PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. More units and no offstreet parking??!

   No thank you. It’s congested enough.

2. I agree with the previous comment.
   Extra units should only be allowed if they can facilitate parking spaces.

3. I agree with previous comments.

4. I object to this DA application as it is over - development and non compliant.
   This is just another example in Ramsgate Avenue of proposed over- development of a small 345 sqm site which does not comply with a number of Council R3 LEP & DCP Planning requirements.
   Every time Waverley Council determine and approve the proposed over developments which ignore the LEP and DCP it encourages more development applicants to keep trying to attempt to justify over development in this quiet narrow residential street, which adds no value to the local community, but maximises the profits for the applicant. Basis of objections;
   1. 63 % variation to the permitted FSR ie 63% more area than permitted.
   2.No offsite parking for the additional roof top 2 units in a narrow single one way congested street which already has parking and traffic congestion.
   3. Set backs do not comply for top floor addition.
   4. The comparison in the LK Planning variation request with the previously approved No 30 Ramsgate Ave similar roof top addition, which also exceeds the permitted FSR by 1.31 ie 31 % over -development on that site, clearly demonstrates why this No 43 development should be rejected. That No 30 is a poor example of appropriate development and the resulting dis-appointing appearance of no aesthetic value of that building and the negative impact to the streetscape. Also with no additional parking and required setbacks at the additional roof top level.

5. I note and agree with the objections above, particularly the very detailed one from Peter Varga.
   Creeping overdevelopment like this is very worrying as legally or otherwise it creates precedents for the next out of scope proposal.
   Lines must be drawn in the sand and in the air to keep Bondi at a human scale.
   And a few extra car spaces can’t fix a challenge like that!

6. I object to this DA application. It is non compliant and does not account for the fact that more flats means more cars spots are required. Bondi simply cannot keep building unlimited amounts of residences without improving the infrastructure required. This means cars, electricity, internet and all the things that make a cohesive suburb.
   This proposed over- development of a small 345 sqm site does not comply with many of Council R3 LEP & DCP Planning requirements.
   My objections;
   1/ 63 % variation to the permitted FSR
   2/ No offsite parking for the additional roof top 2 units.
   3/ This is a narrow single lane one way congested street which already has parking and traffic congestion.
   4/ the set backs for top floor addition are non compliant.
   4. The comparison to 30 Ramsgate Ave which also exceeds the permitted FSR by 1.31 ie 31 % over -development on that site, shows why this development should be rejected.

7. I object to this DA application. It is non compliant and does not account for the fact that more flats means more cars spots are required. Bondi simply cannot keep building unlimited amounts of residences without improving the infrastructure required. This means cars, electricity, internet and all the things that make a cohesive suburb.
   This proposed over- development of a small 345 sqm site does not comply with many of Council R3 LEP & DCP Planning requirements.
   My objections;
   1/ 63 % variation to the permitted FSR
   2/ No offsite parking for the additional roof top 2 units.
   3/ This is a narrow single lane one way congested street which already has parking and traffic congestion.
   4/ the set backs for top floor addition are non compliant.
   4. The comparison to 30 Ramsgate Ave which also exceeds the permitted FSR by 1.31 ie 31 % over -development on that site, shows why this development should be rejected.

8. I agree with Nic and object to the DA application to build 2 seperate appartments above the building.

   There is legislation in NSW that states additional living in attic space must be incorporated into the dwelling below. Inadequate infrastructure in the Bondi Beach area creates dangerous traffic and pedestrian conserns. There have been numerous pedestian fatalities due to excessive traffic and lack of traffic safety in the area has been neglected.

   I object to this DA application. It is non compliant and does not account for the fact that more flats means more cars spots are required. Bondi simply cannot keep building unlimited amounts of residences without improving the infrastructure required. This means cars, electricity, internet and all the things that make a cohesive suburb.
   This proposed over- development of a small 345 sqm site does not comply with many of Council R3 LEP & DCP Planning requirements.
   My objections;
   1/ 63 % variation to the permitted FSR
   2/ No offsite parking for the additional roof top 2 units.
   3/ This is a narrow single lane one way congested street which already has parking and traffic congestion.
   4/ the set backs for top floor addition are non compliant.
   4. The comparison to 30 Ramsgate Ave which also exceeds the permitted FSR by 1.31 ie 31 % over -development on that site, shows why this development should be rejected.

9. Hi,

   I disagree with this development application. This end of Ramsgate Avenue is extremely narrow with 3 other major constructions happening simultaneously. The constant development and construction on this end of the road affects those working from home adversely.
   I live right opposite 43, Ramsgate Avenue and am disturbed by the never ending construction and the noise on this road.
   My objections;
   1/ 63 % variation to the permitted FSR
   2/ No offsite parking for the additional roof top 2 units.
   3/ This is a narrow single lane one way congested street which already has parking and traffic congestion.
   4/ the set backs for top floor addition are non compliant.
   4. The comparison to 30 Ramsgate Ave which also exceeds the permitted FSR by 1.31 ie 31 % over -development on that site, shows why this development should be rejected.

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