PlanningAlerts

21 Comments

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

1. With the proposal by Hunters Hill to place three towers between 10 and 19 stories high on the current Coles site, do we really need an additional 10 stories just across the road? Has this proposal considered the traffic impacts of the recently completed residential blocks surrounding the site as well as the Hunters Hill proposal? The small streets around the school won't handle the vehicle volumes and it's probable that Vic Rd between Pittwater Rd and Wharf Rd will become a choke point. It will be a loss of community space instead of a gain.

2. It staggers me that Ryde Council refuses to have villa complexes and manor houses as a good option to address housing availability and, in cases where there is a possibility for approval , the restrictions are so onerous that it almost makes the approval for such developments extremely difficult.

   YET, here we are with monstrosities being approved and the fabric of the Gladesville area being swiftly torn apart to create another suburb which has become very overpopulated, buildings with no design appeal, overburdened roads and awful traffic congestion and insufficient parking to service the increased population.

   I believe Ryde Council, Planning Department, has let Gladesville residents down by continually destroying the streetscape and amenity by approving so many high rise buildings, none of which have any architectural merit.

3. I admire Ryde Councils respect for the majority of us who live in the area by rejecting manor house applications. Understandably we also hope high rise applications as large as the one for 8 Western Crescent will also be rejected.
   Especially considering the demand for street parking in the area.

4. I see that the development proposal of this address has evolved from the original proposal of the RSL offering a youth centre on the ground floor plus residential apartments for senior citizens above; which could have made a very positive contribution to the community of Gladesville, to a towering ten storey building offering a "community facility" with residential apartments that are notably not for the purpose of providing affordable living for seniors. This development had the chance to contribute to the community of Gladesville and has opted instead for yet another generic residential high rise building that further destroys the local character of Gladesville, in pursuit of turning Gladesville into another Meadowbank/Rhodes draughty concrete jungle ghost city.

5. I am terrified of what Gladesville is turning into.

   I am going to copy and paste what Bridgette Pace wrote as she has worded my sentiments exactly:

   "...here we are with monstrosities being approved and the fabric of the Gladesville area being swiftly torn apart to create another suburb which has become very overpopulated, buildings with no design appeal, overburdened roads and awful traffic congestion and insufficient parking to service the increased population.

   I believe Ryde Council, Planning Department, has let Gladesville residents down by continually destroying the streetscape and amenity by approving so many high rise buildings, none of which have any architectural merit."

6. I am for this only on the basis that Gladesville shopping centre is also redevelopmented !! I am in the majority as well don't listen to the (selfish)NIMBY's listen to the younger generation who want progress please force take the shopping centre from HH (backwards) council redevelopment it with units above and then allow units on this site as well it's the future with our growing population.

7. I object to this DA for the following reasons (everybody if you don't included this phrase, your objection will be ignored).
   Why is this here again? I have already seen this DA months ago? Are they having another go? If "Peter" is going to talk about "NIMBYs" a perjorative term aimed at shutting down debate, then I am presuming that "Peter" is a developer or would be developer.The pretty facade of the building now here which looks like 1940s is to be replaced by yet another concrete multistory construction of no architectural merit which is both out of keeping with the rest of the area, and would set a new precedent regarding height. The site is not on Victoria Rd but is surrounded by small streets which would lead to significant traffic movements and congestion. This plan also environmentally poor and would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions generally as well as increasing the urban heat island effect in the area.

   Gladesville was named because it was previously a gracious tree lined suburb of modest and charming Federation houses, but is rapidly turning into an urban slum - not the lease because developers are buying off historic buildings and allowing them to run down deliberately to give an excuse to develop. As I have said before, lets rename it to Concreteville.

   As for the RSL, that is the last time I ever donate, go to an RSL club or buy any Legacy badges. I am submitting this objection as a property owner in the area.

8. ...not that the RSL would care about Legacy badges these days - obviously the management have turned into a League of property developers

9. In relation to Steven Formosa'c comments, may I say that the huge one family homes that are being built in Gladesville, Tennyson Point and Putney are larger than the two level, elegant and classically designed manor houses I refer to. Manor Homes divided into four units would house four single people or 4 very small families. They would not have any detrimental impact on the streetscape and should be encouraged IF RYDE COUNCIL had any concept of good architectural design.

   As to Peter, if he wants a cookie cutter, bland and unappealing mall like TopRyde, well it is only a few moments away so I suggest he shops there. Gladesville Shopping Centre could do with an update but to lose its unique boutique size to become another faceless concrete jungle would be a great loss to the suburb. Gladesville is already over populated and certainly does not need to encourage any more growth. Victoria Road already groans with an unacceptable level of traffic congestion. If people prefer highly populated areas, then there are many other suburbs that would accommodate that need - Gladesville should not be one of them.

