Recent comments on applications from Ku-ring-gai Council, NSW

  1. In Pymble NSW on “Lot consolidation; demolish...” at 149 Livingstone Avenue, Pymble, NSW:

    Todd Mckenney commented

    I’m gob smacked that you have agreed to knock down the house at 149 Livingstone Ave. Seriously, I’m ashamed. The council all voted against it as did hundreds of residents but still the developer won. I must now consider getting out of this area before my house gets swallowed by progress. I’m disgusted and extremely disappointed. We are knocking down a part of our history and more importantly setting a dangerous precedent for the easy eradication of our heritage and history. Thank you. Todd

  2. In Lindfield NSW on “Modificaiton - Section 4.56...” at 376-384 Pacific Highway Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Janet Roberts commented

    When are they starting to demolish Coles?

  3. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 161 Rosedale Road St Ives NSW 2075:

    Li Ozinga commented

    Dear Sir / Madam

    RE Multi-Unit Housing Development 161 Rosedale Road DA0220/20

    I would like to offer the following observations to the Council planning officer responsible for undertaking the assessment of the subject development application:
    - Overall I have no objections to the proposal, which appears to be consistent with other recently approved development along Rosedale Road.
    - I note the traffic report has undertaken a site specific assessment of the traffic safety and efficiency implications. While there are no traffic counts undertaken for the purpose of that study and therefore no quantitative assessment (eg aaSIDRA analysis or similar), my anecdotal evidence (I am a nearby resident in Edgewood Place that frequently uses the intersection of Rosedale / Shinfield) would agree with the conclusions.
    - Parking appears to be provided in accordance with Council's DCP. However, my observation over the last several years has been the increased reliance on on-street parking around the apartments. Anecdotally this can be attributed to the fact that residents garages are lockable and are used for household storage rather than parking their cars.
    - Increased parking on Shinfield Ave in particular is not ideal. The road is quite narrow and introduces conflict points with two way traffic when there are vehicles parked. This conflict can be manageable / acceptable with low traffic flows. However, with the ever increasing number of units and traffic using Shinfield over the last several years, some additional traffic management matters should be considered by Council's Traffic Committee. My suggestion is that morning and afternoon peak period parking restrictions should be in place on one side of Shinfield Ave for its entire length.

    Thank you for the opportunity of providing advice.

  4. In Saint Ives NSW on “CC for DA0322/17 - Demolish...” at 21 Newhaven Place St Ives NSW 2075:

    Alexia White commented

    I’m against this application. It will destroy the streetscape and water drainage.

  5. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 172 The Comenarra Parkway Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Amy Day commented

    I have concerns over where the entrance and exit access point will be positioned. With the new housing development being built further down on ‘The Broadway’, coupled with the traffic coming and going at Fox Valley shops (of which there are multiple ‘near-misses’ each day as visitors exit out through Kiogle Street without looking at traffic turning right into Kiogle Street) and SAN workers who park around residential streets, visitors to SAN parkway who will not use their carpark due to high fees, congestion will be significantly increased creating risks for residents and pedestrians and the new daycare clients.

    Fox Valley Road (Shops side), is not able to accommodate the increased traffic. The whole road layout needs to be revised to give safe and quick entrance/exit on Fox Valley Road/ the shops/ and the residential street traffic lights combined.

    I’ve no objection to new businesses coming to the area but it needs to be done with correct infrastructure to support needs not just now, but in the future.

    I support the new day care centre but you must get this basic stuff right or risk total congestion in what is essentially a high bushfire risk zone as well.

  6. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 172 The Comenarra Parkway Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Dariush Daneshvar commented

    The proposed 127 place child care centre will have such a negative impact on road congestion at "the Comenarra Pkwy" and "fox valley Rd" intersection. During the rush hour, it would cause huge delays especially on getting into or out of Kiogle street and other roads south of intersection (with the only exit being this intersection) because of people trying to pick up or drop off their kids.

