37 Watson Street Bondi NSW 2026

Demolition of dwelling and construction of 2 dual occupancy dwellings, with integrated parking, torrens title boundary adjustment and two swimming pools at rear

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 2 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Waverley Council, reference DA-403/2020)

22 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Paul Johnstone commented

    As the immediate neighbour, I would like to view the plans for this development re the footprint and profile of the proposed building, the swimming pools (TWO???) etc.

  2. TC commented

    The plans are all on the website. Another beautiful heritage (but not heritage listed) free standing 1900 building seems to have been bought by by a developer to be demolished and subdivided into two semi-detached buildings, both in fact three stories including a basement and first story, with flat roofs and two pools. The proposal seeks to maintain Torrens Title over both lots, however seeks a boundary increase of the common boundary of both lots.

    Mod Urban states that the proposal is in the public interest as it provides upgrades to existing housing stock, and will not impact upon the streetscape character and will not result in detrimental amenity impacts to neighbours. This is completely incorrect and misleading. The proposal will destroy a 1900 heritage building that looks to be in good condition and will substantially impact on the streetscape character and will result in detrimental amenity impacts to neighbours. This proposal is not any way in the public interest, only in the interest of developer bank balance.

    I object to this because the modern facade will be out of context with the surrounding buildings in the street and it seeks to further destroy the unique heritage of the area. Bondi/Waverley/Rose Bay are becoming just more cookie cutter aspirational suburbs full of modern, large and generally generic concrete buildings with flat roofs and its unique beachside heritage is being progressively destroyed. My forebears lived in the Bondi/North Bondi area from the late 1800s and I first grew up in Bondi so I am well aware of the history of the area.

  3. Patricia commented

    This is a well-preserved Victorian house that should not be demolished for 2 more ugly townhouses. The street landscape is predominantly Federation and Victorian houses so this is also out of character for the area.

    It is also in a R2 zoning which only allows for strata subdivision, not Torrens as proposed. This also means the FSR allowed is only 0.5:1 as the land size is over 500sqm (at 501.7sqm). The proposal says an FSR of 0.82 is allowed as they have divided the land by 2 and applied the Councils' FSR calculations for land size under 500sqm but this is not correct when it cannot be torrens titled. Therefore the proposal is grossly oversized for the property and is really an FSR of over 1:1.

    This DA cannot be approved and will set further unwanted precedents for more inappropriate townhouse developments if it is.

  4. Nicolette Boaz commented

    I object to this DA being approved on many levels. It is out of character to the rest of the street. Secondly Council should be protecting these old buildings so that our suburb maintains its beauty. Thirdly this FsR is beyond what it currently legal In Waverley. If this is OK’d, it sets a dangerous precedent. Again what would once house 6 people will now house many many more. The only person who will benefit from this DA is the developer. And for the sake of lining their pockets we in Waverley lose out.

  5. jane oehr commented

    As a nearby resident I have observed the encroachment of high-rise building in the area and it is utterly unacceptable to allow this proposal to go ahead for all the reasons listed in replies above. It is setting a precedent and will eventually if allowed destroy the nature of the area. It should be cancelled.

  6. Paul Johnstone commented

    I am the immediate neighbour of this proposed ‘development’. Having now carefully viewed the full plans of the DA, I am vehemently opposed to this proposal on multiple levels - practical and aesthetic.

    The observations of others here are correct - the now not-so-slow rate of demolition of classic Victorian and Edwardian homes, making way for hastily-designed ugly modern structures with no simpatico to their neighbours or streetscape. I am a 25-year resident of Watson St, and - especially in the last few years - have seen several absolutely beautiful heritage buildings demolished to make way for ugly cookie-cutter townhouses.

    In this case we have proposal to demolish a delightful Victorian house in very decent condition, and establish a bland modern structure that will be a blight on the streetscape. Waverley Council should be doing everything in its power to maintain its heritage structures, yet seems to be complicit in enabling their destruction.

    Two on-street car spaces will be sacrificed to allow driveway access - in a street which already has a dearth of parking for its residents, due to the popularity of the Bondi Rd/Watson St shopping area.

    The plans show that the privacy of my home - especially the courtyard on the southern side - will be compromised.

    Swimming pools are proposed for the back yards, the noise from which has a very real potential to impinge on the amenity and tranquility of my back garden.

    The proposed construction of driveways into a ‘basement’ parking area will require serious excavation by heavy equipment into bedrock, with the potential to seriously compromise the integrity of my house next door at #35. I will demand a ‘dilapidation report’ on my house, and would with vehemence prosecute any damage caused, .

