Can you help keep PlanningAlerts running? — Your donation is tax deductible.

10 Sir Thomas Mitchell Road Bondi Beach NSW 2026

Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a new three storey residential flat building with integrated parking and strata subdivision

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 12 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Waverley Council, reference DA-190/2020)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Amanda Hendriks commented

    No No No ,
    These are original early 20 century charming semis full of character , why allow the demolition of the fabric that makes Bondi unique and different ‘’demolition of existing dwellings and construction of NEW 3 STOREY RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH INTEGRATED PARKING AND SUBDIVISION , bland and ugly . Residents have to object strongly and say no to the uglification of Bondi by greedy developers who do not live in the local area.

  2. Nicholas Pellow commented

    I’d love to know where all the developers who propose such disgusting designs and proposals hang out? Is it in their local 7/11, at public toilet blocks or under bridges that they get inspiration from?

    What is it they think they are adding to the cultural, aesthetic and community fabric to a place as unique as Bondi is?

    When they are finally at peace, and at the end of their lives, what will they look back on and really be proud of? Cementing in a beach, or is there something more worthwhile they may be able to do instead?

  3. John Batts commented

    A crucial question posed, Amanda.

  4. Mitchell Mitchell commented

    Stop destroying the cultural heritage of Bondi the council should do more to protect our suburb from becoming another soulless suburb with its creativity and uniqueness squashed out by big development companies.

  5. Wendy Lui commented

    I strongly oppose this proposal. Right now yet another new residential and commercial development is being completed opposite this address, and it’s intrusive and symbolic enough.
    In real time we have the opportunity to make important decisions about what we want in our community - it’s values, it’s priorities, it’s future - and this is not it.

  6. T Craven commented

    I oppose this development as it is involves destruction of 100+ year old buildings full of character and history and is contributing to the ongoing obliteration of the unique character, amenity and heritage of Bondi.

  7. Tom Hoe commented

    We oppose the proposed development for the following reasons:

    The proposed development is subject to a
    development standard for FSR of 0.9:1, resulting in a
    2 permitted gross floor area (GFA) 523.53m .
    The proposal seeks development consent for a GFA of 679.2m2, representing a non-compliance of 29%. The Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by the Application states that the additional GFA is as a result of part of the second floor.

    The ADG specifies a building depth of 12-18m from glass line to glass line to ensure that apartments will receive adequate daylight and natural cross ventilation. The proposed development has a building depth of 29.6m, exceeding the controls by 11.6m.

    Given the proposed development is four storeys, a minimum setback of 6m is required from the habitable rooms to all site boundaries. Whilst the proposed development incorporates a minimum setback of 6.015m to the rear boundary which interfaces with the subject site, the building is setback at 2.7m and 3.5m from the eastern boundary and western boundary, respectively.

    A minimum street frontage of 15m is required for residential flat buildings in R3 zones. The proposed development has a street frontage of 12.62m and falls short of the minimum requirements by 2.38m, representing a variation of 15.8%.

  8. Jason Smith commented

    Well researched response Tom Hoe, thanks for your input

    I'm dismayed also by new developments. I cannot think of any recent development that has added to the feel of our area.

    What saddens me is that in general DA is well over the standard allowances and the push for more more more is shameful. The standards are there for a reason. There should be no allowances. Follow the rules!

  9. Lisa Hynes commented

    I strongly oppose this development which blatantly contravenes DA regulations regarding FSR, building depth ,boundaries. & street frontage. Any breach of these would set a precedence for similar developments in the future .
    In addition, the architectural and cultural character of Bondi would be further compromised . A development of this scale would put further pressure on parking and traffic in this already densely populated suburb

  10. A Wessling commented

    Yet another bland development making Bondi Beach ordinary and over developed....
    The proposed car park access is located next to existing bedrooms of 12 sir Thomas Mitchell Road and will remove one street parking space in an already underserviced area.

    There is not enough building separation. Claiming that the building separation remains the same as it is currently, is fine if the proposed development was single storey and not a 3-4 storey development. SEPP 65 indicates that a 12m separation is called for from habitable to habitable rooms.

    The bulk and scale of the proposed development will eliminate all natural light to our living room, dining room and bathroom and will overshadow most of our rear garden. Uri T Design don’t seem to have provided all relevant shadow studies. The one study they have provided has times but no date. We would typically see shadows for both summer and winter solstice.

    The proposed development will also affect our privacy with the proposed kitchen/ dinning room windows overlooking the living room of 12 Sir Thoma Mitchell Rd. These windows will also overlook the bathroom windows...

    From a design point of view, the proposed development does not offer anything back to the street in terms of architectural articulation as expressed in the SEPP compliance document. Suggesting balconies and reassessed glazing as a good articulation is a stretch.

    Whilst the heritage architect doesn’t feel there is any significance to the existing houses that are proposed to be demolished, I would disagree. The two semidetached houses are the last of their kind on Sir Thomas Mitchell Road and I think it will be a shame to erase all trace of them to be replaced with a very ordinary apartment block.

  11. Andrew Hoppe commented

    A Wessling - thanks for your well researched contribution - we are at 2/19 Francis Street, and would love to meet you. Message me at ozhoppe at outlook dot com.


  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