  7. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC - Private certifier -...” at 122 Junction Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Cheryl Giombi commented

    This site seems to have been mismanaged since works began 6 months ago.
    There have been serious safety concerns which risked the lives of the public, especially children.
    For example, there was no perimeter fence around the work site, which harboured a slippery 10m hole, for multiple months .
    The road (Junction) has been covered in clay and rubble causing serious safety issues for drivers. Traffic has been held up. Workers do not wear safety vests and are difficult to spot.
    This site is a shemozzle and is seemlingly being run by cowboys who are not obeying council rules.

  8. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC - Private certifier -...” at 122 Junction Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Jag M Rawat commented

    The work is already on since last six months, what is this all abouut????

  9. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 70 Warrangi Street Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Caroline Drummond commented

    Re Application No : DA 0381/19. PRoperty 70 Warrangi st Turramurra

    I wish to record my objection to this proposed development.

    State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People With a Disability) 2004 (the SEPP)

    Clause 26 – Location and access to facilities; and
    Clause 38 – Accessibility:

    DA0381/19 Amendment to foot_path_plans additional information - Detailed Plan Alignment Detail Plan Page 2 of 22 and also Page 14 of 22.

    The new pathway is being proposed along the existing grass verge/nature strip on the along the northern stretch of Warrangi Street and the corner of Warrangi Street and Bobbin Head Road. There is currently no footpath along this part of Warrangi Street. The street is characterised by attractive grass verges/nature strips which are occasionally interspersed by modest driveways allowing vehicular access to the single-family dwelling houses, which also characterise the area.

    Whilst there may be a bus stop located on Boomerang Street which provides access to these services in Turramurra centre, the fact that a completely new pathway needs to be constructed to allow sufficient accessibility to the bus stop should be the first sign that a development for seniors housing is being proposed in an inappropriate location.

    This proposed footpath is not unlike installing a pedestrian crossing on the road and leading children to cross at these points. No car would have clear visibility of a pedestrian crossing to be able to stop in time. You would just not expect anyone to cross at those points. Similarly, no pedestrian would be able to safely see a car coming at either of these crossing points to allow safe passage.

    The foot path leads senior and people with living with a disability as well as anyone uses this footpath on Warrangi Street to cross the road twice, then creates and exaggerated curvy footpath design to meet the gradient rules to get to the Bus stop on Boomerang Street. Furthermore a beautiful tree of good vigour removed from the corner of Warrangi Street and Bobbin Head Road in the process.

    The proposed development of five individual senior living homes is entirely out of context with the both the neighbourhood and the wider area, and also fails to respond to the streetscape character or complement the surrounding dwellings. The neighbourhood and the wider area are characterised by large, detached, single-family dwelling homes on large plots. The development would be unique in the local area and detrimental to local streetscape character, through both the incongruous design and location of the proposed homes, and the introduction of the footpath as referred to above.

    This DA should be rejected on its failure to provide "quality of access" (quality of route to its nearest suitable destination) Page 13 of the SEPP 2004

  10. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Michael commented

    I am strongly supportive of this development. This proposed development has detailed documents demonstrating the appropriateness of the proposal. I have reviewed these documents and along with a number of additional reasons outlined below, I am strongly supportive of the proposal. The development will add significant amenity to the community, have significant walkability and sustainability benefits and improve the streetscape of the area. There are a dearth of childcare places for very young children (in contrast the other childcare centres in the area). The location should have minimal impacts on neighbours (refer to the traffic report) especially given the road it is on (Kissing Point) is already a secondary main road with significant noise and traffic. The current property is a visual detriment to the area. In addition, the proposed development's location adjacent to a bus stop with easy connections to rail encourages use of public transport, whilst for myself myself and others I have spoken to the location is accessible by foot. Both this and the public transport will increase the walkability of the neighborhood with associated sustainability and social benefits.

  11. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of two...” at 11 Collins Road St Ives NSW 2075:

    AARTI commented

    I oppose the development of town houses on Collins road.The st ives north school construction is more than sufficient.The road and the ONLY road leading into St Ives North with a traffic light is Memorial avenue.Exiting safely is also the same.There are 2 new homes on Memorial avenue being constructed alongside the school with trucks,road blocks.The childcare centre at the corner all adds to vehicular traffic.I have resided in St Ives for 34 years out of choice
    as oppposed to the city for peace,quiet and the green space.The council needs to heed to this..Less (development) is more!! I am saddened that the council does not curb the development.The bush fires remind us of the need for green space,less heat,more oxygen,more bird and wildlife.

  12. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 23 Wellesley Road Pymble NSW 2073:

    Karishma Maharaj commented

    Today is the 28th of January.I am the neighbour at 21a,sharing a dividing fence.
    Today,I was shocked to discover at 6pm that asbestos was being removed from this property.I was given this information by the demolishers who owned up to the fact that it was an incidental discovery.
    WHY WAS THE SITE NOT CLOSED DOWN,NEIGHBOURS WARNED AND PROPER ASBESTOS DISPOSAL CONDUCTED BY A REGISTERED ASBESTOS DISPOSAL COMPANY?
    The demolishers were using P2 respirators and there was no hosing down or safe disposal of the asbestos
    It was left uncovered,scattered all through the yard and I’m the adjoining neighbour with a toddler.
    I called the police but the demolishers soon disappeared after I raised my concerns with them.
    This is grossly unacceptable and as a doctor I am holding the council solely responsible.
    I posted on this site a few months back demanding to have details provided about safe asbestos removal.I was provided none,not by the neighbours or the council,knowing full well that a house of this age is bound to have asbestos.
    I pay a huge amount of tax and rely on this council to keep my family safe.
    So far,you have failed me!
    I demand action...and I’m seeking legal advice.
    I have pictures to support the above claims

  13. In Lindfield NSW on “Outdoor dining with 20 seat...” at 37 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    KELVIN PERRY commented

    Absolutely not. As pedestrian flows are set to increase in future there will be inadequate walking space with a relatively narrow public walkway of 2 metres. This business already causes occasional inconvenience with patrons queuing on the footpath.

  14. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    KJ commented

    Childcare Centre's are a necessity and these days, the council ensures that the parking and access is beyond what is needed therefore minimizing disturbance to the local neighborhood, the Traffic and Acoustic reports make sure of this. children are not dropped off or picked up on the street and access to the centre's are always forward exit unlike most residential driveways. Most centre's are well presented architecturally and present a tidy well maintained asset to the locality. Childcare centre's are by far the best neighbors to have, they don't have loud parties on the weekend or at night generally most of the noises that come out of them during the day are happy noises.

  15. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Louise commented

    This saga continues, this proposal plus another child care centre on the corner of Boronia and Yeramba. We have had many childcare centres being built on corner blocks within 2 km radius, Canoon and Kissing Point road, Turramurra public School, childcare centre next to Turramurra Public School, Saddington Street Preschool.
    Turramurra Avenue another large child care centre has been built and there is one on the corner of Eastern Road, this is a glut and it just adds to traffic congestion.

  16. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of current...” at 102 Kissing Point Road Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Janette McLeod commented

    Why are there planning applications for two childcare centres practically on the same road (around the corner on Boronia)?
    There are new centres opened in south Turramurra and across the highway on Turramurra ave. Are these all full?
    This corner is very dangerous with limited visibility, a bus stop opposite and a cycle lane. Not ideal for dropping and picking up children.

  17. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 31 Beechworth Road Pymble NSW 2073:

    A. MacDonald commented

    The DA application states that the property is not in an HCA.
    The property is in the middle of KMC's HCA for the local area. KMC stated publically that it is a formally adopted HCA, not a draft HCA, so the DA application should state that the property is within an HCA and that a heritge statement is required.

    Either way, even a draft HCA requires a heritage impact statement.
    None was submitted, according to the KMC website.

    KMC appears to have been inconsistent in its treatment of DA applications along Beechworth Road within the HCA for the locality. Sometimes it seems to require a heritage statement, sometimes not.
    KMC should be consistent and transparent in its HCA-affected requirements as actually enforced.

    There are some new dwellings along Beechworth Road and adjoining streets which are ghastly and have no heritage affinity for the locality, whether within the HCA or just outside of it.
    The heritage assessments and inventories for Beechworth Road and adjoining streets are poorly founded and have no rational coherence. There must be thirty or more "heritage styles" in the HCA, taking into account building design, the look, the layout, gardens and use of the land. Often there are more than a dozen styles within the same street.
    Whatever good is in the purported heritage themes for the HCA, they are traduced by KMC allowing Soviet embassy style architecture and boxy beachside architecture for new dwellings in the HCA.

    The proposed new dwellings in the DA application would be an improvement on the current daggy dwelling on site and would enhance the use of the site with its second dwelling.
    That general improvement is the best "heritiage" feature of the proposal in this DA application. New properties should be better, not uglier and should enhance the family and mulit-generational community (in contrast with KMC fast tracking very high density apartments in the locality).

    I have no connections with the proposal.

  18. In Pymble NSW on “Demolition of 4 dwellings,...” at 102 Bannockburn Road, Pymble, NSW:

    Ron Eagle commented

    ​​DA 0342/19 : 102-104 Bannockburn Rd and 2 Reely St Pymble
    ​​Proposed Seniors Housing X 17 : Comments

    The current proposal fails to acknowledge its history. This is the fourth iteration (three formal and one informal try-on) of essentially the same development by the same applicant over the last three years. The most recent rejection by the Land & Environment Court and how the revealed shortcomings are now addressed, should be front and centre of any new proposal. Not acknowledging previous events is misleading and somewhat disingenuous. There still are serious flaws in this latest version to the extent that Council should reject it out of hand. There is nothing to indicate a need for a further seniors development at this location. On the contrary, there is sufficient opposition to indicate that the local community doesn’t want another one there.
    This submission is in two Parts. Part 1 deals with the proposed driveway in what has been described as a prohibited location. That situation on its own is adequate grounds to reject the Application, since the general layout and configuration of units are directly related to the driveway location.
    Part 2 then becomes less immediately relevant, but is included because much of it is generic to any development on this site.
    Part 1 : Driveway Location
    The proposal locates the driveway on to Bannockburn Rd. at what is now the driveway to 102 Bannockburn. That location is proposed to apply to the completed complex and also to be used during construction.
    It is noted that the Transport Impact Plan refers to and adopts the requirements of Australian Standard AS 2890.1 in designing ramp grades, maneuvering spaces and the like. It fails to recognise however, that the same Australian Standard also regulates permissible locations of multiple use driveways. The location as proposed does not comply.
    “According to the Australian Standards AS 2890.1 (Section) 3.2.3, this is a prohibited location for a driveway for a multi-dwelling complex.” That quotation is from a communication from Council to me dated 23 January 2018 in response to my earlier query as to whether the currently proposed location might indeed be a suitable option.

    The above diagram is indicative only and is not absolutely true to scale.
    Precise consideration of compliance or otherwise with the Australian Standard is not helped by the site survey information included with the DA, stopping short of including the eastern side of Reely St. and the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg. That deficiency in survey detail should be remedied.
    Given that the proposed driveway location is not acceptable for the completed complex, it follows that that location is also not acceptable during the construction period as is proposed, when it would have multiple users and the traffic volume would be much greater and more hazardous.
    If the proposed permanent driveway were to be relocated towards the north, it would still be impacted by AS 2890.1. That Standard explicitly says that, as with all Standards, it provides minimum requirements and that local circumstances may require special additional provisions. If the driveway were to be relocated, for example, further into Reely St., that new location would encounter issues associated with a dangerous concealed driveway (frequented by elderly and/or handicapped drivers) for traffic travelling north from Bannockburn Rd. In addition, the elderly/handicapped drivers exiting the complex would have to cope with an unconventional approach angle requiring them to scan 120 degrees to their right to check for traffic approaching from Bannockburn Rd. It is well established that the elderly have real and increasing problems managing that degree of peripheral vision (ask any Physiotherapist, or elderly person for that matter. According to the Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 85% of people over 60 have some degree of cervical spondylosis or arthritis of the neck).
    In short, there is no suitable, complying, safe option for a multiple use driveway site in Bannockburn Rd. or Reely St. either during construction or in the longer term.

    The Developer should be called on to demonstrate compliance with AS 2890.1 in respect of the proposed location of the driveway and to provide survey data covering the eastern side of Reely St. and into the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg, so that any claimed compliance can be verified.
    Until compliance is demonstrated, the Development Application should be regarded as incomplete and given no detailed consideration. (If the driveway is not correctly located, the viability of the whole proposal comes into question).
    Background Points
    1. The presented design draws on AS 2890.1 for the basement layout, ramp design, maneuverability provision and the like.
    2. The designer shouldn’t be allowed to cherry pick AS 2890.1; use it when it suits; ignore it when it doesn’t.
    3. Decision makers ought to consider why the presented survey information stops short of what is required to ascertain compliance or otherwise. Was it an oversight?, ineptitude?, or ???.
    4. If the Standard is to be set aside for driveway location, the reasons should be set out, be compelling and agreed. (Commercial expediency isn’t one of them.)
    5. We are dealing with elderly and/or handicapped people. They should have the full benefit of best practice arrangements ….. without compromise.
    6. If there were to be a disaster (heaven forbid) at the driveway, the subsequent enquiry would not look kindly at the decision making and approval processes. We should be ahead of the play and avoid any compromise, so that we don’t find ourselves taking “make sure it can’t happen again” action as is sadly so often the case.
    Part 2 : Other Matters
    Considering features of the development, if completed as proposed.

    There will be 17 basement parking spaces allocated to the units. That number comes from the requirement set out in SEPP 2004. As with all standards, the SEPP sets out minimum requirements. It is then incumbent on the designer/architect to also have regard to the practicalities and impacts on existing features and activities. The aim ought to be, and from the community’s viewpoint is, for any development to have a seamless integration with pre-existing neighbourhood conditions and circumstances. Documents such as the SEPP and for that matter, Australian Standards, were never intended to be stand alone design manuals and should never be used as such. The dominant existing feature in this location is the school and its demands on traffic management and local parking in particular. Those demands have morning and afternoon peaks when, exacerbated by the strange configuration of streets, on-street parking is already at saturation point. (See photograph)
    The SEPP requirements would have been framed without consideration of site specific factors, such as the school or the configuration of local streets as are relevant here. Any overflow parking requirements from a SEPP development would normally be absorbed in the surrounding streets; but spare capacity does not exist in this case. Even a superficial analysis of existing seniors’ developments will reveal that the SEPP requirement of 0.5 car spaces per bedroom is seriously inadequate. The reality is that vehicle parking requirements are closer to 2.0 per main bedroom and an extra 1.0 for each occupied extra bedroom. There is no doubt that the proposed 17 spaces will not be adequate for this development to be self sufficient and there will be overflow parking issues.
    At Section 3.7 of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, it is stated that “on-site parking for all workers will be provided to ensure local roads are not impacted”. That recognition of local parking sensitivity needs to be carried over to dealing with the impact of overflow parking from the completed complex.
    Reely St. is also used as a “rat run” for peak hour traffic between Bobbin Head Rd. and the highway. It is quite narrow in places and extra parked cars at that time, would increase the congestion and dangers. Actions that increase on-street parking are best avoided.
    The developer should be asked how the overflow parking needs will be met without further exacerbating the already stressed and committed parking required in school and commuter peak periods.

    A typical school drop-off/pick-up time. The Toyota is outside 2 Reely St and the view is over towards the school. Wall to wall cars around the dogleg to the left and up to Pentecost Ave; to the right down Bannockburn Rd. and behind, along Reely St.

    Turning to the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). It’s good to see that it exists at this application stage and is apparently no longer seen as simply an “administrative process” that precedes construction, as has previously been suggested by Council. Construction traffic impacts extend from the site, to the immediate neighbourhood and into the wider community. Local activities, for example the school in this case, are often overlooked.
    By and large, I find this CTMP to be a welcomed change from previous attempts. There are however, several aspects that remain to be addressed;
    1. It deals with traffic volume averages, but that is of only passing relevance. Of more importance, is having a plan to manage major concrete pours, demolition and excavation peaks. How many occasions? How many trucks? Where will they be? Where wont they be? Where will they queue? To simply say that during construction there will be an average of 2 heavy vehicle movements per day is totally misleading. The reality is that on peak days there would be as many as 30 such movements. That is where the major hazards lie. This anomaly represents a major deficiency in the CTMP.
    2. In those peak times, the traffic intensity and size will be an order of magnitude and then some, greater than on other days. it is reasonable for the school (and near neighbours) to be advised, say three days in advance, so that parents can decide whether their otherwise independent children should be accompanied on those days. The planned disposition of traffic wardens should also be advised.
    3. Re on-site parking for “all workers”, the term needs to be clarified to include contractors, sub-contractors, tradesmen and their employees.
    4. Limited truck movements during school peak times is noted and applauded. The times should be adjusted to the standard school peaks of 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm. What does ‘limited’ mean?
    5. Who approves the CTMP? Who oversees compliance? Council? Does Council add conditions of its own? What sanctions are there for non compliance?
    6. Any desired variations, even one-off ones, need to be approved in advance by Council.

    Other issues such as set-backs, shadowing, privacy and aesthetics require close scrutiny, but I won’t attempt to address them here. No doubt they will be taken up by others.

    It is assumed that best practice systems will be applied during construction to the monitoring, control and accountability of vibration (often under-done), noise and dust. Detailed plans, especially for vibration, should be provided in advance and adoption of best practice procedures demonstrated and strictly followed.



    Ron Eagle eagleronron@telstra.com


    For convenience, I have attached a take-away list of suggested actions arising from this submission. They should be considered for integration into actions going forward, along with appropriate suggestions from other sources.

    ​​​​​​



    DA 0342/19 : 102-104 Bannockburn Rd and 2 Reely St Pymble
    Proposed Seniors Housing X 17 : Submission to Council : (by Ron Eagle)

    Take-away List of proposed Actions
    1. Call on Developer to demonstrate compliance with AS 2890.1 in respect of the proposed location of the driveway.
    2. Require provision of survey data covering the eastern side of Reely St. and into the Bannockburn Rd. dogleg, so that AS 2890.1 compliance can be demonstrated.
    3. If ‘1’ and ‘2’ are not satisfactorily resolved, reject the Application.
    4. Call on Developer to explain how overflow parking requirements from the completed complex will be met without compromising existing uses of on-street parking spaces.
    5. Require provision of detailed, quantified plans to manage construction and local traffic during peak operations in demolition, excavation and concrete pours.
    6. In the CTMP:-
    • “all workers” needs to be defined to include contractors, sub-contractors, tradesmen and their employees.
    • School peak hours to be adjusted to the standard 8.00am to 9.30am and 2.30pm to 4.00pm
    • What does ‘limited’ mean in Section 3.3? Perhaps it means ‘avoided’?
    • Clarify the mixed use of terms e.g. construction vehicles, light/heavy vehicles, workers’ private cars.
    • The school and near neighbours to be advised 3 days in advance of peak traffic impacts during demolition, excavation and concrete pours.
    • Desired variations to the approved CTMP to be subject to approval in advance by Council.
    7. Provide a quantified, detailed, best practice plan for the management, monitoring and reporting of vibration and its impact on adjacent buildings.

    1

  19. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 70 Warrangi Street Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Kevin John Conway commented

    Re Application No : DA 0381/19. PRoperty 70 Warrangi st Turramurra

    I wish to record my objection to this proposed development. The building of five dwellings on a property of this size in this quiet residential street will change the character of the area, and set a dangerous precedent.

  20. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 8 Wirra Close, St Ives, NSW:

    Aaron commented

    I do object to this development.

    I have recently bought in Wirra Close considering it is a local low density neighborhood and we can start our family here. Finding the notice about this development proposal and its court proceedings were utterly shocking!

    This development needs to be stopped. Wirra Close is a local narrow cul-de-sac and not suitable to accommodate 7 more dwellings (senior/disabled) whatsoever. It is not compatible with neighboring houses, there’s not enough room for increasing traffic load, and not enough parking for increasing number of residents and their visitors, onsite staff, sub-contractors etc. There’s no space for footpath unless to demolish the frontage grass of established houses. It will add to congestion of already blocked nearby streets and junction at Torokina ave as a result of nearby schools.
    The fact that this proposal may go thorough is absolutely ridiculous and not fair for local owners.

  21. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1558 Pacific Highway Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Louise commented

    A childcare centre on the Pacific Highway, this will be dangerous and we have so many new child care centres springing up all over the area.

  22. In Pymble NSW on “CC - Private Certifier -...” at 72 Livingstone Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Michael Yelf commented

    I live further down the street. It would be nice to maintain the community feel of the area by minimising high fences and gates in penrhyn avenue. Many houses have no front fences. Please request and put further details of the planned fence on the application.

  23. In Lindfield NSW on “CC for DA0175/17 -...” at 51 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Trish Clark commented

    I totally agree with Tony Skinner. Once peaceful Lindfield Avenue has become a suburban Pitt Street and something should be done about the endless queues, traffic jams and potential for accidents.

  24. In Lindfield NSW on “CC for DA0175/17 -...” at 51 Lindfield Avenue Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Tony Skinner commented

    Can we please sort out traffic flow on Lindfield Avenue before approving more apartments. 69 units will mean probably over a 100 cars on Lindfield avenue trying to get in and out from the single lane access under bridge onto pacific highway. As it is the traffic jams on this street are ridiculous from the existing units, IGA and Harris Farm. Any further units should not be allowed until the traffic chaos is sorted out!

  25. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed five-lot torrens...” at 185A Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Melanie Martin commented

    I request The state government and the council to consider the evacuation in the event of a bush fire emergency of this entire area given the fire zone and that many roads including Browns Road and The south end of Fox Valley road are one road in and one road out. In a large evacuation how is traffic going to more out and emergency services move in to evacuate all the dependent and immobile daycare children, school students and nursing home nursing home residents in this vicinity. I also request that the Department of State planning and council consider carefully how that many people accusing the school during peak periods are not going to impact the residents in the planned apartment towers and road congestion in that surrounding area.

  26. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Jill Collins commented

    I agree with comments above. There are already too many cars parking on both sides of the road making it dangerous for traffic moving in either direction between the vehicles already parked, not to mention how dangerous it is for children going to and from school to negotiate between vehicles and crossing Shaddock Avenue. It would be unthinkable to make a child care centre so close to a very busy main road.
    I have lived in the area since 1960 and have seen the increase in traffic along Ryde Road and to plan a child care centre so close to the main road would be a disaster waiting to happen, I strongly oppose the idea!

  27. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Kyla Eide commented

    I live in the area and frequently park on Shaddock Avenue to take my two children to Gordon West Primary School. I park on Shaddock Avenue as I find accessing the school from the other side of Ryde Road to be extremely dangerous. Shaddock Avenue already struggles to cope with the amount of traffic it endures. This street is very congested with cars and children and I fear that adding more traffic to the street is a recipe for disaster. As others have stated above, Shaddock can only have cars driving one at a time in either direction when cars are parked on both sides of the street. Exiting off Shaddock on to Ryde Road is also dangerous when school zones are not in effect as visibility is poor with the speeds coming around the corner on Ryde. This is poor planning heaped on top of prior poor planning...build community infrastructure in appropriate areas, do not concentrate more cars and more children on the corner of Shaddock and Ryde Road at peak hours!

  28. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Bob the builder commented

    No, don’t do it.

  29. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Trish commented

    Agree with all the above comments. Reject. The increased traffic to the already busy Shaddock Avenue will create a gridlocked street at peak times that will be dangerous to students and residents.

  30. In Pymble NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 1 Shaddock Avenue Pymble NSW 2073:

    Jackie Nevill commented

    I agree with the above comments as a parent with kids at Gordon West, the street is already dangerous to primary school children, i'd hate to think about adding preschoolers and toddlers and more rushing parents to this mix. That is not to mention it is right on the corner of one of Sydney's main roads. Why build a center for small children on a main road? If you think about what area might be a good place for kids to spend their childhood (rather than where developers might be able to make money from it), this is hardly the right place.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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