    I will copy the comment from another objector - that this proposal is "in a R2 zoning which only allows for strata subdivision, not Torrens as proposed. This also means the FSR allowed is only 0.5:1 as the land size is over 500sqm (at 501.7sqm). The proposal says an FSR of 0.82 is allowed as they have divided the land by 2 and applied the Councils' FSR calculations for land size under 500sqm but this is not correct when it cannot be torrens titled. Therefore the proposal is grossly oversized for the property and is really an FSR of over 1:1."

    Council MUST NOT permit this proposal to proceed. This building should be renovated and restored to its former glory. In doing so the owners will reap a handsome financial dividend. But this? This is beyond the pale.

  7. Lisa H commented

    I agree with all comments made by Paul Johnstone. As a Bondi resident for the past 10 years it is dismaying to see the rapid destruction of the heritage character of the area and the blatant disregard for FSR s and ensuing ,traffic problems, overdevelopment etc

  8. M. Friedman commented

    Good on you Paul!!! Your comments sum up everything that is occurring in the Bondi area, where the demolition of classic Victorian and Edwardian homes - its heritage - is rapidly being destroyed and replaced by concrete monstrosities. With all the residents around Bondi voicing their disapproval about a number of DAs one can only hope Council will heed their comments.

  9. Bel Thomas commented

    I object to this proposal. The heritage homes in Waverley should all be protected. This is a beautiful well built home and should be preserved. There is no benefit to the community to introduce yet more residences, the area is already well over developed.

  10. Paul Johnstone commented

    I've been reliably informed that Waverley Council's regulations state that there must be a MINIMUM clearance of 1.0 metres from the property boundary to either side of any structure - my source pondering how they could fit two places onto this site and still allow this 1.0m gap. This developers plans show a 1.1 metre pathway leading up from the front gates on both sides - but once that path reaches the house the walls of the proposed structure extend well into that 1.1 metres, narrowing the path once it reaches the actual house. So the gap between the house and the boundary appears to be less than the required 1.0m.
    I'm betting that this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of this developer 'pushing the boundaries' - literally as well as figuratively.

  11. Jay Hackett commented

    I agree with the petitioners, that Townhouses are not in line with the aesthetic of the street in question, & will impinge upon neighbours privacy & tranquility.

  12. Jackson Johnstone commented

    I oppose to the proposal for the development of the town houses to be built at 37 Watson street. Watson street.
    Having grown up on Watson street, over the years I’ve seen all to many beautiful old style houses demolished to make way for these new unsightly new homes/appartments.
    It’s such a shame to see the uniquely beautiful streetscape I grew up in change into something so different and the potential that if these new development proposals are constantly being approved our beloved Watson street will loose its originality and great feel.
    There’s absolutely no need to destroy such an amazing home which is still in great shape. These are the kind of original structures that should be heritage listed and protected at all costs.

  13. John Wermut commented

    Having just lived through over 12 months of precisely this scenario, I can fully understand the concerns of the petitioners here. Over the past 12 months, the fabulous old home next door to me - in Nancy St North Bondi- was demolished and replaced by side-by-side concrete monoliths. I say ‘concrete’ but the upper external walls are actually constructed of polystyrene. Yes, polystyrene - covered with a thin coating of cement render.
    That means millions of tiny poly balls were strewn everywhere during the procedure. And where do these millions of little bits of poly end up? Down the drains then into our oceans, where else. The council must have been aware of this - but we, the neighbours, were totally surprised by this, apparently, new-fangled method of construction.
    And, as to Paul Johnston’s concerns regarding parking, that too, has been impacted. Two homes replacing one means more cars. More visitors. More incidence of encroachment on neighbours’ driveways.
    This council shows little regard for the history, feel and atmosphere that makes Bondi the unique suburb that it is. It’s time that Council realises it is employed by the residents of Bondi, not the developers who help fill their coffers.

  14. Matt Griffin commented

    As residents of Watson St, we object to the proposed development at 37 Watson Street, Bondi.

    Whilst I'm not an 'anti-development', I'm a big supporter of considered development within the surrounding streetscape. Too often history is simply torn down to make way for something that is easy and cheap for one party to produce, without the consideration for others around them both now and in the future. We (led by our elected members) have a responsibility for creating an environment that is not only livable now but is loved for generations to come. Our environment is at stake and it's our responsibility to own it. The easy option is to rubber-stamp everything that comes across our desks, the right option is to think how could this be done better.

    The facade of 37 Watson street is a beautiful frontage that stands proud on the street, reflecting the history and life that this street has provided others. It's our choice to keep this.

