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

  1. In Pymble NSW on “Modification to DA0112/17 -...” at 16 Hope Street Pymble NSW 2073:

    Stephen and Cheryl Sefton commented

    The Section 4.55 (1A) application from Minto and Associates fails to detail that this modification impacts adjacent properties in Orana Avenue Pymble which are Contributory properties in a draft HCA.

    As these properties are currently subject to HCA development controls, the impact on these properties, as ‘adjacent properties in an HCA’ should be considered as part of the assessment of the Modification.

    In addition the statement that the result is ‘substantially the same ‘ lacks credibility as the exterior finishes applied are in stark contrast to that approved. How can black windows be substantially the same as white windows - that is illogical,

  2. In Pymble NSW on “Modification to DA0112/17 -...” at 16 Hope Street Pymble NSW 2073:

    Stephen and Cheryl Sefton commented

    The owners of 16 Hope Street Pymble have no respect for their neighbours, the Pymble neighbourhood and the Development Application process.

    This is the third Modification Application in relation to DA 0112/17 and is continued evidence of a complete disregard for regulatory approvals and a premeditated rorting of the system, As has been the case with previous modifications, the owners of 16 Hope Street have moved ahead with a construction non compliant with the original DA on the basis that they would seek forgiveness after the fact - an approach which to our disbelief, Council Officers have endorsed.

    Firstly, they illegally built a habitable basement area approved as foundations, exceeding the allowable FSR and now they have painted the exterior a dark grey, with black windows that looms more than 8 metres over our back fence looking directly into our swimming pool, kitchen and family room and creating a very dark bulk that reflects no light and overshadows our private open space.

    Interestingly these Modification Applications have been made after the non compliant work is complete, having been notified by us to the private certifier. As a result, we question whether there is any level of oversight of this construction, and whether the Modification Applications would have been made at all if the non-compliant work had not been raised by us. We also question what action has or will be taken by KMC in regard to these breaches of the DA.

    The exterior finishes used are in complete contrast to the DA approval and totally inconsistent with surrounding properties and the Upper North Shore esthetic. The DA required white windows - The window frames are all black. The DA required a mid neutral coloured render. The house has been painted dark grey and looks like a submarine towering over our backyard. It is disgraceful and makes a complete mockery of the DA process.

    The Colourbond promotional material for the exterior colour ‘Monument’ describes it as:
    ‘An unashamedly city colour - a strong colour’.

    This not an urban landscape, this is a suburban area surrounded by properties with classic exteriors.

    Further, no amount of hedging or landscaping will shield the view of this eyesore from our property as it towers more than 8 metres over our back fence.

    Why is there a DA process and neighbour consultation if Ku-rung-Gai Council Officers turn a blind eye and approve these modifications after the fact?

    We request that this application and the blatant abuse of the DA process be referred to the full Council, as this is a serious issue of blatant and repeated regulatory non-compliance.

    We also note that we have referred to the private certifier further illegal work to the basement area (doorway and windows indicating additional non approved spaces which are detailed as foundations on plan) - so expect that will be the subject of modification application number 4!

  3. In Gordon NSW on “Change of use of a retail...” at 844 Pacific Highway Gordon NSW 2072:

    Judy Benson commented

    Dear Council
    I really think council should look at the number of Child Care facilities going up in the area. Its way over saturation point and its changing our suburb. We've got child care facilities right next to residential housing. Our streets just cant cope with the extra traffic its bringing to our once beautiful suburbs.

  4. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Robyn Staveley commented

    Dear KMC,
    To add to the earlier comments, we also cannot believe that even more development, in close proximity to an extremely busy and dangerous intersection, is proposed. Yesterday, as well as congestion caused by cars parked to all the limits of spaces along Fox Valley Road, the road was intermittently closed off in both directions to allow for trucks and movement of building materials. This was during the 11am period, not even peak hour, but the whole of Fox Valley Road and all entries were at a stand still. Then, an ambulance was trying to make its way along Fox Valley Road. There was absolutely nowhere to go, people honking their horns, ambulance driver wildly gesticulating, trying to drive down the wrong side of the road as people tried to push in. What chaos! I sincerely hope that the ambulance was able to assist whomever was in need, but it certainly would not have been timely. With a hospital and emergency room in close proximity, what is KMC thinking in even considering more development?

  5. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Laura L commented

    Building units in a solely residential area of single family homes, with not one but two schools within walking distance (one for special needs children), on an already overcrowded street at school time, where parking is nearly impossible, is probably not the most intelligent decision to make. Understood many seniors require a place to live, but has anyone actually determined if it is indeed local residents looking to downsize that purchase these units? I would most certainly be interested in that data.

    Given the high traffic at the corner of Wahroonga Ave & Braeside St at school time, my response to this would be to give it a miss, before more congestion is added, as the parking situation on Braeside has already resulted in many near accidents (a separate issue which the council needs to address).

  6. In North Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 2 Chifley Close North Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Brian Evans commented

    Brian Evans

    I would like to support the comments of Andrew Morgan set out above. It is clear to me, from the plans, that the building is set up to attract lodgers and further is also set up to be adjusted even further, in the future, to accommodate multiple boarders. The flow of the rooms, the multiple "recreation" rooms (media, fitness and leisure rooms), the multiple bathrooms and potential for an extra kitchen in the fitness room using the "future bar" plumbing, all point toward a potential boarding house. Additionally, any or all of those spaces have the potential to be converted to extra bedrooms after completion. I am certainly concerned about the noise and traffic issues posed but such a change of use . What is essentially a large gymnasium (fitness room) has windows pointing at 1 and 3 Chifley Close and such a facility has the potential to be used commercially or at least in association with loud music and equipment noise. If a bar is indeed added in the future, then the fitness room quickly becomes a "party room" for the boarders.

    In light of these concerns I also question whether or not the application is appropriately made via the CDC system. Should it not have been submitted as a Development Application?

    Lastly, if lodgers are necessary for servicing the loan for this project, as suspected by Mr Morgan, how would that loan be serviced prior to completion and is there a risk that funds will not be available sufficient to complete the building thus leaving the property as an ugly, incomplete building site?

  7. In North Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 2 Chifley Close North Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Andrew Morgan commented

    The main points I would like considered in this application are:
    1. Is this development intended to accommodate boarders? Given the size of the development and the plans submitted e.g. a media room and large gymnasium, I would like a guarantee from the applicant, to be enforced if necessary by Ku-Ring-Gai Council that the future intended use is not to be used to accommodate commercial boarders and that the building would not be modified internally after completion to accommodate boarders.
    2. If this development is to accommodate in part or whole, rent paying boarders, I would have concerns regarding noise and what measures would be undertaken to limit noise affecting adjacent properties especially given the size and position of the gymnasium and the applicant expressing to me personally that the building would be part financed by income derived form letting out rooms.
    3. If the development is used as a boarding house in the future would Ku-Ring-Gai Council limit the number of boarders that could be accommodated at any one time.
    4.Similarly, I have concerns that the proposed structure would impact on the privacy of adjacent properties e.g. would it overlook the swimming pool located at 14 Barton Crescent, North Wahroonga.

  8. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Gail Wiseman commented

    KMC, we implore you to please listen to the very community you have been trusted to represent. Why are greedy developers and the Adventist organisation consistently prioritised over the community? We count on you to take care of the place where we have invested our homes and want to raise our children in a safe and healthy environment. We have made so many rational points with regard to increased traffic, evacuation in the event of a bushfire and the unique and precious nature of this area. Yet we are challenged with one DA after another for buildings that threaten all three of these points. Why is each DA treated in isolation, when it is the additive effect that will ultimately have such a devastating and permanent impact on the area? Please listen to your community and stop this spiralling and devastating impact on Fox Valley.

  9. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    S. Baker commented

    Dear KMC Councillors,

    We do not support, but understand that development will occur as our city grows, and inevitably that is creeping closer to our home. What is causing incredible frustration and concern for us is that road development to alleviate congestion and maintain safety is not keeping pace with construction, increased traffic flows and an increase to residents in the Fox Valley and surrounding area. Please make this a priority as a matter of urgency.

    We are also negatively impacted by a plan to install traffic calming devices in local streets, when the traffic has likely increased (both from locals and residents escaping Pacific Highway congestion as well as due to increased traffic flows accessing the new facilities being built) as a direct result of development that Council has approved without adequate road widening, intersection management, access, or parking planning. This is quite baffling and is a source of enormous frustration and anger to us.

    You are accountable for the effective management of development in a sustainable manner and this is not currently evident.

  10. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Avona Butterfield commented

    KMC Councillors
    The time has come for Council to address the concerns of all residents in the Fox Valley Road area and call a halt to new DAs until an independent, comprehensive examination of traffic and parking issues is carried out. Already-approved DAs will add thousands of extra vehicle movements and increase out-of-area parking in an area which lacks both the infrastructure to cope and the space for the necessary infrastructure. The major intersection of Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway is often grid-locked as early as 3.40pm and streets to the south of the intersection have become free parking lots for staff and visitors to the SAN. This is a low-density residential area, but it might as well be in the inner city as there is nowhere for residents, their friends, cleaners or gardeners to park during the day. Slip lanes and a new set of traffic lights north of the SAN will not solve the problems. Traffic modelling for all the current DAs have only shown estimates for the vehicle movements which will be generated by each DA, not estimates of the traffic movements on the road into which these vehicles will pour. The traffic modelling for the 127-place child care centre at the intersection was out of date and about half that of resident checks. The effect of that traffic and that generated by the enormous specialist centre on the corner diagonally opposite will be horrendous with cars disrupting the traffic stream as they cross lanes to enter or exit the buildings.

    Many residents of this area have, like us, lived here for more than forty years. We cherish this area and trust our Councillors to preserve this part of Ku-ring-gai's green heart and ensure that rapacious over-development does not destroy what makes the area so lovely.

    I have made no gift to any Councillor or Council employee.

  11. In Warrawee NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 1407 Pacific Highway, Warrawee, NSW:

    Mat P commented

    There is 2 significant trees located within the adjacent property (1-3 Eulbertie) impacted by this construction. Photographic imagery from 1943 indicates the trees were present then.
    One Quercus species (oak) has had significant TPZ encroachment, and further structural root zone encroachment.
    A 250-300mm structural root has been severed.
    Clearly council has not made any site inspections.

  12. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    William S commented

    This proposed development is wholly inappropriate in a heritage listed area, an area which is few and far between these days. There are already a preponderance of over 55 developments and ever new ones being constructed north of Junction Rd. Demand for over 55's can be more than met by non-heritage area development very close by. There is no need for this development whatsoever in a heritage listed area. This is simply an abuse by the developer and will set a precedent of being able to build such developments in any heritage area. Home owners in this heritage area would never be allowed to develop their land so intensively, so why should a profit making developer be able to so at the expense of the rest of the community.

    Ku-ring-gai Council should absolutely oppose this application and make it clear the site can only be developed as a single residence in keeping with the LLEP and other statutes that govern the streetscape and listed buildings nearby

  13. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    A Lyle commented

    KMC Councillors,
    Surely, there are enough DAs along Fox Valley Rd. Kuringgai is known for its green and healthy air. With these multiple DAs for high rise buildings along Fox Valley Road, the "green" will be replace by concrete structures and its 'green environment', shall be lost forever. With all these developments, the results are not only increased number of residents, the current already congested traffic will be worsened and accompanied by toxic hazard fumes emitted by the slow moving congested traffic. Surely, this can be detrimental to our future generations, i.e. the young children attending the SA schools particularly the primary school children as young as 5 years old. Trees will be removed as already happened with the current construction of the enormous Medical Consulting Clinics at the corner of Fox Valley Rd and Comenarra Parkway. KMC must assess the cumulative effects of all these developments before approving further developments.

  14. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    William B commented

    I think it’s about time we made such developments available so that elderly citizens can continue to live in the same area where they chose to grow old. Developments like these make our community a caring one. People who object, unfortunately, are not stating their true reasons for their objections.
    Well done Kur-Ring-Gai Council.

  15. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Tracey Rock commented

    KMC Councillors,
    As a resident who has both had her car rammed at the fox valley road/Comenarra parkway intersection by a road raged driver, and a parent of P plating teenagers who are still learning what lengths frustrated drivers will go to, when will the development of the roads and intersections be kept in line with the development that you keep approving? Why has the parking along Comenarra recently changed to include more parking before an over used intersection (see expert traffic report from DA for daycare centre on corner of Fox Valley/Comenarra) and are we waiting until someone is killed near the SA school before we remove parking from both sides of the road on fox valley road?
    Surely approving more development at the SAN will increase the traffic in this area to unbearable levels. I understand that you think that as the traffic is not fast moving it will not lead to a death, but it is only a matter of time before a frustrated driver takes out a pedestrian with illegal turning at both the SAN entrance and the fox valley/comenarra parkway intersection. I have seen this almost happen at least every second week.
    Thanks

  16. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Y Heng commented

    KMC Councillors,

    Surely you are not going to allow yet another high rise building to be erected on or near the intersection of Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway?! The current approved developments in this section of Wahroonga are already the subject of much community angst. When is it going to stop?

    As our elected representatives it is the duty of all our councillors to step up and voice the angst of the community and put an end to this over-development in the Fox Valley area.

    It is time that all DAs are considered within the perspective as to the cumulative effect of all of them on an area and not, as appears to be the case thus far, considered individually and in isolation.

  17. In Saint Ives Chase NSW on “Proposed front fence with...” at 34 Gould Avenue St Ives Chase NSW 2075:

    Natalie Smith commented

    As the adjoining neighbour, the proposed fencing works for 34 Gould Ave, will have a significant impact on our property. The major concerns are as follows:

    1. Removal of the existing dividing brick wall and tree

    We object to the proposed removal of the existing dividing brick wall. This current and sufficient structure is a far greater privacy screen than what is being proposed. The existing brick wall not only functions as a privacy screen and noise barrier, but also provides aesthetic and structural value for our property. It also serves as a retaining wall and removal would have considerable structural consequences and associated impact.

    The existing dividing brick wall is structurally sound (as confirmed by our structural engineer’s report dated 1/12/18). It has been a dividing wall in excess of 20 years with no signs of wear. The brick wall is far more structurally and aesthetically appropriate than a lightweight fence that will not sufficiently retain the land between 34 and 36 Gould Ave. Removal of this wall will also impact our privacy from our master bedroom and bathrooms.

    The owners of 34 Gould Ave have also indicated intent for removal of a native eucalyptus tree located on our property. It is situated more than 30 centimetres away from the current brick fence, with no impact on this structure. We are opposed to removal of any vegetation on our property without our, and council’s consent. We further note that there are inconsistencies between the two separate boundary surveys obtained by owners of 34 Gould and 36 Gould Ave and the extent of which the wall sits on the boundary line is not confirmed

    2. Water Drainage

    We have serious concerns regarding water drainage and the imminent flow of flood water onto our property should the brick wall and vegetation be removed.

    3. View Loss and Street view

    We object to a new 1.8 m front dividing fence all the way to front boundary as this would significantly restrict our view of the natural landscape and our general outlook, and is not in keeping with the open streetscape of Gould Ave.

  18. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Ad van den Boogaard commented

    Dear KMC,

    We look forward to your response to this DA to see if all the proof and daily evidence of the Fox Valley road's over-capacity has yet convinced you to put an end to any further approvals of this nature as we have seen so far.

    This area turns out to be a smorgasbord for developers!

    This would be a great opportunity for KMC to show how much you really care about the people who trust you and who have given you this responsibility in the first place!

    Thank you and regards,
    Ad

  19. In Wahroonga NSW on “CC18/124447-3 for SSD5535 -...” at 189 Fox Valley Road Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    George Gleeson commented

    KMC, Surely you are not going to allow another high rise building to be erected on or near the intersection of Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway!!!
    The current approved Developments in this section of Wahroonga are already the subject of much community angst. When is it going to stop!!!
    As our elected representatives it is the duty of all our councilors to step up and cease this over development in the Fox Valley precinct.
    It is time that all DAs were considered with thought as to how the cumulative effect of they all DAs impact on an area and not, as appears to be the case, in isolation.
    George Gleeson

  20. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    William S commented

    This property is wholly inappropriate for 6 dwellings in this area and particularly this street at this number. I also recall the street scape is heritage listed. I also attended the open viewings at the sale of this house as a local resident and this is an abuse of the over 55 / diasabilty provisions. There is an abuse of such housing by ruthless developers already north of Junction Rd. Where does the rot end?

  21. In Wahroonga NSW on “Proposed construction of 6...” at 27 Braeside Street Wahroonga NSW 2076:

    Walter Hill commented

    A complete obliteration of Upper North Shore quality of living standards and property..

    A final nail in the coffin of the previous lifestyle enjoyed on the Upper North Shore.

    We are rapidly gaining an overcrowded down market people environment with English

    rarely heard in Wahroonga, and townhouses full of refugees from the lower North and

    Inner West of Sydney.

  22. In Roseville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 6 Addison Avenue Roseville NSW 2069:

    Richard Taylor commented

    1.This property appears to have been constantly added to over the past 15 years. It is now a massive/spreading building structure (thank goodness single storey) that it MUST now exceed Kuringai Councils own regulations about Floor:Space (Land) ratio for a Residential Zoning. The property contains masses of concrete pathways and driveways that would already exceed any desirable Built-Upon-Area ratio that the Town Planners would not approve further roofed areas.
    What is the actual FSR for this zoning, Council maps state 0.3:1 but this property exceeds this already, and exceeds BUArea by at least 5-10%. There is hardly any lawn/landscaped areas.

    2.An additional rainwater tank on the eastern side of house should also be part of the DA as the increase in roof space will create more stormwater racing out to the street/creeks of Middle Harbour. Retaining this water is paramount. A further 5000L rainwater tank is needed if this is to gain approval.

    3.The additions should not be approved as it will further detract from the Heritage Items at the front of the house as the garage at the moment is a respectable distance from the front Heritage Items, but bringing the double garage doors forward will impact the nature/appearance of the Heritage Items.

    4.The additional space created as a "Study" is more than likely going to be used as separate accommodation eg rented out privately. There is no need if this is going to be an internal "study" to have external access with doorways at the front or the side of the house. If this addition is approved, it should only be approved with the deletion of ALL Doorways, and only windows allowed (no egress permitted). The house already has a Front Door!!!. Egress from the double garage to the side path is interesting, but why egress to the side path, it should be only permitted towards the existing front door.
    NO APPROVAL should (in future) be given for any internal alteration such as bathroom/plumbing in this zone or for the closing off of any internal walls (thus creating separate/lettable accommodation)

    5.I note the new garage is going to be built and encroach on a Sydney Water Easement, is this permissible ?? Why were the original additions allowed to be built upon the Water Easement ?

    6.Council Town Planners should reject the front additions/alterations on this DA0536/18 on numerous stated grounds/reasons, not the least exceeding FSR and BUAs for Residential dwelling lots in KRC area. It will set a precedent that KRCouncil will not be able to back down from.
    Neighbours will have ongoing water/flooding issues because of it, especially in this climate changing era. There will be a lot more 1 in a 100 year flood events and the lack of soft areas will cause massive run-off/flooding issues on neighbouring properties/footpaths and roadways.

    7.If this is approved then all future applications in the KRC area will try to exceed FSR and BUA requirements. Water run-off is an extremely important issue. This property should be made to comply with such regulations, and in fact the DA not approved and the applicant if wanting approval for the rear additions should be made to comply with INCREASING the current landscaping and REDUCING the concrete areas/built-upon-areas.

    8.I hope Town Planning Officers have performed a site visit/inspection as this property has more hard/BU areas than stated on the submitted diagrams. Proper measurements need to be confirmed by Council.

  23. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish an existing...” at 3 Boomerang Street Turramurra NSW 2074:

    Andrew commented

    "The house has no style" (Statement of Heritage Impact, page 14).
    This is polite, professional words for: "The house has a pug ugly style which is irredeemably out of character for the neighbourhood, Ku-ring-gai, Sydney and Australia."
    Technically, contrary to the entire history of heritage reports commissioned by KMC, ugly houses of many different styles is part of the heritage of Ku-ring-gai.
    KMC has proudly fostered this tradition by encouraging many very ugly apartment blocks (for which many ugly dwellings and many beautiful dwellings have been demolished).

    The proposed new dwelling has little architectural merit and adds little (if anything) to the neighbourhood, for specific heritage styles or otherwise, but it is much better than the current.
    Frankly, my dear, the proposed new dwelling could be used as a location for a remake of the movie, Gone with the Wind.

    The author of the report cannot bring himself to write anything positive specifically about the proposed new dwelling, other than it will be an improvement on the current situation.
    Misses the supposed purpose of KMC's HCA dictats, of course,but he has to work with the KMC HCA farce.
    So, we are all in this game of having no idea what actually is KMC's "heritage" framework, despite years of "consultations" and many lame reports, but if we can say the proposed new dwelling is less ugly than the current dwelling, all is good!

    The owners should be permitted and encouraged to knock down the current structure and have the heritage freedom to establish another ugly dwelling which is out of character for the neighbourhood other than there are several other similarly ugly dwellings in the neighbourhood.

  24. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 69 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    Marty commented

    It is incomprehensible how a stunning piece of heritage could be destroyed. Can someone please explain how/why this was allowed to happen? Devastating.

  25. In Saint Ives NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 12 Killeaton Street, St Ives, NSW:

    Mrs j g wilmshurst (jacqueline) commented

    My family and I are most concerned that the protection of the ground-dwelling whip birds remain a top priority in any re-development of this land. We are concerned that their precious habitat is destroyed. It may even be the bamboo which has been a part of this land for several years.

  26. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 69 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    Louise Blanch commented

    How very disappointing that the individuals who bought this house did so knowing it had an interim heritage order on it, they then fought council and went through another avenue to have it demolished. The north shore times published a story in 2017 that the new owners were to bring the "Gables" back to its former glory. Instead they removed all windows, chimney, verandah and verandah pillars, and white washed it, it was pretty much gutted before any approval was given.
    I am disgusted with how individual have a complete disregard for heritage of buildings, what will go up in its place another boring rectangular home with no character, or is he going to try to subdivide .

  27. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 69 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra, NSW:

    Jonathon Tremain commented

    It's gone it has been DEMOLISHED!!!

  28. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Section 4.55 1 - Minor...” at 12 Barana Parade Roseville Chase NSW 2069:

    Belinda Mayor commented

    What is the secondary dwelling ? Is this a dual occupancy ?

  29. In East Lindfield NSW on “CDC18419/01 - Private...” at 178 Tryon Road East Lindfield NSW 2070:

    Andrew commented

    Many trees are being removed on Tryon Road overlooking Ailisa close and council knows this is happening and stands back. 176 is quietly clearing trees one at time hoping not to be seen. 182 Tryon Road removed 30+ trees 2 months ago killing at least one Tawny Frogmouth. Photos available. We’ve pleaded with Council, written letters asking for help to try save our birds and other small animals.
    trees are clearly being removed to increase views of Middle harbour and council does nothing about it. It’s disgusting that we are forced to pay rates and council does not protect and enforce their own policies.

  30. In East Lindfield NSW on “CDC18419/01 - Private...” at 178 Tryon Road East Lindfield NSW 2070:

    steve fantham commented

    more details plans required so neighbours can be fully informed. This property directly backs onto properties in AILSA CLOSE
    Many trees have already been cut down including trees which were the habitat of TAWNY FROG mouths for many years parrots and other bird life nested regularly many TREES have already been cut down

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