1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203

I object to the reduction of cars paces and increase of residences.
Parking is already a problem in nearby streets and around the suburb.
Additional residences should mean increased parking spaces, not the opposite.

I also object to the increase in units and the reduction in car spaces. Parking is a real issue in and around this development. Why wasn't this included in the original DA? Surely the developer always knew this. It makes a mockery of the approval process for these larger developments that are dominating Dulwich Hill and a lot of other communities in and around here.

Polite, clear and to the point. Do you the Planning Authority read any of the comments that are sent your way? It would appear not as the content in each comment is very similar. Parking is a huge issue in Dulwich Hill. Overdevelopment with poor design is denigrating the living standards of those who reside here. We want quality not quantity, and in particular the ability to park and drive around our suburb. The question below further enhances my concern and my answer is no I have not and never will make a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

I object to the proposed increase in number of units, reduction in parking spaces and modification to setback.

Aside from the perennial issue of limited street parking locally (and increasingly so with other developments), there is a worrying trend towards "after thought" amendments that I believe sets a precedent to allow similar changes to original approvals. The cumulative effect - not only for Dulwich Hill but surrounding suburbs - could be something far different than even planning authorities envisaged.

Moreover, in the absence of elected representation on local councils - Dulwich Hill and surrounding suburbs - I am concerned there will be a lack of adequate council oversight and also a perceived window of opportunity for developers with similar "after thoughts" to slip through the net.

This appears to be a standard developer strategy. Submit the DA, gain approval and later amend to greater density/lower amenity. Surely the Councillors in Pittwater et al (not Marrickville, Canterbury or Ashfield) who, it would appear, are now representing our interests are well experienced in these matters and will dismiss this spurious application.
For reference, here is the list of representatives on the sparkling new "East Sydney Joint Regional Planning Panel". Myself, friends and neighbours have no idea how it was formed, when it was formed nor that it represented development matters in relation to the inner west. No donations or gifts. Not a council employee.
http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/PanelRegions/CouncilMembers/tabid/84/language/en-US/Default.aspx

I strongly object to any reduction in parking spaces and increase in the number of units. It seems that developers are submitting proposals they know will pass with the intention of then having these proposals amended after approval. This strategy has to stop, this is extremely worrying and of great concern is that there are no voted representatives in which to lobby against this current lack of oversight and free reign that developers are getting. There is a huge amount of current developments in the area, there seems to be no forethought regarding these developments being in such close vicinity to each other. The knock on effect of continual 'cheating' the systems by putting in amendments after the fact, will be devastating to the area.

I was notified that this was taken out of Council hands and given to the State government to make final decisions. And yet another stupid decision made by the government who are trying to squash people into these rabbit holes when destroying neighbourhoods and create other problems like traffic and parking issues. I can't believe you are reducing the number of car spaces. Parking is a huge concern in the area. I also can't see how this development is of 'regional significance'??? Look at all the units that are being built next door in the Arlington. And they want more in that very small area with only little roads around them like, quiet Grove Street which will be flooded with traffic.

How can you allow a reduction in parking? There is such limited parking around the development and also in the area. Not only around the development the streets and shopping area cannot continue with the increasing number of people you are jamming in every crevice. You are ruining a once beautiful suburb with these cheap, oversized, monstrosities. I understand that the council needs to allow more units through but the cheap rubbish which is being built astounds me.

There is absolutely no grounds to increase the number of units and decrease the number of car parking space – reducing carpark capacity for new residents by 12% – along with undertaking a land grab. This should have been in the original proposal rather than incremental scope creep and represents a blatant attempt to subvert the proposal approach once initial consent has been gift.

Stand against this greedy attempt to gain more with zero benefit to the community.

Given that the councils have been dissolved I damn well expect the Administrator to reject this but will not be surprised if it's given the green light given the complete lack of accountability to the community that they have.