PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

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

1. Should be limited to 2 storey ....and not encroach on balmains spirit and ambience ...

   This apart from impacting locally on neighbouring properties affecting and not reflecting the history of the heritage area
   .

2. At 3 stories too high for a small lane called a street (Gladstone Street)without a foot path.

   Too bulky. It will impact greatly on the back yard of residents living east and west of the site. There will be shading and lack of privacy issues causing resentment in the community for years to come.

   Underground parking may effect the flow of underground water. There is a stream and many wells coming down this section of the rise to Gladstone Park

   Concerns with low cost rental. Does the Inner West council have the power to enforce this? If so how? The development is incorrectly stated as an infill affordable rental development. Only 50 % needs to be affordable housing to gain development concessions to the disadvantage of residents and financial gain to the developer.When this scheme was introduced years ago it became an opportunity for developers to make more profit by going higher and exceeding floorspace ratios. Also the term of the affordable rentals can be negotiated between 3 to 10 years.

   I am concerned one of the developers was a council member. This means there could be corruption or coersion at play. In particular they will have knowledge of loopholes concerning the affordable rental scheme and access to informatiin via close contacts at Inner West Council.

   In all a big concern for any resident who lives near a possible 'infill affordable rental' development site in Balmain.

3. This application is a sad cynical sop to gain support for development by pretending to be for affordable housing. The units will be sold off before the paint is dry. Who in their right mind as a developer pays $6,250,000 for a site to build 6 dwellings with undercover parking? The answer is probably partially explained in Julie Tanner's comments above. Council staff will most likely approve the development with our elected councillors washing their hands of it. The usual excuses that it is outside of their control.

4. Oversized and out of proportion compared to the rest of the legacy properties on Gladstone Street. Should be limited to two stories and impacts the views from my own property and sets a bad precedent - not to mention amenity and sunlight/shadows will severely impact adjacent properties, with the increases in traffic in what is an already small street (really a lane) because of underground parking design. Whilst I am in favour of the redevelopment of this site, I would hope this is reconsidered for something more aligned with the existing streetscape.

5. As a resident of Gladstone Street I am very concerned about this development.

   3 stories is way too high and 6 dwellings too many for a small plot. It will block sunlight for the surrounding properties, not to mention the loss of privacy and the noise that will come from 6 new cramped townhouses.

   Underground carpark with entry from Gladstone Street is pure madness. The street is narrow (one car at a time only) with no pavements and no space for pedestrians. How will the local residents and school kids walking to school every day negotiate the road with increased traffic?

   The fact that an ex-council employee is the new owner, paying $6.25Mil for the land and proposing to spend another $5.1Mil to develop it, really raises eyebrows. If the development goes ahead in its current form public trust in Inner West council will be further diminished.

   Can this development really be classified as ‘affordable’ housing? Or is this a trick used by the developer to get it approved?

   How will the council oversee the development work on Gladstone street and guarantee that the developer will not block access to our houses during construction? How will the council manage and control the removal of asbestos and other contaminants from the site to ensure the health and safety of residents?

6. Marion Hare
   I was absolutely shocked and dismayed to hear of this complete over-development at 180 Darling Street Balmain. I walk the small Gladstone Street on a regular basis and to present plans for 6 dwellings plus underground parking is a complete insult to the current residents. This Gladstone Street comprises heritage and historical houses to be over-shadowed by an owner's "greedy monstrosity".

   People are not against a well designed couple of townhouses on the site with parking on site for both residences, not excavation for underground parking. How does all that excavation impact upon heritage property nearby. Who picks up the tab for those poor neighbours for damage to their properties caused by excavation. If this planned development and what is being presented, wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

7. I believe that adjoining residents will be severely affected by this three story plus underground car park (access via Gladstone Street-must be joking).
   I agree with all the comments above and think this is greedy and unnecessary over development which will dramatically change the street scape.

8. As a resident of the other side of Gladstone Park and frequent user of Gladstone Street, I support the above comments and would also add that the proposed development is inappropriate in this historic precinct.

   With the Heritage listed Balmain Watch House only a stone's throw away on the opposite side of Darling St, and many historic sandstone cottages nearby in both Darling and Gladstone Streets, any development must be sensitive to the heritage values of its surroundings. Three stories is too high.

   Also a quick calculation shows that the six units would cost about $2M each just in land and construction costs, to which must be added the developer's return on the investment. How does that fit the description of "affordable" housing?

9. Just heard the DA has been rejected on grounds of lack of adequate documentation. The applicant has been resubmit …..

10. All interested parties be aware.

    Developers are persistent. Most will go to the Land and Envirionment Court to get what they want. (The State Government wants to densify the Inner City and stop urban sprawl). They then employ Private Certifiers and plans can be changed that effect neighbours, like the repositioning of windows and changes to finishes of neighbouring walls. Inner West Council only becomes the keeper of documents. Though plans of the build can then go 'missing' from the Inner West website and not even be available until the project is almost finished. In my case 8 months after commencement
    Then try getting justice. You will be told the changes are only minor. However they disadvantage you and give an advantage to the development. You will realise that if a Private Certifier is employed and the Land and Environment Court approves the plans Inner West Council won't be supportive of you in any of your complaints unless its health and safety issues. They curtly tell you to seek legal advice if you disagree with The Land and Environment decision. You are told you must take all complaints regarding the build to the Private Certifier who is paid by the developer and relies on future work generally by referral.
    Affordable housing? A joke. The developer doesn't even have to rent them out. He can (via loop holes) let a family member stay, leave them empty or rent them out on the 'dark rental market' receiving untraceable return such as bit coin. Whose going to stop them? There's not even enough money for the State Government to police the streets let alone the Affordable Rental Market!

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West 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