42 Old South Head Road Vaucluse NSW 2030

Dual occupancy Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dual occupancy with swimming pools and strata sub-division.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 30 days earlier.

(Source: Woollahra Municipal Council, reference 540/2021)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. annette mahr commented

    I vehemently object to the proposed DA 541/2021 for 44 Old South Head Road and DA 540/2021 for 42 Old South Head Road.
    The building height is extending in the regulated/allowed height. This DA proposal shows three storeys whereas all neighbouring houses are maximal two storey houses. 4 gigantic big dual occupancy buildings with 4 pools are planned for #42 and #44 Old South Head Road.
    Council should not approve this DA as this developer purposely extended the height. Including a lift in buildings is a very popular trick used by developers to foul Councils and it's Councillors with only one purpose to build higher than allowed. This sneaky strategy is obvious here as this building is a dual occupancy building and a lift is completely unnecessary.
    It is clear that the developer is testing Council if their project for DA DA541/2021 gets approved. If it gets approved, the DA540/2021 for #42 Old South Head Road will also three storey high. The architectural drawings of the application already show 3 levels.

    Also, removing these big trees for swimming pools and the building means you would be contributing to area’s increase in carbon emissions. These old trees are homes for animals and removing them would change the landscape for ever.
    Additionally, with the building of 4 swimming pools will add pressure on the already heavily impacted sewage and storm water systems in this area.

    We, as neighbours are very concerned about the recent development proposals in our neighbourhood.

    Check the profile of the owner of both joint properties: Smith And Mother Pty Ltd does not exist or has no active ABN.
    Consider the submission/ objections to these applications as very serious. Residents in this are need protection from greedy developers with their overdevelopments and greedy property owners.
    We already suffer enough from traffic congestions and building noise.

    I strongly reject to DA 541/2021 and DA 540/2021.

  2. JOAN JOHNSON commented

    I agree with Annette Mahr's comments regarding both developments.
    How are the council's so fooled by the developers, or do they just turned a blind eye?

    AND do not remove anymore healthy established trees!!! For a development in Diamond Bay Road tall, healthy, established paperbark trees were removed along the boundary to be replaced with advanced trees in planter boxes!!! This is no compensation. The narrow space between the two buildings will create a wind tunnel and I cannot see that "advanced trees in planter boxes" can survive, as plants taller than our balcony walls do not survive in the wind.

    Interesting that the NSW government is now offering grants to "green our neighbourhoods" while councils are approving the removal of trees so that developers can maximise building on blocks of land!! One arm doesn't know what the other arm is doing.

  3. GRAEME LOWRY-JONES commented

    The simple answer to this is to vote the Liberal dominated council out at the next election - unfortunately, this is now a few years away. Also vote out the Liberal state government which has enacted the planning laws which permit these atrocious developments.

    And I say all this having voted Liberal for the last 40 years. I will be lending my time and financial support to independent candidates.

  4. Carol Dunn commented

    Graeme Lowry-Jones is incorrect in his assertion that there was a Liberal Council in place when this application went to Council. It was a Labor /Greens Council who allowed this development. . Waste of time voting for Independents because if they don’t align with ruling party they have no say.
    I would have to study the proposed plans thoroughly in order to make an assessment. Don’t remember any paper bark tree in Diamond Bay Road where family has had a property since 1964. ( see Joan Johnson’s comment. )
    Essential to plan for an ageing population in the future.

  5. JOAN JOHNSON commented

    Tall, thin, healthy, established Paperbark Melaleuca Quinquenervia trees were growing at 8 Diamond Bay Road along the boundary with 10 Diamond Bay Road.

  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