10. What an absolute eye sore this will be. What consideration has been given to the shading that will occur for the houses opposite in Ross street. With what Hunters Hill council are proposing on the Coles site with 3 towers the traffic congestion will be horrendous around this area for the Public school & the kindergarten.
    They need to drop the height to 8 stories maximum while still keeping all the parking & the community centre.
    The issue will be the traffic flow around the site & the lack of parking available, you only need to look now & all the adjacent units all have cars parking on the street or in the public car park.
    We do not want Gladesville having high rise towers every where like Parramatta or Ryde has will be a complete eye sore. Ryde council needs to starting listening to Gladesville residents.

11. I object to this DA for the following reasons:
    There are already enough multi storey buildings within Gladesville and no supportive infrastructure. Even the current shops, transport and local grocers have been completely busy during COVID-19, Gladesville is not set up sustainably to withstand more multi-storey dwellings. I strongly believe there are far too many unit complexes within Gladesville without the correct infrastructure, we are setting up our suburb to fail!
    In addition, how does this proposed development align to the Gladesville Masterplan (around Massey St), and the current community consultations that are taking place. With no alignment, what is the point of having a Masterplan if not all the proposed developments are included within. This proposed development will be completely out of place and just leads to potential additional multi-storey buildings been developed in Gladesville that are further away from Victoria and Morrison Road, they will start appearing anywhere. This will be a standalone building looking completely out of place! If there has to be continued developments, these need to be aligned and address future needs (e.g. over 55's living as originally proposed), otherwise what's the point of over populating Gladesville with developments that are all the exact same, and do not meet the diverse needs of the population.

12. I object to this DA for the following reasons and propose Ryde council also reject this proposal. It is not sustainable for the area. Build more facilities that are needed in the area before you bring in even more people. How can another high rise be considered when there has not been enough investment into the infrastructure and services within the area first!? This will just create more people, more problems and more traffic in what is already a high traffic area. We don’t need Gladesville turning into another suburb full of high rises that makes it impossible to get in and out with all the congestion. There is becoming less of a reason to live in our beautiful suburb of Gladesville with constant building interruptions due to construction and the horrible existing infrastructure that definitely will not handle the future increase. Please mitigate impacts on existing residents and look at the outcomes coming out of the Gladesville Masterplan, for some longer term insights before deciding on continuing another development which is not aligned to the long-term vision.

13. Infrastructure is insufficient for the number of people already living within the bounds of Victoria and Morrison roads in Gladesville. Another high density complex like this will only exacerbate the issue. Traffic is substantial during peak times and there is inadequate parking often leading people to just stopping and parking illegally. Not only are the roads and parking areas insufficient and lacking in space but there are no petrol stations in Gladesville at all and there is not adequate shops or services to accommodate this significant number of people. Adding to the already overpopulated area without doing anything to address congestion and a lack of services isn't great. If it's not over 55s living, why are we over populating our beautiful suburb with more and more identical units!

14. To make it abundantly clear to the community, this is the heritage Jordan Hall site that was recently demolished by the RSL club for their senior living/retirement home apartment project. It was approved in 2016 on this basis, with the caveat that a community centre of equal size was to be included in the new development.

    Due to difficulties encountered by the RSL, the project has now been taken over by a property developer, and is no longer intended for senior living. Just a run of the mill apartment block. But the new property developer had the audacity to apply for a new DA to further reduce the community centre AND the car parking capacity.

    The is now quite the bait and switch.

    The original 2016 approval for it to be 10 stories high was a questionable decision to begin with -- new buildings directly across the road are limited to 6 stories or less. Assuming the previous approval was partly based on the community value of a retirement home and community centre, the fact that these key attributes have now been eliminated or significantly reduced should also reduce the previously granted allowances.

    On this basis, I object to the newly proposed DA for a 10 storey apartment building on this historic community site. Suggest the development be limited to 6 stories or less to match neighbouring buildings, car parking requirements to match, and the community center requirements from the prior DA to be retained.

15. I object to this DA for the following single reason: a DA for this site has already been approved based on the community value of retirement housing and a community centre. Any DA that seeks to reduce either of these valuable components must be rejected, not least because granting such "re-approvals" is a dangerous precedent.

