100 Ramsgate Avenue, Bondi Beach NSW 2026

Demolition of buildings and construction of a four (4) storey residential flat building containing four (4) units with integrated basement parking, swimming pool, lot amalgamation, strata subdivision and associated landscaping works. PAN-409546

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Waverley Council, reference DA-87/2024)


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

  1. Joshua Roche commented

    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the development application for the building at 100 Ramsgate, Bondi Beach. As a resident in the neighboring apartment building, I believe this proposed development will have a significant impact on the livability, value, and view from our property.

    The proposed four-storey building, if approved, would obstruct ocean views from our apartments, which many residents, including myself, greatly value. This would result in a material impact on the value of our properties in an already challenging economic time. I hope that the council will do everything they can to ensure that new developments do not outweigh the needs, well-being, and livability of existing residents within the area.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope that together, we can find a solution that preserves the quality of life for all residents in the area.

  2. Hyacinth Jones commented

    Any development near the coast must be judged in its egalitarian nature - that is it must not impede anyone else’s ability to be able to enjoy the vista. We all know this about building close to the coast. No one group of people should be able to make money by destroying everyone else enjoyment of our Australian coast. And those bodies / organisations who allow it will be judged for many many years to come -

  3. Peter Paul Varga commented

    I Object to this proposed new DA in zone R3 medium density and not R4 High rise development area, which exceeds a number of the Planning Requirements and Legislative requirements in the WLEP12, WDCP22 and SEPP Housing 2021 ADG. I live next door to the proposed luxury development replacing 8 existing units with 4 whole floor luxury apartments which will overlook my unit and 2 bedrooms.
    There are too many Planning Breaches to detail here but the main ones are ; 1. This should be a 3 story plus basement R3 residential development ( max 4 stories ) and not 5 stories. The Height C2 of WDCP with the external wall height of up to 12.5 m exceeds the permitted 9.5 m wall height by up to 3 m. 2. The side setbacks should be a min of 2 m in the basement and 5.5 m for the external walls as required by C2 Section 2.3 and 2.4 fig 20 and permitted excavation volumes. 3. View sharing should be provided by deleting the additional top floor and complying with the max external wall height and a min 5.5 m side setback to my Unit which has a 5.5 m side setback to provide a reasonable view corridor between the two buildings and over the existing Rose Bay Surf Club on grade carpark. 4. Fixed privacy screens to be provided for privacy to the 9 bedrooms in the 6 units on the east elevation in my adjacent building facing the proposed west elevation. 5 Reduce the Solar overshadowing reduction to our GF courtyard terraces by reducing the top floor height, to reduce the proposed height and providing the required side set back. 6. A private swimming pool only 100 m from the North Bondi beach and ocean water is not sustainable development and warranted in these luxury apartments. It also adds to the proposed excess excavation volumes which is almost twice the permitted by WDCP Part B13 Controls.

    There are numerous other Planning Breaches which I will detail directly to Waverley Council in writing to request that Council protect the interests of neighbours and existing residents from over development to benefit Developers and dis-advantage the existing owners and residents of Bondi Beach.

  4. sophie kilburn commented

    I wish to express my concerns about this development application as follows.1. The proposed building will cause a significant loss of daylight to many of the (and specifically the ground floor) apartments in buildings opposite and to the side (my apartment already has limited daylight – I can see some sky from my windows, but this would be greatly restricted by the proposed building. I am very concerned I would live in an even darker space. this is also a big concern for resale value of my property. 2. A swimming pool will have the potential, when in use, to create a lot of noise, spoiling enjoyment of outdoor spaces for residents in surrounding buildings. It is also unnecessary when you have a beach and a children’s paddling pool 150 m away

  5. Kirsty Nash commented

    I wish to Object to the proposed 100 and 102 Ramsgate Avenue Development Application DA-87/2024 because I believe it contravenes / exceeds what should be permitted in the area. It is too high and too wide and in its proposed form would severely reduce the light entering my Unit and also the views from it. It would also result in my Unit being overlooked and subjected to unacceptable additional noise, particularly as a result of the proposed swimming pool. I believe that the Council should consider the community and neighbouring residents when assessing the Application to ensure their interests are protected and, in so doing, to discourage over development to the detriment of all.

  6. Peter Owen commented

    I don't think neighbours complaining about potentially decreasing property values is a legitimate complaint and comes across as incredibly selfish and entitled. I feel like the main issue with the proposal is the decreased number of dwellings - although I acknowledge the total number of bedrooms remains the same.
    I live in Bondi Beach and would love to be able to raise a family here, but with the current lack of new affordable apartments becoming available it's unlikely we will be able to afford to live in the suburb I currently call home.
    In the middle of a housing crisis we should be increasing the number of dwellings not decreasing - this should either be done by increasing FSR or building heights in high demand areas such as this. Thousands of Australians would love to be able to live in this area and the current dwelling constraints make this incredibly difficult to do so.
    Since it complies with current development standards I believe the construction should go ahead - I just wish development standards would allow for more dwellings to be constructed for those that need them most - rather than creating regulations that lead to luxury developments like this being the only viable option for developers.

  7. Jason McQuillen commented

    I wish to object to the proposed 100 and 102 Ramsgate Avenue Development Application DA-87/2024. I have instructed town planners to do an audit with accompanying photographs, and so a more complete analysis will be submitted shortly, but the range of issues highlighted above demonstrate some of the impact the proposed development will have on the neighbouring properties, the neighbourhood more generally and the local community, which make it inappropriate and potentially in breach of relevant legislation and codes.

    For the residents of 77-79 Brighton Boulevard, there are also issues of privacy to consider. On the current plans, the next development will look directly into my bedroom and bathroom, which is a significant intrusion.

    The findings of the court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council must be considered and on the current facts we are dealing with sea views for a number of neighbouring property which will be impacted (potentially from moderate to severe for some). This does not seem to have been addressed in any sort of detail in the Statement of Environment Effects or elsewhere.

  8. Michael Davis commented

    This gives me strong deja vu to 92 Ramsgate Avenue, which was also initially lodged as a multi-storey apartment building, then later amended to a dual occupancy, and now amended to one giant house. Same architect, similar design. Exploiting a loophole
    that exists where you can get approval for apartment buildings to much larger heights and envelopes, and then simply change it to a dwelling later on.

    So I guess that is good news to anyone complaining about pool noise - there will likely only be one occupant of the pool in the end!

  9. Hyacinth Jones commented

    Council need to look carefully at the submission made by all the locals including Michael Davis. He proffers his opinion that developers are making a mockery out of Waverley Planning. This development contravenes all kinds of regulations including breaching height and FSR as well as impeding sun into other apartments and annihilating privacy.

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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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