PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

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

1. I have serious concerns about the development of this site - especially relating to the car parking situation in Gilderthorpe Ave, which is already at capacity given the number of units with inadequate car parking, lack of off-street parking for houses and the increase in cafes and retail on Frenchman's Road + proximity to Queen's Park. The construction period will increase congestion on the street and I am concerned that the car lift will also cause traffic obstruction on the street, while cars are waiting to enter.

   Gilderthorpe Avenue is a quiet, family-oriented street and I fear that these units are not in keeping with the community, aesthetically or from a likely occupant perspective. The communal area of the proposed development presents concerns around noise and privacy. This also takes the build to 4 stories and not 3, as detailed in the proposal.

2. My concerns are mainly parking - since the addition of a new supermarket on Frenchman's Road, parking has become an issue on Gilderthorpe Av., the additional development slightly further up Frenchman's will no doubt add to this. The Hall, used for ballet at the bottom of Gilderthorpe Av. creates additional parking pressure and it appears that the property at the corner of Gilderthorpe Av. and Market Street is also going to be a business of some sort. Perhaps it is time for resident parking on Gilderthorpe? My second concern is for the character of the street. The Sandstone house at 17 Gilderthorpe Av. is an historic and beautiful property, adjoining the proposed site at 21 Gilderthorpe Av. are the only other houses with historic features in the 'Paddington' style. Gilderthorpe Av. has clearly been impacted by unit construction over the years resulting in a number of medium/high density units along the North side of the street. This small section, with a lovely green space in-between and linking to Figtree Avenue, is really the only original section on the North side of the street and should be protected.

3. I agree this will cause further issue with parking; at what point will Council make the area/zone 1-2P parking and if so state such developments will be prohibited from on-street parking/visitor permits?

4. Hi,
   I am also concerned about the impact on parking this will have and agree with the comments that there has been a spike recently and that, as a resident, it is becoming more difficult to get on street parking.
   I recently paid the council to repaint the parking lines outside our entrance to try and minimise the occurrences of people parking in our on-street space and decrease the chances of getting blocked in.
   Up until recently, this had never really been a problem.

5. Hi There,

   Developments today are always trying to push the boundary to the max. without considering the impacts in its environment and local community. In many different situations I would agree to have a variation on the side setbacks and and the lift overrun, however I would like to put my objection against this particular one, once we are in a restrict residential area.
   The impact of having only 2 meters setback at the max. to the side neighbors, and in some points even 1.6 meters is unacceptable. Considering the minimum at the Apartments Design Guide at a non-livable space would be minimum 3 meters set back. The guide has been created for a reason.
   The 1.2 meters lift overrun would have a negative impact in the streetscape in a dominant and bulky way that wont be compatible with the rest of the street.
   And the lack of car space, unless it is on the DCP for this area, which I do not believe so, would cause a considerable impact on the local street parking, once we do not have a great public transport in the area and it is not considered a large center.
   That house is a perfect location for a development, but a bit more reasonable, this building will be there for at least 30 years or more. Needs more work and care on it.

   
   

6. I have serious concerns about such a development and object to this proposal for many reasons and believe the Development Application is misleading on numerous counts.

   As a resident who has lived right near the proposed site for many years, I object to the proposal on the following counts and have elaborated on each point in my formal letter of objection to Randwick Council:

   1. Parking
   2. Traffic congestion
   3. Noise implications
   4. Privacy concerns
   5. Air and noise pollution during demolition
   7. Layout and setbacks
   8. Design and look

   To everyone commenting, a friendly reminder to email a letter of objection to all Randwick counsellors and Randwick Council by Wednesday 23 November, in order to ensure all of our objections are noted.

7. As a resident living in close proximity to the proposed development i would like to object on the following grounds on this proposed development

   Parking - parking in our street has become more and more difficult over the past few years and I rarely am able to park in front of my own residence in Gilderthorpe Ave let alone in close proximity. More often than not having to park in adjacent streets or across busy Clovelly Rd near the school
   With this new proposed development I feel an already stretched parking situation , as a result of nearby Cafes and Supermarket will become increasing more difficult

   Statement of Environmental Effects even notes that Parking ratios are not met

   Building - I note rooftop with have a covered communal area , enclosed storage units, clothes line , given these i feel that the building is not 3 floors but rather 4 floors as i would imagine that this roof top space will be often used

   Building - look and feel of building does not sit with current streetscape - looking at photo montage the front of the building looks very obtrusive with what appears to be covered stairs and concrete structure not fitting in with surrounding buildings

8. I have lived on Gilderthorpe ave for many years and it is exceedingly difficult to park on this street and it is beginning to become very dangerous with all the traffic congestion building up and people constantly driving slowly and unsafely to look for a park. My family and I shouldn't be expected to park 3 blocks away from our house and walk home in the dark. We are already competing for parking spots with the community hall, where many children attend dance classes and people that visit the restaurants on Frenchmans road. Units with non adequate parking spaces will mean the residents of the units will resort to parking on the street, making it nearly impossible for anyone without a driveway to park in their own street. Many people already leave their car on Gilderthorpe ave to attend sports games at queens park and leave their cars to catch public transport into the city. We don't believe that the building fits in with our streetscape and the feeling of our community. This street is polluted enough without all the construction and not to mention the continuous noise and disruption this will cause the residents in the surrounding houses.

9. Even the new plans going to Council on 10th October exceed the FSR with no real justification apart from the fact the Developer wants to build 6 units instead of 5. That is not a good reason ti exceed FSR. The land size supports a maximum of units and is all Randwick Council should be approving. Randwick residents are tired of the overdevelopment of Randwick.

10. I am still concerned about the proposed 6 unit apartment block development at 23 Gilderthorpe Avenue.
    Even though the plans have been amended it will still exceed FSR which impacts surrounding neighbours in terms of bulk, overshadowing and privacy and is not consistent with the neighbourhood which is primarily houses with a few scattered older apartment blocks with generous setbacks. (Eg 31 Gilderthorpe has 5m plus side setbacks each side not 2-2.5m as this development will). That’s in part why council has received so many objections about this development. Also the houses directly across from the proposed development are primarily single level and are in a low density zone so consideration should be given to that.
    Unless the scope of the development is reduced in terms of number of apartments or bedrooms it will not comply with minimum parking requirements. The developer says it’s ok that it doesn’t comply with minimum requirements because off street parking is adequate. However in reality there will be a need to park probably 12 cars. Parking around here is already really really hard, it is often hard to park within several streets of your house at night or during the day on weekends.
    Additional housing is good but additional housing which exceeds FSR and does make adequate allowance for off-street parking makes Randwick a less attractive place to live for the people who already live here.

11. Randwick Council should not approve a 3 storey, 6 unit Apartment Block. Number 27 Gilderthorpe Ave is a 2 storey, 3 unit building. Nr. 21 Gilderthorpe a 2 storey Terrace.
    And in between they want to build a monster block! Parking in the neighbourhood is impossible most of the times.
    A proposed Entertainment Roof top terrace should be forbidden. If at all, they belong on top of a 20 storey high rise, not in a low density neighbourhood.
    Many more inconsistencies in the plans must be investigated and rejected.
    I hope all the objections mentioned by all voices must be for the benefit of the neighbourhood and residents, not for the benefit of the developer!

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Randwick City 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