PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

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

1. Dear council,

   Please return this proposal to the original higher number of units, and remove the needless parking requirements. We are in a housing crisis, losing two homes in that context is a poor outcome. The original proposal with more homes and fewer parking spaces represents a better outcome.

   Thank you

2. I support this proposal, which brings much needed housing to the area in the midst of a housing crisis, with one reservation regarding accessibility. If I am reading the designs correctly, appears the building itself is not accessible, as there are stairs leading to the main entrance. This could be rectified with a minor design change. I refer you to Action Area 5.4 of the Inner West Council Disability Inclusion Action Plan and 2.4.2.1 of the Operational Plan, in which council must advocate for increased level of accessible housing in development applications including gold or platinum outcome. Otherwise, the inclusion of two three bedroom units means more families with a disabled family member will be able to rent in the Inner West.

3. I'm supportive of the development. Would be even better with more homes in it like the original proposal, so more people could be housed. We also don't need so many parking spaces, this is walkable to light rail and in the middle of the high street.

4. I'm supportive of this development but I would ask Council to please reconsider the original proposal. It is far more practical and will result in two additional homes for people in our great city. This is incredibly important during a housing crisis.

5. Six apartments is more than enough for this block in this location. Development needs to be sensible and not about cramming lots of apartments in small areas and destroying the character and quality of life of our suburbs. The housing crisis will never be truly addressed while we have an increasing population, negative gearing and greedy landlords. Accessibility and parking are important considerations in this development.

6. Those from the YIMBY squad who suggest that 6 appartments is insufficient obviously haven't reviewed the detailed plans including parking from the previous proposal, nor the now two larger "penthouse" appartments.

   The new DA is a significant improvement on the previous one with an appropriate facade matching that of adjacent buildings.

   Well done?

7. Its well known that Haberfield draws the ire of the YIMBY crowd, whether they live there or not. I dont live in Haberfield but in a nearby suburb with high rise. I think its reasonable for small developments behind the Haberfield shop fronts but i dont agree with the assertion that this development should sacrifice parking because of a housing crisis. Build the housing but rightly build the amenities to go with the building ordinarily. Dont cause another issue in Haberfield by trying to fix the housing crisis in Sydney, just because Haberfield hasnt been overdeveloped yet. Its a beautiful place. It will be developed but do it right.

8. Dear Council,

   The original design is better looking, has more units, and does not waste space or encourage car ownership like the amended design. Please approve the original design. There are so many homeless people nowadays, we need all the apartments we can get.

9. This is a quality development in its amended form. It retains the heritage street scape building frontage design and provides parking in this busy and crowded suburban commercial centre. It will not solve a housing shortage as the YIMBY group are claiming it should by going higher, as these units will be at market value both to purchase and to rent if that's utimately what happens. The place for creating social and affordable housing is by the NSW State government on its already owned lands reclaimed by it for WestConnex. There are several such sites in Haberfield on Parramatta Rd. that are perfect for medium density apartments yet no DA's submitted by the govt.or in partnership with other developers.

10. This development application is much better than the previous one!
    I note the façade is now appropriately sympathetic with the others in Ramsay St and that the parking problems with the previous application have been addressed including a courier/deliveries spot.

    The additional accommodation will play its part in addressing the housing shortage, although the expectation is that these will be rented at market rates.

    It’s good to see this site which has been disused for more than ten years and a blite on the streetscape will be improved!

11. This shop has sat vacant for years, it’s great to see development happen that will attract new retailers and residents.
    I preferred the original design to this faux heritage, however I understand the reasoning.
    The spaces above the commercial frontage are highly underused in Haberfield, so it’s good to the addition of apartments added.
    Haberfield needs more options for young families, couples and singles to diversify the makeup. There also needs to be accomodation available for staff who work on the strip, many who travel far to get to early morning/late night shifts.

12. Fully supportive of this development in Haberfield, the current strip is underdeveloped with shop fronts vacant. Ideally there would be a component of social or rental assisted housing available to help house essential workers.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 2 months ago. It lasted for 21 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment