PlanningAlerts

40 Comments

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

1. Traffic report done in School Holidays. Nice! There are 3 schools in the street.

2. I strongly object to the demolition of this unique 1920s heritage home which enhances the streetscape of the Dulwich Hill and Lewisham area. The existing building represents an important element of the village-like neighbourhood feel that makes this a sought-after area. To replace this home with a four storey apartment complex will affect the atmosphere, visual appeal, parking, traffic and value of this entire street and area.

3. Criminal!

4. Wow! 35% more than the allowable floor space and half the required front and side setbacks. Not asking for much guys! Why would council even entertain the application?

5. Did you review the BCA report?
   Most of the windows and sliding doors are within 3m of a fire source
   Note 1: Where the openings to the SOU’s cannot be addressed via a Performance Solution, the openings will require external drenchers and it is to be ensured that the glazing they are protecting is fixed in the closed position and there are no window transoms/mullions that will affect the operation and protection of the drenchers.

   What happens to the claimed 100% cross ventilation if almost all the windows are fixed shut?

   Great amenity for any potential future occupants! Can't even open windows.

   Guess we're going to rely on air-con. Are they going to be on the balcony and delight the streetscape on be placed on side boundaries with a soothing humming to please neighbours?

   No Fire engineered solution has been provided.

6. 4 red bins for 7x 3 bedroom units that will probably end up with 6 students in each. So 4 bins between potentially 42 people. I guess rubbish on the street is going to be a permanent thing.

7. Talk about raping your neighbours of sunlight. I guess vampires could live in the house next door.

8. So the traffic report was intentionally manipulated, it's over the allowable floor space, it's a fire risk, it has no plan for garbage management, the lives of everyone around it will be damaged or at risk because they're deprived of sunlight, will live with yet MORE filth (as if the inner west wasn't a trash pile already) and could potentially be collateral damage in a fire. Brilliant! So much on offer!
   And I bet there are many more failures in the design above and beyond the aesthetic one, not to mention the traditionally substandard building materials typically used mean this building, like all new builds, will look like clapped-out garbage 5 years from now.

   This design is not sympathetic to the streetscape. It damages local character forever, how much longer is the inner west going to be expendable?

   The name of all the profit participants should be engraved on a plaque at this address should the plan proceed. They deserve the humiliation and to be remembered this way to their children.

9. Everything about this development should be rejected. I suppose the Light Rail (which is already full) is an excuse for any application that is put forward. Just another example of anything goes in this council.
   We could turn up to object but it increasingly falls on deaf ears.

10. You are joking.., how is this beautiful old home not heritage listed?
    But apart from that.. please no more apartments on this street!!
    There is not enough parking. How is council going to rectify that problem before they allow an increase in residences? Think we deserve an answer to that question.

11. This house should remain as it is for the following reasons:
    It has a relatively intact interior, unusual for its age and worthy of preservation
    The streetscape is an important example of the housing stock of this suburb
    There are traffic restrictions in this street that will be heavily impacted by increased traffic.
    The proposed buildings are out of scale and character for the suburb

    Please consider the impact of losing more heritage - it may not be 'listed' today, but current buildings of this kind are unusual if not rare and should be preserved.
    If this house was in Mosman there would be no question of demolishing it.

12. Agree with all above and am currently drafting my letter to council! Email address is council@innerwest.nsw.gov.au ad you have until the 5th March to get yours in!

    Let's also not forget the development that is currently going on at 114-116 The Boulevarde (almost opposite this site). From what I can gather 114-116 will have 5 x 3 beds, 10 x 1 beds, 6 x 2 beds. I think each unit has 1 car park (so 21 in total). At maximum impact, if each bedroom has dual occupancy we'd be looking at a total of 37 cars)... Even squeezing one more car on this street will be joke, but there may be 16 more (and that's just 114-116) at worst case + visitors, etc.

    This council is an absolute disgust and a joke.

13. Strongly object to this development as the house is clearly part of the heritage of Dulwich Hill and should be conserved. Agree with prior comments in respect to parking and that the building doesn’t meet floor space controls.

14. Inner West Council should deny this development application immediately.
    Not only does this development flout the planning controls re floor space and parking but it seeks to destroy the historic streetscape by demolishing the extant fine freestanding 1920s home.
    This home should be protected by heritage controls.

