PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I wish to strongly object to the above proposal. This area is already medium density with a large number of home units, which in the past have been restricted to no higher than 3 stories. Just because it is classified as a boarding house, doesn't mean that most residents could have vehicles that will require on street parking.
   I already see between 2 to 5 small commercial vans parking in my immediate low density area, often close to driveways which block vision for residents, and pose a danger to traffic when parked close to intersections. These vans are not owned by residents and are often parked for lengthy periods day and night. I have seen owners/drivers dropped off and picked up by friends afters parking.
   The approve such density housing on a busy road near what is already a very busy intersection in peak hour is madness and will only add to the congestion of our already suburban streets and available public transport.

2. Frankly, I’m disappointed to read objections to this proposal from members of my local community who I would like to think might be more inclusive of people from all strata of society. Low cost boarding accommodation for people of limited means is desperately short in Sydney and all suburbs should play their part in helping to alleviate this problem. I think that the proposed location is a good one - it has ready access to good public transport (both train and bus) which is important for people who probably do not have the means to own their own cars. Furthermore the fact that it is on a busy road means that it is a fairly noisy location which means that it is likely to be less attractive to potential owners of larger and more expensive units.

3. I object to this DA for the following reasons: The bulk and scale is inappropriate for this location. The 14 cars entering and exiting the building onto a main artery road is unsafe and I would be surprised if Transport for NSW would allow this. The height is not compliant with the building controls nor is it in character with surrounding buildings. This large building will have a negative impact on the solar access for neighbouring properties. The box like design of the building will form a large heat bank which will contribute significantly to urban heating and its aesthetics are not in the public interest. There is insufficient open communal space for 44 people and I doubt a Social Impact Statement (not available on the website), if completed, would demonstrate there to be social merit in this DA. The deep soil space and set backs are inadequate to allow for tree planting to give screening, mitigate traffic noise and to contribute towards the City of Ryde's tree canopy. Please reject this DA.

4. I object to this development proposal due to the following reasons:
   1. Traffic in Eastwood is already bad, this proposed development does not support any improvements with the existing traffic congestion. Yes the subject site is located within 12min walk to good transport such as the train and bus however it cannot be assumed that everyone will take the public transport.
   2. The proposed development states a 4 storey building, i dont believe it supports the surrounding current residential blocks in the vicinity.

5. I support the comments and logic of M McCartney regarding this proposal. As a proposal, it seeks to become the lowest common denominator in planning standards. I hope Council will reject the proposal on this ground alone.