite area is not as important as a 4 storey floor building with all the consequences that this will bring.
    Bondi is well known to be in the To do List of tourists, but unfortunately it is losing slowly the great landscapes of low houses, with little stores and little alleys.
    Rubbish, noise in a residential area is not a good publicity at all.
    Bondi is getting crowded, noisy during the night and residents have the right to complain against disturbing people who don't really care about Bondi residents who take care of this beautiful area every day.

    I am sure and confident that the Council will listen to all these voices, because they are not complaints, they are actually giving ideas of improvements to make Bondi a respected community, quite and clean.

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