    Across the Inner West there are plenty of run-down, derelict sites, vacant and unused lots, and former industrial sites that developers could reinvigorate with new houses, terraces, and apartments.

    The Inner West Council should work with developers to unlock these potential sites and work to prevent greedy developers from attempting to squeeze in apartments wherever they can.

15. Goodness me council. Do you not read the fatigue and frustration in the words of your residents? We are tired of the lack of your consideration towards your constituents and the push for construction. Please. Give it a rest.

16. I object to this development on the following grounds:
    * Loss of the existing charming residence which is in-character with the suburb and surrounds.
    * Lack of visual appeal of the proposed development.
    * Insufficient offsets at front of property.
    * Disruption it will cause to already-stressed local on-street parking.
    * Lack of further traffic capacity on The Boulevarde.
    * Not an especially environmentally-sound proposal.

17. I'd like to repeat Isobel Deane's beautifully put comments on the above application.

    "Goodness me council. Do you not read the fatigue and frustration in the words of your residents? We are tired of the lack of your consideration towards your constituents and the push for construction. Please. Give it a rest."

    What Isobel said, 100 times over.

18. I think it is about time that council listens to the people that elected them rather than to avaricious developers. The residents of this and surrounding suburbs want to live here because of the beautiful dwellings and not in suburb of high-rise developments.
    It is also becoming increasingly difficult to move around and park in our suburbs because of this over-development.
    For these reasons I am against this development and suggest that Council looks to approve such developments in areas planned for such and not in the back streets of our residential inner-west

19. I object to this development as this house is clearly part of the heritage of Dulwich Hill and should be conserved. Regarding the proposed development, I agree with prior comments in respect to parking (or the lack thereof) and that the building does not meet floor space requirements.

20. Major disregard for Marrickville Development Control Plans section 4.5.2 -
    C25 For development where the Height Of Building standard is equal to or greater than 14 metres and the proposed development will involve roof top structures within the topmost 3 metres of the maximum height control, the following provisions apply:
    i. The top 3 metres of the building must not contain a dwelling or part of a dwelling

    The height of this building 14 metres and has a penthouse on the top floor which is within the the top 3 metres of the building.

21. The Marrickville Heritage Society does not support this DA  yhat has been lodged with Council for the demolition and development of 73 The Boulevarde, Dulwich Hill. This gracious Arts and Crafts house was built in the early 1920s, at the same time as it's slightly grander neighbour at 73A. Both houses are very intact, internally and externally, with decorative timber and plaster coffered ceilings, leadlight windows and marble mantlepieces. No. 73 also features a rare, intact inglenook, with a feature brick fireplace surround and polished timber bench seats, similar to those designed by  Charles and Henry Green and Frank Lloyd Wright in their classic early twentieth century houses. The developer also proposes to demolish the mature 18 metre tall Norfolk Island Pine in the front yard, even though the developer's arborist has noted it has a life expectancy of over 40 years, and is a highly significant landscape feature.
    The developer has proposed to erect a four storey block of flats, with a flat roof that is grossly out of scale and character with the adjacent house at 73A, and the Victorian villas further along The Boulevarde. All of the historic houses in The Boulevarde are under threat of high rise redevelopment due to the State Government's Metro Rail rezoning proposal, and Council should be actively seeking to protect this precinct by declaring it a Conservation Area. Council should also place an Interim Heritage Order on this property to imediately protect it from demolition under the provisions of the Exempt and Complying SEPP.

22. Please retain the existing building and reject this inappropriate development proposal.

23. Please do not approve this development. As stated by many people before this is breaching many of councils building codes. As a local resident I am strongly opposed to this. There is a large development being built currently just up the road and the street has many apartments and very limited parking. Please save the local heritage and reject this application.

24. This house and the Norfolk Pine should be left to stay. Community members are very concerned about loss of heritage and the character of our suburbs along the Sudenham to Bankstown Corridor. I firmly agree with Scott Macarthur President of Marrickville Historical Society when he said that "All of the historic houses in The Boulevarde are under threat of high rise redevelopment due to the State Government's Metro Rail rezoning proposal, and Council should be actively seeking to protect this precinct by declaring it a Conservation Area. Council should also place an Interim Heritage Order on this property to immediately protect it from demolition under the provisions of the Exempt and Complying SEPP." The four storeyed block of units planned for the site is totally out of character and this historical streetscape should be saved.
    With 35% more than the allowable floor space and half the required front and side setbacks it does not comply with building codes and should be refused.
    The Premier Gladys Berejiklian has stated that "I for one ...don't want communities to lose their local character" so please do not give permission to destroy the historic streetscape by demolishing this fine freestanding 1920s home and replacing it with an ugly cement high rise block.

25. I wish to register my opposition to this proposal. I would ask council to consider the heritage worthiness of this building, a building that is a fine example of inter war architecture that should be given adequate heritage overlays. The very much intact internal and external features of this building show a level of integrity that warrant retention.

    Due to the era in was constructed, this house represents a unique architectural genre in the precinct, as other buildings with heritage overlays represent the Federation and Victorian eras. I would ask Councillors to consider this point carefully, thoughtfully, and honestly.

    I would also ask Councillors to consider interim heritage measures and defer approving this proposal and to have the building independently assessed by heritage professionals. I would also ask Councillors to not solely base a decision predicated by a one-size-fits-all zoning. To allow for an assessment based upon a blanket zoning here would be an egregious lapse of judgement and would be little more than a poorly considered rubber stamp option.

    The street does suffer from parking and traffic issues (certainly more than a holiday period parking assessment would attest to), and nothing stemming from this DA would provide affordable housing.

    I would recommend that the building not be demolished and for heritage overlay be applied to retain it and for council to investigate measures to provide a template for the building to be sensitively be re-adapted or incorporated into further DA proposals

26. This proposal is vandalism.

    I live four kilometres away from this selfish proposal but I know the importance of the street.

    The Boulevard was the first boulevard in NSW. It was created in 1871 by Ferdinand Reuss a man who saw the boulevards of Europe.

    It was the first street in Colonial NSW where a ‘land developer’ designed a neighbourhood with a street that was unnecessarily wide so he could line the avenue with alternating plantations of Moreton Bay Figs and Norfolk Island Pines (the house being discussed also has a fine Norfolk Island Pine). ‘The Boulevard’ and ‘The Lewisham Estate’ were the first example in Sydney of what became as the Garden City Movement’.

    The Lewisham Estate attracted prestigious buyers (including State Premier James Farnell whose residence still stands 16 houses away from the present proposed vandalism).

    This vandalism must not be allowed! Too much at the south end of this once-admired street have been destroyed.

27. Dulwich Hill is being overrun with development without commensurate infrastructure development, and without regard to the character of neighbourhoods. An occasional light rail service does not make up for inadequate parking, inadequate service by other public transport, and overcrowded schools which have to put demountables over playing fields.

    Homeowners who bought here in the last 10 years weren't buying into Chatswood. More rates for the council does not translate into happy residents when there is insufficient planning for commensurate amenities.

28. STOP DUMPING ON DULWICH!!!

    It's time to start controlling the developers. They really are getting out of control.
    We are sick of council and the LEC letting developers get whatever they want.
    Where is the corresponding infrastructure to match the increasing population?
    Where is the town planning team overseeing the future of our suburb?

    This is a gorgeous house that should be heritage listed.
    That old Norfolk Island Pine should be protected not pulled down.

    The Boulevarde is already impossible to park on.
    You're making the lives of the residents on this street more unbearable than ever!
    Time to stop!

29. The existing house is very close to conservation areas and should be heritage listed. It is an extremely rare example of this type of architecture that is still in tact and great preserved condition.
    Allowing a treasure like this home to be destroyed is an insult to the local area. This home is one of the wonders of the local area. The recent interest in Dulwich Hill is because of these idyllic preserved homes and allowing them to be demolished is taking away the very reason people want to buy and live in the area.
    Locals become very attached to landmarks such as this house and taking them away ruins the community moral leading to depression and feeling of loss.

    The plans are completely inappropriate for The Boulevarde. The existing apartment buildings which range from late 1960s to brand new all have more of a set back than these plans.
    The building should have just as much of a set back as the current house in this property.
    Height is not in keeping with surrounding buildings. Should not be much higher than existing building and certainly not higher than neighbouring house.
    Overshadowing, overcrowding, not enough floor space or car spaces per residents and other issues make this DA completely inappropriate for this area.
    The Boulevarde is a scenic street, lined with trees and the existing heritage homes are its treasures and should all be protected.
    The property in the DA is metres away from a conservation area and the plans are completely inappropriate to be placed so close to the heritage area.

    Locals are very upset that there is so much demolition and unreasonable construction going on without proper community consultation and no infrastructure to support it. Please do not approve the destruction of our heritage. Please do not approve monstrosities to be built.

30. Absolutely criminal what the council is intending to improve. How will the street schools and local look and feel of the area improve with an apartment building.

31. Why would you even consider pulling down a perfectly liveable, not to mention beautifully preserved, architectural jewel to put up another ugly block of flats when there are: 1) hundreds of new flats within a few kilometres sitting unpurchased and unleased, 2) dozens of local houses and storefronts sitting empty, and 3) plenty of derelict properties for sale in the local area that no one would object to tearing down?! It makes absolutely zero logical sense. This house is remarkable in its arts and crafts features, and its location was once an entire unified streetscape of lovely period homes. The council's egregious approval of almost anything a developer puts in front of them (in direct antithesis of local residents' requests) is destroying the character of this neighborhood and many others in the Inner West. Please speak to (AND LISTEN TO) your community before you get the reputation of being purely bought and paid for. Thank you.

32. The destruction of the Boulvarde with another block of apartments. Already opposite this property two houses were knocked down for a block of apartments. Why does the council allow this to continue?. The whole street will be block after block of units. Very sad to see the death of Dulwich Hill by over development.

33. N Johansson
    Developers have already obtained approval to demolish the existing house.
    Notice letter states it meets the standards and will be approved 14 days from 16 March and we will be given 7 days notice prior to Demolition.
    Nice to see they are proceeding with demolition before the DA has been approved - must be very confident their plans will go ahead.

34. Interim Heritage Order issued for 6 months. The property will not be demolished. Thank you everyone for raising concerns, thank you Councillors for listening and thank you Inner West Council for prompt action

35. The applicant has filed an application to challenge the IHO and has filed an application for a judgement on the DA

36. Thanks for letting us know.
    Who will make the judgement and how do we get in contact with them to oppose this application?
    Do we go through council or is it too late for that?

37. The Commissioner will review all documents lodged by the applicant as well as all submissions made and reports prepared by council. Expert witnesses on behalf of council and the applicant will be present to provide evidence. If the matter proceeds to a hearing, council may inform and invite people who made a submission. Hearings usually commence on-site (morning) then go back to the courtroom (afternoon). A conciliation conference will likely be held in August (months before a hearing) at which point council should have completed their heritage investigations and decide whether or not to list the property or include it in the conservation area. At a conciliation conference the applicant is able to amend the plans to fit planning controls and mitigate concerns of residents, if council is satisfied, an approval could be issued. If not, the applicant may decide to proceed to a hearing or withdraw the appeal to avoid further costs.

38. Appeal against Interim Heritage Order - Hearing before Judge 3rd July 2018

    DA201800049, Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising of 7 three bedroom apartments with basement carpark - section 34 conciliation conference on 4th September 2018

39. The Court orders that:
    The appeal is dismissed
    "there is sufficient evidence to establish that on this further inquiry or investigation, the interior of the dwelling is likely to be found to be an exemplar of the mission craftsman interior in accordance with Criterion C and F. Consistent with the decision of Dickson C in Kelly v North Sydney Council, the word “likely” means “a real chance or possibility”. I accept that the dwelling has an aesthetically distinctive interior, in accordance with Criterion C, which is a representative example of the mission craftsman interior. I accept that on the further inquiry or investigation set out above, there is a real chance that it will be found to be of local heritage significance on this criterion as the integrity and intact nature of the interior, together with the combination of the inglenook, timber panelling and other applied ornament is likely to cause it to exemplify the mission craftsman interior and provide information that is otherwise only available in publications from the period. I accept the evidence of Mr Macken in that regard. Mr Davies’ evidence does not acknowledge or contradict this evidence of its significance. Further, whilst I accept the evidence of Mr Davies that an inglenook is not uncommon or rare with respect to Criterion F, its combination with the other aspects of the mission craftsman interior identified by Mr Macken, together with the intact nature of the interior, is likely to cause it to be rare"

40. Please visit the below link to support the proposed heritage listing;

    https://yoursay.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/planning-proposal-to-list-73-and-73a-the-boulevarde-dulwich-hill-as-heritage-items?tool=survey_tool&tool_id=submission-form-review-nortonst-16811&ts=1542200775#tool_tab

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 6 years ago. 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 (Marrickville). Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment