PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. Ref: DA2018/0401

   The application for this building house is totally out of character for the area. Already the traffic is a nightmare with John Colet school and Wyatt oval. Leaving Charleroi Rd at school times is very dangerous. The boarding house will only increase the risk. We are totally against the proposal.

2. This DA is incorrectly listed as 16 Wyatt Ave, Belrose. The DA address is actually 14 Wyatt Ave, Belrose.
   This Boarding House DA is for a category 2 development which is permissible in the same way a conventional house is permissible (houses are also category 2). It consists of 27 rooms with 10 car, 8 motorcycle parking spaces on a block size of 2,298 m^2. When compared to other DA's for boarding houses (eg 126 Victoria Rd, Gladesville, which is 58 rooms, 12 cars, 12 motorcycles on 569m^2), this boarding house seems very appropriate.
   I live next door to this proposed development and I support it.

3. This has got to be a joke. This is not what Belrose was set up for or should be set up for so i suggest this to be declined. I don't think anyone bought houses here to be anywhere near boarding houses. What is the council thinking to even consider such an application?
   Please put your thinking caps on and decline this application.

4. This proposal of a boarding house is Not suitable for essential service people. These people are Shift workers that need their rest and sleep at different times of the day or night.
   Having 27 up to 54 other people in the accommodation will not allow for rest or sleep for these people.
   Mr Holman is the owner/ developer of this proposal, and the neighbour Of course he will say he supports this DA.
   This is owner/developer smoke screen.

   This development is not being place on Victoria Road, Gladesville, and has NO comparison.
   The Local Community in Belrose do not want Wyatt Ave turned into Victoria Road. As the owner/ developer is alluding to.
   Belrose and Gladesville are two different suburbs with two different Planning Controls.There are No comparisons.

   The owner of this development is the neighbour.
   But is acknowledging he will be affected by the
   Issues this proposal will bring.So why say it is acceptable. Maybe it is acceptable to the owner who is only interested in making money.
   We all can’t just get up and sell our properties, to make a profit, or continuing development expansion. Our properties are our Superannuation.

   This proposal does not fit the C8 or the R2 character of the area. It is WAY out of character.
   This will severely impact the residents in Wyatt Ave
   and the sounding area.
   This cannot be assessed under the SEPP of affordable Housing, as this does not apply to the
   C8 Locality.
   Approval of this Application will set a precedent
   For other undesirable and unsuitable intensive urban development in the C8 Locality.
   Development should blend with the character of the area not stand out and not conflict.

   Desired Future Character C8 Locality Statement in part.
   “The present character of the Belrose North Locality will remain unchanged except in circumstances specifically addressed as follows.
   The natural landscape including landform and vegetation will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Buildings will be grouped in Areas that will result in the minimum amount of disturbance of vegetation and landforms and buildings which are designed to blend with the colours and textures
   Of the natural landscape will be strongly encouraged.”
   There has been NO attempt to adhere to the Desired Future Character Statement.
   This is a Very High Density “for profit Development.
   Excessive Noise will be generated.
   Traffic will be at grid lock.
   The large number of people in one confined building.(up to 54 tenants)
   Lighting spill onto my residence and other neighbours homes is unacceptable
   Movement of occupants.They are transit tenants who will not form part of the local stable community.
   This is a community who cares about our locality, our families and our environment.
   This development will not benefit existing long time residents of the community in any way.

   We strongly object to This Development Application, and ask Council to reject this Application.

5. This development needs to be stopped. Belrose is a quite, family suburb, a development like this a boarding house is not within the character of this suburb, especially in Wyatt where there is a school and sporting oval. Wyatt is already a very busy street.
   With the number of children and families in this suburb, it is a concern a large number of no family residents of unknown character would potentially populate this area. The first consideration ultimately needs to be for the families and especially the children growing up in this area, particularly with the local schools and sporting clubs in the Wyatt ave vicinity.
   Please register this as a formal objection to the development of a boarding house in Wyatt ave or surrounding area.

6. The proposed height, setbacks, massing and design of the building will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.

   The proposed setbacks design and massing of the building will unreasonably impact upon the character of the area.

   The proposal fails to respond to off site amenity of surrounding properties, resulting in unreasonable visual bulk and overshadowing impacts.

   The proposal would result in unacceptable internal amenity.

   The use and buildings are of a scale and intensity which will result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

   The scale, lack of setbacks and lack of landscaping all contribute to an overdevelopment of the site.

   The proposal fails to provide adequate landscaping opportunities and ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation.

   The proposed use and development, having regard to the site and surrounding area, would represent an inappropriate planning outcome.

   The proposal has not dealt adequately with best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, internal amenity, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.

   The proposal has not dealt adequately with proper parking provision for residents and visitors to avoid unacceptable amenity impacts to its occupants and surrounding area residents.

   The proposal has not dealt adequately with contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through suitable pollutant traps and screens, internal amenity, light pollution and spill from the development and protecting residents from off site sources of light spill, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.

   The proposal has not dealt adequately with the management of vehicle and bin washing upon the site and the impacts of the discharge of associated waste into the stormwater network.

   The proposal has not adequately dealt with the separation of pedestrian entry from motor vehicle entry routes.

   Insufficient information has been provided to enable a comprehensive assessment of the proposals impact on internal amenity and neighbouring dwelling amenity through the creation of light, noise, odour, access of non-resident a, birds and vermin to waste stored in site areas and litter as well as contamination risks and impacts on existing and neighbouring vegetation.

   Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.

   The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, and the location of the site does not offer appropriate access to necessary services and transport.

   The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, fails to demonstrate integration with the surrounding urban environment, and fails to protect significant vegetation on the site.

   The proposal fails to respond to and achieve local planning and environmental objectives as it does not seek to retain any existing canopy tree, and the building envelope location, scale and setbacks do not provide sufficient space in its surrounds to enable the planting of canopy trees, or provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping or canopy tree planting between the front, side and rear of the building envelope and the boundaries.

   The proposal must be met with a determination of refusal as it's my view that the issues of concern cannot be properly mitigated by suitable conditions.

7. I have to agree with the majority of the statements made here regarding the original application made several years ago. I doubt that the sentient of those that have commented will have changed as a result of an amended submission. The original application was refused on very sensible grounds and I can't see how the principals of that refusal should change. I live in the area and previously lived only a few streets away from the proposed site. A development of this nature would be in complete contrast to the nature, character and value of the area. I am against the application and share the views of most others here.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Northern Beaches 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