PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. The neighbours should be supported to not lose any sun. Most dwellings are 1 or 2 storys. So a 3 story dwelling sets a new landmark for the rest of the developers who keep coming - and coming-.

2. I totally agree with Nicolette Boaz’s comment

3. I fully support this application.
   I have inspected the submitted documents, viewed the subject property and the surrounding neighbourhood.
   I say that
   1. the property being replaced is already 3 levels and is of GREATER HEIGHT and BULK
   Refer RealEstateView <
   https://www.realestateview.com.au/property-360/property/122-clyde-street-north-bondi-nsw-2026/ >
   2. the submitted plans height and scale of the proposal is LESS that the existing
   3. the streetscape (pedestrian view) will be enhanced by the REMOVAL of a SINGLE 3 level FRONT wall that is ONLY broken by windows and a small balcony
   4. the proposal incorporate levels SET BACK further than the lower one.
   set back
   5. overshadowing has been addressed and is the same as that caused by the neighbours
   .
   I hope Waverley Council identifies the benefits of this development for the neighbourhood (reduction in BULK on streetscape), immediate neighbours (REDUCTION in BULK, HEIGHT and AESTHETIC improvements) and the OWNER.
   .
   This is ONLY a quick overview and I say that I have no personal or financial interest with any person or entity associated with the submission.

4. To Mr PhilJ. I take a keen interest in these planning alerts as I like to protect locals from overdevelopment, protect open space and help sto the environment from being overly denuded. I receive no personal benefit whatsoever from any replies I make. However my warning bells go off when I see you say ‘ I fully support this application ‘ and ‘ I have no personal or financial interest ‘ and provide an extremely detailed support letter.
   I’m curious why you would bother to support so wholeheartedly this DA and put such a lot of time and effort into said support.

5. I have no personal opinion on this development, and I just receive these alerts in my email purely out of curiosity and slightly out of humour.

   Nicolette, it sounds like you could benefit from a friendly reminder to take a deep breath, get some of the beautiful ocean breeze and step away from the keyboard.

   Your tone comes off as an over privileged bully. Don't get me wrong, you are fully in your rights to object to whatever you see fit, although a bit of respect and kindness would go a long way.

   People are not submitting these application as a personal vendetta just to spite you. Bondi is an affluent area and a lot of these developments are put in place by people looking to upgrade their decrepit homes and live a better life.

   Just some food for thought, have a great long weekend.

6. To Nicolette Boaz in response to your missive.

   I understood this platform to be a vehicle for providing information to a wider 'net' of people interested in providing critical appraisal (positive or negative) on Development Applications before Council.
   
   I feel sorry that your warning bells go off when a persons comments are prefaced with a personal or professional 'declaration of statement of interests in the DA' (similar to Register of Disclosures by Members(MP)) and say that I am offended by your public comments.

   As a local resident and owner for over 30 years I take a keen interest in and advocate for the betterment of my local community and say that as part of Waverley Council community consultative process I was invited (as 1 of 200 people) to discuss Council 'options and issues' over 5-6 weekend sessions (in Council's Bondi Rd building) before issue of 'Waverley Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP)". I also provided comments to the 2019 process.

   NFAR: No Further Action Required

7. Unfortunately I believe this development is another example of where past overdevelopment approvals has lead to a whole street of overdevelopment; and therefore it is hard to justify denying this new one. It is a good example of why the council should take a stand on stopping this.

   The Statement if Environmental Effects states that the proposed subdivision is characteristic of Clyde Street and it will not disrupt the prevailing subdivision pattern. Photos of surrounding buildings support this overdevelopment. Yet this street is classed in the LEP a 'LOW density residential area'.

   This subdivision is made possible by a large site area; but short street front. The devil is in the details. As stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects it does not comply with 2.9.G in that 'Minimum 50% of the open space provided
   at the front of the site is to be landscaped
   area'. This is because of the driveways needed to service the subdivisions. This is meant to stop such subdivision along the streetscape, and why surrounding sites are subdivided with battle-axes. It's likely that due to the overdevelopment around it, it can not comply with the LEP conditions through a similar battle axed subdivision. If the development can not comply with all of the provisions of the LEP, or provide comprehensive reasons why such provisions are unreasonable or irrelevant, then it should not be approved. Excuses of 'just because everyone else is doing it' should not be accepted.

   On a positive note, given it is likely to be approved anyway as another example of Waverly Council not listening to resident concerns; at least the building design is not obnoxious and the buildings are well setback, and without impediment of surround residents' views or solar access.

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