Recent comments on applications from Lane Cove Council, NSW

  1. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 47 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North:

    Daniel Harbin commented

    Dear Lane Cove Council,

    We have been living at the apartments in 41-45 Mindarie Street since it had passed its Certificate of Occupancy. In the 4 years our family have lived in this pocket, we have seen its transformation from a community in isolation and trouble to a family friendly and social area with a greater mix of skilled professionals.

    This has also lifted Lane Cove North as a suburb with the addition of the new all inclusive park, a benchmark for the council and enforcing the family friendly environment.

    Given the additions of further development of apartments, attracting professional young couples and families to the area and its pressures around street parking, I feel that the 2 x 26 room boarding houses proposed at 51 and 47 Mindarie Street goes against the current transformation objectives Lane Cove Council are encouraging. The boarding houses would have an adverse affect on the neighbouring apartments, park and public school that hopes to grow to 1000 students.

    The move would force future and current professionals to look elsewhere or relocate driving the socioeconomic conditions down for both the neighborhood, Mindarie Park and Mowbray Public School.

    I implore Council to consider the two separate plans for 51 and 47 Mindarie Street and reject them on the above basis as well as other applicants.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  2. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Demolition of existing and...” at 51 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North:

    Daniel Harbin commented

    Dear Lane Cove Council,

    We have been living at the apartments in 41-45 Mindarie Street since it had passed its Certificate of Occupancy. In the 4 years our family have lived in this pocket, we have seen its transformation from a community in isolation and trouble to a family friendly and social area with a greater mix of skilled professionals.

    This has also lifted Lane Cove North as a suburb with the addition of the new all inclusive park, a benchmark for the council and enforcing the family friendly environment.

    Given the additions of further development of apartments, attracting professional young couples and families to the area and its pressures around street parking, I feel that the 2 x 26 room boarding houses proposed at 51 and 47 Mindarie Street goes against the current transformation objectives Lane Cove Council are encouraging. The boarding houses would have an adverse affect on the neighbouring apartments, park and public school that hopes to grow to 1000 students.

    The move would force future and current professionals to look elsewhere or relocate driving the socioeconomic conditions down for both the neighborhood, Mindarie Park and Mowbray Public School.

    I implore Council to consider the two separate plans for 51 and 47 Mindarie Street and reject them on the above basis as well as other applicants.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    Daniel Harbin

  3. In Lane Cove NSW on “Construction of new Seniors...” at 266 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove:

    Darvan Sinnetamby commented

    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, a quick update on the above matter.

    On the 11th July 2018, the Sydney North planning panel (SNPP) decided to defer the decision on 266 Longueville rd, giving the applicant 6 weeks (until the 24th of August) to submit updated plans. In an extraordinary manner, they have now extended the date by 7 months to the 29th of March 2019 (9 months in total), a week after the next NSW state elections. The SNPP notification is published on their website.

    The bad news is that, this may well signal an intention to approve the proposal while minimising political impact to the minister of planning, state representative for Lane Cove. A similar approach was taken in stage 1 when re-zoning this land from “Public Recreational” to “High Density Residential” where the approval announcement was not made until after the last State elections.

    The good news is that, there will be an election where the public can express their view. Local Democracy Matters!

  4. In Lane Cove West NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 34 Moore St, Lane Cove West:

    Jennie Minifie commented

    This section of Moore Street has road safety issues that should be urgently reviewed. It carries high traffic volumes in the am and pm peaks. It is also has no lines marked and has parking on the northern side. Vehicles turning left into Cullen Street do not keep entirely to the left hand side of the road. For safety reasons these issues should be reviewed prior to approval of any new development.
    Further, the Bush regeneration work by Lane Cove Council and volunteers is enhancing the natural landscape setting and upgrading the environment in the location.
    If approved, the development should be conditioned to retain remnant natural vegetation and trees in order to retain the natural landscape character of this area.
    I would appreciate the Council addressing these matters in the public interest.

  5. In Northwood NSW on “Proposed retaining Wall and...” at 60 Cliff Rd, Northwood:

    William (Bill) McLaughlin commented

    Comment on DA 177/2018

    Following are agreed amendments to the documentation of DA 177/2018.

    At an on site meeting on 10/10/2018, these amendments have been discussed and agreed to, in total, by Mr Kevin Lei, acting for the owner of 60 Cliff Road and William McLaughlin owner of 56B Cliff Road Northwood. A copy of the signed agreement has been forwarded to Development Manager Mr Ravi Shankar by email.

    1 Attachment A - Description of the Proposal. Item 3
    ERROR. The property described as 58B Cliff Road in the printed document, Attachment A, is actually 56B Cliff Road.

    Following is suggested suitable wording for, The Proposal, that more accurately describe the agreement between the two parties.

    The owners of the two properties, no. 56B Cliff Road and no. 60 Cliff Road. have agreed to keep the, as built, foundations. They have agreed to the demolition and removal of all the, as built, steel reinforced concrete block walls, intended to be on the property of 60 Cliff Road, that at present, overlap the boundary between the two properties, to the extent of being up to 180mm on the land at no. 56B.

    The owners have agreed to build a new concrete and timber fence not exceeding an overall height of 1800mm, all of which is to be constructed entirely on the property at no. 60 Cliff Road.

    The structure will be comprised of a base concrete block section not more than 600mm above natural soil level, with the upper section being constructed of timber of not more than 1200 mm in height.

    No part of this new construction will, in any way, be over the boundary line on the property at no. 56B Cliff Road.

    2. Page 3 of Statement of environmental effects 1 installation of new access stairs.
    Please add to the DOT points:
    Demolition and removal of the concrete block wall, currently spreading across the boundary line of the two properties 60 Cliff Road and 56B Cliff Road.

    3. Page 10 of Statement of environmental effects
    please add to, Response.
    The large Morton Bay Fig tree on the boundary is to be protected during the construction so as to remain undamaged.

    4. Side Area Section 1.7
    The two fence panels shown on the street side of the diagram, each detailed as 1900mm in length, appear to show concrete block panels as being considerably more than 600 mm in height. These concrete sections will be the agreed height of a maximum of 600mm, above natural soil level.

    This document was signed by Kevin Lei and Bill McLaughlin 10/10/2108

  6. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Murray Holmes commented

    We have lived opposite the Greenwich Rd School site for 28 years.
    For over 30 years Sue has taught at the school. Murray has been involved in school life on and off during this time mainly as our two children attended GPS.
    Some things that have occurred-
    • The proposed amalgamation of the school on the Kingslangley Site.
    • The sale of the Greenwich road site possibly with enlargement as a private school.
    These proposals were resisted by our community with a lot of work put in by various members of the Community.
    The demise of the traditional Infants Department with K~2 classes has taken place. With growing numbers this could not be resisted.
    We believe the current DA before Council represents a very positive move which will lessen comprehensively the above dangers.
    As an architect I have some reservation about the building as designed but not its location or massing.
    The original building, 1908, by Walter Liberty Vernon Architect if I remember correctly from my Uni. thesis was modern, exciting and significant in the Greenwich Rd neighbourhood.
    Outwardly, though not entirely an exciting building, it will be for us, if approved, appropriately modern and more significantly will take the School towards exciting future learning possibilities.
    Murray Holmes and Sue Holmes
    83 Greenwich Rd Greenwich.

  7. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    garry draffin commented

    The additional facilities at the greenwich infants school are welcome but the impact on parking and safety {particularly children] is unacceptable . Street parking has to be found for the 15 sites taken from the school grounds as well as the inevitable increase required for the 70 odd additional pupils families . The area is already congested.
    The other issue is the arrival/departure of infants .this is a kindergarten/infant school and infants are not "kiss and drop"- they are walked into school or at the very least watched from car to school grounds . This is already difficult and will be impossible and dangerous once this work is complete .
    please survey the parents at school time - not a desk review!!
    Consider angled parking on the school side of Wardrop st -this will create an extra 5/6 parking places .
    Persuade the education dept to put build staff parking under the proposed building .
    All of the above wont be enough but its a start !!

  8. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    garry draffin commented

    no

  9. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    David commented

    mmm, from what i have seen that is a huge building that will significantly change the school. It removes staff parking without consideration for where they will park and has potential to cause huge parking issues when more students arrive at the school. it is taking away much needed play area for the current kids - where will the new kids play?

    Let me be clear parking is a BIG issue now as parents of Kindy and year 1 kids CAN NOT kiss and ride. they stay 12-30 mins. at 9am and 3pm parking is difficult already

    I would think you need to consider
    1. build underground parking for staff?
    2. reduce the size and scale of the building
    3. consider a remodel the current building to increase capacity
    4. design the new building to be sympathetic to the old building (scale and design)
    5. keep the outdoor space for kids to play

  10. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Edward Re commented

    I am writing to express my support for this development. The area is expected to have a large increase in population. Currently these services are difficult for parents to obtain. Going for larger buildings with the needed space is the only answer. This will help kids and parents. This will bring public benefit.

  11. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Meghan commented

    In regards to the number of students, the infants site is currently at capacity. They are not allowed to put in another demountable classroom there and if anymore children turn up they will have to remove the library from that site.

  12. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Eloise commented

    I’m not opposed to an upgrade on the Infants site, however the proposed extension is extraordinarily large for the site.

    The proposed building has enough floorspace to house 15 standard classrooms. A smart redesign of the proposed build could reduce the building by half whilst still accomodating the necessary upgrade in classrooms.

    Reduction in building size would also reclaim significant outdoor space - necessary if you are planning to double Student numbers.

  13. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Megan commented

    I am concerned about the traffic flow around the Southern Site on Greenwich Road. The Traffic survey failed to observe that the shops are opposite the school and a lot of the parking is also used for this. It states there are 15 parking spaces on Greenwich Road which would have a conservative turnover of 2 mins. This is an outrageous claim compared to what actually happens here. Most cars would remain parked for approx 15-30 mins as there is a supermarket and coffee shops opposite. The traffic report also fails to consider the amount of commuter parking next to the school. This will continue to creep down Chisholm Street as population increases. As a split site school, staff often have to travel between sites (by car). I would think a couple of car spaces would be required on site to avoid teachers wasting time finding car spots. It will also impact local residents of which many around the school have no off street parking. Lastly, the narrow roads around the southern site often have small accidents (not shown on the report) as they are not wide enough for two way traffic, in particular the north end of Chisholm street. This road should be changed to one way between Wardrop and Greenwich road, heading north.

  14. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Reply commented

    Thank you Susan.

    Yes a shocking proposal from Lane Cove Council - especially given most residents rallied against it.

    Council ignored schooling concerns when the development was originally proposed, suggesting there wouldn't be many kids living in the apartments. Obviously they have changed their tune.

    The new development and school build will no doubt bring a tsunami of people, cars and traffic to Greenwich village shops...

  15. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Susan Clarke commented

    Jane asked where the sudden rush of students might come from. One suggestion would be from the St Leonard's South Precinct. The proposal is for 2,400 units if Lane Cove Council have it's way. Apart from the towers going up on Pacific Highway and Christie Street.

  16. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Jane commented

    We have no opposition to an upgrade on the Infants site - however constructing an unsympathetic box larger than the original school building is ludicrous.

    There is no issue with numbers at the current Infants site - Infact there was a classroom empty on site last year. The 8 classes onsite this year have an average of only 21 students per class (well below area average) so even if there was a sudden rush of students wanting to enrol (from where?) a small increase in class sizes could accomodate this.

    I understand the need to plan for the future but wouldn't it be easier, and more cost effective to move the Year 1 students up to the 20,000sqm River Road campus if size constraints ever became a problem.

  17. In Greenwich NSW on “Alterations & additions to...” at 72A Greenwich Rd, Greenwich:

    Jim commented

    If you need to replace the demountable classrooms - or add a couple of extra rooms fine... but why the need for a goliath of a building with 8 classrooms and an additional 6 rooms?

    Reduce the building size by half.

    Remove the ridiculous "breakout spaces" and give the poor kids some playground back.

  18. In Lane Cove North NSW on “Construct new dwelling with...” at 1 Kara St, Lane Cove North:

    Sam Black commented

    I would like to comment on the driveway location and the removal of trees. This area has a great native heritage and it is therefore important to retain as many trees as possible - especially street trees. The type of trees are not noted on the plan so it is difficult to determine their significance.

    There is an existing driveway on the site which arrives at the same location as the proposed garage. However the design includes a new driveway which requires the removal of three trees - T1, T5, T6. My question is why cant the trees be retained through the use of the existing driveway alignment? It would not be difficult to manoeuvre a car along this alignment to the proposed garage and therefore I can see no reason to relocate the driveway whilst at the same time retaining three more trees.

    There is an existing footpath which ends one property to the west. Shouldn't this development include a footpath out the front for future extension of the existing footpath just 10m away? Eventually one would hope that all streets have footpaths in future - we need to plan ahead for this and include footpaths in all new developments to reduce the burden on Council.

  19. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Eva Wiland commented

    I totally agree with Roger Promnitz. This is over-development of its worst kind - without any consideration for residents and their children growing up in the area. There is no proposal for relief of the traffic congestion the two residential towers housing 1138 cars and 654 units will create or to replace the 21 trees being removed - not to mention the shadow a 47-storey tower will create. I suggest this development proposal be modified with existing residents in mind.

  20. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Dominik and Jennifer Kaczorowski commented

    We are in total agreement with all of the the well-researched points raised by Roger Promnitz.
    It seems logical that a project of this scale, with such a significant impact for the local community should go through a very thorough consideration process. It is therefore particularly concerning that apartments are already being advertised and sold despite the lack of official approval for the development.

  21. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Rosemary Than-Aue commented

    Living in Atchison Street St Leonards for last 15 years have seen the traffic situation becoming more and more conjested! With this development and others in my street alone it’s rapidly coming to the point of just too many people and cars for this area!

  22. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Amanda Smith commented

    I’m in total agreement with Mr Promnitz. The removal 20+ trees with no provision to replace them is of particular concern . I also find it appalling that units can be advertised before the final approval of the construction process. This just makes a total mockery of the whole process .

  23. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Jeff kahn commented

    The blocking of Lithgow St/Pacific Highway will cause a huge traffic issue for everyone in the Lithgow st/Oxley street area as there will be no other way out. The Oxley st/Pacific Highway junction is already a nightmare now between 5-6pm

  24. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    David and Bronwyn Wilson commented

    We agree with Roger Promnitz’ obviously well researched and, in our view, legitimate objections to this DA. There appears to be untimely haste in regards to this proposed construction, along with a minefield of unintended consequences should it proceed. It is on the cusp of North Sydney and North Sydney Council should be consulted on its views having a history of large successful projects within its boundaries.

  25. In St Leonards NSW on “Demolition, excavation,...” at 82 Christie St, St Leonards:

    Roger Promnitz commented

    There are several areas of concern in regard to this proposal:
    • Excessive height and scale
    • Use of public land for a private development
    • Timing – in advance of proper framing of agreed planning strategy for this precinct
    • Advertising and sale of units prior to planning approval being granted
    • Removal of trees without replacement
    • Lack of consideration of parallel provision of required support infrastructure eg schools
    • Adverse traffic impacts, especially on Oxley St
    • No green space provision
    • No coordination with adjoining Councils, hence no shared strategy for development of this key area
    • Little or no oversight by Greater Sydney Commission to ensure adherence to and alignment with the North District Plan.
    Height and scale
    This site was originally approved for development as a commercial building back in July 2011 by the PAC, and was for an 18-storey building envelope with 6 levels of car parking to cater for 206 vehicles. What is now being proposed is a residential development comprising 654 units with 2 towers, the highest being 47 storeys plus a third tower for commercial, and 9 levels of underground parking to cater for 1138 cars, 559 bicycles and 76 motor bikes. The enormous scale of these changes cannot be over-emphasised, whilst the fact that an approved development lay stagnant for nearly 7 years but now seems to be being pushed through with undue haste and without waiting for signoff by other planning bodies or proper community consultation, is curious in the extreme.
    Use of public land for a private development
    The originally approved proposal did not include the annexure of Christie Lane or part of Lithgow Street, both of which are public roadways, and which limited the size of the development because of an inability to obtain total amalgamation of all potential sites. Whilst there has been some limited recompense to Council and the community through a VPA and relocated laneways, the degree of compensation is heavily weighted in favour of the applicant. Even some elements of the VPA are not locked in eg direct access to St Leonards station is not guaranteed, whilst provision of appropriate transition to the still only proposed St Leonards Plaza is highly conditional.
    Timing
    Despite repeated attempts by the NSW State Government to have the 3 local Council areas covering St Leonards work together to develop an agreed development plan and strategy for the precinct, Lane Cove Council has blindly approved several developments, much to the chagrin of most of its residents and ratepayers. Like the much-maligned St Leonards South proposal, the timing and scale of this proposal is all wrong – what the community is seeking is at least an extension to a more reasonable timeframe for responses to the proposal, such that its strategic importance and size relative to other planned developments in the precinct can be considered by all parties in a timely fashion. We note that the DPE website suggests any enquiry is to be directed to LCC, whilst the Sydney North Planning Panel website indicated no meeting to consider the proposal has yet been scheduled, and all this to cover a DA for which submissions close in 2 days.

    Advertising of units for sale prior to approval
    It was always our understanding that unit sales could not commence prior to final approval of the overall construction project. Submissions for this proposal only close March 2, with responsibility for approval resting with the Sydney North Planning Panel (but for which no meeting to consider has yet been scheduled) so some unknown date in the future, yet this proposal was the feature report in the Domain magazine insert into the Sydney Morning Herald of Feb 24, noting that sales were to commence the same day.
    Tree removal
    The proposal acknowledges the intended removal of 22 trees, with no plan to replace any of them. This is totally unacceptable, especially in an area which is already short of natural greenery.
    Lack of supporting infrastructure
    For a development as large as this, being 654 units, there will be a significant uplift in population in the area, putting additional pressure on already over-taxed infrastructure, especially schools and childcare. It appears no thought has been given to assisting in the provision of these aspects: whilst the library provision is welcomed it will do little to help meet the increased pressure on already-full local schools and childcare centres.
    Adverse traffic impacts
    With the proposed closure of Lithgow St to the Pacific Hwy, the addition of 654 units, 1138 car spaces, a supermarket, 29 specialty shops, a commercial building and various other separate developments in the immediate area, the likelihood of the Pacific Hwy/Oxley St intersection becoming a traffic bottleneck is almost a certainty. It is already difficult, especially for right turning traffic, but the additional volume of traffic given it will become the only road exit from this entire area, means additional traffic planning must be conducted here.
    No green space provision
    There is no provision for any plant greenery, whilst open spaces will have the tendency to function as wind tunnels, and communal space is reserved only for residents. As mentioned above, 22 existing trees are to be removed, with no plan for any replacement. In such a major development this is just not acceptable.
    No shared strategy with adjoining Councils
    Despite pressure from both State Government and the public to address long-standing differences in strategy between the 3 Councils administering the St Leonards area, each Council has pursued its own agenda for development. This has led to significant differences in building design and height, inappropriate rezoning, wind tunnels, loss of green space and a general lack of communal facilities. There is an opportunity here to take a step back and review the potential to address some of these shortcomings even whilst striving for “design excellence”.
    This leads to the final point, wherein the total proposal is at odds with the vision and intent of the revised GSC North District Plan. Development is welcomed, but only development which embraces the characteristics of liveability, sustainability, productivity, infrastructure and collaboration. Some of these elements appear to be missing from the 88 Christie St proposal.

  26. In Greenwich NSW on “Demolish & construct 5...” at 22 Bellevue Ave, Greenwich:

    Peter Martinovich commented

    We require a proper Geotec report since the excavation will below the existing footings of 5-9 Greenwich Road also the height of the development at 9.0m from the foothpath is to high .

  27. In Greenwich NSW on “Demolish & construct 5...” at 22 Bellevue Ave, Greenwich:

    Kirsten Thomson commented

    The other side of Greenwich has already been nominated for high density development. Traffic is heavy enough near Greenwich and River Road and the surrounding streets, the last thing we need is further development in this area.

  28. In Greenwich NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 35 Vista St, Greenwich:

    Planning Alerts commented

    There is no documentation listed online. Please upload and restart the 14 day comment period.

  29. In Lane Cove NSW on “Construction of new Seniors...” at 266 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove:

    M A CLINCH commented

    There is too much of this privatisation of community purposes and parkland on the basis that a ' service' is to be provided. This is a trend that must be stopped by legislation from Finite land is been alienated for greed and profit. No doubt this land is cheaper to obtain simply because it is not zoned commercial. Public land should be used only for purposes. There is no process to turn commercial zones into public ones. It is exploitation all the way, and the public are suffering.

    'Commercial' is 'commercial.' These actions are not sustainable planning.

    Ban the use of community purposes, recreational land, and open spaces for commercial use.

    AND HANDS OFF THE FORESHORES AND NATURE RESERVES. It is too easy for developers to take advantage when we cannot trust the government to look after the public.

    MORE POPULATION NEEDS MORE GREEN SPACE AND PUBLIC PURPOSES LAND.

    13 days is not a long enough period to allow comment when developers are making a killing. The commenting time for the public should be extended to 28 days.

  30. In Lane Cove NSW on “Construction of new Seniors...” at 266 Longueville Rd, Lane Cove:

    Maria Kristina Kairaitis commented

    This is totally unacceptable. Community land has been rezoned, and a massive overdevelopment is being built in its place. Currently in lane cove there is already a great deal of high density development with no new green spaces for all these new residence. Green spaces are important because they provide recreational places. Indeed, the independent public hearing commission jetted the proposal, but the liberal councillors over road it. I hope you are all voted out for this.

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