16. I object to this DA as there is one that has already been approved for this site based on the community value of retirement housing and a community centre. It stands to reason that any DA that seeks to reduce either of these valuable components must be rejected. This development has been a complete disaster from the outset and continues to bring angst and significant concern to the local community. What began as a (concerning) high rise community minded project has morphed into another money hungry developer project that adds NO VALUE to the community. When will the council STOP being driven by “developers” and start LISTENING to what the local, rate paying, community have to say? This process of providing feedback feels fruitless but I need to have my say in some forum. I think the RSL was greedy to start this whole disastrous project and because they weren’t equipped to take it on, sold out the community to another “developer” We are directly impacting by this monstrosity in MANY ways, not least being the CONSTANT daily noise and polluting disruption and the grave traffic & parking congestion this will bring beside all the other REVOLTING “developments” this council has granted within metres of one another. DO NOT APPROVE. Stop this ongoing pattern of allowing developers to cloud your judgement and destroy the current landscape. It adds NO VALUE to the community.

17. I absolutely agree with all the comments above. The site was to be developed for senior living and that is what it should remain. I disagree wholeheartedly with this development and it should NOT be permitted to proceed. You are a council appointed by the people so I suggest you listen to them. We pay the rates and taxes for the area we live it and we should have the final say. Council has already destroyed the landscape by the creating a concrete jungle it has permitted to flourish. This needs to stop.

18. I object to this DA for the following reasons - 10 storeys is completely unacceptable in relation to the surrounding 1 or 2 storey residences surrounding the site. This is higher than the buildings in Victoria Road and will stick out like a sore thumb. The surrounding streets are very small and traffic movement within them is already very congested especially at peak hour. There is a primary school and a childcare Centre very close by, and the complications that this ugly 10 Storey building will add to traffic movement will make the safety of young children a real problem. The “community facility” at the bottom of the building is obviously a small and ineffective space, as the 14 car spaces provided for users of the facility is really inadequate. If you had a choir of more than 30 people rehearsing, they would be unable to park in the provided spaces. Already at night there are no car spaces available in the local streets surrounding the area. The building itself is very ugly - another draftsman’s easy and ugly solution. Where is the design excellence that Ryde Council should be encouraging for such a place as Gladesville. Perhaps we should change the name of the suburb to Gladesvile to emphasize the fact that our council doesn’t care for any designs of an excellent quality. Please reject this DA, do not let any construction on this site be higher than 6 storeys, and ensure that the “community facility” has enough parking spaces to be able to be used, but most importantly , understand that the dangers of fatalities to children and infants attending the Primary school and day care Centre are adequately addressed. This proposal is far too big for the site and unwelcome to local residents of Ryde.

19. I object to this DA for the following reasons - 10 storeys is completely unacceptable in relation to the surrounding 1 or 2 storey residences surrounding the site. This is higher than the buildings in Victoria Road and will stick out like a sore thumb. The surrounding streets are very small and traffic movement within them is already very congested especially at peak hour. There is a primary school and a childcare Centre very close by, and the complications that this ugly 10 Storey building will add to traffic movement will make the safety of young children a real problem. The “community facility” at the bottom of the building is obviously a small and ineffective space, as the 14 car spaces provided for users of the facility is really inadequate. If you had a choir of more than 30 people rehearsing, they would be unable to park in the provided spaces. Already at night there are no car spaces available in the local streets surrounding the area. The building itself is very ugly - another draftsman’s easy and ugly solution. Where is the design excellence that Ryde Council should be encouraging for such a place as Gladesville. Perhaps we should change the name of the suburb to Gladesvile to emphasize the fact that our council doesn’t care for any designs of an excellent quality. Please reject this DA, do not let any construction on this site be higher than 6 storeys, and ensure that the “community facility” has enough parking spaces to be able to be used, but most importantly , understand that the dangers of fatalities to children and infants attending the Primary school and day care Centre are adequately addressed. This proposal is far too big for the site and unwelcome to local residents of Ryde.

20. I object to this development because of its size, height and lack of aesthetic appeal. Historically, it seems all ugly buildings get approved in the Ryde Council area - there are some shocking eyesores like the very unappealing pink apartment block (already out of date) in Jordan Street or the hideous jail like, sun blocking, eye sore taking up a prime spot of land on the corner of Victoria Road & Church Street Top Ryde. Its the talk of the town and not in a good way. We residents have to look at these buildings for a long long time and they are devaluing the neighbourhood.
    Also please consider traffic and parking. Developments never build enough parking to cater to residents and other possible facilities underneath. 7 visitor parking spots for 33 units?
    This proposal is definitely unwelcome to the majority of Gladesville residents.

21. I also object to this development because of its size, inappropriate & ugly design. Surely Gladesville has enough of these shoddily built eyesores, already? Residents of Gladesville have long been angry about the lack of infrastructure to balance the high development rate of our suburb. Why is Ryde Council not listening?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to City of Ryde. 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