    The property has a driveway that can allow for cars to be taken off the street. So to remove 2 more parking spaces from the street seams ludicrous. This is our choice also.

    Can you not ask to see a proposal that keeps the house intact and the driveway and adjacent parking spaces in working order?

    Please don't say yes to this option, Bondi and this street deserve better.

    Sincerely,
    Matt & Emma Griffin

  15. Robin cooiman commented

    Not 2 ugly townhouses again plz
    Keep the original and classy style at watsons street! 2 Pools!? This style doesn’t fit in that street at all keep
    The original classy 1900 style! This doesn’t suit the street and area at all!!!

  16. Annie P commented

    This house should be saved as a wonderful example of our local architectural heritage and history. The size is suitable to the streetscape and any development of the site to provide 2 Torrens Title houses of 3 stories is quite unsuitable and detrimental to the existing streetscape. Given the recent issues that Bondi homes have suffered with building and development, including collapsing and injury to workers, creating 2 huge homes in a fairly small-scale environment, that would include underground parking, is inappropriate and could lead to further issues. It's a big shame to keep pulling down our wonderful 19th & 20th century heritage to make way for big overdeveloped properties when they could be more sympathetically built.

  17. Jeff Shmulburd commented

    I object to this DA being approved on many levels. It is most definitely out of character to the rest of the street and will further destroy the overall heritage environment of Watson Street. There is already one ugly prefabricated "match box" - house at #31 Watson street, which ruins the whole character of Watson street.
    Secondly Council should be protecting these old buildings so that our suburb maintains its beauty.
    In addition, the street parking, at least for 2 cars, opposite #37 will be lost, due to the underground parking proposal. This is on the street where street parking is a huge problem. The only person who will benefit from this DA is the developer. And for the sake of lining their pockets. My family are Waverley residents, since 1980 and since 1985, living in this street in Waverley, paying Council rates, hoping that the Council will look after residents interests. Please do not approve this DA if you really care about the character of our community and do not want the residents to lose out.

  18. Paul Johnstone commented

    Further to my earlier comments: - these 'townhouses' propose four bedrooms in each - a total of eight bedrooms. I have been inside the existing house. It has at least four bedrooms downstairs, and at least two and perhaps three more upstairs. So it simply cannot be said that this proposal will increase accommodation in any significant way, or contribute significantly to local population density - it is purely based on developer profit.

  19. Stephen (Steve) Walker commented

    Yet again we have a proposal from a developer who wants to build an ugly “box”. This is another example of a bad taste building which adds nothing to our street.
    This development if approved is another example of the council being conned by a developer with the only benefit to the proposal is him.
    Yet another parking space is removed from Watson St where parking is a premium as it is. Rest assured when you add the number of people who will live in this proposed monstrosity parking on the street will become even harder to obtain.
    I recall 25 years ago being told I could not apply for an off street parking area for my renovations. Yet here we have a request to remove a parking space from the street. What has changed since then?
    The development uses just about every square metre of the block and if I was an immediate neighbour the sun would block out much of the light. We have too many of these types of ugly box buildings being approved in the area. It has to stop!
    I ask the council to reconsider this application and only approve applications that are designed in keeping with the majority of homes n this street.

  20. Stephen (Steve) Walker commented

    Yet again we have a proposal from a developer who wants to build an ugly “box”. This is another example of a bad taste building which adds nothing to our street.
    This development if approved is another example of the council being conned by a developer with the only benefit to the proposal is him.
    Yet another parking space is removed from Watson St where parking is a premium as it is. Rest assured when you add the number of people who will live in this proposed monstrosity parking on the street will become even harder to obtain.
    I recall 25 years ago being told I could not apply for an off street parking area for my renovations. Yet here we have a request to remove a parking space from the street. What has changed since then?
    The development uses just about every square metre of the block and if I was an immediate neighbour the sun would block out much of the light. We have too many of these types of ugly box buildings being approved in the area. It has to stop!
    I ask the council to reconsider this application and only approve applications that are designed in keeping with the majority of homes n this street.

  21. Maloney commented

    out of interest I walked past this address the other day. As I reside in the general area I am keenly interested in the issue. This development application should not be approved. It is destructive to the street scape, the amen ties of the residents and given the several recent examples in Bondi of construction collapses I can completely appreciate the concern of the immediate neighbors. Give the residents a break!

  22. Kirsten Lane commented

    Perfectly great house which would suit a family in need of space to play and enjoy the Bondi area. We do not need another cheap development, read the crowd

  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

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts